SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
LINDSAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
PLATTE COUNTY, NEBRASKA
£
<
33
%
\
&
PrO^°
X>
o
c*
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
Lenexa, Kansas
Digitally signed by ROBERT
ROBERTJURGENS JURGENS
Date: 2023.08.21 08:02:11 -05'00'
Robert D. Jurgens, Director
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
30821174
-------
Table of Contents
LIST 01 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS iii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM 2
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 2
Basis for Taking Action 2
Response Actions 3
Status of Implementation 3
Institutioanl Controls Summary 6
Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance 6
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW 8
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 10
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews 10
Data Review 10
Site Inspection 13
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 13
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 13
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? 14
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? 17
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 17
OTHER FINDINGS 18
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 18
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 18
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
APPENDIX B - FIGURES
APPENDIX C - SITE INSPECTION
APPENDIX D - REPORTS
li
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
AOIW
Add-On Interceptor Well
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GETS
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System
HRC
Hydrogen Release Compound
LMC
Lindsay Manufacturing Company
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
NDEE
Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy
OIW
Original Interceptor Well
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
PCE
T etrachl oroethy 1 ene
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
ROD
Record of Decision
RSL
Regional Screening Level
TBC
To Be Considered
VI
Vapor Intrusion
VOC
Volatile Organic Compound
111
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a
remedy to determine whether 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 Section 121, consistent with the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Section
300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy.
This is the sixth FYR for the Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site (Site). The triggering
action for this policy review is the signature date of the previous FYR report, which was August 22,
2018. The FYR has been prepared because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at
the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
The Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site FYR was led by David Wennerstrom, EPA
Remedial Project Manager, along with Randy Brown, EPA hydrogeologist; Ann Jacobs, EPA human
health risk assessor; Venessa Madden, EPA ecological risk assessor; and Billy Wesley, Nebraska
Department of Environment and Energy (NDEE) Project Manager. The Potentially Responsible Party
(PRP) was notified of the initiation of the FYR. The review began on July 12, 2022.
Site Background
The Site is located on the northeast side of the Village of Lindsay in Platte County, Nebraska, and
occupies a parcel of land approximately 42 acres in size. The Site is bounded by farmland to the north
and east, East 2nd Street and the Village of Lindsay to the south, and Dry Creek, a tributary to Shell
Creek and the Village of Lindsay to the west (Appendix B, Figure 1).
The Site was originally a gasoline station until the late 1950s. In 1961, a manufacturing plant was
constructed at the Site, and in 1965, the Lindsay Manufacturing Company (LMC) was formed to
manufacture agricultural irrigation systems. Disposal of material from plant operations historically
included discharge of spent acid from the galvanizing process. Slugs of 10,000 to 15,000 gallons of
spent acid were piped to an earthen disposal pit north of the galvanizing building. A small burn area
adjacent to the disposal pit was used to burn paper products and potentially small quantities of solvents
and degreasers (Appendix B, Figure 2). The disposal pit was replaced with a wastewater treatment
facility that was located in the area of Cells #1 and #2 and designed to neutralize the spent acid. Test
holes advanced during the construction of the wastewater treatment plant indicated that groundwater
beneath the disposal pit had abnormal acidity and temperatures.
1
-------
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
EPA ID: NED068645696
Region: 7
State: NE
City/County: Lindsay/Platte
SITE STATUS
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
No
Has the Site achieved construction completion?
Yes
Lead agency: EPA
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): David Wennerstrom
Author affiliation: Remedial Project Manager
Review period: 07/12-2022-03/30/2023
Date of Site inspection: 10/11/2022
Type of review: Policy
Review number: 6
Triggering action date: 8/22/2018
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 8/22/2023
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
Hazardous substances that have been released at the Site include sulfate, zinc, iron, cadmium,
chromium, lead, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from former process waste. Off-property
groundwater contains metals including cadmium and zinc, as well as VOCs including
1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane and trichloroethene (EPA, 1990). These VOCs have been identified in the perched
sand channel in the northern half of the Site, in clay soils in the area around the northern quarter of the
main plant, and between the main plant and the southern end of the galvanizing building. People could
be exposed to contaminants by drinking water from contaminated domestic wells, by direct contact with
contaminated water, by inhaling contaminants released during water use, or by eating food in which
contaminants have bioaccumulated.
2
-------
Response Actions
The Original Interceptor Well (OIW) was installed by LMC in March 1983 to intercept and recover
impacted groundwater from beneath the Site. In 1984, LMC began operating a groundwater extraction
and treatment system (GETS), whereby the groundwater is treated by neutralizing and removing
contaminants using the OIW. A second extraction well, add-on interceptor well (AOIW), was installed
in the southeast corner of LMC property in 1989 to control off-property migration of contaminants and
increase the radius of influence in the capture of groundwater.
Status of Implementation
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site was signed on September 28, 1990. The ROD contained the
following remedial action objectives (RAOs):
• Prevent current or future exposure to the contaminated groundwater;
• Determine the practicability of reducing contaminant migration from the soil into the
groundwater;
• Implement soil vapor extraction, if practicable; and
• Restore the groundwater aquifer to the applicable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
The major components of the selected remedy for the affected groundwater and soil include the
following:
• A pilot study to evaluate the practicability of vacuum extraction of organic compounds from
contaminated soil;
• If determined to be practicable by the EPA and/or NDEE, design and implementation of a full-
scale soil vapor extraction system based on pilot study data;
• Enhancement of the existing groundwater extraction and treatment system by either increasing
the volume of on-property pumping from the existing extraction wells or by the installation of an
additional interceptor (extraction) well;
• Utilization of the existing groundwater treatment facility to remove contaminants from the
collected groundwater;
• Installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells near irrigation well #54278 to further
delineate the groundwater contaminant plume;
• Monitoring of the groundwater collection/treatment system and the groundwater contaminant
plume during groundwater remediation activities; and
• If appropriate to protect human health, the EPA and NDEE will evaluate options as part of
implementation of the ROD to ensure that drinking water wells are not installed in areas of the
contaminant plume.
• The cleanup levels established in the 1990 ROD are presented below in Table 2-1.
3
-------
Table 2-1: Groundwater Clean-up Levels
Compound/Parameter
Cleanup Goal
(Hg/L)
Source
1,1-dichloroethane
NE1
NE
1,2-dichloroethane
5
MCL
1,1-dichloroethene
7
MCL
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
70
Proposed MCL
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
100
Proposed MCL
tetrachloroethene
5
Proposed MCL
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
200
MCL
zinc
5,000
Secondary MCL
sulfate
250,000
Secondary MCL
cadmium
5
Proposed MCL
chromium
50
MCL
lead
50
MCL
PH
6.5-8.5
Secondary MCL
Notes:
• jxg/L - micrograms per liter
• NE - not established
• NE1 - A MCL for 1,1-dichloroethane was not established at the time of the ROD; however, the compound was included as a
contaminant of concern.
In a Consent Decree signed with the EPA on April 9, 1992, LMC agreed to perform the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action and pay past costs for cleaning up the Site.
A soil vapor extraction pilot study was concluded in 1993 with the full-scale system becoming
operational in early 1995. In 1998, the EPA evaluated the soil vapor extraction system and determined
site-specific soil remediation levels had been verified and attained. Once the remediation goals had been
verified, the soil vapor extraction system equipment was decommissioned.
LMC and the EPA have sampled downgradient domestic water wells since 1990. In 1998, following the
detection of chlorinated solvents, wellhead treatment systems were installed at impacted domestic wells.
All monitoring wells located downgradient of the facility, as well as the Beller and Preister domestic
wells, are monitored according to the approved groundwater monitoring plan.
In 2001, Lindsay proposed additional work using Hydrogen Release Compound (HRC) to enhance
naturally occurring biodegradation of VOCs to address residual aquifer contamination. One hundred and
fifty pounds of HRC was injected into the subsurface at each of 31 locations directly north and east of
the treatment lagoon. Borings were generally 30 to 35 feet deep and completed near the base and above
the sand channel to allow downward migration of the HRC by existing groundwater flow paths through
the fine-grained unit located between the sand channel and the sand and gravel aquifer. Additionally, the
groundwater monitoring program was modified to test for inorganic parameters at monitoring wells
close to the injection locations.
In response to recommendations from the 2008 FYR, LMC conducted multiple investigations to define
the extent of the off-property VOC plume. These investigations included the installation of additional
off-property monitoring wells. Interceptor well EXT11-01 was installed near the southern terminus of
the VOC plume to capture contamination downgradient of interceptor well EXT07-02. A capture zone
4
-------
analysis of off-property interceptor wells G127000, EXT07-02, and EXT11-01 indicated that the wells
provided sufficient capture to control the horizontal and vertical extent of the VOC plume.
In 2013, LMC installed EXT 13-01 approximately 800 feet downgradient of the facility property
boundary to intercept contaminated groundwater migrating off the LMC facility. This well operates
year-round as a hydrologic point of control. Discharge from EXT13-01 is used for seasonal irrigation or
discharge to Shell Creek during non-irrigation periods.
LMC conducted an additional investigation in 2015 which focused on the following areas: the Cell Area,
Building 1, the central drainage ditch, and Building 4. The investigation was intended to resolve
concerns from the 2013 FYR, as well as to fill data gaps related to identifying targeted treatment zones
for zinc in the Cell Area; treatment zones for VOCs and 1,4-dioxane in Building 1 including the central
drainage ditch and Building 4; and to evaluate the fate and transport of zinc in the groundwater. The
findings of the investigation, including a feasibility study evaluation of remedial alternatives, were
documented in a 2016 Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report (URS, 2016b). A supplemental
investigation occurred in 2017 to refine the target treatment zones and revise the findings of the 2016
report based on feedback from the EPA and NDEE. The result of these investigation efforts resulted in
the Revised Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report in 2020 which is summarized below.
A vapor intrusion (VI) assessment was conducted for the previous FYR in 2018. A complete VI
pathway has not been identified in any structures assessed above current EPA Region 7 Removal
Management Levels. The VI assessment included on-facility buildings as well as several nearby off-
facility residences.
On August 21, 2020, the EPA received the Revised Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, conducted
by AECOM Technical Services, Inc. The report documents the evaluation of source reduction and
hydraulic control remedial alternatives to reduce and/or control source area contamination beneath the
facility. In summary, the recommended facility-wide remedy includes the following remedial actions:
• Alternative A-2 - Seasonal Optimized Pumping from New On-Facility Wells,
• Alternative B-l - No Action, and
• Alternative C-3 - Thermal Remediation of "Hot Spot 3".
The following existing site-wide remedial actions will continue until data indicates all or part are no
longer necessary:
• Long-term groundwater monitoring;
• Operation of the existing off-facility hydraulic control system (pumping from EXT13-01,
G127000, and EXT07-02) and associated monitoring; and
• Treatment of groundwater at domestic wells on downgradient properties (Beller and Preister
properties).
Land use controls would be implemented to ensure short-term and long-term effectiveness and overall
protection to human health and the environment. Land use controls would more formally memorialize
current administrative actions by restricting the future use of groundwater for drinking water purposes
and ensuring that existing domestic uses of groundwater are appropriately managed through continued
wellhead treatment until RAOs are ultimately achieved. Land use controls could also address potential
future worker exposure pathways if intrusive work is performed in areas of known contamination.
5
-------
Potential worker exposure pathways are not significant at this time since it is unlikely that current
workers would be performing intrusive activities in the source areas.
The total estimated capital cost for constructing and implementing the recommended facility-wide
remedial actions, assuming that Alternatives A-2 and C-3 are implemented, will be $4.89M. The total
present worth cost to implement both Alternatives A-2 and C-3, including capital and long-term
operation and maintenance (O&M), is $6.92M.
For current site-wide remedial activities, the cost projected for the ongoing groundwater pumping and
associated maintenance and monitoring for the period from 2020 through 2040 (21 years) is $10M
(present worth cost). This value includes approximately $2M of O&M costs also included under
Alternative A-2.
Ongoing groundwater pumping, maintenance, and monitoring costs for 2020 through 2040, and
implementation of Alternatives A-2 and C-3, are estimated to be $14.9M, accounting for redundancy of
O&M costs in site-wide remedial activities and Alternative A-2.
Alternative C-3, in-situ thermal remediation, was selected as the preferred remedial alternative.
Subsequently, the in-situ thermal pilot study was submitted by LMC and approved by the EPA and
NDEE. The in-situ thermal system was installed in the fall of 2022 and is presently heating the highest
contamination zones at LMC.
Institutional Controls Summary
There are currently no institutional controls to prohibit installation of drinking water wells in areas of the
contaminant plume on- and off-property. However, administrative and voluntary efforts by LMC are
used to prevent use of contaminated groundwater or unintended exposure to site contaminants.
Administrative and voluntary efforts include communicating with nearby residents potentially impacted
by the Site, use of wellhead treatment systems at impacted residences, restricting use of contaminated
groundwater, and restricting unauthorized intrusive activities within source areas. The facility is
surrounded by a security fence and is an access-controlled operating manufacturing facility with
security.
While there is potential for the installation of off-property domestic supply wells, residents within the
Village of Lindsay are connected to the Lindsay public water system. LMC monitors the downgradient
portion of the plume for installation of any new wells.
Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance
No significant maintenance concerns were identified between 2018 and 2022. Equipment repair and
replacement occurred, as needed, to ensure the interceptor well system remains operational. The
maintenance descriptions from the Annual Reports are summarized below.
In 2018, EXT13-01, G127000, EXT07-02, and EXT11-01 were operated continuously with the
following exceptions. Well EXT 11-01 was offline for one day in March and four days in August, and
well EXT07-02 was offline for three days in August due to excess rainfall. Well G127000 was offline
for 17 days in July and seven days in August due to discharge failure. Well MW89-12 was operated
from April through October 2018. Operational days were limited in April (8 days), May (9 days),
August (8 days), and October (14 days). Operational days shown in January and November are
6
-------
discounted as it was unlikely the well operated during these months due to the cold weather. Well
AOIW operated in May (12 days), July (12 days), and August (15 days). The months with limited
operational days were due primarily to weather (local precipitation) and maintenance-related issues.
In 2019, EXT13-01, G127000, EXT07-02, and EXT11-01 were operated continuously with the
following exceptions. The totalizer for EXT07-02 was offline due to a lightning strike in July that
disrupted power to the well, followed by repairs to the building, electronics, and flow meter from
September 4 through October 11, 2019; however, the well was pumping during this time. The pumping
volume for EXT07-02 was estimated using an average daily pumping rate of 1,100,000 gallons of water.
Pumping associated with remediation at well EXT 11-01 was discontinued on September 19, 2019. Well
EXT 13-01 did not operate for 13 days in June while crews repaired and replaced associated
underground pipe. Well MW89-12 was operated from April through October 2019. Operational days
were limited in April (2 days), July (17 days), September (19 days), and October (1 day). Well AOIW
operated in May (1 day), July (30 days), and August (13 days). The months with limited operational
days were due primarily to weather (local precipitation) and maintenance-related issues.
In 2020, G127000 was not operational from February 3-11, 2020, due to maintenance. Additionally,
G127000 was turned off from March 2 through April 9, 2020, to help facilitate repairs to the dike near
the degassing pond prior to outfall OF001. EXT11-01 was operated for irrigation by the landowner as
needed from April 13 to September 18, 2020. Well MW89-12 was operated from April through October
2020; however, operational days were limited in April (8 days), May (8 days), June (17 days), July (16
days), September (11 days), and October (8 days). Well AOIW operated in April (7 days), May (8 days),
June (22 days), July (25 days), August (31 days), and September (9 days). The months with limited
operational days were due primarily to weather (local precipitation).
In 2021, EXT11-01 was operated for irrigation by the landowner as needed. MW89-12 was operated
infrequently during 2021 and was not running during site visits and sampling events. In November 2021,
36 monitoring wells were abandoned as requested by the PRP and approved by the EPA. In addition,
EXT11-01 and G-127000 were approved for removal from the system as requested by the PRP and
approved by the EPA.
Groundwater samples were collected during each quarterly sampling event based on the EPA-approved
program in effect at the time of each event. All wells in the network were sampled for the full analytical
suite in the second and fourth quarters if enough water was available. During the first and third quarters,
some wells were only sampled for a partial analytical suite. In some instances, wells were not sampled
due to the wells being dry, especially those installed in the fine-grained unit on the property and some
shallow downgradient wells. On-property extraction wells MW89-12 and AOIW were only sampled
when the wells were operational during the spring and summer months.
All samples collected from 2018 through 2022 were analyzed for VOCs by the EPA Methods 8260C or
semivolatile organic compounds by 8270D, depending on the specific target analytes. In addition to
analyzing for VOCs, samples from select locations were analyzed for 1,4-dioxane, total and/or dissolved
metals (cadmium, calcium, chromium, iron, lead, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and/or zinc), anions
(chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and/or sulfate), and/or total alkalinity, in accordance with the monitoring
program. Field measurements for pH, temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation-
reduction potential, and/or ferrous iron were collected at locations when sampling required pumps.
During this same time period, samples were also collected from downgradient extraction wells, Shell
Creek outfall locations, and private residences. These samples were analyzed for VOCs, 1,4-dioxane,
7
-------
and in some cases, total and/or dissolved metals (cadmium, calcium, chromium, iron, lead, magnesium,
potassium, sodium, and/or zinc), anions (chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and/or sulfate), and/or total
alkalinity, pH, temperature, and specific conductivity, in accordance with the monitoring program and
requirements of the discharge permit.
The Groundwater Monitoring Plan was revised and updated in 2016 to resolve quality issues identified
in the 2013 FYR related to both sample handling and analysis. The Quality Assurance Project Plan was
revised and procedures for sample handling and custody, field quality control, and laboratory quality
control were updated to support a higher level of quality control and oversight to prevent future quality
issues relating to groundwater sampling.
In 2022, the PRP requested a revision to the operation of the existing off-facility hydraulic control
system and requested decommissioning of extraction wells G127000 and EXT07-02. The EPA
concurred with the revision of the hydraulic control system. The PRP also requested a revision of the
treatment of groundwater at domestic wells on the downgradient Preister residential property to remove
residential water treatment. The EPA concurred with the request to cease operation of domestic water
treatment at the Preister residential property.
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the last FYR as well as the
recommendations from the last FYR and the current status of those recommendations.
Table 3—1: Protectiveness Determination/Statement from the 2018 Five-year Review
ou#
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
NA
Short-term
Protective
The remedy at the site currently protects human health and the
environment because the plume is hydraulically controlled; Shell
Creek discharges were below federal and state surface water
quality criteria; and no public supply wells within the footprint of
the plume are being used for drinking water. However, for the
remedy to be protective in the long term, the following actions
need to be taken to ensure protectiveness: reassessment of the
current geologic site conceptual model, defining and remediating
source areas, optimizing the current remedy, evaluating remedial
alternatives which may include a change in remedy, and
evaluating the nature and extent of VOC contamination in the
upper hydrostratigraphic unit to restore the aquifer to MCL quality
in a reasonable timeframe.
8
-------
Table 3—2: Status of Recommendations from the 2018 Five-year Review
Issue
Recommendations
Current
Status
Current
Implementation Status
Description
Completion
Date
Groundwater flow within two
of the three identified
geologic units beneath LMC,
and hydraulic communication
between all three units are
poorly understood. This is
due to geologic uncertainty
regarding the areal extent of
the sand channel deposits.
This is a carryover issue from
the previous FYR and was
not sufficiently addressed
during this review period.
Fully Characterize the
hydraulic interconnection
between the upper silt to
silty-clays and sand channel
deposits and establish the
hydrologic connection of
these units to the lower sand
and gravels to assist in an
evaluation of the
effectiveness of the on-
facility portion of the
remedy. Use data for remedy
optimization and future
adjustments of the on-facility
extraction well system in
order to restore the aquifer to
MCL quality in a reasonable
timeframe. The adjustment
may require a ROD
amendment or ESD.
Completed
PRP has fully
characterized the site
4/30/2020
Source areas have not been
effectively addressed and
mass flux from these source
areas continues to impact
groundwater. Until these
source areas are effectively
reduced or eliminated,
aquifer cleanup goals are
unlikely to be obtained
within a 30-year period from
remedy implementation. This
is a carryover issue from the
previous FYR and was not
sufficiently addressed during
this review period.
Cleanup or reduction of the
additional source areas is
necessary in order to restore
the aquifer to MCL quality in
a reasonable timeframe. This
action may require a ROD
amendment or ESD.
Ongoing
PRP has implemented an
in-situ thermal pilot study
to remediate the highest
contaminated zones
10/1/2022
Issue
Recommendations
Current
Status
Current
Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date
Results from a recent
investigation indicate that the
source area north of Building 1
has not been fully delineated. In
addition, the Cell Area source(s)
has not been fully characterized.
This is a carryover issue from
the previous FYR and was not
sufficiently addressed during
this review period.
Cleanup or reduction of
the additional source areas
are necessary in order to
restore the aquifer to
MCL quality in a
reasonable timeframe.
This action may require a
ROD Amendment or
ESD.
Completed
PRP has fully
characterized the site
4/30/2020
9
-------
Issue
Recommendations
Current
Status
Current
Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date
The full nature and extent of
VOCs in the upper
hydrostratigraphic unit (silts,
silty-clays, and sandy-silt
deposits) has not been fully
delineated. Volatile organic
compounds were detected just
below the contact of the upper
hydrostratigraphic unit and the
sand and gravel aquifer more
than two miles south of the
facility. Contamination in these
upper hydostratigraphic units
will continue to impact
groundwater and prevent the
remedy from restoring the
aquifer to MCL quality in a
reasonable timeframe if not
addressed. This is a carryover
issue from the previous FYR and
was not sufficiently addressed
during this review period.
Delineation of the VOCs
is necessary for
optimization and future
adjustments of the on-
facility and off-facility
extraction well system to
restore the aquifer to
MCL quality in a
reasonable timeframe.
This action may require a
ROD amendment or
ESD.
Completed
PRP has adjusted the
extraction well
network
3/31/2023
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews
A public notice was made available by a week-long advertisement in the Humphrey Democrat
newspaper, beginning August 24, 2022, stating that there was a FYR and inviting the public to submit
any comments to the EPA. The results of the review and the report will be made available via the EPA's
internet-based information repository which can be accessed by the public through the following
website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/lindsavmanufacturingco.
During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes
with the remedy that have been implemented to date.
Requests for interviews through an interview questionnaire form were submitted to LMC, the NDEE,
and the EPA. Billy Wesley with the NDEE and Matt Rhodes with Lindsay Corporation submitted
responses. No public interviewees were identified. A copy of the Interview Records is provided in
Appendix C.
Data Review
The Annual Reports between 2017 and 2021 were reviewed for this FYR as well as all of the
documentation related to decommissioning of monitoring and extraction wells that occurred during the
FYR period. In 2017, the groundwater model and updated capture zone analysis were approved by the
EPA.
10
-------
The GETS pumping and recovery summary over this FYR period is included in the attached table by
calendar year from the annual reports. Since the 2022 annual report was not yet completed for this FYR
it will be included in the next FYR.
Extraction
Year:
Average Annual Pumping
Total Gallons
Pounds of Chlorinated
Well:
Rate in gallons per minute:
Recovered:
Solvents Recovered:
AOIW
2017
870
94,439,500
15.1
MW89-12
72
9,901,900
6.2
EXT13-01
709
368,274,000
14.5
G127000
853
448,317,700
1.9
EXT07-02
846
438,431,000
4.1
EXT11-01
709
368,274,000
Not calculated
AOIW
2018
756
43,075,200
3.2
MW89-12
58
9,383,500
Not calculated
EXT 13-01
720
378,378,700
12.7
G127000
802
392,771,700
1.2
EXT07-02
858
446,868,000
3.1
EXT 1 1-01
633
327,025,000
Not calculated
AOIW
2019
841
49,068,800
Not calculated
MW89-12
86
14,739,600
6.0
EXT 13-01
688
340,224,800
9.9
G127000
804
422,576,600
0.7
EXT07-02
722
352,378,700
1.3
EXT 1 1-01
571
206,552,000
Not calculated
AOIW
2020
645
112,034,000
0.2
MW89-12
45
6,898,100
0.2
EXT 13-01
653
343,462,900
9.4
G127000
812
402,399,200
1
EXT07-02
829
435,748,700
?.2
EXT 1 1-01
1,051
214,611,000
Not calculated
AOIW
2021
608
79,507,600
12.7
MW89-12
Infrequent operation, no
average calculated
48,300
Not calculated
EXT 13-01
699
368,233,500
8.3
G127000
798
348,261,000
0.2
EXT07-02
750
393,654,300
0.5
EXT 1 1-01
742
196,182,000
Not calculated
A Mann-Kendall trend was calculated for monitoring wells with consistent tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
detections throughout the FYR period at a 95% confidence level from the annual reports. The summary
table of these monitoring wells is included below.
11
-------
Monitoring Well:
Mann-Kendall Trend for
PCE:
Comments:
On-Facility Monitoring Wells:
MW87-3
No trend
MW89-12
Decreasing
MW89-13
Decreasing
MW06-10
No trend
Ordinary least squares (OLS) slope
positive; indicates potentially
increasing trend
MW06-11
No trend
OLS slope positive
MW14-01A
No trend
OLS slope positive
MW14-01B
No trend
OLS slope negative; indicates
potentially decreasing trend
MW14-02 A
Decreasing
MW14-02B
No trend
OLS slope negative
MW 14-03 A
Decreasing
MW14-03B
No trend
OLS slope negative
MW 14-04 A
No trend
OLS slope negative
MW14-05A
No trend
OLS slope negative
Off-Facility Monitoring Wells:
MW04-03
Decreasing
MW06-02A
Decreasing
MW06-02B
Decreasing
MW13-03B
No trend
MW 12-02 A
No trend
OLS slope negative
MW12-03B
Decreasing
The majority of monitoring wells evaluated for trend indicated either a decreasing trend for PCE, or no
trend with a negative OLS slope indicating a potentially decreasing trend. Only two on-facility
monitoring wells indicated OLS slopes that were positive, which is an indicator of a potentially
increasing trend. All the off-facility monitoring wells evaluated except MW13-03B indicated either a
decreasing trend or no trend with a negative OLS slope.
Other constituents, including 1,1-dichloroethylene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, remain generally an order
of magnitude lower than PCE detections, and PCE remains the primary contaminant of concern above
its MCL. The lack of significant concentrations of degradation products 1,2-DCE and no detections of
vinyl chloride indicates that reductive dechlorination of PCE is not occurring site-wide.
Groundwater Use Review: There are a number of domestic, stock, and irrigation wells located
downgradient of the facility that utilize groundwater contaminated with VOCs. The wells are included in
the groundwater monitoring program and are sampled on a quarterly or annual basis with the results all
below MCLs. Whole house treatment systems have been installed at the wellheads of two impacted
domestic wells (the Beller and Preister homes). The whole-house treatment systems consist of three
granular activated carbon vessels configured in a series near the wellheads. The whole-house treatment
systems are sampled quarterly and maintained by LMC.
With the exception of the residential houses located directly south of the facility, the majority of the off-
facility groundwater plume is located beneath the property owned by the Beller and Preister families.
12
-------
LMC and regulators are in frequent contact with both families, and therefore, installation of additional
wells within the plume without the knowledge of LMC is considered extremely unlikely. The Village of
Lindsay supplies water to the residential houses located directly south of the facility.
No other new industrial, commercial, or residential activities or well installations were noted in the
vicinity of the Site.
Site Inspection
The inspection of the Site was conducted on 10/12/2022. Participants included Jamie Suing, Luke Rief,
and Gus Shy with EA Engineering, Science & Technology, Inc.; Kevin Crowder with Terra Therm;
Matt Rhodes and Eric Arneson with Lindsay Corporation; Billy Wesley with the NDEE; Randy Brown
and David Wennerstrom with the EPA. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of
the remedy.
The site inspection assessed the overall maintenance of the Site, the surface integrity of the groundwater
extraction wells and associated equipment, and perimeter fencing. The inspection began at EXT11-01
and MW11-06 at the southernmost end of the plume. The daily maintenance activities were discussed
while observing the pump control house, equipment, wellhead, and monitoring well. All equipment and
pads were observed in good condition. The meters count running totals for discharge volumes to the
creek and to the irrigation pivot.
The inspection team observed the progress of the in-situ thermal system being installed by LMC's
contractor, Terra Therm. As of March 2022, the system is fully functional and achieved designed
temperature. During the FYR inspection all remaining extraction and monitoring wells were observed to
be operable and in good condition. There was no evidence of unauthorized access or activities noted
during the site inspection.
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Question A Summary
The remedy appears to be functioning as intended by the decision documents. The GETS continues to
operate and appears to adequately capture and treat the groundwater plume. Nearly all monitoring wells
are indicating a stable or decreasing trend for PCE. Some significant soil source areas appear to remain
on the facility and a Pilot Test Work Plan for thermal treatment was approved by the EPA in 2022. The
next FYR will evaluate the effectiveness of the thermal treatment. The removal of source mass will
enhance future effectiveness of the remedy.
Remedial Action Performance
The GETS operated successfully during the FYR period with a total amount of 7.6 billion gallons of
water extracted. A total of 114.6 pounds of VOCs was removed in the treatment system over the FYR
period. When not being used for irrigation, the GETS discharges to Shell Creek and no NPDES
exceedances occurred during the FYR period for any compounds being monitored. Two new extraction
wells are planned to better target the remaining source area and optimize the capture zone to prevent
unnecessary removal of groundwater for hydraulic control.
13
-------
System Operations/O&M
Other than regular maintenance, no other significant O&M issues were encountered during the FYR
period. In November 2021, extraction wells EXT11-01 and G12700 were approved by the EPA for
decommissioning at the request of LMC due to reaching attainment of RAOs. Two new extraction wells
are planned during the next FYR period in closer proximity to remaining soil source areas to replace the
two decommissioned wells, provide a more targeted capture zone, and optimize the volume of water
recovered. The Preister domestic well treatment system was also approved for decommissioning by the
EPA in 2021 after several years of no detections in the domestic well.
The following monitoring wells met EPA guidance for attainment and removal from the monitoring well
network in 2021-2022: MW04-01; MW04-02; MW04-03; MW06-01; MW06-2A; MW06-2B; MW06-
03; MW06-04; MW07-1A; MW07-1B; MW09-03A; MW09-03B; MW09-04A; MW09-04B; MW10-
01 A; MW10-01B; MW10-01C; MW10-02A; MW10-02B; MW10-02C; MW11-01A; MW11-01B;
MW11-02A; MW11- 02B; MW11-02C; MW11-03A; MW11-03B; MW11-03C; MW11-04A; MW11-
04B; MW11-04C; MW11-05A; MW11-05B; MW11-05C; MW11-07; and MW89-10B.
Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures
There are no formal institutional controls in place at the site such as deed restrictions, restrictive
covenants, or ordinances. The facility is fenced, and the residents of the Village of Lindsay are provided
with water from the public water supply system. No off-facility domestic wells remain impacted above
MCLs. Formal institutional controls will be considered in the future pending the success of thermal
treatment and an optimized GETS.
Administrative and voluntary efforts by LMC are currently used to prevent use of contaminated
groundwater or unintended exposure to site contaminants. Administrative and voluntary efforts include
communicating with nearby residents potentially impacted by the Site, utilization of wellhead treatment
systems at impacted residences, restricting use of contaminated groundwater, and restricting
unauthorized intrusive activities within source areas, per agreement between the landowners and LMC.
The facility is surrounded by a security fence and is an access-controlled operating manufacturing
facility with security. Therefore, any potential exposure to on-site contamination is considered unlikely.
Wellhead treatment systems have been installed by Lindsay Manufacturing to protect impacted nearby
residents.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Question B Summary
From a human health perspective, there have been no additional changes in exposure assumptions or risk
assessment methodologies since the last FYR report that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Cleanup levels for this site are based on the EPA's federal drinking water standards (MCLs), most of
which have not changed. The action level of 15 |ig/L for lead, under the Lead and Copper Rule, is lower
than at the time of the ROD; the current action level should be used as a cleanup level consistent with
the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic model. If the EPA's lead policy is changed such that the
blood lead level of concern is revised to a value less than 10 ng/dL, the resulting cleanup level for lead
in soil in the ROD would need to be examined for continued protectiveness.
14
-------
In addition, although the ROD indicates that risk-based values should be used as a cleanup level for
compounds without MCLs, a cleanup level was never established for 1,1-dichloroethane. The EPA's
current tapwater Regional Screening Level (RSL) of 2.75 [j,g/L for 1,1-dichloroethane, based on an
excess individual lifetime cancer risk of lx 10"6, should be used as the cleanup level for this compound.
Current ecological risk at the site is limited to discharges of groundwater to Shell Creek, which are
monitored by EXT07-02(OF002), EXT11-01(OF003), and EXT13-01(OF004). A review of monitoring
data for this FYR period indicates that VOCs discharged to Shell Creek are below levels of concern for
aquatic life based on a comparison to Ecological Screening Values for surface water (EPA, 2018).
Changes in Standards and TBCs
Cleanup levels at the LMC site were established in the ROD based on MCLs, proposed MCLs, and
secondary MCLs. The primary MCLs in effect under the Safe Drinking Water Act are considered
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), while secondary MCLs and risk-based
values are To Be Considered values (TBCs).
As summarized in the table below, the primary MCLs for 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, and
1,1,1-trichloroethane have not changed since the 1990 ROD. The proposed MCLs for cadmium, cis- and
trans-1,2-dichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene that were in place at the time of the ROD were later
finalized as primary MCLs. The primary MCL for total chromium has increased from 50 to 100 (J,g/L,
while the action level for lead under the Lead and Copper Rule has decreased from 50 to 15 (J,g/L.
The secondary MCLs for iron, sulfate, and zinc have not changed since the ROD, nor have primary
MCLs been established for these compounds. These secondary MCLs are not enforceable or health risk-
based and are not incorporated into Nebraska water standards, but they were selected as cleanup goals
for the Site. The EPA's current tapwater RSL for iron is 14,000 (J,g/L, based on a non-cancer hazard
quotient of 1, indicating that the secondary MCL is protective of human health (EPA, 2022).
An MCL was not established for 1,1-dichloroethane at the time of the ROD, nor has one been since
promulgated. Page 35 of the 1990 ROD states that, "For compounds without an MCL, proposed MCL or
state ground water standard, a risk based cleanup level corresponding to an excess lifetime cancer risk of
1 x 10(-06) will be calculated using slope factors for carcinogens". The EPA's current tapwater RSL for
1,1-dichloroethane is 2.75 (J,g/L, based on an excess individual lifetime cancer risk of lx 10"6. In the
absence of an MCL and in accordance with the ROD, this risk-based value should be used as a cleanup
level to evaluate groundwater samples collected under the groundwater monitoring program. Note that
1,1-dichloroethane has been recently detected above this RSL (e.g., in the third quarter of 2021).
15
-------
Media
Contaminant of Concern
Cleanup
Level (|ig/L)
Basis
Current
Level (jig/L)
Basis
1,1 -dichloroethane
NE
NE
2.75
1 x 10"6 excess
cancer risk
1,2-dichloroethane
5
Primary MCL
5
Primary MCL
1,1 -dichloroethene
7
Primary MCL
7
Primary MCL
cis-1,2- dichloroethene
70
Proposed MCL
70
Primary MCL
trans-1,2- dichloroethene
100
Proposed MCL
100
Primary MCL
Groundwater
tetrachloroethene
5
Proposed MCL
5
Primary MCL
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
200
Primary MCL
200
Primary MCL
cadmium
5
Proposed MCL
5
Primary MCL
chromium
50
Primary MCL
100
Primary MCL
iron
300
Secondary MCL
300
Secondary MCL
lead
50
Primary MCL
15
Action Level
sulfate
250,000
Secondary MCL
250,000
Secondary MCL
zinc
5,000
Secondary MCL
5,000
Secondary MCL
pH
6.5-8.5
Secondary MCL
6.5-8.5
Secondary MCL
NE - Cleanup Levels From 1990 ROD not established
Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics
The only changes in ARARs since the ROD have been an increase in the MCL for chromium and a
decrease in the action level for lead. The Nebraska Ground Water Quality Standards of 100 |ig/L for
chromium and 5 |ig/L for cadmium, which were used in place of the MCLs as cleanup goals in the 1990
ROD, are equal to the current MCLs. Toxicity factors are not used in the estimation of lead toxicity.
Since there have been no changes in the ARARs-based cleanup levels since the 1990 ROD,
consideration of changes in toxicity factors is not required.
Toxicity values have changed for several of the site contaminants since the risk assessment was
completed (e.g., trichloroethylene and PCE). Despite these changes in toxicity values, the protectiveness
of the remedy is not expected to be adversely affected.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methods
There have been no changes in risk assessment methodologies since the last FYR report that would
affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Exposure Pathways
Current land use around the Site has not changed since the last FYR. The Site is an active industrial
facility mostly covered by impermeable surfaces, including buildings and paved roads with several small
16
-------
vegetative areas. The area around the facility is mixed agricultural and residential. Future land use is
expected to remain the same in the foreseeable future. An on- and off-facility VI assessment performed
in 2013 failed to identify any complete VI pathways. To be protective, institutional controls prohibiting
the use of groundwater as a potable source should be implemented until cleanup goals are achieved.
QUESTION C : Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness
of the remedy?
Climate change is not expected to adversely impact the remedy as implemented. Climate change may
slightly lower the shallow water table through extended periods of drought, which would not adversely
affect the GETS given the screened intervals of the extraction wells. Extended periods of heavy rain
may seasonally raise the shallow water table and cause flood conditions in Shell Creek. This is not
expected to adversely impact operation of the GETS or discharge of treated water to Shell Creek. No
other information has come to light that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU(s):01
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Remedy is not performing as expected. PRP is investigating
alternatives and is presently operating an in-situ thermal pilot study.
Recommendation: Evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the in-
situ thermal pilot study.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
EPA
4/30/2024
OU(s):01
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: The lack of institutional controls poses a risk to long term
protectiveness due to the potential for contaminated groundwater use.
Voluntary efforts by LMC are currently being used to prevent unintended
exposure, but institutional controls are needed to formalize the current
administrative actions.
Recommendation: The EPA and NDEE will continue working with the
PRP to implement and record institutional controls for the site.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
EPA
4/30/2024
17
-------
OTHER FINDINGS
In addition, the following recommendations were identified during the FYR and may improve
performance of the remedy, improve management of operations and maintenance, or accelerate site
closeout, but do not affect current and/or future protectiveness:
• The action level for lead under the Lead and Copper Rule has decreased from 50 to 15 (J,g/L. The
current action level should be used as a cleanup level.
• An MCL was not established for 1,1-dichloroethane at the time of the ROD, nor has one been
promulgated since then. Page 35 of the 1990 ROD states that "For compounds without an MCL,
proposed MCL or state ground water standard, a risk based cleanup level corresponding to an
excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10(-06) will be calculated using slope factors for carcinogens".
The EPA's current tapwater RSL for 1,1-dichloroethane is 2.75 (J,g/L, based on an excess
individual lifetime cancer risk of lx 10"6. In the absence of an MCL and in accordance with the
ROD, this risk-based value should be used as a cleanup level to evaluate groundwater samples
collected under the groundwater monitoring program. Note that 1,1-dichloroethane has been
recently detected above this RSL (e.g., in the third quarter of 2021).
• The thermal treatment pilot test will be completed during the next FYR period. The results of the
pilot test will be evaluated by the EPA, and if appropriate based on the findings, the EPA may
initiate a ROD Amendment to modify the remedy.
• LMC manufactures agricultural irrigation systems. Historically, PFAS has been used in the
galvanizing industry as a mist suppressant; the Lindsay Manufacturing Company facility in
Lindsay, Nebraska, is included in the Nebraska Statewide Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs)
(Including PFOS and PFOA) Inventory as a high priority site based on its industry description.
As such, LMC should investigate PFOA/PFOS during the next FYR reporting period.
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Sitewide Protectiveness Statement
Protectiveness Determination: Planned Addendum
Protective Completion Date:
N/A
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at the Site currently protects human health and the environment because the plume
is hydraulically controlled; Shell Creek discharges were below federal and state surface water
quality criteria; and no public supply wells within the footprint of the plume are being used for
drinking water.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR report for the Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site is required five years
from the signature date of this review.
18
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
-------
AECOM, 2020. Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Lindsay Nebraska U.S. vs. Lindsay
Manufacturing, LLC, C.A. 8:92-00015. August 21, 2020.
AECOM, 2021. Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2018-2021. Lindsay Nebraska. Lindsay Nebraska
U.S. vs. Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, C.A. 8:92-00015. March 2021
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc, 2021. Monitoring Well Abandonment Memorandum.
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site. August 2021.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc, 2021. Interceptor Well Evaluation Memorandum,
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site. November 2021.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc, 2022. Proposed Residential Water Unit Decommission
Memorandum, Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site. February 2022.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc, 2022. In Situ Thermal Pilot Study Work Plan, Lindsay
Manufacturing Company Superfund Site. April 2022.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc, 2023. 2022 Annual Reports - Long Term Remediation
Activities, Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site. March 2023.
EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A). EPA/540/1-89/002. December.
EPA, 1990. Record of Decision, Lindsay Manufacturing Company, Lindsay, Nebraska, September.
EPA, 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual,
(PartE, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment), Final: Washington, DC, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER Directive 9285.7-02EP, var. pg.
EPA, 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to
Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F, March.
EPA, 2009. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment). Office of Superfund
Remediation & Technology Innovation. USEPA-540-R-070-002.
EPA, 2010. Drinking Water Contaminants. Available at:
http: //www, epa. gov/ safewater/contaminants/index, html.
EPA, 2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance, Update of Standard Default
Exposure Factors: Washington, DC, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER
Directive 9200.1-120, var. pg. May.
EPA, 2017. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available at: www.epa.gov/iris.
EPA, 2018. Fourth Five-Year Review Report for Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site,
Platte, County, Nebraska. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7. Lenexa, Kansas.
EPA, 2019, ORD Review of Lindsay Groundwater Model, Dr. Mohamed Hantush, March 19,2019
-------
APPENDIX B - FIGURES
-------
I /, x-
^ - . VJSW
Source: USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, Lindsay, Nebraska, 2011
2,000
4,000
Scale in Feet
Job No. 60482878
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
URS
Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
-------
-------
.--Former Burn Pit
Original
kltfrfcepti
wen
Storm Sewer—VAV Ga*v.'BWa-E®B f
\ \\
OW Lindsay \ * '
Public Supply Wei -
Former Burn Pit
-^.Crane Area _ vi mc| u
Approxlmat^
Ditch Bank
Centerfne Plant
Drainage Ditch
Former TO A Tank Site
Maintenance
House{Typ»cal)
300
Scale in Feet
600
£)
(&)
Job No. 33759811
URS
Figure 2
Historical Facility Layout - 1982
Lindsay Manufacturing
Lindsay, Nebraska
-------
SOL HUnaid 3NI1 H31VH
•a
o
c
Ef
0
C
a> 0°
s
Oo
If
c>
CB
CO
O 0
c =
.2 ~
O +2
w c
to CO o
m m O
P w P
! § •& 1
1lO
o "S £
"I*
-i o O
03
tn
- E
o>.a
B Sr
& a
o
o
ff
to 3
l ^
Ui >,
C -E
c O
O 0,
si
(D 1X3
o cvi
LL J!
C/) CT
¦1 3
O t
x j
2
E
~
c c C N
a ~ ¦¦= ®
c c
«o 3 "
5 si
C -a « _
¦B c "s $
i_ a>
£ J
3 5*
»¦ E
I
Hi
CD §>£¦
a) j2 ®
log IS
¦5 a> w "o c
c c 01 c o
3 c c 3 ^
p
£ *
I I
0. n.
" 73
t *
£•
_5 ^
-a ro o ra >, >S
a. o o. © © w
"i> § ^ | jg j5* £
I Jj CO Jj O O w
^ J i o 5
O 5 5 OT W
_J 00
CO 00
5 O
0 ^
P>Z 661*8166
-------
-------
APPENDIX C - SITE INSPECTION
-------
INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
Site Name: Lindsay Corporation Superfund Site
EPA ID No.: NED068645696
Subject: Five-Year Review
Time:
Date:
Type: Telephone
Location of Visit:
Visit
X Other
Incoming
Outgoing
Contact Made By
Name: David Wennerstrom
Title: Project Manager, Superfund Organization: US. EPA
Individual Contacted - Prepared by
Name: Mat Rhodes
Title: Director, Global
EHS
Organization: Lindsay Corporation
Telephone No.: 402-428-7244
E-mail Address: mattrhodes@lindsav.com
Street Address: 214 E. 2nd St.
City, State, Zip Code: Lindsay, NE 68644
Interview Questionnaire
1. What is your overall impression of the project?
The project is progressing as expected. No major upsets or surprises have arisen thus far.
2. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the Site or its operation and administration?
Lindsay is not aware of any community concerns.
3. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the Site such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency
response from local authorities?
Lindsay is not aware of any of the aforementioned items or any emergency response related to the superfund
site.
4. Do you feel well informed about the Site's activities and progress?
Yes.
5. Do you have any other comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding this Site?
Not at this time.
-------
INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
Site Name: Lindsay Corporation Superfund Site
EPA ID No.: NED068645696
Subject: Five-Year Review
Time:
Date:
Type: Telephone Visit
Location of Visit: Lindsay Manufacturing
X Other
Incoming
Outgoing
Contact Made By
Name: David Wennerstrom
Title: Project Manager, Superfund Organization: US. EPA
Individual Contacted - Prepared by
Name: Billy Wesley
Title: Environmental
Specialist
Organization: Nebraska Department of
Environment & Energy
Telephone No.: 402-471-2988
E-mail Address: billy.wesley@nebraska.gov
Street Address: 245 Fallbrook Blvd.
City, State, Zip Code: Lincoln, NE, 68521
Interview Questionnaire
1. What is your overall impression of the project?
The project is proceeding well. I am looking forward to seeing the results of the thermal pilot study.
2. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the Site or its operation and administration?
I am not aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation.
3. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the Site such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency
response from local authorities?
I am not aware of any vandalism or trespassing. However, on January 31, 2022, approximately 7,000 gallons of
spent pickling solution, a 10% sulfuric acid solution, was released from a frac tank. This release caused a fish kill
in an unnamed tributary to Shell Creek. NDEE issued a Letter of Noncompliance to the facility on February 16,
2022, due to the release. Lindsay excavated contaminated soil from the spill area, performed confirmation
sampling, and permanently sealed exterior drains which lead to surface water.
4. Do you feel well informed about the Site's activities and progress?
Yes, I feel well informed of the site's activities.
5. Do you have any other comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding this Site?
I believe the thermal pilot study will play a helpful role in helping the site achieve its cleanup goal. I do not have
any additional comments on the site.
-------
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: Lindsay Manufacturing Company
Date of inspection: October 11, 2022
Superfund Site
Location and Region: Lindsay, NE
EPA ID: NED068645696
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
Weather/temperature: Partly cloudy, 70s
review: EPA
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
X Landfill cover/containment
~
Monitored natural attenuation
~ Access controls
Groundwater containment
~ Institutional controls
~
Vertical barrier walls
X Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
~ Other
Attachments: IX] Inspection team roster attached
~ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
Interviews were not conducted at time of inspection
1. O&M site manager
Name
Title Date
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone
Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; ~ Report attached
2. O&M staff
Name
Title Date
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone
Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; ~ Report attached
-------
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency: Nebraska Department of Energy and Environment
Contact: Billy Wesley Project Manager 10/11/2022 billv.Wesley@nebraska.gov
Name Title Date e-mail
Problems; suggestions; IE Report: NDEE FYR questionnaire response
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached
4. Other interviews (optional) ~ Report attached.
-------
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
X O&M manual X Readily available X Up to date ~ N/A
~ As-built drawings ~ Readily available ~ Up to date X N/A
X Maintenance logs X Readily available X Up to date ~ N/A
Remarks
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan E Readily available
~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan ~ Readily available
Remarks
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
~ N/A
IEI N/A
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks
X Readily available
~ Up to date
~ N/A
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit ~ Readily available ~ Up to date X N/A
~ Effluent discharge ~ Readily available ~ Up to date X N/A
~ Waste disposal, POTW ~ Readily available ~ Up to date X N/A
~ Other permits ~ Readily available ~ Up to date X N/A
Remarks: Effluent discharge is permitted under CERCLA and NDEE Discharge Authorization
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
El N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
E N/A
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records
Remarks
X Readily available
~ Up to date
~ N/A
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
E N/A
9.
Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available ~ Up to date X N/A
X Water (effluent) X Readily available ~ Up to date ~ N/A
Remarks: Discharge records maintained in accordance with the NDEE Discharge
Authorization Permit
10.
Daily Access/Security Logs IEI Readily available X Up to date ~ N/A
Remarks: Facility is an active industrial site with restricted access and security check-in at front desk.
Off-site properties are private residential and farmland
-------
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
~ State in-house
IX] PRP in-house
~ Federal Facility in-house
~ Other
2. O&M Cost Records
X Readily available X Up to date
~ Funding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate ~ Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From To ~ Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
~ Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
~ Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
~ Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
~ Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
Describe costs and reasons: O&M Costs were not provided for the FYR. Discussions during site
inspection indicate that costs have not been unusually high during this review period
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ~ Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing in place ~ Location shown on site map X Gates secured ~ N/A
Remarks
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
Remarks: Off-site extraction wells and equipment are locked in well houses. On-site facility is an active
industrial facility with access controls and security fencing
~ Contractor for State
X Contractor for PRP
~ Contractor for Federal Facility
-------
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented ~ Yes ~ No X N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced ~ Yes ~ No X N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)
Responsible party/agency
Contact
Name Title
Date
Phone no
Reporting is up-to-date
~ Yes ~ No
El N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency
~ Yes ~ No
E N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
~ Yes ~ No
E N/A
Violations have been reported
~ Yes ~ No
E N/A
Other problems or suggestions: E Report attached
Evidence of current logging operations on Site. Also, trees/saplings growing in the cap
2. Adequacy ~ ICs are adequate ~ ICs are inadequate X N/A
Remarks
D. General
1. Vandalism/trespassing ~ Location shown on site map X No vandalism evident
Remarks
2. Land use changes on site IEI N/A
Remarks: No change in land since the previous Five-Year Review
3. Land use changes off site IEI N/A
Remarks No change in land since the previous Five-Year Review
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads X Applicable ~ N/A
1. Roads damaged ~ Location shown on site map X Roads adequate ~ N/A
Remarks
-------
B.
Other Site Conditions
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ~ Applicable G
a n/a
A.
Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (Low spots) ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
X Settlement not evident
2.
Cracks ~ Location shown on site map
Lengths Widths Depths
X Cracking not evident
Remarks
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
X Erosion not evident
4.
Holes ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
X Holes not evident
5.
Vegetative Cover ~ Grass ~ Cover properly established ~ No signs of stress
X Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks: Saplings/trees growing on cap/cover
6.
Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) IEI N/A
Remarks
7.
Bulges ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Height
Remarks
IEI Bulges not evident
8.
Wet Areas/Water Damage X Wet areas/water damage not evident
~ Wet areas ~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
~ Ponding ~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
~ Seeps ~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
~ Soft subgrade ~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks
9.
Slope Instability ~ Slides ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent
Remarks
IEI No evidence of slope instability
-------
B.
Benches ~ Applicable X N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map X N/A or okay
2.
Bench Breached
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map X N/A or okay
3.
Bench Overtopped
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map X N/A or okay
C.
Letdown Channels ~ Applicable X N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.
Settlement
Areal extent
~ Location shown on site map X No evidence of settlement
Depth
Remarks
2.
Material Degradation
Material type
~ Location shown on site map X No evidence of degradation
Areal extent
Remarks
3.
Erosion
Areal extent
~ Location shown on site map X No evidence of erosion
Depth
Remarks
-------
4.
Undercutting ~ Location shown on site
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
map X No evidence of undercutting
5.
Obstructions Type IX] No obstructions
~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
Size
Remarks
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Type trees/saplings
~ No evidence of excessive growth
~ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks trees/saplings growing on cover/cap
D.
Cover Penetrations ~ Applicable X N/A
1.
Gas Vents ~ Active ~ Passive
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
~ Good condition
~ N/A
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks
~ Routinely sampled
~ Needs Maintenance
~ Good condition
~ N/A
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks
~ Routinely sampled
~ Needs Maintenance
~ Good condition
~ N/A
4.
Leachate Extraction Wells
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks
~ Routinely sampled
~ Needs Maintenance
~ Good condition
~ N/A
5.
Settlement Monuments ~ Located
Remarks
~ Routinely surveyed
~ N/A
-------
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable
IX] N/A
1.
Gas Treatment Facilities
~ Flaring ~ Thermal destruction
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
~ Collection for reuse
2.
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks
F.
Cover Drainage Layer ~ Applicable
IX] N/A
1.
Outlet Pipes Inspected ~ Functioning
Remarks
~ N/A
2.
Outlet Rock Inspected ~ Functioning
Remarks
~ N/A
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable
IX] N/A
1.
Siltation Areal extent Depth
~ N/A
~ Siltation not evident
Remarks
2.
Erosion Areal extent Depth
~ Erosion not evident
Remarks
3.
Outlet Works ~ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks
4.
Dam ~ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks
-------
H. Retaining Walls ~ Applicable X N/A
1.
Deformations ~ Location shown on site map ~ Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement
Rotational displacement
Remarks
2.
Degradation ~ Location shown on site map
Remarks
~ Degradation not evident
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ~ Applicable
IX] N/A
1.
Siltation ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
~ Siltation not evident
2.
Vegetative Growth ~ Location shown on site map
~ Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent Type
Remarks
~ N/A
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
~ Erosion not evident
4.
Discharge Structure ~ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS
~ Applicable X N/A
1.
Settlement ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
~ Settlement not evident
2.
Performance Monitoring
Type of monitoring ~ Performance not monitored
Frequency ~ Evidence of breaching
Head differential
Remarks
-------
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES IE Applicable ~ N/A
A.
Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines IX] Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
X Good condition X All required wells properly operating ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks: All extraction wells operating and functional
2.
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
X Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks Above grade piping appears to be in good condition. No indications along buried piping to
indicate potential concerns.
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
X Readily available X Good condition ~ Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Remarks
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines ~ Applicable IX] N/A
1.
Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
~ Readily available ~ Good condition ~ Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Remarks
-------
C. Treatment System X Applicable ~ N/A
1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
~ Metals removal ~ Oil/water separation ~ Bioremediation
~ Air stripping ~ Carbon adsorbers
~ Filters
~ Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)
X Others Extracted groundwater is discharged through a center pivot system or directly into Shell creek
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
~ Sampling ports properly marked and functional
~ Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
~ Equipment properly identified
~ Quantity of groundwater treated annually
~ Quantity of surface water treated annually
Remarks
2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
~ N/A X Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks Well houses contain all electrical panels, no issues noted or observed.
3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
X N/A ~ Good condition ~ Proper secondary containment ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
~ N/A X Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
5. Treatment Building(s)
~ N/A X Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) ~ Needs repair
~ Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks
6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
X Properly secured/locked X Functioning X Routinely sampled X Good condition
~ All required wells located ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks All well observed to be in good condition
D. Monitoring Data - No sampling data in the past 20+ years
1. Monitoring Data
X Is routinely submitted on time X Is of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring data suggests:
X Groundwater plume is effectively contained X Contaminant concentrations are declining
-------
E. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
~ All required wells located ~ Needs Maintenance X N/A
Remarks
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.
XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
The remedy is designed to prevent migration of the off-site voltile organic compound plume until the
aquifer is restored to below federal Maximum Contaminant Levels. While off-site migration of
contamination continues, the off-site plume has been contained. Presently, Lindsay Corporation
has implemented a pilot study for insitu thermal. The thermal treatment zone is located within
the highest concentrations of contamination within the manufacturing facility. During the site
visit, crews were installing the heating wellfield. As of July 2023, the system is operational and
functional and heating up to designed temperature. There will be 2 year of confirmatory
sampling to ascertain the effects of the in-situ pilot study.
B. Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
Lindsay Manufacturing operations and maintenance appears to be appropriate with no
concerns noted during the site inspection
-------
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
None Noted
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Lindsay Manufacturing implemented an in-situ pilot study to address on-site source
area contamination. There will be 2 years of confirmatory sampling to ascertain the
effects of the in-situ pilot study
-------
Five-Year Review Site Inspection: Lindsay Manufacturing Corporation Superfund Site
Date: 11 October 2022
Jamie Suing, EA Engineering, Science & Technology, Inc., PBC
Luke Rief, EA Engineering, Science & Technology, Inc., PBC
Gus Shy, EA Engineering, Science & Technology, Inc., PBC
Kevin Crowder, Terra Therm
Matt Rhodes, Lindsay Corp
Eric Arneson, Lindsay Corp
Billy Wesley (NDEE)
Randy Brown & David Wennerstrom (EPA)
-------
Trip Report
Photo 1
Description:
New Monitoring Weii: MW21-5A
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
Trip Report
Photo 2
Description:
New Monitoring Weii: MW21-5A
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
Trip Report
Photo 3
Description:
Ground Water Extraction System & MW-87
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
<
Trip Report
Photo 4
Description:
New Monitoring Weii Pair: MW21-04A & MW21-04B
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
Trip Report
Photo 5
Description:
ln~Situ Thermal Installation
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
Trip Report
Photo 6
Description:
ln~Situ Thermal Installation - Heating Elements
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
Trip Report
Photo 7
Description:
ln~Situ Thermal - Temporary Remediation System Containers
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
FU
I 1
a '
; / 1
i • iWfFTP
1
1H
|
f
<1 11
I
Mdfuf as? li^^l
mMj. \ v.- v
1 H
SkV J -¦ ¦
i %.
i
\ ¦ ilS^^
|
H.€11 ^mr T ' U
/ ¦ S^. xoxcV 1
Trip Report
Photo 8
Description:
In-Situ Thermal - Temporary Water Cleaning System Component
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Description: In-Situ Thermal - Temporary Water Cleaning System Component
Photographer: David Wennerstrom
-------
Trip Report
Photo 10
Description:
In-Situ Thermal - Contractor Construction Trailer
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
Trip Report
Photo 11
Description:
In-Situ Thermal - Control Module
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
Trip Report
Photo 12
Description:
In-Situ Thermal - Heating Elements to be Installed
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: South
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
-------
Trip Report
Photo 14
Description:
Monitoring Well Pair: MW14-09A & MW14-09B
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
Trip Report
Photo 15
Description:
Monitoring Well Pair: MW14-01A & MW14-01B
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: West
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
is « sfi
' :V-:r- V ; V T' '
" - - - .
/ - y
ft pjl |f|§
©§fe >Ar-V-"
i -, ~ ~
"'^TsN®
Trip Report
Photo 16
Description:
MW13-02
Date: 10/11/22
Direction: North
Photographer:
David Wennerstrom
-------
File Name:
Photographer: David Wennerstrom
Type of Camera: Samsung S22
Digital Recording Media:
Original copy is stored in:
No changes were made in the original image files prior to storage on the hard drive.
Report Photo #
Photographer
Date
Approx. Time
Description
1
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1321
New Monitoring Well: MW21-5A
2
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1322
New Monitoring Well: MW21-5A
3
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1328
Ground Water Extraction System & MW-87
4
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1330
New Monitoring Well Pair: MW21-04A & MW21-04B
5
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1335
In-Situ Thermal Installation
6
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1336
In-Situ Thermal Installation - Heating Elements
7
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1336
In-Situ Thermal - Temporary Remediation System Containers
8
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1337
In-Situ Thermal - Temporary Water Cleaning System Component
9
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1337
In-Situ Thermal - Temporary Water Cleaning System Component
10
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1338
In-Situ Thermal - Contractor Construction Trailer
11
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1338
In-Situ Thermal - Control Module
12
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1339
In-Situ Thermal - Heating Elements to be Installed
13
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1350
Site Inspection Team
14
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1353
Monitoring Well Pair: MW14-09A & MW14-09B
15
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1355
Monitoring Well Pair: MW14-01A & MW14-01B
16
Wennerstrom
10/11/2022
1409
MW13-02
-------
APPENDIX D - REPORTS
-------
AECOM
AECOM
1111 Third Ave., Suite 1600
Seattle WA 98101
206 438 2700 tel
866 485.5288 fax
www aecom com
August 21, 2020
Mr. David Wennerstrom
EPA Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Remedial Section
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, KS 66219
Dear Mr. Wennerstrom:
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) respectfully submits this revised Remedial Alternatives
Evaluation Report for the Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC (Lindsay) facility located in Lindsay,
Nebraska. This report documents the evaluation of source reduction and hydraulic control remedial
alternatives to reduce and/or control source contamination beneath the facility that is or may potentially
affect groundwater in the sand and gravel aquifer beneath and downgradient of the facility.
We look forward to EPA's comments on this report. If you have any questions during your review,
please do not hesitate to contact Eric Ameson with Lindsay or Karen Mixon at AECOM at your
convenience.
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Revision 1.0
Lindsay, Nebraska
U.S. vs. Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC
C.A. 8:92-00015
AECOM Job No.: 60630400
Sincerely,
AECOM
Karen L. Mixon
Project Manager
Project Engineer
cc: Eric Arneson, Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Billy Wesley, NDEE
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION 2
2.0 KEY POINTS FROM CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL AND CURRENT REMEDIAL
ACTIONS 3
2.1 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 3
2.1.1 Hydrogeologic Units 3
2.1.2 Hydraulic Conductivity 4
2.1.3 Groundwater Velocity 5
2.1.4 Horizontal Flow 5
2.1.5 Vertical Flow 5
2.2 SOURCE AREAS 6
2.3 ACTIVE FACILITY 6
3.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES 7
3.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 7
3.1.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 8
3.1.2 Potential Local Requirements 10
3.2 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES 10
3.2.1 General Response Actions 10
3.2.2 Initial Screening of Technologies and Process Options 11
4.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 13
4.1 APPROACH TO DEVELOPING FACILITY-WIDE ALTERNATIVE 14
4.2 CERCLA EVALUATION CRITERIA 16
4.3 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ON-FACILITY HYDRAULIC
CONTROLS ALTERNATIVES 17
4.3.1 Alternative A-l - Continue Existing Pumping (No New Action) 17
4.3.2 Alternative A-2 - Seasonal Optimized Pumping from New On-Facility Wells 19
4.3.3 Alternative A-3 - Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Re-
injection during Non-Irrigation Season 23
4.3.4 Alternative A-4 - Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Treatment
during Non-Irrigation Season 26
4.4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ON-FACILITY HYDRAULIC CONTROL
ALTERNATIVES 28
4.5 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE
CELL AREA 33
4.5.1 Alternative B-l - No Action 33
4.5.2 Alternative B-2 - Cell Area Cap 35
4.5.3 Alternative B-3 - Targeted Excavation 37
4.5.4 Alternative B-4 - In-Situ Soil Solidification 40
4.5.5 Alternative B-5 - Soil Vapor Extraction 42
4.5.6 Alternative B-6 - Thermal Remediation 45
RAER_Final_08_21 2020 .docx
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4.6 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CELL
AREA 48
4.7 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE
BUILDING 1/ CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH AREA 53
4.7.1 Alternative C-l - No Action 54
4.7.2 Alternative C-2 - Central Drainage Ditch Cap, Maintain Containment, and
Institutional Controls 55
4.7.3 Alternative C-3 - Thermal Remediation Hot Spot 3 (aka "Small Thermal").... 57
4.7.4 Alternative C-4 - Thermal Remediation of Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4 (aka "Large
Thermal") 60
4.7.5 Alternative C-5 - Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1 and 2 and Thermal
Remediation of Hot Spots 3 and 4 (aka "Hybrid DPE/Thermal") 63
4.7.6 Alternative C-6 - Dual-Phase Extraction Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4 (aka "Small
DPI:"") 68
4.7.7 Alternative C-7 - Dual-Phase Extraction (aka "Large DPE") 72
4.8 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE
BUILDING 1/ CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH SOURCE AREA 76
5.0 RECOMMENDED FACILITY-WIDE ALTERNATIVE 83
5.1 PREFERRED ON-FACILITY HYDRAULIC CONTROL ALTERNATIVE 83
5.2 PREFERRED REMEDY I OR CELL AREA 84
5.3 PREFERRED REMEDY FOR BUILDING 1/CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH AREA
84
5.4 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS AND COSTS 85
6.0 REFERENCES 87
FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map
2 Site Monitoring/Interceptor Well Locations
3 Facility Map
4 Facility Traffic Routes
5 Alternative A-l: Continue Existing Pumping (No New Action) and Alternative A-2:
Seasonal Optimized Pumping from New On-Facility Wells
6 Alternatives A-3 and A-4: Year - Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Re-
injection (A-3) or Treatment (A-4) during Non-Irrigation Season
7 Alternative B-2: Cell Area Cap
8 Alternative B-3: Targeted Excavation
9 Alternative B-4: In-Situ Soil Solidification
10 Alternative B-5: Soil Vapor Extraction
11 Alternative B-6: Thermal Remediation
12 Alternative C-2: Central Drainage Ditch Cap, Maintain Containment, and Institutional
Controls
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
13 Alternative C-3: Thermal Treatment - Hot Spot 3
14 Alternative C-4: Thermal Treatment - Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, & 4
15 Alternative C-5: Dual Phase Extraction, of Hot Spots 1 and 2 and Thermal Treatment of
Hot Spots 3 and 4
16 Alternative C-6: Dual Phase Extraction - Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, & 4
17 Alternative C-7: Dual Phase Extraction (1 ppm Area)
TABLES
1 ARARs and TBCs
2 Numerical Chemical-Specific ARARs and TBCs for Groundwater
3 Numerical Chemical-Specific ARARs and TBCs for Surface Water
4 Technology Screening Matrix
5 Facility Remedial Alternatives to Be Evaluated
6 Summary of Hydraulic Control Alternative Components
7 Comparative Analysis of On-Facility Hydraulic Control Alternatives
8 Summary of Cell Area Alternatives Components
9 Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives in Cell Area
10 Summary of Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch Alternatives Components
11 Summary of Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch Mass Removal Components
12 Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives in Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch
Area
APPENDICES
A EPA and NDEE Comments; Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, August 5, 2016
B Mass Calculation Documentation
C Cost Estimate Supporting Documentation
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AECOM
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
ARAR
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
bgs
below ground surface
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
COC
chemical of concern
CY
cubic yard
DPE
dual phase extraction
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERH
electrical resistance heating
FS
feasibility study
GAC
granular activated carbon
gpm
gallon per minute
GRA
general response action
GWMP
groundwater monitoring plan
HAZWOPER
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
HHRA
human health risk assessment
HDPE
high density polyethylene
ISS
insitu soil solidification
ISTR
insitu thermal remediation
lbs
pounds
Lindsay
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
MCL
maximum contaminant level
mg/kg
milligram per kilogram
MIP
membrane interface probe
MPE
multi-phase extraction
msl or MSL
mean sea level
NDEE
Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy
NDEQ
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
NPDES
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPV
net present value (also called present worth)
O&M
operation and maintenance
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCE
tetrachloroethene
PVC
polyvinyl chloride
RAC
remedial action class
RAER
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report
RAO
remedial action objective
RI
remedial investigation
ROD
Record of Decision
RSL
regional screening level
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SF
square feet
SVE
soil vapor extraction
TBC
To Be Considered
TCH
thermal conduction heating
TMP
temperature monitoring point
URS
URS Corporation (now AECOM Technical Services)
RAER Final 08 21 2020.Docx
vi
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
(ig/kg microgram per kilogram
jj.g/1 microgram per liter
VOC volatile organic compound
RAERFinalO8 21 2020. Docx
vii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This revised Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report (RAER) presents the development and
evaluation of focused remedial alternatives to address source areas/hydraulic control on the
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC (Lindsay) facility (facility) located in Lindsay, Nebraska
(Figure 1). This report is an update to the RAER (URS 2016) submitted by Lindsay in 2016 to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following additional site investigation work
completed in 2017.
Chemicals of concern (COCs, e.g., chlorinated volatile organic compounds [VOCs], 1,4-dioxane,
and zinc) persist in source areas on the facility and continue to migrate to groundwater in the
sand and gravel aquifer beneath and downgradient of the facility. The Site, as defined under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
includes the facility and the extent of the downgradient chlorinated VOC plume from the facility
south to near well MW06-04 (Figure 2). The objective of source reduction on the facility and/or
hydraulic control is to minimize the migration of groundwater containing COCs beyond the
southern facility property boundary (hereafter referred to as the property boundary).
Remedial actions conducted at the facility and downgradient of the facility in accordance with
the Record of Decision (ROD, USEPA 1990) have been effective in reducing risks associated
with COCs in soil and groundwater to an acceptable level as described in the Human Health Risk
Assessment ([HHRA], URS 2015). However, in EPA's fourth Five-Year Review (USEPA
2013) and the most recent review (USEPA 2018), the EPA recommended evaluation of remedial
alternatives to address source areas on the facility.
Lindsay collected additional subsurface soil and groundwater data from 2013 through 2015 to
identify and assess the vertical and lateral extent of primary source areas on the facility.
Following completion of the 2015 field investigation, Lindsay submitted an RAER (URS 2016)
to EPA and Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (NDEE, previously Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality [NDEQ]) in August 2016. Recommendations in the 2016
report (URS 2016) included a site-wide alternative for source reduction and hydraulic control on
the facility that included capping of the cell area, thermal remediation in a small area adjacent to
the central drainage ditch located north and east of Building 1, and an optimized on-facility
hydraulic control system. However, numerous uncertainties existed in the Building 1/central
drainage ditch area and recommendations in the report included additional data collection in this
area as well as groundwater fate and transport modeling for the Site before selecting a preferred
source reduction alternative for the Building 1 area. Following receipt of EPA and NDEE
comments on the RAER (Appendix A) and several conference calls, EPA and NDEE agreed
Lindsay should proceed with additional data collection and groundwater fate and transport
modeling to refine target treatment areas and confirm the selection of the treatment technology in
the Building 1 area (URS 2017a).
The data from the 2015 and 2017 field investigations with an updated conceptual site model
were reported to EPA and NDEE in October 2018 (URS 2018b). AECOM Technical Services
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
1
-------
(AECOM, formerly URS Corporation) developed and calibrated a numerical groundwater flow
and solute transport model based on Site data through 2017 (URS 2018a). This report was also
submitted to EPA and NDEE in October 2018.
This revised RAER is an update to the previous alternatives evaluation using the information
collected in 2017 and the results of the groundwater flow and solute transport model. Based on
this updated information, a recommended approach to supplemental remediation on the facility is
presented.
1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
As the 2015 and 2017 investigation results were reported to the EPA and NDEE in the 2018
Supplemental Investigation Report (URS 2018b), this revised RAER focuses only on
information directly applicable to the remedial alternatives evaluation. The report organization
is presented below with a brief summary of the content for each section.
Section 1.0 - Introduction - This section presents the scope of the report and recent history of the
supplemental remedial alternatives' evaluation.
Section 2.0 - Key Points from Conceptual Site Model and Current Remedial Actions - This
section presents high level information from the conceptual site model and current active
remediation that provides the basis for selected technologies and alternatives evaluated.
Section 3.0 - Identification and Screening of Technologies - This section presents the Remedial
Action Objectives (RAOs) and discusses selection of technologies included in the evaluation.
Section 4.0 - Detailed Analysis of Alternatives - This section presents the approach to
developing a facility-wide alternative based on the conceptual site model in accordance with
EPA's Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA
(USEPA 1988). The facility-wide remedial action alternatives are described and evaluated
against the CERCLA evaluation criteria, as specified by EPA (USEPA 1988). The evaluation
includes a comparative analysis of the alternatives considered.
Section 5.0 - Recommended Facility-Wide Alternative - This section presents the conclusions
drawn from the comparative analysis of the alternatives in context of the results of the
groundwater fate and transport model before recommending a preferred site-wide alternative.
The recommended site-wide alternative is based on maintaining protection of human health and
the environment at the Site for the long term, technical feasibility, cost effective implementation,
and minimizing impacts to the facility operation.
Section 6.0 - References - This section provides the references used to support the remedial
alternative evaluation reported herein.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
-------
2.0 KEY POINTS FROM CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL AND CURRENT REMEDIAL
ACTIONS
The focus of this report is to evaluate remedial technologies and alternatives that have been
selected based on the site characteristics (conceptual site model) and objectives of source
reduction of COCs at the Lindsay facility. Numerous field investigations, groundwater
monitoring events, and remedial actions have been conducted over time or are still ongoing at the
Site. It is not the intent of this report to repeat the information in detail that is provided in other
reports. However, to better understand the selection of technologies and development of
alternatives, key points from the Site data are provided in this section. Detail, if needed, is in the
Supplemental Investigation Report (URS 2018b) documenting the 2015 and 2017 investigations.
Numerous references to previous reports are also included in the 2018 report and in Section 6.0
of this report.
2.1 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
2.1.1 Hydrogeologic Units
Lithologic data has been collected at the facility during and subsequent to the initial remedial
investigation (Dames & Moore 1990) via soil borings (drilled and hydraulic probe), monitoring
well borings, and membrane interface probe (MIP) borings. The data indicates there are four
principal hydrogeologic units:
• Fine-grained unit consisting of dense silt and clay,
• Sand channel found only beneath the northern portion of the facility (Figure 3)
consisting of a sand-filled paleo-channel within the fine-grained unit,
• Sand and gravel aquifer (the regional aquifer), and
• Niobrara Formation (bedrock), typically consisting of a layer of dense, iron-stained,
yellowish orange to pale brown clay at the top of the formation.
Fine-Grained Unit
The fine-grained unit capping the underlying sand and gravel aquifer is considered a leaky
confining layer or aquitard. The fine-grained unit is a deposit of dense material, primarily silt
and clay, with limited amount of sand, which is found across the site from ground surface to 90
feet below ground surface (bgs) depending on location. The thickness of the fine-grained unit
ranges from 25 to 90 feet and generally correlates to increasing or decreasing ground surface
elevations. In some locations, the contact with the sand and gravel unit is relatively sharp and in
others it is gradational. The lower portion of the fine-grained unit is typically saturated
throughout the year on the facility and in adjacent areas where wells are screened in this unit.
However, groundwater level measurements indicate that several monitoring wells near the base
of this unit are frequently dry near the end of the irrigation season. The saturated thickness
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
3
-------
varies in response to recharge and changes in the potentiometric head in the underlying sand and
gravel aquifer. Recharge at the facility is limited, due to the presence of buildings and pavement.
Regionally, recharge occurs during and after large rainfall events in the intermittent stream and
creek beds and in areas with sandy soils at the surface (Weeks and Gutentag, 1988).
Sand Channel
Beneath the north-central portion of the facility, groundwater is also present in a former channel
that is sand-filled (sand channel) and buried within the fine-grained unit. The lateral extent of
the sand channel is shown on Figure 3. The sand channel is typically 20 to 30 feet thick in the
central portion of the former channel. It pinches out laterally on the east and west and to the
southwest. The northern extent offsite has not been delineated.
Sand and Gravel Aquifer
The sand and gravel aquifer consist primarily of fine to coarse sand and sandy gravel beneath the
facility and is the principal water-bearing zone in the site vicinity. The top of the aquifer occurs
at depths between approximately 25 and 90 feet bgs and ranges in thickness from approximately
40 to 80 feet. Gravel is more commonly present in the lower portion of the aquifer and silty sand
or clayey sand is occasionally observed directly beneath the contact with the overlying fine-
grained unit. Fine-grained interbeds or lenses have not been identified within the sand and
gravel aquifer beneath the facility and adjacent area downgradient.
The aquifer is fully saturated except in the vicinity of interceptor wells, where the cone of
depression may locally dewater the upper portion of the aquifer. Water levels in the sand and
gravel aquifer decrease during the spring and summer due to drawdown caused by the operation
of irrigation and interceptor wells within and outside of the plume boundaries. Recharge to the
sand and gravel aquifer in the vicinity of the facility appears to be from the saturated portion of
the overlying fine-grained unit.
Niobrara Formation
The Niobrara Formation is a dense, iron-stained, yellowish orange to pale brown clay, which
underlies the sand and gravel aquifer in the site vicinity. The Niobrara Formation is the regional
bedrock, and it is weathered at the contact with the sand and gravel aquifer. In some areas,
discontinuous thin layers of silt to fined-grained sand have been observed at the interface
between the aquifer and the Niobrara Formation. The upper Niobrara Formation is not known to
be water bearing in the site vicinity.
2.1.2 Hydraulic Conductivity
The results of slug tests completed in the fine-grained unit in 2017 indicate that the hydraulic
conductivity ranges from approximately 2.7xl0"3 to 4,9x10"' feet per day in the finer material of
the fine-grained unit and approximately 7.6 to 8.0 feet per day in the sand channel.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
-------
The hydraulic conductivity of the sand and gravel aquifer beneath the facility ranges from 150 to
650 feet per day based on an aquifer pumping test at well AOIW (Dames & Moore 1990). An
aquifer test using interceptor well EXT 13-01 and monitoring wells within its zone of influence
was conducted in 2016. Calculated average hydraulic conductivities determined from this test
ranged from 212 to 664 feet per day (URS 2016). These hydraulic conductivity values are
typical of sands and gravel and are indicative of a highly productive aquifer.
2.1.3 Groundwater Velocity
Groundwater velocity was calculated within the fine-grained unit and the sand and gravel aquifer
for 2015, 2016, and 2017. For the fine-grained unit, the calculated velocity ranged from
5.2xl0"5 to 5.3xl0"5 feet per day in the finer-grained portion of the fine-grained unit to 0.40 to
0.41 feet per day in the sand channel.
Groundwater velocity within the sand and gravel unit ranged from 1.9 to 5.6 feet per day during
the 3-year period. The wide range accounts for pumping and non-pumping periods associated
with the operation of irrigation and interceptor wells in the local area.
2.1.4 Horizontal Flow
Horizontal groundwater flow within the fine-grained unit is limited by the low hydraulic
conductivity of the finer-grained deposits. Groundwater elevation data for the fine-grained unit
suggest that groundwater beneath the facility flows to the southeast, while flow in the adjacent
offsite area is to the northwest, with a persistent trough in the fine-grained unit groundwater level
in the vicinity of wells MW14-07 and MW12-02A. However, groundwater movement within the
fine-grained unit may be predominantly vertical (URS 2018b).
The overall groundwater flow direction beneath and downgradient of the facility in the sand and
gravel aquifer is generally to the south or southeast (URS 2018b).
The continuous operation of well EXT 13-01 since July 2013 has formed a cone of depression
around this well (AECOM 2020). Groundwater flow direction in the sand and gravel aquifer
beneath the facility is also affected by the seasonal operation of well AOIW and a cone of
depression is evident around this interceptor well when it is operational (AECOM 2020).
2.1.5 Vertical Flow
Vertical hydraulic gradients calculated using water level measurements for 11 well pairs
screened in the fine-grained unit and the underlying sand and gravel aquifer from 2015 through
2019 were predominantly downward. This indicates that groundwater moves from the fine-
grained unit into the underlying sand and gravel aquifer seasonally or throughout the year at all
locations where well pairs have been installed (URS 2018b and 2019, AECOM 2020). At some
well pairs, there is an upward gradient during non-irrigation periods when the potentiometric
groundwater levels in the sand and gravel aquifer are typically highest.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
-------
2.2 SOURCE AREAS
Soil and groundwater data collected at the Site through 2017 indicates that source areas for
chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane are present in the cell area and in the Building 1/central
drainage ditch area. The cell area is the source area for zinc in groundwater beneath the facility.
The data indicates that the fine-grained unit is the primary source of contaminants in the sand
and gravel aquifer. Therefore, the source reduction alternatives discussed in this report target
COCs in the soil and groundwater in the fine-grained unit.
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was chosen as the COC for which contaminant mass calculations were
completed and the primary basis for selecting target treatment zones. PCE is the most prevalent
COC in the source area media (fine-grained unit soil and groundwater) and elevated
concentrations of other chlorinated VOCs are generally situated within the area and depth of
elevated PCE concentrations. PCE is also the dominant COC in the sand and gravel aquifer
groundwater VOC plume beneath and downgradient of the facility. Zinc contaminant mass
calculations were completed in the cell area, because it is prevalent in the source area media in
the cell area. Source area PCE and zinc mass calculations for the cell area and Building 1/central
drainage ditch area and alternative-specific PCE and zinc mass removal estimates are provided in
Appendix B.
Mass estimates for PCE and zinc were developed based on the data collected to date at the Site
and is intended to assist with the evaluation of the remedial action alternatives analysis. The
mass model indicates that the cell area source contribution for PCE concentrations in
groundwater at the property boundary is significantly lower than the source area contribution in
the Building 1 and central drainage ditch area. The estimated PCE mass is 158 pounds (lbs) in
the cell source area and 1,068 lbs in the Building 1/central drainage ditch source area for a total
of 1,226 lbs (13% and 87% respectively). Mass calculations provide a means to understand the
lateral and vertical distribution of COCs in both source areas. The model is also used to estimate
the reduction of source concentrations attributed to remedial alternatives discussed in this report.
Chlorinated VOCs above federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and 1,4-dioxane above
the EPA regional screening level (RSL, USEPA 2020) are detected in groundwater samples
collected from monitoring wells at the property boundary. Zinc is elevated in groundwater
samples collected from the north and central part of the facility, but concentrations are well
below the secondary MCL in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells at the
property boundary. The focus of remediation for source reduction on the facility is chlorinated
VOCs. The data indicate that the chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane are generally collocated.
2.3 ACTIVE FACILITY
The Lindsay facility is an operational facility. The review of alternatives must consider the
impact of construction and operation of remediation systems on the facility activities. Truck
traffic on the facility is constant due to supply delivery as well as final product shipments. The
treatment areas identified for remediation overlap primary traffic patterns (Figure 4). This will
require a combination of significant planning with facilities prior to implementation and
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
6
-------
consideration of subsurface installations to allow surface areas to be returned to normal facility
activity as soon as construction is complete.
3.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES
This section discusses RAOs, technologies, and development of remedial alternatives to address
the COCs and media identified as sources of COCs to the sand and gravel aquifer beneath the
facility. The evaluation process has been completed in accordance with CERCLA as described
in EPA's guidance for completing remedial investigations and feasibility studies (RI/FSs,
USEPA 1988) using the Site information collected in 2017 and prior years, current remedial
actions (pumping from downgradient interceptor wells), and information obtained in previous
evaluations of remediation technologies or hydraulic control methods for the Site (URS 2011,
2012).
3.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
RAOs are general cleanup objectives designed to protect human health and the environment.
RAOs address the contaminants and media of concern, exposure pathways, and preliminary
cleanup levels. Cleanup levels are based on chemical-specific applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs), other available information (e.g., reference doses), and site-
specific risk-related factors.
RAOs for the Site were developed in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300) and CERCLA RI/FS guidance
(USEPA 1988) and documented in the ROD (USEPA 1990). The RAOs are based on the results
of human health risk assessments, are specific to the COCs and exposure pathways, and consider
both current and reasonably foreseeable future land use (e.g., commercial/industrial within the
Lindsay facility property, and agricultural/residential at off-property downgradient properties).
The primary concern is protection of groundwater in the sand and gravel aquifer as this aquifer is
a drinking water/domestic use source. The goal as stated in the ROD is to restore the
groundwater aquifer to drinking water quality (meet Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] MCLs).
RAOs for soil and indoor/outdoor air were not established in the ROD; because it was
determined that the principal threat to human health was related to COC-impacted groundwater.
Since the ROD was issued, a supplemental HHRA (URS 2015) was performed to address
exposures to soils in the cell area and soil vapor intrusion on the facility. In addition, soil vapor
intrusion was assessed in the bordering neighborhood south of the facility. No unacceptable
health risks were identified for any of the populations evaluated in the HHRA (URS 2015) or in
the bordering neighborhood (URS 2014a).
Although not included in the HHRA, the soil data collected in 2015 and 2017 from the Building
1 area was evaluated against risk-based concentrations protective of industrial workers. On-site
workers regularly occupy the buildings on the facility. Most of the facility is paved, thus
limiting the potential for exposures to contaminated soil through direct contact. While soil data
results indicate that soils in the vicinity of Building 1 have higher concentrations of VOCs and
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
7
-------
1,4-dioxane relative to other areas of the Site, no exceedances of risk-based concentrations
protective of industrial workers were noted, with one exception. PCE (570 mg/kg) at
location SB 15-17 (28 feet bgs) exceeded the risk-based concentration of 100 mg/kg. However,
the location of the exceedance is sufficiently deep such that direct human exposure to soils at this
depth is not expected to occur. Thus, there is no potential health risk associated with direct
contact with impacted soils in the vicinity of Building 1 and the central drainage ditch except for
the area near boring SB 15-17 at depth. If intrusive activities at depth are required in this area,
the appropriate health and safety monitoring and worker protection steps will be implemented as
part of the project health and safety program.
The primary goal of the source area remedial alternative evaluation in this report is to identify a
means to minimize the migration of groundwater containing COCs above applicable levels
beyond the property boundary. The evaluation considers hydraulic control methods as well as
source reduction methods to address COC concentrations in groundwater at the property
boundary.
The primary focus of the remedial alternatives is chlorinated VOCs, because they are the most
prevalent contaminant currently migrating off the Lindsay facility. PCE is the predominant
chlorinated VOC in groundwater migrating off the facility property. The COC 1,4-dioxane is
also present in groundwater migrating off the facility boundary (albeit less extensive than PCE);
therefore, the source area remedial assessment considers remediation of 1,4-dioxane in areas
where it is commingled with elevated PCE concentrations, specifically in the Building 1 area
where concentrations of PCE and 1,4-dioxane are highest.
Metals exceedances downgradient of the facility have been limited and zinc, the metal of
primary concern, has not exceeded the secondary MCL in facility boundary wells. Therefore,
zinc is not a primary driver for source area remediation.
3.1.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
CERCLA 121(d)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 300.430(c)(9)(iii)(B) requires that remedial actions comply
with or formally request waivers, if appropriate, for identified ARARs. Three types of ARARs
are considered during alternatives analysis: chemical-specific, location-specific, and action
specific. In addition, "To Be Considered" items (TBCs)' were included in the analysis. These
TBCs are not promulgated or enforceable Federal or State criteria, but advisories, guidance, or
proposed standards that may be associated with the remedial alternatives. This section discusses
chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs that were considered in the development of
source area alternatives and TBCs that may be associated with the remedial alternatives. The
ARARs and TBCs are summarized in Table 1.
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs define permissible COC concentrations for various environmental
media. The NDEE has assigned the aquifer at the Site (e.g., Sand and Gravel Aquifer) to
Remedial Action Class One (RAC-1) pursuant to Title 118 - Groundwater Quality Standards and
Use Classification. RAC-1 assignment is automatic "anytime a public or private drinking water
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
8
-------
supply well has been polluted". RAC-1 aquifers are required to receive the most extensive
remedial action measures. This relates to the SDWA Class I and Class II aquifers which are
characterized as irreplaceable, current or potential drinking water sources.
Applicable chemical-specific ARARs include SDWA MCLs, or Nebraska Final Groundwater
Cleanup Levels based on Title 118 Groundwater Quality Standards and Use Classification
(Table 1) The ROD specified MCL-based cleanup levels (primary or secondary) for
groundwater for specific chlorinated VOCs including PCE, metals (cadmium, chromium, lead
and zinc), sulfate, and pH.
Applicable regulatory numerical cleanup levels for groundwater are shown in Table 2. The
applicable cleanup levels are the more stringent of Federal and State numerical standards. In
cases where there is no applicable primary MCL for a COC, then applicable secondary MCLs or
risk-based levels are applicable. The MCLs for chromium and lead have been updated since the
ROD was published and no MCL currently exists for 1,4-dioxane. The updated chromium and
lead values are presented in Table 2 and the RSL from EPA is shown for 1,4-dioxane. In 2000,
Lindsay received approval from NDEE (formerly NDEQ) to alter the cleanup criteria for sulfate,
pH, and iron based on whether a monitoring well was located on or off the facility. These
criteria are also shown in Table 2.
Consistent with Nebraska Title 118 requirements, the ROD for the Site requires ultimate
restoration of the underlying aquifer to MCLs (USEPA 1990) or other applicable numerical
standards (Table 2). The Site data indicates that the fine-grained unit is the primary source of
contaminants in the sand and gravel aquifer. Therefore, the source reduction alternatives target
COCs in soil and groundwater in the fine-grained unit.
Alternatives for hydraulic controls consider water management methods for treated and untreated
groundwater. If water management includes discharge to Dry Creek or Shell Creek, surface
water criteria for the State of Nebraska (Title 117 - Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards)
and federal surface water quality standards (40 CFR131.36) will be taken into account for
discharge allowances. Potential cleanup levels for groundwater that is discharged to surface
water are shown in Table 3.
Location-Specific ARARs
Location specific ARARs may require or restrict actions because of the site location, even if the
same actions were acceptable elsewhere (Table 1). A portion of the Lindsay facility is on the
100 Year Flood Plain. However, key remediation equipment will not be located within the 100
Year Flood Plain.
An evaluation was completed of Federally Threatened and Endangered Species, as well as
Nebraska At-Risk species. Only one threatened, endangered, or at-risk species has a range and
habitat that include or could be found at Lindsay: Northern Long-eared Bat. However, there is
no exposure pathway to the contaminated soil or groundwater at Lindsay since bat behavior
consists exclusively of flight. Therefore, there are no threatened, endangered, or at-risk species
that have a complete exposure pathway to the soil and groundwater contamination at Lindsay.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
9
-------
Action-Specific ARARs
Under CERCLA Section 121(e), on-site remedial actions are exempt from permitting, but must
meet the substantive requirements of ARARs. These permit exemptions apply to any removal or
remedial action conducted on site where such action is selected and carried out in compliance
with CERCLA Section 121. EPA policy further defines "on site" to include the soil and
groundwater plume that are to be remediated, as well as limited areas on non-contaminated land
(i.e., a treatment plant located above the groundwater plume or outside the surface projection of
COC-contaminated soil in the subsurface). The source area remedial alternatives at the Site
would need to meet the substantive requirements of the action-specific ARARs shown in Table
1
3.1.2 Potential Local Requirements
Depending on the remedial action(s) selected, local requirements may apply. Potentially
applicable requirements include:
Construction Stormwater General Permit - A notice of intent (NOI) will be required if remedial
construction activities disturb over one acre of land. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) that addresses erosion and sediment control must be prepared prior to an application
submittal.
Mechanical/Plumbing/Electrical Permit - Installation of groundwater extraction pumps or other
electrical and mechanical systems (e.g., extraction and treatment systems) would require
consideration of local and county electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permit requirements.
Prior to implementation of any construction activity, Lindsay will contact the local building
department and require its contractors to comply with all substantive requirements of local
building department requirements that are applicable to the work.
3.2 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES
Remedial technologies were identified and screened to develop remedial alternatives for
consideration in the Building 1/central drainage ditch area and the cell area and to evaluate
hydraulic controls at the facility. The potential technologies that were considered in this report
include those considered in previous evaluations, as well as new or updated technologies that
were considered reasonable for this Site (URS 2011, 2012).
3.2.1 General Response Actions
To satisfy the RAOs for groundwater in the sand and gravel aquifer at the Site, potential general
response actions (GRAs) and associated technologies were identified and screened. The GRAs
considered were:
• No Action - no additional actions would be undertaken for active source remediation or
on-facility hydraulic controls. However, on-going actions would continue, including
long-term groundwater monitoring; operation of the existing off-facility hydraulic control
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
10
-------
system; outfall monitoring; and treatment of groundwater at domestic wells. These on-
going actions, which are collectively referred to as "existing site-wide remedial actions,"
are further discussed in Section 4.1.
• Land Use Controls - consists of non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and
legal controls or engineered and physical barriers, such as fences and security guards.
Land Use Controls help to minimize the potential for exposure to contamination and/or
protect the integrity of a response action and are typically designed to work by limiting
land and/or resource use or by providing information that helps modify or guide human
behavior at a site. Land Use Controls include restrictive covenants or other legal and
administrative control measures to prevent the use of groundwater within the plume from
being used as a drinking water resource and to limit on-facility worker exposure to COC-
impacted media.
• Capping - refers to those actions that prevent the infiltration of stormwater through COC-
impacted media, or otherwise prevent or limit direct contact by workers to COC-
impacted soils.
• Removal and off-site disposal - consist of excavation and off-site disposal of COC-
impacted soils at an appropriately licensed facility.
• In-situ treatment - includes a variety of technologies and process options to treat
contaminants in place without removal from the subsurface.
• Ex-situ treatment - includes technologies and process options to remove contaminants
from the subsurface for subsequent above ground treatment and discharge at the facility.
• Hydraulic controls - refers to actions to hydraulically or physically control the migration
of COC-impacted groundwater. Hydraulic controls are typically combined with other
GRAs including but not limited to in-situ or ex-situ treatment.
One or more technologies or process options from each of the GRAs are considered potentially
applicable. These technologies and process options are summarized in Table 4.
3.2.2 Initial Screening of Technologies and Process Options
This section identifies and screens technologies based on the Site data, including but not limited
to, the nature and extent of contamination, the potential contaminant fate and transport, and the
risk assessment results.
Soil analytical results were compared to NDEE (formerly NDEQ) voluntary cleanup action
levels (NDEQ 2012) and EPA screening levels (USEPA 2017) for direct contact and protection
of groundwater for purposes of delineating source areas on the facility (URS 2018b). The
screening levels were considered in identifying the target treatment areas for the various
alternatives. However, the selection of target treatment zones was based on areas where COC-
concentrations were significantly higher than screening levels. The intent of supplemental
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
11
-------
remediation activities is to reduce or control the release of contaminants from the source areas.
The selection of actions to address the source areas at the facility will be based on effectiveness
of technologies but also on the ability to implement the actions cost effectively and with minimal
impact to facility operations.
Areas with elevated levels of PCE in soil in the fine-grained unit were selected as potential target
treatment areas. PCE was chosen as the COC to primarily focus active source remediation,
because it is the most prevalent COC in the source area media (fine-grained unit soil and
groundwater) and elevated concentrations of other COCs are situated within the area and depth
of elevated PCE concentrations. PCE is also the dominant COC in the sand and gravel aquifer
groundwater VOC plume beneath and downgradient of the facility. The size and volume of soil
treated in the target treatment zones varies amongst the alternatives. The criteria for the target
treatment areas and associated soil volumes are discussed for each alternative in Section 4.
Based on the distribution and location of COC-impacted media, the remedial alternatives were
divided into the following three categories (one on-facility hydraulic control category and two
source reduction categories):
• On-Facility Hydraulic Control and Mass Removal - This category includes potential
actions to improve capture of the groundwater VOC plume within the sand and gravel
aquifer at - or nearer to - the facility property boundary. Optimized hydraulic controls
will be a necessary component of any comprehensive site-wide alternative. Long-term
pumping will remove COCs in groundwater over time. This has been successfully
demonstrated by the reduction in COC concentrations in groundwater at the Site from the
early 1990s to date and the monitoring associated with the downgradient interceptor
wells.
• Cell Area - This source area includes Cell 1 and Cell 2 and the areas immediately
adjacent to the cells. The most significantly chlorinated VOC impacted part of this
source area is the northeastern/central portion of Cell 2. However, the contribution of
PCE from the sources in the cell area to the groundwater plume in the sand and gravel
aquifer is considerably less compared to the Building 1/central drainage ditch area.
Therefore, active remediation efforts should be focused on the Building 1/central
drainage ditch area, where the mass of COC-impacted media in the fine-grained unit is
significantly greater.
• Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch - This source area includes Building 1, the central
drainage ditch, and vicinity. No active remediation is being proposed beneath the central
footprint of covered portions of Building 1, but potential actions to address contamination
on the north and east perimeters (inside and outside) of the building are considered.
The technologies considered for each of the above-listed categories are summarized in Table 4.
If the technology was not retained for further consideration, it is noted in the table with a
reason(s) for removal from consideration. Each technology retained under each of the three
categories was incorporated into one or more alternatives for consideration as shown in Table 5.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
12
-------
The overall facility-wide remedy will consist of an alternative that includes a hydraulic control
component and an action for Building 1/central drainage ditch. In 2016, the recommended
action in the cell area was capping. Based on the 2017 investigation data and the groundwater
model, a 'no action' alternative was under consideration for the cell area because of high
comparative rankings developed during preparation of an internal draft report in 2018. Lindsay
constructed a building over the cell area footprint in 2019 (Figure 4) to enhance their
manufacturing operations after bringing the area up to the surrounding grade (AECOM 2020).
The building was constructed with a concrete slab on grade with installation of a vapor barrier to
prevent vapor intrusion to the building. The building construction effectively caps the area
preventing infiltration of surface runoff through the contaminated soil, which is more protective
than the 'no action' recommendation originally anticipated. The alternatives considered for the
cell area prior to the building construction are presented in Sections 4.5 and 4.6 for the project
record, but no additional remedial efforts are planned for the cell area.
The selected remedy for the facility will be combined with the existing site-wide remedial
actions discussed in Section 4.1. Consistent with CERCLA guidance, the No Action Alternative
is retained for each category. Remedial alternatives for each category are described and
evaluated independently and comparatively using the CERCLA criteria (EPA 1988) in Section 4.
The recommended overall facility-wide remedy is identified and explained in Section 5.
4.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The remedial alternatives that were screened and retained in Section 3 for the on-facility
hydraulic controls, cell area, and Building 1/central drainage ditch area are evaluated in this
section (Table 5). The approach to developing the facility-wide alternative is described in
Section 4.1. Each alternative for the on-facility hydraulic controls, cell area, and Building
1/Central Drainage Ditch area categories is evaluated individually based on the CERCLA
evaluation criteria (USEPA 1988) as described in Section 4.2 and then a comparative analysis is
conducted of the alternatives for each category. The evaluation of alternatives is presented in
Sections 4.3 through 4.8.
Cost estimates were developed for each on-facility hydraulic control alternative and source area
remedial alternative with the detailed estimates provided in Appendix C. Each detailed cost
estimate provides the total combined active remedy cost (e.g., capital costs, operation and
maintenance [O&M], monitoring, and non-routine costs) in 2020 dollars (2018 dollars for cell
area), present worth value, and its associated escalated value. The present worth costs were
estimated using a discount rate of 1.0 percent and escalated cost were estimated with an average
inflation rate of 2.0 percent for the duration of the alternative component. Costs for long-term
monitoring, continued operation of the off-facility hydraulic control system (pumping), and land
use controls are common to all on-facility actions and are therefore not included as part of the
individual alternative cost estimates. The costs that are common to all remedial alternatives are
included in Table C-l of Appendix C.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
13
-------
The mass calculations from 2016 were further refined to calculate the PCE mass currently
present and amount likely removed by each specific alternative (Appendix B). The alternative
specific PCE and zinc mass removal estimates were used to determine the ranking of alternatives
against several of the evaluation criteria.
The fate and transport modeling (URS 2018a) indicated that MCLs for PCE and 1,1-
dichloroethene at the property boundary could be achieved using hydraulic control alternative A-
2. Because source zones were simulated as constant concentrations in the model, the model was
unable to estimate the time it would take Building 1 or cell area source removal alternatives to
achieve the MCLs at the property boundary without inclusion of the pumping component for
hydraulic control described in alternative A-2.
4.1 APPROACH TO DEVELOPING FACILITY -WIDE ALTERNATIVE
The purpose of the facility remedial alternatives evaluation is to select a preferred alternative for
hydraulic control of COC-impacted groundwater on the facility and remedial alternative(s) for
source reduction in the cell area and Building 1/central drainage ditch area. The evaluation of
hydraulic control alternatives also considers treatment and discharge options for extracted
groundwater.
Individual alternatives associated with on-facility hydraulic control alternatives (A-l through A-
4), cell area (Alternatives B-l through B-6), and Building 1/central drainage ditch (Alternatives
C-l through C-7) are evaluated independently and then ranked within each group based on a
comparative analysis using the CERCLA evaluation criteria (Sections 4.3 through 4.8). The
alternative(s) selected from each group is then combined into the preferred facility-wide
alternative (Section 5.0).
The alternatives indicated for evaluation were based on distribution and location of COCs at
concentrations that exceed applicable cleanup levels, technologies that were deemed likely to be
effective and implementable, and the potential impact to facility operations. Remedial
alternatives in the Building 1/central drainage ditch area focus on source areas outside of
Building 1 and accessible source areas located in the inner perimeter of Building 1. Source areas
targeted contain PCE concentrations ranging from 1,000 ng/kg to 100,000 ng/kg depending on
the alternative. Target treatment zones within source areas are conceptual and may be modified
during design and installation of the selected facility alternative. Remedial actions within
Building 1 but beyond access from outside the perimeter are not considered cost effective or
implementable because of excessive disruption to facility operations.
Remedial alternatives in both the Building 1/central drainage ditch area and the cell area consider
different size target treatment zones. For example, higher cost and presumably more effective
technologies (e.g., thermal remediation and excavation) applied over a relatively small area (but
more heavily impacted area) are evaluated against lower cost and presumably less effective
technologies (e.g., dual-phase extraction [DPE]) applied over a relatively larger area to assess the
overall cost/benefit of various technologies and alternatives. Published case studies suggest that
thermal remediation is more effective at remediating VOCs compared to conventional "cold soil
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
14
-------
vapor extraction," especially in saturated or partially saturated low permeability units
(Bierschenk 2008).
All the alternatives include land use controls to prevent ingestion, inhalation or direct contact
with soil or groundwater that contain COCs at concentrations above risk-based screening levels.
Land use controls include environmental restrictive covenants for the facility to address
contamination remaining in place following remedial actions, agreements with landowners
regarding locations of interceptor and monitoring wells, and federal or state rules to prevent use
of groundwater within the downgradient groundwater plume or beneath the facility for drinking
water/household use. Additional land use restrictions may become apparent as remedial actions
proceed or due to land use changes in the properties adjacent to the facility or above the
groundwater plume.
While not evaluated as part of the facility-wide alternative, there are several ongoing site-wide
(i.e., on- and off-facility) remedial actions that will continue for the foreseeable future regardless
of which facility-wide alternative is selected. The ongoing actions are collectively referred to as
"existing site-wide remedial actions" and include:
1. Long-term Groundwater Monitoring. The long-term effectiveness of the remediation
program will continue to be assessed by long-term groundwater monitoring results. The
groundwater monitoring program may be modified over time with the approval of EPA
and in consultation with NDEE, with the goal of ensuring overall protectiveness, while
minimizing the number of samples, sample frequency and associated monitoring costs.
Monitoring is currently performed based on the Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GWMP)
(URS 2017b).
2. Operation of the existing off-facility hydraulic control system. Hydraulic containment of
the groundwater plume that has migrated downgradient beyond the facility boundary will
be achieved and maintained using one or more of the following interceptor wells:
EXT13-01, G127000, EXT07-02, EXT11-01 (Figure 2). Extracted groundwater will
continue to be used for irrigation or discharged to Shell Creek. With approval from EPA,
one or more of the interceptor wells may be shut down in the future if it can be
demonstrated that continued pumping from the well(s) is no longer necessary to ensure
that the groundwater plume will not migrate beyond its current documented limits at
levels above applicable cleanup levels. The shutdown of the most downgradient well
(EXT 11-01) was approved by EPA in March 2019 and the well was shut down for
remediation in September 2019. Well EXT13-01 will likely be shut down when COC
concentrations at the property boundary no longer exceed cleanup levels or as otherwise
approved by EPA.
3. Outfall monitoring. The discharge of the existing off-facility hydraulic control systems
will continue to be monitored per the requirements of the discharge authorization from
NDEE and as described in the GWMP (URS 2017b).
4. Treatment of groundwater at domestic wells. The existing monitoring and treatment of
domestic water on the Beller and Preister properties will continue, as appropriate.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
15
-------
5. Land use controls. Land use controls would be developed in coordination with Lindsay,
EPA, and NDEE to ensure short- and long-term effectiveness and protectiveness of the
remedies. These land use controls would formalize current agreements and
understandings with the property owners located downgradient of the Lindsay facility
regarding limitations on new drinking water wells, continuation of existing water usage
(continued treatment of existing domestic wells and continued supply of irrigation water
via the pivot irrigation systems). The land use controls would also implement an
environmental restrictive covenant for the facility to address contamination remaining in
place during and following remedial actions.
4.2 CERCLA EVALUATION CRITERIA
The nine CERCLA evaluation criteria are summarized below. The criteria are divided into three
categories. Threshold Criteria must be met by a remedial action and determine if the alternative
protects people and the environment and meets federal and state regulations. Balancing Criteria
are used to determine which of the alternatives meeting the Threshold Criteria are best suited for
the site. Modifying Criteria are used to determine if the recommended alternative is acceptable
to the State of Nebraska and the local community.
Each alternative and comparative analysis of alternatives is evaluated based on the Threshold
and Balancing criteria. The Modifying Criteria (state and community acceptance) will be
evaluated in consultation with EPA and NDEE during their review of this document.
Threshold Criteria
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses whether a remedy
provides adequate protection and describes how the risks posed through each pathway are
eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy will meet all the ARARs of other
federal and state environmental statutes and whether a waiver is required.
Primary Balancing Criteria
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time once the cleanup goals
(chemical-specific ARARs) have been met. Protection of human health and the
environment prior to achieving cleanup levels (e.g., aquifer restoration to drinking water
standards) is addressed under the short-term effectiveness criterion.
4. Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume through Treatment is the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness addresses the time needed to achieve protection, and any
adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
16
-------
6. Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of the remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed to implement an option.
7. Cost includes estimated capital, O&M, and net present value (NPV or present worth)
costs.
Modifying Criteria (not evaluated at this time)
8. State Acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and proposed plan,
the state concurs, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative at the present
time.
9. Community Acceptance is assessed in the ROD following a review of the public
comments received on the reports, the administrative record, and the proposed plan.
4.3 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ON-FACILITY HYDRAULIC
CONTROLS ALTERNATIVES
The evaluation of on-facility hydraulic control alternatives is discussed below. A comparative
analysis of the hydraulic control alternative components is shown in Table 6. The on-facility
hydraulic controls alternatives are intended to improve capture of the groundwater plume
currently beneath the facility before it can travel further downgradient of the facility. Hydraulic
control of the groundwater plume within the boundaries of the facility property would not
address the portion of the plume that has already migrated downgradient of the property
boundary or prevent the migration of the plume when the on-facility hydraulic control system is
not operational. Therefore, continued operation of the existing off-facility hydraulic control
system would be necessary to address the groundwater plume that extends downgradient of the
Lindsay property. The hydraulic control alternatives developed and described in this section
include:
• Alternative A-l - Continue Existing Pumping (No New Action)
• Alternative A-2 - Seasonal Optimized Pumping from New On-Facility Wells
• Alternative A-3 - Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Re-Injection
During Non-Irrigation Season
• Alternative A-4 - Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Treatment During
Non-Irrigation Season
4.3.1 Alternative A-l - Continue Existing Pumping (No New Action)
General Description
The no-action alternative involves no new on-facility hydraulic control actions. However, this
alternative does include continued seasonal pumping from existing well AOIW and/or MW89-
12. No new wells or infrastructure would be required to implement this alternative. On-facility
wells AOIW and MW89-12 are shown on Figure 5.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
17
-------
Well AOIW is located at the facility boundary and is intended to minimize migration of COCs in
groundwater past the downgradient facility boundary. The AOIW was installed in 1989 and
fully penetrates the sand and gravel aquifer to a depth of 118 feet bgs. The well consists of a 16-
inch PVC casing with a 30-foot long 0.040-inch fiberglass well screen.
Well MW89-12 was also installed in 1989. This well partially penetrates the sand and gravel
aquifer to a depth of 70 feet bgs. The well consists of a 4-inch diameter PVC casing, with a
0.010-inch slotted PVC screen. Continued operation of MW89-12 would allow for extraction of
groundwater closer to the source area where the VOC concentrations are highest. Well MW89-
12 is located approximately 400 feet north of the southern facility boundary and assists in
removing contaminant mass between the source area and AOIW.
Groundwater from AOIW and MW89-12 would continue to be used to irrigate fields south and
east of the facility (Beller Property) and north of the facility (Lindsay property), respectively.
Wells MW89-12 and AOIW would be operated as much as possible during the irrigation season
(typically early to mid-May through late August/early September) and would be shut down
during the winter or other times when the extracted groundwater is not needed for irrigation.
Historical pumping rates and operating times for these wells are documented in the most recent
Annual Report (AECOM 2020). Groundwater extraction flow rates are historically on the order
of 600 to 1,200 gallons per minute (gpm) for AOIW and are about 60 to 120 gpm for MW89-12.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative A-l provides protection by seasonally controlling the migration of dissolved-phase
COCs in groundwater in the sand and gravel aquifer downgradient of the facility boundary and
by reducing dissolved-phase COC mass through intermittent pumping. Protection of human
health and the environment would be maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative A-l is currently being implemented and complies with all applicable action- and
location-specific ARARs. Continued implementation of this alternative is expected to comply
with ARARs. The sand and gravel aquifer would ultimately need to be restored to applicable
cleanup levels to meet the chemical-specific ARAR requirements in the ROD.
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
The no-action alternative would not by itself improve long-term effectiveness or permanence
beyond the current status quo. The time to achieve chemical-specific ARARs in the sand and
gravel aquifer beneath and downgradient of the facility would not be reduced by the no-action
alternative.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative A-l would reduce the mobility of the dissolved-phase groundwater plume past the
facility boundary when operational. However, the location of the AOIW is not optimal, because
the most significantly impacted groundwater beneath the Building 1/central drainage ditch area is
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
18
-------
mobilized to the AOIW which is near the facility property boundary. Treatment of the
dissolved-phase VOCs occurs through volatilization through the pivot irrigation systems
followed by photo-degradation. Treatment of the inorganic COCs (e.g., zinc) occurs through
adsorption/fixation onto the soils or by uptake by the local vegetation.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative A-l can be implemented immediately, because it involves no action. The no-action
alternative does not include any additional remedial actions and would not accelerate the
restoration time period. Implementation of this alternative would not present any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment during the construction and implementation
period.
Implementation (Balancing)
This alternative could be implemented immediately with existing infrastructure and facility
trained personnel.
Costs (Balancing)
There are no additional costs incurred with this alternative.
4.3.2 Alternative A-2 - Seasonal Optimized Pumping from New On-Facility Wells
General Description
Alternative A-2 consists of seasonal pumping from two new optimally placed wells (EXT21-01
and EXT21-02) that would replace the AOIW and MW89-12 and installation of eight additional
groundwater monitoring wells, as shown on Figure 5. The new proposed well locations and
planned flow rates were used in the groundwater flow and solute transport modeling completed
in 2018 (URS 2018a).
The extent of the capture zone for the new well(s) was calculated based on pumping rates of 200
gpm and 300 gpm and assumed a hydraulic conductivity of 325 feet per day based on the
calibrated groundwater fate and solute transport model (URS 2018a). The model simulates
contribution from leakage of the fine-grained unit to the sand and gravel aquifer. The pumping
rate would be adjusted as needed following start-up to achieve the desired capture zone based on
water level measurements and water quality data from the monitoring wells.
Two wells would be installed for this alternative. One well (EXT21-01) would be configured for
the high flow rate (e.g., 1,000 gpm) which will be used to feed pivot irrigation systems on
adjacent properties.
The second well (EXT21-02) would be configured for flow rates on the order of about 300 gpm
to meet hydraulic capture requirements when irrigation of the Beller property is not required but
discharge to the demonstration pivots north of the facility is feasible. The intent would be to
operate at least one of the two new pumping wells as long as possible during the year, as long as
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
19
-------
the water could be appropriately discharged through the pivot systems on the Lindsay property
located directly north of the facility and/or the Beller property located south of the facility.
Well EXT21-01 would replace the AOIW. This well would be installed next to (just south of)
the central drainage ditch and equipped with a down-well pump capable of achieving flow rates
on the order of 1,000 gpm (similar to the AOIW). Well EXT21-01 is located more central to the
Building 1/central drainage ditch area (primary source) compared to the AOIW, which would
improve COC-mass removal and capture of the groundwater plume. Groundwater extraction
from EXT21-01 would capture the dissolved-phase groundwater plume in the vicinity of the
identified sources rather than downgradient of the source area, as is the case with the AOIW.
Pumping in the area may also more effectively dewater the fine-grained unit in the source area
which could benefit other source reduction actions in the fine-grained unit.
Well EXT21-02 would replace MW89-12. This pumping well would be installed near MW89-
12 and would be configured with a pump capable of achieving flow rates on the order of 200 to
300 gpm. Well MW89-12 is a small diameter partially penetrating well that is limited to
pumping only about 100 gpm. Pumping at an increased flow rate of 200 to 300 gpm is expected
to provide significantly improved capture within the facility boundary compared to the limited
pumping from MW89-12.
Implementation of this alternative would require drilling two new pumping wells to depths of
approximately 120 feet bgs and installing pumps, appurtenances, and aboveground pump control
systems. The pump motors would be powered through variable frequency drives to control the
motor speed and optimize power consumption. New underground piping would be installed to
convey the discharge of EXT21-01 to the pivots on the Beller property. New underground
piping would also need to be installed from EXT21-02 to the AOIW area (and subsequently to
Beller property) as well as installing underground piping to the north field.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative A-2 provides protection by seasonally controlling the migration of dissolved-phase
COCs in the sand and gravel aquifer downgradient of the facility boundary and by reducing
dissolved-phase COC mass through intermittent pumping. Overall protectiveness of human
health and the environment would be maintained through implementation of the existing site-
wide remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative A-2 is expected to comply with ARARs, as it is similar to Alternative A-l that is
already successfully implemented at the Site. The sand and gravel aquifer would ultimately need
to be restored to applicable cleanup levels to meet the chemical-specific ARARs requirements in
the ROD (USEPA 1990).
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
20
-------
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative A-2 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by reducing COC
concentrations in the dissolved-phase plume directly beneath the source area and providing
improved hydraulic control of the groundwater plume beneath the facility.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative A-2 would reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment of the
extracted groundwater by volatilization through the pivot systems and subsequent photo-
degradation and/or adsorption to soil or plant uptake.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative A-2 would take up to one year to permit and construct. Precautions would need to be
taken to protect human health and the environment during implementation relative to general
construction safety hazards, and potential exposure to hazardous materials in COC-impacted
media during well installations, groundwater sampling, and other intrusive work. Contractors
would be required to follow a site-specific health and safety plan in accordance with applicable
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requirements, including but not limited to
29CFR1910.120 Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER)
requirements.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative A-2 uses groundwater extraction for COC-mass removal and capture of the
groundwater plume. Currently the technology is being used at AOIW and MW89-12 (Figure 5)
and is effective at reducing COC concentrations in the dissolved-phase plume and providing
hydraulic control of the groundwater plume beneath the facility. Alternative A-2 is technically
and administratively feasible to implement. Factors that may affect the technical feasibility of
using this alternative at the Site are:
• Options for management of extracted groundwater
• Access restrictions from site features and structures
The presence of zinc in the groundwater above current known allowable limits for surface water
discharge prevents discharge into the Shell Creek without treatment. The pumping scenario for
this alternative does not include zinc treatment so would limit the ability to manage the water
year-round. Extracted groundwater would thus be limited to the irrigation season when extracted
groundwater can be used for land application.
Land application can be done through an irrigation system provided the water is needed on the
land. The following can affect the demand or functionality of land application:
• Length of growing season for crops and timing of the growing season
• Saturation of surrounding ground surface
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
21
-------
• Cold weather can affect the operation of the irrigation system. Near freezing conditions
(<38 degrees F) require irrigation systems to shutdown to avoid freezing water in the
system and collapsing the irrigation pivots. Pivots generally work from May through
early September.
During land application, extracted groundwater is routed south to the AOIW and to the north
field. Pivots on the Beller property to the south and pivots in the north field act as air strippers
removing the VOCs from the extracted groundwater prior to land application. Options for zinc
treatment are discussed in Alternative A-4.
Physical limitations that will affect the installation of the pumping system are buried utility lines
such as sewer, stormwater and natural gas lines. It may be necessary to protect existing utilities
during installation of the conveyance piping associated with this alternative.
Winter conditions in Nebraska would require piping associated with Alternative A-2 to be buried
below ground. Engineering controls such as heat tracing can also be implemented to protect the
piping from the cold weather and prevent freezing lines from breakage. General contractors,
equipment suppliers and drillers are readily available in Nebraska. These types of contractors
have been used in the past at the Site to install wells and utilities.
Administratively, Alternative A-2 should not significantly disrupt on-going facility operations.
Well installations and piping installations would require planning with facility personnel and
contractor flexibility to work during times when the facility is less busy. This remedy would
require upgrades to the facility electrical system, including a new or upgraded power service
from the local utility company. Based on preliminary contact with the electric utility company,
adequate power can be provided when needed with appropriate lead time. Traffic plans would
need to be developed to ensure deliveries of supplies and shipments of products can be
adequately maintained during construction work. O&M of the remedy would be performed by
Lindsay personnel who are already familiar with operating the hydraulic control system.
Trenching and piping installations in the central drainage ditch would need to be coordinated
with other work in the central drainage ditch (e.g., capping or in situ treatment using DPE or
Thermal technology), as appropriate.
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost to construct this alternative is $1,742,400 (2020 dollars). O&M costs
would be similar to the costs of operating the current AOIW and MW89-12 and are not included
in this cost analysis since they are largely existing costs. Additional O&M costs include a
telemetry system to control and monitor the interceptor well operation and monitoring and
reporting related to the eight new groundwater monitoring wells estimated at $2,058,000 over a
20-year timeframe. The total present worth cost for this alternative is $3,599, 000. Detailed cost
estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
22
-------
4.3.3 Alternative A-3 - Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Re-injection
during Non-Irrigation Season
General Description
Alternative A-3 consists of year-round pumping from new on-facility wells (same wells and
equipment as described in Alternative A-2) to achieve hydraulic control of the on-facility
groundwater plume at the facility boundary. During the irrigation season, extracted groundwater
would be directly discharged to the pivot irrigation systems to the north or south of the facility
similar to Alternatives A-l and A-2. During the non-irrigation season, extracted groundwater
would be reinjected through a series of four injection wells (one or more reinjection wells would
be in standby while the other reinjection wells are active) located on or near the northern portion of
Cell 2. An Underground Injection Well Permit (UIC) permit would be required for this alternative.
A waiver from NDEE would be needed to reinject untreated groundwater into the sand and gravel
aquifer; otherwise this alternative would not be viable (note: Alternative A-4 addresses
groundwater treatment). It is expected that the waiver would require documentation that the
reinjected groundwater would be subsequently captured by the downgradient on-facility pumping
wells and that the reinjection would provide an overall net benefit to human health and the
environment. In order to obtain the waiver, it is anticipated that groundwater monitoring would be
required to document that the reinjected groundwater could be adequately captured. Eight new
groundwater monitoring wells would be installed for this alternative to empirically show that the
reinjected water is captured.
Extraction wells, reinjection wells, and conceptual piping layout are shown on Figure 6.
Groundwater elevation and analytical monitoring would be conducted at least weekly for the first
month of reinjection, followed by monthly for months 2 to 3, and then quarterly thereafter to
ensure that the reinjected groundwater is adequately captured. Quarterly sampling and chemical
analysis (select VOCs using EPA 8260C) of groundwater samples from the monitoring well
network would also be conducted to monitor system performance.
The groundwater extraction rates during the irrigation season would largely be determined by
irrigation needs and are expected to be on the order of 1,000 gpm similar to the AOIW pumping
rate. The groundwater extraction rates during the non-irrigation season would be reduced to the
minimum required to achieve hydraulic control of the groundwater plume at the facility
boundary, which is currently expected to be approximately 200 to 300 gpm. The groundwater
extraction rates would be adjusted based on empirical groundwater elevation monitoring data
using a variable speed drive on the well pump(s). The intent would be to minimize the
groundwater extraction and reinjection flow rates to achieve the minimal capture zone required
to capture groundwater in the sand and gravel aquifer with COCs. This would likely reduce the
maintenance and cost of the reinjection wells and would provide a high level of confidence that
the reinjected groundwater would be adequately captured.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
23
-------
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative A-3 provides protection by providing year-round hydraulic control of the
groundwater plume at the facility boundary. Additional protection is provided by long-term
groundwater monitoring, operation of the existing off-facility hydraulic control system, and land
use controls.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative A-3 would require a waiver from NDEE to reinject untreated groundwater into the
sand and gravel aquifer. Based on initial discussions with NDEE, a waiver is possible if it can be
shown that the reinjected groundwater could be fully captured by the downgradient pumping
system and that reinjection would have a net benefit to human health and the environment.
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative A-3 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by reducing COC
concentrations in the dissolved-phase plume in the sand and gravel aquifer directly beneath the
source area.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative A-3 would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment of the
extracted groundwater by volatilization through the pivot systems and subsequent photo-
degradation and/or adsorption to soil or plant uptake. Natural attenuation and/or continued
operation of the hydraulic control systems would need to be relied upon to ultimately achieve
chemical-specific ARARs in the source area and in the sand and gravel aquifer downgradient of
the facility similar to all other remedial alternatives.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative A-3 would take up to one year to permit and construct. The time to achieve
chemical-specific ARARs in the aquifer would be much longer. Natural attenuation and/or
continued operation of the hydraulic control systems would need to be relied upon to ultimately
achieve chemical-specific ARARs in the source area and downgradient groundwater similar to
all other remedial alternatives.
Precautions would need to be taken to protect human health and the environment during
implementation relative to general construction safety hazards, and potential exposure to
contamination during well installations, groundwater sampling, and other intrusive work.
Contractors would be required to follow a site-specific health and safety plan in accordance with
applicable OSHA requirements, including but not limited to 29CFR1910.120 HAZWOPER
requirements.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
24
-------
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative A-3 is similar to Alternative A-2, except for the addition of four reinjection wells,
and associated infrastructure to connect the groundwater extraction wells to the reinjection wells.
Alternative A-3 is technically and administratively feasible to implement; however, there may be
challenges with reinjection at the Site which could cause technical issues with implementation
and administratively a waiver from NDEE would be needed. Factors that may affect the
technical feasibility of using this alternative at the Site are:
• Performance of injection wells due to fouling
• Access restrictions from Site features and structures
The presence of zinc in the groundwater above current known allowable limits for surface water
discharge prevents discharge to Shell Creek without treatment. The pumping scenario for this
alternative does not have zinc treatment, but this would be mitigated by re-injecting captured
water into the sand and gravel aquifer when land application is not feasible due to saturated soil
in wet years and winter weather conditions which do not allow irrigation pivots to operate due to
freezing temperatures.
Plugging and reduced performance of the reinjection wells may become problematic due to
mineral or biological fouling. The magnitude of this potential problem is currently uncertain,
because groundwater has not been reinjected at this Site.
The O&M costs for this alternative assume that reinjection wells would need to be maintained
(e.g., acid washed) on an as-needed basis. If fouling becomes excessive, then implementation of
this alternative could become problematic to the point that this alternative is no longer
practicable. Additionally, implementation of this alternative would require a waiver from NDEE
to reinject untreated groundwater into the sand and gravel aquifer.
Physical limitations that will affect the installation of the pumping system are buried utility lines
such as sewer lines and natural gas lines. It may be necessary to protect existing utilities during
installation of the conveyance piping associated with this alternative.
Winter conditions in Nebraska would require piping associated with Alternative A-3 to be buried
below ground. Engineering controls such as heat tracing can also be implemented to protect the
piping from the cold weather and prevent freezing lines from breakage. General contractors,
equipment suppliers and drillers are readily available in Nebraska. These types of contractors
have been used in the past at the Site to install wells and utilities.
Administratively, Alternative A-3 should not be significantly disruptive to on-going facility
operations. Well installations and piping installations would require planning with facility
personnel and contractor flexibility to work during times when the facility is less busy. This
remedy would require upgrades to the facility electrical system, including a new or upgraded
power service form the local utility company. Based on preliminary contact with the electric
utility company, adequate power can be supplied with adequate lead time. Traffic plans would
need to be developed to ensure deliveries of supplies and shipments of products can be
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
25
-------
adequately maintained during construction work. O&M of the remedy would be performed by
Lindsay personnel who are already familiar with operating the hydraulic control system.
Trenching and piping installations in the central drainage ditch would need to be coordinated
with other work in the central drainage ditch (e.g., capping or in situ treatment using DPE or
Thermal technology), as appropriate.
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost to construct this alternative is $1,984,700 (2020 dollars). O&M costs
are estimated at $5,254,100 over a 20-year timeframe. The total present worth cost for this
alternative is $6,723,000. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
4.3.4 Alternative A-4 - Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Treatment
during Non-Irrigation Season
General Description
Alternative A-4 consists of year-round pumping from new on-facility wells (same wells and
equipment as Alternative A-2) to achieve hydraulic control of the on-facility groundwater plume
at the facility boundary, as well as the installation of eight new groundwater monitoring wells.
During the irrigation season, extracted groundwater would be directly discharged to the pivot
irrigation systems to the north or south of the facility similar to Alternatives A-l and A-2.
During the non-irrigation season, extracted groundwater would be treated and discharged to Dry
Creek under an NPDES permit. Treatment would be required for VOCs, 1,4-dioxane, and zinc,
unless alternative discharge limits are established that would allow zinc and/or 1,4-dioxane
impacted groundwater to be discharged to Dry Creek or Shell Creek without treatment.
Extraction wells and conceptual piping layout are shown on Figure 6.
The groundwater extraction rates during the irrigation season would largely be determined by
irrigation needs and are expected to be on the order of 1,000 gpm similar to the AOIW pumping
rates under Alternative A-l. The groundwater extraction rates during the non-irrigation season
would be reduced to the minimum required to achieve hydraulic capture of the groundwater
plume at the facility boundary, which is currently expected to be approximately 200 to 300 gpm.
The groundwater extraction rates would be adjusted based on empirical groundwater elevation
monitoring data using a variable speed drive on the well pump(s). The intent would be to
minimize the groundwater extraction flow rates to minimize groundwater treatment
requirements. This would likely reduce the maintenance and cost of the groundwater treatment
system. Groundwater treatment options were previously evaluated in 2011 (URS 2011).
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative A-4 would provide overall protectiveness by providing year-round containment of
the groundwater plume at the facility boundary. Long-term groundwater monitoring, operation
of the existing off-facility hydraulic control system, and land use controls would also provide
protectiveness.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
26
-------
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative A-4 is expected to ultimately achieve action-, chemical-, and location-specific
ARARs. Implementation of this alternative would require an NPDES permit and compliance
monitoring to ensure that appropriate water quality standards are met for the surface water
discharge of treated groundwater. Site-specific surface water discharge limits would be
established by EPA for 1,4-dioxane and zinc to meet chemical-specific ARARs.
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative A-4 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by reducing COC
concentrations in the dissolved-phase plume directly beneath the source area. This alternative
would also reduce/eliminate further offsite migration of COCs downgradient of the facility
boundary, as long as the pumping system is operational.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative A-4 would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment of the
extracted groundwater by volatilization through the pivot systems and subsequent photo-
degradation and/or adsorption to soil or plant uptake (during irrigation system) or by treatment
using a groundwater treatment system (e.g., advanced oxidation and chemical precipitation).
Natural attenuation and/or continued operation of the hydraulic control systems would need to be
relied upon to ultimately achieve chemical-specific ARARs in the source area and downgradient
groundwater similar to all other remedial alternatives.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative A-4 would take approximately 2 to 3 years to permit and construct. The
implementation timeframe is uncertain, but O&M of the hydraulic control system would likely
be required for a long time since residual COCs would remain in the source areas and contribute
to future groundwater contamination. For costing purposes, it is assumed that O&M of the
groundwater treatment system would be performed for a 20-year period.
Precautions would need to be taken to protect human health and the environment during
implementation relative to general construction safety hazards, and potential exposure to
contamination during well installations, groundwater sampling, and other intrusive work.
Contractors would be required to follow a site-specific health and safety plan in accordance with
applicable OSHA requirements, including but not limited to 29CFR1910.120 HAZWOPER
requirements.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative A-4 uses groundwater extraction and treatment for COC-mass removal and capture
of the groundwater plume. Currently, groundwater extraction technology is used at AOIW and
MW89-12 (Figure 5) and is effective at reducing COC concentrations in the dissolved-phase
plume and providing hydraulic control of the groundwater plume beneath the facility. In
addition, Alternative A-4 includes a groundwater treatment system which allows for year-round
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
27
-------
groundwater extraction and discharge. Both components of Alternative A-4 are technically and
administratively feasible to implement. There are several technical challenges to overcome with
the treatment of three different COCs during the wet season. Administratively to implement this
alternative, surface water discharge limits would be needed for 1,4 dioxane and zinc. Access
restrictions from site features and structures may affect the technical feasibility of using this
alternative at the Site.
The presence of zinc in the groundwater above current known allowable limits for surface water
discharge prevents discharge to Shell Creek without treatment. The pumping scenario for this
alternative includes VOCs, 1, 4-dioxane and zinc treatment to allow discharge to Shell Creek or
Dry Creek when land application is not feasible due to saturated soil in wet years and winter
weather conditions which do not allow irrigation pivots to operate due to freezing temperatures.
Winter conditions in Nebraska would require piping associated with Alternative A-4 to be buried
below ground. Engineering controls such as heat tracing can also be implemented to protect the
piping from the cold weather and prevent freezing lines from breakage. General contractors,
equipment suppliers and drillers are readily available in Nebraska. These types of contractors
have been used in the past at the Site to install wells and utilities.
Administratively, Alternative A-4 would be disruptive to facility operations due to construction
of an on-facility groundwater treatment system and long-term O&M of that system. O&M of the
treatment system would likely require dedicated full-time and qualified staff, and frequent
delivery of chemicals for the metals precipitation plant. This remedy would require upgrades to
the facility electrical system, including a new or upgraded power service from the local utility
company. Based on preliminary contact with the electric utility company, adequate power is
available with appropriate lead time. Construction of this alternative would require planning
with facility personnel and contractor flexibility to work during times when the facility is less
busy. Traffic plans would need to be developed to ensure deliveries of supplies and shipments of
products can be adequately maintained during construction work. Trenching and piping
installations in the central drainage ditch would need to be coordinated with other work in the
central drainage ditch (e.g., capping or in situ treatment using DPE or Thermal technology), as
appropriate.
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost for constructing this alternative is $10,919,100 (2020 dollars). The
O&M costs are estimated at $26,918,000 over a 20-year period. Total present worth costs are
$35,199,000. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
4.4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ON-FACILITY HYDRAULIC CONTROL
ALTERNATIVES
The following section provides a comparative analysis of remedial alternatives for on-facility
hydraulic control options. Key information and comparative ranking for each alternative is
summarized in Tables 6 and 7.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
28
-------
Overall Protection of the Environment (Threshold)
All the on-facility hydraulic control alternatives would be protective of the environment if long-
term groundwater monitoring, operation of the existing off-facility hydraulic control and
groundwater treatment systems continue, and land use controls are implemented. All the
alternatives meet this threshold criterion.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
All the remedial alternatives are ultimately expected to meet applicable action-, chemical-, and
location-specific ARARs and therefore meet this threshold requirement. However, the
alternatives assume that a waiver will be granted to allow reinjection of untreated groundwater to
the aquifer (Alternative A-3). If the waiver is not allowed, this alternative will not be feasible.
In addition, site-specific surface water discharge limits will need to be established by EPA for
1,4-dioxane and zinc to allow for discharge to Dry Creek or Shell Creek when the water cannot
be used for irrigation. This affects year-round pumping and both treated and untreated scenarios.
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refer to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time once the cleanup goals have been met.
The overall cleanup goal established in the ROD (USEPA 1990) is aquifer restoration to the
most stringent drinking water standards. The primary goal of the on-facility hydraulic controls
alternatives is to capture the groundwater plume beneath the facility in advance of the facility
boundary. A secondary goal is to reduce the mass of dissolved-phase COCs in groundwater.
Alternatives that provide year-round hydraulic controls and remove more dissolved-phase mass
are ranked more favorably than alternatives that provide seasonal hydraulic controls and reduce
less dissolved-phase COC mass.
The relative ranking for each alternative for this criterion is as follows:
• Alternative A-4 (Pump-and-Treat) is ranked most favorable. This alternative would
provide year-round hydraulic containment of the groundwater plume at the facility
boundary and would remove more COC mass compared to the other alternatives.
• Alternative A-3 (Reinjection) is ranked second most favorable, because it would provide
year-round hydraulic control. This alternative is ranked less favorable than Alternative
A-4 (Pump-and-Treat), because Alternative A-4 would permanently remove the
contaminants.
• Alternative A-2 (Optimized Seasonal Pumping) is ranked the third most favorable. This
alternative provides seasonal hydraulic control which is why it is ranked less favorably
than Alternatives A-3 and A-4. The groundwater extraction wells under Alternative A-2
are located more centrally to the source area in the Building 1/central drainage ditch area
compared to the AOIW and would be capable of pumping higher flow rates compared to
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
29
-------
MW89-12. Alternative A-2 would be capable of more COC mass removal compared to
Alternative A-l and is therefore rated more favorably.
• Alternative A-l (Seasonal Pumping from AOIW/MW89-12) is ranked least favorable,
because it provides seasonal hydraulic control rather than year-round hydraulic control,
and because it would remove the least amount of dissolved-phase COCs due to the less
than optimal location of the AOIW.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternatives that maximize the reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment
(particularly PCE which is the most prevalent COC in downgradient groundwater) are more
favorably ranked for this criterion. The relative ranking for each alternative for this criterion is
as follows:
• Alternative A-4 (Pump-and-Treat) is ranked most favorable. This alternative would
provide the greatest reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment;
because it would actively treat the extracted groundwater in the non-irrigation season.
• Alternative A-3 (Reinjection) is ranked second most favorable, because it would provide
year-round hydraulic containment. Treatment would largely occur through volatilization
and photo-degradation through the pivot irrigation system. No treatment would occur
when the extracted water is reinjected.
• Alternative A-2 (Optimized Seasonal Pumping) is ranked the third most favorable. This
alternative provides seasonal hydraulic control of the groundwater plume at the facility
boundary and treats COCs through volatilization and photo-degradation, as well as
adsorption and uptake by vegetation when land-applied.
• Alternative A-l (Seasonal Pumping from AOIW/MW89-12) is ranked least favorable.
This alternative provides treatment of the extracted water discharged to the pivot systems
through volatilization and photo-degradation but at lesser amounts compared to the other
alternatives.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Short-term effectiveness addresses the time needed to achieve protection, and any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved. Alternatives that present few hazards
during construction and implementation and/or that can be implemented (active phase) in the
shortest timeframe are ranked more favorably than alternatives that have higher construction and
implementation risks and take longer periods of time to implement.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
30
-------
The relative ranking of each alternative for this criterion is as follows:
• Alternative A-l (Seasonal Pumping from AOIW/MW89-12) is ranked the most
favorable, because implementation would have the least adverse impacts to human health
and the environment. No additional well installations or construction would be required
to implement this alternative.
• Alternative A-2 (Optimized Seasonal Pumping) is ranked the second most favorable.
This alternative presents higher construction and implementation risks than Alternative
A-l because of new well, pump, and piping installations. Construction and
implementation risks would be lower than Alternatives A-3 and A-4, which require more
extensive construction and O&M.
• Alternative A-3 (Reinjection) is ranked third most favorable. This alternative has higher
construction and implementation risks than Alternatives A-l and A-2 due to more
extensive infrastructure and O&M requirements but lower risks compared to Alternative
A-4 which requires the construction and O&M of a complex water treatment system.
• Alternative A-4 (Pump-and-Treat) is ranked least favorable due to comparatively
extensive infrastructure associated with groundwater treatment system and complex
O&M requirements.
Implementation (Balancing)
Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of the remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed to implement an option. All the remedial
alternatives are both technically and administratively feasible, although Alternative A-3
(Reinjection) would require a waiver from NDEE to reinject untreated groundwater into the sand
and gravel aquifer. Reinjection should ultimately be acceptable to EPA and NDEE, because the
reinjected groundwater would be captured by the on-facility hydraulic control system and would
allow improved hydraulic containment at the facility boundary. Alternative A-4 would require
surface water discharge limits be determined for 1,4 dioxane and zinc. The comparative
evaluation for this criterion is largely based on administrative and technical difficulty including
consideration for the degree of disruption that may be expected from construction and O&M of
each alternative. Alternatives that are less disruptive, technically easier to implement, and
administratively easier to implement are more favorably ranked than more disruptive and
difficult to implement alternatives. The relative ranking for each alternative for this criterion is
as follows:
• Alternative A-l (Seasonal Pumping from AOIW/MW89-12) is ranked most favorable,
because it does not involve any new measures to implement. This alternative could be
implemented immediately using existing infrastructure and resources.
• Alternative A-2 (Optimized Seasonal Pumping) is ranked second most favorable. This
alternative would require installing two new interceptor wells, groundwater extraction
pumps and control systems, and underground conveyance lines. The system could be
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
31
-------
operated by existing Lindsay staff that is already familiar with operation of the hydraulic
control systems.
• Alternative A-3 (Reinjection) is ranked third most favorable. This alternative would
require the same elements as Alternative A-2, plus the installation of at least four injection
wells and associated piping to these injection wells. This alternative would also require a
waiver from NDEE to allow reinjection of untreated groundwater into the sand and gravel
aquifer. Implementation may be difficult if there is excessive mineral or biological
fouling of the injection wells. Routine operation of this system could be performed by
existing Lindsay personnel, although periodic maintenance of the injection wells and
replacement of pumps would likely be subcontracted to an appropriate contractor by
Lindsay.
• Alternative A-4 (Pump-and-Treat) is ranked least favorable. This alternative would be
difficult to implement given the complexities and technical challenges associated with
treating three different COC types (VOCs, 1,4-dioxane and zinc) which would require
upgrading the power supply to the property and would require outside resources to operate
and maintain the system. This alternative would also need surface water discharge criteria
negotiated with regulatory agencies.
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated cost (in 2020 dollars) for each alternative is summarized below along with its
associated NPV or present worth cost. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in
Appendix C. Alternatives with lower costs are ranked more favorably than higher cost
alternatives. The comparative ranking of alternatives for the cost criterion is as follows:
• Alternative A-l (Status Quo Seasonal Pumping from AOIW/MW89-12) is ranked most
favorable, because it has no incremental costs.
• Alternative A-2 (Optimized Seasonal Pumping) is ranked second most favorable, because
it has the second lowest costs. The estimated capital cost (2020 dollars) for this
alternative is $1,742,400. The estimated annual O&M costs $2,058,000 over a 20-year
timeframe. The O&M costs are associated with monitoring and reporting for the eight
new groundwater monitoring wells and installation of a telemetry system. The O&M
costs for the pumping systems would be similar to the existing O&M costs of pumping
from the AOIW and MW89-12. The total present worth cost is $3,599,000.
• Alternative A-3 (Reinjection) is ranked third most favorable, because it has the third
lowest costs. The estimated capital cost (2020 dollars) for this alternative is $1,984,700.
The estimated annual O&M costs are $5,254,100 over a 20-year timeframe. The O&M
costs are associated with maintenance of the reinjection and pumping wells, monitoring
of the eight new groundwater monitoring wells and telemetry system. The total present
worth cost is $6,723,000.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
32
-------
• Alternative A-4 (Pump-and-Treat) is ranked least favorable. The estimated capital cost
(2020 dollars) for this alternative is $10,919,100. The estimated O&M costs are
$26,918,000 over a 20-year period. The total present worth cost is $35,199,000.
4.5 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE
CELL AREA
The evaluation of remedial alternatives for the cell source area is discussed below. A
comparative analysis of the cell area alternatives is shown in Table 8. The cell area alternatives
were primarily intended to remediate PCE, because it is the most prevalent COC in the soil and
groundwater in the fine-grained unit and elevated concentrations of other chlorinated VOCs are
situated within the area and depth of elevated PCE concentrations. PCE is also the dominant
COC in the sand and gravel aquifer groundwater plume beneath and downgradient of the facility.
However, treatment of other COCs, including 1,4-dioxane and zinc were also considered in this
evaluation.
As noted in Section 3.2.2, Lindsay constructed a building over the cell area footprint in 2019
following notification to EPA. The construction essentially establishes a cap on the cell area.
No additional remedial actions are planned for the cell area, but the cell area alternatives
developed prior to the building construction are presented in this section to support the rationale
for not pursuing active remediation in this area. The evaluation of cell area alternatives
documents how the capping alternative compares to other alternatives developed for the cell
area. The 2018 internal draft cost analysis was not updated for 2020 but still provides
information usable for a comparative analysis of alternatives. The alternatives include:
• Alternative B-l - No Action
• Alternative B-2 - Cell Area Cap
• Alternative B-3 - Targeted Excavation
• Alternative B-4 - In-Situ Soil Solidification
• Alternative B-5 - Soil Vapor Extraction
• Alternative B-6 - Thermal Remediation
4.5.1 Alternative B-l - No Action
General Description
The no-action alternative is retained throughout the process of alternative development and
analysis, as a baseline for comparison of other alternatives, and to document that unnecessary
remedial action is not taken where no action is appropriate. The no-action alternative consists of
no active source remediation in the cell area. No additional supplemental investigations would
be conducted as part of the no-action alternative.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
33
-------
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
The no-action alternative would not reduce the partitioning of COCs from the fine-grained unit
soil and groundwater to groundwater in the sand and gravel aquifer. Source area COCs would
continue to contribute to dissolved-phase concentrations of COCs in the sand and gravel aquifer
in groundwater migrating past the facility property boundary. Overall protection of human
health and the environment would be maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
By definition, action-specific ARARs are not applicable to the no-action alternative. It is
expected that all action- and location-specific ARARs would be met for the existing site-wide
remedial actions, because ARARs are currently being satisfied by these actions. The timeframe
to achieve cleanup levels would not be decreased with the no-action alternative.
Long—Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
The no-action alternative would not by itself improve long-term effectiveness or permanence,
because it would leave residual contamination in source area media that would contribute to
future groundwater contamination within the sand and gravel aquifer for the foreseeable future.
The time to achieve cleanup levels in the sand and gravel aquifer beneath and downgradient of
the facility would not be reduced by the no-action alternative. Long-term effectiveness would be
maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative B-l would not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through active treatment. The
COCs would attenuate by natural processes and not through active treatment. Toxicity and
mobility of the COCs may remain at present levels for extended periods of time. The off-facility
hydraulic control system would prevent the migration of COCs in groundwater further
downgradient of the most distal interceptor well, and natural attenuation would continue to
reduce the COC concentrations and the size of the groundwater plume over time.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative B-l would not accelerate the restoration time period. Implementation of this
alternative would not present any adverse impacts on human health and the environment during
the construction and implementation period. It would rely on the existing site-wide remedial
actions to achieve protection until cleanup goals are ultimately met.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative B-l can be implemented immediately, because it involves no action. By definition,
the no-action alternative requires no implementation of new treatment or monitoring activities.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
34
-------
Costs (Balancing)
There are no additional costs associated with this alternative.
4.5.2 Alternative B-2 - Cell Area Cap
General Description
Alternative B-2 consists of capping the cell area with an HDPE cover overlaid with concrete
pavement to prevent/minimize infiltration of surface water runoff through unsaturated COC-
impacted soils in the fine-grained unit beneath the cell area. This alternative would not address
COCs that have already migrated to saturated zones within the fine-grained unit (e.g., sand
channel and fine-grained materials below the sand channel) but would reduce the migration of
COCs in the future.
The cap would cover an area of approximately 60,500 square feet (SF) as shown on Figure 7.
Two types of backfill would be placed below the concrete cap and an impermeable barrier:
• Type II Backfill - Concrete Base Course (gravel/crushed rock) - An approximate 0.5-
foot layer of gravel or crushed rock base course would be placed over the HDPE to
provide a base for the concrete cap.
• Type I Backfill - General Fill - A 4 to 6-foot layer of general fill would be placed and
compacted in approximate 1-foot lifts to about 1 foot below the final grade. The fill
would be obtained from Lindsay-owned property located immediately north and adjacent
to the facility. The general fill would be compacted to a minimum of 90-percent
compaction using the modified proctor method (ASTM D1557).
• HDPE 60-mil thick with a layer of non-woven geotextile.
The concrete pavement would be approximately six inches thick and would be designed to
accommodate truck traffic. Several catch basins (stormwater drains) would be installed in the
capped area, with stormwater runoff conveyed to the existing storm drainage system that
discharges to Dry Creek. After construction of the cap, this alternative includes provisions for
periodic (e.g., biannual inspections) maintenance and repairs to the cap to ensure its long-term
effectiveness. Maintenance is anticipated to include periodic repair of significant cracks that
may develop over time.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative B-2 would improve overall protectiveness by reducing the amount of groundwater
contamination caused by infiltration of surface water through COC-impacted soils in the fine-
grained unit. This alternative would also eliminate potential direct contact by workers to COCs
in soil in the cell area, if future intrusive work was implemented in the cell area and this pathway
became potentially significant during the short-term of the intrusive work. Overall
protectiveness would also be maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
35
-------
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative B-2 is expected to ultimately satisfy action-, location-, and chemical-specific
ARARs. The sand and gravel aquifer would ultimately need to be restored to applicable cleanup
levels to meet the chemical-specific ARAR requirements in the ROD (USEPA 1990).
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative B-2 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by reducing the future
contribution of COCs in fine-grained unit soil to groundwater by reducing the amount of surface
water infiltration through COC-impacted soils. Long-term effectiveness would be maintained
through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative B-2 would not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through active treatment.
However, by providing an impermeable surface over the impacted materials, surface water
infiltration through COC-impacted materials would be minimized, and natural attenuation would
reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of impacted groundwater over time. The potential for
mobility of the COCs would decrease by reducing the contact between infiltrating water and
impacted soil. Continued mobilization of COC impacted soil in the groundwater would continue
to impact the sand and gravel aquifer due to the fluctuating water table from rainfall and
irrigation events in neighboring properties.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative B-2 could be implemented within a one-year period. The time to achieve chemical-
specific ARARs in the aquifer would be much longer. Potential risks to human health and the
environment would be low during implementation, because the work is not intrusive and
potential exposure to COC-impacted media by construction workers would be minimal.
Temporary erosion control measures would be implemented to maintain protectiveness of human
health and the environment during construction of the remedy. However, there could be
potential risk to construction workers associated with heavy equipment used to grade the site,
install stormwater piping, and install HDPE and concrete cover.
Site workers would be required to have HAZWOPER training pursuant to OSHA
29CFR1910.120 requirements, if they are performing intrusive work which may expose them to
hazardous materials from COCs in soil or groundwater. HAZWOPER training would not be
required for workers who are constructing the cap, because this work would not be intrusive, and
therefore potential exposure to impacted media would be minimal.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative B-2 consists of raising the cell area with backfill and capping with a 6-inch layer of
concrete that is underlain with a HDPE membrane as shown on Figure 7. Concrete capping is a
technology that is readily implemented and has been shown to reduce stormwater infiltration into
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
36
-------
the subsurface where it can mobilize COCs into the water table. Alternative B-2 is both
technically and administratively implementable in the cell area. HDPE cover systems are
relatively easy to install by multiple contractors, but specialized QA testing is needed. The
concrete surface installation utilizes basic construction techniques and equipment. Access
restrictions from site features and structures may make implementation of this alternative more
difficult. Physical limitations that will affect the installation of the concrete cap are buried utility
lines such as electrical lines and water lines. It may be necessary to protect or reroute existing
utilities during installation of the concrete cap.
This alternative would require a new storm drain system that would be installed to capture
surface water runoff from the concrete cap. This storm-drain system would redirect stormwater
runoff into an existing culvert system that drains into Dry Creek about 200 feet west of Building
2. General contractors and equipment suppliers are readily available in Nebraska. These types of
contractors have been used in the past at the Site and will be used to implement this alternative.
Administratively, Alternative B-2 could be implemented relatively easily without significant
disruption to the facility due to the location of the cell area on the facility. Planning and
coordination would be required between the contractor and Lindsay operations personnel to
ensure that traffic patterns are maintained throughout the construction and to ensure that the
work is safely coordinated with on-going facility activities. Periodic inspection of the cap would
be performed by outside resources that are familiar with inspecting and conducting maintenance
activities on concrete caps and storm drain systems.
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost for constructing this alternative is $1,442,600 (2018 dollars). The
O&M costs are estimated at $284,000 over a 20-year period. Total present worth costs are
$1,700,000. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
4.5.3 Alternative B-3 - Targeted Excavation
General Description
Alternative B-3 consists of targeted excavation in portions of Cell 2 where PCE concentrations
exceed 5,000 |ig/kg to reduce source mass. The excavation would be limited to the area within
the existing berm and would be constructed by sloping the sidewalls of the excavation to
maintain stability. A sheet pile shoring system would be implemented along the eastern wall of
the excavation along the base of the gravel road. In addition, seismic monitoring will be
implemented to verify the work performed does not impact the crane bay. The excavation would
remove soil impacted with VOCs and zinc above the water table at an approximate elevation of
1649 feet-msl with depths ranging from 22 to 26 feet bgs. Impacted soil below the water table
would remain in place. The excavation area is approximately 5,700 SF, as shown on Figure 8.
The total excavation volume would be about 2,900 cubic yards (CY) (approximately 5,450 tons)
and would reduce the source volume present in the cell area. Excavated soil would be loaded
into trucks and transported to the Butler County Landfill for disposal. The excavated area would
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
37
-------
be backfilled with Type I Backfill (see Section 4.5.2) to the pre-existing grade before the
excavation.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative B-3 would protect human health and the environment by reducing concentrations of
most of the COCs (chlorinated VOCs, 1,4-dioxane, and zinc) in the source area. The remedy
would reduce the risk of a potential worker direct contact exposure pathway to impacted soils if
future intrusive work was implemented in the cell area and this pathway became potentially
significant during the short-term of the intrusive work. Source reduction would also lower the
potential for future groundwater contamination from infiltration of stormwater through
chlorinated VOC and 1,4-dioxane impacted soils in the fine-grained unit. Infiltration would
continue unless the cell area is capped pursuant to Alternative B-2 or source material is removed.
Overall protection of human health and the environment would be maintained through the
existing site-wide remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative B-3 is expected to ultimately satisfy all chemical-, action-, and location-specific
ARARs. The excavated soils should meet all requirements for disposal at the Butler County
Landfill as a non-hazardous waste. The appropriate approvals from EPA and NDEE allowing
Butler County Landfill to accept these materials from a CERCLA site would be obtained as soon
as reasonably possible prior to the start of site work. The sand and gravel aquifer would
ultimately need to be restored to applicable cleanup levels to meet the chemical-specific ARAR
requirements in the ROD (USEPA 1990).
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative B-3 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by directly reducing
COC concentrations in the fine-grained unit, which is expected to reduce groundwater COC
concentrations in the sand and gravel aquifer over time. Long-term effectiveness would be
maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative B-3 would not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through active treatment, because
the excavated soils would be disposed at a landfill without treatment. However, excavation and
off-site disposal would remove contaminated soils from the Site, which would reduce the amount
of future groundwater contamination from surface water leaching through impacted soils to
groundwater. This would ultimately reduce the toxicity of the groundwater plume and reduce
the volume of impacted groundwater. As described in Appendix B, implementation of this
alternative is expected to remove approximately 45 lbs of PCE, which is about 28 percent of the
estimated PCE mass in the cell area and 19 lbs of zinc, which is about 4 percent of the estimated
zinc mass in the cell area. Although not quantified, excavation would also remove all the other
COCs in the target treatment zone. Continued mobilization of COCs from impacted soil
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
38
-------
materials which are not excavated would continue to impact the sand and gravel aquifer due to
the fluctuating water table from rainfall and irrigation events in neighboring properties.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative B-3 would take less than one year to implement. The time to achieve groundwater
cleanup levels in the sand and gravel aquifer beneath and downgradient of the facility would be
reduced but still take a long time.
Precautions would need to be taken to protect human health and the environment in the source
area during implementation relative to general construction safety hazards and reduce or
eliminate potential exposure to COCs above risk-based screening levels during well installations,
groundwater sampling, O&M, and other intrusive work. Contractors would be required to follow
a site-specific health and safety plan in accordance with applicable OSHA requirements,
including but not limited to 29CFR1910.120 HAZWOPER requirements.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative B-3 consists of sloped excavation with sheet pile shoring along the eastern edge of
the excavation to approximately 22 feet bgs from the bottom of the cell to just above the water
table. This alternative would remove soil exceeding 5,000 |ig/kg of PCE followed by backfilling
of the excavation. Alternative B-3 is technically and administratively implementable.
Excavation is a proven technology that is used to remove impacted soil; Alternative B-3 could be
implemented with equipment and materials that are readily available. General contractors and
equipment suppliers are readily available in Nebraska to conduct excavation of impacted soil.
Physical limitations that will affect the excavation are buried utilities such as water lines. The
locations of these underground utilities may interfere with excavation activities. It may be
necessary to protect or reroute existing utilities during excavation of impacted soils.
Administratively, potential permits (ex. construction stormwater permit) that may be needed
should be easily obtained. Alternative B-3 would be moderately disruptive to on-going facility
operations due to heavy truck traffic associated with construction activities. Implementation of
this work would require planning with facility personnel and contractor flexibility to work during
times when the facility is less busy. Traffic plans would need to be developed to ensure
deliveries of supplies and shipments of products can be adequately maintained during
construction work. Excavated soils may need to be temporarily stockpiled in a location north of
the cell area to allow for load-out and trucking at a more convenient time. This alternative
requires no on-going O&M.
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost and total present worth for constructing this alternative is $1,367,000
(2018 dollars). Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
39
-------
4.5.4 Alternative B-4 - In-Situ Soil Solidification
General Description
Alternative B-4 consists of insitu soil stabilization (ISS) in portions of Cell 2 with PCE
concentrations in soil above 5,000 |ig/kg. The treatment area for this alternative includes an area
of approximately 8,800 SF, as shown on Figure 9. The treatment area would be mechanically
mixed in place using large diameter augers to depths of approximately 50 feet bgs, of which
approximately 12,500 CY would be treated with treatment reagents to bind and/or encapsulate
COC-impacted soils (includes VOCs and zinc). The type and quantity of reagents would be
selected based on bench-scale testing that would occur prior to design. Reagents may include fly
ash, Portland cement, bentonite or other binders or stabilizers. Seismic monitoring will be
implemented to verify that the work performed does not impact the crane bay structure. The
solidification process is estimated to create volumetric expansion of the solidified soil of
approximately 20 to 35 percent. This expanded material would remain in the cell area and be
covered by clean fill. One new groundwater monitoring well would be installed downgradient.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative B-4 would provide overall protection of human health and the environment by
solidifying the COCs (including zinc and 1,4-dioxane) to the modified soil matrix to minimize
leaching into the groundwater. The remedy would reduce a potential risk from direct contact of
COC-impacted soils to site workers if future intrusive work was implemented in the cell area and
this pathway became potentially significant during the short-term of the intrusive work.
Additionally, the excess soil that is bulked from the ISS process could be used to cap other
portions of the cell area and thereby minimize stormwater infiltration through impacted soils and
minimize future potential worker direct contact with impacted soils. Overall protection of
human health and the environment would also be maintained through the existing site-wide
remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative B-4 is expected to ultimately satisfy all chemical-, action-, and location-specific
ARARs. The sand and gravel aquifer would ultimately need to be restored to applicable cleanup
levels to meet the chemical-specific ARAR requirements in the ROD (USEPA 1990).
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative B-4 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by solidifying the
COCs in a solid matrix. This is expected to subsequently reduce COC concentrations in the
groundwater in the sand and gravel aquifer over time because of lower leachability from the soil.
The solidified matrix would also serve as a permanent cap thereby reducing potential future
worker exposure through direct contact with impacted soils. Long-term effectiveness would be
maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
40
-------
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative B-4 would reduce the mobility of all COCs through treatment (solidification). The
immobilized contaminants would not leach to groundwater at significant concentrations, thereby
reducing the toxicity and volume of the groundwater plume over time. As described in
Appendix B, implementation of this alternative is expected to treat (immobilize) approximately
72 lbs of PCE, which is about 45 percent of the estimated PCE mass in the cell area and 63 lbs of
zinc, which is about 14 percent of the estimated zinc mass in the cell area. Although not
quantified, ISS would also stabilize the other COCs in the target treatment zone including 1,4-
dioxane.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative B-4 would take about 1 to 2 years to implement. The time to achieve chemical-
specific ARARs in the sand and gravel aquifer would be longer.
Precautions would need to be taken to protect human health in the source area during
implementation relative to general construction safety hazards and to adequately mitigate
potential exposure to hazardous materials in COC-impacted media during intrusive work.
Contractors would be required to follow a site-specific health and safety plan in accordance with
applicable OSHA requirements, including but not limited to 29CFR1910.120 HAZWOPER
requirements.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative B-4 consists of solidifying impacted soil exceeding 5,000 |ig/kg throughout the fine-
grained unit in Cell 2. Alternative B-4 is both technically and administratively implementable.
ISS is a proven technology that is used to solidify, treat and minimize leaching of contaminants
from impacted soil into groundwater. Alternative B-4 could be implemented with equipment and
materials that are available from specialized contractors. ISS installers are not readily available
in Nebraska and would need to be brought in from out of state.
Physical limitations that will affect implementation of ISS are buried utilities, such as water
lines. The locations of these underground utilities may interfere with ISS activities. It may be
necessary to protect or reroute existing utilities during remediation activities associated with ISS.
Administratively, the primary difficulty is agreeing to performance criteria such as strength and
hydraulic conductivity to achieve. Alternative B-4 would be moderately disruptive to on-going
facility operations due to heavy equipment operations associated with ISS activities.
Implementation of this work would require planning with facility personnel and contractor
flexibility to work during times when the facility is less busy. Traffic plans would need to be
developed to ensure deliveries of supplies and shipments of products can be adequately
maintained during construction work.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
41
-------
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost for constructing this alternative is $3,977,900 (2018 dollars). The
O&M costs are estimated at $265,600 over a 2-year period. Total present worth costs are
$4,240,000. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
4.5.5 Alternative B-5 - Soil Vapor Extraction
General Description
Alternative B-5 consists of SVE in areas of Cell 2 where PCE concentrations in soil exceed
5,000 |ig/kg based on existing site characterization data. This alternative will reduce the volume
of source material present in the cell area. The treatment area and conceptual well layout is
shown on Figure 10. The approximate size of the treatment area is 8,800 SF. Unsaturated soils
in this area would be treated from approximately 5 to 20 feet bgs (e.g., top of sand channel).
Approximately 5,000 CY of COC-impacted soils would be treated by SVE.
The conceptual design includes installation of 17 SVE wells, spaced at approximately 25-foot
intervals and two new groundwater monitoring wells. Each SVE well would be completed just
above groundwater in the sand channel. The SVE system would consist of a pre-packed system
that includes a moisture knock-out pot, vacuum blower, and associated controls and
instrumentation. The extracted vapors would be routed to a GAC system or thermal/catalytic
system if required to meet air emission requirements. If untreated air emissions are below
applicable requirements, then the extracted vapors would be discharged directly to the
atmosphere without treatment.
Periodic O&M would be performed by a local contractor to record system operational
parameters (flow rates, vacuums), and measure VOC concentrations from the extracted soil
vapors to assess mass removal over time and to comply with air emission requirements. Lindsay
personnel may perform routine O&M once they are trained. For cost estimating purposes, it is
assumed that weekly O&M of the SVE system would be performed over a 4-year period.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative B-5 would protect human health and the environment by reducing concentrations of
the primary COCs (chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane) in the source area. The remedy would
also reduce a potential risk to site workers from direct contact of COC-impacted soils if future
intrusive work was implemented in the cell area, and this pathway became potentially significant
during the short-term of the intrusive work. Chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane mass reduction
in the unsaturated zone would also protect groundwater by minimizing the amount of impacted
soils in contact with infiltrating precipitation. Infiltration would continue unless the cell area is
capped pursuant to Alternative B-2. Overall protection of human health and the environment
would also be maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
42
-------
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative B-5 is expected to ultimately satisfy all chemical-, action-, and location-specific
ARARs. The sand and gravel aquifer would ultimately need to be restored to applicable cleanup
levels to meet the chemical-specific ARAR requirements in the ROD (USEPA 1990).
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative B-5 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by reducing COC
concentrations (chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane) in the source area, which is expected to
subsequently reduce dissolved-phase COC concentrations in the groundwater in the sand and
gravel aquifer over time. SVE would not be effective at remediating zinc, and it may only be
partially effective at treating 1,4-dioxane due to its high solubility and affinity for water. Long-
term effectiveness would be maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative B-5 would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of COCs (chlorinated VOCs and
1,4-dioxane) by vapor extraction and vapor treatment. As described in Appendix B,
implementation of this alternative is expected to remove approximately 34 lbs of PCE, which is
about 21 percent of the estimated PCE mass in the cell area. Although not quantified, SVE may
remove some 1,4-dioxane within the target treatment zone; however, 1,4-dioxane is not as
prevalent in the cell area as it is in the Building 1/central drainage ditch area. Continued
mobilization of COC impacted materials that is not treated by the SVE system would continue to
impact the sand and gravel aquifer due to the fluctuating water table from rainfall and irrigation
events in neighboring properties.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative B-5 would take up to 1 to 2 months to construct. Active remediation would take
approximately 3 to 4 years with 2 years of post-treatment monitoring. The overall remediation
timeframe is approximately 6 years. The time to achieve cleanup levels in the sand and gravel
aquifer would be much longer.
Precautions would need to be taken to protect human health in the source area during
implementation relative to general construction safety hazards and to mitigate potential exposure
to hazardous materials in COC-impacted soil and groundwater media during well installations,
groundwater sampling, and other intrusive work. Contractors would be required to follow a site-
specific health and safety plan in accordance with applicable OSHA requirements, including but
not limited to 29CFR1910.120 HAZWOPER requirements.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative B-5 uses SVE (vapor extraction) which is a proven technology to treat COCs such as
PCE present in soil at the Site. Alternative B-5 is technically and administratively feasible, but
soil type may reduce effectiveness. From 1993 to 1998, SVE was used in two areas at the Site,
northeast corner of Building 1 and north of Cell 2 (Figure 3) and was effective in removing
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
43
-------
COCs in the vadose zone within the radius of influence of the systems. Factors that may affect
the technical feasibility of using SVE to treat COCs at the Site are:
• Lithology of the subsurface
• Depth to groundwater
• Access restrictions from site features and structures
The soil lithology in the cell area generally consists of silts and clays with sand lenses as shown
in the boring logs and cross sections from the 2013 cell area investigation (URS 2014b). While
SVE technology will work in these soil conditions, SVE will be less effective in reducing COC
mass than if soil was more permeable. Finer-grained soils tend to have a smaller radius of
influence, so more wells are needed to be effective. If heterogeneous conditions are present, the
SVE system will not be as effective in treated pockets of fine-grained soil when surrounded by
course-grained materials.
Groundwater levels range from 20 to 30 feet bgs depending on time of year. Groundwater is
lowest in the summer because of lower precipitation, and the aquifer is depressed from irrigation
activities in the area and existing groundwater extraction efforts. SVE will not be effective in
saturated soil and will need to be installed a few feet above the water table in the sand channel to
avoid pulling in water over the screen and short circuiting the system. Additionally, the vacuum
applied to the wells will need to be monitored and adjusted using air make up valves (dilution) to
minimize groundwater upwelling in SVE wells.
Physical limitations that will affect implementation of the SVE system are buried utilities such as
water lines. The locations of these underground utilities may interfere with construction
activities. It may be necessary to protect or reroute existing utilities during construction.
General contractors, equipment suppliers, and drillers are readily available in Nebraska. These
types of contractors have been used in the past at the Site to install wells and utilities. SVE
system installers are not readily available in Nebraska and would need to be brought in from out
of state, but in general SVE system infrastructure is simple to install.
Administratively, the main obstacle to operating an SVE system is getting a permit for air
emissions. However, obtaining an air discharge permit is routine; and carbon and/or oxidizers
effectively remove VOCs from air. Alternative B-5 should not be significantly disruptive to on-
going facility operations, because activities would mostly be conducted within the cell area.
Implementation of this work would require planning with facility personnel and contractor
flexibility to work during certain times when the facility is less busy (e.g., possible night work).
Traffic plans would need to be developed to ensure deliveries of supplies and shipments of
products can be adequately maintained during construction work. O&M of the remedy is not
expected to be disruptive to facility operations. The reliability of the active remediation system
may be adversely affected by technical challenges associated with long-term maintenance of
mechanical systems.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
44
-------
Implementation of this remedy would require upgrades to the facility electrical system, including
a new or upgraded power service from the local utility. Based on preliminary contact with the
electric utility company, adequate power could be provided to the facility as needed with
appropriate lead time. Components of Alternative B-5 include SVE wells and associated piping
and equipment of which are readily implemented, and contractors are available to perform these
services. It is assumed that O&M of the remediation system would be performed by a local
contractor, although Lindsay staff may provide some O&M support after being appropriately
trained.
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost for constructing this alternative is $1,497,800 (2018 dollars). The
O&M costs are estimated at $1,457,100 over a 6-year period. Total present worth costs are
$2,912,000. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
4.5.6 Alternative B-6 - Thermal Remediation
General Description
Alternative B-6 consists of in situ thermal remediation (ISTR) in Cell 2 where PCE
concentrations in soil generally exceed 5,000 |ig/kg in the fine-grained unit. This alternative
assumes that a specialty thermal remediation contractor would use electrical resistance heating
(ERH) technology to achieve remediation goals by reducing the volume of source material
present in the cell area. The treatment area and conceptual well layout is shown on Figure 11.
The approximate size of the treatment area is 8,800 SF with treatment depths ranging from 5 feet
to 50 feet bgs. The total volume of soil that would be treated by this alternative is approximately
14,700 CY. Thermal treatment would remove VOCs and 1, 4-dioxane in the treatment zone but
would not effectively remove zinc.
The conceptual design includes installation of 44 remediation wells (including vertical heater
wells [electrodes] and multi-phase extraction points [MPE]), temperature monitoring points
(TMPs), and 2 new groundwater monitoring wells. Extracted vapors would be treated using a
thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer or GAC system, if required to meet air discharge limits. The
air pollution control device, if required, would be determined during the design phase.
Refinement of the treatment area would be completed by sampling soil during installation to
further refine the target treatment zone. This would include advancing up to 20 additional
borings using a direct push rig and collecting up to 180 soil samples and 20 groundwater samples
for analyses of chlorinated VOCs by EPA Method 5021A (headspace analysis) using a mobile
laboratory. The size of the treatment area may be modified based on the results, but the amount
of soil treated would not exceed 14,700 CY (a portion of the cell area).
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative B-6 would protect human health and the environment by reducing COC
concentrations within the fine-grained unit in the source area (saturated and unsaturated zone).
The remedy would also reduce a potential risk to site workers from direct contact of COC-
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
45
-------
impacted soils if future intrusive work was implemented in the cell area, and this pathway
became potentially significant during the short-term of the intrusive work. Chlorinated VOCs
and 1,4-dioxane mass reduction in the unsaturated zone would also protect groundwater by
minimizing the amount of contaminated soils in contact with infiltrating precipitation.
Infiltration would continue unless the cell area is capped pursuant to Alternative B-2. Overall
protection of human health and the environment would also be maintained through the existing
site-wide remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative B-6 is expected to ultimately satisfy all chemical-, action-, and location-specific
ARARs. The sand and gravel aquifer would ultimately need to be restored to applicable cleanup
levels to meet the chemical-specific ARAR requirements in the ROD (USEPA 1990).
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative B-6 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by directly reducing
chlorinated VOC and 1,4-dioxane concentrations within the fine-grained unit of the cell source
area, which is expected to subsequently reduce dissolved-phase chlorinated VOC and 1,4-
dioxane concentrations in the downgradient groundwater over time. Long-term effectiveness
would be maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative B-6 would reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-
dioxane within the target treatment zone by removal and treatment. Like SVE (Alternative B-5),
thermal remediation would not be effective at remediating zinc. Extracted vapors would be
treated to meet applicable discharge requirements, if required. As described in Appendix B,
implementation of this alternative is expected to treat approximately 71 lbs of PCE, which is
about 44 percent of the estimated PCE mass in the cell area. Although not quantified, thermal
remediation would likely remove over half of the 1,4-dioxane mass within the target treatment
zone; however, 1,4-dioxane is not as prevalent in the cell area as it is in the Building 1/central
drainage ditch area.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative B-6 would take approximately 4 months to construct. Active remediation would take
approximately 7 months, followed by 2 years of post-remediation groundwater monitoring. The
overall remediation timeframe is approximately 2 years. The time to achieve chemical-specific
groundwater COCs in the sand and gravel aquifer would be much longer.
Precautions would need to be taken to protect human health in the source area during
implementation relative to general construction safety hazards and to mitigate potential exposure
to hazardous materials in COC-impacted soil and groundwater media during well installations,
groundwater sampling, and other intrusive work. Contractors would be required to follow a site-
specific health and safety plan in accordance with applicable OSHA requirements, including but
not limited to 29CFR1910.120 HAZWOPER requirements.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
46
-------
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative B-6 uses heating wells/electrodes to heat the subsurface and vapor extraction wells to
remove the COCs from the subsurface. Alternative B-6 is both technically and administratively
implementable. Thermal treatment is a proven technology to fully treat PCE and partially
remove 1,4-dioxane present in soil and groundwater at the Site. However, thermal treatment is
not an effective technology to treat zinc. Soil lithology in the cell area generally consists of silts
and clays with sand lenses. This lithology improves the effectiveness of the ERH thermal
technology which is the opposite of SVE (Alternative B-5). However, high hydraulic
conductivity rates of 325 feet/day in the sand and gravel aquifer will cool the bottom 5 feet of the
fine-grained unit negatively effecting the treatment of soil at the bottom of the fine-grained unit.
The impact of the high flow rates in the sand and gravel aquifer in treating impacted soil in the
bottom of the fine-grained unit could be minimized by using steam heating technologies instead
of ERH.
Physical limitations that will affect implementation of the thermal system are buried utilities
such as water lines. The locations of these underground utilities may interfere with construction
activities. It may be necessary to protect or reroute existing utilities during construction.
General contractors, equipment suppliers and drillers are readily available in Nebraska. These
types of contractors have been used in the past at the Site to install wells and utilities. Thermal
system installers are not readily available in Nebraska and would need to be brought in from out
of state.
Administratively, Alternative B-6 should not be significantly disruptive to on-going facility
operations since activities would mostly be conducted within the cell area. Implementation of
this work would require planning with facility personnel and contractor flexibility to work during
times when the facility is less busy. Traffic plans would need to be developed to ensure
deliveries of supplies and shipments of products can be adequately maintained during
construction work. O&M of the remedy would be performed by the remediation contractor and
is not expected to be disruptive to facility operations.
Implementation of this remedy would require upgrades to the facility electrical system, including
a new or upgraded power service from the local utility. This would also affect Alternative B-5.
Based on preliminary contact with the utility company, adequate power could be supplied as
needed with appropriate lead time. Components of Alternative B-6 include thermal electrodes,
MPE wells, TMPs, and associated piping and equipment of which are readily implemented, and
contractors are available to perform these services. This alternative would require more
infrastructure than Alternatives B-l through B-5.
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost for constructing this alternative is $4,528,600 (2018 dollars). The
O&M costs are estimated at $473,300 over a 2-year period. Total present worth costs are
$4,843,000. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
47
-------
4.6 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CELL
AREA
The following section provides a comparative analysis of remedial alternatives for the cell area.
Key information and comparative ranking for each alternative is summarized in Tables 8 and 9.
The extent of COC-impacted media in the cell area and PCE mass removal estimates are
presented in Appendix B. These estimates are used in the comparative analyses of alternatives
against several of the CERCLA criteria, as further described below.
Overall Protection of the Environment (Threshold)
All the remedial alternatives for the cell area, including the no-action alternative, are protective
of the environment if the existing site-wide remedial actions are also implemented. All the
alternatives meet this threshold criterion.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
All the remedial alternatives are ultimately expected to meet applicable action-, chemical-, and
location-specific ARARs. All the alternatives meet this threshold criterion.
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refer to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time once the cleanup goals have been met.
The RAO established in the ROD is aquifer restoration to the most stringent drinking water
standards. The primary goal of the source area remedial actions is to reduce the mass of COCs
(primarily PCE which is the most prevalent COC in groundwater) in the fine-grained unit that is
impacting the sand and gravel aquifer. All the cell area alternatives would require
implementation of the existing site-wide remedial actions to provide long-term effectiveness,
because none of the source area remedial alternatives would directly restore the sand and gravel
aquifer to drinking water standards.
In the comparative evaluation for the cell area alternatives, preference is given to those
alternatives that would remove or immobilize the greatest amount of PCE, because it is the most
prevalent COC in the source area media (fine-grained unit soil and groundwater); and elevated
concentrations of other COCs are situated within the area and depth of elevated PCE
concentrations. PCE is also the dominant COC in the sand and gravel aquifer groundwater
plume beneath and downgradient of the facility.
The relative ranking for each alternative for this criterion is as follows:
• Alternative B-4 (ISS) is ranked most favorable, because it would solidify/treat the highest
or equal amount of PCE mass relative to the other alternatives, (an estimated 72 lbs of
PCE or 45 percent of the estimated PCE mass in the cell area). This alternative would
also have an ancillary benefit of solidifying zinc, which is why this alternative is ranked
higher than Alternative B-6 (Thermal Remediation). Alternative B-4 would address all
the COCs within the target treatment zone.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
48
-------
• Alternative B-6 (Thermal Remediation) is ranked second most favorable. This
alternative would treat a similar amount of PCE compared to Alternative B-4 (ISS). This
alternative is estimated to treat approximately 71 lbs of PCE or about 44 percent of the
estimated PCE mass in the cell area. Alternative B-6 would address chlorinated VOCs
and reduce 1,4-dioxane within the target treatment zone. This alternative would not be
effective at remediating zinc.
• Alternative B-3 (Targeted Excavation) is ranked the third most favorable, because it
would remove the third highest amount of PCE of all the remedial alternatives. This
alternative is estimated to remove approximately 45 lbs of PCE or about 28 percent of the
estimated PCE mass in the cell area. Alternative B-3 would address all the COCs in the
excavation area.
• Alternative B-5 (SVE) is ranked fourth most favorable, because it would remove the
fourth highest amount of PCE of all the remedial alternatives. This alternative is
estimated to remove approximately 34 lbs of PCE or about 21 percent of the estimated
PCE mass in this source area. Alternative B-5 (SVE) would treat a larger amount of soil
than Alternative B-3 (Targeted Excavation), but excavation will remove 100-percent of
the PCE mass, while SVE would not be 100-percent effective. Alternative B-5 would
primarily address PCE and other chlorinated VOCs, although SVE may be partially
effective at remediating 1,4-dioxane (e.g., removal of 1,4-dioxane in the extracted soil
moisture). SVE would not be effective at remediating zinc.
• Alternative B-2 (Capping) is ranked fifth most favorable. This alternative would not
provide any PCE mass removal or treatment, but it would reduce the amount of future
groundwater contamination caused by leaching of surface water through COC-impacted
soils. Alternative B-2 would limit infiltration through all COC-impacted media beneath
the cover and would therefore be applicable to all COCs.
• Alternative B-l (No-action) is ranked last for this criterion, because it does not involve
any source remediation that would treat PCE mass. Alternative B-l would not be
effective at remediating any of the COCs.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternatives that maximize the reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment of
COCs (particularly PCE which is the most prevalent COC in downgradient groundwater) are
more favorably ranked for this criterion.
The relative ranking for each alternative for this criterion is as follows:
• Alternative B-4 (ISS) is ranked most favorable, because it would solidify/treat the highest
or equal amount of PCE mass relative to the other alternatives, an estimated 72 lbs of
PCE or 45 percent of the estimated PCE mass in the cell area. This alternative would
also have an ancillary benefit of solidifying zinc and 1,4-dioxane. An estimated 63 lbs of
zinc or 14 percent of the estimated zinc mass in the cell area would be solidified. The
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
49
-------
ability to treat all COCs, not only chlorinated VOCs, is why this alternative is ranked
higher than Alternative B-6 (Thermal Remediation), which would likely treat similar
amounts of chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane, but not zinc.
• Alternative B-6 (Thermal Remediation) is ranked second most favorable. This
alternative would treat a similar amount of PCE compared to Alternative B-4 (ISS). This
alternative is estimated to treat approximately 71 lbs of PCE or about 44 percent of the
estimated PCE mass in the cell area.
• Alternative B-5 (SVE) is ranked third most favorable, because it would treat the third
highest amount of PCE of all the remedial alternatives. Alternative B-5 (SVE) is ranked
more favorable than Alternative B-3 (Targeted Excavation), because excavation and
landfill disposal would not treat any of the COCs. Alternative B-5 is estimated to treat
approximately 34 lbs of PCE or about 21 percent of the estimated PCE mass in the cell
area.
• Alternative B-3 (Targeted Excavation) is ranked the fourth most favorable. Although it
would remove more PCE mass than Alternative B-5 (SVE), there would be no treatment
of the impacted soils, only disposal at a permitted landfill, which is why it is ranked less
favorable than Alternative B-5. This alternative is estimated to remove approximately 45
lbs of PCE or about 28 percent of the estimated PCE mass in the cell area and 19 lbs of
zinc or about 4 percent of the estimated zinc mass in the cell area.
• Alternative B-2 (Capping) is ranked fifth most favorable. This alternative would not
provide any PCE or other COC treatment, but it would reduce the amount of future
groundwater contamination by COCs caused by leaching of surface water through COC-
impacted soils.
• Alternative B-l (No-action) is ranked last for this criterion, because it does not involve
any source remediation that would treat PCE mass.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Short-term effectiveness addresses the time needed to achieve protection, and any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved. Alternatives that present few hazards
during construction and implementation and that can be implemented (active phase) in the
shortest timeframe are ranked more favorably than alternatives that have higher construction and
implementation risks and take longer periods of time to implement.
The relative ranking of each alternative for this criterion is as follows:
• Alternative B-l (No-action) is ranked most favorable for this criterion, because it does
not involve any construction and implementation risks and can be implemented
immediately.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
50
-------
• Alternative B-2 (Capping) is ranked second most favorable, because implementation of
this non-intrusive remedy presents comparatively low construction hazards and can be
implemented in a relatively short timeframe compared to the other active remediation
alternatives.
• Alternative B-3 (Targeted Excavation) is ranked the third most favorable, because
excavation is relatively simple and can be implemented in a relatively short timeframe
compared to Alternatives B-4 through B-6.
• Alternative B-5 (SVE) is ranked fourth most favorable. The potential hazards associated
with construction and implementation of this relatively simple alternative is considered
somewhat higher than Alternatives B-l through B-3, but less than Alternative B-4 and B-
6, which are significantly more complex and difficult to implement.
• Alternative B-6 (Thermal Remediation) is ranked fifth most favorable. Construction and
implementation of this alternative is a complex undertaking that is potentially hazardous
to construction workers.
• Alternative B-4 (ISS) is ranked least favorable. This alternative presents significant risks
to construction workers due to use of heavy construction equipment (large diameter auger
rig, high pressure mixing and injection pumps, etc.).
Implementation (Balancing)
Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of the remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed to implement an option. All the remedial
alternatives should be administratively feasible and can be implemented with available materials
and services. The comparative ranking analysis for this criterion is largely based on
administrative and technical difficulty and the degree of disruption that may be expected from
construction and implementation of each alternative. Alternatives that are subjectively judged to
be less technical, administratively easier to implement and result in less disruption are ranked
more favorably than alternatives that are expected to be more disruptive to on-going facility
operations.
The relative ranking for each alternative for this criterion is as follows:
• Alternative B-l (No-action) is ranked most favorable for this criterion, because it does
not involve any implementation beyond the site-wide remedy components (long-term
groundwater monitoring, operation of the existing off-facility hydraulic control system,
and land use controls).
• Alternative B-2 (Capping) is ranked second most favorable. The capping alternative is
easier to implement, less disruptive and technically easier to implement than other
alternatives that involve active source treatment.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
51
-------
• Alternative B-3 (Targeted Excavation) is ranked third most favorable, because it could be
implemented in a relatively short timeframe compared to the other active remediation
alternatives. Implementation of this alternative would require a grading permit and be
disruptive to the facility operations during implementation because of the large trucking
component, but these impacts would be for a relatively short duration and could be
mitigated through planning and coordination with facility personnel. This alternative is
administratively and technically easier to implement and design than Alternatives B-4
through B-6 but more difficult than B-l and B-2.
• Alternative B-5 (SVE) is ranked the fourth most favorable. This alternative would be
simple to install and less disruptive to facility operations compared to Alternative B-4
(ISS) and Alternative B-6 (Thermal Remediation), and more disruptive compared to
Alternatives B-l (No-action), B-2 (Capping), and B-3 (Targeted Excavation). This
alternative would require upgrading the power supply to the property and would require
outside resources to operate and maintain the system. In addition, an air discharge permit
would likely be required.
• Alternative B-4 (ISS) is ranked fifth most favorable. The equipment needed to complete
auger soil mixing is very specialized. This alternative would be more disruptive during
implementation compared to all the other alternatives, except for possibly Alternative B-6
(Thermal Remediation). Administratively performance criteria goals would have to be
agreed to with regulatory agencies. This alternative is ranked more favorably than
Alternative B-6 (Thermal Remediation) primarily, because it does not require O&M and
can be implemented in a shorter time period compared to Alternative B-6.
• Alternative B-6 (Thermal Remediation) is ranked least favorable, because only a few
specialized vendors are available to perform the work, and the construction would be
disruptive to facility operations and would require a longer remediation timeframe
compared to Alternative B-4 (ISS). This alternative would technically be more difficult
to implement than Alternatives B-5 (SVE) but like Alternative B-5 (SVE) this alternative
would require upgrading the power supply to the property.
Alternatives B-4 and B-6 would be significantly more difficult to implement compared to any of
the other alternatives. Alternative B-6 is likely only somewhat more challenging to implement
than Alternative B-4.
Costs (Balancing)
The ranking of alternatives for the cost criterion is as follows:
• Alternative B-l (No-action) is ranked most favorable, because no additional costs are
incurred.
• Alternative B-3 (Targeted Excavation) is ranked second most favorable, because it has
the second lowest costs. The estimated capital and total present worth cost (2018 dollars)
for this alternative is $1,367,000.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
52
-------
• Alternative B-2 (Capping) is ranked third most favorable, because it has the third lowest
costs. The estimated capital cost (2018 dollars) for this alternative is $1,442,600. The
estimated O&M costs are $284,000. Total present worth costs for this alternative are
$1,700,000.
• Alternative B-5 (SVE) is ranked fourth most favorable. The estimated capital cost (2018
dollars) for this alternative is $1,497,800. The estimated O&M costs are $1,457,100.
Total present worth costs for this alternative are $2,912,000.
• Alternative B-4 (ISS) is ranked fifth most favorable. The estimated capital cost (2018
dollars) for this alternative is $3,977,900. The estimated O&M costs are $265,600. Total
present worth costs for this alternative are $4,240,000.
• Alternative B-6 (Thermal Remediation) is ranked least favorable, because it has the
highest costs. The estimated capital cost (2018 dollars) for this alternative is $4,528,600.
The estimated O&M costs are $473,300. Total present worth costs for this alternative are
$4,843,000.
Detailed cost estimates and assumptions, including estimated capital costs, O&M costs, and NPV
(i.e. present worth) costs are provided in Appendix C.
4.7 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE
BUILDING 1/ CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH AREA
The evaluation of remedial alternatives for the Building 1/central drainage ditch source area is
discussed below. A comparative analysis of Building 1 alternatives components is shown in
Table 10. A comparison of the PCE mass treated and costs by Building 1 alternatives are shown
in Table 11. The alternatives are primarily intended to remediate PCE, because it is the most
prevalent COC in the source area media (fine-grained unit soil and groundwater); and elevated
concentrations of other COCs are generally situated within the area and depth of elevated PCE
concentrations. PCE is also the dominant COC in the sand and gravel aquifer groundwater
plume beneath and downgradient of the facility. However, treatment of other COCs, including
1,4-dioxane and zinc are also considered in this evaluation. The existing site-wide remedial
actions will be implemented in conjunction with the selected facility-wide alternatives, because
these site-wide actions are necessary to maintain short-term and long-term effectiveness and
overall protectiveness of human health and the environment. The Building 1 alternatives
developed and described in this section include:
• Alternative C-l - No Action
• Alternative C-2 - Central Drainage Ditch Cap, Maintain Containment and Institutional
Controls
• Alternative C-3 - Thermal Remediation of Hot Spot 3
• Alternative C-4 - Thermal Remediation of Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
53
-------
• Alternative C-5 - Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1 and 2, and Thermal Remediation
of Hot Spots 3 and 4
• Alternative C-6 - Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4
• Alternative C-7 - Dual Phase Extraction (1 ppm Area)
4.7.1 Alternative C-l - No Action
General Description
The no-action alternative is retained throughout the process of alternative development and
analysis as a baseline for comparison of other alternatives and to document that unnecessary
remedial action is not taken where no action is appropriate. The no-action alternative consists of
no active source remediation in the Building 1/central drainage ditch area. No additional
supplemental investigations would be conducted as part of the no-action alternative.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Overall protectiveness of human health and the environment would be maintained through
implementation of the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
By definition, action-specific ARARs are not applicable to the no-action alternative. It is
expected that all action- and location-specific ARARs would be met for the existing site-wide
remedial actions, because ARARs are currently being satisfied by these actions. The timeframe
to achieve chemical-specific ARARs would not be decreased with the no-action alternative.
