FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
DUNKLIN COUNTY, MISSOURI
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
Lenexa, Kansas
Urclaoiq
Mary P. Peterson, Director Date
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
-------
BEE'CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definitions iii
1.0 Introduction 4
Five-year Review Summary Form 5
2.0 Response Action Summary 5
2\1 Basis for Taking Action 5
2.2 Response Actions ! 6
2.2.1 Remedial Action Objectives 6
2.2.2 Remedy Components 6
2.3 Status of Implementation 7
2.4 Institutional Control Summary Table 7
2.5 Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance 8
3.0 Progress Since Last Review 8
4.0 Five-year Review Process 10
4.1 Community Notification, Involvement, and Site Interviews 10
4.1.1 Community Notification, Involvement 10
4.1.2 Site Interviews 10
4.2 Data Review 10
4.3 Site Inspection 11
5.0 Technical Assessment 11
5.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 11
5.1.1 Remedial Action Performance 11
5.1.2 System Operations/O&M 11
5.1.3 Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures 11
5.2 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? 12
5.2.1 Changes in Standards and To-Be-Considered Items 12
5.2.2 Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics 12
5.2.3 Changes in Risk Assessment Methods 12
5.2.4 Changes in Exposure Pathways 13
5.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? 14
5.3.1 Natural Disaster Impacts 14
5.3.2 Ecological Risks 14
6.0 Issues/Recommendations 15
6.1 Other Findings 15
7.0 Protectiveness Statement 16
8.0 Next Review 16
i
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Appendices
Appendix A - Reference List
Appendix B - Site Chronology
Appendix C - Physical Characteristics
Appendix D - Site Inspection Checklist
Appendix E - Photographs
Appendix F - Interview Record
Appendix G - Tables
Table 1-1 - Summary of Selected Site GW Sampling Data
Appendix H - Figures
Figure 1 - Location Map
Figure 2 - Well Locations
Appendix I - Site Sampling Reports Since Last Five-Year Review
ii
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definitions
ARARs
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
COCs
Chemicals of Concern
COPCs
Chemicals of Concern
DGLS
Division of Geology and Land Survey (now Missouri Geological Survey)
EC
Environmental Covenant
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EP&R
EPA's Emergency Planning and Response Branch
ESD
Explanation of Significant Differences
FS
Feasibility Study
ft
feet
FIG
Further Investigation of Groundwater
FYR
Five-Year Review
IC
Institutional Contol
LTM
long-term monitoring
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MDOH
Missouri Department of Health
MDHSS
Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (formerly MDOH)
MDNR
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
mg/kg
milligrams per kilogram
mg/L
milligrams per liter
MNA
monitored natural attenuation
MW
Monitoring Well
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NPL
National Priorities List
O&M
operation and maintenance
OSC
On-Scene Coordinator
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU
operable unit
pH
A scale used to specify how acidic a water based solution is
POTW
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPb
parts per billion
PRGs
Preliminary Remediation Goals
PZ
piezometer
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD
Record of Decision
RSLs
Regional Screening Levels
SOW
Statement of Work
TAT
Technical Assistance Team
MDH
Missouri Department of Health
TEP
^ Toxicity Extraction Procedure
iii
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of a Five-Year Review, or FYR, is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a
remedy to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the
environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of these reviews are documented in five-year
review reports such as this one. In addition, five-year review reports identify issues found during the
review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is preparing this five-year review pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, Section 121,
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, or NCP, 40
Code of Federal Regulations, or CFR, Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering the EPA policy.
This is the fourth five-year review for the Bee Cee Manufacturing Superfund Site . The triggering action
for this statuatory review is the completion date of the previous five-year review, which was signed on
June 24, 2014. The five-year review has been prepared because hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, or
UU/UE. \
The site consists of one operable unit, or OU1, that will be addressed in this FYR. OU1 addresses the
groundwater remedy, which consists of institutional controls, or ICs, and monitored natural attenuation,
or MNA.
Devin Pollock, the EPA Region 7 Remedial Project Manager, led the Bee Cee Manufacturing Superfund
Site FYR. Participants included Dan Nicoski, Hydrogeologist; Todd Phillips, Human Health Risk
Assessor; and Catherine Wooster-Brown, Ecological Risk Assessor; and Kyle Anderson, Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, or MDNR, Project Manager. The review began on June 22, 2018.
Site Background
The Bee Cee Manufacturing facility is located in the town of Maiden, Dunklin County, Missouri. The
site is located within the boundaries of Maiden Municipal Airport and Industrial Park, which was
formerly a U.S. military base.
The site covers approximately five acres and previously consisted of a metal plating facility and a
gravel-filled infiltration pit. The foundation of the manufacturing plant remains onsite. The gravel in the
pit has been removed, and the excavation was backfilled with clean soil. Appendix H, Figure 1 shows
the location of the site.
The land within one quarter-mile of the site is part of an industrial park. While most of it is vacant, some
areas are used for small industrial plants and warehouse space. The nearest home is just over one quarter
mile south of the site. Maiden's municipal water supply well No. 4 is located within one mile of the site,
but is cross-gradient from the site and is not threatened by releases at the site.