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
The no-action alternative would not by itself improve long-term effectiveness or permanence,
because it would leave residual contamination in source area media that would contribute to
future groundwater contamination within the sand and gravel aquifer for the foreseeable future.
The time to achieve chemical-specific ARARs in the sand and gravel aquifer beneath and
downgradient of the facility would not be reduced by the no-action alternative. Long-term
effectiveness would be maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative C-l would not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through active treatment. The
COCs would degrade and/or attenuate by natural processes and not through treatment. Toxicity
and mobility of the COCs may remain at present levels for extended periods of time. The off-
facility hydraulic control system would prevent the migration of COCs in groundwater further
downgradient of the most distal interceptor well and natural attenuation would continue to
reduce the COC concentrations and the size of the groundwater plume over time.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
54
-------
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
The no-action alternative would not accelerate the restoration time period. Implementation of
this alternative would not present any adverse impacts on human health and the environment
during the construction and implementation period. It would rely on the existing site-wide
remedial actions to achieve protection until cleanup goals are ultimately met.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative C-l can be implemented immediately, because it involves no action. By definition,
the no-action alternative requires no implementation of new treatment or monitoring activities.
Costs (Balancing)
There are no additional costs associated with this alternative.
4.7.2 Alternative C-2 - Central Drainage Ditch Cap, Maintain Containment, and
Institutional Controls
General Description
Alternative C-2 consists of capping the central drainage ditch with a concrete liner (i.e., covering
the existing ditch surface) to prevent/minimize infiltration of surface water through COC-
impacted soils within the unlined ditch as well as maintaining containment and institutional
controls in areas around Building 1. The conceptual design of the cap would include applying an
approximately 3-inch spray-on concrete liner (applied over galvanized wire structure) over an
approximately 30,000 SF area within an 830 linear feet portion of the central drainage ditch, as
shown on Figure 12. Construction of the cap would be performed in the dry season to avoid the
need for diverting stormwater during construction of the liner. The general shape and size of the
ditch would remain similar to existing conditions and the liner is expected to improve water
quality in the ditch. After construction of the cap, this alternative includes provisions for
periodic (e.g., semiannual inspections) maintenance and repairs to the cap and surrounding areas
to ensure its long-term effectiveness. Maintenance is anticipated to include periodic repair of
significant cracks that may develop over time.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative C-2 would improve overall protectiveness by reducing the rate of groundwater
contamination caused by infiltration of surface water through COC-impacted soils. This
alternative would also eliminate potential direct contact by workers to COCs in soil in the central
drainage ditch area, in the unlikely event that future intrusive work was implemented in the ditch
area and this pathway became potentially significant during the short-term of the intrusive work.
Overall protectiveness of human health and the environment would be maintained through
implementation of the existing site-wide remedial actions.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
55
-------
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative C-2 is expected to ultimately satisfy action-, location-, and chemical-specific
ARARs, although the timeframe to achieve chemical-specific ARARs in the sand and gravel
aquifer is uncertain. Satisfaction of chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater in the ditch area
would rely on natural attenuation and/or continued operation of the hydraulic control systems.
Based on current understanding with United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), it is
assumed that implementation of this alternative would not require approval and/or permits from
the USACE.
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative C-2 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by reducing the future
contribution of COCs in fine-grained unit soil to groundwater by reducing the rate of surface
water infiltration through COC-impacted soils. Long-term effectiveness would be maintained
through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative C-2 would not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through active treatment. The
potential for mobility of the COCs would decrease by reducing the contact between infiltrating
water and impacted soil. Dilution of COC's in the sand and gravel aquifer would reduce the
toxicity of the groundwater plume over time. Continued mobilization of COC impacted soil in
the groundwater would continue to impact the sand and gravel aquifer due to the fluctuating
water table from rainfall and irrigation events in neighboring properties.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
This alternative could be implemented within a one-year period. The time to achieve chemical-
specific ARARs in the aquifer would be much longer. Potential risks to human health and the
environment would be low during implementation, because the work is not intrusive and
potential exposure to COC-impacted media by construction workers would be minimal.
Temporary erosion control measures would be implemented to maintain protectiveness of human
health and the environment during construction of the remedy.
Physical hazards associated with concrete work are relatively low, but it is hard work for
construction staff. It will bring many large trucks to the Site to deliver concrete which would
increase risk to Lindsay staff. Site workers would be required to have HAZWOPER training
pursuant to OSHA 29CFR1910.120 requirements, if they are performing intrusive work which
may expose them to hazardous materials from COCs in soil or groundwater. HAZWOPER
training would not be required for workers who are constructing the concrete liner, because this
work would not be intrusive and therefore exposure to impacted media would be minimal.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative C-2 consists of capping the central drainage ditch with a 3-inch layer of concrete as
shown on Figure 12. Alternative C-2 is technically and administratively feasible. Spray on
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
56
-------
concrete is a technology that is readily implemented and has been used to line ditches to reduce
stormwater infiltration into the subsurface where it can mobilize COCs into the water table.
Access restrictions from site features and structures may affect the technical feasibility of using
this alternative at the Site. Physical limitations that will affect the installation of the concrete cap
are buried utility lines such as electrical lines and water lines. It may be necessary to protect or
reroute existing utilities during installation of the concrete cap.
General contractors and equipment suppliers associated with this spray on concrete technology
are readily available in Nebraska and will be used to implement this alternative.
Administratively, a USACE permit might be needed but Alternative C-2 could be implemented
relatively easily without significant disruption to facility operations, although the work could
interfere with traffic patterns in the vicinity of Building 1. Coordination would be required with
facility operations personnel to ensure that traffic patterns are maintained and that the work is
safely coordinated with on-going facility activities. Construction would be performed in the dry
season to avoid surface water runoff that would require diversion. The construction of an
impermeable liner within the central drainage ditch is not anticipated to significantly affect the
geometry or capacity of the central drainage ditch or otherwise adversely affect surface water
quality.
In evaluating this alternative, it is currently expected that there would be no permitting or
approval difficulties in implementing this remedy (e.g., no USACE involvement).
Costs
The estimated capital cost for constructing this alternative is $832,700 (2020 dollars). The O&M
costs are estimated at $232,000 over a 20-year period. Total present worth costs are $1,043,000.
Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
4.7.3 Alternative C-3 - Thermal Remediation Hot Spot 3 (aka "Small Thermal")
General Description
Alternative C-3 (also referred to as "Small Thermal") consists of ISTR in the area surrounding
soil boring SB15-17 where the maximum PCE concentrations in soil exceeded 100,000 |ig/kg.
The treatment area, which is shown on Figure 13, is approximately 5,500 SF, and extends from
approximately 5 to 50 feet bgs and will treat soil to below 1,000 |ig/kg. The total volume of soil
that would be treated by this alternative is approximately 8,000 CY. This source reduction
alternative removes mass from the hot spot area with the highest concentrations of PCE in soil
found at the Site.
The conceptual design for a system based on the treatment area shown on Figure 13 includes
installation of approximately 66 remediation wells (MPE recovery wells, heater wells, and multi-
depth TMPs), and five new groundwater monitoring wells for performance monitoring. The
heater wells will be either ERH electrodes or TCH heating points depending on thermal vendor
selected to perform the ISTR work. Some of the heater wells may need to be installed at an
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
57
-------
angle to treat under the ditch which will be difficult to access. The remediation wells and
associated electrical conductors and piping between the wells and the treatment compound would
be installed below ground so following installation Lindsay operations can continue as normal.
Extracted soil vapors would be treated using a thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, or GAC, as
required to meet air discharge requirements. If required, the air pollution control device would
be selected based on future design and equipment availability. Actual locations of remediation
wells will be determined during design.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative C-3 would provide protection of human health and the environment by directly
reducing most COC concentrations (e.g., chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane) in the fine-grained
unit soil and groundwater, which would be expected to subsequently reduce these contaminant
concentrations in the sand and gravel aquifer over time. Remediation of shallow impacted soils
would also reduce a potential future worker pathway from direct contact with impacted soils.
Overall protectiveness of human health and the environment would be maintained through
implementation of the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative C-3 is expected to ultimately satisfy all chemical-, action-, and location-specific
ARARs. An air pollution control device may be required to meet applicable ARARs for air
emissions. The sand and gravel aquifer would ultimately need to be restored to applicable
cleanup levels to meet the chemical-specific ARAR requirements in the ROD (USEPA 1990).
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative C-3 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by directly reducing
most COC concentrations (e.g., chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane) in the fine-grained unit soil
and groundwater, which would be expected to subsequently reduce these contaminant
concentrations in the sand and gravel aquifer over time. Long-term effectiveness would be
maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative C-3 would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of most COCs (e.g., chlorinated
VOCs and 1,4-dioxane) within the target area by removal and treatment. Extracted vapors would
be treated as required to meet applicable discharge requirements. As described in Appendix B,
implementation of this alternative in the treatment area shown on Figure 13 is expected to treat
approximately 64 percent of the accessible PCE mass within Building 1/central drainage ditch
area, which will result in approximately 62 percent of the estimated PCE mass within the
Building 1/central drainage ditch area being removed. Based on information provided by
contractors and peer-reviewed literature, the effectiveness of thermal remediation at removing
and treating VOCs is expected to be high with over 95% reduction in VOC mass within the
target treatment area (Heron, et. al. 2009). Although not quantified, thermal remediation would
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
58
-------
likely remove a significant portion of the 1,4-dioxane within the target treatment zone, especially
compared to the other potential active remedial actions in the Building 1/central drainage ditch
source area.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative C-3 would take approximately 4 months to construct. Active remediation would take
approximately 5 to 6 months, followed by 2 years of groundwater performance monitoring. The
overall remediation timeframe is approximately 3 to 4 years. The time to achieve cleanup levels
in the sand and gravel aquifer would be much longer.
Thermal technology requires drilling to install a large density of heater points and trenching for
pipe and electrical conductors but these risks to construction workers are low for experienced
crews. Precautions would need to be taken to protect human health and the environment in the
source area during implementation relative to general construction safety hazards, erosion, and
potential exposure to hazardous materials in COC-impacted media during well installations,
groundwater sampling, and other intrusive work. Contractors would be required to follow a site-
specific health and safety plan in accordance with applicable OSHA requirements, including but
not limited to 29CFR1910.120 HAZWOPER requirements. Emissions would be controlled by a
thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, or GAC if needed, to minimize risk of exposure to facility
workers and the nearby community.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative C-3 uses heating wells to heat the subsurface and vapor extraction wells to remove
the COCs from the subsurface. Alternative C-3 is technically and administratively feasible to
complete at the Site. Thermal treatment is a proven technology to treat PCE and partially treat
1,4-dioxane present in soil and groundwater at the Site. However, thermal treatment is not an
effective technology to treat zinc. Soil lithology in the Building 1 area generally consists of silts
and clays. This fine-grained soil lithology does not negatively affect the effectiveness of ERH
thermal technology as it does with DPE technology used in Alternatives C-5, C-6 and C-7. High
groundwater velocity in the sand and gravel aquifer will cool the bottom 5 feet of the fine-
grained unit and this will reduce the effectiveness of treating impacted soil at the bottom of the
fine-grained unit. The impact of the high flow rates in the sand and gravel aquifer in treating
impacted soil in the bottom of the fine-grained unit can be minimized by using steam heating
technologies.
Physical limitations that will affect implementation of the thermal system are buried utilities
such as gas lines, water lines and electrical lines. The locations of these underground utilities
may interfere with construction activities. It may be necessary to protect or reroute existing
utilities during construction.
General contractors, equipment suppliers and drillers are readily available in Nebraska. These
types of contractors have been used in the past at the Site to install wells and utilities. Thermal
system installers are not readily available in Nebraska and would need to be brought in from out
of state.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
59
-------
Administratively, permits will be needed for treated air emissions to the atmosphere and a waiver
may be needed from NDEE for heater wells to be left in place for a long time. Alternative C-3
would be moderately disruptive to on-going facility operations. Implementation of this remedy
would require planning with facility personnel and contractor flexibility to work during times
when the facility is less busy. Traffic plans would need to be developed to ensure that deliveries
of supplies and shipments of products can be adequately maintained during construction work.
Construction and O&M of this remedy requires highly specialized contractors. Implementation
of this remedy would require significant upgrades to the facility electrical system, including a
new or upgraded power service from the local utility. Electrical upgrades would also be needed
for Alternatives C-4 through C-7. Based on preliminary contact with the utility company,
adequate power could be provided to the facility as needed with appropriate lead time.
Operation of the remediation system would be performed by the remediation contractor (e.g.,
approximately 5-1/2 months active heating period).
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost for constructing this alternative is $3,142,600 (2020 dollars). The
O&M costs are estimated at $183,400 over a 2-year period. Total present worth costs are
$3,324,000. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
4.7.4 Alternative C-4 - Thermal Remediation of Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4 (aka "Large
Thermal")
General Description
Alternative C-4 (also referred to as "Large Thermal") consists of ISTR in areas around Building
1 where PCE concentrations in soil generally exceed 3,000 |ig/kg. The treatment area and
conceptual well layout is shown on Figure 14. The approximate size of the treatment area is
31,000 SF. The treatment area includes the same 5,500 SF area in the vicinity of Hot Spot 3 with
treatment from approximately 5 to 50 feet bgs. The remaining 25,500 SF area would be treated
from approximately 25 to 55 feet bgs in Hot Spot 1, 30 to 55 feet bgs in Hot Spot 2, and 20 to 55
feet bgs in Hot Spot 4. These target treatment zones were selected, because the COCs in these
portions of the fine-grained unit are thought to have the most significant impact to groundwater
in the underlying sand and gravel aquifer. The total volume of soil that would be treated by this
alternative is approximately 28,500 CY. This source reduction alternative removes most of the
mass from the four most impacted areas near Building 1.
The conceptual design includes installation of approximately 378 remediation wells (heater
wells, MPE recovery wells, and multi-depth TMPs), and 9 new groundwater monitoring wells
for performance monitoring (Figure 14). The heater wells will be either ERH electrodes or TCH
heating points depending on thermal vendor selected to perform the ISTR work. Some of the
heater wells will need to be installed at an angle to treat under the northwest portion of Building
1 which can't be entered, and in the ditch, which will be difficult to access. Most remediation
wells and associated electrical conductors and piping between the wells and the treatment
compound would be installed below ground so following installation Lindsay operations can
continue as normal. A pre-packaged extraction and treatment system (if necessary) would be
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
60
-------
provided by the remediation contractor. Actual locations of remediation wells will be
determined during design.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative C-4 would protect the environment by reducing COC concentrations in the fine-
grained unit soil and groundwater and reducing source area contributions to groundwater in the
sand and gravel aquifer. Remediation of shallow impacted soils would also reduce a future
potential worker exposure pathway due to direct contact with impacted soils. Overall
protectiveness would also be maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative C-4 is expected to ultimately satisfy all chemical-, action-, and location-specific
ARARs. The sand and gravel aquifer would ultimately need to be restored to applicable cleanup
levels to meet the chemical-specific ARAR requirements in the ROD (USEPA 1990).
Long—Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative C-4 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by directly reducing
most COC concentrations (e.g., chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane) in the source area, which is
expected to reduce these contaminant concentrations in the sand and gravel aquifer over time.
Long-term effectiveness would be maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative C-4 would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of most COCs (chlorinated
VOCs and 1,4-dioxane) by removal and treatment of chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane within
the treatment area. As described in Appendix B, implementation of this alternative in the
treatment area shown on Figure 14 is expected to treat approximately 78 percent of the
accessible PCE mass within Building 1/central drainage ditch area, which will result in
approximately 75 percent of the estimated PCE mass within the Building 1/central drainage ditch
area being removed. Although not quantified, thermal remediation would likely remove a
significant portion (over half) of the 1,4-dioxane mass within the target treatment zone,
especially compared to the other potential active remedial actions in the Building 1/central
drainage ditch source area.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative C-4 would take approximately 6-1/2 months to construct. Construction activities
would likely need to be sequenced and phased to correspond with low production periods to
avoid excessive disruption to facility operations. Active remediation would take approximately
6 months followed by 2 years of groundwater performance monitoring. The overall remediation
timeframe is approximately 3 years to complete. The time to achieve cleanup levels in the sand
and gravel aquifer at the facility property boundary or downgradient areas would be longer.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
61
-------
This alternative has higher potential risk to construction workers because of substantial installs
and longer duration to implement. Precautions would need to be taken to protect human health
during implementation relative to general construction safety hazards and potential worker
exposure to COCs in soil and groundwater media during well installations, groundwater
sampling, and other intrusive work. Contractors would be required to follow a site-specific
health and safety plan in accordance with applicable OSHA requirements, including but not
limited to 29CFR1910.120 HAZWOPER requirements. Operation of the treatment system, if
required, would be conducted to ensure protectiveness of facility workers and the community
during active remediation.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative C-4 uses heating (ERH and/or TCH) wells to heat the subsurface and MPE wells to
remove the COCs from the subsurface. Alternative C-4 is technically and administratively
feasible to implement at the Site. Thermal treatment is a proven technology to treat COCs such
as PCE and 1,4-dioxane present in soil and groundwater at the Site. Thermal treatment is not an
effective technology to treat zinc. Soil lithology in the Building 1 area generally consists of silts
and clays. This lithology improves the effectiveness of the ERH thermal technology. High
groundwater velocity in the sand and gravel aquifer will cool the bottom 5 feet of the fine-
grained unit and this will reduce the effectiveness of treating impacted soil at the bottom of the
fine-grained unit. The impact of the high flow rates in the sand and gravel aquifer in treating
impacted soil in the bottom of the fine-grained unit can be minimized by using steam heating
technologies.
Physical limitations that will affect implementation of the thermal system are buried utilities
such as gas lines, water lines and electrical lines. The locations of these underground utilities
may interfere with construction activities. It may be necessary to protect or reroute existing
utilities during construction.
General contractors, equipment suppliers and drillers are readily available in Nebraska. These
types of contractors have been used in the past at the Site to install wells and utilities. Thermal
system installers are not readily available in Nebraska and would need to be brought in from out
of state.
Administratively, permits may be needed for treated air emissions to atmosphere and a waiver
may be needed from NDEE for heater wells to be left in place for a long time. Alternative C-4
would be highly disruptive to on-going facility operations due in part to the large number of
wells that would need to be installed, the magnitude of the trenching and piping installations and
the significant electrical upgrades that would be required. Implementation of this work would
require planning with facility personnel and contractor flexibility to work during times when the
facility is less busy. Traffic plans would need to be developed to ensure deliveries of supplies
and shipments of products to/from the facility can be adequately maintained during construction
work. Construction and O&M of this remedy requires highly specialized contractors.
Implementation of this remedy would require a temporary electrical transformer placed on Site
by the local utility company. This would also be needed to implement Alternatives C-3 and C-5
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
62
-------
through C-7. Based on preliminary contact with the utility company, it is assumed that adequate
power could be provided to the facility, but the timing of utility upgrades from the utility
company currently remains uncertain. Operation of the remediation system would be performed
by the remediation contractor (e.g., approximately 6 month active-heating period).
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost for constructing this alternative is $9,944,900 (2020 dollars). The
O&M costs are estimated at $306,800 over a 2-year period. Total present worth costs are
$10,247,000. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
4.7.5 Alternative C-5 - Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1 and 2 and Thermal
Remediation of Hot Spots 3 and 4 (aka "Hybrid DPE/Thermal")
General Description
Alternative C-5 (also referred to as "Hybrid DPE/Thermal") consists of DPE and ISTR treatment
in areas around Building 1 where PCE concentrations in soil generally exceed 3,000 |ig/kg. This
source reduction alternative removes mass from the areas with the highest concentrations of PCE
in soil. The treatment area and conceptual well layout is shown on Figure 15. The approximate
size of the treatment area is 31,000 SF. The treatment area includes the same 5,500 SF area in
the vicinity of Hot Spot 3 with treatment from approximately 5 to 50 feet bgs. The remaining
29,100 SF area would be treated from approximately 25 to 55 feet bgs in Hot Spot 1, 30 to 55
feet bgs in Hot Spot 2, and 20 to 55 feet bgs in Hot Spot 4. These target treatment zones were
selected, because the COCs in these portions of the fine-grained unit appear to have the most
significant impact to groundwater in the underlying sand and gravel aquifer. Thermal treatment
was chosen to treat impacted soil in areas where most of the mass was located at the Site near
Building 1. DPE was chosen to treat impacted soil in areas where most of the mass was near the
bottom of the fine-grained unit close to the contact with the sand and gravel aquifer. The total
volume of soil that would be treated by this alternative is approximately 28,400 CY.
The conceptual design includes installation of approximately 168 remediation wells (soil vapor
extraction wells, groundwater recovery wells, vapor recovery wells, heater wells, and multi-
depth temperature monitoring points), and 9 new groundwater monitoring wells for performance
monitoring (Figure 15). A pre-packaged extraction and treatment system (if necessary) would
be provided by the remediation contractor. Actual locations of remediation wells will be
determined during design and most locations and associated piping will require below ground
installation.
The DPE system would consist of a two-component system. Soil vapors would be extracted
from each SVE well using a vacuum extraction system capable of achieving wellhead vacuums
of 10- to 15-inches of mercury, and groundwater would be extracted from each groundwater
recovery well using a down-well pneumatic pump (QED Model AP4 or equal). Extracted soil
vapors would be treated using GAC or a thermal/catalytic oxidizer if required to meet air
emission requirements. Groundwater extracted from the combined wells would be conveyed to a
temporary storage tank(s) and then pumped to the demonstration pivots located north of the
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
63
-------
facility. No dedicated groundwater treatment system would be installed. The DPE system
would either not operate or would be operated in only SVE mode if extracted groundwater could
not be discharged without treatment.
Air sparging can be added to the DPE portion of this alternative to improve removal efficiency of
COCs as well as allowing the SVE portion of the system to operate when groundwater is unable
to be discharged to the north pivot system. For air sparging to be a viable addition to this
alternative a pilot test would need to be done to verify that air sparging can work in the lithology
present at the Site.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative C-5 would protect human health and the environment by reducing COC
concentrations in the fine-grained unit soil and groundwater and reducing source area
contributions to the groundwater in the sand and gravel aquifer. Remediation of shallow
impacted soils would also reduce a future potential worker exposure pathway due to direct
contact with impacted soils. Overall protectiveness of human health and the environment would
also be maintained through implementation of the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative C-5 is expected to ultimately satisfy all chemical-, action-, and location-specific
ARARs. Treatment of extracted soil vapors would be performed using a thermal/catalytic
oxidizer or GAC if required to meet air emission requirements. Extracted groundwater would be
discharged through the pivot irrigation system. The sand and gravel aquifer would ultimately
need to be restored to applicable cleanup levels to meet the chemical-specific ARAR
requirements in the ROD (USEPA 1990).
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative C-5 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by directly reducing
most COC concentrations (e.g., chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane) in the source area, which is
expected to reduce these contaminant concentrations in the sand and gravel aquifer over time.
Long-term effectiveness would be maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative C-5 would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of most COCs by removal and
treatment of chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane within the treatment area. As described in
Appendix B, implementation of this alternative in the treatment area shown on Figure 15 is
expected to treat approximately 76 percent of the accessible PCE mass within Building 1/central
drainage ditch area, which will result in approximately 73 percent of the estimated PCE mass
within the Building 1/central drainage ditch area being removed. This assumes that the VOC
mass removal efficiency for DPE is 60 percent in the unsaturated zone and 50 percent in the
saturated zone within the fine-grained unit. Removal efficiency of thermal treatment is
approximately 95% in the FGU. Removal estimates are based on the authors' judgment and
consider limitations of vapor recovery in low permeable soils with high moisture content (FRTR
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
64
-------
2002). Although not quantified, DPE would likely remove a portion of the 1,4-dioxane within
the target treatment zone, although the effectiveness of 1,4-dioxane removal is likely less for
DPE compared to thermal remediation. Although not quantified, thermal remediation would
likely remove a significant portion of the 1,4-dioxane within the target treatment zone, especially
compared to the other potential active remedial actions in the Building 1/central drainage ditch
source area.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative C-5 would take 1 to 3 years to construct. Active remediation is expected to take
approximately 6 months for thermal treatment followed by 8 years for DPE treatment for a total
of 9 years, assuming that the DPE system is operated approximately 3 to 4 months of the year
when water can be discharged to the pivot systems during the irrigation season. Discharge
through the demonstration pivots located directly north of the Lindsay facility outside of the
irrigation season may be possible based on weather and field conditions (e.g., ground saturation).
The overall remediation timeframe is approximately 9 to 10 years, including 2 years of post-
remediation groundwater performance monitoring. Two years of post-remediation groundwater
monitoring was assumed for purposes of cost estimating but SVE data and groundwater
monitoring results will determine when it is appropriate to terminate operations. The time to
achieve cleanup levels in the sand and gravel aquifer at the facility property boundary or
downgradient areas would be longer. If air sparging technology is added to this alternative, this
allows year-round treatment at the Site. This could decrease the overall remediation timeframe
by several years.
Precautions would need to be taken to protect human health and the environment in the source
area during implementation relative to general construction safety and potential worker exposure
to COCs in soil and groundwater media during well installations, groundwater sampling, O&M,
and other intrusive work. Contractors would be required to follow a site-specific health and
safety plan in accordance with applicable OSHA requirements, including but not limited to
29CFR1910.120 HAZWOPER requirements. Operation of the treatment systems would be
conducted, if required, to ensure protectiveness of the facility workers and community during
active remediation.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative C-5 uses both Thermal and DPE (vapor and groundwater extraction) which are
proven technologies to treat COCs such as PCE present in soil and groundwater at the Site. This
alternative is technically and administratively feasible to implement at the Site. From 1993 to
1998, SVE was used in two areas at the Site, northeast corner of Building 1 and north of Cell 2
(Figure 3) and was effective in removing COCs in the vadose zone within the radius of influence
of the systems. Seasonal pumping at the AOIW and MW89-12 located on the facility is
currently used and is effective at depressing the groundwater table which opens pore spaces for
COC removal. Factors that may affect the technical feasibility of using DPE to treat COCs at the
site are:
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
65
-------
• Lithology of the subsurface
• Depth to groundwater
• Options for management of extracted groundwater
• Access restrictions from site features and structures
While DPE technology will work in these soil conditions, DPE will be less effective in reducing
COC mass than thermal treatment since silts and clays improve the effectiveness of ERH thermal
treatment. Finer-grained soils tend to have a smaller radius of influence so more SVE wells are
needed to be effective. If heterogeneous conditions are present, the SVE system will not be as
effective in treated pockets of fine-grained soil when surrounded by course-grained materials.
Groundwater levels range from 30 to 50 feet bgs depending on time of year. Groundwater is
lowest in the summer because of lower precipitation, and the aquifer is depressed from irrigation
activities in the area and existing groundwater extraction efforts. SVE will be most effective
during periods of low groundwater, because soil with COCs are exposed to air flow. DPE
groundwater extraction pumps will be off or only have limited use during this time. When
groundwater levels are high (30 to 40 feet bgs) in the winter, more of the contaminated soil is
saturated so less soil is exposed for vapor extraction. Therefore, pumps will be needed to drop
the water table if more soil exposure is desired. This time period occurs when water levels are at
their highest which corresponds to lower surface water recharge rates at the Site. This makes it
more challenging to manage the final disposition of extracted groundwater; because when it is
most desirable to pump water to expose contaminated soil, it is more difficult to manage the
water disposal on the Site. Large volumes of water would require management during the winter
to keep groundwater levels depressed to maximize soil treatment by SVE.
High groundwater velocity in the sand and gravel aquifer will cool the bottom 5 feet of the fine-
grained unit, and this will reduce the effectiveness of treating impacted soil at the bottom of the
fine-grained unit when using thermal technology. High groundwater flow rates in the sand and
gravel aquifer do not affect the effectiveness of using DPE technology.
The presence of zinc in the groundwater above current known allowable limits for surface water
discharge prevents discharge to Shell Creek without treatment. The DPE system described by
this alternative does not have zinc treatment so would limit the ability to manage the water year-
round. Extraction of groundwater would thus be limited to the irrigation season when extracted
groundwater can be used for land application. This issue makes administration of the system
more difficult.
Land application can be done through an irrigation system provided the water is needed on the
land. The following can affect the demand or functionality of land application:
• Length of growing season for crops and timing of the growing season
• Level of saturation in the surrounding land surface
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
66
-------
• Cold weather can affect the operation of the irrigation system. Near freezing conditions
(<38 degrees F) require irrigation systems to shutdown to avoid freezing water in the
system and collapsing the irrigation pivots. Pivots generally work from May through
early September.
During land application, extracted groundwater is routed to the north pivot system which acts as
an air stripper removing the VOCs from the extracted groundwater prior to land application.
Options for zinc treatment are not included here but discussed in Alternative A-4.
Physical limitations that will affect the installation of this alternative are buried utilities such as
sewer lines, natural gas lines, and interceptor well piping. The locations of these underground
utilities may interfere with placement of the treatment wells and associated piping in the target
treatment area. It may be necessary to protect or reroute existing utilities during installation of
this alternative. Winter conditions in Nebraska would require lateral and header piping
associated with the DPE system groundwater extraction to be buried below ground. Engineering
controls such as heat tracing can also be implemented to protect the piping from the cold weather
and prevent freezing lines from breakage. General contractors, equipment suppliers and drillers
are readily available in Nebraska. These types of contractors have been used in the past at the
Site to install wells and utilities. DPE and Thermal system installers are not readily available in
Nebraska and would need to be brought in from out of state.
Administratively, permits may be needed for treated air emissions to atmosphere and a waiver
may be needed from NDEE for heater wells to be left in place for a long time. Alternative C-5
would be highly disruptive to on-going facility operations due in part to the large number of
wells that would need to be installed, the magnitude of the trenching and piping installations, and
the significant electrical upgrades that would be required. Implementation of this work would
require planning with facility personnel and contractor flexibility to work during times when the
facility is less busy. Traffic plans would need to be developed to ensure deliveries of supplies
and shipments of products to/from the facility can be adequately maintained during construction
work. Construction and O&M of this remedy requires highly specialized contractors. At least
one qualified contractor is available to perform this work if this remedy is selected as a preferred
alternative.
Implementation of this remedy would require significant upgrades to the facility electrical
system, including a new or upgraded power service from the local utility. Upgraded electrical
service would also be needed for Alternatives C-3, C-4, C-6 and C-7. Based on preliminary
contact with the electric utility company, adequate power can be supplied as needed with
appropriate lead time. Operation of the thermal remediation system would be performed by the
remediation contractor (e.g., approximately 7 month active-heating period). O&M of the DPE
system would be performed by a local contractor, although Lindsay staff may provide some
O&M support after being appropriately trained.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
67
-------
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost for constructing this alternative is $7,432,400 (2020 dollars). The
O&M costs are estimated at $3,586,300 over a 9-year period. Total present worth costs are
$10,850,000. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
4.7.6 Alternative C-6 - Dual-Phase Extraction Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4 (aka "Small DPE")
General Description
Alternative C-6 (also referred to as "Small DPE") consists of DPE in areas outside of Building 1
with PCE concentrations in soil above 5,000 |ig/kg. This source reduction alternative removes
mass from the four areas with the highest concentrations of PCE in soil. The treatment area and
conceptual well layout is shown on Figure 16. It is noted that the size of the "Small Thermal"
and "Small DPE" target treatment zones are different, with the "Small DPE" treatment zone
being larger than the "Small Thermal" target treatment zone. Although the size of the treatment
zones are different, as noted in Appendix B, the estimated mass of PCE removed is expected to
be less for "Small DPE" alternatives based on the assumption that thermal remediation is more
effective than DPE at ambient temperatures (Hunt et. al., 1988 and Udell 1996). The different
sized treatment areas are also based on cost considerations. The treatment zone for this
alternative includes an area of approximately 10,500 SF at depths of approximately 5 to 55 feet
bgs depending on the hot spot being treated. The total volume of soil that would be treated by
this alternative is approximately 11,000 CY.
The DPE system would consist of a two-component system. Soil vapors would be extracted
from each DPE well using a vacuum extraction system capable of achieving wellhead vacuums
of at least 10- to 15-inches of mercury, and groundwater would be extracted from each DPE well
using a down-well pneumatic pump (QED Model AP4 or equal). Extracted soil vapors would be
treated using GAC or a thermal/catalytic oxidizer if required to meet air emission requirements.
Groundwater extracted from the combined wells would be conveyed to a temporary storage
tank(s) and then pumped to the demonstration pivots located north of the facility. No dedicated
groundwater treatment system would be installed. The DPE system would either not operate or
would be operated in only SVE mode if extracted groundwater could not be discharged without
treatment.
The conceptual design includes installation of 24 SVE wells, 7 groundwater extraction wells and
6 new groundwater monitoring wells. Operation of the DPE system would be done in two 8-year
phases. Phase 1 would be treating Hot Spots 3 and 4 followed by Phase 2 which would treat Hot
Spots 1 and 2. Air sparging can be added to this alternative to improve removal efficiency of
COCs as well as allowing the SVE portion of the system to operate when groundwater is unable
to be discharged to the north pivot system. For air sparging to be a viable addition to this
alternative, a pilot test would need to be done to verify that air sparging can work in the lithology
present at the Site.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
68
-------
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative C-6 would protect human health and the environment by reducing COC
concentrations in the fine-grained unit soil and groundwater and reducing source area
contributions to the groundwater in the sand and gravel aquifer. Remediation of shallow
impacted soils would also reduce a future potential worker exposure pathway due to direct
contact with impacted soils. Overall protectiveness of human health and the environment would
also be maintained through implementation of the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative C-6 is expected to ultimately satisfy all chemical-, action-, and location-specific
ARARs. Treatment of extracted soil vapors would be performed using a thermal/catalytic
oxidizer or GAC if required to meet air emission requirements. Extracted groundwater would be
discharged through the pivot irrigation system. The sand and gravel aquifer would ultimately
need to be restored to applicable cleanup levels to meet the chemical-specific ARAR
requirements in the ROD (USEPA 1990).
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative C-6 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by directly reducing
most COC concentrations (e.g., chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane) in the source area, which is
expected to reduce these contaminant concentrations in the sand and gravel aquifer over time.
Long-term effectiveness would be maintained through the existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative C-6 would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of most COCs by removal and
treatment of chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane within the treatment area. As described in
Appendix B, implementation of this alternative in the treatment area shown on Figure 16 is
expected to treat approximately 39 percent of the accessible PCE mass within Building 1/central
drainage ditch area, which will result in approximately 38 percent of the estimated PCE mass
within the Building 1/central drainage ditch area being removed. This assumes that the VOC
mass removal efficiency is 60 percent in the unsaturated zone and 50 percent in the saturated
zone within the fine-grained unit. Removal estimates are based on the authors' judgment and
consider limitations of vapor recovery in low permeable soils with high moisture content (FRTR
2002). Although not quantified, DPE may remove a portion of the 1,4-dioxane within the target
treatment zone but the effectiveness of 1,4-dioxane removal is likely less for DPE compared to
thermal remediation.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative C-6 would take 2 to 3 months to construct. Active remediation is expected to take
approximately 8 years per phase of treatment for a total of 16 years, if the DPE system is
operated approximately 3 to 4 months of the year when water can be discharged to the pivot
systems during the irrigation season. Discharge through the demonstration pivots located
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
69
-------
directly north of the Lindsay facility outside of the irrigation season may be possible based on
weather and field conditions (e.g., ground saturation). The overall remediation timeframe is
approximately 18 years, including 2 years of post-remediation groundwater performance
monitoring. Two years of post-remediation groundwater monitoring was assumed for purposes
of cost estimating but SVE data and groundwater monitoring results will determine when it is
appropriate to terminate performance monitoring. The time to achieve cleanup levels in the sand
and gravel aquifer at the facility property boundary or downgradient areas would be longer. If
air sparging technology is added to this alternative, this allows year-round treatment at the Site.
This could decrease the overall remediation timeframe by several years.
Precautions would need to be taken to protect human health and the environment in the source
area during implementation relative to general construction safety and potential worker exposure
to COCs in soil and groundwater media during well installations, groundwater sampling, O&M,
and other intrusive work. Contractors would be required to follow a site-specific health and
safety plan in accordance with applicable OSHA requirements, including but not limited to
29CFR1910.120 HAZWOPER requirements. Operation of the vapor treatment system would be
conducted, if required, to ensure protectiveness of the facility workers and community during
active remediation.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative C-6 uses DPE (vapor and groundwater extraction) which is a proven technology to
treat COCs such as PCE present in soil and groundwater at the Site. DPE system installation is
technically and administratively feasible to implement at the Site. From 1993 to 1998, SVE was
used in two areas at the Site, northeast corner of Building 1 and north of Cell 2 (Figure 3) and
was effective in removing COCs in the vadose zone within the radius of influence of the
systems. Seasonal pumping at the AOIW and MW89-12 located on the facility is currently used
and is effective at depressing the groundwater table which opens pore spaces for COC removal.
Factors that may affect the technical feasibility of using DPE to treat COCs at the Site are:
• Lithology of the subsurface
• Depth to groundwater
• Options for management of extracted groundwater
• Access restrictions from site features and structures
While DPE technology will work in these soil conditions, DPE will be less effective in reducing
COC mass than ISTR Alternatives C-3 and C-4. Finer-grained soils tend to have a smaller
radius of influence, so more wells are needed to be effective. If heterogeneous conditions are
present the SVE system will not be as effective in treated pockets of fine-grained soil when
surrounded by course-grained materials.
Groundwater levels range from 30 to 50 feet bgs depending on time of year. Groundwater is
lowest in the summer because of lower precipitation, and the aquifer is depressed from irrigation
activities in the area and existing groundwater extraction efforts. SVE will be most effective
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
70
-------
during periods of low groundwater, because soils with COCs are exposed to air flow. DPE
groundwater extraction pumps will be off or only have limited use during this time. When
groundwater levels are high (30 to 40 feet bgs) in the winter, more of the contaminated soil is
saturated so less soil is exposed for vapor extraction. Therefore, pumps will be needed to drop
the water table if more soil exposure is desired. This time period occurs when water levels are at
their highest which corresponds to lower surface water recharge rates at the Site. This makes it
more challenging to manage the final disposition of extracted groundwater; because when it is
most desirable to pump water to expose contaminated soil, it is more difficult to manage the
disposal for water. Large volumes of water would require management during the winter to keep
groundwater levels depressed to maximize soil treatment by SVE.
The presence of zinc in the groundwater above current known allowable limits for surface water
discharge prevents discharge to Shell Creek without treatment. The DPE system described by
this alternative does not have zinc treatment so would limit the ability to manage the water year-
round. Extraction of groundwater would thus be limited to the irrigation season when extracted
groundwater can be used for land application.
Land application can be done through an irrigation system provided the water is needed on the
land. The following can affect the demand or functionality of land application:
• Length of growing season for crops and timing of the growing season
• Level of saturation in the surrounding land surface
• Cold weather can affect the operation of the irrigation system. Near freezing conditions
(<38 degrees F) require irrigation systems to shutdown to avoid freezing water in the
system and collapsing the irrigation pivots. Pivots generally work from May through
early September.
During land application, extracted groundwater is routed to the north pivot system which acts as
an air stripper removing the VOCs from the extracted groundwater prior to land application.
Options for zinc treatment are discussed in Alternative A-4.
Physical limitations that will affect the installation of the DPE system are buried utilities such as
sewer lines, natural gas lines, and interceptor well piping. The locations of these underground
utilities may interfere with placement of the DPE wells and associated piping in the target
treatment area. It may be necessary to protect or reroute existing utilities during installation of
the DPE system. Winter conditions in Nebraska would require lateral and header piping
associated with the DPE system to be buried below ground. Engineering controls such as heat
tracing can also be implemented to protect the piping from the cold weather and prevent freezing
lines from breakage. General contractors, equipment suppliers, and drillers are readily available
in Nebraska. These types of contractors have been used in the past at the Site to install wells and
utilities. DPE system installers may not be readily available in Nebraska so might have to be
brought in from out of state.
Administratively, an air permit may be needed for discharge of vapor emissions to atmosphere.
Alternative C-6 would be moderately disruptive to on-going facility operations due to well
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
71
-------
installations and other construction activities in areas of high vehicle traffic (e.g., forklifts and
supply vehicles). O&M is not expected to adversely impact facility operations. Implementation
of this remedy would require planning with facility personnel and contractor flexibility to work
during times when the facility is less busy (e.g., possible night work). Traffic plans would need
to be developed to ensure that deliveries of supplies and shipments of products can be adequately
maintained during construction work. The reliability of the active remediation system may be
adversely affected by technical challenges associated with management of the extracted
groundwater or long-term maintenance of mechanical systems.
Implementation of this remedy would require upgrades to the facility electrical system, including
a new or upgraded power service from the local utility. Upgraded electrical service will also be
needed for Alternatives C-3, C-4, C-5, and C-7. Based on preliminary contact with the utility
company, adequate power could be provided to the facility as needed with appropriate lead time.
Components of Alternative C-6 include groundwater monitoring wells, DPE wells, and
associated piping and equipment of which are readily implemented; and contractors are available
to perform these services. It is assumed that O&M of the remediation system would be
performed by a local contractor, although Lindsay staff may provide some O&M support after
being appropriately trained.
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost for constructing this alternative is $1,650,700 (2020 dollars). The
O&M costs are estimated at $6,500,200 over an 18-year period. Total present worth costs are
$7,622,000. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
4.7.7 Alternative C-7 - Dual-Phase Extraction (aka "Large DPE")
General Description
Alternative C-7 (also referred to as "Large DPE") consists of DPE in areas outside of Building 1
with PCE concentrations in soil above 1,000 |ig/kg. This source removal alternative will treat
COCs present in soil from a significant portion of the Building 1 area. The treatment area and
conceptual well layout is shown on Figure 17. It is noted that the size of the "Large Thermal"
and "Large DPE" target treatment zones are different, with the "Large DPE" treatment zone
being larger than the "Large Thermal" target treatment zone. Although the size of the treatment
zones are different, as noted in Appendix B, the estimated mass of PCE removed is expected to
be less for "Large DPE" alternatives based on the assumption that thermal remediation is more
effective than DPE at ambient temperatures (Hunt et. al., 1988 and Udell 1996). The different
sized treatment areas are also based on cost considerations. The treatment zone for this
alternative includes an area of approximately 54,000 SF at depths of approximately 5 to 55 feet
bgs depending on the treatment area. The total volume of soil that would be treated by this
alternative is approximately 52,000 CY.
Similar to Alternative C-6 ("Small DPE"), the Large DPE system would consist of a two-
component system. Soil vapors would be extracted from each SVE well using a vacuum
extraction system; and groundwater would be extracted from each DPE groundwater extraction
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
72
-------
well using a down-well pneumatic pump. Extracted soil vapors would be treated using GAC or a
thermal/catalytic oxidizer if required to meet air emission requirements. Groundwater would be
pumped to a temporary storage tank and subsequently to the demonstration pivots located north
of the facility without treatment during the irrigation season. The system would either not
operate during the non-irrigation season or would operate only in SVE mode when water cannot
be discharged without treatment.
The conceptual design includes installation of 104 SVE wells, 54 groundwater extraction wells
and 6 new groundwater monitoring wells. Operation of the DPE system would be done in two
phases. Phase 1 would be treating treatment areas 3, 4, and 5 followed by Phase 2 which would
treat treatment areas 1 and 2. Air sparging can be added to this alternative to improve removal
efficiency of COCs as well as allowing the SVE portion of the system to operate when
groundwater is unable to be discharged to the north pivot system. For air sparging to be a viable
addition to this alternative, a pilot test would need to be done to verify that air sparging can work
in the lithology present at the Site.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
Alternative C-7 would protect human health and the environment by reducing COC
concentrations in the fine-grained unit soil and groundwater and thereby reduce source area
contributions to groundwater in the sand and gravel aquifer. Overall protectiveness of human
health and the environment would also be maintained through implementation of the existing
site-wide remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
Alternative C-7 is expected to ultimately satisfy all chemical-, action-, and location-specific
ARARs. The sand and gravel aquifer would ultimately need to be restored to applicable cleanup
levels to meet the chemical-specific ARAR requirements in the ROD (USEPA 1990).
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Alternative C-7 would improve long-term effectiveness and permanence by reducing most COC
concentrations (e.g., chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane) in the fine-grained unit soil and
groundwater and is expected to reduce these contaminant concentrations in the groundwater in
the sand and gravel aquifer over time. Long-term effectiveness would be maintained through the
existing site-wide remedial actions.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternative C-7 would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of most COCs by removal and
treatment of chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane within the treatment area. As described in
Appendix B, implementation of this alternative in the treatment area shown on Figure 17 is
expected to treat approximately 45 percent of the accessible PCE mass within Building 1/central
drainage ditch area, which will result in approximately 44 percent of the estimated PCE mass
within the Building 1/central drainage ditch area being removed. Although not quantified, DPE
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
73
-------
would likely remove a portion of the 1,4-dioxane within the target treatment zone, although the
effectiveness for 1,4-dioxane removal is likely less for DPE compared to thermal remediation.
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Alternative C-7 would take about 3 to 4 months to construct. Active remediation would take
approximately 8 years per phase of treatment, assuming that the DPE system is operated during
the irrigation season only when extracted groundwater could be discharged to the pivot irrigation
system (note: for costing purposes, it is assumed the system would operate continuously for 2
years in SVE mode). The overall remediation timeframe is therefore approximately 16 years,
including 2 years of post-remediation groundwater performance monitoring of select wells. Two
years of post-remediation groundwater monitoring was assumed for purposes of cost estimating,
but SVE data and groundwater monitoring results will determine when it is appropriate to
terminate performance monitoring. The time to achieve groundwater cleanup levels in the sand
and gravel aquifer would be longer. If air sparging technology is added to this alternative, this
allows year-round treatment at the Site. This could decrease the overall remediation timeframe
by several years.
Precautions would need to be taken to protect human health and the environment in the source
area during implementation relative to general construction safety hazards at an operating facility
and potential exposure to hazardous materials in contaminated media during well installations,
groundwater sampling, O&M, and other intrusive work. Contractors would be required to follow
a site-specific health and safety plan in accordance with applicable OSHA requirements,
including but not limited to 29CFR1910.120 HAZWOPER requirements. Operation of the vapor
treatment system would be conducted, if required, to ensure protectiveness of facility workers
and the nearby community during active remediation.
Implementation (Balancing)
Alternative C-7 uses DPE (vapor and groundwater extraction) which is a proven technology to
treat COCs such as PCE present in soil and groundwater at the Site. DPE installation is
technically and administratively feasible to implement in the Building 1 area. From 1993 to
1998, SVE was used in two areas at the Site, northeast corner of Building 1 and north of Cell 2
(Figure 3) and was effective in removing COCs in the vadose zone within the radius of influence
of the systems. Seasonal pumping at the AOIW and MW89-12 located on the facility is
currently used and is effective at depressing the groundwater table which opens pore spaces for
COC removal. Factors that may affect the technical feasibility of using DPE to treat COCs at the
Site are:
• Lithology of the subsurface
• Depth to groundwater
• Options for management of extracted groundwater
• Access restrictions from site features and structures
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
74
-------
While DPE technology will work in these soil conditions, finer-grained soils tend to have a
smaller radius of influence; so more wells are needed to be effective. If heterogeneous
conditions are present, the SVE system will not be as effective in treated pockets of fine-grained
soil when surrounded by course-grained materials.
Groundwater levels range from 30 to 50 feet bgs depending on time of year. Groundwater is
lowest in the summer because of lower precipitation, and the aquifer is depressed from irrigation
activities in the area and existing groundwater extraction efforts. SVE will be most effective
during periods of low groundwater, because soils with COCs are exposed to air flow. DPE
groundwater extraction pumps will be off or only have limited use during this time. When
groundwater levels are high (30 to 40 feet bgs) in the winter, more of the contaminated soil is
saturated so less soil is exposed for vapor extraction. Therefore, pumps will be needed to drop
the water table if more soil exposure is desired. Unfortunately, this time period occurs when
water levels are at their highest which corresponds to lower surface water recharge rates at the
Site. This makes it more challenging to manage the final disposition of extracted groundwater;
because when it is most desirable to pump water to expose contaminated soil, it is more difficult
to manage the disposal of the water. Large volumes of water would require management during
the winter to keep groundwater levels depressed to maximize soil treatment by SVE.
The presence of zinc in the groundwater above current known allowable limits for surface water
discharge prevents discharge to Shell Creek without treatment. The DPE system described by
this alternative does not have zinc treatment so would limit the ability to manage the water year-
round. Extraction of groundwater would thus be limited to the irrigation season when extracted
groundwater can be used for land application.
Land application can be done through an irrigation system provided the water is needed on the
land. The following can affect the demand or functionality of land application:
• Length of growing season for crops and timing of the growing season
• Saturation level of the surrounding land surface
• Cold weather can affect the operation of the irrigation system. Near freezing conditions
(<38 degrees F) require irrigation systems to shutdown to avoid freezing water in the
system and collapsing the irrigation pivots. Pivots generally work from May through
early September.
During land application, extracted groundwater is routed to the north pivot system which acts as
an air stripper removing the VOCs from the extracted groundwater prior to land application.
Zinc treatment is not included in this alternative but options for zinc treatment are discussed in
Alternative A-4.
Physical limitations that will affect the installation of the DPE system are buried utilities such as
sewer lines, natural gas lines, and interceptor well piping. The locations of these underground
utilities may interfere with placement of the DPE wells and associated piping in the target
treatment area. It may be necessary to protect or reroute existing utilities during installation of
the DPE system. Site operations and winter conditions in Nebraska would require lateral and
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
75
-------
header piping associated with the DPE system to be buried below ground. Engineering controls
such as heat tracing can also be implemented to protect the piping from the cold weather and
prevent lines form freezing and breakage. General contractors, equipment suppliers, and drillers
are readily available in Nebraska. These types of contractors have been used in the past at the
Site to install wells and utilities. DPE system installers may not be readily available in Nebraska
so might have to be brought in from out of state.
Administratively, permits for air emissions may be needed. Alternative C-7 would be
moderately to highly disruptive to on-going facility operations due to well installations and other
construction activities in areas of high vehicle traffic (e.g., forklifts and supply vehicles). On-
going O&M is not expected to adversely impact facility operations. Implementation of this work
would require planning with facility personnel and contractor flexibility to work during times
when the facility is less busy. Traffic plans would need to be developed to ensure deliveries of
supplies and shipments of products can be adequately maintained during construction work. The
reliability of the active remediation system may be adversely affected by technical challenges
associated with management of the extracted groundwater or long-term maintenance of
mechanical systems.
Implementation of this remedy would require upgrades to the facility electrical system, including
a new or upgraded power service from the local utility. This would also affect Alternatives C-3
through C-6. Based on preliminary contact with the electrical utility company, adequate power
could be provided to the facility as needed with appropriate lead time. Components of
Alternative C-7 include groundwater monitoring wells, DPE groundwater and vapor extraction
wells, and associated piping and equipment of which are readily implemented; and contractors
are available to perform these services. It is assumed that O&M of the remediation system
would be performed by a local contractor, although Lindsay staff may provide some O&M
support after being appropriately trained.
Costs (Balancing)
The estimated capital cost for constructing this alternative is $3,802,500 (2020 dollars). The
O&M costs are estimated at $10,314,200 over an 18-year period. Total present worth costs are
$13,164,000. Detailed cost estimates and assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
4.8 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE
BUILDING 1/ CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH SOURCE AREA
The following section provides a comparative analysis of remedial alternatives for the Building
1/central drainage ditch area. Key information and comparative ranking for each alternative is
summarized in Tables 10,11 and 12.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (Threshold)
All the remedial alternatives for the Building 1/central drainage ditch area, including the no-
action alternative, are protective of the environment if the existing site-wide remedial actions are
also implemented. All the alternatives meet this threshold criterion.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
76
-------
Compliance with ARARs (Threshold)
All the remedial alternatives are ultimately expected to meet applicable action-, chemical-, and
location-specific ARARs and therefore meet this threshold requirement. The sand and gravel
aquifer would ultimately need to be restored to applicable cleanup levels to meet the chemical-
specific ARAR requirements in the ROD (USEPA 1990).
The central drainage ditch is considered a 'water of the state;' and as the flow from the ditch
enters Dry Creek, the substantive requirements of permits otherwise required by the US ACE,
adjustments affecting Lindsay's NPDES facility permit; or substantive requirements of a
stormwater construction permit could trigger new requirements that would significantly affect
the cost of implementing the capping alternative (C-2). However, the current assumption based
on early review of these requirements is that the capping alternative as described in Section 4.7.2
will meet the ARAR criterion as well as alternatives C-l and C-3 through C-7.
Long —Term Effectiveness and Permanence (Balancing)
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refer to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time once the cleanup goals have been met.
The RAO established in the ROD is aquifer restoration to the most stringent drinking water
standards. The primary goal of the source area remedial actions is to reduce the mass of COCs
(primarily PCE which is the most prevalent COC in groundwater) in the fine-grained unit that is
impacting the sand and gravel aquifer. Restoration of the sand and gravel aquifer to drinking
water standards is not the immediate goal of source area remediation, although source area
remediation will likely reduce the overall restoration timeframe for the sand and gravel aquifer.
In the comparative evaluation for this alternative, preference is given to those alternatives that
remove or immobilize the greatest amount of PCE which is the most prevalent contaminant in
source area soils and groundwater beneath the facility and in the groundwater in the sand and
gravel aquifer. As indicated above, the thermal remediation and DPE alternatives would also
remove 1,4-dioxane from the target treatment zones, although thermal remediation would likely
be more effective at 1,4-dioxane remediation compared to DPE.
The relative ranking for each alternative for this criterion is as follows:
• Alternative C-4 (Large Thermal) is ranked most favorable, because it would remove the
largest amount of PCE compared to the other remedial alternatives.
• Alternative C-5 (Hybrid DPE/Thermal) is ranked second most favorable, because it
would likely remove the second highest mass of PCE of all the remedial alternatives.
• Alternative C-3 (Small Thermal) is ranked third most favorable, because it would remove
the third highest amount of PCE of all the remedial alternatives.
• Alternative C-7 (Large DPE) is ranked fourth most favorable, because it would likely
remove the fourth highest mass of PCE of all the remedial alternatives
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
77
-------
• Alternative C-6 (Small DPE) is ranked the fifth most favorable, because it would remove
the fifth highest amount of PCE of all the remedial alternatives.
• Alternative C-2 (Capping) is ranked sixth most favorable. This alternative would not
provide any PCE mass removal; however, it would reduce the amount of future
groundwater contamination caused by leaching of surface water through COC-impacted
soil in the fine-grained unit.
• Alternative C-l (No-action) is ranked last for this criterion, because it does not involve
any source remediation that would remove PCE.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment (Balancing)
Alternatives that are more effective at reducing the toxicity, mobility, and volume of COCs
(particularly PCE which is the most prevalent COC in groundwater in the sand and gravel
aquifer) through treatment are more favorably ranked for this criterion compared to alternatives
that are less effective at treating COCs.
The relative ranking for each alternative for this criterion is as follows (see Appendix B for mass
removal calculations and assumptions):
• Alternative C-4 (Large Thermal) is ranked most favorable, because it would likely treat
the largest amount of PCE compared to the other remedial alternatives.
• Alternative C-5 (Hybrid DPE/Thermal) is ranked second most favorable, because it
would likely remove the second highest mass of PCE of all the remedial alternatives
• Alternative C-3 (Small Thermal) is ranked third most favorable, because it would likely
treat the third highest amount of PCE of all the remedial alternatives.
• Alternative C-l (Large DPE) is ranked fourth most favorable, because it would likely
treat the fourth highest mass of PCE of all the remedial alternatives.
• Alternative C-6 (Small DPE) is ranked the fifth most favorable, because it would likely
treat the fifth highest amount of PCE of all the remedial alternatives.
• Alternative C-2 (Capping) is ranked sixth most favorable. This alternative would not
provide any PCE treatment; however, it would reduce future groundwater impacts caused
by leaching of surface water through COC-impacted soil in the fine-grained unit and
therefore should reduce the volume and toxicity of the groundwater plume over time.
Alternative C-l (No-action) is ranked last for this criterion, because it does not involve
any source remediation that would remove or treat PCE.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
78
-------
Short-Term Effectiveness (Balancing)
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any
adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction
and implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved (e.g., heavy equipment hazards
during construction, hazards associated with travel to the Site by O&M contractors, etc.).
Alternatives that present few hazards during construction and implementation and/or that can be
implemented (active phase) in the shortest timeframe are ranked more favorably than alternatives
that have higher construction and implementation risks and take longer periods of time to
implement.
The relative ranking of each alternative for this criterion is as follows:
• Alternative C-l (No-action) is ranked most favorable for this criterion, because it does
not involve any construction and implementation risks and can be implemented
immediately.
• Alternative C-2 (Capping) is ranked second most favorable, because implementation of
this non-intrusive remedy presents comparatively low construction hazards and can be
implemented in a relatively short timeframe compared to the other active remediation
alternatives.
• Alternative C-3 (Small Thermal) is ranked third most favorable. Construction of the
remedial system would be less hazardous to workers compared to Alternative C-4 (Large
Thermal), Alternative C-5 (Hybrid DPE/Thermal) and Alternative C-7 (Large DPE) since
it involves fewer wells and infrastructure. Alternative C-3 can be implemented in a much
shorter duration than Alternatives C-6 (Small DPE) and C-7 (Large DPE).
• Alternative C-6 (Small DPE) is ranked fourth most favorable. This alternative would
likely have more significant hazards during construction and implementation compared to
Alternatives C-l and C-3 but less significant hazards compared to Alternative C-4 (Large
Thermal), Alternative C-5 (Hybrid DPE/Thermal) and Alternative C-7 (Large DPE).
This alternative was ranked less favorably then Alternative C-3 for this criterion because
of its significantly longer remediation timeframe compared to Alternative C-3 (Small
Thermal), which could expose workers to hazards over a much longer duration.
• Alternative C-4 (Large Thermal) is ranked fifth most favorable just slightly below
Alternative C-6, because it requires more remediation wells be installed. This alternative
would likely have more significant hazards during construction and implementation
compared to Alternative C-3 (Small Thermal), Alternative C-6 (Small DPE) but less
significant hazards compared to Alternative C-7 (Large DPE). However, Alternative C-4
can be implemented in a much shorter duration than Alternatives C-5 (Hybrid
DPE/Thermal), C-6 (Small DPE) and C-7 (Large DPE).
• Alternative C-5 (Hybrid DPE/Thermal) is ranked sixth most favorable. This alternative
would likely have more significant hazards during construction and implementation
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
79
-------
compared to Alternatives C-3 (Small Thermal), Alternative C-6 (Small DPE) but less
significant hazards compared to Alternative C-7 (Large DPE). This alternative was
ranked less favorably than Alternative C-4 for this criterion because of its significantly
longer remediation timeframe compared to Alternative C-4 which could expose workers
to hazards over a much longer duration.
• Alternative C-7 (Large DPE) is ranked last for this criterion because of its significantly
longer remediation timeframe compared to Alternative C-3, Alternative C-4 and
Alternative C-5. This alternative will likely have significantly higher hazards to workers
during construction and implementation of this alternative compared to the other
alternatives. These hazards include but are not limited to installation of more wells and
subsurface piping.
Implementation (Balancing)
Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of the remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed to implement an option. All the remedial
alternatives should be administratively feasible and can be implemented with available materials
and services. The comparative ranking analysis for this criterion is largely based on
administrative and technical difficulty and the degree of disruption that may be expected from
construction and implementation of each alternative. Alternatives that are subjectively judged to
be less technical, administratively easier to implement, and result in less disruption are ranked
more favorably than alternatives that are expected to be more disruptive to on-going facility
operations.
The relative ranking for each alternative for this criterion is as follows:
• Alternative C-l (No-action) is ranked most favorable for this criterion, because it does
not involve any implementation beyond the site-wide remedy components (long-term
groundwater monitoring, operation of the existing off-facility hydraulic control system,
and land use controls).
• Alternative C-2 (Capping) is ranked second most favorable. The capping alternative is
easier to implement, less disruptive and technically easier to implement than other
alternatives that involve active source treatment.
• Alternative C-3 (Small Thermal) is ranked third most favorable, because it would be less
disruptive to facility operations because of less wells and infrastructure and lower active
remediation timeframes compared to Alternatives C-4 through C-7. Implementation of
this alternative would be more disruptive than Alternatives C-l and C-2. This alternative
is administratively and technically easier to implement and design than Alternatives C-4
through C-7.
• Alternative C-6 (Small DPE) is ranked the fourth most favorable. This alternative would
be less disruptive to facility operations compared to Alternative C-4 (Large Thermal),
Alternative C-5 (Hybrid DPE/Thermal) and Alternative C-7 (Large DPE) and more
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
80
-------
disruptive compared to Alternatives C-l (No-action), C-2 (Capping), and C-3 (Small
Thermal). Alternative C-6 is considered more disruptive than Alternative C-3 primarily
because of the significantly longer active remediation timeframe and the potential
challenges associated with long-term water management of the DPE system. Technically
this alternative will be more difficult to achieve source reduction goals due to soil
lithology making this alternative technically less feasible than Alternative C-3 (Small
Thermal), Alternative C-4 (Large Thermal), and Alternative C-5 (Hybrid DPE/Thermal).
• Alternative C-4 (Large Thermal) is ranked fifth most favorable. This alternative would
be more difficult to construct compared to all the other alternatives due to the large
number of wells and relative complexity of the thermal remediation system compared to
the DPE system. However, Alternative C-4 is ranked more favorably than Alternative C-
5 (Hybrid DPE/Thermal) and Alternative C-l (Large DPE) for this criterion, because it
can be implemented by experienced specialty contractors in a much shorter timeframe
compared to Alternative C-5 (Hybrid DPE/Thermal) and Alternative C-l (Large DPE).
• Alternative C-5 (Hybrid DPE/Thermal) is ranked sixth most favorable. This alternative
would be more disruptive to facility operations than Alternative C-3 (Small Thermal),
Alternative C-5 but less disruptive than Alternative C-l (Large DPE). Alternative C-5 is
considered more disruptive than Alternative C-4 (Large Thermal) primarily because of
the significantly longer active remediation timeframe and the potential challenges
associated with long-term water management of the DPE system portion of Alternative
C-5.
• Alternative C-l (Large DPE) is ranked least favorable, because the construction would be
disruptive to facility operations. The significantly longer active remediation timeframe and
expected challenges associated with long-term water management and source reduction
objectives for the Large DPE alternative is why this alternative was ranked least favorable.
Costs (Balancing)
The ranking of alternatives for the cost criterion is as follows:
• Alternative C-l (No-action) is ranked most favorable, because no additional costs are
incurred.
• Alternative C-2 (Capping) is ranked second most favorable, because it has the second
lowest costs. The estimated capital cost (2020 dollars) for this alternative is $832,700.
The estimated O&M costs are $232,000. Total present worth costs for this alternative are
$1,043,000.
• Alternative C-3 (Small Thermal) is ranked third most favorable, because it has the third
lowest costs. The estimated capital cost (2020 dollars) for this alternative is $3,142,600.
The estimated O&M costs are $183,400. Total present worth costs for this alternative are
$3,324,000.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
81
-------
• Alternative C-6 (Small DPE) is ranked fourth most favorable. The estimated capital cost
(2020 dollars) for this alternative is $1,650,700. The estimated O&M costs are
$6,500,200. Total present worth costs for this alternative are $7,622,000.
• Alternative C-4 (Large Thermal) is ranked fifth most favorable. The estimated capital
cost (2020 dollars) for this alternative is $9,944,900. The estimated O&M costs are
$306,800. Total present worth costs for this alternative are $10,247,000.
• Alternative C-5 (Hybrid DPE/Thermal) is ranked sixth most favorable. The estimated
capital cost (2020 dollars) for this alternative is $7,432,400. The estimated O&M costs
are $3,586,300. Total present worth costs for this alternative are $10,850,000.
• Alternative C-7 (Large DPE) is ranked least favorable, because it has the highest costs.
The estimated capital cost (2020 dollars) for this alternative is $3,802,500. The estimated
O&M costs are $10,314,200. Total present worth costs for this alternative are
$13,164,000.
Detailed cost estimates and assumptions, including estimated capital costs, O&M costs, and total
present worth costs are provided in Appendix C.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
82
-------
5.0 RECOMMENDED FACILITY-WIDE ALTERNATIVE
This section presents the recommended facility-wide remedy and the rationale for selecting this
remedy. As described in Section 4.1, the facility-wide remedy includes the recommended
alternatives for:
• On-Facility Hydraulic Control Alternatives A-l through A-4
• Cell Area Alternatives B-l through B-6, and
• Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch Alternatives C-l through C-7
Recommendations of remedial actions for each of these three categories are made based on the
individual and comparative analyses of alternatives described in Sections 4.3 through 4.8.
Priority was given to those alternatives that were deemed cost-effective and implementable
without significant disruption to on-going facility operations. The results of simulations from the
groundwater flow and solute transport model for various potential remedy implementation
scenarios were also considered in the final evaluation of alternatives prior to recommending a
site wide alternative (URS 2018a)
5.1 PREFERRED ON-FACILITY HYDRAULIC CONTROL ALTERNATIVE
The recommended remedial alternative for on-facility hydraulic control is Alternative A-2
(Seasonal Optimized Pumping from New On-Facility Wells). This alternative would provide
improved hydraulic capture of the on-facility groundwater plume and remove more dissolved
phase COCs from the sand and gravel aquifer beneath the Building 1/central drainage ditch
source area compared to continued seasonal pumping from interceptor wells AOIW and MW89-
12.
Alternative A-2 is simpler and easier to construct and implement compared to Alternatives A-3
(Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Re-injection during Non-Irrigation Season)
and A-4 (Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Treatment during Non-Irrigation
Season) and is significantly less expensive than Alternatives A-3 and A-4. Implementation of
Alternative A-2 would not preclude potential reinjection (A-3) in the future, providing that a
waiver is obtained from NDEE to reinject untreated groundwater if this became necessary.
Alternative A-4 is not preferred, because it is cost prohibitive and would not provide significant
gains in overall protectiveness and long-term effectiveness compared to the existing on-facility
hydraulic controls or the recommended Alternative A-2.
Alternatives A-l and A-2 were simulated in the groundwater flow and solute transport model
developed for the Site (URS 2018a). Model results indicated that PCE concentrations above
130 |ig/l may cross the property boundary under the Alternative A-l conditions and the remedial
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
83
-------
goal of no PCE concentrations greater than 5 jj.g/1 at the property boundary is not met with this
alternative.
The model simulation shows that Alternative A-2 meets the remedial goal of 5 ng/1 of PCE at the
property boundary within one year of implementation. Groundwater concentrations at the
property boundary for Alternative A-2 are predicted to reach a maximum of 2.7 |ag/l of PCE.
The model supports the selection of Alternative A-2 for on-facility hydraulic control.
5.2 PREFERRED REMEDY FOR CELL AREA
The recommended remedial action for the cell area is Alternative B-l - No Action. In the initial
evaluation of cell area alternatives, targeted excavation (Alternative B-3) was less expensive and
would remove some mass and ranked better than Alternative B-2 - Cap Cell Area (Table 9).
Alternative B-2 (Figure 7) would reduce future groundwater contamination caused by
infiltration of stormwater through COC-impacted soils within the cell area. Capping of the cell
area was considered by the comparative analysis to be preferred over targeted excavation,
because capping included a significantly larger surface area.
The groundwater flow and solute transport model (URS 2018a) indicates that the effect of
Alternative B-2 on reduction of PCE concentrations at the property boundary is negligible. The
mass model (Appendix B) indicates that the cell area source contribution for PCE concentrations
in groundwater at the property boundary is significantly lower than the source area contribution
in the Building 1 and central drainage ditch area. The selection of Alternative B-l - No Action
is based on the minimal effect that Alternatives B-2 and B-3 will have on the overall reduction of
PCE concentrations at the property boundary and focuses additional remedial efforts and
supporting resources to the Building 1 area.
Even though no action is the recommended approach for the cell area, it is now effectively
capped by the building constructed over the cell area footprint in 2019. No additional
remediation is planned for this area.
5.3 PREFERRED REMEDY FOR BUILDING 1/CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH AREA
The recommended remedial action for the Building 1/central drainage ditch area is Alternative
C-3 - Thermal Remediation of Hot Spot 3 (Figure 13). Alternative C-3 was ranked highest
(Table 12) and removes significant contaminant mass within this source area, particularly in the
saturated portion of the fine-grained unit (approximately 30 to 55 feet bgs) that appears to be
acting as a continuing source of groundwater contamination to the sand and gravel aquifer.
Thermal remediation has been determined to be the most effective technology identified to treat
VOC-impacted soils in saturated and unsaturated portions of the fine-grained unit, and would
likely be more effective than DPE technology, which will be hindered by low permeability soils
in the fine-grained unit. Implementing Alternative C-3 should reduce the duration of long-term
hydraulic containment needed at the Site based on the reduction in the source area.
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
84
-------
Although the treatment area for Alternative C-3 is relatively small compared to the other
Building 1 area alternatives, this alternative is expected to treat similar amounts of PCE mass
(except Alternative C-4 and C-5) more cost effectively and in a shorter timeframe compared to
the other active remediation alternatives in this source area. Alternative C-3 is estimated to
remove approximately 663 lbs of PCE compared to Alternative C-4 which would remove
approximately 806 lbs if implemented. The increase in mass removal by implementing
Alternative C-4 represents a modest 22 percent additional removal of the total estimated mass of
PCE present in the Building 1 area.
Alternatives C-3 and C-4 were simulated in the groundwater flow and solute transport model to
assess if either alternative would significantly contribute to reduction of PCE in the sand and
gravel aquifer at the property boundary. The model simulations assumed Alternative C-3 and
Alternative C-4 were stand-alone options. The model results indicated that Alternative C-3 and
Alternative C-4 would reduce PCE at the property boundary from a potential maximum of 130
M.g/1 to 48 ng/l and 32 |ag/l, respectively (URS 2018a). As stand-alone options, the remedial goal
of no PCE concentrations greater than 5 |ig/l at the property boundary is not met by
implementing any of the Building 1/central drainage ditch alternatives; but if combined with
Alternative A-2, the remedial goal for PCE of 5 |ig/l at the property boundary was met in model
simulations.
While Alternative C-4 would treat a greater mass of PCE due to a larger treatment area, it is not
recommended due to substantially higher cost overall, higher cost per pound treated at $12,700
compared to Alternative C-3 at $5,000 per pound treated, and technically more challenging to
implement. The additional disruption to on-going facility operations during construction is not
warranted to achieve only slightly more mass removal.
5.4 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS AND COSTS
In summary, the recommended facility-wide remedy includes the following remedial actions:
• Alternative A-2 - Seasonal Optimized Pumping from New On-Facility Wells
• Alternative B-l - No Action
• Alternative C-3 - Thermal Remediation of Hot Spot 3
The following existing site-wide remedial actions will continue until data indicates all or part are
no longer necessary:
• Long-term groundwater monitoring
• Operation of the existing off-facility hydraulic control system (pumping from EXT13-01,
G127000, and EXT07-02) and associated monitoring,
• Treatment of groundwater at domestic wells on downgradient properties (Beller and
Preister properties)
RAER Final 08 21 2020.docx
85
-------
Land use controls would be implemented to ensure short-term and long-term effectiveness and
overall protection to human health and the environment. Land use controls would more formerly
memorialize current administrative actions by restricting the future use of groundwater for
drinking water purposes and ensuring that existing domestic uses of groundwater are
appropriately managed through continued wellhead treatment until RAOs are ultimately
achieved. Land use controls could also address potential future worker exposure pathways if
intrusive work is performed in areas of known contamination. Potential worker exposure
pathways are not significant at this time since it is unlikely that current workers would be
performing intrusive activities in the source areas.
The total estimated capital cost for constructing and implementing the recommended facility-
wide remedial actions assuming that Alternatives A-2 and C-3 are implemented will be $4.89M
in 2020 dollars. The total present worth cost, including capital and long-term O&M, to
implement both Alternatives A-2 and C-3 is $6.92M.
For current site-wide remedial activities, the cost projected for the ongoing groundwater
pumping and associated maintenance and monitoring for the period from 2020 through 2040 (21
years) is $10M (present worth cost). This value includes approximately $2M of O&M costs also
included under Alternative A-2.
Ongoing groundwater pumping, maintenance and monitoring costs for 2020 through 2040, and
implementation of Alternatives A-2 and C-3 are estimated to be $14.9M accounting for
redundancy of O&M costs in site-wide remedial activities and Alternative A-2.
Detailed costs for each alternative are presented in Appendix C.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
86
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
AECOM. 2020. Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2019, Lindsay, Nebraska. March 31.
Bierschenk, et. al. 2008. Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds: Proceedings
of the Sixth International Conference (May 19-22, 2008). Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.
Dames & Moore. 1990. Remedial Investigation for Lindsay, Nebraska. Prepared for Lindsay
Manufacturing. June 20.
Heron, G., Parker, K., Galligan, H., Holmes, T. 2009. Thermal Treatment of Eight CVOC
Source Zones to Near Nondetect Concentrations, Groundwater Monitoring &
Remediation, Vol. 29, No. 3: 56-65.
Hunt, J. R., N. Sitar, and K. S. Udell. 1988. Nonaqueous phase liquid transport and cleanup 1.
Analysis of mechanisms. Water Resources Research 24, no. 8: 1247-1258
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, 4th Edition (FRTR). 2002.
Soil Vapor Extraction. Web: https//frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-7.html.
URS Corporation (URS). 2011. Hydraulic/Plume Containment Alternatives Evaluation,
Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC. March 23.
. 2012. Source Area Remedial Alternatives Evaluation, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC.
February 17.
. 2014a. Rev 1.0 - Data Transmittal Task 3/4 Field Activities, Soil Vapor Intrusion
Assessment in the Bordering Neighborhood, Rounds 1, 2, and 3. March 31.
. 2014b. Completion Report: Pre-Remedial Design Investigation, Lindsay
Manufacturing LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska, November 18.
. 2015. Supplemental Human Health Risk Assessment, Lindsay Manufacturing LLC,
Lindsay, Nebraska, May 29.
. 2016. Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC,
Lindsay, Nebraska. August 5.
. 2017a. Letter dated January 20, 2017 to Erin McCoy, EPA from Karen Mixon, URS;
Re: January 17, 2017 Conference Call; Response to comments on Remedial Alternatives
Evaluation Report, August 5, 2016.
. 2017b. Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, Lindsay,
Nebraska. April 28.
RAERF inalO8 21 2020 .docx
87
-------
. 2018a. Final Report; Lindsay Manufacturing, Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport
Model. October 26.
. 2018b. Supplemental Investigation Report - 2015 Through 2017, Lindsay, Nebraska.
October 29.
. 2019. Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2018, Lindsay, Nebraska. March 29.
Udell, K. S. 1996. Heat and mass transfer in clean-up of underground toxic wastes. In Annual
Reviews of Heat Transfer, ed. C.-L. Tien, Vol. 7, 333-405. Wallingford, UK: Begell House Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1988. EPA Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, 1988.
. 1990. Record of Decision, Lindsay Manufacturing Company, Lindsay, Nebraska.
September, 1990.
. 1992. Consent Decree, Lindsay Manufacturing Company, Lindsay, Nebraska.
. 2013, Fourth Five-Year Review Report for Lindsay Manufacturing Company
Superfund Site, Platte County, Nebraska. August 22.
. 2017. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites.
Table version November 2017. Available at:
-------
FIGURES
-------
Source: USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, NE Lindsay, Nebraska, 2077
N>
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
2,000
Scale in Feet
4,000
¦I
Job No. 60630400
Lindsay ¦
Nebraska
490 ST
Lindsay
Facility
2ND ST
Lindsay
Lu 1ST ST
Holy
Family
Cem
AECOM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
-------
. k v—> r\\ W\ \
iSrr/iW i!f (
¦.''v^:-—A\V\'\^Ne^ <
^'§M
»k vjUIIUf I
\\m i
TX~ 7
I
\ /
¦ BL^\!
I aiM iy
:::^/Al )
-~V..V V---"/
(ik v-x P
V'l
Mmm'4 "~4 i '%\
rV.3>%Jv;^
/ / J
Ji//!
; \M
*'-t^;\
vsy
S)M
# 51
)
\M
:>>
j \J
\ \
A
A \
\
3
}
/
<:V-
k i z.
v
:;;x
^wvi
at
%
ff i li
i
v«:
A
^ M
yj V
V\V-A-\
sM
s f /~" \ \>
lis.
A
):]
© Tom Jarecki (D) ©
© Lester Kop£cKy (D) ©
© Jim Klassen (D) ©
© Tom Mefstrik(D) ©
^:\\\ |
frw,
- "
-\VoS
Figure 2
AECOM
-------
ttx
Legend
Facility Boundary
Monitoring Well
Interceptor Well
Abandoned Well
Subsurface Sand Channel Location
(Dashed where Inferred)
Approximate Area of Influence of Former
SVE System
O
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3
Facility Map
Highway 91 (E 2nd St)
AECOM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
-------
Legend
® Monitoring Well
® Interceptor Well
© Abandoned Well
— - - — Site Boundary
EW Existing Extraction Well Line (2017 survey)
1 IP Existing Underground Power (2017 survey)
FO Existing Fiber Optic (2017 survey)
SO Existing Storm Drain (2017 survey)
FW Existing Fire Water (2017 survey)
— Sew Existing Sewer Line (2017 survey)
Existing Water Line (2017 survey)
G Existing Gas Line (2017 survey)
Approximate Location of Existing Gas Line
G Based on Field Observations (not included
in 2017 survey)
q New Gas Line to be Installed for Alternatives
C-3 Through C-7
\ Approximate Area of Influence of Former
v i SVE System
Facility Traffic Routes
Alternatives (A-1 Through A-4)
Alternatives (B-1 Through B-6)
Alternatives (C-1 Through C-7)
Si
35 70
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 4
Facility Traffic Routes
AECOM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
TO
Oo
?T
M
BUILD
No. 10
te
NG
w
r
BUILDING No. 2
H
. Row Direction
To Dry Creek
FINISHED
GALV
PRODUCT
BUILDING No. 9
-——Propane area
paint
STAGING
AREA
Existing Interceptor Well
Existing Monitoring Well (Preserve and Protect)
©
Existing Monitoring Well
EW
Existing Extraction Well Line
Q
Existing Gas Line
UP
Existing Underground Power
FO
Existing Fiber Optic
SD
Existing Storm Drain
FW
Existing Fire Water
Sew
Existing Sewer Line
W
Existing Water Line
Site Boundary
X
DING No. 1
Q>
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary (dashed where inferred);
based on monitoring well data
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations a 1 ppm (dashed where
inferred)
Approximate Extent of 1,1-DCE Concentrations a 1 ppm
Grass Area
Proposed Capping of Central Drainage Ditch
Proposed Maintain Containment Area
1. This alternative includes capping or lining the central drainage ditch with an
impervious surface to reduce infiltration of facility stormwater runoff.
2. Locations of underground utilities are based on 2017 survey. If the construction
impacts any utility lines, the affected utility lines will be protected or rerouted
outside of the construction area.
I
/"fab.
h_i_j—in
8
rl
jpJW
ii
Jcrzo
C
rfflil J
TIB
PAINT
STAGING
AREA
Estimated Limits of the Central Drainage Ditch To Be Lined.
Actual Limits Will Be Determined During Design
NORTH
SOUTH
f
6ft
M 10ft *-|
—H Estimated Limits of Institutional Controls.
| Actual Limits Will Be Determined During
5 Design.
Approximate Dimensions of Existing
Drainage Ditch Between Facility Bridges
) MW14-05A
i MW14-05B
Si
SCALE IN FEET
L.
BUILDING
No. 14
r
MW14-06B
MW14-06A ~
~
BUILDING No. 4
~
MW06-07 MW14-07
MW14-08
© ©
MW06-08
- Site Boundary -
Figure 12
Alternative C-2:
Central Drainage Ditch Cap, Maintain
Containment, and Institutional Controls
AECOM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
-------
LOADING
AREA
PROPANE AREA
Wells MW14-03A and MW14-03B May Need
to be Abandoned During Construction
(Preserve and Protect if Possible)
AASG 5
Flow Direction
vy////////ZV77?777////^77Z^.
Remediation Well Locations Are
Conceptual in the Treatment Areas as
Indicated in Notes 2 and 10 in the Legend.
Gas Line to be
Abandoned if Not
Needed for Thermal
Treatment System
Treatment
Area 1A
MW14-02B-
MW14-02&
Treatment
Area 1B
MW89-12
BUILDING
BUILDING
No. 14
CO
CN
I—
I—
c/)
if)
I—
I—
0
O
Targeted
Hot Spot
Approximate
Ground
Surface
Elevation (ft)
Upper Treatment Zone
Depth
(ft bgs)
Removal
Rate
Lower Treatment Zone
Depth
(ft bgs)
Removal
Rate
1. This alternative targets accessible areas with soil PCE concentrations greater than
3 ppm inside Hot Spot 3 only.
2. Placement of heating probes are conceptual and assumed to be approximately
15 feet apart throughout each Treatment Area. Final location and depth to be
determined during design.
3. Gas lines will be abandoned or protected during construction. Proposed well
locations will be offset 10 feet from gas lines as needed.
4. One paired well will be screened in the Fine-Grained Unit (FGU) and the Sand and
Gravel ALuifer (SGA).
5. Locations of underground utilities are based on 2017 survey. If the construction
impacts the utilities lines, the affected utility lines will be protected or rerouted
outside of the construction area.
6. Monitoring wells will be installed to assess effectiveness of treatment and to replace
wells abandoned during construction.
7. Post treatment soil confirmation sampling will occur to assess effectiveness of
treatment in soil.
8. Location of thermal treatment compound(s) will be determined during design phase.
9. Electrical and piping connections for thermal treatment not shown for clarity.
10. Wells within the treatment areas shall consist of the following: 34 dedicated
thermal heating wells, 13 co-located thermal heating/extraction wells, 15 dedicated
extraction wells, and 4 temperature monitoring points (66 total). Some angled
heater wells may be necessary.
0 10 20
Notes:
1. Ground surface elevations rounded to the nearest foot.
2. The lower treatment zone for thermal treatment is defined as the bottom 5 feet of the treatment zone,
which may experience cooling and lower removal rates because of contact with the sand and gravel
auuifer.
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations 2 3 ppm
(dashed where inferred)
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations 2 5 ppm
(dashed where inferred)
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations 2 10 ppm
(dashed where inferred)
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations 2 100 ppm
(dashed where inferred)
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary (dashed where inferred);
based on monitoring well data
Approximate Extent of Thermal Treatment Area
Gas Line To Be Abandoned
AASC
AASC
— Proposed Thermal Treatment Compound
- Proposed Monitoring Well (Typ)
Figure 13
Alternative C-3: Thermal Treatment
Hot Spot 3
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
Legend
Existing Interceptor Well
Existing Monitoring Well (Preserve and Protect)
Existing Monitoring Well
Proposed Monitoring Well
Remediation Well; Locations Are Conceptual as Indicated
in Notes 2 and 10 in the legend
Existing Extraction Well Line
Existing Fiber Optic
Existing Fire Water
Existing Gas Line
Existing Storm Drain
Existing Sewer Line
Existing Underground Power
Existing Water Line
Proposed Overhead Power Line
— Proposed Overhead
Power Line
Proposed New Power Transformer To
Supply Electricity To Treatment Compound
-------
Treatment
Area
Targeted
Hot Spot
Approximate
Ground
Surface
Elevation (ft)
Upper Treatment Zone
Lower Treatment Zone
Depth
(ft bgs)
Removal
Rate
Depth
(ft bgs)
Removal
Rate
1A
1673
25-50
50-55
60%
1B
1
1673
40-50
95%
50-55
2A
2
1673
40-50
50-55
2B
1673
30-50
95 A
50-55
60/°
3A
3
1675
5-45
45-50
3B
1675
5-45
99.9 h
45-50
60 h
4A
4
1675
20-50
50-55
4B
1673
40-50
50-55
PIPE STORAGE
Notes:
1. Ground surface elevations rounded to the nearest foot.
2. The lower treatment zone for thermal treatment is defined as the bottom 5 feet of the treatment
zone, which may experience cooling and lower removal rates because of contact with the sand and
gravel aLuifer.
-------
Treatment
Area
Targeted
Hot Spot
Treatment
Type
Approximate
Ground
Surface
Elevation (ft)
Upper Treatment Zone
Lower Treatment Zone
Depth
(ft bgs)
Removal
Rate
Depth
(ft bgs)
Removal
Rate
1A
DPE
1673
25-55
50%
1B
1673
Not
Not
40-55
50%
2A
2
DPE
1673
Applicable
Applicable
40-55
50%
2B
1675
30-55
50%
3A
3
Thermal
1675
5-45
45-50
3B
1675
5-45
45-50
4A
4
Thermal
1675
20-50
50-55
60%
4B
1673
40-50
50-55
Notes:
1. Ground surface elevations rounded to the nearest foot.
2. The upper treatment zone for DPE is defined as the vadose zone. The lower treatment zone is defined as the
saturated zone.
3. The lower treatment zone for thermal treatment is defined as the bottom 5 feet of the treatment zone, which may
experience cooling and lower removal rates because of contact with the sand and gravel a uifer.
Existing Gas Line
Existing Storm Drain
Existing Sewer Line
Existing Underground Power
Existing Water Line
Proposed Overhead Power Line
Proposed Treatment Well Installed at
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations > 3 ppm
(dashed where inferred)
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations > 5 ppm
(dashed where inferred)
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations a 10 ppm
(dashed where inferred)
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations a 100 ppm
(dashed where inferred)
Active Gas Line Areas (No Treatment Wells)
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary (dashed where inferred);
based on monitoring well data
Grass Area
Approximate Extent of Thermal Treatment Area
-------- Approximate Extent of DPE/SVE Treatment Areas
Gas Line To Be Abandoned
Notes:
1. This alternative targets accessible areas with soil PCE concentrations greater
than 3 ppm.
2. Placement of heating probes and DPE/SVE wells are conceptual and assumed
to be approximately 15 feet apart throughout each Treatment Area. Final location
and depth to be determined during design.
3. Gas lines will be protected during construction if not marked for demolition.
Proposed well locations will be offset 10 feet from gas lines as needed.
4. One paired well will be screened in the Fine-Grairted Unit (FGU) and the Sand
and Gravel Auiifer (SGA).
5. Locations of underground utilities are based on 2017 survey. If the construction
impacts any utilities lines, the affected utility lines will be protected or rerouted
outside of the construction area.
6. Monitoring wells will be installed to assess effectiveness of treatment and to
replace wells abandoned during construction.
7. Post treatment soil confirmation sampling will occur to assess effectiveness of
treatment in soil.
8. Location of thermal and DPE/SVE treatment compound(s) will be determined
during design phase.
9. Electrical and piping connections for thermal treatment not shown for clarity.
10. Wells within the thermal treatment areas shall consist of the following: 68
dedicated thermal heating wells, 26 co-located thermal heating/extraction wells,
30 dedicated extraction wells, and 8 temperature monitoring points (132 total).
Some angled heater wells may be necessary.
SCALE IN FEET
C:\Pro|ecls\60553O96^Lind^Sup1 n9CO£ADj31S\Rg 15_ At C-5_Th«r
-------
Treatment
Area
Targeted
Hot Spot
Treatment
Phase
Approximate
Ground
Surface
Elevation (ft)
Upper Treatment Zone
Lower Treatment Zone
Depth
(ft bgs)
Removal
Rate
Depth
(ft bgs)
Removal
Rate
1A
1
Phase 2
1673
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
25-55
50%
1B
1673
40-55
50%
2
2
1673
40-55
50%
3
3
Phase 1
1675
5-25
60%
25-50
50%
4A
4
1675
20-25
60%
25-55
50%
4B
1673
Not Applicable
40-55
Note:
1. Ground surface elevations rounded to the nearest foot.
2. The upper treatment zone for DPE is defined as the vadose zone. The lower treatment zone is defined as the
saturated zone.
CO
CM
CD
C0
I—
o
o
CO
l—
o
-------
BUILDING'
No. 10
I I I I =~ \
Ss
BUILDING No. 2
H
Proposed Treatment ¦
Process Piping
LOADING
AREA
Treatment -
Area 1
pRE-t
galv
FINISHED
GALV
PRODUCT
BUILDING
No. 9
\
\ / /
\ SS> ( + ®
v
! v
!®,\ ®
! !}
Angled Treatment Well Extending 1"*"^
Beneath Building (Typ)
Treatment -
Area 2
Legend >
Existing Interceptor Well
Existing Monitoring Well
Proposed Monitoring Well
Proposed SVE Well (25 ft Spacing)
Proposed Groundwater Extraction Well (40 ft Spacing)
Existing Extraction Well Line
Existing Fiber Optic
Existing Fire Water
Existing Gas Line
Existing Storm Drain
Existing Sewer Line
Existing Underground Power
Existing Water Line
Proposed Overhead Power Line
Proposed Treatment Well Installed at an Angle
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations 2 1 ppm
(dashed where inferred)
Approximate Extent of 1,1-DCE Concentrations 2 1 ppm
Active Gas Line Areas (No Treatment Wells)
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary (dashed where inferred);
based on monitoring well data
Grass Area
-------- Approximate Extent of DPE/SVE Treatment
Areas
j j Gas Line To Be Abandoned
Notes:
1. This alternative targets accessible areas with soil PCE concentrations greater than
2. Proposed Phase 1 DPE/SVE system will be installed and operated prior to
installation of proposed Phase 2 to evaluate effectiveness of this technology.
3. Placement of DPE/SVE wells are conceptual. Final location and depth to be
determined during design.
4. Gas lines will be protected during construction. Proposed well locations will be
offset 10 feet from gas lines as needed.
5. Locations of underground utilities are based on 2017 survey. If the construction
impacts the utilities lines, the affected utility lines will be protected or rerouted
outside of the construction area,
6. Monitoring wells will be installed to assess effectiveness of treatment and to
replace wells abandoned during construction.
7. Post treatment soil confirmation sampling will occur to assess effectiveness of
treatment in soil.
8. Location of thermal and DPE/SVE treatment compound(s) will be determined
during design phase.
C"}
Treatment
Area
Treatment
Phase
Approximate
Ground
Surface
Elevation (ft)
Upper Treatment Zone
Lower Treatment Zone
Depth
(ftbgs)
Removal
Rate
Depth
(ft bgs)
Removal
Rate
1
Phase 2
1673
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
30-55
50%
2
1673
40-55
50%
3
Phase 1
1675
5-25
60%
25-50
50%
4
1675
15-25
60%
25-50
50%
5
1673
20-25
60%
25-55
50%
Note:
1. Ground surface elevations rounded to the nearest foot.
2. The upper treatment zone for DPE is defined as the vadose zone. The lower treatment zone is
defined as the saturated zone.
PAINT
STAGING
AREA
,^hot Blaster
BUILDING No. 1
ffl
JJJ-UL
f-OP-
|— Proposed o
Treatment I
Process rsAr1
Piping Co
- Central Drainage Ditch
-op-4>-
L
Proposed Overhead
Power Line
s~
- Proposed New Power Transformer To
Supply Electricity To Treatment Compound
Phase 1
Proposed DPE/SVE Treatment
System Compound (Location TBD)
y
If .
- Treatment
Area 5
w
L
Proposed Monitoring
Well (Typ)
BUILDING | °
No. 14
I ®
MW14-05A
jgfj* rI"rT ^
- Angled Treatment Well
Extending Beneath Building
0"yp)
Si
SCALE IN FEET
Historic Quonset
Bldg
Break Room
eels 60563096 Una Sup17\9CO-CAD_GIS\Fig 17 AtC-?_SoilV^orExlract_Dual
Mod: 08/20/2020,13:27 | Plotted: 08/20/2020,1?'¦" '
Tool and Die
(Current)
a 113
BUILDING No. 4
Figure 17
Alternative C-7: Dual Phase Extraction
(1 ppm Area)
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
-------
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
ARARS AND TBCS
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Citation
Description
Comment
Chemical Specific
Nebraska Title 118 - Groundwater
Quality Standards and Use
Classification
March 27, 2006
Establishes groundwater quality standards and use
classifications for groundwater sources. Used to determine
priorities for groundwater remedial actions.
The NDEE (formerly NDEQ) has assigned the aquifer at the Site (e.g., Sand and Gravel Aquifer) to RAC-1. Applicable chemical-
specific ARARs include SDWA MCLs, or Nebraska Final Groundwater Cleanup Levels based on Title 118 Groundwater Quality
Standards and Use Classification. The ROD specified MCL-based cleanup levels (primary or secondary) for groundwater for
applicable chlorinated VOCs, metals (cadmium, chromium, lead and zinc), sulfate, and pH. The MCLs for lead and chromium
have been updated since the ROD (1990).
Nebraska Title 117 - Nebraska Surface
Water Quality Standards
June 24, 2019
Establishes water quality standards and criteria for surface
water of the state
Surface water discharge from interceptor wells EXT13-01, G127000, EXT07-02, and EXT11-01 to Shell Creek is currently
allowed under discharge authorization NE00137588 with specified limits for pH, temperature, and 1,1-dichloroethene. Extracted
water from directly beneath the facility is not discharged to Shell Creek due to zinc concentrations. Disposition of extracted
and/or treated water from selected engineering alternatives will require consideration of surface water quality standards.
Safe Drinking Water Act, Federal
Maximum Contaminant Levels
May 2009
Establishes MCLs, health-based standards for specific
contaminants. MCLs are applicable for drinking water as
supplied to the end users of public water supplies.
The ROD specified MCL-based cleanup levels (primary or secondary) for groundwater for applicable chlorinated VOCs, metals
(cadmium, chromium, lead and zinc), sulfate, and pH. The MCLs for lead and chromium have been updated since the ROD
(1990). Site data was evaluated using the updated MCLs for lead and chromium. An MCL is not established for 1,4-dioxane.
Federal Water Quality Criteria for
Protection of Aquatic Life and Human
Health, 40CFR 131.36
Establishes water quality criteria in surface water for protection
of aquatic life and for human health (based on consumption of
water and/or aquatic organisms).
Surface water discharge from interceptor wells EXT13-01, G127000, EXT07-02, and EXT11-01 to Shell Creek is currently
allowed under discharge authorization NE00137588 with specified limits for pH, temperature, and 1,1-dichloroethene. Extracted
water from directly beneath the facility is not discharged to Shell Creek due to zinc concentrations. Disposition of extracted
and/or treated water from selected engineering alternatives will require consideration of surface water quality standards.
Location Specific
Endangered Species Act: 50 CFR Part
200 (December 29, 2015), 50 CFR, Part
402 (June 3, 1986)
Protects endangered species and the critical habitats upon
which endangered species depend.
Only one threatened or endangered species, the Northern Long-eared Bat, has a range and habitat that include or could be found at
Lindsay. However, there is no exposure pathway to the contaminated soil or groundwater at Lindsay since bat behavior consists
exclusively of flight. Therefore, there are no threatened or endangered species that have a complete exposure pathway to the soil
and groundwater contamination at Lindsay.
Endangered and Threatened Species
Regulations: Nebraska Title 163,
Chapter 4
December 5, 2011
Regulations developed under the Nongame and Endangered
Species Conservation Act; govern the protection, conservation,
and management of endangered and threatened wildlife species.
Only one at-risk species, the Northern Long-eared Bat, has a range and habitat that include or could be found at Lindsay. However,
there is no exposure pathway to the contaminated soil or groundwater at Lindsay since bat behavior consists exclusively of flight.
Therefore, there are no at-risk species that have a complete exposure pathway to the soil and groundwater contamination at
Lindsay.
100 Year Flood Plain
Flood area maps indicate the Lindsay facility property is located in a minimal flood hazard zone, but Zone A areas border the
western side. Key remediation equipment will be located within the facility boundary.
Action Specific
USACE Section 404 permit or General
Nationwide Permit (NWP)
Remedial actions may be undertaken within and/or around the "central drainage ditch", which is an unlined grass-vegetated ditch
orientated in an east to west direction north of Building 1. The central drainage ditch falls into the definition of "waters of the
state" which Nebraska defines broadly to include "all waters within the jurisdiction of this state, including all streams, lakes,
ponds, impounding reservoirs, marshes, wetlands, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, irrigation systems, drainage systems,
and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, situated wholly or
partly within or bordering upon the state" (Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann § 81-1502). The USACE was contacted in 2017 with regard to the
data collection effort planned for the central drainage ditch in late 2017. Based on the planned activity, a Section 404 permit was
not required by USACE. As a CERCLA action, the permit should not be required but the substantive requirements would need to
be met. Depending on activity in the central drainage ditch during remediation activities, the USACE may need to be contacted to
confirm no specific permit or requirements are required.
Table 1
1 of 3
-------
TABLE 1
ARARS AND TBCS
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Citation
Description
Comment
Nebraska Title 119, Rules and
Regulations Pertaining to the Issuance
of Permits under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
July 2, 2017
Requires permit for discharge of pollutants from a point source
into the water of the state.
Lindsay currently has a NPDES permit for discharge to Dry Creek related to facility operations. In addition, the water extracted
from downgradient interceptor wells is discharged under a discharge authorization (NE00137588) approved by NDEE (formerly
NDEQ) to Shell Creek when it is not used for irrigation. Any changes due to remedial actions that affect the discharge content,
flow, volume, etc. could affect the existing NPDES permit or discharge authorization. Modifications to the central drainage ditch
or to the discharge into the ditch that occur in connection with the CERCLA remediation could affect the existing NPDES.
However, pursuant to Section 121(e) of CERCLA, modifications to the ditch that are made in connection with the remediation
should not require an NPDES permit or permit modification providing that the project satisfies substantive NPDES requirements.
Extracted groundwater from beneath the facility that is discharged from interceptor wells will have to meet substantive
requirements but not necessarily require a separate NPDES permit if the water is discharged to Dry Creek or Shell Creek.
Application for any discharges is required 180 days prior to the initial discharge.
Lower Platte North Natural Resources
District (LPNNRD) Groundwater
Management Area Rules and
Regulations, Section E, Water Well
Permits, and Nebraska Revised Statutes
(N.R.S.) Sections 46 701 to 754
Groundwater Management Area Rules
and Regulations: June 15, 2018
The LPNNRD regulations require issuance of a well
construction permit for the installation of any new or
replacement well, except for test holes, temporary dewatering
wells, or water wells designed to pump 50 gpm or less.
Based upon previous experience with LPNNRD, compliance with the substantive provisions of this potential ARAR would include
development of a cover letter and application as a "Subsection H CERCLA remedial action well" for submittal to LPNNRD for
permit equivalency approval. This will be applicable to newly installed monitoring or interceptor wells.
Nebraska Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Groundwater Well
Registration, N.R.S. 46 601 and 46
1207 and NAC 456 46 602
The DNR regulations require registration of all permanent
wells.
This potential ARAR would be met by submitting an on-line application to DNR for all monitoring and interceptor wells.
NDEE (formerly NDEQ) Class V
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Authorization, NAC, Title 122, UIC
The regulations require authorization to inject fluid, including
air and treated groundwater, into an underground well.
The reinjection wells considered in this evaluation include injection of untreated groundwater into wells, which would require a
Class V UIC Authorization. The substantive provisions of this potential ARAR would include development of a cover letter and
Class V UIC Authorization application for submittal to NDEE for permit equivalency approval.
Nebraska Title 129, Air Quality
Regulations, Chapter 5 Operating
Permits
January 9, 2011
This regulation specifies when an air permit is required.
No air permits are anticipated for the source area remedial alternatives considered in this evaluation except for potentially the SVE
and thermal treatment system options. Substantive provisions of this potential ARAR would include submittal of a Notice of Intent
to the NDEE. A vapor phase GAC treatment system or other appropriate system (e.g., thermal or catalytic oxidizer) would be
installed to treat VOCs prior to discharge if required by NDEE.
Nebraska Title 128, Nebraska
Hazardous Waste Regulations
July 6, 2016
NDEE (formerly NDEQ) is authorized by EPA to implement
portions of RCRA pertaining to the regulation of hazardous
waste in Nebraska.
Remedial alternatives that involve the generation and disposal of hazardous waste would need to comply with the applicable
provisions of Title 128. Lindsay will contact NDEE Superfund Management Assistance Program to discuss compliance with
NDEE's Hazardous Waste Regulations. Contaminated material would be adequately characterized to determine if it meets the
criteria of a hazardous waste. All materials, whether hazardous or not, would be disposed at an appropriately licensed facility. To
date, soil and groundwater analytical testing has demonstrated the contaminated media does not meet the hazardous waste criteria.
Nebraska Title 132, Integrated Solid
Waste Regulations
May 17, 2016
The Integrated Solid Waste Regulations apply to construction
and demolition waste and other non-hazardous waste generated
from the remedial actions.
Lindsay would notify the NDEE prior to conducting a remedial action to ensure that the remedial action meets the applicable
requirements of these regulations.
Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSHA) 29 CFR Part 1910.120
OSHA 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response (HAZWOPER) training is a requirement of workers
that have the potential to be exposed to hazardous substances
during implementation of a remedial action.
Workers that would not be significantly exposed to hazardous substances are not required to have HAZWOPER training. For
example, truckers would not be required to have OSHA 40-hour HAZWOPER training if they remain in the truck while loading
and unloading materials. The remedial contractor would be required to prepare a Site Specific Health and Safety Plan in
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120 that describes measures to ensure worker protection during implementation of the remedial
action.
Table 1
2 of 3
-------
TABLE 1
ARARS AND TBCS
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Citation
Description
Comment
Nebraska Title 171, Chapter 12,
Nebraska State licensed Geologist
Certification
July 1, 2019
Title 171, Chapter 12 presents the requirements for state
licensed professional geologist and the type of work and work
products that require review, approval and/or oversite by a
Nebraska State licensed geologist.
A Nebraska State Licensed Professional Geologist will review and sign all reports prepared under this project. The Licensed
Professional Geologist will provide responsible charge or direct supervision of personnel responsible for soil and groundwater
sample collection from borings, borehole logging, and reporting for the project, as required by the State Department of Licensing.
Nebraska Title 178, Chapter 12.003.03,
Nebraska State Licensed Drilling
Contractor
August 26. 2014
All drilling in Nebraska must be conducted by a Nebraska State
licensed contractor.
A Nebraska State Licensed drilling contractor will complete the soil borings, well installations, and decommissioning of
boreholes/wells consistent with Nebraska Department of Health Regulations. While not specific to installation/abandonment of
thermal remediation system related borings, the requirements in this regulation will be followed to the extent possible.
Nebraska Title 178, Chapter 10,
Nebraska Water Well Monitoring
Technician License
June 7. 2011
Personnel collecting water levels or groundwater samples are
required to complete training to obtain or maintain
certifications to conduct the work.
Water levels or groundwater samples will be collected by a person who has obtained a Water Well Monitoring Technicians
Certificate or works under a person with a Pump Installation Contractors License per the Nebraska Department of Health water
well standards, Title 178 Nebraska Administrative Code, Chapter 10 regulations.
Notes:
ARAR - applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement NPDES - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act NWP - Nationwide Permit
DNR - Department of Natural Resources OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency RAC - remedial action class
GAC - granular activated carbon RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
HAZWOPER - Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response ROD - Record of Decision
LPNNRD - Lower Platte North Natural Resources District SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act
MCL - maximum contaminant level SVE - soil vapor extraction
NAC - Nebraska Administrative Code TBC - to be considered
NDEE - Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy UIC - Underground Injection Control
NDEQ - Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, NDEQ is now part of Nebraska Department of Environment USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers
and Energy (2019). VOC - volatile organic compound
Table 1
3 of 3
-------
TABLE 2
NUMERICAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS AND TBCS FOR GROUNDWATER
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
USEPA Record of
Decision,
Lindsay
NDEE-Approved Alternate
Safe Drinking Water Act, Federal
NDEE Title 118 -
Manufacturing
Cleanup Levels b
Maximum Contaminant Levels c
Groundwater Quality
Company,
Standards and Classification,
To Be
Site Chemical of Concern (COC)
September 1990 a
On-Facility
Off-Facility
Primary
Secondary
Revised March 27, 2006
Considered
Volatile Organic Compounds (jug/L)
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
--
--
5
--
5
-
1,1-Dichloroethane
NE
~
~
NE
~
NE
~
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
~
~
7
~
7
~
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
~
~
70
~
70
~
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
100
~
~
100
~
100
~
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
200
~
~
200
~
200
-
Trichloroethene
5
~
~
5
~
5
-
Tetrachloroethene
5
--
--
5
--
5
-
1,4-Dioxane (ug/L)
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.46*
Conventional Parameters
pH (S.U.)
6.5-8.5
>5.0
>6.3
--
6.5-8.5
6.5-8.5
-
Sulfate (mg/L)
250
500
400
--
250
250
-
Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
--
--
0.005
--
0.005
-
Chromium
0.05
~
~
0.1
~
0.1
~
Iron
0.3
10
1
~
0.3
0.3
Lead
0.05
~
~
0.015
~
0.015
~
Zinc
5
--
--
--
5
5
-
Notes;
— not applicable
ARAR - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
mg/L - milligram per liter
NDEE - Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy
NDEQ - Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality; NDEQ is now part of Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (2019)
NE - not established
S.U. - Standard Unit
TBC - To Be Considered
ug/L - microgram per liter
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
a USEPA, 1990. Record of Decision, Lindsay Manufacturing Company, Lindsay, Nebraska, September.
b Iron, sulfate, and pH screening levels are site-specific alternate cleanup levels for on-facility and off-facility locations agreed to with the State of Nebraska (letter from State of Nebraska to Lindsay
Manufacturing LLC, dated 12/14/00) .
c Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §§300f-300j-26. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations
*No federal or state MCL for drinking water has been established. The TBC is based on EPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) for tap water dated May 2020.
Table 2
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3
NUMERICAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS AND TBCS FOR SURFACE WATER
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Nebraska State Water
Federal Water Quality Criteria -
Nebraska State Water Quality Criteria
Quality Criteria - Title
40CFR 131.36, Protection of Aquatic
Federal Water Quality Criteria -
Regulatory Reference
Title 117, Protection of Aquatic Lifea
117, Human Health3
Life b
40CFR 131.36, Human Health b
To Be Considered
Hardness 356 c
Hardness 356 c
Site Chemicals of Concern (COCs)
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Water & Organisms
Organisms Only
Aquatic Life
Human Health
Volatile Organic ConiDounds fue/LI
1,2-Dichloroethane
6,500
118,000
5
NE
NE
0.38
99
NE
NE
1,1 -Dichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1,1 -Dichloroethene
20,000
NE
7
NE
NE
0.057
3.2
NE
NE
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
NE
11,600
70
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
4,000
NE
100
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
200,000
NE
200
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Trichloroethene
30
45,000
3
NE
NE
2.7
81
NE
NE
T etrachloroethene
70
5,280
5
NE
NE
0.8
8.85
NE
NE
1.4-Dioxane (ue/Ll
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
22,000 f
0.46 g
Total Metals fme/Ll
Cadmium
NE
NE
0.005
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Calcium
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Chromium
NE
NE
0.1
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Copper
NE
NE
1
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Iron
NE
NE
0.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Lead
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Magnesium
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Zinc
NE
NE
5
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Dissolved Metals ("me/Li
Cadmium
0.0019
0.0092
NE
0.0026
0.015
NE
NE
NE
NE
Calcium
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Chromium
0.22
1.7
NE
0.50
1.6
NE
NE
NE
NE
Copper
0.027
0.044
NE
0.034
0.056
NE
NE
NE
NE
Iron
1
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Lead
0.0097
0.25
NE
0.0097
0.25
NE
NE
NE
NE
Magnesium
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Zinc
0.35
0.34
NE
0.31
0.34
NE
NE
NE
NE
Field Parameters
pH (standard units)
6.5
9.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Temperature (°C)
< 3°C above background
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Specific Conductivity (umhos/cm)
2,000
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)e
>4.0
-6.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Turbidity (NTU)
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Notes:
a Surface water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life and public drinking water system; Nebraska Administrative Code, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Title 117 Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards (Revised
Effective Date June 24, 2019)
Cadmium, chromium, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductivity are site-specific calculated or assigned limits based on the classification for the Shell Creek reach where samples were collected - warm water (B), agricultural (A) and
aesthetics.
b Surface water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life; Federal, electronic Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter D, Part 131 Subpart D, 131.36, as of July 1, 2019.
: Average hardness for Shell Creek based on sample data collected in 2010 (URS 2015, Rev. 1.0 - Data Transmittal, Task 7-2010 Shell Creek Sample Collection, December 4.)
Criteria are based on Cr+3 (trivalent) form; analytical results are for total chromium.
e7-daymean for early life stage, NE Title 117. Criteria is season dependent.
f Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) database; http://rais.ornl.gov/tools/eco_search.php, SW EPA R5 ESL Surface Water Screening Benchmark
g No federal or state MCL for drinking water has been established. The TBC is based on EPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) for tap water dated May 2020.
ARAR - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
mg/L - milligram per liter RSL - Regional Screening Level
NE - not established ug/L - microgram per liter
NTU - nephelometric units umhos/cm - microohms per centimeter
TBC - To Be Considered
Table 3
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 4
TECHNOLOGY SCREENING MATRIX
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Technology
Media Treated/Affected
Retained for
Evaluation?
(Y/N)
Rationale (To retain or not retain)
Reference
BUILDING 1 / CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH AREA
Capping
Central Drainage Ditch
Y
-Remove the direct contact exposure pathway
-Reduce the migration of COCs to the groundwater pathway by reducing infiltration
NA
In-Situ
Solidification
Central Drainage Ditch,
Saturated/Unsaturated Soil in FGU
N
-There are space constraints between Building 1 and the Central Drainage Ditch that limit the ability to effectively implement this technology
NA
Thermal (TCH)
Soil/Groundwater in FGU
Y
-Reduce COC concentrations in the source area
-Reduce source area contribution to the sand and gravel aquifer
-Proven technology with high treatment efficiency for VOCs
NA
Thermal (ERH)
Soil/Groundwater in FGU
Y
-Proven technology with high treatment efficiency for VOCs; based on potential localized dewatering, thermal heating via TCH deemed a better alternative in unsaturated
zones
NA
DPE
Soil/Groundwater in FGU
Y
-Reduce COC concentrations in the source area
-Reduce source area contribution to the sand and gravel aquifer
-Proven technology with high treatment efficiency for VOCs; groundwater removal without treatment, but can be placed in SVE mode when dewatered
NA
SVE
Unsaturated Soil in FGU
N
-Reduce COC concentrations in the source area
-Reduce source area contribution to the sand and gravel aquifer
-Proven technology with high treatment efficiency for VOCs, but adversely impacted by moisture, an issue at soil depths where treatment is targeted.
NA
Deep Soil Mixing
Central Drainage Ditch,
Soil/Groundwater in FGU
N
-May only partially treat impacted soil
-Requires a pilot test
-There are space constraints between Building 1 and the Central Drainage Ditch that limit the ability to effectively implement this technology
-Vendor unable to provide case studies demonstrating effectiveness
NA
Excavation, Full-
scale
Central Drainage Ditch,
Soil/Groundwater in FGU
N
-High costs due to shoring and dewatering systems required to implement this technology
-There are space constraints between Building 1 and the Central Drainage Ditch that limit the ability to effectively implement this technology
NA
Targeted
Excavation
Central Drainage Ditch, Soil in FGU
N
-There are space constraints between Building 1 and the Central Drainage Ditch that limit the ability to effectively implement this technology
NA
Persulfate Injection
Groundwater in FGU
N
-State of Nebraska regulations allow a maximum pressure of 1 psi/ft bgs for all injection applications. Water injection tests conducted at the facility in 2013 indicated that
site conditions are not amenable to staying within the pressure requirements when injecting in the FGU. A waiver will be difficult to obtain.
-Adequate contact with contaminated media in the FGU will be difficult due to the nature of the geologic unit; significant pilot test required to assess the density of the
injection points and monitoring well network.
URS 2012, URS 2014
Permanganate
Injection
Groundwater in FGU
N
-State of Nebraska regulations allow a maximum pressure of 1 psi/ft bgs for all injection applications. Water injection tests conducted at the facility in 2013 indicated that
site conditions are not amenable to staying within the pressure requirements when injecting in the FGU. A waiver will be difficult to obtain.
-Adequate contact with contaminated media in the FGU will be difficult due to the nature of the geologic unit; significant pilot test required to assess the density of the
injection points and monitoring well network.
URS 2012, URS 2014
ERD Injection
Groundwater in FGU
N
-State of Nebraska regulations allow a maximum pressure of 1 psi/ft bgs for all injection applications. Water injection tests conducted at the facility in 2013 indicated that
site conditions are not amenable to staying within the pressure requirements when injecting in the FGU. A waiver to the requirement is unlikely at this time.
-Adequate contact with contaminated media in the FGU will be difficult due to the nature of the geologic unit; significant pilot test required to assess the density of the
injection points and monitoring well network.
URS 2012, URS 2014
Air Sparging
Groundwater in the SGA
N
-Less effective than retained alternatives in treating source area contamination
URS 2012
Groundwater
Recirculation Wells
(aka ART Wells)
Soil/Groundwater in the FGU
N
-Less effective than retained alternatives in treating source area contamination
-Not effective in FGU if the groundwater dries out in the smear zone above the SGA
NA
Steam Injection
Soil/Groundwater in the FGU
N
-Not effective in the FGU due to the site geology, tight soils will prevent dispersion of steam.
NA
Table 4
Page 1 of3
-------
TABLE 4
TECHNOLOGY SCREENING MATRIX
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Technology
Media Treated/Affected
Retained for
Evaluation?
(Y/N)
Rationale (To retain or not retain)
Reference
CELL AREA
Capping
Land Area for Cells 1 and 2
Y
-Remove the direct contact exposure pathway
-Reduce the migration of COCs to the groundwater pathway by reducing infiltration
-Allow future use of the land for facility operations
NA
In-Situ
Solidification
Saturated/Unsaturated Soil in FGU
Y
-Remove the direct contact exposure pathway
-Reduce the migration of COCs to the groundwater pathway by reducing infiltration
-Allow future use of the land for facility operations
NA
Thermal (TCH)
Soil/Groundwater in FGU
Y
-Reduce COC concentrations in the source area
-Reduce source area contribution to the sand and gravel aquifer
-Proven technology with high treatment efficiency for VOCs
NA
Thermal (ERH)
Soil/Groundwater in FGU
Y
-Reduce COC concentrations in the source area
-Reduce source area contribution to the sand and gravel aquifer
-Proven technology with high treatment efficiency for VOCs
NA
Deep Soil Mixing
Soil/Groundwater in FGU
N
-May only partially treat impacted soil
-Requires a pilot test
-Need to dispose of soil that is fluffed and cannot be contained in the cell area
-Vendor unable to provide case studies demonstrating effectiveness
URS 2012
Excavation, Full-
scale
Soil/Groundwater in FGU
N
-High costs due to shoring and dewatering systems required to implement this technology
URS 2012
Targeted
Excavation
Soil in FGU
Y
-Immediate reliable source removal in targeted area
-Mitigate future direct contact pathway in shallow soil in the event the cell area is developed
NA
DPE
Soil/Groundwater in FGU
N
-Due to the sand channel in the FGU it is anticipated that a larger volume of groundwater compared to Building 1, would be extracted requiring treatment
-Sand channel in the FGU will adversely impact drawdown of groundwater in the FGU making it difficult to utilize the SVE component of a DPE system
NA
SVE
Unsaturated Soil in FGU
Y
-Reduce COC concentrations in the source area
-Reduce source area contribution to the sand and gravel aquifer
-Proven technology for treatment of VOCs in unsaturated soil
NA
Persulfate Injection
Groundwater in the FGU
N
-State of Nebraska regulations allow a maximum pressure of 1 psi/ft bgs for all injection applications. Water injection tests conducted at the facility in 2013 indicated that
site conditions are not amenable to staying within the pressure requirements when injecting in the FGU. A waiver will be difficult to obtain.
-Adequate contact with contaminated media in the FGU will be difficult due to the nature of the geologic unit; significant pilot test required to assess the density of the
injection points and monitoring well network.
URS 2012, URS 2014
Permanganate
Injection
Groundwater in the FGU
N
-State of Nebraska regulations allow a maximum pressure of 1 psi/ft bgs for all injection applications. Water injection tests conducted at the facility in 2013 indicated that
site conditions are not amenable to staying within the pressure requirements when injecting in the FGU. A waiver will be difficult to obtain.
-Adequate contact with contaminated media in the FGU will be difficult due to the nature of the geologic unit; significant pilot test required to assess the density of the
injection points and monitoring well network.
URS 2012, URS 2014
ERD Injection
Groundwater in the FGU
N
-State of Nebraska regulations allow a maximum pressure of 1 psi/ft bgs for all injection applications. Water injection tests conducted at the facility in 2013 indicated that
site conditions are not amenable to staying within the pressure requirements when injecting in the FGU. A waiver will be difficult to obtain.
-Adequate contact with contaminated media in the FGU will be difficult due to the nature of the geologic unit; significant pilot test required to assess the density of the
injection points and monitoring well network.
URS 2012, URS 2014
Air Sparging
Groundwater in the SGA
N
-Less effective than retained alternatives in treating source area contamination
URS 2012
Groundwater
Recirculation Wells
(aka ART Wells)
Soil/Groundwater in the FGU
N
-Less effective than retained alternatives in treating source area contamination
-Not effective in FGU if the groundwater dries out in the smear zone above the SGA
NA
Steam Injection
Soil/Groundwater in the FGU
N
-Not effective in the FGU due to the site geology, tight soils will prevent dispersion of steam.
NA
Table 4
Page 2 of3
-------
TABLE 4
TECHNOLOGY SCREENING MATRIX
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Technology
Media Treated/Affected
Retained for
Evaluation?
(Y/N)
Rationale (To retain or not retain)
Reference
ON-FACILITY HYDRAULIC CONTROL
Groundwater
Treatment System
Groundwater in the SGA
Y
-Year round containment of the groundwater plume at the facility boundary
-Treatment of COCs in the groundwater plume prior to discharge; treatment for 1,4-dioxane and zinc will be cost prohibitive
NA
Optimized
Pumping
Groundwater in the SGA
Y
-Pumping to control groundwater plume from migrating downward of the facility property line
-During irrigation season extracted water can be conveyed to the pivot system
-Extracted water can be re-injected into the aquifer during non-irrigation season with approval from the State of Nebraska
NA
Permeable Reactive
Barrier
Groundwater in the SGA
N
-Difficult to implement due to the significant depth to bedrock
-Does not treat source area
-There are space constraints on the property boundary north of Hwy 91. Property may need to be purchased on the south side of the highway. This would need to go the full
length of the south property boundary due to the slurry wall length.
URS 2012
Slurry Wall
Groundwater in the SGA
N
-Slurry walls require deep excavation and room on each side of the excavation. There are space constraints on the property boundary north of Hwy 91. Property may need to
be purchased on the south side of the highway. This would need to go the full length of the south property boundary due to the slurry wall length.
-The addition of a slurry wall may cause the plume to bulge
URS 2011
Engineered
Wetlands
Groundwater in the SGA
N
-Low technical implementability, it is assumed that the pumping rate of groundwater will exceed the volume of water that can be infiltrated into the engineered wetlands.
-Will need to create an impermeable barrier to Dry Creek to stop runoff
URS 2011
Groundwater
Recirculation Wells
(aka ART Wells)
Groundwater in the SGA
N
-High concentration of calcium in the groundwater will cause the wells to clog
-Approximately 10-20 wells, 90 feet apart will be required. However, there are space constraints on the property boundary north of Hwy 91.
-Hydraulic containment is not achieved
URS 2011
Notes:
ART - accelerated remediation technologies well aeration system NA - not applicable
COC - chemical of concern SGA - sand and gravel aquifer
DPE - dual-phase extraction SVE - soil vapor extraction
ERD - enhanced reductive dichlorination TCH - thermal conductive heating
ERH - electrical resistance heating VOC - volatile organic compound
FGU - fine-grained unit Y - yes
N - no
References:
URS Corporation (URS). 2011. Hydraulic/Plume Containment Alternatives Evaluation, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, March 23.
URS Corporation (URS). 2012. Source Area Remedial Alternatives Evaluation, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, February 17.
URS Corporation (URS). 2014. Completion Report: Pre-Remedial Design Investigation, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, November 18.
Table 4
Page 3 of3
-------
TABLE 5
FACILITY REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
ON-FACILITY HYDRAULIC CONTROL ALTERNATIVES (a)
A-l
Continue Existing Pumping (No New Action)
A-2
Seasonal Optimized Pumping from New On-Facility Wells
A-3
Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Re-Injection During Non-Irrigation Season
A-4
Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Treatment During the Non-Irrigation Season
CELL AREA ALTERNATIVES
B-l
No Action Alternative
B-2
Cell Area Cap (Cell 1 and Cell 2)
B-3
Targeted Excavation^1'
B-4
In-Situ Soil Solidification
B-5
Soil Vapor Extraction
B-6
Thermal Remediation
BUILDING 1/CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH AREA ALTERNATIVES (c)
C-l
No Action Alternative
C-2
Central Drainage Ditch Cap, Maintain Containment, and Institutional Controlsd
C-3
Thermal Remediation of Hot Spot 3
C-4
Thermal Remediation ofHot Spots 1, 2, 3, and4
C-5
Dual Phase Extraction (DPE) ofHot Spots 1 & 2 and Thermal Remediation ofHot Spots 3 & 4^e'
C-6
Dual Phase Extraction (DPE) ofHot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4 (e)
C-l
Dual Phase Extraction (DPE)(e)
CURRENT SITE ACTIVITIES FOR LONG-TERM CONTROLS AND INFORMATION/TOOLS FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES
Downgradient Pumping
Status Quo: Operation of wells EXT13-01, G127000, EXT07-02, and EXT11-01 with continual evaluation of data and groundwater contours to inform a decision if and when each well can
be shut-down and groundwater monitoring revised accordingly. EXT11 -01 is available for use but was shut down in September 2019 for remedial pumping based on groundwater monitoring
data that demonstrated chlorinated VOCs were not detected or were detected below the associated federal maximum contaminant levels in the plume area between EXT07-02 and EXT11-01.
IC's®
Institutional Controls
Site-Wide Long-Term
Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring to assess groundwater quality site-wide per CERCLA monitoring program.
Notes:
a Hydraulic control water management/treatment options will be determined based on ARARs analysis.
b Alternative B-3 assumes that targeted excavation will be limited to 5,200 tons and soil will be accepted at Butler County Landfill.
c Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch alternatives will be evaluated to identify a source reduction method to address the area(s) of highest known concentrations that are accessible and minimizes disruption to facility operations.
d If the central drainage ditch is capped, the cap design will minimize changes to the overall topography of the ditch (ex., concrete spray type surface).
eDPE operations would be conducted only when extracted water could be discharged to pivot irrigation systems. SVEmay be operated year round if no significant water is generated.
Table 5
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC CONTROL ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Alternative and Components
Alternative A-l: Continue
Existing Pumping (No New
Action)
Alternative A-2: Seasonal
Optimized Pumping from
New On-Facility Wells
Alternative A-3:
Year-Round Pumping with
Seasonal Irrigation and
Reinjection during Non-
Irrigation Season
Alternative A-4:
Year-Round Pumping with
Seasonal Irrigation and
Treatment during Non-
Irrigation Season
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
Contaminated Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Primary COCs Exceeding Proposed CULs
Zinc, PCE, 1,4-Dioxane
Zinc, PCE, 1,4-Dioxane
Zinc, PCE, 1,4-Dioxane
Zinc, PCE, 1,4-Dioxane
INTERCEPTOR WELLS
Installation of EXT 21-01 (1,000 gpm)
NA
•
•
•
Installation of EXT21-02 (300 gpm)
•
•
•
EXT21-01 (1,000 gpm) Pumping
Seasonal (Irrigation)
Seasonal (Irrigation)
Seasonal (Irrigation)
EXT21-02 (300 gpm) Pumping
Seasonal (Irrigation)
Year Round
Year Round
Irrigation Season Discharge
Pivot System
Pivot System
Pivot System
Non-Irrigation Season Discharge
NA
Re-Injection
Dry Creek
O&M Costs
O
•
•
Duration of Monitoring
20 years
20 years
20 years
INJECTION WELLS
Treatment Source
NA
NA
EXT21-02 Extracted
Groundwater
NA
Number of Injection Wells
4
Injection Location
Cell Area
Injection Aquifer
Sand and Gravel Aquifer
Duration of Injection
20 years
Frequency of Sampling
Month 1: Weekly
Months 2-3: Monthly
Remaining Duration:
Quarterly
Duration of Monitoring (Injection Wells)
20 years
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT
Treatment Source
NA
NA
NA
EXT21-02 Extracted
Groundwater
Bench Scale and Pilot Testing
•
Treatment Technology
Advanced Oxidation
Duration of Treatment
20 years
Frequency of Monitoring
Full Time*
Frequency of Sampling
Bi-Monthly
Duration of Monitoring
20 years
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Number of new Groundwater Monitoring Wells
NA
8
8
8
Frequency of Sampling
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Duration of Monitoring (Monitoring Wells)
20 years
20 years
20 years
SUMMARY OF CLEANUP ACTION
Construction Location
NA
Building 1
Building 1, Cell Area
Building 1
Construction Duration
4 weeks
5 weeks
12 weeks
Present-Worth Cost
$0
$3,599,000
$6,723,000
$35,199,000
Notes:
# - Included gpm - gallon per minute
O - Not Included NA - Not Applicable
COCs - Chemicals of Concern PCE - tetrachloroethene
CULs - Cleanup Levels
*Staff will be hired for full time monitoring of the groundwater treatment system.
Table 6
1 of 1
-------
TABLE 7
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ON-FACILITY HYDRAULIC CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Criterion
Alternative A-l
Continue Existing
Pumping
(No New Action)
Alternative A-2
Seasonal
Optimized
Pumping from
New On-Facility
Wells
Alternative A-3
Year-Round
Pumping with
Seasonal Irrigation
and
Re-injection
during Non-
Irrigation Season
Alternative A-4
Year-Round
Pumping with
Seasonal Irrigation
and T reatment
during Non-
Irrigation Season
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
THRESHOLD
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
•
•
•
•
Compliance with ARARs
•
•
•
• b
BALANCING
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
4
3
2
1
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment
4
3
2
1
Short-term Effectiveness
1
2
3
4
Implementability
1
2
3
4
Cost0
1
2
3
4
MODIFYING
State Acceptance
o
o
o
o
Community Acceptance
o
o
o
o
TOTAL SCORE
11
12
13
14
Notes:
a A waiver would be required from NDEE (Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy) to allow reinjection of untreated groundwater in order for this alternative to meet ARAR threshold
requirements
b Discharge limits for 1,4-dioxane and zinc would be needed.
c See Appendix C for cost estimates
Ranking Score = pass; 1 = most favorable; 4 = least favorable)
ARARs - applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
o - not evaluated
Table 7
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF CELL AREA ALTERNATIVES COMPONENTS
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Cleanup Alternative and Components
Alternative B-l:
No Action
Alternative B-2:
Cell Area Cap
Alternative B-3:
Targeted Excavation
Alternative B-4:
In-Situ Soil Solidification
Alternative B-5:
Soil Vapor Extraction
Alternative B-6:
Thermal Remediation
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
Contaminated Media
Soil
PCE Contribution to the Source Area
PCE (158 lbs present in Cell Area)
Zinc Contribution to the Source Area
Zinc (454 lbs present in Cell Area)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE
Treatment Depth (feet bgs)
NA
22
50
20
50
Treatment Area
NA
60,500 SF
5,700 SF
8,800 SF
8,800 SF
8,800 SF
Treatment Volume
NA
2,900 CY
12,500 CY
5,000 CY
14,700 CY
CAP
Duration of Monitoring
NA
20 years
NA
NA
NA
NA
EXCAVATION
Shoring
Sheet Pile, Sloped Sidewalls
Confirmation Soil Sampling
NA
NA
Yes
NA
NA
NA
Geotechnical Monitoring (Crane Bay)
Yes
IN-SITU SOLIDIFICATION
Bench Scale and Pilot Testing
NA
NA
NA
Yes
NA
NA
Geotechnical Monitoring (Crane Bay)
Yes
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Number of SVE Wells
17
Vapor Treatment
Carbon
Duration of Treatment
4 years
Operation Details
NA
NA
NA
NA
Year Round
NA
Treatment System Monitoring Frequency
Weekly
Sampling Frequency
Year 1: Monthly
Remaining Duration:
Quart erlv
THERMAL
Number of Thermal Treatment Wells
44
- Number of Thermal Heating and Vapor Extraction Wells
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
38
- Number of Temperature Monitoring Points
6
Duration of Thermal Treatment
7 months
PERFORMANCE MONITORING (GROUNDWATER AND SOIL)
Number of New Groundwater Monitoring Wells
1
2
2
Frequency of Sampling
NA
NA
NA
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Duration of Monitoring (Monitoring Wells)
2 years
6 years
2 years
Number of Confirmation Soil Borings
17 Soil Samples
NA
5
2
SUMMARY OF CLEANUP ACTION
Pre-Alternative Investigation
NA
No
No
No
No
Yes (20 borings)
Soil Mass of PCE Remediated/Contained (lbs)
NA
NA
45
72
34
71
Soil Mass of Zinc Remediated/Contained (lbs)
NA
NA
19
63
NA
NA
Total Approximate Electrical Consumption (kWh)
NA
NA
NA
NA
710,000
3,055,000
Construction Duration
NA
8 weeks
3 weeks
8 weeks
20 days
4 months
Present-Worth Cost
SO
$1,700,000
$1,367,000
$4,240,000
$2,912,000
$4,843,000
Notes:
bgs - below ground surface NA - Not Applicable
CY - cubic yards PCE - tetrachloroethene
kWh - kilowatt hours SF - square feet
lbs - pounds SVE - soil vapor extraction
Table 8
1 of 1
-------
TABLE 9
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES IN CELL AREA
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Alternative B-l
Alternative B-2
Alternative B-3
Alternative B-4
Alternative B-5
Alternative B-6
Criterion
No Action
Cell Area Cap
Targeted
Excavation
In-Situ Soil
Solidification
Soil Vapor
Extraction
Thermal
Remediation
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
THRESHOLD
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
•
•
•
•
•
•
Compliance with ARARs
•
•
•
•
•
•
Long-term Effectiveness and
3
1
Permanence
z.
BALANCING
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility
and Volume through Treatment
6
5
4
1
3
2
Short-term Effectiveness
1
2
3
6
4
5
Implementability
1
2
3
5
4
6
Cost3
1
3
2
5
4
6
MODIFYING
State Acceptance
o
o
o
o
o
o
Community Acceptance
o
o
o
o
o
o
TOTAL SCORE
15
17
15
18
19
21
Notes:
a See Appendix C for cost estimates
Ranking Score ( pass; 1 = most favorable; 6 = least favorable)
ARARs - applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
N/A - not applicable
O - not evaluated
Table 9
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF BUILDING 1/CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH ALTERNATIVES COMPONENTS
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.C
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Cleanup Alternative and Components
Alternative C-l:
No Action
Alternative C-2:
Central Drainage Ditch
Cap, Maintain
Containment, and
Institutional Controls
Alternative C-3:
Thermal Remediation of Hot
Spot 3
Alternative C-4:
Thermal Remediation of
Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4
Alternative C-5:
Dual Phase Extraction of
Hot Spots 1 and 2 and
Thermal Remediation of
Hot Spots 3 and 4
Alternative C-6:
Dual Phase Extraction of Hot
Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4
Alternative C-7:
Dual Phase Extraction
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
Contaminated Media
Soil
PCE Contribution to the Source Area
PCE (1,068 lbs present in Building 1 Area)
CAP
Capped Area
NA
30,000 SF
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Duration of Monitoring
20 years
THERMAL REMEDIATION
Treatment Depth (feet bgs)
NA
NA
5 to 50
Variable*, 5 to 55
Variable*, 5 to 55
NA
NA
Treatment Area
Treatment Volume
5,500 SF
31,000 SF
10,300 SF
8,000 CY
28,500 CY
11,700 CY
Number of Remediation Wells
66
378
132
Duration of Thermal Treatment
5.5 months
6 months
6 months
DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION (SVE and Groundwater Extraction)
Treatment Depth (feet bgs)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Variable*, 25 to 55
Variable*, 5 to 55
Variable*, 5 to 55
Treatment Area
20,700 SF
10,500 SF
54,000 SF
Treatment Volume
16,700 CY
11,000 CY
52,000 CY
Phased Installation and Operation
No
Yes
Yes
Number of DPE Wells
36
31
158
Vapor Treatment
Carbon
Carbon
Oxidizer followed by Carbon
Duration of Treatment
8 years
16 years
(8 years per phase)
16 years
(8 years per phase)
Operation Frequency
4mo/yr
Phase 1: DPE 4 mo/yr anc
SVE 12 mo/yr (2 yrs)
DPE 4 mo/yr (6 yrs)
Phase 2: DPE 4 mo/yr (8 yrs)
Phase 1: DPE 4 mo/yr anc
SVE 12 mo/yr (2 yrs)
DPE 4 mo/yr (6 yrs)
Phase 2: DPE 4 mo/yr (8 yrs)
Treatment System Monitoring Frequency
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Sampling Frequency
Month 1 -4: Monthly
Remaining Duration:
Years 1-2: Monthly
Remaining Duration: x2/vr
Years 1-2: Monthly
Remaining Duration: x2/vr
PERFORMANCE MONITORING (Groundwater and Soil)
Number of New Groundwater Monitoring Wells
NA
NA
5
9
9
6
6
Frequency of Sampling
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Duration of Monitoring (Monitoring Wells)
2 years
2 years
9 years
18 years
18 years
Number of Confirmation Soil Borings
4
10
10
10
10
SUMMARY OF CLEANUP ACTION
Construction Duration
NA
6 weeks
4 months
6.5 months
6.5 months
30 days
(15 davs per phase)
80 days
(40 davs per phase)
Soil Mass of PCE Remediated (lbs)
NA
NA
663
806
783
401
466
Total Approximate Electrical Consumption (kWh)
NA
NA
2,080,000
7,690,000
5,578,000
2,837,000
7,172,000
Present-Worth Cost
$0
$1,043,000
$3,324,000
$10,247,000
$10,850,000
$7,622,000
$13,164,000
Notes:
bgs - below ground surface NA - Not Applicable
CY - cubic yard SF - square feet
kWh - kilowatt hours yr - year
lbs - pounds
mo - month Treatments depths vary depending on location. Actual treatment depths are shown on Figures 12 through 17.
Table 10
1 of 1
-------
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF BUILDING 1/CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH MASS REMOVAL COMPONENTS
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Cleanup Alternative
Mass of PCE
Present in
Treatment
Alternative
(lbs)
Surface Area of Volume of Estimated Mass
Soil Treated by Soil Treated by Removed by
Alternative Alternative Treatment
(SF) (CY) Alternative (lbs)
Percent of
Total Mass (1,068
lbs) Removed by
Treatment
Alternative
Percent of
Accessible Mass
Removed by
Treatment
Alternative8
Estimated
Present Worth
Cost to complete
Alternative
Unit Cost
to Treat
PCE Impacted Soil
(Cost per lbs)
Alternative C-l: No Action
NAb
Alternative C-2: Central Drainage Ditch Cap, Maintain Containment, and
Institutional Controls
NAb
Alternative C-3: Thermal Remediation of Hot Spot 3
664
5,500
8,000
663
62%
64%
$3,324,000
$5,000
Alternative C4: Thermal Remediation of Hot Spots 1,2,3, and 4
853
31,000
28,500
806
75%
78%
$10,247,000
$12,700
Alternative C-5: Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1 and 2 and Thermal
Remediation of Hot Spots 3 and 4
865
31,000
28,400
783
73%
76%
$10,850,000
$13,900
Alternative C-6: Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1,2,3, and 4
798
10,500
11,000
401
38%
39%
$7,622,000
$19,000
Alternative C-7: Dual Phase Extraction
947
54,000
52,000
466
44%
45%
$13,164,000
$28,200
Notes:
a Accessible mass is defined as mass outside of the Building 1 footprint and interior Building 1 mass within 40 feet of the building perimeter
b A combined total mass of 1,068 lbs of PCEmass is present in the Building 1/central drainage ditch area. Mass of treatment area for Alternatives C-l and C-2 is not applicable since no active soil remediation is occuring.
CY - cubic yards
lbs - pounds PCE - tetrachoroethene BOLD - Best Value
NA - Not Applicable SF - square foot
Table 11
1 of 1
-------
TABLE 12
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES IN BUILDING 1/CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH AREA
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT, REV 1.0
LINDSAY IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Alternative C-l
Alternative C-2
Alternative C-3
Alternative C-4
Alternative C-5
Alternative C-6
Alternative C-l
Criterion
No Action
Central Drainage
Ditch Cap
Thermal
Remediation of
Hot Spot 3
Thermal
Remediation of
Hot Spots
1,2,3 & 4
DPE of Hot Spots 1
& 2
and Thermal
Remediation of
DPE of Hot Spots
1,2,3 & 4
DPE
Hot Spots 3 & 4
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
THRESHOLD
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Compliance with ARARs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Long-term Effectiveness and
Permanence
7
6
3
1
2
5
4
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility
7
6
3
1
2
5
4
BALANCING
and Volume through Treatment
Short-term Effectiveness
1
2
3
5
6
4
7
Implementability
1
2
3
5
6
4
7
Costa
1
2
3
5
6
4
7
MODIFYING
State Acceptance
o
o
o
O
o
O
o
Community Acceptance
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
TOTAL SCORE
17
18
15
17
22
22
29
Notes:
a See Appendix C for cost estimates
ARARs - applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
DPE - Dual Phase Extraction
Ranking Score (®= pass; 1 = most favorable; 7 = least favorable)
O - not evaluated
Table 12
Page 1 of 1
-------
APPENDIX A
EPA and NDEE Comments; Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, August 5,2016
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 7
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
NOV 0 1 2016
Mr. Robert Jacobson
Lindsay Manufacturing
214 East Second Street
P.O. Box 156
Lindsay, Nebraska 68644
Re: United States of America vs. Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC Civil Action Number 8CV9200015 -
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, August 5, 2016
Dear Mr. Jacobson:
The U S Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report
transmittal Enclosed is a list of comments. It may be advantageous for us to discuss your proposed
changes to the document prior to resubmitting. The Nebraska W
be sending a separate letter that also includes comments. All comments shall be addressed and
revised documents resubmitted to the EPA by December 31, 2016.
If you have questions concerning this letter or the changes in deliverables, please contact me at
(913) 551-7977 or inccov.erin@epa.gQY-
Sincerely,
Erin S. McCoy, P.G".'
Remedial Project Manager
Site Remediation Branch
Superfund Division
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Karen Mixon, URS
Mr. Daniel Ross, NDEQ
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Comments on Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report
Lindsay Manufacturing, Lindsay, Nebraska
Dated August 5, 2016
General Comments
1. The EPA and Lindsay need to continue the discussion of reports going forward. While Lindsay
does not need to submit a separate report for each action performed, complete reports written to
stand alone and not being reviewed beforehand should not be included within other reports, such
as Appendix D — Capture Zone Report EXT-13-01. The EPA will not accept reports written to
stand alone within other reports in the future. If Lindsay submits a report like this in the future
for review, the EPA will notify Lindsay that they will be pulling out the included report and
treating it like a separate submittal.
2. Section 6 discusses several remedial options and compares them using the nine criteria.
However, the comparison for the implementation on all of the scenarios, except for no action, is
lacking as none of the discussions addresses the technical implementation of the proposed
remedial action. Instead, the discussions seem to focus on inconvenience to current operations
and upgrades that would be required at the facility. These discussions need to be modified to
include the technical aspect (i.e., would the soil be amenable to the technology?). Reevaluate the
implementation criteria and update the report before resubmitting.
3. As stated in Section 5.1.1 on page 29, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the site requires
ultimate restoration of the underlying aquifer to maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The
preferred remedies selected will not achieve this goal, especially capping. The source material
either needs to be treated, stabilized, removed, or treated in a manner that can prevent continued
migrations of chemicals of concern (COCs) from the fine-grained unit (FGU) to the sand and
gravel (SAG) aquifer, or justification needs to be provided as to why this cannot be done. Please
reevaluate the technologies and resubmit.
4. None of the capping remedies discuss the continued mobilization from the fluctuating
groundwater table coming into contact with contaminated material in the FGU due to regional
fluctuation. Considering that the neighboring properties are for agriculture use, the groundwater
will fluctuate with rainfall. This needs to be discussed and accounted for in remedy evaluation
during the resubmittal.
5. While determining the type of thermal is necessary to develop initial costs for comparison to the
nine CERCLA criteria, if thermal is selected as a remedial action for the site, the EPA suggests
leaving the type of thermal open so that thermal vendors can determine the best thermal
technology to use for the site. Please add a comment to the thermal remedies explaining this.
6. The manner in which the amount of mass that would be recovered by each alternative is
estimated biases the mass estimates. The mass in each of the 40 feet by 40 feet cells used for
calculating the mass in the treatment areas is estimated by assuming that the maximum
concentration found in a boring in that cell at that depth interval is distributed throughout that
cell. However, when estimating the mass recovered by a treatment technology, it is assumed that
2
-------
the treatment area for the technology is only a portion of each of the 40 feet by 40 feet cells,
leaving much of the contaminant mass outside of the treatment area. When implementing a
remedial technology, it would be expected that all of the known contamination surrounding each
of the high concentration zones would be included in the treatment area, which would treat a
much greater percentage of the mass than is currently anticipated and shown in Tables 18 and 19.
An example of this is Appendix F, on page 17 of 29. The top figure shows that a total of 294
kilograms (kg) of tetrachloroethene (PCE) is contained in box N-19. It appears that this mass is
assumed to be distributed evenly across the 40 feet by 40 feet cell. However, the assumption
made in the lower figure on this page is that only 319 square feet (ft2) of the total 1600 ft2 of the
cell is within the thermal treatment area. This assumption seems to come from the assumption
that a smaller area around the boring (rather than the entire 40 feet by 40 feet cell) contains high
PCE concentrations. With this assumption, only 20% of the cell (top figure on page 18 of 29) and
20% of the mass (bottom figure on page 18 of 29) in that cell is treated by thermal remediation.
Thus the document assumes that only 58.6 kg of the total 294 kg of PCE in that cell is treated by
thermal remediation. In practice, if the mass is spread across the cell, then the entire cell would
be treated by thermal remediation. To get a more accurate estimate of the amount of mass that
would be treated, it should be assumed that all of the mass attributed to boring SB 15-17 is within
the treatment area. This leads to a more realistic estimate of the mass within the thermal
treatment area of 324 kg (67% of the total mass in the Building 1 area outside of the building),
versus the 76 kg (15% of the total mass in the Building 1 area) given on Table 18.
Taking a similar approach to estimate the amount of mass that would be treated by Alternative
A-4, Thermal Treatment of all the 5 parts per million (ppm) and greater areas, would give a
treated mass of about 411 kg (905 pounds), which is approximately 85% of the total mass of PCE
outside of Building 1. Applying the same approach to the cell area evaluated for thermal
remediation in Alternative B-6 shows that approximately 36.5 kg (80 pounds) of PCE would be
within the thermal treatment area. Please reevaluate the estimates and the remedial actions to
determine which technology would be best suited for the site with the new amounts.
7. The goal of the remedial alternatives evaluation was not clear in the report. During previous
conference calls and meetings with EPA, Lindsay has repeatedly stated that the company would
eventually like the site deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL); however, the remedies
identified by Lindsay as the preferred remedies would not allow deletion from the NPL. Due to
this inconsistency, the EPA contacted Lindsay on 10/25/16 to clarify Lindsay's position. During
this discussion, Lindsay stated that its goal is no longer to be deleted from the NPL, but to
prevent the contamination from migrating past the property line. Lindsay stated its chance in
position was due to the large volume of soil contamination, cost of remediation, and location of
the soil contamination under Building 1. The purpose of this comment is to acknowledge the
change in Lindsay's position. The EPA does not necessarily agree or disagree with Lindsay's
remediation goals. The EPA will select the appropriate remedy for the site based on available site
data in conjunction with the evaluation of the nine NCP CERCLA criteria.
3
-------
Specific Comments
1. Section 1.1.1, Page 2, Facility Remedial Actions, Paragraph 2 - This paragraph discusses
injecting material but does not state if the injection was successful, if injected material was well
distributed, etc. Given the data provided in previous reports showing that water was not
successfully inj ected, the lack of further information is confusing. Please provide more
information to explain if injection worked, or reference the report where the information is
available for review and resubmit.
2. Section 3.2.1, Page 13, Paragraph 2 - Indicate the depth to water at the SB 15-17 boring
location. Was the highest PCE detection at 28 feet below ground surface (bgs) above or below
the water table?
3. Section 3.2.2, Page 14, Paragraph 2 - pH does not have units. Please remove.
4. Section 3.4, Page 16, Paragraph 3 - Please modify the text to provide a range of concentrations
for each parameter and specify if the ranges are indicative of an aerobic or anaerobic
environment.
5. Section 3.5, Page 17 - The text indicates that assuming the contribution from the saturated
portion of the fine-grained unit is 25-50% of the total pumped discharge, EXT13-01 can be
pumped between approximately 550-800 gallons per minute (gpm) to maintain plume control.
What is the basis for assuming that a 25-50% flow contribution from a predominately silty -
clayey material (~K of 10"2 to 10"4 feet/day) is possible? According to Appendix D, the 25%
contribution total flow is based on the average saturated thickness of the fine-grained unit of 16
feet relative to a total saturated thickness of 62 feet; which assumes that saturated feet equals
percent contribution to total flow. What is the 50% flow contribution based upon? Update the
text to provide sources for the assumptions.
6. Section 4.1, Page 22 - This section shows significant source contaminant mass is under Building
1. Appendix F estimates that 60 kg of PCE is beneath Building 1. Mass distribution figures in
Appendix F appear to show that much of the mass under the building is within 40-50 feet of the
outside of the building. This mass can be accessed by thermal remediation by the use of angled
thermal wells for thermal conductive heating (TCH), or angled electrodes for electrical resistive
heating (ERH). This approach has been used successfully at other active manufacturing facilities
without disruption to the manufacturing process. Angled electrodes or heater wells under the
building can be installed using sonic drilling without creating vibration within the building that
would interfere with the manufacturing process. Work can continue within the building without
significant interruption. Wells/electrodes can be installed below grade if necessary to maintain
access to critical areas. Please reevaluate the thermal technology to account for this methodology
and resubmit.
7. Section 4.3 - The hydraulic gradient calculations are not provided to verify. In addition, the
groundwater elevations discussed are not provided within the report. A table needs to be
provided to include the top of casing, depth to groundwater, groundwater elevation, etc. Revise
the report and resubmit.
4
-------
8. Section 4.3, Page 19, Paragraph 1 - The text indicates groundwater flow in the FGU in the
adjacent off-site area is to the northwest, with a persistent trough in the fine-grained groundwater.
The next sentence indicates groundwater movement in this zone may be predominately vertical.
Does "in this zone" relate to the trough or the FGU in general? Update the text to clarify and
resubmit.
9. Section 4.4.1, Page 21, Central Drainage Ditch - The text indicates that detection in soil at
boring SB 15-15 appears to be in close proximity to a historic release. While no action is required
for this report, the EPA recommends further soil delineation in this area as part of any remedial
action.
10. Section 4.5, Page 26, Zinc, Paragraph 3, first sentence - The sentence references building 14,
though no building 14 has been discussed before. Please verify and revise, if appropriate.
11. Section 5.1, Page 28, Paragraph 1 — The report states: "Thus, there is no significant health risk
associated with direct contact with impacted soils in the vicinity of Building 1 and the central
drainage ditch" While the sentences before this in the paragraph state this is due to the depth of
contamination, a qualifier needs to be added to this sentence since it states there is no significant
health risk associated with direct contact with impacted soils. Please add a qualifier such as
".. .within the top X feet", or something equivalent, to this statement and resubmit.
12. Section 5.1, Page 28, Paragraph 2, Sentence 3 - The remedial action goal as stated in Section
IV. A. of the ROD is to restore the aquifer to acceptable water quality levels that are protective of
human health and the environment. However, the referenced sentence specifies reducing the
COCs to the MCLs at the property boundary. This also occurs later on the same page in
paragraph 5, sentence 2. Why is the property line relevant? How is reaching MCLs at the
property boundary compliant with the remedial goals outlined in the ROD? Revise the report to
better explain or remove the text as appropriate.
13. Section 5.1.1 - Several ARARs seem to be missing, such as endangered species, etc. However,
this is very hard to review since ARARs are usually presented in a table and not explained and
presented in text. Reevaluate the ARARs and update as appropriate.
14. Section 6.1, Page 37 - The report states: "Fate and transport modeling is included as a
component of several alternatives to refine estimated restoration timeframes and overall site
restoration cost estimates and to better enable future cost/benefit decisions regarding potential
future remedial actions including optimizing the extent of the target treatment zones. At a
minimum, the fate and transport model shoidd simulate the time to achieve cleanup goals in the
sand and gravel aquifer under a variety of pumping and remediation scenarios (e.g., percent
reduction in contaminant mass in the fine-grained unit)." The fate and transport modeling needs
to be carried out to determine if sufficient source remediation is being recommended to cost
effectively achieve the cleanup criteria, with the limited on-site hydraulic containment that is
being proposed. Please revise and resubmit.
5
-------
15. Section 6.1, Page 38 - Item 2 indicates that extraction well EXT13-01 would be shut down when
COCs at the property boundary no longer exceed cleanup levels or as approved by the EPA.
Could this well also be shut down if an alternative remedy sufficiently reduced zinc
concentrations to allow for use of an on-facility extraction well? Is this alternative cost-effective.
Please include these scenarios in the evaluation and resubmit.
16. Section 6.3, Page 40 - For those remedial alternatives in the Building 1/Central Ditch area that
propose to treat the vertical extent from near surface (5-10 feet) to 55 feet bgs, institutional
controls (ICs) could limit worker exposures to COCs in soil from 0-10 feet. The area from
approximately 10-20 feet bgs should be higher in elevation than the water table fluctuation zone,
and therefore, as no driver would be present (if a cap is installed) to push COCs deeper this zone
could potentially be deleted from treatment. Another item to consider is the DAF (20) for each
chlorinated volatile organic carbon (CVOC); if a COC is not present in leachable concentrations,
consider not treating those zones. During the resubmittal, reevaluate the depths where treatment
is actually needed and update the remedial evaluation accordingly.
17 Section 6 3 2 Page 42 - The text should indicate that capping, as well as other alternative
' remedies may not be a stand-alone remedy. Whereas it would inhibit the infiltration of surface
water, soil impacts extend to the water table and will continue to impact groundwater. Modify the
text to address this.
18. Section 6.3.3, Page 44 - Would there be heat lost due to the shallow sanitary sewer corridor from
the proposed thermal treatment area? Does the proposed design configuration compensate for
this concern in Figure 31 ? Would this utility be re-routed? About half of the vertical distance of
the treatment zone (25 feet) is saturated. Is the same heating well used in both the saturated and
unsaturated zones at each of the proposed locations? See specific comment #6. Additional
information is necessary to assess if this remedy would be applicable at the site.
19. Section 6.3.3, Page 45 - The text indicates that Alternative A-4 (Large Thermal) was rejected
due to significant implementation impediments and lack of cost-effectiveness. According to
Section 6.4, implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of the remedy.
The text does not further define technical feasibility but rather indicates the comparative analysis
is based on the degree of disruption that maybe expected from construction and operation and
maintenance (O&M) which does not correlate with technically feasible and which is not
discussed in Section 6.4. Cost effectiveness of the remedy is not discussed in Section 6.4, on y
cost. Modify both sections to include these discussions.
20. Section 6.3.3, Page 45, Reduction of Toxicity, Sentences 3/4/5 - The text indicates that the
Small Thermal alternative will treat approximately 15% of the PCE mass but is estimated to
remove approximately 13% of the identified PCE mass. If only 13% of PCE mass is identified,
how is 15% treated? An indicated 95% reduction in COCs mass is anticipated m the treatment
area. However, with PCE concentrations ranging from 13,000 to 570,000 micrograms per
kilogram (jug/kg) in the unsaturated and saturated zones, considerable mass could remain (based
on treatment zone, 9 to 15 pounds with PCE concentrations of 190 to 28,500 fig/kg). What
additional treatment technologies will be considered for further mass reduction, especially m the
6
-------
20-35 feet unsaturated/capillary fringe zone? What is the shallowest recorded down well
measurement in this area? Modify this section to supply more information and resubmit.
21. Section 6.3.5, Page 49, Paragraph 2 - The depth to water in the FGU is between 27-35 feet bgs;
the SAG aquifer begins at about 47-56 feet bgs. Where will the pump be placed to dewater the
FGU and withdraw impacted groundwater? The K differential between the FGU and the SAG
aquifer is substantial. Will the radius of influence for the soil vapor extraction (SVE) systems
overlap in the FGU? If the FGU and upper extent of the SAG are dewatered, will SVE from the
FGU be short-circuited by the SAG material? How will this situation be rectified? Because the
SAG aquifer is so prolific, will the higher vacuum proposed in the FGU be able to pull
groundwater high enough to cover some of the screen, thereby reducing extraction efficiency? If
only the SVE portion of the system is operated during non-irrigation season, the saturated zone in
the FGU will re-establish along with the higher moisture capillary fringe. In addition, the vacuum
may pull water over a portion of the screen. This situation may reduce the efficiency of vapor
extraction in the FGU as well as impact groundwater with remaining PCE in the unsaturated
zone, if at sufficient concentration. Further detail is necessary in the report to evaluate this
alternative. Revise and resubmit.
22. Section 6.3.5, Page 50 - According to the text, the COC mass removal efficiency of duel phase
extraction (DPE) is 70% in the unsaturated zone and 60% in the saturated zone. At soil boring
SB15-17, the higher PCE concentrations range from 3,800-570,000 (ig/kg. At 60-70% reduction
efficiency, the remaining COC concentrations would range from 950-228,000 jig/kg with a
remaining PCE mass, based on treatment zone, of 80-115 pounds. An additional treatment
technology in the unsaturated zone may be needed for further reduction to the DAF (20)
concentration or NDEQ's action level of 45 |ig/kg. Please modify this technology to discuss how
this will be addressed.
23. Section 6.3.5, Page 50 - Based on the mass estimate figures, the treatment zone for the SB 15-44
area could be reduced from 10-55 feet to 20-45 feet unless groundwater samples were collected
below 45 feet that warrant inclusion of the deeper portion (45-55 feet) of this area. Consider
expanding the proposed treatment area at SB 15-44 to include the area around SB 15-42. PCE
concentrations, depicted on the mass estimate figures in the vertical zone from 10-40 feet, range
from 100-2,000 (ig/kg.
24. Section 6.3.5, Page 51 - The text indicates that the overall remediation timeframe includes two
years of post-remediation groundwater monitoring. SVE data and groundwater monitoring results
should determine when it is appropriate to terminate performance monitoring rather than an
arbitrary two-year timeframe. Modify the text to reflect this.
25. Section 6.3.6, Page 51 - See comments #18/19 above for similar concerns.
26. Section 6.4, Page 56 - The text indicates short-term effectiveness addresses the "period of time
needed to achieve protection" and adverse impacts to human health & the environment but
rankings of the proposed alternative remedies were based, in part, on alternatives that can be
"implemented in the shortest timeframe". Whereas both have a time component, these are not the
same criteria. Review and revise.
7
-------
27. Section 6.4, Page 57 - The text indicates that implementability refers to, in part, "technical
feasibility" of the remedy, but the comparative analysis is largely based on the "degree of
disruption" that may be expected from construction and O&M. These are not comparable criteria.
Review and revise to include a technical feasibility component for both Building 1/Central Ditch
and the Cell Area. See General Comment #2.
28. Section 6.5.2 - This alternative does not discuss regional recharge and fluctuating groundwater
elevations, both of which would still cause contaminant flushing from the soil. Modify and
resubmit.
29. Section 6.5.3 - How deep would the excavation be? Would this remove all the contamination?
Revise the report to include this information in this section and resubmit.
30. Section 6.5.4, Page 65 - The text notes the approximate amount of PCE immobilization (43
pounds). How much zinc will be immobilized and what options, if any, will this provide for
alternative hydraulic containment options? Would zinc concentrations be reduced enough to
avoid treatment for metals prior to discharge from an on-facility extraction well throughout the
year vs. EXT13-01? Assume GAC for chlorinated COCs would be needed for some period of
time. Please modify the text to address this.
31. Section 6.5.5, Page 66 - The text indicates the SVE wells would be completed just above
groundwater in the sand channel. How, if at all, will the SVE system address PCE mass in the
FGU? A review of the cross-sections for the Cell area depicts a sand channel layer that is
relatively inconsistent in thickness, and groundwater is depicted in the clay above the sand or in
the shallow sand. Overlap of the radius of influence (ROI) may not occur, the vacuum may pull
groundwater over the screen, and at 70% efficiency an alternate remedy may be needed to reduce
COC concentrations below leachable concentrations. The proposed SVE system may not
adequately remove the COCs from the sand channel. Is this proposed remedy realistic? Please
provide additional discussion to address all of this and resubmit.
32. Section 6.7.2, Page 77 - The text indicates that proposed extraction wells EXT16-02 would
operate when irrigation of the Beller property is not required but discharge to the demonstration
pivots north of the facility is feasible. Define the constraints of "feasible" and offer potential
solutions to those constraints with the text and resubmit. Would there continue to be off-facility
migration of COCs due to seasonal on-facility pumping that would prolong use of off-site pump
& treat (P&T)/0&M/long-term monitoring (LTM)? Provide further explanation.
33. Section 6.7.3, Page 80 - What is the anticipated COC-mass removal/reduction improvement with
this alternative over the seasonal pumping in Alternate C-2? What is the associated reduction in
time to achieve chemical-specific ARARs with this alternative vs. C-2? Would there be further
long-term savings if off-facility P&T/O&M/LTM activities were curtailed at an earlier date due
to continual on-facility plume capture? Revise the text to address these issues and resubmit.
34. Section 7.1, Page 89 - The preferred remedy for the Building 1/Drainage Ditch Area is capping
the central drainage ditch and thermal remediation in the SB 15-17 area. The text indicates
8
-------
contaminant mass removal is recommended particularly in the saturated portion of the FGU that
appears to be acting as a continual source of groundwater contamination in the SAG. Was NAPL
detected in the saturated portion of the FGU that is considered the continual source? Is it the high
PCE levels in the unsaturated zone (capillary fringe) that act as the continual source impacting
groundwater, and that in turn acts as a secondary source of impacts to surrounding groundwater
with lower level or no PCE detections? As a cap is proposed over the central ditch, infiltration
would no longer act as a driver that pushes PCE toward the water table; the source of impacts to
groundwater would be the PCE impacts in the capillary fringe. Should the thermal technology
focus on the zone from the historically high water table; approximately 25-55 feet rather than 5-
55 feet? Would the associated cost reduction with the reduced treatment zone be worth
considering? The larger vertical zone would reduce the potential of VI concerns but those
potential impacts were demonstrated to be minimal. Update the remedial evaluation to address
these concerns.
35. Figure 2 — The well ID colors do not match the contour lines or legends. Modify and resubmit.
36. Figure 3 - The legend marks the locations as proposed; however, the borings have already been
advanced. The legend needs to be updated.
37. Figure 4 - The legend marks the locations as proposed; however, the borings have already been
advanced. The legend needs to be updated.
38. Figure 10 - Well MW14-05B shows a groundwater elevation of 1,637.98 feet bgs but is located
between the 1639 and 1638 contours. Revise and resubmit the figure.
39. Figures 25 and 27 - Why do the plumes stop before including well MW12-01B on both figures?
40. Table 1 and Appendix A - Several inconsistencies were noted between Table 1 and the boring
logs in Appendix A. A list is provided below; however, please review all information and update
the table or appendix appropriately before resubmitting.
a. SB 15-08 -Table indicates the contact depth is 50 feet bgs but the boring log lists 45 feet
bgs.
b. SB 15-09 - The table indicates there were two MS/MSD samples collected; however the
boring log only lists one.
c. SB 15-20 - The table indicates the contact depth is 42 feet bgs but the boring log lists 44.5
feet bgs.
d. The table indicates that field duplicates were collected at borings SB 15-21, SB 15-37,
SB15-40, SB15-44, and SB15-48. But the logs do not show duplicate field samples were
collected like the other logs do (i.e., SB15-36). Please also verify that the MS/MSD
samples correspond as well.
e. The table and bottom of boring log for boring SB15-34 indicate the total depth was 66
feet bgs, but the top of the log lists 65 feet bgs.
f. SB 15-35 - A groundwater sample was collected from 36-40 feet bgs, but the groundwater
was encountered at 38.5 feet bgs.
9
-------
g. SB 15-44 - There is a change in the graphic log at 43.5 feet bgs, but the material
description does not call for a change.
h. SB 15-46 - Why was no sample collected at 50 feet bgs when samples were supposed to
be collected every 5 feet? Either provide the justification on the log or in the text. The
same comment is applicable for SB 15-47, SB 15-48, SB 15-49, and SB 15-50.
41 . Tables 6, 8,10, and 11 - The statistics should be split up to differentiate between what was
detected above and below the water table to better show site conditions. Please include lines to
differentiate the location of the samples.
42. Appendix A - There were some overall questions on the boring logs that are listed below. Please
be sure to review all of the logs to make sure that any errors are corrected prior to resubmittal.
a. The depth of material descriptions were confusing for most of the boring logs. An
example is boring SB 15-01. It is unclear if the ML description on the front page was
encountered at a depth of 6 or 7.5 feet bgs because of the slant in the vertical line across
the graphic section. However, on the back sheet of the log, all the vertical lines are
consistent across the graphic log, making it easier to understand the depth. Because of
this confusion, some of the comments below maybe off. Please either provide a rationale
for this or correct prior to resubmitting.
b. Several of the top material descriptions are identified as FILL; however, the geologic
description corresponds with the USCS instead of FILL. Please either provide a rationale
or correct prior to resubmitting.
43. Appendix C - For well MW14-09A, the field sheet lists the well as dry, but states that 3 VOA
vials were collected on 5/5/2015. There was no sample time listed though. Correct prior to
resubmitting. Also, the data on the following pages could not be read: 65, 67, 81, 84, 86, 87, 89,
146, 147 through 161, and 179 through 186. Please ensure that legible copies are included in the
resubmittal.
44. Appendix E - Please verify the order for blank qualifications and clarify the text to show this.
Method blank contamination should always be considered prior to other blank contamination as
other blank contamination may be qualified out due to method blank contamination. It is unclear
in the validation summaries if this occurred.
45. Appendix G - The introduction indicates that PCE mass estimates focus on PCE in soil within
the FGU only and do not include PCE mass dissolved in groundwater or in NAPL. However,
PCE mass estimates were calculated for depths of 0-55 feet for the Building 1 area and 0-45 feet
for the cell area. The depth to water in these areas is significantly less than 45-55 feet. A general
assumption of Appendix G is that the average depth to water is 20 feet bgs. However, Item 6.2
apparently calculates the 70% DPE removal rate on an unsaturated zone that extends to 30 feet.
Review and revise.
46. Appendix G - Alternative B-4 (ISS) proposes use of reagents for solidification of VOCs and zinc
in the cell area. This alternative indicates that 43 pounds of PCE or 31% of the estimated mass in
the cell area would be stabilized. This level of detail for zinc stabilization in the cell area would
10
-------
be valuable to assess the potential for year-round use of an on-site extraction well to
hydraulically contain the plume, which could potentially reduce use/costs of other off-facility
extraction wells. How do the saturated soil sample concentrations depicted on the mass estimate
figures relate to groundwater sample results at similar depths, and what considerations are given
to this relationship when evaluating remedial technologies? It seems that unsaturated soil
concentrations at or above a DAF (20) or the NDEQ protection of groundwater screening value
of 45 ug/kg were not considered in determining the proposed vertical extent of the treatment
technology (e.g., Alternative A-5, DPE, treatment zone 10-55 feet, PCE concentrations are <
these values at SB 15-44 in the 10-15 feet bgs interval at 13 fig/kg; 15-20 feet interval at 23
jig/kg)? Additional consideration needs to be included in this alternative for the resubmittal.
11
-------
to <
n-
co
o
O
tr;J~
cm
Jo tx<
o, ¦
O
r\;
>'o
- c--
ft,
Iff
J-:
V;
k #
O
w
O
U
Sh
U
X>
O
Pi
c
=3
-4-1
0
1
H
CTJ
>o
*n
¦CT1 ^
CO ©
PQ
& >_) p_
"«fr
00
§
03
CO
*a
«
3
-------
Mixon, Karen
From: Ross, Daniel
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 7:30 AM
To: bob.jacobson@lindsay.com
Cc: Mixon, Karen; McCoy, Erin; Buell, Thomas
Subject: Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report - NDEQ Comments
Attachments: Comments_Remed_Altern_Eval_Report_DR_04.pdf
RE: Lindsay Manufacturing
NDEQ ID: 53676
Program ID: NED 068645696
Good morning Bob,
Please see the attached file for the NDEQ's comments on the Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report. The NDEQ has
provided these comments to the EPA, and understands that their comments are forthcoming. If you have any questions,
or concerns, please feel free to contact me. A hard copy of the attached comments will not follow this message.
Sincerely,
Daniel Ross
Groundwater Geologist
Superfund and Voluntary Cleanup Program
Remediation Section | Land Management Division
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Phone: (402)471-2988
Email: daniel.ross(5)nebraska.gov
l
-------
Comments on Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report
Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC
Lindsay, NE
10/26/2016
Daniel Ross (402) 471-2988
1. General comment on the Fine-Grained unit.
In section 4.1 - Hydrogeologic Units, (pg. 18, paragraph 2) the fine-grained unit is
described. The text states, "In some locations, the contact with the underlying aquifer is
relatively sharp and in others is gradational. The lower portion of the fine-grained unit
generally remains saturated throughout the year on the facility and in adjacent areas..."
And, "the fine-grained unit capping the underlying sand and gravel aquifer is considered to
be a leaky confining layer or aquitard." Later in section 5.1.1 - Chemical Specific ARARs
(paragraph 4) states "the aquitard within the fine-grained unit, although partially saturated
during certain portions of the year, is not considered an aquifer pursuant to Nebraska Title
118 and federal requirements because this hydrogeologic unit does not yield usable
amounts of water to a well, spring, or other point of discharge." The Department disagrees
with this interpretation. While the entire unit may not be fully saturated, the lower portion,
as stated above "...generally remains saturated throughout the year..." demonstrating that
the fine-grained unit is in hydrologic communication with the sand and gravel aquifer. Title
118 defines an "aquifer" as a geologic unit that is capable of yielding usable amounts of
water to a well, spring or other point of discharge. The fine-grained unit meets this point
of discharge criterion as it has been shown to discharge to Shell creek, roughly 0.5 mi. west
of the facility. Section 4.2 of the Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report also states that
"Aquifer tests have not been conducted in the fine-grained unit or in the sand channel." and
that the values for hydraulic conductivity of the unit are estimates based solely on grain
size.
Separate from the definition of an aquifer, is the definition of groundwater in Title 118; it is
defined as "...water occurring beneath the surface of the ground that fills available openings
in rock or soil materials such that they may be considered saturated." Chapter 4 (Narrative
and Numerical Standards) of Title 118 later states,
001 The following narrative standards shall apply to ground waters in the State:
001.01 Wastes; toxic substances¦, or any other pollutant (along or in combination with
other pollutants) introduced directly or indirectly by human activity shall not be
allowed to enter ground water:
001.01A If beneficial uses of ground water would be impaired or public health
and welfare would be threatened; or
001.01B If beneficial uses of hydrologically connected ground waters or
assigned uses of surface waters would be impaired.
-------
While the NDEQ recognizes that the fine-grained unit likely has a significantly lower
conductivity than the sand and gravel unit, there have been no aquifer tests conducted on it,
it has been shown to be in essentially constant hydrologic communication with the sand and
gravel aquifer, and it meets the "point of discharge" criterion of an aquifer outlined in Title
118. Furthermore, regardless of whether the fine-grained unit is considered an aquifer or
not, Title 118 states that pollutants shall not be allowed to enter the groundwater, and if
this does occur, the numerical standards of Chapter 4 will apply. In short, seeing as the fine-
grained unit is in hydrologic connection to the primary (sand and gravel) aquifer and is
acting as a source of contamination, the unit needs to be addressed, either through active
remediation or by groundwater monitoring and fate and transport modeling.
2. Section 6.3 - Implementation (balancing):
Throughout section 6.3, where the Implementation of remedies is evaluated, the discussion
is geared towards whether the remedy will disrupt facility operations. Where the CERCLA
criteria for remedy selection cover the implementability of a remedy, the focus is on the
technical and administrative feasibility of the remedy as well as the availability of services
and materials. These criteria are not so much meant to evaluate the level of disruption of
day-to-day operations that would take place as a result of implementation (i.e. Section 6.4),
but whether the specific remedies are logistically feasible. Please review the report and
ensure that evaluations of implementation of a given remedy are based off the proper
evaluation criteria.
3. Alternative A-3 - Thermal Remediation in the Vicinity of SB15-17 faka "Small Thermal"!
Implementation fBalancingl:
The report states "Implementation of this remedy would require significant upgrades to the
facility electrical system, including a new or upgraded power service from the local utility.
Based on preliminary contact with the utility company, it is assumed that adequate power
could be provided to the facility, but the timing of utility upgrades from the utility company
currently remains uncertain." Seeing as this remedial alternative is contingent upon
available power upgrades, assurance from the local utility company as well as timeframes
for when these upgrades may be made available should be included as a part of the
proposed remedy. Please secure this information and include it in the revised draft of the
report
4. Section 6.5.2 Alternative B-2 Cap Cell Area:
Alternative B-2 proposes a cap on the cell area to prevent infiltration of surface water
through the fine-grained unit. The report also states, "This alternative would not address
COC's that have already migrated to saturated zones within the fine-grained unit (e.g., sand
channel and fine-grained materials below the sand channel). No additional supplemental
investigations or fate and transport modeling would be conducted as part of this
alternative." While the NDEQ does not object to capping the cell area and recognizes that
this will reduce the contribution of surface water to the fine-grained unit, the remedy does
-------
not account for the fluctuation of groundwater. Portions of the fine-grained unit here are in
hydrologic connection to the primary aquifer, and seasonal recharge along with irrigation
provide for a fluctuating water table throughout the year. If alternative B-2 is in fact the
remedy selected for the cell area, the NDEQ recommends future monitoring along with fate
and transport modeling to identify the effects of groundwater fluctuation in the area.
Moreover, the NDEQ has concerns about this remedy as a permanent solution for the cell
area (see comment 1).
-------
Appendix B
Mass Calculation Documentation
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix B - Mass Estimate Calculations
Summary of Methodology - Mass Estimate Calculations
1.0 Introduction
Mass estimates of PCE present in the Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch area and Cell area were
developed to assist with evaluation of the remedial action alternatives. These estimates focus on
PCE in soil within the fine-grained unit only and do not include PCE mass dissolved in
groundwater or in the non-aqueous phase liquid ([NAPL], the presence of which has not been
identified at this site). The Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch area and Cell area were evaluated
separately using the soil chemistry data from prior investigations. In addition zinc mass
estimates were conducted for the Cell area only. The mass estimates also include the calculation
of PCE and zinc mass that remedial action alternatives could remove through treatment. The
methodology and key assumptions of the mass estimate and mass removal calculations are
summarized here. Specific assumptions are included on the summary pages for the Building
1/Central Drainage Ditch area and Cell area calculations. These calculations consist of the
following:
• Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch Area PCE Mass Calculations
o Sheet 1 - Summary
o Sheets 2-13 - Mass estimates for Elevation (El.) 1675 feet (ft) to El. 1615 ft
(approximate depths 0 to 60 ft below ground surface [bgs])
o Sheet 14 - Mass estimate for accessible area outside Building 1
o Sheets 15-19 - Mass removal estimates for remedial action alternatives
• Cell Area PCE Mass Calculations
o Sheet 1 - Summary
o Sheets 2-11 - Mass estimates El. 1675 ft to El. 1625 ft (approximate depths 0 to
50 ft bgs)
o Sheets 12-15 - Mass removal estimates for remedial action alternatives
• Cell Area Zinc Mass Calculations
o Sheet 1 - Summary
o Sheets 2-11 - Mass estimates El. 1675 ft to El. 1625 ft (approximate depths 0 to
50 ft bgs)
o Sheets 12-13 - Mass removal estimates for remedial action alternatives B-3
Excavation and B-4 In-Situ Soil Solidification
Page 1 of 5
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix B - Mass Estimate Calculations
• Figures B-l through B-12: Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch Area Concentrations of
PCE in Soil, El. 1675 to El. 1615 ft (depths 0 to 60 ftbgs)
• Figures B-13 through B-22: Cell Area Concentrations of PCE in Soil, El. 1675 ft to El.
1625 ft (depths 0 to 50 ft bgs)
• Figures B-23 through B-32: Cell Area Concentrations of Zinc in Soil, El. 1675 ft to El.
1625 ft (depths 0 to 50 ft bgs)
• Figures B-33 through B-37: Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch Area Treatment Zones
• Figures B-38 through B-41: Cell Area Treatment Zones
2.0 Calculation of Mass Present in Soil Plumes
The mass of PCE and/or zinc in the fine-grained unit soil in the Building 1/Central Drainage
Ditch area and in the Cell area were estimated using the available soil chemistry data from
investigations at the Lindsay Manufacturing facility. Each area (Building 1/Central Drainage
Ditch area and Cell area) was divided into a 40-ft by 40-ft grid, which approximately matched
the spacing of soil borings drilled during investigations. In addition, each area was evaluated
on the basis of 5-foot elevation intervals (e.g., for El. 1675-1670 ft [depth 0 to 5 ft bgs], El.
1670-1665 ft [depth 5 to 10 ft bgs], etc.) from the surface to the depth of the top of the sand
and gravel aquifer. Building 1 was evaluated using 5 ft intervals from El. 1675 ft to El. 1615 ft
(approximate depths 0 to 60 ft bgs), and the Cell area from El. 1675 ft to El. 1625 ft
(approximate depths 0 to 50 ft bgs). Due to the variability in the surface elevation in the Cell
area, the midpoint elevation of the berm area that surrounds the Cell area (EL. 1,675 ft) was
used as the reference point for depth below ground surface (i.e., as 0 ft bgs). Analytical data
was then assigned based on 5 ft bgs elevation intervals. For the Building 1 area, the highest
ground surface elevation where contamination exceeded remediation goals (El. 1,675 ft) was
used.
For each elevation interval in the Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch area and Cell area, a
concentration of PCE and/or zinc was assigned to each 40-ft by 40-ft by 5-ft deep block based
on either the known PCE or zinc soil analytical results for the area within the block and at that
specific depth interval or known data in the surrounding blocks. The extent of the soil impacts
in each area was based on the extent of known data, and was consistent across depth intervals
for each area. The soil data in the vicinity of Building 4 was not included because the PCE
concentrations are below the State of Nebraska protection of groundwater screening level of 45
l-ig/kg.
Figures B-l through B-32 show the known or inferred concentration of PCE or zinc in soil
within each 40-ft by 40-ft by 5-ft deep block. As indicated above, the amount of PCE or zinc in
each block was based on actual or inferred PCE or zinc concentrations in soil within the fine-
Page 2 of 5
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix B - Mass Estimate Calculations
grained unit. Dissolved phase or potential NAPL was not included in the mass calculations. The
color scales of PCE and zinc concentrations developed for Figures B-6 and B-14, and Figure
B-32, respectively, were used to visually indicate a range in the magnitude of concentrations
within each block. For blocks which have multiple soil data points (e.g., more than one boring
drilled in the soil block), the maximum concentration was used to determine the color. For
blocks which have no soil data (e.g., no boring drilled within block or no PCE/zinc result within
the specific depth interval), the magnitude of PCE/zinc concentrations were inferred, and the
color was subjectively based on the colors of the surrounding blocks. In this case, a conservative
approach was used to either mirror the result in an adjacent block or to interpolate the result of
the surrounding adjacent blocks. The numerical concentration assigned to an inferred block was
the midpoint of the selected color's applicable concentration range. For non-detect results that
are known or inferred, a concentration of 0 |ig/kg was assigned.
The calculation sheets for the Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch area and the Cell area
summarize the assigned concentrations and colors on Figures B-l through B-32. For the mass
estimates, each calculation sheet uses the concentrations in a specified depth interval to calculate
the PCE mass in each 40-ft by 40-ft block by multiplying the block concentration by the block
soil mass (40-ft by 40-ft by 5-ft deep). The calculation sheets summarize the mass of PCE/zinc
by elevation interval and totals the mass of PCE across all intervals for the total depth evaluated
(0 to 60 ft bgs for Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch area and 0 to 50 ft bgs for the Cell area).
In addition to calculating the mass of PCE present in the known limits of contamination, the
mass estimate for Building 1/Central Drainage Ditch area also includes the mass of PCE in areas
accessible to construction. PCE contamination is found underneath the building structure;
because of this, only the soil contamination outside the building is considered feasible for
treatment. The accessible mass of PCE was estimated by summing the mass of PCE that is
outside the building in each depth interval for 0 to 60 ft bgs.
3.0 Calculation of Mass Removed by Treatment
The calculation of the PCE mass that can be removed by a remedial action treatment alternative
is based on the above mass estimates, the proposed extents and depths of treatment areas, and
assumed alternative-specific treatment efficiency rates. Remedial action alternatives involving
active removal of PCE and/or zinc in soil were evaluated in the mass removal estimates;
alternatives such as capping and groundwater pumping were not included because they did not
target PCE or zinc mass removal. The types of treatment technologies that were evaluated are
thermal treatment, dual phase extraction (DPE), soil vapor extraction (SVE), insitu soil
solidification (ISS), and targeted excavation.
Page 3 of 5
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix B - Mass Estimate Calculations
Mass removal was estimated similarly for thermal treatment, DPE, SVE, and ISS. For each area
and treatment alternative, the mass of PCE or zinc within each block was totaled for treatment
depth (e.g., 0 to 20 ft bgs soil column for a given block in the grid). The specific treatment zones
were then calculated as percentages of the 40-ft by 40-ft blocks, and these percentages were
multiplied by the corresponding mass of PCE/zinc in the block to yield the estimated mass of
PCE/zinc in the treatment zone. An exception to this calculation of treatment areas by block is
for blocks that have a "controlling" boring location, or a boring location that determined the
extent of the treatment zone. As described in the evaluation report, the treatment areas are based
on elevated concentrations at specific boring locations. To overcome errors in estimation from
assuming that a soil concentration extended throughout a 40-ft by 40-ft block, any block with a
"controlling" PCE concentration and that was within the treatment zone was also assumed to be
100% in the treatment zone. This assumption of larger treatment area was not performed for
areas extending beneath buildings.
For example, as shown on Figure B-33 for Alternative C-3, Thermal Treatment, the treatment
zone is based on borings SB15-17 and SB17-17. The treatment zone also overlaps four blocks,
including two blocks that have SB15-17 and SB17-17. Because the treatment zone targets the
concentrations found at SB15-17 and SB17-17 and the 40-ft by 40-ft blocks are an
oversimplification of the elevated area, it is assumed that 100% of these blocks are treated. For
the other two blocks, it assumed that only a fraction of the area (based on square footage of the
treatment zone that overlaps each block) is treated. For example, one block has approximately
46.6 SF within the treatment zone, so it is assumed that 46.6 SF/1,600 SF (2.9%) of that block is
treated. The mass of PCE present in this block for the treatment depth of 0 to 60 ft bgs is 2.92
kg, resulting in a mass of approximately 0.09 kg in the treatment zone for this specific block.
The mass of PCE/zinc in the treatment zones were totaled for each area and the mass removed by
a given treatment alternative was estimated by an assumed efficiency rate. The specific
efficiency rates used are below:
• Thermal treatment: 95%-99.9% in the upper treatment zones, 60% in the lower
treatment zones
• DPE with Air Sparging: 60% in the unsaturated soil zone, 50% in the saturated soil zone
• SVE with Air Sparging: 50%
• ISS: 95%
• Excavation: 100%
Mass removal for the excavation alternative was estimated by determining which blocks were
within the excavation limits. For the excavation limits assumed for the Cell area, six blocks were
at least partially within the limits. The mass removal estimate assumed that the excavation
would extend to the groundwater table at approximately 22 ft bgs and have 1H: IV (1:1) sloped
Page 4 of 5
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0 Appendix B - Mass Estimate Calculations
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
sidewalls except for the eastern wall which would be a vertical excavation due to the presence of
a retaining wall.
Page 5 of 5
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job
Remedial Alt. Eval. Report, Rev 1.0
Des'd
Genevieve Fujimoto
Date
January 19, 2018
Description
Building 1 Summary
Check'd
Demetrio Cabanillas
Date
February 27, 2018
PCE Mass Calculation
Sheet
1 of
19
| Reference
A B
C D E
F
G H
I
J
K L
1.0 PROJECT INPUT
Project
Engineer
Project No.
Lindsay
Genevieve Fujimoto
60630400
Client:
City:
State:
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay
Nebraska
2.0 DESIGN OBJECTIVE
Estimate the mass of PCE in the Building 1 known area of contamination and estimate the mass removed
by the different remediation alteratives.
3.0 REFERENCES
1 Table 6, Summary of Soil Analytical Results for Bldg 1 and Ajacent Areas.
2 Building 1 Treatment Alternatives Figures
3 Mass calculation sheets for 5-ft interval depths from 0-60 ft bgs.
4 Mass removal calculation sheets for alternatives C-3 through C-7.
4.0 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
1 1 CY of soil weighs 1.7 tons or 3,400 pounds.
2 The contaminated soil is estimated to extend from 1 ft to 55 ft bgs.
3 The average groundwater elevation is 1640 ft.
4
Lateral soil plume is inferred using a 40-ft by 40-ft areas ("blocks") and soil data in Table 1. Blocks without
soil data are assigned estimated concentrations based on the midpoint of the color key values.