4
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Five-year Review Summary Form
2.0 Response Action Summary
2.1 Basis for Taking Action
The site was initially identified in July 13, 1981, when the MDNR's Southeast Regional office reported
chromium waste on the surface at the site during an investigation. Waste liquid from the process was
allowed to flow through a series of pipes directly onto the surface soil immediately north of the east end
of the facility. In a letter from the MDNR dated, July 27, 1981, Bee Cee Manufacturing was warned to
cease the discharge of untreated process water.
On July 1, 1992, the EPA approved an Action Memorandum For the Removal of Contaminated Surface
Soil at the Bee Cee site. The removal and site restoration was completed on August 20, 1992. Since the
removal was considered successful, soil was not considered as a medium of concern in the second risk
assessment. Only data collected during the 1993 Further Investigation of Groundwater, or FIG, were
used in order to identify potential health risks from exposure to groundwater.
5
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
In summary, hexavalent chromium in shallow groundwater at the site presents an unacceptable risk for
non-carcinogenic effects. Calculations in the risk assessment show that the shallow groundwater at and
near the site presents an unacceptable carcinogenic risk due to its arsenic content. However,
concentrations of arsenic detected in groundwater from the site were lower than the concentration
detected in the background monitoring well. Therefore, remediation of arsenic is not appropriate for this
site. Zinc and trivalent chromium concentrations do not present unacceptable health risks according to
the calculations in the risk assessment. There is no health risk at the site from exposure to the soil
because the contaminated soil was removed from the site in July 1992.
2.2 Response Actions
A site chronology is presented in Appendix B.
The EPA approved an Action Memorandum For the Removal of Contaminated Surface Soil at the Bee
Cee site on July 1, 1992. The action level for the soil was set at 2,000 milligrams per kilogram, or
mg/kg, for total chromium and 180 mg/kg for hexavalent chromium. The scope of the removal included
contaminated soil and the portion of the Bee Cee Manufacturing building that contained five vats used
for metal plating processes.
On August 3, 1992, the EPA began the removal of the vats inside the building. Demolition of the
building began and was completed on August 5, 1992. Excavation and soil removal began on
August 12, 1992.
During the excavation of the soil, the EPA uncovered a 14 foot by 27 foot by 6 foot gravel pit in the
contaminated zone. The gravel appeared to have been used during Bee Cee's operation to facilitate
percolation of the wastewater discharge from the facility. The gravel was excavated and disposed of
along with the soil. A total of 356 tons of soil were removed.
2.2.1 Remedial Action Objectives
The primary chemical of concern at the site is hexavalent chromium. In consideration of this fact, the
following Remedial Action Objective, or RAO, was developed for the site and documented in the
September 1997 Record of Decision, or ROD, for the site:
• Prevent ingestion of water containing hexavalent chromium in excess of Maximum
Contaminant Levels or preliminary remediation goals, or MCLs or PRGs, respectivelyi
A 1992 memorandum from the Missouri Department of Health, or MDOH, provided PRGs for the Bee
Cee Manufacturing site. The PRG for hexavalent chromium in groundwater at this site is 18 micrograms
per liter, or |ig/L or 18 parts per billion, or ppb.
2.2.2 Remedy Components
The ROD, signed on September 30, 1997, described the selected remedy of MNA, groundwater
monitoring and ICs. ICs are in place to prevent future use of the groundwater in this part of the industrial
park and to warn potential purchasers of the contamination.
6
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
2.3 Status of Implementation
Following the issuance of the ROD, the EPA approved the Remedial Design completed by the MDNR.
The EPA requested that the site owner, the city of Maiden, conduct the remedial work. The city
declined, citing a lack of financial means. Therefore, the site work was primarily federally funded, with
the MDNR performing the remedial work.
The state of Missouri Division of Geology and Land Survey, or DGLS, prepared the work plan and
specifications for the installation of five additional monitoring wells for the remedial action. The MDNR
and the EPA reviewed and approved these plans in 1993, prior to the award of a Cooperative
Agreement.
The five additional wells were installed in September 1-8, 1999. A Pre-Final Inspection was conducted
by theMDNR and the EPA on September 8, 1999. During the pre-final inspection, the MDNR and the
EPA determined that the construction activities of the remedial action performed by DGLS were in
accordance with the ROD, Statement of Work, or SOW, and Quality Assurance Project Plan, or QAPP,
for the site. The EPA signed a Preliminary closeout report prepared by the MDNR on
September 10, 1999, and construction of the remedy was considered complete.
In 2010, the EPA and the MDNR collected additional soil samples at the site to address one of the
recommendations from the second FYR to assess whether soil risk remained. This work was
documented in the "Addendum to the Bee Cee Manufacturing Site Second Five-Year Report," dated
May 2010. Surface and shallow subsurface soil was sampled in a grid pattern. The samples were
analyzed for hexavalent chromium, and those results were compared to human health risk criteria.
Several soil samples exceeded the human health risk level for residential use, but none of the samples
exceeded the human health risk level for industrial/commercial use. In August 2010, an Explanation of
Significant Differences, or ESD, was prepared that modified the remedy to include a land use control
preventing use of the site for residential, agricultural or child care purposes.
2.4 Institutional Control Summary Table
ICs have been in place through the use of the Missouri Registry, to prevent exposure to site
contaminants. The site was placed on the Registry on July 8, 1988. Because the source of the
contamination was deemed to have been removed, the only remaining exposure pathway is through
exposure to the contaminated groundwater. Therefore, the ICs in place ensure that no drinking water
wells are installed in the contaminated groundwater plume. In addition, the EPA worked with the city of
Maiden to place an Environmental Covenant, or EC, on the site in June 2009 to further ensure that
contaminated groundwater is not utilized for potable purposes. In August 2010, the EC was amended to
include the land use control established as the soil remedy in the ESD.
7
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Table 2-2; Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICs
Media
ICs
Needed
ICs Called
for in the
Decision
Document
s
Impacted
Parcel(s)
IC
Objective
Title of IC
Instrument
Implemented and
Date (or planned)
Restrict the
installation of drinking
water wells within the
contamination plume
through the use of the
Groundwate
r
Yes
Yes
Approximate
ly four acres
Prevent access to
contaminated
groundwater
Missouri Registry.
Placed on Registry on
July 8, 1988
EC put in place by the
city of Maiden in June
2009 to further ensure
that contaminated
groundwater is not
utilized for potable
purposes
EC was modified in
August 2010, limiting
Soil
Yes
Yes
Approximate
ly 1/8 of an
acre
Limiting site use
the property to
industrial use and
prohibiting residential,
recreational,
agricultural, and child-
care uses.
2.5 Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance
Tasks for managing the site include coordinating annual sampling of the monitoring wells, evaluating
data, assuring ICs remain in place and are complied with and consulting with the EPA regarding the site.
The Operation and Maintenance Plan, or O&M, was updated in September 2011. Appendix H, Figure 2
shows the location of the monitoring wells sampled annually. Groundwater is analyzed for hexavalent
and total chromium.
3.0 Progress Since Last Review
This section includes the protectiveness determinations, statements, and recommendations from the last
five-year review as well as the current status of those recommendations.
8
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Table 3-1: Protectiveness Determination/Statement from the 2014 FYR
OU 1
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
1
Protective
The remedy at the Bee Cee Manufacturing Site currently
protects human health and the environment because the
groundwater plume is not migrating and institutional
controls are in place that prevent groundwater use and and
limit land use to industrial/commercial. In order to be
protective in the long-term, it is recommended that the
EPA conduct a screening level ecological risk assessment
to confirm the MDOH conclusions in the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, or RI/FS, and that the
MDNR conduct soil sampling in the vicinity of the former
manufacturing building.
Table 3
-2: Status of Recommendation from the 2014 FYR
OU
1
Issue
Recommendation
Current
Status
Current
Implementation
Status Description
Completio
n Date (if
applicable)
1
Sampling
conducted in
2010 to determine
risk from
contaminated on-
site soils was
incomplete due to
a lack of
historical
knowledge of the
former Bee Cee
Manufacturing
facility.
Complete sampling
of on-site soils and
reassess risk to
determine if soils
risk remains
Addressed
in Next
FYR
The MDNR and the
EPA will complete
sampling of on-site
soils in the area of the
former Bee Cee
Manufacturing facility
and reassess risk to
determine if
unacceptable soils risk
remains.
N/A
1
Data gaps exist in
the 1992
ecological risk
assessment
Collect surface
water, sediment and
soil samples and
conduct a screening-
level ecological risk
assessment
Addressed
in Next
FYR
The EPA will collect
surface water, sediment
and soil samples and
conduct a screening-
level ecological risk
assessment
N/A
9
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
4.0Five-Year Review Process
4.1 Community Notification, Involvement, and Site Interviews
4.1.1 Community Notification, & Involvement
A public notice was made available by newspaper in the Delta Dunklin Democrat, September 2018,
stating that there was a FYR and inviting the public to submit any comments to the EPA. The notice
stated that results of the review and the report will be available via the EPA's internet-based repository.
The notice provided contact information for the EPA Remedial Project Manager and the following
website for additional information:
www.epa. gov/superfund/beeceemanufacturing
4.1.2 Site Interviews
During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes
with the remedy that has been implemented to date. Interviews were conducted with the following
people:
• Kyle Anderson, MDNR
• City of Maiden Airport Manager
• Operations Manager, Weaver Popcorn (adjacent business owner to the Bee Cee Manufacturing
Superfund Site).
None of the interviewees noted any issues or concerns which may affect the protectiveness of the
remedy. Interviews are documented in Appendix D, Site Inspection Checklist and Appendix F,
Interview Record.