5 Vertical soil plume is inferred using 5-ft depth intervals.
5.1 SPREADSHEET USE
The spreadsheet uses the following color convention for cells used for the analysis:
User input values
Calculated or referenced values input from another cell
Page 1 of 38
-------
5.0 PCE MASS ESTIMATE IN BUILDING 1 AREA
5.1 Estimated Mass of PCE by Depth Interval
Depth Interval (ft)
Total Mass in Interval
kg
lbs
0-5
1.43
3.15
5-10
3.18
7.01
10-15
2.07
4.56
15-20
4.13
9.1
20-25
12
26
25-30
271.6
599.0
30-35
24.9
54.9
35-40
18.5
40.7
40-45
33.1
73.0
45-50
37.4
82.3
50-55
32.5
72.0
55-60
43.5
96.0
Total Mass of PCE in Soil
Total Mass in Inaccessible Area
(Beneath Building 1)
Total Accessible Mass
484! kg
1,068 lb
0.53itons
469! kg
1,034 lb
0.52;tons
97% of Total Mass
6.0 MASS OF PCE REMOVED BY REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES (SUMMARY)
6.1 Estimated Mass Removed by Alt. C-3 Thermal Remediation of Hot Spot 3
T reatment Zone
Criteria
Units
Alt. A-3 Thermal
Mass of PCE Present
in Treatment Zone
kg
301
lbs
664
% Total
62
%
Accessible
64
Mass of PCE Removed
by Treatment System
kg
301
lbs
663
tons
0.33
% Total
62
%
Accessible
64
Page 2 of 38
-------
6.2 Estimated Mass Removed by Alt. C-4 Thermal Remediation of Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4
Criteria
Units
Alt. A-4 Thermal
Mass of PCE Present
in Treatment Zone
kg
387
lbs
853
% Total
80
Accessible
83
Mass of PCE Removed
by Treatment System
kg
365
lbs
806
tons
0.40
% Total
75
%
Accessible
78
6.3 Estimated Mass Removed by Alt. C-5 Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1 and 2 and Thermal
Treatment Zone
Criteria
Units
Thermal
DPE
Alt. 4 Thermal/
DPE Total
Mass of PCE Present
in Treatment Zone
kg
327
64.7
392
lbs
722
142.6
865
% Total
68
13.4
81
%
Accessible
70
13.8
84
Mass of PCE Removed
by Treatment System
kg
323
32.3
355
lbs
712
71.3
783
tons
0.36
0.036
0.39
% Total
67
6.7
73
%
Accessible
69
6.9
76
6.4 Estimated Mass Removed by Alt. C-6 Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4
Treatment Zone
Criteria
Units
Alt. C-6 DPE/SVE
(Small)
Mass of PCE Present in
Treatment Zone
kg
362
lbs
798
% Total
75
%
Accessible
77
Mass of PCE Removed
by Treatment System
kg
182
lbs
401
tons
0.20
% Total
38
%
Accessible
39
Page 3 of 38
-------
6.5 Estimated Mass Removed by Alt. C-7 Dual Phase Extraction
T reatment Zone
Criteria
Units
Alt. C-7DPE/SVE
(Large)
Mass of PCE Present in
Treatment Zone
kg
429
lbs
947
% Total
89
%
Accessible
92
Mass of PCE Removed
by Treatment System
kg
211
lbs
466
tons
0.23
% Total
44
%
Accessible
45
Page 4 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AzCOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 4, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1650-1645 FT (25-30 FT BGS) Sheet 7 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (ng/kf
I)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
206
P
G
74
B
B
G
G
6.8
G
26
O
G
228
170
63
32
G
G
G
G
N
ND
6.3
280
122
B
G
G
G
G
B
B
G
ND
M
ND
B
Y
1,700
2.3
22
55
G
127
430
570,000
11
ND
L
ND
65.2
B
Y
15
121
B
G
24
1,980
3,930
15
ND
K
ND
ND
ND
121
460
493
590
B
58
180
53.3
1,200
3,750
G
ND
J
ND
ND
ND
B
B
B
B
B
120
380
52.7
150
7.08
G
ND
i
2.8
ND
ND
ND
26
G
3
9.22
B
108
G
12.1
G
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
9.22
G
18
18
G
ND
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
26
45.7
10.7
17
ND
F
ND
ND
7.2
6.7
G
53
25.8
10.7
ND
ND
E
G
16
G
21
G
D
G
4
G
C
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ug/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70!
Square Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907!
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
PCE Concentration
Der Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.095
P
0.011
0.034
0.125
0.125
0.01
0.01
0
0.011
0.01
O
0.011
0.105
0.078
0.029
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.01
N
0
0.003
0
0.056
0.125
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.13
0.125
0.01
0
M
0
0
0.343
0.778
0.002
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.059
0.2
261
0.01
0
L
0
0.03
0.125
0.343
0.007
0.06
0.13
0.01
0.011
1
1.797
0.01
0
K
0
0
0
0.056
0.211
0.226
0.27
0.13
0.03
0.08
0.025
0.55
1.715
0.01
0
J
0
0
0
0
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.13
0.06
0.17
0.025
0.07
0.004
0.01
0
i
0.002
0
0
0
0.012
0.011
0.002
0.01
0.13
0.05
0.011
0.01
0.011
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.003
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.009
0.01
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.0
0.01
0
F
0
0.0
0.004
0.004
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.005
0
0
E
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.011
D
0.0
0
0.011
C
0.01
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval = 272!kg
= 5991 lbs
5 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AzCOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 4, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1675-1670 FT (0-5 FT BGS) Sheet 2 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (ug/kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
ND
P
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
11
G
17
O
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
G
N
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
G
G
G
ND
M
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
B
B
1,400
16.8
ND
L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
G
11.7
ND
ND
K
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
G
ND
ND
ND
J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
G
19
ND
ND
i
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
G
ND
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
ND
ND
F
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
ND
ND
E
ND
ND
G
G
G
D
G
G
G
C
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Average
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ug/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume =
Square Volume =
Soil Weight =
Soil Weight =
8,000
CF
Soil Density
296
CY
1 ton
504
tons
457,128
kg
1 70
907
PCE Concentration per Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.13
0.13
0.64
0.01
0
L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0.01
0
0
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.0
0
0
F
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
E
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
D
0.0
0.01
0.01
C
0.01
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval =
1-43i
3-15i
kg
lbs
6 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 4, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1670-1665 FT (5-10 FT BGS) Sheet 3 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (
kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
36
P
G
59
G
G
G
G
4.1
G
25
O
21
B
100
28
14
G
G
G
G
N
G
7.2
87.7
26
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
M
G
G
60
330
ND
59
19
G
65
65
1,100
29
ND
L
G
38
49.3
B
1.8
G
G
G
9.4
21.3
20.4
ND
ND
K
ND
ND
13
98
B
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,670
34
4.79
ND
ND
J
ND
ND
G
G
G
G
ND
ND
28
24
32.8
7.8
2.16
ND
ND
i
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.33
B
68
G
28
G
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.8
2.33
120
10
1.8
G
G
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
120
21.2
3.18
1.9
G
F
ND
ND
3.2
3.7
G
22
10.5
3.18
G
G
E
G
9.3
G
8.8
G
D
G
3.9
G
C
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ug/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70
Square Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
PCE Concentration per Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.017
P
0.011
0.027
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.01
0
0.01
0.01
O
0.01
0.125
0.046
0.013
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
N
0.011
0.004
0
0.012
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
M
0.011
0
0.028
0.151
0
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
1
0.01
0
L
0.011
0.018
0.023
0.125
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0.01
0
0
K
0
0
0.006
0.045
0.125
0.011
0
0
0
0
0.76
0.02
0
0
0
J
0
0
0.011
0
0.011
0.011
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.02
0
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.13
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.01
0
0.01
0.01
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.0
0
0.01
F
0
0.0
0.002
0.002
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0.01
0.01
E
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
D
0.0
0
0.01
C
0.01
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval = 3.181kg
= 7X>l] lbs
7 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AzCOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 4, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1665-1660 FT (10-15 FT BGS) Sheet 4 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (
kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
102
P
G
43
B
G
G
G
12
G
30
O
12
59.4
176
19
20
G
G
G
G
N
G
9.1
90.9
18
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
ND
M
ND
B
B
410
ND
45
18
G
37
100
1,000
20
ND
L
ND
78
G
G
ND
1.6
G
G
2.1
71
35.1
2.2
ND
K
ND
ND
ND
23
ND
ND
1.5
G
4.9
ND
117
38
47.4
ND
ND
J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
11
9.19
9.6
2.01
ND
ND
i
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.9
ND
ND
ND
G
20
G
6.4
ND
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
17
7
2.1
G
ND
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
17
15.4
3.79
2.4
ND
F
ND
ND
2.3
ND
ND
13
10.9
G
ND
ND
E
G
7
G
6
G
D
G
3.6
G
C
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ug/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70
Square Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
PCE Concentration per Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.047
P
0.011
0.02
0.125
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O
0.006
0.028
0.081
0.009
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
N
0.011
0.005
0
0.009
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
M
0
0
0.125
0.188
0
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
0
0.01
0
L
0
0.036
0.011
0.011
0
0
0.01
0.01
0
0
0.02
0
0
K
0
0
0
0.011
0
0
0.001
0.01
0
0
0.05
0.02
0.02
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0.001
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.0
0
0
F
0
0.0
0.002
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
E
0.011
0
0.01
0
0.01
D
0.0
0
0.01
C
0.01
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval = 2.071kg
= 456 jibs
8 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AzCOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 4, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1660-1655 FT (15-20 FT BGS) Sheet 5 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (ng/kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
151
P
G
65
B
B
B
G
7.6
G
16
O
21
21
206
64
80
G
G
G
G
N
ND
7.5
180
61
B
B
G
G
G
G
B
G
ND
M
ND
G
B
960
2.7
36
14
G
40
150
1,300
14.6
ND
L
ND
106
94
B
12
4.5
G
G
3
155
281
2.3
ND
K
ND
ND
ND
21.5
6.7
134
19
G
8.8
7.1
42.6
100
1,160
G
ND
J
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
G
12
13
19
13
1.63
G
ND
i
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.7
ND
ND
1.98
G
G
G
8.07
G
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.98
8.6
14
3.4
G
G
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
8.6
35.1
5.4
4.1
G
F
ND
ND
3.1
G
G
29
20.6
5.4
G
G
E
G
8
G
9.1
G
D
G
9.1
G
C
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ug/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70
Square Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
PCE Concentration per Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.07
P
0.011
0.03
0.125
0.125
0.13
0.01
0
0.01
0.01
O
0.01
0.01
0.095
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
N
0
0.004
0
0.028
0.125
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.13
0.01
0
M
0
0
0.125
0.439
0.002
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.07
1
0.01
0
L
0
0.049
0.043
0.125
0.006
0
0.01
0.01
0
0
0.13
0
0
K
0
0
0
0.01
0.004
0.062
0.009
0.01
0.01
0
0.02
0.05
0.53
0.01
0
J
0
0
0
0
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0.01
0
i
0
0
0
0
0.001
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0.01
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0.01
0.01
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0.02
0.0
0
0.01
F
0
0.0
0.002
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0.01
0.01
E
0.011
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
D
0.0
0.01
0.01
C
0.01
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval = 4.13:kg
= ail ibs
9 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 4, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Checks Chelsey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1655-1650 FT (20-25 FT BGS) Sheet 6 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40'X 40'AREA
1. input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (ug/kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
109
P
G
91
B
G
G
G
6.2
G
25
O
G
99.8
198
45
31
G
G
G
G
N
ND
ND
180
68
G
G
G
G
G
B
B
G
G
M
ND
G
B
710
2
31
15
G
81
239
13,000
19
ND
L
ND
78
161
B
13
15
G
G
12
1,110
1,240
17
ND
K
ND
ND
ND
79
200
B
66
B
120
80
193
1,600
2,420
G
ND
J
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
G
G
42
59
36
23
1.72
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.2
G
ND
2.88
G
47.5
G
8.79
ND
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.4
2.88
12
19
7.2
G
ND
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
12
39
5.67
4.7
ND
F
ND
ND
6.4
6
G
52
19.8
5.67
G
ND
E
G
15
G
11
G
D
G
5
G
C
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ug/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume =
8,000
CF
Soil Density
Square Volume =
296!
ICY
1 ton
Soil Weight =
504!
!tons
Soil Weight =
457,128!
kg
1.70
"907
PCE Concentration per Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.05
P
0.011
0.042
0.125
0.011
0.01
0.01
0
0.011
0.01
O
0.011
0.046
0.091
0.021
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.01
N
0
0
0
0.032
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.13
0.125
0.01
0.01
M
0
0
0.125
0.325
0.001
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.038
0.11
6
0.01
0
L
0
0.036
0.074
0.125
0.006
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.006
1
0.567
0.01
0
K
0
0
0
0.037
0.092
0.125
0.031
0.13
0.06
0.04
0.089
0.73
1.107
0.01
0
J
0
0
0
0
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.017
0.01
0.001
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0.002
0.011
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.011
0.01
0
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.002
0
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.01
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.0
0
0
F
0
0.0
0.003
0.003
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.003
0.01
0
E
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.011
D
0.0
0
0.011
C
0.01
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval =
12
26
kg
lbs
10 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AzCOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 4, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1645-1640 FT (30-35 FT BGS) Sheet 8 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (ug/kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
194
P
G
87
B
G
G
G
6.6
G
31
O
G
631
150
26
28
G
G
G
G
N
ND
2.7
1,400
58.7
G
G
G
G
G
G
B
G
ND
M
ND
B
Y
1,600
5.2
80
38
G
63
460
28,000
13
ND
L
ND
167
1,290
Y
63
750
B
B
4.5
1,370
1,370
ND
ND
K
ND
ND
14
386
2,100
892
14
G
44
640
148
1,200
1,430
G
ND
J
ND
ND
G
B
B
B
G
B
920
1,300
259
530
14.1
ND
ND
i
ND
ND
G
16
53
G
5.9
14
B
159
B
15
G
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
14
G
40
86
G
G
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
35
121
14.5
47
G
F
ND
ND
7.4
10
G
360
44
14.5
G
G
E
G
32
G
26
G
D
G
9.8
G
C
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ug/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70
Square Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
PCE Concentration per Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.089
P
0.011
0.04
0.125
0.011
0.01
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
O
0.011
0.289
0.069
0.012
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
N
0
0.002
1
0.027
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.125
0.01
0
M
0
0
0.343
0.732
0.003
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.21
13
0.01
0
L
0
0.077
0.59
0.343
0.029
0.34
0.13
0.13
0
1
0.627
0
0
K
0
0
0.007
0.177
0.96
0.408
0.007
0.01
0.02
0.29
0.07
0.55
0.654
0.01
0
J
0
0
0.011
0
0.125
0.125
0.011
0.13
0.42
0.6
0.12
0.24
0.007
0
0
i
0
0
0.011
0.008
0.025
0.011
0.003
0.01
0.13
0.07
0.13
0.01
0.011
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.011
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.0
0.02
0.011
F
0
0.0
0.004
0.005
0.01
0.17
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.011
E
0.011
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
D
0.0
0.01
0.01
C
0.01
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval = 24.91kg
= 54.91 lbs
11 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AzCOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 4, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1640-1635 FT (35-40 FT BGS) Sheet 9 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block
*g/kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
259
P
G
46.8
B
G
G
G
7.1
G
22
O
G
2,860
248
31
28
G
G
G
G
N
G
2.3
5,700
17
G
G
G
G
G
G
Y
G
ND
M
G
B
B
170
6.8
66
40
G
26.4
488
3,800
18
ND
L
G
343
189
B
34
450
G
B
1.2
620
6,060
ND
ND
K
ND
ND
27
1,200
3,900
6.13
ND
ND
ND
620
108
2,000
2.89
ND
ND
J
ND
ND
G
B
B
G
ND
ND
42
180
760
1,400
87.8
G
ND
i
2.6
ND
ND
5.7
23
ND
ND
72
B
525
B
63
G
4
ND
H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
33
72
B
75
390
B
ND
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
G
130
710
91.7
93
ND
F
ND
G
4.1
11
G
500
158
91.7
ND
ND
E
G
31
B
260
B
D
G
15
G
C
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ug/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70!
Square Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907!
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
PCE Concentration per Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.119
P
0.011
0.022
0.125
0.011
0.01
0.011
0
0.01
0.01
O
0.011
1.308
0.114
0.015
0.01
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
N
0.011
0.002
3
0.008
0.011
0.01
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.343
0.01
0
M
0.011
0
0.125
0.078
0.004
0.03
0.019
0.01
0.01
0.22
2
0.01
0
L
0.011
0.157
0.087
0.125
0.016
0.21
0.011
0.13
0
0
2.771
0
0
K
0
0
0.013
0.549
1.783
0.003
0
0
0
0.28
0.05
0.92
0.002
0
0
J
0
0
0.011
0
0.125
0.011
0
0
0.02
0.08
0.35
0.64
0.041
0.01
0
i
0.002
0
0
0.003
0.011
0
0
0.03
0.125
0.24
0.13
0.03
0.011
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.016
0.03
0.125
0.04
0.18
0.13
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.011
0.01
0.06
0.33
0.0
0.04
0
F
0
0.0
0.002
0.006
0.01
0.229
0.07
0.04
0
0
E
0.011
0.02
0.125
0.12
0.13
D
0.0
0.01
0.01
C
0.01
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval = 18.51 kg
= 40.71 lbs
12 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 4, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1635-1630 FT (40-45 FT BGS) Sheet 10 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (ug/kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
192
P
G
89
B
B
G
G
4.3
G
25
O
G
1,610
1,680
55
32
G
G
G
G
N
ND
ND
9,800
24
G
G
G
G
G
G
O
G
ND
M
G
O
B
54
9.3
75
140
B
225
249
13,000
5.26
ND
L
G
1,630
77.8
B
94
77
B
B
ND
86
830
ND
ND
K
ND
ND
16
2,920
3,900
1,020
ND
ND
ND
620
ND
340
ND
ND
ND
J
ND
ND
G
B
B
B
ND
ND
ND
B
2,890
8,100
310
ND
ND
i
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
B
ND
328
B
B
Y
810
B
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.9
160
328
B
330
Y
B
B
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.5
G
G
G
97
1,500
645
370
G
F
ND
ND
1.5
ND
G
400
822
645
B
G
E
G
25
B
1,000
B
D
B
56
B
C
B
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ug/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1 70
Square Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
PCE Concentration per Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.088
P
0.011
0.041
0.125
0.125
0.01
0.01
0
0.011
0.01
O
0.011
0.736
0.768
0.026
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.01
N
0
0
4
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.01
1.372
0.01
0
M
0.011
1
0.125
0.025
0.005
0.04
0.06
0.13
0.103
0.11
6
0
0
L
0.011
0.746
0.036
0.125
0.043
0.04
0.13
0.13
0
0
0.38
0
0
K
0
0
0.008
1.335
1.783
0.467
0
0
0
0.28
0
0.16
0
0
0
J
0
0
0.011
0
0.125
0.125
0
0
0
0.13
1.322
3.7
0.142
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0.125
0
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.343
0.37
0.125
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.074
0.15
0.13
0.15
0.343
0.13
0.125
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.05
0.69
0.3
0.17
0.011
F
0
0.0
0.001
0
0.01
0.18
0.38
0.295
0.13
0.011
E
0.011
0.01
0.13
0.46
0.125
D
0.1
0.03
0.125
C
0.13
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval = 33.1 jkg
= 73.01 lbs
13 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 4, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1630-1625 FT (45-50 FT BGS) Sheet 11 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (ng/kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
61
P
G
73
B
B
B
G
1.5
G
G
O
G
2,480
1,800
31
61
G
G
G
G
N
ND
ND
1,600
16
G
B
B
B
B
B
B
G
ND
M
G
B
B
29
39
149
793
Y
1,480
150
13,000
16
ND
L
G
1,210
35.1
B
550
420
B
B
200
160
B
ND
ND
K
ND
ND
44
1,910
1,700
255
410
B
ND
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J
ND
ND
G
Y
Y
G
G
G
ND
ND
383
8,100
1,250
B
ND
i
ND
ND
G
190
26
G
ND
4.92
G
461
B
14,800
O
B
ND
H
ND
ND
G
G
G
940
3.1
G
G
B
35
O
O
B
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
B
G
G
B
180
1,150
270
B
F
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
1.5
2,490
1,150
B
B
E
ND
ND
B
990
B
D
B
120
B
C
B
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ug/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1 70;
Square Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
PCE Concentration per Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.028
P
0.011
0.034
0.125
0.125
0.13
0.01
0.001
0.011
0.011
O
0.011
1.134
0.823
0.015
0.03
0.01
0.011
0.011
0.011
N
0
0
1
0.008
0.011
0.13
0.13
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.01
0
M
0.011
0
0.125
0.014
0.018
0.07
0.36
0.343
0.677
0.069
6
0.01
0
L
0.011
0.554
0.017
0.125
0.252
0.19
0.13
0.125
0.092
0
0.125
0
0
K
0
0
0.021
0.874
0.778
0.117
0.188
0.13
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
0.011
0
0.343
0.011
0.011
0.01
0
0
0.176
3.703
0.572
0.13
0
i
0
0
0.011
0.087
0.012
0.011
0
0
0.01
0.211
0.125
6.766
1.372
0.13
0
H
0
0
0
0.011
0.011
0
0.002
0.01
0.01
0.125
0.016
1.372
1.372
0.13
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0.125
0.011
0.01
0.13
0.083
0.5
0.124
0.125
F
0
0.0
0
0
0.01
0
1.139
0.526
0.125
0.125
E
0
0
0.13
0.453
0.125
D
0.1
0.055
0.125
C
0.125
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval = 37.41kg
= 82.31 lbs
14 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 4, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Checks Cheisey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1625-1620 FT (50-55 FT BGS) Sheet 12 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40'X 40'AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (ug/kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
G
P
ND
54
B
B
G
G
G
G
G
O
ND
2,750
2,000
B
G
G
G
G
G
N
ND
ND
7,560
150
B
B
B
B
B
B
G
G
G
M
ND
O
O
18
ND
2,540
1,060
O
1,020
130
B
G
G
L
ND
2,170
O
G
69
690
O
Y
390
510
B
G
G
K
ND
ND
G
Y
1,700
1,010
240
Y
2,000
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
J
ND
ND
G
Y
O
Y
B
B
ND
ND
31.3
G
131
G
G
1
ND
ND
G
3,500
760
Y
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
4,240
B
G
G
H
ND
ND
G
G
B
600
ND
ND
ND
B
G
Y
B
G
G
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
B
891
150
G
F
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,020
Y
B
G
E
ND
ND
B
1,400
Y
D
B
210
B
C
B
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ng/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume = 8,000jCF Soil Density =
Square Volume = 296ICY 1 ton =
Soil Weight = 504|tons
Soil Weight = I 457,128!kg
1.70
"907
PCE Concentration per Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.011
p
0
0.025
0.125
0.125
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.011
o
0
1.258
0.915
0.125
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.011
N
0
0
3
0.069
0.125
0.125
0.13
0.13
0.125
0.125
0.011
0.01
0.01
M
0
1
1.372
0.009
0
1.162
0.49
1.37
0.467
0.06
0
0.01
0.01
L
0
0.992
1.372
0.011
0.032
0.316
1.37
0.34
0.179
0
0.125
0.01
0.01
K
0
0
0.011
0.343
0.778
0.462
0.11
0.343
0.92
0
0
0
0.011
0.01
0.01
J
0
0
0.011
0
1.372
0.343
0.125
0.125
0
0
0.015
0.011
0.06
0.01
0.01
I
0
0
0.011
1.6
0.348
0.343
0
0
0
0
0.011
1.939
0.125
0.01
0.01
H
0
0
0
0.011
0.125
0
0
0
0
0.13
0.011
0.343
0.125
0.01
0.01
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.13
0.4
0.069
0.011
F
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.47
0.343
0.125
0.011
E
0
0
0.13
0.64
0.343
D
0.1
0.1
0.125
C
0.13
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval = 32.5I kg
72] lbs
15 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 19, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Calculation Checks Cheisey Cook Date February 19, 2018
El. 1620-1615 FT (55-60 FT BGS) Sheet 13 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40'X 40'AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (ug/kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
G
P
G
G
B
B
G
G
G
G
G
O
ND
ND
7,600
B
G
G
G
G
G
N
ND
ND
17,000
B
B
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
ND
M
G
G
O
120
4,400
254
4,000
B
B
B
B
G
ND
L
G
B
B
B
9,800
19,000
O
B
B
B
B
ND
ND
K
ND
ND
G
B
B
3,340
3,300
O
10
ND
ND
65
G
ND
ND
J
ND
ND
G
G
B
B
B
B
ND
ND
ND
14
G
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
G
G
B
B
ND
ND
ND
ND
G
9.5
G
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
G
G
B
54
ND
ND
10
ND
340
B
G
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
ND
B
B
B
ND
10
ND
B
B
G
F
ND
B
3,100
300
ND
ND
861
B
G
G
E
G
ND
B
990
B
D
B
B
B
C
B
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
B
Blue
272.5
ng/kg
G
Green
22.5
ug/kg
ND
Pink
0
ug/kg
O
Orange
3000
ug/kg
P
Purple
7500
ug/kg
R
Red
*
ug/kg
Y
Yellow
750
ug/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Square Volume = 8,000jCF Soil Density =
Square Volume = 296ICY 1 ton =
Soil Weight = 504|tons
Soil Weight = I 457,128!kg
1.70
"907
PCE Concentration per Block (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.011
P
0.011
0.011
0.125
0.125
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.011
O
0
0
3.475
0.125
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.011
N
0
0
7.77
0.125
0.125
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.01
0
M
0.011
0
1.372
0.055
2.012
0.117
1.83
0.13
0.125
0.125
0
0.01
0
L
0.011
0.125
0.125
0.125
4.48
8.686
1.37
0.13
0.125
0
0.125
0
0
K
0
0
0.011
0.125
0.125
1.527
1.509
1.372
0.01
0
0
0.03
0.011
0
0
J
0
0
0.011
0
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0
0
0
0.007
0.011
0
0
I
0
0
0.011
0.011
0.125
0.125
0
0
0
0
0.011
0.005
0.011
0
0
H
0
0
0
0.011
0.125
0
0
0
0.01
0
0.156
0.125
0.011
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0.125
0.125
0
0.01
0
0.1
0.125
0.011
F
0
0.1
1.418
0.138
0
0
0.39
0.125
0.011
0.011
E
0.011
0
0.13
0.45
0.125
D
0.1
0.13
0.125
C
0.13
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval
43.5J kg
96! lbs
16 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eva I. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date January 15, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass in Check"d Demetrio Cabanillas Date February 19, 2018
Accessible Areas (Outside Building 1) sheet 14 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Total Estimated Mass in Building 1 Area from 0-55 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.63
P
0.11
0.33
1.26
0.81
0.35
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.14
O
0.09
5.04
6.56
0.42
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
N
0.03
0.02
20.06
0.39
0.58
0.46
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.59
2.40
0.13
0.03
M
0.06
3.41
4.21
2.79
2.05
1.54
2.85
2.05
1.70
1.38
295
0.10
0.01
L
0.06
2.82
2.50
1.58
4.87
9.86
3.31
1.03
0.44
2.92
6.68
0.03
0.01
K
0.00
0.00
0.08
3.56
6.64
3.41
2.13
2.12
1.04
1.01
1.08
3.02
4.06
0.06
0.01
J
0.00
0.00
0.08
1.22
2.37
0.90
0.42
0.53
0.55
1.04
2.06
8.41
0.85
0.17
0.01
1
0.00
0.00
0.04
1.71
0.54
0.64
0.01
0.20
0.68
0.79
0.81
9.16
1.69
0.14
0.01
H
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.26
0.73
0.11
0.21
0.37
0.50
0.77
2.16
1.67
0.14
0.01
G
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.29
0.20
0.09
0.35
1.36
1.43
0.57
0.19
F
0.00
0.14
1.44
0.17
0.09
0.67
2.52
1.37
0.43
0.19
E
0.10
0.07
0.70
2.18
0.92
D
0.59
0.34
0.59
C
0.59
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from 0-55 ft.
2.0 DATA INPUT - INACCESSIBLE AREA OF CONTAMINATION BENEATH BUILDING 1
Inaccessible Areas by Block (SF)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.5
71.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
76.2
1322
1497
1600
1600
37.2
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
647
966
1230
1449
1600
1600
1600
1600
116
0
0
0
0
0
H
0
0
10.5
1188
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
266
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
910
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
465
0
0
0
F
824
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
552
0
0
0
E
1600
1600
1600
639
0
D
1600
726
0
C
814
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block Accessible for Treatment (%)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
100%
P
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
O
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
N
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
M
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
L
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
K
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
96%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
J
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
17%
6%
0%
0%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
I
100%
60%
40%
23%
9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
H
100%
100%
99%
26%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
83%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
G
100%
100%
100%
43%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
71%
100%
100%
100%
F
49%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
66%
100%
100%
100%
E
0%
0%
0%
60%
100%
D
0%
55%
100%
C
49%
17 of 38
-------
3.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Estimated Mass in Accessible Area (Outside Footprint of Building 1) from 0-55 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.63
P
0.11
0.33
1.26
0.81
0.35
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.14
O
0.09
5.04
6.56
0.42
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
N
0.03
0.02
20.06
0.39
0.58
0.46
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.59
2.40
0.13
0.03
M
0.06
3.41
4.21
2.79
2.05
1.54
2.85
2.05
1.70
1.38
295
0.10
0.01
L
0.06
2.82
2.50
1.58
4.87
9.86
3.31
1.03
0.44
2.92
6.68
0.03
0.01
K
0.00
0.00
0.08
3.56
6.64
3.41
2.13
2.12
1.00
1.01
1.08
3.02
4.06
0.06
0.01
J
0.00
0.00
0.08
1.22
2.26
0.16
0.03
0.00
0.00
1.01
2.06
8.41
0.85
0.17
0.01
1
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.40
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.81
9.16
1.69
0.14
0.01
H
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.77
2.16
1.67
0.14
0.01
G
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.96
1.43
0.57
0.19
F
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.65
1.37
0.43
0.19
E
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.31
0.92
D
0.00
0.19
0.59
C
0.29
Total Mass in Accessible Area (Outside Footprint of Building 1) = 468.91 kg
= | 1,0341 lbs
Total Mass in Inaccessible Area (Beneath Building 1) = 15.21kg
= | 34 jibs
Mass that is Inaccessible (Beneath Building 1) = 3.2!%
18 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev Des'd Chelsey Cook Date April 27,2020
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date May 5,2020
Alt. C-3, Thermal Hot Spot 3 Sheet 15 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Alternative description: Two treatment zones with two treatment intervals designed to remove mass in
Hots pot 3.
Total Estimated Mass in Building 1 Area from 0-60 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.63
P
0.11
0.33
1.26
0.81
0.35
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.14
O
0.09
5.04
6.56
0.42
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
N
0.03
0.02
20.06
0.39
0.58
0.46
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.59
2.40
0.13
0.03
M
0.06
3.41
4.21
2.79
2.05
1.54
2.85
2.05
1.70
1.38
295
0.10
0.01
L
0.06
2.82
2.50
1.58
4.87
9.86
3.31
1.03
0.44
2.92
6.68
0.03
0.01
K
0.00
0.00
0.08
3.56
6.64
3.41
2.13
2.12
1.04
1.01
1.08
3.02
4.06
0.06
0.01
J
0.00
0.00
0.08
1.22
2.37
0.90
0.42
0.53
0.55
1.04
2.06
8.41
0.85
0.17
0.01
I
0.00
0.00
0.04
1.71
0.54
0.64
0.01
0.20
0.68
0.79
0.81
9.16
1.69
0.14
0.01
H
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.26
0.73
0.11
0.21
0.37
0.50
0.77
2.16
1.67
0.14
0.01
G
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.29
0.20
0.09
0.35
1.36
1.43
0.57
0.19
F
0.00
0.14
1.44
0.17
0.09
0.67
2.52
1.37
0.43
0.19
E
0.10
0.07
0.70
2.18
0.92
D
0.59
0.34
0.59
C
0.59
Estimated Mass in Blocks in Vicinity of Upper Treatment Zones
kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
O
N
0.32
2.24
M
1.00
289
L
2.44
6.27
K
2.90
3.48
J
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from El. 1675-1620 ft.
19 of 38
-------
Estimated Mass in Blocks in Vicinity of Lower Treatment Zones
kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
0
N
0.14
0.02
M
0.19
0.25
L
0.36
0.25
K
0.03
0.02
J
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from El. 1625-1620 ft.
Hotspot
Area
Upper Treatment Zone
Lower Treatment Zone (Bottom 5 ft)
Appx. Zone Elevations
Model Elevations
Appx. Zone Elevations
Model Elevations
3
1A
1670-1630
1670-1630
1630-1625
1630-1625
1B
1655-1625
1655-1625
1625-1620
1625-1620
2.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Area of Treatment Zones in 40' X 40' Blocks (SF)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
O
N
23.7
70.4
M
424.9
1600
L
459.9
1600
K
739.2
1600
J
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
20 of 38
-------
3.0 CALCULATION - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block in Treatment Zones (%)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0%
P
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
O
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
N
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
4%
0%
0%
M
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
27%
100%
0%
0%
L
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
29%
100%
0%
0%
K
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
46%
100%
0%
0%
J
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
H
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
G
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
F
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
E
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
D
0%
0%
0%
C
0%
4.0 CALCULATION - MASS OF PCE REMOVED IN TREATMENT ZONES
Total Estimated Mass in Buildin
g 1 Treatment Zones from 0-60 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.11
0
0
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.37
295
0
0
L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.84
6.68
0
0
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
21 of 38
-------
Estimated Mass in U
pper Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.10
0
0
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.27
289
0
0
L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.70
6.27
0
0
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.34
3.48
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
Estimated Mass in Lower Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.05
0.25
0
0
L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.25
0
0
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.02
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
T reatment
Area
Total Mass
-0-55 ft
(kg)
Upper Treatment Zones
Lower Treatment Zones
Mass in
Zone (kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
Mass
(kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
1A
295.9
288.9
99.9%
288.6
0.30
60%
0.18
1B
13.0
11.8
99.9%
11.8
0.39
60%
0.23
Total
309
301
-
300
0.7
-
0.4
Total Mass Removal for Building 1 and Adjacent Area: 62%
22 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job Remedial Alt. Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date February 15, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19,2018
Alt. C-4, Thermal Hotspots 1-4 Sheet 16 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Alternative description: 8 treatment zones with various treatment intervals designed to remove mass in
Hotspots 1-4.
Total Estimated Mass in Building 1 Area from 0-55 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.63
P
0.11
0.33
1.26
0.81
0.35
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.14
O
0.09
5.04
6.56
0.42
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
N
0.03
0.02
20.06
0.39
0.58
0.46
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.59
2.40
0.13
0.03
M
0.06
3.41
4.21
2.79
2.05
1.54
2.85
2.05
1.70
1.38
295
0.10
0.01
L
0.06
2.82
2.50
1.58
4.87
9.86
3.31
1.03
0.44
2.92
6.68
0.03
0.01
K
0.00
0.00
0.08
3.56
6.64
3.41
2.13
2.12
1.04
1.01
1.08
3.02
4.06
0.06
0.01
J
0.00
0.00
0.08
1.22
2.37
0.90
0.42
0.53
0.55
1.04
2.06
8.41
0.85
0.17
0.01
I
0.00
0.00
0.04
1.71
0.54
0.64
0.01
0.20
0.68
0.79
0.81
9.16
1.69
0.14
0.01
H
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.26
0.73
0.11
0.21
0.37
0.50
0.77
2.16
1.67
0.14
0.01
G
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.29
0.20
0.09
0.35
1.36
1.43
0.57
0.19
F
0.00
0.14
1.44
0.17
0.09
0.67
2.52
1.37
0.43
0.19
E
0.10
0.07
0.70
2.18
0.92
D
0.59
0.34
0.59
C
0.59
Estimated Mass in Blocks in Vicinity of Upper Treatment Zones
kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
0.63
O
3.57
1.85
0.10
N
8.59
0.11
0.32
2.24
M
0.25
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.43
1.00
289
L
1.53
0.73
0.25
0.30
0.23
0.25
2.44
6.27
K
2.94
5.30
1.00
0.20
0.14
0.02
2.90
3.48
J
0.72
0.72
0.27
0.02
0.14
2.01
8.37
0.77
I
0.47
7.14
1.50
H
0.36
1.50
1.50
G
F
E
D
C
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from El. 1675-1620 ft.
23 of 38
-------
Estimated Mass in Blocks in Vicinity of Lower Treatment Zones
kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
0.25
0
1.26
4.39
0.25
N
11.23
0.07
0.14
0.02
M
2.74
0.06
2.01
1.28
2.31
0.19
0.25
L
1.12
1.50
0.14
4.51
9.00
2.74
0.36
0.25
K
0.47
0.90
1.99
1.62
1.72
0.92
0.03
0.02
J
0.35
1.50
0.47
0.25
0.25
0.02
0.02
0.07
1
0.02
1.94
0.14
H
0.17
0.47
0.14
G
F
E
D
C
Hotspot
Area
Upper Treatment Zone
Lower Treatment Zone (Bottom 5 ft)
Appx. Zone Elevations
Model Elevations
Appx. Zone Elevations
Model Elevations
1
1A
1648-1623
1650-1625
1623-1618
1625-1620
1B
1633-1623
1635-1625
1623-1618
1625-1620
2
2A
1633-1623
1635-1625
1623-1618
1625-1620
2B
1643-1623
1645-1625
1623-1618
1625-1620
3
3A
1670-1630
1670-1630
1630-1625
1630-1625
3B
1655-1625
1655-1625
1625-1620
1625-1620
4
4A
1655-1625
1655-1625
1625-1620
1625-1620
4B
1633-1623
1635-1625
1623-1618
1625-1620
2.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Area of Treatment Zones in 40' X 40' Blocks (SF)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
17.7
O
181
1600
308.5
N
1600
983.6
23.7
70.4
M
877.5
418.6
1600
1600
1600
424.9
1600
L
39.3
204.5
677.5
1600
1600
1090
459.5
1600
K
307.3
1600
1600
1600
1057
44.3
1154
1600
J
97.7
508.7
508.7
471.3
11.6
304
1600
867.4
I
348.1
1600
193.1
H
154.6
673.3
0
G
F
E
D
C
24 of 38
-------
3.0 CALCULATION - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block in Treatment Zones (%)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0%
P
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
O
0%
11%
100%
19%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
N
0%
0%
100%
61%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
4%
0%
0%
M
0%
0%
55%
26%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
27%
100%
0%
0%
L
0%
2%
13%
42%
100%
100%
68%
0%
0%
29%
100%
0%
0%
K
0%
0%
0%
19%
100%
100%
100%
66%
3%
0%
0%
72%
100%
0%
0%
J
0%
0%
0%
6%
32%
32%
29%
1%
0%
0%
19%
100%
54%
0%
0%
1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
22%
100%
12%
0%
0%
H
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
42%
0%
0%
0%
G
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
F
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
E
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
D
0%
0%
0%
C
0%
4.0 CALCULATION - MASS OF PCE REMOVED IN TREATMENT ZONES
Total Estimated Mass in Buildin
g 1 Treatment Zones from 0-55 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0.57
6.56
0.08
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
20.06
0.24
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.11
0
0
M
0
0
2.31
0.73
2.05
1.54
2.85
0
0
0.37
295
0
0
L
0
0.07
0.32
0.67
4.87
9.86
2.25
0
0
0.84
6.68
0
0
K
0
0
0
0.68
6.64
3.41
2.13
1.40
0.03
0
0
2.18
4.06
0
0
J
0
0
0
0.07
0.75
0.29
0.12
0.00
0
0
0.39
8.41
0.46
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.18
9.16
0.20
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.07
0.91
0.00
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
25 of 38
-------
Estimated Mass in U
pper Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.40
1.85
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
8.59
0.07
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.10
0
0
M
0
0
0.14
0.01
0.02
0.10
0.43
0
0
0.27
289
0
0
L
0
0.04
0.09
0.11
0.30
0.23
0.17
0
0
0.70
6.27
0
0
K
0
0
0
0.56
5.30
1.00
0.20
0.09
0.00
0
0
2.09
3.48
0
0
J
0
0
0
0.04
0.23
0.09
0.01
0.00
0
0
0.38
8.37
0.42
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
7.14
0.18
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.63
0.00
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
Estimated Mass in Lower Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0.14
4.39
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
11.23
0.04
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
M
0
0
1.50
0.02
2.01
1.28
2.31
0
0
0.05
0.3
0
0
L
0
0.03
0.19
0.06
4.51
9.00
1.87
0
0
0.10
0.25
0
0
K
0
0
0
0.09
0.90
1.99
1.62
1.13
0.03
0
0
0.02
0.02
0
0
J
0
0
0
0.02
0.48
0.15
0.07
0.00
0
0
0.00
0.02
0.04
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
1.94
0.02
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.20
0.00
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
T reatment
Area
Total Mass
-0-55 ft
(kg)
Upper Treatment Zones
Lower Treatment Zones
Mass in
Zone (kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
Mass
(kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
1A
27.5
10.9
95%
10.4
15.85
60%
9.51
1B
3.04
0.15
95%
0.14
1.52
60%
0.91
2A
24.1
1.35
95%
1.29
21.05
60%
12.63
2B
15.9
7.65
95%
7.26
6.70
60%
4.02
3A
295.9
288.9
99.9%
288.6
0.30
60%
0.18
3B
13.8
12.5
99.9%
12.5
0.40
60%
0.24
4A
9.27
9.17
95%
8.71
0.06
60%
0.04
4B
10.5
8.08
95%
7.68
2.18
60%
1.31
Total
400
339
-
337
48.1
-
28.8
Total Mass Removal for Building 1 and Adjacent Area: 75%
26 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
As.COM
Job Remedial Alt. Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date February 15, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Check'd ChelseyCook Date February 19,2018
Alt. C-5, DPE and Thermal Sheet 17 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Alternative description: 8 treatment zones with various treatment intervals designed to remove mass in
Hotspots 1-4 (DPE at Hotspots 1 and 2, thermal at Hotspots 3 and 4).
Total Estimated Mass in Building 1 Area from 0-60 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.63
P
0.11
0.33
1.26
0.81
0.35
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.14
O
0.09
5.04
6.56
0.42
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
N
0.03
0.02
20.06
0.39
0.58
0.46
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.59
2.40
0.13
0.03
M
0.06
3.41
4.21
2.79
2.05
1.54
2.85
2.05
1.70
1.38
295
0.10
0.01
L
0.06
2.82
2.50
1.58
4.87
9.86
3.31
1.03
0.44
2.92
6.68
0.03
0.01
K
0.00
0.00
0.08
3.56
6.64
3.41
2.13
2.12
1.04
1.01
1.08
3.02
4.06
0.06
0.01
J
0.00
0.00
0.08
1.22
2.37
0.90
0.42
0.53
0.55
1.04
2.06
8.41
0.85
0.17
0.01
I
0.00
0.00
0.04
1.71
0.54
0.64
0.01
0.20
0.68
0.79
0.81
9.16
1.69
0.14
0.01
H
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.26
0.73
0.11
0.21
0.37
0.50
0.77
2.16
1.67
0.14
0.01
G
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.29
0.20
0.09
0.35
1.36
1.43
0.57
0.19
F
0.00
0.14
1.44
0.17
0.09
0.67
2.52
1.37
0.43
0.19
E
0.10
0.07
0.70
2.18
0.92
D
0.59
0.34
0.59
C
0.59
Estimated Mass in Blocks in Vicinity of Upper Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
O
N
0.32
2.24
M
1.00
289
L
2.44
6.27
K
2.90
3.48
J
2.01
8.37
0.77
I
0.47
7.14
1.50
H
0.36
1.50
1.50
G
F
E
D
C
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from El. 1675-1620 ft.
27 of 38
-------
Estimated Mass in Blocks in Vicinity of Lower Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
0.88
O
4.83
6.24
0.35
N
19.81
0.30
0.25
0.14
M
2.99
0.10
2.04
1.38
2.74
0.13
6.07
L
2.65
2.23
0.39
4.81
9.23
2.99
0.36
0.25
K
3.40
6.21
2.98
1.81
1.85
0.94
0.03
0.02
J
1.07
2.22
0.74
0.27
0.39
0.02
0.02
0.07
I
0.02
1.94
0.14
H
0.17
0.47
0.14
G
F
E
D
C
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from El. 1650-1620 ft.
Hotspot
Area
Upper T reatment Zone
Lower Treatment Zone
Appx. Zone Elevations
Model Elevations
Appx. Zone Elevations
Model Elevations
1
1A
N/A
N/A
1648-1618
1650-1620
1B
N/A
N/A
1633-1618
1635-1620
2
2A
N/A
N/A
1633-1618
1635-1620
2B
N/A
N/A
1643-1620
1645-1620
3
3A
1670-1630
1670-1630
1630-1625
1630-1625
3B
1655-1625
1635-1625
1623-1618
1625-1620
4
4A
1655-1625
1655-1625
1625-1620
1625-1620
4B
1633-1623
1635-1625
1623-1618
1625-1620
2.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Area of Treatment Zones in 40' X 40' Blocks (SF)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
17.7
O
181
1600
308.5
N
1600
983.6
23.7
70.4
M
877.5
418.6
1600
916.5
1600
424.9
1600
L
39.3
204.5
677.5
1600
1600
1090
459.5
1600
K
307.3
1600
1600
1600
1057
44.3
1154
1600
J
97.7
508.7
508.7
471.3
11.6
304
1600
867.4
I
348.1
1600
193.1
H
154.6
673.3
0
G
F
E
D
C
28 of 38
-------
3.0 CALCULATION - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block in Treatment Zones (%)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0%
P
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
O
0%
11%
100%
19%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
N
0%
0%
100%
61%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
4%
0%
0%
M
0%
0%
55%
26%
100%
57%
100%
0%
0%
27%
100%
0%
0%
L
0%
2%
13%
42%
100%
100%
68%
0%
0%
29%
100%
0%
0%
K
0%
0%
0%
19%
100%
100%
100%
66%
3%
0%
0%
72%
100%
0%
0%
J
0%
0%
0%
6%
32%
32%
29%
1%
0%
0%
19%
100%
54%
0%
0%
1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
22%
100%
12%
0%
0%
H
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
42%
0%
0%
0%
G
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
F
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
E
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
D
0%
0%
0%
C
0%
4.0 CALCULATION - MASS OF PCE REMOVED IN TREATMENT ZONES
Total Estimated Mass in Buildin
g 1 Treatment Zones from 0-60 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0.57
6.56
0.08
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
20.06
0.24
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.11
0
0
M
0
0
2.31
0.73
2.05
0.88
2.85
0
0
0.37
295
0
0
L
0
0.07
0.32
0.67
4.87
9.86
2.25
0
0
0.84
6.68
0
0
K
0
0
0
0.68
6.64
3.41
2.13
1.40
0.03
0
0
2.18
4.06
0
0
J
0
0
0
0.07
0.75
0.29
0.12
0.00
0
0
0.39
8.41
0.46
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.18
9.16
0.20
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.07
0.91
0.00
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
29 of 38
-------
Estimated Mass in U|
jper Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.10
0
0
M
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0.27
289
0
0
L
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0.70
6.27
0
0
K
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
2.09
3.48
0
0
J
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0.38
8.37
0.42
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
7.14
0.18
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.63
0.00
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
Estimated Mass in Lower Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0.55
6.24
0.07
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
19.81
0.19
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.01
0
0
M
0
0
1.64
0.03
2.04
0.79
2.74
0
0
0.03
6.1
0
0
L
0
0.07
0.28
0.16
4.81
9.23
2.04
0
0
0.10
0.25
0
0
K
0
0
0
0.65
6.21
2.98
1.81
1.22
0.03
0
0
0.02
0.02
0
0
J
0
0
0
0.07
0.70
0.24
0.08
0.00
0
0
0.00
0.02
0.04
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
1.94
0.02
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.20
0.00
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
Treatment
Area
Total Mass
-0-55 ft
(kg)
Upper T reatment Zones
Lower Treatment Zones
Mass in
Zone (kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
Mass
(kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
1A
27.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
26.87
50%
13.43
1B
3.04
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.67
50%
0.83
2A
23.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
21.81
50%
10.90
2B
15.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
14.35
50%
7.17
3A
295.9
288.9
99.9%
288.6
6.11
60%
3.67
3B
13.8
12.5
99.9%
12.5
0.40
60%
0.24
4A
9.27
9.17
95%
8.71
0.06
60%
0.04
4B
10.5
8.08
95%
7.68
2.18
60%
1.31
Total
399
319
-
318
73.4
-
37.6
Total Mass Removal for Building 1 and Adjacent Area: 73%
30 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job Remedial Alt. Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date February 16, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19,2019
Alt. C-6, DPE, Hotspots 1-4 Sheet 18 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Alternative description: 6 treatment zones with various treatment intervals designed to remove mass in
Hotspots 1-4 using DPE.
Total Estimated Mass in Building 1 Area from 0-60 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.63
P
0.11
0.33
1.26
0.81
0.35
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.14
O
0.09
5.04
6.56
0.42
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
N
0.03
0.02
20.06
0.39
0.58
0.46
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.59
2.40
0.13
0.03
M
0.06
3.41
4.21
2.79
2.05
1.54
2.85
2.05
1.70
1.38
295
0.10
0.01
L
0.06
2.82
2.50
1.58
4.87
9.86
3.31
1.03
0.44
2.92
6.68
0.03
0.01
K
0.00
0.00
0.08
3.56
6.64
3.41
2.13
2.12
1.04
1.01
1.08
3.02
4.06
0.06
0.01
J
0.00
0.00
0.08
1.22
2.37
0.90
0.42
0.53
0.55
1.04
2.06
8.41
0.85
0.17
0.01
I
0.00
0.00
0.04
1.71
0.54
0.64
0.01
0.20
0.68
0.79
0.81
9.16
1.69
0.14
0.01
H
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.26
0.73
0.11
0.21
0.37
0.50
0.77
2.16
1.67
0.14
0.01
G
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.29
0.20
0.09
0.35
1.36
1.43
0.57
0.19
F
0.00
0.14
1.44
0.17
0.09
0.67
2.52
1.37
0.43
0.19
E
0.10
0.07
0.70
2.18
0.92
D
0.59
0.34
0.59
C
0.59
Estimated Mass in Blocks in Vicinity of Upper Treatment Zones
kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
O
N/A
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
N/A
M
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.26
7.50
L
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.62
0.72
K
0.73
1.11
J
0.01
0.00
I
N/A
N/A
H
G
F
E
D
C
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from El. 1675-1620 ft.
31 of 38
-------
Estimated Mass in Blocks in Vicinity of Lower Treatment Zones
kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
0
4.83
6.24
0.35
N
19.81
0.30
M
2.99
0.10
2.04
1.38
2.74
0.88
287.1
L
4.81
9.23
2.99
2.17
5.83
K
2.20
2.39
J
8.38
0.84
I
9.08
1.63
H
G
F
E
D
C
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from El. 1650-1620 ft.
Hotspot
Area
Upper Treatment Zone
Lower Treatment Zone (Bottom 5 ft)
Appx. Zone Elevations
Model Elevations
Appx. Zone Elevations
Model Elevations
1
1A
N/A
N/A
1648-1618
1650-1620
1B
N/A
N/A
1633-1618
1635-1620
2
2
N/A
N/A
1633-1618
1635-1620
3
3
1670-1650
1670-1650
1650-1625
1650-1625
4
4A
1655-1650
1655-1650
1650-1620
1650-1620
4B
N/A
N/A
1633-1618
1635-1620
2.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Area of Treatment Zones in 40' X 40' Blocks (SF)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
O
106.2
1600
150.6
N
1600
953.1
M
633.9
301.5
116.8
179.6
2.8
209.7
1600
L
1600
1600
12.1
243.7
1600
K
63.7
14.4
J
1600
314.5
I
1600
180
H
G
F
E
D
C
32 of 38
-------
3.0 CALCULATION - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block in Treatment Zones (%)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0%
P
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
O
0%
7%
100%
9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
N
0%
0%
100%
60%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
M
0%
0%
40%
19%
7.3%
11%
0.2%
0%
0%
13%
100%
0%
0%
L
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0.8%
0%
0%
15%
100%
0%
0%
K
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4.0%
0.9%
0%
0%
J
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
20%
0%
0%
1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
11%
0%
0%
H
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
G
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
F
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
E
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
D
0%
0%
0%
C
0%
4.0 CALCULATION - MASS OF PCE REMOVED IN TREATMENT ZONES
Total Estimated Mass in Buildin
g 1 Treatment Zones from 0-60 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0.33
6.56
0.04
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
20.1
0.23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
0
1.67
0.53
0.15
0.17
0.00
0
0
0.18
295
0
0
L
0
0
0
0
4.87
9.86
0.03
0
0
0.45
6.68
0
0
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
0.04
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.41
0.17
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.16
0.19
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
33 of 38
-------
Estimated Mass in U
pper Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0.03
7
0
0
L
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0.09
0.72
0
0
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.01
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.00
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
Estimated Mass in Lower Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.32
6.24
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
19.8
0.18
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
M
0
0
1.19
0.02
0.149
0.16
0.005
0
0
0.11
287
0
0
L
0
0.0
0
0
4.81
9.23
0.02
0
0
0.33
5.83
0
0
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.09
0.02
0
0
J
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
8.38
0.16
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.08
0.18
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
C
0
Treatment
Area
Total Mass
-0-55 ft
(kg)
Upper Treatment Zones
Lower Treatment Zones
Mass in
Zone (kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
Mass
(kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
1A
27.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
26.6
50%
13.30
1B
2.19
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.21
50%
0.60
2A
15.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
14.37
50%
7.18
3A
303
8.35
60%
5
293
50%
147
4A
8.74
0.05
60%
0.03
8.65
50%
4.32
4B
9.35
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.26
50%
4.63
Total
365
8.40
-
5.04
353
-
177
Total Mass Removal for Building 1 and Adjacent Area: 38%
34 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job Remedial Alt. Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Genevieve Fujimoto Date February 16, 2018
Description Building 1 Area, PCE Mass Check'd Chelsey Cook Date February 19,2018
Alt. C-7, DPE Sheet 19 of 19
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Alternative description: 5 treatment zones with various treatment intervals designed to remove mass in
areas with PCE concentrations greater than 1 ppm using DPE.
Total Estimated Mass in Building 1 Area from 0-60 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0.63
P
0.11
0.33
1.26
0.81
0.35
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.14
O
0.09
5.04
6.56
0.42
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
N
0.03
0.02
20.06
0.39
0.58
0.46
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.59
2.40
0.13
0.03
M
0.06
3.41
4.21
2.79
2.05
1.54
2.85
2.05
1.70
1.38
295
0.10
0.01
L
0.06
2.82
2.50
1.58
4.87
9.86
3.31
1.03
0.44
2.92
6.68
0.03
0.01
K
0.00
0.00
0.08
3.56
6.64
3.41
2.13
2.12
1.04
1.01
1.08
3.02
4.06
0.06
0.01
J
0.00
0.00
0.08
1.22
2.37
0.90
0.42
0.53
0.55
1.04
2.06
8.41
0.85
0.17
0.01
I
0.00
0.00
0.04
1.71
0.54
0.64
0.01
0.20
0.68
0.79
0.81
9.16
1.69
0.14
0.01
H
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.26
0.73
0.11
0.21
0.37
0.50
0.77
2.16
1.67
0.14
0.01
G
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.29
0.20
0.09
0.35
1.36
1.43
0.57
0.19
F
0.00
0.14
1.44
0.17
0.09
0.67
2.52
1.37
0.43
0.19
E
0.10
0.07
0.70
2.18
0.92
D
0.59
0.34
0.59
C
0.59
Estimated Mass in Blocks in Vicinity of Upper Treatment Zones
kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
N/A
N/A
N/A
O
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.16
0.27
0.04
M
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.26
7.50
0.04
L
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.01
0.58
0.70
0.01
K
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.11
0.78
1.64
0.02
J
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02
0.01
0.001
0.000
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.01
0.01
0.000
H
0.00
0.01
G
0.02
0.003
0.003
F
0.01
0.003
0.01
E
0.01
0.01
D
0.003
0.01
C
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from El. 1670-1650 ft.
35 of 38
-------
Estimated Mass in Blocks in Vicinity of Lower Treatment Zones
kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
0.17
0.75
0.52
0
0.04
4.73
6.16
0.32
N
0.00
19.7
0.25
0.29
0.29
2.10
0.07
M
3.13
3.46
0.91
2.04
1.45
2.78
1.99
1.41
0.94
287
0.04
L
0.04
2.65
2
0.85
4.85
9.78
3.13
0.97
0.23
2.06
5.83
0.01
K
0.07
3.40
6
2.98
1.81
1.85
0.94
0.87
0.14
2.20
2.38
0.02
J
0.04
0.82
1.97
0.60
2.01
8.38
0.84
0.16
I
0.03
1.70
0.49
0.75
9.12
1.67
H
0.75
2.11
G
1.30
1.41
0.56
F
2.48
1.34
0.40
E
2.15
0.87
D
0.32
0.53
C
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from El. 1650-1620 ft.
Area
Upper Treatment Zone
Lower Treatment Zone
Appx. Zone Elevations
Model Elevations
Appx. Zone Elevations
Model Elevations
1
N/A
N/A
1643-1618
1645-1620
2
N/A
N/A
1633-1618
1635-1620
3
1670-1650
1670-1650
1650-1625
1650-1625
4
1660-1650
1660-1650
1650-1625
1650-1625
5
1653-1648
1655-1650
1648-1618
1650-1620
2.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Area of Treatment Zones in 40' X 40' Blocks (SF)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
P
29.3
70.8
12.3
O
603.7
1600
1600
279.3
N
466
1600
1305
99.3
19.2
98.3
3.9
M
847.6
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
314.2
1600
66.9
L
231
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
409.8
189.8
1600
1600
66.2
K
606.9
1600
1600
1586
1501
1415
1312
105
1342
1600
1600
66.2
J
606.9
181.6
158.0
8.1
1438
1600
1600
35.8
I
68.9
181.6
10.4
1427
1600
411.1
H
1424
1547
G
255.6
1481.7
1600
F
711.4
1600
499.2
E
711.4
1388
D
49.1
71.3
C
36 of 38
-------
3.0 CALCULATION - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block in Treatment Zones (%)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0%
P
0%
1.8%
4.4%
0.8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
O
38%
100%
100%
17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
N
0%
29%
100%
82%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1.2%
6.1%
0.2%
0%
M
0%
53%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
20%
100%
4.2%
0%
L
14%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
26%
12%
100%
100%
4.1%
0%
K
0%
0%
38%
100%
100%
99%
94%
88%
82%
7%
84%
100%
100%
4.1%
0%
J
0%
0%
38%
11%
10%
0.5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
90%
100%
100%
2.2%
0%
1
0%
0%
4.3%
11%
0.7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
89%
100%
26%
0%
0%
H
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
89%
97%
0%
0%
0%
G
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
16%
93%
100%
0%
F
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
44%
100%
31%
0%
E
0%
0%
0%
44%
87%
D
0%
3.1%
4.5%
C
0%
4.0 CALCULATION - MASS OF PCE REMOVED IN TREATMENT ZONES
Total Estimated Mass in Buildin
g 1 Treatment Zones from 0-60 ft (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0.01
0.06
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
O
0.03
5.04
6.56
0.07
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0.01
20.06
0.31
0.04
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.15
0.000
0
M
0
1.81
4.21
2.79
2.05
1.54
2.85
2.05
1.70
0.27
295
0.004
0
L
0.01
2.82
2.50
1.58
4.87
9.86
3.31
0.26
0.05
2.92
6.68
0.001
0
K
0
0
0.03
3.56
6.64
3.38
1.99
1.88
0.85
0.07
0.91
3.02
4.06
0.002
0
J
0
0
0.03
0.14
0.23
0.005
0
0
0
0
1.85
8.41
0.85
0.004
0
I
0
0
0.002
0.19
0.003
0
0
0
0
0
0.72
9.16
0.43
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.69
2.08
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.22
1.32
0.57
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.12
1.37
0.13
0
E
0
0
0
0.97
0.80
D
0
0.01
0.03
C
0
37 of 38
-------
Estimated Mass in U
pper Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.02
0.000
0
M
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N
0.05
7.50
0.002
0
L
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
0.58
0.70
0.000
0
K
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.09
0.78
1.64
0.001
0
J
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.01
0.001
0.000
0
I
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.000
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.004
0.01
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.003
0.003
0.003
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.004
0.003
0.003
0
E
0
0
0
0.003
0.01
D
0
0.000
0.000
C
0
Estimated Mass in Lower Treatment Zones (kg)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
0
P
0
0.00
0.03
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
4.73
6.16
0.06
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0.00
19.69
0.20
0.02
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.13
0.000
0
M
0
1.66
3.46
0.91
2.04
1.45
2.78
1.99
1.41
0.18
287
0.002
0
L
0.01
2.65
2.23
0.85
4.85
9.78
3.13
0.25
0.03
2.06
5.83
0.000
0
K
0
0
0.03
3.40
6.21
2.96
1.70
1.64
0.77
0.06
0.12
2.20
2.38
0.001
0
J
0
0
0.017
0.093
0.194
0.003
0
0
0
0
1.80
8.38
0.84
0.004
0
I
0
0
0.001
0.193
0.003
0
0
0
0
0
0.67
9.12
0.43
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.67
2.04
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
1.30
0.56
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.10
1.34
0.12
0
E
0
0
0
0.95
0.75
D
0
0.01
0.02
C
0
T reatment
Area
Total Mass
-0-55 ft
(kg)
Upper Treatment Zones
Lower Treatment Zones
Mass in
Zone (kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
Mass
(kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
1
94.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
87.1
50%
43.56
2
0.61
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.50
50%
0.25
3
296
7.57
60%
N/A
287.43
50%
143.72
4
17.6
4
60%
2
13
50%
6
5
30.7
0.09
60%
0.05
30.33
50%
15.17
Total
440
11.4
-
2.32
418
-
209
Total Mass Removal for Building 1 and Adjacent Area: 44%
38 of 38
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job
Remedial Alt. Eval. Rep. Rev 1.0
Des'd
Chelsey Cook
Date
March 14, 2018
Description
Cell Area Summary
Check'd
Demetrio Cabanillas
Date
March 6, 2018
PCE Mass Calculation
Sheet
1
of
15
Reference Row
~~
B
c
D
E
F
G
I H
I
J
K L M
1.0 PROJECT INPUT
PROJECT
Engineer
Project No.
Lindsay
Demetrio Cabanillas
60630400
Client:
City:
State:
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay
Nebraska
2.0 DESIGN OBJECTIVE
Estimate the mass of PCE in the known area of contamiation in the Cell Area and estimate the mass removed
by the different remediaiton alteratives.
3.0 REFERENCES
1 Table 3, Cell Area Soil Concentrations.
2 Cell Area Treatment Alternative Figures.
3 Mass calculation sheets for 5-ft interval depths from elevation (El.) 1675ft-1625ft
4 Mass removal calculation sheets for Thermal Treatment (5 ppm and 1 ppm), SVE (5 ppm and 1 ppm), ISS, and
Targeted Excavation.
4.0 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
1 1 CY of soil weighs 1.7 tons or 3,400 pounds.
2 The contaminated soil is estimated to extend from 1 ft to 50 ft bgs.
3 The average groundwater depth is 22 ft bgs.
4 Lateral soil plume is inferred using a 40-ft by 40-ft areas ("blocks") and soil data in Table 1. Blocks without soil data
are assigned estimated concentrations based on the midpoint of the color key values.
5 Vertical soil plume is inferred using 5-ft depth intervals.
5.1 SPREADSHEET USE
The spreadsheet uses the following color convention for cells used for the analysis:
User input values
Calculated or referenced values input from another cell
1 of 23
-------
5.0 PCE MASS ESTIMATE IN CELL AREA
5.1 Estimated Mass of PCE by Depth Interval
Total Mass in Interval
(kg)
Depth Interval (ft)
kg
lbs
1675-1670
9.48
20.9
1670-1665
9.73
21.5
1665-1660
1.18
2.60
1660-1655
3.06
6.7
1655-1650
3.70
8.2
1650-1645
7.1
15.7
1645-1640
4.8
10.6
1640-1635
11.37
25.07
1635-1630
7.16
15.8
1630-1625
14.25
31.40
Total Mass of PCE in Soil
72
158
0.08
kg
lb
tons
6.0 MASS OF PCE REMOVED BY REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES (SUMMARY)
6.1 Estimated Mass Removed by Alt. B-3 Targeted Excavation
Treatment Zone Criteria
Units
Excavation
Mass of PCE Present in
Treatment Zone
kg
21
lbs
45
% Total
28
Mass of PCE Removed by
T reatment System
kg
21
lbs
45
% Total
28
6.2 Estimated Mass Removed by Alt. B-4 In-Situ Soil Solidification
Treatment Zone Criteria
Units
ISS
Mass of PCE Present in
Treatment Zone
kg
34
lbs
76
% Total
48
Mass of PCE Removed by
Treatment System
kg
33
lbs
72
% Total
45
6.3 Estimated Mass Removed by Alt. B-5 Soil Vapor Extraction
Treatment Zone Criteria
Units
SVE
Mass of PCE Present in
Treatment Zone
kg
31
lbs
68
% Total
43
Mass of PCE Removed by
Treatment System
kg
15
lbs
34
% Total
21
2 of 23
-------
6.4 Estimated Mass Removed by Alt. B-6 Thermal Remediation
Treatment Zone Criteria
Units
Thermal
Mass of PCE Present in
Treatment Zone
kg
34
lbs
76
% Total
48
Mass of PCE Removed by
T reatment System
kg
32
lbs
71
% Total
44
3 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date March 2, 2018
Description Cell Area, Elev. 1675-1670 Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 6,2018
PCE Mass Calculation sheet 2 of 15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ng/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (|jc
l/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
4.9
J
G
G
G
13
2.6
I
ND
ND
G
33
7.1
P
33
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
G
1
100
5,900
G
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
G
100
5,500
32
ND
ND
F
ND
ND
ND
G
1.9
G
G
ND
ND
E
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.9
B
76
ND
ND
D
ND
1.6
ND
8.3
B
G
G
ND
ND
C
ND
ND
ND
G
B
62
G
ND
ND
B
ND
9.7
100
G
G
A
ND
6.1
19
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
|jg/kg
G
Green
22.5
|jg/kg
B
Blue
272.5
|jg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
|jg/kg
O
Orange
3000
|jg/kg
P
Purple
7500
|jg/kg
R
Red
*
|jg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70 tons CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907 kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of PCE per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.003
J
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.006
0.002
I
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.016
0.004
3.429
0.016
0.000
0.000
H
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.001
0.046
2.698
0.011
0.000
0.000
G
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.046
2.515
0.015
0.000
0.000
F
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.001
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
E
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.125
0.035
0.000
0.000
D
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.004
0.125
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
C
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.125
0.029
0.011
0.000
0.000
B
0.000
0.005
0.046
0.011
0.011
A
0.000
0.003
0.009
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval
9.48
20.9
kg
lbs
4 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job
Description
Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd
Cell Area, Elev. 1670-1665 Check'd
PCE Mass Calculation sheet
Chelsey Cook
Date March 2, 2018
Demetrio Cabanillas
Date March 6, 2018
of
15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (|jg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
3.4
J
G
G
G
4.7
7.7
I
ND
ND
G
38
G
Y
G
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
6.3
4.4
3,000
3,600
G
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
3.1
48
3000
9,500
44
ND
ND
F
ND
ND
ND
16
9.3
16
G
ND
ND
E
ND
ND
ND
6.3
22
360
13
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
11
61
19
G
ND
ND
C
ND
ND
ND
42
210
33
g
ND
ND
B
ND
45
57
8.7
16
A
ND
57
5.4
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
|jg/kg
G
Green
22.5
|jg/kg
B
Blue
272.5
|jg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
|jg/kg
O
Orange
3000
|jg/kg
P
Purple
7500
|jg/kg
R
Red
*
|jg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale,
use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70
tons/CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907
kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of PCE per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.002
J
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.003
0.004
I
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.018
0.011
0.343
0.011
0.000
0.000
H
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.003
1.372
1.646
0.011
0.000
0.000
G
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.022
1.372
4.343
0.021
0.000
0.000
F
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.005
0.008
0.011
0.000
0.000
E
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.011
0.165
0.006
0.000
0.000
D
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.028
0.009
0.011
0.000
0.000
C
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.096
0.016
0.011
0.000
0.000
B
0.000
0.021
0.027
0.004
0.008
A
0.000
0.027
0.003
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval
9.73 kg
21.5 lbs
5 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job
Description
Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd
Cell Area, Elev. 1665-1660 Check'd
PCE Mass Calculation sheet
Chelsey Cook
Date March 2, 2018
Demetrio Cabanillas
Date March 6, 2018
of
15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (|jg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
3.8
J
G
G
G
5.2
5.5
I
ND
ND
G
ND
B
G
45
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
G
23
350
B
G
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
4.2
99
210
98
ND
ND
F
ND
ND
ND
G
25
G
G
ND
ND
E
ND
ND
ND
G
68
B
1.6
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
G
40
ND
G
ND
ND
C
ND
ND
ND
6.3
B
G
G
ND
ND
B
ND
ND
8.7
80
16.0
A
ND
8.7
8.5
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
Mg/kg
G
Green
22.5
Mg/kg
B
Blue
272.5
Mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
Mg/kg
O
Orange
3000
Mg/kg
P
Purple
7500
Mg/kg
R
Red
*
Mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70
tons/CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907
kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of PCE per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.002
J
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.003
0.003
I
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.125
0.011
0.021
0.000
0.000
H
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.011
0.160
0.125
0.011
0.000
0.000
G
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.046
0.096
0.045
0.000
0.000
F
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
E
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.032
0.125
0.001
0.000
0.000
D
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.019
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.000
C
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.125
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
B
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.037
0.008
A
0.000
0.004
0.004
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval
6 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date March 2, 2018
Description Cell Area, Elev. 1660-1655 Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 6,2018
PCE Mass Calculation sheet 5 of 15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (|jg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
4.9
J
G
G
G
12
4.3
I
ND
ND
G
2.4
G
G
110
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
G
90
1,200
Y
G
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
7.4
1,200
2,100
150
ND
ND
F
ND
ND
ND
G
350
G
G
ND
ND
E
ND
ND
ND
G
83
G
22
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
G
81
4
G
ND
ND
C
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
ND
ND
ND
B
ND
ND
19
13
ND
A
ND
19
24
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
|jg/kg
G
Green
22.5
|jg/kg
B
Blue
272.5
|jg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
|jg/kg
O
Orange
3000
|jg/kg
P
Purple
7500
|jg/kg
R
Red
*
|jg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale,
use highest known value in adjacent
cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70 tons/CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907 kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of PCE per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.003
J
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.006
0.002
I
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.002
0.011
0.011
0.051
0.000
0.000
H
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.042
0.549
0.343
0.011
0.000
0.000
G
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.549
0.960
0.069
0.000
0.000
F
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.160
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
E
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.038
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
D
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.038
0.002
0.011
0.000
0.000
C
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
B
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.006
0.000
A
0.000
0.009
0.011
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval
3.06
6.7
kg
lbs
7 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date March 2, 2018
Description Cell Area, Elev. 1655-1650 Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 6,2018
PCE Mass Calculation sheet 6 of 15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (|jg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
7
J
G
G
8.7
8.7
3.1
I
ND
ND
G
G
B
68
68
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
G
720
1,100
Y
B
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
20
B
2,500
97
ND
ND
F
ND
ND
ND
G
19
Y
B
ND
ND
E
ND
ND
ND
G
130
B
21
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
G
2.6
1.1
G
ND
ND
C
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
G
ND
ND
B
ND
G
25
21
ND
A
2.4
25
26
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
|jg/kg
G
Green
22.5
|jg/kg
B
Blue
272.5
|jg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
|jg/kg
O
Orange
3000
|jg/kg
P
Purple
7500
|jg/kg
R
Red
*
|jg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale,
use highest known value in adjacent
cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70 tons/CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907 kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of PCE per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.004
J
0.011
0.011
0.004
0.004
0.002
I
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.011
0.125
0.032
0.032
0.000
0.000
H
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.330
0.503
0.343
0.125
0.000
0.000
G
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.125
1.143
0.045
0.000
0.000
F
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.009
0.343
0.125
0.000
0.000
E
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.060
0.125
0.010
0.000
0.000
D
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.002
0.001
0.011
0.000
0.000
C
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
B
0.000
0.011
0.012
0.010
0.000
A
0.002
0.012
0.012
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval
3.70
8.2
kg
lbs
8 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job
Description
Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd
Cell Area, Elev. 1650-1645 Check'd
PCE Mass Calculation sheet
Chelsey Cook
Date March 2, 2018
Demetrio Cabanillas
Date March 6, 2018
7
of
15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (|jg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
20
J
G
G
G
0.9
2.5
I
ND
ND
G
24
B
B
11
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
G
2,500
170
Y
B
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
2.2
20
O
5,500
67
ND
ND
F
ND
ND
G
B
B
B
B
ND
ND
E
ND
ND
ND
G
420
B
9
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
G
48
99
G
ND
ND
C
ND
ND
ND
G
G
G
G
ND
ND
B
G
G
G
G
1.1
A
72
72
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
|jg/kg
G
Green
22.5
|jg/kg
B
Blue
272.5
|jg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
|jg/kg
O
Orange
3000
|jg/kg
P
Purple
7500
|jg/kg
R
Red
*
|jg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale,
use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70
tons/CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907
kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of PCE per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.010
J
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.001
0.002
I
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.011
0.125
0.125
0.006
0.000
0.000
H
0.000
0.000
0.011
1.143
0.078
0.343
0.125
0.000
0.000
G
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.010
1.372
2.515
0.031
0.000
0.000
F
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.000
0.000
E
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.192
0.125
0.005
0.000
0.000
D
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.022
0.046
0.011
0.000
0.000
C
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
B
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.001
A
0.033
0.033
0.011
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval
9 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date March 2, 2018
Description Cell Area, Elev. 1645-1640 Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 6,2018
PCE Mass Calculation sheet 8 of 15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (|jg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
14
J
B
B
B
G
ND
1
ND
ND
B
590
B
B
5.3
ND
ND
H
ND
ND
B
Y
B
B
B
ND
ND
G
ND
ND
ND
540
B
800
ND
ND
ND
F
ND
ND
G
G
G
B
B
ND
ND
E
ND
ND
G
B
680
B
G
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
G
B
72
B
G
ND
ND
C
ND
ND
G
B
B
B
G
G
2.8
B
G
B
B
B
2.4
A
100
100
B
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
Mg/kg
G
Green
22.5
Mg/kg
B
Blue
272.5
Mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
Mg/kg
O
Orange
3000
Mg/kg
P
Purple
7500
Mg/kg
R
Red
*
Mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area
Volume
Soil Weight
Soil Weight
8,000
CF
Soil Density
296
CY
1 ton
504
tons
457.128
kg
170
907
tons/CY
kg
Estimated Mass of PCE
per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.007
J
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.011
0.000
I
0.000
0.000
0.125
0.270
0.125
0.125
0.003
0.000
0.000
H
0.000
0.000
0.125
0.343
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.000
0.000
G
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.247
0.125
0.366
0.000
0.000
0.000
F
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.125
0.125
0.000
0.000
E
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.125
0.311
0.125
0.011
0.000
0.000
D
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.125
0.033
0.125
0.011
0.000
0.000
C
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.011
0.011
0.002
B
0.011
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.002
A
0.046
0.046
0.125
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval = 4.8 kg
10.6 lbs
10 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
A=COM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date March 2, 2018
Description Cell Area, Elev. 1640-1635 Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 6,2018
PCE Mass Calculation sheet 9 of 15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (|jg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
6.4
J
G
G
G
1
ND
1
6.3
G
B
450
B
B
ND
ND
ND
H
ND
G
O
O
B
B
B
ND
ND
G
ND
G
G
5,200
Y
31
1.1
ND
ND
F
500
ND
G
Y
Y
Y
G
ND
ND
E
ND
ND
G
Y
1,800
Y
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
G
Y
690
Y
ND
ND
ND
C
ND
ND
G
B
B
B
G
ND
ND
B
G
B
B
B
6.0
A
3.9
B
B
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
|jg/kg
G
Green
22.5
|jg/kg
B
Blue
272.5
|jg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
|jg/kg
O
Orange
3000
|jg/kg
P
Purple
7500
|jg/kg
R
Red
*
|jg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale,
use highest known value in adjacent
cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70 tons/CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907! kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of PCE per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.003
J
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.001
0.000
I
0.003
0.011
0.125
0.206
0.125
0.125
0.000
0.000
0.000
H
0.000
0.011
1.372
1.372
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.000
0.000
G
0.000
0.011
0.011
2.378
0.343
0.015
0.001
0.000
0.000
F
0.229
0.000
0.011
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.011
0.000
0.000
E
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.343
0.823
0.343
0.000
0.000
0.000
D
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.343
0.316
0.343
0.000
0.000
0.000
C
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.011
0.000
0.000
B
0.011
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.003
A
0.002
0.125
0.125
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval
11.37
25.07
kg
lbs
11 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job
Description
Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0
Cell Area, Elev. 1635-1630
PCE Mass Calculation
Des'd Chelsey Cook
Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas
Sheet
Date March 2, 2018
Date March 6, 2018
10
of
15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (|jg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
13
J
G
G
G
ND
ND
1
G
G
B
110
B
G
ND
ND
ND
H
B
B
Y
Y
Y
G
ND
ND
ND
G
B
570
O
1,000
Y
G
ND
ND
ND
F
1,200
Y
Y
Y
Y
G
ND
ND
ND
E
B
B
B
B
140
G
2
ND
ND
D
G
1.8
G
G
B
G
ND
ND
ND
C
G
G
G
G
59
G
G
G
1.2
B
G
G
G
G
3
A
170
G
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
Mg/kg
G
Green
22.5
Mg/kg
B
Blue
272.5
Mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
Mg/kg
O
Orange
3000
Mg/kg
P
Purple
7500
Mg/kg
R
Red
*
Mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale,
use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70
tons/CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907
kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of PCE per Block
kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.006
J
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
I
0.011
0.011
0.125
0.051
0.125
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
H
0.125
0.125
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
G
0.125
0.261
1.372
0.458
0.343
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
F
0.549
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
E
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.064
0.011
0.001
0.000
0.000
D
0.011
0.001
0.011
0.011
0.125
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
C
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.027
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.001
B
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.002
A
0.078
0.011
0.011
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval
7.16 kg
15.8 lbs
12 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job
Description
Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0
Cell Area, Elev. 1630-1625
PCE Mass Calculation
Des'd Chelsey Cook
Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas
Sheet
Date March 2, 2018
Date March 6, 2018
11
of
15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the PCE concentration (ug/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
PCE Concentration per Block (|jg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
G
J
G
G
G
ND
ND
1
G
G
G
G
G
G
ND
ND
ND
H
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
G
ND
ND
ND
G
Y
O
O
O
Y
G
ND
ND
ND
F
O
O
O
Y
Y
G
ND
ND
ND
E
B
B
B
B
B
G
G
ND
ND
D
B
190
B
B
B
G
G
ND
ND
C
B
B
B
B
B
G
G
ND
ND
B
B
B
B
B
17
A
B
B
B
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
Mg/kg
G
Green
22.5
Mg/kg
B
Blue
272.5
Mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
Mg/kg
O
Orange
3000
Mg/kg
P
Purple
7500
Mg/kg
R
Red
*
Mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale,
use highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCE IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area
Volume
Soil Weight
Soil Weight
8,000
296
504
457.128
CF
CY
tons
kg
Soil Density
1 ton
1.70
907
tons/CY
kg
Estimated Mass of PCE per Block
kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.011
J
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
I
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
H
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
G
0.343
1.372
1.372
1.372
0.343
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
F
1.372
1.372
1.372
0.343
0.343
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
E
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
D
0.125
0.087
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
C
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
B
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.008
A
0.125
0.125
0.125
Total Estimated Mass of PCE in Depth Interval
14.25
31.4
kg
lbs
13 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd ChelseyCook Date March 5,2018
Description Cell Area, Targeted Excavation Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 6,2018
PCE Mass Removal Sheet 12 of 15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Total Estimated Mass in Cell Area from 1675-1625ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.05
J
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.04
0.02
I
0.03
0.03
0.45
0.60
0.79
4.22
0.14
0.00
0.00
H
0.47
0.48
2.24
3.93
3.64
5.77
0.54
0.00
0.00
G
0.47
1.64
2.76
4.51
4.66
11.98
0.23
0.00
0.00
F
2.15
1.72
1.75
1.22
1.35
1.00
0.43
0.00
0.00
E
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.77
1.66
1.17
0.09
0.00
0.00
D
0.14
0.09
0.16
0.66
0.83
0.56
0.09
0.00
0.00
C
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.45
0.78
0.36
0.10
0.02
0.00
B
0.17
0.43
0.50
0.47
0.04
A
0.29
0.40
0.44
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals
from elev. 1675-1625ft
Total Estimated Mass in Treatment Area from 1675-1645ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
I
H
2.71
5.50
G
3.51
11.57
F
0.31
0.51
E
D
C
B
A
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for Treatment Area 5-ft
Depth Intervals from elev. 1675-1645ft
14 of 23
-------
2.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Area of Excavation in 40' X 40' BLOCKS (SF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
1
H
800
1,600
G
800
1,600
F
400
800
E
D
C
B
A
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block in Treatment Zones (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0%
J
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
I
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
H
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
100%
0%
0%
0%
G
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
100%
0%
0%
0%
F
0%
0%
0%
0%
25%
50%
0%
0%
0%
E
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
D
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
C
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
B
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
A
0%
0%
0%
3.0 CALCULATION - MASS OF PCE REMOVED IN TREATMENT ZONES
Estimated Mass in Treatment Zones from 1675-1630ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.00
J
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
I
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
H
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.35
5.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
G
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.76
11.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
F
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
A
0.00
0.00
0.00
T reatment Area
Total Mass ~0-
25 ft
(kg)
Treatment Zones
Mass in Zone
(kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
1
20.50
20.50
100
20.50
Total
20.50
20.50
-
20.50
Total Mass Removal for Cell Area = 28.5 %
15 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date March 5,2018
Description Cell Area, In-Situ Soil Solidification Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 6,2018
PCE Mass Removal sheet 13 of 15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Total Estimated Mass in Cell Area from 1675-1625 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.05
J
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.04
0.02
I
0.03
0.03
0.45
0.60
0.79
4.22
0.14
0.00
0.00
H
0.47
0.48
2.24
3.93
3.64
5.77
0.54
0.00
0.00
G
0.47
1.64
2.76
4.51
4.66
11.98
0.23
0.00
0.00
F
2.15
1.72
1.75
1.22
1.35
1.00
0.43
0.00
0.00
E
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.77
1.66
1.17
0.09
0.00
0.00
D
0.14
0.09
0.16
0.66
0.83
0.56
0.09
0.00
0.00
C
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.45
0.78
0.36
0.10
0.02
0.00
B
0.17
0.43
0.50
0.47
0.04
A
0.29
0.40
0.44
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth
Intervals from elev. 1675-1625ft
Total Estimated Mass in the Treatment Area from 1675-1630 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
I
0.78
H
1.90
3.59
3.30
5.76
G
1.39
3.14
4.32
11.96
F
1.01
0.99
E
D
C
B
A
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for Treatment Area
5-ft Depth Intervals from elev. 1675-1630ft
16 of 23
-------
2.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Area of ISS Treatment Zones in 40' X 40' BLOCKS (SF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
1
254
H
140
1,600
1,600
1,600
G
41
1,600
1,600
1,600
F
1,600
1,600
E
D
C
B
A
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block in Treatment Zones (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0%
J
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
I
0%
0%
0%
0%
16%
0%
0%
0%
0%
H
0%
0%
9%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
G
0%
0%
3%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
F
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
E
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
D
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
C
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
B
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
A
0%
0%
0%
3.0 CALCULATION - MASS OF PCE REMOVED IN TREATMENT ZONES
Estimated Mass in Treatment Zones from 1675-1645 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.00
J
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
I
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
H
0.00
0.00
0.17
3.59
3.30
5.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
G
0.00
0.00
0.04
3.14
4.32
11.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
F
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
0.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
A
0.00
0.00
0.00
Treatment
Area
Total Mass
-0-45 ft
(kg)
Treatment Zones
Mass in Zone
(kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
1
34.40
34.40
95
32.70
Total
34.40
34.40
-
32.70
Total Mass Treated for Cell Area
45.5 %
17 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date March 5,2018
Description Cell Area, Soil Vapor Extraction Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 6,2018
PCE Mass Removal sheet 14 of 15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Total Estimated Mass in Cell Area from 1675-1625 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.05
J
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.04
0.02
I
0.03
0.03
0.45
0.60
0.79
4.22
0.14
0.00
0.00
H
0.47
0.48
2.24
3.93
3.64
5.77
0.54
0.00
0.00
G
0.47
1.64
2.76
4.51
4.66
11.98
0.23
0.00
0.00
F
2.15
1.72
1.75
1.22
1.35
1.00
0.43
0.00
0.00
E
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.77
1.66
1.17
0.09
0.00
0.00
D
0.14
0.09
0.16
0.66
0.83
0.56
0.09
0.00
0.00
C
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.45
0.78
0.36
0.10
0.02
0.00
B
0.17
0.43
0.50
0.47
0.04
A
0.29
0.40
0.44
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth
Intervals from 1675-1625ft
Total Estimated Mass in Cell Area from 1675-1650 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
I
0.28
H
0.05
0.39
2.63
5.16
G
0.00
0.05
2.14
9.06
F
0.19
0.38
E
D
C
B
A
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations Treatment Area for
5-ft Depth Intervals from 1675-1650ft
18 of 23
-------
2.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Area of SVE Treatment Zones in 40' X 40' BLOCKS (SF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
1
254
H
140
1,600
1,600
1,600
G
41
1,600
1,600
1,600
F
1,600
1,600
E
D
C
B
A
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block in Treatment Zones (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0%
J
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
I
0%
0%
0%
0%
16%
0%
0%
0%
0%
H
0%
0%
9%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
G
0%
0%
3%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
F
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
E
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
D
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
C
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
B
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
A
0%
0%
0%
3.0 CALCULATION - MASS OF PCE REMOVED IN TREATMENT ZONES
Estimated Mass in Treatment Zones from 1675-1650 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.00
J
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
I
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
H
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
2.63
5.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
G
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
2.14
9.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
F
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.14
9.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
A
0.00
0.00
0.00
Treatment
Area
Total Mass
-0-25 ft
(kg)
Treatment Zones
Mass in Zone
(kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
1
30.70
30.70
50
15.40
Total
30.70
30.70
—
15.40
Total Mass Removal for Cell Area
21.4 %
19 of 23
-------
PCE MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date March 5,2018
Description Cell Area, Thermal Remediation Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 6,2018
PCE Mass Removal sheet 15 of 15
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Total Estimated Mass in Cell Area from 0-45 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.05
J
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.04
0.02
I
0.03
0.03
0.45
0.60
0.79
4.22
0.14
0.00
0.00
H
0.47
0.48
2.24
3.93
3.64
5.77
0.54
0.00
0.00
G
0.47
1.64
2.76
4.51
4.66
11.98
0.23
0.00
0.00
F
2.15
1.72
1.75
1.22
1.35
1.00
0.43
0.00
0.00
E
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.77
1.66
1.17
0.09
0.00
0.00
D
0.14
0.09
0.16
0.66
0.83
0.56
0.09
0.00
0.00
C
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.45
0.78
0.36
0.10
0.02
0.00
B
0.17
0.43
0.50
0.47
0.04
A
0.29
0.40
0.44
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth
Intervals from 1675-1625 ft.
Total Estimated Mass in Upper Treatment Zone 1675-1635 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
I
0.65
H
1.56
3.25
2.96
5.75
G
0.02
2.68
3.98
11.95
F
0.67
0.98
E
D
C
B
A
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth
Intervals in Upper Treatment zone from 1675-1635 ft.
20 of 23
-------
Total Estimated Mass in Lower Treatment Zone 1635-1630 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
I
0.13
H
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.01
G
1.37
0.46
0.34
0.01
F
0.34
0.01
E
D
C
B
A
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth
Intervals in Lower Treatment zone from 1635-1630 ft.
2.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Area of Thermal Treatment Zones in 40' X 40' BLOCKS (SF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
I
254
H
140
1,600
1,600
1,600
G
41
1,600
1,600
1,600
F
1,600
1,600
E
D
C
B
A
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block in Treatment Zones (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0%
J
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
I
0%
0%
0%
0%
16%
0%
0%
0%
0%
H
0%
0%
9%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
G
0%
0%
3%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
F
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
E
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
D
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
C
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
B
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
A
0%
0%
0%
21 of 23
-------
3.0 CALCULATION - MASS OF PCE REMOVED IN TREATMENT ZONES
Total Estimated Mass in Cell Area Treatment Zone from 0-45 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.00
J
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
H
0.00
0.00
0.20
3.93
3.64
5.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
G
0.00
0.00
0.07
4.51
4.66
11.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
F
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.35
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
A
0.00
0.00
0.00
Estimated Mass in Upper Treatment Zone from 1675-1635 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.00
J
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
I
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
H
0.00
0.00
0.14
3.25
2.96
5.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
G
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.68
3.98
11.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
F
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
A
0.00
0.00
0.00
22 of 23
-------
Estimated Mass in Lower Treatment Zone from 1635-1630 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.00
J
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
I
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
H
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.34
0.34
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
G
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.46
0.34
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
F
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
A
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Mass
-0-45 ft
(kg)
Upper T reatment Zones
Lower Treatment Zones
Zone
Removal
Rate (%)
Total Mass
Removal
Rate (%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
Mass in
Zone (kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
Mass
(kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
37.2
32.4
95%
31
1.95
60%
1
93%
86%
29.6
Total Mass Removal for Cell Area =
41.2
%
23 of 23
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job
Remedial Alt. Eval. Rep.,
Rev 1.0
Des'd
Chelsey Cook
Date March 14,2018
Description
Cell Area Summary
Check'd
Demetrio Cabanillas
Date April 2, 2018
Zinc Mass Calculation
Sheet
1
of 13
Reference
Row
~~
EE
c
D
E
F
G
H I
J K L
M
1.0 PROJECT INPUT
PROJECT
Engineer
Project No.
Lindsay
Demetrio Cabanillas
60630400
Client:
City:
State:
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay
Nebraska
2.0 DESIGN OBJECTIVE
Estimate the mass of zinc in the known area of contamination in the Cell Area and estimate the mass
removed by the different remediation alternatives.
3.0 REFERENCES
1 Table 3, Cell Area Soil Concentrations.
2 Cell Area Treatment Alternative Figures.
3 Mass calculation sheets for 5-ft interval depths from elevation (El.) 1675ft-1625ft.
4 Mass removal calculation sheets for ISS and Targeted Excavation.
4.0 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
1 1 CY of soil weighs 1.7 tons or 3,400 pounds.
2 The contaminated soil is estimated to extend from 1 ft to 50 ft bgs.
3 The average groundwater depth is 22 ft bgs.
4 Lateral soil plume is inferred using a 40-ft by 40-ft areas ("blocks") and soil data in Table 1. Blocks without soil
data are assigned estimated concentrations based on the midpoint of the color key values.
5 Vertical soil plume is inferred using 5-ft depth intervals.
5.1 SPREADSHEET USE
The spreadsheet uses the following color convention for cells used for the analysis:
User input values
Calculated or referenced values input from another cell
lof 16
-------
5.0 ZINC MASS ESTIMATE IN CELL AREA
5.1 Estimated Mass of Zinc by Depth Interval
Total Mass in Interval
(kg)
Depth Interval (ft)
kg
lbs
1675-1670
24.46
53.9
1670-1665
17.84
39.3
1665-1660
13.47
29.70
1660-1655
19.84
43.7
1655-1650
16.85
37.1
1650-1645
20.4
44.9
1645-1640
27.7
61.1
1640-1635
14.51
32.00
1635-1630
35.26
77.7
1630-1625
15.73
34.70
Total Mass of Zinc in Soil
2071 kg
454 lb
0.23itons
6.0 MASS OF ZINC REMOVED BY REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES (SUMMARY)
6.1 Estimated Mass Removed by Alt. B-3 Targeted Excavation
Treatment Zone Criteria
Units
Excavation
Mass of Zinc Present in
Treatment Zone
kg
8
lbs
19
% Total
4
Mass of Zinc Removed
by Treatment System
kg
8.4
lbs
19
% Total
4
6.2 Estimated Mass Removed by Alt. B-4 In-Situ Soil Solidification
Treatment Zone Criteria
Units
ISS
Mass of Zinc Present in
Treatment Zone
kg
30
lbs
66
% Total
14
Mass of Zinc Removed
by Treatment System
kg
28.4
lbs
63
% Total
14
2 of 16
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date February 21,2018
Description Cell Area,Elev. 1670-1675ft Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date February 28,2018
Zinc Mass Calculation sheet 2 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED ZINC CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the zinc concentration (mg/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
Zinc Concentration per Block (m
a/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
G
605
605
J
G
B
B
90
G
1
G
67
B
B
4,200
H
G
Y
B
340
B
G
1,260
Y
Y
369
83
F
O
O
Y
B
G
E
O
O
Y
B
147
D
1,820
2,050
G
234
G
C
1,000
O
O
685
B
B
Y
1,090
8,750
Y
B
A
Y
177
73
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
mg/kg
G
Green
185
mg/kg
B
Blue
435
mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
mg/kg
O
Orange
3,000
mg/kg
P
Purple
7,500
mg/kg
R*
Red
*
mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF ZINC IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70 tons CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907 kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of Zinc per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.085
0.277
0.277
J
0.085
0.199
0.199
0.042
0.085
I
0.085
0.031
0.199
0.199
1.920
H
0.085
0.343
0.199
0.156
0.199
G
0.576
0.343
0.343
0.169
0.038
F
1.372
1.372
0.343
0.199
0.085
E
1.372
1.372
0.343
0.199
0.068
D
0.832
0.938
0.085
0.107
0.085
C
0.458
1.372
1.372
0.314
0.199
B
0.343
0.499
4.000
0.343
0.199
A
0.343
0.081
0.034
Total Estimated Mass of Zinc in Depth Interval =
kg
lbs
3 of 16
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date February 21, 2018
Description Cell Area,Elev. 1665-1670ft Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date February 28,2018
Zinc Mass Calculation sheet 3 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED ZINC CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the zinc concentration (mg/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
Zinc Concentration per Block (m
a/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
G
60
60
J
G
G
G
69
G
1
G
64
G
G
76
H
204
73
G
67
G
G
99
955
Y
2,500
77
F
108
533
Y
1,370
G
E
71
1,170
2,430
4,050
77
D
46
181
G
56
G
C
749
2,030
6,740
1,070
Y
B
Y
1,680
3,120
438
Y
A
B
425
1,740
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
mg/kg
G
Green
185
mg/kg
B
Blue
435
mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
mg/kg
O
Orange
3,000
mg/kg
P
Purple
7,500
mg/kg
R*
Red
*
mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF ZINC IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
Volume =
Soil Weight =
Soil Weight =
8.000
296
504
457.128
CF Soil Density = i 1.70 tons CY
CY 1 ton = | 907] kg
tons
kg
Estimated Mass of Zinc per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.085
0.028
0.028
J
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.032
0.085
I
0.085
0.030
0.085
0.085
0.035
H
0.094
0.034
0.085
0.031
0.085
G
0.046
0.437
0.343
1.143
0.036
F
0.050
0.244
0.343
0.627
0.085
E
0.033
0.535
1.111
1.852
0.036
D
0.022
0.083
0.085
0.026
0.085
C
0.343
0.928
3.082
0.490
0.343
B
0.343
0.768
1.427
0.201
0.343
A
0.199
0.195
0.796
Total Estimated Mass of Zinc in Depth Interval =
kg
lbs
4 of 16
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date February 21, 2018
Description Cell Area,Elev. 1660-1665ft Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 1, 2018
Zinc Mass Calculation sheet 4 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED ZINC CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the zinc concentration (mg/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
Zinc Concentration per Block (m
a/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
G
66
66
J
G
G
G
G
G
1
G
65
G
G
G
H
G
G
G
G
G
G
62
546
Y
3,000
78
F
G
Y
O
O
G
E
G
Y
5,360
Y
14
D
60
693
Y
19
G
C
G
65
Y
Y
G
B
G
450
455
953
G
A
G
455
1,330
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
mg/kg
G
Green
185
mg/kg
B
Blue
435
mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
mg/kg
O
Orange
3,000
mg/kg
P
Purple
7,500
mg/kg
R*
Red
*
mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF ZINC IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
Volume =
Soil Weight =
Soil Weight =
8.000
296
504
457.128
CF Soil Density = i 1.70 tons CY
CY 1 ton = | 907] kg
tons
kg
Estimated Mass of Zinc per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.085
0.031
0.031
J
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
I
0.085
0.030
0.085
0.085
0.085
H
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
G
0.029
0.250
0.343
1.372
0.036
F
0.085
0.343
1.372
1.372
0.085
E
0.085
0.343
2.451
0.343
0.007
D
0.028
0.317
0.343
0.009
0.085
C
0.085
0.030
0.343
0.343
0.085
B
0.085
0.206
0.208
0.436
0.085
A
0.085
0.208
0.608
Total Estimated Mass of Zinc in Depth Interval =
kg
lbs
5 of 16
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date February 21, 2018
Description Cell Area,Elev. 1655-1660ft Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 1, 2018
Zinc Mass Calculation sheet 5 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED ZINC CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the zinc concentration (mg/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
Zinc Concentration per Block (m
a/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
G
65
65
J
G
G
G
G
G
1
G
76
G
G
G
H
G
B
B
G
G
G
67
962
Y
35
63
F
G
O
O
O
G
E
G
O
10,200
O
G
D
60
1,050
P
G
G
C
G
Y
Y
G
G
B
G
G
73
62
G
A
G
73
65
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
mg/kg
G
Green
185
mg/kg
B
Blue
435
mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
mg/kg
O
Orange
3,000
mg/kg
P
Purple
7,500
mg/kg
R*
Red
*
mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF ZINC IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
Volume =
Soil Weight =
Soil Weight =
8.000
296
504
457.128
CF Soil Density = i 1.70 tons CY
CY 1 ton = | 907] kg
tons
kg
Estimated Mass of Zinc per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.085
0.030
0.030
J
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
I
0.085
0.035
0.085
0.085
0.085
H
0.085
0.199
0.199
0.085
0.085
G
0.031
0.440
0.343
0.016
0.029
F
0.085
1.372
1.372
1.372
0.085
E
0.085
1.372
4.663
1.372
0.085
D
0.028
0.480
3.429
0.085
0.085
C
0.085
0.343
0.343
0.085
0.085
B
0.085
0.085
0.034
0.029
0.085
A
0.085
0.034
0.030
Total Estimated Mass of Zinc in Depth Interval =
kg
lbs
6 of 16
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date February 21, 2018
Description Cell Area,Elev. 1650-1655ft Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 1, 2018
Zinc Mass Calculation sheet 6 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED ZINC CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the zinc concentration (mg/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
Zinc Concentration per Block (mg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
G
55
55
J
G
G
G
G
G
1
G
G
G
G
G
H
G
B
B
G
G
G
66
1,160
B
7
228
F
G
Y
Y
G
G
E
G
Y
4,600
G
G
D
83
7,830
P
219
G
C
G
O
O
G
G
B
G
G
82
61
G
A
G
82
52
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
mg/kg
G
Green
185
mg/kg
B
Blue
435
mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
mg/kg
O
Orange
3,000
mg/kg
P
Purple
7,500
mg/kg
R*
Red
*
mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF ZINC IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
Volume =
Soil Weight =
Soil Weight =
8.000
296
504
457.128
CF Soil Density = i 1.70 tons CY
CY 1 ton = | 907] kg
tons
kg
Estimated Mass of Zinc per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.085
0.026
0.026
J
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
I
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
H
0.085
0.199
0.199
0.085
0.085
G
0.031
0.531
0.199
0.004
0.105
F
0.085
0.343
0.343
0.085
0.085
E
0.085
0.343
2.103
0.085
0.085
D
0.038
3.580
3.429
0.101
0.085
C
0.085
1.372
1.372
0.085
0.085
B
0.085
0.085
0.038
0.028
0.085
A
0.085
0.038
0.024
Total Estimated Mass of Zinc in Depth Interval =
kg
lbs
7 of 16
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date February 21, 2018
Description Cell Area,Elev. 1645-1650ft Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 1, 2018
Zinc Mass Calculation sheet 7 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED ZINC CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the zinc concentration (mg/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
Zinc Concentration per Block (mg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
G
22
22
J
G
G
G
G
G
1
G
42
G
G
G
H
G
B
B
G
G
G
69
1,160
O
125
83
F
G
O
O
G
G
E
G
O
3,740
G
G
D
79
6,660
P
272
G
C
G
O
O
B
G
B
G
G
71
G
G
A
G
G
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
mg/kg
G
Green
185
mg/kg
B
Blue
435
mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
mg/kg
O
Orange
3,000
mg/kg
P
Purple
7,500
mg/kg
R*
Red
*
mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF ZINC IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
Volume =
Soil Weight =
Soil Weight =
8.000
296
504
457.128
CF Soil Density = i 1.70 tons CY
CY 1 ton = | 907] kg
tons
kg
Estimated Mass of Zinc per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.085
0.011
0.011
J
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
I
0.085
0.020
0.085
0.085
0.085
H
0.085
0.199
0.199
0.085
0.085
G
0.032
0.531
1.372
0.058
0.038
F
0.085
1.372
1.372
0.085
0.085
E
0.085
1.372
1.710
0.085
0.085
D
0.037
3.045
3.429
0.125
0.085
C
0.085
1.372
1.372
0.199
0.085
B
0.085
0.085
0.033
0.085
0.085
A
0.085
0.085
0.085
Total Estimated Mass of Zinc in Depth Interval =
kg
lbs
8 of 16
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date February 21, 2018
Description Cell Area,Elev. 1640-1645ft Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 1, 2018
Zinc Mass Calculation sheet 8 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED ZINC CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the zinc concentration (mg/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
Zinc Concentration per Block (m
a/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
G
135
135
J
G
G
G
G
G
1
G
G
41
G
G
G
H
G
B
B
B
B
G
G
G
1,680
710
O
3,740
288
F
G
O
O
O
Y
G
E
G
O
O
61
G
G
D
G
4,240
6,660
P
49
G
C
G
O
O
O
G
G
B
G
G
G
142
G
G
A
G
G
G
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
mg/kg
G
Green
185
mg/kg
B
Blue
435
mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
mg/kg
O
Orange
3,000
mg/kg
P
Purple
7,500
mg/kg
R*
Red
*
mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF ZINC IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70 tons CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907 kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of Zinc per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.085
0.062
0.062
J
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
I
0.085
0.085
0.019
0.085
0.085
0.085
H
0.085
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.085
G
0.085
0.768
0.325
1.372
1.710
0.132
F
0.085
1.372
1.372
1.372
0.343
0.085
E
0.085
1.372
1.372
0.028
0.085
0.085
D
0.085
1.939
3.045
3.429
0.023
0.085
C
0.085
1.372
1.372
1.372
0.085
0.085
B
0.085
0.085
0.065
0.085
0.085
A
0.085
0.085
0.085
Total Estimated Mass of Zinc in Depth Interval
27.73
61.1
kg
lbs
9 of 16
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date February 21, 2018
Description Cell Area,Elev. 1635-1640ft Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 1, 2018
Zinc Mass Calculation sheet 9 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED ZINC CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the zinc concentration (mg/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
Zinc Concentration per Block (m
a/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
G
155
155
J
G
G
G
G
G
1
121
G
G
56
G
G
G
H
G
G
G
G
G
G
180
38
B
831
97
F
G
Y
Y
Y
G
E
G
Y
1,230
Y
G
D
155
159
O
321
G
C
G
O
O
O
B
G
O
4,760
A
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
mg/kg
G
Green
185
mg/kg
B
Blue
435
mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
mg/kg
O
Orange
3,000
mg/kg
P
Purple
7,500
mg/kg
R*
Red
*
mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF ZINC IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70 tons CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907 kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of Zinc per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.085
0.071
0.071
J
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
I
0.056
0.085
0.085
0.026
0.085
0.085
0.085
H
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
G
0.083
0.018
0.199
0.380
0.045
F
0.085
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.085
E
0.085
0.343
0.563
0.343
0.085
D
0.071
0.073
1.372
0.147
0.085
C
0.085
1.372
1.372
1.372
B
0.085
1.372
2.176
A
Total Estimated Mass of Zinc in Depth Interval
14.51
32.0
kg
lbs
10 of 16
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date February 21, 2018
Description Cell Area,Elev. 1630-1635ft Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 1, 2018
Zinc Mass Calculation sheet 10 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED ZINC CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the zinc concentration (mg/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
Zinc Concentration per Block (mg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
285
252
252
J
G
B
B
B
B
1
B
925
Y
Y
Y
H
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
1,400
G
B
B
458
581
Y
Y
450
Y
F
602
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
B
E
G
B
O
Y
1,000
Y
Y
517
D
G
4,120
1,150
O
37
G
G
C
G
O
O
O
B
O
P
8,090
A
5,880
5,880
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
mg/kg
G
Green
185
mg/kg
B
Blue
435
mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
mg/kg
O
Orange
3,000
mg/kg
P
Purple
7,500
mg/kg
R*
Red
*
mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF ZINC IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
8,000
CF
Soil Density =
1.70 tons CY
Volume =
296
CY
1 ton =
907 kg
Soil Weight =
504
tons
Soil Weight =
457,128
kg
Estimated Mass of Zinc per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.131
0.116
0.116
J
0.085
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
I
0.199
0.423
0.343
0.343
0.343
H
0.199
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.640
G
0.199
0.199
0.210
0.266
0.343
0.343
0.206
0.343
F
0.276
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.199
E
0.085
0.199
1.372
0.343
0.458
0.343
0.343
0.237
D
0.085
1.884
0.526
1.372
0.017
0.085
0.085
C
0.085
1.372
1.372
1.372
B
1.372
3.429
3.699
A
2.688
2.688
Total Estimated Mass of Zinc in Depth Interval
35.26
77.7
kg
lbs
11 of 16
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date February 21, 2015
Description Cell Area,Elev. 1625-1630ft Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 1, 2018
Zinc Mass Calculation sheet 11 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED ZINC CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
1. Input the zinc concentration (mg/kg) assigned to each 40' x 40' area (block) based on available soil data.
2. Where no data is available for a given block, an estimated value (see color scale below) should be inferred.
Zinc Concentration per Block (mg/kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
G
317
317
J
G
G
G
G
G
1
G
G
G
G
G
H
B
B
B
B
B
B
G
B
539
956
Y
Y
743
F
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
B
2,890
599
892
Y
859
Y
C
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
B
B
G
306
Y
895
A
G
G
Y
Estimated Values from Color Scale
Key
Color
Avgerage
Units
ND
Pink
0
mg/kg
G
Green
185
mg/kg
B
Blue
435
mg/kg
Y
Yellow
750
mg/kg
O
Orange
3,000
mg/kg
P
Purple
7,500
mg/kg
R*
Red
*
mg/kg
*lf inferring red based on color scale, use
highest known value in adjacent cell.
2.0 ESTIMATED MASS OF ZINC IN 40' X 40' AREAS FOR DEPTH INTERVAL
Area =
Volume =
Soil Weight =
Soil Weight =
8.000
296
504
457.128
CF Soil Density = i 1.70 tons CY
CY 1 ton = | 907] kg
tons
kg
Estimated Mass of Zinc per Block (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.085
0.145
0.145
J
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
I
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
H
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
G
0.199
0.247
0.438
0.343
0.343
0.340
F
0.199
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
E
0.199
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
D
0.199
1.322
0.274
0.408
0.343
0.393
0.343
C
0.199
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
B
0.199
0.085
0.140
0.343
0.410
A
0.085
0.085
0.343
Total Estimated Mass of Zinc in Depth Interval
15.73
34.7
kg
lbs
12 of 16
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd ChelseyCook Date March 5,2018
Description Cell Area, Targeted Excavation Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 6,2018
Zinc Mass Removal Sheet 12 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED ZINC CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Alternative description: Excavation from ground surface down to the sand channell designed to remove mass
above the groundwater table
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from
elev. 1675-1625ft
Total Estimated Mass in Cell Area from 1675-1630ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.81
J
0.77
0.99
0.99
0.78
0.88
I
0.06
0.17
0.88
0.70
1.14
1.14
2.81
0.00
0.00
H
0.00
0.09
1.00
1.69
1.59
1.15
1.14
0.64
0.00
G
0.20
0.28
1.81
3.14
4.86
5.20
0.67
0.34
0.00
F
0.28
0.43
3.56
7.10
7.20
4.77
1.02
0.20
0.00
E
0.09
0.28
4.57
7.40
13.43
4.71
0.88
0.24
0.00
D
0.00
0.17
4.88
12.09
16.97
0.64
0.77
0.09
0.00
C
0.00
0.17
3.97
9.53
12.00
2.97
0.97
0.00
0.00
B
2.57
6.61
11.68
1.21
0.97
A
3.66
3.41
1.66
Total Estimated Mass in Treatment Area from 1675-1645ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
I
H
0.97
0.53
G
2.94
2.76
F
5.15
3.74
E
D
C
B
A
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for Treatment Area 5-ft
Depth Intervals from elev. 1675-1645ft
13 of 16
-------
2.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Area of Excavation Treatment Zones in 40' X 40' BLOCKS (SF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
1
H
800
1,600
G
800
1,600
F
400
800
E
D
C
B
A
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block in Treatment Zones (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0%
J
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
I
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
H
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
100%
0%
0%
0%
G
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
100%
0%
0%
0%
F
0%
0%
0%
0%
25%
50%
0%
0%
0%
E
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
D
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
C
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
B
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
A
0%
0%
0%
3.0 CALCULATION - MASS OF PCE REMOVED IN TREATMENT ZONES
Estimated Mass in Treatment Zones from 1675-1630ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.00
J
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
I
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
H
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.48
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
G
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
2.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
F
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.29
1.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
A
0.00
0.00
0.00
T reatment
Area
Total Mass ~0-
25 ft
(kg)
Treatment Zones
Mass in Zone
(kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
1
8.40
8.40
100
8.40
Total
8.40
8.40
-
8.40
Total Mass Removal for Cell Area = 4.44 %
-------
ZINC MASS CALCULATIONS
AECOM
Job Remedial Alternatives Eval. Report, Rev 1.0 Des'd Chelsey Cook Date March 5,2018
Description Cell Area, In-Situ Soil Solidification Check'd Demetrio Cabanillas Date March 6,2018
Zinc Mass Removal Sheet 13 of 13
1.0 DATA INPUT - ESTIMATED PCE CONCENTRATIONS PER 40' X 40' AREA
Alternative description: Soil Solidification from ground surface down to the sand and gravel aquifer
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals
from elev. 1675-1625ft
Total Estimated Mass in Cell Area from 1675-1630ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.81
J
0.77
0.99
0.99
0.78
0.88
I
0.06
0.17
0.88
0.70
1.14
1.14
2.81
0.00
0.00
H
0.00
0.09
1.00
1.69
1.59
1.15
1.14
0.64
0.00
G
0.20
0.28
1.81
3.14
4.86
5.20
0.67
0.34
0.00
F
0.28
0.43
3.56
7.10
7.20
4.77
1.02
0.20
0.00
E
0.09
0.28
4.57
7.40
13.43
4.71
0.88
0.24
0.00
D
0.00
0.17
4.88
12.09
16.97
0.64
0.77
0.09
0.00
C
0.00
0.17
3.97
9.53
12.00
2.97
0.97
0.00
0.00
B
2.57
6.61
11.68
1.21
0.97
A
3.66
3.41
1.66
Estimated Mass in Blocks in Vicinity of ISS Treatment Zone (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
I
1.14
H
1.00
1.69
1.59
1.15
G
1.81
3.14
4.86
5.20
F
7.20
4.77
E
D
C
B
A
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for Treatment Area 5-ft
Depth Intervals from elev. 1675-1630ft
Reference: Mass Estimate Calculations for 5-ft Depth Intervals from elev. 1675-1630ft
15 of 16
-------
2.0 DATA INPUT - AREA OF TREATMENT ZONES BASED ON 40' X 40' AREA GRID
Area of ISS Treatment Zones in 40' X 40' BLOCKS (SF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
J
1
254
H
140
1,600
1,600
1,600
G
41
1,600
1,600
1,600
F
1,600
1,600
E
D
C
B
A
Percent of Each 40' X 40' Block in Treatment Zones (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0%
J
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
I
0%
0%
0%
0%
16%
0%
0%
0%
0%
H
0%
0%
9%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
G
0%
0%
3%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
F
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
E
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
D
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
C
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
B
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
A
0%
0%
0%
3.0 CALCULATION - MASS OF PCE REMOVED IN TREATMENT ZONES
Estimated Mass in Treatment Zones from 1675-1645 ft (kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K
0.00
J
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
I
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
H
0.00
0.00
0.09
1.69
1.59
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
G
0.00
0.00
0.05
3.14
4.86
5.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
F
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.20
4.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
A
0.00
0.00
0.00
Treatment
Area
Total Mass ~0-
45 ft
(kg)
Treatment Zones
Mass in Zone
(kg)
Efficiency
(%)
Removed
Mass (kg)
1
29.9
29.9
95
28
Total
29.9
29.9
--
28
Total Mass Captured for Cell Area
15
16 of 16
-------
MW14-01A
ral Drainage Ditch
SB10-06
SB10-01
U1W14-04A
SB17-30
SB17-31
SB10-03
SB10-04
SB15-31
SB10-11
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
®
C
1.5 U
Grid Cell
Boring Location
Interceptor Well
Membrane Interface Probe Boring
Monitoring Well
Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
O
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-1
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1670-1675 ft)
A3CQNI
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_LincLSup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\1_Bldg1_PCE_1670-1675.dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020, 08:13 | Plotted: 05/04/2020, 08:27 | mason.struna
-------
MW14-01A
ral Drainage Ditch
SB10-09
SB10-01
1.1 U ^
MW14-04A
SB17-30
~ 68
SB17-31
SB15-31
SB10-11
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
®
O
1.5 U
Grid Cell
Boring Location
Interceptor Well
Membrane Interface Probe Boring
Monitoring Well
Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
O
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-2
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1665-1670 ft)
AECOM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_LincLSup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\2_Bldg1_PCE_1665-1670.dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020, 08:30 | Plotted: 05/04/2020, 08:34 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
Grid Cell
Boring Location
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
1.5 U Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-3
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1660-1665 ft)
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\3_Bldg1_PCE_1660-1665.dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020, 08:40 | Plotted: 05/04/2020, 08:46 | mason.struna
-------
MW14-01A
ral Drainage Ditch
SB10-09
1.2 U
SB17-30
SB17-31
SB10-03
SB15-31
SB10-11
MW06-07*
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
Grid Cell
Boring Location
O
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
1.5 U Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
Si
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-4
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1655-1660 ft)
ASCOM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_LincLSup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\4_Bldg1_PCE_1655-1660.dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020, 09:13 | Plotted: 05/04/2020, 09:18 | mason.struna
-------
MW14-01A
ral Drainage Ditch
SB10-09
SB17-30
SB17-31
SB15-31
SB10-11
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
®
C
1.5 U
Grid Cell
Boring Location
Interceptor Well
Membrane Interface Probe Boring
Monitoring Well
Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
O
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-5
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1650-1655 ft)
AECGM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_LincLSup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\5_Bldg1_PCE_1650-1655.dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020, 09:26 | Plotted: 05/04/2020, 09:30 | mason.struna
-------
MW14-01A
ral Drainage Ditch
SB10-09
SB17-30
~ 108
SB17-31
SB15-31
SB10-11
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
®
O
1.5 U
Grid Cell
Boring Location
Interceptor Well
Membrane Interface Probe Boring
Monitoring Well
Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
O
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-6
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1645-1650 ft)
AECGM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_LincLSup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\6_Bldg1_PCE_1645-1650.dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020, 09:37 | Plotted: 05/04/2020, 09:43 | mason.struna
-------
MW14-01A
ral Drainage Ditch
SB10-02
SB10-09
SB17-30
SB17-31
SB15-31
SB10-11
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
®
C
1.5 U
Grid Cell
Boring Location
Interceptor Well
Membrane Interface Probe Boring
Monitoring Well
Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
O
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-7
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1640-1645 ft)
AECGM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_LincLSup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\7_Bldg1_PCE_1640-1645.dwg
Mod: 04/10/2018,17:15 | Plotted: 05/04/2020, 09:57 | mason.struna
-------
oc
O
(D
LU
o
00
2
3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' 12 ' 13 ' 14 ' 15 ' 16
~|" MW06-07^M
V
|
iva.4-os_
y1W0i-08
» I
\'
U-U-J
1
MW14-01A ®
•MW14-01B
I
\
!\
I \
259
SB 17-34
O
\
I
\
' \
SB 17-33
<~
46.8
<~ 71
SB 15-14
22
o
SB 15-54
I
M
<
* 18
2,860
SB 17-02
248
SB17-01
<~
SB 15-10
^ 160
31
SB17-04
~
<~
SB15-11
28
\
\
\
SB15-51
^ 2.3
5,700
SB17-03 SB 15-15
~ ^
73.3
SB17-06
SB 17-05
o
17
\
I
\
\
213 1
1 170 29
SB 17-07
I SB15-12 .
w <
SB15-16
<~6.8
SB 17-09
A
SB 17-08 ^
~ 66
40
SB 17-10
4
SB15-13
~ 8.3
SB17-11
<~ O
7.61 SB17"12
26.4
SB 17-37 ^
488
170
3,240
SB15-17
3,800
[SB 17-32
^ 18
.SB 17-16
» 12.6
— Cen
ral Drainage Ditch
I
SB17-35 ^
343
SB17-25
189 ~
20
^ 34
SB17-13
SB15-18
^ 450
SB 17-14
~
37
SB10-07
1.2
SB15-19
o
81
SB 17-18
620 ~
<~
SB17-17
6,060
SB 15-55 \
~ 1.5 U \
SB15-52
1.5 U
I
1.4 U
SB 15-20
o
~
SB17-36
27
¦
1,120
o
SB17-26
SB15-32
<~ 1,200
SB 15-33
3,900 ^
SB17-24
6.13 ^
SB15-21
^ 2U
SB15-34
~ 2 U
SB 15-22
~ 620
SB17-23
<~
108
SB15-42
<~
2,000
SB 17-19
*
2.89
I
<
42
SB 15-24
' 180
MW39-12
SB17-22 ^
760
SB 15-44
O
1,400
SB17-20
<>
87.8
SB 15-23
2.6 ^
SB 15-35
<~
5.7
12
23
~
SB 15-36
2 U
SB17-31
SB17-30
~ 525
SB 17-21
44.3 ^
SB15-43
63 <~
4.0
I
\
\
SB15-37
<~
2 U
33
72
SB 15-38
75
390
\
I
SB15-25
o
2 U
\
\
SB15-39 *
SB 15-26 130
SB17-28
<~
655
SB15-29
710 <~
SB 17-29
SB 15-45
93*
I
o
SB 15-27
4.1
SB15-28 .
11 ~
~
SB15-40
89
500
SB17-2"
158
91.7
SB 15-48
<~ 1
2.6 1
\
\
\
SB 15-41
o
31
SB 15-30
<~
260
SB 15-46
<~
8.6
\
1
SB15-31
MW14-06B
S
MW14-06A
SB 15-50
^ 1.5 U
0
SB 15-49
1.6
1
\
1
\
1
\
1
1
a:
a
Q_
o
o
LU
a
s
O
OQ
<
17 1 18 1 19 20 1 21 1 22 1 23
T
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
LEGEND
SB15-10
30
Grid Cell
Boring Location
O
® Interceptor Well
€> Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
1.5 U Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-8
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1635-1640 ft)
AECGM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\8_Bldg1_PCE_1635-1640.dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020,10:09 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,10:14 | mason.struna
-------
MW14-01A
ral Drainage Ditch
SB10-07
SB10-02
SB10-01
1.3U ^
M W14-04A $
0.9 U
SB10-09
SB17-30
SB17-31
B10-08
SB15-31
SB10-11
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
®
O
1.5 U
Grid Cell
Boring Location
Interceptor Well
Membrane Interface Probe Boring
Monitoring Well
Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
O
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-9
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1630-1635 ft)
AECGM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_LincLSup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\9_Bldg1_PCE_1630-1635.dwg
Mod: 04/10/2018,17:15 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,10:32 | mason.struna
-------
® Interceptor Well
€> Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
1.5 U Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
LEGEND
Boring ID —^
SB15-10
,jq b- Grid Cell
Maximum
Concentration for — Boring Location
Elevation Range
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-10
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1625-1630 ft)
AECGM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\10_Bldg1_PCE_1625-1630.dwg
Mod: 04/10/2018,17:15 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,10:44 | mason.struna
-------
MW14-01A
ral Drainage Ditch
SB10-02
SB10-01
760 ^
MW14-04A ®
SB17-30
^ 1.78 U
SB17-31
SB10-03
SB10-04
1.3 U I
SB10-05
SB15-31
SB10-11
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
®
O
1.5 U
Grid Cell
Boring Location
Interceptor Well
Membrane Interface Probe Boring
Monitoring Well
Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
O
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-11
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1620-1625 ft)
AECGM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_LincLSup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\11_Bldg1_PCE_1620-1625.dwg
Mod: 04/10/2018,17:15 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,10:53 | mason.struna
-------
® Interceptor Well
€> Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
1.5 U Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary
(dashed where inferred); based on 2015
monitoring well data
PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
LEGEND
Boring ID —^
SB15-10
,jq b- Grid Cell
Maximum
Concentration for — Boring Location
Elevation Range
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-12
Total PCE Distribution
Building 1 Area Soil
(Elev. 1615-1620 ft)
AECGM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval ReportWIass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\12_Bldg1_PCE_1615-1620.dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020,11:00 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,11:09 | mason.struna
-------
7
8
9
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
'30 ~
Grid Cell
1.5 U Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
Boring Location PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1.
Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2.
3.
ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
20
40
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-13
Total PCE Distribution
Cell Area Soil
Elevation (1675-1670)
AsCONl
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval ReportWIass Calcs\Cell Area\PCE\CAD\FigureXX(1675-1670).dwg
Mod: 04/11/2018,14:33 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,15:07 | mason.struna
-------
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\PCE\CAD\FigureXX(1670-1665).dwg
Mod: 04/11/2018,14:20 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,14:58 | mason.struna
-------
7
8
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
'30 ~
Grid Cell
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
1.5 U Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
Boring Location PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
<3
20
9
40
SCALE IN FEET
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
Figure B-15
Total PCE Distribution
Cell Area Soil
Elevation (1665-1660)
AsCONl
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\PCE\CAD\FigureXX(1665-1660).dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020,14:34 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,14:39 | mason.struna
-------
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\PCE\CAD\FigureXX(1660-1655).dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020,14:24 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,14:29 | mason.struna
-------
7
8
9
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
'30 ~
Grid Cell
1.5 U Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
Boring Location PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1
Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
20 40
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-17
Total PCE Distribution
Cell Area Soil
Elevation (1655-1650)
AsCONl
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\PCE\CAD\FigureXX(1655-1650).dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020,14:16 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,14:21 | mason.struna
-------
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\PCE\CAD\FigureXX(1650-1645).dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020,14:06 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,14:11 | mason.struna
-------
7
8
9
LEGEND
Boring ID
Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
'30 ~
Grid Cell
1.5 U Concentration Not Detected Above
Value Shown
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
Boring Location PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
ft
20
40
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-19
Total PCE Distribution
Cell Area Soil
Elevation (1645-1640)
AsCONl
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval ReportWIass Calcs\Cell Area\PCE\CAD\FigureXX(1645-1640).dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020,13:51 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,13:57 | mason.struna
-------
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\PCE\CAD\FigureXX(1640-1635).dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020,13:38 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,13:44 | mason.struna
-------
7
8
9
Boring ID
LEGEND
SB15-10
Grid Cell
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
Boring Location PCE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (ug/kg)
RL-45
>45-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of PCE in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
Grid cells without concentration data are assigned color
ranges based on adjacent concentrations.
2. ug/kg = microgram per kilogram.
3. Only non-detected analytical flags are shown for PCE
data. Refer to analytical data tables for all other flags.
20
40
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-21
Total PCE Distribution
Cell Area Soil
Elevation (1635-1630)
AsCONl
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\PCE\CAD\FigureXX(1635-1630).dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020,13:26 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,13:31 | mason.struna
-------
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\PCE\CAD\FigureXX(1630-1625).dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020,12:58 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,13:19 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Boring ID
Depth of Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
/30
® Interceptor Well
f> Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
Notes:
1.
ZINC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (mg/kg) 2.
Boring Location ^Reporting Limit (RL)
>RL-370
>370-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Colors correspond to concentration of zinc in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram.
Depth to base of fine-grained unit and soil lithology can
be found in the Completion Report: Pre-remedial Design
Investigation (URS, 2014).
Several borings completed in 2007(SB07-01 through
SB07-38) and 2009 (SB09-01, SB09-03 through
SB09-07, SB09-17, SB09-10, SB09-11) did not reach
below the water table.
20
40
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-23
Total Zinc Distribution
Cell Area Soil
(Elev. 1670-1675 ft)
AsCONl
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\Zinc\CAD\Fig Cell Zinc Data_0-6.dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020, 07:26 | Plotted: 05/05/2020, 07:32 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Boring ID
Depth of Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
y30
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
Boring Location
ZINC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (mg/kg)
^Reporting Limit (RL)
>RL-370
>370-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of zinc in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
2. mg/kg = milligram per kilogram.
3. Depth to base of fine-grained unit and soil lithology can
be found in the Completion Report: Pre-remedial
Design Investigation (URS, 2014).
4. Several borings completed in 2007(SB07-01 through
SB07-38) and 2009 (SB09-01, SB09-03 through
SB09-07, SB09-17, SB09-10, SB09-11) did not reach
below the water table.
20
40
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-24
Total Zinc Distribution
Cell Area Soil
(Elev. 1665-1670 ft)
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\Zinc\CAD\Fig Cell Zinc Data_6-11.dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020, 07:42 | Plotted: 05/05/2020, 07:46 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Boring ID
Depth of Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
/30
Boring Location
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
ZINC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (mg/kg)
^Reporting Limit (RL)
>RL-370
>370-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of zinc in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation
range.
2. mg/kg = milligram per kilogram.
3. Depth to base of fine-grained unit and soil lithology
can be found in the Completion Report:
Pre-remedial Design Investigation (URS, 2014).
4. Several borings completed in 2007(SB07-01
through SB07-38) and 2009 (SB09-01, SB09-03
through SB09-07, SB09-17, SB09-10, SB09-11) did
not reach below the water table.
Si
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-25
Total Zinc Distribution
Cell Area Soil
(Elev. 1660-1665 ft)
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\Zinc\CAD\Fig Cell Zinc Data_11-16.dwg
Mod: 04/12/2018,12:33 | Plotted: 05/05/2020, 07:57 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Boring ID
Depth of Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
y30
® Interceptor Well
f> Membrane Interface Probe Boring
© Monitoring Well
Boring Location ZINC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (mg/kg)
RL-370
>370-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of zinc in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation
range.
2. mg/kg = milligram per kilogram.
3. Depth to base of fine-grained unit and soil lithology
can be found in the Completion Report: Pre-remedial
Design Investigation (URS, 2014).
4. Several borings completed in 2007(SB07-01 through
SB07-38) and 2009 (SB09-01, SB09-03 through
SB09-07, SB09-17, SB09-10, SB09-11) did not reach
below the water table.
ft
20
SCALE IN FEET
40
Figure B-26
Total Zinc Distribution
Cell Area Soil
(Elev. 1655-1660 ft)
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\Zinc\CAD\Fig Cell Zinc Data_16-21.dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020, 08:03 | Plotted: 05/05/2020, 08:12 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Boring ID
Depth of Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
y30
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
9 Monitoring Well
Boring Location ZINC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (mg/kg)
^Reporting Limit (RL)
>RL-370
>370-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of zinc in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation
range.
2. mg/kg = milligram per kilogram.
3. Depth to base of fine-grained unit and soil lithology
can be found in the Completion Report:
Pre-remedial Design Investigation (URS, 2014).
4. Several borings completed in 2007(SB07-01
through SB07-38) and 2009 (SB09-01, SB09-03
through SB09-07, SB09-17, SB09-10, SB09-11)
did not reach below the water table.
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-27
Total Zinc Distribution
Cell Area Soil
(Elev. 1650-1655 ft)
AsCQM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\Zinc\CAD\Fig Cell Zinc Data_21-26.dwg
Mod: 04/12/2018,12:33 | Plotted: 05/05/2020, 08:31 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Boring ID
Depth of Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
yZO
Boring Location
® Interceptor Well
f> Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
ZINC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (mg/kg)
RL-370
>370-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of zinc in
soil samples collected within the specified
elevation range.
2. mg/kg = milligram per kilogram.
3. Depth to base of fine-grained unit and soil
lithology can be found in the Completion
Report: Pre-remedial Design Investigation
(URS, 2014).
4. Several borings completed in 2007(SB07-01
through SB07-38) and 2009 (SB09-01,
SB09-03 through SB09-07, SB09-17,
SB09-10, SB09-11) did not reach below the
water table.
Si
20
40
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-28
Total Zinc Distribution
Cell Area Soil
(Elev. 1645-1650 ft)
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\Zinc\CAD\Fig Cell Zinc Data_26-31 .dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020, 08:53 | Plotted: 05/05/2020, 09:08 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Boring ID
Depth of Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
y30
® Interceptor Well
i> Membrane Interface Probe Boring
© Monitoring Well
Boring Location ZINC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (mg/kg)
^Reporting Limit (RL)
>RL-370
>370-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of zinc in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation
range.
2. mg/kg = milligram per kilogram.
3. Depth to base of fine-grained unit and soil lithology
can be found in the Completion Report:
Pre-remedial Design Investigation (URS, 2014).
4. Several borings completed in 2007(SB07-01
through SB07-38) and 2009 (SB09-01, SB09-03
through SB09-07, SB09-17, SB09-10, SB09-11) did
not reach below the water table.
Si
20
40
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-29
Total Zinc Distribution
Cell Area Soil
(Elev. 1640-1645 ft)
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\Zinc\CAD\Fig Cell Zinc Data_31-36.dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020, 09:16 | Plotted: 05/05/2020, 09:21 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Boring ID
Depth of Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
~30
® Interceptor Well
f> Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
Boring Location ZINC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (mg/kg)
^Reporting Limit (RL)
>RL-370
>370-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of zinc in
soil samples collected within the specified
elevation range.
2. mg/kg = milligram per kilogram.
3. Depth to base of fine-grained unit and soil
lithology can be found in the Completion Report:
Pre-remedial Design Investigation (URS, 2014).
4. Several borings completed in 2007(SB07-01
through SB07-38) and 2009 (SB09-01, SB09-03
through SB09-07, SB09-17, SB09-10, SB09-11)
did not reach below the water table.
ft
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-30
Total Zinc Distribution
Cell Area Soil
(Elev. 1635-1640 ft)
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\Zinc\CAD\Fig Cell Zinc Data_36-41 .dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020, 09:33 | Plotted: 05/05/2020, 09:40 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Boring ID
Depth of Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
/'
30
Boring Location
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
ZINC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (mg/kg)
^Reporting Limit (RL)
>RL-370
>370-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of zinc in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation range.
2. mg/kg = milligram per kilogram.
3. Depth to base of fine-grained unit and soil lithology can
be found in the Completion Report: Pre-remedial
Design Investigation (URS, 2014).
4. Several borings completed in 2007(SB07-01 through
SB07-38) and 2009 (SB09-01, SB09-03 through
SB09-07, SB09-17, SB09-10, SB09-11) did not reach
below the water table.
Si
20
40
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-31
Total Zinc Distribution
Cell Area Soil
(Elev. 1630-1635 ft)
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\Zinc\CAD\Fig Cell Zinc Data_41-46.dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020, 09:53 | Plotted: 05/05/2020, 09:58 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Boring ID
Depth of Maximum
Concentration for
Elevation Range
SB15-10
y30
® Interceptor Well
© Membrane Interface Probe Boring
® Monitoring Well
Boring Location ZINC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL (mg/kg)
RL-370
>370-500
>500-1,000
>1,000-5,000
>5,000-10,000
>10,000
Notes:
1. Colors correspond to concentration of zinc in soil
samples collected within the specified elevation
range.
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram.
3. Depth to base of fine-grained unit and soil lithology
can be found in the Completion Report:
Pre-remedial Design Investigation (URS, 2014).
4. Several borings completed in 2007(SB07-01
through SB07-38) and 2009 (SB09-01, SB09-03
through SB09-07, SB09-17, SB09-10, SB09-11)
did not reach below the water table.
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-32
Total Zinc Distribution
Cell Area Soil
(Elev. 1625-1630 ft)
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
J:\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530 - Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Cell Area\Zinc\CAD\Fig Cell Zinc Data_46-51 .dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020,10:09 | Plotted: 05/05/2020,10:17 | mason.struna
-------
Mod: 05/05/2020,13:34 | Plotted: 05/05/2020,13:37 | mason.struna
-------
Mod: 05/05/2020,13:23 | Plotted: 05/05/2020,13:46 | mason.struna
-------
J:\DCS\Projects\EN\A60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\Bldg1_PCE_Treatment_C-5_Hybrid.dwg
Mod: 05/04/2020,11:52 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,11:58 | mason.struna
-------
J:\DCS\Projects\EN\A60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\Bldg1_PCE_Treatment_C-6_DPE.dwg
Mod: 04/10/2018,17:15 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,12:10 | mason.struna
-------
J:\DCS\Projects\EN\A60553096_Lind_Sup17\500-Deliverables\530- Final Rem Eval Report\Mass Calcs\Building 1\CAD\Bldg1_PCE_Treatment_C-7_DPE.dwg
Mod: 04/10/2018,17:15 | Plotted: 05/04/2020,12:26 | mason.struna
-------
LEGEND
Interceptor Well
Membrane Interface Probe Boring
Monitoring Well
Existing 480 VAC Power Line
Existing Water Line
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations 3= 1 ppm
(dashed where inferred)
Approximate Extent of PCE Soil Concentrations 3= 5 ppm
(dashed where inferred)
WSeattle na.aecomnet.com\Seattle\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\900-CAD-GIS\910-CAD\20-SHEETS\B-3 Excavation.dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020,11:17 | Plotted: 05/05/2020,12:34 | mason.struna
VOCs Above MCLs Plume Boundary (dashed where inferred);
based on 2015 monitoring well data
Sand Channel Boundary (dashed where inferred)
Approximate Extent of Accessible Area
Where Total VOCs Concentration in Soil
Exceeds 5,000 ug/kg
Notes:
1. The excavation is proposed to have 1H:1V slopes and to
extend to a maximum depth of the Sand Channel (22 feet bgs).
2. Excavation in sloped area is expected to be 50% of
treatment area.
3. A survey of Lindsay property north of the facility will be
performed to determine the optimal borrow area for soil to be
used for backfill material of the excavation.Backfill will be graded
and compacted to 95%.
0 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-38
Alternative B-3
Cell Area
Targeted Excavation
A=COM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
-------
SB 15-02
SB10-18
MW06-10
MIP13-28
\ Walk i
MIP13-2,
MIP13-21
.Walk \
MIP13-23 v
11677.5
•1672.5
¦1675.0
-254
MIP13^I2-
Ml P13-25
MiP13-10
SB 13-02
MIP13-0®
SB 13-05
MI P13-45
SB09-01
P13-04
MI P13-01
SB 15-04 ^
SBp9- 00
Ml P13-08
SB 10-20
MIP13-03
I SB07-20
I *
SB07-21
SB09-08
MIP13-
SB07-V
MIP'13-15
Building
No 5
807^16
10-21
SB 13-08
SB 13-09
MIP13-
SB10-15
MIP13-16
i \; i \
SB07-02 1
t \l
SB07-09
, Ml P13-20
\ Ml PI 3-
9^07-03 ¦$> ©
SB07-CS
^i6-pi
MV\t«4-e4§C ->0 )
MW14-09A Lll PI 3-29^^1
SP10-14
SB07-0'
^ SB 15-09
¦1675.5
SB07-37
0 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
® Interceptor Well
i> Membrane Interface Probe Boring
© Monitoring Well
Proposed Treatment Area
Inferred Treatment Area (See Note 1)
1600.0 Treatment Area by Grid Block
(Square Feet)
See Note 1
Boring ID
SB15-10
Grid Cell
Boring Location
Figure B-39
Alternative B-4
Cell Area
In-Situ Soil Solidification
AECOM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
Flow
Direction
Drainage
Ditch
LEGEND
Notes:
1. Treatment areas are based
on the locations of elevated
PCE concentrations. For
grid blocks that are >50%
within the treatment area,
assume that 100% of the
block is within treatment
zone.
\\Seattle.na.aecomnet.com\Seattle\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\900-CAD-GIS\910-CAD\20-SHEETS\Building B(update).dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020,11:44 | Plotted: 05/05/2020,12:55 | mason.struna
-------
SB 15-02
SB10-18
MW06-10
MIP13-28
\ Walk i
MIP13-2,
MIP13-21
.Walk \
MIP13-23 v
11677.5
•1672.5
¦1675.0
-254
MIP13^I2-
Ml P13-25
MiP13-10
SB 13-02
MIP13-0®
SB 13-05
MI P13-45
SB09-01
P13-04
MI P13-01
SB 15-04 ^
SBp9- 00
Ml P13-08
SB 10-20
MIP13-03
I SB07-20
I *
SB07-21
SB09-08
MIP13-
SB07-V
MIP'13-15
Building
No 5
807^16
10-21
SB 13-08
SB 13-09
MIP13-
SB10-15
MIP13-16
i \; i \
SB07-02 1
t \l
SB07-09
, Ml P13-20
\ Ml PI 3-
9^07-03 ¦$> ©
SB07-CS
^i6-pi
MV\t«4-e4§C ->0 )
MW14-09A Lll PI 3-29^^1
SP10-14
SB07-0'
^ SB 15-09
¦1675.5
SB07-37
0 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
® Interceptor Well
i> Membrane Interface Probe Boring
© Monitoring Well
Proposed Treatment Area
Inferred Treatment Area (See Note 1)
1600.0 Treatment Area by Grid Block
(Square Feet)
See Note 1
Boring ID
SB15-10
Grid Cell
Boring Location
Figure B-40
Alternative B-5
Cell Area
Soil Vapor Extraction
AECOM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
Flow
Direction
Drainage
Ditch
LEGEND
Notes:
1. Treatment areas are based
on the locations of elevated
PCE concentrations. For
grid blocks that are >50%
within the treatment area,
assume that 100% of the
block is within treatment
zone.
\\Seattle.na.aecomnet.com\Seattle\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\900-CAD-GIS\910-CAD\20-SHEETS\Building B(update).dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020,11:44 | Plotted: 05/05/2020,12:48 | mason.struna
-------
SB 15-02
SB10-18
MW06-10
MIP13-28
\ Walk i
MIP13-2,
MIP13-21
.Walk \
MIP13-23 v
11677.5
•1672.5
¦1675.0
-254
MIP13^I2-
Ml P13-25
MiP13-10
SB 13-02
MIP13-0®
SB 13-05
MI P13-45
SB09-01
P13-04
MI P13-01
SB 15-04 ^
SBp9- 00
Ml P13-08
SB 10-20
MIP13-03
I SB07-20
I *
SB07-21
SB09-08
MIP13-
SB07-V
MIP'13-15
Building
No 5
807^16
10-21
SB 13-08
SB 13-09
MIP13-
SB10-15
MIP13-16
i \; i \
SB07-02 1
t \l
SB07-09
, Ml P13-20
\ Ml PI 3-
9^07-03 ¦$> ©
SB07-CS
^i6-pi
MV\t«4-e4§C ->0 )
MW14-09A Lll PI 3-29^^1
SP10-14
SB07-0'
^ SB 15-09
¦1675.5
SB07-37
0 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
® Interceptor Well
i> Membrane Interface Probe Boring
© Monitoring Well
Proposed Treatment Area
Inferred Treatment Area (See Note 1)
1600.0 Treatment Area by Grid Block
(Square Feet)
See Note 1
Boring ID
SB15-10
Grid Cell
Boring Location
Figure B-41
Alternative B-6
Cell Area
Thermal Remediation
AECOM
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
Flow
Direction
Drainage
Ditch
LEGEND
Notes:
1. Treatment areas are based
on the locations of elevated
PCE concentrations. For
grid blocks that are >50%
within the treatment area,
assume that 100% of the
block is within treatment
zone.
\\Seattle.na.aecomnet.com\Seattle\DCS\Projects\ENV\60553096_Lind_Sup17\900-CAD-GIS\910-CAD\20-SHEETS\Building B(update).dwg
Mod: 05/05/2020,11:44 | Plotted: 05/05/2020,12:41 | mason.struna
-------
APPENDIX C
Cost Estimate Supporting Documentation
-------
Table CI
Summary of Long-Term Cost Estimate for Current and Anticipated CERCLA O&M
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Task
Long-Term Cost
Estimate for Current and
Anticipated CERCLA
O&M
CM'II M. € OSIS
Capital Direct Costs
$0
Contingency Assumed (%)
NA
Capital Indirect Costs
$0
Engineering Contingency
$0
Total Capital Costs
SO
I SI l\l \l 1 1) I.O\<; 1 1 KM O&M ( OSI 2n2ii-2ii4n
SUBTOTAL LONG TERM O&M COST (without Contingency)
$10,684,400
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
2.5%
O&M Duration (years)
20
TOTAL COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$11,000,000
Total Present Worth Cost3
$10,000,000
Total Escalated Costb
$13,400,000
a Present worth costs were calculated using a 1% discount rate.
b Escalated costs were calculated using a 2% inflation rate.
Notes:
Discount Rate (1%) = Interest Rate (3%) - Inflation (2%)
O&M - operation and maintenance
Component Long Term Costs.xlsx
Table CI
1 of 1
-------
Table C2
Long-Term Cost Estimate for Current and Anticipated CERCLA O&M Estimator Karen Mixon
Lindsay Facility, 2020 Report Date 8/21/2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE Last Updated 8/10/2020
QA Reviewer Caiy Brown
QA Review Date 8/11/2020
Assumptions
1 This estimate includes costs for operation and maintenance of groundwater extraction/interceptor wells AOIW, MW89-12, EXT13-01, G127000,
and EXT07-02. The basis of cost is actuals from 2017 through 2019 adjusted based on the assumptions noted below.
2 Well EXT11-01 was shutdown for remediation purposes in September 2019. Costs assume that this well will not be used in the future for
remediation purposes.
3 New On-Facility Wells EXT21-01 and EXT21-02 will replace wells AOIW and MW89-12 as described in Alternatives A-2 through A-4. Cost
assume that O&M will continue for duration of pumping at these 2 wells. Duration is assumed to be 20 years for cost analysis but unknown at this
time.
4 Using the information from the Groundwater Modeling Report (URS 2018a) and empirical assessment based on well EXT 11-01, these long-term
O&M costs are based on the following schedule for initiating the operation of wells EXT21-01 and EXT21-02 and estimated shutdown of wells
EXT13-01, G127000, and EXT07-02. Decisions regarding well shutdowns will be based on evaluation of groundwater monitoring data and
pumping activity. Requests for shutdown will be submitted to EPA for approval. As the shutdowns will be based on data, the schedule may change
from this estimate.
5 Well shutdowns are assumed to occur as follows:
- EXT21-01, EXT21-02 - installation in 2021, operation initiated late summer 2022
- EXT07-02 - Shutdown end of 2024
- G127000 - Shutdown end of 2026
- EXT 13-01 - Shutdown end of 2028
- The duration of operation of wells EXT21-01 and EXT21-02 is unknown, but will likely go beyond 20 years. The current cost analysis is through
2040.
6 Groundwater monitoring is based on the 2017 Groundwater Monitoring Plan (URS 2017) with assumed changes over time related to the shutdown
of interceptor wells. The monitoring program on the facility maintains monitoring of the cell area and the entire plume width as currently known
for the period through 2040, but accounts for changes due to well shutdowns as noted in Note 4.
7 Costs assume Lindsay personnel will be responsible for O&M and groundwater sampling associated with the monitoring program.
8 Laboratory fees assume current rates with Analytical Resources Incorporated.
9 Consultant fees are associated with data management, data review, and CERCLA reporting requirements.
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Total
CAPITAL DIRI'.CT COSTS (INS l ALLLD)
1
None - No additional well installation
0
EA
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$0
Contingency/Unlisted Items
0
%
$0
$0
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$0
CAPITAL INDIRECT COSTS
1
Project Management (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
Z
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
o
HH
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
0
LS
$0
$0
H
<
4
Engineering Design and Report
0
HR
$0
$0
H
Z
5
Design Plans and Specs
0
LS
$0
$0
H
§
6
Engineer's Estimate
0
HR
$0
$0
7
Permitting
0
LS
$0
$0
a.
8
Bid and RFI Support
0
HR
$0
$0
§
HH
9
Contracting
0
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
0
HR
$0
$0
11
Construction QA (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
0
HR
$0
$0
13
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$0
TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$0
Engineering Contingency (% of Total Capital Cost)
0
%
$0
$0
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$0
Component Long Term Costs.xlsx
Table C2 Page 1 of 2
-------
Table C2
Long-Term Cost Estimate for Current and Anticipated CERCLA O&M Estimator Karen Mixon
Lindsay Facility, 2020 Report Date 8/21/2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE Last Updated 8/10/2020
QA Reviewer Caiy Brown
QA Review Date 8/11/2020
ESTIMATED LONG TERM O&M COST 2020-2040
Annual
Present Worthb
Escalatedb
(Lump Sump Annual Costs by Year without/Contingency)
Cost
Cost
Cost
1
Projected O&M Cost for 2020
$686,200
$679,406
$699,924
2
Projected O&M Cost for 2021
$746,200
$731,497
$776,346
3
Projected O&M Cost for 2022
$686,200
$666,019
$728,201
4
Projected O&M Cost for 2023
$635,400
$610,607
$687,777
5
Projected O&M Cost for 2024
$665,400
$633,105
$734,655
6
Projected O&M Cost for 2025
$589,200
$555,053
$663,535
7
Projected O&M Cost for 2026
$557,600
$520,084
$640,507
8
Projected O&M Cost for 2027
$568,800
$525,277
$666,440
9
Projected O&M Cost for 2028
$496,800
$454,244
$593,722
10
Projected O&M Cost for 2029
$469,800
$425,304
$572,684
11
Projected O&M Cost for 2030
$469,800
$421,093
$584,137
12
Projected O&M Cost for 2031
$405,900
$360,216
$514,779
5
13
Projected O&M Cost for 2032
$535,900
$470,875
$693,244
o
14
Projected O&M Cost for 2033
$395,900
$344,418
$522,382
15
Projected O&M Cost for 2034
$395,900
$341,008
$532,829
16
Projected O&M Cost for 2035
$389,900
$332,515
$535,249
17
Projected O&M Cost for 2036
$389,900
$329,223
$545,954
18
Projected O&M Cost for 2037
$429,900
$359,404
$614,003
19
Projected O&M Cost for 2038
$389,900
$322,736
$568,011
20
Projected O&M Cost for 2039
$389,900
$319,540
$579,371
21
Projected O&M Cost for 2040
$389,900
$316,377
$590,958
SUBTOTAL LONG TERM O&M COST (without Contingency)
$10,684,400
$9,718,100
$13,044,800
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
2.5%
$267,200
$242,900
$326,100
ESTIMATED LONG TERM O&M COST
$10,951,600
Present Worth O&M Costb
$9,961,000
Escalated O&M Costb
$13,370,900
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Total
Present Worthb
Escalatedb
TOTAL O&M COSTS (2020 - 2040)
$10,952,000
$9,961,000
$13,371,000
ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Total Capital Cost
$0
<
Total O&M Cost (2020 - 2040)
$10,952,000
o
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$11,000,000
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$10,000,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$13,400,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
Discount Rate (1%) = Interest Rate (3%) - Inflation Rate (2%) [discount rate is used only for Present Worth Calculation]
% - percent QA - quality assurance
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan RFI - request for information
DC - direct cost YR - year
EA - each
O&M - operation and maintenance
Component Long Term Costs.xlsx
Table C2
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table C3
Comparison of Alternative Costs for Hydraulic Control
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Task
Alternative A-l:
Continue Existing
Pumping (No New
Action)
Alternative A-2: Seasonal
Optimized Pumping from
New On-Facility Wells
Alternative A-3:
Year-Round Pumping
with Seasonal Irrigation
and Re-injection during
Non-Irrigation Season
Alternative A-4:
Year-Round Pumping
with Seasonal Irrigation
and Treatment during
Non-Irrigation Season
( M'l 1 \l.< OSIS
Capital Direct Costs
$0
$1,486,700
$1,689,300
$10,533,600
Contingency Assumed (%)
NA
10
10
15
Capital Indirect Costs
$0
$255,700
$295,400
$385,500
Engineering Contingency
NA
$12,200
$26,900
$35,100
Total Capital Costs
SO
SI,742,400
SI,984,700
S10,919,100
MOM IOkl\(.. Ol'l k \l IOY Wl) M \IM 1 \ \\< 1 (OSIS
Annual O&M Cost
$0
$2,600
$79,500
$926,000
O&M Contingency and Unlisted Items Assumed (%)
0
10
10
10
O&M Duration (years)
0
20
20
20
Annual Monitoring and Reporting Cost
Monitoring Contingency and Unlisted Items Assumed (%)
NA
$100,300
$163,000
$396,800
NA
5
7.5
10
Monitoring Duration (years)
NA
20
20
20
Non-Routine O&M Cost
NA
$0
$462,000
$462,000
Non-Routine Contingency and Unlisted Items Assumed (%)
NA
5
5
5
Total Monitoring and O&M Costs
SO
$2,058,000
$5,254,100
S26,918,000
TOTAL COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$0
$3,800,000
$7,239,000
$37,837,000
Total Present Worth Cost3
$0
$3,599,000
$6,723,000
$35,199,000
Total Escalated Costb
$0
$4,243,000
$8,389,000
$43,655,000
" Present worth costs were calculated using a 1% discount rate
b Escalated costs were calculated using a 2% inflation rate
Notes:
Discount Rate (1%) = Interest Rate (3%) - Inflation (2%)
O&M - operation and maintenance
ComponentHydraulic Controls.xlsx
Alt A Summary
1 of 1
-------
Table C4
Cost Estimate for Alternative A-l Estimator D Cabanillas
Continue Existing Pumping (No New Action) Report Date 8/21/2020
Hydraulic Controls Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer Cary Brown
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/28/2020
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Seasonal groundwater pumping at existing wells AOIW and MW89-12.
2 Continual, year-round groundwater pumping at existing wells EXT13-01, G127000, and EXT07-02.
3 Future operation and maintenance costs consistent with previous years.
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIRUCT COSTS (INSTALLI-'.I))
1
None - No additional well installation
o
EA
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$0
Contingency/Unlisted Items
0
%
$0
$0
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$0
$0
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$0
CAPITAL INDIRECT COSTS
1
Project Management (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
Z
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
u
HH
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
0
LS
$0
$0
H
<
4
Engineering Design and Report
0
HR
$0
$0
H
z
5
Design Plans and Specs
0
LS
$0
$0
s
6
Engineer's Estimate
0
HR
$0
$0
7
Permitting
0
LS
$0
$0
-J
a.
8
Bid and RFI Support
0
HR
$0
$0
s
hH
9
Contracting
0
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
0
HR
$0
$0
11
Construction QA (by Lindsay w/ AECOM Support)
0
LS
$0
$0
12
Fate and Transport Model
0
LS
$0
$0
13
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
0
HR
$0
$0
14
Not Used
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$0
TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$0
Engineering Contingency (% of Total Capital Cost)
2
%
$0
$0
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$0
A\\l AI.O&M COST
1
O&M Costs (Labor Not Included)
0
LS
$0
$0
2
O&M Labor Costs
0
YR
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$0
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
0
%
$0
$0
ANNUAL O&M COST
$0
TOTAL O&M COST
0
Years of O&M
$0
Present Worth O&M Costb
$0
Escalated O&M Coctb
«cn
O&M
IM.RIODK /NON-KOI TIM'. O&M COST
1
None
0
EA
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
0
%
$0
$0
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Present Worth O&M Costb
$0
Escalated O&M Costb
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Tolal
Prescnl Worth"
I'.scalaled"
Annual O&M
$0
$0
$0
Non-Routine O&M
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS (20 YEARS)
$0
$0
$0
ai.h kna i im: cost si mmary
J
<
Total Capital Cost
$0
Total O&M Cost (20 Years)
$0
H
o
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$0
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$0
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$0
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent LS - lump sum
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan O&M - operation and maintenance
DC - direct cost RFI - request for information
EA - each QA - quality assurance
HR - hour YR - year
Component Hydraulic Controls, xlsx
A-l No Action Page 1 of 1
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE A-2, SEASONAL OPTIMIZED PUMPING FROM NEW ON-FACILITY
WELLS
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of seasonal pumping from 2 new optimally placed wells (EXT21-
01 and EXT21-02) that would replace AOIW and MW89-12. No additional supplemental investigations
would be conducted as part of this alternative. The alternative includes:
• Installation of 2 new interceptor wells EXT21-01 (approximately 1,000 gpm) and EXT21-02
(approximately 300 gpm)
• Installation of new well head connections and piping tie-ins to connect the new wells to the
existing groundwater pumping network
• Installation of 8 new monitoring wells including 2 screened in the fine-grained unit
(approximately 50 feet bgs) and 6 new monitoring wells installed in the sand and gravel aquifer
(100 feet bgs).
• Two existing interceptor wells, AOIW and MW89-12, will be shut down. MW89-12 will be used
for groundwater level monitoring.
• Seasonal pumping at the new wells for 20 years (4 months of each year during the irrigation
season)
• 4-week time frame for construction
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Pre-Design Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Contractor procurement and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work
3. Installation of temporary erosion and sediment controls
4. Upgrade of facility electrical utility infrastructure
5. Drilling and installation of 2 new interceptor wells EXT21-01 (1,000 gpm) and EXT21-02 (300
gpm).
6. Drilling and installation of 8 new monitoring wells.
7. Trenching (6 feet bgs), installation of subsurface piping (PVC and metal), and connection to
existing groundwater pumping effluent piping network. Metal pipe will be limited to the area
north of Building 1 proposed for thermal treatment in Alternatives C-3 through C-5.
o 6-inch pipeline to north pivot system
o 10-inch pipeline to tie into existing AOIW piping to Beller Property
Page 1 of 2
Alt A-2
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
o Upgrade of pipeline from AOIW to Beller Property from 6- or 8-inch to 10-inch pipeline
8. Installation of electrical control system and telemetry
9. General site restoration work
10. Disposal of IDW (soil cuttings, excavated soil from trenching, and purge water)
o Wells will be developed by pumping at 1,200 gpm for approximately 8-12 hours.
Development water will be containerized and then pumped to the north pivot system at
approximately 1,000 gpm.
o Sludge from drilling and well development will be dewatered in tanks on site. Water will
be pumped to the north pivot system and dewatered sludge will be transported to Butler
County Landfill for disposal.
11. Construction oversight for 4 weeks
Monitoring
1. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program are not included in alternative cost.
2. Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved
groundwater monitoring program:
o Quarterly sampling for VOCs
o Semi-annual sampling for 1,4-dioxane and metals
Operation & Maintenance
1. O&M costs for the 2 new interceptor wells will replace the O&M costs of the 2 decommissioned
wells and are therefore not included in this alternative cost.
Closeout
1. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings) after
completion of construction.
Page 2 of 2
Alt A-2
-------
Table C5
Cost Estimate for Alternative A-2 Estimator D Cabanillas
Seasonal Optimized Pumping from New On-Facility Wells Report Date 8/21/2020
Hydraulic Controls Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer Cary Brown
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/26/2020
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only at 5.5 percent.
3 Installation of two new interceptor wells EXT21-01 (1,000 gpm) and EXT21-02 (300 gpm), which will replace AOIW and MW89-12
(shut down).
4 Installation of new 6-inch pipeline from EXT21-02 to the north pivot system.
5 Installation of new 10-inch pipeline from EXT21-01 to the Beller Property.
6 Seasonal pumping at new interceptor wells (4-months of each year during irrigation season).
7 Continued pumping at EXT13-01, G127000, and EXT07-02 until the wells can be shut down when plume concentrations diminish.
8 Installation of 8 new groundwater monitoring wells. Six new wells screened in the sand and gravel aquifer (100 feet bgs) and 2 new wells
in the fine-grained unit (50 feet bgs).
9 Installation of new pumping wells and associated piping will be completed in 4 weeks.
10 Seasonal pumping of new interceptor wells will continue for 20 years.
11 Clean material removed during pipeline trenching can be placed in the North 50 or used elsewhere at the facility.
12 Soil and groundwater samples will not be collected during installation of interceptor wells or monitoring wells.
13 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program are not included.
14 Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program and costs
are included in this estimate.
15 O&M and electrical costs for the two new wells will replace O&M costs of interceptor wells turned off, so costs are not included.
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
C A PITA 11)1 U i:c 1 ( < >STS (1NS 1 A1.1. i:i»
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
2
Utility Locate
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
3
Surveyor
DY
$900
$1,800
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
5
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$1,000
$1,000
Construction Activities
Interceptor Wells
1
Upgrade of Electrical Utility Infrastructure
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
2
Grosch Irrigation 40-hr HAZWOPER Training
1
LS
$2,700
$2,700
3
Installation/Development of 1,000 gpm interceptor well (EXT21-01)
1
LS
$81,890
$81,900
4
Installation/Development of 300 gpm interceptor well (EXT21-02)
1
LS
$35,410
$35,500
5
EXT21-01 Pump
1
LS
$70,640
$70,700
6
EXT21-02 Pump
1
LS
$34,780
$34,800
7
Interceptor Well Protection
EA
$35,000
$70,000
8
Telemetry System
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
New Groundwater Extraction Effluent Piping
1
Concrete Cutting
168
LF
$3.00
$600
2
Trenching (6 ft bgs)
2,022
CY
$10
$20,300
3
Groundwater Extraction Piping Installation (10-inch PVC)
3,000
LF
$60
$178,600
z
o
4
Groundwater Extraction Piping Installation (10-inch metal)
300
LF
$135
$40,500
HH
H
5
Groundwater Extraction Piping Installation (6-inch PVC)
1,000
LF
$45
$45,000
<
6
Groundwater Extraction Piping Installation (6-inch metal)
250
LF
$65
$16,300
Z
7
Directional Boring Under Highway 91 and East Bridge
600
LF
$500
$300,000
W
8
Trench Backfill
1,685
CY
$35
$59,000
9
Base Course
169
CY
$25
$4,300
-J
a.
10
Base Course Delivery
1
LS
$2,460
$2,500
11
Concrete (over trench)
18
SY
$30.00
$600
12
Winterization Materials
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
AECOM AND/OR LINDSA Y SUPPORT
1
Construction Oversight (General)
24
DY
$1,700
$40,800
2
Construction Oversight (Geotechnical Engineer)
4
DY
$2,500
$10,000
3
Travel for Construction Oversight
3
EA
$1,000
$3,000
4
NE Licensed Geologist
16
HR
$132
$2,200
Other
1
Monitoring Well Installation
8
EA
$3,500
$28,000
2
Site Restoration
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
IDW
1
IDW Management
15
HR
$125
$1,900
2
IDW Water Management and Disposal
1
LS
$60,930
$61,000
3
IDW Solids Dewatering Tanks
2
WK
$6,000
$12,000
4
IDW Solids Disposal
750
TN
$50
$37,500
5
IDW Solids Transportation
750
TN
$32
$24,000
6
Concrete Disposal
3
CY
$25
$100
7
Concrete Transportation
4
HR
$120
$500
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$1,287,100
Contingency/Unlisted Items
10
%
$1,287,100
$128,800
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$1,287,100
$70,800
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$1,486,700
ComponentHydraulic Controls.xlsx
A-2 Optimized Pumping Page 1 of 2
-------
Table C5
Cost Estimate for Alternative A-2 Estimator D Cabanillas
Seasonal Optimized Pumping from New On-Facility Wells Report Date 8/21/2020
Hydraulic Controls Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer Cary Brown
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/26/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL IMHKKCT COSTS
1
Project Management
12
MO
$1,750
$21,000
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
80
HR
$120
$9,600
z
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
o
—
6
Engineer's Estimate
30
HR
$120
$3,600
H
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
H
z
W
8
Bid and RFI Support
16
HR
$115
$1,900
9
Contracting (performed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$0
$0
%
W
-J
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
80
HR
$115
$9,200
11
Construction QA (by Lindsay w/ AECOM Support)
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Q-
12
Fate and Transport Model
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
—
13
14
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
Not Used
185
HR
$125
$23,200
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$243,500
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
5
%
$243,500
$12,200
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$255,700
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$1,742,400
AVM Al. O&M COSI
1
Telemetry System (Wireless)
1
YR
$2,300
$2,300
2
Winterization (completed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$7,200
-
3
Interceptor Well Additional Electrical Usage
0
YR
$0
-
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
$2,300
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$2,300
$300
ANNUAL O&M COST
$2,600
TOTAL O&M COST
20
Years of O&M
$52,000
Present Worth Groundwater Monitoring Costb
$47,000
Escalated Groundwater Monitoring Costb
$63,200
ANNUAL MONITORING AND REPORTING COST
1
Project Management and Coordination
40
HR
$186
$7,500
2
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
4
DY
$700
$2,800
3
AECOM Labor
12
DY
$5,100
$61,200
4
AECOM Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
5
Analytical (VOCs, quarterly)
44
EA
$130
$5,800
6
Analytical (1,4-dioxane and metals, semi-annual)
22
EA
$415
$9,200
7
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
8
Not Used
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL MONITORING COST
$95,500
O
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
5
%
$95,500
$4,800
ANNUAL MONITORING COST
$100,300
TOTAL MONITORING COST
20
Years of Monitoring
$2,006,000
Present Worth Monitoring Costb
$1,810,000
Escalated Monitoring Cost"
$2,437,100
PERIODIC NOVKOl TIM-: O&M COSI
1
None (costs currently accounted for by Lindsay by wells that will be
turned off)
0
EA
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
5
%
$0
$0
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Present Worth O&M Costb
$0
Escalated O&M Cost"
$0
TO
Al. O&M COSTS
Tnlul
PiVM-iil W iirlli'"
INt uhiU-d1'
Annual O&M
$52,000
$47,000
$63,200
Annual Monitoring
$2,006,000
$1,810,000
$2,437,100
Non-Routine O&M
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS (20 YEARS)
$2,058,000
$1,857,000
$2,500,300
Al.'l
t:k\ati\t: cost si MM\m
J
Total Capital Cost
$1,742,000
<
H
O
Total O&M Cost (20 Years)
$2,058,000
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$3,800,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$3,599,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COST"
$4,243,000
Notes:
* Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
CY - cubic yard
DC - direct cost
DY - day
EA - each
HR - hour
IDW - investigation derived waste
LF - linear foot
LS - lump sum
MO - month
O&M - operation and maintenance
OM&M - operation, monitoring, and maintenance
QA - quality assurance
RFI - request for information
SY - square yard
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
WK - week
ComponentHydraulic Controls.xlsx
A-2 Optimized Pumping
Page 2 of 2
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE A-3, YEAR-ROUND PUMPING WITH SEASONAL IRRIGATION AND
REINJECTION DURING NON-IRRIGATION SEASON
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of year-round pumping from 2 new optimally placed wells
(EXT21-01 and EXT21-02) that replace AOIW and MW89-12. Extracted groundwater from EXT21-02
would be reinjected into the sand and gravel aquifer through a series of new injection wells located north
of the Cell area during the non-irrigation season. The reinjected groundwater would not be treated prior to
reinjection. No additional supplemental investigations would be conducted as part of this alternative.
The alternative includes:
• Installation of 2 new pumping wells EXT21-01 (approximately 1,000 gpm) and EXT21-02
(approximately 300 gpm)
• Installation of new well head connections and tie-ins to connect the new wells to the existing
groundwater pumping network
• Installation of 4 new injection wells north of the former Cell area
• Installation of 8 new monitoring wells including 2 screened in the fine-grained unit
(approximately 50 feet bgs) and 6 new monitoring wells installed in the sand and gravel aquifer
(100 feet bgs).
• Two existing pumping wells AOIW and MW89-12 will be shut down and MW89-12 will be used
for groundwater level monitoring.
• Year-round pumping at the new wells for 20 years
• Injection of untreated extracted groundwater into sand and gravel aquifer via the new injection
wells during the non-irrigation season
• 5-week timeframe for construction
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Prc-Dcsign Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Contractor procurement and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work
3. Installation of temporary erosion and sediment controls
4. Upgrade of facility electrical utility infrastructure
5. Drilling and installation of 2 new interceptor wells (1,000 gpm and 300 gpm)
6. Drilling and installation of 4 new injection wells
7. Drilling and installation of 8 new monitoring wells
Page 1 of 2
Alt A-3
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
8. Trenching (6 feet bgs), installation of subsurface piping (PVC and metal), and connection to
existing groundwater pumping network. Metal pipe will be limited to the area north of Building 1
proposed for thermal treatment in Alternative C-3 through C-5.
o 6-inch pipeline to new injection wells and north pivot system
o 10-inch pipeline to AOIW
o Upgrade of pipeline from AOIW to Beller Property from 6- or 8-inch to 10-inch pipeline
9. Installation of electrical control system
10. General site restoration work
11. Disposal of IDW (soil cuttings, excavated soil from trenching, and purge water)
o Wells will be developed by pumping at 1,200 gpm for approximately 8-12 hours.
Development water will be containerized and then pumped to the north pivot system at
approximately 1,000 gpm.
o Sludge will be dewatered in tanks on site. Water will be pumped to the north pivot
system and dewatered sludge will be transported to Butler County Landfill for disposal.
12. Construction oversight for 5 weeks
Monitoring
1. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost
2. Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved
groundwater monitoring program:
o Quarterly sampling for VOCs
o Semi-annual sampling for 1,4-dioxane and metals
Operation & Maintenance
1. O&M costs for the 2 new wells will replace the O&M costs of the 2 decommissioned wells, and
are therefore not included in this alternative cost. Additional electrical and O&M costs are
included for additional operation time compared to existing wells (year-round vs. 4 months).
Closeout
1. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings) after
completion of construction
Page 2 of 2
Alt A-3
-------
Table C6
Cost Estimate for Alternative A-3
Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Reinjection during
Non-Irrigation Season
Hydraulic Controls
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only at 5.5 percent.
3 Installation of two new interceptor wells EXT21-01 (1,000 gpm) and EXT21-02 (300 gpm),
which will replace AOIW and MW89-12 (shut down).
4 Installation of new 10-inch pipeline from EXT21-01 to the Beller Property.
5 Installation of 4 new injection wells.
6 Year-round pumping at new interceptor wells.
7 Continued pumping at EXT13-01, G127000, andEXT07-02 until the wells can be shut down when plume concentrations diminish.
8 Inj ection of untreated extracted groundwater from EXT21-02 into the sand and gravel aquifer via newly installed inj ection wells
during the non-irrigation season. During irrigation season, groundwater will be pumped to the north pivot system (EXT21-02) using
the existing pipeline and to the Beller Property (EXT21-01) using a new pipeline.
9 Installation of 8 new groundwater monitoring wells. Six new wells screened in the sand and gravel aquifer (100 feet bgs) and 2 new
wells in the fine-grained unit (50 feet bgs).
10 Installation of new wells and associated piping will be completed in 5 weeks.
11 Pumping and re-injection will occur for 20 years.
12 Clean material removed during pipeline trenching can be placed in the North 50 or used elsewhere at the facility.
13 Soil and groundwater samples will not be collected during installation of interceptor wells or monitoring wells.
14 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program are not included.
15 Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program and
costs are included in this estimate.
16 O&M costs for the two new wells will replace O&M costs of interceptor wells turned off, so costs are not included. Additional
electrical costs and O&M will be included for additional operation time compared to existing wells (year-round vs 4 months).
Estimator D Cabanillas
Report Date 8/21/2020
Last Updated 5/28/2020
QA Reviewer Cary Brown
QA Review Date 5/26/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIUI'.CT COSTS (INS 1 AI.LI'.D)
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
2
Utility Locate
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
3
Surveyor
DY
$900
$1,800
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
5
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$1,000
$1,000
Construction Activities
Interceptor Wells
1
Upgrade of Electrical Utility Infrastructure
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
2
Grosch Irrigation 40-hr Training
1
LS
$2,700
$2,700
3
Installation/Development of 1,000 gpm interceptor well (EXT21-
1
LS
$81,890
$81,900
Z
/•v
01)
w
HH
4
Installation/Development of 300 gpm interceptor well
1
LS
$35,410
$35,500
<
(EXT21-02)
H
Z
5
EXT21-01 Pump
1
LS
$70,640
$70,700
H
6
EXT21-02 Pump
1
LS
$34,780
$34,800
7
Interceptor Well Protection
2
EA
$35,000
$70,000
-J
a.
8
Telemetry System
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
§
HH
New Groundwater Extraction Effluent Piping
1
Concrete Cutting
164
LF
$3.00
$500
2
Trenching (6 ft bgs)
2,044
CY
$10
$20,500
3
Groundwater Extraction Piping Installation (10-inch PVC)
3,450
LF
$60
$205,400
4
Groundwater Extraction Piping Installation (10-inch metal)
300
LF
$135
$40,500
5
Groundwater Extraction Piping Installation (6-inch PVC)
600
LF
$45
$27,000
6
Groundwater Extraction Piping Installation (6-inch metal)
250
LF
$65
$16,300
7
Directional Boring Under Highway 91 and East Bridge
600
LF
$500
$300,000
8
Trench Backfill
1,704
CY
$35
$59,700
9
Base Course
170
CY
$25.00
$4,300
10
Base Course Delivery
1
LS
$2,460
$2,500
11
Concrete (over trench)
18
SY
$30.00
$600
12
Winterization Materials
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Component Hydraulic Controls.xlsx
A-3 Optimized Pumping Injection
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table C6
Cost Estimate for Alternative A-3 Estimator D Cabanillas
Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Reinjection during Report Date 8/21/2020
Non-Irrigation Season Last Updated 5/28/2020
Hydraulic Controls QA Reviewer Cary Brown
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Review Date 5/26/2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
AECOM AND/OR LINDSAY SUPPORT
1
Construction Oversight (General)
31
DY
$1,700
$52,700
2
Construction Oversight (Geotechnical Engineer)
4
DY
$2,500
$10,000
3
Travel for Construction Oversight
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
4
NE Licensed Geologist
16
HR
$132
$2,200
Other
1
Injection Well Installation
4
EA
$10,000
$40,000
2
Injection Well Components
4
EA
$15,000
$60,000
3
Monitoring Well Installation
8
EA
$3,500
$28,000
4
Site Restoration
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
IDW
1
IDW Management
15
HR
$125
$1,900
2
IDW Water Management and Disposal
1
LS
$60,930
$61,000
3
IDW Solids Dewatering Tanks
2
WK
$6,000
$12,000
4
IDW Solids Disposal
800
TN
$50
$40,000
5
IDW Solids Transportation
800
TN
$32
$25,600
6
Concrete Disposal
3
CY
$25
$100
7
Concrete Transportation
4
HR
$120
$500
Injection Well Monitoring and Sampling (First Year)
z
1
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
6
DY
$700
$4,200
o
2
AECOM Labor
6
EA
$5,100
$30,600
H
3
AECOM Travel
6
EA
$1,000
$6,000
H
4
Analytical (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
24
EA
$330
$8,000
Z
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$1,462,500
§
-
a.
?
Contingency/Unlisted Items
10
%
$1,462,500
$146,300
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$1,462,500
$80,500
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$1,689,300
HH
CAPITAL INDIRI.CT COSTS
1
Project Management
12
MO
$1,750
$21,000
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
80
HR
$120
$9,600
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
6
Engineer's Estimate
30
HR
$120
$3,600
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
8
Bid and RFI Support
16
HR
$115
$1,900
9
Contracting (performed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
80
HR
$115
$9,200
11
Construction QA (by Lindsay w/ AECOM Support)
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
12
Fate and Transport Model
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
13
Annual Monitoring Report (First Year)
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
14
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
185
HR
$125
$23,200
15
Not Used
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$268,500
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
10
%
$268,500
$26,900
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$295,400
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$1,984,700
ANN! AI.O&M COST
1
Interceptor Well Additional Electrical Usage (Above Existing
Usage)
8
MO
$4,853
$38,900
2
Interceptor Well Additional Maintenance
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
3
Injection Well Maintenance
1
LS
$1,000
$1,000
s
4
Telemetry System (Wireless)
1
YR
$2,300
$2,300
*
s
o
5
Winterization (completed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$7,200
--
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$72,200
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$72,200
$7,300
ANNUAL O&M COST
$79,500
TOTAL O&M COST
20
Years of O&M
$1,590,000
Present Worth O&M Costb
$1,434,700
Escalated O&M Costb
$1,931,700
ComponentHydraulic Controls.xlsx
A-3 Optimized Pumping Injection
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table C6
Cost Estimate for Alternative A-3 Estimator D Cabanillas
Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Reinjection during Report Date 8/21/2020
Non-Irrigation Season Last Updated 5/28/2020
Hydraulic Controls QA Reviewer Cary Brown
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Review Date 5/26/2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
ANNl Al. MONITORING AND REPORTING COST
1
Project Management and Coordination
40
HR
$186
$7,500
New Groundwater Monitoring Wells
1
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
4
DY
$700
$2,800
2
AECOM Labor
12
DY
$5,100
$61,200
3
AECOM Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
4
Analytical (VOCs, quarterly)
44
EA
$130
$5,800
5
Analytical (1,4-dioxane and metals, semi-annual)
22
EA
$415
$9,200
6
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL MONITORING (GW) COST
$95,500
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$95,500
$9,600
ANNUAL MONITORING (GW) COST
$105,100
TOTAL MONITORING (GW) COST
20
Years of Monitoring
$2,102,000
Present Worth Monitoring (GW) Costb
$1,896,600
Escalated Monitoring (GW) Costb
$2,553,700
Injection Wells
1
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies (injection
wells)
4
DY
$700
$2,800
2
AECOM Labor
4
EA
$5,100
$20,400
3
AECOM Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
s
%
a
4
Analytical (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
20
EA
$330
$6,600
5
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL MONITORING (INJECTION) COST
$53,800
o
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
7.5
%
$53,800
$4,100
ANNUAL MONITORING (INJECTION) COST
$57,900
TOTAL MONITORING (INJECTION) COST
19
Years of Monitoring
$1,100,100
Present Worth Monitoring (Injection) Costb
$997,400
Escalated Monitoring (Injection) Costb
$1,322,500
IM.RIOIW/NON-ROl 1 INI! O&M COST
1
Pump Replacement (Year 5)
1
LS
$110,000
$110,000
2
Pump Replacement (Year 10)
1
LS
$110,000
$110,000
3
Pump Replacement (Year 15)
1
LS
$110,000
$110,000
4
Pump Replacement (Year 20)
1
LS
$110,000
$110,000
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$440,000
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
5
%
$440,000
$22,000
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$462,000
Present Worth O&M Costb
$408,598
Escalated O&M Costb
$595,390
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Tolal
Prescnl Worlli1'
I'lscaliilcd1'
Annual O&M
$3,692,000
$3,331,300
$4,485,400
Annual Monitoring
$1,100,100
$997,400
$1,322,500
Non-Routine O&M
$462,000
$408,598
$595,390
TOTAL OM&M COSTS (20 YEARS)
$5,254,100
$4,737,298
$6,403,290
ai. i i rna i im: cost si mmary
-
<
Total Capital Cost
$1,985,000
Total OM&M Cost (20 Years)
$5,254,000
H
o
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$7,239,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$6,723,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$8,389,000
Notes:
1 Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
' Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
CY - cubic yard
DC - direct cost
DY - day
EA - each
HR - hour
IDW - investigation derived waste
MO - month
LF - linear foot
LS - lump sum
O&M - operation and maintenance
OM&M - operation, maintenance, and monitoring
QA - quality assurance
RFI - request for information
SY - square yard
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
WK - week
YR - year
ComponentHydraulic Controls.xlsx
A-3 Optimized Pumping Injection
Page 3 of 3
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE A-4, YEAR-ROUND PUMPING WITH SEASONAL IRRIGATION AND
TREATMENT DURING NON-IRRIGATION SEASON
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of year-round pumping from 2 new optimally placed wells
(EXT21-01 and EXT21-02) that would replace AOIW and MW89-12. During the non-irrigation season,
extracted groundwater from EXT21-02 would be treated for chlorinated VOCs, 1-4 dioxane, and zinc
using advanced oxidization and discharged to Dry Creek or Shell Creek under an NPDES permit. During
the irrigation season, extracted groundwater would be discharged to the pivot irrigation systems without
treatment. No additional supplemental investigations would be conducted as part of this alternative. The
alternative includes:
• Bench scale and pilot testing of advanced oxidization
• Installation of 2 new pumping wells EXT21-01 (approximately 1,000 gpm) and EXT21-02
(approximately 300 gpm)
• Installation of new well head connections and tie-ins to connect the new wells to the existing
groundwater pumping network
• Installation of 8 new monitoring wells including 2 screened in the fine-grained unit
(approximately 50 feet bgs) and 6 new monitoring wells installed in the sand and gravel aquifer
(100 feet bgs).
• Two existing pumping wells AOIW and MW89-12 will be shut down and MW89-12 will be used
for groundwater level monitoring
• Installation of advanced oxidization system
• Clean water will be discharged from the treatment system to Dry Creek
• Year-round pumping at the new wells and operation of the treatment system for 20 years
• 2-year timeframe for permitting and construction. Twelve weeks of construction.
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Prc-Dcsign Activities/Design
1. Bench Scale Study and Pilot Testing of advanced oxidization
2. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
3. Contractor procurement and preparation of remedy design, work plans, permits, and land access
agreements
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work
3. Installation of temporary erosion and sediment controls
Page 1 of 2
Alt A-3
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
4. Upgrade of facility electrical utility infrastructure
5. Drilling and installation of 2 new extraction wells (1,000 gpm and 300 gpm)
6. Drilling and installation of 8 new monitoring wells
7. Trenching (6 feet bgs), installation of subsurface piping (PVC and metal), and connection to
existing groundwater pumping network. Metal pipe will be limited to the area north of Building 1
proposed for thermal treatment in Alternatives C-3 through C-5.
o 10-inch pipeline to AOIW
o Upgrade of pipeline from AOIW to Beller Property from 6-8-inch to 10-inch pipeline
8. Installation of advanced oxidization treatment system
9. Treatment system startup and commissioning
10. General site restoration work
11. Disposal of IDW (soil cuttings, excavated soil from trenching, and purge water)
o Wells will be developed by pumping at 1,200 gpm for approximately 8-12 hours.
Development water will be containerized and then pumped to the north pivot system at
approximately 1,000 gpm.
o Sludge will be dewatered in tanks on site. Water will be pumped to the Northern Pivot
System and dewatered sludge will be transported to Butler County Landfill for disposal.
12. Construction oversight for 12 weeks
Monitoring
1. Groundwater treatment system monitoring of influent and effluent samples by staff hired for
system O&M. Collection of bi-monthly samples for VOCs, 1,4-dioxane, metals, and inorganics
(108 samples).
2. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost.
3. Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved
groundwater monitoring program:
o Quarterly sampling for VOCs
o Semi-annual sampling for 1,4-dioxane and metals
Operation & Maintenance
1. O&M costs for the 2 new wells will replace the O&M costs of the 2 decommissioned wells and
therefore are not included in this alternative cost. Annual electrical costs for these wells may
differ from existing wells, so these additional electrical costs are included.
2. Routine O&M costs for the groundwater treatment system.
Closeout
1. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings) after
completion of construction
Page 2 of 2
Alt A-3
-------
Table C7
Cost Estimate for Alternative A-4
Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Treatment during Estimator D Cabanillas
Non-Irrigation Season Report Date 8/21/2020
Hydraulic Controls Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer Cary Brown
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/26/2020
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only at 5.5 percent.
3 Installation of two new interceptor wells EXT21-01 (1,000 gpm) and EXT21-02 (300 gpm), which will replace AOIW and MW89-12
(shut down).
4 Installation of new 10-inch pipeline from EXT21-01 to the Beller Property.
5 Year-round pumping at new interceptor wells.
6 Continued pumping at EXT13-01, G127000, andEXT07-02 until the wells can be shut down when plume concentrations diminish.
7 Bench scale and pilot testing of advanced oxidation
8 Installation of an advanced oxidation system for year-round groundwater treatment of VOCs, 1,4-dioxane, and zinc at EXT21 -02.
9 Installation of 8 new groundwater monitoring wells. Six new wells screened in the sand and gravel aquifer (100 feet bgs) and two new
wells in the fine-grained unit (50 feet bgs).
10 Installation of new wells and associated piping will be completed in 6 weeks. Treatment system installation will be completed in an
additional 6 weeks, for a total construction period of 12 weeks.
11 Clean water will be discharged from the groundwater treatment system to Dry Creek.
12 Operation of the groundwater treatment system for 20 years including hiring of staff for full time monitoring.
13 Clean material removed during pipeline trenching can be placed in the North 50 or used elsewhere at the facility.
14 Soil and groundwater samples will not be collected during installation of interceptor wells or monitoring wells.
15 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program are not included.
16 Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program and
costs are included in this estimate.
17 O&M costs for the two new wells will replace O&M costs of interceptor wells turned off, so costs are not included. Additional
electrical costs and O&M will be included for additional operation time compared to existing wells (year-round vs 4 months).
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIKI-'.CT COSTS (INSTAI.I.I-'. I))
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
2
Utility Locate
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
3
Surveyor
DY
$900
$1,800
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
5
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$1,000
$1,000
6
Bench Scale and Pilot Testing
1
LS
$619,290
$619,300
Construction Activities
Interceptor Wells
1
Upgrade of Electrical Utility Infrastructure
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
2
Grosch Irrigation 40-hr Training
1
LS
$2,700
$2,700
3
Installation/Development of 1,000 gpm interceptor well (EXT21-
01)
1
LS
$81,890
$81,900
4
Installation/Development of 300 gpm interceptor well
(EXT21-02)
1
LS
$35,410
$35,500
Z
5
EXT21-01 Pump
1
LS
$70,640
$70,700
o
—
6
EXT21-02 Pump
1
LS
$34,780
$34,800
H
7
Interceptor Well Protection
EA
$35,000
$70,000
H
8
Telemetry System
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Z
New Groundwater Extraction Effluent Piping
§
-
1
Concrete Cutting
168
LF
$3.00
$600
2
Trenching (6 ft bgs)
1,480
CY
$10
$14,800
S
HH
3
Groundwater Extraction Piping Installation (10-inch PVC)
3,000
LF
$60
$178,600
4
Groundwater Extraction Piping Installation (10-inch metal)
300
LF
$135
$40,500
5
Groundwater Extraction Piping Installation (6-inch metal)
30
LF
$65
$2,000
6
Directional Boring Under Highway 91 and East Bridge
600
LF
$500
$300,000
7
Trench Backfill
1,233
CY
$35
$43,200
8
Base Course
123
CY
$25.00
$3,100
9
Base Course Delivery
1
LS
$2,460
$2,500
10
Concrete (over trench)
18
SY
$30.00
$600
11
Winterization Materials
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Treatment System
1
Construction and Installation
1
LS
$2,580,000
$2,580,000
2
Treatment System Equipment
1
LS
$4,220,000
$4,220,000
AECOM AND/OR LINDSAY SUPPORT
1
Construction Oversight (Geologist)
36
DY
$1,700
$61,200
2
Construction Oversight (Engineer)
36
DY
$2,500
$90,000
3
Construction Oversight (Geotechnical Engineer)
4
DY
$2,500
$10,000
4
Travel for Construction Oversight
7
EA
$1,000
$7,000
5
NE Licensed Geologist
16
HR
$132
$2,200
Component Hydraulic Controls.xlsx
A-4 Optimized Pumping Treatment Page 1 of 3
-------
Table C7
Cost Estimate for Alternative A-4
Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Treatment during Estimator D Cabanillas
Non-Irrigation Season Report Date 8/21/2020
Hydraulic Controls Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer Cary Brown
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/26/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
Other
1
Monitoring Well Installation
8
EA
$3,500
$28,000
2
Site Restoration
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
IDW
1
IDW Management
15
HR
$125
$1,900
2
IDW Water Management and Disposal
1
LS
$60,930
$61,000
3
IDW Solids Dewatering Tanks
2
WK
$6,000
$12,000
4
IDW Solids Disposal
750
TN
$50
$37,500
5
IDW Solids Transportation
750
TN
$32
$24,000
6
Concrete Disposal
3
CY
$25
$100
7
Concrete Transportation
4
HR
$120
$500
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$8,741,500
Contingency/Unlisted Items
15
%
$8,741,500
$1,311,300
Z
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$8,741,500
$480,800
o
HH
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$10,533,600
H
CAPITAL IM)IRI.CT COSTS
H
1
Project Management
18
MO
$1,750
$31,500
Z
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
§
-
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
150
HR
$120
$18,000
g
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$45,000
$45,000
HH
6
Engineer's Estimate
80
HR
$120
$9,600
7
Permitting
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
8
Bid and RFI Support
32
HR
$115
$3,700
9
Contracting (performed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
120
HR
$115
$13,800
11
Construction QA (by Lindsay w/ AECOM Support)
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
12
Fate and Transport Model
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
13
Annual Monitoring Report (First Year)
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
14
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
230
HR
$125
$28,800
15
Not Used
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$350,400
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
10
%
$350,400
$35,100
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$385,500
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$10,919,100
ANN! Al. OPI-'.UATION AM) MAIYIT.YW T.