4.2 Data Review
Annual groundwater monitoring well sampling data was reviewed for the remedial action from sampling
events conducted since the last FYR. These events took place in March 2015, May 2016 and August
2017. Monitoring well-3, or MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, and MW-6 were sampled in each event, and the
2015 event also included wells MW-7 through MW-10. No detections of the COCs were found. MW-7
through MW-10 were abandoned in 2015 at the request of the city of Maiden to allow for development
within the Maiden Industrial Park. Given that none of these wells had detections of hexavalent
chromium above the PRG of 18 jag/1 over the past 14 years, the Hazardous Waste Program, Superfund
Section made arrangements for the wells to be abandoned. Sampling and inspection reports with photos
for these events are provided in Appendix I. Appendix H, Figure 2 shows the location of the
monitoring wells. Appendix G, Table 1-1 provides a summary of selected site sampling data since
sampling began. MW-1 is included in the table for historical reference even though it has not been
sampled since the 2nd FYR.
In summary, after reviewing the data from the wells that were sampled, since 2013, there have been no
exceedances of the hexavalent chromium PRG, and the contaminant trends in each well appear to be
stable or decreasing. One more groundwater sampling event will be completed and if the results are
10
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
below the PRG of 18 (agL, then the site can be closed out as long as the Ecological Risk Assessment and
the results of additional soil sampling are not an issue.
4.3 Site Inspection
The inspection of the site was conducted on November 29, 2018. In attendance were Devin Pollock from
the EPA and Kyle Anderson from the MDNR. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the
protectiveness of the remedy.
The inspection team visited each of the Long Term Monitoring, or LTM, monitoring wells, which had
been last sampled in August 2017. All monitoring wells were located and found to be in good condition
and secured. A Site Inspection Checklist is contained in Appendix D, and photographs are presented in
Appendix E.
5.0 Technical Assessment
5.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Question A Summary:
The groundwater remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. Sampling activities related to natural
attenuation have been conducted in accordance with a site-specific O&M Plan. The results of this
sampling demonstrate that concentrations of hexavalent chromium remain below PRGs. An EC was put
in place by the city of Maiden in June 2009 to further ensure that contaminated groundwater is not
utilized for potable purposes. In August 2010, the EC was modified to limit the property use to industrial
use and prohibit residential, recreational, agricultural, and child-care uses.
5.1.1 Remedial Action Performance
Historically, hexavalent chromium and total chromium have mainly been detected in MW-3 (source area
well) and MW-5 (nearest downgradient well). Since the last FYR, total chromium has remained below
the groundwater MCL of 100 ppb in these wells and all wells sampled in the last five years. Also since
the last FYR, hexavalent chromium concentrations have been below the PRG of 18 (ig/L in these wells
and well MW-6, the fartherest downgradient well.
The generally declining contaminant levels and apparent stable groundwater plume indicate the remedy
is functioning as intended per the ROD.
5.1.2 System Operations/O&M
Operating procedures at the site are working in a mariner that will continue to maintain the effectiveness
of the remedy. No well integrity or maintenance issues were identified for the FYR period.
5.1.3 Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures
ICs utilized to date have included the use of the Missouri Registry to prevent exposure to site
contaminants. An EC has also been utilized to address groundwater and land use restrictions at the site.
11
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
5.2 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;
The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy
selection are still valid. There have been no changes in the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements, or ARARs, for COCs. Changes in toxicity values do not affect risk estimates sufficiently
to bring the protectiveness of the remedy into question. Changes in risk assessment methods and
exposure pathways also do not bring the protectiveness of the remedy into question.
5.2.1 Changes in Standards and To-Be-Considered Items
New toxicity data became available in 2009 for hexavalent chromium, which led to a revision in
December 2009 to the Regional Screening Level, or RSL, for tap water. The RSL for hexavalent
chromium is currently 0.035 |_ig/L for tap water based on the November 2018 RSL tables.
In addition to changes in the EPA RSLs for hexavalent chromium in groundwater, changes were also
made to the EPA RSL for hexavalent chromium in soils. The site Removal Action utilized a hexavalent
chromium action level of 180 mg/kg. The current EPA residential RSL for hexavalent chromium is 0.30
mg/kg, while the industrial RSL is 6.3 mg/kg. After revisions of the RSLs, soil sampling at the site
identified soil contamination above RSLs, which led to the modification of the EC to prevent use of the
site for residential, agricultural or child care purposes.
There are acute and chronic hexavalent chromium ambient surface water criteria (U.S. EPA, 2009) and
updated ecological screening levels for metals (MacDonald et al., 2000) that were not used in the 1992
Final Risk Assessment or the 1997 ROD. Additional data collection of this media is recommended to
ensure sediment and surface water has not impacted ecological receptors.
5.2.2 Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics
As identified and discussed above, several toxicity values have changed since the original risk
assessment was conducted and have resulted in substantially lower screening levels for soil and water.
As a result of these changes, the Second and Third FYRs recommended soil sampling at the site to
determine if soil risks are acceptable. Based upon those sampling results, the MDNR and the EPA
determined that a change to the ROD was necessary to implement an additional remedy for soil.
Additional sampling is still needed to characterize soils that exceed the soil PRG on the site (see Section
5.3 below).
We are not aware of any other changes to contaminant characteristic that could impact the
protectiveness of the remedy.
5.2.3 Changes in Risk Assessment Methods
The EPA has significantly revised its dermal risk assessment guidance since the completion of the
original risk assessment (U.S. EPA, 2004). A different approach is also used when estimating the health
risks from inhalation of volatile organic compounds during household use of contaminated groundwater
(i.e., bathing, showering, cooking, etc.) (U.S. EPA, 2009). In addition, several exposure assessment
12
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
input parameters in the original risk assessment are different than values currently used, and the EPA
has also developed and implemented risk assessment guidance which evaluates the vapor intrusion
pathway.
As part of the Second FYR, a risk assessment report was completed that updated toxicity values and risk
assessment methods, where applicable. Based on the soil sampling results collected in March 2010, the
MDNR and the EPA determined that a change to the ROD was necessary to implement an additional
remedy for soil. An ESD for the Bee Cee Manufacturing Site was completed in July 2010 (U.S. EPA,
2010) to implement a significant change to the remedy for soil at the site. The proposed remedy change
for soil involved placing an IC in the form of an addendum to the existing EC for groundwater at the
site. This IC limits use of the site to industrial purposes and explicitly prohibits use of the site for
residential, agricultural or child care purposes. Sampling conducted in 2010 to determine risk from
contaminated on-site soils was incomplete due to a lack of historical knowledge of the former Bee Cee
Manufacturing facility foundation slab. Additional sampling of on-site soils near the former Bee Cee
slab is needed to reassess risk to determine if soils risk remains.
The 1992 Final Risk Assessment for the site concluded that because the site is located in an industrial
area, and the contamination is relatively localized, it did not appear to pose a threat to the environment.
It noted that there was chromium above Apparent Effects Threshold values in site soils. However, it also
noted that there was no evidence of exposure to sensitive species or native communities. This
assessment did not consider groundwater as a risk to the environment and did not evaluate surface water
as an ecological pathway. In 1992, the EPA published the Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
as the first statement of principles for ecological risks. In 1997, the agency published the Guidelines for
Ecological Risk Assessment, which supersedes the 1992 guidance. However, the ecological risk
assessment performed for this site as part of the Final Risk Assessment did not follow any of the EPA
guidance. Therefore, Region 7 ecological risk assessors recommend that a screening level ecological
risk assessment be performed with updated surface water, sediment and soil samples (including both
total and hexavalent chromium) be collected at the Bee Cee Manufacturing Site.
Since the remedial action for the site only addressed groundwater, only a groundwater remedial action
objective was developed. This RAO for the site remains appropriate for groundwater, as site conditions
have not changed since implementation of the remedy.
5.2.4 Changes in Exposure Pathways
Land use has not changed at the site since the last FYR, and the EPA is not aware of any potential future
land use changes. The exposure assumptions used to determine risk included both current and potential
future exposures under a residential scenario. These assumptions were considered to be conservative and
reasonable in evaluating groundwater risk given the potential that the area could be converted to
residential use in the future.
There are no newly-identified contaminants or contaminant sources that would lead to a potential/actual
pathway not previously addressed by the remedy.
There are no unanticipated toxic byproducts or daughter products of the remedy which were not
evaluated at the time of remedy selection or addressed by the ROD.
13
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
5.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
On October 1, 2013, in response to an annual Registry Inspection Report submitted by the state Project
Manager to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, or MDHSS, it was brought to the
attention of the MDNR that the physical location of the former Bee Cee Manufacturing Company
facility was not the building slab adjacent to the most contaminated site wells MW-3 and MW-5 as
believed, but rather the easternmost portion of the currently operating facility building directly to the
west. This assertion was verified using a survey map of the site contained in the FIG report and
comparing it to a present-day Google Earth map of the site. Based on this new piece of information, the
sampling grid for the site soil sampling conducted in 2010 was actually shifted approximately 125 feet
east of the believed location of the Bee Cee building slab. It is recommended that additional soil
sampling be conducted to assure that areas of the site to the west of the 2010 grid contain hexavalent
chromium levels below the human health risk level for industrial/commercial use of the site.
5.3.1 Natural Disaster Impacts
No natural disasters have occurred that could call the protectiveness of the remedy into question.
5.3.2 Ecological Risks
A screening level ecological risk assessment will be performed with updated surface water, sediment
and soil samples.
14
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
6.0 Issues/Recommendations
Issucs/Rcconimcndntions
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
None
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU(s): 1
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: Soil sampling conducted in 2010 to determine risk from
contaminated on-site soils was incomplete due to a lack of historical
knowledge of the former Bee Cee Manufacturing facility.
Recommendation: Complete sampling of on-site soils in the area of the
former Bee Cee Manufacturing facility and reassess risk to determine if
unacceptable soil risk remains. Based on results, determine whether a
modification to the existing environmental covenant and/or ROD is
required.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA/State
EPA
6/25/2021
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU(s): 1
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: Data gaps exist in the 1992 ecological risk assessment
Recommendation: Collect surface water, sediment and soil samples and
conduct a screening-level ecological risk assessment
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA/State
EPA
6/25/2021
6.1 Other Findings
None
15
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
7.0 Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit:
OU1
Protectiveness Determination:
Short-term Protective
Planned Addendum
Completion Date:
N/A
Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at the Bee Cee Manufacturing Site currently protects
human health and the environment because the groundwater contamination plume is not
migrating and institutional controls are in place that prevent groundwater use and limit land
use to industrial/commercial. In order to be protective in the long-term, it is recommended that
the EPA conduct a screening level ecological risk assessment to confirm the MDHSS'
conclusions in the RI/FS, and additional soil sampling be conducted in the vicinity of the
former manufacturing building.