1
Interceptor Well Additional Electrical Usage (Above Existing
Usage)
8
MO
$4,853
$38,900
2
Interceptor Well Additional Maintenance
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
3
Treatment System Maintenance
1
LS
$772,900
$772,900
4
Telemetry System (Wireless)
1
YR
$2,300
$2,300
5
Winterization (completed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$7,200
-
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$841,800
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$841,800
$84,200
ANNUAL O&M COST
$926,000
TOTAL O&M COST
20
Years of O&M
$18,520,000
Present Worth O&M Costb
$16,710,200
Escalated O&M Costb
$22,499,400
ANN! Al. MOM lOKINC; AM) IMPORTING COST
1
Project Management and Coordination
40
HR
$186
$7,500
s
New Groundwater Monitoring Wells
s
o
1
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
4
DY
$700
$2,800
2
AECOM Labor
12
DY
$5,100
$61,200
3
AECOM Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
4
Analytical (VOCs, quarterly)
44
EA
$130
$5,800
5
Analytical (1,4-dioxane and metals, semi-annual)
22
EA
$415
$9,200
6
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
Groundwater Treatment System
1
Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
24
DY
$700
$16,800
2
AECOM Labor (full time staff)
1
LS
$156,000
$156,000
3
Analytical (VOCs, 1,4 Dioxane, metals, inorganics)
108
EA
$485
$52,400
4
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
$360,700
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$360,700
$36,100
ANNUAL MONITORING COST
$396,800
TOTAL MONITORING COST
20
Years of Monitoring
$7,936,000
Present Worth Monitoring Cost
$7,160,500
Escalated Monitoring Costb
$9,641,200
ComponentHydraulic Controls.xlsx
A-4 Optimized Pumping Treatment
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table C7
Cost Estimate for Alternative A-4
Year-Round Pumping with Seasonal Irrigation and Treatment during Estimator D Cabanillas
Non-Irrigation Season Report Date 8/21/2020
Hydraulic Controls Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer Cary Brown
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/26/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
PIRIOIW/NOVROl 1 INI. O&M COST
1
Pump Replacement (Year 5)
1
LS
$110,000
$110,000
2
Pump Replacement (Year 10)
1
LS
$110,000
$110,000
3
Pump Replacement (Year 15)
1
LS
$110,000
$110,000
4
Pump Replacement (Year 20)
1
LS
$110,000
$110,000
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$440,000
s
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
5
%
$440,000
$22,000
*
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$462,000
g
o
Present Worth O&M Costb
$408,598
Escalated O&M Costb
$595,390
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Tolsil
Pivsenl Worlli1'
Ksciiliiled1'
Annual O&M
$18,520,000
$16,710,200
S22,4^^,4(i()
Annual Monitoring
$7,936,000
$7,160,500
$9,641,200
Non-Routine O&M
$462,000
$408,598
$595,390
TOTAL O&M COSTS (20 YEARS)
$26,918,000
$24,279,298
$32,735,990
ALTT.RWTIN T. COST SI M.MARY
J
Total Capital Cost
$10,919,000
<
Total OM&M Cost (20 Years)
$26,918,000
o
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$37,837,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$35,199,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COST"
$43,655,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
CY - cubic yard
DC - direct cost
DY - day
EA - each
HR - hour
IDW - investigation derived waste
MO - month
LF - linear foot
LS - lump sum
O&M - operation and maintenance
OM&M - operation, maintenance, and monitoring
QA - quality assurance
RFI - request for information
SY - square yard
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
WK - week
YR - year
ComponentHydraulic Controls.xlsx
A-4 Optimized Pumping Treatment
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table C8
Comparison of Alternative Costs for Cell Area
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Task
Alternative B-l:
No Action
Alternative B-2:
Cap Cell Area
Alternative B-3:
T argeted
Excavation
Alternative B-4:
In-Situ Soil
Soldification
Alternative B-5:
Soil V apor
Extraction
Alternative B-6:
Thermal
Remediation
( M'l 1 \I.COSls
Capital Direct Cost
$0
$1,078,100
$1,052,400
$3,300,600
$1,135,000
$3,761,500
Contingency Assumed (%)
NA
20
15
20
10
10
Capital Indirect Cost
$0
$364,500
$314,800
$677,300
$362,800
$767,100
Engineering Contingency
$0
$17,400
$15,000
$32,300
$17,300
$36,600
Total Capital Costs
SO
SI,442,600
$1,367,200
$3,977,900
$1,497,800
$4,528,600
MOM 1 < )kl\<.. OI'I'U \ 1 ION. WDMMMI W\( 1 ( lish
Annual O&M Cost
$0
$14,200
NA
NA
$192,300
NA
O&M Contingency and Unlisted Items Assumed (%)
NA
10
NA
NA
10
NA
O&M Duration (years)
0
20
NA
NA
3
NA
Annual Monitoring Cost
$0
NA
NA
$127,000
$120,900
$148,300
Monitoring Contingency and Unlisted Items Assumed (%)
NA
NA
NA
10
10
10
Monitoring Duration (years)
0
NA
NA
2
6
2
Non-Routine O&M Cost
$0
$0
$0
$11,600
$154,800
176,700
Contingency Assumed (%)
NA
0
NA
20
20
20
Total Monitoring and O&M Costs
SO
S284,000
$0
$265,600
$1,457,100
$473,300
TOTAL COST (2018 DOLLARS)
$0
$1,727,000
$1,367,000
$4,244,000
$2,955,000
$5,002,000
Total Present Worth Cost3
$0
$1,700,000
$1,367,000
$4,240,000
$2,912,000
$4,843,000
Total Escalated Costb
$0
$1,789,000
$1,367,000
$4,243,000
$2,964,000
$4,844,000
aPresent worth costs were calculated using a 1% discount rate.
b Escalated costs were calculated using a 2% inflation rate.
Notes:
Discount Rate (1%) = Interest Rate (3%) - Inflation (2%)
NA - Not Applicable
O&M - Operation and Maintenance
ComponentCell Area Cost Est.xlsx
Alt B Summary
1 of 1
-------
Table C9
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-l Estimator Elyssa Dixon
No Action Report Date 8/21/2020
Cell Area Last Updated 4/3/2018
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer D Cabanillas
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 4/9/2018
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 No active source remediation in Cell Area
2 Long term groundwater monitoring and continued operation of hydraulic containment covered under A series alternatives
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIULCT COSTS (I.NSTAI.LLI))
1
None - No additional well installation
0
EA
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$0
Contingency/Unlisted Items
0
%
$0
$0
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$0
CAPITAL INDIULCT COSTS
1
Project Management (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
z
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
o
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
0
LS
$0
$0
H
<
4
Engineering Design and Report
0
HR
$0
$0
H
Z
5
Design Plans and Specs
0
LS
$0
$0
td
5
6
Engineer's Estimate
0
HR
$0
$0
td
7
Permitting
0
LS
$0
$0
—1
0.
8
Bid and RFI Support
0
HR
$0
$0
s
9
Contracting
0
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
0
HR
$0
$0
11
Construction QA (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
0
HR
$0
$0
13
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$0
TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$0
Engineering Contingency (% of Total Capital Cost)
0
%
$0
$0
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$0
A\\l Al. O&M COST
1
O&M Costs (Labor Not Included)
1
LS
$0
$0
2
O&M Labor Costs
1
YR
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$0
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
0
%
$0
$0
ANNUAL O&M COST
$0
TOTAL O&M COST
0
Years of O&M
$0
Present Worth O&M Costb
$0
Escalated O&M Costb
$0
5
PI.UIODK7NOVUOI TIM-! O&M COST
o
1
None
0
EA
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
0
%
$0
$0
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Present Worth O&M Costb
$0
Escalated O&M Costb
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Total
Pivsenl Worlli1'
Lscalaled1'
Annual O&M
$0
$0
$0
Non-Routine O&M
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS
$0
$0
$0
AL I LUNA I IM. COS! SI MMAUN
.J
Total Capital Cost
$0
<
Total O&M Cost
$0
H
O
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2018 DOLLARS)
$0
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$0
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$0
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent O&M - operation and maintenance
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan QA - quality assurance
DC - direct cost RFI - request for information
Component_Cell Area Cost Est.xlsx
B-l No Action Page 1 of 1
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE B-2, CELL AREA CAP
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of capping the cell area with concrete pavement to prevent
infiltration of surface water runoff through COC-impacted soils beneath Cell 1 and Cell 2. The
alternative includes:
• Capping area of 60,500 SF
• Backfilling the Cell Area with borrow material such that the grade matches the height of the north
side of Building 2
• Grading for stormwater flow toward centerline to minimize volume of import fill needed
• Installing a 60-mil HDPE vapor barrier over the fill soil
• Installing a cap consisting of 6 inches of gravel/crushed rock and 6 inches of concrete over the
HDPE
• Installing six catch basins with up to 350 feet of stormwater conveyance piping.
• Approximately 8-week timeframe for construction
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Pre-Design Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Capping contractor procurement and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work, including establishing a laydown area for contractor equipment
and supplies
3. Establishing haul routes and facility traffic control measures for backfill operations
4. Installation of temporary erosion and sediment controls
5. Backfilling, compacting, and grading the cell area
6. A) Placement of the HDPE vapor barrier
B) Placement of non-woven geotextile cushion layer
7. Placement of gravel/crushed rock layer
8. Installation of catch basins and stormwater conveyance piping
9. Placement of concrete cap
10. General site restoration work
11. Construction oversight for 8 weeks
12. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings)
Page 1 of 2
Alt B-2
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
Monitoring
1. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost.
Operation & Maintenance
1. Periodic inspection and maintenance of concrete cap for 20 years
Closeout
1. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings) after
completion of construction.
Page 2 of 2
Alt B-2
-------
Table CIO
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-2 Estimator Elyssa Dixon
Cell Area Cap Report Date 8/21/2020
Cell Area Last Updated 4/5/2018
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer D Cabanillas
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 4/9/2018
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only.
3 Cells 1 and 2 will be capped (approximately 60,500 SF area).
4 The area will be backfilled with approximately 4-6 feet of borrow material from Lindsay's northern property and graded for
stormwater flow to the center.
5 Installation of approximately 350 feet of storm drain conveyance piping and 6 catch basins down centerline of Cell Area.
6 A 60-mil high density vapor barrier will be installed over the existing ground surface and geotextile installed.
7 6-inches of gravel will be placed over the geotextile with a 6-inch concrete cap.
8 Existing utilities will be protected during construction.
9 Construction will take approximately 8 weeks.
10 Biannual spot inspections and repairs for 20 years
11 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program not included in
alternative cost.
cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIRI-'.CT COSTS (l\STALLI-'.D)
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
2
Utility Locate
2
LS
$10,000
$20,000
3
Surveyor
1
LS
$3,000
$3,000
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$1,000
$1,000
Construction Activities
5
Construction Equipment Rentals
30
DY
$1,777
$53,400
6
Construction Labor
8
WK
$11,160
$89,300
7
Impermeable Membrane (60-mil HDPE)
60,500
SF
$0.94
$56,900
8
Impermeable Membrane Testing
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
9
Geotextile (12 oz non-woven)
60,500
SF
$0.50
$30,300
10
On-Site Borrow Material
20,167
TN
$14
$282,400
11
Base Course (Crushed Rock)
1,120
CY
$6
$6,900
12
Base Course Delivery
189
HR
$128
$24,200
13
Compaction Testing
1
LS
$9,300
$9,300
14
Compactor
10
DY
$467
$4,700
15
Street Sweeping
30
DY
$133
$4,000
16
Place New Concrete Cap (6-in thick)
60,500
SF
$2.20
$133,100
Z
Stormwater System
o
HH
17
Stormwater Conveyance Piping
352
LF
$56
$19,700
H
-*(,
18
Catch Basins (Traffic Rated)
6
EA
$1,000
$6,000
H
Z
H
19
Pipe Bedding (Pea Gravel)
130
CY
$47
$6,200
URS
§
-
20
Construction Oversight
40
DY
$2,100
$84,000
21
Travel for Construction Oversight
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
§
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$898,400
HH
Contingency /Unlisted Items
20
%
$898,400
$179,700
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$1,078,100
CAPITAL l\DIRI-'.CT COSTS
1
Project Management (% of DC)
2
%
$1,078,100
$21,600
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning (% of DC)
2
%
$1,078,100
$21,600
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
150
HR
$120
$18,000
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$60,000
$60,000
6
Engineer's Estimate
60
HR
$120
$7,200
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
8
Bid and RFI Support
32
HR
$115
$3,700
9
Contracting
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
10
Work Plans (CMP/SAP)
200
HR
$115
$23,000
11
Construction QA (% of DC)
4
%
$1,078,100
$43,200
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
300
HR
$115
$34,500
13
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$1,078,100
$59,300
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$347,100
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
5
%
$347,100
$17,400
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$364,500
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$1,442,600
Component Cell Area Cost Est.xlsx
B-2 Cell Area Cap Page 1 of 2
-------
Table CIO
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-2 Estimator Elyssa Dixon
Cell Area Cap Report Date 8/21/2020
Cell Area Last Updated 4/5/2018
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer D Cabanillas
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 4/9/2018
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
A\M AI.O&M COST
1
Labor (1 n^pcclioii^ and Maiiiieiiance;
4
DY
s:,iuu
SX, 4(1(1
2
URS Travel
2
EA
$1,000
$2,000
3
General Repairs
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$12,900
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$12,900
$1,300
ANNUAL O&M COST
$14,200
TOTAL O&M COST
20
Years of O&M
$284,000
Present Worth O&M Costb
$256,300
S
Escalated O&M Costb
$345,100
%
Pl.RIODICAOVROl TIM'. O&M COST
O
1
None
0
EA
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
0
%
$0
$0
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Present Worth O&M Costb
$0
Escalated O&M Costb
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Toial
Presell( Worth"
llscaliiled"
Annual O&M
$284,000
$256,300
$345,100
Non-Routine O&M
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS (20 YEARS)
$284,000
$256,300
$345,100
Al l I KNA I IM. COST SI MMARY
_]
Total Capital Cost
$1,443,000
<
H
O
Total O&M Cost (20 Years)
$284,000
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2018 DOLLARS)
$1,727,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$1,700,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COST"
$1,789,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
CY - cubic yard
DY - day
EA - each
HR - hour
LF - linear foot
LS - lump sum
O&M - operation and maintenance
RFI - request for information
SF - square foot
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
WK - week
Component Cell Area Cost Est.xlsx
B-2 Cell Area Cap
Page 2 of 2
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE B-3, TARGETED EXCAVATION
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of targeted excavation of PCE-impacted soils above the water
table in the Cell 2 area where excavation is practicable using a standard excavator or backhoe. The
alternative includes:
• Excavation area of 5,700 SF
• Excavation depth of 22 feet bgs relative to the cell floor with 1V: 1H sloped sidewalls with 95 feet
of temporary sheet pile shoring installed on eastern sidewall
• Approximate excavation volume of 2,900 CY and off-site disposal at Butler County Landfill
• Backfilling with on-site borrow material
• Approximately 3-week timeframe for construction
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Prc-Dcsign Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Contractor procurement and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work, including establishing a laydown area for contractor equipment
and supplies and placing concrete barriers around excavation area
3. Establishing haul routes and facility traffic control measures for backfill operations
4. Installation of temporary erosion and sediment controls
5. Installation of temporary shoring along eastern wall of excavation
6. Soil excavation, including collection of confirmation sidewall (13) and floor (4) samples
7. Backfilling, compacting, and grading to match pre-existing grade
8. Load-out and transport of excavated soil to Butler County Landfill
9. Construction oversight for 3 weeks
10. General site restoration work
Monitoring
1. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost
Operation & Maintenance
1. None
Page 1 of 2
Alt B-3
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0 Appendix C
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Closeout
1. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings) after
completion of construction
Page 2 of 2
Alt B-3
-------
Table Cll
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-3 Estimator Elyssa Dixon
Targeted Excavation Report Date 8/21/2020
Cell Area Last Updated 4/5/2018
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer D Cabanillas
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 4/9/2018
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only.
3 Targeted excavation of approximately 2,900 CY of PCE-impacted soil over approximately 5,700 SF to a maximum depth of
approximately 22 feet bgs.
4 Temporary sheet pile (95 feet) will be installed on the eastern sidewall of the excavation. Slope sidewalls (1V: 1H) will be used on the
other sidewalls.
5 Confirmation soil sampling will be completed on side slopes (13 samples) and the excavation floor (4 samples).
6 The area will be backfilled with borrow material from Lindsay's northern property.
7 Existing utilities will be protected during construction. No known utilities are located in the excavation area.
8 Construction will take approximately 3 weeks.
9 No monitoring or ongoing O&M will be completed as part of this alternative.
10 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program not included in
alternative cost.
cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL 1)1 lU'.CT COSTS (INSTALLI'.I))
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
2
Utility Locate
2
LS
$10,000
$20,000
3
Surveyor
1
LS
$1,500
$1,500
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
Construction Activities
5
Excavation (Including Labor and Equipment)
5,220
TN
$12.00
$62,700
6
Sheet Pile (Temporary)
5,225
SF
$50
$261,300
7
Construction Equipment Rentals (Backfill)
3
DY
$1,777
$5,400
8
Construction Labor (Backfill)
1
WK
$11,160
$11,200
9
On-Site Borrow Material (Backfill)
5,220
TN
$14
$73,100
10
Compaction Testing
1
LS
$9,300
$9,300
11
Compactor
3
DY
$467
$1,500
12
Final Grading
1
LS
$1,883
$1,900
URS
13
Construction Oversight
15
DY
$2,100
$31,500
14
Construction Oversight (Geotechnical Engineer)
7
DY
$2,400
$16,800
15
Seismic Monitoring Equipment (Crane Bay)
1
WK
$1,100
$1,100
16
Travel for Construction Oversight
2
EA
$1,000
$2,000
17
PID Rental
15
DY
$50
$800
Confirmation Sampling
Z
o
18
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$500
$500
HH
H
19
Analytical (VOCs)
20
EA
$228
$4,600
<
H
Z
H
§
Other
20
Street Sweeping
15
DY
$133
$2,000
21
Site Restoration
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
IDW
-J
a.
22
IDW Management
20
HR
$120
$2,400
HH
23
IDW Disposal
5,220
TN
$38
$198,400
24
IDW Transportation
5,220
TN
$32
$167,100
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$915,100
Contingency/Unlisted Items
15
%
$915,100
$137,300
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$1,052,400
CAPITAL INDIUI'.CT COSTS
1
Project Management (% of DC)
2
%
$1,052,400
$21,100
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning (% of DC)
2
%
$1,052,400
$21,100
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
150
HR
$120
$18,000
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$45,000
$45,000
6
Engineer's Estimate
60
HR
$120
$7,200
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
8
Bid and RFI Support
32
HR
$115
$3,700
9
Contracting
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
80
HR
$115
$9,200
11
Construction QA (% of DC)
4
%
$1,052,400
$42,100
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
300
HR
$115
$34,500
13
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$1,052,400
$57,900
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$299,800
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
5
%
$299,800
$15,000
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$314,800
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$1,367,200
Component Cell Area Cost Estxlsx
B-3 Excavation Page 1 of 2
-------
Table Cll
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-3 Estimator Elyssa Dixon
Targeted Excavation Report Date 8/21/2020
Cell Area Last Updated 4/5/2018
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer D Cabanillas
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 4/9/2018
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
\\M AI.CROl M>\\ A I I.K MONITORING COST
1
O&M Costs (Labor Not Included)
0
LS
$0
2
O&M Labor Costs
0
YR
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
$0
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
0
%
$0
$0
ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
$0
TOTAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
0
Years of Monitoring
$0
Present Worth Groundwater Monitoring Costb
$0
Escalated Groundwater Monitoring Costb
$0
O&M
PERIODIC/NOVROl 1 INI. O&M COST
1
None
0
EA
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
0
%
$0
$0
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Present Worth O&M Costb
$0
Escalated O&M Costb
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS
lolal
1'resenl Worth"
I'scalaled"
Annual O&M
$0
$0
$0
Non-Routine O&M
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS
$0
$0
$0
ai. i i rna i im: cost si mmary
_]
Total Capital Cost
$1,367,000
<
H
O
Total O&M Cost
$0
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2018 DOLLARS)
$1,367,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$1,367,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COST"
$1,367,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
DC - direct cost
DY - day
EA - each
HR - hour
IDW - investigation derived waste
LS - lump sum
O&M - operation and maintenance
QA - quality assurance
RFI - request for information
SF - square foot
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
WK - week
Component Cell Area Cost Estxlsx
B-3 Excavation
Page 2 of 2
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE B-4, IN-SITU SOIL SOLIDIFICATION (ISS)
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of in-place mechanical mixing of solidifying agents into soil
using large diameter augers. The targeted treatment area is soil with concentrations exceeding 5,000
(ig/kgofPCE. The alternative includes:
• Solidification area of 8,800 SF
• Maximum treatment depth of 50 ft bgs
• Treatment volume of 12,500 CY of soil would be treated using solidifying agents
• The surface area will be re-graded as needed following solidification. No offsite soil disposal is
assumed.
• Approximately 8-week timeframe for construction
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Prc-Dcsign Activities/Design
1. Bench-scale treatability study to assess strength, leachability, and cure time of target soils using
samples from 5 borings
2. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
3. Contractor procurement and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work, including establishing a laydown area for contractor equipment
and supplies and placing concrete barriers around excavation area
3. Establishing haul routes and facility traffic control measures for backfill operations
4. Installation of temporary erosion and sediment controls
5. Performance of soil mixing and construction quality assurance activities
6. Backfilling cell areas and grading solidified soil
7. Installation of one groundwater monitoring well
8. General site restoration work
9. Construction oversight for duration of construction (40 work days)
Page 1 of 2
Alt B-4
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
Monitoring
1. Analysis of quality assurance samples from solidified soil during implementation to ensure design
specifications are met
2. Post-remedy quarterly groundwater sampling and analysis for one well for 2 years. Analyze for
VOCs, 1,4-dioxane, and metals and include 1 field duplicate sample per quarter
3. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost
Operation & Maintenance
1. None
Closeout
1. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings) after
completion of construction
Page 2 of 2
Alt B-4
-------
Table C12
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-4
In-Situ Soil Solidification
Cell Area
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Estimator Elyssa Dixon
Report Date 8/21/2020
Last Updated 4/5/2018
QA Reviewer D Cabanillas
QA Review Date 4/9/2018
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only.
3 In-situ soil solidification of approximately 12,500 CY of PCE-impacted soil over approximately 8,800 SF to a maximum depth of
approximately 50 feet bgs.
4 The surface area will be re-graded as needed following solidification. No offsite soil disposal is assumed.
5 Existing utilities will be protected during construction. No known utilities are loaced in the solidification area.
6 Construction will take approximately 8 weeks.
7 Post-remedy quarterly groundwater sampling of one new alternative specific monitoring well plus MW14-09A and MW14-09B.
8 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program not included in
alternative cost.
Cost
Tvnc
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIRI'.CT COSTS (INS l ALLI'.l))
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$150,000
$150,000
2
Utility Locate
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
3
Surveyor
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
Construction Activities
5
Bench Scale Mix Design
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
6
Solidification Pilot Test of Selected Mix Design (400 SF)
740
CY
$300
$222,000
7
Solidification Materials
1
LS
$670,500
$670,500
8
Solidification Labor and Equipment
12,500
CY
$110
$1,375,000
9
Compaction Testing
1
LS
$5,100
$5,100
10
Compactor
3
DY
$467
$1,500
11
Final Grading
1
LS
$1,883
$1,900
URS
12
Construction Oversight (Engineer)
48
DY
$2,100
$100,800
13
Construction Oversight (Geologist)
4
DY
$1,600
$6,400
14
Construction Oversight (Geotechnical Engineer)
16
DY
$2,400
$38,400
15
Seismic Monitoring Equipment (Crane Bay)
8
WK
$1,100
$8,800
16
Travel for Construction Oversight
5
EA
$1,000
$5,000
17
NE Licensed Geologist
24
HR
$160
$3,900
18
PID Rental
10
DY
$50
$500
Other
Z
19
Street Sweeping
40
DY
$133
$5,400
o
HH
20
Monitoring Well Installation
1
EA
$3,360
$3,400
H
<
H
Z
H
21
Site Restoration
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
Confirmation Soil Sampling
22
Soil Borings
5
EA
$8,778
$43,900
§
-
23
URS Oversight
3
DY
$1,600
$4,800
24
Travel for Oversight
1
EA
$1,000
$1,000
£
25
NE Licensed Geologist
8
HR
$160
$1,300
HH
26
Analytical
61
EA
$330
$20,200
27
PID Rental
3
DY
$50
$200
28
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$500
$500
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$2,750,500
Contingency/Unlisted Items
20
%
$2,750,500
$550,100
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$3,300,600
CAPITAL INDIKI-'.CT COSTS
1
Project Management (% of DC)
2
%
$3,300,600
$66,100
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning (% of DC)
2
%
$3,300,600
$66,100
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
150
HR
$120
$18,000
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$60,000
$60,000
6
Engineer's Estimate
60
HR
$120
$7,200
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
8
Bid and RFI Support
32
HR
$115
$3,700
9
Contracting
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
80
HR
$115
$9,200
11
Construction QA (% of DC)
4
%
$3,300,600
$132,100
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
400
HR
$115
$46,000
13
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$3,300,600
$181,600
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$645,000
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
5
%
$645,000
$32,300
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$677,300
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$3,977,900
Component Cell Area Cost Estxlsx
B-4 ISS Page 1 of 2
-------
Table C12
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-4 Estimator Elyssa Dixon
In-Situ Soil Solidification Report Date 8/21/2020
Cell Area Last Updated 4/5/2018
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer D Cabanillas
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 4/9/2018
Cost
Tvnc
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
\\\l AI.CROl \l>\\ AU K MONITORING COST
1
Project Management and Coordination
20
HR
$183
$3,700
2
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
4
DY
$706
$2,900
3
URS Labor
16
EA
$4,800
$76,800
4
URS Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
5
Analytical (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
24
EA
$330
$8,000
6
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
$115,400
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$115,400
$11,600
ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
$127,000
TOTAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
2
Years of Monitoring
$254,000
O&M
Present Worth Groundwater Monitoring Costb
$250,300
Escalaled Ciiiiiiiidwak'i'Miiiiiiiii'iim Cosi
$256.600
IM.RIODK 7NON-ROI TIM'. O&M COST
1
Decommission Monitoring Wells (Year 3)
1
DY
$9,535
$9,600
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$9,600
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
20
%
$9,600
$2,000
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$11,600
Present Worth O&M Costb
$11,200
Escalated O&M Costb
$8,200
TOTAL O&M COSTS
lolal
Presenl Worth"
I'.scaliiled"
Annual O&M
$254,000
$250,300
$256,600
Non-Routine O&M
$11,600
$11,200
$8,200
TOTAL O&M COSTS (10 YE ARS)
S265.600
S261,500
S264.800
ai.h kna i im: cost si mmary
J
Total Capital Cost
$3,978,000
<
H
O
Total O&M Cost (10 Years)
$266,000
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2018 DOLLARS)
$4,244,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$4,240,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COST"
$4,243,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
CY - cubic yard
DC - direct cost
DY - day
EA - each
HR - hour
LS - lump sum
O&M - operation and maintenance
QA - quality assurance
RFI - request for information
SF - square foot
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
WK - week
Component Cell Area Cost Estxlsx
B-4 ISS
Page 2 of 2
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE B-5, SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of soil vapor extraction (SVE) in the cell area where PCE
concentrations in soil are above 5,000 (.ig/kg. The alternative includes:
• Treatment area of 8,800 SF
• Treatment depth of 5 to 20 ft bgs
• Treatment volume of 5,000 CY
• System will operate continuously for 4 years
• Approximately 17 SVE wells with 25-ft spacing
• Approximately 2 new groundwater monitoring wells
• Approximately 20-day timeframe for construction and SVE system installation
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Pre-Design Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Remediation contracting and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
3. Upgrade of facility electrical infrastructure, including upgraded/new electrical transformers
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work
3. Drilling and installation of SVE wells
4. Drilling and installation of 2 new groundwater monitoring wells
5. Installation of above ground piping and well head connections
6. Installation of an above ground 10-ft by 40-ft treatment compound and fencing (location to be
determined during design)
7. Installation of electrical service and other electrical infrastructure
8. SVE system startup testing and monitoring
9. Disposal of IDW (soil cuttings, excavated soil from trenching, and purge water)
10. Construction and well installation oversight for 20 work days
Page 1 of 2
Alt B-5
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
Monitoring
1. Performance monitoring of the system will occur during operation:
o Monthly vapor sampling during the first year and quarterly sampling for the remaining
three years
2. Quarterly groundwater sampling and analysis for 2 wells during system operation and for two
years following. Analyze for VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane and include 1 field duplicate sample and
MS/MSD set per quarter
3. Post-remedy confirmation soil sampling (5 borings, 55 samples) for VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane
4. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost
Operation & Maintenance
1. Operation of the system for 4 years
2. Weekly O&M activities by one person for one day
3. Monthly system maintenance during the first year; quarterly system maintenance for all 4 years
4. Utility usage (electrical) costs during SVE operation
Closeout
1. System and SVE well decommissioning after remediation is complete
2. General site restoration work
3. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals
Page 2 of 2
Alt B-5
-------
Table C13
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-5 Estimator Elyssa Dixon
Soil Vapor Extraction Report Date 8/21/2020
Cell Area Last Updated 4/5/2018
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer D Cabanillas
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 4/9/2018
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only.
3 Soil vapor treatment of approximately 5,000 CY of PCE-impacted soil over a 8,800 SF area to a maximum depth of approximately 20
feet bgs.
4 Installation of soil vapor extraction system including an above ground treatment compound and soil vapor extraction wells (17).
5 Existing utilities will be protected during construction.
6 Construction will take approximately 20 days.
7 Post-remedy quarterly groundwater sampling of two new alternative specific monitoring well plus MW14-09A and MW14-09B.
8 Alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells will be decommissioned after 6 years.
9 Soil and groundwater samples will not be collected during installation of soil vapor extraction or monitoring wells.
10 All SVE piping will be above ground
11 SVE system will operate year round for four years.
12 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program not included in
alternative cost.
13 Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program and
costs are included in this estimate.
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIKKCT COSTS (INSTALL!!!))
Site
Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
2
Utility Locate
2
LS
$10,000
$20,000
3
Surveyor
2
DY
$800
$1,600
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$1,000
$1,000
5
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$500
$500
6
Upgrade Electrical Utility Infrastructure
1
LS
$125,000
$125,000
Construction Activities
7
Install SVE Wells
17
EA
$3,360
$57,200
8
SVE Well Fittings
17
EA
$644
$11,000
9
SVE System
1
LS
$28,000
$28,000
10
Carbon Vessels (2,000 lb) with Initial Load
3
EA
$3,009
$9,100
12
SVE Piping Installation
500
LF
$21.85
$11,000
13
Winterization Materials
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
URS
14
Construction Oversight (Geologist)
7
DY
$1,600
$11,200
15
Construction Oversight (Engineer)
15
DY
$2,100
$31,500
16
Travel for Construction Oversight
3
EA
$1,000
$3,000
17
NE Licensed Geologist
8
HR
$160
$1,300
18
PID Rental
20
DY
$50
$1,000
Other
19
Street Sweeping
20
DY
$133
$2,700
20
Monitoring Well Installation
2
EA
$3,360
$6,800
21
Site Restoration
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
Z
o
IDW
HH
H
22
IDW Management
10
HR
$120
$1,200
<
[_
23
IDW Disposal
500
TN
$38
$19,000
Z
24
IDW Transportation
500
TN
$32
$16,000
W
System Operation (Year 1)
W
25
Vapor Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
12
EA
$245
$3,000
-J
a.
26
SVE System Maintenance
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
£
27
Carbon Changeout
24,000
LB
$2
$48,000
28
URS Labor
88
EA
$6,300
$554,400
29
URS Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
30
Analytical (Vapor) (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
24
EA
$154
$3,700
31
SVE Blower Electricity
12
MO
$1,921
$23,100
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$1,031,800
Contingency/Unlisted Items
10
%
$1,031,800
$103,200
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$1,135,000
CAPITAL INDIRKCT COSTS
1
Project Management (% of DC)
2
%
$1,135,000
$22,700
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning (% of DC)
2
%
$1,135,000
$22,700
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
150
HR
$120
$18,000
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$60,000
$60,000
6
Engineer's Estimate
60
HR
$120
$7,200
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
8
Bid and RFI Support
32
HR
$115
$3,700
9
Contracting
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
120
HR
$115
$13,800
11
Construction QA (% of DC)
4
%
$1,135,000
$45,400
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
300
HR
$115
$34,500
13
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$1,135,000
$62,500
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$345,500
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
5
%
$345,500
$17,300
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$362,800
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$1,497,800
Component_Cell Area Cost Est.xlsx
B-5 SVE Page 1 of 2
-------
Table C13
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-5 Estimator Elyssa Dixon
Soil Vapor Extraction Report Date 8/21/2020
Cell Area Last Updated 4/5/2018
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer D Cabanillas
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 4/9/2018
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
A\\l AI.OPI RATION AM) MAIYI I NAM 1
1
Project Management and Coordination
40
HR
$183
$7,400
2
Vapor Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
4
EA
$245
$1,000
3
URS Labor
12
EA
$6,300
$75,600
4
URS Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
5
Analytical (Vapor) (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
16
EA
$154
$2,500
6
Blower Electricity
12
MO
$1,921
$23,100
7
Carbon Changeout (1 vessel every 2 months)
12,000
LB
$2
$24,000
8
Annual System Monitoring Report
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
9
Winterization
1
LS
$7,200
$7,200
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$174,800
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$174,800
$17,500
ANNUAL O&M COST
$192,300
TOTAL O&M COST
3
Years of O&M
$576,900
Present Worth O&M Costb
$565,600
Escalated O&M Costb
$588,600
A\M Al. MONITORING AM) REPORTING
1
Project Management and Coordination
40
HR
$183
$7,400
2
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
4
DY
$706
$2,900
3
URS Labor
12
EA
$4,800
$57,600
4
URS Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
5
Analytical (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
24
EA
$330
$8,000
o
6
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL MONITORING COST
$109,900
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$109,900
$11,000
ANNUAL MONITORING COST
$120,900
TOTAL MONITORING COST
6
Years of Monitoring
$725,400
Present Worth Monitoring Costb
$700,700
Escalated Monitoring Cost"
$762,700
PERIODIC/NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
1
SVE System General Repair (Year 2)
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
2
SVE System General Repair (Year 4)
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
3
SVE System Decommissioning (Year 5)
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
SVE Well Abandonment (Year 5)
4
DY
$8,325
$33,300
5
Closeout Confirmation Borings (Year 5)
5
EA
$8,788
$44,000
6
Decommission Monitoring Wells (Year 6)
1
DY
$9,535
$26,700
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$129,000
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
20
%
$129,000
$25,800
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$154,800
Present Worth O&M Costb
$147,300
Escalated O&M Costb
$114,100
'I'O'l'AI. O&M COSTS
Tola!
Pivsenl Wurlir
ISialakd"
Annual O&M
$576,900
$565,600
$588,600
Annual Monitoring
$725,400
$700,700
$762,700
Non-Routine O&M
$154,800
$147,300
$114,100
TOTAL O&M COSTS (6 YEARS)
$1,457,100
$1,413,600
$1,465,400
Al.fl RNATIYI COST SI MMAI«
J
Total Capital Cost
$1,498,000
<
H
O
Total O&M Cost (6 Years)
$1,457,000
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2018 DOLLARS)
$2,955,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COST"
$2,912,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COST"
$2,964,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
CY - cubic yard
DC - direct cost
DY - day
EA - each
HR - hour
IDW - investigation derived waste
kWh - kilowatt-hour
LB - pound
LF - linear foot
LS - lump sum
MO - month
O&M - operation and maintenance
OM&M - operation, maintenance, and monitoring
QA - quality assurance
RFI - request for information
SVE - soil vapor extraction
SF - square foot
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
Component_Cell Area Cost Est.xlsx
B-5 SVE
Page 2 of 2
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE B-6, THERMAL REMEDIATION
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of in-situ thermal remediation (ISTR) in the area of the highest
detected PCE soil contamination in the cell area. The alternative consists of:
• Treatment area of approximately 8,800 SF
• Treatment depth of 5 to 50 ft bgs
• Treatment volume of 14,700 CY
• Approximately 44 remediation wells (inclusive of heater wells, MPEs, and TMPs)
• Approximately 2 new alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells (one well installed
within treatment area will be fiberglass; one well outside the treatment area will be PVC)
• Approximately 4-month timeframe for construction/implementation followed by 7-months of
operation with an expected PCE removal rate of 95%
• Refine the treatment area by advancing 20 borings during installation and analyzing for VOCs
• 2 years of performance monitoring
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Pre-Design Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Remediation contracting and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. Treatment area refinement program of 20 borings using direct push methods to 50 feet bgs.
Analysis of 180 soil samples and 20 groundwater samples. Rush analysis of VOCs in soil.
3. General site preparation work
4. Upgrade of facility electrical infrastructure, including upgraded/new electrical transformers
5. Drilling and installation of subsurface heating points, vapor recovery wells, temperature
monitoring points
6. Drilling and installation of 2 new groundwater monitoring wells
7. Installation of above ground piping and well head connections
8. Installation of an above ground 75-ft by 75-ft treatment compound and fencing (location to be
determined during design)
9. Installation of thermal heating equipment and performance of system startup and commissioning
10. Disposal of IDW (soil cuttings, excavated soil from trenching, and purge water)
Page 1 of 2
Alt B-6
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
11. Construction oversight for 4 months by URS, operation oversight for 7 months by remediation
contractor with occasional oversight by URS, and demobilization oversight by URS for 1 month
Monitoring
1. Performance monitoring of groundwater, extracted vapor samples, and of temperature probes by
remediation contractor (inclusive of contractor installation and operation cost).
2. Post-remedy confirmation soil sampling (2 borings, 22 samples).
3. Post-remedy quarterly groundwater sampling and analysis for 2 wells for 2 years (performed by
Lindsay facility personnel). Analyze for VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane and include 1 field duplicate
sample per quarter.
4. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost.
Operation & Maintenance
1. Operation of the thermal system for 7 months. O&M activities performed by the remediation
contractor during active remediation (inclusive of remediation contractor cost)
2. Utility usage (electrical) costs during ISTR operation.
Closeout
1. Contractor demobilization after remediation is complete, including removal of thermal heating
equipment, decommissioning of thermal remediation wells, and general site restoration work
2. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings)
Page 2 of 2
Alt B-6
-------
Table C14
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-6 Estimator Elyssa Dixon
Thermal Remediation Report Date 8/21/2020
Cell Area Last Updated 4/6/2018
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer D Cabanillas
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 4/9/2018
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only.
3 Soil vapor treatment of approximately 14,700 CY of PCE-impacted soil over approximately 8,800 SF to a maximum depth of
approximately 50 feet bgs.
4 Installation of thermal treatment system including an above ground treatment compound and thermal remediation wells (44).
7 Existing utilities will be protected during construction.
8 Construction will take approximately 4 months.
9 Post-remedy quarterly groundwater sampling of 2 new alternative specific monitoring wells plus MW14-09A and MW14-09B.
10 Alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells and thermal treatment wells will be decommissioned after 3 years. Thermal
treatment wells are assumed to be abandoned in place.
11 Soil and groundwater samples will not be collected during installation of soil vapor extraction or monitoring wells.
12 All piping will be above ground.
14 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program not included in
alternative cost.
15 Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program and
costs are included in this estimate.
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIUKCT COSTS (INSTAI.I.KI))
Site
Investigation
1
Soil Borings
20
EA
$8,043
$160,900
2
URS Labor (Geologist)
10
DY
$1,600
$16,000
3
Travel for Oversight
1
EA
$1,000
$1,000
4
NE Licensed Geologist
8
HR
$160
$1,300
5
PID Rental
10
DY
$50
$500
6
Analytical (groundwater)
23
EA
$330
$7,600
Site
Preparation
7
Mobilization
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
8
Utility Locate
2
LS
$10,000
$20,000
9
Surveyor
6
DY
$800
$4,800
10
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$1,000
$1,000
11
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$500
$500
12
Upgrade Facility Utility Infrastructure
1
LS
$125,000
$125,000
Construction Activities
Thermal Treatment
13
Expose Existing Utilities (Air Knife)
1
DY
$2,150
$2,200
14
Thermal Mobilization, Installation, Operation, and Demob
1
LS
$2,052,152
$2,052,200
URS
15
Construction Oversight (Geologist)
30
DY
$1,600
$48,000
z
16
Construction Oversight (Geologist)
30
DY
$1,600
$48,000
o
17
Construction Oversight (Engineer)
40
DY
$2,100
$84,000
H
iS
18
Construction Oversight (Engineer)
40
DY
$2,100
$84,000
19
Travel for Construction Oversight
14
EA
$1,000
$14,000
fcd
20
NE Licensed Geologist
24
HR
$160
$3,900
S
u
0.
5
21
PID Rental
80
DY
$50
$4,000
Other
22
Street Sweeping
60
DY
$133
$8,000
23
Monitoring Well Installation (PVC)
1
EA
$3,360
$3,400
24
Monitoring Well Installation (Fiberglass)
1
EA
$4,209
$4,300
25
Site Restoration
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
IDW (including investigation phase)
26
IDW Management
20
HR
$120
$2,400
27
IDW Disposal
800
TN
$38
$30,400
28
IDW Transportation
800
TN
$32
$25,600
System Operation
29
Utilities (electrical)
3,054,870
kWh
$0.14
$412,500
30
URS System Oversight
84
DY
$2,100.00
$176,400
31
Travel for System Oversight
28
EA
$1,000.00
$28,000
Confirmation Soil Sampling (End of Thermal Treatment)
32
Soil Borings
2
EA
$8,778
$17,600
33
URS Oversight
3
DY
$1,600
$4,800
34
Travel for Oversight
1
EA
$1,000
$1,000
35
NE Licensed Geologist
4
HR
$160
$700
36
Analytical
22
EA
$330
$7,300
37
PID Rental
3
DY
$50
$200
38
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$500
$500
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$3,419,500
Contingency/Unlisted Items
10
%
$3,419,500
$342,000
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$3,761,500
Component_Cell Area Cost Est.xlsx
B-6 Thermal Page 1 of 2
-------
Table C14
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-6 Estimator Elyssa Dixon
Thermal Remediation Report Date 8/21/2020
Cell Area Last Updated 4/6/2018
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer D Cabanillas
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 4/9/2018
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL INDIRLCT COSTS
1
Project Management (% of DC)
2
%
$3,761,500
$75,300
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning (% of DC)
2
%
$3,761,500
$75,300
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
230
HR
$120
$27,600
o
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$60,000
$60,000
H
6
Engineer's Estimate
60
HR
$120
$7,200
H
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Z
td
8
Bid and RFI Support
32
HR
$115
$3,700
5
u
9
Contracting
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
160
HR
$115
$18,400
0-
11
Construction QA (% of DC)
4
%
$3,761,500
$150,500
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
440
HR
$115
$50,600
13
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$3,761,500
$206,900
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$730,500
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
5
%
$730,500
$36,600
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$767,100
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$4,528,600
ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
1
Project Management and Coordination
40
HR
$183
$7,400
2
Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
16
DY
$706
$11,300
3
URS Labor
16
EA
$4,800
$76,800
4
URS Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
5
Analytical (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
16
EA
$330
$5,300
6
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$134,800
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$134,800
$13,500
ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
$148,300
TOTAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
2
Years of O&M
$296,600
Present Worth O&M Costb
$292,300
o
Esc;
lated O&M Coslb
$299,600
IM.RIODK /NOVROl TIM! O&M COST
1
Decommission Monitoring Wells (Year 3)
2
DY
$9,035
$18,100
2
Decommission Thermal Wells (Year 3)
15
DY
$8,602
$129,100
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$147,200
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
20
%
$147,200
$29,500
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$176,700
Present Worth O&M Costb
$21,100
Escalated O&M Costb
$15,400
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Tolal
PivsenI Wo rill1'
Lscalaled1'
Annual O&M
$296,600
$292,300
$299,600
Non-Routine O&M
$176,700
$21,100
$15,400
TOTAL O&M COSTS (2 YEARS)
$473,300
$313,400
$315,000
Al l LRNA I IM. COST SI MMARN
J
*
Total Capital Cost
$4,529,000
Total O&M Cost (2 Years)
$473,000
H
O
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2018 DOLLARS)
$5,002,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$4,843,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$4,844,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent kWh - kilowatt-hour
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan LS - lump sum
DC - direct cost O&M - operation and maintenance
DY - day QA - quality assurance
EA - each RFI - request for information
HR - hour TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
IDW - investigation derived waste TN - ton
Component_Cell Area Cost Est.xlsx
B-6 Thermal
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table C15
Comparison of Alternative Costs for Building 1
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Task
Alternative C-l:
Alternative C-2:
Alternative C-3:
Alternative C-4:
Alternative C-5:
Alternative C-6:
Alternative C-7:
No Action
Central Drainage Ditch
Thermal
Thermal Remediation
Dual Phase Extraction of
Dual Phase
Dual Phase
Cap, Maintain
Remediation of
of Hot Spots 1,2,3,
Hot Spots 1 and 2 and
Extraction of Hot
Extraction
Containment, and
Hot Spot 3
and 4
Thermal Remediation of
Spots 1,2,3, and 4
Institutional Controls
Hot Spots 3 and 4
CAPITAL COSTS
Capital Direct Cost
$0
$662,800
$2,950,900
$9,697,200
$7,050,200
$1,317,100
$3,381,900
Contingency Assumed (%)
NA
10
10
10
20
25
25
Capital Indirect Cost
$0
$169,900
$191,700
$247,700
$382,200
$333,600
$420,600
Engineering Contingency
$0
$8,100
$9,200
$11,800
$26,700
$30,400
$38,300
Total Capital Costs
SO
$832,700
$3,142,600
$9,944,900
$7,432,400
$1,650,700
$3,802,500
MONITORING, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Annual O&M Cost
$0
$11,600
NA
NA
$228,300
$233,600
$314,700
O&M Contingency and Unlisted Items Assumed (%)
NA
10
NA
NA
20
20
20
O&M Duration (years)
0
20
NA
NA
7
7
7
Annual Monitoring and Reporting Cost
$0
NA
$68,600
$121,900
$160,200
$152,300
$167,600
Monitoring Contingency and Unlisted Items Assumed (%)
NA
NA
10
10
10
10
10
Monitoring Duration (years)
20
NA
2
2
9
18
18
Non-Routine O&M Cost
$0
$0
$46,200
$63,000
$401,500
$1,848,200
$5,094,500
Non-Routine Contingency and Unlisted Items Assumed (%)
NA
5
20
10
15
20
20
Total Monitoring and O&M Costs
$0
$232,000
$183,400
$306,800
$3,586,300
$6,500,200
$10,314,200
TOTAL COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$0
$1,065,000
$3,327,000
$10,252,000
$11,020,000
$8,152,000
$14,118,000
Total Present Worth Cost3
$0
$1,043,000
$3,324,000
$10,247,000
$10,850,000
$7,622,000
$13,164,000
Total Escalated Costb
$0
$1,115,000
$3,331,000
$10,259,000
$11,322,000
$9,309,000
$16,302,000
aPresent worth costs were calculated using a 1 % discount rate.
b Escalated costs were calculated using a 2% inflation rate.
Notes:
Discount Rate (1%) = Interest Rate (3%) - Inflation (2%)
O&M - Operation and Maintenance
NA - Not Applicable
Component_Bldg 1 Cost Est.xlsx
Alt C Summary
1 ofl
-------
Table C16
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-l Estimator D Cabanillas
No Action Report Date 8/21/2020
Building 1 Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer Cary Brown
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/28/2020
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 No active source remediation in Building 1 area
2 Long term groundwater monitoring and continued operation of hydraulic containment covered under A series alternatives.
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIUI'.CT COSTS (INSTAI.LI1I))
1
None - No additional well installation
o
EA
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$0
Contingency /Unlisted Items
0
%
$0
$0
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$0
CAPITAL INDIRECT COSTS
1
Project Management (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
Z
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning (% of DC)
0
%
$0
$0
o
HH
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
0
LS
$0
$0
H
<
4
Engineering Design and Report
0
HR
$0
$0
H
Z
5
Design Plans and Specs
0
LS
$0
$0
H
S
w
6
Engineer's Estimate
0
HR
$0
$0
7
Permitting
0
LS
$0
$0
-j
a.
8
Bid and RFI Support
0
HR
$0
$0
§
HH
9
Contracting Vendors (performed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
0
HR
$0
$0
11
Construction QA (by Lindsay staff with AECOM support)
1
LS
$0
$0
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
0
HR
$0
$0
13
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
0.0
%
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$0
TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$0
Engineering Contingency (% of Total Capital Cost)
0
%
$0
$0
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$0
ANNl AI.O&M COST
1
O&M Costs (Labor Not Included)
1
LS
$0
$0
2
O&M Labor Costs
1
YR
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$0
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
0
%
$0
$0
ANNUAL O&M COST
$0
TOTAL O&M COST
0
Years of O&M
$0
Present Worth O&M Costb
$0
Escalated O&M Costb
$0
O&M
PI KIODK /NON-KOI 1 INI. O&M COST
1
None
0
EA
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
0
%
$0
$0
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Present Worth O&M Costb
$0
Escalated O&M Costb
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Tolal
Prescnl Worth1'
Lscalaled1'
Annual O&M
$0
$0
$0
Non-Routine O&M
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS (10 YEARS)
$0
$0
$0
AL I I KNA I IM. COST SI MMARY
J
<
Total Capital Cost
$0
Total O&M Cost (10 Years)
$0
H
o
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$0
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$0
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$0
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan LS - lump sum
DC - direct cost O&M - operation and maintenance
EA - each QA - quality assurance
HR - hour RFI - request for information
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-l No Action Page 1 of 1
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE C-2, CENTRAL DRAINAGE DITCH CAP, MAINTAIN CONTAINMENT, AND
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of capping the central drainage ditch to prevent infiltration of
surface water runoff through COC-impacted soils within the existing unlined ditch. No active source
remediation would be conducted to reduce the volume or toxicity of the residual soil contamination in this
area. The alternative includes:
• Capped area of approximately 30,000 SF
• Capped Ditch length of approximately 830 lineal feet
• Concrete capping thickness of approximately 3 inches, installed on top of galvanized welded wire
secured to the surface of the drainage ditch
• 6-week timeframe for construction
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Pre-Design Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Capping contractor procurement and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work
3. Installation of temporary erosion and sediment controls
4. Installation of galvanized wire and spray-on concrete surface
5. General site restoration work
6. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings)
7. Construction oversight for 6 weeks
Operation & Maintenance
1. Periodic inspections of concrete cap by AECOM personnel for 20 years
2. Periodic maintenance of concrete cap for 20 years
3. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost
Closeout
1. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings) after
completion of construction
Page 1 of 1
Alt C-2
-------
Table C17
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-2 Estimator D Cabanillas
Central Drainage Ditch Cap, Maintain Containment, and Institutional Controls Report Date 8/21/2020
Building 1 Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer C. Brown
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only at 5.5%.
3 Approximately 30,000 SF (830 LF) of the central drainage ditch will be capped.
4 Shoterete lining will be approximately 3-inch thick.
5 Construction is estimated to take 6 weeks.
6 Biannual spot inspections and repairs for 20 years.
7 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program not included in
alternative cost.
Cost
Tvnc
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIRI-'.CT COSTS (l\STALLI-'.D)
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
2
Utility Locate
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
3
Surveyor
2
DY
$900
$1,800
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
Construction Activities
1
Place New Concrete Cap (3-in thick)
30,000
SF
$15
$450,000
2
Street Sweeping
30
DY
$150
$4,500
AECOMAND/OR LINDSAY SUPPORT
1
Construction Oversight
36
DY
$1,500
$54,000
2
Travel for Construction Oversight
3
EA
$1,000
$3,000
3
Facility Coordination (Senior Engineer)
12
DY
$2,500
$30,000
4
Travel for Facility Coordination
3
EA
$1,000
$3,000
Z
o
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$573,800
HH
H
Contingency/Unlisted Items
10
%
$573,800
$57,400
<
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$573,800
$31,600
z
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$662,800
s
CAPITAL l\DIRI-'.CT COSTS
1
Project Management
12
MO
$1,750
$21,000
a.
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning (% of DC)
2
%
$662,800
$13,300
%
HH
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
80
HR
$120
$9,600
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$45,000
$45,000
6
Engineer's Estimate
30
HR
$120
$3,600
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
8
Bid and RFI Support
16
HR
$115
$1,900
9
Contracting Vendors (performed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
80
HR
$115
$9,200
11
Construction QA (by Lindsay staff with AECOM support)
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
185
HR
$125
$23,200
13
Not Used
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$161,800
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
5
%
$161,800
$8,100
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$169,900
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$832,700
AWl AI.O&M COST
1
Labor (Inspections and Maintenance)
4
DY
$1,500
$6,000
2
AECOM Travel
2
EA
$1,000
$2,000
3
General Repairs
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$10,500
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$10,500
$1,100
ANNUAL O&M COST
$11,600
TOTAL O&M COST
20
Years of O&M
$232,000
Present Worth O&M Costb
$209,400
g
Escalated O&M Costb
$281,900
Pl.RIODK /NON-ROI TIM'. O&M COST
o
1
None
0
EA
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
5
%
$0
$0
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$0
Present Worth O&M Costb
$0
Escalated O&M Costb
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS
loliil
Presenl Worth"
i:sc;il:iled"
Annual O&M
$232,000
$209,400
$281,900
Non-Routine O&M
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL O&M COSTS (20 YEARS)
$232,000
$209,400
$281,900
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-2 Cap Ditch
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table C17
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-2 Estimator D Cabanillas
Central Drainage Ditch Cap, Maintain Containment, and Institutional Controls Report Date 8/21/2020
Building 1 Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer C. Brown
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Alternative Specific Assumptions
Cost
Tvne
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
AI I I KN M INT. COST SI MM AKY
_]
Total Capital Cost
$833,000
<
H
O
Total O&M Cost (20 Years)
$232,000
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$1,065,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$1,043,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COST"
$1,115,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan LS - lump sum
DC - direct cost
DY-day
EA - each
HR - hour
LF - linear foot
MO - month
O&M - operation and maintenance
RFI - request for information
SF - square foot
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-2 Cap Ditch
Page 2 of 2
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE C-3, THERMAL REMEDIATION OF HOT SPOT 3
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of in-situ thermal remediation (ISTR) in the area of the highest
detected PCE soil contamination at the site (near SB 15-17). Multiple thermal technologies are proposed
based on discussions with thermal vendors. The alternative consists of:
• Treatment area of approximately 5,500 SF
• Variable treatment depth summarized in table shown on Figure 13. Maximum treatment depth of
50 feet bgs
• Treatment volume of approximately 8,000 CY
• Approximately 66 remediation wells:
o Thirty-four (34) dedicated thermal heating wells
o Thirteen (13) co-located thermal heating/extraction wells
o Fifteen (15) dedicated extraction wells
o Four (4) temperature monitoring points
• Five (5) new alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells (one well installed within
treatment area will be fiberglass; three wells outside the treatment area will be PVC). One set of
paired wells will be screened in the fine-grained unit (approximately 50 feet bgs) and sand and
gravel aquifer (approximately 100 feet bgs).
• Construction/implementation timeframe of 4 months followed by 5.5 months of operation with an
expected PCE removal rate of 99.9% in the upper treatment zone (5-45 feet bgs) and 60% in the
lower treatment zone (45-50 feet bgs)
• Geologist will be onsite during duration of drilling activities (based on vendor quotes this is
estimated to be 40 days). Engineer will be onsite for 25% of construction and system installation,
which is approximately 30 days.
• Two (2) years of post-heating performance monitoring
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Prc-Dcsign Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Remediation contracting and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
3. Decommissioning of two existing PVC monitoring wells (MW14-03A and MW14-03B)
4. Upgrade of facility electrical infrastructure, including upgraded/new electrical transformers and
associated overhead power
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work
Page 1 of 2
Alt C-3
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
3. Protection or relocation of underground utilities/utility in the work area, specifically abandonment
of the natural gas line located in the drainage ditch
4. Drilling and installation of approximately 66 remediation wells
5. Drilling and installation of 5 new groundwater monitoring wells
6. Trenching and installation of subsurface piping and well head connections
7. Installation of an above ground approximately 75-ft by 75-ft treatment compound and fencing;
exact location to be determined during design
8. Installation of thermal heating equipment and performance of system startup
9. Disposal of IDW (soil cuttings, excavated soil from trenching, and purge water)
10. Construction oversight for 4 months by AECOM, operation oversight for 5.5 months by
remediation contractor with occasional oversight by AECOM, and demobilization oversight by
AECOM for 0.5 months.
Monitoring
1. Performance monitoring of groundwater extracted vapor samples, and temperature probes by
remediation contractor (inclusive of contractor installation and operation cost).
2. Post-remedy confirmation soil sampling (4 borings, 44 samples).
3. Post-remedy quarterly groundwater sampling and analysis for 5 wells for 2 years. Analyze for
VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane including 1 field duplicate sample per quarter.
4. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost.
Operation & Maintenance
1. Operation of the ISTR system for 5.5 months. O&M activities performed by the remediation
contractor during active remediation (inclusive of remediation contractor cost).
2. Utility usage (electrical) costs during ISTR operation.
Closeout
1. Contractor demobilization after remediation is complete, including removal of thermal heating
equipment, decommissioning of thermal remediation wells, and general site restoration work.
2. Decommissioning of alternative specific monitoring wells.
3. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings)
Page 2 of 2
Alt C-3
-------
Table C18
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-3
Thermal Remediation of Hot Spot 3
Building 1
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only at 5.5%.
3 Thermal treatment depth from 5 to 50 feet bgs depending on treatment area.
4 Thermal treatment of approximately 8,000 CY of soil over approximately 5,500 SF.
5 Installation of thermal treatment system including an above ground treatment compound (75 ft x 75 ft), 34 dedicated thermal heating
wells, 13 co-located thermal heating/extraction wells, 15 dedicated extraction wells, and 4 temperature monitoring points (66 total).
Some angled heater wells may be necessary.
6 All piping and well heads will be below ground on roadways and areas designated by Lindsay.
7 Known utilities will be exposed using air-knifing prior to construction in those areas. Precautions will be taken to avoid breaking
unknown utilities.
8 Existing utilities will be rerouted outside of the treatment zone or protected prior to construction. The existing natural gas line in the
central drainage ditch may be decommissioned and re-installed east of Building 4 by Lindsay prior to Contractor mobilization.
9 Five new alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to monitor conditions during and following treatment.
10 Construction and system installation is estimated to take 4 months followed by system operation for 5.5 months.
11 Geologist will be onsite during duration of drilling activities, based on vendor quotes this is estimated to be 40 days. Engineer will be
onsite for 25% of construction and system installation, which is approximately 30 days.
12 Two years of performance groundwater monitoring from alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells.
13 Alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells and thermal treatment wells will be decommissioned after 3 years. Thermal
treatment wells are assumed to be abandoned in place.
14 Soil and groundwater samples will not be collected during installation of thermal system wells or monitoring wells.
15 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program are not included.
16 Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program and
costs are included in this estimate.
Estimator D Cabanillas
Report Date 8/21/2020
Last Updated 5/28/2020
QA Reviewer C. Brown
QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIKI-'.CT COSTS (INSTALL!'.!))
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization (does not include thermal vendor)
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
2
Utility Locate
2
EA
$10,000
$20,000
3
Surveyor
2
DY
$900
$1,800
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
5
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$1,000
$1,000
6
Upgrade Electrical Utility Infrastructure
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
7
Locate and Protect existing Natural Gas Line
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
8
Decommission Monitoring Wells (2)
2
DY
$9,100
$18,200
Construction Activities
Thermal Treatment
1
Expose Existing Utilities (Air Knife)
4
DY
$2,320
$9,300
2
System Mobilization, Installation, Operation, and Demob
1
LS
$1,950,000
$1,950,000
3
Utilities (electrical)
2,080,000
kWh
$0.10
$208,000
4
Utilities (natural gas) - Only needed by One Thermal Vendor
185,000
Therms
$0.52
—
AECOM and/or Lindsay Construction Support
1
Construction Oversight (Geologist)
46
DY
$1,700
$78,200
Z
o
2
Construction Oversight (Engineer)
34
DY
$1,500
$51,000
HH
H
3
Flight for Construction Oversight
5
EA
$1,000
$5,000
<
u.
4
NE Licensed Geologist (4 hr/wk for 4 weeks)
16
HR
$132
$2,200
Z
H
g
5
Facility Coordination (Senior Engineer)
48
DY
$2,500
--
6
Travel for AECOM Facility Coordination
2
EA
$1,000
--
7
PID Rental (2)
40
DY
$81
$3,300
-J
a.
Other
§
HH
1
Street Sweeping during drilling and trenching
60
DY
$150
$9,000
2
Monitoring Well Installation (PVC)
3
EA
$3,500
$10,500
3
Monitoring Well Installation (Fiberglass)
2
EA
$4,700
$9,400
4
Site Restoration
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
IDW
1
IDW Management
20
HR
$125
$2,500
2
IDW Disposal (100 CY Drilling & 200 CY Trenching)
450
TN
$50
$22,500
3
IDW Transportation
450
TN
$70
$31,500
4
Asphalt and Concrete Disposal
10
CY
$25
$300
5
Asphalt and Concrete Transportation
4
HR
$120
$500
System Operation Oversight
1
AECOM System Oversight
20
DY
$1,500
$30,000
2
Flight for System Oversight
2
EA
$1,000
$2,000
Confirmation Soil Sampling (End of First Year)
1
Soil Borings
4
EA
$9,017
$36,100
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$2,554,800
Contingency/Unlisted Items
10
%
$2,554,800
$255,500
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$2,554,800
$140,600
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$2,950,900
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-3 Thermal, Hot Spot 3
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table C18
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-3 Estimator D Cabanillas
Thermal Remediation of Hot Spot 3 Report Date 8/21/2020
Building 1 Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer C. Brown
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL 1 \ 1)1 UI'.CT COSTS
1
Project Management
12
MO
$1,750
$21,000
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
Z
o
4
Engineering Design and Report
150
HR
$120
$18,000
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$45,000
$45,000
HH
H
6
Engineer's Estimate
30
HR
$120
$3,600
<
H
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Z
8
Bid and RFI Support
16
HR
$115
$1,900
H
g
9
Contracting Thermal Vendor (performed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
80
HR
$115
$9,200
a.
11
Construction QA (by Lindsay staff with AECOM support)
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
£
HH
13
14
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
Not Used
230
HR
$125
$28,800
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$182,500
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
5
%
$182,500
$9,200
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$191,700
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$3,142,600
AWl AI.CROl M)\\ ATI-'.K MONITORING COST
1
Project Management and Coordination
40
HR
$186
$7,500
2
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
4
DY
$700
$2,800
3
AECOM Labor
4
DY
$5,100
$20,400
4
AECOM Travel
1
EA
$1,000
$1,000
5
Analytical (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
32
EA
$330
$10,600
7
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
$62,300
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$62,300
$6,300
ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
$68,600
TOTAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
2
Years of Monitoring
$137,200
g
Present Worth Groundwater Monitoring Costb
$135,200
%
Escalated Groundwater Monitoring Costb
$138,600
o
PIRIODIC/NON-ROl 1 INI. O&M COST
1
Decommission Monitoring Wells (Year 3)
4
DY
$9,605
$38,500
2
Decommission Thermal Wells (Year 3)
0
DY
$9,555
$0
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$38,500
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
20
%
$38,500
$7,700
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$46,200
Present Worth O&M Costb
$44,900
Escalated O&M Costb
$49,100
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Tolal
Presenl Worth"
I'.scalaled"
Annual O&M
$137,200
$135,200
$138,600
Non-Routine O&M
$46,200
$44,900
$49,100
TOTAL O&M COSTS (2 YEARS)
$183,400
$180,100
$187,700
ai.h kna i im: cost si mmary
J
Total Capital Cost
$3,143,000
<
H
O
Total O&M Cost (2 Years)
$184,000
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$3,327,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$3,324,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$3,331,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
CY - cubic yard
DC - direct cost
DY-day
EA - each
HR - hour
IDW - investigation derived waste
kWh - kilowatt-hour
LS - lump sum
MO - month
O&M - operation and maintenance
QA - quality assurance
RFI - request for information
SF - square feet
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-3 Thermal, Hot Spot 3 Page 2 of 2
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE C-4, THERMAL REMEDIATION OF HOT SPOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of in-situ thermal remediation (ISTR) in the areas outside of
Building 1 with PCE concentrations in soil above 3,000 j^ig/kg. Multiple thermal technologies are
proposed based on discussions with thermal vendors. The alternative consists of:
• Treatment area of approximately 31,000 SF
• Variable treatment depth summarized in table shown on Figure 14. Maximum treatment depth of
55 feet bgs
• Treatment volume of approximately 28,500 CY
• Approximately 378 remediation wells:
o One-hundred and fifty-two (152) dedicated thermal heating wells
o One-hundred and twenty (120) co-located thermal heating/extraction wells
o Eighty-three (83) dedicated extraction wells
o Twenty-three (23) temperature monitoring points
• Approximately nine new groundwater monitoring wells (5 wells installed within treatment area
will be fiberglass; wells outside the treatment area will be PVC). One set of paired wells will be
screened in the fine-grained unit (approximately 50 feet bgs) and sand and gravel aquifer
(approximately 100 feet bgs).
• 6.5-month timeframe for construction and installation followed by 6-months of operation with an
expected PCE removal rate as summarized on Figure 14.
• Geologist will be onsite during duration of drilling activities (based on vendor quotes this is
estimated to be 91 days). Engineer will be onsite for 25% of construction and system installation,
which is approximately 50 days.
• 2 years of post-treatment performance monitoring
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Pre-Design Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Remediation contracting and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
3. Decommissioning of 4 existing PVC monitoring wells (MW14-03A, MW14-03B, MW14-02A
and MW14-02B)
4. Upgrade of facility electrical infrastructure, including upgraded/new electrical transformers and
associated overhead power
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work
Page 1 of 2
Alt C-4
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
3. Protection or relocation of underground utilities/utility in the work area, specifically abandonment
of the natural gas line located in the drainage ditch
4. Drilling and installation of approximately 378 remediation wells
5. Drilling and installation of 9 new groundwater monitoring wells
6. Trenching and installation of subsurface piping and well head connections
7. Installation of an above ground approximately 75-ft by 75-ft treatment compound and fencing;
exact location to be determined during design
8. Installation of thermal heating equipment and performance of system startup and commissioning
9. Disposal of IDW (soil cuttings, excavated soil from trenching, and purge water)
10. Construction oversight for 6.5 months by AECOM, operation oversight for 5.5 months by
remediation contractor with occasional oversight by AECOM, and demobilization oversight by
AECOM for 3 months
Monitoring
1. Performance monitoring of groundwater, extracted vapor samples, and of temperature probes by
remediation contractor (inclusive of contractor installation and operation cost)
2. Post-remedy confirmation soil sampling (10 borings, 110 samples) for VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane
3. Post-remedy quarterly groundwater sampling and analysis for 7 wells for 2 years. Analyze for
VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane including 1 field duplicate sample per quarter.
4. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost.
Operation & Maintenance
1. Operation of the Thermal Remediation system for 5.5 months. O&M activities performed by the
remediation contractor during active remediation (inclusive of remediation contractor cost)
2. Utility usage (electrical) costs during ISTR operation.
Closeout
1. Contractor demobilization after remediation is complete, including removal of thermal heating
equipment, decommissioning of thermal remediation wells, and general site restoration work
2. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings)
Page 2 of 2
Alt C-4
-------
Table C19
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-4
Thermal Remediation of Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4
Building 1
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only at 5.5%.
3 Variable thermal treatment depth from 5 to 55 feet bgs depending on the treatment area.
4 Thermal treatment of approximately 28,500 CY of soil over 31,000 SF.
5 Installation of thermal treatment system including an above ground treatment compound (75 ft x 75 ft) with 152 dedicated thermal
heating wells, 120 co-located thermal heating/extraction wells, 83 dedicated extraction wells, and 23 temperature monitoring points
(378 total). Some angled heater wells may be necessary.
6 All piping will be below ground on roadways and in areas designated by Lindsay. Piping will be above ground along the south side of
the central drainage ditch and inside the treatment compound.
7 Known utilities will be exposed using air-knifing prior to construction in those areas. Precautions will be taken to avoid breaking
unknown utilities.
8 Existing utilities will need to be rerouted or protected prior to construction. The existing natural gas line in the central drainage ditch
may be decommissioned and re-installed east of Building 4 by Lindsay prior to contractor mobilization.
9 Nine new alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to monitor conditions during and following treatment.
10 Construction and system installation is estimated to take 6.5 months followed by system operation for 6 months.
11 Geologist will be onsite during duration of drilling activities (based on vendor quotes this is estimated to be 91 days). Engineer will be
onsite for 25% of construction and system installation, which is approximately 50 days.
11 Two years of performance groundwater monitoring from alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells.
12 Alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells and thermal treatment wells will be decommissioned after 3 years. Thermal
treatment wells are assumed to be abandoned in place.
13 Soil and groundwater samples will not be collected during installation of thermal system wells or monitoring wells.
14 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program are not included.
15 Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program and
costs are included in this estimate.
Estimator D Cabanillas
Report Date 8/21/2020
Last Updated 5/28/2020
QA Reviewer C. Brown
QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIRI1CT COSTS (INS l ALLLI))
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
2
Utility Locate
4
EA
$10,000
$40,000
3
Surveyor
6
DY
$900
$5,400
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
5
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$3,000
$3,000
6
Upgrade Electrical Utility Infrastructure
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
7
Locate and Protect existing Natural Gas Line
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
8
Decommission Wells (4)
4
DY
$9,100
$36,400
Construction Activities
Thermal Treatment
1
Expose Existing Utilities (Air Knife)
4
DY
$2,320
$9,300
2
System Mobilization, Installation, Operation, and Demob
1
LS
$6,610,000
$6,610,000
3
Utilities (electrical)
7,690,000
kWh
$0.10
$769,000
4
Utilities (natural gas) - Only needed by One Thermal Vendor
990,000
Therms
$0.52
-
AECOM and/or Lindsay Construction Support
z
1
Construction Oversight (Geologist)
105
DY
$1,700
$178,500
O
2
Construction Oversight (Engineer)
58
DY
$1,500
$87,000
H
3
Travel for Construction Oversight
11
EA
$1,000
$11,000
<
H
4
Facility Coordination (Senior Engineer)
156
DY
$2,500
--
Z
H
S
5
Travel for AECOM Facility Coordination
13
EA
$1,000
--
6
NE Licensed Geologist (4 hr/wk for 13 weeks)
52
HR
$132
$6,900
w
j
7
PID Rental (2)
280
DY
$80
$22,400
a.
s
HH
Other
1
Street Sweeping during drilling and trenching
140
DY
$150
$21,000
2
Monitoring Well Installation (PVC)
4
EA
$3,500
$14,000
3
Monitoring Well Installation (Fiberglass)
5
EA
$4,700
$23,500
4
Site Restoration
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
IDW
1
IDW Management
40
HR
$125
$5,000
2
IDW Disposal (600 CY Drilling & 1,200 CY Trenching)
2,700
TN
$50
$135,000
3
IDW Transportation
2,700
TN
$70
$189,000
4
Asphalt and Concrete Disposal
55
CY
$25
$1,400
5
Asphalt and Concrete Transportation
8
HR
$120
$1,000
System Operation
1
AECOM System Oversight
20
DY
$1,500
$30,000
2
Travel for System Oversight
2
EA
$1,000
$2,000
Confirmation Soil Sampling (End of First Year)
1
Soil Borings
10
EA
$8,246
$82,500
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$8,395,800
Contingency/Unlisted Items
10
%
$8,395,800
$839,600
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$8,395,800
$461,800
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$9,697,200
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-4 Thermal 1,2,3,4 Page 1 of 2
-------
Table C19
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-4 Estimator D Cabanillas
Thermal Remediation of Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Report Date 8/21/2020
Building 1 Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer C. Brown
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL INDIRI.CT COSTS
1
Project Management
18
MO
$1,750
$31,500
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
230
HR
$120
$27,600
Z
o
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$45,000
$45,000
HH
H
6
Engineer's Estimate
30
HR
$120
$3,600
<
f—
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Z
8
Bid and RFI Support
16
HR
$115
$1,900
H
g
9
Contracting Thermal Vendor (performed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
120
HR
$115
$13,800
a.
11
Construction QA (by Lindsay staff with AECOM support)
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
£
HH
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
300
HR
$125
$37,500
13
Not Used
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$235,900
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
5
%
$235,900
$11,800
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$247,700
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$9,944,900
ANN! Al. CROl Nl>\\ ATI'.R MONITORING COST
1
Project Management and Coordination
40
HR
$186
$7,500
2
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
8
DY
$700
$5,600
3
AECOM Labor
8
DY
$5,100
$40,800
4
AECOM Travel
1
EA
$1,000
$1,000
5
Analytical (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
48
EA
$330
$15,900
6
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
$110,800
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$110,800
$11,100
ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
$121,900
TOTAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
2
Years of Monitoring
$243,800
g
Present Worth O&M Costb
$240,200
%
Escalated O&M Costb
$246,300
o
PI RIODK7NON-ROI 1 INI. O&M COST
1
Decommission Monitoring Wells (Year 3)
6
DY
$9,522
$57,200
2
Decommission Thermal Wells (Year 3)
0
DY
$9,430
$0
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$57,200
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$57,200
$5,800
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$63,000
Present Worth O&M Costb
$61,100
Escalated O&M Costb
$66,800
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Toial
Presenl Worth"
Lscaliiled"
Annual O&M
$243,800
$240,200
$246,300
Non-Routine O&M
$63,000
$61,100
$66,800
TOTAL O&M COSTS (2 YEARS)
$306,800
$301,300
$313,100
ALTT.RN ATINT. COST SI MMARY
_]
Total Capital Cost
$9,945,000
<
Total O&M Cost (2 Years)
$307,000
o
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$10,252,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$10,247,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COST"
$10,259,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
CY - cubic yard
DC - direct cost
DY - day
EA - each
HR - hour
IDW - investigation derived waste
kWh - kilowatt-hour
LS - lump sum
O&M - operation and maintenance
QA - quality assurance
RFI - request for information
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-4 Thermal 1,2,3,4
Page 2 of 2
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE C-5, DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION OF HOT SPOTS 1 AND 2 AND THERMAL
REMEDIATION OF HOT SPOTS 3 AND 4
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of in-situ thermal remediation (ISTR) and dual-phase extraction
(DPE) in the areas outside of Building 1 with PCE concentrations in soil above 3,000 j^ig/kg. The
alternative consists of:
• Treatment area of approximately 31,000 SF
• Variable treatment depth summarized in table shown on Figure 15. Maximum treatment depth of
55 feet bgs.
• Treatment volume of approximately 28,400 CY
• Approximately 132 remediation wells:
o Sixty-eight (68) dedicated thermal heating wells
o Twenty-six (26) co-located thermal heating/extraction wells
o Thirty (30) dedicated extraction wells
o Eight (8) temperature monitoring points
• Approximately 36 DPE remediation wells
o 25 soil vapor extraction (SVE) wells
o 11 groundwater extraction wells
• Approximately nine new groundwater monitoring wells (wells installed within thermal treatment
area will be steel; wells outside the treatment area will be PVC). One set of paired wells will be
screened in the fine-grained unit (approximately 50 feet bgs) and sand and gravel aquifer
(approximately 100 feet bgs).
• Thermal system will operate for approximately 6 months
• System will be operated as DPE for 4 months of each year during irrigation season for 8 years (8
years total including installation).
• 6.5-month timeframe for construction and installation with an expected PCE removal rate as
summarized on Figure 15.
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Prc-Dcsign Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Remediation contracting and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
3. Decommissioning of 2 existing PVC monitoring wells (MW14-03A and MW14-03B)
4. Upgrade of facility electrical infrastructure, including upgraded/new electrical transformers and
associated overhead power
Page 1 of 2
Alt C-5
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work
3. Protection or relocation of underground utilities/utility in the work area, specifically abandonment
of the natural gas line located in the drainage ditch
4. Drilling and installation of approximately 132 thermal remediation wells
5. Drilling and installation of approximately 36 DPE remediation wells
6. Drilling and installation of 9 new groundwater monitoring wells
7. Trenching and installation of subsurface piping and well head connections
8. Installation of an above ground treatment compound approximately 75-ft by 75-ft and fencing;
exact location to be determined during design
9. Installation of thermal heating and DPE equipment and performance of systems startup and
commissioning
10. Disposal of IDW (soil cuttings, excavated soil from trenching, and purge water)
11. Construction oversight for 6.5 months by AECOM, operation oversight of the thermal system for
7 months by remediation contractor, and demobilization oversight by AECOM for 3 months
Monitoring
1. Performance monitoring of groundwater, extracted vapor samples, and temperature probes for
thermal system by remediation contractor (inclusive of contractor installation and operation cost).
2. Monthly vapor sampling during the first year and twice per year for the remaining 8 years of DPE
operation
3. Post-remedy confirmation soil sampling (10 borings, 110 samples) for VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane
4. Quarterly groundwater sampling and analysis for 7 wells for 9 years. Analyze for VOCs and 1,4-
Dioxane and include 1 field duplicate sample per quarter.
5. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost.
Operation & Maintenance
1. Operation of the thermal system for 6 months. O&M activities performed by the remediation
contractor during active remediation (inclusive of remediation contractor cost)
2. Operation of the DPE system for 4 months per year for 8 years, including first year of installation
and operation
3. Weekly DPE O&M activities by one person for one day.
4. Monthly system maintenance during the first year; quarterly system repairs for all 8 years
5. Utility usage (electrical) costs during ISTR and DPE operation.
Closeout
1. Contractor demobilization after remediation is complete, including removal of thermal heating
and DPE equipment, decommissioning of remediation wells, and general site restoration work
2. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings)
Page 2 of 2
Alt C-5
-------
Table C20
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-5
Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1 and 2 and Thermal Remediation of Hot Spots 3 and 4
Building 1
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Estimator D Cabanillas
Report Date 8/21/2020
Last Updated 5/28/2020
QA Reviewer Caiy Brown
QA Review Date 5/28/2020
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only at 5.5%.
3 Variable thermal treatment depth from 5 to 55 feet bgs depending on the treatment area.
4 Treatment of approximately 28,400 CY of soil over approximately 31,000 SF.
g Installation of thermal treatment system including an above ground treatment compound (75 ft x 75 ft) and 68 dedicated thermal heating
wells, 26 co-located thermal heating/extraction wells, 30 dedicated extraction wells, and 8 temperature monitoring points (132 total).
6 Installation of dual phase extraction system including an above ground treatment compound and 25 soil vapor extraction and 11
groundwater extraction wells (36 total).
7 All piping will be below ground on roadways and at SVE well heads. Piping will be above ground on the south side of the central
drainage ditch and inside the treatment compound.
8 Utilities will be exposed using air-knifing prior to construction in those areas. Unknown utilities will be identified and if determined to be
no longer in use by facility the utility will be removed.
9 Existing utilities will need to be rerouted or protected prior to construction. The existing nautral gas line in the central drainage ditch will
be decommissioned and re-installed with a new line east of Building 4.
10 Installation of 9 new alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells.
11 Construction and system installation is estimated to take 6.5 months (including night shift work) followed by thermal system operation
for 6 months and DPE system operation for 4 months of each year during irrigation season for 8 years.
12 Performance sampling of vapors by AECOM in the DPE system will occur on monthly basis for the first year and twice per year for
additional years.
13 Nine years of performance monitoring in alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells.
14 Thermal treatment well will be decommissioned after 3 years, DPE wells after 8 years and alternative specific groundwater monitoring
wells after 10 years. Thermal treatment wells are assumed to be abandoned in place.
15 Soil and groundwater samples will not be collected during installation of thermal system wells or monitoring wells.
16 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program are not included.
17 Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program and costs
are included in this estimate.
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIRI'.CT COSTS (INS l ALLI'.l))
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
2
Utility Locate
4
LS
$10,000
$40,000
3
Surveyor
6
DY
$900
$5,400
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
5
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$3,000
$3,000
6
Upgrade Electrical Utility Infrastructure
1
LS
$125,000
$125,000
7
Abandon and Re-install Gas Line
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
8
Decommission Wells (2)
2
DY
$9,100
$18,200
Construction Activities
Thermal Treatment
1
Expose Existing Utilities (Air Knife)
4
DY
$2,320
$9,300
2
System Mobilization, Installation, Operation, and Demob
1
LS
$3,900,000
$3,900,000
Z
3
Utilities (electrical)
4,160,000
kWh
$0.10
$416,000
o
4
Utilities (natural gas) - Only needed by One Thermal Vendor
370,000
Therms
$0.52
—
H
<
H
DPE/SVE
1
Install SVE and Groundwater Extraction Wells
22
EA
$3,500
$77,000
Z
H
2
Install Angled SVE/DPE Wells
14
DY
$8,595
$120,400
S
w
-
3
DPE Well Pump and Fittings (Groundwater Extraction Wells)
11
EA
$5,676
$62,500
4
DPE/SVE System
1
LS
$59,070
$59,100
S
HH
5
Carbon Vessels (2,000 lb) with Initial Load
4
EA
$3,200
$12,800
6
Concrete Cutting
1,004
LF
$3.00
$3,100
7
Trenching (6 ft bgs)
667
CY
$10
$6,700
8
DPE/SVE Piping Installation
1,500
LF
$25
$37,500
9
Trench Backfill
556
CY
$35
$19,500
10
Base Course
56
CY
$25
$1,400
11
Base Course Delivery
1
LS
$1,620
$1,700
12
Concrete (over trench)
111
SY
$30
$3,400
AECOM and/or Lindsay Construction Support
1
Construction Oversight (Geologist)
92
DY
$1,700
$156,400
2
Construction Oversight (Engineer)
46
DY
$1,500
$69,000
3
Travel for Construction Oversight
10
EA
$1,000
$10,000
4
Facility Coordination (Senior Engineer)
156
DY
$2,500
--
5
Travel for AECOM Facility Coordination
13
EA
$1,000
--
6
NE Licensed Geologist (4 hr/wk for 13 weeks)
52
HR
$132
$6,900
7
PID Rental (2)
140
DY
$80
$11,200
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-5 Thermal and DPE Page 1 of 3
-------
Table C20
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-5
Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1 and 2 and Thermal Remediation of Hot Spots 3 and 4
Building 1
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Estimator D Cabanillas
Report Date 8/21/2020
Last Updated 5/28/2020
QA Reviewer Caiy Brown
QA Review Date 5/28/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
Other
1
Street Sweeping
90
DY
$150
$13,500
2
Monitoring Well Installation (PVC)
5
EA
$3,500
$17,500
3
Monitoring Well Installation (Fiberglass)
4
EA
$4,700
$18,800
4
Site Restoration
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
IDW
1
IDW Management
40
HR
$125
$5,000
2
IDW Disposal
1,000
TN
$50
$50,000
3
IDW Transportation
1,000
TN
$70
$70,000
4
Concrete Disposal
37
CY
$25
$1,000
5
Concrete Transportation
8
HR
$120
$1,000
System Operation (Year 1)
Thermal Treatment
1
AECOM System Oversight
20
DY
$1,500
$30,000
2
Flight for System Oversight
2
EA
$1,000
$2,000
DPi? System
1
SVE Blower Electricity and Pump Electricity
4
MO
$5,000
$20,000
2
Vapor Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
Z
3
AECOM Labor
28
DY
$1,700
$47,600
o
HH
4
AECOM Travel
12
EA
$1,000
$12,000
H
5
Analytical (Vapor) (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
8
EA
$268
$2,200
H
6
DPE System Maintenance
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
7
Annual System Monitoring Report
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
§
-
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$5,617,600
Contingency/Unlisted Items
20
%
$5,617,600
$1,123,600
§
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$5,617,600
$309,000
HH
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$7,050,200
CAPITAL INDIKI-'.CT COSTS
1
Project Management
24
MO
$1,750
$42,000
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
300
HR
$120
$36,000
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
6
Engineer's Estimate
60
HR
$120
$7,200
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
8
Bid and RFI Support
60
HR
$115
$6,900
9
Contracting (performed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
160
HR
$115
$18,400
11
Construction QA (by Lindsay staff with AECOM support)
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
440
HR
$125
$55,000
13
Not Used
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$355,500
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
8
%
$355,500
$26,700
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$382,200
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$7,432,400
A\\l ALOPI KA I ION AM) MAIYI EYW 1.
Operate DPE System 4 months/year
1
Project Management and Coordination
10
HR
$186
$1,900
2
Vapor Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
2
EA
$1,000
$2,000
3
AECOM Labor
28
DY
$1,700
$47,600
4
AECOM Travel
12
EA
$1,000
$12,000
5
Analytical (Vapor) (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
8
EA
$330
$2,700
§
%
S
6
DPE System Maintenance
4
MO
$4,000
$16,000
7
SVE Blower Electricity and Pump Electricity
4
MO
$5,000
$20,000
O
8
Carbon Changeout for DPE System (3 units/month)
24,000
LB
$2
$48,000
9
Annual System Monitoring Report
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$190,200
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
20
%
$190,200
$38,100
ANNUAL O&M COST
$228,300
TOTAL O&M COST
7
Years of O&M
$1,598,100
Present Worth O&M Costb
$1,536,100
Escalated O&M Costb
$1,697,300
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-5 Thermal and DPE
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table C20
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-5
Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1 and 2 and Thermal Remediation of Hot Spots 3 and 4
Building 1
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, NE
Estimator D Cabanillas
Report Date 8/21/2020
Last Updated 5/28/2020
QA Reviewer Caiy Brown
QA Review Date 5/28/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
\\M Al. MOMTOKINC; AM) KI.POKTIM;
1
Project Management and Coordination
40
HR
$186
$7,500
2
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
16
DY
$700
$11,200
3
AECOM Labor
16
EA
$5,100
$81,600
4
AECOM Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
5
Analytical (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
48
EA
$330
$15,900
6
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL MONITORING COST
$160,200
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$160,200
$16,100
ANNUAL MONITORING COST
$176,300
TOTAL MONITORING COST
9
Years of Monitoring
$1,586,700
Present Worth Monitoring Costb
$1,510,200
Escalated Monitoring Costb
$1,719,800
Pl.RIODICAOVROl 1 INI. O&M COST
OM&M
1
DPE/SVE System General Repair (Year 2)
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
2
Decommission Thermal Wells (Year 3)
31
DY
$10,355
$0
3
DPE/SVE System General Repair (Year 4)
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
4
DPE/SVE System Decommissioning (Year 8)
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
5
DPE/SVE Well Abandonment (Year 8)
18
DY
$9,411
$169,400
6
Closeout Confirmation Borings (Year 8)
10
EA
$8,246
$82,500
7
Decommission Monitoring Wells (Year 10)
6
DY
$9,522
$57,200
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$349,100
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
15
%
$349,100
$52,400
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$401,500
Present Worth O&M Costb
$370,700
Escalated O&M Costb
$471,000
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Itllill
P resell 1 Worth"
Lsciiliiled"
Annual O&M
$1,598,100
$1,536,100
$1,697,300
Annual Monitoring
$1,586,700
$1,510,200
$1,719,800
Non-Routine O&M
$401,500
$370,700
$471,000
TOTAL OM&M COSTS (9 YEARS)
$3,586,300
$3,417,000
$3,888,100
ai.h kna i im: cost si mmary
J
Total Capital Cost
$7,433,000
<
H
O
Total O&M Cost (9 Years)
$3,587,000
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$11,020,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$10,850,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COST"
$11,322,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
CY - cubic yard
DC - direct cost
DPE - dual phase extraction
DY - day
EA - each
HR - hour
IDW - investigation derived waste
kWh - kilowatt-hour
LB - pound
LF - linear foot
LS - lump sum
MO - month
O&M - operation and maintenance
OM&M - operation, maintenance, and monitoring
QA - quality assurance
RFI - request for information
SF - square feet
SVE - soil vapor extraction
SY - square yard
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-5 Thermal and DPE
Page 3 of 3
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE C-6, DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION OF HOT SPOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of dual phase extraction (DPE) in areas outside of Building 1 with
PCE concentrations in soil above 5,000 jj.g/kg. The alternative includes:
• Treatment area of approximately 10,500 SF
• Variable treatment depth summarized in table shown on Figure 16. Maximum treatment depth of
55 feet bgs
• Treatment volume of approximately 11,000 CY
• Approximately 31 DPE remediation wells:
o Phase 1: 12 soil vapor extraction (SVE) wells and 2 groundwater extraction wells
o Phase 2:12 SVE wells and 5 groundwater extraction wells
• Approximately 6 new groundwater monitoring wells
• System will be operated in two phases as shown on Figure 16
o Phase 1: System will be operated as DPE for 4 months of each year and as SVE (only
Hotspot 3) for remainder of the year for 2 years. After 2 years, the system will only
operate in DPE mode for 4 months of each year for an additional 6 years (8 years total
including installation),
o Phase 2: System will be operated as DPE for 4 months of each year during irrigation
season for 8 years (8 years total including installation).
• 30-day timeframe for construction and installation with an expected PCE removal rate as
summarized on Figure 16.
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Pre-Design Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Remediation contracting and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
3. Upgrade of facility electrical infrastructure, including upgraded/new electrical transformers and
new associated overhead power distribution lines
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work
3. Protection or relocation of underground utilities/utility in the work area, specifically abandonment
of the natural gas line located in the drainage ditch
4. Drilling and installation of approximately 31 DPE remediation wells in two phases
5. Drilling and installation of 6 new groundwater monitoring wells
6. Trenching and installation of subsurface piping and well head connections
Page 1 of 2
Alt C-6
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
7. Installation of two above ground 10-ft by 40-ft treatment compounds and fencing (locations to be
determined during design)
8. Installation of DPE system and complete systems startup and commissioning
9. Disposal of IDW (soil cuttings, excavated soil from trenching, and purge water)
10. Construction oversight for 5 weeks by AECOM
Monitoring
1. Performance monitoring of the system will occur during system operation:
o Phase 1: Monthly vapor sampling during the first two years and twice per year vapor
sampling for the remaining 6 years of operation,
o Phase 2: Twice per year vapor sampling
2. Quarterly groundwater sampling and analysis of 6 wells for 18 years. Analyze for VOCs and 1,4-
Dioxane and include 1 field duplicate sample per quarter.
3. Post-remedy confirmation soil sampling (10 borings, 110 samples) for VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane
4. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost
Operation & Maintenance
1. Operation of the system for 8 years, including first year of installation and operation
2. Weekly O&M activities by one person for one day.
3. Monthly system maintenance during the first year; quarterly system repairs for all 8 years
4. Utility usage (electrical) costs for DPE system operation.
Closeout
1. Contractor demobilization after remediation is complete, including removal of DPE equipment,
decommissioning of remediation wells, and general site restoration work
2. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings)
Page 2 of 2
Alt C-6
-------
Table C21
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-6
Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4
Building 1
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, Lindsay, NE
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only at 5.5%.
3 Variable treatment depth from 5 to 55 feet bgs depending on the treatment area.
4 Treatment of approximately 11,000 CY of soil over approximately 10,500 SF.
5 Installation of dual phase extraction system including above ground treatment compounds; 12 soil vapor extraction and 2 groundwater
extraction wells (14 total) in Phase 1; and 12 soil vapor extraction and 5 groundwater extraction wells (17 total) in Phase 2.
6 All piping will be below ground on roadways and at SVE well heads.
7 Utilities will be exposed using air-knifing prior to construction in those areas. Unknown utilities will be identified and if determined to
be no longer in use by facility the utility will be removed.
8 Existing utilities will need to be rerouted or protected prior to construction. The existing natural gas line in the central drainage ditch
will be decommissioned and re-installed east of Building 4.
9 The system will be operated in two phases. Phase 1 will be completed prior to installing and operating Phase 2. The 2 treatment
compounds used in Phase 1 will be reused for Phase 2.
10 Installation of 6 new alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells.
11 Construction and system installation is estimated to take 30 days (15 days for each Phase).
12 Phase I: System will operate as DPE for 4 months of each year and as SVE (only Hotspot 3) for the remainder of the year for 2 years.
After 2 years, the system will only operate in DPE mode for 4 months of each year for an additional 6 years.
13 Phase 2: System will be operated as DPE for 4 months of each year during irrigation season for 8 years.
14 Phase 1: Performance sampling of vapors in the system will occur on a monthly basis by AECOM for the first 2 years followed by
twice per year vapor sampling for the remaining 6 years of operation. Weekly screening will be completed by AECOM Omaha staff.
15 Phase 2: Performance sampling of vapors in the system will occur on a monthly basis by AECOM for the first year and twice per year
for the remaining operation duration.
16 Nine years of performance monitoring in alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells.
17 Alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells and DPE wells will be decommissioned after 3 years.
18 Soil and groundwater samples will not be collected during installation of DPE system wells or monitoring wells.
19 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program are not included.
20 Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program and costs
are included in this estimate.
Estimator D Cabanillas
Report Date 8/21/2020
Last Updated 5/28/2020
QA Reviewer C. Brown
QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIRI1CT COSTS (INS l ALLI'.l))
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
2
Utility Locate
2
LS
$10,000
$20,000
3
Surveyor
2
DY
$900
$1,800
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$1,000
$1,000
5
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$1,000
$1,000
6
Upgrade Electrical Utility Infrastructure
1
LS
$125,000
$125,000
7
Abandon and Re-install Natural Gas Line
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
Construction Activities
DPE/SVE
1
Install SVE and Groundwater Extraction Wells
14
EA
$3,500
$49,000
2
Expose Existing Utilities (Air Knife)
4
DY
$2,320
$9,300
3
DPE Well Pump and Fittings (Groundwater Extraction Wells)
2
EA
$5,676
$11,400
Z
o
Phase 1 (12 SVE wells, 2 groundwater extraction wells)
HH
H
4
DPE/SVE System
1
LS
$55,070
$55,100
<
L_
5
Carbon Vessels (2,000 lb) with Initial Load
2
EA
$3,200
$6,400
z
6
Concrete Cutting
1,004
LF
$3.00
$3,100
g
7
Trenching (6 ft bgs)
444
CY
$10
$4,500
8
DPE/SVE Piping Installation
1,000
LF
$25
$25,000
-J
a.
9
Trench Backfill
370
CY
$35
$13,000
§
HH
10
Base Course
37
CY
$25
$1,000
11
Base Course Delivery
1
LS
$1,620
$1,700
12
Concrete (over trench)
222
SY
$30
$6,700
AECOM and/or Lindsay Construction Support
1
Construction Oversight (Geologist)
10
DY
$1,700
$17,000
2
Construction Oversight (Engineer)
10
DY
$1,500
$15,000
3
Travel for Construction Oversight
2
EA
$1,000
$2,000
4
Facility Coordination (Senior Engineer)
15
DY
$2,500
--
5
Travel for AECOM Facility Coordination
2
EA
$1,000
--
6
NE Licensed Geologist
12
HR
$132
$1,600
7
PID Rental (2)
30
DY
$81
$2,500
Other
1
Street Sweeping
15
DY
$150
$2,300
2
Monitoring Well Installation
6
EA
$3,500
$21,000
3
Site Restoration
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-6 DPE 1,2,3,4
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table C21
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-6 Estimator D Cabanillas
Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Report Date 8/21/2020
Building 1 Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer C. Brown
Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
IDW
1
IDW Management
10
HR
$125
$1,300
2
IDW Disposal
500
TN
$50
$25,000
3
IDW Transportation
500
TN
$70
$35,000
4
Concrete Disposal
37
CY
$25
$1,000
5
Concrete Transportation
8
HR
$120
$1,000
Phase 2 (12 SVE wells, 5 groundwater extraction wells)
1
Phase 2 System Installation (Year 9)
1
LS
$271,600
$271,600
System Operation (Year 1)
Phase 1 (DPE: 4 months/year, SVE: 2 years at Hot Spot 3)
1
Vapor Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
12
EA
$400
$4,800
2
AECOM Labor
88
DY
$1,700
$149,600
3
AECOM Travel
12
EA
$1,000
$12,000
4
Analytical (Vapor) (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
24
EA
$268
$6,500
Z
5
SVE Blower Electricity and Pump Electricity
12
MO
$2,500
$30,000
o
HH
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$1,009,200
H
Contingency/Unlisted Items
25
%
$1,009,200
$252,300
H
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$1,009,200
$55,600
Z
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$1,317,100
§
-
CAPITAL IM)IRI.CT COSTS
1
Project Management
24
MO
$1,750
$42,000
g
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
HH
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
200
HR
$120
$24,000
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
6
Engineer's Estimate
60
HR
$120
$7,200
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
8
Bid and RFI Support
32
HR
$115
$3,700
9
Contracting (performed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
120
HR
$115
$13,800
11
Construction QA (by Lindsay staff with AECOM support)
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
300
HR
$125
$37,500
13
Not Used
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$303,200
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
10
%
$303,200
$30,400
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$333,600
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$1,650,700
A\M AI.OIM-'.KATION AM) MAIMTYW 1.
Phase 1 (DPE: 4 months/year)
1
Project Management and Coordination
48
HR
$186
$9,000
2
Vapor Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
4
EA
$400
$1,600
3
AECOM Labor
29
DY
$1,700
$49,300
4
AECOM Travel
16
EA
$1,000
$16,000
5
Analytical (Vapor) (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
8
EA
$330
$2,700
6
DPE System Maintenance
4
MO
$6,000
$24,000
7
Phase 1 SVE Blower Electricity and Pump Electricity
4
MO
$5,000
$20,000
8
Carbon Changeout (4,000 lbs per month)
16,000
LB
$2
$32,000
9
Annual System Monitoring Report
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$194,600
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
20
%
$194,600
$39,000
s
%
ANNUAL O&M COST
$233,600
TOTAL O&M COST
7
Years of O&M
$1,635,200
s
Present Worth O&M Costb
$1,571,800
o
Escalated O&M Costb
$1,736,700
ANN! Al. MOM IOUINC; AM) KI.POKTIM;
1
Project Management and Coordination
40
HR
$186
$7,500
2
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
16
DY
$700
$11,200
3
AECOM Labor
16
EA
$5,100
$81,600
4
AECOM Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
5
Analytical (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
24
EA
$330
$8,000
6
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL MONITORING COST
$152,300
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$152,300
$15,300
ANNUAL MONITORING COST
$167,600
TOTAL MONITORING COST
18
Years of Monitoring
$3,016,800
Present Worth Monitoring Costb
$2,748,400
Escalated Monitoring Costb
$3,588,800
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-6 DPE 1,2,3,4
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table C21
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-6 Estimator D Cabanillas
Dual Phase Extraction of Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Report Date 8/21/2020
Building 1 Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer C. Brown
Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
PI KIODK /NON-KOl TIM'. O&M COST
1
Phase 1 SVE Blower Electricity (Year 2)
1
LS
$56,000
$56,000
2
Phase 1 Additional Carbon Changeout (Year 2)
4,000
LB
$2
$8,000
3
Phase 1 Additional Sampling and O&M (Year 2)
1
LS
$215,340
$215,400
5
Phase 2 System Operation (Year 9)
1
LS
$122,300
$122,300
6
Phase 2 System Operation (Year 10)
1
LS
$122,300
$122,300
7
Phase 2 System Operation (Year 11)
1
LS
$122,300
$122,300
8
Phase 2 System Operation (Year 12)
1
LS
$122,300
$122,300
9
Phase 2 System Operation (Year 13)
1
LS
$122,300
$122,300
10
Phase 2 System Operation (Year 14)
1
LS
$122,300
$122,300
11
Phase 2 System Operation (Year 15)
1
LS
$122,300
$122,300
S
12
Phase 2 System Operation (Year 16)
1
LS
$122,300
$122,300
%
13
DPE/SVE System Decommissioning (Year 17)
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
§
14
DPE/SVE Well Abandonment (Year 17)
16
DY
$9,418
$150,700
o
15
Closeout Confirmation Borings (Year 18)
10
EA
$8,246
$82,500
16
Decommission Monitoring Wells (Year 18)
3
DY
$9,688
$29,100
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$1,540,100
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
20
%
$1,540,100
$308,100
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$1,848,200
Present Worth O&M Costb
$1,650,700
Escalated O&M Costb
$2,332,400
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Tolal
Presenl Worth"
r.scalaled"
Annual O&M
$1,635,200
$1,571,800
$1,736,700
Annual Monitoring
$3,016,800
$2,748,400
$3,588,800
Non-Routine O&M
$1,848,200
$1,650,700
$2,332,400
TOTAL O&M COSTS (18 YEARS)
$6,500,200
$5,970,900
$7,657,900
Al l I.KNA I IM. COST SI mmary
J
Total Capital Cost
$1,651,000
<
Total O&M Cost (18 Years)
$6,501,000
H
o
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$8,152,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$7,622,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$9,309,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
CY - cubic yard
DC - direct cost
DPE - dual phase extraction
DY - day
EA - each
HR - hour
IDW - investigation derived waste
kWh - kilowatt-hour
LB - pound
LF - linear foot
LS - lump sum
MO - month
O&M - operation and maintenance
OM&M - operation, maintenance, and monitoring
QA - quality assurance
RFI - request for information
SF - square feet
SVE - soil vapor extraction
SY - square yard
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Estxlsx
C-6 DPE 1,2,3,4
Page 3 of 3
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE C-7, DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION
SUMMARY: This alternative consists of dual phase extraction (DPE) in areas outside and under
Building 1 with PCE and 1,1-DCE concentrations in soil above 1,000 |_ig/kg. The alternative includes:
• Treatment area of approximately 54,000 SF
• Variable treatment depth summarized in table shown on Figure 17. Maximum treatment depth of
55 feet bgs.
• Treatment volume of approximately 52,000 CY
• Approximately 158 DPE remediation wells:
o Phase 1:51 soil vapor extraction (SVE) wells (10 angled) and 24 groundwater extraction
wells (6 angled)
o Phase 2: 54 SVE wells (11 angled) and 29 groundwater extraction wells (10 angled)
• Approximately 6 new groundwater monitoring wells
• System will be operated in two phases as shown on Figure 17. Phase 1 will be completed prior to
installing and operating Phase 2.
o Phase 1: System will be operated as DPE for 4 months of each year and as SVE (only for
treatment area 3) for remainder of the year for 2 years. After 2 years, the system will only
be operated in DPE mode for 4 months of each year for an additional 6 years (8 years
total including installation)
o Phase 2: System will be operated as DPE for 4 months of each year during irrigation
season, for 8 years (8 years total including installation)
• 80-day timeframe for construction and installation of both phases (40 days each) with an expected
PCE removal rate as summarized on Figure 17.
SPECIFIC COST ASSUMPTIONS
The cost estimate assumes the following phases and activities:
Pre-Design Activities/Design
1. Pre-construction site survey and utility locate within the work area
2. Remediation contracting and preparation of remedy design, work plans, and permits
3. Upgrade of facility electrical infrastructure, including upgraded/new electrical transformers and
associated overhead power
Implementation
1. Construction crew and equipment mobilization/demobilization
2. General site preparation work
3. Protection or relocation of underground utilities/utility in the work area, specifically abandonment
of the natural gas line located in the drainage ditch
4. Drilling and installation of 158 DPE remediation wells in two phases.
Page 1 of 2
Alt C-7
-------
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Rev 1.0
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska
Appendix C
5. Both systems will treat vapors extracted using an oxidizer for the first year and carbon treatment
system for the remaining seven years.
6. Drilling and installation of 6 new groundwater monitoring wells.
7. Trenching and installation of subsurface piping and well head connections.
8. Installation of two above ground 10-ft by 40-ft treatment compounds and fencing (locations to be
determined during design).
9. Installation of DPE system and performance of systems startup and commissioning.
10. Disposal oflDW (soil cuttings, excavated soil from trenching, and purge water).
11. Construction oversight for 16 weeks total (8 weeks each phase) by AECOM.
Monitoring
1. Performance monitoring of the system will occur during system operation:
o Phase 1: Monthly vapor sampling during the first two years and twice per year vapor
sampling for the remaining 6 years of operation,
o Phase 2: Monthly vapor sampling during the first year and twice per year for the
remaining 7 years of operation.
2. Quarterly groundwater sampling and analysis for 6 wells for 18 years. Analyze for VOCs and
1,4-Dioxane and include 1 field duplicate sample per quarter.
3. Post-remedy confirmation soil sampling (10 borings, 110 samples) for VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane
4. Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater
monitoring program not included in alternative cost.
Operation & Maintenance
1. Operation of the system for 16 years, including first year of installation and operation
2. Weekly O&M activities by one person for one day during the first 2 years; quarterly DPE O&M
activities for the remaining 6 years
3. Monthly system maintenance during the first year; quarterly system repairs for all 8 years
4. Utility usage (electrical) costs during DPE operation.
Closeout
1. Contractor demobilization after remediation is complete, including removal of DPE equipment,
decommissioning of remediation wells, and general site restoration work
2. Preparation of completion report and closeout submittals (e.g., as-built drawings)
Page 2 of 2
Alt C-7
-------
Table C22
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-7
Dual Phase Extraction
Building 1
Lindsay Facility, 2020
Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, Lindsay, NE
Alternative Specific Assumptions
1 Costs presented have an accuracy of +50% to -30% and are suitable for comparing alternatives.
2 Nebraska State Sales Tax is applied to Direct Costs only at 5.5%.
3 Variable treatment depth from 5 to 55 feet bgs depending on the treatment area.
4 Treatment of approximately 52,000 CY of soil over approximately 54,000 SF.
5 Installation of dual phase extraction system including above ground treatment compounds; 51 soil vapor extraction and 24
groundwater extraction wells (75 total) in Phase 1; and 54 soil vapor extraction and 29 groundwater extraction wells (83 total) in
Phase 2.
6 All piping will be below ground on roadways and at SVE well heads.
7 Known utilities will be exposed using air-knifing prior to construction in those areas. Unknown utilities will be identified and if
determined to be no longer in use by facility the utility will be removed.
8 Existing utilities will need to be rerouted or protected prior to construction. The existing natural gas line in the central drainage ditch
will be decommissioned and re-installed east of Building 4.
9 The system will be operated in two phases. Phase 1 will be completed prior to installing and operating Phase 2. The treatment
compounds used in Phase 1 will be reused for Phase 2.
10 Construction and system installation is estimated to take 80 days (40 days for each phase)
11 Phase 1: System will operate as DPE for 4 months of each year and as SVE (only Hotspot 3) for the remainder of the year for 2 years.
After 2 years, the system will only operate in DPE mode for 4 months of each year for an additional 6 years.
12 Phase 2: System will be operated as DPE for 4 months of each year during irrigation season for 8 years.
13 Phase 1: Performance sampling of vapors in the system will occur on a monthly basis by AECOM for the first 2 years followed by
twice per year vapor sampling for the remaining 6 years of operation. Weekly screening will be completed by AECOM Omaha staff.
14 Phase 2: Performance sampling of vapors in the system will occur on a monthly basis by AECOM for the first year and twice per year
for the remaining operation duration.
15 Installation of 6 new alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells.
16 Nine years of performance monitoring in alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells.
17 Alternative specific groundwater monitoring wells and DPE wells will be decommissioned after 3 years.
18 Soil and groundwater samples will not be collected during installation of groundwater extraction/SVE wells or monitoring wells.
19 Routine sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells per the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program are not included.
20 Routine sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells will be added to the EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program and
costs are included in this estimate.
Estimator D Cabanillas
Report Date 8/21/2020
Last Updated 5/28/2020
QA Reviewer C. Brown
QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
CAPITAL DIRI'.CT COSTS (INS l ALLI'.l))
Site Preparation
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
2
Utility Locate
4
LS
$10,000
$40,000
3
Surveyor
8
DY
$900
$7,200
4
TESC/Site Preparation
1
LS
$2,500
$2,500
5
Sampling Supplies
1
LS
$3,000
$3,000
6
Upgrade Electrical Utility Infrastructure
1
LS
$125,000
$125,000
7
Abandon and Re-install Natural Gas Line
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
Construction Activities
DPE/SVE
1
Install SVE and Groundwater Extraction Wells
75
EA
$3,500
$262,500
2
Expose Existing Utilities (Air Knife)
4
DY
$2,320
$9,300
3
Install Angled SVE/Groundwater Extraction Wells
16
DY
$8,595
$137,600
4
DPE Well Pump and Fittings (Groundwater Extraction Wells)
24
EA
$5,676
$136,300
Z
o
Phase 1 (51 SVE wells, 24 groundwater extraction wells)
HH
H
5
DPE/SVE System
1
LS
$125,600
$125,600
<
L_
6
Oxidizer Mobilization and Installation
1
EA
$82,000
$82,000
z
7
Carbon Vessels with Initial Load
9
EA
$3,200
$28,800
g
8
Concrete Cutting
4,004
LF
$3.00
$12,100
9
Trenching (6 ft bgs)
889
CY
$10
$8,900
a.
10
DPE/SVE Piping Installation
2,000
LF
$25
$50,000
§
HH
11
Trench Backfill
741
CY
$35
$26,000
12
Base Course
74
CY
$25
$1,900
13
Base Course Delivery
1
LS
$2,040
$2,100
14
Concrete (over trench)
444
SY
$30
$13,400
AECOM and/or Lindsay Construction Support
1
Construction Oversight (Geologist)
19
DY
$1,700
$32,300
2
Construction Oversight (Engineer)
10
DY
$1,500
$15,000
3
Travel for Construction Oversight
5
EA
$1,000
$5,000
4
Facility Coordination (Senior Engineer)
24
DY
$2,500
$60,000
5
Travel for Facility Coordination
2
EA
$1,000
$2,000
6
NE Licensed Geologist
48
HR
$132
$6,400
7
PID Rental
40
DY
$81
$3,300
Other
1
Street Sweeping
20
DY
$150
$3,000
2
Monitoring Well Installation
6
EA
$3,500
$21,000
3
Site Restoration
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Est.xlsx
C-7 DPE
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table C22
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-7 Estimator D Cabanillas
Dual Phase Extraction Report Date 8/21/2020
Building 1 Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer C. Brown
Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
IDW
1
IDW Management
10
HR
$125
$1,300
2
IDW Disposal
750
TN
$50
$37,500
3
IDW Transportation
750
TN
$70
$52,500
4
Concrete Disposal
66
CY
$25
$1,700
5
Concrete Transportation
8
HR
$120
$1,000
Phase 2 (54 SVE wells, 29 groundwater extraction wells)
6
Phase 2 System Installation (Year 9)
1
LS
$795,900
$795,900
System Operation (Year 1)
Phase 1 (DPE: 4 months/year, SVE: 2 years at Hot Spot 3)
1
Vapor Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
12
EA
$400
$4,800
2
AECOM Labor
140
DY
$1,700
$238,000
3
AECOM Travel
12
EA
$1,000
$12,000
4
Analytical (Vapor) (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
24
EA
$268
$6,500
5
Blower Electricity
12
MO
$6,000
$72,000
Z
6
Oxidizer Electricity
80,000
kWh
$0.10
$8,000
o
HH
7
Oxidizer Rental
12
MO
$4,000
$48,000
H
<
H
Z
H
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
$2,591,400
Contingency/Unlisted Items
25
%
$2,591,400
$647,900
Combined Sales Tax for Lindsay, Nebraska (% of DC)
5.5
%
$2,591,400
$142,600
§
-
TOTAL CAPITAL DIRECT COST
$3,381,900
CAPITAL INDIRECT COSTS
£
1
Project Management
36
MO
$1,750
$63,000
HH
2
General Coordination, Meetings and Planning
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
3
Regulatory Coordination and Meetings
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
4
Engineering Design and Report
230
HR
$120
$27,600
5
Design Plans and Specs
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
6
Engineer's Estimate
80
HR
$120
$9,600
7
Permitting
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
8
Bid and RFI Support
32
HR
$115
$3,700
9
Contracting (performed by Lindsay)
1
LS
$0
$0
10
Work Plan (CMP/SAP)
160
HR
$115
$18,400
11
Construction QA (by Lindsay staff with AECOM support)
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
12
Completion Report/As-built Documentation/Surveying
440
HR
$125
$55,000
13
Not Used
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL INDIRECT COST
$382,300
Engineering Contingency (% of Indirect Cost)
10
%
$382,300
$38,300
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
$420,600
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$3,802,500
ANNl Al. OPERATION AM) MAINTENANCE
Phase 1 (DPE: 4 months/year)
1
Project Management and Coordination
48
HR
$186
$9,000
2
Vapor Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
2
EA
$400
$800
3
AECOM Labor
76
DY
$1,700
$129,200
4
AECOM Travel
12
EA
$1,000
$12,000
5
Analytical (Vapor) (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
8
EA
$268
$2,200
6
DPE System Maintenance
2
LS
$5,000
$10,000
7
Phase 1 Blower Electricity
4
MO
$6,000
$24,000
8
Carbon Changeout
17,500
LB
$2
$35,000
9
Annual System Monitoring Report
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$262,200
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
20
%
$262,200
$52,500
ANNUAL O&M COST
$314,700
O&IVl
TOTAL O&M COST
7
Years of O&M
$2,202,900
Present Worth O&M Costb
$2,117,400
Escalated O&M Costb
$2.^9 6nn
ANNl Al. MONITORING AND REPORTING
1
Project Management and Coordination
40
HR
$186
$7,500
2
Groundwater Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
16
DY
$700
$11,200
3
AECOM Labor
16
EA
$5,100
$81,600
4
AECOM Travel
4
EA
$1,000
$4,000
5
Analytical (VOCs and 1,4 Dioxane)
24
EA
$330
$8,000
6
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL MONITORING COST
$152,300
Annual Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
10
%
$152,300
$15,300
ANNUAL MONITORING COST
$167,600
TOTAL MONITORING COST
18
Years of Monitoring
$3,016,800
Present Worth Monitoring Costb
$2,748,400
Escalated Monitoring Costb
$3,588,800
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Est.xlsx
C-7 DPE
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table C22
Cost Estimate for Alternative C-7 Estimator D Cabanillas
Dual Phase Extraction Report Date 8/21/2020
Building 1 Last Updated 5/28/2020
Lindsay Facility, 2020 QA Reviewer C. Brown
Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, Lindsay, NE QA Review Date 5/22/2020
Cost
Type
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Cost3
IM.RIODK /NON-KOl TIM'. O&M COST
1
Phase 1 SVE Blower Electricity (Year 2)
1
LS
$56,000
$56,000
2
Phase 1 Additional Carbon Changeout (Year 2)
17,500
LB
$2
$35,000
3
Phase 1 Additional Sampling and O&M (Year 2)
1
LS
$215,430
$215,500
4
Phase 1 Carbon System Installation (Year 2)
1
LS
$57,300
$57,300
6
Phase 2 System Operation with Oxidizer (Year 9)
1
LS
$275,400
$275,400
7
Phase 2 Carbon System Installation (Year 10)
1
LS
$63,700
$63,700
8
Phase 2 System Operation with Carbon (Year 10)
1
LS
$370,400
$370,400
9
Phase 2 System Operation with Carbon (Year 11)
1
LS
$370,400
$370,400
10
Phase 2 System Operation with Carbon (Year 12)
1
LS
$370,400
$370,400
11
Phase 2 System Operation with Carbon (Year 13)
1
LS
$370,400
$370,400
12
Phase 2 System Operation with Carbon (Year 14)
1
LS
$370,400
$370,400
13
Phase 2 System Operation with Carbon (Year 15)
1
LS
$370,400
$370,400
£
%
o
14
Phase 2 System Operation with Carbon (Year 16)
1
LS
$370,400
$370,400
15
DPE/SVE System Decommissioning (Year 17)
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
16
DPE/SVE Well Abandonment (Year 17)
79
DY
$10,355
$818,100
17
Closeout Confirmation Borings (Year 18)
10
EA
$8,246
$82,500
18
Decommission Monitoring Wells (Year 18)
3
DY
$9,688
$29,100
SUBTOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$4,245,400
Contingency Allowance (% of Subtotal)
20
%
$4,245,400
$849,100
TOTAL NON-ROUTINE O&M COST
$5,094,500
Present Worth O&M Costb
$4,494,900
Escalated O&M Costb
$6,569,900
TOTAL O&M COSTS
Tnlal
Presenl Worth"
llscaliiled"
Annual O&M
$2,202,900
$2,117,400
$2,339,600
Annual Monitoring
$3,016,800
$2,748,400
$3,588,800
Non-Routine O&M
$5,094,500
$4,494,900
$6,569,900
TOTAL O&M COSTS (18 YEARS)
$10,314,200
$9,360,700
$12,498,300
ai. i i kna i im: cost si mmary
_i
Total Capital Cost
$3,803,000
<
H
O
Total O&M Cost (18 Years)
$10,315,000
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST (2020 DOLLARS)
$14,118,000
H
PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE COSTb
$13,164,000
ESCALATED ALTERNATIVE COST"
$16,302,000
Notes:
a Costs are rounded up to the nearest $100. Total alternative costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
b Present worth costs are based on a 1% discount rate. Escalated costs are based on a 2% inflation rate.
% - percent
CMP/SAP - Construction Management Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan
CY - cubic yard
DC - direct cost
DPE - dual phase extraction
DY - day
EA - each
HR - hour
IDW - investigation derived waste
kWh - kilowatt-hour
LB - pound
LF - linear foot
LS - lump sum
MO - month
O&M - operation and maintenance
OM&M - operation, maintenance, and monitoring
QA - quality assurance
RFI - request for information
SVE - soil vapor extraction
SY - square yard
TESC- temporary erosion and sediment control
TN - ton
ComponentBldg 1 Cost Est.xlsx
C-7 DPE Page 3 of 3
-------
Final
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation
Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
^LINDSAY
Prepared for:
Lindsay Manufacturing Company
214 East 2"d Street
Lindsay, Nebraska 68644
Prepared by:
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
221 Sun Valley Boulevard, Suite D
Lincoln, Nebraska 68528
March 2023
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
CONTRACTOR STATEMENT OF INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW
Title: 2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities Lindsay Manufacturing
Company Superfund Site
Document Date: March 2023 Revision No.: 0 Author: Jamie Suing
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC has completed a review of the document
named above as part of the reporting activities for Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC in Lindsay,
Nebraska. Notice is hereby given that an independent technical review has been conducted that is
appropriate to the level of risk and complexity inherent in the project, as defined in the
Contractor Quality Control Plan. During the independent technical review, compliance with
established policy principle and procedures, utilizing justified and valid assumptions, was
verified. This included review of assumptions; methods, procedures, and material used in
analyses; alternatives evaluated; the appropriateness of data used and level of data obtained; and
reasonableness of the results, including whether the product meets the customer's needs.
31 March 2023
Jamie Suing, P.E.
Project Manager
Date
Jon M. Ritterling, P.E.
Independent Technical Reviewer
pk.44
m M. Ritterling, P
31 March 2023
Date
Significant concerns and explanation of the resolution are as follows:
Not applicable.
As noted above, all concerns resulting from independent technical review of the project have
been considered.
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iii
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF APPENDICES vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vii
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1-1
1.2 SITE HISTORY 1-3
1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1-4
1.4 PROJECT DOCUMENT REFERENCES 1-6
2. ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN 2022 2-9
3. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3-1
3.1 SITE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 3-1
3.2 HYDROGEOLOGIC I MI'S 3-2
3.2.1 Fine-Grained Unit 3-2
3.2.2 Sand Channel 3-3
3.2.3 Sand and Gravel Aquifer 3-3
3.2.4 Niobrara Formation 3-3
3.3 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 3-4
3.4 GROUNDWATER VELOCITY 3-4
3.5 GROUNDWATER FLOW GRADIENTS 3-5
3.5.1 Horizontal 3-5
3.5.2 Vertical 3-6
4. INTERCEPTOR WELL OPERATION 4-1
5. GROUNDWATER AND OUTFALL MONITORING 5-1
5.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION 5-1
5.1.1 General Procedures 5-1
5.1.2 2022 Sampling Events 5-2
5.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 5-3
5.2.1 Data Quality 5-3
5.2.2 Data Summary and Interpretation 5-4
6. REMEDIATION ASSESSMENT AND MASS REMOVAL 6-1
7. CONCLUSIONS 7-1
8. RECOMMENDATIONS 8-1
9. REFERENCES 9-1
l
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
This page intentionally left blank
ii
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title
1 Well Construction Details
2a Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
2b Summary of Vertical Hydraulic Gradients - March 2021 through December 2022
3 2022 Groundwater Monitoring Program
4 2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells
5 2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Domestic Wells
6 2022 Outfall Sample Results (Discharge Authorization NE00137588)
7a Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and
Interceptor Wells
7b Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor
Wells
8a Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic,
Irrigation, and Stock Wells
8b Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Domestic, Irrigation, and
Stock Wells
9 Summary of Shell Creek Discharge Sample Results
in
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
This page intentionally left blank
iv
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title
1 Vicinity Map
2 Site Monitoring/Interceptor Well Locations
3 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map of the Upper Portion of the Aquifer - Q1 2022
4 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map of the Upper Portion of the Aquifer - Q2 2022
5 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map of the Upper Portion of the Aquifer - Q3 2022
6 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map of the Upper Portion of the Aquifer - Q4 2022
7 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map of the Fine-Grained Unit - Q1 2022
8 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map of the Fine-Grained Unit - Q2 2022
9 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map of the Fine-Grained Unit - Q3 2022
10 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map of the Fine-Grained Unit - Q4 2022
11 PCE Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Fine-Grained Unit - Q1 2022
12 PCE Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Fine-Grained Unit - Q2 2022
13 PCE Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Fine-Grained Unit - Q3 2022
14 PCE Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Fine-Grained Unit - Q4 2022
15 1,4-Dioxane Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Fine-Grained Unit -
Q2 2022
16 1,4-Dioxane Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Fine-Grained Unit -
Q3 2022
17 Zinc Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Fine-Grained Unit - Q2 2022
18 Zinc Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Fine-Grained Unit - Q3 2022
19 PCE Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Sand and Gravel Aquifer -
Q1 2022
20 PCE Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Sand and Gravel Aquifer -
Q2 2022
21 PCE Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Sand and Gravel Aquifer -
Q3 2022
22 PCE Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Sand and Gravel Aquifer -
Q4 2022
23 1,4-Dioxane Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Sand and Gravel
Aquifer - Q2 2022
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
24 1,4-Dioxane Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Sand and Gravel
Aquifer - Q3 2022
25 Zinc Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Sand and Gravel Aquifer -
Q2 2022
26 Zinc Isoconcentration Contour Map for Groundwater in the Sand and Gravel Aquifer -
Q3 2022
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Interceptor Well Pumping Volumes and Mass Removal Calculations
vi
-------
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AOIW Alternate Onsite Interceptor Well
COC Chemical of concern
EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ft foot/feet
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
MW monitoring well
GWMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan
Lindsay Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MW Monitoring well
NDEE Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy
OIW Onsite Interceptor Well
PCE Tetrachloroethene
QC Quality control
RI Remedial investigation
ROD Record of Decision
RWTU Residential Water Treatment Unit
TCE trichloroethene
VOC volatile organic compound
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
vii
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site Version: Final
Lindsay, Nebraska Date: March 2023
This page intentionally left blank
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This annual report summarizes the remedial actions that were completed in 2022 at Lindsay
Manufacturing Company Site located in Lindsay, Nebraska (Figure 1). This report, which was
prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (EA) for the Lindsay
Manufacturing Company (Lindsay), focuses on groundwater sampling and analysis conducted at
the site in 2022 to monitor the groundwater plume. The 2022 activities were conducted in
accordance with the 2017 Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GWMP) approved by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on April 28, 2017 (URS, 2017a) and as updated in
August 2020 (AECOM, 2020a).
The GWMP outlines the following objectives, tasks, and deliverables:
• Operate and Maintain Groundwater Pumping Wells
• Monitor the performance of the treatment system extraction wells on a weekly
basis.
• Have an "on-call" person for emergency response. If an emergency arises,
Lindsay will notify EA. If Lindsay and EA are unable to find a solution
remotely, EA will complete a site visit for further diagnosis.
• Operate and Maintain Residential Water Treatment Units (RWTUs)
• Operate and maintain two RWTUs. Includes maintenance of equipment,
processes, systems, and appurtenances to provide continuous operational service
of the treatment system.
• Follow standard protocol for granular activated carbon (GAC) changeout if
chemical of concern (COC) breakthrough is documented after the lead GAC
vessel and/or the lag GAC vessels.
• General Repair Allowance
• Provide capacity for parts and material needed to maintain operation of systems.
• Water Level Monitoring (Quarterly)
• Measure water levels quarterly.
• Report data in tabular format for quarterly reports and use these data to produce
potentiometric surface maps for the annual report.
• Performance Monitoring (Quarterly)
• Sample groundwater from select pumping wells, monitoring wells (MWs),
residential wells, and outfall discharge.
1-1
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
• Analyze samples and quality control (QC)/duplicates for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), 1,4-Dioxane, metals (cadmium, chromium, iron, and zinc),
and sulfate.
• Deploy passive diffusion bags at select MWs a minimum of 2 weeks prior to
sampling to equilibrate with the aquifer.
• During semi-annual sampling events of the residential wells associated with the
RWTUs, collect an RWTU influent, lead GAC effluent, and a lag GAC effluent
sample.
• Follow procedures and protocol for notifying landowners prior to sampling
events.
• Performance Monitoring Reports and Meetings (Quarterly)
• Prepare quarterly reports that describe and present the results of quarterly
sampling activities. These reports generally contain:
¦ O&M observations, water level measurement, sampling activities,
equipment malfunctions, system issues/emergency site visits, incidental
maintenance, repair, sampling, operational reliability of service, and
conclusions/recommendations from the quarter from all systems.
¦ Summary of sampling efforts, issues, and conclusions/recommendations.
¦ Analytical results summary tables and comparisons.
¦ QC summary reports/data usability reports.
¦ Necessary figures to illustrate the above data and trends.
• Submit the final reports to the regulatory agency.
• Hold quarterly review meetings at Lindsay to discuss any system trends,
required changes, or additional maintenance. These meetings are held during the
last week of the month following the end of a quarter.
In addition, Lindsay collaborated with the EPA and Nebraska Department of Environment and
Energy (NDEE) to complete the following in 2022:
• Abandonment of three MWs, MW09-01, MW09-02, and MW11-06: On behalf of
Lindsay, EA submitted a technical memo with redundancy analysis and rationale for
abandonment of the proposed wells, located next to the extraction buildings (Figure 2).
EPA provided concurrence with the abandonment of the wells on 12 April 2022. The
wells were properly abandoned on 28 April 2022. Decommissioning forms were filed with
NDEE within 60 days of abandonment procedures.
• Abandonment of two MWs, MW14-03A and MW14-03B: On 7 July 2022, MW14-03A
and MW14-03B were approved for abandonment by NDEE and subsequently abandoned
due to an overlap with the thermal treatment zone of the thermal pilot study. The detailed
1-2
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
rationale was communicated with NDEE prior to abandonment, and the decommissioning
forms were filed with NDEE within 60 days of abandonment procedures.
• Decommissioning of Preister RWTU: The Preister RWTU was evaluated and deemed
unnecessary for further monitoring of the residential groundwater associated with the
Preister residence. The Preister RWTU filtration system was decommissioned, and
samples associated with the filtration system were removed from the sampling program on
20 October 2022.
• Decommissioning of G127000 extraction pipeline: G127000 and its associated outfall
OF001 were evaluated and deemed unnecessary for further monitoring. They were
decommissioned and removed from the sampling program on 20 October 2022.
Ownership of the pipeline to the pivot and the G127000 extraction building was
transferred to the landowner.
• Thermal Treatment Pilot Study: A pilot study was implemented for thermal treatment of
a portion of the source area east of Building 1 in the paved area and the ditch. New
monitoring wells were installed in conjunction with the pilot study in September 2022
(MW21-03A/B, MW21-04A/B, MW21-5A, and MW21-6A) in the vicinity of the
Thermal Treatment Zone. A baseline sampling event of these new wells was conducted in
addition to the fourth quarter routine sampling activities and will be incorporated into the
sampling program moving forward.
This annual report for 2022 presents the following:
1. Current site-wide conceptual model description.
2. Groundwater elevation contour maps.
3. Pumping volumes for remedial pumping wells MW89-12, Alternate Onsite Interceptor
Well (AOIW), G127000, EXT07-02, EXT 11-01, and EXT 13-01.
4. A cumulative summary of analytical results from the groundwater sampling events
updated with the 2022 groundwater sampling data.
5. Cumulative summary of analytical results for the Shell Creek discharge samples from
downgradient interceptor wells G127000, EXT07-02, EXT11-01, and EXT13-01.
6. Mass removal calculations for the remedial pumping wells.
7. Recommendations for 2023.
1.2 SITE HISTORY
The Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site is bordered by the town of Lindsay and
surrounded by predominantly agricultural land. The parcel is comprised of approximately 42
acres. The site is bounded by farmland to the north and east, East 2nd Street and the Village of
1-3
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
Lindsay to the south, and a tributary of Shell Creek, Dry Creek, and the Village of Lindsay to the
west (Figure 1).
The site was originally a gasoline station until the late 1950s. In 1961, a manufacturing plant was
constructed at the site, and in 1965, the Lindsay Manufacturing Company was formed to
manufacture agricultural irrigation systems. Lindsay Manufacturing Company generated sulfuric
acid waste from a galvanizing process at its plant. The wastes were discharged into an unlined
pond for 10 years. Use of the pond ceased in 1983, when three groundwater MWs showed
contamination. In addition, chlorinated solvents associated with metal parts cleaning and
degreasing were discharged to the ground at the site, releasing VOCs to the environment which
subsequently migrated into the groundwater beneath the facility. Groundwater and soils at the
Site are contaminated with VOCs, 1,4-dioxane, and heavy metals.
Groundwater in the area of the plant is used for agricultural purposes and as a drinking water
supply for nearby residents. Approximately 3,000 people live within a three-mile radius of the
site, with the nearest residence 300 feet (ft) away. The current downgradient extent of the VOC
plume in groundwater is approximately 1000 feet from the property boundary. To protect
residents from potential exposure, RWTUs were installed at residences with impacted private
drinking water wells within the formerly more-laterally extensive VOC plume which at one time
was approximately 3 miles downgradient, prior to implementation of remedial actions.
1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Source areas containing chlorinated VOCs, groundwater with low pH, and metals were
delineated during the remedial investigation completed in 1990 (Dames & Moore 1990). The
Record of Decision (ROD) (EPA, 1990) presents selected remedial actions for the Lindsay
Manufacturing Company Site with the main objective being to restore the groundwater to
acceptable quality according to the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels
mainly accomplished through extraction and enhanced treatment of the contaminated
groundwater. In April 1992, a Consent Decree (EPA, 1992) was signed that required the
potentially responsible party, Lindsay Manufacturing, to design and implement cleanup of the
site under the watch of the EPA and NDEE. Soil vapor extraction was implemented at the
facility in 1993. Groundwater was extracted via Onsite Interceptor Well (OIW) and AOIW. In
1998 seasonal remedial pumping was initiated atMW89-12; however, chlorinated VOCs above
the federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) continued to migrate beyond the southern
facility boundary.
The extent of the downgradient chlorinated VOC plume was further delineated in 2011. Between
2004 and 2014, MWs were installed on facility and off facility downgradient of the plume. These
wells were utilized to evaluate the plume, assess source area(s) on the facility, address EPA
concerns regarding soil vapor intrusion on the facility and in the residential neighborhood to the
south, and to collect additional data to evaluate potential source reduction methods to reduce
mass loading of chlorinated VOCs, 1,4-dioxane, and zinc in groundwater migrating past the
facility property boundary (Figures 11 through 26). Downgradient interceptor wells (EXT07-02
and EXT 13-01) were installed to control the downgradient plume. Seasonal pumping on the
facility continues via AOIW and intermittent seasonal pumping via MW89-12. Two households,
1-4
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
the Beller's and Preister's domestic well supplies, had carbon whole-house treatment systems
installed in the late 1990s to treat influent groundwater for household use. Preister's RWTU was
evaluated for decommissioning as it was no longer inside the plume boundary and was
decommissioned in October 2022 after approval by the EPA.
Since the remedial investigation (RI) in 1990, quarterly groundwater monitoring at the site has
been conducted and periodically adjusted to account for changes in the monitoring network,
plume assessment, review of COCs, and updates in analytical procedures and reporting limits.
The plume to the south has drastically receded to within 900 feet of the southern boundary
currently located near the Beller residence. Due to the reduction in size of the plume, 39 MWs
were evaluated to determine if they were needed to effectively monitor the plume and
summarized to EPA. After review by EPA, 36 MWs were approved to cease sampling and
properly abandon the MWs. These MWs were abandoned in November 2021 and the three
remaining wells underwent redundancy analysis and were abandoned in April 2022.
New monitoring wells were installed in conjunction with the Thermal Treatment Pilot Study in
September 2022 (MW21-03A/B, MW21-04A/B, MW21-5A, and MW21-6A) in the vicinity of
the Thermal Treatment Zone.
The COCs for the site, which are listed in Table IV-1 of the ROD (EPA 1990) are as follows:
• 1,1 -Di chl oroethane
• 1,2-Dichl oroethane
• 1,1 -Di chl oroethene
• 1,2-Dichl oroethene (cis and trans isomers)
• Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
• 1,1,1 -Tri chl oroethane
• Cadmium
• Chromium
• Lead
• Zinc
• Sulfate.
Additionally, chemical analysis includes iron and 1,4-dioxane, as part of the monitoring
program. These are included because elevated concentrations of iron are discussed in the ROD,
and 1,4-dioxane is associated with solvents historically used at the facility and it has been
detected in site groundwater and soil.
The EPA conducts 5-year reviews with the most recent being in 2018 (EPA 2018) which
concluded "the remedy currently protects human health and the environment because the plume
is hydraulically controlled; Shell Creek discharges were below federal and state surface water
quality criteria; and no public supply wells within the footprint of the plume are being used for
drinking water. However, for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the following actions
need to be taken to ensure protectiveness: reassessment of the current geologic site conceptual
model, defining and remediating source areas, optimizing the current remedy, evaluate remedial
1-5
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
alternatives which may include a change in remedy, and evaluating the nature and extent of
VOC contamination in the upper hydrostratigraphic unit in order to restore the aquifer to MCL
quality in a reasonable timeframe. "
1.4 PROJECT DOCUMENT REFERENCES
The following is a list of documents associated with work performed under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for Lindsay. The list
includes other technical documents commonly referred to in site reports, but not necessarily
referred to specifically in this 2022 annual report.
• Remedial Investigation for Lindsay, Nebraska (Dames & Moore 1990)
• Record of Decision (EPA 1990)
• Consent Decree (EPA 1992)
• Operations and Maintenance Plan, Supplemental Remedial Action (URS 2004a)
• Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Remedial Action (URS 2004b)
• Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846), Chapter IV. Revision IV (EPA
2007)
• Third Five-Year Review Report (EPA 2008)
• Work Plan - Revision 1.0, Actions Responsive to 2008 Five-Year Review (URS 2009)
• Interim Data Transmittal Addendum - Revision 1, Task 6 (Phase II): Pump Tests and
Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Capture Zones Created by Interceptor Wells
G127000 and EXT07-02 (URS 201 la)
• Report and Data Transmittal, On-Site Assessments (Phase II) - Revision 1.0, Task 1:
Assess the Potential Presence of Other Source Areas On-Facility and Task 2: Assess the
Lateral and Vertical Extent of the Chlorinated VOCs in the Cell and Reaction Pit Areas
(URS 2011b)
• Interim Data Transmittal Addendum, Task 6 (Phase V): Field Activities: Installation of
Additional Monitoring and Interceptor Wells in the Southern Terminus (URS 2012a)
• Data Transmittal Addendum, Task 6 (Phase V): Pump Test and Assessment of the
Effectiveness of the Capture Zone Created by Interceptor Well EXT11-01 (URS 2012b)
• Fourth Five-Year Review Report (EPA 2013)
• Work Plan Addendum: Task V2 Follow-up (Phase 4): Field Activities at Lindsay
Manufacturing, LLC (URS 2013 a)
• Annual Report, Enhanced Groundwater Remediation Progress Report, Period Covering
January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (URS 2013b)
• Letter Report: Task 3/4, Facility Indoor Air Sampling Results for Bldgs. 1,4,5,10 &
Guard Station, Round 1 and Round 2 (URS 2013c)
1-6
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
• Supplement 1 to Work Plan Addendum: Task V2 Follow-up (Phase 4) Field Activities at
Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC (URS 2013 d)
• Interim Data Transmittal Task 3/4 Field Activities: Soil Vapor Intrusion Assessment in
the Bordering Neighborhood, Round 1 and Round 2 (URS 2013e)
• Letter Report, Revision 1.0: Task 3/4, Facility Indoor Air Sampling Results for Bldgs.
1,4,5,10 & Guard Station, Round 1 and Round 2 (URS 2013f)
• Interim Data Transmittal Task 3/4 Field Activities Revision 1.0: Soil Vapor Intrusion
Assessment in the Bordering Neighborhood, Round 1 and Round 2 (URS 2013g)
• Interim Data Transmittals, 2013 Field Event Tasks 1 and 2 (URS 2013h)
• Data Transmittal Task 3/4 Field Activities Soil Vapor Intrusion Assessment in the
Bordering Neighborhood, Rounds 1, 2, and 3 (URS 2013i)
• Letter, Proposed Well Installation (URS 2014a)
• Data Transmittal, Revision 1, Task 3/4 Field Activities, Soil Vapor Intrusion Assessment
in the Bordering Neighborhood, Rounds 1, 2, 3 (URS 2014b)
• Annual Report, Enhanced Groundwater Remediation Progress Report, Period Covering
January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 (URS 2014c)
• Supplemental Human Health Risk Assessment (URS 2014d)
• Completion Report: Pre-Remedial Design Investigation (URS 2014e)
• Annual Report - CERCLA Actions, Enhanced Groundwater Remediation 2014, Period
Covering January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (URS 2015a)
• Facility Remedial Alternative Work Plan (URS 2015b)
• Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2015, Revision 1.0 (URS 2016a)
• Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report (URS 2016b)
• Groundwater Monitoring Plan (URS 2016c)
• Groundwater Monitoring Plan (URS 2017a)
• Letter dated January 20, 2017 to Erin McCoy, EPA from Karen Mixon, URS; RE:
January 17, 2017 Conference Call; Response to comments on Remedial Alternatives
Evaluation Report (URS, 2017b)
• Memo, Groundwater Fate and Transport Model Description (URS 2017c)
• Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2016 (URS 2017d)
• Supplemental Investigation Work Plan (URS 2017e)
• Fifth Five-Year Review Report (EPA 2018)
• Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2017 (URS 2018a)
• Supplemental Investigation Report - 2015 through 2017 (URS 2018b)
1-7
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
• Final Report - Lindsay Manufacturing, Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport Model
(URS 2018c)
• Interceptor Well EXT 11-01 Evaluation (URS 2018d)
• Interceptor Well EXT11-01 Evaluation, Revision 1.0 (URS 2019a)
• Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2018 (URS 2019b)
• Letter, Revisions to Groundwater Monitoring Plan (AECOM 2020a)
• Annual Report - CERCLA Action 2019 (AECOM 2020b)
• Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report (AECOM 2020c).
1-8
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
2. ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN 2022
The groundwater extraction and monitoring activities that were conducted at the site in 2022 are
summarized as follows:
• February: First quarter groundwater samples were collected and analyzed, and
groundwater levels were collected at MWs, domestic wells, and Shell Creek discharge
locations. The groundwater sample results and water levels were submitted to both EPA
and NDEE electronically on 10 May 2022.
• 31 March: The Annual Report for the period of 1 January to 31 December 2021 was
submitted electronically to EPA and NDEE via EA.
• April: Second quarter groundwater samples were collected and analyzed, and
groundwater levels were collected at MWs, domestic wells, and Shell Creek discharge
locations. The groundwater sample results, and water levels were submitted to both EPA
and NDEE electronically 29 July 2022. Monitoring wells MW09-01, MW09-02, and
MW11-06 were abandoned and removed from the sampling program.
• July: Third quarter groundwater samples were collected and analyzed, and groundwater
levels were collected at MWs, domestic wells, and Shell Creek discharge locations. The
groundwater sample results, and water levels were submitted to both EPA and NDEE
electronically 22 December 2022. Monitoring wells MW14-03A and MW14-03B were
abandoned and removed from the sampling program.
• September: Additional monitoring wells MW21-03A, MW21-03B, MW21-04A, MW21-
04B, MW21-5A, and MW21-6A were installed in conjunction with the Thermal Pilot
Study.
• October: Winterized pivots and booster pumps associated with site remediation. Turned
on heaters in off-facility extraction well buildings.
• October: Fourth quarter groundwater levels were collected at MWs, domestic wells, and
Shell Creek discharge locations. Domestic wells Priester's Irrigation Well (G127000) and
Priester's Domestic Well (BFF, AFF, and ALF) were abandoned and removed from the
sampling program, along with the RWTU building for Priester's Domestic Well. Outfall
location OF001 associated with G127000 was abandoned and removed from the
sampling program.
• November: Baseline monitoring for MW21-03A, MW21-03B, MW21-04A, MW21-04B,
MW21-5A, and MW21-6A was performed. Groundwater levels and samples were
collected and analyzed.
• December: Fourth quarter groundwater samples were collected and analyzed. The
groundwater sample results, and water levels were submitted to both EPA and NDEE
electronically 20 February 2023.
• January-December, Off-Facility Extraction Wells: Interceptor wells EXT13-01, and
EXT07-02 downgradient of the facility were operated year-round for plume control with
minimal interruptions. Interceptor well EXT 11-01 was not operational for Quarters 1 and
4. G127000 was operated year-round until October 2022 when it was abandoned.
2-9
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
• January-December, On-Facility Extraction Wells: Interceptor well MW89-12 on the
facility was operated intermittently as needed. Interceptor well AOIW on the facility was
operated seasonally for plume control at the facility property boundary.
The analytical results from quarterly sampling events are included in the tables provided within
this document.
2-10
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
3. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
The conceptual site model presented in previous reports and work plans is updated as new
information becomes available. The conceptual site model as updated in 2015 and 2017 is
presented in the following sections with water level information collected during 2022.
3.1 SITE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The site is situated in east-central Nebraska in the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 17, Township 20 North, Range 3 West, in Platte County, Nebraska. The facility is in a
relative topographic low created by Shell Creek and its tributary drainages (Figure 1). The
average elevation of the facility is approximately 1,670 ft above mean sea level, and local relief
ranges from 1,620 to 1,800 ft above mean sea level. Historical releases of chlorinated VOCs at
the facility resulted in a plume of chlorinated VOCs in groundwater beneath and downgradient of
the facility. 1,4-Dioxane, associated with the chlorinated VOCs, and metals, primarily zinc, are
present beneath the facility. 1,4-Dioxane has been identified in groundwater a short distance
from the facility.
From 2004 through 2017, investigations were conducted at the site and MWs were installed
downgradient of the facility to delineate the lateral and vertical extent of the VOC plume. Based
on 2022 evaluation of all previous results, the current southern extent of the plume downgradient
of the facility is near MW92-3 A and MW92-3B next to the Beller property (Figure 2).
Monitoring and interceptor well locations on and downgradient of the facility are shown on
Figure 2. The overall topography along the axis of the chlorinated VOC plume from the northern
facility boundary (near well MW06-11) to the southern portion of the VOC plume slopes to the
south-southeast. As discussed in Sections 4, 5, and 7, the operation of multiple interceptor wells
since 2012 has segregated the downgradient portion of the plume into several smaller
disconnected portions and reduced the size of the plume. In 2019, EPA approved shutdown of
interceptor well EXT 11-01 for remediation purposes as the groundwater data indicated that the
concentrations of chlorinated VOCs between EXT07-02 and EXT 11-01 were below federal
MCLs or reported as not detected (URS 2019a).
Source area investigations were conducted at the facility from 2009 through 2017. The
investigations targeted areas identified during the 1990 RI (Dames & Moore 1990) and
considered historical release information, remedial actions that were conducted during the 1990s,
and groundwater monitoring data. Source areas recommended for supplemental actions include
the Building 1 area to the north, including drainage ditch, and directly east of the building,
(AECOM 2020c, URS 2018b). The Building 1 area is the primary source of the chlorinated
VOCs and 1,4-dioxane at the facility that has migrated to groundwater. The cell area is the
primary source of zinc at the facility. This area was filled in 2019 and a building was constructed
over the previous footprint.
The Thermal Treatment Pilot Study was performed for a portion of the source area east of
Building 1 in the paved area and the ditch, which began construction in July 2022 and was turned
on in late November 2022. The pilot study effects a volume of 10,169 cubic yards from 5 to 50
feet below ground surface using 48 thermal conductive heating rods.
3-1
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
3.2 HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS
Lithologic data has been collected during and after the RI at the facility (Dames & Moore 1990)
via soil borings (drilled and hydraulic probe), MW borings, and membrane interface probe
borings. The data indicates there are four principal hydrogeologic units from youngest to oldest:
• Fine-grained unit consisting of dense silt and clay,
• Sand channel found only beneath a portion of the facility footprint consisting of a sand-
filled paleo-channel within the fine-grained unit,
• Sand and gravel aquifer (the regional aquifer), and
• Niobrara Formation (bedrock), typically consisting of a layer of dense, iron-stained,
yellowish orange to pale brown clay at the top of the formation.
Geologic cross-sections on and downgradient of the facility are updated as new information
becomes available and have been provided in multiple work plans, interim data transmittals and
reports (URS 2009, 2011a and b, 2012a and b, 2014e, 2016b, and 2018a).
The coordinates, elevations, and well construction information for all monitoring and interceptor
wells are summarized in Table 1. Groundwater elevations from February 2005 through
December 2022 for site MWs are summarized in Table 2a. Groundwater elevation (i.e.,
potentiometric surface) contours for the upper portion of the sand and gravel aquifer in 2022 are
shown on Figures 3 through 6 for each quarter. Groundwater elevation contours for the lower
fine-grained unit are show in Figures 7 through 10. The contours represent non-pumping
conditions and pumping conditions as indicated on each figure. Deviations from the GWMP for
measured water levels can be seen in Table 3 which includes wells that were approved for
abandonment.
3.2.1 Fine-Grained Unit
The fine-grained unit is a deposit of dense material, primarily silt and clay, with limited amount
of sand, which is found across the site from ground surface to 90 ft below ground surface
depending on location. The thickness of the fine-grained unit ranges from 25 to 90 ft and
generally correlates to increasing or decreasing ground surface elevations (i.e., less thick at lower
elevations, more thick at higher elevations). In some locations, the transition to the sand and
gravel unit is relatively sharp and in others it is gradational. The lower portion of the fine-grained
unit is typically saturated throughout the year on the facility and in adjacent areas where wells
are screened in this unit; however, historical groundwater level measurements (Table 2a)
indicate that several MWs screened near the base of this unit may become dry during the summer
when groundwater withdrawals from the underlying aquifer for irrigation depress the water table
below the bottom of the screened interval of a well. The saturated thickness varies in response to
recharge and changes in the potentiometric head in the underlying sand and gravel aquifer.
Recharge at the facility is limited, due to the presence of buildings and pavement. Regionally,
recharge occurs during and after large rainfall events in the intermittent stream and creek beds
and in areas with sandy soils at the surface (Weeks and Gutentag, 1988). The fine-grained unit
3-2
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
capping the underlying sand and gravel aquifer is considered to be a leaky confining layer or
aquitard. Some recharge to the sand and gravel aquifer in the vicinity of the facility appears to be
from the saturated portion of the overlying fine-grained unit.
3.2.2 Sand Channel
Beneath the north-central portion of the facility, groundwater is also present in a former channel
that is sand-filled (sand channel) and buried within the fine-grained unit. The lateral and vertical
extent of the sand channel was delineated by numerous borings completed at the facility during
the RI (Dames & Moore 1990) and subsequent investigations (URS 201 lb, 2014e, and 2016b).
The sand channel trends from the northwest to the southeast. It is approximately 315 ft wide at
its widest point by approximately 665 ft long and is typically 20 to 30 ft thick in the central
portion of the former channel. It pinches out laterally on the east and west and to the southwest.
The northern extent offsite has not been delineated.
3.2.3 Sand and Gravel Aquifer
The sand and gravel aquifer consist primarily of fine to coarse sand and sandy gravel beneath the
facility and is the principal water-bearing zone in the site vicinity. The top of the aquifer occurs
at depths between approximately 25 and 90 ft below ground surface, and aquifer thickness
ranges from approximately 40 to 80 ft. Fine-grained interbeds or lenses have not been identified
within the sand and gravel aquifer beneath the facility and adjacent area downgradient.
Discontinuous, relatively thin silt and clay lenses in the aquifer have been encountered at well
borings further downgradient in the southern terminus area. In the area near well EXT 11-01, a
more continuous 8- to 11-foot-thick silt and clay lense is present within the aquifer (URS 2012a,
Figures 4 and 5). Locally, this lense acts as an aquitard that restricts vertical groundwater flow
between the upper and lower portions of the aquifer.
The aquifer is typically fully saturated except in the vicinity of interceptor wells, where the cone
of depression may locally dewater the upper portion of the aquifer. Water levels in the sand and
gravel aquifer decrease during the spring and summer due to drawdown caused by the operation
of irrigation and interceptor wells within and outside of the plume boundaries. Recharge to the
sand and gravel aquifer in the vicinity of the facility appears to be from the saturated portion of
the overlying fine-grained unit.
3.2.4 Niobrara Formation
The Niobrara Formation is a dense, iron-stained, yellowish orange to pale brown clay which
underlies the sand and gravel aquifer in the site vicinity. The Niobrara Formation is the regional
bedrock, and it is weathered at the contact with the sand and gravel aquifer. In some areas,
discontinuous thin layers of silt to fined-grained sand have been observed at the interface
between the sand and gravel unit and the Niobrara Formation. The upper Niobrara Formation is
not known to be water bearing in the site vicinity.
3-3
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
3.3 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
Until the 2017 field investigation, aquifer tests had not been conducted in the fine-grained unit or
in the sand channel. In 2017, slug tests were conducted at selected wells screened in the fine-
grained unit and physical testing was done on soil cores collected from the fine-grained unit
during drilling. The slug test results from the fine-grained unit indicate that the hydraulic
conductivity ranges from approximately 2.7xl0"3 to 4,9x10"' ft per day. This is generally
consistent with literature values for silt and silty sand (Freeze & Cherry 1979; Driscoll 1986) and
slightly higher than the range previously estimated for this unit (10"2 to 10"4 ft per day) based on
grain size. A slug test was completed in the sand channel at well MW06-10 in 2017 and the
estimated hydraulic conductivity was approximately 7.6 to 8.0 ft per day, which is consistent
with literature values for silty sand or sand, and is within the range of hydraulic conductivity
values previously estimated for the sand channel based on grain size (10"1 to 101 ft per day).
Physical testing conducted on undisturbed soil cores collected in the fine-grained unit in 2017
indicates that the vertical hydraulic conductivity ranges from approximately 1.39xl0"3 to
4.37xl0"4 ft per day (URS 2018a, Appendix G). This is generally consistent with literature values
for clay (Walton, 1991).
The hydraulic conductivity of the sand and gravel aquifer beneath the facility ranges from 150 to
650 ft per day based on an aquifer pumping test at well AOIW (Dames & Moore 1990). An
aquifer test using interceptor well EXT 13-01 and MWs within its zone of influence was
conducted in 2016. Calculated average hydraulic conductivities determined from this test ranged
from 212 to 664 ft per day (URS 2016b). These hydraulic conductivity values are typical of
sands and gravel and are indicative of a highly productive aquifer.
3.4 GROUNDWATER VELOCITY
Average groundwater Velocity was calculated using Darcy's Law as follows:
V = K*I/n
where:
V = average linear groundwater velocity
K = hydraulic conductivity
I = hydraulic gradient = dh/dl
where
dh = difference in head
dl = linear distance
n = effective porosity
Average groundwater velocity was calculated within the fine-grained unit (inclusive of the sand
channel) for the Quarter 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2022 monitoring events using minimum and maximum
hydraulic conductivity values derived from the 2017 slug tests cited in Section 3.3, an estimated
effective porosity of 45% for sand channel and 20% for the fine grained unit, and the hydraulic
gradient observed during the monitoring event between the northernmost well and the
southernmost well. The calculated velocities ranged from 7.9xl0"3 ft per year in the finer-grained
3-4
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
portion of the fine-grained unit between MW14-01A and MW14-07 to 40.9 ft per year in the
sand channel between MW06-10 and MW89-13.
Average groundwater velocity was calculated within the sand and gravel unit using the estimated
hydraulic conductivity values cited in Section 3.3, an estimated effective porosity of 25% and the
hydraulic gradients between the well pair observed during the 2022 monitoring events
(mentioned in section 3.5.1): wells MW06-11 and MW92-3B, representing the full length of the
existing plume. Groundwater velocity within the sand and gravel unit ranged from 284.7 ft per
year to 1518.4 ft per year as calculated between MW06-11 and MW92-3B from 2022 data.
3.5 GROUNDWATER FLOW GRADIENTS
3.5.1 Horizontal
The overall groundwater flow direction beneath and downgradient of the facility in the sand and
gravel aquifer is generally to the south under typical non-pumping conditions (i.e., during the
period when interceptor and irrigation wells are non-operational) (URS 201 la). The overall
hydraulic gradient between wells MW06-11 and MW92-3B ranged from 0.0013 to 0.0016 ft per
ft in 2022 (Figures 3 through 6).
Although some horizontal groundwater flow likely occurs in the upper fine-grained unit,
horizontal groundwater flow within it is most likely to be significantly less than in the sand and
gravel aquifer due to the lower hydraulic conductivity of these finer-grained deposits. In
addition, groundwater movement in this zone may be predominantly vertical as discussed in
Section 3.5.2. Groundwater elevations for the fine-grained unit, as shown on Figures 7 through
10, suggest that groundwater beneath the facility flows south/southeast towards Building 1.
There appears to be a persistent trough in the fine-grained unit groundwater level in the vicinity
of wells MW14-07, MW14-05A, and MW12-02A. This apparent flow pattern may be attributed
to the vertical position of the individual MW screens within the fine-grained unit (i.e., head may
decrease with depth within the fine-grained unit), variable rates of recharge depending on surface
conditions (soil or pavement) near a well location, the potentiometric head in the underlying sand
and gravel aquifer at a well location, and variable hydraulic conductivity for the lower portion of
the fine-grained unit. In some locations, the contact with the underlying aquifer is relatively
sharp and in others it is gradational. Horizontal groundwater flow within the sand channel
beneath the facility is constrained by the channel orientation which is northwest to southeast like
the regional groundwater flow in the underlying aquifer.
Groundwater elevation in the sand and gravel aquifer decreases during the spring and summer
due to seasonal variation in recharge rates and drawdown caused by the operation of interceptor
and irrigation wells within and outside of the plume boundaries, respectively. The aquifer
responds rapidly to the initiation and cessation of pumping from the interceptor and irrigation
wells.
3-5
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
3.5.2 Vertical
Vertical hydraulic gradients were calculated based on water level measurements for 12 well pairs
screened in the fine-grained unit and sand and gravel aquifer and located on the southern portion
and downgradient of the facility. Measurements and gradients are summarized in Table 2b.
Hydraulic gradients were not calculated for well pairs which lacked water level measurements in
one or both wells. During Quarter 1 and 3 the vertical gradient at MW12-02A/B located
downgradient of the facility was upward (negative), and downward (positive) gradients were
observed at MW12-01A/B and MW12-03A/B. During Quarter 2 and 4 all vertical gradients
were positive for all three well pairs. Head differences at the 3 well pairs downgradient of the
facility ranged from -0.90 to 16.13 ft.
Head differences at the 9 well pairs on the facility ranged from -1.01 to 5.40 ft (Table 2b). Slight
upward vertical gradients were observed at MW14-01A/B, MW14-04A/B, MW14-05A/B,
MW14-06A/B, MW14-07/MW06-07, and MW14-09A/B for one or more quarters in 2022. The
vertical gradients at well pairs MW14-02A/B, MW14-03A/B, and MW14-08/MW6-08 were
consistently downward or flat for each quarter measured.
Based on an overall historic pattern of predominantly downward vertical hydraulic gradients and
soil and groundwater analytical results collected on, adjacent to, and downgradient of the facility
(URS 201 lb, 2014e, and 2018c), downward infiltration of groundwater occurs from the sand
channel and the fine-grained unit into the underlying sand and gravel aquifer either seasonally or
throughout the year at most locations on the facility and the adjacent downgradient area where
well pairs have been installed. The available groundwater elevation data also indicate that similar
levels typically occur in the sand channel and the fine-grained unit, where present, beneath the
facility.
Soil and groundwater analytical data shown on the cross-sections presented in the 2014
Completion Report: Pre-Remedial Design Investigation (URS 2014e, Figures 6 through 13) also
support vertical hydraulic continuity from the sand channel through the fine-grained unit into the
sand and gravel aquifer. The flow rate is likely low through the fine-grained unit below the sand
channel due to low hydraulic conductivity (10"3 to 10"1 foot per day) but may be significant along
discontinuities within the fine-grained unit or if the sand channel in the cell area extends to the
base of the upper fine-grained unit at a location that was not identified during the 2014 and
previous investigations (URS 2011b, 2014e).
3-6
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
4. INTERCEPTOR WELL OPERATION
The current focus of remediation is extraction of groundwater containing chlorinated VOCs in
the area downgradient of the facility at wells EXT13-01, and EXT07-02, and beneath the facility
via wells AOIW and MW89-12 (Figure 2). Operation of EXT11-01 was discontinued for
remediation purposes in September 2019. OIW is still present, but power is not currently
available at the well as it was disconnected during the cell area investigation activities in 2013.
The OIW is no longer available as an interceptor well. G127000 was removed from the
monitoring program in October 2022. The G127000 pipeline to the degassing pond/outfall
sampling location was abandoned along with the abandonment of the degassing pond itself. The
G127000 extraction well building was turned over to the landowner and being used solely for the
pivot.
The groundwater extracted from wells EXT13-01 and EXT07-02 is discharged through center
pivot irrigation systems and/or directly to Shell Creek per EPA and NDEE approvals. Lindsay
has entered into long-term agreements with several property owners for the land application and
beneficial use of the extracted groundwater for irrigation purposes. Because groundwater cleanup
at the facility and on adjacent properties is being conducted under CERCLA, the land application
of groundwater for irrigation purposes is regulated primarily by EPA under the CERCLA
program and in consultation with NDEE. Discharge from these wells is exempt from permitting
pursuant to CERCLA section 121(e) and the 1992 Consent Decree (EPA 1992). Discharge of
extracted groundwater to Shell Creek from interceptor wells EXT07-02 and EXT13-01 is
allowed under NDEE Discharge Authorization NE00137588.
Capture zone analyses were conducted for wells G127000, EXT07-02, and EXT11-01 in May
2010 and April 2012 (URS 2011a, 2012b). The capture zone analysis for EXT13-01 was
completed in July 2016 and presented as Appendix D in the Remedial Alternatives Evaluation
Report (URS 2016b). Wells EXT13-01 and EXT07-02 generally operate year-round with
minimal downtime.
AOIW is operated as much as possible during the irrigation season but is not operated during the
winter. Groundwater extracted with this well contains zinc concentrations that preclude
discharge to Shell Creek, so these wells are operated only when the extracted groundwater can be
land applied.
The volume of groundwater extracted, total days and hours pumped, and average pumping rate
for each active well in the system historically and during 2022 are summarized in Appendix A,
Table A-l. Wells EXT13-01, G127000, and EXT07-02 were operated continuously during 2022
with the following exceptions:
• EXT 13-01 had a ruptured pipeline south of the pumphouse on 2 June and was turned off
until repairs were completed 8 June.
• EXT07-02 was always running, but flows could not be recorded on 8 June, 17 August,
and 14 September due to wet field conditions preventing access to the building.
4-1
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
• G127000 had a broken display from the beginning of the year to 16 March. Flow totals
could not be recorded during this period.
• The final reading of G127000 was on 18 October and the well was removed from the
monitoring program.
EXT 11-01 was operated for irrigation by the landowner as needed.
The total volume of groundwater extracted and the range of and mean pumping rates during
2022 for these wells are summarized below.
Well
Range of
Pumping Rate
(gpm)
Average
Pumping Rate
(gpm)
Total Volume
(gallons)
EXT13-01
685-1038
824
414,198,300
G127000
935-1,036
1008
276,625,700
EXT07-02
561-981
696
297,715,100
EXT11-01
894-1,040
936
147,063,000
gpm - gallon per minute
MW89-12 was operated infrequently during 2022 and was not running during site visits and
sampling events. The total volume of groundwater extracted in 2022 and the range of and mean
pumping rates for MW89-12 and AOIW are summarized below.
Well
Range of Pumping
Rate (gpm)*
Average Pumping Rate
(gPm)*
Total Volume
(gallons)
MW89-12
-
- (May-October)
326,300
AOIW
606-1088
822 (April-October)
83,543,500
*Range of pumping rate and average pumping rate calculated using months with multiple consecutive pumping
days, gpm - gallon per minute.
4-2
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
5. GROUNDWATER AND OUTFALL MONITORING
The groundwater monitoring system consists of MWs installed on the facility property and
downgradient of the facility (Figure 2). In addition, groundwater from three domestic wells
(Figure 2) is also sampled for analysis. The 2022 groundwater monitoring program is
summarized in Table 3. The analytical data collected in 2022 are summarized in Tables 4
(MWs) and 5 (domestic wells).
Under the discharge authorization NE00137588, quarterly sampling is required at outfall
locations OF002, OF003, and OF004 to Shell Creek from wells EXT07-02, EXT 11-01, and
EXT13-01, respectively. OF001 from G127000 underwent quarterly sampling until it was
decommissioned and removed from the monitoring plan in quarter 4. EXT 11-01 is operated as
needed and the corresponding outfall, OF003, was not sampled in Quarters 1, 2, and 4 while
EXT 11-01 was not in use. The 2022 outfall analytical results are summarized in Table 6.
Cumulative summaries of the analytical results since 2001 are provided in Tables 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b,
and 9. The sample collection and analytical data are discussed in the following sections.
5.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION
5.1.1 General Procedures
Sample containers, coolers, chain-of-custody forms, and custody seals were provided by the
analytical laboratory, GEL Laboratories, LLC out of Charleston, South Carolina. Passive
diffusion bags (PDBs) were ordered directly from the supplier (EON Products, Incorporated)
located in Snellville, Georgia and shipped to EA's Lincoln office prior to sampling events.
Supplies were ordered prior to each sampling event and checked by EA personnel upon receipt
to confirm all supplies needed were received and in good condition. Sampling equipment such as
pumps, water level indicators, field meters, and calibration supplies are maintained by EA and
checked prior to each event to confirm that all are functioning properly and that calibration
standards are up to date. Equipment that is not functioning properly is repaired or replaced.
Equipment is stored in Lindsay's main office building located on site. Outdated calibration
standards are discarded and replaced.
Samples were collected by EA personnel who are overseen by a licensed Pump Installation
Contractor. EA personnel work in pairs with one person collecting the sample and the second
person labeling containers and completing sample documentation. Each sample collected was
documented on a pre-printed field sampling sheet that included well/location details, sampling
technique, bottle requirements, and analytical testing to inform the sampler as well as
standardized formats to record field parameters, water levels, purge information, date and times
collected, and other details as appropriate. The forms are updated when changes to sampling or
analytical programs occur or if an improvement is identified. Field sampling forms completed
during 2022 were provided for each quarterly sampling event in the quarterly reports.
Samples were packed with wet ice in coolers by the samplers. The chain-of-custody was
completed, rechecked to the bottles placed in the cooler(s), and signed by the sampler. A copy of
5-1
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
the chain-of-custody was kept by EA and the original was placed in a plastic bag and taped to the
inside of one cooler in each shipment. Sample coolers were shipped using overnight delivery
service to GEL Laboratories, LLC. Upon receipt by the laboratory, a sample acknowledgement
was sent to EA for review to confirm samples arrived with no issues; issues identified were
resolved; and that the laboratory logged the samples correctly for analysis and reporting.
5.1.2 2022 Sampling Events
Groundwater samples were collected during each quarterly sampling event based on the EPA-
approved GWMP (URS 2017a, AECOM 2020a). The field data sheets and laboratory analytical
reports for each sampling event were provided in the quarterly reports.
All samples collected in 2022 were analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260C or 8260D.
Samples from selected locations were analyzed for 1,4-dioxane by EPA Method 8270D or
8270E, total metals by EPA Methods 6010C (cadmium, chromium, iron, and zinc) and 200.8-
modified (lead), and/or sulfate by EPA Method 300.0. Field measurements for pH, temperature,
specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and/or oxidation-reduction potential were collected at
locations when sampling required pumps or as indicated in Table 3. The sampling and analytical
program for each quarter was completed as planned with the exceptions noted below. There were
no adverse impacts to the monitoring program or data usability due to the exceptions noted
below.
1st Quarter Sampling Event
• Outfall OF003 did not have any flow for the quarter and was inactive during the sampling
event. Therefore, no sample was collected.
2nd Quarter Sampling Event
• Outfall OF003 did not have any flow for the quarter and was inactive during the sampling
event. Therefore, no sample was collected.
• The PDB in MW 12-02B broke during retrieval and no sample could be obtained for VOC
analysis.
• Water levels and samples for MW09-01, MW09-02, and MW11-06 were not obtained as
the wells were abandoned.
• Sampling activities could not be completed at MW89-12 due to the well being inactive.
3rd Quarter Sampling Event
• Sampling activities could not be completed at MW89-12 due to the well being inactive.
• Monitoring Wells MW14-03A and MW14-03B were not sampled because they were
abandoned and removed from the sampling program.
4th Quarter Sampling Event
• Outfall OF003 did not have any flow for the quarter and was inactive during the sampling
event. Therefore, no sample was collected.
5-2
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
• Domestic wells Priester's Irrigation Well (G127000) and Priester's Domestic Well (BFF,
AFF, and ALF) were abandoned and removed from the sampling program, along with the
Residential Water Treatment Unit (RWTU) building for Priester's Domestic Well. The
associated outfall (OFOOl) and filtration system (Preister BFF, Preister AFF, and Preister
ALF) were not sampled.
5.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Analytical laboratory reports and complete raw data packages were submitted to EA and
validated by qualified personnel. Sample condition upon receipt, hold times, instrument
performance checks, instrument calibrations and calibration verifications, field/method/trip
blanks, surrogate recoveries, internal standards, matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries,
laboratory duplicate results, field duplicate results, blank spike recoveries (laboratory control
samples), reporting limits, and compound identification for VOCs and 1,4-dioxane were
reviewed to assess compliance with applicable methods, current laboratory control limits, and
project-specific requirements. If data qualification was necessary, data were qualified based on
the definitions and use of qualifying flags outlined in the EPA documents USEPA National
Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review, January 2017 (EPA 2017a)
and USEPA National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review,
January 2017 (EPA 2017b), as described in the associated data validation memoranda. Data
validation memoranda and laboratory data reports associated with the 2022 sampling events were
included in the quarterly reports. The 2022 analytical results are compiled in Tables 4, 5, and 6.
Sample analytical data for VOCs, zinc, cadmium, chromium, and lead were compared to
established cleanup levels identified in the Statement of Work associated with the Consent
Decree (EPA 1992). The cleanup levels primarily consist of federal MCLs and secondary MCLs
as described in the Consent Decree. Sulfate, iron, and pH were compared to alternate cleanup
levels agreed upon by NDEE, EPA, and Lindsay in December 2000.
EPA has not established an MCL goal for 1,4-Dioxane in drinking water. 1,4-Dioxane, however,
is listed in EPA's list of unregulated contaminants for drinking water, and EPA has published a
risk-based screening level for tap water of 0.46 |ig/L. Sample analytical data for 1,4-dioxane
were compared to this screening level. Nebraska has not established an MCL, or advisory level
for 1,4-dioxane.
5.2.1 Data Quality
All data collected in 2022 are considered usable. Data validation memoranda documenting the
results of the data review and describing assigned data qualifiers were provided in the quarterly
reports. Data qualifiers were assigned as determined appropriate, but the assignment of the
qualifiers did not adversely affect the use of the data.
5-3
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
5.2.2 Data Summary and Interpretation
The following sections summarize the 2022 data in context of location (on-facility or
downgradient of facility), lithology (fine-grained unit [inclusive of sand channel] or sand and
gravel aquifer), and monitoring objectives.
On-Facility Groundwater
Fine-Grained Unit
PCE was detected above the MCL at all the MWs screened in the fine-grained unit beneath the
facility with the exceptions of MW89-13, MW06-10, MW14-07, and MW14-08 during one or
more of the 2022 sampling events (Table 4). The highest concentrations for PCE were detected
at wells located in and adjacent to Building 1 as shown in the isoconcentration contour maps for
Q1 through Q4 2022 (Figures 11 through 14). These concentrations were reported significantly
above concentrations in the wells located north of the central drainage ditch.
Concentrations above MCLs of trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1-dichloroethene, and cis-1,2-
dichloroethene were detected at the fine-grained unit wells located beneath and adjacent to
Building 1 generally where high concentrations of PCE were also reported (MW14-04A and
MW14-05A). Concentrations of TCE above the MCL were also reported at MW14-02A near
Building 1. 1,1-Dichloroethene was detected above the MCL at MW14-09A located near the
former cell area, MW14-06A located adjacent to Building 4, and MW14-03A located next to the
central drainage ditch. TCE, 1,1-dichloroethene, and cis-l,2-dichloroethene are breakdown
products of PCE. Their presence indicates that the conditions in the fine-grained unit support
natural degradation of PCE. Chlorinated VOCs were not detected above MCLs in the fine-
grained unit at wells MW14-07 and MW14-08 located at the property boundary, at MW06-10 on
the far north perimeter of the facility, and at a well adjacent to Building 2 (MW89-13).
Concentrations above the screening level for 1,4-dioxane were detected in 2022 at multiple
MW14-series wells screened in the fine-grained unit near Building 1. The highest concentrations
of 1,4-dioxane were detected at MW14-04A and MW14-05A within or directly adjacent to the
Building 1 footprint. 1,4-Dioxane was also detected just above the screening level at well
MW06-10 near the former cell area, MW14-01A adjacent to Building 2, MW14-02A adjacent to
Building 1, and MW14-03A adjacent to the central drainage ditch. 1,4-Dioxane was not detected
above the screening level at well MW89-13 near the former cell area, MW14-06A adjacent to
Building 4, or MW14-07 and MW14-08 at the property boundary.
Cadmium, chromium, iron, zinc, and/or sulfate were not detected or if detected were below the
screening levels or MCLs at all the MWs screened in the fine-grained unit on the facility.
Lead was reported at concentrations exceeding the screening levels at MW14-02A (adjacent to
Building 1).
Sand and Gravel Aquifer
5-4
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
In the sand and gravel aquifer, the data show that the MCL is exceeded for PCE at many of the
wells located on the facility and downgradient of the former cell area (Table 4, Figures 19
through 22). The highest concentration of PCE in the sand and gravel aquifer was detected at
MW14-04B inside Building 1 as shown on the isoconcentration map for February 2022 (Figure
19). PCE was found in exceedance of all MW14 series wells, MW06-08, and MW87-3.
TCE, 1,1-dichloroethene and cis-l,2-dichloroethene also exceed MCLs on the facility within the
sand and gravel aquifer, but to a lesser extent than PCE (Table 4). Concentrations above the
screening levels for TCE can mainly be seen between Building 1 and the southeast perimeter of
the facility.. 1,1-dichloroethene is above screening levels in most of the MW14 series wells.
1,4-Dioxane exceeded the screening level at many of the sand and gravel wells located on the
facility and just downgradient of the facility as shown on the isoconcentration maps for Q2 2022
(Figure 23) and Q3 2022 (Figure 24). The 1,4-dioxane plume mirrors the chlorinated VOC
plume with a flow path that moves toward interceptor wells AOIW and EXT13-01.
Zinc exceeded the MCL at multiple sand and gravel wells located on the facility from the former
cell area to Building 4 area as shown on the isoconcentration maps for Q2 2022 (Figure 25) and
Q3 2022 (Figure 26). Zinc concentrations were not above MCLs at wells located near the
property boundary. Cadmium concentrations exceeded MCLs from AOIW samples taken in July
2022. Chromium, iron, lead, and sulfate were not detected or were detected below MCLs or
screening levels.
Groundwater Downgradient of Facility
Wells MW12-01A, MW12-02A, and MW12-03A are screened in the fine-grained unit and
samples were analyzed only for VOCs. VOCs were detected at all three wells, but all
concentrations were below MCLs (Table 4)
Wells MW12-01B, MW12-02B, and MW12-03B are screened in the sand and gravel aquifer.
The MCL for PCE was exceeded at MW12-01B, MW12-02B and MW12-03B (Figures 19 to
22) during one or more sampling events (Table 4). The MCL for 1,1-dichloroethene was
exceeded at MW12-01B during December 2022 and at MW12-03B during April and July 2022
(Table 4). The MCL for TCE was exceeded at MW12-01B during December 2022 and at
MW12-03B during July 2022 (Table 4). The screening level for 1,4-dioxane was exceeded at
MW12-01B, MW12-02B, and MW12-03B during one or more sampling events (Table 4).
Cadmium, chromium, lead, zinc and sulfate were not reported or reported at levels below MCLs
or screening levels in samples from MW12-01B, MW12-02B, and MW12-03B. The MCL for
iron was exceeded in MW12-03B during April and July 2022.
Based on the analytical results and groundwater elevation contours for MWs in this area and the
capture zone analysis for EXT13-01 (URS 2016b), the chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane
detected in this portion of the groundwater plume are captured by the operation of EXT13-01.
5-5
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
Domestic Wells
VOCs, 1,4-Dioxane, metals, and sulfate were not detected or if detected were below the
screening levels or MCLs for the Beller and Preister domestic wells.
Shell Creek Discharge
Samples were collected from the discharge locations to Shell Creek associated with interceptor
wells G127000 (OFOOl), EXT07-02 (OF002), EXT11-01 (OF003), andEXT13-01 (OF004). 1,1-
Dichloroethene concentrations detected in 2022 at OF004 were below the discharge allowance
(Table 6). Other compounds detected at the discharge locations (1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, cis-l,2-dichloroethene, methyline chloride, PCE, and TCE)
do not have discharge criteria but concentrations were below MCLs, where established. The
highest concentrations of VOCs detected were at OF004 associated with EXT13-01, the closest
downgradient interceptor well to the facility. OF003 was not sampled in Quarters 1, 2, and 4 due
to flow being shut off and eliminating any discharge for these periods. OFOOl was not sampled
in quarter 4 due to the associated well G127000 being abandoned.
5-6
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
6. REMEDIATION ASSESSMENT AND MASS REMOVAL
The mass of chlorinated VOCs removed in 2022 was calculated for each pumping well
(Appendix A, Tables A-3 through A-8) using the pumping volumes recorded at each of the
interceptor wells (Appendix A, Table A-l) and concentrations of chlorinated VOCs reported in
groundwater samples collected from each operating interceptor well (or discharge pipe where
noted) during quarterly monitoring (Tables 4 and 6). A yearly summary of chlorinated VOC and
1,4-dioxane removed from 2005 through 2022 is provided in Appendix A, Table A-2.
The mass of chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane removed in 2022 are summarized below. See
Section 4 for details regarding maintenance/equipment related issues for the wells which affected
volume/flow readings.
Pumping Well
Chlorinated VOCs
Removed (lbs)
1,4-Dioxane
Removed (lbs)
AOIW
0.499
0.086
MW89-12
NS
NS
G127000
ND
NS
EXT07-02
ND
NS
EXT11-01
ND
NS
EXT13-01
12.990
NS
NS - not sampled; ND - not detected.
1,4-dioxane was not analyzed for samples collected at wells G127000, EXT07-02, EXT11-01, andEXT13-
01, or associated outfalls in 2022. Chlorinated VOCs were not detected at G127000 (OF001), EXT07-02
(OF002), and EXT 11-01 (OF003) in 2022. MW89-12 was not sampled in 2022 and mass removal
calculations could not be completed for this well.
The analytical results from the Shell Creek discharge point OF001 were used to calculate the
VOC mass removal for G127000; and therefore, this result is likely biased low as there is a
settling pond before entry to the creek. The mass removal calculations for EXT07-02 and
EXT 11-01 are based on the concentrations of chlorinated VOCs reported in the sample collected
from the pipeline between the well and the direct discharge at the pipe entry to Shell Creek
(OF002 and OF003, respectively). The mass removal calculations for EXT13-01 are based on
the concentrations of chlorinated VOCs reported in the sample collected from OF004 inside the
13-01 control building.
6-1
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
This page intentionally left blank
6-2
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
7. CONCLUSIONS
The monitoring data collected at the facility in 2022 confirms that the highest concentrations of
chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane are present in the groundwater beneath/adjacent to Building
1. The 2022 concentrations of chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane in the fine-grained unit
groundwater confirm prior soil sample results (URS 2018a) indicating the presence of significant
source areas in the fine-grained unit near or upgradient of wells MW14-03, MW14-04, and
MW14-05.
The isoconcentration contours for the sand and gravel aquifer (Figures 19 through 26) indicate
that the migration of the COCs (chlorinated VOCs, 1,4-dioxane, and zinc) on the facility is
consistent with the groundwater flow paths caused by the intermittent operation of AOIW and
constant operation of well EXT13-01. Chlorinated VOCs, 1,4-dioxane, and zinc are pulled
toward the facility boundary and captured by EXT13-01 year-round as the water is discharged to
Shell Creek when not used for irrigation. The migration of elevated zinc concentrations closer to
the facility boundary, as indicated by concentrations detected at MW14-06B, is of concern as it
may result in zinc levels in extracted groundwater at EXT13-01 that are potentially above
allowable levels being discharged to Shell Creek.
Groundwater elevation contours (Figures 3 through 10) as well as decreases in VOC
concentrations at MWs downgradient of each interceptor well are indicators that the interceptor
wells are capturing the groundwater plume within the sand and gravel aquifer. The PCE plume
has been reduced in size such that the southern extent is now located in the area of EXT13-01
(Figure 22). In the past, the VOC detections were observed as far south as EXT 11-01 (location
shown on Figure 2), which are summarized in Table 7a.
7-1
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
This page intentionally left blank
7-2
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the groundwater data collected in 2022 and assessment of the remedial pumping
system, the following items are recommended for the monitoring period from January through
December 2023:
• Continue seasonal pumping of AOIW at the highest rates and as consistently as possible
for these systems.
• Evaluate the current operation of EXT 13-01 (frequency and pumping volume) with
regard to on-facility groundwater extraction to control migration of elevated zinc
concentrations beyond the facility boundary.
• Lindsay submitted the Interceptor Well Evaluation Memorandum to EPA on 24
November 2021. Decommission of EXT 11-01 has been approved by the EPA via letter
on 17 December 2021. This pumping well should be decommissioned in 2023 after
Lindsay negotiates agreements with the landowners.
• Lindsay submitted the Interceptor Well Evaluation Memorandum to EPA for EXT07-02
in February 2023. If approved by the EPA the well will be decommissioned after
negotiations with the landowners in 2023.
• Continue to update the GWMP to optimize current sampling operations and remove
unnecessary sampling methods where possible. The newly installed monitoring wells
associated with the thermal pilot study must be incorporated into the GWMP. Remove
monitoring wells and outfalls which were abandoned in 2022 from the GWMP.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of Thermal Treatment System following completion of
operation.
• Install up to four new MWs onsite within the thermal treatment zone monitoring the
effectiveness of the thermal remediation following treatment.
8-1
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
This page intentionally left blank
8-2
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
9. REFERENCES
AECOM. 2020a. Letter, Revisions to Groundwater Monitoring Plan. August 18.
. 2020b. Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2019, Lindsay, Nebraska. March 31.
. 2020c. Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Revision 1.0, Lindsay, Nebraska.
Prepared for Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC. August 21.
Dames & Moore. 1990. Remedial Investigation for Lindsay, Nebraska. Prepared for Lindsay
Manufacturing. June 20.
Driscoll, Fletcher G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells, Johnson Filtration Systems Inc., St Paul,
Minnesota.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC. 2021. Groundwater Monitoring Plan for
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC Superfund Site Long Term Remediation Operation and
Maintenance. December 31.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
URS Corporation (URS). 2004a. Operations and Maintenance Plan, Supplemental Remedial
Action, Lindsay Manufacturing, Lindsay, Nebraska. July 9.
. 2004b. Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Remedial Action, Lindsay Manufacturing
Company, Lindsay, Nebraska. September 1.
. 2009. Work Plan - Revision 1.0, Actions Responsive to 2008 Five-Year Review,
Lindsay Manufacturing LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska. August 14, amended October 5, 2009.
. 2011a. Revision 1.0, Interim Data Transmittal Addendum, Task 6 (Phase II): Pump
Tests and Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Capture Zones Created by Interceptor
Wells G127000 and EXT07-02. March 14.
. 201 lb. Report and Data Transmittal, On-Site Assessments (Phase II) - Revision 1.0,
Task 1: Assess the Potential Presence of Other Source Areas On-Facility and Task 2: Assess
the Lateral and Vertical Extent of Chlorinated VOCs in the Cell and Reaction Pit Areas.
April 6.
. 2012a. Interim Data Transmittal Addendum, Task 6 (Phase V), Field Activities
Installation of Additional Monitoring and Interceptor Wells in the Southern Terminus,
Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC. January 13.
. 2012b. Data Transmittal Addendum, Task 6 (Phase V): Pump Test and Assessment of
the Effectiveness of the Capture Zone Created by Interceptor Well EXT 11-01. August 7.
9-1
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
—. 2013a. Work Plan Addendum: Task 1/2 Follow-up (Phase 4) Field Activities at Lindsay
Manufacturing, LLC. January 24.
—. 2013b. Annual Report, Enhanced Groundwater Remediation Progress Report, Period
Covering January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC. April 16.
—. 2013c. Letter Report: Task 3/4, Facility Indoor Air Sampling Results for Bldgs. 1, 4, 5,
10 & Guard Station, Round 1 and Round 2. April 26.
—. 2013d. Supplement 1 to Work Plan Addendum: Task 1/2 Follow-up (Phase 4) Field
Activities at Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC. May 2.
—. 2013e. Interim Data Transmittal Task 3/4 Field Activities: Soil Vapor Intrusion
Assessment in the Bordering Neighborhood, Round 1 and Round 2, Lindsay Manufacturing,
LLC. June 3.
—. 2013f. Letter Report, Revision 1.0: Task 3/4, Facility Indoor Air Sampling Results for
Bldgs. 1, 4, 5, 10 & Guard Station, Round 1 and Round 2. August 27.
—. 2013g. Interim Data Transmittal Task 3/4 Field Activities Rev 1.0: Soil Vapor Intrusion
Assessment in the Bordering Neighborhood, Round 1 and Round 2 Lindsay Manufacturing,
LLC. September 5.
—. 2013h. Interim Data Transmittals, 2013 Field Event Tasks 1 and 2, September 20
October 16, October 25, and November 5.
—. 2013i. Data Transmittal Task 3/4 Field Activities Soil Vapor Intrusion Assessment in
the Bordering Neighborhood, Rounds 1, 2, and 3, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC. December
13.
—. 2014a. Letter, Proposed Well Installation, Lindsay Manufacturing Facility, January 22.
—. 2014b. Revision 1.0, Data Transmittal, Task 3/4 Field Activities, Soil Vapor Intrusion
Assessment in the Bordering Neighborhood, Rounds 1, 2, and 3, Lindsay Manufacturing,
LLC, March 31.
—. 2014c. Annual Report, Enhanced Groundwater Remediation Progress Report, Period
Covering January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC. May 30.
—. 2014d. Supplemental Human Health Risk Assessment, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC,
Lindsay, Nebraska, October 23. Revised May 29, 2015.
—. 2014e. Completion Report: Pre-Remedial Design Investigation, Lindsay Manufacturing,
LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska, November 18.
9-2
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
—. 2015a. Annual Report - CERCLA Actions, Enhanced Groundwater Remediation 2014,
Period Covering January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC.
April 3, revised December 11, 2015.
—. 2015b. Facility Remedial Alternative Work Plan, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC,
Lindsay, Nebraska. June 23, revised September 30.
—. 2016a. Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2015, Revision 1.0, Lindsay Manufacturing,
LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska, April 15. Revised November 18, 2016.
—. 2016b. Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC,
Lindsay, Nebraska. August 5.
—. 2016c. Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, Lindsay,
Nebraska. December 9.
—. 2017a. Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, Lindsay,
Nebraska. April 28.
—. 2017b. Letter dated January 20, 2017 to Erin McCoy, EPA from Karen Mixon, URS;
Re: January 17, 2017 Conference Call; Response to comments on Remedial Alternatives
Evaluation Report, August 5, 2016.
—. 2017c. Memo, Groundwater Fate and Transport Model Description, Lindsay
Manufacturing, LLC, Lindsay, Nebraska. March 16.
—. 2017d. Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2016, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC,
Lindsay, Nebraska. March 31.
—. 2017e. Supplemental Investigation Work Plan, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC, Lindsay,
Nebraska. April 15. Revised August 9.
—. 2018a. Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2017, Lindsay, Nebraska. March 27.
. 2018b. Supplemental Investigation Report - 2015 through 2017, Lindsay, Nebraska.
October 29.
—. 2018c. Final Report - Lindsay Manufacturing, Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport
Model, Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC. October.