8.0 Next Review
The next five-year review report for the Bee Cee Manufacturing Site is required five years from the
completion date of this review.
16
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCE LIST
j
-------
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1995. Health Consultation, Bee Cee Manufacturing
Company, Maiden, Dunklin, County, Missouri.
MDH, 1992. Final Risk Assessment, Bee Cee Manufacturing Superfund Site, Dunklin County, MO.
Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology, Missouri Department of Health, Jefferson City, MO.
MDNR, 1993. Risk Assessment for Exposure to Contaminated Groundwater, Bee Cee Manufacturing
Site, Maiden, MO.
MDNR, 2009. Second Five Year Review Report for the Bee Cee Manufacturing Company Site. Maiden,
Dunklin County, Missouri.
I
MDNR, 2010. Addendum to the Bee Cee Manufacturing Site, Second Five-Year Review Report.
MDNR, 2010. Explanation of Significant Differences for the. Bee Cee Manufacturing Company
Superfund Site. Maiden, Dunklin County, Missouri. EPA ID No. MOD980860522.
MDNR, 2014. Second Five Year Review Report for the Bee Cee Manufacturing Company Site. Maiden,
Dunklin County, Missouri.
MDNR, 2015. Abbreviated Sampling Report, Bee Cee Manufacturing Site, Order Number 15031808,
Maiden, Dunklin County, MO.
MDNR, 2016. Abbreviated Sampling Report, Bee Cee Manufacturing Site, Order Number 160512009,
Maiden, Dunklin County, MO.
MDNR, 2017. Abbreviated Sampling Report, Bee Cee Manufacturing Site, Order Number 1708090005,
Maiden, Dunklin County, MO.
Sverdrup Environmental, 1993. Further Investigation of Groundwater Report at the Bee Cee
Manufacturing Superfund Site, Maiden, Missouri.
Sverdrup Environmental, 1994. Feasibility Study Report for the Bee Cee Manufacturing Superfund Site,
Maiden, Missouri.
U.S. EPA, 1997. Record of Decision, Bee Cee Manufacturing Superfund Site, Maiden, Missouri
September 1997.
U.S. EPA, 2001. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response.
U.S. EPA, 2003. Region 5 RCRA Ecological Screening Levels.
http://epa.gov/region5/waste/carslpdfs/ecological-screening-levels-200308.pdf
U.S. EPA, 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual
Remedial Response, Washington D.C. EPN540/R/99/005.
U.S. EPA, 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7- 66. http://wvw.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/pdf/eco-ssl chromium.pdf
-------
U.S. 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 and Technology Innovation. USEPA-540-R-070-002.
U.S. EPA, 2009. Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standardslcriteria/current/
U.S. EPA, 2012. Assessing Protectiveness at Sites for Vapor Intrusion, Supplement to the
"Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance." OSWER Directive 9200.2-84.
U.S. EPA, 2018. Regional Screening Levels (RSL) Summary Table (TR=lE-06, HQ=1). November.
http://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls
-------
APPENDIX B
SITE CHRONOLOGY
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Site Chronology
Date
Event
07/1982
Site Discovery
6/10/1986
Final Listing on National Priorities List or NPL
7/08/1988
Bee Cee Manufacturing Site placed on MDNR's Registry
2/12/1992
Preliminary Removal Assessment
8/20/1992
Removal of Contaminated Surface Soil
12/21/1992
Human Health Risk Assessment completed
4/12-4/17/1993
Further Investigation of Groundwater was conducted
9/30/1997
Feasibility Study completed
9/30/1997
Record of Decision signed
3/5/1999
Remedial Design approved
8/31/1999
Cooperative Agreement signed
9/01-9/9/1999
Remedial Action completed
9/8/1999
Final Inspection conducted by the MDNR and the EPA
9/10/1999
Preliminary Close-out Report signed by the EPA
10/12/1999
First round of groundwater samples collected from all 10 wells
11/7/2000
Groundwater sampling conducted
11/15-11/16/2001
Groundwater sampling conducted
8/20-8/21/2003
Groundwater sampling conducted
9/30/2004
First FYR completed
4/25/2005
Groundwater sampling conducted
3/01/2006
Groundwater sampling conducted
7/02/2007
Groundwater sampling conducted
4/22/2008
Groundwater sampling conducted
4/6/2009
Groundwater sampling conducted
6/22/2009
Environmental Covenant placed
7/30/2009
Second FYR completed
3/23/2010
Groundwater sampling conducted
3/1/2011
Groundwater sampling conducted
3/7/2012
Groundwater sampling conducted
3/11/2013
Groundwater sampling conducted
3/10/2014
Groundwater sampling conducted
6/07/2010
Addendum to Second FYR
8/13/2010
Environmental Covenant amended
8/13/2010
Explanation of Significant Differences for soil remedy
9/30/2010
O&M Phase begins, State takes over Site
6/24/2015
Third FYR completed
3/17/2015
Groundwater sampling conducted
5/11/2016
Groundwater sampling conducted
8/1/2017
Groundwater sampling conducted
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS/
HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Physical Characteristics
The Bee Cee Manufacturing Site is located in the town of Maiden, Dunklin County, Missouri
(Figure 1). The site is located in the southeast Mississippi lowlands subdivision of the Gulf
Coastal Plain Province. Most of Dunklin County is a nearly level part of the current Mississippi
River Alluvial Plain. The town of Maiden consists of primarily residential and commercial/
industrial buildings with an approximate population of 4,277 (2010 Census data).