—. 2018d. Interceptor Well EXT11-01 Evaluation, Lindsay, Nebraska. December 11.
. 2019a. Interceptor Well EXT11-01 Evaluation, Revision 1.0, Lindsay, Nebraska.
February 21.
9-3
-------
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Version: Final
Date: March 2023
. 2019b. Annual Report - CERCLA Actions 2018, Lindsay, Nebraska. March 29.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Record of Decision, Lindsay
Manufacturing Company, Lindsay, Nebraska. September.
. 1992. Consent Decree, Lindsay Manufacturing Company, Lindsay, Nebraska.
. 2007. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846), Chapter IV. Revision IV.
February.
. 2008. Third Five-Year Review Report, Lindsay Manufacturing Co. Site, Lindsay, Platte
County, Nebraska. September.
. 2013. Fourth Five-Year Review Report for Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund
Site, Platte County, Nebraska. August 22.
. 2017a. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review.
EPA 540-R-2017-002. January.
. 2017b. National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review.
EPA 540-R-2017-001. January.
. 2018. Fifth Five-Year Review Report for Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund
Site, Platte County, Nebraska. August 22.
9-4
-------
Tables
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Table 1
Well Construction Details
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Well Identification
Alternate Name
Installation Date
Survey Coordinates (WGS 1984/NAVD 1988)
Approximate
Well Depth
(feet bgs)
Screen
Length (feet)
Approximate
Screen Interval
(feet bgs)
Approximate Elevation
of Screened Interval -
Top to Bottom
(feet msl)
Lithologic Unit Well is
Screened
Approximate Sample
Depth (feet below
TOC)
Well Construction Details
Northing
Easting
Elevation of
Monitoring Point
(TOC, feet msl)
TOC to
Ground
Elevation (feet)
Ground Surface
Elevation (feet
msl)
Monitoring Wells
MW87-3
G071693
10/26/1987
688467.93
2271618.86
1698.11
2.03
1696.08
122
47
75 -122
1621.00 - 1574.08
Full SGA
119
4-inch PVC well casing, 0.040-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW89-10B (Abandoned November 2021)
G071966
9/28/1989
686010.65
2274387.49
1718.53
1.64
1716.89
148
10
137-148
1579.89 - 1568.89
Lower SGAJ
143
4-inch PVC well casing, 0.015-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW89-11B
G077659
9/20/1989
686457.00
2271723.95
1693.95
1.36
1692.59
115
10
104 -114
1588.89 - 1578.59
Lower SGAJ
109
4.5-inch PVC casing, 0.015-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW89-13
G077647
11/1/1989
689252.03
2270878.32
1675.05
1.66
1673.39
37
9.6
27-37
1646.39 - 1636.39
Sand Channel
33
4.5-inch PVC casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW89-14 (Abandoned July 2007)
G077653
10/26/1989
689678.78
2270758.02
1679.34
-0.45
1679.79
43
9.6
34-43
1645.79 - 1636.79
Sand Channel
37
4.5-inch PVC casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW89-15 (Abandoned July 2007)
G077652
10/29/1989
689665.85
2270638.66
1675.17
-0.59
1675.76
60
9.6
50-60
1625.75 - 1615.76
Upper SGA
53
4.5-inch PVC casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW92-3A
G076657
10/30/1992
685987.95
2273068.05
1701.85
1.72
1700.13
90'
10
78.5 - 88.5
1621.63 - 1611.63
Upper SGA
84
4-inch PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW92-3B
G076658
11/3/1992
685976.51
2273068.50
1702.19
1.46
1700.73
127'
10
115 -125
1585.73 - 1575.73
Lower SGA
120
4-inch PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW04-01 (Abandoned November 2021)
G132066
11/1/2004
684138.79
2274524.98
1694.56
1.28
1693.28
121
60
61 -121
1632.28 - 1572.28
Full SGA
106
2.5-inch PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW04-02 (Abandoned November 2021)
G132067
11/1/2004
680559.80
2274481.66
1678.20
1.23
1676.97
103
40
63-103
1613.97 - 1573.97
Upper SGA
98
2.5-inch PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW04-03 (Abandoned November 2021)
G132068
11/2/2004
679442.63
2275179.32
1644.33
1.25
1643.08
125
90
35 -125
1608.08 - 1518.08
Full SGA
65, 85, 120
2.5-inch PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW06-01 (Abandoned November 2021)
G142266
3/16/2006
677633.11
2274656.76
1640.02
2.34
1637.68
117
20
97-117
1540.68 - 1520.68
Lower SGAJ
114
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW06-02A (Abandoned November 2021)
G142265
3/15/2006
677108.81
2276416.34
1635.78
1.80
1633.98
84
10
74-84
1559.98 - 1549.98
Middle SGA
80
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW06-02B (Abandoned November 2021)
G142264
3/14/2006
677104.08
2276425.31
1635.39
1.87
1633.52
120
20
100-120
1533.52 - 1513.52
Lower SGA
117
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW06-03 (Abandoned November 2021)
G142268
3/18/2006
678671.06
2277147.75
1646.20
3.30
1642.90
131
20
111 -131
1531.90 - 1511.90
Lower SGAJ
123
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW06-04 (Abandoned November 2021)
G142267
3/17/2006
673978.68
2277306.34
1628.80
1.64
1627.16
118
20
98 -118
1529.16 - 1509.16
Lower SGA
115
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW06-05
G142287A
3/16/2006
688400.89
2270650.27
1669.76
2.20
1667.56
92
50
42-92
1625.56 - 1575.56
Full SGA
89
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW06-06 (Abandoned July 2016)
G142287F
3/13/2006
688373.55
2270836.36
1675.21
-0.19
1675.40
110
45
65 -110
1610.40 - 1565.40
Full SGA
105
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, flush monument
MW06-07
G142287G
3/14/2006
688430.47
2271170.26
1683.46
2.20
1681.26
110
55
55 -110
1626.26 - 1571.26
Full SGA
86
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW06-08
G142287B
3/18/2006
688429.92
2271370.52
1695.87
1.88
1693.99
117
45
72 -117
1621.99 - 1576.99
Full SGA
114
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW06-09
G142287C
3/15/2006
688402.34
2272066.10
1723.23
-0.09
1723.32
149.5
55
94.5 - 149.5
1628.82 - 1573.82
Full SGA
144
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, flush monument
MW06-10
G142287D
3/17/2006
689697.96
2270746.67
1680.76
2.42
1678.34
42.5
5
37.5 - 42.5
1640.84 - 1635.84
Sand Channel
40
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW06-11
G142287E
3/19/2006
689628.16
2270627.19
1677.59
2.32
1675.27
93
40
53-93
1622.27 - 1582.27
Full SGA
90
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
Staska Well
NA
689504.50
2270647.82
1679.60
1.94
1677.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW07-01A (Abandoned November 2021)
G151865
10/10/2007
677157.92
2275588.92
1637.52
2.56
1634.96
81.5
10
70.5 - 80.5
1564.46 - 1554.46
Middle SGA
78
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW07-01B (Abandoned November 2021)
G151866
10/9/2007
677159.16
2275578.28
1637.49
2.24
1635.25
120
20
100-120
1535.25 - 1515.25
Lower SGA
112
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW09-01 (Abandoned April 2022)
G155180
11/7/2009
676834.67
2276644.08
1635.32
2.87
1632.45
119
75
43 -118
1589.45 - 1514.45
Full SGA
82
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW09-02 (Abandoned April 2022)
G155181
11/8/2009
682639.69
2274278.03
1660.11
3.05
1657.05
91
50
40-90
1617.05 - 1567.05
Full SGA
67
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW09-03A (Abandoned November 2021)
G155183
11/14/2009
682779.93
2274469.53
1660.11
2.92
1657.19
46
10
36-46
1621.19 -1611.19
Upper SGA
43
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW09-03B (Abandoned November 2021)
G155184
11/14/2009
682770.47
2274469.38
1659.49
2.88
1656.61
68
10
58-68
1598.61 - 1588.61
Middle SGA
65
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW09-04A (Abandoned November 2021)
G155182
11/13/2009
682080.30
2274477.75
1669.09
2.96
1666.13
65
10
55 -65
1611.13-1601.13
Upper SGA
62
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW09-04B (Abandoned November2021)
G155185
11/13/2009
682069.79
2274477.07
1668.77
3.00
1665.77'
88
10
78-88
1587.77 - 1577.77
Middle SGA
85
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW10-01A (Abandoned November 2021)
G159423
5/15/2010
677039.91
2276937.03
1634.26
2.40
1631.86
46
5
41-46
1590.90 - 1585.90
Upper SGA
43
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW10-01B (Abandoned November 2021)
G159424
5/15/2010
677033.60
2276944.35
1634.31
2.53
1631.78
78
10
68-78
1563.81 - 1553.81
Middle SGA
75
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW10-01C (Abandoned November 2021)
G159425
5/15/2010
677026.54
2276952.41
1634.39
2.61
1631.78
110
10
100-110
1531.77 - 1521.77
Lower SGA
107
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW10-02A (Abandoned November 2021)
G159420
5/10/2010
676544.65
2276680.32
1635.35
2.38
1632.97
53
10
43-53
1590.17 - 1580.17
Upper SGA
49
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW10-02B (Abandoned November 2021)
G159421
5/11/2010
676534.69
2276683.76
1635.41
2.29
1633.13
78
10
68-78
1565.27 - 1555.27
Middle SGA
74
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW10-02C (Abandoned November 2021)
G169422
5/14/2010
676523.10
2276688.45
1635.30
2.31
1632.99
115
10
105-115
1528.21 - 1518.21
Lower SGA
111
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, stickup monument
MW11-01A (Abandoned November 2021)
G161611
9/26/2011
682417.14
2273896.56
1655.80
2.46
1653.34
61
10
51 -61
1602.34 - 1592.34
Upper SGA
58
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-01B (Abandoned November 2021)
G161612
9/26/2011
682412.22
2273896.61
1655.75
2.45
1653.30
83
10
73-83
1580.30 - 1570.30
Middle SGA
80
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-02A (Abandoned November 2021)
G161613
9/29/2011
675363.53
2277823.25
1634.94
2.71
1632.23
54
10
44 -54
1588.23 - 1578.23
Upper SGA
51
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-02B (Abandoned November 2021)
G161614
9/28/2011
675363.93
2277831.48
1634.54
2.54
1632.00
100
10
90 -100
1542.00 - 1532.00
Middle SGA
97
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-02C (Abandoned November 2021)
G161615
9/27/2011
675364.07
2277839.35
1634.58
2.60
1631.98
119
10
109-119
1522.98 - 1512.98
Lower SGA
116
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-03A (Abandoned November 2021)
G161616
10/5/2011
673995.84
2277993.70
1627.39
2.41
1624.98
52
10
42-52
1582.98 - 1572.98
Upper SGA
49
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-03B (Abandoned November 2021)
G161609
10/5/2011
673996.48
2278001.97
1627.19
2.22
1624.97
86
10
76-86
1548.97 - 1538.97
Middle SGA
83
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-03C (Abandoned November 2021)
G161610
10/4/2011
673996.88
2278009.83
1627.07
2.16
1624.91
114
10
104 -114
1520.91 - 1510.91
Lower SGA
111
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-04A (Abandoned November 2021)
G161617
10/1/2011
674036.16
2279219.26
1626.09
2.38
1623.71
51
10
41 -51
1582.71 - 1572.71
Upper SGA
48
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-04B (Abandoned November 2021)
G161618
10/1/2011
674036.37
2279227.06
1625.94
2.22
1623.72
85
10
75 -85
1548.72 - 1538.72
Middle SGA
82
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-04C (Abandoned November 2021)
G161619
9/30/2011
674036.69
2279234.99
1625.92
2.18
1623.74
126
10
116 -126
1507.74 - 1497.74
Lower SGA
123
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-05A (Abandoned November 2021)
G161620
10/3/2011
674015.04
2278612.59
1626.50
2.02
1624.48
52
10
42 -52
1582.48 - 1572.48
Upper SGA
49
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-05B (Abandoned November 2021)
G161621
10/3/2011
674015.78
2278621.19
1626.61
2.21
1624.40
88
10
78-88
1546.40 - 1536.40
Middle SGA
85
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
on
MW11-05C (Abandoned November 2021)
G161622
10/2/2011
674016.15
2278629.12
1626.60
2.27
1624.33
121
10
111 -121
1513.33 - 1503.33
Lower SGA
118
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground complet
Table 1
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table 1
Well Construction Details
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Well Identification
Alternate Name
Installation Date
Survey Coordinates (WGS 1984/NAVD 1988)
Approximate
Well Depth
(feet bgs)
Screen
Length (feet)
Approximate
Screen Interval
(feet bgs)
Approximate Elevation
of Screened Interval -
Top to Bottom
(feet msl)
Lithologic Unit Well is
Screened
Approximate Sample
Depth (feet below
TOC)
Well Construction Details
Northing
Easting
Elevation of
Monitoring Point
(TOC, feet msl)
TOC to
Ground
Elevation (feet)
Ground Surface
Elevation (feet
msl)
MW11-06 (Abandoned April 2022)
G161623
9/29/2011
674570.01
2278675.67
1628.66
2.06
1626.60
122
81
41 -122
1585.60 - 1504.60
Full SGA
44, 85, 119
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW11-07 (Abandoned November 2021)
G161624
10/6/2011
674253.67
2278270.48
1628.99
2.10
1626.89
121
10
111 -121
1515.89 - 1505.89
Lower SGA
116
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW12-01A
G165956A
12/11/2012
688259.64
2271702.02
1729.81
2.68
1727.13
97
15
82-97
1645.13 - 1630.13
FGU
95
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW12-01B
G165956B
12/15/2012
688264.29
2271702.01
1729.79
2.81
1726.98
117
10
106.5 -116.5
1620.48 - 1610.48
Upper SGAJ
114
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW12-02A
G165956C
12/10/2012
688287.73
2271094.02
1680.75
2.70
1678.05
45
15
30-45
1648.05 - 1633.05
FGU
43
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW12-02B
G165956D
12/16/2012
688283.65
2271093.69
1680.45
2.46
1677.99
68
10
58-68
1619.99 - 1609.99
Upper SGAJ
66
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW12-03A
G165956E
12/17/2012
687715.42
2271717.70
1711.74
2.91
1708.83
76
15
61-76
1647.83 - 1632.83
FGU
74
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW12-03B
G165956F
12/13/2012
687712.55
2271718.35
1711.32
2.87
1708.45
103
10
93 -103
1615.45 - 1605.45
Upper SGAJ
100
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW13-02
G175211
4/26/2013
687495.89
2271722.19
1701.15
2.39
1698.76
120
43
77 -120
1621.76 - 1578.76
Full SGA
115
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-01A
G171481A
2/8/2014
689116.92
2270887.98
1675.58
2.55
1673.03
45
15
30-45
1643.03 - 1628.03
FGU
42
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-01B
G171481B
2/8/2014
689120.92
2270887.54
1675.50
2.50
1673.00
63
10
53-63
1620.00 - 1610.00
Upper SGA
61
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-02A
G171481C
2/6/2014
688880.36
2270942.37
1675.77
2.97
1672.80
52
15
37-52
1635.80 - 1620.80
FGU
50
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-02B
G171481D
2/7/2014
688880.55
2270938.16
1675.81
3.02
1672.79
71
10
61 -71
1611.79 - 1601.79
Upper SGA
69
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-03A (Abandoned July 2022)
G171481E
2/5/2014
688929.38
2271161.34
1677.29
3.06
1674.23
45
15
30-45
1644.23 - 1629.23
FGU
43
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-03B (Abandoned July 2022)
G171481F
2/5/2014
688929.50
2271164.41
1677.19
2.81
1674.38
64
10
54 -64
1620.38 - 1610.38
Upper SGA
62
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-04A
G171481H
2/9/2014
688773.74
2270888.11
1676.30
3.09
1673.21
46
15
31 -46
1642.21 - 1627.21
FGU
45
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-04B
G171481G
2/9/2014
688773.48
2270886.05
1676.21
2.96
1673.25
63
10
53-63
1620.25 - 1610.25
Upper SGA
59
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-05A
G175345A
4/5/2014
688629.76
2271118.93
1676.35
3.11
1673.24
48
15
33-48
1642.24 - 1627.24
FGU
46
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-05B
G175345B
4/5/2014
688624.49
2271118.84
1676.44
3.20
1673.24
66
10
56-66
1617.24 - 1607.24
Upper SGA
64
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-06A
G171481I
2/4/2014
688573.66
2271352.05
1695.67
2.72
1692.95
65
15
50-65
1642.95 - 1627.95
FGU
63
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-06B
G171481J
2/4/2014
688576.62
2271351.76
1695.46
2.62
1692.84
83
10
73-83
1619.84 - 1609.84
Upper SGA
80
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-07
G171481L
2/10/2014
688430.93
2271173.60
1684.49
2.77
1681.72
53
15
38-53
1643.72 - 1628.72
FGU
51
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-08
G171481K
2/8/2014
688430.21
2271378.83
1697.35
2.80
1694.55
64
15
49-64
1645.55 - 1630.55
FGU
62
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-09A
G171481N
2/10/2014
689369.43
2270799.91
1680.24
3.01
1677.23
33
10
23-33
1654.23 - 1644.23
Sand Channel
31
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
MW 14-09B
G171481M
2/10/2014
689371.06
2270802.87
1680.03
2.76
1677.27
64
10
54 -64
1623.27 - 1613.27
Upper SGA
62
2-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, above-ground completion
Interceptor Wells
MW89-12
G077644
11/1/1989
688823.91
2271111.05
1676.08
1674.56
70
9
61 -70
1613.56 - 1604.56
Upper SGA
67.5
4.5-inch PVC casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen, stickup monument, dedicated pump
01 Well
G086309
1995 (replacement)
689438.80
2270835.29
1680.53
NA
99
40
59-99
See Note
Lower SGA
98
16-inch PVC casing, 0.065-inch PVC screen, stickup monument. No pump in place.
AOI Well
G071694
2/15 -17/1989
688481.83
2271636.56
1701.96
NA
124
30
88 -118
See Note
Full SGA
117
16-inch PVC casing, 0.040-inch Fiberglass screen, stickup monument, dedicated pump
TI Well
G076655
12/1/1992
687764.27
2272589.05
1763.37
NA
187
35
148-183
See Note
SGA
178
16-inch Fiberglass casing, 0.060-inch Fiberglass screen, stickup monument. No pump in
place.
Preister's Irrigation Well (Abandoned October
2022)
G127000
2/24/2004
682654.25
2274267.59
1660.47
1657.47
97
40
56-96
1601.47 - 1561.47
Full SGA
(90-92)
18-inch Fiberglass casing, 0.060-inch Fiberglass screen, stickup, dedicated pump with
adjacent 2.5-inch PVC observation/monitoring well
EXT07-02
G153338
10/10 - 11/2007
676851.46
2276648.82
NA
1632.75
120
80
39 -119
1593.75 - 1513.75
Full SGA
NA
10-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.060-inch PVC screen, stickup monument, dedicated
EXT11-01
10/18/2011
674579.04
2278671.77
NA
1626.17
120
77
43 -120
1583.17 - 1506.17
Full SGA
NA
10-inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, AGC with elevated platform
dedicated pump (intake set at 100 feet bgs)
EXT13-01
G175279
4/29/2013
687511.23
2271723.36
NA
1699.66
121
46
75 -121
1624.66 - 1578.66
Full SGA
NA
12-inch Schedule 80 PVC well casing, 0.020-inch PVC screen, AGC with platform, dedicated
pump (intake set at 104 feet bgs)
Table 1
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table 1
Well Construction Details
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Well Identification
Alternate Name
Installation Date
Survey Coordinates (WGS 1984/NAVD 1988)
Approximate
Well Depth
(feet bgs)
Screen
Length (feet)
Approximate
Screen Interval
(feet bgs)
Approximate Elevation
of Screened Interval -
Top to Bottom
(feet msl)
Lithologic Unit Well is
Screened
Approximate Sample
Depth (feet below
TOC)
Well Construction Details
Northing
Easting
Elevation of
Monitoring Point
(TOC, feet msl)
TOC to
Ground
Elevation (feet)
Ground Surface
Elevation (feet
msl)
Private Wells (Domestic, Stock, Irrigation)
Old Moravec house well
NA
686607.76
2271068.26
1661.39 c
NA
55 d
NA
NA
NA
SGA6
NA
NA
Doug Beller Domestic
NA
685084.74
2267730.68
1677.76 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Beller Domestic
NA
686186.37
2271905.60
1706.93 s
NA
120
NA
NA
NA
NA
105 ft bgsd
NA
Beller's stock well
NA
686331.06
2272286.37
1721.60c
NA
100 - 110d
NA
NA
NA
SGA6
NA
NA
Beller's stock well (new 2003)
#G122015
6/16/2003
686506.41
2272188.04
1720.05 c
NA
155
40'
115 -155 '
NA
SGA
140 ft bgsd
4.5-inch well casing, 0.010-inch PVC screen
Beller's well
#54278 North
9/24/1976
687040.71
2273047.47
1707.68 c
NA
127
52'
75 - 127'
NA
NA
121
17-inch well casing, well was retrofitted in winter 2004/2005 as a stock well with 2-inch PVC
observation/monitoring well
#54278 South
687040.04
2273047.44
1707.67 c
Beller's East irrigation well
#67535
4/28/1981
683729.16
2276478.50
1701.24 h
NA
123
52'
71 -123'
NA
NA
NA
17-inch well casing
Preister's Irrigation well
#33637
10/20/1970
685378.87
2272309.23
1667.55 «
NA
94
40'
54 - 94 '
NA
SGA6
NA
18-inch well casing, power for pump discontinued in 2005
Preister's Domestic 2003 (Abandoned
October 2022)
#G121970
6/10/2003
680906.96
2274073.41
1669.95 c
1668.15
108
30'
78 - 108'
5190.15 - 1560.15
Mid to Lower SGA
90
4.5-inch well casing, 0.012-inch PVC screen
Preister's Domestic (old)
NA
680581.63
2274399.92
NA
1674.42
100
10
80-90
1594.42 - 1584.42
Mid SGA
80
6-inch well casing at surface, following confirmation of integrity, retrofitted to serve as
monitoring well in 2004
Preister's stock well
NA
681001.27
2273612.17
1655.46 c
NA
90
NA
NA
NA
NA
70 ft bgs d
NA
Weylan Neal Irrigation
#G31798
6/26/1969
680589.65
2275209.21
1669.09 c
NA
95
36'
45-91'
NA
Lower SGA
NA
18-inch well casing
Anthony Klassen
#G33172
5/15/1970
679193.98
2276052.58
1651.52 c
NA
84
40'
44 - 84 '
NA
Upper to Mid SGA
NA
18-inch well casing
John Klassen Domestic
NA
673458.98
2285023.31
1715.32 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
John Klassen Irrigation
#G56241
3/5/1977
677239.71
2278516.15
1636.31 c
NA
124
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18-inch well casing
Jim Klassen house
NA
671292.69
2275674.36
1720.22 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Jim Klassen Irrigation
NA
673260.12
2276002.82
1659.61 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Klassen SE Irrigation
NA
674097.35
2281345.48
1627.63h
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ron Pfeifer's house well
NA
674247.97
2275207.42
1672.52c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ron Pfeifer's Irrigation
#68239
4/13/1982
675198.20
2275897.98
1632.78 c
NA
140
80'
59 - 139'
NA
Mid to Lower SGA
NA
16-inch well casing
Ben Pfeifer house well
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Richard Wagner Irrigation
NA
679063.05
2272898.97
1644.07h
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Martischang Irrigation
G050378
NA
680599.53
2277153.04
1693.74 h
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tom Jarecki house well
NA
676781.41
2273363.12
1676.22 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Eddy Luetkenhaus house well
NA
679120.26
2282889.90
1750.06 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dave Chohon house well
NA
678195.35
2272026.09
1644.57 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lester Kopecky house well
NA
672840.84
2278029.15
1642.97 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tom Mefstrik house well
NA
669316.78
2279763.65
1640.76 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Old City Well
#G45471
2/11/1975
688838.85
2270348.38
1670.42
NA
92
NA
39-91
NA
SGA
NA
18-inch well casing
New City Well (Water Tower)
NA
688733.29
2269289.30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
New City Well (6th & Elm)
NA
689949.09
2268909.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
bgs - below ground surface
FGU - fine-grained unit
NA - not available
PVC - polyvinyl chloride
SGA - sand and gravel aquifer
TOC - top of casing
Depth of sample pump intake and/or passive diffusion bag sampling depth.
These locations not resurveyed in 2006 or 2008 using North American Vertical Datum 1988.
Top of well head
Information is not available. The depths and screen placement are based on information from well owners.
Information regarding specific location within the SGA is not available.
'Estimated measurements from driller logs.
8 Top of steel plate
Top of well
1 Depth to bottom of well measured following redevelopment in January 2011. Significant silt buildup noted that could not be removed via development (original depth of wells 94 feet bgs and 135 feet bgs for MW92-3A and MW92-3B, respectively).
-Well is located in area of sufficient hydraulic connection between the upper and lower portions of the SGA, and is thus used for contouring groundwater elevations in both units due to lack of alternative wells in vicinity.
Table 1
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells
MW87-3
02/21/05
51.42
1,646.69
TOC Elevation:
05/02/05
50.40
1,647.71
1698.11 ft-MSL
08/03/05
74.78
1,623.33
11/08/05
56.90
1,641.21
01/31/06
53.28
1,644.83
05/09/06
55.85
1,642.26
08/20/06
62.15
1,635.96
11/07/06
56.13
1,641.98
02/11/07
52.78
1,645.33
02/26/07
52.25
1,645.86
03/23/07
51.78
1,646.33
04/04/07
51.35
1,646.76
05/01/07
55.35
1,642.76
05/15/07
55.60
1,642.51
06/28/07
53.58
1,644.53
07/12/07
62.84
1,635.27
08/13/07
54.90
1,643.21
10/05/07
56.54
1,641.57
10/29/07
49.24
1,648.87
12/06/07
48.27
1,649.84
01/09/08
47.91
1,650.20
02/07/08
47.67
1,650.44
03/03/08
47.48
1,650.63
04/10/08
46.84
1,651.27
05/15/08
46.03
1,652.08
06/10/08
43.68
1,654.43
08/06/08
59.34
1,638.77
11/17/08
47.52
1,650.59
02/16/09
45.72
1,652.39
05/04/09
45.37
1,652.74
08/10/09
55.17
1,642.94
10/26/09
48.79
1,649.32
11/18/09
47.72
1,650.39
02/01/10
46.40
1,651.71
05/17/10
49.48
1,648.63
07/25/10
43.75
1,654.36
10/24/10
46.90
1,651.21
02/06/11
44.97
1,653.14
05/15/11
44.35
1,653.76
07/24/11
52.53
1,645.58
10/24/11
46.47
1,651.64
01/24/12
45.11
1,653.00
05/14/12
55.33
1,642.78
08/07/12
75.14
1,622.97
11/09/12
57.80
1,640.31
Table 2a
Page 1 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW87-3 (continued)
02/07/13
53.52
1,644.59
05/23/13
63.87
1,634.24
09/10/13
71.98
1,626.13
11/15/13
63.17
1,634.94
02/03/14
60.82
1,637.29
05/07/14
70.16
1,627.95
08/04/14
81.20
1,616.91
09/03/14
66.58
1,631.53
12/02/14
60.20
1,637.91
01/29/15
59.08
1,639.03
05/05/15
57.50
1,640.61
08/11/15
64.78
1,633.33
11/09/15
60.91
1,637.20
02/10/16
58.32
1,639.79
05/05/16
52.30
1,645.81
08/15/16
77.78
1,620.33
11/14/16
58.40
1,639.71
02/22/17
55.37
1,642.74
04/22/17
54.45
1,643.66
08/28/17
64.65
1,633.46
10/29/17
59.15
1,638.96
03/15/18
54.09
1,644.02
05/31/18
54.70
1,643.41
08/29/18
58.66
1,639.45
11/16/18
52.98
1,645.13
03/11/19"
51.15
1,646.96
05/03/19
50.03
1,648.08
07/23/19
60.68
1,637.43
11/22/19
49.09
1,649.02
03/30/20
46.66
1,651.45
06/25/20
66.62
1,631.49
09/29/20
59.13
1,638.98
12/07/20
52.97
1,645.14
03/24/21"
49.04
1,649.07
05/24/21
54.42
1,643.69
09/08/21
67.19
1,630.92
11/02/21
55.88
1,642.23
02/16/22
52.08
1,646.03
04/18/22
51.73
1,646.38
07/12/22
54.61
1,643.50
10/17/22
62.12
1,635.99
Table 2a
Page 2 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW89-13
02/21/05
27.18
1,647.87
TOC Elevation:
05/02/05
26.25
1,648.80
1675.05 ft-MSL
07/31/05
32.64
1,642.41
11/07/05
32.65
1,642.40
01/30/06
29.65
1,645.40
05/09/06
27.35
1,647.70
08/20/06
36.73
1,638.32
11/07/06
33.88
1,641.17
02/11/07
29.27
1,645.78
02/26/07
28.93
1,646.12
03/23/07
28.22
1,646.83
04/04/07
27.88
1,647.17
05/01/07
26.98
1,648.07
05/15/07
26.18
1,648.87
06/28/07
24.32
1,650.73
07/12/07
27.58
1,647.47
08/13/07
30.11
1,644.94
10/05/07
26.77
1,648.28
10/29/07
25.23
1,649.82
12/06/07
24.20
1,650.85
01/08/08
23.68
1,651.37
02/04/08
23.37
1,651.68
03/03/08
23.31
1,651.74
04/09/08
22.81
1,652.24
05/12/08
22.26
1,652.79
06/10/08
20.36
1,654.69
08/06/08
22.94
1,652.11
11/18/08
23.35
1,651.70
02/16/09
21.54
1,653.51
05/04/09
20.91
1,654.14
08/10/09
29.29
1,645.76
10/26/09
25.10
1,649.95
11/18/09
24.01
1,651.04
02/01/10
22.42
1,652.63
05/17/10
28.50
1,646.55
07/25/10
19.00
1,656.05
10/24/10
23.00
1,652.05
02/06/11
20.80
1,654.25
05/15/11
20.49
1,654.56
07/24/11
22.11
1,652.94
10/24/11
22.22
1,652.83
01/24/12
20.72
1,654.33
05/14/12
21.69
1,653.36
08/07/12
34.55
1,640.50
11/09/12
33.92
1,641.13
Table 2a
Page 3 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW89-13 (continued)
02/07/13
30.06
1,644.99
05/23/13
27.73
1,647.32
09/10/13
38.43
1,636.62
11/15/13
36.54
1,638.51
02/03/14
34.77
1,640.28
05/07/14
32.43
1,642.62
08/04/14
37.52
1,637.53
09/03/14*
39.07
1,635.98
12/02/14
34.67
1,640.38
01/26/15
33.36
1,641.69
05/05/15
31.95
1,643.10
08/11/15
36.03
1,639.02
11/09/15
34.61
1,640.44
02/10/16
32.63
1,642.42
05/05/16
29.99
1,645.06
08/15/16
33.99
1,641.06
11/14/16
32.70
1,642.35
02/22/17
30.13
1,644.92
04/22/17
29.15
1,645.90
08/28/17
37.24
1,637.81
09/20/17
36.36
1,638.69
10/11/17
35.14
1,639.91
10/29/17
33.45
1,641.60
03/15/18
28.99
1,646.06
05/31/18
28.45
1,646.60
08/29/18
29.92
1,645.13
11/16/18
27.20
1,647.85
05/03/19
24.36
1,650.69
07/23/19
24.13
1,650.92
11/22/19
23.87
1,651.18
03/30/20
22.00
1,653.05
06/25/20
24.04
1,651.01
09/29/20
32.40
1,642.65
12/07/20
28.48
1,646.57
05/24/21
25.56
1,649.49
09/08/21
34.07
1,640.98
11/02/21
30.74
1,644.31
02/16/22
27.27
1,647.78
04/18/22
26.45
1,648.60
07/11/22
28.25
1,646.80
10/17/22
36.26
1,638.79
Table 2a
Page 4 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW89-14
02/21/05
30.00
1,649.34
TOC Elevation:
05/03/05
29.55
1,649.79
1679.34 ft-MSL
08/03/05
33.20
1,646.14
11/07/05
35.35
1,643.99
01/30/06
33.49
1,645.85
05/09/06
31.40
1,647.94
08/20/06
38.03
1,641.31
11/07/06
35.64
1,643.70
02/11/07
33.31
1,646.03
02/26/07
33.12
1,646.22
03/23/07
32.48
1,646.86
04/04/07
32.23
1,647.11
05/15/07
30.88
1,648.46
06/28/07
29.45
1,649.89
07/12/07
29.90
1,649.44
Well abandoned - July 2007
MW89-15
02/21/05
27.25
1,647.92
TOC Elevation:
05/03/05
26.36
1,648.81
1675.17 ft-MSL
08/03/05
41.95
1,633.22
11/07/05
33.50
1,641.67
01/30/06
29.17
1,646.00
05/09/06
27.82
1,647.35
08/20/06
37.58
1,637.59
11/07/06
31.80
1,643.37
02/11/07
28.57
1,646.60
02/26/07
28.00
1,647.17
03/23/07
27.59
1,647.58
04/04/07
27.08
1,648.09
05/15/07
26.17
1,649.00
06/28/07
24.17
1,651.00
07/12/07
33.15
1,642.02
Well abandoned - July 2007
MW06-05
05/10/06
24.82
1,644.94
TOC Elevation:
08/23/06
32.89
1,636.87
1669.76 ft-MSL
11/08/06
27.51
1,642.25
02/12/07
24.30
1,645.46
03/23/07
23.24
1,646.52
04/04/07
22.66
1,647.10
05/02/07
22.52
1,647.24
05/15/07
22.24
1,647.52
06/28/07
20.27
1,649.49
07/12/07
27.30
1,642.46
08/13/07
25.67
1,644.09
10/05/07
26.70
1,643.06
10/30/07
20.90
1,648.86
12/06/07
19.48
1,650.28
Table 2a
Page 5 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-05 (continued)
01/09/08
29.25
1,640.51
02/04/08
19.00
1,650.76
03/03/08
19.00
1,650.76
04/10/08
18.39
1,651.37
05/13/08
17.55
1,652.21
06/11/08
15.07
1,654.69
08/04/08
21.64
1,648.12
11/13/08
18.85
1,650.91
02/16/09
17.40
1,652.36
05/04/09
16.94
1,652.82
08/10/09
25.59
1,644.17
10/26/09
20.45
1,649.31
11/18/09
28.39
1,641.37
02/01/10
18.06
1,651.70
05/17/10
17.70
1,652.06
07/25/10*
15.45
1,654.31
10/24/10
18.55
1,651.21
02/06/11*
17.76
1,652.00
05/15/11
16.21
1,653.55
07/24/11
19.12
1,650.64
10/24/11
18.25
1,651.51
01/24/12
16.97
1,652.79
05/14/12
19.73
1,650.03
08/07/12
38.12
1,631.64
11/09/12
29.24
1,640.52
02/07/13
25.10
1,644.66
05/23/13
25.55
1,644.21
09/10/13
41.20
1,628.56
11/15/13
33.58
1,636.18
02/03/14
31.39
1,638.37
05/07/14
30.73
1,639.03
08/04/14
41.77
1,627.99
09/03/14
36.89
1,632.87
12/02/14
30.79
1,638.97
01/29/15
29.79
1,639.97
05/05/15
28.05
1,641.71
08/12/15
34.57
1,635.19
11/09/15
31.32
1,638.44
02/11/16
29.05
1,640.71
05/05/16
23.62
1,646.14
08/15/16
38.34
1,631.42
11/14/16
29.06
1,640.70
02/22/17
26.15
1,643.61
04/22/17
25.28
1,644.48
08/28/17
35.04
1,634.72
10/29/17
29.84
1,639.92
Table 2a
Page 6 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-05 (continued)
03/15/18
25.09
1,644.67
05/31/18
25.37
1,644.39
08/30/18
29.30
1,640.46
11/16/18
23.80
1,645.96
03/11/19"
22.10
1,647.66
05/03/19
20.81
1,648.95
07/23/19
23.93
1,645.83
11/22/19
20.40
1,649.36
03/30/20
18.00
1,651.76
06/25/20
25.99
1,643.77
09/30/20
29.99
1,639.77
12/07/20
24.00
1,645.76
03/24/21"
20.21
1,649.55
05/24/21
23.68
1,646.08
09/08/21
31.82
1,637.94
11/02/21
26.71
1,643.05
02/17/22
23.21
1,646.55
04/18/22
22.64
1,647.12
07/12/22
24.76
1,645.00
10/17/22
32.91
1,636.85
MW06-06
05/10/06
30.68
1,644.53
TOC Elevation:
08/23/06
38.56
1,636.65
1675.21 ft-MSL
11/08/06
33.07
1,642.14
02/12/07
29.77
1,645.44
03/23/07
26.71
1,648.50
04/04/07
28.17
1,647.04
05/02/07
26.38
1,648.83
05/15/07
28.09
1,647.12
06/28/07
25.97
1,649.24
07/12/07
33.58
1,641.63
08/14/07
31.03
1,644.18
10/05/07
29.49
1,645.72
10/30/07
26.40
1,648.81
12/06/07
25.13
1,650.08
01/09/08
24.97
1,650.24
02/04/08
NM
NC
03/03/08
24.43
1,650.78
04/10/08
23.85
1,651.36
05/14/08
23.17
1,652.04
06/11/08
25.58
1,649.63
08/04/08
27.38
1,647.83
11/13/08
24.47
1,650.74
02/16/09
22.67
1,652.54
05/04/09
22.49
1,652.72
08/10/09
31.63
1,643.58
10/26/09
25.92
1,649.29
11/18/09
24.90
1,650.31
02/01/10
23.62
1,651.59
05/17/10
23.29
1,651.92
07/25/10
29.50
1,645.71
10/24/10
24.11
1,651.10
02/06/11
22.08
1,653.13
05/15/11
21.72
1,653.49
07/24/11
24.14
1,651.07
10/24/11
23.72
1,651.49
Table 2a
Page 7 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-06 (continued)
01/24/12
22.40
1,652.81
05/14/12
25.59
1,649.62
08/07/12
44.26
1,630.95
11/09/12
34.45
1,640.76
02/07/13
30.57
1,644.64
05/23/13
31.60
1,643.61
09/10/13
47.20
1,628.01
11/15/13
39.45
1,635.76
02/03/14
37.16
1,638.05
05/07/14
37.04
1,638.17
08/04/14
48.31
1,626.90
09/03/14
42.75
1,632.46
12/02/14
36.60
1,638.61
01/26/15
35.40
1,639.81
05/05/15
33.90
1,641.31
08/12/15
40.41
1,634.80
11/09/15
37.12
1,638.09
02/11/16
34.82
1,640.39
05/05/16
29.31
1,645.90
Well Abandoned - July 2016
MW06-07
05/10/06
39.94
1,643.49
TOC Elevation:
08/23/06
47.15
1,636.28
1683.43 ft-MSL
11/08/06
41.37
1,642.06
03/23/07
36.97
1,646.46
04/04/07
36.45
1,646.98
05/02/07
36.49
1,646.94
05/15/07
37.03
1,646.40
06/28/07
34.95
1,648.48
07/12/07
43.32
1,640.11
08/14/07
39.40
1,644.03
10/05/07
38.41
1,645.02
10/31/07
34.19
1,649.24
12/06/07
33.37
1,650.06
01/09/08
33.00
1,650.43
02/07/08
32.82
1,650.61
03/03/08
32.70
1,650.73
04/10/08
32.10
1,651.33
05/14/08
31.29
1,652.14
06/11/08
28.85
1,654.58
08/04/08
36.24
1,647.19
11/13/08
32.59
1,650.84
02/16/09
31.00
1,652.43
05/04/09
30.74
1,652.69
08/10/09
41.12
1,642.31
10/26/09
25.07
1,658.36
11/18/09
33.05
1,650.38
Table 2a
Page 8 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-07 (continued)
02/01/10
31.76
1,651.67
05/17/10
31.95
1,651.48
07/25/10
29.08
1,654.35
10/24/10
32.24
1,651.19
02/06/11
30.35
1,653.08
05/15/11
29.80
1,653.63
07/24/11
33.91
1,649.52
10/24/11
31.87
1,651.56
01/24/12
30.51
1,652.92
05/14/12
34.76
1,648.67
New TOC Elevation:
08/07/12
54.08
1,629.38
1683.46 ft-MSL
11/09/12
43.04
1,640.42
02/07/13
38.86
1,644.60
05/23/13
41.25
1,642.21
09/10/13
56.33
1,627.13
11/15/13
48.13
1,635.33
02/03/14
45.86
1,637.60
05/07/14
46.92
1,636.54
08/04/14
58.58
1,624.88
09/03/14
51.49
1,631.97
12/02/14
45.20
1,638.26
01/26/15
43.98
1,639.48
05/05/15
42.52
1,640.94
08/11/15
49.49
1,633.97
11/09/15
45.83
1,637.63
02/15/16
43.27
1,640.19
05/05/16
37.50
1,645.96
08/15/16
55.40
1,628.06
11/14/16
43.30
1,640.16
02/22/17
40.30
1,643.16
04/22/17
39.43
1,644.03
08/28/17
49.48
1,633.98
10/29/17
44.05
1,639.41
03/15/18
39.12
1,644.34
05/31/18
39.66
1,643.80
08/29/18
43.10
1,640.36
11/16/18
37.91
1,645.55
03/11/19"
36.19
1,647.27
05/03/19
34.95
1,648.51
07/23/19
39.58
1,643.88
11/22/19
34.20
1,649.26
03/30/20
31.84
1,651.62
06/25/20
40.60
1,642.86
09/29/20
44.09
1,639.37
12/07/20
37.98
1,645.48
03/24/21"
34.09
1,649.37
05/24/21
38.43
1,645.03
09/08/21
46.03
1,637.43
11/02/21
40.82
1,642.64
02/16/22
37.30
1,646.16
04/18/22
36.72
1,646.74
07/12/22
39.24
1,644.22
10/17/22
46.98
1,636.48
Table 2a
Page 9 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-08
05/09/06
51.26
1,644.61
TOC Elevation:
08/22/06
59.67
1,636.20
1695.87 ft-MSL
11/09/06
54.00
1,641.87
02/19/07
50.11
1,645.76
03/23/07
49.44
1,646.43
04/04/07
48.95
1,646.92
05/03/07
49.53
1,646.34
05/15/07
50.04
1,645.83
06/28/07
48.12
1,647.75
07/12/07
56.98
1,638.89
08/14/07
52.12
1,643.75
10/05/07
51.46
1,644.41
10/31/07
46.72
1,649.15
12/06/07
45.88
1,649.99
01/09/08
45.53
1,650.34
02/06/08
45.38
1,650.49
03/03/08
45.03
1,650.84
04/10/08
44.55
1,651.32
05/14/08
43.77
1,652.10
06/10/08
41.42
1,654.45
08/05/08
50.27
1,645.60
11/13/08
44.95
1,650.92
02/16/09
43.42
1,652.45
05/04/09
43.15
1,652.72
08/10/09
52.69
1,643.18
10/26/09
46.52
1,649.35
11/18/09
44.46
1,651.41
02/01/10
44.13
1,651.74
05/17/10
44.94
1,650.93
07/25/10
41.44
1,654.43
10/24/10
44.64
1,651.23
02/06/11
42.71
1,653.16
05/15/11
42.24
1,653.63
07/24/11
47.11
1,648.76
10/24/11
44.41
1,651.46
01/24/12
42.99
1,652.88
05/14/12
48.21
1,647.66
08/07/12
67.74
1,628.13
11/09/12
55.53
1,640.34
02/07/13
51.33
1,644.54
05/23/13
55.04
1,640.83
09/10/13
69.25
1,626.62
11/15/13
60.85
1,635.02
Table 2a
Page 10 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-08 (continued)
02/03/14
58.51
1,637.36
05/07/14
60.89
1,634.98
08/04/14
72.63
1,623.24
09/03/14
64.17
1,631.70
12/02/14
57.87
1,638.00
01/28/15
56.42
1,639.45
05/05/15
55.23
1,640.64
08/11/15
62.30
1,633.57
11/09/15
58.61
1,637.26
02/10/16
56.04
1,639.83
05/05/16
50.09
1,645.78
08/15/16
69.54
1,626.33
11/14/16
56.10
1,639.77
02/22/17
53.10
1,642.77
04/22/17
52.18
1,643.69
08/28/17
62.33
1,633.54
10/29/17
56.84
1,639.03
03/15/18
51.87
1,644.00
05/31/18
52.48
1,643.39
08/29/18
56.05
1,639.82
11/16/18
50.73
1,645.14
03/11/19"
48.92
1,646.95
05/03/19
47.77
1,648.10
07/23/19
53.27
1,642.60
11/22/19
46.90
1,648.97
03/30/20
44.52
1,651.35
06/25/20
57.02
1,638.85
09/29/20
56.96
1,638.91
12/07/20
50.70
1,645.17
03/24/21 a
46.80
1,649.07
05/24/21
51.53
1,644.34
09/08/21
58.83
1,637.04
11/02/21
53.63
1,642.24
02/16/22
49.90
1,645.97
04/18/22
49.53
1,646.34
07/12/22
52.23
1,643.64
10/17/22
59.76
1,636.11
Table 2a
Page 11 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-09
05/08/06
76.44
1,646.79
TOC Elevation:
08/24/06
87.10
1,636.13
1723.23 ft-MSL
11/09/06
81.30
1,641.93
03/23/07
76.85
1,646.38
04/04/07
76.36
1,646.87
05/03/07
76.35
1,646.88
05/15/07
77.40
1,645.83
06/28/07
75.32
1,647.91
07/12/07
86.31
1,636.92
08/15/07
79.65
1,643.58
10/08/07
74.03
1,649.20
10/31/07
74.27
1,648.96
12/06/07
78.02
1,645.21
01/09/08
72.93
1,650.30
02/06/08
72.80
1,650.43
03/03/08
72.54
1,650.69
04/09/08
72.00
1,651.23
05/14/08
71.11
1,652.12
06/10/08
68.70
1,654.53
08/05/08
79.32
1,643.91
11/14/08
72.59
1,650.64
02/16/09
70.80
1,652.43
05/04/09
70.34
1,652.89
08/10/09
80.49
1,642.74
10/26/09*
46.85
1,676.38
11/18/09
72.71
1,650.52
05/17/10
71.88
1,651.35
07/25/10
68.67
1,654.56
10/24/10
71.83
1,651.40
02/06/11
69.83
1,653.40
05/15/11
69.50
1,653.73
07/24/11
74.11
1,649.12
10/24/11
71.47
1,651.76
01/24/12
70.17
1,653.06
05/14/12
75.12
1,648.11
08/07/12
96.33
1,626.90
11/09/12
83.06
1,640.17
02/07/13
78.68
1,644.55
05/23/13
81.90
1,641.33
09/10/13
97.79
1,625.44
11/15/13
88.46
1,634.77
02/03/14
86.08
1,637.15
05/07/14
87.71
1,635.52
08/04/14
101.40
1,621.83
09/03/14
91.90
1,631.33
12/02/14
85.47
1,637.76
Table 2a
Page 12 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-09 (continued)
01/26/15
84.11
1,639.12
05/05/15
82.80
1,640.43
08/12/15
89.97
1,633.26
11/13/15
85.99
1,637.24
02/15/16
under snow
NC
05/05/16
77.54
1,645.69
08/15/16
98.48
1,624.75
11/14/16
83.71
1,639.52
02/22/17
80.61
1,642.62
04/22/17
79.71
1,643.52
08/28/17
89.99
1,633.24
10/29/17
84.41
1,638.82
03/15/18
79.25
1,643.98
05/31/18
79.90
1,643.33
08/30/18
98.17
1,625.06
11/16/18
78.09
1,645.14
03/27/19 "
75.31
1,647.92
05/03/19
75.21
1,648.02
07/23/19
80.42
1,642.81
11/22/19
72.19
1,651.04
03/31/20
71.54
1,651.69
06/25/20
85.06
1,638.17
09/30/20
84.69
1,638.54
12/07/20
78.11
1,645.12
03/24/21 a
74.04
1,649.19
05/24/21
78.66
1,644.57
09/08/21
86.62
1,636.61
11/02/21
81.06
1,642.17
02/17/22
77.28
1,645.95
04/18/22
76.91
1,646.32
07/12/22
79.78
1,643.45
10/17/22
87.40
1,635.83
Table 2a
Page 13 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-10
05/10/06
32.95
1,647.81
TOC Elevation:
08/25/06
39.56
1,641.20
1680.76 ft-MSL
11/09/06
36.80
1,643.96
02/19/07
34.55
1,646.21
03/23/07
33.82
1,646.94
04/04/07
33.54
1,647.22
05/03/07
32.64
1,648.12
05/15/07
33.30
1,647.46
06/28/07
30.41
1,650.35
07/12/07
31.31
1,649.45
08/15/07
32.99
1,647.77
10/05/07
31.59
1,649.17
10/30/07
30.68
1,650.08
12/06/07
29.70
1,651.06
01/09/08
29.04
1,651.72
02/07/08
28.77
1,651.99
03/03/08
28.63
1,652.13
04/10/08
27.87
1,652.89
05/12/08
27.54
1,653.22
06/10/08
26.40
1,654.36
08/05/08
26.82
1,653.94
11/14/08
28.44
1,652.32
02/16/09
26.11
1,654.65
05/04/09
25.57
1,655.19
08/10/09
31.49
1,649.27
10/26/09
29.67
1,651.09
11/18/09
28.76
1,652.00
02/01/10
27.21
1,653.55
05/17/10
24.44
1,656.32
07/25/10
22.68
1,658.08
10/24/10
26.40
1,654.36
02/06/11
24.71
1,656.05
05/15/11
24.06
1,656.70
07/24/11
24.37
1,656.39
10/24/11
25.28
1,655.48
01/24/12
24.43
1,656.33
05/14/12
24.81
1,655.95
08/07/12
33.88
1,646.88
11/09/12
36.77
1,643.99
02/07/13
34.71
1,646.05
05/23/13
32.61
1,648.15
09/10/13
40.00
1,640.76
11/15/13
40.08
1,640.68
02/03/14
39.00
1,641.76
05/07/14
37.24
1,643.52
08/04/14
40.60
1,640.16
09/03/14
Dry
NC
12/02/14
39.47
1,641.29
Table 2a
Page 14 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-10 (continued)
01/26/15
38.28
1,642.48
05/05/15
36.65
1,644.11
08/11/15
38.95
1,641.81
11/09/15
39.01
1,641.75
02/10/16
37.32
1,643.44
05/05/16
34.59
1,646.17
08/15/16
38.14
1,642.62
11/14/16
36.41
1,644.35
02/22/17
34.56
1,646.20
04/22/17
33.67
1,647.09
08/28/17
39.29
1,641.47
09/20/17
39.36
1,641.40
10/11/17
38.22
1,642.54
10/29/17
36.90
1,643.86
03/15/18
33.78
1,646.98
05/31/18
32.72
1,648.04
08/29/18
33.39
1,647.37
11/16/18
30.91
1,649.85
05/03/19
28.02
1,652.74
07/23/19
27.44
1,653.32
11/22/19
27.24
1,653.52
03/30/20
26.16
1,654.60
06/25/20
27.00
1,653.76
09/29/20
34.19
1,646.57
12/07/20
32.46
1,648.30
05/24/21
29.20
1,651.56
09/08/21
35.72
1,645.04
11/02/21
34.60
1,646.16
02/16/22
32.11
1,648.65
04/18/22
31.24
1,649.52
07/11/22
32.03
1,648.73
10/17/22
39.00
1,641.76
MW06-11
05/10/06
31.11
1,646.48
TOC Elevation:
08/24/06
39.38
1,638.21
1677.59 ft-MSL
11/09/06
34.34
1,643.25
02/19/07
30.68
1,646.91
03/23/07
29.90
1,647.69
04/04/07
29.32
1,648.27
05/03/07
29.18
1,648.41
05/15/07
28.57
1,649.02
06/28/07
26.47
1,651.12
07/12/07
35.22
1,642.37
08/15/07
31.88
1,645.71
10/05/07
29.96
1,647.63
10/30/07
28.50
1,649.09
12/06/07
25.95
1,651.64
01/09/08
25.61
1,651.98
02/07/08
26.70
1,650.89
03/03/08
25.24
1,652.35
04/09/08
24.86
1,652.73
05/13/08
23.73
1,653.86
06/10/08
21.55
1,656.04
08/05/08
30.23
1,647.36
11/14/08
25.03
1,652.56
Table 2a
Page 15 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-11 (continued)
02/16/09
23.28
1,654.31
05/04/09
22.01
1,655.58
08/10/09
32.30
1,645.29
10/26/09
26.35
1,651.24
11/18/09
25.35
1,652.24
02/01/10
24.06
1,653.53
05/17/10
23.43
1,654.16
07/25/10
21.13
1,656.46
10/24/10
24.34
1,653.25
02/06/11*
26.23
1,651.36
05/15/11*
27.21
1,650.38
07/24/11
24.40
1,653.19
10/24/11
23.94
1,653.65
01/24/12
22.85
1,654.74
05/14/12
25.12
1,652.47
08/07/12
44.71
1,632.88
11/09/12
35.35
1,642.23
02/07/13
31.15
1,646.44
05/23/13
31.15
1,646.44
09/10/13
47.85
1,629.74
11/15/13
38.91
1,638.68
02/03/14
36.61
1,640.98
05/07/14
35.79
1,641.80
08/04/14
47.73
1,629.86
09/03/14
42.40
1,635.19
12/02/14
36.29
1,641.30
01/26/15
35.03
1,642.56
05/05/15
33.54
1,644.05
08/11/15
40.56
1,637.03
11/09/15
36.71
1,640.88
02/10/16
34.35
1,643.24
05/05/16
29.68
1,647.91
08/15/16
44.45
1,633.14
11/14/16
34.51
1,643.08
02/22/17
31.55
1,646.04
04/22/17
30.60
1,646.99
08/28/17
40.20
1,637.39
10/29/17
35.25
1,642.34
03/15/18
30.48
1,647.11
05/31/18
30.78
1,646.81
08/29/18
34.43
1,643.16
11/16/18
29.02
1,648.57
03/11/19"
27.32
1,650.27
05/03/19
26.05
1,651.54
07/23/19
28.57
1,649.02
11/22/19
25.77
1,651.82
Table 2a
Page 16 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-11 (continued)
03/30/20
23.48
1,654.11
06/25/20
31.28
1,646.31
09/29/20
35.10
1,642.49
12/07/20
29.52
1,648.07
03/24/21 a
25.82
1,651.77
05/24/21
29.26
1,648.33
09/08/21
37.44
1,640.15
11/02/21
32.25
1,645.34
02/16/22
28.54
1,649.05
04/18/22
27.97
1,649.62
07/11/22
30.37
1,647.22
10/17/22
38.25
1,639.34
MW14-01A
05/07/14
34.67
1,640.91
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
Dry
NC
1675.58 ft-MSL
09/03/14
42.05
1,633.53
12/02/14
35.61
1,639.97
01/26/15
34.33
1,641.25
05/05/15
33.01
1,642.57
08/11/15
40.16
1,635.42
11/09/15
36.12
1,639.46
02/10/16
33.72
1,641.86
05/05/16
29.27
1,646.31
08/15/16
Dry
NC
11/14/16
33.90
1,641.68
02/22/17
30.93
1,644.65
04/22/17
29.94
1,645.64
08/28/17
40.30
1,635.28
09/20/17
39.07
1,636.51
10/11/17
36.48
1,639.10
10/29/17
34.85
1,640.73
03/15/18
29.86
1,645.72
05/31/18
30.18
1,645.40
08/29/18
33.09
1,642.49
11/16/18
28.43
1,647.15
03/11/19"
26.50
1,649.08
05/03/19
25.38
1,650.20
07/23/19
27.61
1,647.97
11/22/19
24.92
1,650.66
03/30/20
22.47
1,653.11
06/25/20
29.03
1,646.55
09/29/20
34.59
1,640.99
12/07/20
28.88
1,646.70
03/24/21"
25.22
1,650.36
05/24/21
28.59
1,646.99
09/08/21
36.95
1,638.63
11/02/21
31.60
1,643.98
02/16/22
27.60
1,647.98
04/18/22
27.23
1,648.35
07/11/22
29.87
1,645.71
10/17/22
38.00
1,637.58
Table 2a
Page 17 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-01B
05/07/14
35.68
1,639.82
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
47.76
1,627.74
1675.50 ft-MSL
09/03/14
41.83
1,633.67
12/02/14
35.48
1,640.02
01/26/15
34.19
1,641.31
05/05/15
31.82
1,643.68
08/11/15
39.85
1,635.65
11/09/15
36.09
1,639.41
02/10/16
33.63
1,641.87
05/05/16
28.59
1,646.91
08/15/16
44.57
1,630.93
11/14/16
33.73
1,641.77
02/22/17
30.78
1,644.72
04/22/17
29.83
1,645.67
08/28/17
39.97
1,635.53
10/29/17
34.52
1,640.98
03/15/18
29.69
1,645.81
05/31/18
30.12
1,645.38
08/29/18
33.66
1,641.84
11/16/18
28.29
1,647.21
03/11/19"
26.52
1,648.98
05/03/19
25.31
1,650.19
07/23/19
28.58
1,646.92
11/22/19
24.86
1,650.64
03/30/20
22.57
1,652.93
06/25/20
31.26
1,644.24
09/29/20
34.41
1,641.09
12/07/20
28.62
1,646.88
03/24/21"
24.89
1,650.61
05/24/21
29.10
1,646.40
09/08/21
36.65
1,638.85
11/02/21
31.51
1,643.99
02/16/22
27.60
1,647.90
04/18/22
27.24
1,648.26
07/11/22
29.56
1,645.94
10/17/22
37.41
1,638.09
Table 2a
Page 18 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-02A
05/07/14
34.46
1,641.31
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
45.79
1,629.98
1675.77 ft-MSL
09/03/14
41.65
1,634.12
12/02/14
35.52
1,640.25
01/26/15
34.19
1,641.58
05/05/15
33.01
1,642.76
08/11/15
39.54
1,636.23
11/09/15
36.04
1,639.73
02/10/16
33.90
1,641.87
05/05/16
29.41
1,646.36
08/15/16
42.39
1,633.38
11/14/16
34.00
1,641.77
02/22/17
31.01
1,644.76
04/22/17
30.07
1,645.70
08/28/17
39.60
1,636.17
09/20/17
38.56
1,637.21
10/11/17
36.17
1,639.60
10/29/17
34.85
1,640.92
03/15/18
30.11
1,645.66
05/31/18
30.46
1,645.31
08/29/18
33.30
1,642.47
11/16/18
28.80
1,646.97
03/11/19"
27.77
1,648.00
05/03/19
25.84
1,649.93
07/23/19
28.57
1,647.20
11/22/19
25.14
1,650.63
03/30/20
23.00
1,652.77
06/25/20
30.71
1,645.06
09/29/20
37.74
1,638.03
12/07/20
28.56
1,647.21
03/24/21 a
24.93
1,650.84
05/24/21
29.32
1,646.45
09/08/21
36.52
1,639.25
11/02/21
31.87
1,643.90
02/16/22
27.39
1,648.38
04/18/22
27.21
1,648.56
07/12/22
29.81
1,645.96
10/17/22
36.89
1,638.88
Table 2a
Page 19 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-02B
05/07/14
36.74
1,639.07
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
48.67
1,627.14
1675.81 ft-MSL
09/03/14
42.75
1,633.06
12/02/14
36.23
1,639.58
01/26/15
35.07
1,640.74
05/05/15
33.90
1,641.91
08/11/15
40.58
1,635.23
11/09/15
37.02
1,638.79
02/10/16
34.51
1,641.30
05/05/16
29.21
1,646.60
08/15/16
45.63
1,630.18
11/14/16
34.62
1,641.19
02/22/17
31.59
1,644.22
04/22/17
30.63
1,645.18
08/28/17
40.88
1,634.93
10/29/17
35.30
1,640.51
03/15/18
30.47
1,645.34
05/31/18
31.08
1,644.73
08/29/18
34.37
1,641.44
11/16/18
29.11
1,646.70
03/11/19"
27.41
1,648.40
05/03/19
26.18
1,649.63
07/23/19
29.78
1,646.03
11/22/19
25.67
1,650.14
03/30/20
23.35
1,652.46
06/25/20
32.42
1,643.39
09/29/20
35.27
1,640.54
12/07/20
29.44
1,646.37
03/24/21 a
25.72
1,650.09
05/24/21
30.12
1,645.69
09/08/21
37.53
1,638.28
11/02/21
32.24
1,643.57
02/16/22
28.40
1,647.41
04/18/22
28.16
1,647.65
07/12/22
30.53
1,645.28
10/17/22
38.25
1,637.56
Table 2a
Page 20 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-03A
05/07/14
38.20
1,639.09
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
Dry
NC
1677.29 ft-MSL
09/03/14
44.05
1,633.24
12/02/14
37.59
1,639.70
01/26/15
36.41
1,640.88
05/05/15
35.04
1,642.25
08/11/15
42.15
1,635.14
11/09/15
38.20
1,639.09
02/10/16
35.79
1,641.50
05/05/16
30.60
1,646.69
08/15/16
Dry
NC
11/14/16
35.93
1,641.36
02/22/17
32.88
1,644.41
04/22/17
31.97
1,645.32
08/28/17
42.28
1,635.01
09/20/17
40.66
1,636.63
10/11/17
38.29
1,639.00
10/29/17
36.64
1,640.65
03/15/18
31.83
1,645.46
05/31/18
32.54
1,644.75
08/29/18
35.76
1,641.53
11/16/18
30.48
1,646.81
03/11/19"
28.66
1,648.63
05/03/19
27.47
1,649.82
07/23/19
31.27
1,646.02
11/22/19
27.90
1,649.39
03/30/20
24.57
1,652.72
06/25/20
34.10
1,643.19
09/29/20
36.60
1,640.69
12/07/20
30.65
1,646.64
03/24/21 a
26.66
1,650.63
05/24/21
31.41
1,645.88
09/08/21
38.69
1,638.60
11/02/21
33.50
1,643.79
02/16/22
29.69
1,647.60
04/18/22
29.34
1,647.95
Well abandoned - July 2022
Table 2a
Page 21 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-03B
05/07/14
38.75
1,638.44
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
51.10
1,626.09
1677.19 ft-MSL
09/03/14
44.32
1,632.87
12/02/14
37.65
1,639.54
01/26/15
36.40
1,640.79
05/05/15
34.96
1,642.23
08/11/15
42.14
1,635.05
11/09/15
38.40
1,638.79
02/10/16
35.85
1,641.34
05/05/16
30.51
1,646.68
08/15/16
48.34
1,628.85
11/14/16
35.98
1,641.21
02/22/17
32.92
1,644.27
04/22/17
31.98
1,645.21
08/28/17
42.42
1,634.77
10/29/17
36.66
1,640.53
03/15/18
31.46
1,645.73
05/31/18
32.51
1,644.68
08/29/18
36.04
1,641.15
11/16/18
30.42
1,646.77
03/11/19"
28.62
1,648.57
05/03/19
28.34
1,648.85
07/23/19
31.61
1,645.58
11/22/19
26.90
1,650.29
03/30/20
24.54
1,652.65
06/25/20
34.80
1,642.39
09/29/20
36.60
1,640.59
12/07/20
30.70
1,646.49
03/24/21 a
26.85
1,650.34
05/24/21
31.32
1,645.87
09/08/21
38.80
1,638.39
11/02/21
33.48
1,643.71
02/16/22
29.64
1,647.55
04/18/22
29.38
1,647.81
Well abandoned - July 2022
MW14-04A
05/07/14
37.12
1,639.18
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
Dry
NC
1676.30 ft-MSL
09/03/14
43.27
1,633.03
12/02/14
36.90
1,639.40
01/26/15
35.69
1,640.61
05/05/15
34.23
1,642.07
08/11/15
41.18
1,635.12
11/09/15
37.47
1,638.83
Table 2a
Page 22 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-04A (continued)
02/10/16
35.02
1,641.28
05/05/16
29.93
1,646.37
08/15/16
Dry
NC
11/14/16
35.22
1,641.08
02/22/17
32.23
1,644.07
04/22/17
31.32
1,644.98
08/28/17
41.41
1,634.89
09/20/17
40.04
1,636.26
10/11/17
37.49
1,638.81
10/29/17
36.01
1,640.29
03/15/18
31.12
1,645.18
05/31/18
32.99
1,643.31
08/29/18
34.75
1,641.55
11/16/18
29.79
1,646.51
03/11/19"
27.99
1,648.31
05/03/19
26.83
1,649.47
07/23/19
30.21
1,646.09
11/22/19
26.31
1,649.99
03/30/20
23.98
1,652.32
06/25/20
32.48
1,643.82
09/29/20
35.84
1,640.46
12/07/20
30.02
1,646.28
03/24/21 a
26.31
1,649.99
05/24/21
30.72
1,645.58
09/08/21
37.93
1,638.37
11/02/21
33.38
1,642.92
02/16/22
29.03
1,647.27
04/28/22
28.66
1,647.64
07/12/22
30.95
1,645.35
10/17/22
38.84
1,637.46
MW14-04B
05/07/14
37.31
1,638.90
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
49.05
1,627.16
1676.21 ft-MSL
09/03/14
43.31
1,632.90
12/02/14
36.80
1,639.41
01/26/15
35.58
1,640.63
05/05/15
34.13
1,642.08
08/11/15
41.11
1,635.10
11/09/15
37.53
1,638.68
02/10/16
35.05
1,641.16
05/05/16
29.72
1,646.49
08/15/16
45.86
1,630.35
11/14/16
35.18
1,641.03
02/22/17
32.14
1,644.07
04/22/17
31.19
1,645.02
08/28/17
41.38
1,634.83
10/29/17
35.87
1,640.34
03/15/18
31.03
1,645.18
05/31/18
31.59
1,644.62
08/29/18
34.80
1,641.41
11/16/18
29.70
1,646.51
03/11/19"
27.89
1,648.32
05/03/19
26.74
1,649.47
07/23/19
30.30
1,645.91
11/22/19
26.20
1,650.01
Table 2a
Page 23 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-04B (continued)
03/30/20
23.89
1,652.32
06/25/20
32.78
1,643.43
09/29/20
35.82
1,640.39
12/07/20
29.93
1,646.28
03/24/21 a
26.19
1,650.02
05/24/21
30.50
1,645.71
09/08/21
47.95
1,628.26
11/02/21
32.80
1,643.41
02/16/22
28.95
1,647.26
04/18/22
28.67
1,647.54
07/12/22
30.99
1,645.22
10/17/22
37.74
1,638.47
MW14-05A
05/07/14
37.14
1,639.21
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
Dry
NC
1676.35 ft-MSL
09/03/14
44.07
1,632.28
12/02/14
37.82
1,638.53
01/26/15
36.55
1,639.80
05/05/15
35.24
1,641.11
08/11/15
42.01
1,634.34
11/09/15
38.32
1,638.03
02/10/16
35.94
1,640.41
05/05/16
31.50
1,644.85
08/15/16
Dry
NC
11/14/16
36.08
1,640.27
02/22/17
33.14
1,643.21
04/22/17
32.17
1,644.18
08/28/17
42.20
1,634.15
09/20/17
41.08
1,635.27
10/11/17
38.84
1,637.51
10/29/17
37.11
1,639.24
03/15/18
32.15
1,644.20
05/31/18
32.59
1,643.76
08/29/18
35.11
1,641.24
11/16/18
30.81
1,645.54
03/11/19"
28.83
1,647.52
05/03/19
27.68
1,648.67
07/23/19
30.27
1,646.08
11/22/19
27.04
1,649.31
03/30/20
24.82
1,651.53
06/25/20
31.02
1,645.33
09/29/20
36.82
1,639.53
12/07/20
31.03
1,645.32
03/24/21"
27.47
1,648.88
05/24/21
30.94
1,645.41
09/08/21
38.95
1,637.40
11/02/21
34.00
1,642.35
02/16/22
29.99
1,646.36
04/18/22
29.39
1,646.96
07/12/22
32.21
1,644.14
10/17/22
40.41
1,635.94
Table 2a
Page 24 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-05B
05/07/14
39.20
1,637.24
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
51.04
1,625.40
1676.44 ft-MSL
09/03/14
44.17
1,632.27
12/02/14
37.69
1,638.75
01/26/15
36.44
1,640.00
05/05/15
35.02
1,641.42
08/11/15
42.10
1,634.34
11/09/15
38.46
1,637.98
02/10/16
36.07
1,640.37
05/05/16
30.30
1,646.14
08/15/16
48.01
1,628.43
11/14/16
36.02
1,640.42
02/22/17
32.99
1,643.45
04/22/17
32.05
1,644.39
08/28/17
42.29
1,634.15
10/29/17
36.72
1,639.72
03/15/18
31.79
1,644.65
05/31/18
32.46
1,643.98
08/29/18
35.85
1,640.59
11/16/18
30.72
1,645.72
03/11/19"
28.76
1,647.68
05/03/19
27.62
1,648.82
07/23/19
32.08
1,644.36
11/22/19
26.91
1,649.53
03/30/20
24.57
1,651.87
06/25/20
35.03
1,641.41
09/29/20
36.72
1,639.72
12/07/20
30.70
1,645.74
03/24/21"
26.90
1,649.54
05/24/21
31.37
1,645.07
09/08/21
38.77
1,637.67
11/02/21
33.63
1,642.81
02/16/22
29.87
1,646.57
04/18/22
29.53
1,646.91
07/12/22
32.07
1,644.37
10/17/22
39.66
1,636.78
Table 2a
Page 25 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-06A
05/07/14
58.17
1,637.50
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
Dry
NC
1695.67 ft-MSL
09/03/14
63.62
1,632.05
12/02/14
57.09
1,638.58
01/29/15
55.99
1,639.68
05/05/15
54.49
1,641.18
08/11/15
61.67
1,634.00
11/09/15
57.63
1,638.04
02/11/16
55.26
1,640.41
05/05/16
50.09
1,645.58
08/15/16
Dry
NC
11/14/16
55.15
1,640.52
02/22/17
52.15
1,643.52
04/22/17
51.29
1,644.38
08/28/17
61.69
1,633.98
09/20/17
50.42
1,645.25
10/11/17
57.90
1,637.77
10/29/17
56.08
1,639.59
03/15/18
50.93
1,644.74
05/31/18
51.65
1,644.02
08/29/18
54.74
1,640.93
11/16/18
49.79
1,645.88
03/11/19"
47.97
1,647.70
05/03/19
47.74
1,647.93
07/23/19
51.33
1,644.34
11/22/19
46.00
1,649.67
03/30/20
43.75
1,651.92
06/25/20
53.66
1,642.01
09/29/20
56.02
1,639.65
12/07/20
49.99
1,645.68
03/24/21"
46.18
1,649.49
05/24/21
51.23
1,644.44
09/08/21
58.23
1,637.44
11/02/21
53.10
1,642.57
02/16/22
49.05
1,646.62
04/18/22
48.62
1,647.05
07/12/22
51.44
1,644.23
10/17/22
59.50
1,636.17
Table 2a
Page 26 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-06B
05/07/14
59.79
1,635.67
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
71.77
1,623.69
1695.46 ft-MSL
09/03/14
63.37
1,632.09
12/02/14
56.99
1,638.47
01/29/15
55.90
1,639.56
05/05/15
54.34
1,641.12
08/11/15
61.47
1,633.99
11/09/15
57.65
1,637.81
02/11/16
55.27
1,640.19
05/05/16
49.41
1,646.05
08/15/16
68.83
1,626.63
11/14/16
55.22
1,640.24
02/22/17
52.19
1,643.27
04/22/17
51.29
1,644.17
08/28/17
61.50
1,633.96
10/29/17
55.95
1,639.51
03/15/18
50.97
1,644.49
05/31/18
51.61
1,643.85
08/29/18
55.28
1,640.18
11/16/18
49.78
1,645.68
03/11/19"
47.99
1,647.47
05/03/19
46.83
1,648.63
07/23/19
52.20
1,643.26
11/22/19
46.04
1,649.42
03/30/20
43.68
1,651.78
06/25/20
55.98
1,639.48
09/29/20
56.07
1,639.39
12/07/20
49.89
1,645.57
03/24/21"
45.98
1,649.48
05/24/21
50.85
1,644.61
09/08/21
58.01
1,637.45
11/02/21
52.73
1,642.73
02/16/22
49.10
1,646.36
04/18/22
48.61
1,646.85
07/12/22
51.19
1,644.27
10/17/22
58.92
1,636.54
Table 2a
Page 27 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-07
05/07/14
45.83
1,638.66
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
Dry
NC
1684.49 ft-MSL
09/03/14
53.22
1,631.27
12/02/14
46.08
1,638.41
01/26/15
44.86
1,639.63
05/05/15
43.58
1,640.91
08/11/15
52.33
1,632.16
11/09/15
46.53
1,637.96
02/15/16
44.08
1,640.41
05/05/16
39.35
1,645.14
08/15/16
Dry
NC
11/14/16
44.32
1,640.17
02/22/17
41.43
1,643.06
04/22/17
40.48
1,644.01
08/28/17
Dry
NC
09/20/17
49.55
1,634.94
10/11/17
46.92
1,637.57
10/29/17
45.24
1,639.25
03/15/18
40.29
1,644.20
05/31/18
40.80
1,643.69
08/29/18
43.48
1,641.01
11/16/18
39.00
1,645.49
03/11/19"
37.18
1,647.31
05/03/19
36.00
1,648.49
07/23/19
39.20
1,645.29
11/22/19
35.31
1,649.18
03/30/20
32.95
1,651.54
06/25/20
42.40
1,642.09
09/29/20
45.12
1,639.37
12/07/20
39.10
1,645.39
03/24/21"
35.30
1,649.19
05/24/21
39.58
1,644.91
09/08/21
47.42
1,637.07
11/02/21
41.93
1,642.56
02/16/22
38.35
1,646.14
04/18/22
37.59
1,646.90
07/12/22
40.38
1,644.11
10/17/22
48.51
1,635.98
Table 2a
Page 28 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-08
05/07/14
57.19
1,640.16
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
Dry
NC
1697.35 ft-MSL
09/03/14
65.61
1,631.74
12/02/14
57.75
1,639.60
01/28/15
56.22
1,641.13
05/05/15
55.28
1,642.07
08/11/15
63.21
1,634.14
11/09/15
57.71
1,639.64
02/10/16
55.26
1,642.09
05/05/16
47.20
1,650.15
08/15/16
Dry
NC
11/14/16
54.64
1,642.71
02/22/17
52.18
1,645.17
04/22/17
50.45
1,646.90
08/28/17
Dry
NC
09/20/17
60.18
1,637.17
10/11/17
56.02
1,641.33
10/29/17
54.18
1,643.17
03/15/18
49.90
1,647.45
05/31/18
50.97
1,646.38
08/29/18
53.91
1,643.44
11/16/18
48.78
1,648.57
03/11/19"
47.49
1,649.86
05/03/19
45.97
1,651.38
07/23/19
49.70
1,647.65
11/22/19
45.49
1,651.86
03/30/20
42.47
1,654.88
06/25/20
51.30
1,646.05
09/29/20
55.65
1,641.70
12/07/20
49.73
1,647.62
03/24/21 a
43.89
1,653.46
05/24/21
49.85
1,647.50
09/08/21
57.67
1,639.68
11/02/21
52.71
1,644.64
02/16/22
48.95
1,648.40
04/18/22
48.92
1,648.43
07/12/22
50.67
1,646.68
10/17/22
59.73
1,637.62
Table 2a
Page 29 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-09A
05/07/14
Dry
NC
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
Dry
NC
1680.24 ft-MSL
09/03/14
Dry
NC
12/02/14
Dry
NC
01/26/15
Dry
NC
05/05/15
Dry
NC
08/11/15
Dry
NC
11/09/15
Dry
NC
02/10/16
Dry
NC
05/05/16
35.30
1,644.94
08/15/16
35.79
1,644.45
11/14/16
Dry
NC
02/22/17
35.03
1,645.21
04/22/17
34.06
1,646.18
08/28/17
Dry
NC
10/29/17
Dry
NC
03/15/18
32.04
1,648.20
05/31/18
33.07
1,647.17
08/29/18
33.55
1,646.69
11/16/18
31.97
1,648.27
05/03/19
29.11
1,651.13
07/23/19
28.03
1,652.21
11/22/19
28.52
1,651.72
03/30/20
26.95
1,653.29
06/25/20
27.42
1,652.82
09/29/20
Dry
NC
12/07/20
Dry
NC
05/24/21
29.59
1,650.65
09/08/21
Dry
NC
11/02/21
35.11
1,645.13
02/16/22
32.42
1,647.82
04/18/22
31.52
1,648.72
07/11/22
32.20
1,648.04
10/17/22
36.15
1,644.09
Table 2a
Page 30 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
On-Facility Wells (continued)
MW14-09B
05/07/14
39.28
1,640.75
TOC Elevation:
08/04/14
51.44
1,628.59
1680.03 ft-MSL
09/03/14
45.62
1,634.41
12/02/14
39.40
1,640.63
01/26/15
38.15
1,641.88
05/05/15
36.69
1,643.34
08/11/15
43.75
1,636.28
11/09/15
39.89
1,640.14
02/10/16
37.48
1,642.55
05/05/16
32.64
1,647.39
08/15/16
48.16
1,631.87
11/14/16
37.65
1,642.38
02/22/17
34.69
1,645.34
04/22/17
33.74
1,646.29
08/28/17
41.45
1,638.58
10/29/17
38.42
1,641.61
03/15/18
33.60
1,646.43
05/31/18
33.99
1,646.04
08/29/18
37.67
1,642.36
11/16/18
32.22
1,647.81
03/11/19"
30.41
1,649.62
05/03/19
29.21
1,650.82
07/23/19
32.97
1,647.06
11/22/19
28.84
1,651.19
03/30/20
22.57
1,657.46
06/25/20
35.90
1,644.13
09/29/20
38.28
1,641.75
12/07/20
32.60
1,647.43
03/24/21"
28.90
1,651.13
05/24/21
32.57
1,647.46
09/08/21
40.61
1,639.42
11/02/21
35.52
1,644.51
02/16/22
31.58
1,648.45
04/18/22
31.05
1,648.98
07/11/22
33.45
1,646.58
10/17/22
41.34
1,638.69
Table 2a
Page 31 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells
MW89-10B
02/22/05
74.85
1,643.68
TOC Elevation:
05/01/05
73.75
1,644.78
1718.53 ft-MSL
08/02/05
90.46
1,628.07
11/06/05
80.39
1,638.14
01/29/06
76.84
1,641.69
05/07/06
74.75
1,643.78
08/19/06
86.60
1,631.93
11/05/06
79.54
1,638.99
02/26/07
75.70
1,642.83
03/23/07
75.25
1,643.28
04/04/07
74.91
1,643.62
04/29/07
73.35
1,645.18
05/18/07
75.23
1,643.30
06/28/07
72.30
1,646.23
07/12/07
87.98
1,630.55
08/12/07
80.60
1,637.93
10/08/07
75.07
1,643.46
10/28/07
73.40
1,645.13
12/06/07
72.50
1,646.03
01/08/08
72.16
1,646.37
02/05/08
71.87
1,646.66
03/03/08
71.63
1,646.90
04/09/08
71.15
1,647.38
05/12/08
69.95
1,648.58
06/10/08
76.50
1,642.03
06/25/08
68.65
1,649.88
08/05/08
79.11
1,639.42
11/18/08
72.25
1,646.28
02/16/09
70.44
1,648.09
05/04/09
69.80
1,648.73
08/10/09
80.79
1,637.74
10/26/09
73.56
1,644.97
11/18/09
71.83
1,646.70
02/01/10
70.92
1,647.61
05/17/10
69.70
1,648.83
07/25/10
68.08
1,650.45
10/24/10
71.44
1,647.09
02/06/11
69.40
1,649.13
05/15/11
68.99
1,649.54
07/24/11
71.86
1,646.67
10/24/11*
79.60
1,638.93
01/24/12
69.85
1,648.68
05/14/12
71.80
1,646.73
08/07/12
94.31
1,624.22
11/09/12
83.28
1,635.25
Table 2a
Page 32 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW89-10B (continued)
02/07/13
78.60
1,639.93
05/23/13
77.59
1,640.94
09/10/13
95.55
1,622.98
11/15/13
85.97
1,632.56
02/03/14
83.68
1,634.85
05/07/14
80.83
1,637.70
12/02/14
83.32
1,635.21
01/30/15
81.91
1,636.62
05/21/15
80.06
1,638.47
08/26/15
91.94
1,626.59
11/05/15
83.92
1,634.61
02/12/16
81.50
1,637.03
05/18/16
77.51
1,641.02
08/08/16
No access
NC
11/14/16
81.69
1,636.84
02/22/17
78.41
1,640.12
04/22/17
77.41
1,641.12
08/28/17
No access
NC
10/29/17
82.26
1,636.27
03/15/18
77.00
1,641.53
05/31/18
77.18
1,641.35
08/29/18
No access
NC
11/16/18
75.43
1,643.10
05/03/19
No access
NC
07/23/19
No access
NC
11/22/19
72.25
1,646.28
03/31/20
69.05
1,649.48
06/25/20
NM
NM
09/30/20
82.63
1,635.90
12/07/20
NM
NM
05/24/21
74.75
1,643.78
09/08/21
85.47
1,633.06
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 33 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW89-11B
02/21/05
49.84
1,644.11
TOC Elevation:
05/01/05
48.68
1,645.27
1693.95 ft-MSL
08/02/05
60.62
1,633.33
11/06/05
54.80
1,639.15
01/29/06
51.85
1,642.10
05/07/06
49.50
1,644.45
08/19/06
59.97
1,633.98
11/05/06
53.96
1,639.99
02/10/07
51.10
1,642.85
02/26/07
50.46
1,643.49
03/23/07
49.95
1,644.00
04/04/07
49.42
1,644.53
04/29/07
47.74
1,646.21
05/15/07
48.23
1,645.72
06/28/07
46.25
1,647.70
07/12/07
52.82
1,641.13
08/12/07
53.32
1,640.63
10/08/07
49.12
1,644.83
10/28/07
47.27
1,646.68
12/06/07
46.85
1,647.10
01/08/08
46.56
1,647.39
02/05/08
46.35
1,647.60
03/03/08
46.15
1,647.80
04/09/08
45.81
1,648.14
05/11/08
44.89
1,649.06
06/10/08
42.10
1,651.85
08/05/08
49.39
1,644.56
11/18/08
46.54
1,647.41
02/16/09
45.00
1,648.95
05/04/09
44.57
1,649.38
08/10/09
53.16
1,640.79
10/26/09
48.01
1,645.94
11/18/09
46.85
1,647.10
02/01/10
45.67
1,648.28
05/17/10
44.65
1,649.30
07/25/10
42.90
1,651.05
10/24/10
46.20
1,647.75
02/06/11
44.43
1,649.52
05/15/11
43.62
1,650.33
07/24/11
45.88
1,648.07
10/24/11
45.71
1,648.24
01/24/12
44.62
1,649.33
05/14/12
46.20
1,647.75
08/07/12
63.80
1,630.15
11/09/12
56.70
1,637.25
Table 2a
Page 34 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW89-11B (continued)
02/07/13
52.60
1,641.35
05/23/13
51.89
1,642.06
09/10/13
67.85
1,626.10
11/15/13
61.48
1,632.47
02/03/14
59.34
1,634.61
05/07/14
56.96
1,636.99
12/02/14
58.72
1,635.23
01/30/15
57.34
1,636.61
05/21/15
55.43
1,638.52
08/26/15
64.28
1,629.67
11/05/15
59.23
1,634.72
02/15/16
56.67
1,637.28
05/18/16
52.63
1,641.32
08/08/16
60.38
1,633.57
11/14/16
57.06
1,636.89
02/22/17
54.11
1,639.84
04/22/17
53.10
1,640.85
08/28/17
62.43
1,631.52
10/29/17
57.60
1,636.35
03/15/18
52.85
1,641.10
05/31/18
NM
NC
08/29/18
56.00
1,637.95
11/16/18
51.55
1,642.40
03/27/19 "
48.94
1,645.01
05/03/19
48.80
1,645.15
07/23/19
50.24
1,643.71
11/22/19
48.08
1,645.87
03/31/20
45.30
1,648.65
06/25/20
52.37
1,641.58
09/30/20
57.78
1,636.17
12/07/20
51.79
1,642.16
03/22/21 a
48.27
1,645.68
05/24/21
50.70
1,643.25
09/08/21
59.32
1,634.63
11/02/21
54.68
1,639.27
02/17/22
51.08
1,642.87
04/18/22
50.79
1,643.16
07/14/22
52.70
1,641.25
10/17/22
60.20
1,633.75
Table 2a
Page 35 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW92-3A
10/28/07
56.17
1,645.68
TOC Elevation:
02/04/08
54.92
1,646.93
1701.85 ft-MSL
05/13/08
53.37
1,648.48
08/07/08
61.02
1,640.83
11/18/08
55.43
1,646.42
02/16/09
53.84
1,648.01
05/04/09
53.29
1,648.56
08/10/09
62.79
1,639.06
10/26/09
56.86
1,644.99
11/18/09
55.38
1,646.47
02/01/10
54.35
1,647.50
05/17/10
53.20
1,648.65
07/25/10
51.52
1,650.33
10/24/10
54.82
1,647.03
02/06/11
52.95
1,648.90
05/15/11
52.24
1,649.61
07/24/11
54.69
1,647.16
10/24/11
54.37
1,647.48
01/24/12
53.27
1,648.58
05/14/12
54.92
1,646.93
08/07/12
74.49
1,627.36
11/09/12
66.05
1,635.80
02/07/13
61.73
1,640.12
05/23/13
60.80
1,641.05
09/10/13
77.30
1,624.55
11/15/13
69.48
1,632.37
02/03/14
87.31
1,614.54
05/07/14
64.68
1,637.17
12/02/14
66.84
1,635.01
01/30/15
65.45
1,636.40
05/21/15
63.60
1,638.25
08/26/15
73.70
1,628.15
11/05/15
67.37
1,634.48
02/15/16
64.73
1,637.12
05/18/16
60.86
1,640.99
08/08/16
69.15
1,632.70
11/14/16
65.19
1,636.66
02/22/17
62.17
1,639.68
04/22/17
61.11
1,640.74
08/28/17
71.07
1,630.78
10/29/17
65.77
1,636.08
03/15/18
60.85
1,641.00
05/31/18
60.95
1,640.90
08/29/18
64.54
1,637.31
11/16/18
59.36
1,642.49
Table 2a
Page 36 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW92-3A (continued)
05/03/19
56.75
1,645.10
07/23/19
57.85
1,644.00
11/22/19
56.16
1,645.69
03/31/20
53.10
1,648.75
06/25/20
61.16
1,640.69
09/30/20
65.95
1,635.90
12/07/20
59.95
1,641.90
03/22/21 "
56.48
1,645.37
05/24/21
58.49
1,643.36
09/08/21
68.15
1,633.70
11/02/21
62.85
1,639.00
02/17/22
59.05
1,642.80
04/18/22
59.07
1,642.78
07/14/22
60.76
1,641.09
10/17/22
68.22
1,633.63
MW92-3B
10/28/07
56.50
1,645.69
TOC Elevation:
02/04/08
55.30
1,646.89
1702.19 ft-MSL
05/13/08
53.75
1,648.44
08/07/08
61.45
1,640.74
11/18/08
55.78
1,646.41
02/16/09
54.21
1,647.98
05/04/09
53.65
1,648.54
08/10/09
63.15
1,639.04
10/26/09
57.26
1,644.93
11/18/09
55.75
1,646.44
02/01/10
54.75
1,647.44
05/17/10
53.57
1,648.62
07/25/10
51.92
1,650.27
10/24/10
55.29
1,646.90
02/06/11
53.38
1,648.81
05/15/11
52.60
1,649.59
07/24/11
55.05
1,647.14
10/24/11
54.73
1,647.46
01/24/12
53.65
1,648.54
05/14/12
55.29
1,646.90
08/07/12
74.85
1,627.34
11/09/12
66.43
1,635.76
02/07/13
62.10
1,640.09
05/23/13
61.16
1,641.03
09/10/13
77.66
1,624.53
11/15/13
69.85
1,632.34
02/03/14
67.69
1,634.50
05/07/14
65.05
1,637.14
12/02/14
67.18
1,635.01
01/30/15
65.81
1,636.38
05/21/15
63.97
1,638.22
08/26/15
74.06
1,628.13
11/05/15
67.74
1,634.45
Table 2a
Page 37 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW92-3B (continued)
02/15/16
65.12
1,637.07
05/18/16
61.24
1,640.95
08/08/16
69.51
1,632.68
11/14/16
65.60
1,636.59
02/22/17
62.51
1,639.68
04/22/17
61.51
1,640.68
08/28/17
70.38
1,631.81
10/29/17
66.14
1,636.05
03/15/18
61.20
1,640.99
05/31/18
61.33
1,640.86
08/29/18
64.93
1,637.26
11/16/18
59.69
1,642.50
05/03/19
57.04
1,645.15
07/23/19
58.21
1,643.98
11/22/19
56.56
1,645.63
03/31/20
53.47
1,648.72
06/25/20
61.50
1,640.69
09/30/20
66.31
1,635.88
12/07/20
60.28
1,641.91
03/22/21 "
56.65
1,645.54
05/24/21
58.85
1,643.34
09/08/21
68.53
1,633.66
11/02/21
63.20
1,638.99
02/17/22
59.41
1,642.78
04/18/22
59.45
1,642.74
07/14/22
61.12
1,641.07
10/17/22
68.48
1,633.71
Table 2a
Page 38 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
G127000
02/22/05
19.35
1,638.54
TOC Elevation:
05/03/05
24.20
1,633.69
1657.89 ft-MSL
08/01/05
28.61
1,629.28
11/09/05
24.18
1,633.71
01/29/06
20.60
1,637.29
05/08/06
23.21
1,634.68
08/23/06
28.56
1,629.33
11/06/06
22.90
1,634.99
02/21/07
19.50
1,638.39
03/23/07
18.94
1,638.95
04/04/07
18.31
1,639.58
05/18/07
22.40
1,635.49
06/28/07
20.47
1,637.42
07/12/07
28.73
1,629.16
08/15/07
21.89
1,636.00
10/08/07
24.10
1,633.79
10/29/07
23.42
1,634.47
12/06/07
23.32
1,634.57
01/08/08
23.20
1,634.69
02/05/08
23.10
1,634.79
03/03/08
22.82
1,635.07
04/10/08
22.25
1,635.64
05/14/08
21.35
1,636.54
06/11/08
12.20
1,645.69
08/05/08
23.95
1,633.94
11/17/08
29.59
1,628.30
02/16/09
28.24
1,629.65
05/04/09
27.73
1,630.16
08/10/09
35.31
1,622.58
10/26/09
30.27
1,627.62
11/18/09
20.53
1,639.94
Table 2a
Page 39 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
G127000 (continued)
02/01/10
30.72
1,629.75
TOC Elevation:
05/17/10
29.46
1,631.01
1660.47 ft-MSL
07/25/10
28.16
1,632.31
The TOC was adjusted following
10/24/10
31.98
1,628.49
maintenance in November 2009.
02/06/11
30.51
1,629.96
This is the resurveyed TOC.
05/15/11
29.81
1,630.66
07/24/11
31.31
1,629.16
10/24/11
32.21
1,628.26
01/24/12
31.70
1,628.77
05/14/12
32.31
1,628.16
08/07/12
47.98
1,612.49
11/09/12
47.25
1,613.22
02/07/13
41.97
1,618.50
05/23/13
40.66
1,619.81
09/10/13
57.50
1,602.97
11/15/13
47.26
1,613.21
02/03/14
48.03
1,612.44
05/07/14
43.70
1,616.77
12/02/14
43.91
1,616.56
01/30/15
42.83
1,617.64
05/21/15
43.66
1,616.81
08/17/15
58.10
1,602.37
11/05/15
46.09
1,614.38
02/12/16
44.13
1,616.34
05/18/16
40.45
1,620.02
08/08/16
50.13
1,610.34
11/14/16
47.48
1,612.99
02/22/17
44.89
1,615.58
04/22/17
44.09
1,616.38
08/28/17
47.40
1,613.07
10/29/17
47.53
1,612.94
03/15/18
42.94
1,617.53
05/31/18
47.81
1,612.66
08/29/18
48.19
1,612.28
11/16/18
41.33
1,619.14
05/03/19
39.17
1,621.30
07/23/19
39.17
1,621.30
11/22/19
39.10
1,621.37
03/31/20
17.14
1,643.33
06/25/20
NM
NM
09/30/20
47.61
1,612.86
12/07/20
42.97
1,617.50
05/24/21
40.78
1,619.69
09/08/21
48.98
1,611.49
11/02/21
47.90
1,612.57
02/17/22
49.42
1,611.05
04/18/22
49.51
1,610.96
07/13/22
48.68
1,611.79
10/17/22
30.90
1,629.57
Table 2a
Page 40 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW04-01
02/20/05
53.59
1,640.97
TOC Elevation:
05/01/05
52.14
1,642.42
1694.56 ft-MSL
08/02/05
66.38
1,628.18
11/06/05
58.80
1,635.76
01/29/06
55.17
1,639.39
05/07/06
52.98
1,641.58
08/19/06
64.20
1,630.36
11/05/06
57.82
1,636.74
02/10/07
54.57
1,639.99
02/26/07
53.97
1,640.59
03/23/07
53.49
1,641.07
04/04/07
53.06
1,641.50
04/29/07
51.42
1,643.14
05/15/07
52.25
1,642.31
06/28/07
50.66
1,643.90
07/12/07
58.70
1,635.86
08/12/07
58.70
1,635.86
10/08/07
53.75
1,640.81
10/28/07
52.03
1,642.53
12/06/07
51.49
1,643.07
01/08/08
53.29
1,641.27
02/03/08
50.95
1,643.61
03/03/08
50.77
1,643.79
04/09/08
50.41
1,644.15
05/11/08
49.50
1,645.06
06/10/08
46.20
1,648.36
08/05/08
55.67
1,638.89
11/14/08
52.22
1,642.34
02/16/09
50.68
1,643.88
05/04/09
50.12
1,644.44
08/10/09
59.78
1,634.78
10/26/09
53.71
1,640.85
11/18/09
51.18
1,643.38
02/01/10
51.11
1,643.45
05/17/10
48.18
1,646.38
07/25/10
48.22
1,646.34
10/24/10
51.73
1,642.83
02/06/11
49.93
1,644.63
05/15/11
49.22
1,645.34
07/24/11
51.30
1,643.26
10/24/11
51.30
1,643.26
01/24/12
50.35
1,644.21
05/14/12
51.46
1,643.10
08/07/12
71.87
1,622.69
11/09/12
63.55
1,631.01
02/07/13
58.98
1,635.58
05/23/13
57.45
1,637.11
09/10/13
72.95
1,621.61
11/15/13
65.20
1,629.36
Table 2a
Page 41 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW04-01 (continued)
02/03/14
63.10
1,631.46
05/07/14
59.58
1,634.98
12/02/14
62.45
1,632.11
01/30/15
61.05
1,633.51
05/21/15
59.30
1,635.26
08/17/15
67.69
1,626.87
11/05/15
62.98
1,631.58
02/12/16
under snow
NC
05/18/16
56.50
1,638.06
08/08/16
65.45
1,629.11
11/14/16
61.02
1,633.54
02/22/17
57.85
1,636.71
04/22/17
56.87
1,637.69
08/28/17
67.15
1,627.41
10/29/17
61.43
1,633.13
03/13/18
56.74
1,637.82
05/31/18
56.53
1,638.03
08/29/18
60.19
1,634.37
11/16/18
54.78
1,639.78
05/03/19
52.28
1,642.28
07/23/19
52.53
1,642.03
11/22/19
52.02
1,642.54
03/31/20
48.04
1,646.52
06/25/20
57.04
1,637.52
09/30/20
61.40
1,633.16
12/07/20
55.72
1,638.84
05/24/21
53.61
1,640.95
09/08/21
64.42
1,630.14
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 42 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW04-02
02/21/05
42.15
1,636.05
TOC Elevation:
05/01/05
40.70
1,637.50
1678.20 ft-MSL
08/01/05
56.69
1,621.51
11/06/05
47.02
1,631.18
01/29/06
43.73
1,634.47
05/07/06
41.44
1,636.76
08/21/06
51.50
1,626.70
11/05/06
45.88
1,632.32
02/10/07
42.82
1,635.38
02/26/07
42.27
1,635.93
03/23/07
41.86
1,636.34
04/04/07
41.27
1,636.93
04/29/07
40.03
1,638.17
05/15/07
40.24
1,637.96
06/28/07
39.09
1,639.11
07/12/07
43.47
1,634.73
08/12/07
45.75
1,632.45
10/08/07
41.73
1,636.47
10/28/07
40.29
1,637.91
12/06/07
39.95
1,638.25
01/08/08
39.89
1,638.31
02/03/08
39.69
1,638.51
03/03/08
39.71
1,638.49
04/09/08
39.27
1,638.93
05/11/08
38.49
1,639.71
06/10/08
36.20
1,642.00
08/05/08
42.33
1,635.87
11/14/08
41.47
1,636.73
02/16/09
40.16
1,638.04
05/04/09
39.83
1,638.37
08/10/09
47.31
1,630.89
10/26/09
44.17
1,634.03
11/18/09
41.52
1,636.68
02/01/10
40.60
1,637.60
05/17/10
39.37
1,638.83
07/25/10
37.97
1,640.23
10/24/10
41.36
1,636.84
02/06/11
39.91
1,638.29
05/15/11*
28.95
1,649.25
07/24/11
40.05
1,638.15
10/24/11
40.95
1,637.25
01/24/12
40.27
1,637.93
05/14/12
40.23
1,637.97
08/07/12
56.20
1,622.00
11/09/12
52.52
1,625.68
02/07/13
48.30
1,629.90
05/23/13
46.23
1,631.97
09/10/13
58.52
1,619.68
11/15/13
52.75
1,625.45
Table 2a
Page 43 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW04-02 (continued)
02/03/14
50.74
1,627.46
05/07/14
47.40
1,630.80
12/02/14
50.19
1,628.01
01/30/15
48.71
1,629.49
05/21/15
46.90
1,631.30
08/17/15
53.92
1,624.28
11/05/15
50.66
1,627.54
02/12/16
48.27
1,629.93
05/18/16
44.34
1,633.86
08/08/16
49.11
1,629.09
11/14/16
48.80
1,629.40
02/22/17
45.96
1,632.24
04/22/17
44.95
1,633.25
08/28/17
54.05
1,624.15
10/29/17
49.56
1,628.64
03/13/18
45.10
1,633.10
05/31/18
44.30
1,633.90
08/29/18
47.85
1,630.35
11/16/18
43.15
1,635.05
05/03/19
40.66
1,637.54
07/23/19
40.97
1,637.23
11/22/19
41.04
1,637.16
03/31/20
38.98
1,639.22
06/25/20
42.16
1,636.04
09/30/20
49.42
1,628.78
12/07/20
44.61
1,633.59
05/24/21
41.75
1,636.45
09/08/21
51.52
1,626.68
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 44 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW04-03
02/23/05
9.85
1,634.48
TOC Elevation:
05/01/05
8.60
1,635.73
1644.33 ft-MSL
08/04/05
20.70
1,623.63
11/09/05
14.65
1,629.68
01/29/06
11.55
1,632.78
05/08/06
9.38
1,634.95
08/23/06
18.74
1,625.59
11/06/06
13.54
1,630.79
02/11/07
10.67
1,633.66
02/26/07
10.08
1,634.25
03/23/07
9.75
1,634.58
04/04/07
9.13
1,635.20
04/29/07
7.89
1,636.44
05/15/07
8.14
1,636.19
06/28/07
7.22
1,637.11
07/12/07
12.95
1,631.38
08/13/07
12.43
1,631.90
10/08/07
9.55
1,634.78
10/28/07
8.42
1,635.91
12/06/07
8.10
1,636.23
01/08/08
7.98
1,636.35
02/03/08
7.88
1,636.45
03/03/08
7.62
1,636.71
04/09/08
7.45
1,636.88
05/11/08
7.22
1,637.11
06/10/08
4.95
1,639.38
08/05/08
11.24
1,633.09
11/17/08
9.51
1,634.82
02/16/09
8.26
1,636.07
05/04/09
7.93
1,636.40
08/10/09
15.45
1,628.88
10/26/09
11.10
1,633.23
11/18/09
9.90
1,634.43
02/01/10
8.75
1,635.58
05/17/10
7.57
1,636.76
07/25/10
6.38
1,637.95
10/24/10*
4.45
1,639.88
02/06/11
8.05
1,636.28
05/15/11
6.98
1,637.35
07/24/11
8.41
1,635.92
10/24/11
8.95
1,635.38
01/24/12
8.44
1,635.89
05/14/12
8.48
1,635.85
08/07/12
24.62
1,619.71
11/09/12
20.24
1,624.09
02/07/13
16.20
1,628.13
05/23/13
13.97
1,630.36
09/10/13
26.59
1,617.74
11/15/13
20.31
1,624.02
Table 2a
Page 45 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW04-03 (continued)
02/03/14
18.14
1,626.19
05/07/14
15.21
1,629.12
12/02/14
17.59
1,626.74
01/30/15
16.21
1,628.12
05/19/15
14.37
1,629.96
08/17/15
21.82
1,622.51
11/03/15
18.39
1,625.94
02/12/16
under snow
NC
05/18/16
11.84
1,632.49
08/08/16
16.67
1,627.66
11/14/16
16.48
1,627.85
02/22/17
13.80
1,630.53
04/22/17
12.77
1,631.56
08/28/17
21.49
1,622.84
10/29/17
17.23
1,627.10
03/13/18
13.07
1,631.26
05/31/18
12.09
1,632.24
08/29/18
15.39
1,628.94
11/16/18
11.10
1,633.23
05/03/19
8.91
1,635.42
07/23/19
8.65
1,635.68
11/22/19
6.22
1,638.11
03/31/20
6.74
1,637.59
06/25/20
11.28
1,633.05
09/30/20
17.25
1,627.08
12/07/20
12.59
1,631.74
05/24/21
10.51
1,633.82
09/08/21
19.66
1,624.67
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 46 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-01
06/06/06
12.24
1,627.78
TOC Elevation:
08/21/06
16.95
1,623.07
1640.02 ft-MSL
11/05/06
12.48
1,627.54
02/10/07
10.28
1,629.74
03/02/07
9.65
1,630.37
03/23/07
9.56
1,630.46
04/04/07
8.80
1,631.22
04/29/07
7.77
1,632.25
05/18/07
8.22
1,631.80
06/28/07
7.70
1,632.32
07/12/07
13.81
1,626.21
08/15/07
10.65
1,629.37
10/08/07
8.47
1,631.55
10/29/07
7.80
1,632.22
12/06/07
7.80
1,632.22
01/08/08
7.72
1,632.30
02/03/08
7.57
1,632.45
03/03/08
7.40
1,632.62
04/09/08
7.11
1,632.91
05/12/08
6.81
1,633.21
06/10/08
4.87
1,635.15
08/06/08
12.15
1,627.87
11/17/08
9.43
1,630.59
02/16/09
8.89
1,631.13
05/04/09
8.62
1,631.40
08/10/09
15.09
1,624.93
10/26/09
14.95
1,625.07
11/18/09
10.47
1,629.55
02/01/10
9.43
1,630.59
05/17/10
7.35
1,632.67
07/25/10
7.49
1,632.53
10/24/10
9.80
1,630.22
02/06/11
8.46
1,631.56
05/15/11
7.39
1,632.63
07/24/11
9.16
1,630.86
10/24/11
9.27
1,630.75
01/24/12
9.32
1,630.70
05/14/12
9.29
1,630.73
08/07/12
24.41
1,615.61
11/09/12
19.52
1,620.50
02/07/13
16.20
1,623.82
05/23/13
13.91
1,626.11
09/10/13
26.06
1,613.96
11/15/13
19.54
1,620.48
02/03/14
17.03
1,622.99
05/07/14
14.59
1,625.43
12/02/14
16.33
1,623.69
Table 2a
Page 47 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-01 (continued)
01/30/15
15.24
1,624.78
05/04/15
13.96
1,626.06
08/17/15
21.78
1,618.24
11/03/15
17.58
1,622.44
02/12/16
15.30
1,624.72
05/19/16
11.24
1,628.78
08/08/16
16.29
1,623.73
11/14/16
15.26
1,624.76
02/21/17
13.11
1,626.91
04/22/17
12.10
1,627.92
08/28/17
19.83
1,620.19
10/29/17
15.97
1,624.05
03/13/18
12.54
1,627.48
05/31/18
11.75
1,628.27
08/29/18
14.35
1,625.67
11/16/18
10.56
1,629.46
05/03/19
9.03
1,630.99
07/23/19
7.62
1,632.40
11/22/19
o
00
00
1,631.22
03/31/20
6.48
1,633.54
06/25/20
11.98
1,628.04
09/30/20
15.45
1,624.57
12/07/20
11.27
1,628.75
05/24/21
10.13
1,629.89
09/08/21
18.05
1,621.97
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 48 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-02A
06/06/06
9.80
1,625.98
TOC Elevation:
08/21/06
14.37
1,621.41
1635.78 ft-MSL
11/05/06
9.90
1,625.88
02/10/07
8.02
1,627.76
03/02/07
7.32
1,628.46
03/23/07
7.29
1,628.49
04/04/07
6.45
1,629.33
04/29/07
5.62
1,630.16
05/18/07
6.20
1,629.58
06/28/07
5.84
1,629.94
07/12/07
11.87
1,623.91
08/21/07
8.47
1,627.31
10/08/07
6.15
1,629.63
10/29/07
5.70
1,630.08
12/06/07
5.80
1,629.98
01/08/08
5.82
1,629.96
02/04/08
5.61
1,630.17
03/03/08
5.56
1,630.22
04/09/08
5.32
1,630.46
05/12/08
4.33
1,631.45
06/11/08
3.42
1,632.36
06/25/08
4.40
1,631.38
08/06/08
12.25
1,623.53
11/17/08
10.53
1,625.25
02/16/09
10.06
1,625.72
05/04/09
9.91
1,625.87
08/10/09
16.50
1,619.28
10/26/09
11.62
1,624.16
11/18/09
11.64
1,624.14
02/01/10
10.60
1,625.18
05/17/10
6.20
1,629.58
07/25/10
8.97
1,626.81
10/24/10
11.25
1,624.53
02/06/11
9.55
1,626.23
05/15/11
8.75
1,627.03
07/24/11
10.85
1,624.93
10/24/11
10.57
1,625.21
01/24/12
11.22
1,624.56
05/14/12
11.19
1,624.59
08/07/12
26.90
1,608.88
11/09/12
21.17
1,614.61
02/07/13
17.83
1,617.95
05/23/13
15.20
1,620.58
09/10/13
27.12
1,608.66
11/15/13
20.82
1,614.96
02/03/14
17.53
1,618.25
05/07/14
15.05
1,620.73
12/02/14
16.40
1,619.38
Table 2a
Page 49 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-02A (continued)
01/30/15
15.34
1,620.44
05/04/15
14.46
1,621.32
08/17/15
23.26
1,612.52
11/03/15
18.28
1,617.50
02/12/16
16.06
1,619.72
05/19/16
11.60
1,624.18
08/08/16
16.59
1,619.19
11/14/16
15.76
1,620.02
02/21/17
13.77
1,622.01
04/22/17
12.76
1,623.02
08/28/17
20.91
1,614.87
10/29/17
16.42
1,619.36
03/13/18
13.20
1,622.58
05/31/18
12.71
1,623.07
08/29/18
15.65
1,620.13
11/16/18
11.11
1,624.67
05/03/19
9.55
1,626.23
07/23/19
6.16
1,629.62
11/22/19
9.34
1,626.44
03/31/20
7.10
1,628.68
06/25/20
12.52
1,623.26
09/30/20
16.56
1,619.22
12/07/20
11.65
1,624.13
05/24/21
11.60
1,624.18
09/08/21
19.51
1,616.27
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 50 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-02B
06/06/06
10.21
1,625.18
TOC Elevation:
08/21/06
14.63
1,620.76
1635.39 ft-MSL
11/05/06
10.12
1,625.27
02/10/07
8.15
1,627.24
03/02/07
7.56
1,627.83
03/23/07
7.45
1,627.94
04/04/07
6.57
1,628.82
04/29/07
5.75
1,629.64
05/18/07
6.35
1,629.04
06/28/07
5.88
1,629.51
07/12/07
12.42
1,622.97
08/21/07
NM
NC
10/08/07
6.37
1,629.02
10/29/07
5.92
1,629.47
12/06/07
5.93
1,629.46
01/08/08
5.88
1,629.51
02/04/08
5.70
1,629.69
03/03/08
5.61
1,629.78
04/09/08
5.46
1,629.93
05/12/08
4.42
1,630.97
06/11/08
3.50
1,631.89
06/25/08
4.30
1,631.09
08/06/08
12.71
1,622.68
11/17/08
10.74
1,624.65
02/16/09
10.20
1,625.19
05/04/09
10.02
1,625.37
08/10/09
16.70
1,618.69
10/26/09
11.40
1,623.99
11/18/09
11.74
1,623.65
02/01/10
10.71
1,624.68
05/17/10
6.02
1,629.37
07/25/10
8.99
1,626.40
10/24/10
11.30
1,624.09
02/06/11
9.79
1,625.60
05/15/11
8.90
1,626.49
07/24/11
11.09
1,624.30
10/24/11
10.75
1,624.64
01/24/12
11.44
1,623.95
05/14/12
11.45
1,623.94
08/07/12
27.35
1,608.04
11/09/12
21.51
1,613.88
02/07/13
18.16
1,617.23
05/23/13
15.50
1,619.89
09/10/13
27.55
1,607.84
11/15/13
21.14
1,614.25
02/03/14
17.77
1,617.62
05/07/14
15.27
1,620.12
12/02/14
16.56
1,618.83
Table 2a
Page 51 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-02B (continued)
01/30/15
15.48
1,619.91
05/04/15
14.60
1,620.79
08/17/15
23.50
1,611.89
11/03/15
18.35
1,617.04
02/12/16
16.06
1,619.33
05/19/16
11.66
1,623.73
08/08/16
16.66
1,618.73
11/14/16
15.68
1,619.71
02/21/17
13.61
1,621.78
04/22/17
12.60
1,622.79
08/28/17
20.72
1,614.67
10/29/17
16.23
1,619.16
03/13/18
12.92
1,622.47
05/31/18
12.43
1,622.96
08/29/18
15.40
1,619.99
11/16/18
10.83
1,624.56
05/03/19
9.80
1,625.59
07/23/19
6.27
1,629.12
11/22/19
9.00
1,626.39
03/31/20
6.76
1,628.63
06/25/20
13.10
1,622.29
09/30/20
16.17
1,619.22
12/07/20
11.29
1,624.10
05/24/21
11.23
1,624.16
09/08/21
19.25
1,616.14
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 52 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-03
06/06/06
17.30
1,628.90
TOC Elevation:
08/21/06
22.68
1,623.52
1646.20 ft-MSL
11/05/06
16.86
1,629.34
02/11/07
14.28
1,631.92
03/02/07
13.65
1,632.55
03/23/07
13.53
1,632.67
04/04/07
12.90
1,633.30
04/30/07
11.83
1,634.37
05/18/07
12.17
1,634.03
06/28/07
11.40
1,634.80
07/12/07
19.70
1,626.50
08/13/07
16.75
1,629.45
10/08/07
12.90
1,633.30
10/29/07
11.87
1,634.33
12/06/07
11.65
1,634.55
01/08/08
11.49
1,634.71
02/03/08
11.40
1,634.80
03/03/08
11.10
1,635.10
04/09/08
10.84
1,635.36
05/12/08
9.88
1,636.32
06/11/08
3.06
1,643.14
06/25/08
9.18
1,637.02
08/05/08
18.18
1,628.02
11/17/08
13.35
1,632.85
02/16/09
11.32
1,634.88
05/04/09
12.02
1,634.18
08/10/09
20.62
1,625.58
10/26/09
11.19
1,635.01
11/18/09
14.03
1,632.17
02/01/10
12.89
1,633.31
05/17/10
11.49
1,634.71
07/25/10
10.80
1,635.40
10/24/10
13.77
1,632.43
02/06/11
11.92
1,634.28
05/15/11
11.90
1,634.30
07/24/11
13.54
1,632.66
10/24/11
12.95
1,633.25
01/24/12
12.97
1,633.23
05/14/12
13.44
1,632.76
08/07/12
33.23
1,612.97
11/09/12
24.55
1,621.65
02/07/13
20.50
1,625.70
05/23/13
18.11
1,628.09
09/10/13
33.45
1,612.75
11/15/13
24.45
1,621.75
02/03/14
21.72
1,624.48
05/07/14
19.00
1,627.20
12/02/14
21.10
1,625.10
Table 2a
Page 53 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-03 (continued)
01/30/15
19.81
1,626.39
05/19/15
18.03
1,628.17
08/17/15
26.94
1,619.26
11/03/15
22.21
1,623.99
02/12/16
19.72
1,626.48
05/18/16
15.61
1,630.59
08/08/16
21.51
1,624.69
11/14/16
19.77
1,626.43
02/22/17
17.18
1,629.02
04/22/17
16.24
1,629.96
08/28/17
25.37
1,620.83
10/29/17
20.58
1,625.62
03/13/18
16.51
1,629.69
05/31/18
15.74
1,630.46
08/29/18
19.83
1,626.37
11/16/18
14.50
1,631.70
05/03/19
12.63
1,633.57
07/23/19
11.91
1,634.29
11/22/19
12.49
1,633.71
03/31/20
10.12
1,636.08
06/25/20
17.70
1,628.50
09/30/20
20.74
1,625.46
12/07/20
15.38
1,630.82
05/24/21
14.32
1,631.88
09/08/21
23.98
1,622.22
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 54 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-04
06/06/06
7.90
1,620.90
TOC Elevation:
08/21/06
11.50
1,617.30
1628.80 ft-MSL
11/05/06
7.20
1,621.60
02/11/07
5.40
1,623.40
03/02/07
4.85
1,623.95
03/23/07
4.94
1,623.86
04/04/07
4.36
1,624.44
04/30/07
3.72
1,625.08
05/18/07
4.24
1,624.56
06/28/07
4.06
1,624.74
07/12/07
12.32
1,616.48
08/15/07
6.84
1,621.96
10/08/07
4.12
1,624.68
10/29/07
3.65
1,625.15
12/06/07
3.70
1,625.10
01/08/08
3.45
1,625.35
02/03/08
3.35
1,625.45
03/03/08
3.30
1,625.50
04/09/08
2.81
1,625.99
05/12/08
3.21
1,625.59
06/11/08
8.38
1,620.42
06/25/08
1.90
1,626.90
08/06/08
12.83
1,615.97
11/17/08
4.01
1,624.79
02/16/09
3.41
1,625.39
05/04/09
3.11
1,625.69
08/10/09
10.12
1,618.68
10/26/09
5.10
1,623.70
11/18/09
5.55
1,623.25
02/01/10
3.74
1,625.06
05/17/10
2.50
1,626.30
07/25/10
2.18
1,626.62
10/24/10
4.04
1,624.76
02/06/11
2.85
1,625.95
10/24/11
3.46
1,625.34
01/24/12
6.35
1,622.45
05/14/12
7.48
1,621.32
08/07/12
29.28
1,599.52
11/09/12
14.63
1,614.17
02/07/13
11.51
1,617.29
05/23/13
7.25
1,621.55
09/10/13
26.35
1,602.45
11/15/13
14.60
1,614.20
02/03/14
11.94
1,616.86
05/07/14
9.55
1,619.25
12/02/14
11.25
1,617.55
Table 2a
Page 55 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW06-04 (continued)
01/30/15
10.31
1,618.49
05/19/15
8.33
1,620.47
08/17/15
19.18
1,609.62
11/05/15
12.43
1,616.37
02/11/16
10.39
1,618.41
05/18/16
6.75
1,622.05
08/08/16
13.00
1,615.80
11/14/16
9.93
1,618.87
02/21/17
8.22
1,620.58
04/22/17
7.52
1,621.28
08/28/17
14.53
1,614.27
10/29/17
10.58
1,618.22
03/13/18
7.55
1,621.25
05/31/18
7.26
1,621.54
08/30/18
12.57
1,616.23
11/16/18
5.78
1,623.02
05/03/19
5.40
1,623.40
07/23/19
5.09
1,623.71
11/22/19
3.02
1,625.78
03/31/20
1.20
1,627.60
06/25/20
12.42
1,616.38
09/29/20
5.80
1,623.00
12/07/20
4.72
1,624.08
05/24/21
6.64
1,622.16
09/08/21
14.10
1,614.70
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 56 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW07-01A
10/28/07
6.98
1,630.54
TOC Elevation:
01/08/08
6.95
1,630.57
1637.52 ft-MSL
02/04/08
6.78
1,630.74
03/03/08
6.65
1,630.87
04/09/08
6.41
1,631.11
05/12/08
5.42
1,632.10
06/11/08
4.46
1,633.06
08/06/08
12.35
1,625.17
11/17/08
9.97
1,627.55
02/16/09
9.43
1,628.09
05/04/09
9.23
1,628.29
08/10/09
15.64
1,621.88
10/26/09
12.25
1,625.27
11/18/09
10.97
1,626.55
02/01/10
10.12
1,627.40
05/17/10
6.93
1,630.59
07/25/10
6.13
1,631.39
10/24/10*
32.00
1,605.52
02/06/11
8.97
1,628.55
05/15/11
8.11
1,629.41
07/24/11
9.95
1,627.57
10/24/11
9.86
1,627.66
01/24/12
10.25
1,627.27
05/14/12
10.23
1,627.29
08/07/12
25.64
1,611.88
11/09/12
20.22
1,617.30
02/07/13
16.92
1,620.60
05/23/13
14.49
1,623.03
09/10/13
26.56
1,610.96
11/15/13
20.09
1,617.43
02/03/14
17.21
1,620.31
05/07/14
14.77
1,622.75
12/02/14
16.31
1,621.21
01/30/15
15.26
1,622.26
05/04/15
14.20
1,623.32
08/17/15
22.46
1,615.06
11/03/15
17.86
1,619.66
02/12/16
16.61
1,620.91
05/19/16
11.37
1,626.15
08/08/16
16.38
1,621.14
11/14/16
15.41
1,622.11
02/21/17
13.35
1,624.17
04/22/17
12.38
1,625.14
08/28/17
20.21
1,617.31
10/29/17
16.07
1,621.45
03/13/18
12.77
1,624.75
05/31/18
12.13
1,625.39
08/29/18
14.88
1,622.64
11/16/18
10.75
1,626.77
Table 2a
Page 57 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW07-01A (continued)
05/03/19
9.43
1,628.09
07/23/19
7.12
1,630.40
11/22/19
9.04
1,628.48
03/31/20
6.78
1,630.74
06/25/20
12.66
1,624.86
09/30/20
15.83
1,621.69
12/07/20
11.37
1,626.15
05/24/21
10.79
1,626.73
09/08/21
18.65
1,618.87
Well Abandoned - November 2021
MW07-01B
10/28/07
6.89
1,630.60
TOC Elevation:
01/08/08
6.69
1,630.80
1637.49 ft-MSL
02/04/08
6.55
1,630.94
03/03/08
6.45
1,631.04
04/09/08
6.19
1,631.30
05/12/08
5.18
1,632.31
06/11/08
4.25
1,633.24
08/06/08
12.21
1,625.28
11/17/08
9.79
1,627.70
02/16/09
9.22
1,628.27
05/04/09
8.99
1,628.50
08/10/09
15.51
1,621.98
10/26/09
12.40
1,625.09
11/18/09
10.76
1,626.73
02/01/10
9.75
1,627.74
05/17/10
6.67
1,630.82
07/25/10
7.90
1,629.59
10/24/10
10.20
1,627.29
02/06/11
8.68
1,628.81
05/15/11
7.85
1,629.64
07/24/11
9.76
1,627.73
10/24/11
9.65
1,627.84
01/24/12
10.03
1,627.46
05/14/12
10.04
1,627.45
08/07/12
25.59
1,611.90
11/09/12
20.10
1,617.39
02/07/13
16.78
1,620.71
05/23/13
14.30
1,623.19
09/10/13
26.51
1,610.98
11/15/13
19.95
1,617.54
02/03/14
17.05
1,620.44
05/07/14
14.61
1,622.88
12/02/14
16.15
1,621.34
01/30/15
15.10
1,622.39
05/04/15
13.97
1,623.52
08/17/15
22.34
1,615.15
11/03/15
17.67
1,619.82
Table 2a
Page 58 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW07-01B (continued)
02/12/16
15.42
1,622.07
05/19/16
11.20
1,626.29
08/08/16
16.25
1,621.24
11/14/16
15.21
1,622.28
02/21/17
13.13
1,624.36
04/22/17
12.14
1,625.35
08/28/17
20.03
1,617.46
10/29/17
15.88
1,621.61
03/13/18
12.55
1,624.94
05/31/18
11.88
1,625.61
08/29/18
14.67
1,622.82
11/16/18
10.50
1,626.99
05/03/19
9.16
1,628.33
07/23/19
6.93
1,630.56
11/22/19
8.76
1,628.73
03/31/20
6.50
1,630.99
06/25/20
12.49
1,625.00
09/30/20
15.56
1,621.93
12/07/20
11.11
1,626.38
03/22/21 a
8.18
1,629.31
05/24/21
10.51
1,626.98
09/08/21
18.45
1,619.04
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 59 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW09-01
11/18/09
15.58
1,619.74
TOC Elevation:
02/01/10
14.49
1,620.83
1635.32 ft-MSL
05/17/10
16.65
1,618.67
07/25/10
12.79
1,622.53
10/24/10
15.39
1,619.93
02/06/11
13.14
1,622.18
05/15/11
12.65
1,622.67
07/24/11
15.01
1,620.31
10/24/11
14.50
1,620.82
01/24/12
15.28
1,620.04
05/14/12
15.31
1,620.01
08/07/12
30.59
1,604.73
11/09/12
25.47
1,609.85
02/07/13
22.27
1,613.05
05/23/13
19.69
1,615.63
09/10/13
27.55
1,607.77
11/15/13
25.25
1,610.07
02/03/14
21.19
1,614.13
05/07/14
18.80
1,616.52
12/02/14
19.90
1,615.42
01/30/15
18.90
1,616.42
05/04/15
18.73
1,616.59
08/17/15
28.54
1,606.78
11/03/15
22.53
1,612.79
02/12/16
20.64
1,614.68
05/19/16
16.12
1,619.20
08/08/16
20.74
1,614.58
11/14/16
20.33
1,614.99
02/22/17
18.35
1,616.97
04/22/17
17.50
1,617.82
08/28/17
25.98
1,609.34
10/29/17
21.10
1,614.22
03/13/18
17.97
1,617.35
05/31/18
17.88
1,617.44
08/29/18
20.77
1,614.55
11/16/18
15.64
1,619.68
05/03/19
14.33
1,620.99
07/23/19
6.69
1,628.63
11/22/19
13.55
1,621.77
03/31/20
11.34
1,623.98
06/25/20
17.60
1,617.72
09/30/20
21.31
1,614.01
12/07/20
15.67
1,619.65
05/24/21
16.55
1,618.77
09/08/21
23.95
1,611.37
11/02/21
19.22
1,616.10
02/17/22
13.71
1,621.61
Well Abandoned - April 2022
Table 2a
Page 60 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW09-02
11/18/09
20.08
1,640.03
TOC Elevation:
02/01/10
26.44
1,633.67
1660.11 ft-MSL
05/17/10
25.20
1,634.91
07/25/10
23.67
1,636.44
10/24/10
24.73
1,635.38
02/06/11
25.85
1,634.26
05/15/11
25.00
1,635.11
07/24/11
26.38
1,633.73
10/24/11
27.24
1,632.87
01/24/12
26.48
1,633.63
05/14/12
26.83
1,633.28
08/07/12
44.09
1,616.02
11/09/12
39.80
1,620.31
02/07/13
35.15
1,624.96
05/23/13
33.42
1,626.69
09/10/13
46.34
1,613.77
11/15/13
40.97
1,619.14
02/03/14
39.20
1,620.91
05/07/14
34.98
1,625.13
12/02/14
36.60
1,623.51
01/30/15
35.27
1,624.84
05/21/15
34.65
1,625.46
08/17/15
43.58
1,616.53
11/05/15
37.36
1,622.75
02/12/16
35.16
1,624.95
05/18/16
31.11
1,629.00
08/08/16
38.90
1,621.21
11/14/16
36.47
1,623.64
02/22/17
33.59
1,626.52
04/22/17
32.61
1,627.50
08/28/17
43.48
1,616.63
10/29/17
36.12
1,623.99
03/13/18
31.84
1,628.27
05/31/18
33.75
1,626.36
08/29/18
36.28
1,623.83
11/16/18
30.14
1,629.97
05/03/19
27.58
1,632.53
07/23/19
27.38
1,632.73
11/22/19
27.57
1,632.54
03/31/20
16.65
1,643.46
06/25/20
NM
NM
09/30/20
37.97
1,622.14
12/07/20
31.12
1,628.99
05/24/21
28.59
1,631.52
09/08/21
41.13
1,618.98
11/02/21
36.71
1,623.40
02/17/22
33.03
1,627.08
Well Abandoned - April 2022
Table 2a
Page 61 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW09-03A
11/18/09
19.69
1,640.42
TOC Elevation:
05/17/10
21.14
1,638.97
1660.11 ft-MSL
07/25/10
19.47
1,640.64
10/24/10
23.20
1,636.91
02/06/11
21.58
1,638.53
05/15/11
20.66
1,639.45
07/24/11
22.11
1,638.00
10/24/11
22.83
1,637.28
01/24/12
22.01
1,638.10
05/14/12
22.45
1,637.66
08/07/12
40.31
1,619.80
11/09/12
35.05
1,625.06
02/07/13
30.43
1,629.68
05/23/13
28.65
1,631.46
09/10/13
42.03
1,618.08
11/15/13
35.97
1,624.14
02/03/14
34.03
1,626.08
05/07/14
29.74
1,630.37
12/02/14
32.51
1,627.60
01/30/15
31.09
1,629.02
05/21/15
29.80
1,630.31
08/17/15
38.07
1,622.04
11/05/15
33.05
1,627.06
02/12/16
30.73
1,629.38
05/18/16
26.65
1,633.46
08/08/16
34.20
1,625.91
11/14/16
31.51
1,628.60
02/22/17
28.52
1,631.59
04/22/17
27.52
1,632.59
08/28/17
37.77
1,622.34
10/29/17
31.59
1,628.52
03/13/18
27.08
1,633.03
05/31/18
27.62
1,632.49
08/30/18
30.65
1,629.46
11/16/18
25.27
1,634.84
05/03/19
22.71
1,637.40
07/23/19
22.49
1,637.62
11/22/19
22.67
1,637.44
03/31/20
16.34
1,643.77
06/25/20
NM
NM
09/30/20
32.30
1,627.81
12/07/20
26.31
1,633.80
05/24/21
23.71
1,636.40
09/08/21
35.06
1,625.05
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 62 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW09-03B
11/18/09
19.08
1,640.41
TOC Elevation:
05/17/10
20.53
1,638.96
1659.49 ft-MSL
07/25/10
18.60
1,640.89
10/24/10
22.60
1,636.89
02/06/11
21.02
1,638.47
05/15/11
20.14
1,639.35
07/24/11
21.52
1,637.97
10/24/11
22.25
1,637.24
01/24/12
21.45
1,638.04
05/14/12
21.87
1,637.62
08/07/12
39.74
1,619.75
11/09/12
34.46
1,625.03
02/07/13
29.86
1,629.63
05/23/13
28.09
1,631.40
09/10/13
41.45
1,618.04
11/15/13
35.40
1,624.09
02/13/14"
33.12
1,626.37
05/07/14
29.18
1,630.31
12/02/14
31.95
1,627.54
01/30/15
30.50
1,628.99
05/21/15
29.23
1,630.26
08/17/15
37.50
1,621.99
11/05/15
32.50
1,626.99
02/12/16
30.16
1,629.33
05/18/16
26.07
1,633.42
08/08/16
33.61
1,625.88
11/14/16
30.94
1,628.55
02/22/17
27.65
1,631.84
04/22/17
26.95
1,632.54
08/28/17
37.16
1,622.33
10/29/17
31.00
1,628.49
03/13/18
26.51
1,632.98
05/31/18
27.04
1,632.45
08/30/18
30.07
1,629.42
11/16/18
24.71
1,634.78
05/03/19
22.12
1,637.37
07/23/19
21.92
1,637.57
11/22/19
22.09
1,637.40
03/31/20
15.71
1,643.78
06/25/20
NM
NM
09/30/20
31.72
1,627.77
12/07/20
25.72
1,633.77
05/24/21
23.13
1,636.36
09/08/21
34.47
1,625.02
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 63 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW09-04A
11/18/09
30.11
1,638.98
TOC Elevation:
02/01/10
30.96
1,638.13
1669.09 ft-MSL
05/17/10
29.42
1,639.67
07/25/10
28.08
1,641.01
10/24/10
31.75
1,637.34
02/06/11
30.02
1,639.07
05/15/11
29.22
1,639.87
07/24/11
30.45
1,638.64
10/24/11
31.33
1,637.76
01/24/12
30.58
1,638.51
05/14/12
30.80
1,638.29
08/07/12
47.82
1,621.27
11/09/12
43.35
1,625.74
02/07/13
38.87
1,630.22
05/23/13
36.98
1,632.11
09/10/13
49.79
1,619.30
11/15/13
43.95
1,625.14
02/03/14
42.03
1,627.06
05/07/14
37.81
1,631.28
12/02/14
40.95
1,628.14
01/30/15
39.53
1,629.56
05/21/15
38.01
1,631.08
08/17/15
45.67
1,623.42
11/05/15
41.47
1,627.62
02/15/16
38.84
1,630.25
05/18/16
35.12
1,633.97
08/08/16
41.39
1,627.70
11/14/16
39.78
1,629.31
02/22/17
36.84
1,632.25
04/22/17
35.83
1,633.26
08/28/17
45.56
1,623.53
10/29/17
40.12
1,628.97
03/13/18
35.67
1,633.42
05/31/18
35.55
1,633.54
08/29/18
38.50
1,630.59
11/16/18
33.78
1,635.31
03/11/19"
23.57
1,645.52
05/03/19
31.15
1,637.94
07/23/19
30.95
1,638.14
11/22/19
31.33
1,637.76
03/31/20
26.64
1,642.45
06/25/20
33.33
1,635.76
09/30/20
40.42
1,628.67
12/07/20
34.98
1,634.11
03/22/21 a
31.40
1,637.69
05/24/21
32.22
1,636.87
09/08/21
42.85
1,626.24
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 64 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW09-04B
11/18/09
29.80
1,638.97
TOC Elevation:
02/01/10
30.64
1,638.13
1668.77 ft-MSL
05/17/10
29.05
1,639.72
07/25/10
27.75
1,641.02
10/24/10
31.50
1,637.27
02/06/11
29.89
1,638.88
05/15/11
28.98
1,639.79
07/24/11
30.12
1,638.65
10/24/11
31.03
1,637.74
01/24/12
30.25
1,638.52
05/14/12
30.47
1,638.30
08/07/12
47.46
1,621.31
11/09/12
43.00
1,625.77
02/07/13
38.53
1,630.24
05/23/13
36.65
1,632.12
09/10/13
49.45
1,619.32
11/15/13
43.62
1,625.15
02/03/14
41.69
1,627.08
05/07/14
37.48
1,631.29
12/02/14
40.63
1,628.14
01/30/15
39.19
1,629.58
05/21/15
37.68
1,631.09
08/17/15
45.33
1,623.44
11/05/15
41.14
1,627.63
02/15/16
38.49
1,630.28
05/18/16
34.77
1,634.00
08/08/16
41.03
1,627.74
11/14/16
39.45
1,629.32
02/22/17
36.51
1,632.26
04/22/17
35.49
1,633.28
08/28/17
45.20
1,623.57
10/29/17
39.81
1,628.96
03/13/18
35.36
1,633.41
05/31/18
35.21
1,633.56
08/29/18
38.15
1,630.62
11/16/18
33.41
1,635.36
03/11/19"
23.01
1,645.76
05/03/19
30.80
1,637.97
07/23/19
30.61
1,638.16
11/22/19
31.00
1,637.77
03/31/20
26.31
1,642.46
06/25/20
32.97
1,635.80
09/30/20
40.05
1,628.72
12/07/20
34.62
1,634.15
03/22/21 a
31.07
1,637.70
05/24/21
31.87
1,636.90
09/08/21
42.47
1,626.30
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 65 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW10-01A
07/25/10
8.55
1,625.80
TOC Elevation:
10/24/10
10.80
1,623.55
1634.35 ft-MSL
02/06/11
9.33
1,625.02
05/15/11
8.35
1,626.00
07/24/11*
11.56
1,622.79
10/24/11
10.26
1,624.09
01/24/12
11.10
1,623.25
05/14/12
11.04
1,623.31
New TOC Elevation:
08/07/12
26.95
1,607.40
1634.25 ft-MSL
11/09/12
20.94
1,613.31
02/07/13
17.58
1,616.67
05/23/13
14.88
1,619.37
09/10/13
27.26
1,606.99
11/15/13
20.56
1,613.69
02/03/14
17.23
1,617.02
05/07/14
14.79
1,619.46
12/02/14
16.08
1,618.17
01/30/15
15.02
1,619.23
05/04/15
14.16
1,620.09
08/17/15
22.91
1,611.34
11/03/15
18.03
1,616.22
02/12/16
15.70
1,618.55
05/19/16
11.04
1,623.21
08/08/16
16.25
1,618.00
11/14/16
15.38
1,618.87
New TOC Elevation:
02/21/17
13.43
1,620.83
1634.26 ft-MSL
04/22/17
12.35
1,621.91
08/28/17
20.52
1,613.74
10/29/17
16.02
1,618.24
03/13/18
12.77
1,621.49
05/31/18
12.29
1,621.97
08/29/18
15.35
1,618.91
11/16/18
10.70
1,623.56
05/03/19
9.41
1,624.85
07/23/19
5.98
1,628.28
11/22/19
8.95
1,625.31
03/31/20
6.63
1,627.63
06/25/20
12.74
1,621.52
09/30/20
16.18
1,618.08
12/07/20
11.24
1,623.02
05/24/21
11.28
1,622.98
09/08/21
19.28
1,614.98
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 66 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW10-01B
07/25/10
8.20
1,626.13
TOC Elevation:
10/24/10
10.48
1,623.85
1634.33 ft-MSL
02/06/11
8.92
1,625.41
05/15/11
8.10
1,626.23
07/24/11*
11.49
1,622.84
10/24/11
9.90
1,624.43
01/24/12
10.76
1,623.57
05/14/12
10.76
1,623.57
08/07/12
27.05
1,607.28
11/09/12
20.58
1,613.75
02/07/13
17.19
1,617.14
05/23/13
14.45
1,619.88
09/10/13
27.07
1,607.26
11/15/13
20.23
1,614.10
02/03/14
16.90
1,617.43
05/07/14
14.42
1,619.91
12/02/14
15.76
1,618.57
01/30/15
14.72
1,619.61
05/04/15
13.82
1,620.51
08/17/15
22.76
1,611.57
11/03/15
17.66
1,616.67
02/12/16
15.38
1,618.95
05/19/16
10.92
1,623.41
08/08/16
16.11
1,618.22
11/14/16
15.06
1,619.27
New TOC Elevation:
02/21/17
13.08
1,621.23
1634.31 ft-MSL
04/22/17
12.10
1,622.21
08/28/17
20.24
1,614.07
10/29/17
15.74
1,618.57
03/13/18
12.46
1,621.85
05/31/18
12.02
1,622.29
08/29/18
15.07
1,619.24
11/16/18
10.41
1,623.90
05/03/19
9.12
1,625.19
07/23/19
5.76
1,628.55
11/22/19
8.59
1,625.72
03/31/20
6.36
1,627.95
06/25/20
12.72
1,621.59
09/30/20
15.80
1,618.51
12/07/20
10.82
1,623.49
05/24/21
10.99
1,623.32
09/08/21
19.01
1,615.30
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 67 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW10-01C
07/25/10
8.39
1,626.00
TOC Elevation:
10/24/10
10.75
1,623.64
1634.39 ft-MSL
02/06/11
9.04
1,625.35
05/15/11
8.30
1,626.09
07/24/11*
11.79
1,622.60
10/24/11
10.10
1,624.29
01/24/12
11.01
1,623.38
05/14/12
11.05
1,623.34
08/07/12
27.40
1,606.99
11/09/12
21.00
1,613.39
02/07/13
17.63
1,616.76
05/23/13
14.85
1,619.54
09/10/13
27.41
1,606.98
11/15/13
20.65
1,613.74
02/03/14
17.22
1,617.17
05/07/14
14.72
1,619.67
12/02/14
15.98
1,618.41
01/30/15
14.95
1,619.44
05/04/15
14.13
1,620.26
08/17/15
23.10
1,611.29
11/03/15
17.84
1,616.55
02/12/16
15.50
1,618.89
05/19/16
11.03
1,623.36
08/08/16
16.15
1,618.24
11/14/16
15.03
1,619.36
New TOC Elevation:
02/21/17
13.02
1,621.37
1634.39 ft-MSL
04/22/17
12.03
1,622.36
08/28/17
20.15
1,614.24
10/29/17
15.61
1,618.78
03/13/18
12.32
1,622.07
05/31/18
11.86
1,622.53
08/29/18
14.97
1,619.42
11/16/18
10.25
1,624.14
05/03/19
9.00
1,625.39
07/23/19
5.75
1,628.64
11/22/19
8.35
1,626.04
03/31/20
6.17
1,628.22
06/25/20
12.70
1,621.69
09/30/20
15.55
1,618.84
12/07/20
10.61
1,623.78
05/24/21
10.78
1,623.61
09/08/21
18.84
1,615.55
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 68 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW10-02A
07/25/10
9.74
1,625.80
TOC Elevation:
10/24/10
11.92
1,623.62
1635.54 ft-MSL
02/06/11
10.41
1,625.13
05/15/11
9.51
1,626.03
07/24/11*
10.53
1,625.01
10/24/11*
7.31
1,628.23
01/24/12
12.06
1,623.48
05/14/12
12.01
1,623.53
08/07/12
27.66
1,607.88
11/09/12
21.71
1,613.83
02/07/13
18.44
1,617.10
05/23/13
15.82
1,619.72
09/10/13
27.73
1,607.81
11/15/13
21.42
1,614.12
02/03/14
18.17
1,617.37
05/07/14
15.76
1,619.78
12/02/14
17.06
1,618.48
01/30/15
16.05
1,619.49
05/04/15
15.15
1,620.39
08/17/15
23.97
1,611.57
11/03/15
18.97
1,616.57
02/15/16
16.31
1,619.23
05/19/16
12.14
1,623.40
08/08/16
17.11
1,618.43
11/14/16
16.27
1,619.27
New TOC Elevation:
02/21/17
14.37
1,620.98
1635.35 ft-MSL
04/22/17
13.39
1,621.96
08/28/17
21.31
1,614.04
10/29/17
16.89
1,618.46
03/13/18
13.79
1,621.56
05/31/18
13.30
1,622.05
08/30/18
16.46
1,618.89
11/16/18
11.75
1,623.60
05/03/19
10.59
1,624.76
07/23/19
7.27
1,628.08
11/22/19
10.11
1,625.24
03/31/20
7.94
1,627.41
06/25/20
14.12
1,621.23
09/30/20
16.98
1,618.37
12/07/20
12.25
1,623.10
03/22/21 "
9.44
1,625.91
05/24/21
12.31
1,623.04
09/08/21
20.00
1,615.35
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 69 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW10-02B
07/25/10
9.54
1,625.99
TOC Elevation:
10/24/10
11.85
1,623.68
1635.53 ft-MSL
02/06/11
9.98
1,625.55
05/15/11
9.37
1,626.16
07/24/11*
10.24
1,625.29
10/24/11
11.15
1,624.38
01/24/12
12.01
1,623.52
05/14/12
12.01
1,623.52
08/07/12
28.06
1,607.47
11/09/12
21.77
1,613.76
02/07/13
18.46
1,617.07
05/23/13
15.75
1,619.78
09/10/13
28.00
1,607.53
11/15/13
21.45
1,614.08
02/03/14
18.14
1,617.39
05/07/14
15.71
1,619.82
12/02/14
17.08
1,618.45
01/30/15
16.02
1,619.51
05/04/15
15.12
1,620.41
08/17/15
24.12
1,611.41
11/03/15
18.93
1,616.60
02/15/16
16.28
1,619.25
05/19/16
12.16
1,623.37
08/08/16
17.22
1,618.31
11/14/16
16.21
1,619.32
New TOC Elevation:
02/21/17
14.28
1,621.13
1635.41 ft-MSL
04/22/17
13.29
1,622.12
08/28/17
21.33
1,614.08
10/29/17
16.83
1,618.58
03/13/18
13.68
1,621.73
05/31/18
13.22
1,622.19
08/30/18
16.50
1,618.91
11/16/18
11.64
1,623.77
05/03/19
10.50
1,624.91
07/23/19
7.04
1,628.37
11/22/19
9.87
1,625.54
03/31/20
7.72
1,627.69
06/25/20
14.41
1,621.00
09/30/20
16.93
1,618.48
12/07/20
12.06
1,623.35
03/22/21 "
9.21
1,626.20
05/24/21
12.26
1,623.15
09/08/21
20.12
1,615.29
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 70 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW10-02C
07/25/10
9.69
1,625.82
TOC Elevation:
10/24/10
12.00
1,623.51
1635.51 ft-MSL
02/06/11
10.32
1,625.19
05/15/11
9.59
1,625.92
07/24/11
10.50
1,625.01
10/24/11
11.37
1,624.14
01/24/12
12.38
1,623.13
05/14/12
12.43
1,623.08
08/07/12
28.83
1,606.68
New TOC Elevation:
11/09/12
22.17
1,613.24
1635.41 ft-MSL
02/07/13
18.87
1,616.54
05/23/13
16.00
1,619.41
09/10/13
28.50
1,606.91
11/15/13
21.81
1,613.60
02/03/14
18.34
1,617.07
05/07/14
15.90
1,619.51
12/02/14
17.15
1,618.26
01/30/15
16.10
1,619.31
05/04/15
15.22
1,620.19
08/17/15
24.41
1,611.00
11/03/15
18.96
1,616.45
02/15/16
16.32
1,619.09
05/19/16
12.18
1,623.23
08/08/16
17.32
1,618.09
11/14/16
16.11
1,619.30
New TOC Elevation:
02/21/17
14.11
1,621.19
1635.30 ft-MSL
04/22/17
13.11
1,622.19
08/28/17
21.19
1,614.11
10/29/17
16.64
1,618.66
03/13/18
13.37
1,621.93
05/31/18
12.93
1,622.37
08/30/18
16.32
1,618.98
11/16/18
11.30
1,624.00
05/03/19
10.10
1,625.20
07/23/19
6.95
1,628.35
11/22/19
9.38
1,625.92
03/31/20
7.21
1,628.09
06/25/20
14.29
1,621.01
09/30/20
16.43
1,618.87
12/07/20
11.55
1,623.75
03/22/21 "
8.70
1,626.60
05/24/21
11.85
1,623.45
09/08/21
19.79
1,615.51
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 71 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-01A
10/24/11
18.31
1,637.49
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
17.54
1,638.26
1655.80 ft-MSL
05/14/12
17.70
1,638.10
08/07/12
NM
NC
11/09/12
30.09
1,625.71
02/07/13
25.62
1,630.18
05/23/13
23.82
1,631.98
09/10/13
NM
NC
11/15/13
30.80
1,625.00
02/03/14
29.01
1,626.79
05/07/14
24.81
1,630.99
12/02/14
27.73
1,628.07
01/30/15
26.35
1,629.45
05/21/15
24.93
1,630.87
08/17/15
NM
NC
11/05/15
28.21
1,627.59
02/12/16
25.95
1,629.85
05/19/16
21.72
1,634.08
08/08/16
No access
NC
11/14/16
26.67
1,629.13
02/22/17
23.78
1,632.02
04/22/17
22.72
1,633.08
08/28/17
32.30
1,623.50
10/29/17
26.84
1,628.96
03/13/18
22.47
1,633.33
05/31/18
22.64
1,633.16
08/30/18
25.16
1,630.64
11/16/18
20.63
1,635.17
05/03/19
18.01
1,637.79
07/23/19
17.77
1,638.03
11/22/19
18.28
1,637.52
03/31/20
12.85
1,642.95
06/25/20
19.82
1,635.98
09/30/20
27.13
1,628.67
12/07/20
21.76
1,634.04
05/24/21
18.99
1,636.81
09/08/21
29.48
1,626.32
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 72 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-01B
10/24/11
18.25
1,637.50
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
17.48
1,638.27
1655.75 ft-MSL
05/14/12
17.64
1,638.11
08/07/12
NM
NC
11/09/12
30.03
1,625.72
02/07/13
25.57
1,630.18
05/23/13
23.76
1,631.99
09/10/13
NM
NC
11/15/13
30.75
1,625.00
02/03/14
28.97
1,626.78
05/07/14
24.76
1,630.99
12/02/14
27.69
1,628.06
01/30/15
26.32
1,629.43
05/21/15
24.86
1,630.89
08/17/15
NM
NC
11/05/15
28.18
1,627.57
02/12/16
25.92
1,629.83
05/19/16
21.69
1,634.06
08/08/16
No access
NC
11/14/16
26.64
1,629.11
02/22/17
23.44
1,632.31
04/22/17
22.71
1,633.04
08/28/17
32.27
1,623.48
10/29/17
26.83
1,628.92
03/13/18
22.45
1,633.30
05/31/18
22.60
1,633.15
08/30/18
25.14
1,630.61
11/16/18
20.60
1,635.15
05/03/19
18.06
1,637.69
07/23/19
17.77
1,637.98
11/22/19
18.25
1,637.50
03/31/20
12.85
1,642.90
06/25/20
19.80
1,635.95
09/30/20
27.10
1,628.65
12/07/20
21.74
1,634.01
05/24/21
18.99
1,636.76
09/08/21
29.45
1,626.30
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 73 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-02A
10/24/11
10.74
1,624.20
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
12.06
1,622.88
1634.94 ft-MSL
05/14/12
11.88
1,623.06
08/07/12
27.88
1,607.06
11/09/12
20.20
1,614.74
02/07/13
16.90
1,618.04
05/23/13
14.10
1,620.84
09/10/13
27.15
1,607.79
11/15/13
20.00
1,614.94
02/03/14
17.29
1,617.65
05/07/14
15.00
1,619.94
12/02/14
16.51
1,618.43
01/30/15
15.44
1,619.50
05/04/15
14.05
1,620.89
08/17/15
22.55
1,612.39
11/03/15
17.87
1,617.07
02/15/16
16.34
1,618.60
05/19/16
11.57
1,623.37
08/08/16
16.44
1,618.50
11/14/16
15.11
1,619.83
02/21/17
13.45
1,621.49
04/22/17
12.60
1,622.34
08/28/17
19.80
1,615.14
10/29/17
15.62
1,619.32
03/13/18
12.88
1,622.06
05/31/18
12.43
1,622.51
08/30/18
15.24
1,619.70
11/16/18
11.27
1,623.67
05/03/19
10.60
1,624.34
07/23/19
10.10
1,624.84
11/22/19
10.06
1,624.88
03/31/20
8.27
1,626.67
06/25/20
13.19
1,621.75
09/30/20
15.49
1,619.45
12/07/20
11.62
1,623.32
03/22/21 a
9.20
1,625.74
05/24/21
11.94
1,623.00
09/08/21
19.18
1,615.76
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 74 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-02B
10/24/11
9.62
1,624.92
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
12.73
1,621.81
1634.54 ft-MSL
05/14/12
12.96
1,621.58
08/07/12
32.85
1,601.69
11/09/12
21.42
1,613.12
02/07/13
18.12
1,616.42
05/23/13
13.60
1,620.94
09/10/13
30.56
1,603.98
11/15/13
21.25
1,613.29
02/03/14
18.25
1,616.29
05/07/14
15.79
1,618.75
12/02/14
17.37
1,617.17
01/30/15
16.38
1,618.16
05/04/15
14.75
1,619.79
08/17/15
24.93
1,609.61
11/03/15
18.80
1,615.74
02/15/16
16.35
1,618.19
05/19/16
12.32
1,622.22
08/08/16
18.77
1,615.77
11/14/16
16.02
1,618.52
02/21/17
14.25
1,620.29
04/22/17
13.44
1,621.10
08/28/17
20.93
1,613.61
10/29/17
16.70
1,617.84
03/13/18
13.47
1,621.07
05/31/18
13.18
1,621.36
08/30/18
17.34
1,617.20
11/16/18
11.65
1,622.89
05/03/19
10.80
1,623.74
07/23/19
10.01
1,624.53
11/22/19
8.82
1,625.72
03/31/20
6.60
1,627.94
06/25/20
16.47
1,618.07
09/30/20
14.98
1,619.56
12/07/20
10.72
1,623.82
03/22/21 "
8.16
1,626.38
05/24/21
12.79
1,621.75
09/08/21
20.52
1,614.02
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 75 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-02C
10/24/11
9.58
1,625.00
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
12.69
1,621.89
1634.58 ft-MSL
05/14/12
12.94
1,621.64
08/07/12
32.82
1,601.76
11/09/12
21.41
1,613.17
02/07/13
18.11
1,616.47
05/23/13
13.59
1,620.99
09/10/13
30.60
1,603.98
11/15/13
21.21
1,613.37
02/03/14
18.23
1,616.35
05/07/14
15.77
1,618.81
12/02/14
18.90
1,615.68
01/30/15
16.35
1,618.23
05/04/15
14.73
1,619.85
08/17/15
24.91
1,609.67
11/03/15
18.78
1,615.80
02/15/16
15.34
1,619.24
05/19/16
12.31
1,622.27
08/08/16
18.87
1,615.71
11/14/16
16.02
1,618.56
02/21/17
14.24
1,620.34
04/22/17
13.41
1,621.17
08/28/17
20.91
1,613.67
10/29/17
16.68
1,617.90
03/13/18
13.47
1,621.11
05/31/18
13.14
1,621.44
08/30/18
17.37
1,617.21
11/16/18
11.65
1,622.93
05/03/19
10.79
1,623.79
07/23/19
9.98
1,624.60
11/22/19
O
00
00
1,625.78
03/31/20
6.86
1,627.72
06/25/20
16.44
1,618.14
09/30/20
15.96
1,618.62
12/07/20
10.68
1,623.90
03/22/21 a
8.14
1,626.44
05/24/21
12.76
1,621.82
09/08/21
20.50
1,614.08
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 76 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-03A
10/24/11
4.26
1,623.13
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
5.24
1,622.15
1627.39 ft-MSL
05/14/12
5.11
1,622.28
08/07/12
20.00
1,607.39
11/09/12
11.91
1,615.48
02/07/13
8.72
1,618.67
05/23/13
6.43
1,620.96
09/10/13
18.95
1,608.44
11/15/13
11.89
1,615.50
02/03/14
9.52
1,617.87
05/07/14
7.41
1,619.98
12/02/14
8.95
1,618.44
01/30/15
7.99
1,619.40
05/19/15
6.12
1,621.27
08/17/15
15.17
1,612.22
11/05/15
10.22
1,617.17
02/11/16
7.92
1,619.47
05/18/16
5.10
1,622.29
08/08/16
8.85
1,618.54
11/14/16
7.35
1,620.04
02/21/17
6.05
1,621.34
04/22/17
5.61
1,621.78
08/28/17
11.95
1,615.44
10/29/17
7.91
1,619.48
03/13/18
5.95
1,621.44
05/31/18
5.41
1,621.98
08/30/18
7.48
1,619.91
11/16/18
4.80
1,622.59
05/03/19
4.53
1,622.86
07/23/19
4.58
1,622.81
11/22/19
4.24
1,623.15
03/31/20
3.11
1,624.28
06/25/20
5.72
1,621.67
09/29/20
8.15
1,619.24
12/07/20
4.90
1,622.49
05/24/21
5.21
1,622.18
09/08/21
11.33
1,616.06
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 77 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-03B
10/24/11
2.41
1,624.78
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
6.40
1,620.79
1627.19 ft-MSL
05/14/12
7.35
1,619.84
08/07/12
29.56
1,597.63
11/09/12
14.42
1,612.77
02/07/13
11.26
1,615.93
05/23/13
6.10
1,621.09
09/10/13
25.97
1,601.22
11/15/13
14.37
1,612.82
02/03/14
11.63
1,615.56
05/07/14
9.16
1,618.03
12/02/14
10.86
1,616.33
01/30/15
9.91
1,617.28
05/19/15
7.75
1,619.44
08/17/15
19.03
1,608.16
11/05/15
12.03
1,615.16
02/11/16
9.98
1,617.21
05/18/16
6.09
1,621.10
08/08/16
12.81
1,614.38
11/14/16
9.41
1,617.78
02/21/17
7.75
1,619.44
04/22/17
7.04
1,620.15
08/28/17
14.09
1,613.10
10/29/17
10.06
1,617.13
03/13/18
6.66
1,620.53
05/31/18
6.78
1,620.41
08/30/18
11.90
1,615.29
11/16/18
5.22
1,621.97
05/03/19
4.68
1,622.51
07/23/19
4.64
1,622.55
11/22/19
1.92
1,625.27
03/31/20
NM
NC
06/25/20
12.04
1,615.15
09/29/20
7.67
1,619.52
12/07/20
3.58
1,623.61
05/24/21
6.52
1,620.67
09/08/21
13.98
1,613.21
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 78 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-03C
10/24/11
2.26
1,624.81
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
6.25
1,620.82
1627.07 ft-MSL
05/14/12
7.19
1,619.88
08/07/12
29.41
1,597.66
11/09/12
14.29
1,612.78
02/07/13
11.14
1,615.93
05/23/13
5.95
1,621.12
09/10/13
25.85
1,601.22
11/15/13
14.27
1,612.80
02/03/14
11.50
1,615.57
05/07/14
9.04
1,618.03
12/02/14
10.73
1,616.34
01/30/15
9.79
1,617.28
05/19/15
7.63
1,619.44
08/17/15
18.90
1,608.17
11/05/15
11.91
1,615.16
02/11/16
9.87
1,617.20
05/18/16
5.98
1,621.09
08/08/16
12.70
1,614.37
11/14/16
9.28
1,617.79
02/21/17
7.60
1,619.47
04/22/17
6.92
1,620.15
08/28/17
13.98
1,613.09
10/29/17
9.94
1,617.13
03/13/18
6.84
1,620.23
05/31/18
6.65
1,620.42
08/30/18
11.76
1,615.31
11/16/18
5.10
1,621.97
05/03/19
4.52
1,622.55
07/23/19
4.50
1,622.57
11/22/19
1.76
1,625.31
03/31/20
NM
NC
06/25/20
11.88
1,615.19
09/29/20
7.52
1,619.55
12/07/20
3.42
1,623.65
05/24/21
6.39
1,620.68
9/8/021
13.84
1,613.23
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 79 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-04A
10/24/11
4.36
1,621.73
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
5.86
1,620.23
1626.09 ft-MSL
05/14/12
5.78
1,620.31
08/07/12
22.63
1,603.46
11/09/12
11.75
1,614.34
02/07/13
8.57
1,617.52
05/23/13
6.30
1,619.79
09/10/13
20.57
1,605.52
11/15/13
11.99
1,614.10
02/03/14
9.67
1,616.42
05/07/14
7.59
1,618.50
12/02/14
9.05
1,617.04
01/30/15
8.19
1,617.90
05/19/15
6.33
1,619.76
08/17/15
15.72
1,610.37
11/05/15
10.21
1,615.88
02/11/16
8.03
1,618.06
05/18/16
5.24
1,620.85
08/08/16
9.42
1,616.67
11/14/16
7.52
1,618.57
02/21/17
6.20
1,619.89
04/22/17
5.76
1,620.33
08/28/17
12.07
1,614.02
10/29/17
7.95
1,618.14
03/13/18
5.95
1,620.14
05/31/18
5.42
1,620.67
08/30/18
8.09
1,618.00
11/16/18
5.08
1,621.01
05/03/19
4.68
1,621.41
07/23/19
4.60
1,621.49
11/22/19
4.16
1,621.93
03/31/20
2.83
1,623.26
06/25/20
6.57
1,619.52
09/29/20
8.22
1,617.87
12/07/20
4.74
1,621.35
05/24/21
5.66
1,620.43
09/08/21
11.69
1,614.40
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 80 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-04B
10/24/11
1.90
1,624.04
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
5.95
1,619.99
1625.94 ft-MSL
05/14/12
6.96
1,618.98
08/07/12
30.54
1,595.40
11/09/12
13.82
1,612.12
02/07/13
10.62
1,615.32
05/23/13
5.42
1,620.52
09/10/13
25.81
1,600.13
11/15/13
13.70
1,612.24
02/03/14
10.96
1,614.98
05/07/14
8.60
1,617.34
12/02/14
10.28
1,615.66
01/30/15
9.34
1,616.60
05/19/15
7.20
1,618.74
08/17/15
18.55
1,607.39
11/05/15
11.41
1,614.53
02/11/16
9.40
1,616.54
05/18/16
5.53
1,620.41
08/08/16
12.50
1,613.44
11/14/16
O
00
00
1,617.14
02/21/17
7.16
1,618.78
04/22/17
6.50
1,619.44
08/28/17
13.53
1,612.41
10/29/17
9.44
1,616.50
03/13/18
6.36
1,619.58
05/31/18
6.20
1,619.74
08/30/18
11.51
1,614.43
11/16/18
4.74
1,621.20
05/03/19
4.10
1,621.84
07/23/19
4.50
1,621.44
11/22/19
NM
NC
03/31/20
NM
NC
06/25/20
11.84
1,614.10
09/29/20
7.13
1,618.81
12/07/20
3.03
1,622.91
05/24/21
6.14
1,619.80
09/08/21
13.64
1,612.30
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 81 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-04C
10/24/11
1.86
1,624.06
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
5.84
1,620.08
1625.92 ft-MSL
05/14/12
6.89
1,619.03
08/07/12
30.48
1,595.44
11/09/12
13.65
1,612.27
02/07/13
10.45
1,615.47
05/23/13
5.35
1,620.57
09/10/13
25.75
1,600.17
11/15/13
13.53
1,612.39
02/03/14
10.82
1,615.10
05/07/14
8.45
1,617.47
12/02/14
10.14
1,615.78
01/30/15
9.20
1,616.72
05/19/15
7.08
1,618.84
08/17/15
18.42
1,607.50
11/05/15
11.28
1,614.64
02/11/16
9.27
1,616.65
05/18/16
5.43
1,620.49
08/08/16
12.41
1,613.51
11/14/16
8.68
1,617.24
02/21/17
7.04
1,618.88
04/22/17
6.39
1,619.53
08/28/17
12.37
1,613.55
10/29/17
9.30
1,616.62
03/13/18
6.25
1,619.67
05/31/18
6.08
1,619.84
08/30/18
11.43
1,614.49
11/16/18
4.62
1,621.30
05/03/19
4.00
1,621.92
07/23/19
4.41
1,621.51
11/22/19
NM
NC
03/31/20
NM
NC
06/25/20
11.78
1,614.14
09/29/20
7.09
1,618.83
12/07/20
3.00
1,622.92
03/22/21 "
0.86
1,625.06
05/24/21
6.02
1,619.90
09/08/21
13.51
1,612.41
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 82 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-05A
10/24/11
4.21
1,622.29
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
5.87
1,620.63
1626.50 ft-MSL
05/14/12
5.66
1,620.84
08/07/12
21.61
1,604.89
11/09/12
11.96
1,614.54
02/07/13
8.77
1,617.73
05/23/13
6.15
1,620.35
09/10/13
19.91
1,606.59
11/15/13
12.05
1,614.45
02/03/14
9.68
1,616.82
05/07/14
7.52
1,618.98
12/02/14
9.03
1,617.47
01/30/15
8.09
1,618.41
05/19/15
6.16
1,620.34
08/17/15
15.56
1,610.94
11/05/15
10.21
1,616.29
02/11/16
7.95
1,618.55
05/18/16
5.06
1,621.44
08/08/16
9.18
1,617.32
11/14/16
7.36
1,619.14
02/21/17
6.05
1,620.45
04/22/17
5.60
1,620.90
08/28/17
11.91
1,614.59
10/29/17
7.89
1,618.61
03/13/18
5.73
1,620.77
05/31/18
5.34
1,621.16
08/30/18
7.76
1,618.74
11/16/18
4.86
1,621.64
05/03/19
4.46
1,622.04
07/23/19
4.41
1,622.09
11/22/19
3.88
1,622.62
03/31/20
2.61
1,623.89
06/25/20
6.04
1,620.46
09/29/20
7.93
1,618.57
12/07/20
4.56
1,621.94
05/24/21
5.44
1,621.06
09/08/21
11.48
1,615.02
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 83 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-05B
10/24/11
2.21
1,624.40
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
6.93
1,619.68
1626.61 ft-MSL
05/14/12
7.81
1,618.80
08/07/12
30.26
1,596.35
11/09/12
14.77
1,611.84
02/07/13
11.61
1,615.00
05/23/13
5.80
1,620.81
09/10/13
26.35
1,600.26
11/15/13
14.68
1,611.93
02/03/14
11.85
1,614.76
05/07/14
9.38
1,617.23
12/02/14
11.08
1,615.53
01/30/15
10.15
1,616.46
05/19/15
7.86
1,618.75
08/17/15
19.46
1,607.15
11/05/15
12.25
1,614.36
02/11/16
10.23
1,616.38
05/18/16
6.19
1,620.42
08/08/16
13.39
1,613.22
11/14/16
9.56
1,617.05
02/21/17
7.64
1,618.97
04/22/17
7.27
1,619.34
08/28/17
14.29
1,612.32
10/29/17
10.24
1,616.37
03/13/18
7.08
1,619.53
05/31/18
6.98
1,619.63
08/30/18
12.08
1,614.53
11/16/18
5.39
1,621.22
05/03/19
4.77
1,621.84
07/23/19
4.99
1,621.62
11/22/19
1.72
1,624.89
03/31/20
NM
NC
06/25/20
12.47
1,614.14
09/29/20
7.40
1,619.21
12/07/20
3.33
1,623.28
05/24/21
6.99
1,619.62
09/08/21
14.42
1,612.19
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 84 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-05C
10/24/11
2.58
1,624.02
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12*
4.56
1,622.04
1626.60 ft-MSL
05/14/12
3.81
1,622.79
08/07/12
5.51
1,621.09
11/09/12
14.70
1,611.90
02/07/13
11.55
1,615.05
05/23/13
5.75
1,620.85
09/10/13
26.27
1,600.33
11/15/13
14.61
1,611.99
02/03/14
11.81
1,614.79
05/07/14
9.33
1,617.27
12/02/14
11.08
1,615.52
01/30/15
10.10
1,616.50
05/19/15
7.80
1,618.80
08/17/15
19.41
1,607.19
11/05/15
12.20
1,614.40
02/11/16
10.18
1,616.42
05/18/16
6.14
1,620.46
08/08/16
13.36
1,613.24
11/14/16
9.52
1,617.08
02/21/17
7.87
1,618.73
04/22/17
7.21
1,619.39
08/28/17
14.26
1,612.34
10/29/17
10.20
1,616.40
03/13/18
7.05
1,619.55
05/31/18
6.93
1,619.67
08/30/18
12.05
1,614.55
11/16/18
5.36
1,621.24
05/03/19
4.71
1,621.89
07/23/19
4.93
1,621.67
11/22/19
1.66
1,624.94
03/31/20
NM
NC
06/25/20
12.42
1,614.18
09/29/20
7.37
1,619.23
12/07/20
3.27
1,623.33
03/22/21 a
1.05
1,625.55
05/24/21
6.95
1,619.65
09/08/21
14.36
1,612.24
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 85 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-06
10/24/11
4.35
1,624.31
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
17.97
1,610.69
1628.66 ft-MSL
05/14/12
16.30
1,612.36
08/07/12
36.27
1,592.39
11/09/12
23.06
1,605.60
02/07/13
19.78
1,608.88
05/23/13
8.05
1,620.61
09/10/13
30.60
1,598.06
11/15/13
22.27
1,606.39
02/03/14
19.15
1,609.51
05/07/14
15.99
1,612.67
12/02/14
16.82
1,611.84
01/30/15
15.93
1,612.73
05/04/15
13.12
1,615.54
08/17/15
24.88
1,603.78
11/05/15
17.83
1,610.83
02/12/16
16.16
1,612.50
05/18/16
10.88
1,617.78
08/08/16
19.29
1,609.37
11/14/16
14.35
1,614.31
02/21/17
13.13
1,615.53
04/22/17
13.36
1,615.30
08/28/17
19.56
1,609.10
10/29/17
15.65
1,613.01
03/13/18
12.55
1,616.11
05/31/18
13.74
1,614.92
08/30/18
16.22
1,612.44
11/16/18
11.77
1,616.89
05/03/19
12.09
1,616.57
07/23/19
12.54
1,616.12
11/22/19
4.17
1,624.49
03/31/20
2.48
1,626.18
06/25/20
20.18
1,608.48
09/29/20
9.67
1,618.99
12/07/20
5.59
1,623.07
05/24/21
17.58
1,611.08
09/08/21
24.17
1,604.49
11/02/21
7.77
1,620.89
02/17/22
4.60
1,624.06
Well Abandoned - April 2022
Table 2a
Page 86 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW11-07
10/24/11*
4.57
1,624.42
TOC Elevation:
01/24/12
9.51
1,619.48
1628.99 ft-MSL
05/14/12
10.19
1,618.80
08/07/12
32.25
1,596.74
11/09/12
17.45
1,611.54
02/07/13
14.26
1,614.73
05/23/13
8.13
1,620.86
09/10/13
28.50
1,600.49
11/15/13
17.40
1,611.59
02/03/14
14.42
1,614.57
05/07/14
11.94
1,617.05
12/02/14
13.66
1,615.33
01/30/15
12.69
1,616.30
05/19/15
10.33
1,618.66
08/17/15
22.07
1,606.92
11/05/15
14.83
1,614.16
02/11/16
under snow
NC
05/18/16
8.62
1,620.37
08/08/16
No access
NC
11/14/16
12.08
1,616.91
02/21/17
10.43
1,618.56
04/22/17
9.76
1,619.23
08/28/17
16.84
1,612.15
10/29/17
12.78
1,616.21
03/13/18
9.55
1,619.44
05/31/18
9.47
1,619.52
08/30/18
14.31
1,614.68
11/16/18
7.81
1,621.18
05/03/19
7.20
1,621.79
07/23/19
7.22
1,621.77
11/22/19
3.90
1,625.09
03/31/20
2.15
1,626.84
06/25/20
NM
NM
09/29/20
9.72
1,619.27
12/07/20
5.55
1,623.44
03/22/21 a
3.32
1,625.67
05/24/21
9.53
1,619.46
09/08/21
16.12
1,612.87
Well Abandoned - November 2021
Table 2a
Page 87 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW12-01A
02/07/13
83.15
1,646.55
TOC Elevation:
05/23/13
83.05
1,646.65
1729.70 ft-MSL
New TOC Elevation:
09/10/13
95.20
1,634.61
1729.81 ft-MSL
11/15/13
90.73
1,639.08
02/03/14
89.27
1,640.54
05/07/14
87.80
1,642.01
09/03/14
93.33
1,636.48
12/02/14
89.14
1,640.67
01/30/15
88.10
1,641.71
05/21/15
86.63
1,643.18
08/12/15
92.41
1,637.40
11/05/15
89.72
1,640.09
02/15/16
87.31
1,642.50
05/05/16
84.17
1,645.64
08/15/16
92.36
1,637.45
11/14/16
86.50
1,643.31
02/22/17
83.98
1,645.83
04/22/17
83.68
1,646.13
08/28/17
91.55
1,638.26
10/29/17
87.15
1,642.66
03/15/18
82.87
1,646.94
05/31/18
83.07
1,646.74
08/29/18
84.81
1,645.00
11/16/18
81.00
1,648.81
05/03/19
78.11
1,651.70
07/23/19
79.96
1,649.85
11/22/19
76.52
1,653.29
03/31/20
74.72
1,655.09
06/25/20
80.31
1,649.50
09/30/20
86.35
1,643.46
12/07/20
81.26
1,648.55
05/24/21
80.51
1,649.30
09/08/21
88.45
1,641.36
11/02/21
84.42
1,645.39
02/17/22
80.46
1,649.35
04/18/22
80.01
1,649.80
07/12/22
82.92
1,646.89
10/17/22
89.92
1,639.89
Table 2a
Page 88 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW12-01B
02/07/13
85.20
1,644.38
TOC Elevation:
05/23/13
89.50
1,640.08
1729.58 ft-MSL
09/10/13
104.10
1,625.69
New TOC Elevation:
11/15/13
95.62
1,634.17
1729.79 ft-MSL
02/03/14
93.23
1,636.56
05/07/14
95.59
1,634.20
08/04/14
108.21
1,621.58
09/03/14
98.83
1,630.96
12/02/14
92.50
1,637.29
01/30/15
91.17
1,638.62
05/21/15
89.23
1,640.56
08/12/15
96.74
1,633.05
11/05/15
93.28
1,636.51
02/15/16
90.52
1,639.27
05/05/16
84.15
1,645.64
08/15/16
105.24
1,624.55
11/14/16
90.70
1,639.09
02/22/17
87.65
1,642.14
04/22/17
86.76
1,643.03
08/28/17
96.90
1,632.89
10/29/17
91.43
1,638.36
03/15/18
86.33
1,643.46
05/31/18
86.90
1,642.89
08/29/18
90.55
1,639.24
11/16/18
85.29
1,644.50
03/11/19"
83.51
1,646.28
05/03/19
82.40
1,647.39
07/23/19
87.80
1,641.99
11/22/19
81.24
1,648.55
03/31/20
78.61
1,651.18
06/25/20
92.73
1,637.06
09/30/20
91.83
1,637.96
12/07/20
85.15
1,644.64
03/22/21 "
81.63
1,648.16
05/24/21
85.64
1,644.15
09/08/21
93.63
1,636.16
11/02/21
88.16
1,641.63
02/17/22
84.41
1,645.38
04/18/22
84.05
1,645.74
07/12/22
86.87
1,642.92
10/17/22
94.46
1,635.33
Table 2a
Page 89 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW12-02A
02/07/13
36.22
1,644.35
TOC Elevation:
05/23/13
36.20
1,644.37
1680.57 ft-MSL
09/10/13
Dry
NC
New TOC Elevation:
11/15/13
45.65
1,635.10
1680.75 ft-MSL
02/03/14
43.30
1,637.45
05/07/14
41.84
1,638.91
09/03/14
Dry
NC
12/02/14
42.78
1,637.97
02/06/15
41.13
1,639.62
05/05/15
40.16
1,640.59
08/12/15
47.35
1,633.40
11/09/15
43.22
1,637.53
02/15/16
40.73
1,640.02
05/05/16
36.97
1,643.78
08/15/16
Dry
NC
11/14/16
40.99
1,639.76
02/22/17
38.02
1,642.73
04/22/17
37.07
1,643.68
08/28/17
Dry
NC
10/29/17
41.96
1,638.79
03/15/18
36.93
1,643.82
05/31/18
37.31
1,643.44
08/30/18
40.75
1,640.00
11/16/18
35.67
1,645.08
05/03/19
32.56
1,648.19
07/23/19
35.37
1,645.38
11/22/19
31.85
1,648.90
03/30/20
29.59
1,651.16
06/25/20
36.80
1,643.95
09/30/20
42.93
1,637.82
12/07/20
35.85
1,644.90
05/24/21
35.98
1,644.77
09/08/21
44.04
1,636.71
11/02/21
38.80
1,641.95
02/17/22
34.95
1,645.80
04/18/22
34.28
1,646.47
07/12/22
37.10
1,643.65
10/17/22
43.00
1,637.75
Table 2a
Page 90 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW12-02B
02/07/13
35.85
1,644.57
TOC Elevation:
05/23/13
37.70
1,642.72
1680.42 ft-MSL
New TOC Elevation:
09/10/13
53.22
1,627.23
1680.45 ft-MSL
11/15/13
45.35
1,635.10
02/03/14
43.04
1,637.41
05/07/14
43.60
1,636.85
08/04/14
55.10
1,625.35
09/03/14
48.90
1,631.55
12/02/14
42.39
1,638.06
01/29/15
41.36
1,639.09
05/05/15
39.72
1,640.73
08/12/15
46.33
1,634.12
11/09/15
42.99
1,637.46
02/15/16
40.45
1,640.00
05/05/16
34.66
1,645.79
08/15/16
51.88
1,628.57
11/14/16
40.63
1,639.82
02/22/17
37.68
1,642.77
04/22/17
36.78
1,643.67
08/28/17
46.72
1,633.73
10/29/17
41.39
1,639.06
03/15/18
36.48
1,643.97
05/31/18
36.95
1,643.50
08/30/18
41.40
1,639.05
11/16/18
35.30
1,645.15
03/11/19"
33.55
1,646.90
05/03/19
32.45
1,648.00
07/23/19
36.53
1,643.92
11/22/19
31.60
1,648.85
03/30/20
29.21
1,651.24
06/25/20
39.34
1,641.11
09/30/20
41.58
1,638.87
12/07/20
35.36
1,645.09
03/24/21"
36.48
1,643.97
05/24/21
35.56
1,644.89
09/08/21
43.35
1,637.10
11/02/21
38.21
1,642.24
02/17/22
34.60
1,645.85
04/18/22
34.11
1,646.34
07/12/22
36.61
1,643.84
10/17/22
44.45
1,636.00
Table 2a
Page 91 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW12-03A
02/07/13
64.59
1,647.12
TOC Elevation:
05/23/13
60.33
1,651.38
1711.71 ft-MSL
09/10/13
69.69
1,642.05
New TOC Elevation:
11/15/13
67.00
1,644.74
1711.74 ft-MSL
02/03/14
65.57
1,646.17
05/07/14
63.33
1,648.41
09/03/14
67.79
1,643.95
12/02/14
65.17
1,646.57
01/30/15
64.44
1,647.30
05/21/15
63.33
1,648.41
08/12/15
65.83
1,645.91
11/05/15
64.52
1,647.22
02/15/16
63.05
1,648.69
05/05/16
59.62
1,652.12
08/15/16
64.10
1,647.64
11/14/16
61.68
1,650.06
02/22/17
60.09
1,651.65
04/22/17
59.98
1,651.76
08/28/17
64.73
1,647.01
10/29/17
62.31
1,649.43
03/15/18
59.41
1,652.33
05/31/18
59.24
1,652.50
08/29/18
60.76
1,650.98
11/16/18
59.11
1,652.63
05/03/19
56.11
1,655.63
07/23/19
56.66
1,655.08
11/22/19
55.45
1,656.29
03/31/20
53.70
1,658.04
06/25/20
NM
NM
09/30/20
77.46
1,634.28
12/07/20
57.98
1,653.76
05/24/21
55.48
1,656.26
09/08/21
61.05
1,650.69
11/02/21
59.78
1,651.96
02/17/22
56.83
1,654.91
04/18/22
56.51
1,655.23
07/14/22
57.77
1,653.97
10/17/22
63.85
1,647.89
Table 2a
Page 92 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW12-03B
02/07/13
67.71
1,643.60
TOC Elevation:
05/23/13
69.10
1,642.21
1711.31 ft-MSL
09/10/13
88.45
1,622.87
New TOC Elevation:
11/15/13
81.45
1,629.87
1711.32 ft-MSL
02/03/14
78.90
1,632.42
05/07/14
77.58
1,633.74
08/04/14
89.96
1,621.36
09/03/14
83.71
1,627.61
12/02/14
77.53
1,633.79
01/30/15
76.25
1,635.07
05/21/15
74.12
1,637.20
08/12/15
81.43
1,629.89
11/05/15
78.51
1,632.81
02/15/16
75.76
1,635.56
05/05/16
66.49
1,644.83
08/15/16
86.90
1,624.42
11/14/16
75.60
1,635.72
02/22/17
72.61
1,638.71
04/22/17
71.76
1,639.56
08/28/17
61.68
1,649.64
10/29/17
76.36
1,634.96
03/15/18
71.02
1,640.30
05/31/18
71.79
1,639.53
08/29/18
75.48
1,635.84
11/16/18
70.52
1,640.80
03/11/19"
68.76
1,642.56
05/03/19
67.77
1,643.55
07/23/19
70.96
1,640.36
11/22/19
65.40
1,645.92
03/31/20
62.76
1,648.56
06/25/20
NM
NM
09/30/20
61.62
1,649.70
12/07/20
69.53
1,641.79
03/22/21 "
65.87
1,645.45
05/24/21
70.35
1,640.97
09/08/21
78.05
1,633.27
11/02/21
73.42
1,637.90
02/17/22
69.21
1,642.11
04/18/22
69.05
1,642.27
07/14/22
72.69
1,638.63
10/17/22
79.56
1,631.76
Table 2a
Page 93 of 94
-------
Table 2a
Summary of Groundwater Elevations - February 2005 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
Well Identification
Date Measured
(ft below TOC)
(ft MSL)
Off-Facility Wells (continued)
MW13-02
09/10/13
83.20
1,617.95
TOC Elevation:
11/15/13
77.53
1,623.62
1701.15 ft-MSL
02/03/14
74.62
1,626.53
05/07/14
71.57
1,629.58
09/03/14
78.64
1,622.51
12/02/14
72.35
1,628.80
01/30/15
71.00
1,630.15
05/21/15
68.70
1,632.45
08/12/15
76.00
1,625.15
11/05/15
73.57
1,627.58
02/12/16
71.05
1,630.10
05/05/16
56.69
1,644.46
08/15/16
80.96
1,620.19
11/14/16
70.04
1,631.11
02/22/17
67.06
1,634.09
04/22/17
66.44
1,634.71
08/28/17
76.25
1,624.90
10/29/17
70.91
1,630.24
03/15/18
65.06
1,636.09
05/31/18
66.43
1,634.72
08/29/18
70.33
1,630.82
11/16/18
65.50
1,635.65
05/03/19
62.88
1,638.27
07/23/19
65.66
1,635.49
11/22/19
58.58
1,642.57
03/31/20
55.98
1,645.17
06/25/20
69.79
1,631.36
09/30/20
73.10
1,628.05
12/07/20
63.00
1,638.15
05/24/21
64.86
1,636.29
09/08/21
71.98
1,629.17
11/02/21
67.56
1,633.59
02/17/22
63.45
1,637.70
04/18/22
63.56
1,637.59
07/14/22
68.81
1,632.34
10/17/22
74.28
1,626.87
Notes:
* Depth-to-water reading collected on this date appears anomalous
3 Depth to water measured on date of sample collection as site-wide measurement seemed anomalous or was not performed.
Elevations based on North American Vertical Datum 1988.
ft - foot
MSL - mean sea level
NC - not calculated
NM - not measured
TOC - top of casing
Table 2a
Page 94 of 94
-------
Table 2b
Summary of Vertical Hydraulic Gradients - February 2022 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
FineGrained Unit
Upper Aquifer
Screen Midpoint
Groundwater Elevation
Groundwater Elevation
Head Difference
Vertical Hydraulic
Well Identification
Difference (feet)
Date Measured
(feet-MSL)
(feet-MSL)
(feet)
Gradient (foot/foot)
On-Facility Wells
02/16/22
1,647.98
1,647.90
0.08
0.004
MW14-01A/B
20.53
04/18/22
1,648.35
1,648.26
0.09
0.004
07/11/22
1,645.71
1,645.94
-0.23
-0.011
10/17/22
1,637.58
1,638.09
-0.51
-0.025
02/16/22
1,648.38
1,647.41
0.97
0.045
MW14-02A/B
21.51
04/18/22
1,648.56
1,647.65
0.91
0.042
07/12/22
1,645.96
1,645.28
0.68
0.032
10/17/22
1,638.88
1,637.56
1.32
0.061
02/16/22
1,647.60
1,647.55
0.05
0.0023
MW14-03A/B
21.35
04/18/22
1,647.95
1,647.81
0.14
0.0066
Well Abandoned- July 2022
02/16/22
1,647.27
1,647.26
0.01
0.001
MW14-04A/B
19.46
04/28/22
1,647.64
1,647.54
0.10
0.005
07/12/22
1,645.35
1,645.22
0.13
0.007
10/17/22
1,637.46
1,638.47
-1.01
-0.052
02/16/22
1,646.36
1,646.57
-0.21
-0.009
MW14-05A/B
22.5
04/18/22
1,646.96
1,646.91
0.05
0.002
07/12/22
1,644.14
1,644.37
-0.23
-0.010
10/17/22
1,635.94
1,636.78
-0.84
-0.037
02/16/22
1,646.62
1,646.36
0.26
0.013
MW14-06A/B
20.61
04/18/22
1,647.05
1,646.85
0.20
0.010
07/12/22
1,644.23
1,644.27
-0.04
-0.002
10/17/22
1,636.17
1,636.54
-0.37
-0.018
02/16/22
1,646.14
1,646.16
-0.02
-0.001
MW14-07/MW06-07
37.46
04/18/22
1,646.90
1,646.74
0.16
0.004
07/12/22
1,644.11
1,644.22
-0.11
-0.003
10/17/22
1,635.98
1,636.48
-0.50
-0.013
02/16/22
1,648.40
1,645.97
2.43
0.06
MW14-08/MW06-08
38.56
04/18/22
1,648.43
1,646.34
2.09
0.05
07/12/22
1,646.68
1,643.64
3.04
0.08
10/17/22
1,637.62
1,636.11
1.51
0.04
02/16/22
1,647.82
1,648.45
-0.63
-0.020
MW14-09A/B
30.96
04/18/22
1,648.72
1,648.98
-0.26
-0.008
07/11/22
1,648.04
1,646.58
1.46
0.047
10/17/22
1,644.09
1,638.69
5.40
0.174
Downgradient of Facility
02/17/22
1,649.35
1,645.38
3.97
0.18
MW12-01A/B
22.15
04/18/22
1,649.80
1,645.74
4.06
0.18
07/12/22
1,646.89
1,642.92
3.97
0.18
10/17/22
1,639.89
1,635.33
4.56
0.21
02/17/22
1,645.80
1,645.85
-0.05
-0.0020
MW12-02A/B
25.56
04/18/22
1,646.47
1,646.34
0.13
0.0051
07/12/22
1,643.65
1,643.84
-0.19
-0.0074
10/17/22
1,637.75
1,636.00
1.75
0.0685
02/17/22
1,654.91
1,642.11
12.80
0.43
MW12-03A/B
29.88
04/18/22
1,655.23
1,642.27
12.96
0.43
07/14/22
1,653.97
1,638.63
15.34
0.51
10/17/22
1,647.89
1,631.76
16.13
0.54
Notes:
Elevations based on North American Vertical Datum 1988.
MSL - mean sea level
NA - not available
NM - not measured
TOC - top of casing
Vertical gradient = Head difference/center of screen difference
Table 2b
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3
Groundwater Monitoring Program
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Well Identification
Alternate Name
Hydrogeologic
Unit Well
Screened In
1st Quarter (January-March) 2022
2nd Quarter (April-June) 2022
3rd
uarter (July-September) 2022
4th Quarter (October - December) 2022
VOCs by EPA8260C
1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270D
Metals by EPA 6010D (cadmium,
chromium, iron, and zinc) and 200.8
(lead)
Sulfate by EPA 300.0
Water Levels
Water Quality Parameters (pH,
temperature, conductivity)
VOCs by EPA8260C
1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270D
Metals by EPA 6010D (cadmium,
chromium, iron, and zinc) and 200.8
(lead)
Sulfate by EPA 300.0
Water Levels
Water Quality Parameters (pH,
temperature, conductivity)
VOCs by EPA8260C
1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270D
Metals by EPA 6010D (cadmium,
chromium, iron, and zinc) and 200.8
(lead)
Sulfate by EPA 300.0
Water Levels
Water Quality Parameters (pH,
temperature, conductivity)
VOCs by EPA8260C
1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270D
Metals by EPA 6010D (cadmium,
chromium, iron, and zinc) and 200.8
(lead)
Sulfate by EPA 300.0
Water Levels
Water Quality Parameters (pH,
temperature, conductivity)
Monitoring Wells
MW87-3
G071693
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
MW89-11B
G077659
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW89-13
G077647
SC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
X
MW92-3A
G076657
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW92-3B
G076658
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW06-05
G142287A
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW06-07 (@ 62 ft)
G142287G
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
MW06-07 (@ 85 ft)
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
MW06-07 (@ 104 ft)
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
MW06-08 (@ 79 ft)
G142287B
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
MW06-08 (@ 95 ft)
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
MW06-08 (@ 109 ft)
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
MW06-09
G142287C
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW06-10
G142287D
SC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW06-11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
X
X
X
X+DO
X
X
MW09-01
G155180
SGA
X
Well Abandoned - April 2022
Well Abandoned - April 2022
Well Abandoned - April 2022
MW09-02
G155181
SGA
X
Well Abandoned - April 2022
Well Abandoned - April 2022
Well Abandoned - April 2022
MW11-06
G161623
SGA
X
Well Abandoned - April 2022
Well Abandoned - April 2022
Well Abandoned - April 2022
MW12-01A
G165956A
FGU
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW12-01B
G165956B
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW12-02A
G165956C
FGU
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW12-02B
G165956D
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW12-03A
G165956E
FGU
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW12-03B
G165956F
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW13-02
SGA
X
X
X
X
MW14-01A
G171481A
FGU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-01B
G171481B
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-02A
G171481C
FGU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-02B
G171481D
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-03A
G171481E
FGU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Well Abandoned July 2022
Well Abandoned July 2022
MW14-03B
G171481F
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Well Abandoned July 2022
Well Abandoned July 2022
MW14-04A
G171481H
FGU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-04B
G171481G
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-05A
G175345A
FGU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-05B
G175345B
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-06A
G171481I
FGU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-06B
G171481J
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-07
G171481L
FGU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 3
Groundwater Monitoring Program
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Well Identification
Alternate Name
Hydrogeologic
Unit Well
Screened In
1st Quarter (January-March) 2022
2nd Quarter (April-June) 2022
3rd
uarter (July-September) 2022
4th Quarter (October - December) 2022
VOCs by EPA8260C
1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270D
Metals by EPA 6010D (cadmium,
chromium, iron, and zinc) and 200.8
(lead)
Sulfate by EPA 300.0
Water Levels
Water Quality Parameters (pH,
temperature, conductivity)
VOCs by EPA8260C
1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270D
Metals by EPA 6010D (cadmium,
chromium, iron, and zinc) and 200.8
(lead)
Sulfate by EPA 300.0
Water Levels
Water Quality Parameters (pH,
temperature, conductivity)
VOCs by EPA8260C
1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270D
Metals by EPA 6010D (cadmium,
chromium, iron, and zinc) and 200.8
(lead)
Sulfate by EPA 300.0
Water Levels
Water Quality Parameters (pH,
temperature, conductivity)
VOCs by EPA8260C
1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270D
Metals by EPA 6010D (cadmium,
chromium, iron, and zinc) and 200.8
(lead)
Sulfate by EPA 300.0
Water Levels
Water Quality Parameters (pH,
temperature, conductivity)
Monitoring Wells (continued)
MW14-08
G171481K
FGU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-09A
G171481N
SC
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW14-09B
G171481M
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Discharge Locations
OF001-NE00137588
NA
X
pH, Temp
X
pH, Temp
X
pH, Temp
Abandoned October 2022
OF002-NE00137588
NA
X
pH, Temp
X
pH, Temp
X
pH, Temp
X | | | | | pH, Temp
OF003-NE00137 588
NA
Inactive
Inactive
X
pH, Temp
Inactive
QF004-NE00137588
NA
X | | | | | pH, Temp
X | | | | | pH, Temp
X
pH, Temp
X | | | | | pH, Temp
Interceptor Wells
MW89-12
G077644
SGA
Inactive
Inactive
01 Well
G086309
SGA
AOI Well
G071694
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TlWell
G076655
SGA
Preister's Irrigation Well
G127000
SGA
X
X
X
Well Abandoned October 2022
EXT07-02
G153338
SGA
EXT11-01
SGA
EXT13-01
SGA
Private Wells (Domestic, Stock, Irrigation)
Beller Domestic (BFF)
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Beller Domestic (AFF)
NA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Beller Domestic (ALF)
NA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Beller's stock well (new 2003)
#G122015
SGA
X
pH, temp a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Preister Domestic (BFF)
#G121970
SGA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Well Abandoned October 2022
Preister Domestic (AFF)
NA
X
X
X
Well Abandoned October 2022
Preister Domestic (ALF)
NA
X
X
X
Well Abandoned October 2022
Notes:
AFF - after first filter Hvdrogeolgic Unit Well Screened In Definitions:
ALF - after last filter FGU - fine-grained unit
BFF - before first filter SGA - sand and gravel aquifer
FGU - fine-grained unit SC - sand channel
GWMP - Groundwater Monitoring Plan
SC - sand channel
SGA - sand and gravel aquifer
indicates a deviation from Table 2 of the GWMP
-------
Table 4
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Super fund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample 1L):
AOI Well
AOI Well
MW87-3
MW87-3
MW87-3
MW87-3
MW89-11B
MW89-11B
MW89-11B
MW89-11B
MW89-13
MW 89-13
MW92-3A
MW92-3A
MW92-3A
MW92-3A
Sample Depth (feet BTOQ:
Screening Levels a
119'
119'
119'
119'
109'
109'
109'
109'
33'
33'
84'
84'
84'
84'
Sample Date:
4/20/2022
7/13/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
2/17/2022
4/18/2022
7/14/2022
12/5/2022
4/18/2022
12/1/2022
2/17/2022
4/18/2022
7/14/2022
12/5/2022
Other Items of Note:
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -Tr ichloroethane
200
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.13
1.71
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.64
3.82
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.560 J
1.85
11.8
7.68
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
8.22
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
5.35
3.33 U
3.33 U
5.16
3.33 U
3.33 U
5.90
3.33 U
2.48 J
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
3.49 U
3.49 U
23.8 U
22.7 U
3.49 U
205
32.6 U
211
57.2 U
104
35.5 U
12.0
32.9 U
146
3.49 U
105
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.36 J
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
4.57
1.81
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
0.666 U
1.28
1.98
1.13
62.9
67.9
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.580 J
3.41
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
66 \ I
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1.44
0.91
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
0.371 J
0.367 U
0.31
0.27
0.100 U
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00200 U
o.oor>i2j
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 U
0.00200 UJ
Chromium
0.05
0.00402 J
0.0118 UJ
0.00549 J
0.00477 U
0.00339 J
L™
10 1
0.015
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
1.37
0.000500 U
0.0885 J
0.000500 U
0.218 UJ
0.000500 U
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
Zinc
5
0.177
0.504 J
0.141
0.373
0.0392
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
500 400
29.8
61.9
19.3
Table 4
Page
1
of 10
-------
Table 4
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Super fund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample 1L):
MW92-3B
MW92-3B
MW92-3B
MW92-3B
MW06-05
MW06-05
MW06-07
MW06-07
MW06-07
MW06-07
MW06-07
MW06-07
MW06-07
MW06-07
MW06-07
MW06-07
Sample Depth (feet BTOQ:
Screening Levels a
120'
120'
120'
120'
89'
89'
62'
62'
62'
62'
85'
85'
85'
85'
104'
104'
Sample Date:
2/17/2022
4/18/2022
7/14/2022
12/5/2022
2/17/2022
7/12/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
Other Items of Note:
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -Tr ichloroethane
200
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.370 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.670 J
1.05
0.350 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.590 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.420 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
3.33 U
4.96 J
3.33 U
3.33 U
5.29 U
3.33 U
5.80 U
10.0
3.33 U
3.33 U
8.42 U
6.00
3.33 U
3.33 U
4.76 U
7.32
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
25.5 U
173
3.93 U
128
24.0 U
9.24 U
32.3 U
30.8 U
45.2 U
118
29.4 U
16.5 U
26.0 U
128
45.4 U
20.5 U
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1.20
1.87
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.500 J
1.00
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.670 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1.22
1.60
0.980 J
0.666 U
0.420 J
0.840 J
0.350 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
0.896
0.100 U
1.42-v—
0.100 U
1.14 --4
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 U
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 U
0.00200 UJ
Chromium
0.05
0.00497 J
0.00500 U
0.00510 J
0.00816 U
0.00523 J
L™
10 1
0.015
0.143
0.000500 U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.303
0.000500 U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.117
0.000500 U
Zinc
5
0.303
0.386
0.305
0.375
0.306
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
500 400
50.0
26.0
51.8
26.1
46.1
Table 4
Page 2 of 10
-------
Table 4
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Super fund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample 1L):
MW06-07
MW06-07
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-08
Sample Depth (feet BTOQ:
Screening Levels a
104'
104'
79'
79'
79'
79'
95'
95'
95'
95'
109'
109'
Sample Date:
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
Other Items of Note:
DUP
DUP
DUP
DUP
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -Tr ichloroethane
200
0.666 U
0.666 U
2.27
0.666 U
3.69
0.666 U
2.19
2.20
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.72
4.11
0.666 U
0.666 U
1.22
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.81
0.560 J
7.71
0.430 J
3.70
3.66
0.620 J
0.540 J
6.76
7.90
0.530 J
0.470 J
2.25
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
0.666 U
0.666 U
2.11
0.400 J
3.67
0.666 U
2.00
2.00
0.390 J
0.666 U
3.29
4.11
0.666 U
0.666 U
1.01
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
8.09
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
6.44
4.99 J
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4.38 J
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
49.7 U
133
44.9 U
21.2 U
3.49 U
137
21.6 U
21.6 U
199
214
3.49 U
3.49 U
53.7
51.2
10.9 U
6.19 U
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
5.44
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
0.666 U
0.666 U
4.90
1.18
13.1
0.750 J
4.93
4.95
1.08
1.02
12.7
13.9
0.930 J
0.880 J
3.15
0.400 J
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
0.680 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
0.400 J
0.610 J
6.61 ..........
1.15
9.20
0.540 J
6.48
1.01
0.830 J
0.720 J
0.650 J
3.95
0.360 J
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.350 J
0.666 U
0.870 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.930 J
0.820 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
0.106 J
0.618
3.12
0.693
0.73r.
3.17
3.78
o.or.o < ?
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
Chromium
0.05
0.00795 U
0.00359 J
0.00340 U
0.00387 J
0.00417 J
0.00276 U
0.00241 U
0.00282 J
L™
10 1
0.015
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.0574 J
0.000500 U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.0671 J
0.000500 U
0.0567 J
0.000500 U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.0322 J
0.000500 U
Zinc
5
0.348
0.509
0.8
0.534
0.52
0.906
0.88
0.478
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
500 400
27.3
36.0 J
79.5
35.6 J
36.7 J
77.5
80.6
18.1 J
Table 4
Page 3 of 10
-------
Table 4
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Super fund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample 1L):
MW06-08
MW06-08
MW06-09
MW06-09
MW06-10
MW06-10
MW06-11
MW06-11
MW06-11
MW06-11
MW12-01A
MW12-01A
MW12-01B
MW12-01B
MW12-01B
MW12-01B
Sample Depth (feet BTOQ:
Screening Levels a
109'
109'
144'
144'
40'
40'
90'
90'
90'
90'
95'
95'
114'
114'
114'
114'
Sample Date:
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
2/17/2022
7/12/2022
4/18/2022
12/1/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/11/2022
12/1/2022
4/18/2022
12/5/2022
2/17/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/5/2022
Other Items of Note:
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -Tr ichloroethane
200
1.60
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.560 J
0.666 U
1.46
1.30
1.06
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2.81
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethane
NE
2.98
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.760 J
0.760 J
0.660 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
9.22
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
1.78
0.666 U
0.460 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2.71
2.87
5.11
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.620 J
0.590 J
1.52
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
5.11
3.33 U
3.72 U
3.33 U
4.81 J
3.33 U
3.33 U
9.60
3.33 U
7.83
3.41 J
3.33 U
6.28 U
5.67
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
127
37.4
144 U
11.6 U
31.3 U
38.0
23.5 U
19.6 U
3.49 U
163
38.3 U
5.76
19.3 U
201
3.49 U
123
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
5.87
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.870 J
0.860 J
0.360 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2.73
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
0.710 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
7.26
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.630 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.600 J
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
4.21
0.666 U
0.410 J
0.550 J
1.29
1.16
2.77
3.14
3.79
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.820 J
0.500 J
1.26
:,„4
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
5
0.480 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
3.00 ;<
1.07
i.™
0.630
0.763
1.33
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00117 J
0.00200 U
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 U
Chromium
0.05
0.00412 U
0.00200 U
0.00429 J
0.00787 U
0.00951 J
0.0140 U
Iron
10 1
0.0600 UJ
0.68
0.0755 J
0.406 J
0.339
0.708 J
Lead
0.015
0.000500 U
0.000676 J
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
Zinc
5
0.629
0.837
2.7
2.35
0.00816 J
0.0153 U
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
500 400
77.3
43.6 J
138 J
59.6
20.3
21.4
Table 4
Page 4 of 10
-------
Table 4
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Super fund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample 1L):
MW12-02A
MW12-02A
MW12-02B
MW12-02B
MW12-02B
MW12-02B
MW12-03A
MW12-03A
Mm'z-m
Mm'z-m
Mm'z-m
Mm'z-m
Sample Depth (feet BTOQ:
Screening Levels a
43'
43'
66'
66'
66'
66'
74'
74'
100'
100'
100'
100'
Sample Date:
4/18/2022
12/5/2022
2/17/2022
4/27/2022
7/12/2022
12/5/2022
4/18/2022
12/5/2022
2/17/2022
4/18/2022
7/14/2022
12/5/2022
Other Items of Note:
DUP
DUP
DUP
DUP
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -Tr ichloroethane
200
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.580 J
0.640 J
0.420 J
0.410 J
0.720 J
0.720 J
0.380 J
0.360 J
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethane
NE
0.550 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
4.02
4.73
4.59
4.53
5.15
5.16
3.22
3.08
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1.11
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.33
'7.94
7.95
16.7 ,,,,
16.7 ,,,,
6.07
6.33
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U *
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
3.33 J
3.33 U
5.14 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.55 J
3.33 U
12.0 U
3.33 U
5.99
5.90
4.48 J
4.34 J
3.74 J
3.83 J
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
37.1 U
3.49 U
11.6 U
15.7 U
47.0
31.9 U
3.49 U
31.1 U
32.0 U
60.7 U
60.6 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
801
807
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1.95
2.11
1.73
1.70
2.06
2.06
1.55
1.53
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
0.720 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.550 J
1.00 U
0.550 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.640 J
0.640 J
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
1.01
0.380 J
0.340 J
0.600 J
7-13
0.666 U
0.666 U
<>¦
—*
,,,.,.,.11,4
,,,,,11J
,,,,,l|4
,,,,,l|4,,,,,.
,,,,,19>2 ,,,,,
,,,,, mi
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 u
0.666 U
0.666 u
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 u
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
n.i.1.6 U
66 U
0.666 U
0.666 u
Trichloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
4.12
4.81
4.41
4.31
r..7i
r>.si
4.56
4.40
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 u
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 u
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
1.38
1.71
7.r,8.i
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 U
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 U
Chromium
0.05
0.00423 J
0.00541 U
0.0132 J
0.0484
Iron
10 1
0.0499 J
0.21 UJ
1,|2
,,,,,7,914-,,,
Lead
0.015
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.00106 J
0.00513
Zinc
5
0.00934 J
0.0205 U
0.0140 J
0.0434 U
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
500 400
32.8
33.1
24.9
76.5
Table 4
Page 5 of 10
-------
Table 4
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Super fund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample ID:
MW14-01A
MW14-01A
MW14-01A
MW14-01A
MW14-01B
MW14-01B
MW14-01B
MW14-01B
MW14-02A
MW14-02A
MW14-02A
MW14-02A
MW14-02B
MW14-02B
MW14-02B
MW14-02B
Sample Depth (feet BTOQ:
Screening Levels a
42'
42'
42'
42'
61'
61'
61'
61'
50'
50'
50'
50'
69'
69'
69'
69'
Sample Date:
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/11/2022
12/1/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/11/2022
12/1/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
Other Items of Note:
Volatile Organic Compounds (jig/L)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
200
0.380 J
0.420 J
0.520 J
0.666 U
15.0
0.350 J
39.2
1.62
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.99
6.86
16.3
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.660 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.340 J
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
16.5
1.04
51.6
4.92
1.08
1.06
1.23
0.990 J
9.23
11.3
37.2
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethene
7
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
20.6
1.53
39.9
2.09
1.00
1.05
1.44
0.610 J
5.29
7.55
12.7
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.670 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.490 J
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
3.33 U
4.55 J
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
10.1
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
7.29
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
16.5
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
62.1 U
21.2 U
3.49 U
156
13.2 U
13.2 U
3.49 U
111
27.3 U
15.4 U
3.49 U
209
40.3 U
18.3 U
3.49 U
247
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.340 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Br omom ethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
70
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
21.3
2.87
88.1
4.99
22.1
27.7
28.5
7.25
16.1
16.6
66.4
0.666 U
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
23.3
29.0
33.8
26.1
36.5
1.63
85.5
12.7
0.360 J
0.666 U
0.530 J
7.98
21.1
23.3
55.8
0.666 U
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
4.25
4.79
4.35
1.31
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1.67
0.410 J
4.77
0.790 J
17.4
12.9
21.4
17.9
1.45
1.11
3.38
0.666 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
6.86
9.04
13.8
26.8
1.04
1.38 J
8.78
14.3
Total Metals (rng/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00252 J
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00132 J
0.00200 U
Chromium
0.05
0.0149
0.0246 U
0.00200 U
0.00763 U
0.00637 J
0.00200 U
0.00187 J
0.00936 U
Iron
10 1
0.0689 J
9.21 J
0.121
0.441 J
9.83
0.847 J
0.0600 U
0.432 J
Lead
0.015
0.000500 U
0.00648
0.000500 U
0.000542 J
0.0590
0.00216
0.000500 U
0.000687 J
Zinc
5
0.0155 U
0.0632
14.8
12.3
0.0569 U
0.0226 U
9.35
9.47
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
500 400
66.2 J
70.5
342 J
331
34.0 J
41.4
152 J
118
Table 4
Page 6 of 10
-------
Table 4
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Super fund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample 1L):
MW14-03A
MW14-03A
MW14-03B
MW14-03B
MW14-04A
MW14-04A
MW14-04A
MW14-04A
MW14-04B
MW14-04B
MW14-04B
MW14-04B
MW14-05A
MW14-05A
MW14-05A
MW14-05A
Sample Depth (feet BTOQ:
Screening Levels a
43'
43'
62'
62'
45'
45'
45'
45'
59'
59'
59'
59'
46'
46'
46'
46'
Sample Date:
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/1/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/1/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
Other Items of Note:
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -Tr ichloroethane
200
39.8
38.4
3.89
2.18
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
7.20 J
5.18
8.40
11.9
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
1,1-Dichloroethane
NE
8.90 J
9.10 J
0.840 J
0.666 U
56.5
62.0
53.3
49.3
38.5 J
26.0 J
30.4
14.3
179
158
182
148
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
8.50 J
8.60 J
,,,,,14!,,,,
7.83
31.9
,,,,'32.4
28.9
39.1
17.5 J
7.40 J
5.90 J
189 ,,,,.
174
485
640
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
2.56
3.33 U
1.90 J
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.590 J
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Butanone
NE
33.3 U
33.3 U
3.33 U
8.28
33.3 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
167 U
167 U
66.7 U
33.3 U
66.7 U
8.33
16.7 U
16.7 U
2-Hexanone
NE
33.3 U
33.3 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
167 U
167 U
66.7 U
33.3 U
66.7 U
3.33 U
16.7 U
16.7 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
33.3 U
33.3 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
167 U
167 U
66.7 U
33.3 U
66.7 U
3.33 U
16.7 U
16.7 U
Acetone
NE
48.5 U
37.5 U
36.9 U
32.5 U
72.1 U
34.9 U
34.9 U
139
174 U
174 U
69.8 U
47.9 J
69.8 U
26.2 U
17.4 U
205
Benzene
5
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Bromoform
80
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Bromomethane
NE
6.74 U
6.74 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
6.74 U
6.74 U
6.74 U
6.74 U
33.7 U
33.7 U
13.5 U
6.74 U
13.5 U
0.674 U
3.37 U
3.37 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
33.3 U
33.3 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
167 U
167 U
66.7 U
33.3 U
66.7 U
3.33 U
16.7 U
16.7 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Chlorobenzene
100
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Chloroethane
NE
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Chloroform
80
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Chloromethane
NE
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
25.9
28.2
0.666 U
0.666 U
89.9 ,,,,.
105 ............
101
95.1
117
96.5 ............
61.6
45.1
,,,,S&£,,,,,
94.3
90.8
66.1
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Ethylbenzene
700
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
10.0 U
10.0 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
10.0 U
10.0 U
10.0 U
10.0 U
50.0 U
50.0 U
20.0 U
10.0 U
20.0 U
1.00 U
5.00 U
5.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Methylene chloride
5
10.0 U
10.0 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
10.0 U
10.0 U
10.0 U
10.0 U
50.0 U
50.0 U
20.0 U
90.1
20.0 U
1.00 U
5.00 U
5.00 U
o-Xylene
10000
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Styrene
100
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
,,,,.,.-364.,.,.,.,.
,,,,,.308,.,.,.,.,..
6.67 ,,,,
,,,,,.61#.,,,,.
414.
„,,,o529,,,,,
499
,,,,..,17M
1610
1210
,,,,.-,-4?'3 „,,,.
.,,.,.,.229
330
336
„,,, 793
Toluene
1000
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
100
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
45.2
39.5
25.0
17.8
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Trichloroethene
5
4.70 J
4.70 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
.:v— 36i6'.-v—
,;v <"*324
.;,r<-«33J
.:v—50.5 .r—
,,,,,.259,,—
,,,,,.25g,,,,„
319
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
33.3 U
33.3 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
167 U
167 U
66.7 U
33.3 U
66.7 U
3.33 U
16.7 U
16.7 U
Vinyl chloride
2
6.66 U
6.66 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
6.66 U
33.3 U
33.3 U
13.3 U
6.66 U
13.3 U
1.83
3.33 U
3.33 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
0.910 ;.< < <
171
101
90.1
139
218
ir.7
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00200 U
0.00224 J
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
Chromium
0.05
0.00431 J
0.00185 J
0.00200 U
0.00498 U
0.00196 J
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
L™
10 1
0.015
0.104
0.000500 U
0.291
0.000500 U
1.03
0.00124 J
5.95 J
0.00193 J
0.248
0.000500 U
0.318 UJ
0.000500 U
0.358
0.000500 U
0.0752 UJ
0.000500 U
Zinc
5
0.00977 U
18.2
0.0123 U
0.0412 U
0.00670 U
0.0213 U
0.0260 U
0.0251 U
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
500 400
33.8 J
271J
28.1 J
29.2
53.9 J
26.7
37.7 J
36.6
Table 4
Page 7 of 10
-------
Table 4
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Super fund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample 1L):
MW14-05B
MW14-05B
MW14-05B
MW14-05B
MW14-06A
MW14-06A
MW14-06A
MW14-06A
MW14-06B
MW14-06B
MW14-06B
MW14-06B
Sample Depth (feet BTOQ:
Screening Levels a
64'
64'
64'
64'
63'
63'
63'
63'
80'
80'
80'
80'
Sample Date:
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
Other Items of Note:
DUP
DUP
DUP
DUP
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -Tr ichloroethane
200
2.56
2.58
10.3
8.89
5.01
5.22
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.850 J
0.880 J
0.900 J
1.35
0.666 U
6.31
3.32
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethane
NE
6.33
6.24
19.1
17.3
12.4
13.0
2.24
2.08
3.33 U
1.25
0.840 J
1.08 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
1.42
18.9
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
2.96
2.82
,,,,
,,,,,.184.,,,,..;
5.41
5.54
1.36
1.33
,,,,,.122,,,,,,
133
®J,4
2.10
0.530 J
.,.,,,144
47.9 ..,,,,:
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
7.11
7.46
3.33 U
3.33 U
2.14 J
1.67 J
16.7 U
6.42
6.67 U
6.67 U
7.12 U
6.30
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
16.7 U
3.33 U
6.67 U
6.67 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
16.7 U
3.33 U
6.67 U
6.67 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
25.3 U
25.7 U
215
224
3.49 U
3.49 U
67.4
65.7
17.5 U
24.7 U
6.98 U
96.0
76.0 U
20.3 U
3.49 U
154
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
3.37 U
0.674 U
1.35 U
1.35 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
16.7 U
3.33 U
6.67 U
6.67 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
12.7
12.3
29.5
27.6
15.7
16.7
1.37
1.27
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1.31
12.6
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
5.00 U
1.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
5.00 U
1.00 U
2.00 U
1.34 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.650 J
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
,,,,,.p4..........
„,,, '74^.,,,,;.
„,,, 52.1.
548.,,,,,
9.83
....,.,.,.'9,42
,,,,,:19.2,,,,,,
,,,,,
8.62
,,,,.,,11.2,,.,.,.,
2.36
„,,, 59,9
,,,,,.135
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.440 J
0.400 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.340 J
0.370 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2.98
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
5
3.92
3.49
4.01
4.26
3.85
3.53
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.500 J
0.666 U
0.630 J
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
16.7 U
3.33 U
6.67 U
6.67 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
3.33 U
0.666 U
1.33 U
1.33 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
20.2 ,<™.
8.11
0.373 J
0.266 J
1.32
5.97
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 U
Chromium
0.05
0.00109 J
0.0112 U
0.00128 J
0.00200 U
0.00511 J
0.00609 U
Iron
10 1
0.0443 J
0.925 J
0.92
0.0600 UJ
0.216
0.345 UJ
Lead
0.015
0.000500 U
0.000796 J
0.000953 J
0.000500 U
0.000609 J
0.000547 J
Zinc
5
2.59
2.78
0.00727 U
0.0182 U
2.88
,, 5.99
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
500 400
196 J
97.0
26.7 J
24.4
171
286
Table 4
Page 8 of 10
-------
Table 4
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Super fund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample 1L):
MW14-07
MW14-07
MW14-07
MW14-07
MW14-08
MW14-08
MW14-08
MW14-08
MW14-09A
MW14-09A
MW14-09B
MW14-09B
MW14-09B
MW14-09B
MW21-03A
Sample Depth (feet BTOC):
Screening Levels a
51'
51'
51'
51'
62'
62'
62'
62'
31'
31'
62'
62'
62'
62'
Sample Date:
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/12/2022
12/2/2022
4/18/2022
12/1/2022
2/16/2022
4/18/2022
7/11/2022
12/1/2022
11/17/2022
Other Items of Note:
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1-Trichl or oethane
200
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
54.2
24.7
12.4
1.93
10.5
0.970 J
1.77
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichl or oethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.350 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
32.5
25.6
4.92
0.530 J
3.37
0.650 J
0.620 J
1,1 -Dichloroethene
7
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
17.9
4.86
3.09
2.30
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
6.40 U
5.77
3.33 U
3.72 J
3.33 U
5.16
3.33 U
3.33 U
4.42 J
3.33 U
3.33 U
10.2
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
45.7 U
17.8 U
10.7 U
137
123 U
18.3 U
3.49 U
121
49.8 U
32.4
67.4 U
24.6 U
3.49 U
191
3.49 U
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chi or oethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.390 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.700 J
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
70
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
11.1
8.22
2.88
0.666 U
1.61
0.620 J
0.666 U
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.680 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.690 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
27.0
3.74
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2.31
1.84
0.650 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.350 J
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
0.135 J
0.100 U
0.190 J
0.111 J
3.90
r..32
9.19.1
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 U
0.00143 J
Chromium
0.05
0.00289 J
0.00200 U
0.00128 J
0.00200 U
0.00281 J
0.00270 U
0.0127
Iron
10 1
0.0885 J
0.0692 UJ
1.14
0.0600 UJ
0.602
3.06 J
5.56
Lead
0.015
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.00176 J
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.000915 J
0.00483
Zinc
5
0.00940 J
0.0170 U
0.0118 U
0.0108 U
11.9
0.0736
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
500 400
31.8
29.1
32.8 J
35.9
379
335
26.2
Table 4
Page 9 of 10
-------
Table 4
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Super fund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample 1L):
MWii-OaB
MW21-04A
MW21-04B
MW21-5A
MW21-6A
Sample Depth (feet BTOC):
Sample Date:
Screening Levels a
11/17/2022
11/17/2022
11/17/2022
11/16/2022
11/16/2022
Other Items of Note:
DUP
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -Tr ichloroethane
200
0.680 J
0.680 J
0.666 U
18.4
5.13
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethane
NE
1.77
1.79
0.666 U
27.0
10.6
0.666 U
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
0.730 J
0.710 J
0.490 J
26.5
6.98
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
17.2
17.1
43.3
3.49 U
3.49 U
14.6
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.530 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
8.17
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
3.56
3.53
0.666 U
35.7
20.8
0.666 U
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.510 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
3.39
3.44
0.666 U
0.666 U
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
5
0.430 J
0.450 J
0.666 U
2.72
1.54
0.666 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
1.95.1
v™:
0.340 J
II.1.1
7.r,r,.l
0.100 U
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00152 J
0.00136 J
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 UJ
Chromium
0.05
0.00384
0.00461
0.00387
0.00296
0.00917
0.00730
Iron
10 1
0.0403
0.0526
1.06
0.146
0.248
0.367
Lead
0.015
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.00234
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.000959
Zinc
5
9.r»i
10.1
0.0198
8.1.5 ............
4.74
0.132
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
500 400
51.3
51.0
37.2
301
114
21.6
Notes:
3 Screening levels for volatile organic compounds are based on EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as of 12/8/2016 (no change in
2020). Note MCLs for site chemicals of concern are equal to the MCLs designated in Record of Decision (ROD), 1990 with the exceptions
of chromium and lead. For chromium and lead, the lower screening level between the ROD and the current EPA MCLs is shown. The
b MCL is the sum of bromoform, chloroform, bromodichloromethane, and dibromochloromethane.
c MCL is for total xylenes.
BTOC - below top of casing
DUP - field duplicate
EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
J - estimated value
mg/L - milligram per liter
NE - Not established
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the reported sample quantitation limit.
(ig/L - microgram per liter
UJ- The analyte was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is approximate and
may or may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
Values in bold indicate that the compound was reported as detected.
Indicates that the result meets or exceeds the screening level shown.
Table 4
Page 10 of 10
-------
Table 5
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Domestic Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample Location:
Bellers' Wells
Sample ID:
Screening Levels a
Domestic BFF
Domestic BFF
Domestic BFF
Domestic BFF
Domestic AFF
Domestic AFF
Sample Date:
2/17/2022
4/19/2022
7/13/2022
12/6/2022
2/17/2022
4/19/2022
Other Items of Note:
DUP
DUP
DUP
DUP
Volatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
200
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethene
7
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
0.100 U
0.100 U
0.100 U
0.100 U
0.282 U
0.256 U
0.0400 U
0.0400 U
0.100 U
0.106 J
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
Chromium
0.05
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
Iron
1
0.0600 U
0.0600 U
0.0600 U
0.0600 U
0.0600 U
0.0600 U
0.0600 U
0.0600 U
Lead
0.015
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
0.000500 U
Zinc
5
0.00579 J
0.00500 J
0.00660 U
0.00660 U
0.0186 J
0.00850 J
0.00660 U
0.00660 U
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
400
32.8 J
33.3 J
32.6 J
33.1 J
32.9 J
33.1 J
32.4
32.7
Table 5
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table 5
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Domestic Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Spuerfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample Location:
Bellers' Wells
Sample ID:
Screening Levels a
Domestic AFF
Domestic AFF
Domestic ALF
Domestic ALF
Domestic ALF
Domestic ALF
#G122015
#G122015
#G122015
#G122015
Sample Date:
7/13/2022
12/6/2022
2/17/2022
4/19/2022
7/13/2022
12/6/2022
2/17/2022
4/19/2022
7/13/2022
12/6/2022
Other Items of Note:
Volatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
200
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethene
7
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.420 J
0.350 J
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
T etrachloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.550 J
0.840 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
0.152 U
0.0400 U
0.100 U
0.100 U
0.277 U
0.0400 U
0.407
0.514 U
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
Chromium
0.05
Iron
1
Lead
0.015
Zinc
5
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
400
Table 5
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table 5
2022 Groundwater Analytical Results for Domestic Wells
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Spuerfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample Location:
Preisters' Wells
Sample ID:
Screening Levels a
Domestic BFF
Domestic AFF
Domestic ALF
Sample Date:
2/17/2022
2/17/2022
2/17/2022
Other Items of Note:
Volatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
200
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethene
7
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
Benzene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
700
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
10000
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
5
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
o-Xylene
10000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
T etrachloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Toluene
1000
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
100
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
5
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
2
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
1,4-Dioxane
0.46
0.100 U
Total Metals (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.005
0.00200 U
Chromium
0.05
0.00219 J
Iron
1
0.0600 U
Lead
0.015
0.000500 U
Zinc
5
0.00404 J
Conventional Parameter (mg/L)
Sulfate
400
34.4 J
Notes:
3 Screening levels for volatile organic compounds are based on EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as of 12/8/2016 (no
change in 2020). Note MCLs for site chemicals of concern are equal to the MCLs designated in Record of Decision (ROD), 1990
with the exceptions of chromium and lead. For chromium and lead, the lower screening level between the ROD and the current
EPA MCLs is shown. The screening level for zinc is the EPA secondary MCL. Iron and sulfate screening levels are site-specific
screening levels agreed to with the State of Nebraska (letter to State of Nebraska to Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC, dated
12/14/00) and are dependent upon well location (on-facility or off-facility). The screening level for 1,4-dioxane is based on the May
2020 EPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) for tap water.
MCL is the sum of bromoform, chloroform, bromodichloromethane, and dibromochloromethane.
c MCL is for total xylenes.
AFF - after first filter
ALF - after last filter
BFF - before first filter
DUP - field duplicate
EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
MCL - maximum contaminant level
mg/L - milligram per liter
(Jg/L - microgram per liter
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but
UJ - The analyte was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is
approximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte
in the sample.
Values in bold indicate that the compound was reported as detected.
Indicates that the result meets or exceeds the screening level shown.
Table 5
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table 6
2022 Outfall Sample Results (Discharge Authorization NE00137588)
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample ID:
Discharge Limits per NE00137588
OFOOl
OFOOl
OFOOl
Sample Date:
March 1 - May 31
June 1 - October 31
November 1 - February 28
2/17/2022
4/19/2022
7/13/2022
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethene
90 (avg) /180 (max)
49 (avg) / 99 (max)
66 (avg) /131 (max)
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
NE
NE
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
Benzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichlorome thane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromome thane
NE
NE
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
NE
NE
NE
0.370 J
0.666 U
0.500 J
Chlorobenzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorome thane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
NE
NE
NE
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
NE
NE
NE
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
o-Xylene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Toluene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichlorofluorome thane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Table 6
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table 6
2022 Outfall Sample Results (Discharge Authorization NE00137588)
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample ID:
Discharge Limits per NE00137588
OF002
OF002
OF002
OF002
Sample Date:
March 1 - May 31
June 1 - October 31
November 1 - February 28
2/17/2022
4/19/2022
7/13/2022
12/6/2022
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethene
90 (avg) /180 (max)
49 (avg) / 99 (max)
66 (avg) /131 (max)
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
NE
NE
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
Benzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
NE
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorome thane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
NE
NE
NE
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
NE
NE
NE
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.650 J
o-Xylene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Toluene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Table 6
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table 6
2022 Outfall Sample Results (Discharge Authorization NE00137588)
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample ID:
Discharge Limits per NE00137588
OF003
OF004
OF004
OF004
Sample Date:
March 1 - May 31
June 1 - October 31
November 1 - February 28
7/13/2022
2/17/2022
4/19/2022
7/13/2022
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.350 J
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.640 J
0.850 J
0.600 J
1,1 -Dichloroethene
90 (avg) /180 (max)
49 (avg) / 99 (max)
66 (avg) /131 (max)
0.666 U
0.560 J
0.900 J
0.730 J
1,2-Dichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
NE
NE
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
3.49 U
Benzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromoform
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
NE
NE
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chloroform
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Chlorome thane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.710 J
1.09
0.600 J
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Dibromochloromethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Ethylbenzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
m- & p-Xylenes
NE
NE
NE
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Methylene chloride
NE
NE
NE
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
o-Xylene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Styrene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Tetrachloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
1.84
3.13
2.39
Toluene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Trichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.390 J
0.460 J
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Vinyl acetate
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
3.33 U
Vinyl chloride
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.666 U
Table 6
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table 6
2022 Outfall Sample Results (Discharge Authorization NE00137588)
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Sample ID:
Discharge Limits per NE00137588
OF004
Sample Date:
March 1 - May 31
June 1 - October 31
November 1 - February 28
12/6/2022
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
1,1 -Dichloroethene
90 (avg) /180 (max)
49 (avg) / 99 (max)
66 (avg) /131 (max)
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
2-Butanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
2-Hexanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
Acetone
NE
NE
NE
3.49 U
Benzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
Bromodichloromethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
Bromoform
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
Bromomethane
NE
NE
NE
0.674 U
Carbon disulfide
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
Carbon tetrachloride
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
Chlorobenzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
Chloroethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
Notes:
Chloroform
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
avg - average
Chlorome thane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
J - estimated value
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
max - maximum
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
NE - not established
Dibromochloromethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level
Ethylbenzene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
of the reported sample quantitation limit.
m- & p-Xylenes
NE
NE
NE
1.00 U
UJ - The analyte was not detected above the reported sample
Methyl tert-butyl ether
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is
Methylene chloride
NE
NE
NE
0.690 J
pg/L- microgram per liter
o-Xylene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
Values in bold indicate that the compound was reported as detected.
Styrene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
Indicates that the result is outside of, equal to, or
Tetrachloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.920 J
ve the discharge limit (average and/or maximum)
Toluene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
NE00137588 authorization (effective June 24, 2013), 30 Day Average
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
Outfall / Extraction Well Association:
Trichloroethene
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
OF001 / G127000
Trichlorofluoromethane
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
OF002 / EXT07-02
Vinyl acetate
NE
NE
NE
3.33 U
OF003 / EXT11-01
Vinyl chloride
NE
NE
NE
0.666 U
OF004 / EXT13-01
Table 6
Page 4 of 4
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
On-Facility Wells
01 Well
11/01
28
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
35
5.0 U
23
86
NA
2/02
20
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
9.0
5.0 U
32
61
NA
5/02
18
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
7.0
5.0 U
33
58
NA
8/02
120 J
45 J
16 J
5.0 UJ
290 J
5.0 UJ
110 J
581
NA
11/02
35
8.0
5.0 U
5.0 U
59
5.0 U
35
137
NA
2/03
13
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
11
5.0 U
16
40
NA
5/03
10
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
6.0
5.0 U
17
33
NA
8/03
44
7.1
1.7
LOU
61
LOU
40
154
NA
11/03
35
8.8
3.3
LOU
58
LOU
29
134
NA
2/04
13
1.0U
LOU
LOU
11
LOU
15
39
NA
5/04
14
LOU
LOU
LOU
6.6
LOU
19
40
NA
8/04
49
21
9.0
LOU
91
LOU
50
220
NA
11/09/04
21
6.5
3.7
LOU
30
LOU
24
85
NA
02/22/05
14
0.5
0.4 U
0.4 U
8.0
0.4 U
13
36
NA
05/02/05
8.1
0.2
0.2U
0.2U
4.4
0.2U
10
23
4.0 J
07/31/05
96
47
27
LOU
170
2.7
130
473
23
11/07/05
21
9.2
4.3
LOU
44
LOU
24
103
NA
01/29/06
10
1.0
0.3
0.2 U
11
0.2 U
9.1
31
4.0 U
05/09/06
9.4
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
9.2
0.2 U
8.8
28
3.2
08/19/06
42
25
13
LOU
93
1.4
53
227
11
11/06/06
7.1
2.6
1.2
0.2 U
12
0.2 U
8.8
32
2.0 U
02/19/07
4.6
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
3.8
0.2 U
4.2
13
2.0 U
05/04/07
12
0.8
0.3
0.2 U
9.1
0.2 U
9.9
32
2.2
08/12/07
29
15
7.0
LOU
55
LOU
36
142
7.7
10/30/07
20
7.7
3.2
0.2
26
0.3
22
79
3.6
02/06/08
5.6
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
4.7
0.2 U
4.6
15
2.0 U
08/07/08
6.7
0.7
0.2
0.2 U
5.8
0.2 U
6.4
20
2.0 U
03/05/09
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/07/09
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
2.0 U
08/13/09
4.2
1.7
0.7
0.2 U
6.6
0.2 U
5.6
19
2.0 U
05/19/10
1.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.8
0.2 U
2.6
6.2
2.0 U
08/16/10
10
2.5
0.8
0.2 U
11
0.2 U
11
35
2.0 U
11/01/10
5.1
1.7
0.8
0.2 U
4.9
0.2 U
6.0
19
2.0 U
02/16/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/26/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
07/25/11
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.4
1.1
2.0 U
10/27/11
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
2.0 U
Table 7 a
Page 1 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
AOIW
11/01
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
2/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
5/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
8/02
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
ND
NA
11/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
2/03
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
6.0
5.0 U
5.0 U
6.0
NA
5/03
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
8/03
5.0
1.8
1.0 U
1.0 U
9.2
1.0 U
5.6
22
NA
11/03
12
2.1
1.0 U
1.0 U
13
1.0 U
13
40
NA
2/04
12
4.0
1.3
1.0 U
18
1.0 U
12
47
NA
5/04
12
2.8
1.0 U
1.0 U
14
1.0 U
9.8
39
NA
8/04
34
16
5.7
0.2 U
44
1.2
66
167
11
11/09/04
14
5.1
2.4
1.0 U
16
1.0 U
18
56
3.4 J
02/22/05
4.G
1.1
0.4
0.2 U
4.6
0.2 U
5.0
16
5.0 U
05/02/05
5.1
2.0
0.9
0.2U
6.8
0.2U
7.1
22
2.5 J
07/31/05
27
12
4.1
0.2U
29
1.2
70
143
14
11/06/05
21
10
5.0
1.0 U
34
1.1
44
115
11 J
01/31/06
9.7
4.9
2.1
0.2 U
16
0.2
14
47
4.0 U
05/08/06
8.6
3.8
1.9
0.2 U
14
0.3
14
43
4.0
08/19/06
20
7.4
2.5
1.0 U
19
1.0 u
34
83
8.5
11/06/06
16
7.2
3.6
1.0 U
26
1.0 u
24
77
6.2
02/20/07
9.4
4.1
2.5
0.2 U
14
0.3
14
44
2.9
04/30/07
19
6.7
2.8
0.2 U
29
0.5
28
86
6.0
08/12/07
22
6.8
2.8
1.0 U
19
1.0 u
42
93
9.9
10/30/07
12
5.0
2.2
0.2 U
14
0.3
14
48
3.8
08/06/08
25
8.4
3.3
0.2 U
28
0.9
58
124
6.6
11/16/08
1.7
0.7
0.3
0.2 U
2.4
0.2 U
2.5
7.6
2.0 U
02/24/09
0.9
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
1.4
3.6
2.0 U
05/05/09
2.7
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
1.3
0.2U
1.9
6.2
2.5
08/12/09
11
4.2
1.3
0.2U
17
1.1
52
87
4.5
05/19/10
1.2
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.6
0.2U
1.1
2.9
2.0 U
08/16/10
6.7
1.8
0.5
0.2U
8.3
0.5
38
56
3.5
08/16/10 (DUP)
5.9
1.7
0.5
0.2U
7.4
0.5
35
51
NA
11/02/10
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.7
1.2
2.0 U
11/2/10 (DUP)
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
1.3
2.0 U
02/15/11
0.5
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
1.0
0.4
20
22
2.0 U
05/26/11
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.5
1.4
2.0 U
07/24/11
4.1
0.8
0.2U
0.2U
3.3
0.2U
11
19
2.0 U
Table 7 a
Page 2 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
AOIW
06/05/12
1.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.9
0.2 U
2.8
5.0
1.0
continued
08/16/12
9.1 •••••
5.2
1.9
0.20 U
6.8
1.4
M
71
•1.9
06/11/13
4.3
1.4
0.49
0.20 U
2.5
0.35
12
21
1.2
08/04/14
8.1
2.4
1.2
0.20 U
3.0
1.3
20
36
3.5
08/09/16
3.18
1.47
1.1
0.20 U
1.86
0.71
11.3
20
1.1
06/19/17
1.58
0.87
0.79
0.20 U
1.27
0.201
1.35
8.9
0.7
08/09/17
5.06
2.47
1.25
0.20 U
1.45
1.55
13.1
25
2.1
08/09/18
1.73
0.77
0.78
0.20 U
1.40
0.201
7,13
12
0.8
06/23/20
0.26
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.201
0.37
0.63
0.3
06/23/21
1.03 J
0.670 J
0.450 J
0.333 UJ
0.900 J
0.333
8.90 J
12
1.16
09/08/21
2.36
2.77
2.3
0.333 U
0.95 J
1.61
13.8
24
1.03
04/20/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 .
•J.OOO u
ND
0.371 J
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.28
1.28
0.100 u
Table 7a
Page 3 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Staska Well
08/25/06
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
2.0 U
MW87-3
11/01
19
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
30
5.0 U
5.0
54
NA
2/02
22
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
30
5.0 U
6.0
58
NA
5/02
14
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
22
5.0 U
5.0
41
NA
8/02
12 J
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
13 J
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
25
NA
11/02
17
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
8.0
25
NA
2/03
27
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
29
5.0 U
8.0
64
NA
5/03
23
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
24
5.0 U
11
58
NA
8/03 (diffusion bag)
22
6.2
1.0 U
1.0 U
17
LOU
4.4
50
NA
8/03
9.3
2.5
1.0 U
1.0 U
14
LOU
7.0
33
NA
11/03
16
1.5
1.0 U
1.0 U
14
LOU
10
42
NA
2/04
20
2.2
1.0 U
1.0 U
18
LOU
8.5
49
NA
5/04
26
2.6
1.0 U
1.0 U
24
LOU
8.5
61
NA
8/04
370
60
6.9
5.0 U
200
5.2
400
1,042
NA
11/08/04
930
90
10
10 U
300
10 U
520
1,850
NA
02/21/05
13
1.0
0.2
0.2U
6.9
0.2U
11
32
4.9 J
02/21/05 (DUP)
14
1.2
0.3
0.2U
7.9
0.2U
13
36
5.3
05/02/05
21
2.3
1.0U
1.0U
51
LOU
47
121
11
05/2/05 (DUP)
20
2.4
1.0U
LOU
51
LOU
48
121
11
08/03/05
130
45
13
5.0 U
48
7.4
620
863
120
08/3/05 (DUP)
130
46
13
5.0 U
50
7.2
620
866
140
11/08/05
58
25
4.9
3.0 U
20
3.8
320
432
120 J
11/8/05 (DUP)
52
24
4.3
3.0 U
18
3.7
290
392
120 J
01/31/06
24
5.1
1.3
LOU
23
LOU
49
102
14
01/31/06 (DUP)
20
4.7
1.2
LOU
19
LOU
42
87
12
05/09/06
340
69
10
10 U
210
10 U
540
1.169
110
05/09/06 (DUP)
420
80
12
10 U
260
10 U
590
1.362
NA
08/20/06
15
11
0.8
0.2 U
5.6
1.0
38
71
24
11/07/06
270
49
9.9
1.5U
74
7.4
570
980
89
02/11/07
13 J
2.6 J
1.0U
1.2 J
10J
LOU
21J
48
7.2
05/01/07
330
62
12
0.6 U
170
11
400
985
93
08/13/07
81
24
3.0 U
3.0 U
16
3.0 U
190
311
74 J
10/29/07
370
55
9.2
0.2 U
94
8.4
490
1.027
100
02/07/08
23
3.3
1.0
0.6 U
14
0.6 U
32
73
4.8
05/15/08
7.2
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.6
0.2 U
5.7
16
4.0
08/06/08
670
78
12.2
0.7
190
11
700
1.662
85
11/17/08
29
3.1
0.6
0.2 U
15
0.5
41
89
8.5
02/17/09
8.1
1.0
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.4
0.2 U
6.8
18
9.7
05/06/09
13
0.8
0.2
0.2 U
5.9
0.2 U
8.0
28
12
07/28/10
100
8.7
3.0
0.4
200
1.9
520
834
30
07/28/10 (DUP)
110
8.5
3.0
0.4
210
1.9
540
874
35
11/02/10
34
4.2
1.0
0.2U
40
0.8
120
200
13
02/13/11
14
0.8
0.2U
0.2U
4.6
0.2U
14
33
5.2
Table 7 a
Page 4 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW87-3 (82 feet BTOC)
05/24/11
14
1.2
0.2U
0.2U
3.4
0.2U
6.6
25
11
continued
08/01/11
91
9.0
1.9
0.3
96
1.5
240
440
37
01/22/13
41
8.3
1.5
1.0U
37
1.6
90
179
NA
05/02/13
15
2.2
0.41
0.20 U
14
0.44
30
62
NA
(87 feet BTOC
04/23/14
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.35
NA
(101 feet BTOC)
05/24/11
11
1.0
0.2U
0.2U
3.0
0.2U
5.9
21
8.6
08/01/11
62
7.0
1.7
0.2
70
1.2
190
332
24
(119 feet BTOC)
05/24/11
14
1.2
0.2U
0.2U
3.8
0.2U
7.5
27
12
08/01/11
69
7.6
1.7
0.3
79
1.3
200
359
27
10/31/11
15
2.0
0.3
0.2U
12
0.2 U
31
60
15
02/01/12
12
1.6
0.3
0.2 U
8.9
0.3
38
61
NA
05/29/12
43
3.2
1.2
0.2 U
85
0.7
210
343
20
5/29/12 (DUP)
41
3.2
1.2
0.2 U
89
0.7
220
355
22
08/28/12
38
19
3.8
0.20 U
6.2
5.2
120
192
17
8/28/12 (DUP)
39
19
3.8
0.20 U
6.4
5.3
120
194
19
11/15/12
32
20
6.3
0.20 U
7.8
7.5
130
204
NA
11/15/12 (DUP)
33
19
5.7
0.20 U
6.5
7.3
130
202
NA
01/22/13
63
12
2.4
LOU
45
2.2
94
219
NA
05/02/13
59
6.9
1.8
0.20 U
36
1.4
29
134
NA
05/28/13
250
45
8.0
2.0 U
100
14
440
857
74 J
5/28/13 (DUP)
270
49
8.1
2.0 U
110
12
430
879
68
09/11/13
9.2
3.6
1.2
0.20 U
1.2
1.5
31
48
14
11/18/13
13
3.2
1.5
0.20 U
18
1.0
38
75
NA
02/13/14
4.6
1.2
0.45
0.20 U
2.4
0.33
6.0
15
NA
04/23/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/28/14
17
5
2.6 J+
0.20 U
18
0.64 J+
38 J+
81
9.3
08/04/14
200
28
5.4
0.41
30
12
77
353
NA
08/19/14
630
79
14
2.0 U
40
37
440
1,240
230
11/19/14
35
6.1
2.0
0.20 U
5.4
2.2
9.9
61
NA
01/29/15
47
8.0
2.1
0.20 U
5.4
2.4
11
76
NA
05/05/15
27
4.6
0.97
0.20 U
3.1
1.5
10
47
NA
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.8
08/11/15
100
22
6.2
0.20 U
28
6.8
54
217
NA
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.3
11/09/15
7.8
1.5
0.47
0.20 U
1.9
0.46
4.9
17
NA
02/10/16
1.6
0.32
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.48
0.20 U
1.7
4.1
NA
05/05/16
0.39
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.61
NA
05/26/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/15/16
114
21.5
8.8
0.43
27.2
14.6
102
289
NA
08/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
93.5
11/09/16
16.0
3.77
1.66
0.20 U
10.7
2.02
48.5
83
NA
Table 7 a
Page 5 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW87-3 (119 feet BTOC)
01/31/17
8.14
2.25
0.80
0.20 U
2.15
1.03
6.47
21
NA
continued
04/27/17
7.58
1.99
1.00 u
1.00 U
1.11
1.00 u
5.25
16
NA
05/23/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/01/17
175
50.2
14.9
0.40
9.75
33.1
92.2
376
NA
08/14/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.6
11/01/17
5.85
1.59
0.56
0.20 U
5.99
1.26
77.7
93
NA
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.74
0.74
NA
05/08/18
3.47
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.41
0.20 U
0.30
4.2
NA
05/22/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6
08/07/18
7.65
1.09
1.14
0.20 U
6.30
0.56
24.2
41
NA
08/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.3
11/06/18
2.23
0.61
0.52
0.20 U
2.06
0.37
13.4
19
NA
03/11/19
0.51
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.07
1.6
NA
05/15/19
0.68
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.57
1.5
NA
06/10/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
07/31/19
10.2
2.75
1.17
0.20 U
1.51
0.75
4.56
21
NA
09/11/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
11/18/19
0.70
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.37
0.20 U
3.35
4.4
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.83
2.8
NA
05/19/20
2.75
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.47
0.20 U
2.07
5.7
NA
06/11/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.4
07/28/20
13.9
5.42
9.03
0.20 U
8.73
0.94
37.2
75
NA
09/02/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.3
11/05/20
6.69
1.92
1.14
0.20 U
7.67
1.81
66.5
86
NA
03/24/21
0.97
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.20 U
4.26
5.7
NA
05/25/21
5.28 J
0.890 J
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
2.40 J
0.610 J
13.2 J
22.4
8.56
09/14/21
39.3
19.7
11.05
0.333 U
4.22
11.9
87.6 J
173.8
9.96
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.690 J
0.333 U
1.53
2.2
NA
02/16/22
0.56
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.98
2.5
NA
04/18/22
1.85
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.13
3.0
6.34
07/13/22
11.8
3.64
4.57
0.333 U
6.13
1.44
62.9
90.5
6.27
12/02/22
7.68
3.82
1.81
0.333 U
1.71
6.93
67.9
89.9
NA
Table 7 a
Page 6 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW89-12
11/01
54
29
6.0
5.0 U
120
5.0 U
170
379
NA
2/02
24
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
23
5.0 U
70
117
NA
3/02
44
16
5.0 U
5.0 U
70
5.0 U
150
280
NA
5/02
18
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
10
5.0 U
32
60
NA
6/02
19 J
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
11J
5.0 UJ
28 J
58
NA
8/02
78 J
46 J
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
84 J
5.0 UJ
260 J
468
NA
11/02
74
33
7.0
5.0 U
110
5.0 U
280
504
NA
2/03
42
15
5.0 U
5.0 U
67
5.0
400
529
NA
5/03
50
15
5.0 U
5.0 U
45
5.0 U
180
290
NA
8/03
95
74
23
1.0U
170
8.0
340
710
NA
11/03
90
57
19
5.0 U
170
5.0 U
190
526
NA
2/04
50
17
6.1
LOU
66
3.4
220 J
363
NA
5/04
80
38
11
2.0 U
96
4.7
290 J
520
NA
8/04
85
87
29
2.0 U
150
10
350
711
42
11/09/04
60
60
23
5.0 U
86
7.2
240
476
27 J
02/20/05
39
28
15
5.0 U
78
6.6
370
537
26
05/02/05
34
38
17
LOU
89
5.0
170
353
36
07/31/05
42
54
19
3.0 U
57
7.0
190
369
33
11/06/05
35
46
16
2.0 U
45
17
420
579
41J
01/29/06
25
30
18
LOU
43
35
1.100 J
1.251
16
05/08/06
62
55
32
1U
130
5.5
170
455
45
08/19/06
28
38
6.7
2.0 U
4.1
7.1
180
264
28
08/19/06 (DUP)
25
38
6.5
2.0 U
3.7
6.5
160
240
NA
11/06/06
27
34
8.5
3.0 U
17
12
330
429
38
11/6/06 (DUP)
27
34
8.6
3.0 U
17
12
330
429
NA
02/19/07
31
36
12.3
0.3
21
21
780
902
27
02/19/07 (DUP)
37
41
11.3
0.6
24
24
920
1.058
NA
04/30/07
62
57
17
20 U
70
11
190
407
36
04/30/07 (DUP)
63
59
18.2
1.5 J
72
11
190
415
NA
08/15/07
15
19
4.1
LOU
5.1
7.3
100
150
18
08/15/07 (DUP)
15
19
4
LOU
5
7.6
100
150
NA
10/30/07
28
28
16.4
0.5
37
15
290
415
20
10/30/07 (DUP)
29
29
16.4
0.5
37
14
300
426
NA
02/06/08
75
52
36
20 U
110
38
2,700
3,011
18
02/06/08 (DUP)
71
52
38
20 U
120
41
2,600
2,922
NA
05/11/08
63
32
16
0.6
91
3.4
96
302
18
05/11/08 (DUP)
63
32
14
LOU
91
2.9
95
298
NA
08/03/08
51
39
15.2
0.6
75
6.2
130
317
20
08/03/08 (DUP)
52
39
17
20. U
75
6.4
130
319
NA
11/16/08
57
38
18.3
0.6
92
5.8
260
472
26
11/16/08 (DUP)
60
41
17.3
0.6
90
5.9
260
475
NA
Table 7 a
Page 7 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW89-12
02/24/09
37
18
5.6
0.4
51
2.0
86
200
25
continued
02/24/09 (DUP)
38
19
5.9
0.4
52
2.0
92
209
05/05/09
29
16
3.5
0.3
28
3.1
37
117
19
05/5/09 (DUP)
28
16
3.2
0.3
28
2.9
36
114
08/12/09
18
20
5.3
0.3
14
4.2
7.1
137
11
08/12/09 (DUP)
18
20
5.4
0.3
14
4.3
71
136
11
10/28/09
12
11
4.0
0.2 U
16
4.1
85
132
10
10/28/09 (DUP)
12
11
4.1
0.2 U
15
4.1
79
125
9.8
05/19/10
9.6
6.2
0.6
0.2 U
4.3
1.8
8.1
31
10
05/19/10 (DUP)
9.1
6.0
0.6
0.2 U
4.3
1.8
8.1
31
11
08/16/10
18
12
3.1
0.3
14
2.5
39
89
17
10/31/10
H J
7.1
1.0
0.2 U
7.3
1.3
31
65
12
05/24/11
1.2
2.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
1.0
2.9
11
¦1.0
07/24/11
7.7
4.8
0.9
0.2 U
4.2
1.7
23
42
7.1
07/24/11 (DUP)
8.1
5.1
0.9
0.2 U
4.4
1.6
23
43
10/27/11
8.8
5.8
2.3
0.2 U
12
2.1
61
92
5.9
10/27/11 (DUP)
8.3
5.8
2.4
0.2 U
12
2.1
60
91
01/30/12
2.2
1.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.9
1.0
1.1
9.8
3.3
1/30/12 (DUP)
2.1
1.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
1.0
1.2
9.9
3.1
06/05/12
3.7
2.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.8
5.0
13
1.2
6/5/12 (DUP)
3.3
2.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.7
1.8
12
08/16/12
19
22
8.2
0.31
11
7,1
90
158
16
8/16/12 (DUP)
19
23
8.5
0.29
11
7.3
92
161
06/11/13
16
11
4.1
0.22
12
1.1
52
100
11
08/29/13
28
34
20
0.45
26
11
96
215
21
08/21/14
18
22
14
0.33
9.0
10 J
56
129
21 J
08/09/16
16.0
17.9
20.0
0.28
10.3
11.9
67.7
144
9.1
06/19/17
19.9
20.6
22.2
0.34
16.2
9,13
61.9
154
11.7
08/09/17
11,9
10.5
5.6
0.20 U
0.57
9.69
29.3
68
9.3
06/17/19
5.65
3.74
3.27
0.20 U
3.34
2.19
20.0
38
06/17/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1
09/16/19
6.16
8.40 J
6.38
0.20 U
3.09
3.13
25.0
52
3.7
06/18/20
6.92
1.54
0.79
0.20 U
0.77
1.75
5.77
18
3.6
Table 7a
Page 8 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW89-13
11/01
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
2/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
5/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
8/02
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
ND
NA
11/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
2/03
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
5/03
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
8/03
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
5.4
5.4
NA
11/03
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
4.4
4.4
NA
2/04
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
5.8
5.8
NA
5/04
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
5.3
5.3
NA
8/04
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
3.1
3.1
NA
11/08/04
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
1.6
1.6
NA
02/21/05
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
2.0
2.0
NA
05/02/05
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.9
0.90
NA
07/31/05
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.6
0.60
NA
11/07/05
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
2.3
2.3
NA
01/30/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.7
0.70
NA
05/09/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
1.1
1.1
NA
08/20/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.8
0.80
NA
11/07/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
2.5
2.5
NA
02/11/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
2.7
2.7
NA
05/01/07
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
2.8
3.2
2.0 U
08/13/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
6.3
6.7
NA
10/29/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
4.7
4.9
NA
02/04/08
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
7.5
7.9
NA
05/12/08
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
5.8
6.1
2.0 U
08/06/08
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
8.7
9.1
2.0 U
11/18/08
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2
0.2U
5.0
5.2
2.0 U
02/17/09
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.3
0.2U
4.8
5.5
2.0 U
05/07/09
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.3
0.2 U
5.6
5.9
2.0 U
07/27/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
2.6
2.6
2.0 U
10/27/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
1.8
1.8
2.0 U
02/13/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
2.0
2.0
2.0 U
05/24/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
1.8
1.8
2.0 U
07/25/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
1.6
1.6
2.0 U
11/01/11
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
1.6J+
1.6
2.0 U
Table 7 a
Page 9 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW89-13
02/01/12
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
1.0
1.0
NA
continued
06/05/12
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
1.2
1.2
0.4 U
08/28/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.55
0.55
0.4 U
11/28/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.4
2.4
NA
02/18/13
0.74
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.1
1.8
NA
05/29/13
0.66
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.8
4.5
0.4 U
09/03/14
1.1
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.50
0.20 U
9.5
11
0.4 U
02/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32
0.20 U
9.2
9.5
NA
01/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
8.70
9.0
NA
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.87
3.9
NA
05/03/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
05/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
0.20 U
3.62
3.9
NA
05/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
5.30
5.3
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.62
2.6
NA
06/17/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 U
11/18/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.98
4.0
NA
05/19/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.20 U
4.10
4.3
NA
06/17/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
11/05/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.47
1.5
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.26 J
1.3
0.100U
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.24
1.2
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.580 J
0.6
0.100U
12/01/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
3.41
3.4
NA
MW89-14
11/01
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
8.0
5.0 U
5.0
13
NA
2/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
6.0
6.0
NA
5/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0
5.0 U
7.0
12
NA
8/02
12 J
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
5.0 UJ
19 J
5.0 UJ
9.0 J
40
NA
11/02
8.0
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
15
5.0 U
11
34
NA
2/03
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
6.0
6.0
NA
5/03
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
8.0
8.0
NA
8/03
4.1
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
7.2
1.0U
6.8
18
NA
11/03
2.1
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
4.4
1.0 U
5.6
12
NA
2/04
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
2.5
2.5
NA
5/04
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
2.4
2.4
NA
8/04
0.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
3.0
5.2
NA
11/08/04
0.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.9
0.2 U
2.7
4.4
NA
02/21/05
0.7 J
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
2.3
2.9
NA
05/03/05
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.2 U
2.4
3.9
NA
08/03/05
1.0
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.5
0.2 U
3.4
6.9
NA
11/07/05
1.6
1.0
0.8
0.2 U
3.1
0.2 U
4.2
11
NA
01/30/06
0.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.2 U
2.4
4.0
NA
05/09/06
1.1
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.9
0.2U
3.3
5.3
NA
08/20/06
3.9
2.7
3.1
0.2U
7.0
0.3
5.2
22
NA
11/07/06
2.8
3.3
4.7
0.2U
4.3
0.3
2.9
18
NA
02/11/07
1.4
0.5
0.6
0.2U
1.2
0.2U
2.8
6.5
NA
Table 7 a
Page 10 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW89-15
11/01
140
20
13
5.0 U
200
5.0 U
110
483
NA
2/02
110
7
5.0 U
5.0 U
130
5.0 U
93
340
NA
5/02
G7
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
89
5.0 U
56
212
NA
8/02
180 J
54 J
50 J
5.0 UJ
290 J
5.0 UJ
170 J
744
NA
11/02
130
36
40
5.0 U
180
5.0 U
110
496
NA
2/03
46
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
51
5.0 U
38
135
NA
5/03
58
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
76
5.0 U
53
187
NA
8/03
84
23
22
1.0U
130
1.7
82
343
NA
11/03
55
7.9
2.8
LOU
71
LOU
37
174
NA
2/04
110
47
48
LOU
200
3.9
120
529
NA
5/04
110 J
60 J
72 J (cis)
3.0 UJ
220 J
6.7 J
170 J
639
NA
8/04
71
38
45
LOU
120
3.6
110
388
8.3
11/09/04
120
37
44
LOU
130
2.6
120
454
14 J
02/21/05
84
19
19
LOU
99
1.2
87
309
20
05/03/05
37
4.4
3.1
LOU
46
LOU
31
122
5.5
08/03/05
10
3.4
4.1
0.2U
15
0.3
12
45
5.0 U
11/07/05
20
6.8
7.4
0.2U
28
0.6
23
86
7.2 J
11/7/05 (DUP)
20
6.7
7.2
LOU
27
LOU
24
85
NA
01/30/06
21
3.3
2.7
0.6 U
21
0.6 U
18
66
4.0 U
05/09/06
27
2.4
1.6
0.4 U
25
0.4 U
18
74
5.3
08/20/06
4.5
1.6
2.1
0.2 U
5.5
0.2
6.4
20
2.0 U
11/07/06
12
3.4
3.5
0.2 U
14
0.3
16
49
2.3
02/11/07
20 J
2.7
2.3
0.2 U
15
0.3
15
55
2.4
MW06-05 (49 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/23/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/12/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/02/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
NA
05/16/11
0.6
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2
0.2U
2.1
2.9
2.0 U
07/27/11
0.6 J+
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
1.8J+
2.4
2.0 U
(69 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/23/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/08/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/12/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/02/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/16/11
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.8
1.0
2.0 U
07/27/11
0.4 J+
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
1.3 J+
1.7
2.0 U
(89 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/23/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/12/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/02/07
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/13/07
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
2.0 UJ
10/30/07
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
Table 7 a
Page 11 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-05 (89 feet BTOC)
02/04/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
continued
05/13/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/04/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/13/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/20/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/05/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
07/26/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.20
2.0 U
10/26/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/13/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/11
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 J
0.2 U
2.2
3.0
2.0 U
07/27/11
0.3J+
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0 J+
1.3
2.0 U
11/01/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8 J+
0.80
2.0 U
02/01/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/31/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
1.0
0.4 U
08/27/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/15/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/18/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
2/18/2013 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/28/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.36
0.36
0.4 U
09/11/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/18/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/01/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.1 J+
1.1
0.4 U
08/04/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/20/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.56J+
0.56
0.4 UJ
01/29/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/12/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/11/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/24/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 12 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-06 (70 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/23/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/02/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/17/11
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.2 U
1.7
0.2 U
1.9
6.0
2.0 U
07/24/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/27/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.36
0.36
NA
11/29/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/23/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/05/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/09/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/18/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/29/14
0.31 J+
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24 J+
2.3J+
2.9
0.4 U
08/04/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21J+
0.21
NA
08/20/14
1.6J+
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22J+
2.7 J+
4.5
0.4 UJ
11/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 UJ
08/12/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/19/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
(88 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/23/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/08/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/02/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/17/11
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.2 U
1.8
0.2 U
2.3
6.3
2.0 U
07/24/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/27/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/29/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/05/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/09/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/18/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/29/14
0.31 J+
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.2 J+
2.5
0.4 U
08/04/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/20/14
1.1 J+
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2-1J+
3.2
0.4 UJ
11/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 13 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
?/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-06 (88 feet BTOC)
01/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
continued
05/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 UJ
08/12/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/19/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
(105 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/23/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.30
NA
11/08/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/02/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/14/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/30/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/04/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/14/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/04/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/13/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/20/09
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
0.6
2.2
2.0 U
05/07/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
07/26/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/28/10
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.9
2.3
2.0 U
02/13/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.30
NA
05/17/11
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.2 U
1.8
0.2 U
2.4
6.8
2.0 U
07/24/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/30/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3 J+
0.30
2.0 U
02/01/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.30
NA
05/31/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.80
0.4 U
08/27/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/29/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/23/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
(102 feet BTOC)
05/02/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/30/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.4
1.4
0.4 U
09/05/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/09/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/18/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/29/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.7 J+
1.7
0.4 U
08/04/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/20/14
1.0J+
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.8 J+
2.8
0.4 UJ
11/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 14 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-06 (102 feet BTOC)
01/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
continued
05/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 UJ
08/12/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/19/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
MW06-07 (62 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2 U
0.8
0.2 U
0.8
2.8
NA
08/22/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/06
2.0
3.4
0.3
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
4.4
11
NA
02/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.80
NA
05/02/07
0.3
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.4
1.2
NA
05/18/11
3.2
2.4
0.8
0.2 U
2.5
0.6
12 ••;•••
22
'2.5 '
07/25/11
6.2J+
4.4
2.5
0.2 U
8.9J+
0.3
8.7 J+
31
2.0 U
08/29/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/28/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.51
0.51
NA
01/23/13
0.39
0.67
0.29
0.20 U
0.53
0.20 U
0.95
2.8
NA
05/02/13
0.80
0.68
0.59
0.20 U
1.2
0.20 U
1.9
5.2
NA
09/05/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/09/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/18/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.37
0.37
NA
04/23/14
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.88
1.1
NA
05/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.60J+
0.60
0.4 U
08/04/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/11/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/12/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/22/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
01/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 15 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-07 (62 feet BTOC)
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.33
0.33
NA
continued
05/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.24
NA
05/22/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/07/18
0.20 U
0.42
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20
0.20 U
0.92
1.5
NA
08/27/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/11/19
4.25
7.58
13.3
0.20 U
5.03
0.78
14.6
46
NA
05/30/19
1.29
2.61
3.44
0.20 U
1.65
0.26
4.94
14
NA
06/10/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.34
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.56
NA
09/10/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
11/18/19
0.22
0.49
0.89
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
0.67
2.5
NA
03/23/20
6.89
6.49
8.43
0.20 U
5.56
0.70 U
15.3
43
NA
05/19/20
4.43
6.33
10.3
0.20 U
4.11
0.62
10.3
36
NA
06/16/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9
07/29/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32
0.32
NA
11/05/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/24/21
0.38
0.93
1.26
0.20 U
0.41
0.20 U
1.32
4.3
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.430 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.980 J
1.41
0.99
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1U
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/16/22
0.333 U
0.670 J
1.2
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.22
3.09
NA
04/18/22
0.420 J
1.05
1.87
0.333 U
0.370 J
0.333 U
1.60
5.31
0.896
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.350 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.980 J
1.33
0.100U
12/02/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
(85 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
0.7
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.2 U
0.8
2.6
NA
08/22/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/08/06
2.2
4.0
0.3
0.2 U
1.5
0.2U
6.2
14
2.0 U
02/12/07
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2
0.20
2.0 U
05/02/07
0.4
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
0.5
0.2U
0.5
1.7
2.0 U
08/14/07
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/30/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/07/08
0.2
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.7
1.1
2.0 U
05/14/08
2.5
2.2
1.2
0.2 U
5.2
0.2
5.4
17
4.1
08/04/08
0.4
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
1.1
3.0
2.0 U
11/13/08
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
9.2
02/19/09
13
9.1
4.1
0.2 U
18
1.1
68
113
15.0
05/05/09
26
9.2
3.9
0.2 U
32
0.7
34
106
6.3
07/28/10
2.6
2.3
1.5
0.2 U
4.6
0.2
7.0
18
2.0 U
10/26/10
7.6
7.1
3.1
0.2 U
5.1
2.4
150
175
17
02/13/11
5.0
5.2
2.0
0.2 U
6.0
1.3
35
55
NA
05/18/11
3.9
3.0
0.9
0.2U
2.8
0.8
16
27
3.7 J
07/25/11
6.9 J+
4.8
2.7
0.2U
9.8 J+
0.4
11J+
36
2.0 U
10/31/11
17
19
7.0
0.2U
15
5.4
160 J
223
20
02/01/12
12
12
3.8
0.2 U
9.6
4.9
120
162
NA
05/29/12
14
13
6.5
0.2 U
19
1.9
44
98
8.2
08/29/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/28/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20
0.20
NA
01/23/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.88
0.35
1.2
NA
05/28/13
0.54
0.55
0.43
0.20 U
0.77
0.20 U
2.2
4.5
1.1
Table 7 a
Page 16 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-07 (85 feet BTOC)
09/05/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
continued
09/09/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/18/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.33
0.33
NA
04/23/14
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.71
0.71
NA
05/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.48J+
0.48
0.4 U
08/04/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/11/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/12/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/22/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.21
NA
05/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/22/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/07/18
0.20 U
0.40
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.62
NA
08/27/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 17 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-07 (85 feet BTOC)
03/11/19
1.49
3.02
5.39
0.20 U
1.85
0.29
4.55
17
NA
continued
05/30/19
0.76
1.47
1.99
0.20 U
0.85
0.20 U
2.35
7.4
NA
06/10/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
11/18/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
NA
03/23/20
6.26
8.11
12.0
0.20 U
6.23
0.89 U
16.7
49
NA
05/19/20
4.41
6.05
9.97
0.20 U
3.82
0.59
11.0
36
NA
06/16/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6
07/29/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/24/21
0.20 U
0.57
0.71
0.20 U
0.22
0.20 U
0.62
2.1
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.570 J
0.6
1.0
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1U
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/16/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.500 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.420 J
0.9
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.590 J
1.00
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.840 J
2.4
1.4
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.350 J
0.4
0.100 u
12/02/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
(107 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
2.2
1.8
0.5
0.2U
3.4
0.2 U
2.1
10
NA
08/22/06
0.3
0.3
0.2 U
0.2U
0.7
0.2 U
0.6
1.9
NA
11/08/06
0.4
0.7
0.2 U
0.2U
0.3
0.2 U
1.2
2.6
NA
02/12/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/02/07
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.2 U
1.1
0.2 U
0.9
3.6
NA
05/18/11
4.0
3.2
0.9
0.2 U
2.6
0.9
16
28
3.3
07/25/11
3.9 J+
2.5
1.4
0.2 U
5.6 J+
0.2
6.8 J+
20
2.0 U
08/29/12
0.25
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.33
0.20 U
0.52
1.3
0.4 U
11/28/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
NA
NA
(104 feet BTOC)
05/02/13
0.23
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.35
0.20 U
0.47
1.3
NA
09/05/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/09/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/18/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.22
NA
04/23/14
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.44
0.44
NA
05/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.48 J+
0.48
0.4 U
08/04/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.24
NA
05/18/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/11/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 18 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-07 (104 feet BTOC)
02/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
continued
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.22
NA
05/12/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/22/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
01/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/22/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/27/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/11/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/30/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.25
NA
06/10/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' • • • 1.8 ' • •
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 U
11/18/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/23/20
3.15
4.32
5.99
0.20 U
3.25
0.43 U
8.23
25
NA
05/19/20
0.39
0.64
0.44
0.20 U
0.39
0.20 U
1.15
3.0
NA
06/16/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' • • • '0.8 ' • •
07/29/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.22
NA
11/05/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/24/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.9
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1 u
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/16/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
1.14
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.400 J
0.4
0.106 J
12/02/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.610 J
0.61
NA
Table 7a
Page 19 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-08 (79 feet BTOC)
05/09/06
63
34
18
0.7
68
3.6
120
307
NA
08/22/06
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.4
0.2U
0.6
1.0
NA
11/09/06
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.3
0.2U
1.7
2.0
NA
02/19/07
1.5
1.0
0.8
0.2U
2.5
0.2U
2.7
8.5
NA
05/03/07
13
11
5.3
0.2 U
22
0.6
15
67
NA
06/01/11
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
0.2 U
1.2
2.0
2.0 U
06/1/11 (DUP)
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
0.2 U
1.3
2.1
2.0 U
07/26/11
3.9 J+
2.0
1.0
0.2 U
4.7 J+
0.2 U
5.6 J+
17
2.0 U
07/26/11 (DUP)
3.9 J+
1.9
1.0
0.2 U
4.7 J+
0.2 U
5.4 J+
17
2.0 U
08/23/12
0.25
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.33
0.20 U
0.84
1.6
NA
11/28/12
0.30
0.21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.39
0.20 U
0.38
1.3
NA
01/22/13
1.6
1.5
1.0
0.20 U
2.3
0.20 U
2.0
8.4
NA
05/02/13
6.7
4.0
2.9
0.20 U
7.8
0.45
7.6
29
NA
09/05/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/08/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/18/13
0.30
0.27
0.27
0.20 U
0.38
0.20 U
0.43
1.4
NA
02/13/14
18
21
19
0.22
32
1.7
50
142
NA
04/23/14
13
11
8.6
0.20 U
19
0.97
23
76
NA
05/27/14
2.5J+
2.7 J+
2.1 J+
0.20 U
3.6 J+
0.58 J+
7.7 J+
19
1.4
08/04/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.53
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.36 J+
0.89
NA
08/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.35
0.4 U
11/19/14
0.37
0.41
0.49
0.20 U
0.56
0.20 U
0.61
2.4
NA
01/28/15
6.1
10
11
0.20 U
13
0.93
24
65
NA
05/05/15
3.7
3.8
4.3
0.20 U
5.4
0.46
11
29
NA
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7
08/11/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.28
NA
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.56
0.56
NA
02/10/16
3.1
4.3
5.3
0.20 U
4.9
0.47
11
29
NA
05/05/16
3.8
3.4
2.9
0.20 U
3.9
0.31
7.4
22
NA
05/10/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
08/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.25
NA
08/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 20 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-08 (79 feet BTOC)
01/31/17
2.29
3.57
6.54
0.20 U
3.12
0.49
8.24
24
NA
continued
04/27/17
1.13
1.69
2.00
0.20 U
1.46
0.20 U
5.36
12
NA
05/15/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/14/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/08/18
1.49
2.91
3.98
0.20 U
2.44
0.24
7.01
18
NA
05/08/18
0.61
1.09
1.61
0.20 U
0.92
0.20 U
2.19
6.4
NA
05/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
08/07/18
2.27
3.31
5.48
0.20 U
2.47
0.55
5.56
20
NA
08/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/06/18
2.16
5.99
7.48
0.20 U
3.42
0.51
12
32
NA
03/11/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/30/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/13/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 U
07/31/19
1.28
2.18
3.77
0.20 U
1.32
0.24
3.44
12
NA
09/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
11/18/19
0.48
1.47
1.86
0.20 U
0.73
0.20 U
2.47
7.0
NA
03/23/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.22
NA
06/11/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
07/29/20
2.07
6.83
8.34
0.20 U
3.52 J
0.49 U
7.79
29
NA
09/02/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
11/05/20
0.43
1.02
1.71
0.20 U
0.45
0.20 U
1.11
4.7
NA
03/24/21
0.20 U
0.31
0.37
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25U
0.20 U
0.68
NA
05/25/21
0.580 J
1.08 J
1.65 J
0.333 UJ
0.490 J
0.333 UJ
1.40 J
5.20
1.8
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.117 J
11/02/21
1.29
2.38
5.58
0.333 U
0.820 J
0.333 U
3.34
13.41
NA
02/16/22
2.11
3.81
4.9
0.333 U
2.27
0.350 J
6.61
20.05
NA
04/18/22
0.400 J
0.560 J
1.18
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.15
3.29
0.6
07/13/22
3.67
7.71
13.1
0.333 U
3.69
0.870 J
9.2
38.24
3.4
12/02/22
0.333 U
0.430 J
0.75
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.540 J
1.72
NA
(95 feet BTOC)
05/09/06
46
32
21
0.6
87
2.4
64
253
NA
05/09/06 (DUP)
47
37
21
0.4
96
2.2
62
266
NA
08/22/06
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.4
0.2U
0.4
0.80
2.0 U
08/22/06 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2
0.2U
0.2
0.40
2.0 U
11/09/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2
0.20
2.0 U
11/9/06 (DUP)
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2
0.20
2.0 U
02/19/07
2.2
1.4
1.0
0.2 U
3.6
0.2 U
3.1
11
2.0 U
02/19/07 (DUP)
2.1
1.4
1.0
0.2 U
3.6
0.2 U
3.0
11
2.0 U
05/03/07
15
13
5.8
0.2 U
26
0.7
22
83
5.0
05/3/07 (DUP)
12
11
5.1
0.2 J
22
0.7
20
71
5.0
06/01/11
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.4
0.2U
1.1
1.8
2.0 U
07/26/11
4.1
2.1
1.0
0.2U
5.0 J+
0.2U
6.3 J+
19
2.0 U
08/23/12
0.24
0.20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.29
0.20 U
0.87
1.6
NA
11/28/12
0.27
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.39
0.20 U
0.52
1.4
NA
09/05/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/08/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/18/13
0.22
0.29
0.33
0.20 U
0.45
0.20 U
0.74
1.8
NA
11/18/13 (DUP)
0.32
0.28
0.31
0.20 U
0.45
0.20 U
0.70
1.7
NA
Table 7 a
Page 21 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-08 (95 feet BTOC)
02/13/14
18
21
18
0.22
32
1.6
49
140
NA
continued
02/13/14 (DUP)
22
25
22
0.26
38
1.9
58
167
NA
04/23/14
12
11
8.7
0.20 U
19
0.96
28
80
NA
05/27/14
2.6 J+
3.1
2.4 J+
0.20 U
3.9 J+
0.53 J+
8.0 J+
21
1.3
08/04/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.59
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.29 J+
0.88
NA
08/4/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.64
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.33 J+
0.97
NA
08/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.4 U
08/19/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32
0.4 U
11/19/14
0.37
0.37
0.46
0.20 U
0.53
0.20 U
0.92
2.7
NA
11/19/14 (DUP)
0.36
0.37
0.50
0.20 U
0.56
0.20 U
0.88
2.7
NA
01/28/15
5.7
9.4
10
0.20 U
13
0.88
24
63
NA
01/28/15 (DUP)
5.6
9.4
9.8
0.20 U
13
0.92
24
63
NA
05/05/15
3.5
3.8
4.1
0.20 U
5.4
0.43
11
28
NA
05/05/15 (DUP)
3.6
3.8
4.2
0.20 U
5.4
0.42
11
28
NA
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8
05/13/15 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
08/11/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20
0.20
NA
08/11/15 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.21
NA
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/24/15 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.53
0.53
NA
11/09/15 (DUP
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32
0.32
NA
02/10/16
3.1
4.2
5.1
0.20 U
4.8
0.49
11
29
NA
02/10/16 (DUP)
3.1
4.1
5.1
0.20 U
4.9
0.47
11
29
NA
05/05/16
3.5 J
3.4 J
2.7 J
0.20 U
3.8 J
0.33 J
7.5 J
21
NA
05/05/16 (DUP)
3.7
3.2
2.6
0.20 U
3.9
0.29
7.9
22
NA
05/10/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.8
05/10/16 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
08/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/15/16 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/17/16 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/09/16 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 22 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-08 (95 feet BTOC)
01/31/17
2.13
3.37
6.17
0.20 U
2.83
0.45
8.29
23
NA
continued
01/31/17 (DUP)
1.93
3.12
5.63
0.20 U
2.67
0.46
8.90
23
NA
04/27/17
1.13
1.63
2.00
0.20 U
1.41
0.20 U
5.04
11
NA
04/27/17 (DUP)
1.19
1.75
2.04
0.20 U
1.56
0.20 U
5.01
12
NA
05/15/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
05/15/17 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
8/1/2017 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/14/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
8/14/2017 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/02/17 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/08/18
1.45
2.88
3.68
0.20 U
2.23
0.22
6.28
17
NA
03/08/18 (DUP)
1.36
2.67
3.74
0.20 U
2.24
0.33
6.87
17
NA
05/08/18
0.60
0.96
1.50
0.20 U
0.94
0.20 U
2.13
6.1
NA
05/8/18 (DUP)
0.55
0.94
1.43
0.20 U
0.91
0.20 U
1.89
5.7
NA
05/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
05/21/18 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
08/07/18
2.13
2.98
5.15
0.20 U
2.45
0.51
6.42
20
NA
08/07/18 (DUP)
2.05
2.61
4.93
0.20 U
2.15
0.52
6.23
18
NA
08/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
08/21/18 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
11/06/18
1.70
4.40
6.14
0.20 U
2.85
0.48
9.64
25
NA
03/11/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/11/19 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/30/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/30/19 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/13/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 U
06/13/19 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 U
07/31/19
1.24
2.09
3.62
0.20 U
1.28
0.23
3.42
12
NA
07/31/19 (DUP)
1.25
2.18
3.65
0.20 U
1.34
0.23
3.62
12
NA
09/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
09/12/19 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
11/18/19
0.30
1.14
1.17
0.20 U
0.43
0.20 U
1.82
4.9
NA
11/18/19 (DUP)
0.34
1.38
1.31
0.20 U
0.49
0.20 U
1.81
5.3
NA
03/23/30
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/23/20 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/20 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/11/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
06/11/20 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
07/29/20
1.51
5.06
6.30
0.20 U
2.48 J
0.33 U
4.38
20
NA
07/29/20 (DUP)
1.61
5.59
5.94
0.20 U
2.60
0.25 U
4.76
21
NA
09/02/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 U
09/02/20 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
11/05/20
0.45
1.07
1.73
0.20 U
0.48
0.20 U
1.26
5.0
NA
11/05/2020 (DUP)
0.38
0.92
1.68
0.20 U
0.41
0.20 U
1.27
4.7
NA
03/24/21
0.84
1.01
0.94
0.20 U
0.73
0.20 U
2.06
5.6
NA
3/24/21 (DUP)
0.90
0.98
0.93
0.20 U
0.76
0.20 U
2.04
5.6
NA
05/25/21
0.540 J
1.13 J
1.73 J
0.333 UJ
0.440 J
0.333 UJ
1.53 J
5.4
1.7
05/25/21 (DUP)
0.790 J
1.19
1.84
0.333 U
0.510 J
1.10
1.72
3.14
2.1
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1 U
9/14/2021 (DUP)
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1U
11/02/21
1.26
2.33
5.52
0.333 U
0.860 J
0.333 U
3.54
13.51
NA
11/02/21 (DUP)
1.19
2.31
5.61
0.333 U
0.920 J
0.333 U
3.54
13.57
NA
02/16/22
2
3.7
4.93
0.333 U
2.19
0.333 U
6.12
18.94
NA
2/16/2022 (DUP)
2
3.66
4.95
0.333 U
2.20
0.333 U
6.48
19.29
NA
04/18/22
0.390 J
0.620 J
1.08
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.01
3.10
0.7
04/18/22 (DUP)
0.333 U
0.540 J
1.02
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.830 J
2.39
0.7
07/13/22
3.29
6.76
12.7
0.333 U
3.72
0.930 J
11.6
39.00
3.5
07/13/22 (DUP)
4.11
7.9
13.9
0.333 U
4.11
0.820 J
11.3
42.14
3.8
12/02/22
0.333 U
0.530 J
0.93
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.720 J
2.18
NA
12/2/2022 (DUP)
0.333 U
0.470 J
0.88
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.650 J
2.00
NA
Table 7 a
Page 23 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-08 (114 feet BTOC)
05/09/06
44
32
20
0.6
86
2.4
65
250
NA
continued
08/22/06
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.4
0.2U
0.5
0.90
NA
11/09/06
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2
0.2U
0.3
0.50
NA
02/19/07
2.3
1.4
1.1
0.2U
3.8
0.2 U
2.8
11
NA
05/03/07
8.7 J
9.3 J
3.8 J
0.2 U
16 J
0.5 J
16
54
NA
08/14/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.4
0.70
2.0 U
08/14/07 (DUP)
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.4
0.70
2.0 U
10/31/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2
0.40
2.0 U
10/31/07 (DUP)
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2
0.40
2.0 U
02/06/08
8.5
6.2
3.8
0.6 U
18
0.6 U
13
43
2.1
02/06/08 (DUP)
8.1
6.4
3.9
0.6 U
18
0.6 U
15
#REF!
2.1
05/14/08
47
23
12
0.4
82
1.3
68
234
14
05/14/08 (DUP)
44
24
13
0.4
74
1.5
62
219
13
08/05/08
2.6 J
4.7
2.0
0.2 U
9.4 J
0.3
17
36
2.0 U
08/05/08 (DUP)
5.0 J
6.9
2.7
0.2U
16 J
0.4
23
54
2.0 U
11/13/08
2.1
1.9
1.3
0.2U
4.2
0.2U
3.3
13
2.0 U
11/13/08 (DUP)
2.1
2.0
1.3
0.2 U
4.4
0.2 U
3.4
13
2.0 U
02/19/09
10
6.4
3.2
0.2 U
18
0.4
17
55
4.2
02/19/09 (DUP)
9.7
6.1
3.1
0.2 U
17
0.5
17
53
3.9
05/07/09
4.2
2.1
0.9
0.2 U
7.3
0.2 U
6.8
21
2.0 U
05/07/09 (DUP)
4.1
2.1
0.8
0.2 U
7.0
0.2 U
6.6
21
2.0 U
07/27/10
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.2 U
1.6
0.2 U
2.2
5.7
2.0 U
10/27/10
4.3
3.3
1.7
0.2 U
5.8
0.4
12
28
2.0 U
10/27/10 (DUP)
4.8
3.8
1.8
0.2 U
6.5
0.3
11
28
2.4
02/13/11
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.4
0.2 U
3.5
5.5
NA
06/01/11
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
1.1
1.7
2.0 U
07/26/11
4.4J+
2.1
0.9
0.2 U
4.9 J+
0.2 U
5.8 J+
18
2.0 U
11/01/11
4.6
2.8
1.4
0.2 U
5.8
0.2
8.5
23
2.0 U
11/01/11 (DUP)
4.5
2.8
1.3
0.2U
5.7
0.2
8.5
23
2.0 U
02/01/12
0.5
0.2
0.2 U
0.2U
1.2
0.2 U
3.4
5.3
NA
05/30/12
1.2
0.9
0.5
0.2 U
1.5
0.2 U
3.0
7.1
NA
06/05/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/23/12
0.42
0.56
0.26
0.20 U
0.84
0.20 U
1.4
3.5
0.4 U
11/28/12
0.30
0.26
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.50
0.20 U
0.59
1.7
NA
01/22/13
1.7
1.5
1.1
0.20 U
2.2
0.20 U
2.1
8.6
NA
Table 7 a
Page 24 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-08 (109 feet BTOC)
05/02/13
7.1
4.1
3.1
0.20 U
7.6
0.41
4.8
27
NA
continued
05/28/13
8.9
7.0
4.5
0.20 U
13
0.54
16
50
2.7
09/05/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/08/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
9/8/2013 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/18/13
0.21
0.26
0.35
0.20 U
0.41
0.20 U
0.46
1.5
NA
02/13/14
13 J
16 J
14 J
0.20 U
24 J
1.2
35
103
NA
04/23/14
11
9.4
7.8
0.20 U
16
0.80
23
68
NA
05/27/14
2.6 J+
3.1
2.4 J+
0.20 U
4.0 J+
0.51 J+
7.6 J+
20
1.4
05/27/14 (DUP)
2.4 J+
2.9 J+
2.4 J+
0.20 U
3.9 J+
0.46 J+
7.3 J+
19
1.3
08/04/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.39 J+
0.59
NA
08/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.4 U
11/19/14
0.21
0.26
0.24
0.20 U
0.39
0.20 U
0.43
1.5
NA
01/28/15
3.0
4.7
5.3
0.20 U
6.1
0.42
9.8
29
NA
05/05/15
2.0
2.4
2.4
0.20 U
3.2
0.23
6.0
16
NA
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8
08/11/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.24
NA
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.54
0.54
NA
02/10/16
1.1
1.6
2.0
0.20 U
1.8
0.20 U
4.2
11
NA
05/05/16
4.3
3.3
3.1
0.20 U
3.7
0.36
5.0
20
NA
05/10/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.8
08/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.25
NA
08/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/31/17
1.66
2.65
4.72
0.20 U
2.42
0.39
6.30
18
NA
04/27/17
1.07
1.58
1.83
0.20 U
1.40
0.20 U
5.74
12
NA
05/15/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
08/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/14/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.21
NA
03/08/18
1.61
3.08
4.00
0.20 U
2.45
0.25
6.76
18
NA
05/08/18
0.24
0.36
0.53
0.20 U
0.35
0.20 U
0.77
2.3
NA
05/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6
08/07/18
0.84
1.19
2.03
0.20 U
0.98
0.20
2.52
7.8
NA
08/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5 J
11/06/18
2.38
5.97
8.89
0.20 U
4.06
0.71
15.1
37
NA
03/11/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/30/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/13/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
07/31/19
0.23
0.34
0.45
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.56
1.6
NA
09/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1
11/18/19
0.30
1.28
1.32
0.20 U
0.47
0.20 U
1.61
5.0
NA
03/23/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.24
NA
06/11/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
07/29/20
0.64
1.94
2.25
0.20 U
0.93 J
0.20 U
1.88
7.6
NA
09/02/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
11/05/20
0.55
1.22
1.95
0.20 U
0.56
0.20 U
1.43
5.7
NA
03/24/21
0.79
0.92
0.91
0.20 U
0.72
0.20 U
1.94
5.3
NA
05/25/21
0.333 UJ
0.480 J
0.770 J
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
0.590 J
1.8
1.8
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.141 J
11/02/21
0.500 J
1.26
2.24
0.333 U
0.520 J
0.333 U
1.21
5.7
NA
02/16/22
1.01
2.25
3.15
0.333 U
1.22
0.333 U
3.95
11.6
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.400 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.360 J
0.8
0.7
07/13/22
1.78
2.98
5.87
0.333 U
1.6
0.480 J
4.21
16.9
3.9
12/02/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 25 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-09 (100 feet BTOC)
05/08/06
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.70
NA
08/24/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/09/06
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.70
NA
02/20/07
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
1.2
NA
05/03/07
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
1.1
NA
05/26/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.40
2.0 U
07/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
(124 feet BTOC)
05/08/06
0.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
1.2
NA
08/24/06
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.40
2.0 U
11/09/06
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
1.0
2.0 U
02/20/07
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.8
1.7
2.0 U
05/03/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.30
2.0 U
05/26/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.40
2.0 U
07/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
(144 feet BTOC)
05/08/06
0.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
1.3
NA
08/24/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/09/06
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
1.2
NA
02/20/07
0.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
1.6
NA
05/03/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/15/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/31/07
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
1.1
2.0 U
02/06/08
1.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
1.2
2.7
2.0 U
05/14/08
0.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.7
1.8
2.0 U
08/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
ND
2.0 U
11/14/08
0.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
1.5
2.0 U
02/19/09
0.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
1.5
2.0 U
05/07/09
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.70
2.0 U
07/28/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/13/11
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.70
NA
05/26/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.30
2.0 U
07/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/30/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/01/12
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.70
NA
05/23/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
0.4 U
08/29/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.74
0.74
0.4 U
11/15/12
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20
NA
02/18/13
0.36
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.27
0.60
NA
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.29
0.29
0.4 U
09/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/18/13
1.7
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
0.68
2.6
NA
Table 7a
Page 26 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-09 (144 feet BTOC)
02/13/14
1.4
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.20 U
1.0
2.6
NA
continued
05/29/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.62 J+
0.62
0.4 U
08/04/14
1.7
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.29
0.20 U
0.70 J+
2.7
NA
08/20/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.67J+
0.67
0.4 UJ
01/26/15
0.89
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.73
1.6
NA
08/12/15
0.89
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.93
1.8
NA
08/15/16
1.93
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
1.24
3.4
NA
02/01/17
0.68
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.71
1.4
NA
08/01/17
0.89
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.73
1.6
NA
08/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/27/19
0.51
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.54
1.1
NA
07/31/19
1.67
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.81
2.5
NA
03/23/20
0.53
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.61
1.1
NA
08/13/20
0.71
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.56
1.3
NA
03/24/21
0.48
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.53
1.0
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/17/22
0.460 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.410 J
0.9
NA
07/12/22
0.550 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.6
NA
Table 7a
Page 27 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
?/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-10 (40 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.6
1.3
NA
08/25/06
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.6
0.2 U
1.2
3.3
2.0 U
11/09/06
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.7
1.5
2.0 U
02/19/07
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.4
0.2 U
0.2
1.0
2.0 U
05/03/07
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.2 U
0.4
1.7
2.0 U
08/15/07
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.2 U
0.4
1.5
2.0 U
10/30/07
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.1
0.2 U
0.6
2.1
2.0 U
02/07/08
1.0
0.9
0.3
0.2 U
2.6
0.2 U
0.9
5.7
2.0 U
05/12/08
2.2
3.1
0.9
0.2 U
8.3
0.2
2.2
17
2.0 U
08/05/08
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.2 U
2.6
0.2 U
1.7
6.3
2.0 U
11/14/08
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
0.6
2.3
2.0 U
02/20/09
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.9
0.2 U
0.5
2.0
2.0 U
05/06/09
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
0.4
1.9
2.0 U
07/26/10
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.8
0.2 U
2.1
4.5
2.0 U
10/25/10
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.3
0.2 U
2.5
5.3
2.0 U
02/13/11
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.2 U
1.1
2.2
NA
06/01/11
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
1.2
2.6
2.0 U
07/28/11
0.6J+
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.9J+
0.2 U
2.7 J+
5.2
2.0 U
11/01/11
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
2.6
4.7
2.0 U
02/01/12
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.1
0.2 U
1.2
2.5
NA
05/29/12
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
2.5
4.1
0.4 U
08/29/12
0.26
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.7
0.20 U
2.3
4.3
0.4
11/28/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.99
0.20 U
0.91
1.9
NA
02/18/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.59
0.20 U
0.37
1.0
NA
05/29/13
0.28
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.68
0.20 U
2.5
3.5
0.4 U
11/18/13
0.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.75
0.20 U
0.66
1.4
NA
05/21/14
0.52 J+
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.0J+
0.20 U
3.0 J+
4.5
0.4 U
01/26/15
0.45
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.0
0.20 U
1.9
4.4
NA
08/11/15
1.8
1.2
0.87 (cis)
0.20 U
3.5
0.20 U
3.9
11
NA
08/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
- '• '• '0.6 ' '• '•
02/10/16
0.63
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.6
0.20 U
1.8
4.0
NA
08/15/16
1.72
1.28
0.98
0.20 U
3.47
0.20 U
4.48
12
NA
08/24/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
01/31/17
0.30
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.11
0.20 U
1.78
3.2
NA
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.64
0.20 U
1.25
1.9
NA
05/02/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.51
0.20 U
0.78
1.3
NA
05/08/18
0.36
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.24
0.20 U
1.57
3.2
NA
05/30/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
11/06/18
0.47
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.81
0.20 U
1.98
4.3
NA
05/15/19
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.03
0.20 U
1.31
2.7
NA
06/17/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
11/18/19
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.65
0.20 U
1.86
4.0
NA
05/19/20
0.41
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.25
0.20 U
1.35
3.0
NA
06/17/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' - - - '0.5 "
11/05/20
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.23
0.20 U
1.94
3.5
NA
05/25/21
27.2 J
17.7 J
16.9 J
0.333 U
15.4 J
1.54 J
1.62 J
80.4
11/02/21
6.04
1.44 J
1.24 J
0.666 U
2.36
1.18 J
' • • • 58,9 ' '• '•
71.2
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.560 J
0.333 U
1.29
1.9
12/01/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.16
1.2
NA
Table 7a
Page 28 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-11 (60 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
18
6.5
4.1
0.2U
22
0.3
18
69
NA
08/24/06
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2
0.2U
0.8
1.0
NA
11/09/06
10
5.9
5.3
0.2U
16
0.3
14
52
NA
02/19/07
20
6.1
6.1
0.2U
26
0.5
24
83
NA
05/03/07
43
15
16
0.6 U
35
1.0
30
140
NA
05/19/11
33
2.9
1.9
0.2U
20
0.4
24
82
5.5
07/28/11
43 J
3.9
2.2
0.2U
24
0.6
23 J+
97
4.2
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.25
NA
05/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.24
NA
(75 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
18
6.0
3.8
0.2 U
18
0.4
18
64
2.6
08/24/06
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.4
0.2U
1.3
1.9
2.0 U
11/09/06
12
7.2
6.4
0.2U
15
0.5
18
59
3.0
02/19/07
15
7.6
7.6
0.2U
20
0.5
29
80
4.0
05/03/07
38
14
14
0.6 U
32
1.0
26
125
5.9
05/19/11
30
2.7
1.8
0.2U
18
0.4
22
75
4.6
07/28/11
29
3.0
2.0
0.2U
16
0.4
17J+
67
2.6
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.22
NA
05/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32
0.32
NA
(90 feet BTOC)
05/10/06
21
6.2
3.6
0.2 U
21
0.4
16
68
NA
08/24/06
0.3
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.2 U
2.7
4.0
NA
11/09/06
15
7.4
7.2
0.2U
17
0.5
19
66
NA
02/19/07
16
8.4
8.9
0.2U
23
0.6
31
88
NA
05/03/07
35
13
14
0.6 U
30
0.9
24
117
NA
08/15/07
3.2
0.7
0.6
0.2U
2.9
0.2U
3.7
11
2.0 U
10/30/07
2.2
0.5
0.3
0.2 U
2.3
0.2 U
2.4
7.7
2.0 U
02/07/08
79
12
4.1
2 U
47
2.0
130
274
2.0 U
05/13/08
19
2.8
2.4
0.2 U
14
0.3
14
53
2.4
08/05/08
11
1.2
0.8
0.2 U
9.0
0.2 U
8.0
30
2.0 U
11/14/08
5.6
0.8
0.6
0.2 U
4.2
0.2 U
4.2
15
2.0 U
02/20/09
6.8
0.8
0.6
0.2 U
4.2
0.2 U
4.7
17
2.0 U
05/06/09
33
1.9
0.6
0.2 U
22
0.3
17
75
3.4
07/27/10
19
2.0
1.2
0.2 U
12
0.3
11
46
2.9
10/27/10
13
2.4
2.0
0.2 U
7.3
0.3
9.9
35
2.0
Table 7 a
Page 29 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-11 (90 feet BTOC)
02/13/11
98
9.2
5.0
1.0U
52
1.4
48
214
NA
continued
05/19/11
29
2.5
1.8
0.2U
17
0.4
20
71
4.4
07/28/11
25
2.6
1.8
0.2U
14
0.4
15 J+
59
2.4
11/01/11
45
5.2
3.5
0.2U
24
1.0
30
109
7.0
02/01/12
88
12
9.1
0.3
43
2.0
56
210
NA
05/31/12
88
12
7.6
0.3
41
1.6
53
204
12
08/30/12
1.4
0.68
0.90
0.20 U
0.91
0.20 U
1.5
5.4
0.5
11/27/12
14
12
15
0.20 U
13 J
1.9
19
75
4.0
11/27/12 (DUP)
15
12
14
0.20 U
12 J
1.9
19
74
4.6
02/18/13
24
15
21
0.20 U
16
2.8
20
99
NA
02/18/13 (DUP)
23
14
20
0.20 U
15
2.6
16
91
NA
05/30/13
12
5.2
4.9
0.20 U
8.2
0.59
11
42
2.6
05/30/13 (DUP)
11
5.1
4.7
0.20 U
7.7
0.68
11
40
NA
09/11/13
0.42
0.24
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.82
1.5
0.4 U
11/18/13
0.73
0.56
0.80
0.20 U
0.51
0.20 U
0.71
3.3
NA
02/13/14
1.1
1.3
1.2
0.20 U
1.2
0.20 U
2.6
7.4
NA
05/21/14
2.4 J+
1.1J+
1.3J+
0.20 U
2.3 J+
0.20 J+
3.9 J+
11
0.4 U
08/04/14
0.20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.44 J+
0.64
0.4 U
11/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/15
0.33
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.29
0.20 U
0.41
1.0
0.4 UJ
08/11/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.30
0.30
NA
08/25/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.25
NA
05/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/23/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.42
0.42
NA
04/26/17
0.24
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
0.20 U
0.66
1.1
NA
05/23/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.27
0.27
NA
08/17/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.66
0.87
0.85
0.20 U
0.61
0.20 U
1.30
4.3
NA
03/08/18
4.26
0.50
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.24
0.20 U
1.33
7.3
NA
05/08/18
12.4
1.51
1.10
0.20 U
3.81
0.40
9.00
28
NA
05/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
08/07/18
6.49
1.11
0.33
0.20 U
1.09
0.31
5.64
15
NA
08/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/06/18
0.73
0.39
0.76
0.20 U
0.49
0.20 U
1.41
3.8
NA
Table 7 a
Page 30 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-11 (90 feet BTOC)
03/11/19
10.4
5.45
7.76
0.20 U
6.06
0.91
10.1
41
NA
continued
05/15/19
8.22
2.72
1.91
0.20 U
4.36
0.37
15.0
33
NA
06/17/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.8
07/24/19
25.5
2.12
0.62
0.20 U
5.10
0.94
11.4
46
NA
09/18/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6
11/18/19
7.14
1.45
1.35
0.20 U
2.39
0.31
4.46
17
NA
02/27/20
10.0
1.19
0.68
0.20 U
3.39
0.32 U
9.32
25
NA
05/19/20
12.4
1.51
0.78
0.20 U
3.53
0.34
10.1
29
NA
06/17/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1
07/28/20
15.2
1.57
1.16
0.29
4.61
0.50
8.87
32
NA
11/05/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.26
0.26
NA
03/24/21
11.9
2.80
1.99
0.20 U
5.08
0.40 U
5.22
27
NA
05/25/21
17.1 J
3.14 J
2.67 J
0.333 U
4.75 J
0.540 J
8.58 J
37
2.9
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
2.69
2.69
0.474
11/02/21
0.530 J
0.410 J
1.14
0.333 U
0.350 J
0.333 U
0.690 J
3.12
NA
02/16/22
2.71
0.760 J
0.87
0.333 U
1.46
0.333 U
2.77
8.57
NA
04/18/22
2.87
0.760 J
0.860 J
0.333 U
1.30
0.333 U
3.14
8.93
1.8
07/13/22
5.11
0.660 J
0.36
0.333 U
1.06
0.333 U
3.79
10.98
0.6
12/01/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
MW14-01A
04/23/14
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.79
0.20 U
9.4
10
NA
06/01/14
0.34 J+
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.1J+
0.30 J+
17 J+
19
1.2
11/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.64
0.20 U
14
15
NA
01/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.0
0.20 U
20
21
NA
05/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.92
0.20 U
21
22
1-3 J
08/11/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.2
0.20 U
21
22
NA
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.61
0.20 U
16
17
NA
02/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.99
0.20 U
20
21
NA
05/05/16
0.20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.70
0.20 U
23
24
NA
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.81
0.20 U
22.3
23
NA
01/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.78
0.20 U
21.2
22
NA
04/27/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.14
0.20 U
21.5
23
NA
05/02/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.67
0.20 U
22.4
23
NA
03/08/18
0.34
0.35
0.30
0.20 U
0.77
0.21
24.5
26
NA
05/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.72
0.20 U
19.2
20
NA
05/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
08/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.90
0.23
34.7
36
NA
08/22/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.04
0.20 U
24.2
25
NA
03/11/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.79
0.20 U
26.3
27
NA
05/30/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.83
0.20 U
26.2
27
NA
06/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.93
0.26
34.5
36
NA
09/18/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
11/18/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.03
0.20 U
24.5
26
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.85
0.20 U
23.5
24
NA
05/19/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.84
0.20 U
27.7
29
NA
06/24/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
07/29/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.97
0.20 U
36.2
37
NA
11/05/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.69
0.20 U
20.7
21
NA
03/24/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.69
0.20 U
27.3
28
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.470 J
0.333 U
27.8
28
2.8
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.49 J
0.333 U
30.8
31
1.9
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.360 J
0.333 U
18.9
19.26
NA
02/16/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.380 J
0.333 U
23.3
23.68
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.420 J
0.333 U
29.0
29.42
6.9
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.520 J
0.333 U
33.8
34.32
9.0
12/01/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
26.1
26.1
NA
Table 7 a
Page 31 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-01B
04/23/14
49
38
36
0.52
63
3.8
56
247
NA
06/01/14
45 J
48 J
34 J
0.48
68 J
4.0
90
289
12
06/01/14 (DUP)
45
46
33
0.44
66
3.6
91
285
11
08/04/14
3.6
15
7.4
0.20 U
19
1.1
46
92
NA
08/21/14
2.4 J+
2.9
3.4
0.20 U
3.0 J
1.3J+
13 J+
26
3.6 J
11/24/14
9.2
14
15
0.20 U
16
2.3
40
97
NA
01/26/15
9.4
19
17
0.22
22
1.7
48
117
NA
05/05/15
9.3
11
8.2
0.20 U
15
0.84
36
80
4.2 J
08/11/15
2.1
5.3
5.3
0.20 U
5.3
0.53
29
48
NA
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1
11/09/15
4.3
6.1
7.4
0.20 U
4.7
0.74
13
36
NA
02/10/16
16
23
29
0.27
27
3.0
50
148
NA
05/05/16
42
44
34
0.50
51
3.2
79
254
NA
05/11/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.2
08/15/16
2.69
6.37
6.36
0.20 U
5.09
3.78
44.7
69
NA
08/18/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9
11/10/16
1.72
3.66
3.57
0.20 U
2.93
0.56
13.4
26
NA
01/31/17
10.4
19.1
20.7
0.21
17.2
1.97
50.2
120
NA
04/27/17
58.4
62.9
76.0 (cis)
0.70
74.6
6.91
141
420
NA
5/16/2017
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.0
8/1/2017
0.67
2.13
1.93 J
0.20 U
1.28
0.20 U
8.33
14
NA
8/10/2017
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1
11/2/2017
3.87
4.73
6.23
0.20 U
3.26
0.87
11.0
30
NA
3/8/2018
22.9
25.3
29.8
0.26
28.9
2.23
59.7 J
169
NA
5/8/2018
26.1
17.8
25.3
0.25
21.4
2.55
49.7
143
NA
5/23/2018
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.0
8/7/2018
27.9
30.6
35.4
0.34
33.3
3.05
75.3
206
NA
8/22/2018
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.4
11/6/2018
18.7
24.1
26.5
0.25
26.3
2.22
78.1
176
NA
3/11/2019
10.5
2.07
1.01
0.20 U
5.54
0.20 U
13.6 J
33
NA
5/30/2019
36.4
13.4
7.80
0.28
21.2
1.17
35.1
115
NA
6/12/2019
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.4
7/24/2019
24.8
11.1
5.83
0.20 U
15.9
0.80
37.9 J
96
NA
9/18/2019
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.9
11/18/2019
15.5
9.97
8.59
0.20 U
12.2
0.93
27.1
74
NA
2/27/2020
13.8
0.50
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.24
0.20 U
6.57
24
NA
5/19/2020
16.1
2.01
0.66
0.20 U
6.02
0.20 U
16.2
41
NA
6/24/2020
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.8
7/29/2020
33.3 J
42.6
75.1 (cis)
0.57 J
36.5
3.87
70.3
262
NA
9/3/2020
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.8
11/5/2020
7.31
12.0
21.5 J
0.20 U
6.29
1.37
12.3
39
NA
3/24/2021
16.1
12.6
9.23
0.20 U
12.1
0.87 J
29.6 J
81
NA
5/25/2021
30.9 J
18.6 J
17.3 J
0.333 U
17.7 J
1.64
35.8
122
7.8
09/13/2021
0.333 U
2.7
2.26
0.333 U
0.81 J
0.333 U
5.08
11
13.2
11/2/2021
7.68
11.5
23.7
0.333 U
4.61
1.39
16.9
66
NA
2/16/2022
20.6
16.5
21.3
0.333 U
15
1.67
36.5
112
NA
4/18/2022
1.53
1.04
2.87
0.333 U
0.350 J
0.410 J
1.63
8
13.8
7/13/2022
39.9
51.6
88.1
0.670 J
39.2
4.77
85.5
310
26.8
12/1/2022
2.09
4.92
4.99
0.333 U
1.62
0.790 J
12.7
27
NA
Table 7 a
Page 32 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-02A
04/23/14
86
150
360 (cis)
3.6
4.8
59
71
735
NA
05/18/14
48
94
140 (cis)
2.1
2.1 J+
49
83
418
49
08/04/14
15
25
53
2.0 U
2.0 U
71
80
244
09/03/14
5.9
11
13
0.54
0.41
25
92
148
4.6
11/24/14
9.7
11
65
1.0U
LOU
89
55
230
NA
01/26/15
8.9
10
72 (cis)
0.86
0.40 U
96
58
246
NA
05/05/15
7.4
7.3
68
0.78
0.20 U
73
53
209
NA
05/27/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.5
08/11/15
5.0
5.8
37
0.58
0.28
91
56
196
NA
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.3
11/09/15
3.8
4.6
37
0.52
0.20 U
68
37
151
NA
02/10/16
4.2
4.7
59
0.20 U
0.20 U
97
46
211
NA
05/05/16
6.1 J
5.1 J
75 J
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
110
37 J
233
NA
08/15/16
3.80
4.84
47.22
0.54
0.20 U
108
34.0
198
NA
08/24/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.3 J
11/09/16
2.29
3.59
39.06
0.40
0.20 U
74.1
18.4
138
NA
01/31/17
2.24
3.05
38.8
1.00U
1.00U
87.2
11.5
143
NA
04/27/17
2.49
3.29
46.1
1.00U
1.00U
99.6
5.63
157
NA
08/01/17
2.28
2.88
38.1
0.20 U
0.20 U
108
22.2
173
NA
08/03/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5
11/02/17
1.78
2.69
22.61
0.20 U
0.20 U
90.6
16.1
134
NA
03/08/18
1.47
2.31
27.4
0.20 U
0.20 U
67.3
1.54
100
NA
05/17/18
1.57
2.18
30.7
0.20 U
0.20 U
59.5
0.24
94
NA
05/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.9
08/07/18
3.59
3.73
34.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
70.3
6.58
119
NA
08/16/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.7
11/06/18
1.96
2.08
41.1
0.20 U
0.20 U
65.5
0.91
112
NA
03/11/19
2.04
2.15
59.5
0.31
0.20 U
46.9
0.23
111
NA
05/15/19
2.00
1.94
61.04
0.31
0.20 U
31.8
0.20 U
97
NA
06/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.6
07/24/19
9.38
12.9
56.3
0.59
0.20 U
56.4
1.31
137
NA
09/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.5
11/18/19
6.39
9.75
67.0
0.41
0.20 U
42.7
0.74
127
NA
03/23/20
3.79
4.73
74.3
0.43
0.20 U
16.7
0.23
100
NA
05/19/20
3.33
4.19
73.3
0.39
0.20 U
17.9
0.20 U
99
NA
06/24/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.8
07/28/20
2.25
2.90
36.1
0.37
0.20 U
32.4
3.18
77
NA
09/29/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.1
11/05/20
1.40
2.03
17.5
0.20 U
0.20 U
41.4
2.45
65
NA
03/24/21
1.52
1.86
52.6
0.27
0.20 U
17.3
0.34
74
NA
05/25/21
1.56
1.63
50.6
0.333 U
0.333 U
12.6
0.333 U
66
1.0
09/13/21
0.333 U
1.64
22.3
0.333 U
0.333 U
45
4.69
74
1.0
11/02/21
1.13
1.26
21.39
0.333 U
0.333 U
30.9
2.6
57.28
NA
02/16/22
1
1.08
26.35
0.333 U
0.333 U
17.4
0.36 J
46.19
NA
04/18/22
1.05
1.06
32.49
0.333 U
0.333 U
12.9
0.333 U
47.5
1.0
07/13/22
1.44
1.23
32.85
0.333 U
0.333 U
21.4
0.530 J
57.45
1.38 J
12/02/22
0.610 J
0.990 J
8.56
0.333 U
0.333 U
17.9
7.98
36.04
NA
Table 7 a
Page 33 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-02B
04/23/14
9.4 J
13
22
0.20
19
2.0
30
96
NA
05/18/14
8.2
20
19
0.20 U
14 J+
2.5J+
31J+
95
4.7
08/04/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/03/14
1.5 J+
G.9
2.1
0.20 U
0.54 J+
0.63 J+
1.3J+
13
1.2
11/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/15
2.6
4.2
7.7
0.20 U
4.8
0.65
13
33
NA
05/27/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6
08/11/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
11/09/15
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
ND
NA
02/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.28
NA
05/05/16
3.7
5.5
9.4
0.20 U
4.3
0.70
11
35
NA
05/11/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8
08/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/24/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/31/17
0.25
0.30
0.45
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.53
4.5
NA
04/27/17
22.1
40.7
55.3
0.40
32.9
6.17
94.7
252
NA
05/16/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.7
08/01/17
1.00 u
1.05
1.00 u
1.00 u
1.00 u
1.00 u
6.53
7.6
NA
08/10/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.22
NA
03/08/18
10.1
16.8
23.5
0.20 U
11.7
2.64
31.6
96
NA
05/17/18
20.4
34.6
51.1
0.34
28.8
4.69
73.2
213
NA
05/17/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.5
08/07/18
17.G
55.9
89.4
0.54
31.0
3.79
76.9
275
NA
08/16/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.8
11/06/18
0.41
0.68
1.67
0.20 U
0.35
0.20 U
1.05
4.2
NA
03/11/19
17.7
20.8
26.3
0.25
20.2
2.05
52.5
140
NA
05/15/19
14.7
20.2
13.6
0.23
20.2
1.17
48.5
119
NA
06/11/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.7
07/24/19
18.9
34.0
63.9
0.44
21.3
4.35
65.8
209
NA
09/11/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
11/18/19
1.70
3.69
7.16
0.20 U
1.83
0.46
4.80
20
NA
03/23/20
10.0
6.14
0.20 U
0.20 U
6.91
0.57 U
18.8
42
NA
05/19/20
11.0
3.11
1.75
0.20 U
6.06
0.29
14.7
37
NA
06/23/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.9
07/28/20
5.85
20.1
30.9
0.23
7.71
1.18
19.2
85
NA
09/28/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
11/05/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/24/21
9.04
19.2
28.3
0.20 U
10.3
1.63 J
31.0
99
NA
05/25/21
17.3
23
38.6
0.333 U
13.4
2.77
35.1
130
14.2
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.38
1
1.14
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/16/22
5.29
9.23
16.1
0.333 U
3.99
1.45
21.1
57.16
NA
04/18/22
7.55
11.3
16.6
0.333 U
6.86
1.11
23.3
66.72
8.78
07/13/22
12.7
37.2
66.4
0.490 J
16.3
3.38
55.8
192.27
14.3
12/02/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 34 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-03A
04/23/14
8.8
9.2
17
0.20 U
34
3.7
74
147
NA
06/01/14
11
10
14
1.0U
35
3.6
140
214
9.1
11/24/14
16
17
18
0.20 U
64
4.9
90 J
210
NA
01/26/15
23
34
41
2.0 U
100
8.3
170
376
NA
05/05/15
21
32
51
0.20 U
110
8.9
270
493
NA
05/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.1
08/11/15
15
14
16
0.20 U
56
4.6
240
346
NA
08/19/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.0
11/09/15
28
40
54
0.20 U
100
9.1
270
501
NA
02/10/16
31
37
64
0.40 U
140
12
410
694
NA
05/05/16
25
27
31
0.20 U
100
7.8
460
651
NA
11/09/16
23.7
29.2
40.2
2.00 U
127
7.68
360
588
NA
01/31/17
23.0
27.6
51.6
5.00 U
128
8.46
561
800
NA
04/27/17
24.8
24.2
48.6
0.20 U
108
7.90
440
654
NA
05/03/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6
11/02/17
31.9
37.8
76.4 (cis)
0.20 U
167
9.99
666
989
NA
03/08/18
46.0
42.3
90.1 (cis)
0.20 U
205
9.85
702
1,095
NA
05/08/18
29.2
31.8
75.7 (cis)
2.00 U
155
8.28
632
932
NA
05/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.8
08/07/18
29.7
28.8
69.5
2.00 U
156
8.59
792
1,085
NA
11/06/18
28.1
25.5
67.1
2.00 U
140
8.39
659
928
NA
03/11/19
31.2 J
30.0 J
80.4 J (cis)
2.00 UJ
162 J
10.5 J
743 J
1.057
NA
05/15/19
27.5
21.7
59.2
2.00 U
122
7.19
627
865
NA
06/19/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
07/24/19
23.4
20.3
61.7
2.00 U
101
7.36
680
894
NA
09/18/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
11/18/19
23.6
21.9
70.4 (cis)
2.00 U
97.1
7.35
637
857
NA
02/27/20
20.9
19.4
65.1 (cis)
2.00 U
84.7
6.73
612
809
NA
05/19/20
15.6
13.6
46.8
2.00 U
62.8
5.97
452
597
NA
06/24/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
07/28/20
22.9
16.5
60.9
2.00 U
88.9
6.36
500
696
NA
11/05/20
18.5
14.1
41.1
2.00 U
79.6
5.58
421
580
NA
03/24/21
13.5
13.7
42.1
2.00 U
59.0
5.53
493
627
NA
05/25/21
10.9
10.6
31.5
0.333 U
43.9
5.40 J
486
588
0.5
09/13/21
7.92
7.93
21.4
0.333 U
33.5
4.16
434
509
0.4 J
11/02/21
8.80 J
9.90 J
25.7
0.333 U
27.3
4.20 J
290
365.9
NA
02/16/22
8.50 J
8.90 J
25.9
0.333 U
39.8
4.70 J
364
451.8
NA
04/18/22
8.60 J
9.10 J
28.2
3.33 U
38.4
4.70 J
308
397
0.9
Table 7 a
Page 35 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-03B
04/23/14
37
7.6
3.4
0.20 U
25
0.58
30
104
NA
06/01/14
30
5.9
2.4 J+
0.20 U
20
0.42 J+
26 J+
85
4.6
08/04/14
40
11
6.8
0.34 J
32
2.1
29
121
NA
08/21/14
23
15
5.2
0.54
15 J
45
27
131
13 J
11/24/14
30
11
5.0
0.21
25
0.76
31
103
NA
01/26/15
30
9.0
4.2
0.21
22
0.69
39
105
NA
05/05/15
22
3.1
1.6
0.20 U
12
0.34
23
62
NA
05/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.2
08/11/15
20
6.1
2.8
0.20 U
15
0.46
25
69
NA
08/19/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.0
11/09/15
6.0
4.0
2.9
0.20 U
5.4
4.8
18
41
NA
02/10/16
22
6.3
2.8
0.20 U
15
0.58
34
81
NA
05/05/16
21
3.7
1.4
0.20 U
10
0.31
26
62
NA
05/11/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9
08/15/16
1G.0
6.7
3.54
0.25
10.6
19.5
26.3
83
NA
08/18/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.6
11/09/16
4.72
6.13
4.29
0.20 U
5.35
12.2
16.1
49
NA
01/31/17
24.1
11.6
5.52
0.22
18.8
0.91
47.4
109
NA
04/27/17
10.8
1.87
0.75
0.20 U
5.39
0.20 U
14.9
34
NA
05/16/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2
08/01/17
6.10
6.48
6.03
0.20 U
8.79
8.52
191
227
NA
08/08/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.4
11/02/17
6.97
9.64
10.7
0.20 U
9.81
1.29
37.0
75
NA
03/08/18
18.8
6.60
2.71
0.20 U
12.8
0.55
40.7
82
NA
05/08/18
18.1
3.19
1.67
0.20 U
9.91
0.27
22.9
56
NA
05/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1
08/07/18
13.7
1.90
0.82
0.20 U
6.81
0.31
17.2
41
NA
08/16/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.1
11/06/18
12.1
0.80
0.35
0.20 U
4.86
0.20
13.1
31
NA
03/11/19
1.45
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.81
0.20 U
3.00
5.3
NA
05/15/19
5.79
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.83
0.20 U
8.19
17
NA
06/19/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
07/24/19
3.82
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.71
0.65
15.2
24
NA
09/18/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
11/18/19
0.91
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.76
0.20 U
8.66
11
NA
02/27/20
0.70
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.87
0.20 U
10.3
13
NA
05/19/20
0.55
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.91
0.20 U
12.3
15
NA
06/24/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
07/28/20
1.65
1.46
3.85
0.20 U
2.28
7.30
16.5
33
NA
09/03/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0
11/05/20
0.20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.51
0.27
9.21
10
NA
03/24/21
1.14
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.44
0.64 U
19.0
24
NA
05/25/21
2.28
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.780 J
1.52
7.09
12
0.7
09/13/21
3.94
3.41
5.81
0.333 U
1.46
16.7
97.5
129
5.65
11/02/21
1.03
1.19
2.09
0.333 U
1.03
6.51
16.2
28.05
NA
02/16/22
14.3
0.840 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
3.89
0.333 U
12.7
31.73
NA
04/18/22
7.83
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
2.18
0.333 U
6.67
16.68
2.1
Table 7 a
Page 36 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-04A
04/23/14
46 J
32
45
0.63
3.5
8.1
130
265
NA
05/18/14
36
37
44
1.0U
2.8 J+
8.2
240
368
92
09/03/14
17
14
14
0.20 U
0.58
4.4
100
150
22
11/24/14
31
26
22
LOU
1.3
8.6
130
219
NA
01/26/15
32
31
25
LOU
1.8
10
250
350
NA
05/05/15
40
41
52
0.50
5.3
15
500
654
99 J
08/11/15
29
22
48
0.20 U
1.6
9.2
280
390
NA
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
40
11/09/15
26
28
33
0.20
1.2
8.8
98
195
NA
02/10/16
47
38
64
0.53
4.1
27
400
581
NA
05/05/16
68
72
86 (cis)
0.62
10
42
1,000
1,279
NA
11/10/16
37.9
38.1
83.2 (cis)
0.39
3.92
46.8
288
498
NA
02/01/17
41.1
44.5
82.5 (cis)
4.00 U
5.14
49.7
702
925
NA
04/27/17
35.8
48.2
79.5 (cis)
5.00 U
5.47
51.8
947
1,168
NA
05/04/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
90.7
11/02/17
45.5
40.0
69.17
0.41
2.88
32.1
428
618
NA
03/08/18
44.7
77.7
121 (cis)
1.00U
8.95
32.1
1,040
1,324
NA
05/17/18
30.1
51.0
97.4
4.00 U
7.48
33.0
902
1,121
NA
05/31/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
112
08/07/18
24.6
42.7
65.7
4.00 U
5.30
26.0
816
980
NA
08/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70.7
11/06/18
31.6
45.7
92.8 (cis)
4.00 U
5.82
33.2
785
994
NA
03/11/19
28.3
49.0
97.9 (cis)
4.00 U
6.84
36.5
1,270
1,489
NA
05/15/19
34.6
52.8
114 (cis)
4.00 U
8.28
41.7
953
1,204
NA
06/11/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
98.3
07/24/19
28.1
48.2
94.9 (cis)
4.00 U
6.28
36.6
1,100
1,314
NA
09/19/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
79.5
11/18/19
32.2
65.3
122 (cis)
5.00 U
7.12
35.8
1,120
1,382
NA
03/23/20
24.4
47.6
102 (cis)
4.00 U
4.98
42.0
969
1,190
NA
05/19/20
25.7
52.9
137
2.00 U
4.49
51.3
666
937
NA
06/23/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
71.4
07/28/20
19.6
43.6
82.1 (cis)
2.00 U
2.02 J
32.5
418
598
NA
09/29/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
54.8
11/05/20
29.0
40.4
94.9
2.00 U
2.68
32.4
369
568
NA
03/24/21
37.3
76.3
126
2.00 U
4.75
37.6
894
1,176
NA
05/25/21
35.0 J
61.0 J
108.58 J
0.400 J
2.66 J
36.5 J
625 J
869
154
09/13/21
27.3
39.7
83.2
0.333 U
0.82 J
28.9
528
708
108
11/02/21
27.3
40.1
80.3
3.33 U
3.33 U
28.8
307
483.5
NA
02/16/22
31.9
56.5
89.9
3.33 U
3.33 U
36.6
619
833.9
NA
04/18/22
32.4
62.0
105
3.33 U
3.33 U
39.5
474
712.9
174
07/13/22
28.9
53.3
101
3.33 U
3.33 U
32.2
529
744.4
104
12/01/22
39.1
49.3
95.1
3.33 U
3.33 U
33.2
499
715.7
NA
Table 7 a
Page 37 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Well Identification
Date Collected
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
Total Volatile
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-04B
04/23/14
68 J
75
101 (cis)
2.3
21
160
1,500
1,927
NA
05/18/14
9.9
12
13
2.0 U
2.0 U
50
410
495
40
08/04/14
40
96
130 (cis)
20 U
20 U
34
2,800
3,100
NA
09/03/14
7.0 J+
7.4
14
0.21
2.7 J+
4.7 J+
470
506
58
11/24/14
73
76
120 (cis)
10 u
26
48
2,100
2,443
NA
01/26/15
51
56
110 (cis)
10 u
18
63
1,800
2,098
NA
05/05/15
40
52
131 (cis)
1.7
17
120
3,300
3,662
19 J
08/11/15
50
120
201 (cis)
1.6
24
56
4,600
5,053
NA
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
53
11/09/15
68
99
142 (cis)
2.0
24
61
2,900
3,296
NA
02/10/16
56
66
121
1.8
20
140
4,400
4,805
NA
05/05/16
1.0
2.7
1.6
0.20 U
1.1
7.6
1,200
1,214
NA
05/26/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7
08/15/16
48.2
125
196 (cis)
1.41
20.7
63.2
4,280
4,735
NA
08/23/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
43
11/10/16
13.2
24.6
25.3
0.56
9.15
32.8
2,590
2,696
NA
02/01/17
4.00 U
4.00 U
5.12
4.00 U
4.00 U
8.46
349
363
NA
04/27/17
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 u
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 u
251
251
NA
05/22/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.0
08/01/17
22.7
62.4
106
1.00 u
10.8
42.0
3,630
3,874
NA
08/10/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.4
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
55.9
56
NA
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
24.4
24
NA
05/17/18
1.61
3.86
5.48
0.20 U
1.29
17.6
338
368
5.7
08/07/18
25.3
30.9
111
2.00 U
11.3
78.3
1,300
1,557
NA
08/22/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.2
11/06/18
0.28
0.30
0.28
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.29
56.7
59
NA
03/11/19
9.31 J
6.85 J
19.9 J
1.00 UJ
2.59 J
36.5 J
239 J
314
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.15
1.2
NA
06/11/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.8
07/24/19
28.7
24.7
102 (cis)
0.71
8.52
99.2
1,720
1,984
NA
09/19/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.9
11/18/19
1.53
1.40
11.5
0.40 U
0.82
17.7
132
165
NA
03/23/20
2.66
5.80
8.31
1.00 U
1.99
11.2
303
333
NA
05/19/20
12.2
25.6
55.0
1.00 U
8.28
33.8
1,190
1,325
NA
06/23/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.2
07/28/20
30.6
76.5
173 (cis)
4.00 U
10.3
34.5
1,680
2,005
NA
09/29/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
67.5
11/05/20
3.33
5.99
21.5
2.00 U
2.00 U
10.1
454
495
NA
03/24/21
4.00 U
9.24
4.90
4.00 U
4.00 U
12.5
1,290
1,317
NA
05/25/21
33.3 U
32.5
95.51 J
0.540 J
6.35
35.0 J
1320
1,490
37.6
09/13/21
11.2
36.4
51.60
0.333 U
3.32
19.6
1740
1,862
138
11/02/21
16.7 U
16.7 U
18 J
16.7 U
16.7 U
16.7 U
424
442
NA
02/16/22
17.5 J
38.5 J
117.0
16.7 U
16.7 U
50.5
1710
1,934
NA
04/18/22
16.7 U
26.0 J
96.5
16.7 U
16.7 U
28.0 J
1610
1,761
90.4
07/13/22
7.40 J
30.4
61.6
6.66 U
6.66 U
16.4 J
1210
1,326
139
12/01/22
5.90 J
14.3
45.1
3.33 U
3.33 U
9.90 J
473
548
NA
Table 7 a
Page 38 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-05A
04/23/14
440
320
87 (cis)
4.9
32
82
230
1.196
NA
05/18/14
570
290
64
4.8
41
93
480
1,543
320
11/24/14
380
100
44
10 U
20
150
1,600
2,294
NA
01/26/15
330
220
53
2.7 J
8.8 J
200
1,100
1.915
NA
05/05/15
250
300
72 (cis)
2.8
26
100
430
1.180
NA
05/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
160
08/11/15
1,600
160
22
2.6
61
79
990
2,915
NA
08/19/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
160
11/09/15
850
160
41
4.7
31
170
1,200
2,457
NA
02/10/16
330
300
70 (cis)
3.7
13
130
480
1.327
NA
05/05/16
190
280
97 (cis)
2.6
8.2
160
350
1.088
NA
11/10/16
378
124
39.8
2.42
13.9
182
882
1.622
NA
01/31/17
256
214
59.5
2.00 U
7.57
127
345
1.009
NA
04/27/17
213
232
102 (cis)
3.59
9.36
185
369
1.114
NA
05/04/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
207
11/02/17
343
76.1
37.63
1.30
12.3
178
789
1.437
NA
03/08/18
187
255
114 (cis)
2.92
19.3
183
375
1.137
NA
05/08/18
163
162
91.8 (cis)
2.67
7.13
263
732
1.422
NA
05/24/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
238
08/07/18
224
168
74.05
2.00 U
10.4
237
672
1.385
NA
08/16/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
136
11/06/18
223
245
105.44 (cis)
1.83
11.6
153
309
1.049
NA
03/11/19
102
159
80.57 (cis)
2.00 U
5.05
187
370
904
NA
05/15/19
79.3
93.1
57.3
2.00 U
2.47
152
434
818
NA
06/19/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
82.4
07/24/19
146
98.3
55.7
1.39
5.74
175
397
879
NA
09/24/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
61.6
11/18/19
96.4
164
63.8
1.30
2.41
133
134
595
NA
03/23/20
55.6
77.0
36.8 J
1.00 u
1.93
88.6
154
414
NA
05/19/20
119
117
53.7
0.40 U
4.31
112
159
565
NA
06/24/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50.5
07/28/20
303
166
47.0
0.40 U
13.3
112
417
1,058
NA
11/05/20
358
108
70.5
2.72
10.8
235
762
1,547
NA
03/24/21
115
157
117
1.83
6.03
228
270
895
NA
05/25/21
6.66 U
6.66 U
101
1.49
4.30
3.33 U
3.33 U
107
180
09/14/21
667 J
101J
40
1.71 J
17.8
126 J
458 J
1.411
266 J
11/02/21
339
145
103.4
6.66 U
6.66 U
293
520
1.400
NA
02/16/22
189
179
143.4
6.66 U
7.20 J
259
229
1.007
NA
04/18/22
174
158
133.8
2.56
5.18
250
330
1.054
248
07/13/22
485
182
115.8
1.67 U
8.4
319
336
1.446
157
12/02/22
640
148
83.9
1.90 J
11.9
237
793
1,916
NA
Table 7 a
Page 39 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-05B
04/23/14
1.5
1.8
3.5
0.20 U
0.91
8.7
52
68
NA
04/23/14 (DUP)
14 J
1.9
3.7
0.20 U
0.81
8.4
51
67
NA
05/18/14
2.7 J+
4.7
3.6 J+
0.20 U
2.4 J+
4.5
20 J+
38
4.4
08/04/14
0.20
0.40
0.84
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.26
2.2
3.9
NA
08/04/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.33
0.89
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.26
2.2
3.7
NA
08/21/14
1.1J+
0.44
0.65
0.20 U
0.21 J+
0.59 J+
12 J+
15
3.1 J
08/21/14 (DUP)
1.2J+
0.41
0.64
0.20 U
0.20 J+
0.57 J+
11 J+
14
2.6 J
11/24/14
0.20
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.52
3.3
4.3
NA
11/24/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.50
3.3
4.0
NA
01/26/15
0.20 U
0.37
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.26
0.43
1.3
NA
05/05/15
2.6
2.9
4.2
0.20 U
2.4
3.3
16
31
NA
05/05/15 (DUP)
2.6
2.8
4.2
0.20 U
2.3
3.2
15
30
NA
05/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
08/11/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.84
0.84
NA
08/11/15 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.95
0.95
NA
08/19/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
11/09/15
0.32
0.45
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
1.0
2.0
NA
11/09/15 (DUP)
0.31
0.50
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.45
1.5
NA
02/10/16
0.29
0.45
0.30
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.46
0.82
2.3
NA
02/10/16 (DUP)
0.26
0.44
0.30
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.38
0.68
2.1
NA
05/05/16
1.2
1.7
1.8
0.20 U
1.3
0.45
7.3
14
NA
05/05/16 (DUP)
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.20 U
1.3
0.51
6.5
13
NA
05/12/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0
08/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32
0.32
NA
08/15/16 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.30
0.30
NA
08/18/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
11/10/16
0.36
0.43
0.20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.70
1-11J
2.8
NA
11/10/16 (DUP)
0.26
0.36
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.56
0.80 J
2.0
NA
01/31/17
1.22
1.67
4.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
11.6
31.0
50
NA
01/31/17 (DUP)
1.18
1.80
4.95
0.20 U
0.20 U
12.1
31.6
52
NA
04/27/17
2.48
4.32
3.89
0.20 U
1.01
11.1
96.9
120
NA
04/27/17 (DUP)
2.22
3.98
3.89
0.20 U
0.79
11.1
112
134
NA
05/22/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.9
08/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.41
0.69
NA
08/01/17 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.42
0.66
NA
08/10/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.27
1.67
2.5
NA
11/02/17 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
1.81
2.6
NA
Table 7 a
Page 40 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-05B
03/08/18
0.48
0.72
1.07
0.20 U
0.23
3.37
40.1
46
NA
continued
03/08/18 (DUP)
0.42
0.64
0.92
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.09
38.0
43
NA
05/08/18
2.42
3.64
4.20
0.20 U
2.52
2.23
29.9
45
NA
05/08/18 (DUP)
2.26
3.52
4.32
0.20 U
2.55
2.20
28.4
43
NA
05/24/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.7
08/07/18
1.74
11.1
10.6
0.20 U
5.57
0.42
15.2
45
NA
08/07/18 (DUP)
1.98
10.7
10.5
0.20 U
5.41
0.46
15.2
44
NA
08/16/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.25
NA
03/11/19
37.2
41.5
42.1
0.36
41.1
4.37
130
297
NA
03/11/19 (DUP)
30.4
33.9
35.1
0.31
33.9
3.55
102 J
239
NA
05/15/19
27.0
17.7
14.4
0.22
22.7
1.75
86.1
170
NA
05/15/19 (DUP)
28.0
18.8
15.1
0.23
23.8
1.73
84.4
172
NA
06/19/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.0
07/24/19
4.73 J
11.0
15.4
0.20 U
5.43 J
1.00
15.7
53
NA
07/24/19 (DUP)
3.G3J
9.33
13.2
0.20 U
4.20 J
0.79
13.8
45
NA
09/24/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
11/18/19
2.41
3.88
7.77
0.20 U
1.98
0.85
4.50
21
NA
11/18/19 (DUP)
2.38
3.43
6.37
0.20 U
1.82
0.63
4.39
19
NA
03/23/20
17.7
5.94
2.93
0.20 U
9.84
0.64 U
60.1
97
NA
03/23/20 (DUP)
17.2
5.51
2.58
0.20 U
9.25
0.55U
56.5
91
NA
05/19/20
14.5
3.35
1.87
0.20 U
7.10
0.46
25.0
52
NA
05/19/2020 (DUP)
13.G
3.22
1.90
0.20 U
6.89
0.40
25.6
52
NA
06/24/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0
07/28/20
7.08
14.6
21.2
0.20 U
8.23
1.32
21.8
74
NA
07/28/20 (DUP)
5.66
12.9
17.9
0.20 U
6.80
1.10
19.3
64
NA
09/03/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.4
11/05/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.48
1.99
2.7
NA
11/05/20 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.48
2.29
3.0
NA
03/24/21
2.49
5.08
6.93
0.20 U
2.24
2.88
74.3
94
NA
3/24/21 (DUP)
2.45
4.82
6.67
0.20 U
2.19
2.80
72.6
92
NA
05/25/21
9.93
14.3
17.6
0.333 U
7.53
62.9
2.6
115
11.3
5/25/21 (DUP)
9.65
14.9
18.30
0.333 U
8.09
2.5
62.2
116
NA
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
0.333 U
1-11J
1.11
6.66
9/14/2021 (DUP)
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.16 J
1.16
NA
11/02/21
1.00
1.64
1.44
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.66
2.20
7.94
NA
11/02/21 (DUP)
1.03
1.77
1.35
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.58
2.18
7.91
NA
02/16/22
2.96
6.33
13.14
0.333 U
2.56
6.85
70.3
102.14
NA
2/16/22 (DUP)
2.82
6.24
12.70
0.333 U
2.58
6.83
70.1
101.27
NA
04/18/22
11.7
19.1
29.5
0.333 U
10.3
3.92
74.8
149.32
26.2
4/18/2022 (DUP)
10.1
17.3
27.6
0.333 U
8.89
3.49
66.8
134.18
NA
07/13/22
5.41
12.4
16.04
0.333 U
5.01
4.01
52.1
94.97
8.1
07/13/2022 (DUP)
5.54
13
17.07
0.333 U
5.22
4.26
54.8
99.89
NA
12/02/22
1.36
2.24
1.37
0.333 U
0.333 U
3.85
9.83
18.65
NA
12/2/2022 (DUP)
1.33
2.08
1.27
0.333 U
0.333 U
3.53
9.42
17.63
NA
Table 7 a
Page 41 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-0GA
04/23/14
2.6
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.6
NA
06/01/14
3.1 J+
0.20 J+
0.28 J+
0.20 U
0.87 J+
0.20 U
3.2J+
7.7
0.4 U
11/19/14
2.7
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.7
NA
01/29/15
8.8
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.50
9.3
NA
05/05/15
7.3
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.67
8.0
NA
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/11/15
8.4
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.66
9.1
NA
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
11
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.20 U
0.90
12
NA
02/11/16
19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.39
0.20 U
2.2
22
NA
05/05/16
25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.0
0.20 U
5.0
31
NA
11/09/16
28.4
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.37
0.20 U
2.28
31
NA
01/31/17
33.3
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.39
0.20 U
2.85
37
NA
04/27/17
38.1
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.37
0.20 U
4.23
43
NA
05/03/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
23.7
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.20 U
1.74
26
NA
03/08/18
61.6
0.26
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.75
0.20 U
5.30
68
NA
05/08/18
56.7
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.65
0.20 U
4.38
62
NA
05/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/07/18
40.2
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.56
0.20 U
4.21
45
NA
08/13/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/06/18
62.4
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.66
0.20 U
4.92
68
NA
03/11/19
63.6
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.64
0.20 U
6.05
71
NA
05/15/19
73.7
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.67
0.20 U
5.29
80
NA
06/11/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
07/31/19
61.5
0.36
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.71
0.20 U
5.69
68
NA
09/17/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
11/18/19
87.8
0.62
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.91
0.20 U
6.68
96
NA
03/23/20
70.1
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.60
0.20 U
5.99
77
NA
05/19/20
86.2
0.68
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.78
0.22
7.22
95
NA
06/15/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 UJ
07/28/20
83.0
0.77
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.94
0.20 U
7.77
92
NA
11/05/20
88.4
0.91
0.40 U
0.40 U
1.06
0.44
6.38
97
NA
03/24/21
136
1.40
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.28
0.29 U
10.8
149
NA
05/25/21
138 J
0.990 J
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
0.710 J
0.500 J
7.27 J
147
0.5
09/14/21
49.3
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
0.333 U
3.24 J
53
0.188 J
11/02/21
136
1.19
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.750 J
0.333 U
5.85
143.79
NA
02/16/22
122
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
10.2
132.2
NA
04/18/22
133
1.25
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.850 J
0.333 U
8.37
143.47
0.373 J
07/13/22
119
0.840 J
0.333 U
0.666 U
0.880 J
0.666 U
8.62
129.34
0.266 J
12/02/22
89.4
1.08 J
0.666 U
0.666 U
0.900 J
0.666 U
11.3
102.68
NA
Table 7 a
Page 42 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-0GB
04/23/14
6.5
0.58
0.32
0.20 U
3.6
0.20 U
5.2
16
NA
06/01/14
20
5.3
2.2J+
0.20 U
21
0.57 J+
41J+
90
5.0
08/04/14
10
16
10
0.31 J
23
6.7
66
132
NA
08/19/14
19
21
13
0.40 U
6.3
23
110
192
28
11/19/14
21
5.1
1.8
0.20 U
13
1.7
35
78
NA
01/29/15
12
1.3
0.51
0.20 U
8.2
0.20 U
21
43
NA
05/05/15
5.2
0.21
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.1
0.20 U
4
12
NA
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
08/11/15
23
26
25
0.33
28
8.9
110
222
NA
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16
11/09/15
17
6.8
1.9
0.20 U
10
2.0
37
75
NA
02/11/16
11
1.1
0.39
0.20 U
6.6
0.20 U
25
44
NA
05/05/16
7.6
0.30
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.5
0.20 U
5.0
15
NA
05/25/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
08/15/16
17.0
23.0
21.2
0.33
20.8
10.2
97.4
190
NA
08/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.9
11/09/16
33.9
23.6
8.78
1.00 u
14.1
12.7
130
223
NA
01/31/17
12.5
1.15
0.48
0.20 U
5.77
0.23
17.3
37
NA
04/27/17
7.51
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.02
0.20 U
9.87
21
NA
05/16/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6
08/01/17
15.6
30.1
15
0.31
5.28
24.8
139
230
NA
08/08/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.6
11/02/17
23.4
16.5
6.67
0.20 U
13.1
3.48
49.8
113
NA
03/08/18
10.5
1.11
0.37
0.20 U
5.51
0.27
23.4
41
NA
05/08/18
8.31
0.49
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.61
0.20 U
7.87
20
NA
05/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
08/07/18
13.0
1.75
1.05
0.20 U
6.69
0.24
22.5
45
NA
08/13/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.6
11/06/18
3.02
0.24
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.90
0.20 U
28.8
35
NA
03/11/19
1.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.27
0.20 U
1.43
2.9
NA
05/15/19
1.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.81
2.0
NA
06/11/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
07/31/19
1.07
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.64
0.20 U
3.29
5.0
NA
09/17/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.2
11/18/19
2.18
0.34
0.25
0.20 U
1.76
0.20 U
23.3
28
NA
03/23/20
0.82
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.75
1.6
NA
05/19/20
1.26
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.82
2.1
NA
06/15/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6 J
07/28/20
39.6
8.31
4.91
0.30
14.9
10.6
178
257
NA
09/03/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.5
11/05/20
77.6
28.5
11.1
0.24
7.68
27.2
110
262
NA
03/24/21
0.34
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.95
0.20 U
10.4
12
NA
05/25/21
0.510 J
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
0.600 J
0.340 J
4.42 J
6
0.7
09/14/21
49.9
64.8
55.76
0.66 J
7.47
91
148 J
418
52.3
11/02/21
42.1
18.4
10.58
0.666 U
5.84
13.8
112
202.72
NA
02/16/22
2.1
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.35
0.500 J
11.2
15.15
NA
04/18/22
0.530 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
2.36
2.89
1.3
07/13/22
14.1
1.42
1.31
0.333 U
6.31
0.630 J
59.9
83.67
6.0
12/02/22
47.9
18.9
15.58
0.333 U
3.32
42.0
135
262.7
NA
Table 7 a
Page 43 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-07
04/23/14
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.69
0.69
NA
05/28/14
0.53J+
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.34 J+
3.2J+
4.1
0.4 U
11/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.45
0.45
NA
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/22/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/27/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/11/19
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
ND
NA
05/30/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/10/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 U
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 U
11/18/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/23/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/16/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 U
07/29/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.21
NA
11/05/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/24/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1U
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1 u
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/16/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.135 J
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
12/02/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 44 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-08
04/23/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/27/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 J+
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.2J+
1.2
0.4 U
11/19/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/28/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/09/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/27/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.21
NA
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/11/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/30/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/13/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
11/18/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/23/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/11/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 U
07/29/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/24/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
0.450 J
0.333 UJ
0.45
0.3 J
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.108 J
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/16/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.190 J
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.111 J
12/02/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
MW14-09A
05/15/19
10.7
24.8
10.7
0.20 U
35.5
2.42
60.7
145
NA
11/18/19
12.4
26.3
9.37
0.20 U
38.2
2.16
84.2
173
NA
05/19/20
7.73
46.3
18.7
0.20 U
37.8
2.73
74.2
187
NA
05/25/21
12.0 J
41.1 J
11.4 J
0.333 U
51.2 J
2.13 J
99.5 J
217
NA
11/02/21
3.69
30.8
11.8
0.333 U
24.6
1.90
57.5
130
NA
04/18/22
17.9
32.5
11.1
0.333 U
54.2
2.31
97.8
216
NA
12/01/22
4.86
25.6
8.22
0.333 U
24.7
1.84
62.4
128
NA
Table 7 a
Page 45 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW14-09B
04/23/14
24 J
8.9
3.7
0.20 U
23
0.52
29
89
NA
05/21/14
26
6.2
2.4 J+
0.20 U
21
0.35 J+
30 J+
86
4.5
08/04/14
96
58
33
1.0
90
4.9
97
380
NA
08/19/14
75
45
22
0.80
83
3.3 J+
110
339
24
11/24/14
9.8
4.1
2.6
0.20 U
10
0.48
14
41
NA
01/26/15
96
32
15
1.0U
61
2.1
80
286
NA
05/05/15
53
24
8.6
0.54
56
1.3
120
263
NA
05/27/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.8
08/11/15
39
30
16
0.51
44
2.3
73
205
NA
08/25/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
11/09/15
6.6
6.6
1.9
0.20 U
8.1
0.33
37
61
NA
02/10/16
4.0
2.6
0.65
0.20 U
5.0
0.20 U
20
32
NA
05/05/16
13
2.5
1.1
0.20 U
6.1
0.20 U
7.4
30
NA
05/26/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.0
08/15/16
37.8
26.3
14.3
0.52
36.4
2.18
55.7
173
NA
08/24/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.8
11/09/16
1.44
1.12
0.66
0.20 U
1.81
0.20 U
7.54
13
NA
01/31/17
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.33
0.20 U
0.91
1.6
NA
04/26/17
14.1
2.40
1.14
0.20 U
6.83
0.26
25.7
50
NA
05/22/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.8
08/01/17
43.1
51.3
77
0.62
62.1
5.42
137
377
NA
08/10/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.6
11/02/17
0.76
0.54
0.47
0.20 U
0.89
0.20 U
6.74
9.4
NA
03/08/18
3.52
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.41
0.20 U
4.33
9.6
NA
05/08/18
9.22
0.60
0.20
0.20 U
3.76
0.20 U
13.6
27
NA
05/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
08/07/18
38.3
3.94
2.32
0.20 U
18.1
0.54
40.6
104
NA
08/22/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.9
11/06/18
14.7
0.83
0.29
0.20 U
5.97
0.20 U
13.4
35
NA
03/11/19
4.49
0.20
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.79
0.20 U
4.56
11
NA
05/15/19
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.40
0.92
NA
06/19/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1
07/24/19
30.1
0.75
0.21
0.20 U
6.57
0.20 U
10.6
48
NA
09/24/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.7
11/18/19
14.6
0.69
0.30
0.20 U
4.57
0.20 U
10.7
31
NA
02/27/20
1.68
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.81
0.20 U
3.54
6.0
NA
05/19/20
1.27
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.77
0.20 U
3.73
5.8
NA
06/15/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.8 J
07/28/20
37.9
4.16
1.84
0.20 U
14.5
0.25U
30.2
89
NA
11/05/20
1.24
0.82
0.72
0.20 U
1.06
0.20 U
5.42
9.3
NA
03/24/21
25.0
1.36
0.27
0.20 U
6.16
0.27 U
12.3
45
NA
05/25/21
48.4
1.65
0.333 U
0.333 U
7.69
0.333 U
15.4
73
6.6
09/13/21
15.7
30
19.1
0.333 U
23.6
1.4
82.3
172
14.1
11/02/21
4.18
2.01
1.95
0.333 U
2.01
0.333 U
5.96
16.11
NA
02/16/22
35.6
4.92
2.88
0.333 U
12.4
0.650 J
42.5
98.95
NA
04/18/22
3.09
0.530 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.93
0.333 U
10.4
15.95
3.9
07/13/22
30.5
3.37
1.61
0.333 U
10.5
0.333 U
27
72.98
5.3
12/01/22
2.30
0.650 J
0.62
0.333 U
0.970 J
0.333 U
3.74
8.28
NA
MW21-03A
11/17/22
12.7
0.620 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.77
0.350 J
32.5
48
9.19 J
MW21-03B
11/17/22
0.730 J
1.77
3.56
0.333 U
0.680 J
0.430 J
3.39
11
1.95 J
11/17/2022 (DUP)
0.710 J
1.79
3.53
0.333 U
0.680 J
0.450 J
3.44
11
2.58
MW21-04A
11/17/22
0.490 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0
0.340 J
MW21-04B
11/17/22
26.5
27.0
35.7
0.333 U
18.4
2.72
64.1
174
11.4 J
MW21-5A
11/16/22
6.98
10.6
20.8
0.333 U
5.13
1.54
19.2
64
7.55 J
MW21-6A
11/16/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100 u
Table 7 a
Page 46 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Off-Facilitv Wells
MW89-10B
2/03
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
8/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/22/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/01/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.20
NA
08/02/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/06/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/29/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/07/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/19/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/10/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/28/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/25/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/18/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/18/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/06/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/07/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/26/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/31/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/17/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/15/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/11/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 47 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
?/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW89-11B
12/02
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.4
1.4
NA
2/03
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
ND
NA
8/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0
1.0
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/21/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.40
NA
05/01/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/02/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.20
NA
11/06/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/29/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/07/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/19/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.30
NA
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/10/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/28/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/18/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/18/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/06/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/07/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2
0.40
NA
07/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.3
0.50
NA
10/26/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/31/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.30
NA
05/17/12
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.4
0.90
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/15/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/11/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/27/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/18/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 48 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW89-11B
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
continued
05/21/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/25/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/27/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/13/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
12/05/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 49 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW92-3A
11/01
12
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
100
5.0 U
42
154
NA
2/02
16
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
110
5.0 U
48
174
NA
5/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
97
5.0 U
42
139
NA
8/02
10
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
77 J
5.0 U
23
110
NA
11/02
6.0
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
63
5.0 U
28
97
NA
2/03
5.0
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
65
5.0 U
29
99
NA
5/03
13
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
81
5.0 U
37
131
NA
8/03
3.7
1.9
1.0U
1.0U
53
LOU
24
83
NA
11/03
2.2
1.8
1.0U
LOU
44
LOU
22
70
NA
2/04
6.2
1.9
1.0U
LOU
54
LOU
26
88
NA
5/04
3.8
1.9
1.0U
LOU
50
LOU
22
78
NA
8/04
14
0.8
0.2U
0.2U
24
0.2U
4.4
43
NA
11/09/04
2.7
1.4
0.5
0.2U
27
0.2
18
50
NA
02/22/05
14
0.6
0.6 U
0.6 U
14
0.6 U
5.4
34
NA
05/03/05
7.4
1.0U
1.0U
LOU
15
LOU
3.3
26
NA
08/02/05
6.8
0.6
0.2U
0.2U
13
0.2U
3.7
24
NA
11/08/05
4.5
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
5.1
0.2U
1.5
11
NA
01/29/06
11
0.7
0.2
0.2U
16
0.2U
6.0
34
NA
05/07/06
8.9
0.6
0.2U
0.2U
14
0.2U
5.9
29
NA
08/19/06
5.6
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
11
0.2U
5.7
23
NA
11/06/06
6.6
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
7.7
0.2U
3.2
18
NA
02/10/07
6.9
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
9.3
0.2U
4.4
21
NA
05/01/07
8.1
0.6
0.2U
0.2U
9.4
0.2U
4.2
22
NA
08/15/07
1.3
0.2
0.2U
0.2U
5.3
0.2U
4.1
11
NA
10/28/07
0.2
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2
0.2U
0.2
0.60
NA
02/04/08
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2
0.80
NA
05/13/08
0.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
0.2 U
0.5
1.8
2.0 U
08/07/08
2.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
3.3
0.2 U
1.4
7.3
NA
11/18/08
0.2
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.3
0.2U
0.5
1.0
2.0 U
02/17/09
1.5
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
1.5
0.2U
0.6
3.6
2.0 U
05/05/09
1.3
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
1.4
0.2 U
0.3
3.0
2.0 U
07/27/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/27/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/07/11
2.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.2
0.2 U
0.8
5.9
NA
06/06/11
1.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.6
0.2 U
1.0
5.4
2.0 U
08/02/11
1.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.8
0.2 U
0.9
3.9
NA
10/31/11
2.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.7
0.2 U
1.6 J+
6.9
NA
01/31/12
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/22/12
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.2 U
0.4 J+
1.9
NA
08/22/12
2.6
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.6
0.20 U
1.9
7.1
NA
11/15/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 50 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW92-3A
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
continued
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/13
0.99
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.65
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.6
NA
11/14/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/18/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/25/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/09/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/13/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
12/05/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 51 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW92-3B
11/01
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
16
5.0 U
8.0
24
NA
2/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
10
5.0 U
6.0
16
NA
5/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
11
5.0 U
6.0
17
NA
8/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
12 J
5.0 U
5.0 U
12
NA
11/02
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
9.0
5.0 U
6.0
15
NA
2/03
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0
NA
5/03
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
6.0
5.0 U
5.0 U
6.0
NA
8/03
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
5.7
1.0 U
3.8
10
NA
11/03
2.3
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
6.0
1.0 U
4.4
13
NA
2/04
1.6
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
3.7
1.0 U
3.1
8.4
NA
5/04
1.5
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
3.5
1.0 U
2.7
7.7
NA
8/04
2.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.9
0.2 U
1.2
6.6
NA
11/09/04
2.4
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
4.6
0.2 U
4.3
12
NA
02/22/05
3.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
3.0
0.2 U
2.8
9.7
NA
05/03/05
2.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
2.4
0.2U
2.1
6.7
NA
08/02/05
1.5
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
2.5
0.2U
2.1
6.1
NA
11/08/05
4.0
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
4.4
0.2U
2.5
11
NA
01/29/06
3.4
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
3.6
0.2U
3.4
11
NA
05/08/06
2.3
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
2.5
0.2U
2.3
7.1
NA
08/19/06
3.2
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
3.6
0.2U
3.4
11
NA
11/06/06
3.2
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
3.3
0.2U
4.1
11
NA
02/10/07
2.4
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
2.7
0.2U
3.8
9.2
NA
05/01/07
3.1
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
2.8
0.2U
4.0
10
NA
10/28/07
4.5
0.8
0.2U
0.2U
4.7
0.2U
2.9
13
NA
02/04/08
4.9
1.1
0.2U
0.2U
5.1
0.2U
7.6
19
NA
05/13/08
4.4
0.9
0.2
0.2 U
4.4
0.2 U
6.3
16
2.0 U
08/07/08
3.2
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
3.2
0.2 U
3.5
11
NA
11/18/08
6.2
1.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
6.1
0.2 U
5.0
19
2.0 U
02/17/09
3.8
1.0
0.2
0.2U
4.0
0.2U
5.6
15
2.0 U
05/05/09
2.0
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
2.1
0.2U
2.4
6.8
2.0 U
07/27/10
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.3
1.3
2.0 U
10/27/10
0.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
0.2 U
0.6
2.0
NA
02/07/11
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.4
1.3
NA
06/06/11
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.3
0.60
2.0 U
08/02/11
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.3
0.60
NA
10/31/11
0.3 J+
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 J+
0.50
NA
01/31/12
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2
0.20
NA
05/22/12
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.30
NA
08/22/12
1.2
0.27
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.83
0.20 U
1.7
4.0
NA
11/15/12
1.4
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.2
0.20 U
1.8
4.8
NA
02/13/13
0.67
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.45
0.20 U
0.49
1.6
NA
06/03/13
0.60
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.45
0.20 U
0.71
1.8
NA
09/10/13
1.3
0.30
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.96
0.20 U
1.3
3.9
NA
11/14/13
1.2
0.36
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.89
0.20 U
1.2
3.7
NA
Table 7 a
Page 52 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW92-3B
02/10/14
0.79
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.70
0.20 U
1.4
3.1
NA
continued
05/06/14
0.67
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.80
1.5
NA
11/18/14
0.91
0.28
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.73
0.20 U
1.6
3.5
NA
01/27/15
0.60
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.38
0.20 U
0.90
1.9
NA
05/21/15
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.31
0.54
NA
08/26/15
0.70
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.36
0.20 U
0.52
1.6
NA
11/05/15
0.58
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.30
0.20 U
0.68
1.6
NA
02/15/16
0.24
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.37
0.61
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.34
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.34
NA
11/09/16
0.56
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.30
0.20 U
0.65
1.5
NA
02/01/17
0.21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.34
0.55
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/25/17
0.78
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
0.20 U
0.39
1.4
NA
11/01/17
0.56
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.36
0.20 U
0.85
1.8
NA
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.25
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/09/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/13/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
12/05/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 53 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Preister's Old Domestic
11/01
38 J
4.7
2.2
0.3 J
77 J
0.5
37 J
160
NA
2/02
51
5.2
2.4
LOU
94
LOU
49
202
NA
5/02
80
7.2
3.1
LOU
130
LOU
63
283
NA
8/02
30 J
3.0 J
3.0 UJ
3UJ
54 J
3.0 UJ
30 J
117
NA
9/02
29
2.8
1.0
LOU
53
LOU
24
110
NA
11/02
27
2.9
1.5
LOU
50
LOU
28
109
NA
2/03
24
2.8
1.4
LOU
47
LOU
27
102
NA
5/03
40
3.9
1.9
LOU
71
LOU
41
158
NA
08/03
18
2.1
1.0U
LOU
33
LOU
19
72
NA
4/04
11
1.2
LOU
LOU
15 J
LOU
14
41
NA
5/04
13
1.5
LOU
LOU
20
LOU
14
49
NA
8/04
10
1.1
0.5
0.4 U
18
0.4 U
11
41
NA
11/10/04
8.5
1.0
0.4
0.2U
14
0.2U
8.3
32
NA
02/20/05
8.4
0.9
0.4
0.2U
9.8
0.2U
8.7
28
NA
05/02/05
8.3
1.1
0.4
0.2U
12
0.2U
9.1
31
NA
07/31/05
4.4
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
5.6
0.2U
5.0
16
NA
11/07/05
1.6
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
2.7
0.2U
2.0
6.7
NA
01/29/06
1.0
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
1.4
0.2U
1.3
4.1
NA
05/07/06
1.1
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
1.6
0.2U
1.4
4.4
NA
08/19/06
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.3
0.30
NA
11/05/06
0.2
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.4
0.60
NA
02/19/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.4
0.70
NA
04/30/07
0.3
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.4
1.3
NA
08/12/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/28/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 J
0.20
NA
02/03/08
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2
0.40
NA
05/11/08
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
0.2 U
0.4
1.3
NA
08/03/08
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.2 U
0.6
1.8
NA
11/14/08
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.5
0.2U
0.5
1.4
NA
08/16/10
1.6
0.2
0.2U
0.2U
2.1
0.2U
1.7
5.6
NA
10/31/10
2.7
0.2
0.2U
0.2U
3.1
0.2U
2.4
8.4
NA
Table 7 a
Page 54 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Preister's New (48 feet BTOC)
4/04
18
1.0U
LOU
LOU
24 J
LOU
12
54
NA
Irrigation (70 feet BTOC)
4/04
58
3.1
1.3
LOU
71J
LOU
20
153
NA
(G127000) (90 feet BTOC)
4/04
100
6.0
2.9
LOU
130 J
1.0
44
284
NA
5/04
56
3.8
1.4
LOU
92
LOU
50
203
NA
8/04
9.0
0.6
0.2
0.2U
15
0.2U
8.2
33
NA
9/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.3 J
11/10/04
83
5.5
2.4
0.2U
110
0.8
30
232
NA
02/22/05
41
2.7
LOU
LOU
64
LOU
42
150
4.7 J
05/03/05
79
7.3
2.7
0.2U
160
0.8
52
302
2.9 J
8/1 - 8/2/05
9.0
0.6
0.3
0.2 U
12
0.2 U
5.9
28
5.0 U
11/09/05
19
1.3
0.5
0.2 U
38
0.2 U
11
70
4.0 U
01/29/06
94
6.4
2.2
0.2 U
120
0.8
58
281
NA
05/08/06
30
4.1
1.3
LOU
81
LOU
23
139
3.7
08/23/06
17
1.1
0.6
0.4 U
21
0.4 U
4.9
45
2.0 U
11/06/06
34
2.4
1.0
LOU
43
LOU
18
98
2.0 U
02/21/07
57
3.5
1.4
0.2 UJ
65
0.5
42
169
3.4
05/04/07
37
2.4
LOU
LOU
42
LOU
24
105
2.9
08/15/07
5.1
0.6
0.2U
0.2U
7.3
0.2U
4.3
17
2.0 U
10/29/07
3.0
0.2
0.2U
0.2U
4.0
0.2U
3.0
10
2.0 U
02/05/08
3.3
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
4.4
0.2U
4.1
12
2.0 U
05/14/08
2.7
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
3.3
0.2U
3.9
10
2.0 U
08/05/08
2.8
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
3.3
0.2 U
4.2
11
2.0 U
11/17/08
1.7
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.4
0.2 U
3.0
7.5
2.0 U
02/18/09
1.5
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
2.9
4.7
2.0 U
05/06/09
1.8
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.1
0.2 U
3.9
8.3
2.0 U
08/13/09
2.8
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
3.0
0.2 U
6.2
13
2.0 U
10/28/09
2.1
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.1
0.2 U
4.8
9.5
2.0 U
02/03/10
2.1
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.2
0.2 U
5.3
10
2.0 U
05/17/10
1.4
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
3.5
6.6
2.0 U
08/16/10
1.8
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.6
0.2 U
4.3
8.2
2.0 U
10/26/10
1.6
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
1.3
0.2U
3.8
7.2
2.0 U
02/10/11
2.0
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
1.5
0.2U
4.2
8.1
2.0 U
02/10/11 (DUP)
1.9
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
1.5
0.2U
4.1
7.9
2.0 U
06/07/11
1.6
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
1.4
0.2U
3.7
7.2
2.0 U
06/07/11 (DUP)
1.7
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
1.4
0.2U
4.0
7.6
2.0 U
08/02/11
2.1
0.6
0.2U
0.2U
1.7
0.2U
4.5
8.9
2.0 U
08/02/11 (DUP)
2.2
0.6
0.2U
0.2U
1.8
0.2U
4.9
9.5
2.0 U
10/27/11
1.8
0.6
0.2U
0.2U
1.4
0.2U
3.7
7.5
2.0 U
10/27/11 (DUP)
1.8
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
1.3
0.2U
3.8
7.4
NA
Table 7 a
Page 55 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Preister's New (90 feet BTOC)
01/30/12
1.6
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
1.2
0.2U
3.7
7.0
2.0 U
Irrigation
01/30/12 (DUP)
1.6
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
1.2
0.2U
3.7
7.0
NA
(G127000)
05/21/12
1.9
0.7
0.2U
0.2U
1.5
0.2U
3.9
8.0
1.1
continued
05/21/12 (DUP)
1.7
0.6
0.2U
0.2U
1.6
0.2U
4.1
8.0
NA
08/15/12
2.1
0.72
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.6
0.20 U
5.1
9.5
1.1
08/15/12 (DUP)
2.1
0.74
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.6
0.20 U
5.1
9.5
NA
11/27/12
1.6
0.58
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.3
0.20 U
4.4
7.9
0.4 U
11/27/12 (DUP)
1.6
0.54
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.3
0.20 U
4.2
7.6
NA
02/11/13
1.5
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.2
0.20 U
3.7
6.9
0.4 U
02/11/13 (DUP)
1.5
0.49
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.1
0.20 U
3.6
6.7
NA
06/11/13
1.7
0.56
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.3
0.20 U
4.2
7.8
0.8
06/11/13 (DUP)
1.7
0.53
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.3
0.20 U
3.9
7.4
NA
05/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
(G127000-Pivot)
08/01/04
24
1.8
LOU
LOU
38
LOU
23
87
NA
TI Well
08/03 Diffusion 150' to 152'
1.0U
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
ND
NA
08/03 Diffusion 165' to 167'
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
ND
NA
08/03 Diffusion 180' to 182'
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
ND
NA
8/04
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
NA
11/09/04
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
NA
02/22/05
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/03/05
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/05
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/07/05
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/31/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/09/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/19/06
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.20
NA
11/06/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/20/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/04/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/16/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
NA
02/06/08
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/07/08
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
NA
11/16/08
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/24/09
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/16/10
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
ND
NA
11/02/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/15/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/02/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/27/11
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 56 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW04-01 (76 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/20/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(86 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/20/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(96 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/20/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(106 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/20/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/01/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/02/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/06/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.20
NA
01/29/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/07/06
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.50
NA
08/21/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.20
NA
11/05/06
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
0.2 U
0.3
1.1
NA
02/10/07
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
0.4
1.4
NA
04/29/07
0.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.9
0.2 U
0.4
2.2
NA
08/12/07
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2
0.70
NA
10/28/07
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.2 U
0.3
1.5
NA
02/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/14/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/16/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/06/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/10/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/06/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/24/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/31/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/15/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/11/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/27/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/18/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 57 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW04-01 (106 feet BTOC)
05/21/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
continued
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
(116 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/20/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 58 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW04-02 (68 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
0.60
NA
02/21/05
13
1.1
0.4
0.2U
16
0.2U
5.5
36
NA
(78 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
18
1.0
0.5
0.2U
16
0.2U
3.2
39
NA
02/21/05
14
1.7
0.8
0.2U
22
0.2
14
53
NA
(88 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
16
1.2
0.6
0.2U
20
0.2U
5.8
44
NA
02/21/05
14
1.7
0.8
0.2 U
23
0.2
17
57
NA
(98 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
22
1.2
0.6
0.2 U
20
0.2 U
5.1
49
NA
02/21/05
30
3.8
1.7
0.2 U
48
0.5
23
107
NA
05/01/05
27
3.5
1.5
1.0U
56
LOU
24
112
NA
08/01/05
29
3.1
1.3
0.2
51
0.4
29
114
NA
11/06/05
23
2.8
1.1
LOU
37
LOU
24
88
NA
01/29/06
22
2.5
1.0
LOU
36
LOU
18
80
NA
05/07/06
16
1.9
0.8
0.6 U
26
0.6 U
18
63
NA
08/21/06
12
1.7
0.7
0.2 U
21
0.2 U
13
48
NA
11/05/06
9.4
1.4
0.6 U
0.6 U
12
0.6 U
9.3
32
NA
02/10/07
12
1.4
0.6
0.2U
15
0.2U
11
40
NA
04/29/07
9.8
1.6
0.5
0.2U
12
0.2U
8.5
32
NA
08/12/07
8.8
1.4
0.4
0.2U
13
0.2U
8.5
32
NA
10/28/07
8.4
1.0
0.3
0.2U
11
0.2 U
7.2 J
28
NA
02/03/08
11
1.3
0.4
0.2U
15
0.2 U
9.6
37
NA
05/11/08
10
1.3
0.4
0.2 U
14
0.2 U
7.2
33
NA
08/05/08
12
1.4
0.6
0.2 U
14
0.2 U
6.0
34
NA
11/14/08
14
1.5
0.5
0.2 U
17
0.2 U
11
44
NA
02/16/09
13
1.3
0.6
0.2 U
15
0.2 U
8.7
39
NA
05/06/09
13
1.4
0.5
0.2 U
17
0.2 U
11
43
NA
07/25/10
8.0
0.8
0.3
0.2 U
7.9
0.2 U
2.2
19
NA
10/31/10
10
1.1
0.4
0.2 U
12
0.2 U
7.8
31
NA
02/10/11
18
1.2
0.5
0.2 U
17
0.2U
14
51
NA
06/06/11
19
1.2
0.5
0.2U
17
0.2U
5.4
43
NA
07/31/11
21
1.5
0.7
0.2U
20
0.2
12
55
NA
10/24/11
17
1.5
0.6
0.2U
18
0.2
12
49
NA
01/26/12
20
1.6
0.6
0.2U
21
0.2
10
53
NA
05/16/12
28
2.0
0.8
0.2U
27
0.2
13
71
NA
08/08/12
29
2.4
1.0
0.20 U
29
0.33
16
78
NA
11/14/12
20
1.5
0.62
0.20 U
20
0.22
11
53
NA
02/13/13
13
0.89
0.47
0.20 U
9.9
0.20 U
4.5
29
NA
06/03/13
11
1.0
0.41
0.20 U
10
0.20 U
8.7
31
NA
08/27/13
5.7
0.67
0.23
0.20 U
5.6
0.20 U
4.8
17
NA
02/13/14
5.3
0.52
0.24
0.20 U
5.0
0.20 U
5.3
16
NA
07/28/14
2.1
0.31
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.2
0.20 U
2.4
7.0
NA
11/18/14
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.30
0.20 U
0.26
0.94
NA
Table 7 a
Page 59 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Well Identification
Date Collected
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
Total Volatile
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW04-02 (98 feet BTOC)
continued
05/21/15
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.20 U
0.22
ND
NA
NA
05/18/16
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
ND
NA
NA
04/24/17
11/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
ND
NA
NA
05/07/18
11/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
ND
NA
NA
05/13/19
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
ND
NA
NA
05/21/20
12/04/20
05/26/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.333 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.333 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.333 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.333 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.333 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.333 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.333 U
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
Table 7a
Page 60 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW04-03 (45 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
38
1.5
0.7
0.2U
40
0.2
17
97
NA
02/23/05
23
1.5
0.6
0.2U
33
0.2
17
75
NA
(55 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
47
1.8
0.8
0.2U
51
0.3
23
124
NA
02/23/05
28
1.8
0.7
0.2U
40
0.3
20
91
NA
(65 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
82
2.8
1.2
0.2U
82
0.4
38
206
NA
02/23/05
42
2.5
1.1
0.2U
54
0.4
27
127
NA
10/28/07
15
1.3
1.0U
LOU
19
LOU
14
49
NA
02/03/08
15
1.4
0.4
0.2U
20
0.2U
14
51
NA
05/11/08
25
2.0
0.8
0.2U
33
0.3
23
84
NA
08/05/08
20
1.5
0.5
0.2U
30
0.2U
21
73
NA
11/17/08
12
0.8
0.3
0.2U
15
0.2U
11
39
NA
02/16/09
6.5
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
8.4
0.2U
6.0
21
NA
05/06/09
4.1
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
5.4
0.2U
3.4
13
NA
07/28/10
0.5
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.6
0.2U
0.5
1.6
NA
11/02/10
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.5
0.2U
0.5
1.4
NA
02/14/11
0.8
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.9
0.2U
0.7
2.4
NA
06/06/11
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/11
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2
0.70
NA
10/30/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.3
1.0
NA
05/23/12
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.27
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.29
0.20 U
0.30
0.86
NA
11/14/12
1.0
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.4
0.20 U
1.4
3.8
NA
02/12/13
0.63
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.65
0.20 U
0.82
2.1
NA
06/03/13
0.59
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.62
0.20 U
0.68
1.9
NA
08/27/13
0.41
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.48
0.20 U
0.48
1.4
NA
02/10/14
0.71
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.82
0.20 U
1.1
2.6
NA
07/30/14
1.2
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.5
0.20 U
1.3
4.0
NA
11/10/14
0.92
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.78
0.20 U
0.95
2.7
NA
05/19/15
0.88
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.84
0.20 U
1.0
2.7
NA
11/03/15
0.74
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.63
0.20 U
0.82
2.2
NA
05/18/16
0.48
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.43
0.20 U
0.73
1.6
NA
11/08/16
0.71
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.75
0.20 U
1.20
2.7
NA
04/24/17
0.41
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.20 U
0.70
1.4
NA
11/01/17
0.37
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.54
0.20 U
0.85
1.8
NA
05/07/18
0.60
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.60
0.20 U
0.73
1.9
NA
11/19/18
0.36
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.20 U
0.59
1.2
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/03/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.41
0.41
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 61 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW04-03 (85 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
84 J
3.1
1.4
0.2U
90 J
0.5
40
219
NA
continued
02/23/05
53
3.6
1.4
0.2U
68
0.6
34
161
NA
10/28/07
19 J
1.3
0.5
0.2U
26 J
0.2U
20 J
67
NA
02/03/08
18
1.3
0.6 U
0.6 U
23
0.6 U
15
57
NA
05/11/08
37
2.8
1.1
0.2
44
0.3
30
115
NA
08/05/08
29
2.2
0.7
0.2U
43
0.3
29
104
NA
11/17/08
28
1.6
0.6
0.2U
35
0.2
22
87
NA
02/16/09
16
1.1
0.4
0.2U
19
0.2U
14
51
NA
05/06/09
14
0.9
0.3
0.2U
18
0.2U
10
43
NA
07/28/10
4.0
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
4.9
0.2U
3.5
13
NA
11/02/10
3.3
0.2
0.2U
0.2U
3.3
0.2U
2.5
9.3
NA
02/14/11
2.5
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
2.5
0.2U
1.9
6.9
NA
06/06/11
2.2
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
2.4
0.2U
1.7
6.3
NA
07/31/11
1.4
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
1.4
0.2U
1.2
4.0
NA
10/30/11
1.2
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
1.2
0.2U
0.8
3.2
NA
01/26/12
1.0
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
1.0
0.2U
0.7
2.7
NA
05/23/12
0.6
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.6
0.2U
0.4
1.6
NA
08/08/12
0.65
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.64
0.20 U
0.49
1.8
NA
11/14/12
1.6
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.8
0.20 U
1.4
4.8
NA
02/12/13
1.1
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.93
0.20 U
1.1
3.1
NA
06/03/13
1.3
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.2
0.20 U
1.1
3.6
NA
08/27/13
1.7
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.5
0.20 U
1.3
4.5
NA
02/10/14
1.6
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.4
0.20 U
1.5
4.5
NA
07/30/14
2.2
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.3
0.20 U
1.9
6.4
NA
11/10/14
3.0
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.5
0.20 U
2.6
8.3
NA
05/19/15
2.3
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.0
0.20 U
2.1
6.4
NA
11/03/15
2.3
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.8
0.20 U
2.1
6.2
NA
05/18/16
1.9
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.5
0.20 U
1.9
5.3
NA
11/08/16
1.94
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.47
0.20 U
1.82
5.2
NA
04/24/17
1.39
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.98
0.20 U
1.69
4.1
NA
11/01/17
1.82
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.53
0.20 U
1.76
5.1
NA
05/07/18
1.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.28
0.20 U
1.46
4.3
NA
11/19/18
1.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.90
0.20 U
0.97
3.1
NA
05/15/19
0.83
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.50
0.20 U
0.75
2.1
NA
11/19/19
0.45
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.30
0.20 U
0.46
1.2
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.21
NA
12/03/20
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.41
0.64
NA
05/26/21
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 62 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW04-03 (105 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
62
3.0
1.3
0.2U
95
0.4
47
209
NA
continued
02/23/05
54
3.5
1.5
0.2U
71
0.5
38
169
NA
(110 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
62
3.2
1.4
0.2U
94
0.5
46
207
NA
02/23/05
59
3.6
1.4
0.2U
74
0.5
35
174
NA
(120 feet BTOC)
11/22/04
62
3.0
1.4
0.2U
97
0.4
48
212
NA
02/23/05
55
3.3
1.3
0.2U
73
0.5
33
166
NA
05/01/05
36
3.1
1.3
LOU
75
LOU
35
150
NA
08/04/05
48
3.6
1.5
0.2U
80
0.5
45
179
5.0 U
11/09/05
47
3.7
1.6
LOU
75
LOU
44
177
3.8 J
01/29/06
41
3.0
1.2
LOU
70
LOU
38
153
NA
05/08/06
36
2.7
1.1
LOU
51
LOU
35
126
5.0
08/23/06
50
3.9
2.0
LOU
83
2.1
39
180
4.4
11/06/06
29
2.4
1.0U
LOU
43
LOU
27
101
3.4
02/11/07
22
3.1
1.2
0.2U
32
0.4
22
81
2.2
04/29/07
39
3.1
1.2
LOU
46
LOU
32
121
3.1
08/13/07
30
2.4
LOU
LOU
42
LOU
26
100
3.9 J
10/28/07
30 J
2.0
0.8
0.2U
40 J
0.3
30 J
103
2.3
02/03/08
31
2.3
0.8
0.8 U
41
0.8 U
25
100
2.0
05/11/08
35
2.8
1.1
0.2
43
0.4
29
112
2.0 U
08/05/08
28
2.2
0.7
0.2U
42
0.2
28
101
2.0 U
11/17/08
26
1.6
0.6
0.2U
34
0.2
21
83
NA
02/16/09
16
1.1
0.4
0.2U
19
0.2U
13
50
2.0 U
05/06/09
13
0.9
0.3
0.2 U
17
0.2 U
10
41
2.0 U
07/28/10
3.8
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
4.6
0.2 U
3.3
12
2.0 U
11/02/10
3.1
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
3.3
0.2 U
2.5
9.1
2.0 U
02/14/11
2.5
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.6
0.2 U
2.0
7.3
2.0 U
06/06/11
2.0
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.3
0.2 U
1.6
5.9
NA
07/31/11
1.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.4
0.2U
1.2
4.0
NA
10/30/11
1.1
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
1.2
0.2U
0.8 J+
3.1
2.0 U
01/26/12
0.9
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.9
0.2U
0.7
2.5
NA
05/23/12
0.6
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.6
0.2 U
0.4 J+
1.6
NA
08/08/12
0.61
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.65
0.20 U
0.50
1.8
NA
11/14/12
1.6
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.8
0.20 U
1.6
5.0
NA
02/12/13
1.1
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.96
0.20 U
1.0
3.1
NA
06/03/13
1.3
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.2
0.20 U
1.1
3.6
NA
08/27/13
1.7
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.5
0.20 U
1.1
4.3
NA
02/10/14
1.8
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.7
0.20 U
1.7
5.2
NA
07/30/14
2.1
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.4
0.20 U
2.0
6.5
NA
11/10/14
2.9
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.6
0.20 U
2.4
8.1
NA
05/19/15
2.4
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.0
0.20 U
2.2
6.6
NA
11/03/15
2.2
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.8
0.20 U
2.1
6.1
NA
Table 7 a
Page 63 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Well Identification
Date Collected
Organic Analyses (u)
?/L)
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
Total Volatile
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW04-03 (120 feet BTOC)
continued
05/18/16
11/08/16
1.9
1.86
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.6
1.49
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.9
1.97
5.4
5.3
NA
NA
04/24/17
11/01/17
1.41
1.75
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.01
1.50
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.72
1.82
4.1
5.1
NA
NA
05/07/18
11/19/18
1.31
1.12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.10
0.82
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.34
0.97
3.8
2.9
NA
NA
05/15/19
11/19/19
0.79
0.40
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.48
0.27
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.75
0.36
2.0
1.0
NA
NA
05/21/20
12/03/20
05/26/21
0.20 U
0.27
0.333 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.333 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.333 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.333 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.333 U
0.20 U
0.21 U
0.333 UJ
0.21
0.41
0.333 U
0.21
0.92
ND
NA
NA
NA
MW04-03 Bailer
02/23/05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0 U
Table 7a
Page 64 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-01
06/06/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/21/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/10/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/15/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/12/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/06/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/17/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/18/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/04/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/01/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/07/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/24/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/30/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/03/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 65 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-02A
06/06/06
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.4
0.2U
0.3
1.0
NA
08/21/06
1.7
0.2
0.2U
0.2U
3.2
0.2U
0.5
5.6
NA
11/05/06
10
1.1
0.3
0.2U
12
0.2U
1.7
25
NA
02/10/07
1.2
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
1.8
0.2U
1.5
4.5
NA
04/29/07
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.4
0.2U
0.3
1.0
2.0 U
08/21/07
1.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.2
0.2 U
0.2
2.6
2.0 U
10/29/07
5.0
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
5.2
0.2 U
1.0
12
NA
02/04/08
0.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.1
0.2 U
0.8
2.8
NA
06/25/08
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.40
NA
08/06/08
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/17/08
20
2.6
0.5
0.2 U
15
0.2 U
3.0
41
NA
02/19/09
17
1.6
0.5
0.2 U
20
0.2
5.3
45
NA
05/04/09
10
1.2
0.3
0.2 U
10
0.2 U
2.1
24
NA
07/26/10
6.0
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
7.0
0.2 U
5.4
19
2.0 U
10/28/10
12
1.0
0.4
0.2U
12
0.2U
9.8
35
2.0 U
02/06/11
6.2
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
6.6
0.2U
5.5
19
NA
02/06/11 (DUP)
6.3
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
6.8
0.2U
5.7
19
NA
06/06/11
4.8
0.4
0.2U
0.2U
6.0
0.2U
3.8
15
NA
07/31/11
4.2
0.3
0.2U
0.2U
4.5
0.2U
2.0
11
NA
10/30/11
9.2
0.8
0.3
0.2U
9.4
0.2U
7.0
27
2.0 U
01/25/12
10
0.9
0.4
0.2 U
10
0.2 U
8.8
30
NA
05/21/12
13
1.1
0.4
0.2 U
13
0.2 U
8.0
36
NA
08/13/12
13
1.0
0.42
0.20 U
13
0.20 U
11
38
NA
11/14/12
12
0.85
0.35
0.20 U
11
0.20 U
9.1
33
NA
02/12/13
7.8
0.49
0.24
0.20 U
5.8
0.20 U
5.5
20
NA
06/03/13
7.6
0.64
0.23
0.20 U
7.6
0.20 U
6.8
23
NA
11/13/13
5.8
0.47
0.21
0.20 U
4.9
0.20 U
4.6
16
NA
05/05/14
5.0
0.42
0.20 U
0.20 U
4.9
0.20 U
4.3
15
NA
11/10/14
4.4
0.33
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.7
0.20 U
3.8
12
NA
05/04/15
5.3
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
4.4
0.20 U
4.5
15
NA
11/03/15
4.3
0.32
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.1
0.20 U
3.7
11
NA
05/19/16
4.0
0.36
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.2
0.20 U
4.1
12
NA
11/08/16
4.35
0.33
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.99
0.20 U
3.77
11
NA
04/23/17
3.68
0.34
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.84
0.20 U
3.17
10
NA
10/31/17
6.54
0.49
0.20 U
0.20 U
4.51
0.20 U
5.17
17
NA
05/02/18
2.19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.64
0.20 U
2.08
5.9
NA
11/19/18
1.95
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.30
0.20 U
1.67
4.9
NA
05/15/19
1.77
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.94
0.20 U
1.64
4.4
NA
11/19/19
1.93
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.93
0.20 U
1.83
4.7
NA
05/20/20
2.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.91
0.20 U
1.62
4.9
NA
12/03/20
2.47
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.18
0.22U
1.57
5.2
NA
05/26/21
1.82
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.620 J
1.27
0.333 UJ
3.7
NA
Table 7 a
Page 66 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
?/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-02B
06/06/06
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
0.3
1.3
NA
08/21/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.20
NA
11/05/06
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
0.4
1.4
NA
02/10/07
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
0.4
1.4
NA
04/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/21/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.20
2.0 U
10/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/04/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/25/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/06/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/17/08
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.9
0.2 U
0.5
2.0
NA
02/19/09
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
0.2 U
0.3
1.1
NA
05/04/09
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
0.4
1.5
NA
07/26/10
0.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
0.9
2.8
2.0 U
10/28/10
0.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
1.1
3.0
2.0 U
02/06/11
0.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.9
0.2 U
0.8
2.5
NA
06/06/11
0.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
0.9
2.8
NA
07/31/11
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
0.7
1.9
NA
10/30/11
1.0
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
0.9 J+
2.9
2.0 U
01/25/12
0.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.2 U
0.7
2.2
NA
05/21/12
1.0
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
1.0
3.0
NA
08/13/12
0.66
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.58
0.20 U
0.66
1.9
NA
11/14/12
2.1
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.9
0.20 U
1.3
5.5
NA
02/12/13
2.6
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.7
0.20 U
1.7
6.2
NA
06/03/13
2.2
0.30
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.3
0.201
2..")