The contaminated soil, considered to be the source of the groundwater contamination, was
addressed in a 1992 removal.
The remedial action addresses the groundwater plume. The remedial investigation estimated the
groundwater plume to be 400 feet or ft. long by 400 ft. wide, with a maximum depth of 25 ft.
The plume was estimated to have traveled 438 ft. from the point of release. From the last five
rounds of annual sampling, the plume does not appear to have migrated past MW-6.
Land and Resource Use
\
The land within a quarter mile of the site is part of an industrial park. While most of it is vacant,
some areas are used for small industrial plants and warehouse space. The nearest home is just
over a quarter of a mile south of the site. Maiden's municipal water supply well No. 4 is located
within one mile of the site. Water from the site is not likely to impact this well since it is cross-
gradient from the site and is completed in an artesian aquifer approximately 800 feet below
ground surface.
History of Contamination
Bee Cee Manufacturing occupied the site from 1964 until early 1983 and produced aluminum
moldings for storm windows and doors. The window and door moldings were cleaned and
etched in preparation for application of a finishing coat of paint. A series of five open vats were
used to hold cleaning, etching and rinsing fluids that included chromic acid. The aluminum
moldings were dipped from one tank to another during the manufacturing process. The chemicals
in the various vats were identified under the trade names Alodine 4 780 and Ridoline 72.
Waste liquid from the process was allowed to flow through a series of pipes directly onto the
surface soil immediately north of the east end of the facility. Personnel from the Water Pollution
Control Unit of the MDNR's Southeast Regional Office reported chromium wastes on the surface
at the site during an investigation conducted July 13, 1981. In a letter from MDNR dated July 27,
1981, Bee Cee Manufacturing was warned to cease the discharge of untreated process water.
Bee Cee Manufacturing declared bankruptcy in 1983, and the site was taken over by Missouri
Aluminum Products Company. This company cut and assembled storm doors but did not include
chemical cleaning of aluminum in the process as did Bee Cee Manufacturing.
Falcon next occupied the site. Falcon only assembled aluminum door and window frames and
did not generate any hazardous wastes from their process. According to a bill of sale dated April
15, 1985, Falcon purchased certain assets from Missouri Aluminum Products Company. Falcon
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
did not purchase the vats. However, Falcon arranged to have the material that remained in the
tanks removed.
The contents of the five vats were sampled and analyzed by William A. Green and Associates of
Maiden, Missouri for pH, hexavalent chromium, total chromium, aluminum, nickel and lead to
determine compliance with discharge requirements to the local Publicly Owned Treatment
Works. According to a Falcon letter to MDNR dated December 20, 1985, the Maiden Board of
Public Works authorized discharging the contents of vats one, two, four and five, to the Public
Owned Treatment Works or POTW provided that the pH was adjusted to between 6 and 9 prior
to discharge.
The sludge in the four vats was removed. However, the vats were left in place. A
recommendation was made for the chromic acid solution in vat three, to be removed by a
hazardous waste disposal company. Falcon Door and Window requested authorization from
MDNR for removal of the waste material contained in the tank. According to a letter written by
WAGA to Falcon on March 20, 1986, Mid-America Transport Services, a licensed hazardous
waste transporter, removed and transported the chromic acid solution. According to the letter, the
tank walls were rinsed; however, a small amount of aluminum solution and less than one gallon
of rinse water remained on the tank bottom. The chromic acid solution was transported to Chem
Clear, Inc. in Chicago, Illinois, on March 20, 1986, as stated in a copy of the Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest.
During the time that the building was occupied by the various tenants, several sampling events
and evaluations of the groundwater (sampling nearby wells, not the site-specific wells installed
later), soil and "sludge" at the site were conducted. The MDNR Division of Environmental
Quality Laboratory Services Program collected samples from the following four sources: (1)
selected city wells, (2) liquid discharge from a pipe extending out of and onto the north side of
the building (from the area of the building that contained the chemical cleaning process vats), (3)
discolored soil north of the building, and (4) the five process vats. The Missouri Department of
Health also collected water samples at several nearby residential, irrigation and public water
supply wells from 1984 to 1991. Southeast Missouri State University conducted a test-pit survey
at the site in 1986.