7.3
NA
11/13/13
6.9
0.57
0.26
0.20 U
6.0
0.201
5.1
19
NA
05/05/14
•,,, 9,0 •,,,
0.70
0.27
0.20 U
8.7
0.201
7.6
26
NA
11/10/14
6.4
0.51
0.23
0.20 U
5.7
0.20 b
6.1
19
NA
05/04/15
6.1
0.52
0.22
0.20 U
5.4
0.20 U
5.8
18
NA
11/03/15
5.1
0.42
0.20 U
0.20 U
3.7
0.20 U
4.4
14
NA
05/19/16
3.3
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.8
0.20 U
3.8
10
NA
11/08/16
2.74
0.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.89
0.20 U
2.14
7.0
NA
04/23/17
2.19
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.61
0.20 U
1.87
5.9
NA
10/31/17
1.82
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.19
0.20 U
1.52
4.5
NA
05/02/18
1.19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.89
0.20 U
1.17
3.3
NA
11/19/18
1.03
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.67
0.20 U
0.89
2.6
NA
05/15/19
0.76
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.44
0.20 U
0.77
2.0
NA
11/19/19
0.57
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.35
0.20 U
0.63
1.6
NA
05/20/20
0.49
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.29
0.20 U
0.47
1.3
NA
12/03/20
0.44
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.20 U
0.40
1.1
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 67 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-03
06/06/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/21/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/11/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/30/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/25/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/17/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/18/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/06/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/01/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/07/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/06/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/27/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/30/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/03/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 68 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW06-04
06/06/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/21/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/11/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/30/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/15/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/25/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/06/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/17/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/18/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/05/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/01/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/07/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/07/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/06/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 69 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW07-01A
11/14/07
28
3.0
1.5
1.0U
39
1.0U
17
89
NA
02/04/08
26
2.7
1.0
0.8 U
33
0.8 U
21
84
NA
05/12/08
22
2.2
1.0
0.2U
28
0.3
21
75
NA
08/06/08
13
1.8
0.7
0.2U
19
0.2
16
51
NA
11/17/08
0.9
0.6
0.2U
0.2U
1.2
0.2U
1.5
4.2
NA
02/18/09
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2
0.20
NA
05/04/09
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
NA
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/01/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/07/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/06/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/24/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/30/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/03/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 70 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW07-01B
11/14/07
17
2.0
1.0
0.6 U
23
0.6 U
11
54
NA
02/04/08
15
1.8
0.7
0.4 U
20
0.4 U
13
51
NA
05/12/08
12
1.4
0.6
0.2U
15
0.2U
11
40
NA
08/06/08
12
1.6
0.6
0.2U
17
0.2U
13
44
NA
11/17/08
32
2.7
1.1
0.2
41
0.3
30
107
NA
02/18/09
4.3
0.7
0.3
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
5.8
11
NA
05/04/09
0.9
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
1.2
0.2U
1.0
3.1
NA
07/26/10
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
2.0 U
10/28/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2
0.20
2.0 U
02/07/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/06/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/24/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/30/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 71 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW09-01 (36.5 feet BTOC)
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/01/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(61 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.30
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/11
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.6
1.2
NA
(71 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(82 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.40
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(91 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.20
NA
07/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(101 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(111 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(121 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
MW09-02 (53 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(63 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(67 feet BTOC)
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/01/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/30/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(73 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(83 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
(93 feet BTOC)
02/16/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/24/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 72 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW09-03A
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/01/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/07/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/07/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/24/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/27/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/18/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 73 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW09-03B
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/01/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/07/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/07/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/24/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/27/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/18/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 74 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW09-04A
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/01/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/10/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/07/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/24/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/12
0.31
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.48
0.20 U
0.44
1.2
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/27/13
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.38
0.20 U
0.37
1.1
NA
11/14/13
0.37
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.41
0.20 U
0.36
0.80
NA
02/13/14
0.26
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.29
0.20 U
0.35
0.90
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21J+
0.21
NA
11/18/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.24
NA
05/21/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/25/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/11/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/13/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 75 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
?/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW09-04B
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/01/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/10/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/07/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/24/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.99
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.85
0.20 U
0.62
2.5
NA
11/14/12
1.7
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.5
0.20 U
1.2
4.4
NA
02/13/13
0.44
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.48
0.20 U
0.42
1.3
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/27/13
1.1
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.1
0.20 U
0.75
3.0
NA
11/14/13
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.45
0.20 U
0.35
0.80
NA
02/13/14
1.1
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.92
0.20 U
0.77
2.8
NA
05/05/14
0.66
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.40
1.1
NA
07/28/14
2.5
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.3
0.20 U
1.5
6.3
NA
11/18/14
0.59
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.52
0.20 U
0.56
1.7
NA
01/27/15
1.1
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.0
0.20 U
0.71
2.8
NA
05/21/15
0.45
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.44
0.20 U
0.44
1.3
NA
08/17/15
1.9
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.3
0.20 U
1.4
4.6
NA
11/05/15
0.73
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.50
0.20 U
0.59
1.8
NA
02/15/16
0.57
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.40
0.20 U
0.49
1.5
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
1.39
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.03
0.20 U
0.96
3.4
NA
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/01/17
0.27
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.26
0.20 U
0.27
0.80
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/25/17
2.56
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.43
0.20 U
1.32
5.3
NA
11/01/17
0.34
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.39
0.20 U
0.43
1.2
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/11/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/13/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.38 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.38
NA
Table 7a
Page 76 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW10-01A
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/06/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/30/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.53
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.53
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/03/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 77 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW10-01B
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/02/10
1.1
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.1
NA
02/06/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/30/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/03/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 78 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW10-01C
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/06/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/30/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/03/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 79 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
?/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW10-02A
07/25/10
2.7
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
3.7
0.2 U
2.5
9.2
NA
11/02/10
3.0
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
3.7
0.2 U
3.7
11
NA
02/06/11
1.9
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.7
0.2 U
3.6
8.5
NA
02/06/11 (DUP)
2.2
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.8
0.2 U
3.7
8.9
NA
06/02/11
1.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.0
0.2 U
3.1
6.5
NA
06/02/11 (DUP)
1.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.8
0.2 U
2.9
6.0
NA
07/25/11
1.9
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.6
0.2 U
3.3
8.0
NA
10/25/11
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
2.3
4.3
NA
01/25/12
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.1
0.2 U
2.6
4.3
NA
05/16/12
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
0.2 U
1.2
2.0
NA
08/13/12
0.55
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.95
0.20 U
3.0
4.5
NA
11/12/12
0.88
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.4
0.20 U
1.8
4.1
NA
02/13/13
0.81
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.1
0.20 U
1.5
3.4
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.50
0.50
NA
09/10/13
0.26
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.96
1.2
NA
11/13/13
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.87
0.20 U
1.6
2.5
NA
02/10/14
0.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.50
0.20 U
1.0
1.8
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.57
0.57
NA
07/30/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.69 J+
0.69
NA
11/10/14
0.28
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20
0.20 U
0.46
0.94
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
0.20 U
0.75
0.98
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.54
0.54
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20
0.20 U
0.89
1.1
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.20 U
0.71
0.95
NA
02/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20
0.20 U
0.70
0.90
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.4
0.40
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.78
0.78
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.61
0.61
NA
02/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.56
0.56
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.42
0.42
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.67
0.67
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.39
0.39
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.24
NA
08/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
0.23
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.30
0.30
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.28
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/13/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 80 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW10-02B
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/06/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/30/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.33
0.20 U
0.33
NA
08/13/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/03/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 81 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW10-02C
07/25/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/06/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/02/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/10/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/30/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/13/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/03/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 82 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-01A
11/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/18/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/03/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
MW11-01B
11/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/14/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/18/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/09/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/03/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 83 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-02A
11/14/11
2.1
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.2
0.2 U
1.8
6.3
NA
01/25/12
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.2 U
0.8
2.2
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/13/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
MW11-02B
11/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/16/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.20 U
0.20
0.40
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/13/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 84 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-02C
11/14/11
4.4
0.5
0.2
0.2U
4.1
0.2U
1.7
11
NA
01/25/12
8.7
0.8
0.5
0.2U
8.5
0.2U
5.5
24
NA
05/16/12
10
0.9
0.4
0.2U
9.7
0.2U
3.4
24
NA
08/13/12
9.G
0.94
0.48
0.20 U
9.8
0.20 U
7.4
28
NA
08/13/12 (DUP)
9.7
0.94
0.50
0.20 U
9.7
0.20 U
7.8
29
NA
11/12/12
7.2
0.77
0.38
0.20 U
7.7
0.20 U
5.0
21
NA
02/13/13
3.6
0.36
0.20
0.20 U
3.2
0.20 U
2.0
9.4
NA
06/03/13
1.9
0.21
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.8
0.20 U
1.6
5.5
NA
11/13/13
0.53
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.46
0.20 U
0.36
0.80
NA
05/05/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/15/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/31/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/13/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7 a
Page 85 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-03A
11/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/07/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/06/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.30
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.30
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/29/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 86 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-03B
11/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/06/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/29/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 87 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-03C
11/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/06/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/29/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.26
0.26
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 88 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-04A
11/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/06/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/29/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 89 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-04B
11/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/06/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/29/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 90 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-04C
11/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2
0.50
NA
05/15/12
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.2 U
0.4
1.5
NA
08/08/12
0.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.44
0.20 U
0.34
1.0
NA
11/12/12
0.30
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.43
0.20 U
0.37
1.1
NA
02/12/13
0.24
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.37
0.20 U
0.27
0.90
NA
06/03/13
0.24
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.41
0.20 U
0.40
1.1
NA
08/26/13
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.41
0.20 U
0.36
1.0
NA
11/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.34
0.20 U
0.24
0.60
NA
02/11/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.20 U
0.22
0.40
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/06/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/29/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/24/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 91 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-05A
11/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/06/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/29/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 92 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-05B
11/14/11
0.5
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.2 U
0.4
1.8
NA
01/25/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/06/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/29/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/20/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 93 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-05C
11/14/11
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
NA
01/25/12
0.5
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.4
NA
05/15/12
0.5
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.4
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/13 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/13 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/28/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/27/15 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/17/15 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/16 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/08/16 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/06/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/06/17 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/23/17 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/25/17 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/29/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/29/17 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 94 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-05C
02/28/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
continued
02/28/18 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
5/2/18 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/01/18 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/18 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/13/19 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/24/19 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/24/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/29/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 95 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
JL)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW11-06 (44 feet BTOC)
11/14/11
2.0
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.1
0.2 U
2.4
7.0
NA
01/26/12
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.6
1.4
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.26
0.30
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
(85 feet BTOC)
11/14/11
2.4
0.6
0.2
0.2 U
2.5
0.2 U
3.2
8.9
NA
01/26/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.2
0.60
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
(119 feet BTOC)
11/14/11
1.9
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.1
0.2 U
2.5
7.1
NA
01/26/12
2.0
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.2
0.2 U
2.2
6.9
NA
05/15/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
MW11-07
11/14/11
1.2
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.2 U
0.2
2.6
NA
01/25/12
1.7
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.5
2.9
NA
05/15/12
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.50
NA
08/08/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/26/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/19/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/18/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/08/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/29/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/22/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
MW12-01A
01/22/13
0.26
0.21
0.34
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.4
2.2
NA
05/02/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
12/05/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 96 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW12-01B
01/22/13
18
15
3.5
0.60 U
5.5
5.2
99
146
NA
02/14/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
05/29/13
18
12
2.5
0.20 U
3.7
3.6
130
170
0.4 U
09/05/13
15
9.5
2.2
0.20 U
2.4
3.0
120
152
NA
11/14/13
12
7.8
1.7
0.40 U
2.1
2.4
87
113
NA
02/10/14
4.0
2.4
0.48
0.20 U
0.75
0.63
32
40
NA
05/21/14
4.2 J+
0.38 J+
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.64 J+
0.20 U
4.6J+
9.8
4.1
08/04/14
6.1
0.69
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.2
0.24
6.7
15
NA
08/21/14
45
7.8
2.0
0.20 U
14 J
41J+
76
149
22 J
11/18/14
7.7
2.7
0.70
0.20 U
3.3
1.2
32
48
NA
01/29/15
1.7
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.43
0.20 U
4.8
7.3
NA
05/21/15
0.81
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.96
1.8
NA
06/01/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2
08/12/15
G.9
0.90
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.3
0.30
8.1
18
NA
08/25/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5
11/09/15
17
3.0
0.79
0.20 U
4.3
1.7
34
61
NA
02/15/16
2.9
0.26
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.54
0.20 U
4.2
7.9
NA
05/05/16
2.4
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.20 U
1.4
4.1
NA
05/24/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
08/15/16
6.10
0.51
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.44
0.22
7.29
16
NA
08/18/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.2
11/09/16
26.0
14.5
5.38
0.20 U
7.97
10.1
61.9
126
NA
02/01/17
4.25
0.96
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.29
0.34
11.4
18
NA
04/24/17
1.91
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.37
0.20 U
2.17
4.5
NA
05/24/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
07/31/17
41.4
9.59
3.60
0.20 U
6.83
8.54
68.2
138
NA
08/08/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.4
11/01/17
85.2
21.0
5.79
0.25
17.8
12.3
165
307
NA
03/08/18
4.05
0.59
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.87
0.22
9.00
15
NA
05/07/18
2.59
0.28
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.52
0.20 U
3.34
6.7
NA
05/24/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2
08/02/18
3.84
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.52
0.20 U
2.45
6.8
NA
08/22/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
11/07/18
0.99
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.97
2.0
NA
03/11/19
2.31
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.20 U
1.78
4.4
NA
05/15/19
1.67
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.29
3.0
NA
06/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6
07/31/19
5.62
0.20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.80
0.20 U
3.01
9.6
NA
09/24/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
11/19/19
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.45
1.0
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/15/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 UJ
08/13/20
5.39
0.24
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.56
0.20 U
2.95
9.1
NA
12/04/20
1.81
0.60
0.28
0.20 U
0.61
0.34 U
8.30
12
NA
03/22/21
0.47
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.47
0.94
NA
05/25/21
0.880 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.560 J
1.44
0.3 J
09/13/21
25.7
9.07
3.8
0.333 U
5.65
7.89
93.2
145.31
14.8
11/02/21
5.23
1.24
0.53 J
0.333 U
1.27
0.860 J
23.9
33.03
NA
02/17/22
0.620 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.820 J
1.44
NA
04/18/22
0.590 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.500 J
1.09
0.763
07/13/22
1.52
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.26
2.78
1.33
12/05/22
31.4
9.22
2.73
0.333 U
2.81
8.96
95.2
150.32
NA
Table 7 a
Page 97 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (u)
?/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
l,2-DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW12-02A
01/22/13
0.43
0.55
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
0.59
1.8
NA
05/02/13
1.1
1.2
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.48
0.93
4.0
NA
04/26/17
0.54
0.98
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
1.8
NA
11/02/17
1.20
0.42
0.28
0.20 U
0.47
0.20 U
3.51
5.9
NA
05/17/18
0.20 U
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.33
0.62
NA
11/06/18
3.49
9.62
0.49
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.50
2.09
16
NA
05/15/19
0.80
2.94
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.74
5.5
NA
11/18/19
2.29
5.73
0.59
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.88
3.55
13
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.59
1.0
NA
12/04/20
0.32
0.33
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.26 U
0.59
1.2
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.510 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.4
1.9
NA
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.350 J
0.4
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.550 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.01
1.6
NA
12/05/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.380 J
0.4
NA
MW12-02B
01/22/13
1.7
0.26
0.28
0.20 U
0.72
0.20 U
4.6
7.6
NA
02/14/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' • • • 4.4 '•• '
05/28/13
0.71
1.8
0.43
0.20 U
0.69
0.20 U
2.7
6.3
11
09/05/13
1.5
0.40
0.27
0.20 U
0.67
0.20 U
3.6
6.4
NA
11/18/13
1.5
0.50
0.35
0.20 U
0.58
0.20 U
2.6
5.5
NA
02/13/14
0.63
0.30
0.26
0.20 U
0.26
0.20 U
3.8
5.3
NA
06/01/14
0.26 J+
0.37J+
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.2 J+
2.8
0.4 U
08/04/14
0.20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.74J+
0.94
NA
08/21/14
0.45 J+
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.33 J+
0.39J+
1.4 J+
2.9
0.4 UJ
11/19/14
5.5
0.98
0.79
0.20 U
2.0
0.44
18
28
NA
01/29/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.6
1.6
NA
05/05/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.6 J
08/12/15
2.6
0.52
0.30 (cis)
0.20 U
0.97
0.20
23
28
NA
08/19/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
\ ' 0.5 ;
11/09/15
4.2
0.60
0.47
0.20 U
1.2
0.28
'25' • '•
32
NA
02/15/16
0.21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.1
2.3
NA
05/05/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.24
NA
05/24/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' • • • 1,2 ;; '
08/15/16
0.49
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.20 U
1.88
2.6
NA
08/18/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
11/09/16
1.47
0.45
0.28
0.20 U
0.53
0.20 U
' • • • 5.11
7.8
NA
02/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.08
2.1
NA
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/24/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.28
NA
08/08/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/02/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/08/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.90
0.90
NA
05/17/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/17/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/02/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/16/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/06/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 7a
Page 98 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW12-02B
03/11/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
continued
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 U
07/31/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.57
NA
09/17/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2U
11/18/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32
0.32
NA
02/27/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.48
0.84
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.33
2.7
NA
06/15/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0J
08/13/20
1.70
0.20 U
0.20
0.20 U
0.38
0.20 U
7.75
10
NA
12/04/20
0.32
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.32
2.6
NA
03/24/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.33
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.61
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
2.2
09/13/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.5 J
0.50
0.204 J
11/02/21
1.26
0.333 U
0.57 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
4.92
6.75
NA
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.340 J
0.34
NA
04/18/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.600 J
0.60
1.7
12/05/22
1.11
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
7.13
8.24
NA
MW12-03A
01/22/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.0
1.3
NA
05/02/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/05/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/24/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/01/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/07/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/15/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/19/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
11/02/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
04/18/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
12/05/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
MW12-03B
01/22/13
4.3
4.4
1.67
0.20 U
2.0
1.0
14
27
NA
02/14/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.7
05/29/13
3.2
3.2
1.4
0.20 U
2.6
0.72
26
37
6.4
09/05/13
3.0
3.3
0.85
0.20 U
1.3
0.77
10
19
NA
11/14/13
1.7
1.7
0.49
0.20 U
0.67
0.38
6.3
11
NA
02/10/14
3.5
2.3
0.85
0.20 U
2.3
0.54
11
20
NA
05/21/14
5.1 J+
2.4 J+
0.89 J+
0.20 U
1.4J+
2.1 J+
19 J+
31
4.9
08/04/14
8.3
4.0
1.9
0.20 U
5.5
1.4
9.2
30
NA
08/20/14
5.6 J+
3.6
0.99
0.20 U
3.0 J
1.2J+
19 J+
33
4.6 J
11/18/14
6.6
4.6
1.4
0.20 U
1.8
1.8
14
30
NA
01/29/15
18
11
2.9
0.20 U
2.9
3.1
23
61
NA
05/21/15
12
3.5
0.99
0.20 U
1.5
1.6
24
44
NA
06/01/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12
08/12/15
18
5.8
2.5 (cis)
0.20 U
4.4
2.0
28
61
NA
08/25/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.9
11/05/15
24
9.6
3.0
0.20 U
3.2
3.7
24
68
NA
Table 7 a
Page 99 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
MW12-03B
02/15/16
59
26
5.9
0.20 U
6.0
12
69
178
NA
continued
05/05/16
24
6.7
1.6
0.20 U
2.4
3.1
14
52
NA
05/24/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.0
08/15/16
22.7
7.76
2.91
0.20 U
5.59
3.33
20.0
62
NA
08/22/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.2
11/09/16
10.6
5.05
1.50
0.20 U
1.70
2.35
12.6
34
NA
02/01/17
30.3
14.9
4.54
0.20 U
2.98
7.77
28.2
89
NA
04/24/17
12.2
6.12
1.63
0.20 U
1.47
3.33
18.3
43
NA
05/24/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.3
07/25/17
15.0 J
7.70 J
2.69 J
0.20 UJ
3.56 J
3.72 J
25.1 J
58
NA
08/08/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.5
11/01/17
8.96
5.37
1.66
0.20 U
1.05
3.75
19.6
40
NA
03/08/18
11.0
7.04
1.74
0.20 U
1.00
4.54
35.5
61
NA
05/07/18
6.65
3.87
0.98
0.20 U
0.49
2.94
16.6
32
NA
05/24/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.9
08/02/18
10.7
5.88
1.66
0.20 U
0.94
4.30
20.9
44
NA
08/13/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.9
11/07/18
27.0
14.8
7.22
0.20 UJ
5.57
10.3
39.5
104
NA
03/11/19
25.5
12.4
3.98
0.20 U
4.65
9.54
52.2
108
NA
05/15/19
12.6
6.21
1.75
0.20 U
2.83
3.80
26.8
54
NA
06/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.6
07/31/19
4.64
1.47
0.41
0.20 U
1.19
1.37
12.7
22
NA
09/24/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.8
11/19/19
8.37
2.90
0.93
0.20 U
2.20
1.52
13.3
29
NA
11/19/19 (DUP)
9.49
2.83
0.92
0.20 U
2.15
1.41
13.3
30
NA
02/27/20
5.70 J
1.67 J
0.54
0.20 U
1.47 J
1.05U
12.0 J
21
NA
02/27/20 (DUP)
1.69 J
0.41 J
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32 J
0.22U
2.74 J
5.2
NA
05/21/20
3.53
0.97
0.30
0.20 U
0.90
0.76
9.28
16
NA
05/21/20 (DUP)
3.14
0.88
0.25
0.20 U
0.79
0.60
8.65
14
NA
06/15/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14 J
08/13/20
3.59 J
1.23
1.04
0.20 U
1.25
0.60
5.68
13
NA
08/13/20 (DUP)
2.77 J
1.06
0.93
0.20 U
1.23
0.51
5.78
12
NA
12/04/20
11.4
6.27
2.78
0.20 U
2.20
4.23
18.9
46
NA
12/04/20 (DUP)
11.3
5.82
2.55
0.20 U
2.08
4.15
18.1
44
NA
03/22/21
10.2
6.33
2.70
0.20 U
2.02
3.97
20.0
45
NA
3/22/21 (DUP)
9.98
6.80
2.65
0.20 U
1.93
3.66
19.5
45
NA
05/25/21
5.73
4.13
1.38
0.333 U
1
2.26
13
28
4.82
5/25/21 (DUP)
5.09
3.78
1.34
0.333 U
0.990 J
2.07
11.6
25
NA
09/13/21
7.93
4.37
2.51
0.333 U
1.49
3.87
23.5
43.67
6.04
9/13/2021 (DUP)
6.55
3.87
2.27
0.333 U
1.27
3.52
21.4
38.88
NA
11/02/21
6.94
3.97
2.2
0.333 U
0.630 J
4.29
12.9
30.93
NA
11/02/21 (DUP)
7.18
3.77
2.08
0.333 U
0.550 J
4.09
12.3
29.97
NA
02/17/22
6.33
4.02
1.95
0.333 U
0.580 J
4.12
15.4
32.4
NA
2/17/22 (DUP)
8.13
4.73
2.11
0.333 U
0.640 J
4.81
19.4
39.82
NA
04/18/22
7.94
4.59
1.73
0.333 U
0.420 J
4.41
11.4
30.49
3.62
04/18/22 (DUP)
7.95
4.53
1.70
0.333 U
0.410 J
4.31
11.2
30.1
NA
07/13/22
16.7
5.15
2.06
0.333 U
0.720 J
5.71
15.4
45.74
7.58 J
07/13/22 (DUP)
16.7
5.16
2.06
0.333 U
0.720 J
5.81
15.4
45.85
NA
12/05/22
6.07
3.22
1.55
0.333 U
0.380 J
4.56
19.2
34.98
NA
12/5/2022 (DUP)
6.33
3.08
1.53
0.333 U
0.360 J
4.40
18.1
33.8
NA
Table 7 a
Page 100 of 101
-------
Table 7a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (uj
J/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2 DCEb
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
EXT13-01
08/29/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1
08/29/13 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1
11/11/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
02/12/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
05/05/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
07/30/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
05/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
MW13-02
09/10/13
0.52
0.32
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.0
2.8
NA
11/20/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
0.20
NA
02/10/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/06/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/29/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/21/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/01/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/25/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/22/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
a Screening levels for volatile organic compounds are based on EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as of 12/8/2016 (no change in 2022). The screening level for 1,4-dioxane is based on the May 2020 EPA Regional
Screening Level (RSL) for tap water.
bThe EPA MCL presented for 1,2-DCE is the sum of the individual EPA MCLs for the cis- 1,2-DCE (70 ug'L) and trans- 1,2-DCE (100 ug'L) isomers. If MCL exceeded, the isomer above MCL is shown in ().
Notes:
Bold font indicates result reported as detected.
Result reported is above or equal to the screening level.
Total Volatile COCs - Sum of detected results for 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, 1,2-DCE, 1,2-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, and PCE
1,1-DCE- 1,1-dichloroethene
1.1-DCA - 1,1-dichloroe thane
1.2-DCE - total of cis-l,2-dichloroethene and trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-DCA - 1,2-dichloroe thane
1,1,1-TCA - 1,1,1 -trichloroe thane
TCE - trichloroethene
PCE - tetrachloroethene
BTOC - below top of casing
COC - chemical of concern
DUP - field duplicate
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
J - estimated value
J+ - estimated value, biased high
MCL - maximum contaminant level
NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
NE - not established
NS - not sampled
ug'L - microgram per liter
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the reported sample detection limit.
UJ - The analyte was not detected above the reported sample detection limit. However, the reported detection limit is approximate and may or may
not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
Table 7 a
Page 101 of 101
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
(field)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
Well Identification
Date Collected
pH
(field)
pH
(lab)
TSS
(mg/L)
(lab)
Temperature
(°C)
(field)
Oxygen
(mg/L)
(field)
ORP
(mV)
(field)
Turbidity
(NTU)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
On-Facility Wells
01 Well
11/01
6.44
NA
NA
12.1
929
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/02
6.73
NA
NA
11.3
642
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/02
6.67
6.7 J
NA
11.9
726
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 UJ
0.25
0.001 u
12.5
210
8/02
6.32
NA
NA
11.6
1,207
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/02
6.42
NA
NA
12.8
850
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/03
6.40
NA
NA
13.0
805
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/03
6.67
6.75 J
NA
13.7
643
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.26
0.003
6.17
140
8/03
6.43
NA
NA
11.8
1.099
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/03
6.43
NA
NA
11.2
881
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/04
6.39
NA
NA
11.5
830
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/04
6.46
6.63 J
NA
12.0
971
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
8.34
0.064
26.4
361
8/04
6.65
NA
NA
14.0
1,140
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/09/04
6.47
NA
NA
11.4
819
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/22/05
6.52
NA
NA
11.4
966
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/02/05
6.74
6.88 J
NA
11.0
917
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.31
0.001 u
21
327
07/31/05
6.44
6.56 J
NA
12.5
1,188
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
1.62
0.036
29.7
335
11/07/05
6.66
NA
NA
11.1
755
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
01/29/06
6.75
NA
NA
11.4
679
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/09/06
6.71
6.52
NA
11.9
886
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
1.90
0.004
18.8
243
08/19/06
6.46
6.30 J
NA
11.9
914
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
6.22
0.001 u
28.3
160
11/06/06
6.81
NA
NA
12.0
618
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/19/07
6.84
NA
NA
11.5
714
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/04/07
6.28
6.30 J
NA
11.6
789
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
2.79
0.001 u
20.9
187
08/12/07
6.55
NA
NA
12.5
928
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/30/07
6.40
NA
NA
12.2
708
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/06/08
6.65
NA
NA
11.7
548
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/07/08
6.45
NA
NA
11.8
781
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
03/05/09
6.80
NA
NA
8.4
730
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
1.69
0.067
2.11
NA
05/07/09
7.00
NA
NA
22.8
629
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.87
NA
08/13/09
6.32
6.42
NA
12.2
716
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
1.6
0.001 u
7.51
60.1
05/19/10
6.65
6.62
NA
12.0
707
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
1.15
0.001
8.19
71.7
08/16/10
6.58
NA
NA
11.8
779
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
2.13
0.001 u
9.85
NA
11/01/10
6.55
NA
NA
11.8
620
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
1.47
0.001
6.46
NA
02/16/11
6.90
NA
NA
11.4
506
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.51
0.001
0.89
NA
05/26/11
6.88
NA
1.1U
12.3
699
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.25
0.0001 u
3.20
50
05/26/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.22
0.0001 U (D)
3.14 (D)
NA
07/25/11
6.45
NA
1.1
12.9
762
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.26
0.0001 u
2.87
46
07/25/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.09 (D)
0.0001 U (D)
2.55 (D)
NA
10/27/11
7.02
NA
NA
11.6
604
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.85
NA
Table 7b
Page 1 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
AOIW
11/01
6.27
NA
NA
13.9
463
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/02
6.28
NA
NA
13.5
379
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/02
6.39
6.4 J
NA
13.8
381
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 UJ
0.14
0.001 u
2.05
46
8/02
6.09
NA
NA
12.9
475
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/02
6.18
NA
NA
13
514
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/03
6.10
NA
NA
12.4
521
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/03
6.22
6.42 J
NA
12.7
434
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.24
0.004
2.26
52
8/03
6.19
NA
NA
15.0
482
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/03
6.11
NA
NA
12.0
585
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/04
6.08
NA
NA
12.5
559
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/04
6.06
6.47
NA
13.7
572
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.002
2.76
87.3
8/04
6.67
NA
NA
12.6
842
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/09/04
6.59
NA
NA
12.3
653
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/22/05
6.65
6.41 J
NA
12.5
493
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.16
0.001 u
0.806
61.4
05/02/05
6.98
NA
NA
12.1
561
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
07/31/05
6.57
NA
NA
12.8
826
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/06/05
6.53
NA
NA
12.4
799
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
01/31/06
6.45
NA
NA
12.3
643
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/08/06
6.76
NA
NA
12.6
659
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/19/06
6.61
NA
NA
12.6
799
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/06/06
6.43
NA
NA
12.4
772
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/20/07
6.41
NA
NA
12.2
716
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
04/30/07
6.74
NA
NA
12.4
799
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/12/07
6.77
6.62 J
NA
13.3
943
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.74
121
10/30/07
6.55
NA
NA
12.7
717
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/06/08
6.50
NA
NA
12.4
903
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/16/08
6.63
NA
NA
12.4
737
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/24/09
6.52
NA
NA
12.2
550
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.09
0.002
0.44
NA
05/05/09
7.10
NA
NA
14.0
670
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.39
NA
08/12/09
7.01
6.81
NA
12.8
789
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.45
56.6
05/19/10
6.74
6.85
NA
12.5
616
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.001
0.34
35.5
08/16/10
6.77
NA
NA
12.4
673
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.52
49.6
08/16/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.43 (D)
NA
11/02/10
6.97
NA
NA
12.2
493
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.26
27.8
11/02/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.27 (D)
NA
11/02/10 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.27
27.4
02/15/11
7.49
NA
NA
10.6
442
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
21.1
0.002
0.20
27.6
02/15/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 (D)
NA
05/26/11
6.93
NA
1.0U
12.4
586
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.22
18
05/26/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.22 (D)
NA
07/24/11
7.00
NA
1.1U
12.3
623
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.29
26
07/24/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.28 (D)
NA
06/05/12
6.61
NA
NA
12.1
556
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.24
25.3
08/16/12
6.68
NA
NA
11.1
748
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.50
44.6
06/11/13
6.62
NA
NA
14.3
639
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.41
38.0
08/04/14
6.05
NA
NA
13.9
778
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.65
58.1
08/09/16
6.88
NA
NA
13.4
699
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050
0.050 U
0.000100 u
0.604
NA
06/19/17
7.01
NA
NA
13.1
964
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.475
NA
08/09/17
6.99
NA
NA
12.7
758
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.612
NA
08/09/18
7.10
NA
NA
14.3
815
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0073
0.0500 U
0.000100u
0.806
NA
Table 7b
Page 2 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
(field)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
Well Identification
Date Collected
pH
(field)
pH
(lab)
TSS
(mg/L)
(lab)
Temperature
PC)
(field)
Oxygen
(mg/L)
(field)
ORP
(mV)
(field)
Turbidity
(NTU)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
AOIW
06/23/20
7.04
NA
NA
12.4
756
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0058
0.0500 U
0.000100 U
0.306
NA
continued
08/25/20
6.96
NA
NS
12.5
854
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/23/21
7.17
NA
NS
14.5
1,070
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00359 J
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.64
NA
09/08/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.002 U
0.128
0.0005 U
1.02
NA
04/19/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA6.61
0.00200U
0.00402 J
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.177
NA
07/13/22
7.70
NA
NA
14.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00512 J
0.0118 UJ
1.37
0.000500 U
0.504 J
NA
Staska Well
08/25/06
6.71
6.70
NA
14.0
876
6.39
158
NA
0.002
0.005 U
0.95
0.009
0.466
23.5
MW87-3
11/01
6.35
6.6 J
NA
11.5
949
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.08
0.001 U
0.219
34
2/02
6.60
6.7 J
NA
12.2
766
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.012
0.11
0.001 U
0.136
25
5/02
6.61
6.7 J
NA
10.4
785
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.012 J
0.11
0.001 u
0.107
25
8/02
6.44
6.79 J
NA
13.2
722
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.013
0.62
0.001 u
1.22
34
11/02
6.58
6.78
NA
11.6
920
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.012
0.21
0.001 u
0.349
31
2/03
6.59
6.85
NA
12.4
982
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.06
0.001 u
0.259
32
5/03
6.47
6.76 J
NA
12.1
774
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.19
0.001 u
0.155
26
8/03
6.44
6.66 J
NA
14.0
654
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.33
0.001 u
0.947
47
11/03
6.52
6.81 J
NA
11.9
809
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.07
0.002
0.418
55
2/04
5.75
6.68 J
NA
11.1
854
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.010
0.14
0.001 u
0.306 J
40
5/04
6.50
6.85 J
NA
13.2
999
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.24
0.001 u
0.272
34.8
8/04
6.82
6.59
NA
15.4
1.001
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.63
0.001 u
0.584
63.3
11/08/04
6.87
6.83 J
NA
11.4
1,044
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.12
0.001 u
0.231
118
02/21/05
6.86
6.84 J
NA
11.6
638
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.15
0.001 u
0.158
45.2
02/21/05 (DUP)
NA
6.85
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.011
0.16
0.001 u
0.143
43.0
05/02/05
6.79
6.85 J
NA
11.7
795
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.13
0.001 u
0.188
79.3
05/02/05 (DUP)
NA
6.94 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.01
0.15
0.001 u
0.202
78.5
08/03/05
6.83
6.97
NA
14.3
1,033
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.65
0.001 u
0.328
38.6
08/03/05 (DUP)
NA
7.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.75
0.001 u
0.343
38.5
11/08/05
6.80
7.06
NA
11.9
910
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.10
0.001 u
0.146
37.0
11/08/05 (DUP)
NA
7.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.09
0.001 u
0.132
37.0
01/31/06
6.68
6.78
NA
11.2
718
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.10
0.001
0.172
82.6
01/31/06 (DUP)
NA
6.75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.10
0.001 u
0.171
83.2
05/09/06
6.69
6.82
NA
14.1
926
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.14
0.001 u
0.365
123
08/20/06
6.80
6.97 J
NA
15.0
815
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.013
0.53
0.001 u
0.170
121
11/07/06
6.75
6.82 J
NA
13.6
758
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.13
0.001 u
0.197
80.6
02/11/07
6.88
6.89 J
NA
11.9
853
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.01
0.11
0.001 u
0.181
117
05/01/07
6.64
6.75 J
NA
14.0
959
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.011
0.21
0.001 u
0.35
120
08/13/07
6.83
6.88 J
NA
14.1
946
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.27
0.001 u
0.22
38
10/29/07
6.58
6.56 J
NA
12.4
851
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.07
0.001 u
0.21
145
02/07/08
6.75
6.93
NA
11.8
825
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.10
0.001 u
0.12 J+
96.3
05/15/08
6.64
6.97 J
NA
12.6
644
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.12
0.001 u
0.11 J+
51.5
08/06/08
6.70
6.74
NA
13.6
1,143
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.18
0.001 u
0.39
119
11/17/08
6.77
6.73 J
NA
11.8
883
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.010
0.13
0.001 u
0.12
77.0
02/17/09
7.59
6.77
NA
12.0
697
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.013
0.12
0.001 u
0.08
39.2
05/06/09
6.80
6.64
NA
12.9
886
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.31
0.001 u
0.15
49.9
07/28/10
6.77
NA
NA
14.2
988
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.13
0.001 u
0.12
57.3
07/28/10 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.15
0.001 u
0.11
59.9
11/02/10
6.74
NA
NA
13.1
665
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.012
0.65
0.001 u
0.16
50.5
02/13/11
6.80
NA
NA
12.5
574
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.014
1.88
0.001 u
0.46
30.3
Table 7b
Page 3 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L) b
TSS
T emperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
CO
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Level a - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Level a - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW87-3 (82 feet BTOC)
05/24/11
0.21
NA
1.1U
14.0
983
0.14
101
0.0
0.002 U
0.007
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.01
20
continued
05/24/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.007 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 (D)
NA
08/01/11
0.07
NA
1.1U
17.3
1,320
3.00
252
0.0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.01 u
49
08/01/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
(101 feet BTOC)
05/24/11
0.45
NA
1.1U
14.0
954
5.44
148
0.0
0.002 U
0.007
0.00
0.0001 U
0.03
25
05/24/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.007 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.02 (D)
NA
08/01/11
(Mil
NA
1.0U
18.4
1,140
2.09
250
0.0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.15
57
08/01/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.15 (D)
NA
(119 feet BTOC)
05/24/11
0.43
NA
2.7
14.0
1,040
4.88
157
1.5
0.002 U
0.008
0.24
0.0001
0.12
27
05/24/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.007 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.05 (D)
NA
08/01/11
0.32
NA
1.1U
17.4
1,220
2.88
271
0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.11
50
08/01/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.11 (D)
NA
10/31/11
0.37
NA
NA
13.3
099
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.000
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.05
39.3
05/29/12
0.72
NA
NA
14.3
1,000
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.39
0.0002
0.29 J+
40.5
05/29/12 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.14
0.0001
0.11 J
45.5
08/28/12
0.43
NA
NA
10.0
1,140
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.000
0.22
0.0001 u
0.42
39.8
08/28/12 (DUP)
. \
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.000
0.20
0.0001 u
0.43
40.1
05/28/13
0.71
NA
NA
14.0
1,114
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.10
0.0001 u
0.18
00.1
05/28/13 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.10
0.0001 u
0.19
59.7
09/11/13
0.8!)
NA
NA
10.4
845
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.000
0.19
0.0002
0.10
45.0
05/28/14
0.81
NA
NA
19.0
1,120
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.21
0.0002
0.30
130
08/19/14
0.8!)
NA
NA
18.7
887
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.41
0.0001
0.10
43.5
05/13/15
0.!)2
NA
NA
10.0
708
5.30
208
5.7
0.002 U
0.007
0.21
0.0001
0.11
30.7
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.000 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.05 (D)
NA
08/24/15
0.50
NA
NA
10.8
1,200
3.53
242
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.15
0.0001
0.10 J+
248
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.009 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.11 J+ (D)
NA
05/26/16
7.10
NA
NA
15.2
594
0.27
223
NA
0.002 U
0.010
0.13
0.0001 u
0.10
25.7
05/26/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.007 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.07 (D)
NA
08/17/16
0.80
NA
NA
17.8
1,210
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.118
0.000130
0.183
00.5
08/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U (D)
0.0050 U (D)
0.050 U (D)
0.000100 U (D)
0.134 (D)
NA
05/23/17
7.32
NA
NA
14.97
784
7.33
231
2.0
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.114
0.000100 u
0.104
28.8
08/14/17
0.!)!)
NA
NA
17.49
577
4.19
177
17.7
0.0020 U
0.0075
0.199
0.000228
0.207
28.2
05/22/18
7.25
NA
NA
17.70
780
0.53
159
4.2
0.0020 U
0.0083
0.0999
0.000100 u
0.100
38.3
08/23/18
0.33
NA
NA
14.10
1,210
2.37
205
1.4
0.0020 U
0.0088
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.131
130
06/10/19
7.13
NA
NA
17.91
080
5.84
205
7.3
0.0020 U
0.0077
0.277
0.000151
0.140
32.0
09/11/19
0.71
NA
NA
15.24
835
0.98
250
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0000
0.0507
0.000100 u
0.0725 J
37.7
06/11/20
0.85
NA
NA
14.47
814
0.04
281
11.1
0.0020 U
0.0001
0.0797
0.000100 u
0.0509
22.7
09/02/20
(>.!)!
NA
NA
10.85
1,050
1.73
392
34.2
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0000
0.000100 u
0.192
52.1
05/27/21
7.08
NA
NA
14.11
1,050
0.02
102
1.4
0.00200U
0.00503 J
0.0824 J
0.000500 U
0.133
41.7
09/15/21
0.75
NA
NA
17.74
305
3.37
177
57.9
0.002 U
0.00343 J
0.195
0.0005 U
0.203
174
04/19/22
0.01
NA
NA
14.9
953
5.07
73.4
1.85
0.00200 UJ
0.00549 J
0.0885 J
0.000500 U
0.141
29.8
07/13/22
7.12
NA
NA
18.05
1,030
0.19
48.2
4.05
0.00200U
0.00477 U
0.218 UJ
0.000500 U
0.373
01.9
Table 7b
Page 4 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
(field)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
Well Identification
Date Collected
pH
(field)
pH
(lab)
TSS
(mg/L)
(lab)
Temperature
(°C)
(field)
Oxygen
(mg/L)
(field)
ORP
(mV)
(field)
Turbidity
(NTU)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW89-12
11/01
6.47
NA
NA
13.1
920
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/02
6.43
NA
NA
11.0
974
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3/02
6.35
NA
NA
14.0
967
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/02
6.67
NA
NA
12.2
1,090
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6/02
6.83
NA
NA
13.5
949
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/02
6.25
NA
NA
14.6
820
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.05 U
NA
1.66
299
11/02
6.37
NA
NA
12.9
1,172
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.07
NA
1.96
NA
2/03
5.70
NA
NA
11.5
1,270
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/03
6.39
6.66 J
NA
12.5
960
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
1.16
290
8/03
6.05
NA
NA
14.7
1,252
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/03
6.12
6.37 J
NA
13.5
1,218
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
3.33
370
2/04
6.09
NA
NA
13.3
1,150
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/04
6.17
NA
NA
12.9
1,132
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/04
6.23
6.32
NA
13.2
1,366
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
3.31
22.5
11/09/04
6.32
6.36 J
NA
12.9
1,155
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
4.19
278
02/20/05
6.42
NA
NA
14.2
1,148
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/02/05
6.65
6.58 J
NA
12.3
1,117
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.1
0.001
9.46
417
07/31/05
6.37
6.49 J
NA
13.4
1,193
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.001 u
9.53
236
11/06/05
6.45
6.56 J
NA
12.7
799
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.1
0.001 u
7.82
104
01/29/06
6.46
NA
NA
13.6
750
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/08/06
6.28
6.21
NA
12.7
1,295
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.20
0.001 u
20.4
329
08/19/06
6.57
6.68 J
NA
12.8
798
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.07
0.001 u
5.99
114
11/06/06
6.55
6.57 J
NA
10.2
706
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
1.32
0.001
9.00
75.5
02/19/07
6.48
NA
NA
12.9
895
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
04/30/07
6.31
6.29 J
NA
12.8
1,000
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.06
0.001
16.7
153
08/15/07
6.68
6.67 J
NA
13.0
855
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.09
0.001 u
9.65
61.5
10/30/07
6.47
6.36 J
NA
13.2
836
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
16.4
156
02/06/08
6.27
6.50
NA
14.5
875
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
1.59
0.005
18
262
05/11/08
6.20
6.06 J
NA
12.8
947
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008 U
0.05
0.001 u
30.2
339
08/03/08
6.28
6.52 J
NA
13.0
1,092
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05
0.001 u
16.3
154
11/16/08
6.15
6.25 J
NA
13.0
1,178
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.06
0.001 u
26.1
328
Table 7b
Page 5 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW89-12
02/24/09
6.05
6.22
NA
13.6
931
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.005 U
0.31
0.001 U
31.6
336
continued
05/05/09
6.50
6.07 J
NA
12.8
877
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
23.0
227
08/12/09
6.76
6.57
NA
13.2
855
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.001 U
13.0
103
08/12/09 (DUP)
NA
6.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.05 U
0.001
12.8
104
10/28/09
6.55
6.61
NA
10.1
975
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
14.8
115
10/28/09 (DUP)
NA
6.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.09
0.001 U
15.3
117
05/19/10
6.22
6.34
NA
12.9
726
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
17.0
107
05/19/10 (DUP)
NA
6.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.09
0.002
18.5
111
08/16/10
6.51
NA
NA
13.7
840
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
16.2
168
10/31/10
6.61
NA
NA
5.8
861
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
35.5
0.001
23.3
182
05/24/11
6.64
NA
1.1U
12.6
627
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
21.2
40
05/24/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
20.6 (D)
NA
07/24/11
6.64
NA
1.1U
12.3
700
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
15.4
68
07/24/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
15.3 (D)
NA
10/27/11
6.80
NA
NA
12.7
693
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001
16.0
85.0
01/30/12
6.49
NA
NA
12.5
671
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
26.8
57.6
06/05/12
6.47
NA
NA
13.7
669
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
16.8
36.2
08/16/12
6.58
NA
NA
11.6
854
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
15.5
60.8
06/11/13
6.30
NA
NA
14.9
1,060
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
28.9
211
08/29/13
6.53
NA
NA
13.4
945
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.0001 u
17.7
116
08/21/14
6.55
NA
NA
13.0
886
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
11.7
62.1
08/09/16
6.73
NA
NA
13.5
822
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.007
0.050 U
0.000100 u
8.49
69.5
06/19/17
6.79
NA
NA
13.5
1,105
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0052
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
10.6
146
08/09/17
6.90
NA
NA
13.0
833
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0054
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
2.89
30.1
06/17/19
6.84
NA
NA
13.0
898
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0053
0.0500 U
0.000100u
7.90
94.8
09/16/19
6.86
NA
NA
12.8
959
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0057
0.0500 U
0.000100u
6.27
93.2
06/18/20
6.50
NA
NA
12.9
1.078
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100u
10.3
128
08/25/20
6.67
NA
NA
13.0
958
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 7b
Page 6 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
(field)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
Well Identification
Date Collected
pH
(field)
pH
(lab)
TSS
(mg/L)
(lab)
Temperature
(°C)
(field)
Oxygen
(mg/L)
(field)
ORP
(mV)
(field)
Turbidity
(NTU)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW89-13
11/01
6.88
NA
NA
11.3
456
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/02
7.22
NA
NA
9.7
528
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/02
6.73
NA
NA
11.6
536
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/02
7.18
NA
NA
14.1
513
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
11/02
7.29
NA
NA
11.4
583
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/03
6.57
NA
NA
10.4
605
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/03
7.10
7.3 J
NA
11.4
495
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.326
36
8/03
7.33
NA
NA
12.2
567
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/03
7.25
7.44 J
NA
11.3
505
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.05
0.001 u
0.212
34
2/04
7.02
NA
NA
10.5
512
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/04
7.39
NA
NA
11.4
440
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/04
7.41
7.33
NA
12.3
466
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.037
29.8
11/08/04
7.40
7.53 J
NA
11.1
430
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.09
27.7
02/21/05
6.94
NA
NA
11.4
382
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/02/05
7.56
7.42 J
NA
11.6
363
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.205
27.4
07/31/05
7.61
NA
NA
15.5
458
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/07/05
7.44
7.63
NA
13.6
465
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.013
0.18
0.001 u
0.153
28.4
01/30/06
7.06
NA
NA
12.0
387
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/09/06
7.25
7.14
NA
13.4
436
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.06
0.001 u
0.226
27.6
08/20/06
6.86
NA
NA
16.2
510
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/07/06
7.14
NA
NA
11.8
403
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/11/07
7.09
NA
NA
11.4
508
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/01/07
6.84
6.69 J
NA
12.7
582
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.71
0.001 u
3.99
82.9
08/13/07
7.35
NA
NA
13.6
574
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/29/07
7.15
NA
NA
12.6
438
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/04/08
7.06
NA
NA
12.5
509
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/12/08
6.77
7.26 J
NA
12.0
414
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.08
0.002
0.20
39.8
08/06/08
7.38
7.37
NA
14.1
559
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.012
0.09
0.001 u
0.13
32.7
11/18/08
7.18
7.15
NA
11.9
528
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.013
0.09
0.001 u
0.17
30.9
02/17/09
7.90
6.95
NA
12.1
518
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.28
0.001 u
1.07
77.0
05/07/09
7.30
7.03
NA
12.3
592
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.10
0.001 u
0.47
34.3
07/27/10
7.37
NA
NA
13.8
461
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.09
0.001 u
0.13
31.2
10/27/10
7.42
NA
NA
11.5
441
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.010
0.11
0.001 u
0.11
28.4
02/13/11
7.11
NA
NA
13.3
389
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.65
0.001 u
0.49
54.1
05/24/11
6.79
NA
1.1
13.4
395
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.12
0.0001 u
0.19
25
05/24/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.11 (D)
NA
07/25/11
7.87
NA
1.1U
14.5
422
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.09
0.0001 u
0.08
21
07/25/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.06 (D)
NA
11/01/11
7.35
NA
NA
11.8
353
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.09
27.5
06/05/12
7.49
NA
NA
13.4
360
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.06 J+
24.8
08/28/12
6.59
NA
NA
17.7
430
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.16
0.0003
0.35
25.4
05/29/13
6.64
NA
NA
15.9
509
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
2.00
111
09/03/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.025 J
11.1 J
0.0310 J
6.06
147
05/03/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0096
0.447
0.00315
0.226
21.8
05/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0928
0.000579
0.116
19.0
06/17/19
7.62
NA
NA
14.86
471
8.66
262
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0648
0.000123
0.0643
18.3
06/17/20
7.51
NA
NA
16.51
258
6.49
288
9.4
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100U
0.025
16.6
06/01/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00128 J
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.0491
16.7
04/19/22
7.2
NA
NA
14.74
362
6.45
47.2
0.31
0.00200 UJ
0.00339 J
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.0392
19.3
Table 7b
Page 7 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
(field)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
Well Identification
Date Collected
pH
(field)
pH
(lab)
TSS
(mg/L)
(lab)
Temperature
(°C)
(field)
Oxygen
(mg/L)
(field)
ORP
(mV)
(field)
Turbidity
(NTU)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW89-14
11/01
5.88
6.3 J
NA
11.6
660
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.027
3.31
0.005
10.1
170
2/02
5.82
5.8 J
NA
10.5
690
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.019
2.42
0.003
16.1
360
5/02
5.61
5.2 J
NA
14.2
1,110
NA
NA
NA
0.006
0.006 J
2.21
0.002 U
17.6
280
8/02
6.26
6.26 J
NA
14.1
858
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.005 U
1.16
0.001 U
10.5
200
11/02
6.51
5.87 J
NA
11.3
754
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.007
1.08
0.001
7.08
150
2/03
5.71
5.42 J
NA
9.8
594
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.005 U
0.87
0.001
6.74
160
5/03
5.21
5.14 J
NA
14.9
345
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.005 U
1.41
0.001 u
7.23
180
8/03
6.25
5.80 J
NA
13.4
709
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.005 U
1.08
0.001 u
8.62
190
11/03
6.11
5.86 J
NA
11.4
505
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.005 U
0.64
0.002
6.58
150
2/04
5.96
5.53
NA
13.0
457
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.68
0.001
4.60
130
5/04
6.30
6.23
NA
14.1
531
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.005
1.81
0.001
6.53
188
8/04
6.73
6.05
NA
13.1
632
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.92
0.001 u
4.87
132
11/08/04
6.77
6.12 J
NA
12.3
590
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.73
0.001 u
5.11
125
02/21/05
6.34
6.02 J
NA
10.9
433
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.32
0.001
2.80
81.3
05/03/05
6.32
6.03 J
NA
12.8
609
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.57
0.001 u
5.08
115
08/03/05
7.00
6.59
NA
14.3
743
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.012
1.21
0.002
3.05
95
11/07/05
5.88
6.42
NA
12.4
516
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.009
0.87
0.002
7.82
181
01/30/06
6.06
5.50 J
NA
10.2
331
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.011
1.72
0.004
4.25
91.3
05/09/06
6.05
5.80
NA
13.1
362
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
1.24
0.002
4.63
125
08/20/06
5.65
5.85 J
NA
13.4
587
NA
NA
NA
0.006
0.098
4.11
0.011
12.3
196
11/07/06
5.93
5.99 J
NA
11.5
342
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.008
0.64
0.001
4.70
101
02/11/07
6.22
5.65 J
NA
10.2
372
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.005 U
0.46
0.001 u
3.82
94.3
MW89-15
11/01
5.02
4.8 J
NA
12.6
2,010
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.01 U
33.3
0.001 u
127
1,100
2/02
6.18
6.2 J
NA
10.5
1,430
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.008
1.84
0.001 u
71.5
600
5/02
6.58
6.5 J
NA
13.9
1,210
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.005 J
0.36
0.001 u
43.8
320
8/02
5.29
5.32 J
NA
14.0
1,330
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.006
19.1
0.001 u
71.2
580
11/02
5.63
5.70 J
NA
11.5
1,920
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.01 u
19.2
0.001 u
94.8
730
2/03
5.86
6.31 J
NA
10.8
1,530
NA
NA
NA
0.005
0.005 U
3.41
0.002
62.4
390
5/03
6.28
6.39 J
NA
14.7
1,040
NA
NA
NA
0.005
0.009
3.67
0.001 u
49.4
340
8/03
5.61
5.81 J
NA
14.0
1,123
NA
NA
NA
0.005
0.015
21
0.001
60.1
520
11/03
5.82
6.13 J
NA
11.8
1,124
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.005 U
3.09
0.002
48.8
330
2/04
5.17
5.48
NA
11.6
1,417
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.010
55
0.002
51.0
680
5/04
4.96
4.94 J
NA
12.5
1,474
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
69.9
0.001
39.6
648
8/04
5.56
5.26
NA
13.9
1,360
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.025
66.3
0.001 u
56.8
672
11/09/04
5.71
5.70 J
NA
11.0
1,638
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.007
59.5
0.001 u
95.2
924
02/21/05
5.40
5.19 J
NA
11.6
1,786
NA
NA
NA
0.008
0.01 U
32.4
0.001
141
1,050
05/03/05
5.61
5.74 J
NA
11.3
1,603
NA
NA
NA
0.005
0.005 U
5.9
0.001
76.9
448
08/03/05
6.22
6.31
NA
13.2
986
NA
NA
NA
0.005
0.016
7.42
0.001
29.2
157
11/07/05
6.26
6.43
NA
11.8
1,247
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.008
2.53
0.001 u
44.7
286
01/30/06
6.32
6.43 J
NA
10.4
997
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.010
1.21
0.002
28.6
161
05/09/06
6.22
6.34
NA
11.8
1,235
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.010
2.61
0.001 u
40.4
363
08/20/06
6.32
6.55 J
NA
11.8
918
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.008
1.76
0.001 u
19.5
134
11/07/06
6.41
6.50 J
NA
11.7
959
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.005 U
1.1
0.001
24.1
176
02/11/07
6.71
6.48 J
NA
10.2
1,148
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.011
0.38
0.002
22.7
165
Table 7b
Page 8 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-05 (49 feet BTOC)
05/16/11
6.67
NA
13.7
12.6
727
6.65
129
70.4
0.002 U
0.006
0.88
0.0006
0.01 U
22
05/16/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
07/27/11
6.77
NA
10.7
15.2
741
4.89
268
0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.19
0.0001
0.01
23
07/27/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
(69 feet BTOC)
08/23/06
6.91
6.93 J
NA
14.5
NA
7.15
166
NA
0.002
0.032
12.5
0.009
0.054
27.8
11/08/06
7.10
6.89 J
NA
12.3
654
NA
NA
NA
0.006
0.067
46.5
0.029
0.191
22.1
02/12/07
6.93
7.12 J
NA
10.4
703
NA
NA
NA
0.009
0.134
96.4
0.068
0.373
30.5
05/02/07
6.71
6.72
NA
11.9
681
NA
NA
NA
0.006
0.137
91.7
0.056
0.37
30.9
05/16/11
6.65
NA
4.7
13.2
722
5.49
136
20.5
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.39
0.0002
0.01 u
23
05/16/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
07/27/11
6.74
NA
6.6
14.0
757
5.70
259
5.9
0.002 U
0.005
0.24
0.0002
0.01
23
07/27/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
(89 feet BTOC)
08/13/07
6.85
7.04 J
NA
14.5
782
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.162
135
0.08
0.52
30.8
10/30/07
6.85
6.71 J
NA
12.4
669
NA
NA
NA
0.005
0.171
130
0.09
0.54
29.0
10/30/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.006 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
02/04/08
6.66
7.03 J
NA
12.0
766
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.116
92.4
0.077
0.35
30.3
02/04/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
05/13/08
6.85
7.04 J
3,550
12.5
652
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.129
92.7
0.067
0.37 J+
28.3
05/13/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.22 J+ (D)
NA
08/04/08
6.49
6.94 J
2,440
14.1
891
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.149
105
0.08
0.42
29.1
08/04/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
11/13/08
6.80
6.96 J
1,690
12.1
649
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.108
79.6
0.038
0.33
23.6
11/13/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.007 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
02/20/09
7.00
6.9
15.6
11.9
708
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.010
0.66
0.001 U
0.01 U
24.4
02/20/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.007 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 (D)
NA
05/05/09
7.20
6.76
83.6
14.8
751
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
1.25
0.002
0.01 U
28.6
05/05/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.009 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 (D)
NA
07/26/10
6.98
NA
NA
15.5
789
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.01 U
31.0
10/26/10
6.69
NA
NA
11.4
615
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 U
31.2
05/16/11
6.75
NA
3.1
12.3
758
7.18
132
35.7
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.11
0.0001 u
0.01 U
24
05/16/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
07/27/11
6.70
NA
3.2
12.9
766
5.25
291
0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.08
0.0001 u
0.01 U
23
07/27/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
11/01/11
6.82
NA
NA
12.2
671
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.53
0.0003
0.01 U
34.3
05/31/12
6.70
NA
NA
11.7
793
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.15
0.0001 u
0.01 U
29.8
08/27/12
6.72
NA
NA
16.9
953
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.010
0.36
0.0002
0.01 u
25.9
05/28/13
6.87
NA
NA
15.9
709
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.42
0.0003
0.01 u
22.8
09/11/13
7.00
NA
NA
15.4
809
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.14
0.0001 U
0.01 u
29.4
06/01/14
6.93
NA
NA
16.6
808
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.013
1.94
0.0013
0.01
23.2
08/20/14
7.13
NA
NA
16.4
659
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.45
0.0003
0.01 u
23.3
Table 7b
Page 9 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
CO
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-06 (70feetBTOC)
05/17/11
6.81
NA
1.0U
14.7
718
5.28
132
4.8
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.10
28
05/17/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.10 (D)
NA
07/24/11
6.83
NA
1.5
17.8
707
5.75
252
2.5
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.13
0.0001
0.33
24
07/24/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.37 (D)
NA
09/09/13
7.00
NA
NA
15.1
792
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.06
0.0001 U
0.26
27.3
05/29/14
6.96
NA
NA
16.2
858
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.19
26.3
08/20/14
6.94
NA
NA
16.4
764
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.021 J
0.09
0.0001 u
0.29
25.6
06/02/15
6.95
NA
NA
14.3
697
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.07
0.0001
0.12
23.9
08/19/15
6.79
NA
NA
15.6
702
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.011
0.10
0.0003
0.14 J+
22.7
(88 feet BTOC)
08/23/06
7.01
6.98 J
NA
16.0
NA
6.68
161
NA
0.003
0.042
24.6
0.022
0.48
26.4
11/08/06
6.99
6.94 J
NA
13.7
704
NA
NA
NA
0.006
0.096
66.2
0.052
0.828
25.2
02/12/07
6.91
7.01 J
NA
11.4
741
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.097
59.5
0.082
0.63
21.9
05/02/07
6.62
6.76
NA
13.1
614
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.078
47.2
0.054
0.79
27.0
05/17/11
6.81
NA
1.0U
14.7
717
4.98
131
3.3
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.11
28
05/17/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.12 (D)
NA
07/24/11
6.81
NA
1.4
17.1
705
4.88
247
0.9
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.07
0.0001
0.30
24
07/24/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.30 (D)
NA
09/09/13
7.08
NA
NA
15.7
780
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.27
26.7
05/29/14
6.95
NA
NA
17.4
818
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.3
0.0003
0.2
27.2
08/20/14
6.96
NA
NA
16.1
745
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.028
0.30
0.0003
0.30
24.9
06/02/15
6.94
NA
NA
14.9
697
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.16
0.0002
0.13
23.2
08/19/15
6.81
NA
NA
15.2
695
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.012
0.56
0.0008
0.15 J+
22.1
(105 feet BTOC)
08/14/07
6.62
6.96
NA
13.8
900
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.138
86.6
0.072
1.13
31.4
10/30/07
6.86
6.86 J
NA
12.8
707
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.042
21.6
0.027
0.76
30.3
10/30/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.17 (D)
NA
02/04/08
6.65
6.93 J
NA
12.0
891
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.067
42.9
0.048
0.63
29.3
02/04/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.006 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.03 (D)
NA
05/14/08
6.90
6.99 J
602
13.4
647
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.080
48.5
0.051
0.51
25.5
05/14/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.006 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.05 J+ (D)
NA
08/04/08
6.67
6.99 J
353
14.1
841
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.065
38.6
0.055
0.65
27.1
08/04/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.19 (D)
NA
11/13/08
6.82
6.85 J
111
12.9
672
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.025
24.4
0.013
0.26
24.9
11/13/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.006 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.07 (D)
NA
(102 feet BTOC)
02/20/09
6.90
6.89
48.0
12.2
729
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.12
0.001 U
0.09
27.8
02/20/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.006 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.14 (D)
NA
05/07/09
7.20
6.78
1.0U
14.2
749
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.20
31.3
05/07/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.24 (D)
NA
(102 feet BTOC)
07/26/10
6.95
NA
NA
15.2
799
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.20
33.5
10/28/10
6.41
NA
NA
11.8
662
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.08
0.001 u
0.11
33.6 J
05/17/11
6.85
NA
1.9
15.1
718
4.10
132
5.4
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.06
0.0001 u
0.10
28
05/17/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.11 (D)
NA
07/24/11
6.84
NA
2.1
16.0
719
4.84
266
11.1
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.08
0.0001 u
0.23
25
07/24/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.19 (D)
NA
10/30/11
6.83
NA
NA
12.2
701
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.12
0.0001
0.12
37.8
05/31/12
6.61
NA
NA
13.2
821
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.17
0.0002
0.13 J+
30.6
08/27/12
6.66
NA
NA
16.3
879
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.07
0.0001 u
0.29
25.6
05/30/13
6.72
NA
NA
14.6
702
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.19
0.0002
0.15
24.8
09/09/13
7.02
NA
NA
16.2
779
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.29
26.7
Table 7b
Page 10 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-06 (102 feet BTOC)
05/29/14
6.97
NA
NA
16.9
874
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.1
0.0002
0.2
26.8
continued
08/20/14
6.98
NA
NA
16.2
734
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.37
24.4
06/02/15
6.96
NA
NA
15.3
689
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.11
0.0001
0.13
23.1
08/19/15
6.82
NA
NA
15.7
686
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.010
0.23
0.0005
0.16 J+
22.6
MW06-07 (62 feet BTOC)
05/18/11
6.39
NA
1.4
13.3
761
3.34
140
0.0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.09
0.0001 u
0.41
NA
05/18/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.41 (D)
NA
07/25/11
6.53
NA
3.3
15.5
742
1.42
207
6.6
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.82
68
07/25/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.73 (D)
NA
09/09/13
6.97
NA
NA
18.3
694
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.08
0.0001 u
0.61
26.9
05/28/14
6.77
NA
NA
16.2
740
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.62
0.0003
0.49
25.8
08/19/14
6.92
NA
NA
15.5
707
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.06
0.0001 u
0.67
24.7
05/18/15
6.80
NA
NA
12.2
699
4.95
303
51.5
0.002 U
0.009
1.39
0.0008
0.44
23.3
05/18/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.43 (D)
NA
08/26/15
6.92
NA
NA
17.4
733
6.01
291
NA
0.002 U
0.011
0.67
0.0005
0.49
24.0
08/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.010 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.50 (D)
NA
05/12/16
6.83
NA
NA
13.8
719
4.81
189
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.49
0.0003
0.43
23.9
05/12/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.45 (D)
NA
08/22/16
7.20
NA
NA
14.1
704
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.007
0.060
0.000100 U
0.423
21.1
08/22/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U (D)
0.0050 U (D)
0.050 U(D)
0.000100 U (D)
0.433 (D)
NA
05/18/17
7.21
NA
NA
13.17
672
10.00
173
89.7
0.0020 U
0.0121
0.732
0.000334
0.403
25.1
08/17/17
7.22
NA
NA
18.06
519
6.42
187
88
0.0020 U
0.0079
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.395
23.5
05/22/18
7.34
NA
NA
18.55
643
4.81
137
39.7
0.0040 U
0.0095
0.101
0.000165
0.334
30.9
08/27/18
6.78
NA
NA
16.91
683
5.60
265
3.9
0.0020 U
0.0081
0.0500 U
0.000100 U
0.324
23.2
06/10/19
6.47
NA
NA
15.61
770
4.40
229
5.4
0.0020 U
0.0052
0.0575
0.000100
0.442
68.0
09/10/19
6.29
NA
NA
16.65
757
5.62
276
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0058
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.329
24.6
06/16/20
7.07
NA
NA
16.15
902
2.80
336
9.1
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.488
67.0
08/27/20
6.89
NA
NA
15.99
530
4.59
380
34.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/27/21
8.16
NA
NA
14.98
872
9.51
-25
7.5
0.0020 U
0.00442 J
0.0582 J
0.000500 U
0.375
60.0
09/15/21
7.08
NA
NA
17.30
256
2.10
-125
72.3
0.0020 U
0.00698 J
0.2430
0.000500 U
0.335
22.1
04/19/22
6.80
NA
NA
17.14
831
3.81
51
14.5
0.00200 UJ
0.00497 J
0.143
0.000500 U
0.303
50.0
07/13/22
7.25
NA
NA
20.94
768
4.94
20
1.8
0.00200U
0.00500U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.386
26.0
(86 feet BTOC)
08/22/06
6.62
6.89 J
NA
15.9
NA
4.07
145
NA
0.002 U
0.044
24.8
0.015
1.29
33
11/08/06
6.90
6.90 J
NA
14.4
758
NA
NA
NA
0.005
0.113
84.5
0.042
2.00
43.6
02/12/07
6.76
6.90 J
NA
11.6
722
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.088
66.8
0.048
1.47
42.1
05/02/07
6.51
6.77
NA
14.1
611
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.047
38.1
0.024
1.20
34.5
08/14/07
6.74
6.91
NA
13.9
833
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.129
90.3
0.047
2.89
32
10/30/07
6.74
7.09 J
NA
12.9
667
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.074
52
0.038
1.84
31.5
10/30/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 UJ (D)
0.52 (D)
NA
02/07/08
6.69
6.88
NA
12.6
746
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.042
33.6
0.026
0.84
38.9
02/07/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.22 (D)
NA
05/14/08
6.69
6.86 J
572
13.5
693
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.026
19.5
0.016
0.82
73.0
05/14/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.46 (D)
NA
08/04/08
6.65
7.07 J
302
14.6
860
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.031
21.3
0.018
1.15
32.4
08/04/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.54 (D)
NA
11/13/08
6.78
6.89
205
13.4
691
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.020
12.4
0.005
0.60
34.6
11/13/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.32 (D)
NA
02/19/09
6.90
6.73
24.6
13.1
778
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.83
0.001 U
0.32
57.3
02/19/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.35 (D)
NA
05/05/09
6.90
6.36
5.1
14.6
863
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.25
0.001 U
0.49
133
05/05/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.49 (D)
NA
07/28/10
6.69
NA
NA
15.3
776
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.60
53.8
10/26/10
6.65
NA
NA
12.7
726
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.51
81.0
Table 7b
Page 11 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-07 (86 feet BTOC)
05/18/11
6.45
NA
3.6
13.3
773
4.63
148
1.2
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.18
0.0002
0.41
NA
continued
05/18/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.44 (D)
NA
07/25/11
6.51
NA
3.5
14.9
781
1.41
211
9.7
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.77
71
07/25/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.76 (D)
NA
10/31/11
6.19
NA
NA
13.8
809
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.19
0.0001
0.55
111
05/29/12
6.76
NA
NA
17.5
1,010
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.10
0.0001 u
0.73
148
05/28/13
6.76
NA
NA
15.8
815
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.43
35.1
(85 feet BTOC)
09/09/13
6.94
NA
NA
16.1
713
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05
0.0001 u
0.53
28.0
05/28/14
6.82
NA
NA
17.3
741
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
1.51
0.0008
0.53
26.6
08/19/14
6.95
NA
NA
15.6
718
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.57
26.2
05/18/15
6.80
NA
NA
13.4
701
4.24
280
47.0
0.002 U
0.008
1.03
0.0006
0.44
23.8
05/18/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.42 (D)
NA
08/26/15
6.92
NA
NA
17.4
730
5.38
275
NA
0.002 U
0.012
0.38
0.0004
0.49
23.7
08/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.010 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.50 (D)
NA
05/12/16
6.84
NA
NA
14.1
734
4.39
154
NA
0.002 U
0.011
2.04
0.0014
0.49
24.3
05/12/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.006 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.43 (D)
NA
08/22/16
7.20
NA
NA
14.5
711
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0080
0.117
0.000107
0.407
21.4
08/22/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U (D)
0.0057 (D)
0.050 U(D)
0.000100 U (D)
0.410 (D)
NA
05/18/17
7.24
NA
NA
13.28
684
4.62
152
31.0
0.0020 U
0.0124
0.460
0.000356
0.424
24.6
08/17/17
7.21
NA
NA
17.74
523
6.46
174
53.3
0.0020 U
0.0096
0.929
0.000684
0.469
23.6
05/22/18
7.33
NA
NA
17.36
693
4.87
126
93.4
0.0040 U
0.0094
0.617
0.000771
0.329
29.2
08/27/18
6.77
NA
NA
16.74
682
5.91
215
41.8
0.0020 U
0.0085
0.220
0.000186
0.322
22.3
06/10/19
6.82
NA
NA
16.97
786
3.84
179
62.3
0.0020 U
0.0097
1.01
0.000670
0.460
70.8
09/10/19
6.73
NA
NA
16.39
787
5.29
220
33.7
0.0020 U
0.0081
0.338
0.000281
0.332
25.0
06/16/20
7.09
NA
NA
17.65
841
2.78
278
6.0
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100U
0.487
66.1
08/27/20
6.35
NA
NA
20.34
509
3.69
410
32.8
0.00200U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/27/21
7.52
NA
NA
15.00
876
4.84
-5
22.9
0.00200U
0.00521 J
0.132
0.000500 U
0.396
60.4
09/15/21
7.08
NA
NA
15.72
257
2.09
-120
112
0.00200U
0.0135
1.76
0.00135 J
0.378
22.1
04/19/22
6.76
NA
NA
15.89
868
2.96
53
17
0.00200 UJ
0.00510 J
0.303
0.000500 U
0.305
51.8
07/13/22
7.15
NA
NA
20.26
772
5.20
42
4
0.00200U
0.00816U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.375
26.1
(107 feet BTOC)
05/18/11
6.50
NA
12.7
13.7
788
2.27
134
3.0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.27
0.0002
0.47
NA
05/18/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.47 (D)
NA
07/25/11
6.51
NA
1.0U
14.8
749
1.38
228
3.8
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.83
59
07/25/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.87 (D)
NA
08/29/12
6.52
NA
NA
17.5
891
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.28
0.0002
0.52
27.0
(104 feet BTOC)
09/09/13
6.98
NA
NA
17.5
694
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.07
0.0001 U
0.57
27.1
05/28/14
6.81
NA
NA
17.6
735
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.62
0.0003
0.56
25.9
08/19/14
6.96
NA
NA
16.1
696
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.08
0.0001 u
0.43
26.5
05/18/15
6.80
NA
NA
14.0
696
5.83
287
1.0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.09
0.0001 u
0.49
23.4
05/18/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.51 (D)
NA
08/26/15
6.93
NA
NA
17.5
719
5.37
270
NA
0.002 U
0.014
0.90
0.0007
0.51
23.3
08/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.009 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.51 (D)
NA
05/12/16
6.85
NA
NA
14.9
722
4.58
155
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.30
0.0003
0.49
23.9
05/12/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.50 (D)
NA
08/22/16
7.20
NA
NA
14.6
691
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.008
0.366
0.000272
0.452
21.0
08/22/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U (D)
0.0050 U (D)
0.050 U(D)
0.000100 U (D)
0.438 (D)
NA
05/18/17
7.22
NA
NA
13.74
683
5.26
151
29.6
0.0020 U
0.0088
0.192
0.000176
0.433
25.3
08/17/17
7.36
NA
NA
17.65
516
7.00
163
6.7
0.0020 U
0.0080
0.111
0.000121
0.488
22.9
05/22/18
7.34
NA
NA
19.45
644
4.84
111
44.6
0.0040 U
0.0090
0.114
0.000160
0.357
26.3
08/27/18
6.78
NA
NA
16.47
457
7.09
180
14.3
0.0020 U
0.0074
0.116
0.000121
0.340
22.3
06/10/19
6.89
NA
NA
19.83
742
3.31
184
84.7
0.0020 U
0.0079
1.22
0.00110
0.462
77.8
09/10/19
7.47
NA
NA
17.04
771
4.99
152
6.1
0.0020 U
0.0060
0.0855
0.000110
0.340
25.1
06/16/20
7.12
NA
NA
22.72
680
2.24
209
6.3
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.480
46.0
08/27/20
5.32
NA
NA
18.48
512
3.71
404
32.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/27/21
8.08
NA
NA
14.34
883
5.81
-24
2.4
0.00200U
0.00422 J
0.0306 J
0.000500 U
0.417
60.0
09/15/21
7.27
NA
NA
14.61
256
2.57
-100
187
0.00200U
0.0149
2.63
0.00244
0.43
21.7
04/19/22
6.75
NA
NA
15.12
856
3.26
56.7
4.46
0.00200 UJ
0.00523 J
0.117
0.000500 U
0.306
46.1
07/13/22
7.20
NA
NA
18.62
751
5.35
32
1.08
0.00200U
0.00795 U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.348
27.3
Table 7b
Page 12 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L) b
TSS
T emperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
CO
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Level a - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Level a - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-08 (79 feet BTOC)
05/09/06
6,80
NA
NA
18.8
118
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/01/11
6.26
NA
1.7
13.7
658
2.93
124
7.0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.13
0.0001 u
0.85
27
06/01/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.85 (D)
NA
06/01/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.93
124
7.0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.08
0.0001 u
0.88
27
06/01/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.85 (D)
NA
07/26/11
6,52
NA
16.2 J
14.9
745
0.67
177
59.3
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.54
0.0003
1.05
78
07/26/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
1.06 (D)
NA
07/26/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
29.2 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.58
0.0003
1.05
81
07/26/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
1.04 (D)
NA
09/08/13
(i.!>2
NA
NA
18.7
715
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.07
0.0001 U
0.62
31.4
05/27/14
6.95
NA
NA
16.5
748
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.23
0.0001 u
0.82
43.9
08/19/14
(>.89
NA
NA
16.4
698
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.56
27.4
05/13/15
7.07
NA
NA
14.3
723
4.38
295
11.5
0.002 U
0.005
0.19
0.0001
0.72
48.5
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.72 (D)
NA
08/24/15
(i.83
NA
NA
14.4
739
5.83
246
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.14
0.0001
0.54
23.1
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.009 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.56 (D)
NA
05/10/16
(>.75
NA
NA
16.1
794
4.50
185
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.18
0.0002
0.81
43.8
05/10/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.85 (D)
NA
08/17/16
7.(K>
NA
NA
16.5
745
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.006
0.082
0.000100 u
0.412
21.2
08/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U (D)
0.0050 U (D)
0.050 U (D)
0.000100 U (D)
0.431 (D)
NA
05/15/17
7.05
NA
NA
16.49
737
4.62
157
17.3
0.0020 U
0.0078
0.0629
0.000376
0.764
32.1
08/14/17
7.11
NA
NA
17.00
497
6.40
186
22.7
0.0020 U
0.0091
0.0565
0.000120
0.444
23.3
05/21/18
(>.20
NA
NA
14.74
237
4.81
191
9.6
0.0020 U
0.0079
0.0500 U
0.000199
0.677
28.7
08/21/18
(>.80
NA
NA
15.42
209
5.67
211
1.8
0.0020 U
0.0096
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.684
33.8
06/13/19
(i.10
NA
NA
14.01
700
5.19
340
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0068
0.0500U
0.000100 u
1.21
24.8
09/12/19
(>.(>«)
NA
NA
15.60
879
5.54
290
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500U
0.000100 u
1.03
40.3
06/11/20
(>.{)'!
NA
NA
14.29
713
4.29
291
13.0
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500U
0.000100 u
0.736
22.8
09/02/20
7.3-1
NA
NA
14.86
740
3.77
393
40.4
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500U
0.000100 u
0.618
22.0
05/27/21
8.25
NA
NA
17.24
806
6.05
-36
4.8
0.00200U
0.00522 J
0.0620 J
0.000500 U
1.01
60.6
09/15/21
7.08
NA
NA
19.15
243
1.99
-146
143
0.002 U
0.0094 J
1.75
0.00155 J
0.886
23.6
04/19/22
(>.81
NA
NA
14.8
0.763
5.06
54.9
2.17
0.00200U
0.00359 J
0.0574 J
0.000500U
0.509
36.0 J
07/13/22
0.98
NA
NA
20.42
997
3.4
29.6
1.84
0.00200U
0.00340 U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500U
0.8
79.5
Table 7b
Page 13 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Water
Specific
Dissolved
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-08 (9 5 feet BTOC)
05/09/06
6.80
NA
NA
18.8
118
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
continued
08/22/06
6.85
6.66 J
NA
14.3
NA
2.85
137
NA
0.003
0.036
26.8
0.015
3.38
31.8
08/22/06 (DUP)
NA
6.72 J
NA
14.3
NA
2.85
137
NA
0.002
0.027
20.1
0.011
2.67
32.1
11/09/06
6.72
6.73
NA
12.3
680
NA
NA
NA
0.010
0.100
77.8
0.039
8.66
28.1
11/09/06 (DUP)
NA
6.78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.011
0.110
84.2
0.040
8.99
28.1
02/19/07
6.81
6.97 J
NA
12.1
734
NA
NA
NA
0.005
0.053
40.2
0.031
5.08
44.2
02/19/07 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.005
0.077
59.6
0.044
5.57
44.0
05/03/07
6.46
6.65
NA
13.4
717
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.047
33.7 J
0.018
2.99 J
111
05/03/07 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.041
19.9 J
0.021
0.39 J
112
06/01/11
6.50
NA
2.2
14.2
661
1.86
116
0.0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.14
0.0001 u
0.85
29
06/01/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.85 (D)
NA
07/26/11
6.46
NA
10.2
15.3
732
0.43
168
9.7
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.40
0.0002
1.08
77
07/26/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
1.06 (D)
NA
09/08/13
7.10
NA
NA
18.7
726
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.12
0.0001
0.61
31.9
05/27/14
6.93
NA
NA
16.9
797
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.16
0.0001 u
0.79
44.6
08/19/14
6.90
NA
NA
17.7
709
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.09
0.0001 u
0.62
27.3
08/19/14 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.10
0.0001 u
0.62
27.4
05/13/15
7.05
NA
NA
15.3
723
2.62
299
6.0
0.002 U
0.006
0.13
0.0001 u
0.71
50.1
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.72 (D)
NA
05/13/15 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.15
0.0001 u
0.72
50.0
05/13/15 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.73 (D)
NA
08/24/15
6.84
NA
NA
14.4
746
5.15
194
NA
0.002 U
0.011
0.21
0.0002
0.63
23.6
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.008 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.62 (D)
NA
08/24/15 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.012
0.20
0.0002
0.62
23.5
08/24/15 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.009 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.62 (D)
NA
05/10/16
6.76
NA
NA
16.3
789
4.31
183
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.09
0.0001
0.82
47.8
05/10/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
1.04 (D)
NA
05/10/16 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.08
0.0001
0.77
47.8
05/10/16 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
1.10 (D)
NA
08/17/16
7.06
NA
NA
16.4
751
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.092
0.000100 u
0.506
21.1
08/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U (D)
0.0050 U (D)
0.050 U(D)
0.000100 U (D)
0.508 (D)
NA
08/17/16 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0060
0.080
0.000100 u
0.497
21.0
05/15/17
7.06
NA
NA
16.04
748
4.39
159
58.8
0.0020 U
0.0074
0.0723
0.000222
0.823
33.3
05/15/17 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0063
0.0737
0.000183
0.812
33.9
08/14/17
7.11
NA
NA
17.62
514
5.76
179
37.8
0.0020 U
0.0083
0.247 J
0.000322
0.475
23.5
08/14/17 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0081
0.161 J
0.000338
0.542
23.5
05/21/18
6.35
NA
NA
15.01
247
5.69
174
50.1
0.0040 U
0.0076
0.184
0.000181
0.838
31.4
5/21/18 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0068
0.172
0.000200
0.833
32.0
08/21/18
6.91
NA
NA
16.00
218
5.02
194
47.3
0.0020 U
0.0083
0.297
0.000100 u
0.748
38.6
08/21/18 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0093
0.361
0.000180
0.692
31.8
06/13/19
6.67
NA
NA
15.99
680
4.47
290
7.4
0.0020 U
0.0054
0.0528
0.000100 u
1.32
24.9
06/13/19 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0058
0.0752
0.000100 u
1.26
25.1
09/12/19
6.78
NA
NA
15.87
875
5.32
283
20.6
0.0020 U
0.0052
0.266 J
0.000177
1.08
42.5
9/12/19 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0076
0.191 J
0.000191
1.19
42.7
06/11/20
6.97
NA
NA
15.73
700
3.88
254
13.9
0.0020 U
0.0050
0.0803
0.000100 u
0.812
22.8
06/11/20 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0622
0.000100 u
0.790
23.0
09/02/20
7.05
NA
NA
16.22
741
3.64
415
65.9
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.204
0.000179
0.668
21.8
09/02/20 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0060
0.242
0.000260
0.682
21.8
05/27/21
8.26
NA
NA
16.20
813
6.33
43
5.0
0.00200U
0.00545 J
0.0617 J
0.000500 U
1.06
57.8
05/27/21 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00693 J
0.173
0.000500 U
1.01
57.9
09/15/21
7.06
NA
NA
19.52
246
2.14
-123
237
0.002 U
0.00836 J
0.837 J
0.000973 J
0.847
24
9/15/2021 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.0114
1.99 J
0.00126 J
0.871
24.6
04/19/22
6.86
NA
NA
14.5
0.762
4.3
55.4
13.4
0.00200U
0.00387 J
0.0671 J
0.000500 U
0.534
35.6 J
04/19/22 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00417 J
0.0567 J
0.000500 U
0.52
36.7 J
07/13/22
7.07
NA
NA
19.69
999
4.1
28.7
2.49
0.00200U
0.00276 U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.906
77.5
07/13/22 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00241U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.88
80.6
Table 7b
Page 14 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Water
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
(field)
Dissolved
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
Well Identification
Date Collected
pH
(field)
pH
(lab)
TSS
(mg/L)
(lab)
Temperature
(°C)
(field)
Oxygen
(mg/L)
(field)
ORP
(mV)
(field)
Turbidity
(NTU)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-08 (114 feet BTOC)
05/09/06
6.80
NA
NA
18.8
118
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
continued
08/14/07
6.78
6.92
NA
14.8
806
NA
NA
NA
0.011
0.077
55.9
0.03
10.5
33
08/14/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.050 U(D)
0.001 U (D)
0.53 (D)
NA
08/14/07 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.009
0.061
44.8
0.024
8.77
32.7
10/31/07
6.74
6.97 J
NA
12.9
634
NA
NA
NA
0.008
0.071
52
0.029
8.91
28.9
10/31/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.79 (D)
NA
10/31/07 (DUP)
NA
6.88 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.006
0.065
47
0.026
7.15
29.3
10/31/07 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.82 (D)
NA
02/06/08
6.57
6.8
NA
12.5
606
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.045
34.7
0.020
3.78
69.5
02/06/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.03 (D)
NA
02/06/08 (DUP)
NA
6.75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.033
26.4
0.015
3.32
60.7
02/06/08 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.01 (D)
NA
05/14/08
6.27
6.64 J
360 J
12.5
838
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.038
27.0
0.018
3.71
226
05/14/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.78 (D)
NA
05/14/08 (DUP)
NA
6.80 J
1,070 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.048
34.2
0.021
4.29
241
05/14/08 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.63 (D)
NA
08/05/08
6.63
6.77
452
13.4
872
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.024
17.0
0.012
2.04
23.3 J
08/05/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.13 (D)
NA
08/05/08 (DUP)
NA
6.66
424
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.029
19.3
0.014
2.27
64.6 J
08/05/08 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.28 (D)
NA
11/13/08
6.70
6.83
918
13.2
669
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.060
42.0
0.014
4.67
40.9
11/13/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.88 (D)
NA
11/13/08 (DUP)
NA
6.81
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.047
31.8
0.016
3.83
40.0
11/13/08 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.79 (D)
NA
02/19/09
6.53
6.45
2.9
13.8
746
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.13
0.001 U
1.18
127
02/19/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.17 (D)
NA
02/19/09 (DUP)
NA
6.43
2.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.13
0.001 U
1.18
136
02/19/09 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.19 (D)
NA
05/07/09
6.70
6.45
2.3
14.4
694
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.06
0.001 U
1.15
88.9
05/07/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.22 (D)
NA
05/07/09 (DUP)
NA
6.40
2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.06
0.001 U
1.09
88.9
05/07/09 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.19 (D)
NA
(114 feet BTOC)
07/27/10
6.52
NA
NA
15.1
624
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
1.05
53.6
10/27/10
6.57
NA
NA
12.4
771
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.90
77.7
10/27/10 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.89
75.5
06/01/11
6.52
NA
4.0
14.6
654
1.63
111
2.5
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.21
0.0001
0.84
29
06/01/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.41 (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.86 (D)
NA
07/26/11
6.46
NA
1.1
15.4
740
0.38
162
0
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.99
82
07/26/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
1.07 (D)
NA
11/01/11
NA
NA
NA
13.7
703
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.18
0.0001 u
1.06
73.5
11/01/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.17
0.0001 u
1.06
72.5
05/30/12
6.53
NA
NA
13.9
702
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/05/12
6.04
NA
NA
15.2
689
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.09
0.0001 u
0.88
51.1
08/23/12
6.44
NA
NA
16.8
944
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.17
0.0001 u
0.73
32.9
Table 7b
Page 15 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-08 (109 feet BTOC)
05/28/13
6.66
NA
NA
17.0
885
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
1.13
0.0006
1.26
89.1
continued
09/08/13
7.16
NA
NA
18.4
709
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.07
0.0001 u
0.62
31.6
05/27/14
6.94
NA
NA
17.2
759
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.18
0.0001
0.82
49.0
05/27/14 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.010
0.26
0.0001 u
0.85
44.9
08/19/14
6.91
NA
NA
18.1
702
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.17
0.0001 u
0.55
27.8
05/13/15
7.04
NA
NA
16.2
731
1.85
307
86.9
0.002 U
0.006
0.32
0.0001
0.75
48.8
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.70 (D)
NA
08/24/15
6.84
NA
NA
14.7
746
5.18
213
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.26 J
0.0002
0.60
23.4
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.008 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.63 (D)
NA
05/10/16
6.75
NA
NA
16.4
798
4.06
180
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.08
0.0001
0.86
44.9
05/10/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.91 (D)
NA
08/17/16
7.06
NA
NA
16.3
745
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0070
0.167
0.000100 u
0.430
21.3
08/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U (D)
0.0050 U (D)
0.050 U(D)
0.000100 U (D)
0.428 (D)
NA
05/15/17
7.05
NA
NA
16.82
741
4.15
179
9.7
0.0020 U
0.0061
0.0680
0.000118
0.810
35.9
08/14/17
7.15
NA
NA
16.96
515
6.08
176
22.4
0.0020 U
0.0087
0.142
0.000216
0.579
23.3
05/21/18
6.54
NA
NA
16.08
234
4.31
158
21.5
0.0040 U
0.0060
0.0969
0.000118
0.789
31.9
08/21/18
6.84
NA
NA
15.51
216
5.13
187
10.0
0.0020 U
0.0095
0.125
0.000100u
0.798
37.1
06/13/19
7.39
NA
NA
15.57
694
4.67
204
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0058
0.0500 U
0.000100u
1.30
25.2
09/12/19
6.66
NA
NA
15.56
887
4.77
269
7.9
0.0020 U
0.0070
0.158
0.000100u
1.10
42.0
06/11/20
6.82
NA
NA
16.81
692
3.43
236
8.3
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0649
0.000100u
0.819
22.9
09/02/20
6.92
NA
NA
16.38
733
3.76
415
72.0
0.0020 U
0.0054
0.196
0.000157
0.603
22.0
05/27/21
8.11
NA
NA
14.95
857
6.83
24
5
0.00200U
0.00445 J
0.0932 J
0.000500 U
1.01
57.7
09/15/21
7.05
NA
NA
20.40
241
2.77
108
168
0.001 U
0.0139
1.23
0.00108 J
0.85
23.6
04/19/22
6.74
NA
NA
13.59
0.76
4.65
50.5
2.98
0.00200U
0.00282 J
0.0322 J
0.000500 U
0.478
18.1 J
07/13/22
7.03
NA
NA
17.93
996
3.52
23
1.36
0.00200U
0.00412 U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.629
77.3
MW06-09 (100 feet BTOC)
05/08/06
6.79
NA
NA
15.3
609
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/26/11
6.57
NA
2.8
13.9
580
5.53
121
5.5
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.28
0.0002
1.04
21
05/26/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
1.03 (D)
NA
07/31/11
6.32
NA
1.2
16.6
578
8.88
248
5.6
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.19
15
07/31/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.19 (D)
NA
(124 feet BTOC)
05/08/06
6.79
NA
NA
15.3
609
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/24/06
6.70
6.85
NA
14.3
82
3.22
146
NA
0.002 U
0.019
16.3
0.008
0.286
39.4
11/09/06
6.56
6.72
NA
10.9
497
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.052
49.0
0.025
3.81
61.7
02/20/07
6.81
6.69
NA
10.6
498
NA
NA
NA
0.013
0.043
37.1
0.025
10.7
64.7
05/03/07
6.69
6.83
NA
11.7
528
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.049
36.5
0.024
3.34
21.0
05/26/11
6.69
NA
4.7
13.9
584
5.30
124
4.5
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.39
0.0002
1.05
20
05/26/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.93 (D)
NA
07/31/11
5.92
NA
1.6
16.5
569
8.96
280
6.2
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.28
15
07/31/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.20 (D)
NA
(144 feet BTOC)
05/08/06
6.79
NA
NA
15.3
609
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/15/07
6.63
6.71 J
NA
12.0
568
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.054
52.3
0.023
2.45
35.6
10/31/07
6.63
6.76 J
NA
11.3
480
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.066
59.7
0.021
3.5
58.3
10/31/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.6 (D)
NA
02/06/08
6.54
6.78 J
NA
11.1
458
NA
NA
NA
0.006
0.038
33.6
0.020
5.29
60.4
02/06/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.4(D)
NA
05/14/08
6.43
6.67 J
388
11.2
453
NA
NA
NA
0.008
0.018
12.3
0.009
4.96
52.6
05/14/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.28 (D)
NA
08/05/08
6.85
6.90
177
11.8
635
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.025
16.0
0.011
4.66
26.4
08/05/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.39 (D)
NA
11/14/08
6.60
6.73
183
11.1
494
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.014
10.2
0.008
5.40
38.7
11/14/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.47 (D)
NA
02/19/09
6.90
6.72
5.1
12.3
542
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.32
0.001 U
1.19
38.4
02/19/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
1.1 (D)
NA
05/07/09
7.20
6.89
1.0U
12.6
578
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.56
22.3
05/07/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.50 (D)
NA
Table 7b
Page 16 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-09 (144 feet BTOC)
07/28/10
6.83
NA
NA
13.5
599
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.07
0.001 U
0.53
24.6
continued
10/25/10
6.70
NA
NA
12.5
571
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.11
0.001 U
0.89
27.6
05/26/11
6.69
NA
6.1
13.4
581
5.40
118
8.2
0.002 U
0.007
0.51
0.0002
0.99
19
05/26/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.92 (D)
NA
07/31/11
5.38
NA
4.4
15.8
568
9.77
291
7.8
0.002 U
0.007
0.09
0.0001 U
0.23
15
07/31/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0030 (D)
0.23 (D)
NA
10/30/11
6.84
NA
NA
11.8
491
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
1.41
0.0002
0.94
30.0
05/23/12
6.89
NA
NA
14.7
575
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.37
0.0001
0.49
24.8
08/29/12
6.65
NA
NA
15.2
711
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.72
0.0003
0.57
21.8
05/29/13
6.61
NA
NA
14.4
550
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.28
0.0001 u
1.19
28.0
09/12/13
7.03
NA
NA
14.7
542
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.15
0.0001 u
0.82
23.3
05/29/14
6.97
NA
NA
17.4
570
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.73
0.0005
1.30
22.2
08/20/14
7.17
NA
NA
16.1
562
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.11
0.0001 u
0.24
18.8
MW06-10 (40 feet BTOC)
08/25/06
6.18
6.43
NA
13.7
737
7.08
104
NA
0.002 U
0.030
25.4
0.024
0.860
68.7
11/09/06
5.95
6.33
NA
11.8
222
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.031
28.6
0.022
0.919
31.5
02/19/07
6.32
6.57 J
NA
11.7
311
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.027
22.1
0.009
0.556
31.5
05/03/07
6.10
6.75
NA
12.5
287
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.059
41.8
0.003
3.43
39.7
08/15/07
6.05
6.47 J
NA
13.4
331
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.017
13.1
0.006 U
0.37 U
48.7
10/30/07
6.13
6.65 J
NA
11.8
261
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.014
10.6
0.008
0.39
39.5
10/30/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.3 (D)
NA
02/07/08
5.95
6.37
NA
10.6
290
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.014
10.4
0.009
0.36
39.1
02/07/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.29 (D)
NA
05/12/08
6.13
6.29 J
78.3
11.7
251
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.012
7.62
0.007
0.37 J+
40.1
05/12/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.30 J+ (D)
NA
08/05/08
6.17
6.27
54.5
12.7
394
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.014
9.54
0.004
0.37
47.4
08/05/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.38 (D)
NA
11/14/08
6.26
6.51
36.7
11.2
302
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
3.94
0.001 U
0.30
40.3
11/14/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.30 (D)
NA
02/20/09
6.30
6.45
1.0U
9.6
458
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.16
0.001 U
0.31
55.9
02/20/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.35 (D)
NA
05/06/09
6.70
6.23 J
2.0U
13.6
488
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.37
62.6
05/06/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.38 (D)
NA
07/26/10
6.49
NA
NA
15.8
539
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.40
50.8
10/25/10
6.37
NA
NA
12.6
536
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.38
48.7
06/01/11
6.54
NA
1.1U
13.5
440
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.39
37
06/01/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.41 (D)
NA
07/28/11
6.66
NA
1.1U
15.7
618
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.06
0.0002
0.45
42
07/28/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.47 (D)
NA
11/01/11
6.52
NA
NA
11.2
601
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.49
40.5
05/29/12
6.31
NA
NA
12.9
675
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.64
49.6
08/29/12
6.45
NA
NA
18.2
1,069
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.55
34.7
05/29/13
6.23
NA
NA
16.3
751
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.60
42.4
05/21/14
6.44
NA
NA
17.2
703
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.92
43.4
08/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.013
6.22
0.0054
0.96
49.6
08/24/16
6.49
NA
NA
12.9
1,110
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.185
0.000373
0.788
40.0
05/02/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
3.76
0.0846
0.591
22.5
05/30/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.156
0.00131
0.602
31.8
06/17/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.382
0.00103
0.828
30.4
06/17/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.464
0.00116
1.09
30.9
06/01/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00104 J
0.00200U
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.985
44.7
04/19/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00200U
0.68
0.000676 J
0.837
43.6 J
Table 7b
Page 17 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-11 (60 feetBTOC)
05/10/06
6.85
NA
NA
14.5
138
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/19/11
6.49
NA
6.6
13.0
1,440
7.03
103
6.4
0.003
0.005 U
0.47
0.0003
11.3
NA
05/19/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.11 (D)
0.0001 U (D)
10.9 (D)
NA
07/28/11
6.35
NA
3.8
12.7
1,500
6.14
203
0
0.003
0.005 U
0.18
0.0001 U
13.7
258
07/28/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.004 (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
14.5 (D)
NA
05/17/16
6.85
NA
NA
14.9
1,150
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.06
0.0001
2.46
40.9
05/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.23
153
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.009 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
2.45 (D)
NA
(75 feetBTOC)
05/10/06
6.85
NA
NA
14.5
138
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/24/06
6.20
6.45
NA
17.0
NA
1.52
182
NA
0.002
0.014
9.56
0.007
16.3
74.0
11/09/06
6.37
6.31
NA
12.3
887
NA
NA
NA
0.01 u
0.100
62.2
0.029
32.7
119
02/19/07
6.40
6.46 J
NA
11.1
1,138
NA
NA
NA
0.011
0.113
101
0.040
45.5
232
05/03/07
6.20
6.19
NA
12.1
1,073
NA
NA
NA
0.010
0.096
72.5
0.029
39.9
319
05/19/11
6.56
NA
4.5
12.2
1,430
6.64
98
4.7
0.002
0.005 U
0.33
0.0001 u
10.4
NA
07/28/11
7.81
NA
10.1
13.6
1,250
6.35
83
4.0
0.003
0.005 U
0.46
0.0001
12.5
180
07/28/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.003 p)
0.005 U (D)
0.24 (D)
0.0001 U (D)
12.4 (D)
NA
05/17/16
6.85
NA
NA
16.0
1,110
3.37
182
NA
0.002 U
0.010
0.28
0.0003
2.40
41.1
05/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.008 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
2.34 (D)
NA
(90 feetBTOC)
05/10/06
6.85
NA
NA
14.5
138
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/15/07
6.58
6.51 J
NA
12.7
1,000
NA
NA
NA
0.009
0.128
85.7
0.042
28.2
91.1
10/30/07
6.52
6.39 J
NA
11.7
797
NA
NA
NA
0.009
0.09
64.1
0.046
29.4
69.9
10/30/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
11.3 (D)
NA
02/07/08
6.36
6.74
NA
11.2
1,059
NA
NA
NA
0.009
0.081
65.5
0.037
28.9
109
02/07/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
13.5 (D)
NA
05/13/08
6.31
6.51 J
1,540
12.0
993
NA
NA
NA
0.011
0.073
54.5
0.041
30.3
8.1
05/13/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 (D)
13.5 (D)
NA
08/05/08
6.70
6.62
1,190
12.3
1,143
NA
NA
NA
0.009
0.078
54.0
0.035
25.8
90.1
08/05/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
7.68 (D)
NA
11/14/08
6.61
6.69
808
11.1
796
NA
NA
NA
0.008
0.044
30.4
0.024
23.3
52.2
11/14/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
8.35 (D)
NA
02/20/09
6.50
6.86
364
10.9
875
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.031
18.7
0.011
14.4
81.0
02/20/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
8.73 (D)
NA
05/06/09
6.90
6.41
16.6
14.0
1,021
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.005 U
1.12
0.001 U
11.7
101
05/06/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
10.1 (D)
NA
07/27/10
6.56
NA
NA
14.4
1,032
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.016
4.49
0.002
16.1
157
10/27/10
6.56
NA
NA
10.6
957
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.017
6.04
0.002
13.2
124
05/19/11
6.55
NA
1.2
12.5
1,380
6.61
87
1.9
0.002
0.005 U
0.17
0.0001 u
9.62
NA
05/19/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.14 (D)
0.0001 U (D)
9.60 (D)
NA
07/28/11
7.06
NA
2.6
13.1
1,220
7.18
154
0
0.002
0.005 U
0.26
0.0001 u
11.1
159
07/28/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.003 (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.21 (D)
0.0001 U (D)
11.3 (D)
NA
11/01/11
6.52
NA
NA
11.1
1,325
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.009
3.32
0.0007
17.2
286
05/31/12
5.68
NA
NA
12.8
1,930
NA
NA
NA
0.006
0.005 U
2.19
0.0001 u
40.2
565
08/30/12
6.38
NA
NA
14.4
1,100
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.09
0.0001 u
4.97
49.3
11/27/12
6.42
NA
NA
12.2
1,390
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.005
0.08
0.0001 u
19.9
240
11/27/12 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.006
0.07
0.0001 u
18.1
226
05/30/13
6.42
NA
NA
14.5
1,602
NA
NA
NA
0.005
0.005 U
2.55
0.0001 u
20.0
388
09/11/13
6.74
NA
NA
13.9
1.000
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.05 U
0.0001 u
4.71
62.0
05/21/14
6.81
NA
NA
13.4
1,280
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.015
0.73
0.0001
6.87
117
08/04/14
6.92
NA
NA
13.6
953
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.05 U
0.0001 u
2.17
45.4
06/02/15
6.73
NA
NA
13.8
1,110
4.22
263
16.2
0.002 U
0.012
0.58
0.0002
3.96
60.4 J
06/02/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.009 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
3.49 (D)
NA
08/25/15
6.89
NA
NA
16.5
1,130
4.23
349
NA
0.002 U
0.016
0.87
0.0003
2.52
44.5
08/25/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.012 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
2.26 (D)
NA
Table 7b
Page 18 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-11 (90 feet BTOC)
05/17/16
6.85
NA
NA
15.0
1,090
3.74
269
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.20
0.0001
2.35
40.0
continued
05/17/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.008 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
2.33 (D)
NA
08/23/16
7.15
NA
NA
14.6
1,060
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.013
0.480
0.000176
2.84
34.2
05/23/17
7.27
NA
NA
14.36
1,180
5.69
278
18.6
0.0020 U
0.0083
0.134
0.000113
3.37
55.8
08/17/17
7.01
NA
NA
14.59
776
2.44
242
24.0
0.0020 U
0.0064
0.0502
0.000100 u
4.12
45.5
05/21/18
6.72
NA
NA
15.90
446
5.72
201
66.1
0.0020 U
0.0106
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
2.90
99.7
08/21/18
6.80
NA
NA
13.20
375
5.35
201
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0112
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
2.78
80.3
06/17/19
7.26
NA
NA
13.40
1,280
4.69
2.70
7.4
0.0020 U
0.0089
0.149
0.000100u
2.64
114
09/18/19
6.73
NA
NA
14.81
1,360
5.80
297
5.0
0.0020 U
0.0114
0.0500 U
0.000100u
3.34
136
06/17/20
7.04
NA
NA
16.63
830
4.54
302
22.1
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100u
1.75
130
08/27/20
6.26
NA
NA
15.78
730
3.45
419
33.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/01/21
7.79
NA
NA
13.27
1,330
6.28
41
20.2
0.00341 J
0.00678 J
0.208
0.000500 U
8.41
247
09/20/21
6.99
NA
NA
13.75
357
8.81
164
70.2
0.001 U
0.00681 J
0.119
0.0005 U
3.17
99.9
04/19/22
6.72
NA
NA
13.4
1,303
4.63
93.4
17.9
0.00117 J
0.00429 J
0.0755 J
0.000500 U
2.7
138 J
07/13/22
7.39
NA
NA
19.77
1,051
5.23
50.8
23.3
0.00200U
0.00787 U
0.406 J
0.000500 U
2.35
59.6
MW14-01A
06/01/14
6.99
NA
NA
18.8
1,280
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.015
0.56
0.0005
0.01 u
59.0
06/02/15
6.93
NA
NA
15.2
1,060
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.014
1.97
0.0010
0.01 u
66.3
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.023
8.99
0.0094
0.04
64.6
05/02/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0682
58.9
0.0327
0.237
67.8
05/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.127
126
0.0985
0.442
75.2
08/22/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0100 U
0.135
119
0.0872
0.421
58.8
06/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0148
1.65
0.00148
0.0100 u
58.2
09/18/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0172
0.306
0.000413
0.0116 J
62.3
06/24/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0464
28.9
0.0174
0.0760
50.1
05/27/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.0116
0.772
0.000721 J
0.00660 U
55.2
09/08/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.01
1.64
0.00141 J
0.02
55.20
04/19/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.0149
0.0689 J
0.000500 U
0.0155 U
66.2 J
07/13/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.0246 U
9.21 J
0.00648
0.0632
70.5
MW14-01B
06/01/14
6.44
NA
NA
15.3
1,280
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.005
1.04
0.0010
16.7
308
06/01/14 (DUP)
6.44
NA
NA
15.3
1,280
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.005 U
1.06
0.0010
16.8
321
08/21/14
6.47
NA
NA
15.8
1,123
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 UJ
0.14 J
0.0001
15.7
70.2
06/02/15
6.59
NA
NA
13.8
1,050
1.50
190
2.2
0.002 U
0.006
0.10
0.0001
11.1
120
06/02/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.006 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
11.2 (D)
NA
08/31/15
6.49
NA
NA
15.4
878
4.96
237
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.90
0.0010
14.2
45.2
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.007 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
14.6 (D)
NA
05/11/16
6.55
NA
NA
13.8
1,184
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.12
0.0002
17.7
218
05/11/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
18.0 (D)
NA
08/18/16
6.57
NA
NA
14.8
1,160
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0080
0.568
0.000518
14.3
63.4
05/16/17
6.71
NA
NA
15.21
1,240
10.46
260
13.5
0.0029
0.0050 U
0.177
0.000232
18.2
276
08/10/17
6.76
NA
NA
15.16
870
3.73
284
70.6
0.0025
0.0050 U
0.153
0.000360
22.2
60.7
05/23/18
6.51
NA
NA
17.69
35
7.88
225
29.3
0.0020 U
0.0061
0.0500 U
0.000146
12.0
247
08/22/18
6.21
NA
NA
14.33
1,370
8.18
185
12.4
0.0037
0.0103
0.128
0.000219
15.3
262
06/12/19
5.17
NA
NA
13.69
973
2.38
291
0.0
0.0032
0.0083
0.0500 U
0.000100u
12.6
440
09/18/19
6.24
NA
NA
15.05
1,790
1.38
335
11.7
0.0025
0.0110
0.0500 U
0.000100u
14.0
479
06/24/20
6.47
NA
NA
14.15
939
1.98
417
24.5
0.0023
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100u
13.4
293
09/03/20
8.33
NA
NA
14.82
1,380
2.88
418
67.4
0.0039
0.0063
0.523
0.000304
19.5
90.2
06/01/21
6.85
NA
NA
14.38
1,330
1.46
63
1.60
0.00281 J
0.00333 J
0.0348 J
0.000500 U
14.9
247
09/20/21
6.64
NA
NA
14.70
568
2.63
113
50.40
0.00239 J
0.00171 J
0.06 U
0.0005 U
18.4
179
04/19/22
6.20
NA
NA
13.04
1,326
1.64
78
188.00
0.00252 J
0.00200U
0.121
0.000500 U
14.8
342 J
07/13/22
6.60
NA
NA
20.90
1,465
0.94
38
13.10
0.00200U
0.00763 U
0.441 J
0.000542 J
12.3
331
Table 7b
Page 19 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
(field)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
Well Identification
Date Collected
pH
(field)
pH
(lab)
TSS
(mg/L)
(lab)
Temperature
(°C)
(field)
Oxygen
(mg/L)
(field)
ORP
(mV)
(field)
Turbidity
(NTU)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW14-02A
05/18/14
7.07
NA
NA
15.8
1,020
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.172
28.9
0.0162
0.09
32.5
09/03/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
5.27
0.0242
0.08
94.5
05/27/15
6.79
NA
NA
18.1
1,042
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.204
104
0.0438
0.29
23.2
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.094
75.4
0.0561
0.24
23.9
08/24/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.101
97.5
0.109
0.311
24.7
08/03/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
2.92
0.00900
0.0259
50.6
05/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0774
83.8
0.11000
0.755
32.5
08/16/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0515
0.994
759
0.377
4.40
43.1
06/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0250 U
3.83
0.00337
0.0500 U
33.1
09/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
2.53
0.00177
0.0175 J
36.9
06/24/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0245
20.8
0.0183
0.0697
37.5
09/29/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0420
38.1
0.0501
0.151
46.4
06/01/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00352 J
5
0.0214
0.0590
38.5
09/14/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.01
8.66
0.01
0.07
50.40
04/19/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00637 J
9.83
0.0590
0.0569 U
34.0 J
07/13/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00200U
0.847 J
0.00216
0.0226 U
41.4
MW14-02B
05/18/14
6.78
NA
NA
14.4
974
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.25
0.0002
5.43
64.6
09/03/14
6.43
NA
NA
14.8
849
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.17
0.0002
3.96
40.1
05/27/15
6.78
NA
NA
13.9
796
7.11
260
9.7
0.002 U
0.009
0.20
0.0002
3.45
31.8
05/27/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.008 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
3.65 (D)
NA
08/31/15
6.62
NA
NA
13.7
769
5.05
187
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.35
0.0004
3.40
30.2
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.010 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
3.50 (D)
NA
05/11/16
6.83
NA
NA
13.5
815
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.05 U
0.0001 U
3.07
35.7
05/11/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.006 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
3.13 (D)
NA
08/24/16
6.95
NA
NA
13.0
872
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0080
0.259
0.000273
2.79
29.3
05/16/17
6.99
NA
NA
14.36
1,200
9.6
279
8.4
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0528
0.000100u
4.19
195
08/10/17
7.07
NA
NA
14.46
706
5.1
271
22.7
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0690
0.000145
2.14
35.3
05/17/18
6.55
NA
NA
13.91
378
7.0
213
18.0
0.0020 U
0.0068
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
2.89
197
08/16/18
6.53
NA
NA
14.07
861
5.94
188
2.4
0.0020 U
0.0094
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
1.93
32.1
06/11/19
5.94
NA
NA
13.98
1,380
1.85
325
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
3.51
321
09/11/19
6.67
NA
NA
14.29
1,000
2.92
292
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0085
0.0500 U
0.000100u
1.72
46.6
06/23/20
6.87
NA
NA
14.67
888
3.40
336
334
0.0020 U
0.0118
1.79
0.00154
8.28
178
09/28/20
6.07
NA
NA
12.74
290
8.51
408
67.9
0.0020 U
0.0079
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
3.52
32.1
06/01/21
6.05
NA
NA
14.80
1,290
1.74
78
2.8
0.00140 J
0.00491 J
0.331
0.000729 J
8.5
194
09/20/21
6.84
NA
NA
14.43
315
2.59
88
61.2
0.002 U
0.00498 J
0.0305 J
0.0005 U
4.22
41.3
04/19/22
6.57
NA
NA
14.69
1,251
1.15
19.8
9.16
0.00132 J
0.00187 J
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
9.35
152 J
07/13/22
6.89
NA
NA
16.14
1,331
3.02
15.1
28.4
0.00200U
0.00936 U
0.432 J
0.000687 J
9.47
118
MW14-03A
06/01/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.072
27.2
0.0169
0.09
55.7
05/26/15
6.73
NA
NA
14.2
1.448
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.022
3.42
0.0020
0.01 u
33.9
08/19/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.031
15.6
0.0116
0.06
31.2
05/03/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0100
5.12
0.00452
0.0835
31.6
05/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0312
22.2
0.0210
0.117
36.3
06/19/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0068
0.657
0.000912
0.0146
26.6
09/18/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0086
0.469
0.000583
0.0124 J
30.3
06/24/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0106
4.03
0.00276
0.0100 u
21.2
05/27/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00394 J
0.259
0.000500 U
0.00660 U
34.8
09/15/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00747 J
1.99
0.00
0.02
31.20
04/19/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00431 J
0.104
0.000500 U
0.00977 U
33.8 J
Table 7b
Page 20 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW14-03B
06/01/14
5.85
NA
NA
15.8
1,234
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.71
0.0008
11.8
528
08/21/14
5.90
NA
NA
15.0
1,228
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.72
0.0006
14.0
237
05/26/15
5.76
NA
NA
14.2
1,200
2.51
235
6.9
0.002 U
0.006
0.13
0.0001
24.5
511
05/26/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
25.8 (D)
NA
08/19/15
5.97
NA
NA
14.8
860
3.62
242
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.07
0.0002
21.0
191
08/19/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
22.1 (D)
NA
05/11/16
6.00
NA
NA
14.0
1,074
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.07
0.0001
23.5
333
05/11/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
24.4 (D)
NA
08/18/16
6.12
NA
NA
14.0
1,220
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050
0.332
0.000338
19.7
176
05/16/17
6.39
NA
NA
13.66
946
1.62
209
93.1
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.586
0.000681
17.1
189
08/08/17
6.10
NA
NA
14.74
798
3.3
282
144
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.899
0.00100
16.9
142
05/23/18
5.76
NA
NA
14.72
2,560
2.5
216
8.3
0.0020 U
0.0067
0.0500 U
0.000100u
28.0
285
08/16/18
6.01
NA
NA
13.88
1,260
1.22
237
2.8
0.0020 U
0.0055
0.0500 U
0.000100
30.5
256
06/19/19
6.28
NA
NA
13.34
1,020
1.91
249
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0077
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
16.9
171
09/18/19
6.01
NA
NA
14.22
1,020
1.80
308
1.4
0.0020 U
0.0140
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
16.0
163
06/24/20
6.66
NA
NA
13.37
809
3.10
439
108
0.0020 U
0.0062
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
14.9
112
09/03/20
7.18
NA
NA
14.95
1,200
2.33
523
48.6
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.00010u
19.3
39.4
06/01/21
6.56
NA
NA
14.81
1,150
2.30
76
3.2
0.00177 J
0.00390 J
0.117
0.000500 U
18.9
192
09/20/21
6.77
NA
NA
14.15
368
3.95
116
52.8
0.021 U
0.00116 J
0.06 U
0.0005 U
7.75
47.6
04/19/22
6.31
NA
NA
15.04
1,224
15.55
49.2
19.6
0.00224 J
0.00185 J
0.291
0.000500 U
18.2
271 J
MW14-04A
05/18/14
6.08
NA
NA
16.6
468
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.89
0.0004 J
0.01
28.4
09/03/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.82
0.0004
0.02
22.7
06/02/15
6.21
NA
NA
16.9
457
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.017
6.49
0.0038
0.06
22.9
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
2.81
0.0018
0.01 u
21.7
05/04/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0106
9.71
0.00566
0.0401
25.6
05/31/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
1.46
0.00844
0.0171
24.0
08/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0295
30.3 J
0.0184
0.131 J
25.3
06/11/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0087
7.68
0.00511
0.0441
34.0
09/19/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0230
9.12
0.00534
0.0634 J
32.7
06/23/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020
0.0408
46.7
0.0278
0.173
22.8
09/29/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0192
21.5
0.0161
0.111
29.0
06/01/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00177 J
0.00211 J
1.99
0.00511
0.0348
28.8
09/15/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.00103 J
2.38
0.00156 J
0.0066 U
31.7
04/19/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00200U
1.03
0.00124 J
0.0123 U
28.1 J
07/13/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00498 U
5.95 J
0.00193 J
0.0412 U
29.2
MW14-04B
05/18/14
6.88
NA
NA
14.6
790
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.77
0.0004
0.01 U
39.4
09/03/14
6.69
NA
NA
15.1
656
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.23
0.0002
0.01 U
28.9
06/02/15
6.75
NA
NA
14.1
710
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.10
0.0001 u
0.01 U
29.5
08/31/15
6.51
NA
NA
14.0
840
1.57
179
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.09
0.0001
0.01 U
35.2
08/31/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
05/26/16
6.90
NA
NA
14.5
655
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.14
0.0001 u
0.01 U
33.7
05/26/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
08/23/16
6.82
NA
NA
14.0
954
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.094
0.000139
0.010 U
35.4
05/22/17
7.16
NA
NA
14.60
960
5.75
270
16.9
0.0020 U
0.005 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 U
45.3
08/10/17
6.80
NA
NA
14.64
675
3.55
233
68.2
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.178
0.000261
0.0100 u
32.5
05/17/18
6.58
NA
NA
14.55
338
7.67
238
16.4
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.115
0.000500 U
0.0100 u
44.3
08/22/18
6.40
NA
NA
14.44
956
6.93
165
9.0
0.0020 U
0.0056
0.0633
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
38.7
06/11/19
6.16
NA
NA
14.09
909
1.80
296
14.0
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.235
0.000210
0.0100 u
44.5
09/19/19
6.44
NA
NA
14.32
1,050
1.56
328
12.1
0.0020 U
0.0072
0.0500 U
0.000100u
0.0100 u
57.8
06/23/20
6.66
NA
NA
14.66
689
4.74
201
25.2
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100u
0.0100 u
34.3
09/29/20
6.33
NA
NA
13.87
286
4.09
412
75.4
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100u
0.0100 u
34.1
06/01/21
5.72
NA
NA
14.82
957
1.55
731
2.7
0.00200U
0.00217 J
0.0608 J
0.000500 U
0.0180 J
48.8
09/20/21
6.98
NA
NA
15.16
249
2.56
74
57.8
0.002 U
0.002 U
0.0835 J
0.0005 U
0.0243
32.6
04/19/22
6.64
NA
NA
15.26
1035
2.33
52.7
87
0.00200U
0.00196 J
0.248
0.000500 U
0.00670 U
53.9 J
07/13/22
7.09
NA
NA
17.2
810
0.8
-23.8
6.3
0.00200U
0.00200U
0.318 UJ
0.000500 U
0.0213 U
26.7
Table 7b
Page 21 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW14-05A
05/18/14
7.19
NA
NA
19.2
853
NA
NA
NA
0.004
0.228
157
0.091
0.47
42.0
05/26/15
6.77
NA
NA
14.8
803
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.011
1.36
0.0007
0.01 u
35.8
08/19/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.011
5.32
0.0118
0.03
31.1
05/04/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
1.91
0.00109
0.0194
44.1
05/24/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0158
10.9
0.00886
0.0444
32.6
08/16/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0271
22.7
0.0458
0.0959
35.3
06/19/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0055
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.411
62.9
09/24/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0056
1.84
0.00138
0.0284 J
41.5
06/24/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0222
21.0
0.0147
0.0747
41.8
05/27/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00200U
0.0684 J
0.000500 U
0.00660 U
51.0
09/15/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.00317 J
1.34
0.0019 J
0.00660 U
29.9
04/19/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00200U
0.358
0.000500 U
0.0260 U
37.7 J
07/13/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00200U
0.0752 UJ
0.000500 U
0.0251 U
36.6
MW14-05B
05/18/14
6.58
NA
NA
15.3
1,180
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.22
0.0003
0.01 U
121
08/21/14
6.46
NA
NA
15.3
750
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.59
0.0006
0.01 U
30.9
08/21/14 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.86
0.0008
0.01 U
29.7
05/26/15
6.56
NA
NA
13.9
1,169
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.10
0.0001
0.01 U
63.6
08/19/15
6.47
NA
NA
14.9
869
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.10
0.0003
0.01 U
38.6
05/12/16
6.59
NA
NA
14.0
1,120
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001
0.01 U
95.9
08/18/16
6.53
NA
NA
15.5
1,110
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.006
0.064
0.000140
0.011
41.9
05/22/17
6.93
NA
NA
14.49
1,320
2.82
222
4.1
0.0020 U
0.005 U
0.0500 U
0.000100u
0.0100 u
139
08/10/17
6.82
NA
NA
14.01
598
5.59
228
190
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000261
0.0100 u
28.0
05/24/18
7.26
NA
NA
18.74
1,330
3.68
249
8.9
0.0040 U
0.0055
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
190
08/16/18
6.33
NA
NA
15.56
919
2.92
190
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0073
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
37.3
06/19/19
6.34
NA
NA
14.25
1,260
2.41
285
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0055
1.11
0.000907
0.0100 u
196
09/24/19
6.56
NA
NA
15.47
963
3.33
344
9.1
0.0020 U
0.0067
0.0500 U
0.000100u
0.119
39.6
06/24/20
6.44
NA
NA
14.84
848
1.81
405
20.4
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100u
0.744
213
09/03/20
7.33
NA
NA
14.72
903
3.86
496
55.8
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.00010u
0.151
34.7
06/01/21
6.61
NA
NA
14.98
1,420
1.53
55
0.0
0.00200U
0.00100 J
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.802
207
09/20/21
6.71
NA
NA
14.65
308
2.5
99
54.2
0.002 U
0.00209 J
0.06 U
0.0005 U
0.249
42.8
04/19/22
6.43
NA
NA
15.29
1.468
2.46
61.4
6.7
0.00200U
0.00109 J
0.0443 J
0.000500 U
2.59
196 J
07/13/22
6.84
NA
NA
15.35
1,238
4.31
44.3
18.1
0.00200U
0.0112 U
0.925 J
0.000796 J
2.78
97.0
MW14-06A
06/01/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.011
1.9
0.0018
0.01
26.4
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.13
0.0001
0.01
29.2
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.13
0.0004
0.01 u
27.9
05/03/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0082
6.22
0.00518
0.0200
28.1
05/23/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0818
80.7
0.00693
0.192
25.7
08/13/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0139
5.68
0.00894
0.0220
27.9
06/11/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0100 u
3.80
0.00242
0.0200 U
37.3
09/17/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
1.48
0.00251
0.0113 J
33.2
06/15/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0267
26.0
0.0232
0.0630
22.6
05/27/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00200U
0.0374 J
0.000500 U
0.00660 U
25.6
09/14/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.00301 J
1.11
0.000983 J
0.0138 J
25.8
04/19/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00128 J
0.92
0.000953 J
0.00727 U
26.7 J
07/13/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00200U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.0182 U
24.4
Table 7b
Page 22 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
(field)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
Well Identification
Date Collected
pH
(field)
pH
(lab)
TSS
(mg/L)
(lab)
Temperature
(°C)
(field)
Oxygen
(mg/L)
(field)
ORP
(mV)
(field)
Turbidity
(NTU)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW14-06B
06/01/14
6.51
NA
NA
15.7
1,254
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.16
0.0003
0.08
357
08/19/14
6.22
NA
NA
16.0
1,112
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.08
0.0002
0.48
98.4
05/13/15
6.71
NA
NA
13.7
1,232
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.06
0.0001
0.14
290
05/13/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.14 (D)
NA
08/24/15
6.24
NA
NA
13.9
1,120
2.68
226
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.08
0.0002
0.83
217
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.007 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.84 (D)
NA
05/25/16
6.49
NA
NA
14.6
1,434
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.12
0.0002
0.14
267
05/25/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.16 (D)
NA
08/17/16
6.52
NA
NA
14.6
1,170
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.282
0.000437
1.64
135
05/16/17
6.66
NA
NA
14.9
1,220
9.80
229
9.7
0.0020 U
0.0062
0.0500 U
0.000117
0.428
259
08/08/17
6.49
NA
NA
15.3
740
7.19
300
31.1
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.133
0.000288
5.66
86.2
05/23/18
6.12
NA
NA
14.9
2,200
6.43
240
4.5
0.0020 U
0.0060
0.0500 U
0.000100U
3.24
227
08/13/18
6.29
NA
NA
16.82
1,020
1.57
176
38.4
0.0040 U
0.0100 U
0.100 U
0.000256
7.66
302
06/11/19
5.51
NA
NA
13.85
859
6.82
416
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
1.72
55.2
09/17/19
6.42
NA
NA
15.19
1.080
1.84
326
2.2
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
3.13
142
06/15/20
6.86
NA
NA
16.30
818
6.73
392
28.6
0.0020 U
0.0050
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
2.00
29.5
09/03/20
7.30
NA
NA
14.31
1,120
2.91
509
62.1
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.137
0.000180
15.5
139
06/01/21
5.90
NA
NA
14.79
1.070
3.50
45
0.7
0.00200U
0.00454 J
0.0359 J
0.000500 U
2.55
138
09/15/21
7.01
NA
NA
16.15
360
3.67
120
522.0
0.002 U
0.00169 J
0.0522 J
0.0005 U
8.53
127
04/19/22
6.46
NA
NA
14.19
1,095
2.71
83
6.2
0.00200 UJ
0.00511 J
0.216
0.000609 J
2.88
171
07/13/22
6.64
NA
NA
14.88
1,179
2.13
38
6.4
0.00200U
0.00609 U
0.345 UJ
0.000547 J
5.99
286
MW14-07
05/28/14
7.02
NA
NA
16.8
1,030
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.08
0.0001 U
0.01 u
46.0
05/18/15
6.87
NA
NA
10.4
1.010
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.016
1.15
0.0005
0.01
42.0
05/04/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0379
32.2
0.00497
0.0890
46.4
05/22/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0074
0.367
0.000347
0.0100 U
39.3
08/27/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0085
2.08
0.000992
0.0100 U
40.5
06/10/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
1.72
0.000663
0.0100 u
54.2
09/10/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.237
0.000123
0.0131 J
42.6
06/16/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.790
0.000635
0.0100 u
34.2
05/27/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00253 J
0.0760 J
0.000500 U
0.00660 U
35.2
09/14/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.00777 J
2.8
0.00216
0.0164 J
34.5
04/19/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200 UJ
0.00289 J
0.0885 J
0.000500 U
0.00940 J
31.8
07/13/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00200U
0.0692 UJ
0.000500 U
0.0170 U
29.1
MW14-08
05/27/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.015
1.45
0.0004
0.01 U
28.4
05/13/15
7.19
NA
NA
14.7
732
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.17
0.0001 u
0.01 U
28.8
08/24/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.96
0.0013
0.01 u
31.5
05/04/17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
3.50
0.00153
0.0150
35.1
05/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0050 U
1.30
0.00107
0.0100 u
31.9
08/21/18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0040 U
0.0358
24.5
0.0110
0.0723
33.8
06/13/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.223
0.000108
0.0100 u
35.3
09/12/19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.508
0.000210
0.0118 J
36.3
06/11/20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.922
0.000458
0.0100 u
30.2
05/27/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00200U
0.184
0.000500 U
0.00660 U
33.8
09/14/21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.00168 J
0.615
0.000566 J
0.00868 J
31.6
04/19/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00128 J
1.14
0.00176 J
0.0118 U
32.8 J
07/13/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200U
0.00200U
0.0600 UJ
0.000500 U
0.0108 U
35.9
MW14-09A
05/21/14
DRY
Table 7b
Page 23 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
(field)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
Well Identification
Date Collected
pH
(field)
pH
(lab)
TSS
(mg/L)
(lab)
Temperature
PC)
(field)
Oxygen
(mg/L)
(field)
ORP
(mV)
(field)
Turbidity
(NTU)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW14-09B
05/21/14
5.93
NA
NA
13.6
1,167
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
11.3
0.0004
30.3
417
08/19/14
5.70
NA
NA
15.0
1,412
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
10.6
0.0004
34.8
512
05/27/15
5.98
NA
NA
15.2
1,320
5.88
174
4.5
0.002 U
0.005 U
4.65
0.0002
38.8
460
05/27/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
4.89 (D)
0.0001 U (D)
39.4 (D)
NA
08/25/15
6.02
NA
NA
14.5
1,120
4.02
110
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
3.98
0.0002
24.9
320
08/25/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
4.33 (D)
0.0001 (D)
26.8 (D)
NA
05/26/16
6.45
NA
NA
12.9
1,030
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
3.15
0.0001 U
14.9
266
05/26/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
3.50 (D)
0.0001 U (D)
16.3 (D)
NA
08/24/16
6.27
NA
NA
13.1
1,150
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
6.37
0.000212
24.4
244
05/22/17
6.65
NA
NA
13.07
1,500
7.13
70
2.9
0.0020 U
0.005 U
4.52
0.000100u
20.2
398
08/10/17
6.37
NA
NA
13.8
910
3.5
24
18.0
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
6.96
0.000100u
26.3
298
05/23/18
6.58
NA
NA
13.6
2,740
9.8
30
2.8
0.0040 U
0.0050 U
1.43
0.000100u
8.49
252
08/22/18
6.30
NA
NA
12.59
1,500
9.1
48
2.9
0.0020 U
0.0109
6.59
0.000100 u
24.6
366
06/19/19
6.74
NA
NA
12.50
1,380
6.24
98
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0070
1.12
0.000100 u
4.11
145
09/24/19
6.44
NA
NA
13.00
1,390
4.88
297
10.5
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
1.39
0.000100 u
9.24
233
06/15/20
6.97
NA
NA
14.36
1,210
5.85
184
8.8
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.797
0.000100u
5.03
125
08/26/20
7.09
NA
NA
14.50
1,460
4.13
99
44.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/01/21
7.51
NA
NA
13.72
1,590
3.75
-68
0.0
0.00200U
0.00240 J
0.225
0.000500 U
5.68
388
09/20/21
6.78
NA
NA
13.56
444
6.28
45
50.5
0.002 U
0.00148 J
1.13
0.0005 U
7.19
230
04/19/22
6.53
NA
NA
14
1,432
1.46
45
8.2
0.00200 UJ
0.00281 J
0.602
0.000500 U
6.85
379
07/13/22
7.00
NA
NA
14.9
1,432
3.1
8.4
16.5
0.00200U
0.00270U
3.06 J
0.000915 J
14.9
335
MW21-03A
11/21/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00143 J
0.0127
5.56
0.00483
0.0736
26.2
MW21-03B
11/21/22
6.62
NA
NA
13.02
914
0.89
38.5
2.44
0.00136 J
0.00461
0.0526
0.000500 U
10.4
51.0
11/21/2022 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00152 J
0.00384
0.0403
0.000500 U
9.51
51.3
MW21-04A
11/21/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200 UJ
0.00387
1.06
0.00234
0.0198
37.2
MW21-04B
11/21/22
6.41
NA
NA
13.28
1,275
13.5
54.4
5.1
0.00200 UJ
0.00296
0.146
0.000500 U
8.15
301
MW21-5A
11/21/22
6.59
NA
NA
13.19
1,010
2.7
67.7
4.55
0.00200 UJ
0.00917
0.248
0.000500 U
4.74
114
MW21-6A
11/21/22
6.84
NA
NA
12.03
661
6.42
74.0
NA
0.00200 UJ
0.00730
0.367
0.000959
0.132
21.6
Table 7b
Page 24 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
(field)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
Well Identification
Date Collected
pH
(field)
pH
(lab)
TSS
(mg/L)
(lab)
Temperature
(°C)
(field)
Oxygen
(mg/L)
(field)
ORP
(mV)
(field)
Turbidity
(NTU)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
Off-Facility Wells
MW89-10B
2/03
6.91
NA
NA
12.1
474
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/03
6.75
NA
NA
14.8
490
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW89-11B
2/03
6.85
NA
NA
10.4
654
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/03
6.90
NA
NA
13.1
682
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW92-3A
11/01
6.75
6.9 J
NA
11.7
569
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.102
3.63
0.002
0.030
26
2/02
6.79
NA
NA
10.6
568
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/02
6.77
8.0 J
NA
12.2
459
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.190 J
1.92
0.001 u
0.016
19 J
8/02
6.58
NA
NA
12.0
547
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/02
6.69
6.92 J
NA
11.4
497
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.085
1.98
0.001 u
0.007
17
2/03
6.68
NA
NA
10.6
505
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/03
6.73
6.98 J
NA
11.6
448
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.151
3.11
0.002
0.02 U
15
8/03
6.68
NA
NA
13.3
487
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/03
6.71
6.98
NA
11.7
501
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.176
2.93
0.002 J
0.013
14
2/04
6.40
NA
NA
10.6
486
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/04
6.65
7.02 J
NA
13.1
523
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.279
7.61
0.005
0.029
14.8
11/09/04
6.82
6.95 J
NA
11.6
484
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.101
1.56
0.001 u
0.016
15.7
05/03/05
6.82
6.95 J
NA
11.9
709
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.223
4.21
0.003
0.017
14.7
11/08/05
6.88
7.12
NA
11.6
530
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.158
2.71
0.002
0.015 U
17.6
05/07/06
6.82
7.01 J
NA
12.1
554
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.154
2.40
0.003
0.019
14.9 J
05/01/07
6.73
6.84 J
NA
11.8
508
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.206
3.75
0.003
0.03 J+
17.0
05/13/08
6.88
7.12 J
NA
11.7
510
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.079
1.27
0.002
0.04 J+
20.6
11/18/08
7.03
7.04
NA
10.7
675
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.078
2.57
0.001 U
0.01
22.3
02/17/09
7.90
7.06
NA
10.3
705
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.061
1.69
0.001
0.01 u
24.4
05/05/09
7.20
7.02
NA
11.8
706
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.060
0.74
0.002
0.01 u
19.6
07/27/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.15
0.001 u
0.02
17.5
10/27/10
7.26
NA
NA
11.0
622
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.20
0.001 u
0.06
15.1
06/06/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.15
0.0002
0.02
14.0
08/02/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.07
0.0002
0.03
14.5
10/31/11
6.93
NA
NA
11.3
543
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
18.4
05/22/12
7.00
NA
NA
12.7
734
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001
0.01 u
18.4
08/22/12
6.82
NA
NA
11.0
587
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
12.0
Table 7b
Page 25 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW92-3B
11/01
6.41
6.5 J
NA
12.2
724
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.087
1.68
0.001 U
0.006 U
170
2/02
6.45
NA
NA
11.6
670
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/02
6.47
6.4 J
NA
12.0
558
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.066 J
0.54
0.001 u
0.008
150
8/02
5.76
NA
NA
12.9
711
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/02
6.50
6.53 J
NA
11
651
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.156
2.13
0.001 u
0.009
150
2/03
6.34
NA
NA
11.0
576
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/03
6.40
6.59 J
NA
11.8
516
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.135
1.7
0.001 u
0.018U
110
8/03
6.31
NA
NA
12.8
587
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/03
6.33
6.55
NA
11.7
632
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.018
0.18
0.001 J
0.01
140
2/04
6.36
NA
NA
10.3
579
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/04
6.21
6.58 J
NA
13.1
590
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.055
0.57
0.001
0.006 U
72.2
11/09/04
6.57
6.57 J
NA
12.3
607
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.066
0.82
0.001 u
0.009
165
05/03/05
6.35
6.54
NA
11.2
565
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.082
0.84
0.001 u
0.006 U
122
11/08/05
6.46
6.58
NA
12.4
656
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.122
1.24
0.001 u
0.013 U
151
05/08/06
6.42
6.59
NA
11.6
569
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.054
0.69
0.002
0.008
124
05/13/08
6.43
6.62 J
NA
11.9
530
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.097
2.19
0.002
0.02 J+
108
11/18/08
6.39
6.46
NA
10.7
628
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.018
0.50
0.001 u
0.01 u
120
02/17/09
7.60
6.53
NA
10.6
524
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.029
2.58
0.002
0.01 u
123
05/05/09
6.70
6.31
NA
11.9
538
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.014
0.17
0.001 u
0.01 u
67.7
07/27/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.19
0.001 u
0.01 u
43.5
10/27/10
6.57
NA
NA
10.9
487
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/06/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.12
0.0006
0.01 u
35.9
08/02/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0004
0.01 u
34.3
10/31/11
6.42
NA
NA
11.9
418
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.01 u
37.7
05/22/12
6.83
NA
NA
13.0
506
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
35.8
08/22/12
6.57
NA
NA
11.3
490
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.11
0.0002
0.01 u
49.1
Preister's Old Domestic
11/01
6.84
7.0 J
NA
16.1
949
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.046
130
2/02
6.63
7.0 J
NA
9.0
981
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.009
120
5/02
6.92
6.9 J
NA
13.8
818
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.011 J
0.05 U
0.004
0.020
170
8/02
6.52
7.20 J
NA
15.5
820
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.009
87
11/02
7.07
7.02 J
NA
13.6
749
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.006
87
2/03
6.75
7.12 J
NA
12.9
827
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.002
0.013
100
5/03
6.81
7.05 J
NA
14.2
722
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.003
0.014U
110
08/03
6.76
7.09 J
NA
15.2
734
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.008
72
5/04
6.86
NA
NA
12.3
717
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/04
7.11
NA
NA
12.8
772
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/10/04
6.73
NA
NA
11.7
790
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/20/05
7.03
NA
NA
10.9
770
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/02/05
7.12
NA
NA
10.7
678
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
07/31/05
7.02
NA
NA
13.2
782
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/07/05
6.94
NA
NA
12.2
741
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
01/29/06
7.05
NA
NA
11.4
610
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/07/06
6.94
NA
NA
11.6
731
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/19/06
7.08
NA
NA
14.0
725
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/05/06
7.08
NA
NA
11.4
610
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/19/07
7.12
NA
NA
10.9
702
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
04/30/07
7.09
NA
NA
12.6
685
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/12/07
7.13
NA
NA
13.2
796
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/28/07
6.94
NA
NA
12.3
582
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/03/08
6.89
NA
NA
10.6
692
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/11/08
6.93
NA
NA
11.7
549
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/03/08
7.04
NA
NA
13.0
827
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/14/08
7.01
NA
NA
11.3
639
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/31/10
7.09
NA
NA
11.8
592
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 7b
Page 26 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Water
Specific
Dissolved
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
PC)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
Preister1 s New (9 0 feet BTOC)
5/04
6.69
NA
NA
11.9
855
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Irrigation (G127000)
02/22/05
7.18
6.91
NA
10.9
766
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.26
0.002
0.081
159
05/03/05
6.79
NA
NA
11.4
1154
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/09/05
6.72
NA
NA
10.8
734
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/08/06
6.82
NA
NA
11.5
792
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/23/06
6.92
NA
NA
11.6
857
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/06/06
7.18
NA
NA
11.7
721
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.003
0.021 U
NA
02/21/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
48.8
0.023
0.12
NA
05/04/07
6.88
6.99 J
NA
11.2
749
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.002
0.04
88.4
08/15/07
7.49
7.35 J
NA
11.5
867
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.04 U
61.9
10/29/07
6.87
NA
NA
11.6
582
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.01 U
NA
02/05/08
6.88
NA
NA
11.4
563
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.08
0.001
0.02 U
NA
05/14/08
6.97
7.05 J
NA
11.5
598
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 U
NA
08/05/08
7.33
NA
NA
12.9
787
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.02
NA
11/17/08
6.96
NA
NA
11.5
1,146
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
NA
02/18/09
7.80
NA
NA
10.9
603
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01
NA
02/18/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
05/06/09
7.30
NA
NA
11.5
665
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.04
NA
05/06/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.006 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 (D)
NA
08/13/09
6.35
NA
NA
12.2
735
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.001
0.02
NA
10/28/09
7.04
NA
NA
8.9
835
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.016
0.03
NA
02/03/10
6.90
NA
NA
11.7
608
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.05
NA
05/17/10
6.69
NA
NA
11.9
602
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.02
NA
08/16/10
7.02
NA
NA
12.7
674
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.02
NA
08/16/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.04 (D)
NA
10/26/10
6.74
NA
NA
11.5
601
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
NA
10/26/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
Preister's New (9 0 feet BTOC)
02/10/11
6.97
NA
NA
10.8
559
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 U
NA
Irrigation (G127000)
02/10/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
NA
02/10/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
continued
02/10/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
06/07/11
7.09
NA
NA
13.1
596
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 U
NA
06/07/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
06/07/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 U
NA
06/07/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
08/02/11
6.92
NA
NA
12.4
662
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 U
NA
08/02/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
08/02/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 U
NA
10/27/11
7.02
NA
NA
11.5
581
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 U
NA
01/30/12
6.84
NA
NA
11.3
567
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
NA
01/30/12 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
NA
05/21/12
6.97
NA
NA
11.7
617
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
NA
08/15/12
6.99
NA
NA
13.7
684
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
NA
11/27/12
7.02
NA
NA
11.1
718
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
NA
02/11/13
6.96
NA
NA
11.5
680
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01
NA
06/11/13
6.98
NA
NA
13.1
658
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
NA
05/26/15
6.95
NA
NA
11.6
673
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
28.5
(G127000-Pivot)
08/01/04
6.90
NA
NA
11.6
804
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 7b
Page 27 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
(field)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L) b
Well Identification
Date Collected
pH
(field)
pH
(lab)
TSS
(mg/L)
(lab)
T emperature
CO
(field)
Oxygen
(mg/L)
(field)
ORP
(mV)
(field)
Turbidity
(NTU)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Level a - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Level a - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
TI Well
8/04
6.99
NA
NA
11.4
543
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/09/04
7.02
NA
NA
11.2
484
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/22/05
7.10
NA
NA
11.3
452
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/03/05
7.02
NA
NA
11.2
727
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
07/31/05
6.94
NA
NA
11.7
563
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/07/05
6.74
NA
NA
11.0
541
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
01/31/06
6.75
NA
NA
11.1
483
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/09/06
6.82
NA
NA
11.2
502
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/19/06
6.88
NA
NA
11.2
551
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/06/06
6.71
NA
NA
11.4
463
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/20/07
6.88
NA
NA
11.2
468
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/04/07
6.77
NA
NA
11.3
475
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/16/07
6.90
NA
NA
11.6
558
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/31/07
6.80
NA
NA
11.6
470
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/06/08
6.82
NA
NA
11.4
431
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/07/08
6.60
NA
NA
11.3
568
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/16/08
6.87
NA
NA
11.5
589
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/24/09
6.50
NA
NA
11.3
464
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/16/10
7.11
NA
NA
11.5
586
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/02/10
6.77
NA
NA
11.4
502
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/15/11
6.89
NA
NA
11.4
454
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/02/11
6.96
NA
NA
12.0
597
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/27/11
7.14
NA
NA
11.5
539
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW04-01 (106 feet BTOC)
07/31/11
6.94
NA
NA
16.6
952
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW04-03 (65 feet BTOC)
02/16/09
7.80
NA
NA
10.2
683
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(85 feet BTOC)
02/16/09
7.80
NA
NA
10.2
683
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(120 feet BTOC)
11/09/05
6.88
NA
NA
10.5
845
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/08/06
7.01
NA
NA
11.9
863
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
04/29/07
6.84
NA
NA
12.5
781
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/13/07
6.97
NA
NA
12.7
824
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.03
- - '24,7
0.013
0.07 U
NA
02/16/09
7.80
NA
NA
10.2
683
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/06/09
7.30
NA
NA
12.5
706
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
07/28/10
6.99
NA
NA
12.9
743
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/14/11
7.03
NA
NA
10.9
633
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/30/11
7.06
NA
NA
11.5
618
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/23/12
6.88
NA
NA
13.7
690
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 7b
Page 28 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Water
Specific
Dissolved
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW06-02A
04/29/07
6.99
7.09 J
NA
12.6
574
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.011
3.87
0.002 U
0.04
24.3
08/21/07
7.04
7.18
NA
12.9
626
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.011
4.22
0.001 U
0.01 u
30.9
08/21/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.010 U (D)
NA
10/29/07
6.95
NA
NA
11.4
513
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.016
4.79
0.001 U
0.01 U
NA
10/29/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
02/04/08
6.84
NA
NA
10.8
567
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.013
3.88
0.001 U
0.01 U
NA
02/04/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 (D)
NA
05/12/08
6.89
NA
21.1
11.4
462
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
2.55
0.002
0.01 J+
NA
05/12/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
08/06/08
7.11
NA
27.9
11.6
662
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
1.87
0.001 U
0.01
NA
08/06/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
11/17/08
7.09
NA
31.7
10.7
693
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
3.47
0.001 U
0.01 U
1.1U
11/17/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
02/19/09
6.90
NA
1.3
10.1
694
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.12
0.001 U
0.01 U
NA
02/19/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
05/04/09
6.90
NA
1.0U
12.3
710
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.006
0.001 U
0.01 U
NA
05/04/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
07/26/10
7.09
NA
1.0
13.9
698
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.01 U
NA
07/26/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
10/28/10
6.68
NA
NA
10.7
646
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.01 U
NA
10/28/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.02 (D)
NA
10/30/11
6.95
NA
NA
11.6
655
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
NA
05/21/12
6.89
NA
NA
12.3
694
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW06-02B
04/29/07
6.91
7.01 J
NA
12.9
557
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.074
55.1
0.042
0.15
21.6
08/21/07
7.06
7.17
NA
12.3
613
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.049
36.9
0.023
0.1 u
24.3
08/21/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.010 U (D)
NA
10/29/07
6.93
NA
NA
11.5
465
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.01
3.83
0.01
0.01
NA
10/29/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
02/04/08
6.97
NA
NA
10.0
543
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.041
33.0
0.024
0.08 U
NA
02/04/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.08 (D)
NA
05/12/08
6.87
NA
1,560
12.0
446
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.031
22.9
0.015
0.07 J+
NA
05/12/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
08/06/08
7.13
NA
499
11.6
643
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.028
19.7
0.012
0.06
NA
08/06/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
11/17/08
6.97
NA
84.5
10.2
606
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.025
17.7
0.010
0.04
NA
11/17/08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
02/19/09
7.10
NA
1.0U
10.0
551
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 U
NA
02/19/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
05/04/09
7.40
NA
1.0U
12.7
569
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.01 U
NA
05/04/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
07/26/10
7.11
NA
1.1U
14.1
617
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.01 U
NA
07/26/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
10/28/10
6.70
NA
NA
10.9
511
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.01 U
1.1U
10/28/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
10/30/11
7.11
NA
NA
11.6
540
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 U
NA
05/21/12
6.99
NA
NA
12.6
695
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 7b
Page 29 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L) b
TSS
T emperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
CO
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Level a - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Level a - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW07-01B
02/18/09
7.70
NA
NA
10.9
611
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/18/09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
05/04/09
7.40
NA
NA
12.5
618
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
07/26/10
7.12
NA
1.4
13.7
629
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.06
0.001 U
0.01 U
NA
07/26/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
10/28/10
6.78
NA
NA
11.7
515
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05
0.001 U
0.01 U
1.1U
10/28/10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
06/06/11
7.11
NA
NA
13.0
537
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW12-01B
02/14/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.22
0.0001
0.01 u
106
05/29/13
6.70
NA
NA
16.7
799
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
49.9
05/21/14
6.67
NA
NA
15.4
650
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.008
0.06
0.0001
0.01 u
25.3
08/21/14
6.63
NA
NA
17.4
893
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
73.4
06/01/15
7.02
NA
NA
14.9
559
1.85
204
69.7
0.002 U
0.008
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
21.2
06/01/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.007 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
08/25/15
6.84
NA
NA
15.4
680
8.59
313
NA
0.002 U
0.010
0.11
0.0002
0.01 u
40.4
08/25/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.010 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
05/24/16
6.96
NA
NA
13.5
513
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.009
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
22.3
05/24/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.009 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
08/18/16
6.73
NA
NA
15.2
912
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.008
0.075
0.000100 u
0.010U
76.0
05/24/17
7.00
NA
NA
12.96
704
10.2
260
2.0
0.0020 U
0.0060
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100U
23.3
08/08/17
6.54
NA
NA
14.6
746
4.38
251
8.1
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100U
172
05/24/18
7.77
NA
NA
17.5
672
8.81
207
5.1
0.0040 U
0.0073
0.0500U
0.000100 u
0.0100U
21.9
08/22/18
6.77
NA
NA
14.20
689
8.52
152
0.0
0.0020 U
0.0111
0.0500U
0.000100 u
0.0136
23.6
06/12/19
6,00
NA
NA
13.94
473
7.31
321
61.5
0.0020 U
0.0079
0.0500U
0.000100 u
0.0100U
19.7
09/24/19
7.02
NA
NA
13.93
725
9.12
285
140
0.0020 U
0.0082
0.0500U
0.000100 u
0.0100U
18.8
06/15/20
7.28
NA
NA
14.47
701
7.87
381
17.9
0.0020 U
0.0057
0.0500U
0.000100 u
0.0100U
17.0
08/26/20
6.85
NA
NA
14.98
880
8.50
252
44.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/02/21
7.09
NA
NA
14.82
689
13.98
5
4.6
0.00200U
0.00628 J
0.0531 J
0.000500U
0.00977 J
20.1
09/20/21
6.68
NA
NA
15.87
327
6.12
71
80.0
0.002 U
0.00531 J
0.163
0.0005 U
0.0146 J
103
04/19/22
6.88
NA
NA
14.51
705
6.98
63
12.3
0.00200 UJ
0.00951 J
0.339
0.000500 U
0.00816 J
20.3
07/13/22
7.39
NA
NA
16.03
744
7.95
50
13.5
0.00200U
0.0140 U
0.708 J
0.000500 U
0.0153 U
21.4
Table 7b
Page 30 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
MW12-02B
02/14/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
1.40
0.0011
0.01 U
42.4
05/28/13
6.68
NA
NA
17.3
1,026
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 U
41.6
06/01/14
6.34
NA
NA
15.1
838
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.21
0.0003
0.01 U
33.8
08/21/14
6.38
NA
NA
15.8
1,037
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.23
0.0003
0.01 U
41.9
06/02/15
6.82
NA
NA
15.1
836
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005
0.24
0.0003
0.01 U
34.7
08/19/15
6.54
NA
NA
14.5
962
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.32
0.0005
0.01 u
39.4
05/24/16
6.79
NA
NA
13.5
682
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.15
0.0002
0.01 u
39.3
08/18/16
6.70
NA
NA
15.0
1,200
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.007
0.092
0.000146
0.010 u
41.7
05/24/17
7.30
NA
NA
13.77
829
6.51
283
9.9
0.0020 U
0.005 U
0.0930
0.000122
0.0100 u
29.7
08/08/17
6.72
NA
NA
14.44
769
5.9
250
46.7
0.0020 U
0.0062
0.200
0.000277
0.0100 u
35.1
05/17/18
6.89
NA
NA
15.12
271
8.9
278
8.6
0.0020 U
0.0058
0.0500 U
0.000500 U
0.0100 u
26.2
08/16/18
6.54
NA
NA
14.08
885
6.65
234
4.5
0.0040 U
0.0100 u
0.100 U
0.000134
0.0200 U
32.1
06/12/19
5.93
NA
NA
14.44
630
3.97
253
93.1
0.0020 U
0.0065
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
33.7
09/17/19
6.54
NA
NA
15.68
943
4.66
326
7.6
0.0020 U
0.0052
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
36.7
06/15/20
6.71
NA
NA
14.88
926
3.13
415
17.2
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
32.5
08/26/20
6.81
NA
NA
15.01
1,000
4.41
287
44.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/02/21
7.01
NA
NA
15.11
900
4.45
47
0.7
0.00200U
0.00422 J
0.0345 J
0.000500 U
0.00584 J
33.0
09/20/21
6.92
NA
NA
14.36
342
4.00
28
61.7
0.002 U
0.004 J
0.0497 J
0.0005 U
0.0111 J
40.1
04/19/22
6.60
NA
NA
14.17
843
3.91
80
5.2
0.00200 UJ
0.00423 J
0.0499 J
0.000500 U
0.00934 J
32.8
07/13/22
7.12
NA
NA
16.43
957
6.56
51
12.8
0.00200U
0.00541U
0.21 UJ
0.000500 U
0.0205 U
33.1
MW12-03B
02/14/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.38
0.0003
0.07
57.6
05/29/13
6.64
NA
NA
18.6
887
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.027
8.07
0.0045
0.10
55.4
05/21/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.486
146
0.0415
1.07
43.8
08/20/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.012
1.00
0.0022
0.14
43.9
06/01/15
6.92
NA
NA
14.8
706
12.2
291
47.0
0.002 U
0.023
7.35
0.0026
0.03
44.8
06/01/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.006 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
08/25/15
6.84
NA
NA
18.2
778
4.89
302
NA
0.002 U
0.045
4.65
0.0029
0.02 J+
51.9
08/25/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.012 (D)
0.24 (D)
0.0015 (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
05/24/16
6.88
NA
NA
15.8
645
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.026
8.63
0.0049
0.05
50.2
05/24/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.007 (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
08/22/16
6.94
NA
NA
16.4
885
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.010
0.786
0.000670
0.011
54.9
08/22/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U (D)
0.0065 (D)
0.050 U(D)
0.000100 U (D)
0.010 U (D)
NA
05/24/17
7.68
NA
NA
16.04
845
9.87
278
149
0.0020 U
0.0122
3.06
0.00219
0.0247
48.3
08/08/17
6.82
NA
NA
17.6
598
5.75
210
73.1
0.0020 U
0.0094
0.811
0.000537
0.0100 u
35.3
05/24/18
7.38
NA
NA
18.1
350
8.33
216
159
0.0020 U
0.0090
1.06
0.000920
0.0100 u
33.5
08/13/18
6.73
NA
NA
18.18
868
4.95
252
131
0.0040 U
0.0125
0.738
0.000539
0.0200 U
69.6
06/12/19
5.99
NA
NA
15.33
557
4.98
271
267
0.0020 U
0.0157
4.26
0.00313
0.0279
34.1
09/24/19
6.82
NA
NA
16.33
860
3.88
276
83
0.0020 U
0.0133
1.17
0.000825
0.0243 J
47.6
06/15/20
7.02
NA
NA
14.62
705
5.99
356
54.9
0.0020 U
0.0057
0.549
0.000351
0.0100 u
20.6
08/26/20
7.21
NA
NA
17.35
909
6.17
261
94.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/02/21
6.50
NA
NA
18.07
743
6.43
23
25.2
0.00200U
0.00713 J
0.113
0.000828 J
0.0135 J
36.9
09/20/21
6.93
NA
NA
17.66
279
4.72
62
82.7
0.002 U
0.00816 J
0.204
0.00107 J
0.0267
35.9
04/19/22
6.83
NA
NA
16.92
794
5.54
59
47.0
0.00200 UJ
0.0132 J
1.22
0.00106 J
0.0140 J
24.9
07/13/22
7.22
NA
NA
19.75
953
5.75
51
182.0
0.00200U
0.0484
7.91 J
0.00513
0.0434 U
76.5
Table 7b
Page 31 of 32
-------
Table 7b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Monitoring and Interceptor Wells - November 2001 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)b
TSS
Temperature
Conductivity
Oxygen
ORP
Turbidity
pH
pH
(mg/L)
(°C)
(uS/cm)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levela - On-Facility
< 5.0
<5.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
10
0.015
5.0
500
Screening Levela - Off-Facility
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5.0
400
EXT13-01
08/29/13
6.66
NA
NA
14.4
747
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.015 J
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.58
42.4
11/11/13
6.89
NA
NA
12.3
747
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.006
0.13 J
0.0001 U
0.55
33.8
02/12/14
6.52
NA
NA
12.1
686
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.53
36.7
05/05/14
6.70
NA
NA
13.2
723
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.50
34.8
07/30/14
6.81
NA
NA
13.8
726
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.53
30.7
05/26/15
6.94
NA
NA
12.6
690
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.42
23.5
MW13-02
06/01/15
6.91
NA
NA
14.8
592
7.44
313
0
0.002 U
0.005 U
1.89
0.0008
0.03
27.2
06/01/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.02 (D)
NA
08/25/15
7.02
NA
NA
15.9
586
1.96
195
NA
0.002 U
0.007
0.62
0.0006
0.02 J+
NA
08/25/15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.0001 U (D)
0.02 J+ (D)
NA
08/22/16
7.37
NA
NA
17.5
654
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
1.36
0.00103
0.025
31.3
08/22/16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U (D)
0.005 U (D)
0.05 U (D)
0.000100 U (D)
0.01 U (D)
NA
a Note MCLs for site chemicals of concern are equal to the MCLs designated In Record of Decision (ROD) ,1990 with the exceptions of chromium and lead. For chromium and lead the lower screening level between the ROD and the current EPA MCLs is shown. The
screening level for zinc is the EPA secondary MCL. Iron, sulfate, and pH screening levels are site-specific screening levels agreed to with the State of Nebraska (letter to State of Nebraska to Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC, dated 12/14/00) and are dependent upon well
location (on-facillty or off-facility).
Metals are total unless a (D) designator is beside the result. The (D) indicates metals were filtered and represent the dissolved fraction.
Notes:
Bold font indicates result reported as detected.
Result reported is above or equal to the screening level.
Result reported is an anomolous result.
BTOC - below top of casing MCL - maximum contaminant level uS/cm - microsiemen per centimeter
°C - degree Celsius mg/L - milligram per liter U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the reported sample quantitation limit.
DUP - field duplicate NA - not analyzed UJ - The analyte was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is approximate
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NE - not established and may or may not rePresent the actual Hmit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
J - estimated value ORP - oxidation reduction potential
J+ - estimated value, biased high TSS - total suspended solids
Table 7b
Page 32 of 32
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Beller Domestic (BFF)
11/02
2.2
1.3
1.0 U
1.0U
2.8
1.0U
1.2
7.5
NA
2/03
2.3
1.4
1.0 U
1.0U
3.0
1.0U
9.3
16
NA
8/03
2.0
1.4
1.0 U
1.0U
2.3
1.0U
6.8
13
NA
11/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
3.9
3.9
NA
2/04
1.0
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 u
1.2
1.0 u
4.9 J
2.2
NA
5/04
1.5
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 u
' ••• 6.7' • • v
8.2
NA
8/04
0.7
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.9
0.2 U
3.5
5.5
NA
9/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0 UJ
11/07/04
0.6
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.2 U
3.1
4.3
2.0 UJ
02/20/05
0.9
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8 J
0.2 U
4.2
4.7
5.0 U
05/01/05
1.0
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.1
0.2 U
4.3
7.0
'-jar'".
07/31/05
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
1.2
1.8
5.0 U
11/06/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.8
1.1
4.0 U
01/29/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.8
1.0
4.0 U
01/29/06 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.7
1.0
NA
05/07/06
0.3
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
1.0
1.8
2 U
05/07/06 (DUP)
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
1.0
1.5
NA
08/19/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/10/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2
2.0 U
04/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2
2.0 U
08/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/28/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/11/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/13/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/23/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2
2.0 U
08/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/27/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/18/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2
2.0 U
08/16/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/31/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/09/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.3
2.0 U
05/15/11
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.6
2.0 U
07/27/11
0.3
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.5
1.2
2.0 U
10/26/11
0.4
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
1.6
2.0 U
01/31/12
0.5
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
1.1
2.4
2.0 U
01/31/12 (DUP)
0.5
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
1.1
2.4
NA
05/30/12
0.8
0.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
2.0
4.2
NA
06/05/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' '• '• '• 1,1' '• '•
08/13/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.55
0.55
0.4 U
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.84
0.84
0.4 U
11/26/12 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.87
0.87
NA
12/19/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
Table 8a
Page 1 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Beller Domestic (BFF)
01/23/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
continued
02/11/13
0.34
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.5
1.8
0.4 U
02/11/13 (DUP)
0.31
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.5
1.8
NA
03/18/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
04/30/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
05/29/13
0.39
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.6
2.0
0.4 U
05/29/13 (DUP)
0.34
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.3
1.6
NA
06/26/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
07/24/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/28/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.21
0.4 U
08/28/13 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.21
NA
09/12/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
10/30/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/20/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/20/13 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/16/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
01/27/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
02/12/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/12/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/13/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
04/24/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
05/29/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
06/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
06/24/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
07/10/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/28/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/25/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
10/27/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/24/14 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
01/28/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
01/28/15 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
06/03/15 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/24/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/24/15 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/04/15 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/17/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/17/16 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/25/16 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/10/16 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/10/16 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
Table 8a
Page 2 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Beller Domestic (BFF)
02/07/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
continued
02/07/17 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
04/26/17 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/17 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
10/30/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
10/30/17 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/21/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/21/18 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
04/30/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
4/30/18 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/18 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/12/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/12/18 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/13/19 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/14/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/14/19 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
09/04/19
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
09/04/19 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
11/20/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
11/20/19 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/24/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/24/20 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
06/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
06/04/20 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
08/12/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
08/12/20 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
12/02/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
12/02/20 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/23/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/23/21 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100 U
05/26/21 (DUP)
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100 U
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1 U
9/14/21 (DUP)
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1 U
11/03/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 UJ
0.333 UJ
0.333 U
ND
0.100 UJ
11/03/21 (DUP)
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100 u
2/17/22 (DUP)
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100 u
04/19/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
04/19/2022 (DUP)
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
07/13/2022 (DUP)
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
12/06/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.0400 U
12/6/2022 (DUP)
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.0400 U
Table 8a
Page 3 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Beller Domestic (AFF)
08/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
ND
NA
11/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
ND
NA
2/04
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
2.2
2.2
NA
4/04
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0 UJ
1.0 u
1.6
1.6
NA
5/04
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 u
1.2
1.2
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.3
NA
9/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0 UJ
11/07/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
0.4
NA
02/20/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.5
0.5
NA
05/01/05
0.3
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
1.3
2.1
NA
07/31/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/06/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.3
NA
01/29/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/07/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/19/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/10/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/28/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/13/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/23/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/27/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/18/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/16/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/09/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/27/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/26/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/31/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/30/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
' '• '• '• 1,0'; '•
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
12/19/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
01/23/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
02/11/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
' '• '• '• 16 '•
08/28/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/20/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
Table 8a
Page 4 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Beller Domestic (AFF)
02/12/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
continued
06/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
01/28/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
06/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/24/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/17/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/07/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
10/30/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/21/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
04/30/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/12/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/14/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
09/04/19
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
11/20/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/24/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
06/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
08/12/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
12/02/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/23/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100 U
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1 U
11/03/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
04/19/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.106 J
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
12/06/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.0400 U
Table 8a
Page 5 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Beller Domestic (ALF)
09/02
1.4
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.8
1.0U
4.2
7.4
NA
11/02
1.8
1.0
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
• • • • t.o: : • •
14
NA
8/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
11/03
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
2/04
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
ND
NA
5/04
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
9/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0 UJ
11/07/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
3.0 UJ
02/20/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
5.0 U
05/01/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
5.0 U
11/06/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
4.0 U
1/29 - 1/30/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
4.0 U
05/07/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/19/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/10/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
04/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/28/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/11/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/13/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/23/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/27/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/18/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 UJ
08/16/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/31/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/09/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/15/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
07/27/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/26/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
01/31/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/30/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
12/19/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
Table 8a
Page 6 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Beller Domestic (ALF)
01/23/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
continued
02/11/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
03/18/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
04/30/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
06/26/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
07/24/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/28/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
09/12/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
10/30/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
11/20/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
12/16/13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
01/27/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
02/12/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
03/13/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
04/24/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
05/29/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
06/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
07/10/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
09/25/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
10/27/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
11/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
01/28/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
06/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/24/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/17/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/25/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/10/16
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
ND
0.4 U
02/07/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
10/30/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/21/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
04/30/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/12/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/14/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
09/04/19
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
11/20/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/24/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
06/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
08/12/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
12/02/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/23/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100 U
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1 U
11/03/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
04/19/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
07/13/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
12/06/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.0400 U
Table 8a
Page 7 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
I otal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels 3
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Beller Old Stock
09/02
21
6.9
1.0U
LOU
29
LOU
65
122
NA
11/02
20
7.8
LOU
LOU
30
LOU
86
144
NA
Beller New Stock (G122015)
08/03
33
15
LOU
LOU
47
1.3
130
226
NA
8/04
20
8.8
LOU
LOU
23
LOU
53
105
NA
11/08/04
38
16
1.5
LOU
31
1.5
120
208
NA
02/22/05
32
13
1.4
LOU
36
1.2
110
194
16
05/01/05
23
9.3
1.2
LOU
33
LOU
75
142
9.4
07/31/05
38
14
2.0
LOU
30
1.4
120
205
NA
11/06/05
26
11
1.7
LOU
27
1.1
82
149
NA
01/29/06
38
15
2.5
LOU
42
1.4
110
209
23
05/07/06
25
10
1.8
LOU
23
1.0
80
141
17
08/19/06
11
5.8
1.1
LOU
12
LOU
28
58
8.3
11/05/06
4.5
2.3
0.6 U
0.6 U
4.8
0.6 U
14
26
9.1
02/10/07
7.3
3.9
1.0
0.6 U
9.3
0.6 U
22
44
5.6
04/29/07
22
11
2.1
0.6 U
21
0.8
54
111
12
08/12/07
5.0
2.5
0.4
0.2U
4.6
0.2
16
29
4.0
10/28/07
6.5
3.0
LOU
LOU
4.8
LOU
18
32
5.5
02/03/08
8.1
3.7
0.8
0.2U
8.0
0.3
19
40
5.0
05/11/08
13
5.8
1.3
0.2 U
13
0.5
30
64
6.2
08/03/08
11
5.0
1.1
0.2 U
11
0.4
28
57
5.7
11/16/08
4.1
2.1
0.4
0.2 U
4.2
0.2 U
11
22
2.6
02/23/09
5.2
2.8
0.7
0.2 U
6.3
0.2
12
27
4.3
05/07/09
12
5.3
1.1
0.2 U
12
0.4
28
59
7.8
08/11/09
2.2
1.2
0.2
0.2 U
2.0
0.2 U
7.2
13
2.4
10/27/09
2.4
1.4
0.3
0.2 U
2.6
0.2 U
6.8
14
2.0 U
02/02/10
6.8
3.4
0.8
0.2 U
7.2
0.2
14
32
3.3
02/02/10 (DUP)
6.6
3.3
0.8
0.2 U
7.2
0.3
14
32
NA
05/18/10
7.0
3.2
0.7
0.2 U
6.6
0.3
16
34
5.6
08/16/10
4.0
0.2U
0.4
0.2U
3.7
0.2U
8.6
17
2.7
10/31/10
4.7
2.2
0.5
0.2U
4.4
0.2U
9.6
21
3.5
02/14/11
5.8
2.4
0.6
0.2U
5.2
0.2U
10
24
2.0 U
05/31/11
5.5
2.0
0.5
0.2U
4.7
0.2U
11
24
2.5
07/24/11
8.8
2.9
0.6
0.2U
6.5
0.2
15
34
2.9
10/26/11
2.5
1.2
0.4
0.2 U
2.8
0.2U
4.8
12
2.0 U
01/31/12
2.9
1.2
0.3
0.2 U
2.6
0.2U
4.5
12
2.0 U
06/05/12
2.6
1.1
0.3
0.2 U
2.9
0.2U
6.2
13
1.7
08/16/12
1.8
1.4
0.35
0.20 U
1.7
0.20 U
5.8
11
1.7
11/28/12
1.9
1.3
0.33
0.20 U
1.4
0.20 U
7.0
12
1.9
Table 8a
Page 8 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
lotal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
BellerNew Stock (G122015)
06/11/13
2.4
1.3
0.35
0.20 U
1.9
0.26
9.5
16
' • • • 1.7 ' • •
continued
08/29/13
0.98
0.71
0.24
0.20 U
0.70
0.20 U
3.8
6.4
U •
11/20/13
0.97
0.62
0.20
0.20 U
0.60
0.20 U
3.3
5.7
0.4 U
03/13/14
1.2
0.72
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.72
0.20 U
4.3
6.9
NA
06/24/14
1.4
0.64
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.78
0.20 U
4.1
6.9
NA
11/24/14
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.94
1.2
NA
01/28/15
0.38
0.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.20 U
1.3
2.2
NA
06/03/15
0.83
0.42
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.43
0.20 U
2.7
4.38
' • • • ••0.7' '• '• '•
08/24/15
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.23 J
0.23
0.4 U
11/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.31
0.31
NA
02/17/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.51
0.51
NA
05/25/16
0.40
0.23
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.2
1.8
0.4
08/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/07/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.27
0.27
NA
04/26/17
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.74
0.96
0.4 U
08/09/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/30/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/21/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.28
NA
04/30/18
0.26
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.62
0.88
0.4 U
08/09/18
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.53
0.75
0.4 U
11/12/18
0.40
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.95
1.35
NA
02/13/19
0.85
0.31
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.42
0.20 U
2.14
3.72
NA
05/14/19
0.99
0.31
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.40
0.20 U
2.32
4.02
• • • • 0,6': • •
09/04/19
0.39
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.92
1.31
0.3
11/20/19
0.93
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.44
0.20 U
1.77
3.43
NA
03/24/20
0.75
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.38
0.20 U
1.22
2.35
NA
06/04/20
0.74
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.39
0.20 U
1.16
2.29
0.3
08/12/20
0.34
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.70
1.04
0.3
12/02/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.31
0.31
NA
03/23/21
0.65
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.29
0.20 U
1.35
2.51
NA
05/26/21
0.890 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.340 J
1.52
0.333 U
2.75
0.461
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1U
11/03/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.550 J
0.55
NA
04/19/22
0.420 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.840 J
1.26
0.407
07/13/22
0.350 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.35
0.100U
12/06/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Beller East Irrigation (#67535)
08/03
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
1/04
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0 U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/22/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/23/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 8a
Page 9 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
I otal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels 3
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Beller Irrigation (#54278) Retro to Stock Well
8/03
1.0U
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
ND
NA
8/04
0.3
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.3
NA
11/08/04
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
02/20/05
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
05/01/05
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
07/31/05
0.7
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.3
1.0
NA
11/06/05
0.4
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.4
0.8
NA
01/29/06
0.4
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.3
0.7
NA
05/07/06
0.3
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2
0.5
NA
08/19/06
1.1
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.9
2.4
NA
11/05/06
0.7
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.6
1.5
NA
02/10/07
0.4
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.4
0.8
NA
04/29/07
0.4
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.3
0.7
NA
08/12/07
1.1
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.9
2.4
NA
10/28/07
0.8
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.6 J
1.4
NA
02/03/08
0.5
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.4
0.9
NA
05/11/08
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2
NA
08/06/08
0.4
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.4
0.8
NA
11/17/08
0.5
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.3
0.8
NA
02/18/09
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
05/06/09
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/11/09
0.2
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2
0.4
NA
10/28/09
0.2
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2
0.4
NA
02/02/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
05/18/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/16/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
10/31/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/14/11
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/06/11
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/02/11
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
11/14/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
01/31/12
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
05/17/12
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/16/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/15/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/11/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Beller Stock Tank Pen #6
11/08/04
29
14
1.4
LOU
27
1.3
120
193
NA
02/20/05
25
11
1.5
LOU
29
1.0
88
156
14
Beller Stock Tank Pen #7
11/08/04
31
15
1.4
LOU
27
1.3
110
186
NA
02/20/05
22
10
1.4
LOU
26
0.9 J
76
136
15
Table 8a
Page 10 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Preister's Domestic 2003 (BFF)
8/03
2.4
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
4.7
1.0U
3.3
10
NA
11/03
1.4
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
2.6
1.0U
1.5
5.5
NA
2/04
1.1
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.6
1.0U
1.3
4.0
NA
5/04
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.6
1.6
NA
8/04
1.0
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.8
0.2 U
1.4
4.7
NA
9/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-"•'•'•14 J'.'"-
11/07/04
0.6
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
0.9
2.3
2.5 UJ
02/20/05
0.6
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8 J
0.2 U
0.8
1.2
5.0 U
02/20/05 (DUP)
0.7
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.2 U
0.8
2.0
NA
05/01/05
0.6
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.9
0.2 U
0.8
2.7
1 7 J
05/01/05 (DUP)
0.6
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.2 U
0.8
2.6
NA
08/01/05
0.3
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
0.4
1.7
5.0 U
08/01/05 (DUP)
0.3
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
0.4
1.6
5.0 U
11/06/05
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.6
4.0 U
01/29/06
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2
0.9
4.0 U
05/07/06
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
2.0 U
08/19/06
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
2.0 U
08/19/06 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
2.0 U
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
2.0 U
11/05/06 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
NA
02/10/07
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
2.0 U
02/10/07 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
NA
04/29/07
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
2.0 U
04/29/07 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
NA
08/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/12/07 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/28/07
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
2.0 U
10/28/07 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
NA
02/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/03/08 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/11/08 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/03/08 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/14/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/14/08 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/23/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/23/09 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/11/09 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/12/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/12/09 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/27/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/27/09 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Table 8a
Page 11 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Preister's Domestic 2003 (BFF)
02/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
continued
02/02/10 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/18/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/18/10 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/16/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/16/10 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/31/10 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/09/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/09/11 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/15/11 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
07/27/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
07/27/11 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/27/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/27/11 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/30/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
01/30/12 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/30/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/30/12 (DUP)
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/05/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/14/12 (DUP)
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/11/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/28/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/20/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/12/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
06/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
01/28/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
06/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 UJ
08/24/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/17/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/25/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/07/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
10/30/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
Table 8a
Page 12 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
lotal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Preister's Domestic 2003 (BFF)
02/21/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
continued
04/30/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/12/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/14/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
09/04/19
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
11/20/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/24/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
06/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
08/12/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
12/02/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/23/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100 U
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1U
11/03/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100U
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100 U
Table 8a
Page 13 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Preister's Domestic 2003 (AFF)
8/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
ND
NA
11/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
ND
NA
2/04
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
5/04
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
9/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0 UJ
11/07/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/20/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/01/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/06/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/29/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/07/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/19/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/10/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/28/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/14/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/23/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/12/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/27/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/18/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/16/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/09/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/15/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/27/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/27/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/30/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/30/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/28/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/20/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 8a
Page 14 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
lotal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Preister's Domestic 2003 (AFF)
01/28/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
continued
06/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/24/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/17/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/07/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/09/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/30/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/21/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/30/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/09/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/14/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/04/19
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/20/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/24/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/12/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/02/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/23/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
11/03/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Table 8a
Page 15 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Total Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Preister's Domestic 2003 (ALF)
08/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
ND
NA
11/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
ND
NA
02/01/04
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
05/01/04
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
ND
NA
08/01/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
09/01/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0 UJ
11/07/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
1.0 UJ
02/20/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
5.0 U
05/01/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
5.0 U
11/06/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
4.0 U
1/29 - 1/30/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
4.0 U
05/07/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/19/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/10/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
04/29/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/28/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/11/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/14/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/23/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/12/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/27/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/18/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/16/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/31/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/09/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/15/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
07/27/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/27/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
01/30/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/30/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/11/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/28/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/20/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/12/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 8a
Page 16 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
lotal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Preister's Domestic 2003 (ALF)
01/28/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
continued
06/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/24/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/17/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/25/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/07/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/09/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
10/30/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/21/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
04/30/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/09/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/12/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
02/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/14/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
09/04/19
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/20/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/24/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
06/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
08/12/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
12/02/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
03/23/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
11/03/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
02/17/22
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
NA
Preister's Stock
10/02
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
08/03
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
NA
07/31/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Preister's Old Irrigation
02/03
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.6
1.0 U
3.4
5.0
NA
08/03
1.3
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
2.0
1.0 U
' • • • 5.4 '• '•
8.7
NA
8/04
0.5
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8
0.2 U
2.5
4.2
NA
OldMoravec Domestic
10/02
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
12/02
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
08/03
1.0U
1.0 u
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/20/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 J
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
NA
11/07/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/21/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/30/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Doug Beller Domestic
10/02
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
Table 8a
Page 17 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
I otal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels 3
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Weylan Neal Irrigation (G31798)
08/03
21
1.5
LOU
LOU
40
LOU
18
81
NA
4/04
14
LOU
LOU
LOU
20 J
LOU
14
48
NA
8/04
23
1.6
LOU
LOU
36
LOU
20
81
NA
11/09/04
27
1.7
LOU
LOU
34
LOU
22
85
NA
08/02/05
24
1.6
0.7
0.6 U
43
0.6 U
23
92
NA
11/27/07 by EPA
16
LOU
LOU
LOU
17 J
LOU
13
46
NA
08/03/08
6.5
0.4
0.2U
0.2 U
8.2
0.2 U
4.3
11
NA
Anthony Klassen Irrigation (G33172)
08/03
1.0U
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
ND
NA
4/04
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
1.0 UJ
LOU
LOU
ND
NA
8/04
0.6
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
0.5
2.1
NA
11/09/04
0.6
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
1.1
0.2 U
0.7
1.8
NA
08/01/05
0.7
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
1.2
0.2 U
0.7
2.6
NA
John Klassen Irrigation (G56241)
08/03
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
ND
NA
4/04
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
1.0 UJ
LOU
LOU
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
ND
NA
11/09/04
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
07/31/05
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/20/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
Jim Klassen Domestic
8/03
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
ND
NA
08/02/05
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
11/08/05
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
01/31/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
05/09/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/20/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
11/07/06
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
02/21/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 UJ
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
04/30/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/14/07
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/07
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/05/08
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
05/13/08
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/03/08
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
11/16/08
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
02/23/09
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
05/11/09
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/11/09
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
10/28/09
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
02/03/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
05/19/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
08/16/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
11/02/10
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/14/11
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
0.2 U
0.2U
ND
NA
Table 8a
Page 18 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
lotal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Jim Klassen Domestic
02/01/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
continued
05/24/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/21/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Jim Klassen Irrigation
8/03
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
08/01/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/20/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/20/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/01/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/16/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Klassen Southeast Irrigation
08/08/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Ron Pfeifer Domestic
10/02
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
2/03
1.0U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
ND
NA
08/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/03/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/31/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/09/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/20/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/07/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/21/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/30/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/14/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/13/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/16/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/23/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/27/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/03/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/19/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/01/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/24/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/21/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 8a
Page 19 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
lotal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Ron Pfeifer Irrigation (G68239)
08/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/05/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/03/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/20/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/07/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/01/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Ben Pfeifer Domestic
2/03
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
Richard Wagner Irrigation
8/03
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/05/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/01/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Martischang Irrigation
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/10/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Tom Jarecki Domestic
08/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/02/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/31/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/09/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/20/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/07/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/21/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/30/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/13/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/16/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/23/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/27/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/03/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/19/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/16/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Table 8a
Page 20 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
lotal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Tom Jarecki Domestic
02/01/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
continued
05/24/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/21/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Ed Luetkenhaus Domestic
2/03
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
Dave Chohon Domestic
08/03
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/31/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/21/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/30/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/13/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/16/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/23/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/27/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/03/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/19/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/16/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Dave Chohon Domestic
02/01/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
continued
05/24/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/21/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Table 8a
Page 21 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
lotal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Lester Kopecky Domestic
08/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
ND
NA
8/04
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/02/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/20/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/30/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/13/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/16/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/23/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/27/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/03/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/19/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/16/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/01/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/24/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/21/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Tom Mefstrik Domestic
8/03
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0 U
1.0U
1.0U
ND
NA
08/02/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/08/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
01/31/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/09/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/20/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/07/06
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/21/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 UJ
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
04/30/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/13/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/31/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/05/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/13/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/16/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
Table 8a
Page 22 of 23
-------
Table 8a
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds and 1,4-Dioxane Results for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - September 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
lotal Volatile
Well Identification
Date Collected
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Tom Mefstrik Domestic
02/24/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
continued
05/12/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/28/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/03/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/19/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/16/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
11/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/14/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/31/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
07/28/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
10/25/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
02/01/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
05/24/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
08/21/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
NA
Artesian Klassen Well East
01/31/05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0 U
Artesian Klassen Well West
01/31/05
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
5.0 U
Old City Well
08/08/05
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
NA
3 Screening levels for volatile organic compounds are based on EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as of 12/8/2016 (no change in 2022). The screening level for 1,4-dioxane is based on the May 2020 EPA Regional Screening Level
(RSL) for tap water.
bThe EPA MCL presented for 1,2-DCE is the sum of the individual EPA MCLs for the cis-l,2-DCE (70 ug'L) and trans- 1,2-DCE (100 ug'L) isomers. If MCL exceeded, the isomer above MCL is shown in ().
Notes:
r>»l
-------
Table 8b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - November 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Water
Conductivity
PH
PH
Temperature (°C)
(uS/cm)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levels a
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5
400
Beller Domestic (BFF)
11/02
6.69
NA
14.8
906
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/03
6.69
NA
13.4
746
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/03
6.67
6.97 J
14.8
802
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.007
39
11/03
6.77
NA
13.1
780
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/04
6.49
6.81 J
7.7
785
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.018 J
46
5/04
6.75
7.01 J
12.8
761
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.007
41.3 J
8/04
6.87
6.89
12.9
824
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.007
39
11/07/04
6.62
6.95 J
17.3
741
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.007
42.8
02/20/05
6.78
6.93 J
12.5
828
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.007
41.2
05/01/05
6.68
7.12 J
12.0
729
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.006 U
42.6
07/31/05
6.85
6.98 J
13.6
873
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.008
36.1
11/06/05
6.83
6.90 J
12.6
833
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.011
38.9
01/29/06
6.84
6.91 J
12.2
747
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.006 U
37.3
05/07/06
6.86
7.04 J
12.3
878
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.012
35.5
08/19/06
6.87
7.02 J
13.6
901
0.002 U
0.012
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.505
120
11/05/06
6.74
6.78 J
12.4
772
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.020
0.036 J+
36.0
02/10/07
7.24
6.89 J
11.8
825
0.002 U
0.006
0.050 U
0.002
0.009 J+
41.3
04/29/07
6.80
7.13 J
12.5
873
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.002 U
0.01
39.5
08/12/07
6.93
6.88 J
13.5
986
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
39.1
10/28/07
6.79
6.78 J
13.1
708
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
39.9
02/03/08
6.63
7.05 J
12.5
826
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
39.7
05/11/08
6.46
6.89 J
12.0
656
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.01 u
38.8
08/03/08
6.92
7.14 J
13.4
981
0.002 U
0.008
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
38.8
11/13/08
6.63
7.08
14.7
790
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.002 U
0.02
37.8
02/23/09
6.49
7.04 J
12.1
717
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
38.3
05/11/09
6.75
6.92 J
12.8
877
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01
39.6
08/11/09
6.90
7.06
13.7
889
0.002 U
0.009
0.05 U
0.001
0.01 u
39.1
10/27/09
6.90
6.83
14.9
858
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
44.5
02/02/10
6.88
6.98
12.5
817
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
39.6
05/18/10
6.91
6.84 J
12.8
828
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
44.6
08/16/10
7.07
NA
13.9
851
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
40.1
10/31/10
6.78
NA
12.7
724
0.002 U
0.005
0.68
0.001 u
0.01 u
39.6
02/09/11
6.94
NA
12.2
791
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
36.9
05/15/11
6.80
NA
12.6
782
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0002
0.01 u
30
07/27/11
6.63
NA
14.3
849
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0002
0.01
37.5
10/26/11
6.66
NA
13.0
856
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0002
0.01 u
39.4
01/31/12
6.67
NA
12.8
669
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
43.3
05/30/12
7.05
NA
13.1
771
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/05/12
6.90
NA
13.0
785
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001
0.01 u
39.7
08/13/12
7.05
NA
13.2
762
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
28.8
11/26/12
6.93
NA
12.4
795
0.002 U
0.007
0.05 U
0.0002
0.01 u
36.6
02/11/13
7.12
NA
12.8
845
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.0008
0.01 u
40.3
04/30/13
6.79
NA
12.4
808
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/29/13
6.70
NA
12.9
865
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
34.1
06/26/13
6.81
NA
13.3
876
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 8b
Page 1 of 8
-------
Table 8b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - November 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Water
Conductivity
PH
PH
Temperature (°C)
(uS/cm)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levels a
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5
400
Beller Domestic (BFF)
07/24/13
6.79
NA
12.9
864
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
continued
08/28/13
6.75
NA
13.0
803
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.0001
0.01 u
32.6
09/12/13
6.76
NA
12.9
790
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/30/13
7.01
NA
12.6
788
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/20/13
6.95
NA
12.6
749
0.002 U
0.006
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
28.7
12/16/13
6.89
NA
13.0
705
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
01/27/14
6.95
NA
12.2
826
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/12/14
7.01
NA
11.9
632
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
28.3
05/29/14
6.73
NA
13.0
639
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/24/14
7.05
NA
12.9
646
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
23.3
08/28/14
6.75
NA
13.4
634
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
30.0
10/27/14
6.99
NA
13.1
605
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/24/14
6.74
NA
13.1
637
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
28.5
01/28/15
6.80
NA
12.1
618
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001
0.01 u
30.0
06/03/15
7.10
NA
12.8
609
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
27.2
06/03/15 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
27.2
08/24/15
7.22
NA
13.9
606
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001
0.01 u
27.5
08/24/15 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001
0.01 u
27.7
02/17/16
7.15
NA
12.4
644
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
28.0
05/25/16
7.22
NA
13.0
784
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
27.1
05/25/16 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
27.1
08/10/16
7.15
NA
13.9
658
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.050 U
0.000100 u
0.010U
26.8
08/10/16 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.050 U
0.000100 u
0.010U
26.7
11/10/16
7.19
NA
12.6
733
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
28.0
11/10/16 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
28.0
02/07/17
7.12
NA
13.5
776
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
29.6
02/07/17 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
29.9
04/26/17
7.21
NA
12.3
1,836
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000151
0.0100 u
30.2
04/26/17 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000155
0.0100 u
29.9
08/09/17
7.21
NA
12.9
793
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
26.9
08/09/17 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
27.0
10/30/17
7.34
NA
12.4
784
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
30.4
10/30/17 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0063
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
30.9
02/21/18
7.03
NA
12.2
809.6
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
29.1
02/21/18 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
28.7
04/30/18
7.09
NA
12.6
804
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000107
0.0100 u
29.1
04/30/2018 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000112
0.0100 u
28.1
08/09/18
7.14
NA
13.5
895.3
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000200 U
0.0100 u
28.3
08/09/18 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0062
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
28.3
11/12/18
7.14
NA
12.4
864.8
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
31.3
11/12/18 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
31.5
02/13/19
7.14
NA
11.9
848.2
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
33.8
02/13/19 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
33.6
05/14/19
7.16
NA
12.3
832.8
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
34.6 J
05/14/19 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
35.2 J
09/04/19
7.39
NA
12.9
870.1
0.0020 U
0.0052
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
27.0
09/04/19 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
27.0
11/20/19
7.23
NA
12.5
876.5
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
29.8
11/20/19 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
32.3
Table 8b
Page 2 of 8
-------
Table 8b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - November 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Water
Conductivity
PH
PH
Temperature (°C)
(uS/cm)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levels a
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5
400
Beller Domestic (BFF)
03/24/20
7.20
NA
12.10
905.00
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 U
0.0100 U
28.1
continued
03/24/20 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
27.9
06/04/20
7.15
NA
12.20
902.20
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
25.0
06/04/20 (DUP
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
25.0
08/12/20
7.16
NA
12.70
879.30
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
27.4
08/12/20 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
27.4
12/02/20
7.10
NA
12.20
865.20
0.0020 U
0.0090 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0200 U
20.4
12/02/20 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0090 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0200 U
20.5
03/23/21
7.11
NA
12.00
864.00
0.0020 U
0.0090 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0200 U
27.5
03/23/21 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0020 U
0.0090 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0200 U
24.9
05/26/21
7.56
NA
13.78
788.00
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.00690 J
31.7 J
05/26/21 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.00620 J
31.7
09/14/21
7.34
NA
12.80
794.00
0.002 U
0.00138 J
0.06 U
0.0005 U
0.00998 J
32.8
9/14/2021 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.00139 J
0.06 U
0.0005 U
0.00417 J
32.5
11/03/21
7.35
NA
12.42
NA
0.002 U
0.0015 J
0.06 U
0.0005 U
0.0165 J
33.0 J
11/3/2021 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.002 U
0.06 U
0.0005 U
0.00977 J
32.5 J
02/17/22
7.74
NA
12.45
NA
0.002 U
0.002 U
0.06 U
0.000500 U
0.00579 J
32.8 J
2/17/22 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.002 U
0.06 U
0.000500 U
0.005 J
33.3 J
04/19/22
6.9
NA
12.61
819
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.00660 U
32.6 J
04/19/22 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.00660 U
33.1 J
07/13/22
8.1
NA
13.4
NA
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 UJ
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.0186 J
32.9 J
07/13/22 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200 UJ
0.00200 UJ
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.00850 J
33.1 J
12/06/22
7.31
NA
11.6
NA
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.00660 U
32.4
12/06/22 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.00660 U
32.7
Beller Domestic (AFF)
8/03
6.79
NA
13.4
801
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/04
6.57
NA
9.5
798
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/04
6.82
NA
12.3
763
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/04
6.91
NA
12.8
821
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/13/08
7.01
NA
12.5
775
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/09/11
6.91
NA
12.0
806
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Beller Domestic (ALF)
11/02
6.74
NA
14.0
902
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/03
6.87
NA
13.0
800
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/03
6.73
NA
11.1
777
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/04
6.64
NA
10.6
795
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/04
6.83
NA
12.3
764
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/04
7.00
NA
13.2
812
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1/29 - 1/30/06
6.76
NA
11.4
732
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/03/08
6.69
NA
13.4
832
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/03/08
6.72
NA
13.4
977
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/13/08
7.03
NA
12.5
776
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/23/09
6.67
NA
12.1
716
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/11/09
7.23
NA
12.4
866
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/09/11
6.83
NA
12.8
802
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/15/11
6.80
NA
12.4
784
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/29/14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 8b
Page 3 of 8
-------
Table 8b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - November 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
PH
PH
Water
Temperature (°C)
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levels a
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5
400
Beller Old Stock
11/02
6.75
NA
10.9
825
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Beller New Stock (G122015)
8/03
6.67
NA
14.2
720
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/04
6.82
NA
16.6
771
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/08/04
6.91
6.76 J
10.5
863
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.005 U
0.033
69.1
02/22/05
6.70
NA
10.6
682
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/01/05
6.61
6.82 J
10.7
691
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.032
104
07/31/05
6.66
NA
15.1
888
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/06/05
6.71
6.82 J
12.6
818
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.058 U
62.9
01/29/06
6.72
NA
9.5
742
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/07/06
6.60
6.82 J
11.7
857
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.002
0.051
84.4
08/19/06
6.76
NA
14.9
848
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/05/06
6.84
NA
11.4
709
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/10/07
6.80
NA
8.8
761
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
04/29/07
6.62
6.77 J
12.2
821
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.002 U
0.08
73.0
08/12/07
6.86
6.92 J
12.3
919
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.04 U
45.1
10/28/07
6.68
NA
12.1
667
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/03/08
6.61
NA
9.2
820
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/11/08
6.70
NA
11.8
650
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/03/08
6.68
NA
12.9
975
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/16/08
6.87
NA
12.2
906
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/23/09
6.83
NA
9.1
705
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/07/09
7.00
NA
13.0
828
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/11/09
7.09
NA
14.8
916
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/27/09
6.73
NA
14.8
824
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/02/10
6.86
NA
10.9
778
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/18/10
6.67
NA
12.4
780
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/16/10
6.87
NA
14.0
785
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/31/10
6.60
NA
12.6
659
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 8b
Page 4 of 8
-------
Table 8b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - November 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Water
Conductivity
PH
PH
Temperature (°C)
(uS/cm)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levels a
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5
400
Beller New Stock (G122015)
05/31/11
6.48
NA
13.2
592
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
continued
07/24/11
6.59
NA
14.0
664
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/26/11
NA
12.0
641
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0015
0.08
64.3
01/31/12
6.32
NA
11.1
484
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/05/12
6.54
NA
13.0
557
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0004
0.10
53.6
08/16/12
6.89
NA
11.1
747
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.003
0.04
44.1
11/28/12
6.66
NA
11.9
776
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0102
0.23
48.6
06/11/13
6.58
NA
17.5
642
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0009
0.08
50.4
08/29/13
6.66
NA
13.4
784
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/20/13
6.93
NA
12.1
851
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/03/15
7.00
NA
12.8
776
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/24/15
7.08
NA
13.9
693
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/25/16
7.13
NA
12.9
875
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/10/16
7.07
NA
14.0
617
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/10/16
7.21
NA
12.6
713
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/07/17
7.20
NA
9.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
04/26/17
7.16
NA
10.1
883
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/30/17
7.34
NA
11.8
728
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/21/18
7.07
NA
10.2
741.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
04/30/18
7.07
NA
12.9
744
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/09/18
7.23
NA
13.2
910.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/13/19
7.03
NA
10.6
746.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
09/04/19
7.22
NA
12.9
770.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/20/19
7.00
NA
11.8
696.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/04/20
7.24
NA
12.8
620.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/12/20
6.92
NA
13.0
693.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12/02/20
7.14
NA
11.7
835.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
03/23/21
7.18
NA
11.2
696.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/26/21
7.19
NA
13.4
655
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
09/14/21
7.30
NA
12.9
661
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/17/22
7.58
NA
11.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
04/19/22
6.88
NA
12.0
0.664
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
07/13/22
8.08
NA
13.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12/06/22
7.25
NA
11.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Beller East Irrigation (#67535)
8/03
6.81
NA
13.9
535
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1/04
6.85
NA
12.3
507
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Beller Irrigation (#54278)
8/03
6.81
NA
13.9
535
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 8b
Page 5 of 8
-------
Table 8b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - November 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
PH
PH
Water
Temperature (°C)
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levels a
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5
400
Preister's Domestic 2003 (BFF)
8/03
6.89
7.10 J
13.2
729
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 U
0.006 U
53
11/03
6.84
7.06 J
11.1
691
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.002
0.047
44
2/04
6.82
6.92 J
10.8
698
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.013
0.010 J
45
5/04
6.93
7.07 J
12.1
682
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.008
52.6
8/04
7.06
7.09
12.0
740
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.006 U
46.2
11/07/04
6.73
7.11 J
13.4
695
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.006 U
43.4
02/20/05
6.96
6.97 J
12.1
719
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.006 U
43.6
05/01/05
6.88
7.18 J
11.2
641
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.014
0.006 U
46.5
08/01/05
6.89
7.05
12.1
770
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.006 U
39.8
08/01/05 (DUP)
6.88
7.13
13.1
807
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.006 U
36.6
11/06/05
6.97
7.11 J
11.4
699
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.006 U
38.9
01/29/06
6.98
7.06 J
11.9
619
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.006 U
36.1
05/07/06
6.92
7.07 J
11.4
748
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.011
36.8
08/19/06
6.95
7.06 J
12.5
754
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.044
104
11/05/06
6.86
6.97 J
11.7
638
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001
0.011 u
33.3
02/10/07
7.00
7.03 J
11.5
679
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.050 U
0.001 u
0.01 J+
39.4
04/29/07
6.93
7.06
11.9
724
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.002 U
0.01 u
37.8
08/12/07
7.03
6.93 J
12.3
835
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
39.2
10/28/07
6.86
6.93 J
12.1
603
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.002
0.01 u
37.6
02/03/08
6.94
7.34 J
14.6
702
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
39.8
05/11/08
6.77
6.99 J
11.7
566
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
37.1
08/03/08
6.90
7.20 J
12.2
856
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
38.2
11/14/08
7.07
7.16
13.7
653
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
35.8
02/23/09
6.87
7.27 J
11.4
607
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
38
05/11/09
7.44
7.03 J
11.6
734
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
39.6
08/12/09
6.92
7.10
12.8
778
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001U
0.01 u
37.0
10/27/09
7.02
7.06
12.7
764
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001U
0.01 u
36.3
02/02/10
7.03
7.09
11.7
663
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
38.3
02/02/10 (DUP)
NA
7.03
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
39.7
05/18/10
6.96
6.99 J
11.8
683
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
39.3
08/16/10
7.14
NA
11.9
726
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
39.5
10/31/10
6.94
NA
11.5
595
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
36.5
10/31/10 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
36.6
02/09/11
6.88
NA
11.9
536
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.01 u
37.6
05/15/11
6.94
NA
12.0
646
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
R
05/15/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
26 J
07/27/11
6.75
NA
13.1
693
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.02
35.5
07/27/11 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
35.5
10/27/11
7.01
NA
11.7
594
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
35.8
01/30/12
6.90
NA
11.7
590
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
37.0
05/30/12
6.98
NA
11.6
628
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/05/12
7.09
NA
12.7
635
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
30.2
08/14/12
7.24
NA
12.0
662
0.002 U
0.005
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
30.0
11/26/12
7.13
NA
11.4
621
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
27.8
02/11/13
7.32
NA
11.5
644
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
27.2
02/11/13 (DUP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
27.6
05/29/13
6.78
NA
11.7
670
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
24.4
08/28/13
6.86
NA
12.1
673
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
31.6
11/20/13
6.94
NA
11.9
702
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
33.3
Table 8b
Page 6 of 8
-------
Table 8b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - November 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
PH
PH
Water
Temperature (°C)
Specific
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levels a
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5
400
Preister's Domestic 2003 (BFF)
02/12/14
7.08
NA
11.5
637
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 U
0.01 u
33.6
continued
06/24/14
7.15
NA
12.4
698
0.002 U
0.005 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.0001 U
0.01 UJ
33.3
08/28/14
6.76
NA
12.5
736
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
36.6
11/24/14
6.84
NA
11.4
781
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
34.6
01/28/15
6.85
NA
12.0
712
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
36.5
06/03/15
7.12
NA
11.7
713
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
35.2
08/24/15
7.20
NA
12.7
707
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
37.0
02/17/16
7.14
NA
11.8
732
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
37.0
05/25/16
7.20
NA
12.2
899
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.0001 u
0.01 u
36.2
08/10/16
7.15
NA
12.5
722
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.050 U
0.000100 u
0.010U
36.6
11/10/16
7.22
NA
12.0
790
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
37.6
02/07/17
7.19
NA
13.1
828
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
39.6
04/26/17
7.26
NA
11.6
923
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
37.2
08/09/17
7.17
NA
12.0
882
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
36.0
10/30/17
7.35
NA
11.7
818
0.0020 U
0.0074
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
36.2
02/21/18
7.19
NA
11.4
800
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
36.0
04/30/18
7.09
NA
12.0
805
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000138
0.0100 u
35.5
08/09/18
7.18
NA
12.5
819.2
0.0020 U
0.0052
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
33.9
11/12/18
7.09
NA
11.6
866.7
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
37.5
02/13/19
7.10
NA
11.7
848.8
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
40.7
05/14/19
7.11
NA
12.0
819.6
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0502
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
45.3
09/04/19
7.23
NA
11.7
844.1
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
34.5
11/20/19
7.21
NA
11.4
845.1
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
39.4
03/24/20
11.30
NA
7.2
865.0
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
38.0
06/04/20
7.11
NA
11.4
860.8
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
32.3
08/12/20
7.09
NA
11.5
850.0
0.0020 U
0.0050 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0100 u
34.5
12/02/20
7.12
NA
11.5
831.7
0.0020 U
0.0090 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0200 U
24.9
03/23/21
7.19
NA
11.4
821.9
0.0020 U
0.0090 U
0.0500 U
0.000100 u
0.0200 U
32.5
05/26/21
7.58
NA
14.0
747
0.00200 U
0.00200 U
0.0600 U
0.000500 U
0.00543 J
35.4
09/13/21
7.44
NA
12.0
762
0.002 U
0.0028 J
0.06 U
0.0005 U
0.00524 J
34.5
11/03/21
7.43
NA
11.8
NA
0.002 U
0.00221
0.06 U
0.0005 U
0.00941 J
34.6 J
02/17/22
7.59
NA
11.4
NA
0.002 U
0.00219 J
0.06 U
0.000500 U
0.00404 J
34.4 J
Table 8b
Page 7 of 8
-------
Table 8b
Summary of Inorganic Results and Field Measurements for Domestic, Irrigation, and Stock Wells - November 2002 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Specific
Water
Conductivity
PH
PH
Temperature (°C)
(uS/cm)
Inorganic Analyses (mg/L)
Well Identification
Date Collected
(field)
(lab)
(field)
(field)
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfate
Screening Levels a
<6.3
<6.3
NE
NE
0.005
0.05
1
0.015
5
400
Preister's Domestic 2003 (AFF)
8/03
6.92
NA
13.3
711
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/04
6.69
NA
12.3
697
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/04
6.99
NA
12.1
690
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/04
7.17
NA
11.7
747
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/14/08
6.99
NA
11.7
661
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/09/11
6.96
NA
13.3
544
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Preister's Domestic 2003 (ALF)
8/03
6.79
NA
12.4
732
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/03
6.87
7.10 J
10.0
699
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.05 U
0.001 u
0.006 U
42
02/01/04
6.70
NA
13.0
685
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/01/04
7.11
NA
13.0
685
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/01/04
7.26
NA
11.8
747
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1/29 - 1/30/06
6.96
NA
11.8
611
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/11/08
6.87
NA
12.2
558
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/14/08
7.08
NA
12.0
662
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/23/09
7.00
NA
12.1
609
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/11/09
7.36
NA
11.7
733
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/12/09
7.36
NA
17.8
790
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
02/09/11
7.18
NA
12.7
553
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
05/15/11
7.15
NA
11.1
645
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Preister's Stock
8/03
6.91
NA
14
695
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/04
7.18
NA
12.8
724
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Preister's Old Irrigation
8/03
6.56
NA
13
749
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3 Note MCLs for site chemicals of concern are equal to the MCLs designated in Record of Decision (ROD), 1990 with the exceptions of chromium and lead. For chromium and lead, the lower screening level between the ROD and the current EPA MCL is
shown. The screening level for zinc is the EPA secondary MCL. Iron, sulfate, and pH screening levels are site-specific screening levels agreed to with the State of Nebraska (letter to State of Nebraska to Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC, dated 12/14/00)
and are dependent upon well location (on-facility or off-facility).
Notes:
Bold font indie
Result reported is above or equal to the screening level
AFF - after first filter
ALF - after last filter
BFF - before first filter
°C - degree Celsius
DUP - field duplicate
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
J - estimated value
J+ - estimated value, biased high
MCL - maximum contaminant level
mg/L - milligram per liter
NA - not analyzed
NE - not established
uS/cm - microsiemenper centimeter
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the reported sample quantitation limit.
UJ - The analyte was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is
approximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte
in the sample.
Table 8b
Page 8 of 8
-------
Table 9
Summary of Shell Creek Discharge Sample Results - August 2007 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Well ID / Date Collected
PH
(field)
(S.U.)
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCE
1,2 DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
Total Volatile
COCs
OFOOl Discharge, NE00137588, (Well G127000)
08/27/07
NA
6.4 J
0.6 J
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
8.6 J
0.2 UJ
7.5 J
23
09/05/07
NA
7.5 J
0.6 J
0.2 UJ
0.2 UJ
9.8 J
0.2 UJ
7.5 J
25
10/09/07
NA
7.7
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
9.0
0.2 U
8.0
25
11/14/07
7.69
5.6
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
8.0
0.2 U
6.9
21
12/04/07
6.85
5.3
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
7.8
0.2 U
7.2
21
01/10/08
7.38
5.2
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
6.0
0.2 U
6.0
18
02/05/08
6.95
5.6
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
7.2
0.2 U
7.1
21
03/04/08
6.91
4.4
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
5.6
0.2 U
6.0
17
04/15/08
7.15
4.3
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
5.5
0.2 U
6.4
17
05/14/08
6.98
4.1
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
4.9
0.2 U
6.1
16
06/23/08
6.74
4.4
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
5.4
0.2 U
7.3
18
07/01/08
6.83
4.9
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
5.1
0.2 U
6.7
17
11/16/08
7.07
3.7
0.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
4.1
0.2 U
7.6
16
03/05/09
6.96
2.4
0.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.5
0.2 U
5.1
11
05/11/09
NA
2.1
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.2
0.2 U
4.8
10
08/13/09
6.59
1.9
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.2
0.2 U
4.8
9.4
10/28/09
7.11
1.4
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.5
0.2 U
3.9
7.2
02/04/10
7.00
1.7
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.8
0.2 U
4.7
8.7
05/17/10
6.98
1.4
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.4
0.2 U
3.6
6.8
07/25/10
7.16
1.4
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.4
0.2 U
3.5
6.7
10/26/10
6.95
1.5
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.4
0.2 U
3.4
6.7
02/10/11
7.08
1.2
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
3.0
5.5
05/17/11
6.97
1.8
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.7
0.2 U
4.5
8.5
07/27/11
6.57
1.7
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.4
0.2 U
3.1
6.7
10/26/11
6.80
1.6
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
3.5
6.9
01/26/12
7.17
1.4
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
2.8
5.6
05/01/12
6.93
1.6
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
3.6
7.0
05/01/12 (DUP)
6.93
1.6
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
3.6
7.0
07/11/12
7.20
1.5
0.58
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
3.1
6.5
10/24/12
7.41
1.6
0.62
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
3.9
7.4
01/23/13
7.05
1.5
0.55
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.3
0.20 U
2.8
6.2
04/30/13
7.01
1.2
0.40
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.85
0.20 U
3.0
5.5
07/24/13
6.75
1.1
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.78
0.20 U
2.5
4.8
11/11/13
7.12
0.91
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.73
0.20 U
2.2
4.2
02/12/14
7.11
0.50
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.35
0.20 U
1.2
2.1
05/05/14
8.55
0.32
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.80
1.1
07/30/14
6.88
0.39
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.0
1.4
10/27/14
7.17
0.47
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.35
0.20 U
1.1
1.9
01/22/15
6.95
0.56
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.34
0.20 U
0.98
1.9
05/19/15
7.19
0.45
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.98
1.4
08/26/15
6.97
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
0.78
1.4
11/04/15
6.88
0.44
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
0.20 U
1.1
1.8
Table 9
Page 1 of 5
-------
Table 9
Summary of Shell Creek Discharge Sample Results - August 2007 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Well ID / Date Collected
PH
(field)
(S.U.)
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCE
1,2 DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
Total Volatile
COCs
OFOOl Discharge, NE00137588, (Well G127000) (continued)
02/17/16
7.18
0.37
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
0.79
1.4
05/19/16
7.10
0.33
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.67
1.0
09/08/16
7.07
0.28
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.59
0.90
11/15/16
7.24
0.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.55
0.80
02/07/17
7.60
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.35
0.35
04/24/17
7.24
0.24
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.44
0.68
08/24/17
7.27
0.20 J
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.41 J
0.61
11/02/17
7.28
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.39
0.39
02/21/18
7.39
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.42
0.42
04/30/18
7.09
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.38
0.38
08/27/18
7.05
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.37
0.37
11/15/18
7.14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.28
0.28
05/14/19
7.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32
0.32
09/16/19
7.19
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.27
0.27
11/20/19
7.10
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.22
03/24/20
7.40
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.33
0.33
06/04/20
6.91
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.27
0.27
08/27/20
6.77
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.32
0.32
12/03/20
7.13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24 U
0.25
0.25
03/22/21
6.93
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.27
0.27
05/25/21
7.14
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
09/08/21
6.91
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
11/03/21
6.80
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
02/17/22
7.83
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
04/19/22
7.14
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
07/13/22
7.62
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
OF002 Discharge, NE00137588, (Well EXT07 02)
07/17/08
6.89
6.0
0.4
0.2
0.2 U
9.1
0.2 U
6.6
22
08/07/08
NA
17
1.3
0.5
0.2 U
22
0.2 U
12
53
11/16/08
7.02
16
1.4
0.5
0.2 U
22
0.2 U
14
54
03/05/09
7.01
7.8
0.7
0.3
0.2 U
9.6
0.2 U
7.0
25
05/12/09
NA
7.7
0.6
0.3
0.2 U
9.4
0.2 U
6.9
25
08/13/09
6.62
4.7
0.5
0.2
0.2 U
6.9
0.2 U
4.6
17
10/28/09
7.12
3.4
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
4.5
0.2 U
3.6
12
02/04/10
7.02
3.0
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
4.0
0.2 U
3.3
11
05/17/10
6.97
2.6
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
3.3
0.2 U
2.6
8.7
07/25/10
7.07
2.0
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.7
0.2 U
2.2
7.1
10/26/10
7.02
2.0
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.4
0.2 U
1.9
6.5
02/10/11
7.05
1.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.7
0.2 U
1.6
5.0
05/17/11
7.09
1.8
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
2.1
0.2 U
1.8
5.7
07/27/11
6.57
1.7
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.7
0.2 U
1.3
4.7
10/26/11
7.04
1.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.4
0.2 U
1.2
4.0
01/26/12
7.05
1.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
1.1
3.7
05/01/12
6.75
1.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.4
0.2 U
1.2
4.0
07/11/12
6.97
1.6
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.7
0.2 U
1.3
4.6
10/24/12
7.10
1.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.3
0.2 U
1.2
3.8
Table 9
Page 2 of 5
-------
Table 9
Summary of Shell Creek Discharge Sample Results - August 2007 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
Well ID / Date Collected
PH
(field)
(S.U.)
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCE
1,2 DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
Total Volatile
COCs
OF002 Discharge, NE00137588, (Well EXT07 02) (continued)
01/23/13
6.90
1.2
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.2
0.20 U
1.1
3.5
04/30/13
6.92
0.89
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.78
0.20 U
0.94
2.6
07/24/13
6.70
0.90
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.91
0.20 U
0.84
2.7
11/11/13
7.03
0.81
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.70
0.20 U
0.68
2.2
02/12/14
7.20
0.59
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.61
0.20 U
0.61
1.8
05/05/14
6.90
0.63
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.73
0.20 U
0.60
2.0
07/30/14
7.23
0.58
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.68
0.20 U
0.58
1.8
10/27/14
6.91
0.61
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.55
0.20 U
0.63
1.8
01/22/15
7.01
0.69
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.55
0.20 U
0.55
1.8
05/04/15
6.75
0.56
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.47
0.20 U
0.56
1.6
08/17/15
7.18
0.53
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.34
0.20 U
0.44
1.3
11/04/15
7.00
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.40
0.20 U
0.64
1.6
02/17/16
7.12
0.54
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.49
0.20 U
0.59
1.6
05/19/16
7.06
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.36
0.20 U
0.55
1.4
09/08/16
7.15
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.36
0.20 U
0.51
1.4
11/15/16
7.16
0.48
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.34
0.20 U
0.49
1.3
02/07/17
7.32
0.48
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.29
0.20 U
0.46
1.2
04/24/17
7.21
0.45
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.31
0.20 U
0.38
1.1
08/24/17
7.26
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.31
0.20 U
0.43
1.1
11/02/17
7.21
0.37
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
0.37
1.0
02/21/18
7.23
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.60
04/30/18
7.19
0.35
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
0.34
0.94
08/28/18
7.03
0.33
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
0.20 U
0.33
0.87
11/15/18
6.97
0.36
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.20 U
0.35
0.93
05/14/19
7.25
0.33
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.35
0.68
09/16/19
7.18
0.32
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.30
0.62
11/20/19
7.17
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.27
0.56
03/24/30
7.48
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.37
0.75
06/04/20
7.01
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
0.52
08/26/20
6.78
0.40
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 J
0.20 U
0.33
0.93
12/03/20
7.19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.23
0.23
03/22/21
6.72
0.32
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.29
0.61
05/26/21
7.12
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
09/08/21
7.47
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
11/03/21
6.88
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
02/17/22
7.57
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
04/19/22
7.09
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
07/13/22
8.16
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
12/06/22
7.38
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
OF003 Discharge, NE00137588, (Well EXT11 01)
12/07/11
7.05
1.2
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.5
0.2 U
1.6
4.6
01/26/12
7.05
1.4
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.6
0.2 U
1.6
4.8
05/01/12
6.83
0.9
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.1
0.2 U
1.1
3.1
07/11/12
7.04
1.1
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.2
0.2 U
1.0
3.3
10/24/12
7.01
0.86
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.81
0.2 U
0.82
2.5
01/23/13
6.79
0.71
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.73
0.20 U
0.66
2.1
04/30/13
6.88
0.46
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.43
0.20 U
0.54
1.4
07/24/13
6.89
0.55
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.46
0.20 U
0.50
1.5
11/11/13
7.25
0.34
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.38
0.20 U
0.44
1.2
Table 9
Page 3 of 5
-------
Table 9
Summary of Shell Creek Discharge Sample Results - August 2007 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
PH
Well ID / Date Collected
(field)
(S.U.)
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCE
1,2 DCA
1,1,1 TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
OF003 Discharge, NE00137588, (Well EXT11 01) (continued)
02/12/14
7.15
0.34
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.37
0.20 U
0.39
1.1
05/05/14
6.89
0.33
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.40
0.7
07/30/14
7.10
0.29
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.40
0.7
10/27/14
6.86
0.25
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.20 U
0.29
0.8
01/22/15
6.95
0.24
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.20 U
0.22
0.7
05/04/15
6.45
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20
0.2
08/17/15
7.13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
11/04/15
6.97
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.2
02/17/16
7.11
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
05/19/16
7.08
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
09/08/16
7.05
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
11/15/16
7.16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
02/07/17
7.30
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
04/24/17
7.20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
08/24/17
7.16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
11/02/17
7.26
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
02/21/18
7.08
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
04/30/18
7.17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
08/27/18
6.99
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
11/15/18
6.97
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
05/14/19
6.99
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
09/16/19
7.28
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
06/04/20
6.94
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
08/25/20
6.77
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
05/26/21
7.29
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
09/08/21
7.47
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
07/13/22
8.10
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
OF004 Discharge, NE00137588, (Well EXT13 01)
07/24/13
6.75
2.0
1.5
0.58
0.20 U
1.4
0.39
15
21
11/11/13
6.89
0.69
0.33
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.39
0.20 U
2.7
4.1
02/12/14
6.52
0.57
0.52
0.22
0.20 U
0.42
0.20 U
2.3
4.0
05/05/14
6.70
1.2
0.88
0.53
0.20 U
1.4
0.20 U
4.4
8.4
07/30/14
6.81
0.69
0.45
0.33
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
2.6
4.1
10/27/14
6.76
0.66
0.45
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.39
0.20 U
2.8
4.3
01/22/15
6.89
0.83
0.42
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.31
0.20 U
2.3
3.9
05/04/15
6.54
1.5
0.69
0.35
0.20 U
0.64
0.20
4.2
7.6
08/17/15
7.12
1.0
0.38
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.25
0.20 U
2.1
3.7
11/04/15
6.95
1.4
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.27
0.21
3.2
5.6
02/17/16
7.02
1.7
0.68
0.27
0.20 U
0.40
0.32
3.7
7.1
05/19/16
6.98
1.8 J
0.88 J
0.42 J
0.20 UJ
0.70 J
0.38 J
4.6 J
8.8
09/08/16
6.98
0.96
0.40
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.26
0.20 U
2.28
3.9
11/15/16
7.08
1.42
0.52
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20
0.27
3.07
5.5
02/07/17
7.12
1.04
0.49
0.22
0.20 U
0.23
0.23
2.46
4.7
04/24/17
7.14
1.16
0.75
0.38
0.20 U
0.45
0.34
2.94
6.0
08/24/17
7.13
0.73 J
0.40 J
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.20 UJ
0.21 J
1.92 J
3.3
11/02/17
7.27
0.95
0.46
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.27
2.32
4.0
Table 9
Page 4 of 5
-------
Table 9
Summary of Shell Creek Discharge Sample Results - August 2007 through December 2022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
PH
Well ID / Date Collected
(field)
(S.U.)
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
COCs
OF004 Discharge, NE00137588, (Well EXT13 01) (continued)
02/21/18
7.20
0.67
0.40
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.22
0.21
1.78
3.3
02/21/18 (DUP)
7.20
0.69
0.39
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.24
0.20
1.82
3.3
04/30/18
7.15
0.87
0.63
0.50
0.20 U
0.40
0.26
2.79
5.5
08/27/18
7.09
0.69
0.46
0.27
0.20 U
0.21
0.25
1.94
3.8
08/27/18 (DUP)
7.09
0.69
0.47
0.26
0.20 U
0.23
0.26
1.98
3.9
11/15/18
7.13
0.78
0.45
0.27
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.30
1.89
3.7
05/14/19
7.04
1.04
0.63
0.46
0.20 U
0.25
0.29
2.53
5.2
09/16/19
7.04
1.06
0.79 J
0.39
0.20 U
0.26
0.25
2.20
5.0
9/16/19 (DUP)
7.04
0.91
0.71 J
0.32
0.20 U
0.22
0.20
1.81
4.2
11/20/19
7.15
1.06
0.64
0.44
0.20 U
0.26
0.30
2.33
5.0
03/24/20
6.75
1.11
0.77
0.75
0.20 U
0.37
0.33 J
2.93
6.3
06/04/20
6.89
0.73
0.46
0.35
0.20 U
0.26
0.22
1.85
3.9
08/25/20
6.79
0.38
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.02
1.6
8/26/20 (DUP)
6.79
0.37
0.22
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
1.05
1.6
12/03/20
7.17
0.51
0.26
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.43 U
1.36
2.1
03/22/21
6.77
0.51
0.47
0.37
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.21
1.54
3.1
05/26/21
7.96
0.660 J
0.470 J
0.440 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
2.19
3.76
09/08/21
6.89
0.44 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.52
1.96
11/03/21
7.13
0.560 J
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
1.46
2.02
02/17/22
7.65
0.51
0.47
0.37
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.21
1.54
3.1
04/19/22
6.91
0.900 J
0.850 J
1.09
0.333 U
0.350 J
0.390 J
3.13
6.71
07/13/22
7.74
0.730 J
0.600 J
0.6
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.460 J
2.39
4.78
12/06/22
7.28
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.920 J
0.92
Discharge Limits per authorization (effective June 24, 2013]
30 Day Average (ug/L)
March 1 - May 31
6.5-9.0
90 ave / 180 max
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
June 1 - October 31
6.5-9.0
49 ave 99 max
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
November 1 - February 28 (29)
6.5-9.0
66 ave / 131 max
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Notes:
Bold font indicates result reported as detected.
ave - average
coc - chemical of concern
DUP - field duplicate
max - maximum
J - estimated value
ND - not detected
NE - not established
S.U. - standard unit
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the reported sample detection limit.
ug/L - microgram per liter
Total Volatile COCs - Sum of detected results for 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, 1,2-DCE, 1,2-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA,
TCE, and PCE
1,1-DCE- 1,1-Dichloroethene
1.1-DCA- 1,1-Dichloroethane
1.2-DCE - total of cis-l,2-dichloroethene and trans-l,2-dichloroethene
1,2-DCA - 1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-TCA- 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
TCE - Trichloroethene
PCE - Tetrachloroethene
UJ - The analyte was not detected above the reported sample detection limit. However, the reported detection limit is approximate and mayor may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
Table 9
Page 5 of 5
-------
Figures
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
VICINITY MAP
1
V.
f ~ L7i
.—.j..—. gth S(| jm
4th St
Holy Family Childcare
Holy Family High School
Holy Family Catholic Church
3rd St
(5
o
«
o>
a.
re
01
>
<
¦o
V
Map Extent
*11
US':
Legend
Shell Creek
~ Property Boundary
I l Lindsay, NE
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
250
_i
500
_l
Feet
1 inch s 500 feet
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
2022 Annual Report ¦ Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
0
>
<
o
CD
New City Well
(Water Tower)
^ MW06-09
Tl Well
\
CI
>
<
o
f Seller
r/ Domestic
MW92-3A/B
EXT13-01 (Outfall)
0
>
<
O
4
MW06-10
pf MW06-11
¦ Staska Well
4
• ()l Well
MW14-09A
MW89-13
^MW14-01A
MW14-02A
^ MW 14-03A/B
(Abandoned Jul
W>MW89-12
MW14-04A
MW14-05A
MW06-07
k
-------
MW89-13
MW 14-03B (Abandoned July 2022)
1647J 55
MW89-12
MW87-3
1646.03
MW92-3A
1642.80
MW92-3B
1642.78
VICINITY MAP
¦
i
*
" —]
¦
¦
ghwayftV
Li rid
\ ; |
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Well
:§? Interceptor Well
* Groundwater Elevation Contour
- - Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour
—~ Groundwater Flow
rZJ Property Boundary
Notes:
XXXX.XX Groundwater elevation (feet)
On-site pumping wells AIOW and MW89-12 were not in
operation during measurement.
Groundwater contours are shown only for wells screened in the
upper aquifer and are an interpretation based on Quarter 1
(Q1 - 2022) groundwater elevations. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 3
Groundwater Elevation Contour - Q1
Upper Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
MW87-3
1646.38
MW89-11B
fcl*643.16
MW92-3A
1642.78
i MW92-3B
3rd St
2nd St
1st St
Ash St
MW06-11
1649.62
MW06-10
MW 14-09B
1648.98
MW89-13
MW 14-01B
1648.26
MW 14-02B
J 1647.65 V
| V MW 1
4-03B (Abandoned July 2022)
164/. 8
MW89-12«j
MW 14-05B
1646.91
MW06-09
1646.32
1646
MW12-02B
1646.34
Well
VICINITY MAP
. . - —Und
1
\ j
a>fsr'
Map Extent
Legend
$ Monitoring Well
li: Interceptor Well
* Groundwater Elevation Contour
- - Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour
¦—Groundwater Flow
f"J Property Boundary
Notes:
XXXX.XX Groundwater elevation (feet)
Operation of AIOW started in early April 2022. On-site pumping
well, MW89-12 was not in operation during measurement.
Groundwater contours are shown only for wells screened in the
upper aquifer and are an interpretation based on Quarter 2
(Q2 - 2022) groundwater elevations. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
N
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 4
Groundwater Elevation Contour - Q2
Upper Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
MW89-13
MW89-12
MW89p;i'Bl
MW92-3A
1641.09
MW92-3B
1641.07
Ash St
VICINITY MAP
. . - —Und
1
\ j
a>fsr'
Map Extent
Legend
$ Monitoring Well
tf! Interceptor Well
* Groundwater Elevation Contour
- - Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour
—~ Groundwater Flow
f~"J Property Boundary
Notes:
XXXX.XX Groundwater elevation (feet)
On-site pumping wells in operation: AIOW. On-site pumping
well, MW89-12 was not in operation during measurement.
Groundwater contours are shown only for wells screened in the
upper aquifer and are an interpretation based on Quarter 3
(Q3 - 2022) groundwater elevations. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
N
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 5
Groundwater Elevation Contour - Q3
Upper Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
iwmm
MW89-13
MW89-12|H
MW87-3
1635.99
1633,75
MW92-3A
1633.63
MW92-3B
1633.71
VICINITY MAP
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Wei!
Is: Interceptor Well
— Groundwater Elevation Contour
- - Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour
¦—Groundwater Flow
~ Property Boundary
Notes:
XXXX.XX Groundwater elevation (feet)
On-site pumping wells in operation: AIOW. On-site pumping
well, MW89-12 was not in operation during measurement.
Groundwater contours are shown only for wells screened in the
upper aquifer and are an interpretation based on Quarter 4
(Q4 - 2022) groundwater elevations. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
N
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 6
Groundwater Elevation Contour - Q4
Upper Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
MW89-13
1647.78
MW 14-03A (Abandoned July 2022)
1647.60
MW89-'12
MW89-11B
VICINITY MAP
¦
i
*
" —]
¦
¦
ghwayftV
Li rid
\ ; |
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Well
K Interceptor Well
— Groundwater Elevation Contour
- - Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour
¦—Groundwater Flow
iZTJ Property Boundary
Notes:
XXXX.XX Groundwater elevation (feet)
On-site pumping wells AIOW and MW89-12 were not in
operation during measurement.
Groundwater contours are shown only for wells screened in the
fine-grained unit and are an interpretation based on Quarter 1
(Q1 - 2022) groundwater elevations. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
N
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 7
Groundwater Elevation Contour - Q1
Fine-Grained Unit
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
VICINITY MAP
5th St
4th St
MW06-11
MW06-10
Ef~ 1649.52
3rd St
j=
<
CO
0
c
Q.
2nd St
1st St
co
0
c
Q_
Ash St
| Staska Well
*
i
4
MW14 09A
1648.72 "V \
MW89-13 %
(16)18.60
MW 14-01A \
1648.35
MEXT13"01
Vl
%
£
ft
a
J
J
&
6®
\3T
4
MW89-11E3
MW92-3A/B
\
¦
. Li m
ghway »1
\ j
ay$-sr'
Map Extent
Legend
& Monitoring Well
# Interceptor Well
— Groundwater Elevation Contour
- - - Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour
¦—Groundwater Flow
iZTJ Property Boundary
Notes:
XXXX.XX Groundwater elevation (feet)
Operation of AIOW started in early April 2022. On-site pumping
well, MW89-12 was not in operation during measurement.
Groundwater contours are shown only for wells screened in the
fine-grained unit and are an interpretation based on Quarter 2
(Q2 - 2022) groundwater elevations. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
200
LU
400
_l
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 8
Groundwater Elevation Contour - Q2
Fine-Grained Unit
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
MW89-13
1646.8
MW89-12
MW89-11B
VICINITY MAP
. . - —Und
1
\ j
a>fsr'
Map Extent
Legend
$ Monitoring Well
li: Interceptor Well
* Groundwater Elevation Contour
- - Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour
¦—Groundwater Flow
f- J Property Boundary
Notes:
XXXX.XX Groundwater elevation (feet)
On-site pumping wells in operation: AIOW. On-site pumping
well, MW89-12 was not in operation during measurement.
Groundwater contours are shown only for wells screened in the
fine-grained unit and are an interpretation based on Quarter 3
(Q3 - 2022) groundwater elevations. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 9
Groundwater Elevation Contour - Q3
Fine-Grained Unit
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
MW89-13
1638.79
MW89-12
MW89-11B
VICINITY MAP
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Well
:§? Interceptor Well
* Groundwater Elevation Contour
- - Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour
¦—Groundwater Flow
1.711 Property Boundary
Notes:
XXXX.XX Groundwater elevation (feet)
On-site pumping wells in operation: AIOW. On-site pumping
well, MW89-12 was not in operation during measurement.
Groundwater contours are shown only for wells screened in the
fine-grained unit and are an interpretation based on Quarter 4
(Q4 - 2022) groundwater elevations. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
N
0 200 400
1 i i
Feet
1 inch s 400 feet
Figure 10
Groundwater Elevation Contour - Q4
Fine-Grained Unit
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
^ MW06-11
1 Staska Well
MW89-13
MW14-03A (Abandoned July 2022)
12,7 (jg/L
MW89-12
iV1W87 -3
MW,1-2-027V/B1
MW12-01A/B
MW12-03A/B
EXT13-01
MW89-11B
VICINITY MAP
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Well
1? Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
PCE sjg/L
5-50
50-500
H > 500
Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 1
(Q1 - 2022) PCE results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
ND
5 pg/L
N
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 11
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Contour - Q1
Fine-Grained Unit
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
Staska Well
MW89-12
MW87-3
MW06-10
1.29 pg/L
4T
MW14-09A
97.8 [ig/L
MW89-13
0.58 ug/L
MW14-01A
29 ug/L
MW14-02A
ND
MW14-03A (Abandoned July 2022)
6.67 |jg/L
MW14-06A
8.37 ug/L
4
MW12-01A
ND
MW06-09
MW14-07
ND
MW12-03A
ND
Tl Well
1st St
Ash St
^MW89-11B
3rd St
2nd St
EXT13-01 m
** MW13-02
VICINITY MAP
¦
1
*
" —]
¦
¦
Li rid
\ ;
a>£-sr'
S
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Well
1? Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
PCE mq/L
5-50
¦I > 50
1.71"' Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 2
(Q2 - 2022) PCE results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
ND
5 pg/L
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
N
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 12
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Contour - Q2
Fine-Grained Unit
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
Staska Well
MW89-13
MW89-12
MW87-3
MW12-02A/B'
MW12-01A/B
MW89-11B
Ash St
VICINITY MAP
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Well
1? Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
PCE pg/L
5-50
50-500
H > 500
o ProPerty Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 3
(Q3 - 2022) PCE results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
ND
5 pg/L
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 13
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Contour - Q3
Fine-Grained Unit
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
MW06-11
Staska Well
MW89-13
3.41 |jg/L
MW89-12
MW87-3
EXT13-01
MW13-02
MW89-11B
VICINITY MAP
¦
1
*
" —]
¦
¦
Li rid
\ ;
a>fsr'
S
Map Extent
Legend
Monitoring Well
Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
Inferred ISO Contour
yg/L
5-50
50-500
> 500
Property Boundary
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 4
(Q4 - 2022) PCE results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
i'
PCE
Notes:
ND
5 jjg/L
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 14
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Contour - Q4
Fine-Grained Unit
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
Staska Well -t&
MW89-13
ND
MW 14-09A/B
MW14-03A (Abandoned July 2022)
2.14 pg/L
MW89I12
MW87-3
MW12-02A/B'
MW12-01A/B
MW12-03A/B
EXT13-01
MW13-02
MW89-11B
VICINITY MAP
¦
1
*
" —]
¦
¦
Li rid
\ ;
a>fsr'
S
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Well
ft Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
1,4-Dioxane jjg/L
0.46-5
5-50
¦I > 50
Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 2
(Q2 - 2022) 1,4-Dioxane results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
ND
0.46 pg/L
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 15
1,4-Dioxane Contour - Q2
Fine-Grained Unit
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
Staska Well
MW89-13
MW89-12
MW87-3
MW12-02A/B'
MW12-01A/B
MW89-11B
VICINITY MAP
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring We!!
1? Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
1,4-Dioxane jjg/L
0.46-5
5-50
H > 50
["J Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 3
(Q3 - 2022) 1,4-Dioxane results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
ND
0.46 pg/L
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 16
1,4-Dioxane Contour - Q3
Fine-Grained Unit
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
MW14-09A/B
MW89 13
0.0392 mg/L
MW14-03A (Abandoned July 2022)
18.2 mg/L
MW89-12
MW12-02A/B'
MW14-07
0.0094 mg/L
MW12-03A/B
^ MW13-02
MW89-11 B
VICINITY MAP
¦
1
*
" —]
¦
¦
gbway 91
Li rid
\ ;
a>fsr'
S
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Wei!
Is: Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
Zinc mg/L
5 10
10-15
¦I > 15
~ Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 2
(Q2 - 2022) Zinc results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
ND
5 mg/L
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch 5= 400 feet
Figure 17
Zinc Contour - Q2
Fine-Grained Unit
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
VICINITY MAP
5th St
4th St
3rd St
j=
(i)
<
2nd St
1st St
CO
0
c
Q.
CO
0
C
Q_
1
>
6#
6®
\3T
^MW06-10
MW06-11
JStaska Well
MW87-3
lMW12-01A/B
I MW06-09
MW14-08
ND
CO
0
cL
-------
Staska Well
MW89-13
MW89-12
MW12-02B
0.34 pg/L
mm ¦ > 1 ¦ * J
MW06-07
Sample Depth
62 ft = 1.22 pg/L
85 ft = 0.42 pg/L
104 ft = ND
MW12-01B
0.82 pg/L
MW06-08
Sample Depth
79 ft = 6.61 pg/L
95 ft = 6.12 pg/L
109 ft = 3.95 pg/L
Well
MW12-03B
15.4 pg/L
EXT13-01
MW13-02
itosmt
MW92-3B
ND
MW92-3A
ND
MW92-3B
ND
MW06-11
2.77 pg/L
MW14-09B
42.5 pg/L
MW14-01B
36.5 pg/L
MW14-06B
11.2 pg/L
MW06-09
0.41 pg/L
MW14-05B
70.3 pg/L
MW14-03B (Abandoned July 2022)
619 pg/L
MW14-02B
21.1 pg/L
MW14-04B
1,710 pg/L
MW06-05
ND
3rd St
2nd St
1st St
Ash St
MW87-3
1.98 pg/L
VICINITY MAP
¦
1
*
" —]
¦
¦
Li rid
\ ;
a>£-sr'
S
Map Extent
Legend
& Monitoring Well
W Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
PCE sjg/L
5-50 H 1,000-1,500
50-500 > 1,500
500-1,000
I™' Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
ND
5|Jg'L Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 1
(Q1 - 2022) PCE results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 19
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Contour - Q1
Sand and Gravel Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
MW06-07
Sample Depth
62 ft = 1.6 pg/L
85 ft = 0.84 pg/L
104 ft = ND
MW92-3B
ND
MW06-08
Sample Depth
79 ft = 1.15 pg/L
95 ft = 1.01 pg/L
109 ft = 0.36 pg/L
MW12-01B
0.5 pg/L
MW12-03B
11.4 pg/L
MW92-3A
ND
MW92-3B
ND
|T| Well
2nd St
1st St
MW06-11
3.14 pg/L
MW14-09B
10.4 pg/L
Ash St
MW14-02B
23.3 pg/L
MW14-04B
1,610 pg/L
MW14-01B
MW14-03B (Abandoned July 2022)
474 pg/L
MW14-05B
74.8 pg/L
MW14-06B
2.36 pg/L
AOI Well
ND
MW87-3
1.13 pg/L
VICINITY MAP
¦
1
*
" —]
¦
¦
Li rid
\ ;
a>£-sr'
S
Map Extent
Legend
& Monitoring Well
W Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
PCE pg/L
5-50 H 1,000-1,500
50-500 (¦! > 1,500
500-1,000
l~"J Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
ND
5|Jg'L Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 2
(Q2 - 2022) PCE results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
N
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 20
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Contour - Q2
Sand and Gravel Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
Staska Wei!
MWS9-13
MW89-12
EXT13-01
MW06-11
3.79 jig/L
MW14-01B
85.5 |jg/L
MW14-09B
27 pg/L
MW92-3B
ND
MW12-03B
15.4 pg/L
MW14-03B (Abandoned July 2022)
529 |jg/L
MW14-05B
52.1 pg/L
MW14-06B
59.9 pg/L
MW87 -3
62.9 pg/L
AOI Well
1.28 pg/L
MW12-01B
1.26 pg/L
MW06-09
0.55 pg/L
MW06-05
ND
—f—
MW06-07
Sample Depth
62 ft = 0.98 (jg/L
85 ft = 0.35 M9/L
104 ft = 0.4 pg/L
MW92-3A
ND
MW92-3B
ND
|T| Well
Ash St
3rd St
2nd St
1st St
MW06-08
Sample Depth
79 ft = 9.2 pg/L
95 ft = 11.6 pg/L
109 ft = 4.21 pg/L
VICINITY MAP
¦
1
*
" —]
¦
¦
Li rid
\ ;
a>£-sr'
S
Map Extent
Legend
& Monitoring Well
® Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
PCE (jg/L
5-50 H 500-1,000
50-500 H > 1,000
I.™"' Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 3
(Q3 - 2022) PCE results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
ND
5 pg/L
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
N
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 21
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Contour - Q3
Sand and Gravel Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
Staska Well
MW89-13
MW14-03B (Abandoned July 2022)
499 pg/L
MWQ6-08
Sample Depth
79 ft = 0.54 pg/L
95 ft = 0.72 pg/L
109 ft = ND
MW89-12
MW87-3
67.9 pg/L
MW06-07
Sample Depth
62 ft = ND
85 ft = ND
104 ft = 0.61 pg/L
EXT13-01
MW92-3B
ND
MW92-3A
ND
MW92-3B
ND
Ash St
VICINITY MAP
ghway-Vi
Und
ay
jrsr'
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Well
1? Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
PCE pg/L
5-50
HI > 50
~ Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 4
(Q4 - 2022) PCE results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
ND
I 5 )jg/L
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
N
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 22
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Contour - Q4
Sand and Gravel Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
Staska Weill
MW89-13
MW89I12i
EXT13-01
MW13-02
MW06-11
1.76 |jg/L
MW14-09B
3.9 |jg/L
MW14-06B
1.32 ug/L
MW14-03B (Abandoned July 2022)
174 |jg/L
MW06-08
Sample Depih
79 ft = 0.618 |jg/L
95 ft = 0.693 (jg/L
109 ft = 0.65 (jg/L
AOI Well
0.371 |jg/L
MW12-03B
3.62 Mg/L
MW14-04B
/
90.4 pg/L
\ \
|T| Well
^MW89-11B
Ash St
3rd St
2nd St
1st St
MW12-02B
1.38 |jg/L
¦ J
MW06-07
Sample Depth
62 ft = 0.896 (jg/L
85 ft = 1.42 pg/L
104 ft = 1.14 |ig/L
^MW06-09
MW12-01B
0.763 |jg/L
MW87-3
6.34 ug/L
VICINITY MAP
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Well
:§? Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
1,4-Dioxane |jg/L
0.46-5
5-50
H > 50
CJ Property Boundary
Notes:
ND
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
0.46 pg/L Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 2
(Q2 - 2022) 1,4-Dioxane results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
200
LU
400
_l
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 23
1,4-Dioxane Contour - Q2
Sand and Gravel Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
Staska Well
MW89-13
MW14-03B (Abandoned July 2022)
104 pg/L
MW06-08
Sample Depth
79 ft = 3.42 pg/L
95 ft = 3.47 pg/L
109 ft = 3.9 pg/L
MW89-12
MW87-3
6.27 pg/L
MW06-07
Sample Depth
62 ft = ND
85 ft = ND
104 ft = 0.106 pg/L
ill Well
EXT13-01
MW13-02
MW89-11B
VICINITY MAP
¦
1
*
" —]
¦
¦
Li rid
\ ;
a>fsr'
S
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Well
1? Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
1,4-Dioxane jjg/L
0.46-5
5-50
¦! > 50
f~J Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 3
(Q3 - 2022) 1,4-Dioxane results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
ND
0.46 pg/L
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
N
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 24
1,4-Dioxane Contour - Q3
Sand and Gravel Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
MW06-07
Sample Depth
62 ft = 0.303 rng/l.
85 ft = 0.305 mg/L
104 ft = 0.306 mg/L
MW06-08
Sample Depth
79 ft = 0.509 mg/L
95 ft = 0.534 mg/L
109 ft = 0.478 mg/L
MW12-01B
0.008 mg/L
3rd St
2nd St
1st St
Ash St
% 4
MW89-11B
MW14-01B
14.8 mg/L
MW12-02B
0.009 mg/L
MW14-03B (Abandoned July 2022)
ND
MW14-06B
2.88mg/L
I MW06-09
AOI Well
0.177mg/L
MW87-3
0.141 rng/L
VICINITY MAP
Map Extent
Legend
$ Monitoring Well
li: Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
Zinc mg/L
5 10
¦I > 10
1.71"' Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 2
(Q2 - 2022) Zinc results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
ND
5 mg/L
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
N
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 25
Zinc Contour - Q2
Sand and Gravel Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
MW06-07
Sample Depth
62 ft m 0.386 mg/L
85 ft = 0.375 mg/L
104 ft = 0.348 mg/L
MW06-08
Sample Depth
79 ft = 0.800 mg/L
95 ft = 0.906 mg/L
109 ft = 0.629 mg/L
MW12-01B
ND
Ash St
MW14-01B
12.3 mg/L
MW14-03B (Abandoned July 2022)
2nd St
1st St
MW12-02B
ND
^ 4
i
3rd St
AOI Well
0.504 mg/L
MW87-3
0.373 mg/L
I MW06-09
^MW89-11B
MW12-03B
ND
,
VICINITY MAP
jbway 91
Li nd
ay
J-sr'
Map Extent
Legend
^ Monitoring Wei!
Is: Interceptor Well
ISO Contour
- - - Inferred ISO Contour
Zinc mg/L
5-10
H > 10
1.717 Property Boundary
Notes:
Non-Detect at Lab Reporting Limit (RL)
Detection Exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Plume delineations are an interpretation based on Quarter 3
(Q3 - 2022) Zinc results. The actual subsurface
conditions may vary from depiction.
ND
5 mg/L
Map Date: 3/24/2023
Imagery Source: FSA, 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Nebraska FIPS 2600 US Feet
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 26
Zinc Contour - Q3
Sand and Gravel Aquifer
2022 Annual Report - Long Term Remediation Activities
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska
-------
Appendix A
Interceptor Well Pumping Volumes and Mass
Removal Calculations
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Table A -1
Summary of Pumping Volumes/Operational Frequency for Interceptor Ufells - April 2004 through December 2 022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Pumping Period
MW89-12'
AOIWb
EXT13-01
G127000
EXT07-02
EXT11-01
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping
Time
for Month
Mean Pumping Rate
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping
Time
for Month
Mean Pui
mping Rate
pm)
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Pumping
Volume of Water
Rem oved
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Puj
tiping Rate
pm)
Volume of Water
Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Pu
(
mping Rate
¦pm)
Volume of Water
Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Pumping Rate
days'
hours
day*
hour'
days'
hours
days' hours
day hour'
days'
hours
days'
hours
days' hours
day hour'
Acril2004
845,754
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Not Installed
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Not Installed
Not Installed
Mav2004
991,732
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,374,269
NA
NA
NA
NA
June 2004
770,788
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17,193,632
NA
NA
NA
NA
lulv 2004
835,488
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13,140,092
NA
NA
NA
NA
Aueust 2004
1,164,758
NA
NA
NA
NA
23,441,600
NA
NA
NA
NA
25,051,989
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sectember 2004
1,578,905
NA
NA
NA
NA
15,220,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
8,136,189
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acril2005
1,791,761
14
NA
89
NA
3,156,357
8
NA
274
NA
Not Installed
482,912
2
NA
168
NA
Not Installed
Not Installed
Mav2005
1,846,080
27
NA
47
NA
16,089,548
24
NA
466
NA
9,729,816
22
NA
307
NA
June 2005
1,649,184
15
NA
76
NA
10,666,191
19
NA
390
NA
6,012,432
10
NA
418
NA
lulv 2005
769,334
7
NA
76
NA
25,450,632
27
NA
655
NA
18,300,432
27
NA
471
NA
Aueust 2005
4,344,772
31
NA
97
NA
22,544,791
28
NA
559
NA
14,909,688
28
NA
370
NA
Sectember 2005
3,071,048
27
NA
79
NA
10,408,377
25
NA
289
NA
3,826,048
12
NA
221
NA
Acnl2006
2,385,946
16
361
104
110
5,336,050
9
186
412
477
Not Installed
0
0
0
0
0
Not Installed
Not Installed
Mav2006
3,074,140
21
468
102
110
19,071,917
23
564
576
564
9,390,428
18
435
362
360
June 2006
3,352,274
22
502
106
111
24,416,405
27
632
628
644
14,410,146
27
617
371
389
lulv 2006
3,866,210
28
613
96
105
32,253,691
31
742
723
725
18,295,629
31
731
410
417
Aueust 2006
3,158,325
17
419
129
126
12,784,228
13
313
683
681
4,526,001
6
178
524
424
lanuarv2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Installed
0
0
0
0
0
Not Installed
Not Installed
Februarv 2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
March 2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Acnl2007
1,421,614
5
106
197
224
2,880,413
5
118
400
407
0
0
0
0
0
Mav2007
1,548,310
8
218
134
118
9,263,987
14
302
460
511
3,561,113
6
155
412
383
June 2007
1,537,673
5
117
214
219
1 1,344,413
16
362
492
522
9,365,741
15
360
434
434
lulv 2007
2,654,965
18
407
102
109
22,186,462
27
619
571
597
17,171,513
25
584
477
490
Aueust 2007
3,264,437
13
291
174
187
6,800,126
11
231
429
491
5,093,407
10
209
354
406
Sectember 2007
1,708,695
17
422
70
67
5,305,200
6
106
614
834
17,421,600
28
671
432
433
October 2007
2,615,846
8
229
227
190
1,375,800
2
50
478
459
19,275,500
31
739
432
435
0
0
0
0
0
November 2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,225,200
30
720
491
491
0
0
0
0
0
December 2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,645,200
31
744
507
507
0
o
o
o
o
lanuarv2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Installed
21,760,700
31
744
487
487
0
o
o
o
o
Not Installed
Februarv 2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,773,300
29
696
497
497
0
o
o
o
o
March 2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,352,500
31
744
501
501
0
o
o
o
o
Acnl2008
650,913
9
268
50
40
0
0
0
0
0
21,772,600
30
720
504
504
0
o
o
o
o
Mav2008
669,1 10
3
60
155
186
1,065,200
1
29
740
612
18,110,346
27
621
466
486
0
o
o
o
o
June 2008
2,583,061
2
29
897
1,485
8,272,500
11
242
522
570
12,359,200
18
425
477
485
0
o
o
o
o
lulv 2008
3,488,409
20
450
121
129
15,544,800
21
435
514
596
16,574,416
25
569
460
485
13,194,606
14
347
654
634
Aueust 2008
2,709,085
22
497
86
91
5,624,400
5
126
781
744
19,734,088
27
642
508
512
34,345,794
29
677
822
846
Sectember 2008
6,233,670
23
495
188
210
0
0
0
0
0
26,427,680
27
652
680
676
38,848,960
26
642
1,038
1,009
October 2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37,947,100
30
720
878
878
44,547,000
31
744
998
998
November 2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39,396,800
30
720
912
912
46,522,600
30
720
1,077
1,077
December 2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32,663,800
31
609
732
893
42,228,100
31
744
946
946
Ianuarv2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Installed
38,288,300
31
744
858
858
43,688,700
31
744
979
979
Not Installed
Februarv 2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31,737,600
28
672
787
672
36,333,400
28
672
901
901
March 2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,578,000
31
744
819
819
42,004,600
31
744
941
941
Acnl2009
333,245
4
101
55
55
2,807,000
4
88
532
532
36,257,700
29
690
876
876
41,799,476
29
693
1,006
1,006
Mav2009
4,265,942
19
452
157
157
1 1,099,900
16
374
495
495
19,421,992
25
593
545
545
22,800,233
28
668
569
569
June 2009
4,510,434
17
404
186
186
1 1,185,900
16
376
495
495
31,075,026
30
717
722
722
43,904,650
31
747
979
979
lulv 2009
5,754,862
25
605
159
159
18,953,200
27
652
485
485
20,740,939
32
761
454
454
22,453,900
21
512
731
731
Aueust 2009
3,628,631
17
406
149
149
13,163,100
17
413
531
531
27,437,036
26
633
722
722
41,849,200
29
699
998
998
Sectember 2009
2,602,370
23
552
79
79
4,608,680
7
152
457
505
35,270,860
30
720
816
816
43,658,880
30
720
1,011
1,011
October 2009
1,499,258
15
322
69
78
0
0
0
0
0
36,995,376
31
720
829
856
44,992,640
31
743
1,008
1,009
November 2009
174,434
2
46
61
63
0
0
0
0
0
1 1,839,352
8
202
1,028
978
44,282,304
30
720
1,026
1,026
December 2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42,963,840
28
607
1,066
1,180
Ianuarv2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Installed
33,213,848
27
660
854
839
40,003,520
31
734
896
908
Not Installed
Februarv 2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33,719,888
28
672
836
836
41,092,608
28
672
1,019
1,019
March 2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,286,688
30
727
840
832
44,142,592
30
727
1,022
1,012
Acnl2010
128,280
1
30
89
71
0
0
0
0
0
36,164,800
30
720
837
837
43,429,600
30
720
1,005
1,005
Mav2010
926,160
9
212
71
73
1 1,276,850
17
350
461
537
26,386,780
31
744
591
591
36,751,000
25
597
1,021
1,026
June 2010
526,830
5
116
73
76
5,750,100
8
179
499
535
23,675,981
20
464
822
850
34,456,000
30
720
798
798
lulv 2010
384,280
3
84
89
76
14,509,190
20
444
504
545
35,647,342
30
715
825
831
45,932,000
31
744
1,029
1,029
Aueust 2010
1,187,650
11
250
75
79
24,323,430
27
640
626
633
33,997,205
31
744
762
762
40,498,100
31
744
907
907
Sectember2010
1,210,500
10
249
84
81
3,997,100
4
100
694
666
36,814,240
30
720
852
852
45,347,300
30
720
1,050
1,050
October 2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38,788,000
31
744
869
869
48,135,000
31
744
1,078
1,078
November 2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37,541,900
30
720
869
869
46,528,000
30
720
1,077
1,077
December 2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38,807,800
31
744
869
869
47,618,000
31
744
1,066
1,067
-------
Table A -1
Summary of Pumping Volumes/Operational Frequency for Interceptor Ufells - April 2004 through December 2 022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Pumping Period
MW89-12'
AOIWb
EXT13-01
G127000
EXT07-02
EXT11-01
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping
Time
for Month
Mean Pumping Rate
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping
Time
for Month
Mean Pui
mping Rate
pm)
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Pumping
Volume of Water
Rem oved
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Puj
tiping Rate
pm)
Volume of Water
Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Pu
(
mping Rate
¦pm)
Volume of Water
Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Pumping Rate
days'
hours
day*
hour'
days'
hours
days'
hours
dayd
hour'
days'
hours
days'
hours
days'
hours
dayd
hour'
lanuarv2011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Inaalled
37,950,100
31
744
850
850
45,519,000
31
744
1,020
1,020
Not Installed
Februarv 2011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35,046,900
28
672
869
869
40,375,000
28
672
1,001
1,001
March 2011
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
38,668,300
31
744
867
866
45,1 18,000
31
744
1,011
1,011
April 2011
449,618
4
92
81
81
1,563,300
30'
720 '
36
36
Not Inaalled
37,490,053
30
720
868
868
43,673,339
30
720
1,011
1,011
Not Installed
Mav2011
674,645
6
132
85
85
4,995,600
31'
744 '
112
112
38,304,793
31
744
858
858
44,854,749
31
744
1,005
1,005
June 2011
0
0'
0'
0
0
16,329,205
30'
720 '
378
378
36,718,936
30
720
850
850
43,390,759
30
720
1,004
1,004
lulv 2011
0
0'
0'
0
0
23,559,486
31'
744 '
528
528
35,109,687
31
744
787
787
44,814,561
31
744
1,004
1,004
Aucust2011
2,613,597
24
577
75
75
15,913,754
31'
744 '
356
356
38,005,715
31
744
851
851
42,302,423
31
744
948
948
September 2011
2,602,216
23
554
79
78
12,255,155
30'
720 '
284
284
33,995,910
30
720
787
787
42,927,004
30
720
994
994
October 2011
1,671,650
31
744
37
37
0
0
0
0
0
39,876,000
31
744
894
894
45,134,000
31
744
1,011
1,011
Not Operational
November 2011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38,678,200
30
720
895
895
43,786,000
30
720
1,014
1,014
December 2011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39,963,600
31
744
895
895
45,056,000
31
744
1,009
1,009
42,966,658
26
624
1,148
1,148
lanuarv2012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Inaalled
39,175,700
31
744
878
878
45,008,000
31
744
1,008
1,008
52,187,141
31
744
1,169
1,169
Februarv 2012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37,384,500
29
696
895
895
42,044,000
29
696
1,007
1,007
49,952,277
29
696
1,196
1,196
March 2012
904,030
8
192
78
78
2,227,954
2
48
774
774
37,922,000
30
720
878
878
42,805,000
30
720
991
991
48,746,835
30
720
1,128
1,128
April2012
1,157,760
16
384
50
50
1 1,491,868
16
384
499
499
31,188,000
24
576
902
902
35,912,000
30
708
845
845
36,878,929
28
672
915
915
Mav2012
1,812,840
17
408
74
74
17,387,580
17
408
710
710
34,628,860
31
744
776
776
45,148,000
31
744
1,011
1,011
45,059,397
31
744
1,009
1,009
June 2012
1,497,220
16
384
65
65
23,683,230
20
480
822
822
32,093,320
30
720
743
743
34,275,150
30
720
793
793
36,035,403
30
720
834
834
lulv 2012
2,070,430
30
720
48
48
33,489,470
31
744
750
750
35,686,300
31
744
799
799
29,045,150
31
744
651
651
38,658,000
30
720
895
895
Aucust2012
1,692,180
23
552
51
51
28,541,850
31
744
639
639
35,643,100
31
744
798
798
34,798,500
31
744
780
780
23,811,615
31
744
533
533
September 2012
2,849,520
28
672
71
71
8,427,900
9
216
650
650
40,048,400
30
720
927
927
46,037,000
30
720
1,066
1,066
40,252,140
29
696
964
964
October 2012
1,191,660
13
312
64
64
8,163,600
10
240
567
567
33,031,100
28
672
819
819
47,809,000
31
744
1,071
1,071
44,079,563
31
744
987
987
November 2012
9,270
0.25
6
26
26
317,400
1
24
220
220
40,867,000
30
720
946
946
46,940,590
30
720
1,087
1,087
43,758,281
30
720
1,013
1,013
December 2012
4,320
0.25
6
12
12
3,567,400
4
96
619
619
39,525,000
31
744
885
885
48,643,040
31
744
1,090
1,090
45,485,276
31
744
1,019
1,019
lanuarv2013
13,370
1
24
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
Not Inaalled
35,354,000
28
672
877
877
48,848,070
31
744
1,094
1,094
45,562,259
31
744
1,021
1,021
Februarv 2013
35,550
10
240
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
33,599,000
28
672
833
833
44,226,000
28
672
1,097
1,097
41,133,175
28
672
1,020
1,020
March 2013
0
0
0
0
0
1,850,800
1
24
1,285
1,285
38,459,000
31
744
862
862
48,980,200
31
744
1,097
1,097
45,452,053
31
744
1,018
1,018
April 2013'
2,657,819
25
s..
74
74
22,698,588
26
624
S.S
S.S
Not Operational
108,657,802
91
2,184
829
829
137,614,861
»
2,160
1,062
1,062
43,877,269
30
720
1,016
1,016
May 2013'
26,613,846
20
480
924
924
June 2013'
29,438,593
18
432
1,136
1,136
lulv 2013
2,373,179
21
504
78
78
46,894,405
31
744
1,051
1,051
32,455,468
31
744
727
727
43,524,603
31
744
975
975
37,078,600
31
744
831
831
41,321,912
27
648
1,063
1,063
Aueust2013
2,431,486
26
624
65
65
23,017,905
22
528
727
727
39,120,358
30
720
906
906
34,532,237
31
744
774
774
38,015,600
31
744
852
852
43,572,438
29
696
1,043
1,043
September 2013
3,198,158
26
624
85
85
3,917,696
2
48
1,360
1,360
23,093,273
30
720
535
535
40,092,355
30
720
928
928
42,717,500
30
720
989
989
53,591,559
30
720
1,241
1,241
October 2013
933,492
9
216
72
72
52,736
2
48
18
18
34,760,901
31
744
779
779
28,742,500
28
672
713
713
44,806,200
31
744
1,004
1,004
55,486,673
31
744
1,243
1,243
November 2013
29,563
1
24
21
21
3,381
1
24
2
2
47,761,750
30
720
1,106
1,106
26,641,100
30
720
617
617
38,934,200
30
720
901
901
48,081,430
30
720
1,113
1,113
December 2013
0
0
0
0
0
0
41,468,240
31
744
929
929
47,618,900
31
744
1,067
1,067
49,162,600
31
744
1,101
1,101
49,472,086
31
744
1,108
1,108
lanuarv2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
40,499,500
31
744
907
907
43,199,100
31
744
968
968
43,332,200
31
744
971
971
40,939,885
31
744
917
917
Februarv 2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,667,500
28
672
909
909
39,071,200
28
672
969
969
32,253,400
28
672
800
800
35,927,891
28
672
891
891
March 2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
23,039,000
20
480
800
800
36,341,100
31
744
814
814
35,020,500
31
744
785
785
35,581,142
31
744
797
797
April 2014
159,128
2
39
68
68
0
0
0
33,313,000
30
720
771
771
33,056,100
30
720
765
765
33,638,400
30
720
779
779
34,310,884
30
720
794
794
Mav2014
931,451
9
226
69
69
0
0
0
33,555,000
31
744
752
752
37,103,400
20
480
1,288
1,288
37,049,500
31
744
830
830
43,478,696
31
744
974
974
June 2014
1,512,184
15
366
69
69
4,151,600
25
600
115
115
33,421,000
30
720
774
774
45,306,100
30
720
1,049
1,049
39,382,300
30
720
912
912
45,245,915
29
696
1,083
1,083
lulv 2014
2,237,273
23
542
69
69
38,469,500
25
600
1,069
1,069
40,612,600
27
648
1,045
1,045
45,292,200
31
744
1,015
1,015
33,991,600
31
744
761
761
35,451,160
27
648
912
912
Aueust2014
2,207,445
22
534
69
69
26,032,700
15
360
1,205
1,205
34,412,000
30
720
797
797
43,839,400
31
744
982
982
31,432,800
27
648
808
808
44,388,498
31
744
994
994
September 2014
1,570,751
16
380
69
69
0
1
24
0
0
35,910,000
30
720
831
831
44,354,900
30
720
1,027
1,027
30,656,600
30
720
710
710
46,1 16,889
30
720
1,068
1,068
October 2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,835,000
31
744
825
825
38,073,400
31
744
853
853
28,576,700
31
744
640
640
43,043,227
31
744
964
964
November 2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
35,009,000
30
720
810
810
32,388,300
30
720
750
750
29,746,900
30
720
689
689
34,254,381
30
720
793
793
December 2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,317,000
31
744
814
814
33,542,400
31
744
751
751
30,687,200
31
744
687
687
35,31 1,562
31
744
791
791
lanuarv2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,312,436
31
744
813
813
32,667,958
31
744
732
732
30,810,820
31
744
690
690
35,473,962
31
744
795
795
Februarv 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
32,835,174
28
672
814
814
29,401,629
28
672
729
729
27,670,443
28
672
686
686
29,768,822
28
672
738
738
March 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,572,741
31
744
819
819
33,082,382
31
744
741
741
39,026,833
31
744
874
874
28,537,827
31
744
639
639
April 2015
0
0
0
1,718,100
3
72
398
398
33,849,275
29
696
811
811
31,805,420
30
720
736
736
37,207,935
30
720
861
861
28,856,262
30
720
668
668
Mav2015
344,895
4
96
60
60
1,488,900
1
24
1,034
1,034
35,592,736
31
744
797
797
38,291,017
31
744
858
858
39,069,305
31
744
875
875
26,841,458
31
744
601
601
June 2015
2,586,718
30
720
60
60
8,801,300
7
168
873
873
33,928,241
30
720
785
785
37,370,757
30
720
865
865
37,801,886
30
720
875
875
28,455,692
30
720
659
659
lulv 2015
2,142,428
31
744
48
48
32,929,814
25
600
915
915
32,238,930
26
624
861
861
45,099,049
31
744
1,010
1,010
35,030,837
31
744
785
785
36,490,395
31
744
817
817
Aucust2015
706,287
10
244
48
48
4,647,586
3
72
1,076
1,076
29,191,330
26
624
780
780
35,507,412
26
624
948
948
43,915,295
31
744
984
984
43,674,1 19
31
744
978
978
September 2015
919,857
13
303
51
51
0
0
0
35,706,528
30
720
827
827
27,040,982
28
672
671
671
38,354,030
30
720
888
888
44,008,552
30
720
1,019
1,019
October 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
37,685,196
31
744
844
844
29,269,186
31
744
656
656
39,895,157
31
744
894
894
37,577,635
31
744
842
842
November 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,541,519
30
720
846
846
30,109,699
30
720
697
697
37,145,554
30
720
860
860
34,170,824
30
720
791
791
December 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
37,682,414
31
744
844
844
28,963,004
31
744
649
649
38,973,407
31
744
873
873
35,683,386
31
744
799
799
-------
Table A -1
Summary of Pumping Volumes/Operational Frequency for Interceptor Ufells - April 2004 through December 2 022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Pumping Period
MW89-12'
AOIWb
EXT13-01
G127000
EXT07-02
EXT11-01
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping
Time
for Month
Mean Pumping Rate
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping
Time
for Month
Mean Pui
mping Rate
pm)
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean 1
Rate
umping
Volume of Water
Rem oved
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Puj
tiping Rate
pm)
Volume of Water
Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Pu
(
mping Rate
¦pm)
Volume of Water
Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Pumping Rate
days'
hours
day*
hour'
days'
hours
days'
hours
dayd
days'
hours
days'
hours
days'
hours
dayd
hour'
Ianuarv2016
0
0
0
0
33,328,048
31
744
747
747
30,412,580
31
744
681
681
41,166,442
31
744
922
922
35,248,262
31
744
790
790
Februarv 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
31,786,578
28
672
788
788
29,216,181
28
672
725
725
29,250,765
28
672
725
725
31,044,830
28
672
770
770
March 2016
0
o
o
0
o
o
34,183,715
31
744
766
766
31,179,819
31
744
698
698
25,187,635
31
744
564
564
25,765,534
31
744
577
577
April2016
o
o
o
o
o
o
33,643,631
30
720
779
779
32,807,180
30
720
759
759
35,304,029
30
720
817
817
26,701,451
30
720
618
618
Mav2016
o
o
o
o
o
o
21,019,600
23
552
635
635
35,392,502
31
744
793
793
38,341,077
31
744
859
859
24,783,786
31
744
555
555
June 2016
o
o
o
20,090,072
15
360
930
930
36,888,708
30
720
854
854
39,139,668
30
720
906
906
39,396,529
30
720
912
912
33,373,263
30
720
773
773
Tulv 2016
2,319,883
20
480
81
81
23,887,978
18
432
922
922
35,234,91 1
30
720
816
816
37,331,797
31
744
836
836
35,020,862
30
720
811
811
41,345,255
30
720
957
957
Aucust2016
2,969,892
25
600
82
82
29,350,150
22
528
926
926
30,892,899
31
744
692
692
36,821,879
31
744
825
825
41,238,932
31
744
924
924
41,068,410
31
744
920
920
September 2016
592,925
6
144
69
69
0
0
0
31,965,743
30
720
740
740
33,562,345
30
720
777
777
40,663,726
30
720
941
941
39,801,961
30
720
921
921
October 2016
4,400
0
2
31
31
0
0
0
34,561,922
31
744
774
774
35,986,648
31
744
806
806
38,261,932
31
744
857
857
1,979,940
2
48
687
687
November 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
33,012,939
30
720
764
764
35,223,283
30
720
815
815
37,683,214
30
720
872
872
29,030,829
30
720
672
672
December 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
33,940,733
31
744
760
760
37,420,829
31
744
838
838
38,503,585
31
744
863
863
30,186,204
31
744
676
676
Ianuarv2017
0
0
0
0
0
0
34,295,900
31
744
768
768
39,496,800
31
744
885
885
39,952,700
31
744
895
895
31,161,000
31
744
698
698
Februarv 2017
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,127,800
28
672
747
747
34,475,900
28
672
855
855
35,106,100
28
672
871
871
27,416,000
28
672
680
680
March 2017
0
0
0
0
0
0
33,518,100
31
744
751
751
39,295,300
31
744
880
880
38,932,400
31
744
872
872
22,627,000
26
624
604
604
April2017
10,700
1
24
7
7
0
0
0
29,907,400
30
720
692
692
35,001,200
30
720
810
810
34,996,600
30
720
810
810
28,147,000
30
720
652
652
Mav2017
49,600
3
72
11
11
4,474,600
2
48
1,554
1,554
38,726,900
31
744
868
868
44,256,800
31
744
991
991
41,403,100
31
744
927
927
33,608,000
31
744
753
753
June 2017
1,983,100
18
432
77
77
29,218,300
23
552
882
882
32,799,900
30
720
759
759
40,199,800
30
720
931
931
35,495,200
30
720
822
822
36,956,000
30
720
855
855
Tulv 2017
3,065,500
28
672
76
76
37,987,200
30
720
879
879
28,154,400
26
624
752
752
37,439,000
31
744
839
839
25,364,400
25
600
705
705
37,987,000
31
744
851
851
Aucust2017
1,541,900
17
408
63
63
18,354,700
15
360
850
850
32,505,700
31
744
728
728
46,101,700
31
744
1,033
1,033
42,049,100
31
744
942
942
33,268,000
31
744
745
745
September 2017
1,657,100
12
288
96
96
4,404,700
5
120
612
612
31,695,900
30
720
734
734
35,726,500
30
720
827
827
38,097,500
30
720
882
882
29,966,000
30
720
694
694
October 2017
1,432,000
9
216
110
110
0
0
0
33,375,400
31
744
748
748
33,197,200
31
744
744
744
36,809,100
31
744
825
825
32,270,000
31
744
723
723
November 2017
136,200
3
72
32
32
0
0
0
30,221,800
30
720
700
700
32,048,000
30
720
742
742
35,553,100
30
720
823
823
29,838,000
30
720
691
691
December 2017
25,800
1
24
18
18
0
0
0
28,206,300
31
744
632
632
31,079,500
31
744
696
696
34,671,700
31
744
777
777
25,030,000
31
744
561
561
Ianuarv2018
200
3
72
0
0
0
0
0
32,059,100
31
744
718
718
33,949,800
31
744
761
761
39,661,800
31
744
888
888
28,136,000
31
744
630
630
Februarv 2018
0
0
0
0
0
0
27,465,900
28
672
681
681
30,137,600
28
672
747
747
34,556,400
28
672
857
857
23,745,000
28
672
589
589
March 2018
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,475,700
31
744
660
660
32,342,300
31
744
725
725
37,344,800
31
744
837
837
25,461,000
31
744
570
570
Acnl2018
81,100
8
192
7
7
0
0
0
30,649,400
30
720
709
709
33,561,600
30
720
777
777
38,610,400
30
720
894
894
26,740,000
30
720
619
619
Mav2018
294,300
9
216
23
23
1 1,388,600
12
288
659
659
27,978,300
31
744
627
627
40,635,700
31
744
910
910
33,713,000
31
744
755
755
33,280,000
30
720
770
770
June 2018
2,091,500
27
648
54
54
0
0
0
28,542,400
30
720
661
661
37,159,100
30
720
860
860
39,130,800
30
720
906
906
27,186,000
30
720
629
629
Tulv 2018
1,937,300
21
504
64
64
12,281,600
12
288
711
711
30,387,100
31
744
681
681
16,930,600
14
336
840
840
39,050,500
31
744
875
875
26,891,000
31
744
602
602
Aueust2018
167,500
8
192
15
15
19,405,000
15
360
898
898
26,170,100
31
744
586
586
28,159,400
24
576
815
815
39,043,000
28
672
968
968
34,095,000
27
648
877
877
September 2018
3,636,100
30
720
84
84
0
0
0
30,200,100
30
720
699
699
32,758,200
30
720
758
758
34,817,900
30
720
806
806
22,450,000
30
720
520
520
October 2018
1,637,500
14
336
81
81
0
0
0
40,355,600
31
744
904
904
38,247,300
31
744
857
857
39,562,300
31
744
886
886
28,282,000
31
744
634
634
November 2018
23,200
3
72
5
5
0
0
0
36,934,900
30
720
855
855
33,841,900
30
720
783
783
35,125,700
30
720
813
813
24,978,000
30
720
578
578
December 2018
0
0
0
0
0
0
38,160,100
31
744
855
855
35,048,200
31
744
785
785
36,251,400
31
744
812
812
25,781,000
31
744
578
578
Ianuarv2019
0
0
0
0
0
0
38,181,900
31
744
855
855
35,030,000
31
744
785
785
36,278,300
31
744
813
813
25,671,000
31
744
575
575
Februarv 2019
0
0
0
0
0
0
31,949,300
28
672
792
792
29,360,300
28
672
728
728
30,425,800
28
672
755
755
24,390,000
28
672
605
605
March 2019
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,980,500
31
744
828
828
33,995,300
31
744
762
762
35,137,600
31
744
787
787
17,720,000
31
744
397
397
Acnl2019
17,600
2
48
6
6
0
0
0
41,251,700
30
720
955
955
37,376,900
30
720
865
865
38,530,800
30
720
892
892
27,534,000
30
720
637
637
Mav2019
3,315,400
25
600
92
92
5,800
1
24
4
4
36,986,300
31
744
829
829
35,353,300
31
744
792
792
34,482,600
31
744
772
772
26,656,000
31
744
597
597
June 2019
3,650,100
27
648
94
94
0
0
0
16,311,100
17
408
666
666
32,049,600
30
720
742
742
22,797,500
30
720
528
528
24,321,000
30
720
563
563
Tulv 2019
1,829,300
17
408
75
75
31,064,900
30
720
719
719
17,069,900
26
624
456
456
35,088,300
31
744
786
786
8,365,000
8
192
726
726
21,306,000
28
672
528
528
Aueust2019
3,295,300
31
744
74
74
18,003,900
13
312
962
962
27,423,400
29
696
657
657
40,267,100
31
744
902
902
30,130,700
28
672
747
747
21,075,000
27
648
542
542
September 2019s
2,649,500
19
456
97
97
0
0
0
27,958,800
27
648
719
719
42,822,300
30
720
991
991
17,600,000
30
720
407
407
17,879,000
18
432
690
690
October 2019s
40,100
1
24
28
28
0
0
0
20,640,100
31
744
462
462
33,964,500
31
744
761
761
30,061,500
31
744
673
673
0
0
0
November 2019
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,090,900
30
720
465
465
29,732,500
30
720
688
688
30,330,900
30
720
702
702
0
0
0
December 2019
0
0
0
0
0
0
25,380,900
31
744
569
569
37,536,500
31
744
841
841
38,238,000
31
744
857
857
0
0
0
Ianuarv2020
0
0
0
0
0
0
23,125,200
31
744
518
518
33,453,000
31
744
749
749
34,755,400
31
744
779
779
0
0
0
Februarv 2020
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,903,200
28
672
518
518
21,600,700
21
504
714
714
31,427,200
28
672
779
779
0
0
0
March 2020
0
0
0
0
0
0
23,913,100
31
744
536
536
28,056,300
25
600
779
779
35,981,600
31
744
806
806
0
0
0
April 2020
31,500
8
192
3
3
2,935,100
7
168
291
291
24,165,700
30
720
559
559
22,853,000
23
552
690
690
32,711,100
30
720
757
757
29,189,000
18
432
1,126
1,126
Mav2020
1,093,800
8
192
95
95
8,083,500
8
192
702
702
35,824,300
31
744
803
803
36,894,300
31
744
826
826
40,622,800
31
744
910
910
42,844,000
31
744
960
960
June 2020
70,300
17
408
3
3
24,441,200
22
528
772
772
33,527,100
30
720
776
776
41,211,000
30
720
954
954
40,146,200
30
720
929
929
44,783,000
30
720
1,037
1,037
Tulv 2020
557,300
16
384
24
24
31,049,700
25
600
862
862
32,834,200
31
744
736
736
39,804,500
31
744
892
892
36,938,600
31
744
827
827
37,215,000
28
672
923
923
Aueust 2020
3,803,600
31
744
85
85
41,474,000
31
744
929
929
33,730,000
31
744
756
756
37,931,000
28
672
941
941
35,156,700
31
744
788
788
35,312,000
20
480
1,226
1,226
September 2020
476,200
11
264
30
30
4,050,500
9
216
313
313
36,674,600
30
720
849
849
39,212,600
30
720
908
908
41,248,100
30
720
955
955
25,268,000
17
408
1,032
1,032
October 2020
865,400
8
192
75
75
0
0
0
28,625,400
31
744
641
641
37,765,600
31
744
846
846
39,991,700
31
744
896
896
0
0
0
November 2020
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,335,500
30
720
610
610
33,305,300
30
720
771
771
35,003,500
30
720
810
810
0
0
0
December 2020
0
0
0
0
0
0
23,804,600
31
744
533
533
30,31 1,900
31
744
679
679
31,765,800
31
744
712
712
0
0
0
Ianuarv2021
0
0
0
0
0
0
27,061,500
31
744
606
606
34,578,200
31
744
775
775
36,043,700
31
744
807
807
0
0
0
Februarv 2021
0
0
0
0
0
0
17,789,900
28
672
441
441
25,745,000
28
672
639
639
26,712,700
28
672
663
663
0
0
0
March 2021
0
0
0
0
0
0
31,799,100
31
744
712
712
39,381,800
31
744
882
882
40,859,900
31
744
915
915
0
0
0
April 2021
0
0
0
0
0
0
23,564,400
30
720
545
545
32,125,900
30
720
744
744
33,131,600
30
720
767
767
0
0
0
Mav2021
20,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
17,360,700
31
744
389
389
29,946,700
31
744
671
671
27,155,200
31
744
608
608
26,541,200
31
744
595
595
27,102,500
31
744
607
607
June 2021
3,800
7
168
0
0
15,022,100
30
720
348
348
43,004,500
30
720
995
995
31,046,500
30
720
719
719
44,068,800
30
720
1,020
1,020
27,102,500
30
720
627
627
Tulv 2021
0
0
0
34,378,200
31
744
770
770
32,844,900
31
744
736
736
NA
31
744
22,726,700
31
744
509
509
474,000
31
744
11
11
Aueust 2021
14,200
21
504
0
0
12,746,600
14
336
632
632
30,058,700
31
744
673
673
NA
31
744
10,784,400
31
744
242
242
27,550,000
31
744
617
617
September 2021
4,600
14
336
0
0
0
0
0
35,093,400
30
720
812
812
46,377,300
30
720
1,074
1,074
41,494,400
30
720
961
961
47,682,000
30
720
1,104
1,104
October 2021
5,700
14
336
0
0
0
0
0
29,946,400
31
744
671
671
40,522,700
31
744
908
908
37,094,300
31
744
831
831
40,307,000
31
744
903
903
November 2021
0
0
0
0
0
0
28,774,000
30
720
666
666
39,229,700
30
720
908
908
36,022,300
30
720
834
834
0
0
0
December 2021
0
0
0
0
0
0
38,350,000
31
744
859
859
32,098,700
31
744
719
719
38,174,300
31
744
855
855
0
0
0
-------
Table A -1
Summary of Pumping Volumes/Operational Frequency for Interceptor Ufells - April 2004 through December 2 022
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Pumping Period
MW89-12'
AOIWb
EXT13-01
G127000
EXT07-02
EXT11-01
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping
Time
for Month
Mean Pumping Rate
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping
Time
for Month
Mean Pui
mping Rate
pm)
Volume of
Water Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean 1
Rate
umping
Volume of Water
Rem oved
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Puj
tiping Rate
pm)
Volume of Water
Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Pu
(
mping Rate
¦pm)
Volume of Water
Removed
Total Pumping Time
for Month
Mean Pumping Rate
days'
hours
day*
hour'
days'
hours
days'
hours
day*
days'
hours
days'
hours
days'
hours
day*
hour'
lanuarv2022
0
0
0
0
29,596,700
31
744
663
663
NA
31
744
27,369,600
31
744
613
613
0
0
Februarv 2022
0
0
0
0
0
0
28,499,400
28
672
707
707
NA
28
672
27,592,200
28
672
684
684
0
0
0
March 2022
0
o
o
0
o
o
34,880,200
31
744
781
781
10,621,300
31
744
238
238
31,635,800
31
744
709
709
0
o
o
April 2022
o
o
o
4,100,500
24
576
119
119
28,303,200
30
720
655
655
41,377,100
30
720
958
958
25,457,600
30
720
589
589
0
o
o
Mav2022
5,500
7
168
1
1
4,838,700
24
576
140
140
30,006,400
31
744
672
672
40,107,700
31
744
898
898
13,150,800
24
576
381
381
7,197,000
31
744
161
161
June 2022
174,000
27
648
4
4
18,671,700
30
720
432
432
33,852,700
30
720
784
784
52,154,500
30
720
1,207
1,207
36,493,600
30
720
845
845
19,483,000
30
720
451
451
lulv 2022
138,900
14
336
7
7
7,017,500
24
576
203
203
41,066,500
31
744
920
920
36,167,200
31
744
27,389,400
31
744
614
614
35,435,000
31
744
794
794
August 2022
0
0
0
27,231,400
31
744
610
610
43,345,200
31
744
971
971
47,057,900
31
744
12,959,900
31
744
290
290
47,239,000
31
744
1,058
1,058
September 2022
4,100
7
168
0
0
12,494,600
24
576
362
362
29,294,100
30
720
678
678
36,749,200
30
720
851
851
17,718,200
30
720
410
410
37,709,000
30
720
873
873
October 2022
3,800
14
336
0
0
9,168,400
31
744
205
205
33,1 15,500
31
744
742
742
12,390,800
14
336
615
615
23,362,800
31
744
523
523
0
0
0
November 2022
0
0
0
20,700
2
48
7
7
41,393,200
30
720
958
958
NA
0
0
30,446,600
30
720
705
705
0
0
0
December 2022
0
0
0
0
0
0
40,845,200
31
744
915
915
NA
0
0
24,138,600
31
744
541
541
0
0
0
'MW89-12 - Days/hours are biased low in June 2008, as daily recording of hours operating was not available for the full month.
AOIW - DaysTiours are biased low in September 2007, as daily recording of hours operating was not available.
'A "pumping day" is defined as any day during which the pump was recorded as running for a cumulative total of 12 hours or more between 12:00 am and 11:59 pm.
Mean pumping rate (using day^ = gallons pumped/(pumping daysx 1440 minutes per day). Assumes pump ran for a full 24 hours on a "pumping day."
eMean pumping rate (using hours) = gallons pumped/(pumping hours x60 minutes per hour).
There is some uncertainty regarding pumping continuity during these months.
*The volumes of water removed for EXT07-02 in September and October 2019 are estimated values. The well was pumping, but the totalizer did not record the volume pumped from September 4 through October 11, 2019. The volume of water removed is based on an average of 1.1 million gallons of water pumped per day.
Notes:
gjm - gallons per minute
NA - not available
-------
Table A 2
Summary of Yearly Mass Removed by the Remedial Pumping Systems (2005 - 2022)
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Date
AOIW
MW89 12
G127000
EXT07-02
EXT11 01
EXT13 01
Total VOCs (lbs)
1,4-Dioxane (lbs)
Total VOCs (lbs)
1,4-Dioxane (lbs)
Total VOCs (lbs)
1,4-Dioxane (lbs)
Total VOCs (lbs)
1,4-Dioxane (lbs)
Total VOCs (lbs)
1,4-Dioxane (lbs)
Total VOCs (lbs)
1,4-Dioxane (lbs)
2005
86.202
8.490
56.456
4.955
55.531
0.393
-
-
-
-
-
-
2006
53.516
5.303
63.556
6.354
37.816
0.735
-
-
-
-
-
-
2007
43.919
4.053
33.85
2.937
22.48
0.313
-
-
-
-
-
-
2008
16.037
0.856
42.727
2.662
23.641
NC
80.005
NC
-
-
-
-
2009
32.359
3.102
21.444
2.446
18.562
NC
71.596
NC
-
-
-
-
2010
20.361
1.252
2.472
0.528
27.83
NC
34.934
NC
-
-
-
-
2011
8.557
0
3.235
0.429
28.848
0
21.319
NC
1.65
NC
-
-
2012
44.185
3.321
9.255
1.066
31.090
1.922
16.627
NC
14.697
NC
-
-
2013
16.952
0.967
16.604
1.847
27.566
2.202
12.183
NC
6.736
NC
20.745
NC
2014
19.382
1.884
6.494
1.054
6.324
NC
6.277
NC
3.241
NC
18.061
NC
2015
NC
NC
NC
NC
5.348
NC
5.764
NC
0.870
NC
18.201
NC
2016
8.736
0.489
7.075
0.462
3.472
NC
5.250
NC
NC
NC
22.095
NC
2017
15.107
1.262
6.350
0.686
1.930
NC
4.106
NC
NC
NC
14.493
NC
2018
3.203
0.212
NC
NC
1.182
NC
3.114
NC
NC
NC
12.724
NC
2019
NC
NC
6.027
0.380
0.732
NC
1.295
NC
NC
NC
9.873
NC
2020
0.186
0.089
0.18
0.036
0.980
NC
2.217
NC
NC
NC
9.367
NC
2021
12.719
1.899
NC
NC
0.225
NC
0.528
NC
NC
NC
8.329
NC
2022
0.499
0.086
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
12.990
0
Notes:
— Extraction well was not operational
lbs - pounds
NC - not calculated. VOCs and/or 1,4-dioxane were either not detected during the sampling period, the well was not sampled during the sampling period, and/or the extraction well was not pumping.
VOC - volatile organic compound
Table A-2
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table A-3
MW89-12 Mass Removal Calculations and Results (January through December 2022)
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Analyte
Volume Extracted (gal)
Volume Extracted (L)
January - March 2022
April - June 2022
July - September 2022
October - December 2022
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L)1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L)1
Mass Removed (kg)
Jan-22
Feb-22
Mar-22
Apr-22
May-22
Jun-22
Jul-22
Aug-22
Sep-22
Oct-22
Nov-22
Dec-22
0
0
0
0
5,500
174,000
138,900
0
4,100
3,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,820
658,660
525,792
0
15,520
14,385
0
0
1,1-DCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,1-DCA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,1,1-TCA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
TCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
PCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,4-Dioxane
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
Total VOCs Removed (kg):
Total 1,4-Dioxane Removed (kg):
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Mass Removed
Total VOCs Removed (lbs)
Total 1,4-Dioxane Removed (lbs)
January - March 2022
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
April - June 2022
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
July - September 2022
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
October - December 2022
NC
NC
NC
NC
(1) Concentrations are those measured at tb
1,1,1 -TC A - 1,1,1 -Tr ichlor oethane
1,1-DCA- 1,1-Dichloroethane
1.1-DCE - 1,1-Dichloroethene
1.2-DCA- 1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-DCE - total of cis-l,2-dichloroethene ar
gal - gallon
kg - kilogram
L - liter
lbs - pounds
re^onding quarterly monitoring ev
i trans-1,2-dichloroethene
NA - not analyzed or not applicable
NC-not calculated
ND-not detected
PCE -Tetrachloroethene
TCE -Tnchloroethene
ug/L - microgramper liter
volume extracted (L) = [Total Gallons (from Table 3)] [ 3.7854 L/gal]
[concentrationug/L] [volume extracted L] [ 1 kg/1,000,000,000 ug] = kg of compound
[kg of compound] [2.205 lbs/kg] = lbsofVOCsremoved
Table A-3
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table A-4
AOIW Mass Removal Calculations and Results (January through December 2022)
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Analyte
Date:
Volume Extracted (gal):
Volume Extracted (L):
January - March 2022
April - June 2022
July - September 2022
October - December 2022
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Jan-22
Feb-22
Mar-22
Apr-22
May-22
Jun-22
Jul-22
Aug-22
Sep-22
Oct-22
Nov-22
Dec-22
0
0
0
4,100,500
4,838,700
18,671,700
7,017,500
27,231,400
12,494,600
9,168,400
0
0
0
0
0
15,522,033
18,316,415
70,679,853
26,564,045
103,081,742
47,297,059
34,706,061
0
0
1,1-DCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,1-DCA
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCA
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,1,1-TCA
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
TCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
PCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
1.28
0.034
0.132
0.061
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,4-Dioxane
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.371
0.006
0.007
0.026
0.100 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
Total VOCs Removed (kg):
Total 1,4-Dioxane Removed (kg):
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0340
0.132
0.061
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.006
0.007
0.026
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Mass Removed:
Total VOCs Removed (lbs):
Total 1,4-DioxaneRemoved (lbs):
January - March 2022
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
April - June 2022
NC
NC
NC
0.013
0.015
0.058
July - September 2022
0.075
0.291
0.133
NC
NC
NC
October - December 2022
(1) Concentrations are those measured at the well in the corresponding quarterly monitoring e\
1,1,1-TCA - 1,1,1-Tnchloroethane
1,1-DCA - 1,1-Dichloroethane
1.1-DCE - 1,1-Dichloroethene
1.2-DCA - 1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-DCE - total of cis-l,2-dichloroethene and trans-l,2-dichloroethene
gal - gallon
kg - kilogram
L - liter
lbs - pounds
NA - not analyzed or not applicable
NC - not calculated
ND - not detected
PCE - Tetrachloroethene
TCE - Tnchloroethene
ug/L - microgram per liter
volume extracted (L) = [Total Gallons (from Table 3)] [ 3.7854 L/gal]
[concentration ug/L] [volume extracted L] [1 kg/1,000,000,000 ug] = kg of compound
[kg of compound] [2.205 lbs/kg] = lbs of VOCsremoved
Table A-4
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table A-5
EXT13-01 Mass Removal Calculations and Results (January through December 2022)
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Analyte
Date:
Volume Extracted (gal):
Volume Extracted (L):
January - March 2022
April - June 2022
July - September 2022
October - December 2022
Concentration
(u^L)1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L)1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(u^L)1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L)1
Mass Removed (kg)
Jan-22
Feb-22
Mar-22
Apr-22
May-22
Jun-22
Jul-22
Aug-22
Sep-22
Oct-22
Nov-22
Dec-22
29,596,700
28,499,400
34,880,200
28,303,200
30,006,400
33,852,700
41,066,500
43,345,200
29,294,100
33,115,500
41,393,200
40,845,200
112,035,348
107,881,629
132,035,509
107,138,933
113,586,227
128,146,011
155,453,129
164,078,920
110,889,886
125,355,414
156,689,819
154,615,420
1,1-DCE
0.51
0.057
0.055
0.067
0.90
0.096
0.102
0.115
0.73
0.113
0.120
0.081
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
1,1-DCA
0.47
0.053
0.051
0.062
0.85
0.091
0.097
0.109
0.6
0.093
0.098
0.067
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCE
0.37
0.041
0.040
0.049
1.09
0.117
0.124
0.140
0.6
0.093
0.098
0.067
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCA
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
1,1,1-TCA
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.35
0.037
0.040
0.045
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
TCE
0.21
0.024
0.023
0.028
0.39
0.042
0.044
0.050
0.46
0.072
0.075
0.051
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
PCE
1.54
0.173
0.166
0.203
3.13
0.335
0.356
0.401
2.39
0.372
0.392
0.265
0.92
0.115
0.144
0.142
1,4-Dioxane
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
Total VOCs Removed (kg):
Total 1,4-Dioxane Removed (kg):
0.347
0.334
0.409
0.719
0.762
0.860
0.743
0.784
0.530
0.115
0.144
0.142
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Mass Removed:
Total VOCs Removed (lbs):
Total 1,4-Dioxane Removed (lbs):
January - March 2022
0.77
0.74
0.90
NC
NC
NC
April - June 2022
1.59
1.68
1.896
NC
NC
NC
July - September 2022
1.638
1.73
1.17
NC
NC
NC
October - December 2022
0.254
0.318
0.31
NC
NC
NC
(1) Concentrations are those measured at the well head approximately 1/2 mile from outfall OF004 in the corresponding quarterly monitoring e*.
1,1,1-TCA - 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-DCA - 1,1-Dichloroethane
1.1-DCE - 1,1-Dichloroethene
1.2-DCA - 1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-DCE - total of cis-l,2-dichloroethene and trans-1,2-dichloroethene
gal - gallon
kg - kilogram
L - liter
lbs - pounds
NA - not analyzed or not applicable
NC - not calculated
ND - not detected
PCE - Tetrachloroethene
TCE - Trichloroethene
ug/L - microgram per liter
volume extracted (L) = [Total Gallons (from Table 3)] [ 3.7854 L/gal]
[concentration ug/L] [volume extracted L] [lkg/1,000,000,000 ug] = kg of compound
[kg of compound] [2.205 lbs/kg] = lbs of VOCs removed
Table A-5
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table A-6
G127000 Mass Removal Calculations and Results (January through December 2022)
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Analyte
Date:
Volume Extracted (gal):
Volume Extracted (L):
January - March 2022
April - June 2022
July - September 2022
October - December 2022
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Jan-22
Feb-22
Mar-22
Apr-22
May-22
Jun-22
Jul-22
Aug-22
Sep-22
Oct-22
Nov-22
Dec-22
0
0
10,621,300
41,377,100
40,107,700
52,154,500
36,167,200
47,057,900
36,749,200
12,390,800
0
0
0
0
40,205,869
156,628,874
151,823,688
197,425,644
NA
178,132,975
139,110,422
46,904,134
0
0
1,1-DCE
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,1-DCA
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCE
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCA
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,1,1-TCA
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
TCE
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
PCE
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,4-Dioxane
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
Total VOCs Removed (kg):
Total 1,4-Dioxane Removed (kg):
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Mass Removed:
Total VOCs Removed (lbs):
Total 1,4-Dioxane Removed (lbs):
January - March 2022
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
April - June 2022
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
July - September 2022
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
(1) voc
(2) The flow
1,1,1-TCA -
1,1-DCA -1,
1.1-DCE -1,
1.2-DCA -1
1,2-DCE - tc
gal - gallon
kg - kilograr
L - liter
lbs - pounds
those measured at the corresponding quarterly monitoring event at the degassing pond prior to outfall OFOOl. 1,4-Dioxane, if analyzed for, was measured from a
r display was not functioning from 7 July to 25 August and from 22 December to 31 December causing partial volume extraction measurements for these months.
-Tnchloroethane
,1-Dichloroethane
1-Dichloroethene
,2-Dichloroethane
tal of cis-l,2-dichloroethene ar
s for VOCs removed by G127000 is likely biased low.
ns-l,2-dichloroethene
mple collected from the well at G127000. The calculated m
NA - not analyzed or not applicable
NC - not calculated
ND - not detected
PCE - Tetrachloroethene
TCE - Tnchloroethene
ug/L - microgram per liter
volume extracted (L) = [Total Gallons (from Table 3)] [ 3.7854 L/gal]
[concentration ug/L] [volume extracted L] [1 kg/1,000,000,000 ug] = kg of compound
[kg of compound] [2.205 lbs/kg] = lbs of VOCsremoved
October - December 2022
Table A-6
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table A-7
EXT07-02 Mass Removal Calculations and Results (January through December 2022)
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
Analyte
Date
Volume Extracted (gal)
Volume Extracted (L)
January - March 2022
April - June 2022
July - September 2022
October - December 2022
Concentration
(ug/L) *
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
(ug/L) 1
Mass Removed (kg)
Jan-22
Feb-22
Mar-22
Apr-22
May-22
Jun-22
Jul-22
Aug-22
Sep-22
Oct-22
Nov-22
Dec-22
27,369,600
27,592,200
31,635,800
25,457,600
13,150,800
36,493,600
27,389,400
12,959,900
17,718,200
23,362,800
30,446,600
24,138,600
103,604,884
104,447,514
119,754,157
96,367,199
49,781,038
138,142,873
103,679,835
49,058,405
67,070,474
88,437,543
115,252,560
91,374,256
1,1-DCE
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
1,1-DCA
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCE
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCA
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
1,1,1-TCA
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
TCE
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
PCE
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
1,4-Dioxane
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
Total VOCs Removed (kg):
Total 1,4-Dioxane Removed (kg):
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Mass Removed:
Total VOCs Removed (lbs):
Total 1,4-Dioxane Removed (lbs):
January - March 2022
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
April - June 2022
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
July - September 2022
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
October - December 2022
(1) Concentrations are those measured at the well head approximately 25 feet from outfall OF002 in the corresponding quarterly monitoring e\
1,1,1-TCA - 1,1,1-Tnchloroethane
1,1-DCA -1
1.1-DCE -1
1.2-DCA -1
1,2-DCE - tc
gal - gallon
kg - kilograr
L - liter
lbs - pounds
,1-Dichloroethane
1-Dichloroethene
,2-Dichloroethane
tal of cis-l,2-dichloroethene ar
ns-l,2-dichloroethene
NA - not analyzed or not applicable
NC - not calculated
ND - not detected
PCE - Tetrachloroethene
TCE - Tnchloroethene
ug/L - microgram per liter
volume extracted (L) = [Total Gallons (from Table 3)] [ 3.7854 L/gal]
[concentration ug/L] [volume extracted L] [1 kg/1,000,000,000 ug] = kg of compound
[kg of compound] [2.205 lbs/kg] = lbs of VOCsremoved
Table A-7
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table A-8
EXT11-01 Mass Removal Calculations and Results (January through December 2022)
Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
January - March 2022
April - June 2022
July - September 2022
October - December 2022
Analyte
Concentration
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
Mass Removed (kg)
Concentration
Mass Removed (kg)
Date:
(ug/L)1
Jan-22
Feb-22
Mar-22
(u^L)1
Apr-22
May-22
Jun-22
(u^L)1
Jul-22
Aug-22
Sep-22
(u^L)1
Oct-22
Nov-22
Dec-22
Volume Extracted (gal):
0
0
0
0
7,197,000
19,483,000
35,435,000
47,239,000
37,709,000
0
0
0
Volume Extracted (L):
0
0
0
0
27,243,524
73,750,948
134,135,649
178,818,511
142,743,649
0
0
0
1,1-DCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,1-DCA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,2-DCA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,1,1-TCA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
TCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
PCE
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
0.333 U
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
1,4-Dioxane
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
Total VOCs Removed (kg):
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Total 1,4-Dioxane Removed (kg):
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Mass Removed:
January - March 2022
April - June 2022
July - September 2022
October - December 2022
Total VOCs Removed (lbs):
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Total 1,4-Dioxane Removed (lbs):
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
(1) Concentrations are those measured at the well head approximately 25 feet from outfall OF003 in the corresponding quarterly monitoring e\
1,1,1-TCA - 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-DCA - 1,1-Dichloroethane
1.1-DCE - 1,1-Dichloroethene
1.2-DCA - 1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-DCE - total of cis-l,2-dichloroethene and trans-1,2-dichloroethene
gal - gallon
kg - kilogram
L - liter
lbs - pounds
NA - not analyzed or not applicable
NC - not calculated
U - undetected
PCE - Tetrachloroethene
TCE - Trichloroethene
ug/L - microgram per liter
volume extracted (L) = [Total Gallons (fromTable 3)] [ 3.7854 L/gal]
[concentration ug/L] [volume extracted L] [1 kg/1,000,000,000 ug] = kg of compound
[kg of compound] [2.205 lbs/kg] = lbs of VOCs removed
Table A-8
Page 1 of 1
-------
APPENDIX E - CORRESPONDENCE
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
November 2021
INTERCEPTOR WELL EVALUATION MEMORANDUM
TO:
Matt Rhodes, Lindsay Project Manager
FROM: Jamie Suing, EA Project Manager
SUBJECT: Interceptor Well Evaluation - Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site,
INTRODUCTION
Historic operations at the Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site (Site), Lindsay,
Nebraska, resulted in contamination (chlorinated VOCs) in soil at the facility and in
downgradient groundwater that is used as a source of drinking water for residents. To mitigate
the contamination Lindsay Manufacturing Company installed and operated two onsite interceptor
wells and four off-facility interceptor wells (G-127000, EXT07-02, EXT 11-01, EXT 13-01). The
purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the effectiveness of the continued operation of three
of the off-facility interceptor wells (G-127000, EXT07-02, EXT11-01). The location of the Site,
interceptor wells, and associated monitoring wells are shown on Figure 1.
BACKGROUND
The four off-facility interceptor wells (G-127000, EXT07-02, EXT11-01, EXT13-01) were
designed, installed, and operated to capture the groundwater plume and reduce concentrations of
chlorinated VOCs in groundwater to levels below the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in
the areas downgradient of the facility.
• G-127000 - Installed in February 2004, currently operates year-round with a designed
capacity of 1,000 gpm
• EXT07-02 - Installed in November 2007, currently operates year-round with a design
capacity of 1,000 gpm
• EXT11-01 - Installed in October 2011 with a 1,000 gpm designed capacity. Operation
was discontinued in March of 2019 per EPA approval letter (EPA 2019).
• EXT 13-01 - Installed in April 2013, currently operates year-round with a designed
capacity of 1,000 gpm
Lindsay, Nebraska.
1
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
In February 2019, an Interceptor Well Evaluation report was prepared and submitted to the EPA
on behalf of Lindsay evaluating the continued operation of EXT11-01 (AECOM 2019). The
evaluation recommended that the operation of interceptor well EXT 11-01 was no longer
necessary due to data demonstrating that the well had achieved its objective of capturing the
southern terminus of the groundwater plume and reducing chlorinated VOC concentrations
below MCLs. The evaluation indicated that the well and pumping systems are to remain in place
and maintained in operational condition to allow: the landowner to operate the well as needed
during the irrigation season through 2031 (agreement between Lindsay and landowner); and/or
restart the system if contaminates of concern (COC) concentrations in the monitoring wells in the
southern terminus area rebound and exceed MCLs (AECOM 2019). EPA provided an approval
letter which concurred with the recommendations, including, but not limited to, ceasing
operations on EXT11-01 (EPA 2019).
In August 2021 a Monitoring Well Abandonment Memorandum (EA 2021) was prepared and
submitted to the EPA requesting approval for closure/abandonment of 39 monitoring wells
downgradient of the Beller Property Domestic well (#6 on Figure 1), and in adjacent farmland.
The monitoring wells are installed around each of the interceptor wells and throughout the
historic plume. The Memorandum evaluated the 10 most recent rounds of monitoring data to
determine if COCs had attained the cleanup standard. The Memorandum concluded all 39
monitoring wells exhibited no signs of COC rebound over years of monitoring and have seen a
slow and steady decline in the presence of any COCs (EA 2021). 36 of the 39 monitoring wells
have been approved by EPA for abandonment according to their letter dated 17 September 2021
(EPA 2021) and were abandoned in mid-November 2021. EPA requested further redundancy
analysis on the remaining 3 monitoring wells. This was submitted to the EPA on 22 October
PLANNED SITE OPERATIONAL CHANGES AFFECTING GROUNDWATER PLUME
Currently, Lindsay is completing a design to install a new interceptor well near the current
location of MW89-12. This new interceptor well would replace AOIW onsite, be closer located
to the plume source areas, and likely operated year-round rather than as needed for crop
irrigation. A capture analysis is currently being developed for the proposed new interceptor well
and is anticipated to show that the new well will enhance capture and treatment of COCs onsite.
In addition to the new interceptor well design, Lindsay is also completing the design of an on-
site in-situ thermal treatment system to address the highest concentrated source area. The system
is anticipated to begin operation in early-mid 2022. Lindsay plans to install up to 10 additional
monitoring wells downgradient of the thermal treatment system to monitor treatment/capture
parameters. The residential groundwater treatment units will also remain in place until treatment
is completed and can be evaluated. The new interceptor well and planned thermal treatment is
2021.
2
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
consistent with the concept design for Alternatives A-2 and C-3 presented in the Remedial
Alternatives Evaluation Report (AECOM 2020).
INTERCEPTOR WELL EVALUATION
An evaluation of the continued operational effectiveness of the three interceptor wells (G-
127000, EXT07-02, EXT11-01) was completed using existing data that was compiled in the
Interceptor Well EXT 11-01 Evaluation Report (AECOM 2019) and the Monitoring Well
Abandonment Memorandum (EA 2021). The data from the AECOM report indicated that
EXT11-01 was non-detect for COCs and no longer needed and that interceptor wells G-127000
and EXT-07-02 had experienced continual decrease in Total VOC mass being removed based on
2017 monitoring data. The EA Well Abandonment Memorandum data shows that all monitoring
wells around the three southern interceptor wells were either non-detect for COCs or are
consistently well below clean-up standards for the last 10 monitoring rounds and met closure
requirements. Both documents were reviewed and approved by the EPA. The best currently
available data indicates that the three southern interceptor wells were effective at reducing the
COCs in the groundwater plume to below cleanup levels and are no longer necessary to operate.
Furthermore, continued operation of the proposed onsite interceptor well and offsite interceptor
well EXT 13-01, the proposed installation of a new interceptor well onsite near MW89-12, and
the installation and operation of a in-situ thermal treatment system to address the highest
concentrated source area, make it unlikely that COCs will continue to migrate offsite to the area
south of MW89-12.
Based on the information provided above, the three offsite interceptor wells (G-127000, EXT07-
02, and EXT 11-01) have achieved their objectives of capturing and reducing concentrations of
chlorinated VOCs in groundwater to levels below the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in
the areas downgradient of the MW89-10B and continued operation of these interceptor wells is
no long necessary.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that monitoring and operation of interceptor wells G-127000, EXT07-02 and
EXT11-01 be discontinued at the end of Quarter 4 2021.
If these recommendations are approved, the interceptor wells will be either properly abandoned
or released to local landowners shortly thereafter. All well abandonment activities will be
documented in the annual report.
3
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
REFERENCES
AECOM. 2019. Interceptor Well EXT11-01 Evaluation. Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska. 21 February.
AECOM. 2020. Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report. Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska. 21 August.
EA. 2021. Monitoring Well Abandonment Memorandum, Revision 1.0. Lindsay Irrigation
Solutions, LLC Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska. 20 August.
EPA. 2019. Interceptor Well EXT11-01 Evaluation. Letter of Approval. 19 March.
EPA. 2021. Monitoring Well Abandonment, Revision 1.0. Letter of Approval. 17 September.
4
-------
i o
i \lS3|SIISf"
1^1,^ \ ((( ^ J~v^?^n \ '—,, 0 ))j ^ (! \ !v \ *
aJKMh <
iEBi«^^fe^ra\UJ¥2i»Mft fesS^.Ci „3^;.\Cm/ ,,
} szM [\r\ ' | /
V! /
&3MM
i forGI 27000
(OF001)
fc v.
|
//
f l
k /T"~"
'"^F^fflSs \ f 1
I '^|g?~)H(r ^} fx>
apAi
2oJt
.///;i (iirr-m^fr::-
>ifmm
mmft,
' C—\j\\ i V\V\ ~*A -—^\i
5^^^^l'-^.\\'U ' ;rl y
MftjW
\Mmism.
ilBliSiliff
¦illSrlS
\j l^g|l\
J\ ,„. ' "V\Y\\' V\Y>
fir/L \ V.;ViV;:\-^^S>-'' N
f
teMWf^fe--------' ;r
)1
if
.:;w Miii^//
y\\ ))Jp(r
-------
Suincj^amie
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Wennerstrom, David
Thursday, January 20, 2022 2:27 PM
Matt Rhodes
Wesley, Billy; Suing, Jamie; Eric Arneson
RE: Lindsay Interceptor Well Evaluation Memorandum
Matt
Yes, you have EPA approval to decommission EXT 11-01 & G12700 extraction wells. There is nothing else required or requested
by EPA for this effort.
I have CC'd Billy Wesley on this e-mail as my state counterpart.
Respectfully,
David Wennerstrom, PE, PMP, LEED AP
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Region VII | Superfund & Emergency Management Division
11201 Renner Blvd | Lenexa, KS 66219
913.551.7996
Weiiiierstrom.DavidgEPA.Gov
From: Matt Rhodes
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:43 PM
To: Wennerstrom, David
Cc: Wesley, Billy ; Suing, Jamie ; Eric Arneson
Subject: RE: Lindsay Interceptor Well Evaluation Memorandum
Thank you for the email on December 17, 2021 regarding approval to decommission EXT 11-01 & G12700 extraction wells. Per
this approval from EPA, Lindsay will move forward with decommissioning the extraction wells as appropriate. Please advise if
there is anything additional you need from Lindsay at this time.
Thanks!
Matt
Matt Rhodes, CHMM
EHS Manager
Lindsay Corporation
214 East Second Street
Lindsay, NE. 88844
402-428-7244- Office
402-920-2833- Cell
David-
l
-------
www.liiidsav.com
0
From: Wennerstrom, David
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 3:48 PM
To: Matt Rhodes
Cc: Wesley, Billy chilly.Wesley@nebraska.gov>; Suing, Jamie ; Eric Arneson
Subject: RE: Lindsay Interceptor Well Evaluation Memorandum
[External Sender] Use caution with links or attachments
Good afternoon Matt,
EPA has reviewed your request for extraction well decommission. EPA concurs that EXT 11-01 & G12700 can be
decommissioned, however EXT 07-02 should remain in operation until the new extraction well(s) are installed within the facility
boundaries.
More info in the attached memo.
Respectfully,
David Wennerstrom, PE, PMP, LEED AP
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Region VII | Superfund & Emergency Management Division
11201 Renner Blvd | Lenexa, KS 66219
913.551.7996
Weiiiierstrom.DavidPEPA.Gov
From: Matt Rhodes
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 3:04 PM
To: Wennerstrom, David
Cc: Wesley, Billy ; Suing, Jamie ; Eric Arneson
Subject: FW: Lindsay Interceptor Well Evaluation Memorandum
David-
Please find attached a memorandum from Lindsay's environmental consultant detailing the justification for and requesting
approval to cease operations and abandon several of the interceptor wells located south of our facility. After reviewing the
report, Lindsay believes that the EPA will concur that the interceptor wells have accomplished their goal and are no longer
adding any value to the site remediation effort.
In addition, can you please provide an update on the EPA's review of the 3 remaining monitoring wells that we previously
requested approval to abandon?
Please let me know if you have questions/concerns.
2
-------
Thanks!
Matt
Matt Rhodes, CHMM
EHS Manager
Lindsay Corporation
214 East Second Street
Lindsay, NE. 68644
402-428-7244- Office
402-920-2633- Cell
www.lindsav.com
From: Suing, Jamie
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 2:36 PM
To: Matt Rhodes
Cc: Ritterling, Jon ; Dickinson, Erik
Subject: Lindsay Interceptor Well Evaluation Memorandum
[External Sender] Use caution with links or attachments
Matt,
Please see the attached memorandum evaluating the removal of the southern three interceptor wells.
Let me know if you need anything else. Have a great Thanksgiving break!
Jamie Suing PE, CPEA
EA Engineering. Science, and Technology. Inc.. PBC
221 Sun Valley Boulevard, Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
(402) 817-7629 (office)
(402) 310-3538 (cell)
isuinq@eaest.com
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE LIVE, ONE PROJECT AT A TIME®
3
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
August 2021
MONITORING WELL ABANDONMENT MEMORANDUM
REVISION 1
TO:
Matt Rhodes, Lindsay Project Manager
FROM: Jamie Suing, EA Project Manager
SUBJECT: Monitoring Well Abandonment - Lindsay Manufacturing Company
Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska.
INTRODUCTION
Historic operations at the Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska,
resulted in contamination in soil at the facility and in downgradient groundwater that is used as a
source of drinking water for residents. The purpose of this revised memorandum is to present
the rationale and propose for abandonment selected off-facility monitoring wells associated with
the Lindsay Superfund Site. The location of the site and monitoring wells are shown on Figure
1. Revision 1 adds statistical evaluation as requested by EPA.
RATIONALE
Thirty-nine (39) monitoring wells have been recommended for abandonment. Additional
information as well as the rationale for each monitoring well is summarized in Attachment A. All
of the monitoring wells are located downgradient of the Beller property (#17 on Figure 1), and
most are in farmland. There are no known human receptors of drinking water located directly
downgradient of the Beller property except for the Preister property domestic well, which has
been non-detect for contaminants of concern (COC) since 2008. This area exhibits no signs of
contaminant of concern (COC) rebound over years of monitoring and has seen a slow and steady
decline in the presence of any COCs (Attachment A). Abandonment of the recommended
monitoring wells will allow for continued efficient focus on the areas of the plume that still
exhibit concentrations of COCs above the maximum contaminant level on-site. Abandoning the
monitoring wells will also eliminate the need for access agreements from landowners, allow for
expansion of farmland, and reduce the potential for crop destruction from monitoring activities.
Monitoring wells were evaluated using the most recent 10 rounds of monitoring. For a given
sampling date, if a monitoring well was sampled multiple times (e.g., sampled at different
depths), then the average concentration was used in the evaluation. For a given monitoring well,
1
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
a COC is considered to have attained the cleanup standard if one of the following conditions is
satisfied:
1. The most recent 10 samples are non-detect with a laboratory reporting limit (LRL) that is
below the MCL.
2. The most recent 10 rounds of monitoring data exhibit a statistically significant decreasing
trend and the trendline is below the MCL.
3. The most recent 10 rounds of data do not exhibit a significant trend and the 95% upper
confidence level of the mean (UCLM) is below the MCL.
Tests for monotonic trend were conducted with the Mann-Kendall trend test at the 95%
confidence level using the LRL for a non-detect result. The 95% UCLMs were computed using
EPA's ProUCL software (version 5.1) with non-detects being censored to the LRL.. Results of
the statistical evaluation are summarized in Attachment A. All of the COCs evaluated in the
statistical analysis satisfy the criteria for attainment of the MCL.
The Mann-Kendall test for trend (Gilbert 1987) was used to identify constituents with an
increasing or decreasing trend at the 95 percent significance level. Concentrations reported
below the detection were treated as the laboratory reporting limit (LRL). Exact two-sided
probabilities for the null distribution of the Mann-Kendall test were obtained from Hollander and
Wolfe (1973).
Three monitoring wells do not fit the criteria described above but are still recommended for
abandonment. These monitoring wells were installed in 2011/2012 and sampled at different
depths. Additional information for these three monitoring wells is provided below:
• MW09-01 was sampled at 8 different depths for 2-3 quarters in 2011. 96% of the sample
results were non-detect for COCs and of the remaining detections, none were reported >
15% of the MCLs. This monitoring well is located approximately 25 feet from EXT07-02
which is regularly sampled.
• MW09-02 was sampled at 6 different depths for 3 quarters in 2011. All sample results
were non-detect for COCs. This monitoring well is located approximately 25 feet from
G127000, which is regularly sampled.
• MW11-06 was sampled at 3 different depths for 6 quarters in 2011/2012. 82% of the
sample results were non-detect for COCs, and of the remaining detections, none were
reported > 65% of MCLs. This monitoring well is located approximately 25 feet from
EXT 11-01, which is regularly sampled.
Lindsay anticipates beginning in-situ enhanced pumping and thermal treatment in early 2022.
Six monitoring wells will remain downgradient of the Lindsay site in order to monitor potential
migration of COCs off -site until treatment is completed. The residential groundwater treatment
2
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
unit will also remain in place at the Beller property until treatment is completed and can be
evaluated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For the reasons stated above, the thirty-nine (39) monitoring wells identified on Figure 1 and
Attachment A are no longer needed to effectively monitor the plume at Lindsay Manufacturing
Company Superfund Site. If the proposed well abandonment is approved, sampling will be
discontinued at these wells for Quarter 3 2021, and the wells properly abandoned shortly
thereafter. All monitoring well abandonment activities will be documented in the annual report.
REFERENCES
AECOM. 2021. 1st Quarter 2021 Groundwater Data Transmittal, Lindsay Irrigation Solutions,
LLC Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska, var.pg.
AECOM. 2020. Annual Report CERCLA Actions 2019, Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska, Table 1
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring, New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hollander, M. and D. A. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. Wiley, New York.
3
-------
10 \V\\
ML
i ilf
4k ^ cw%c ^
lSRSSr>J. Q ,J^\y-A/ ,,
Jl\Y~\.A
} «sM \U\ " f t
¦^"\>M'-J V! /
'\ i
<\ j
¥Mi
fc4/7^
\ A)r~,'---' C'~^j/~-~~z^
~'T f^fy-r^
J 11 r / / r" / fey ,_ \
"'"¦"^ ;-0K I 1^"
))\
% v->7
X \ \ : V \C / -~
V -. \ \ \\\t v-;/
==i_:_. li, \uJ,r-
UiilllliiS
jlilSiftiiift
¦illSrlS
\ V\\\\ UK;-
tvl)J/ifd?}ir:::;:
U/i!.':Jvv,;;^"-'' jirX^v-,'. \'c
" \'J \\ 1 \\SS NA -—-\"j
iiisra
HI j j
'Sf:K>):-
rM^r
j i '
~J^0||§f
tlX^ \ \ ii-
\vf
::y]\
ic (Old)
m Well (33637)
1 Ni
rJ \\(
w
\ I
4 Ok
ii.
v\
V\\
Si
N,) '--'
-J/r:
3, LLC
-------
Attachment A. Summary of Statistical Evaluation of Cleanup Level Attainment
ug/L
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
95% Upper Confidence Level
of Mean (UCLM)
Well
Chemical
Cleanup
Standard
(ug/L)
No.
Samples
No.
Detects
Max
Detect
Max Non-
Detect
S
Tabled P-
value
Trend
Conclusion
95%
UCLM
(ug/L)
UCLM Statistic
Candidate for
Closure?
MW04-01
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-01
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-01
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-01
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-01
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-01
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-02
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-02
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-02
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-02
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-02
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-02
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-03
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
6
1.19
0.67
-16
0.0930
Stable
0.691
95% KM (t) UCL
Yes4
MW04-03
1,1-DCE
7
10
6
1.31
0.67
-16
0.0930
Stable
0.838
95% KM (t) UCL
Yes4
MW04-03
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-03
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW04-03
PCE
5
10
7
1.48
0.67
-14
0.1270
Stable
0.874
95% KM (t) UCL
Yes4
MW04-03
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-01
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-01
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-01
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-01
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-01
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-01
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-02A
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
10
4.51
-35
0.0005
Decreasing
Yes3
-------
ug/L
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
95% Upper Confidence Level
of Mean (UCLM)
Well
Chemical
Cleanup
Standard
(ug/L)
No.
Samples
No.
Detects
Max
Detect
Max Non-
Detect
S
Tabled P-
value
Trend
Conclusion
95%
UCLM
(ug/L)
UCLM Statistic
Candidate for
Closure?
MW06-02A
1,1-DCE
7
10
10
6.54
-19
0.0540
Stable
3.963
95% H-UCL
Yes4
MW06-02A
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-02A
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-02A
PCE
5
10
10
5.17
-37
0.0002
Decreasing
Yes3
MW06-02A
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-02B
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
9
1.89
0.67
-37
0.0002
Decreasing
Yes3
MW06-02B
1,1-DCE
7
10
9
2.74
0.67
-39
0.0001
Decreasing
Yes3
MW06-02B
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-02B
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-02B
PCE
5
10
9
2.14
0.67
-39
0.0001
Decreasing
Yes3
MW06-02B
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-03
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-03
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-03
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-03
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-03
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-03
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-04
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-04
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-04
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-04
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-04
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW06-04
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW07-01A
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW07-01A
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW07-01A
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW07-01A
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
-------
ug/L
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
95% Upper Confidence Level
of Mean (UCLM)
Well
Chemical
Cleanup
Standard
(ug/L)
No.
Samples
No.
Detects
Max
Detect
Max Non-
Detect
S
Tabled P-
value
Trend
Conclusion
95%
UCLM
(ug/L)
UCLM Statistic
Candidate for
Closure?
MW07-01A
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW07-01A
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW07-01B
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW07-01B
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW07-01B
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW07-01B
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW07-01B
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW07-01B
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03A
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03A
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03A
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03A
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03A
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03A
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03B
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03B
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03B
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03B
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03B
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-03B
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-04A
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-04A
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-04A
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-04A
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-04A
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-04A
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-04B
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
-------
ug/L
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
95% Upper Confidence Level
of Mean (UCLM)
Well
Chemical
Cleanup
Standard
(ug/L)
No.
Samples
No.
Detects
Max
Detect
Max Non-
Detect
S
Tabled P-
value
Trend
Conclusion
95%
UCLM
(ug/L)
UCLM Statistic
Candidate for
Closure?
MW09-04B
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-04B
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-04B
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-04B
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW09-04B
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-01A
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIA
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIA
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIA
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIA
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIA
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIB
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIB
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIB
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIB
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIB
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIB
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIC
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIC
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIC
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIC
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIC
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MWIO-OIC
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02A
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02A
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02A
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02A
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
-------
ug/L
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
95% Upper Confidence Level
of Mean (UCLM)
Well
Chemical
Cleanup
Standard
(ug/L)
No.
Samples
No.
Detects
Max
Detect
Max Non-
Detect
S
Tabled P-
value
Trend
Conclusion
95%
UCLM
(ug/L)
UCLM Statistic
Candidate for
Closure?
MW10-02A
PCE
5
10
3
0.30
0.67
-8
0.2710
Stable
0.666
Max Result
Yes4
MW10-02A
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02B
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02B
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02B
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02B
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02B
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02B
TCE
5
10
1
0.33
0.67
11
0.1900
Stable
0.666
Max Result
Yes4
MW10-02C
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02C
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02C
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02C
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02C
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW10-02C
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01A
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01A
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01A
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01A
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01A
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01A
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01B
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01B
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01B
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01B
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01B
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-01B
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02A
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
-------
ug/L
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
95% Upper Confidence Level
of Mean (UCLM)
Well
Chemical
Cleanup
Standard
(ug/L)
No.
Samples
No.
Detects
Max
Detect
Max Non-
Detect
S
Tabled P-
value
Trend
Conclusion
95%
UCLM
(ug/L)
UCLM Statistic
Candidate for
Closure?
MW11-02A
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02A
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02A
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02A
PCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02A
TCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02B
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02B
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02B
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02B
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02B
PCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02B
TCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02C
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02C
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02C
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02C
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02C
PCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-02C
TCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03A
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03A
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03A
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03A
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03A
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03A
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03B
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03B
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03B
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03B
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
-------
ug/L
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
95% Upper Confidence Level
of Mean (UCLM)
Well
Chemical
Cleanup
Standard
(ug/L)
No.
Samples
No.
Detects
Max
Detect
Max Non-
Detect
S
Tabled P-
value
Trend
Conclusion
95%
UCLM
(ug/L)
UCLM Statistic
Candidate for
Closure?
MW11-03B
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03B
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03C
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03C
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03C
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03C
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-03C
PCE
5
10
1
0.26
0.67
17
0.0780
Stable
0.666
Max Result
Yes4
MW11-03C
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04A
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04A
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04A
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04A
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04A
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04A
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04B
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04B
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04B
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04B
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04B
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04B
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04C
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04C
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04C
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04C
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04C
PCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-04C
TCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05A
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
-------
ug/L
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
95% Upper Confidence Level
of Mean (UCLM)
Well
Chemical
Cleanup
Standard
(ug/L)
No.
Samples
No.
Detects
Max
Detect
Max Non-
Detect
S
Tabled P-
value
Trend
Conclusion
95%
UCLM
(ug/L)
UCLM Statistic
Candidate for
Closure?
MW11-05A
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05A
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05A
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05A
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05A
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05B
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05B
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05B
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05B
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05B
PCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05B
TCE
5
10
0
0.67
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05C
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05C
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05C
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05C
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05C
PCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-05C
TCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-07
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW11-07
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW 11-07
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW 11-07
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW 11-07
PCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW 11-07
TCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW89-10B
1,1,1-TCA
200
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW89-10B
1,1-DCE
7
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW89-10B
1,2-DCA
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW89-10B
1,2-DCE
170
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
-------
ug/L
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
95% Upper Confidence Level
of Mean (UCLM)
Well
Chemical
Cleanup
Standard
(ug/L)
No.
Samples
No.
Detects
Max
Detect
Max Non-
Detect
S
Tabled P-
value
Trend
Conclusion
95%
UCLM
(ug/L)
UCLM Statistic
Candidate for
Closure?
MW89-10B
PCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
MW89-10B
TCE
5
10
0
0.20
NA1
Yes2
1. Trend analysis is not applicable when all results are non-detect.
2. All results are non-detect and below cleanup standard
3. Concentrations are decreasing and are below cleanup standard.
4. Concentrations do not exhibit trend and the 95% UCLM is less than the cleanup standard.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 7
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Sep 17, 2021
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Monitoring Well Abandonment Memorandum, Revision 1.0
Lindsay Manufacturing Site
Lindsay, Nebraska
EPA ID No. # NED068645696
FROM: Randy Brown, Hydrogeologist RANDOLPH randolphbtown
Applied Sciences Branch BROWN
Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division
TO: David Wennerstrom, Remedial Project Manager
Site Remediation Branch
Superfund Division
As requested, the Monitoring Well Abandonment Memorandum, Revision 1.0 was reviewed for the
Lindsay Manufacturing Site. The hydrogeologist comments are included below. The Mann-Kendall
trends and calculated 95% upper confidence limit of the arithmetic mean concentrations for each
monitoring well were reviewed for the contaminants of concern. The comments reflect two groups of
monitoring proposed for closure, those meeting closure criteria (36 monitoring wells) and those not
meeting closure criteria (three monitoring wells). If you need additional assistance or have any questions
regarding the comments, please contact Randy Brown at x7978.
Hydrogeologist Comments
I. Monitoring wells demonstrating closure criteria:
1) Concur that monitoring well (MW) MW04-01 has reached the closure criteria.
2) Concur that MW04-02 has reached closure criteria.
3) Concur that MW04-03 has reached closure criteria.
4) Concur that MW06-01 has reached closure criteria.
5) Concur that MW06-2A has reached closure criteria.
6) Concur that MW06-2B has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW06-03 has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW06-04 has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW07-1A has reached closure criteria.
10) Concur that MW07-1B has reached closure criteria.
11) Concur that MW09-03 A has reached closure criteria.
12) Concur that MW09-03B has reached closure criteria.
13) Concur that MW09-04A has reached closure criteria.
14) Concur that MW09-04B has reached closure criteria.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Concur that MW10-01A has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MWIO-OIB has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MWIO-OIC has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW10-02A has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW10-02B has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW10-02C has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW 11-01A has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW11-01B has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW 11-02A has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW11-02B has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW11-02C has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW 11-03 A has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW11-03B has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW11-03C has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW 11-04A has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW11-04B has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW 11-04C has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW 11-05 A has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW11-05B has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW11-05C has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW 11-07 has reached closure criteria.
Concur that MW89-10B has reached closure criteria.
II. Monitoring wells needing additional analysis:
Three monitoring wells did not meet the closure criteria:
1) MW09-01
2) MW09-02
3) MW11-06
These three monitoring wells should have a monitoring well redundancy analysis performed on each
proposed monitoring well using a standard analysis package such as Groundwater Spatiotemporal Data
Analysis Tool (GWSDAT) to determine the impact of removing these three monitoring wells from the
monitoring network. There is no "official" EPA-sanctioned analysis software, but I am most familiar
with GWSDAT, which I have used. It has a specific well redundancy analysis function and that is what
most contractors seem to be using now.
In conclusion, I concur with the elimination of the 36 monitoring wells included in Section I of my
response which have demonstrated attainment of closure criteria. To eliminate the additional three
monitoring wells, a separate response with the requested redundancy analysis should be submitted to the
EPA for our review.
2
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
February 2022
PROPOSED MONITORING WELL ABANDONMENT MEMORANDUM
TO:
Matt Rhodes, Lindsay Project Manager
FROM: Jamie Suing, EA Project Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Monitoring Well Abandonment - Lindsay Manufacturing Company
INTRODUCTION
A proposed monitoring well abandonment memorandum was submitted to EPA on 20 August
2021. EPA, in their response dated 17 September 2021, agreed to the abandonment of 36 of 39
wells, and requested a redundancy analysis of the remaining 3 monitoring wells (MW09-01,
MW09-02, MW11-06). This memorandum provides the requested analysis and rationale for
abandonment. Well locations are shown on Figure 1.
RATIONALE
According to the EPA letter, a redundancy analysis, using a standard analysis package such as
Groundwater Spatiotemporal Data Analysis Tool (GWSDAT), is recommended to determine the
impact of removing these three monitoring wells (MW09-01, MW09-02, MW11-06). The
redundancy analysis was completed by loading multi-event COC data for 36 monitoring wells,
all south of MW92-3 and previously approved for abandonment, into GWSDAT. A plume
threshold value is required to delineate the plume over which ensuing calculations are performed.
Each COC was assigned a unique plume threshold value to ensure a sufficient period could be
analyzed to show well redundancy over the period of interest (approximately 2005 to 2020). The
plume thresholds were 0.50 ug/L, 7.5 ug/L, 1 ug/L, 5 ug/L and 5ug/L for 1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE,
1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, and PCE, respectively. COC data for TCE and 1,2-DCA were not included
in the analysis due to the history of non-detect returns. Similarly, 1,4-dioxane was not analyzed
as the contaminant has not been reported for the three wells of interest.
Attachment A provides time series of mass per unit depth of plume thickness, plume area, and
average plume concentration for the analyzed COCs when all monitoring wells are included in
the analysis (black line) and when the three monitoring wells are removed from the dataset
(green line). For all COCs, differences are negligible or nearly negligible when each well is
Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska.
1
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
removed on its own or when all three wells are removed together. This implies that the three
wells are redundant for the purpose of monitoring and understanding the COC plume and may be
removed from the monitoring network.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Through the redundancy analysis, monitoring wells MW09-01, MW09-02, and MW11-06,
identified on Figure 1 and in Attachment A, are no longer needed to effectively monitor the
plume at Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site. If the proposed abandonment of
these three monitoring wells is approved, sampling will be discontinued at these wells for
Quarter 1 of 2022, and the wells properly abandoned shortly thereafter. All monitoring well
decommissioning activities will be documented in the annual report.
REFERENCES
EA. 2021. 4tht Quarter 2021 Groundwater Data Transmittal, Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska, var.pg.
EA. 2021. Proposed Monitoring Well Abandonment Memorandum -Revision 7, Lindsay
Irrigation Solutions, LLC Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska. August.
EPA. 2021. Monitoring Well Abandonment Memorandum, Revision 1.0, Lindsay Irrigation
Solutions, LLC Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska. 17 September.
2
-------
Shell Creek 02
MW10-01A
MW06-03 MW10-01B
MW10-01C
EXT07-02 ~'
MW06-02A
Shell Creek Outfall
Location for EXT07-02
(OF002)
MW06-01
Figure 1
Site Layout
Shell Creek Outfall
Location for EXT11-01
(OF003)
MW09-03A
MW09-03B
MW09-04A
MW09-04B
MW09-02
G127000
MW11-01A
IV1W11 -U1 B
Shell Creek Outfall
Location for G127000
(OF001)
Domestic and Irrigation Well Key
Ben Pfeifer (D)
©
Preister Stock Well
Beller Stock Well (G122015)
Jim Klassen (I)
Eddy Luetkenhaus (D)
©
Preister Domestic (Old)
©
Dave Chohon (D)
©
Preister Irrigation Well (33637)
Doug Beller (D)
©
Tom Jarecki (D)
©
Beller Irrigation (#67535)
©
Martischang (I)
Ron Pfeifer (D)
©
Lester Kopecky (D)
©
Weylan Neal (G31798) (I)
©
Klassen's SE Irrigation (I)
Old Moravec (D)
Beller Domestic
©
©
Jim Klassen (D)
Tom Mefstrik (D)
©
©
Richard Wagner (I)
Anthony Klassen (G33172) (I)
D = Domestic
I = Irrigation
Beller Stock (Old)
Beller Stock (#54278)
©
©
John Klassen (D)
New Preister Domestic
(2003)
©
©
John Klassen (G56241) (i)
Ron Pfeifer (G68239) (I)
Note - Samples are collected as described in
Table 2 of the Groundwater Monitoring Plan,
dated April 2017.
Legend i
Q Domestic Well
© Domestic Well (no longer monitored)
S Monitoring Well
® Interceptor Well
® Interceptor Well (not monitored)
© Abandoned Monitoring Well
0 Surface Water Sampling Location
Sand Channel Boundary
— (dashed where i nferred)
SCALE IN FEET
/ Shell Creek Outfall
{ Location for EXT 13-01
(OF004)
O
©
©
©
©
O
©
EA Engineering,
Science, and
Technology, Inc., PBC
F:\lndustrial & Other\lndustrial\Lindsay Mfg\PROJECTS\6364405 - LTR 0&M\6. Performance Monitoring Reports and Meetings\Figures\Figures 1-3\Fig 1 First Qtr Report_2018.dwg
Mod: 01/19/2022, 08:13 | Plotted: 01/19/2022,08:14 | dkreikemeier
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
-------
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
ATTACHMENT A
COC Time Series Plots
A-l
-------
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
11 OCA
Plume Mass
11DCA
Plume Area
Plume Threshold = O.Sug/l, Ground Porosity = 25%
Fiil Data
Reduced Wdl Dala
Plume Threshold = 0.5ug/l
Fiil Data
Reduced Wdl Data
2005
2010 2015
Date
2020
2005
2010 2015
Date
2020
11DCA
Average Plume Concentration
Plume Threshold = 0.5ug/l
Fiil Daa
Reduced Wdl Data
2005 2010 2015 2020
Date
A-2
-------
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
11DCE
Plume Mass
11DCE
Plume Area
11DCE
Average Plume Concentration
Plume Threshold =7.5ug/l, Ground Porosity = 25%
A
v • *
• • \
W V
Fiil Data
Reduced Wdl Data
2005
2010
2015
2020
<
-------
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
12DCE
Plume Mass
Plume hreshold = 1 ug/l, Ground Porosity = 25%
f\
Fiil Data
RtsdiKedWdl Data
S
*
2005
2010 2015
Date
2020
12DCE
Plume Area
12DCE
Average Plume Concentration
Plume Threshold = 1ug/l
Va
Fiil Data
RoAxr'jd Wdl Data
Plume Threshold = 1 ug/l
A
\
V
Reduced Wdl Data
2005
2010 2015
Date
2020
2005
2010
2015
2020
Date
A-4
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
111TCA
Plume Mass
111TCA
Plume Area
111TCA
Average Plume Concentration
Plume Threshold = 5ug/l, Ground Porosity = 25%
Fiil DA
RtsdiKedWdl Data
A
<
CD CD
Plume Threshold = 5ug/l
V.A
Fiil Data
Roijc'jd Wdl Data
Plume Threshold = 5ug/l
Reduced Wdl Data
2005
2010 2015
Date
2020
2005
2010 2015
Date
2020
2005
2010 2015
Date
2020
A-5
-------
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
PCE
Plume Mass
PCE
Average Plume Concentration
Plume Threshold = 5ug/l
Reduced Wdl Daia
2005
2010 2015
Date
2020
2005 2010 2015 2020
Date
2005 2010 2015 2020
Date
A-6
-------
Suincj^amie
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Wesley, Billy
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:37 AM
Matt Rhodes; Wennerstrom, David
Suing, Jamie
RE: Lindsay Monitoring Well Abandonment Tech Memo
The state is in concurrence with EPA.
From: Matt Rhodes
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:17 AM
To: Wennerstrom, David ; Wesley, Billy
Cc: Suing, Jamie
Subject: RE: Lindsay Monitoring Well Abandonment Tech Memo
Understood, thank you!
Matt
Matt Rhodes, CHMM
EHS Manager
Lindsay Corporation
214 East Second Street
Lindsay, NE. 68644
402-428-7244- Office
402-920-2633- Cell
www.lindsay.com
From: Wennerstrom, David
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:16 AM
To: Matt Rhodes ; Wesley, Billy
Cc: Suing, Jamie
Subject: RE: Lindsay Monitoring Well Abandonment Tech Memo
[External Sender] Use caution with links or attachments
Sure, EPA concurs with the analysis that the 3 MWs can be removed. EPA is not directing Lindsay to remove the monitoring
wells.
Billy, any input from the State?
Respectfully,
David Wennerstrom, PE, PMP, LEED AP
^LINDSAY
C O BPOBAT ION
c O BPQRAT ION
1
-------
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Region VII | Superfund & Emergency Management Division
11201 Renner Blvd | Lenexa, KS 66219
913.551.7996
Weiiiierstrom.DavidgEPA.Gov
From: Matt Rhodes
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 7:54 AM
To: Wennerstrom, David ; Wesley, Billy
Cc: Suing, Jamie
Subject: RE: Lindsay Monitoring Well Abandonment Tech Memo
David-
I appreciate the responses on Lindsay's requests to remove/abandon various portions of our remediation system. Regarding the
monitoring wells, for clarity's sake, the EPA concurs with our analysis that the three monitoring wells referenced below are
approved for removal, and Lindsay may proceed accordingly. We just wanted to ensure clarity on this, as the wording (i.e.
candidates for removal) confused me a little bit.
Thanks!
Matt
Matt Rhodes, CHMM
EHS Manager
Lindsay Corporation
214 East Second Street
Lindsay, NE. 88844
402-428-7244- Office
402-920-2833- Cell
www.lindsay.com
0
From: Wennerstrom, David
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 12:52 PM
To: Matt Rhodes ; Wesley, Billy
Cc: Suing, Jamie
Subject: RE: Lindsay Monitoring Well Abandonment Tech Memo
[External Sender] Use caution with links or attachments
Good afternoon Matt,
EPA has reviewed the Proposed Monitoring Well Abandonment Memorandum from February 2021. Standard methodologies
were used in the redundancy analysis and the redundancy analysis appears to be adequate. EPA concurs with the
recommendations that monitoring wells MW09-01, MW09-02, and MW11-06 are candidates for removal from the monitoring
well network.
2
-------
Respectfully,
David Wennerstrom, PE, PMP, LEED AP
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Region VII | Superfund & Emergency Management Division
11201 Renner Blvd | Lenexa, KS 66219
913.551.7996
Weiiiierstrom.DavidgEPA.Gov
From: Matt Rhodes
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:07 PM
To: Wennerstrom, David ; Wesley, Billy
Cc: Suing, Jamie
Subject: Lindsay Monitoring Well Abandonment Tech Memo
Dave-
Please find attached a technical memo detailing the results of a redundancy analysis on three monitoring wells that we have
previously requested approval to abandon. Upon review of this report and the associated redundancy analysis, Lindsay believes
that EPA will concur that these wells are no longer needed to effectively monitor our site. Please advise at your earliest
convenience if EPA concurs with this finding.
Please let me know if you have questions/concerns.
Thanks!
Matt
Matt Rhodes, CHMM
EHS Manager
Lindsay Corporation
214 East Second Street
Lindsay, NE. 88844
402-428-7244- Office
402-920-2833- Cell
www.liiidsav.com
0
3
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
February 2022
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL WATER TREATMENT UNIT DECOMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Matt Rhodes, Lindsay Project Manager
FROM: Jamie Suing, EA Project Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Decommission of Preister Residential Water Treatment Unit - Lindsay
INTRODUCTION
Historic operations at the Lindsay Manufacturing Company Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska,
resulted in contamination in soil at the facility and in downgradient groundwater that is used as a
source of drinking water for residents. The purpose of this memorandum is to present the
rationale for the proposed decommissioning of the Preister residential water treatment unit
(RWTU) associated with the Lindsay Superfund Site. The Preister RWTU is located
approximately 10,000 feet downgradient of the Lindsay Manufacturing Facility. The location of
the site and RWTU (17: New Preister Domestic (2003)) are shown on Figure 1.
The RWTU is designed to remove contaminants from the groundwater before being used as
drinking water by the Preister residence. The system is comprised of three granular activated
carbon adsorption vessels which are run in series. The vessel in position one is the first vessel to
receive groundwater for removal of contaminants. The vessels in the second and third positions
provide additional removal prior to discharging the water to the Preister residence. A new vessel
is installed annually in position one, and the existing vessels shifted down to positions two and
three. The vessel in position three, being in service the longest, is removed from the system.
Water for the RWTU has been sampled quarterly since the system was built in 2003 with
samples taken before the first filter, after the first filter, and after the last filter.
RATIONALE
Analysis for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of influent samples collected quarterly since
2008 has returned non-detect results for chemicals of concern (COCs) (total of 52 consecutive
events). Organic analyses results for COCs for all previous events (2003 to 2021) are
summarized in Attachment 1. In addition, thirty-six surrounding monitoring wells, located both
Manufacturing Company Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska.
1
-------
221 Sun Valley Boulevard; Suite D
Lincoln, NE 68528
Telephone: 402-476-3766
www.eaest.com
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
upgradient and downgradient of the Preister property, were approved by EPA for abandonment
and were abandoned in November 2021. These monitoring well sampling and analytical data
illustrated a steady decline in the presence of all COCs and exhibited no signs of rebound over
multiple years of monitoring. The wells were approved for abandonment by the EPA after each
well satisfied one of the following conditions:
1. The most recent 10 samples are non-detect with a laboratory reporting limit (LRL) that is
below the MCL.
2. The most recent 10 rounds of monitoring data exhibit a statistically significant decreasing
trend and the trendline is below the MCL.
3. The most recent 10 rounds of data do not exhibit a significant trend and the 95% upper
confidence level of the mean (UCLM) is below the MCL.
The Preister RWTU influent meets these same criteria.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Using the same criteria for approval of the abandonment of the monitoring wells, the Preister
RWTU is no longer needed as analysis indicates a lack of residual contamination since 2008. If
the Preister RWTU is approved for decommissioning, sampling will be discontinued in Quarter
2, 2022 and the unit will be properly decommissioned as soon as possible.
REFERENCES
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC. 2022. 4th Quarter Groundwater Data
Transmittal, Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC Superfund Site, Lindsay, Nebraska, Table
8
2
-------
Shell Creek 02
MW10-01A
MW06-03 MW10-01B
MW10-01C
EXT07-02 ~'
MW06-02A
Shell Creek Outfall
Location for EXT07-02
(OF002)
MW06-01
Figure 1
Site Layout
Shell Creek Outfall
Location for EXT11-01
(OF003)
MW09-03A
MW09-03B
MW09-04A
MW09-04B
MW09-02
G127000
MW11-01A
IV1W11 -U1 B
Shell Creek Outfall
Location for G127000
(OF001)
Domestic and Irrigation Well Key
Ben Pfeifer (D)
©
Preister Stock Well
Beller Stock Well (G122015)
Jim Klassen (I)
Eddy Luetkenhaus (D)
©
Preister Domestic (Old)
©
Dave Chohon (D)
©
Preister Irrigation Well (33637)
Doug Beller (D)
©
Tom Jarecki (D)
©
Beller Irrigation (#67535)
©
Martischang (I)
Ron Pfeifer (D)
©
Lester Kopecky (D)
©
Weylan Neal (G31798) (I)
©
Klassen's SE Irrigation (I)
Old Moravec (D)
Beller Domestic
©
©
Jim Klassen (D)
Tom Mefstrik (D)
©
©
Richard Wagner (I)
Anthony Klassen (G33172) (I)
D = Domestic
I = Irrigation
Beller Stock (Old)
Beller Stock (#54278)
©
©
John Klassen (D)
New Preister Domestic
(2003)
©
©
John Klassen (G56241) (i)
Ron Pfeifer (G68239) (I)
Note - Samples are collected as described in
Table 2 of the Groundwater Monitoring Plan,
dated April 2017.
Legend i
Q Domestic Well
© Domestic Well (no longer monitored)
S Monitoring Well
® Interceptor Well
® Interceptor Well (not monitored)
© Abandoned Monitoring Well
0 Surface Water Sampling Location
Sand Channel Boundary
— (dashed where i nferred)
SCALE IN FEET
/ Shell Creek Outfall
{ Location for EXT 13-01
(OF004)
O
©
©
©
©
O
©
EA Engineering,
Science, and
Technology, Inc., PBC
F:\lndustrial & Other\lndustrial\Lindsay Mfg\PROJECTS\6364405 - LTR 0&M\6. Performance Monitoring Reports and Meetings\Figures\Figures 1-3\Fig 1 First Qtr Report_2018.dwg
Mod: 01/19/2022, 08:13 | Plotted: 01/19/2022,08:14 | dkreikemeier
Lindsay Irrigation Solutions, LLC
Lindsay, Nebraska
-------
Attachment 1: Preister Residential Water Treatment Unit (BFF) Historical Data
Date Collected
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
1,1 -DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-
TCA
TCE
PCE
Total
Volatile
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening
Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
8/03
2.4
1.0U
1.0U
LOU
4.7
LOU
3.3
10
NA
11/03
1.4
1.0U
LOU
LOU
2.6
LOU
1.5
5.5
NA
2/04
1.1
1.0U
LOU
LOU
1.6
LOU
1.3
4.0
NA
5/04
1.0U
1.0 u
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
1.6
1.6
NA
8/04
1.0
0.5
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.8
0.2 U
1.4
4.7
NA
9/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1 J
11/07/04
0.6
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
1.0
0.2 U
0.9
2.3
2.5 UJ
02/20/05
0.6
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.8 J
0.2 U
0.8
1.2
5.0 U
05/01/05
0.6
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.9
0.2 U
0.8
2.7
1.7 J
08/01/05
0.3
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.6
0.2 U
0.4
1.7
5.0 U
11/06/05
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.6
4.0 U
01/29/06
0.2 U
0.4
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2
0.9
4.0 U
05/07/06
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.4
2.0 U
08/19/06
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
2.0 U
11/05/06
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
2.0 U
02/10/07
0.2 U
0.3
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.3
2.0 U
04/29/07
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
2.0 U
08/12/07
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/28/07
0.2 U
0.2
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2
2.0 U
02/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/11/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/03/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
11/14/08
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/23/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/11/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/12/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/27/09
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/02/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/18/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
08/16/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/31/10
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
02/09/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/15/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
07/27/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
10/27/11
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
01/30/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
2.0 U
05/30/12
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
ND
NA
06/05/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4 U
08/14/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/26/12
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
A-l
-------
Attachment 1: Preister Residential Water Treatment Unit (BFF) Historical Data
Dale ( ollccleri
Organic Analyses (iig/l.)
i.i-ikt:
l.l-IK A
1.2-ikt:
1.2-IK A
1.1.1-
TCA
TCE
PCE
Total
Volatile
( ()( s
l.4-l)io\anc
Screening
Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
02/11/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/29/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/28/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/20/13
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/12/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
06/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/28/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/24/14
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
01/28/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
06/03/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 UJ
08/24/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/04/15
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/17/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/25/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/10/16
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/07/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
04/26/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
10/30/17
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/21/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
04/30/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
08/09/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
11/12/18
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
02/13/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
05/14/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.4 U
09/04/19
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
11/20/19
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/24/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
06/04/20
0.20 U
0.20 UJ
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
08/12/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
12/02/20
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
03/23/21
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
0.20 U
ND
0.2 U
05/26/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100 U
09/14/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.1 U
11/03/21
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
0.333 U
ND
0.100 U
a Screening levels for volatile organic compounds are based on EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as of
12/8/2016 (no change in 2020). The screening level for 1,4-dioxane is based on the May 2020 EPA Regional Screening
Level (RSL) for tap water.
bThe EPA MCL presented for 1,2-DCE is the sum of the individual EPA MCLs for the cis-l,2-DCE (70 ug/L) and trans-
1,2-DCE (100 ug/L) isomers. If MCL exceeded, the isomer above MCL is shown in ().
Notes:
A-2
-------
Attachment 1: Preister Residential Water Treatment Unit (BFF) Historical Data
Date Collected
Organic Analyses (ug/L)
1,1 DCE
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE b
1,2-DCA
1,1,1-
TCA
TCE
PCE
Total
Volatile
COCs
1,4-Dioxane
Screening
Levels a
7
NE
170
5
200
5
5
NE
0.46
Bold font indicates result reported as detected.
Result reported is above or equal to the screening level.
Total Volatile COCs - Sum of detected results for 1,1 -DCE, 1,1-DC A, 1,2-DCE, 1,2-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, and PCE
1,1-DCE - 1,1-dichloroethene
1.1-DC A - 1,1-dichloroethane
1.2-DCE - total of cis-l,2-dichloroethene and trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-DCA - 1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-TCA - 1,1,1-trichloroethane
TCE - trichloroethene
PCE - tetrachloroethene
BFF - before first filter
COC - chemical of concern
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
J - estimated value
NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
NE - not established
ug/L - microgram per liter
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the
level of the reported sample detection limit.
UJ - The analyte was not detected above the reported sample
detection limit. However, the reported detection limit is
approximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of
quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the
analyte in the sample.
A-3
-------
Suincj^amie
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Wennerstrom, David
Friday, April 8, 2022 9:31 AM
Matt Rhodes; Wesley, Billy
Suing, Jamie; Dickinson, Erik; Ritterling, Jon; Eric Arneson
RE: RWTU Abandonment memorandum
Good morning Matt,
EPA has completed the review of Lindsay's abandonment proposal and concur with decommissioning based on lack of
detections since 2008.
Respectfully,
David Wennerstrom, PE, PMP, LEED AP
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Region VII | Superfund & Emergency Management Division
11201 Renner Blvd | Lenexa, KS 66219
913.551.7996
Weiiiierstrom.DavidgEPA.Gov
From: Matt Rhodes
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 10:12 AM
To: Wennerstrom, David ; Wesley, Billy
Cc: Suing, Jamie ; Dickinson, Erik ; Ritterling, Jon ; Eric
Arneson
Subject: RWTU Abandonment memorandum
Please find attached a memorandum from our consultant recommending decommissioning of one of the residential water
treatment units currently associated with our CERCLA site. Can you please review at your earliest convenience and advise if you
concur with Lindsay abandoning the treatment system. Thanks!
Matt
Matt Rhodes, CHMM
EHS Manager
Lindsay Corporation
214 East Second Street
Lindsay, NE. 88844
402-428-7244- Office
402-920-2833- Cell
www.liiidsay.com
Dave and Billy-
0
l
-------
From: Hantush. Mohamed
To: Wennerstrom. David
Cc: Weber. Robert: Hantush. Mohamed
Subject: Lindsay Manufacturing GW Model Study
Date: Thursday, March 21, 2019 12:43:31 PM
Attachments: Review of Lindsay GW Model.docx
David,
Attached is a report on the Lindsay Manufacturing GW Model and my view on shutting down
EXT 11-01.
Thanks,
Mohamed
-------
Dr. Hantush, EPA
Review of "Lindsay Manufacturing Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport Model"
Summary
This report describes the construction and calibration of a numerical groundwater and solute transport
model (MODFLOW-NWT, Groundwater Vistas V6, and ArcGIS) for the manufacturing facility located
in Lindsay, Nebraska and operated by Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC. Nearly two decades of operation of
the facility for manufacturing irrigation equipment and disposal of spend acids and other waste material
have resulted in the contamination of the soil and groundwater beneath the facility with chlorinated
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The model aimed at supporting an evaluation of remediation
alternatives for improved hydraulic controls and/or source reduction to address a VOC plume that exist
beneath and downgradient of the facility. The primary objective of the model is to assess the effectiveness
of proposed remedial alternatives on reducing the COC concentration in groundwater at the southern
property boundary of the facility. The secondary objective of the modeling effort is to assess the
feasibility and timing of off-facility downgradient interceptor wells shutdown.
A conceptual hydrogeologic model was constructed for the area beneath the facility and downgradient to
the south and southeast. Observed and measured groundwater heads and COCs concentrations in the soil
and aquifer beneath and downgradient from the facility as well as field and laboratory tests were used to
map the potentiometric surface and COCs plumes. The conceptual model was used to calibrate the
groundwater flow and solute transport model, using quantitative and qualitative measures. Overall, the
modeling strategy is sound given the complexity of the hydrogeology.
Quantitative and qualitative performance measures show that the flow model is adequately calibrated.
Whereas the solute transport model adequately reproduced the chlorinated VOC plume adequately,
contrary to what is stated in the report, the model did not explain well the variance in the observed data at
different monitoring and extraction wells. Given the complexity of the regional and local hydrogeology,
the solute transport model appears sufficiently calibrated to make general inference on the plume and the
likelihood of exceeding numerical targets (e.g., MCL). Further, sensitivity analysis shows that alteration
of the conclusions is unlikely with further fine tuning of the model. Concerns about the flow and solute
transport model and recommendations for potential improvement are listed at the end of this report.
Application of the solute transport model to simulate remedial alternatives revealed that seasonal
optimized pumping from new on-facility wells alone or in combination with thermal remediation C-4
alternative are effective strategies to achieve the remedial goals, whereas continuation of existing
pumping, Cell Area cap, and thermal remediation of hot spot 3 are ineffective remedial alternatives. With
the operation of the A-2 hydraulic control wells, down-gradient off-facility interceptor wells shutdown
time is within 4 years from the beginning of wells operation.
The supplementary study provides good line of evidence supported by monitoring data and sound
analysis that the aquifer at the southern terminus of the plume has been restored, and that EXT07-02 was
effective in cutting off the plume and preventing further downgradient migration of the chlorinated VOCs
1
-------
plume. EXT11-01 therefore can be safely shutdown but with continued future monitoring, perhaps, at
recommended reduction of frequency of groundwater samplings. It is suggested that the groundwater flow
and solute transport model be used to further corroborate this recommendation.
Site Background
The on-site disposal of a spent sulfuric solution for cleaning manufactured pipes used in irrigation
equipment and disposal of small quantities of solvents, degreasers and other waste related to the
manufacturing process from 1970's to 1982 have resulted in the contamination of the upper fine-grained
unit (FGU) and the lower sand and gravel aquifer (SGA) beneath the facility and downgradient from the
facility. A remedial investigation (RI) completed in 1990 and subsequent groundwater monitoring
revealed the extent of the chlorinated VOC plume which was delineated in 2011 and extended
approximately 3 miles south-southeast from the facility. Three chlorinated VOC were monitored
including tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), and 1,4-dioxane (1,4-DX). Between
2004 and 2013, four interceptor wells (G127000, EXT07-02, EXT11-01, EXT13-01) were installed
downgradient of the facility to hydraulically control the downgradient, off-facility portion of the plume.
The continuous operation of wells G127000 since July 2007, EXT07-02 since July 2008, EXT11-01 since
December 2011, and EXT 13-01 since July 2013 has formed a cone of depression around each of these
wells and effectively disconnecting the chlorinated VOC plume into several smaller plumes immediately
downgradient of the site and further to the south, downgradient of well EXT 13-01.
Investigation in 2004 and additional ones conducted on the facility in 2009, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2017
have refined the source areas present on the facility, with the Cell Area and Building 1 identified as the
primary source areas of the chlorinated VOCs. Based on results from 2015 and 2017 borings, it was
estimated that a total of approximately 531 kg of PCE are still located within the saturated FGU and its
interbedded sand channel beneath the facility. Of that mass, 469 kg is located in the Building 1 area.
Regional Geology and Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model
The manufacturing facility is situated on top of three regional hydrogeologic units from top to bottom: 1)
a fine-grained unit (FGU) consisting of dense silt and clay with a locally isolated sand-filled paleo
channel embedded within the FGU beneath the Cell area; 2) a sand and gravel aquifer (SGA); and 3) a
bedrock made of chalk layer on top of limestone.
A site conceptual model was constructed for groundwater flow and COC concentrations from monitored
groundwater head data, analytical data obtained for historical groundwater samples collected from
borings, and field and laboratory estimated hydraulic propertied of the FGU and SGA. Slug and aquifer
pumping tests were conducted at selected wells screened in the FGU (including embedded sand channel)
and SGA, respectively, to estimate horizontal hydraulic conductivity. Physical testing was done on soil
cores collected from the FGU during drilling to estimate formation porosity and local vertical hydraulic
conductivity. Estimated groundwater velocities showed that flow is predominantly vertical in the FGU
and horizontal in the SGA, regionally to the south and southeast. Observed groundwater head gradients in
the FGU and SGA revealed a predominantly downward vertical hydraulic gradients and downward
groundwater flow occurs from the FGU and sand channel into the underlying SGU either seasonally or
throughout the year at all locations on the facility and the adjacent downgradient area where well pairs
have been installed. The delineated relatively narrow and elongated chlorinated VOC plume shows a
2
-------
mode of transport that is advective dominated, primarily in the direction of regional groundwater flow to
the south-southeast and with marginal lateral dispersion (spread). Lack of lateral spread is indicative of a
relatively homogenous hydrogeology at the larger model scale, and that relatively thin silt and clay lenses
in the aquifer downgradient of EXT13-01 have minimal impact on lateral plume dispersion.
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration
The site conceptual model and measured groundwater head and concentration data were used to calibrate
the flow and solute transport model. Quantitative statistical measures (residual mean, scaled RMSE, mass
balance error) and qualitative comparisons were used to judge adequacy of the calibration. Given the
complexity of the hydrogeology, the groundwater flow model was adequately calibrated to the observed
monitoring hydraulic heads at various monitoring wells and in time, with a mass balance error within the
model less than 0.1%. Overall, variability in the monitoring well hydrographs is captured by the model
(Appendix B). Consistent with the site conceptual model, model simulated vertical gradients at the
location of the nested well pairs on facility show consistent upward gradients in the non-irrigation season
of relatively small magnitudes. During the irrigation season, the model simulated similar and
predominantly vertical gradients from the FGU to the SGA, which is the primary driver mechanism of
source mass to the SGA. However, Figure 4-10 shows that the model underpredicts higher range observed
hydraulic heads in the FGU and overpredicts lower range observed heads in the upper portion of the SGA
(layer 2), in lower range values. The spread and variance of error tend to be greatest for simulated
hydraulic heads in the lower portion of SGA (layer 3).
While the observed PCE plume was reasonably reproduced by the model, contrary to what is stated in the
report and except perhaps at interceptor Well AOIW, the simulated concentrations over time did not fit
reasonably well with observed values in all other monitoring and interceptor/extraction wells. The
variance in the observed data in almost all the monitoring and extraction wells was not captured by the
model which missed most of the observed peak concentrations. The figures in Appendix C clearly show
that. Nonetheless, under Statement of Limitations, the developer of the model yields that the model may
not accurately simulate conditions at discrete locations. Worthy of mentioning is the simulated
downgradient portion of the PCE plume in 2013 (Figs 5-2a and 5-2b). The model simulates that portion
as being extracted at a domestic well north of EXT07-02 which the interpreted plume shows as the
terminus point. Is this due to an exaggerated pumping rate assigned to the domestic well as an input to the
model or a mere calibration artifact? This might be checked, even though both the simulated and
interpreted concentrations show less than 5 |ag/L.
That being said, the calibrated solute and transport model might still be adequate in determining if the
MCL of the chlorinated VOCs were exceeded at the property boundary in 2030, which is the primary
objective of the modeling study. This concern can be further tempered down by noting that the most
sensitive parameters, the hydraulic conductivity and constant source concentrations values are Type II
sensitivity, while all other parameters are Type I sensitivity. At worst, this means regardless of how good
the calibration is, the conclusion will remain the same.
Interceptor Wells
3
-------
Following of the 1990 remedial investigation, remedial activities between 1993 and 1998 included
groundwater extraction via the OIW, AOIW, and/or MW89-12. OIW ceased operation in 1999. Well
G127000 has been operating since July 2007, EXT07-02 since July 2008, EXT11-01 since December
2011, and EXT 13-01 since July 2013. Figure 2-4 shows the extent of the chlorinated VOC plume
boundary extending approximately 3 miles south-southeast from the facility. The plume is oriented along
an axis in the direction of regional groundwater flow; wells MW89-12, AOIW, EXT13-01, and G127000
aligned approximately along this axis. Pumping from the interceptor wells has resulted in the
disconnection of the plume during the irrigation season, primarily into five portions (refer to Figs. 5-2a, 5-
2b, 5-3a, and 5-3b). The first extends from the north facility property boundary to MW89-12; the second
from MW89-12 to AOIW; the third from AOIW to EXT13-01; the fourth from G127000; and the fifth
from G127000 to EXT07-02. Figure 2-4 shows the plume extends to EXT11-01. During the non-
irrigation season the on-facility interceptor wells are shut down and the plume establishes some sort of
connectivity at the facility and immediately downgradient from the southern property boundary. This
behavior of the plume was well captured by the simulation model. The simulated downgradient portion of
the plume was visibly off to the east of the interpreted plume and terminating at a domestic well as
opposed to being intercepted by EXT07-02 or EXT11-01 (Figs. 5-2a and 5-2b). This might be considered
a limitation of the calibrated solute transport model; never the less, is redundant to the screening remedial
threshold set forth at the south property boundary of the manufacturing facility.
The impact of AOIW when operating during the irrigation season is visible in Figures 5-3b and 6-7b.
Rather than flowing along a similar axis to the non-irrigation season, observed data and model
simulations indicate that during the irrigation season the PCE plume is pulled towards AOIW, but
crossing the property boundary at concentrations higher than the MCL. Table 4-1 shows that AOIW was
historically pumped at a rate generally order of magnitude greater than MW89-12. Historical pumping
rates for the interceptor wells downgradient from the facility (EXT 13-01, G127000, EXT07-02, extl 1-01)
are generally an order of magnitude greater than AOIW.
The proposed pumping rates for the stipulated A-2 hydraulic control wells EXT 18-01 and EXT 18-02 are
lOOOgpm (192,454 ft3/d) and 200 gpm (38,491 ft3/d), respectively. These pumping rates, respectively, are
generally order of magnitude greater than the extraction rates from wells AOIW and MW89-12 (Table 4-
1). One would therefore project the effectiveness of the newly proposed interceptor wells in capturing the
plume at the facility compared to the original wells (compare Figs 6-9a and 6-9b to Figs 6-7a and 6-7b).
The PCE concentrations crossing the facility boundary with the new wells is less than 5 |a,g/L during the
non-irrigation season in 2030, compared to 130 |a,g/L for the original pair AOIW and MW89-12.
Assessment of Remedial Options
The calibrated numerical groundwater flow and solute transport models were used to run predictive
simulations from 2018 through 2030. Several alternatives consisting of one or more remedial options as
well as No New Action and No Hydraulic Control were simulated starting in 2020. Results show that No
New Action (i.e., continue existing pumping) is not an option as it will produce maximum predicted
COCs concentrations at the property boundary in 2030 way exceeding the MCL or EPA screening levels.
Cell Area Cap remedial option and Thermal Remediation of Hot Spot 3 were not effective at all. Only
alternatives containing the A-2 remedial option (Seasonal Optimized Pumping from New On-Facility
Wells) were able to reach remedial goals at the property boundary for PCE and 1,1-DCE of less than 5
4
-------
and 7 |Jg/L. Thermal Remediation of Hotspots 1,2,3 and 4 and Enhanced Thermal Remediation reduced
COC concentrations at the source (Building 1 Area, Cell Area) significantly, but seemed to work only
with the A-2 remedial option in satisfying the remedial goals at the property boundary in 2030. A major
limitation in the solute transport model is the assumption of constant concentrations in model cells at the
source zones beneath the facility. The assumption implies the remedial simulation model cannot estimate
the duration of the pumping required until remedial goals would be met without operation of the A-2
hydraulic control wells. I wonder why and exponentially decaying source concentrations was not
considered with the depletion rate as a calibration parameter.
The superiority of the A-2 hydraulic control wells can be explained by the proposed greatly elevated
pumping rates from the new wells EXT18-01 and EXT18-02 as mentioned above. The ineffectiveness of
Cell Area Cap has two possible explanations. Firstly, the primary driver of chlorinated VOC source mass
to the SGA is the vertical gradient from the FGU to the SGA caused by groundwater drawdown in the
SGA during the irrigation season. Recharge from infiltrating rain at the facility apparently plays a
secondary role. Secondly, even by capping Cell area, the rainfall infiltrating the surrounding areas could
still move laterally to the soil beneath the capped area driven by pressure gradient toward the interior or
through preferential pathways, then percolating vertically downward through the source mass in FGU to
the SGA.
The best remedial option (A-2, B-2, C-4) did not reduce maximum 1,4-DX concentrations at the property
boundary below the EPA screening level of 0.46 |ag/L. From Figures 6-4 to 6-6 one may conclude with
the operation of the A-2 hydraulic control wells, down-gradient off-facility interceptor wells shutdown
time is within 4 years from the beginning of wells operation. Since the best remedial option was not
effective with respect of 1,4-DX, interceptor well EXT 13-01 may continue to operate if further control of
1,4-DX is required.
Comments on Model Calibration and Recommendations
1- Manual calibration does not guarantee an optimal or near-optimal calibration. Different combinations
of recharge rates and hydraulic conductivities can lead to equally good matches with observed data.
These different combinations define model predictive uncertainty (equifinality concept). It seems
manual calibration remains the norm in case-study groundwater modeling studies, despite the
considerable advances in automated model calibration, (e.g., gradient-based search methods,
Bayesian sampling, Genetic Algorithms, etc.).
2- A sizable data on the hydraulic conductivity was obtained through slug tests, aquifer pumping tests in
the SGA, and the physical testing done on soil cores collected from the FGU during drilling. Rather
than using an average hydraulic conductivity value for the FGUs and the arbitrary (dubious) three
zones of uniform hydraulic conductivity for the SGA, flow model cells at the location of slug and
aquifer tests should have be assigned measured values of horizontal and vertical hydraulic
conductivity. These discrete values could have been interpolated and extrapolated to other model cells
using any of the available methods (e.g., kriging, Thiessen Polygon, etc.). The idea is to constraint the
model at these true conductivity values and vary the values at locations where this parameter is not
measured. It is not clear if the three-zone conductivity zones were base on the regional lithology or
merely an arbitrary choice. It is very possible that using uniform hydraulic conductivity values may
lead to inaccurate model predictions at discrete locations. MODFLOW implements the true layer
approach and allows assigning different conductivity values to different numerical cells. The sandy
5
-------
paleo channel and other discontinuous and continuous silt and clay lenses distributed throughout the
SGA could have been modeled separately with properly assigned conductivity values. Reducing the
value of the hydraulic conductivity for the SGA at the facility because of the buried sand channel
sounds an ad-hoc approach that is bound to produce less than accurate predictions at that locality.
3- Correct groundwater recharge values can have significant ramification on model performance. The
use of 9.34% as the percentage of precipitation that is recharged uniformly over the two seasons
irrigation and non-irrigation is questionable and does not account for the much higher
evapotranspiration rate during the irrigation season. Errors in groundwater recharge can carry on to
the calibrated hydraulic conductivity values and parameters in the General Head Boundary (GHB)
condition. Attempts should be made to estimate evapotranspiration and adjust this percentage
accordingly.
4- The approach for calibrating the GHB parameters along the sides of the model domain to create a
uniform gradient between the up-gradient and down-gradient limits is tedious and does not guarantee
an optimal calibration. It only makes matters worse, because these boundaries can have significant
impact on hydraulic head distribution and flow variations within the domain, and errors could carry
on to the calibrated conductivity and recharge values. A multiple scale approach could have been
implemented in which the larger scale model could be used to define fluxes at boundaries of the
current model. It is my understanding, MODFLOW is equipped to do this task.
5- I am not sure why specific yield values were assigned uniformly within each layer when physical
testing done on soil cores collected in 2017 yielded estimates of effective porosity at the locations of
core samples. Effective porosity is a good measure of the specific yield, which could have been
assigned as true values at model cells coinciding with the core samples locations. Interpolation and
extrapolation using one of the methods mentioned above can be used to produce a spatially
distributed specific yield field.
6- Figure 4-10 shows that the flow model underestimates observed groundwater heads in the FGU at
high range values and overestimates low range observed heads in the upper portion of the SGU.
7- I did not see any MODPATH simulations. These could determine the capture zone of each of the
interceptor wells within the facility and the EXT13-01, and the appropriate pumping rates that can
hydraulically contain the plume generated beneath the facility during the irrigation season. This can
be done by assigning particles at locations beneath defined source areas (Cell Area, Building 1) at
depths in the SGA and observing if the particles are pulled toward one of the interceptor wells. All
particles within a simulated capture zone will be eventually extracted at the associated well.
8- It may be argued that the solute transport model was able to simulate the interpreted plume at and
downgradient from the facility; however, it did not capture the variability in the observed
concentrations at discrete locations. It would have been more meaningful to compare the CDF
(cumulative probability distribution) of model simulated concentrations to the CDF of observed
concentrations at each observation and extraction well, rather than the timeseries comparisons in
Appendix C. A CDF can be produced by ranking values from largest to smallest. This comparison
should reveal if the model is overestimating or underestimating the observed values over the full
range of the observed concentrations at each well location.
6
-------
9- Figures 5-2a and 5-2b show a discrepancy between the simulated plume and the interpreted plume at
the terminus of the PCE plume during the irrigation and non-irrigation seasons. The model simulates
that portion being intercepted by a domestic well while the interpreted plume shows the EXT07-02 as
the extraction point. This raises a question about the accuracy of the hydraulic conductivity used in
the model at that locality or quality of the data used for the domestic well (e.g., pumping rate, depth
of the screen, etc.) in the model, or a combination thereof. It is possible that higher than actual
pumping rate for the domestic well was assigned as input to the model.
10- The use of constant contaminant concentration is an acceptable practice and is a conservative one, but
it made it impossible to compute pumping duration and could lead to a costlier remedial action.
Further, I wonder why URS did not consider exponentially decaying source with the decay rate being
adjusted during calibration. A good starting value may be ln(2)/ti/2. Alternatively, assume 4-6
depletion rates or half-life values for the contaminant at the source and determine pumping duration
required to achieve remedial goal, then plot shut-down duration vs. depletion rate. Further field
studies could reveal typical depletion rate at the source.
Well EXT-011 Operation (Supplemental Study)
The monitored VOCs (PCE and 1,1-DCE) concentrations in Outfalls OF002 (EXT07-02) and OF003
(EXT11-01) (Figs. 12 and 13) show after 2013 concentrations never exceeded the MCLs. Concentrations
of VOCs in the outfall of EX11-01 (OF003) have been below the reporting limit since 2016, and much
lower than the MCL since January 2012. The calculated mass at the outfall shows that little or no VOC
mass has been removed by the well since 2016. The monitored VOCs concentrations in monitoring wells
MW11-02C and MW10-02A (Figs. 10 and 11) are steadily way below MCLs since January 2014. The
calculated capture zones for EXT11-01 and EXT07-02, shown in Figures 4 and 5, were based on
conservative assumptions and consistent with the cones of depressions interpreted based on the observed
groundwater elevation contours (Figs. 6 through 9). The calculated capture zone for well EXT07-02 is
significantly wider than the chlorinated VOC plume upgradient of the well. Similarly, the calculated
capture zone for EXT11-01 within the lower portion of the SGA encompasses the entire plume in the
southern terminus area.
The calculated decline in the removed VOC mass from EXT07-02 and the decrease in VOC
concentrations below the MCLs in the surrounding monitoring wells as well as the calculated capture
zone altogether point toward the effectiveness of EXT07-02 in cutting off the plume from the portion
upgradient of this well (i.e., between G127000 and EXT07-02) and preventing further downgradient
migration. The remanence of the chlorinated VOC plume that has migrated downgradient of EXT07-02
before it became operational appears to have been contained and extracted by EXT11-01. This is
corroborated by the calculated decline in VOC mass from the well and decrease of concentrations below
detection limit since 2016 as well as the size of the calculated capture zone.
With projected estimate that EXT07-02 will continue to intercept that part of the chlorinated VOC plume
between the well and G127000 and prevent further downgradient migration of the plume, it can be safely
concluded that EXT11-01 and can be shut down and that frequency of sampling in the vicinity of the two
interceptor wells can be reduced. However, monitoring in wells with historic excursions should continue
to insure VOC concentrations in the southern terminus of the plume will not rebound and exceed MCLs.
Worth noting is low permeability zones in the SGA; it could be that chlorinated VOCs have diffused over
the years into isolated silt and clay lenses and the confining continuous silt and clay layer in the SGA at
7
-------
the southern terminus. Those fine-texture diffusive zones can act as continuous sources, slowly releasing
the stored VOC masses by diffusion back to the sand and gravel aquifer, albeit this is expected at rather
lower concentrations. To be on the safe side, the solute and transport model may also be run to find out if
shutting down EXT11-01 would still simulate steady, below MCL concentrations, or if the concentrations
would bounce back and if so at what level. Model simulations can provide insights into other conceived
shutdowns (e.g., EXT07-02) and planned reduced monitoring epochs. Model runs involving MODPATH
can be useful in corroborating effectiveness of EXT07-02 and EXT11-01 capture zones.
8
------- |