A report prepared by MDNR on June 27, 1984, indicated that the sludge north of the building
was sampled and analyzed according to the Toxicity Extraction Procedure or TEP. The reported
chromium concentration was 2.5 milligrams per liter or mg/L. According to the report, the
regulatory TEP Limit for chromium was 5.0 mg/L. The discharge liquid from the building was
also analyzed and found to have a chromium concentration of 0.62 mg/L. Several wells located
near the site were also sampled; however, only three metals (aluminum, barium and lead) were
detected at concentrations, above their associated detection limit. Aluminum and chromium were
each detected at concentrations above detection levels at a residential well with concentrations at
1.0 and 0.032 mg/L, respectively. Samples taken from the two wells at the nearby golf course
had concentrations of barium above the detection level.
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Seven City wells were monitored from March 1984 to September 1991 by MDOH. The
groundwater analytical data from samples taken from those wells indicated no concentrations of
chromium above the detection limit of 0'"005 mg/L.
The EPA's Emergency Planning and Response Branch or EP&R and Ecology and Environment's
Technical Assistance Team or TAT conducted a preliminary removal assessment on February
12, 1992. The Bee Cee Manufacturing building interior and exterior were inspected for future
removal procedures by representatives of EP&R, TAT, MDNR, a removal contractor and
Sverdrup Environmental Incorporated. The potential source area for chromium contamination
was the soil north of the east end of the metal treating facility where chemical-process liquids
were disposed. The soils in this area were sampled in April 1992 and were evaluated by the
collection of 40 soil samples. The EPA approved an Action Memorandum for the Removal of
Contaminated Surface Soil at the Bee Cee Manufacturing Site on July 1, 1992. The action level
for the soil was set at 2000 mg/kg for total chromium and 180 mg/kg for Hexavalent Chromium.
The scope of the removal included contaminated soil and the portion of the Bee cee
Manufacturing building that contained five vats used for metal plating processes.
On July 27, 1992, the EPA's On-Scene Coordinator and the site remediation contractor, Riedel
Environmental Services mobilized to the site. Removal of the contaminated soil, process tanks
and portions of the building was completed on August 20, 1992.
Beginning in late 1991, a RI of the site was condl :lcted. Parts of this investigation occurred
concurrently with the Removal Investigation and Removal Action. Later, a FIG was conducted.
Both investigations were conducted to better define the contamination of the site. TAT provided
assistance for the RI. Field activities for the RI were conducted from April 13 through 24, and
June 8 through 12, 1992. Field activities for the FIG were conducted from April 12 through April
17, 1993. Samples of groundwater, soil and air from the site were collected and analyzed. In
addition, sediment samples from the ditch north of the site were collected. The potential source
area for chromium contamination was found to be the soil north of the east end of the facility
where chemical-process liquids were disposed. A visibly stained surface area next to the building
that contained the process vats was considered the contamination zone.
Based on conclusions and recommendations contained in the RI, FIG and Risk Assessment, a
Feasibility Study or FS was ordered. The writing of the FS was completed in October 1994.
Information from the FS was used to select the most appropriate remedy for the remediation of
the contaminated groundwater at the Bee Cee Manufacturing Site. This selection was detailed ii)
the Proposed Plan, which was completed and released for public comment in April 1997. The
Record of Decision was signed on September 29, 1997.
-------
APPENDIX D
SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
i
-------
1. SHT. (NPUKMANON
Site ,awsi p.ae. C \»c / ¦<. -r « < ~i" '<> >«, »¦«<* >•~ .nvp>v-ii.a A^cue^j^v- >1 -:~ <>.•£
Location and Region. _ __ CP4 ID: MOQ 9 g&g^
Agenc- ffic ot rf.rjjfun. UadiPj; trv five-year Weather/tenmeraUirc:
^ A V Zfa^L ¦ H 2- °
Remedy Ipfiudrr tl k\ k j<< i\u \pp!y)
neat
~ Access controls
~ Groundwater pump and trcatm
v,u?\-kc «>,<,<.> < oihVt f iM.1 t>
~ Other
^Monitored natural attenuation
O li r(^ik1» ater containment
O V tv.ical barrier walls
ment
Attachments: O Inspection k- w i .<*(« a.u/u d
iltached
1. O&M site manager _ {< ^
II. IS IER\ >1* \\S iClveK «i( t^j:* vply)
! **• R{\ 4*>_-s» f H .&:*>) v-KK, 41 haV-
Name rid,'
S-/fc-W
Date
Interviewed r D a! office u by phone Phone no, 5 """3 • " f< i i^lo
Probieins, suggestions: fi Report attack v1 _>•„* %
2. O&M staff
phone Phone no,
ned
Tide
Date
D-l
-------
regulatory aurboritie* 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 oiler city mud county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency
Contact
Avr/'.cf- *:.J f+v-k
mmrnim A. »
Name Tak Date PI
Problems; suggestions;&Reporr attached
r-- •* - ijl-M
Phone no.
.71
iVHlerw
Title
Date Phone no.
Agency
Contact
Name
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached
Title
Date fiwe
-------
ill. OVSill KUdMKMSA Ki t OKDS VKHil fH> u'iku k cKi *
1, O&M Drcumtiiiv
1, '(\tM ,\ m»\sv 1 ^,>>1 .in. > * 'r! > da's' vi .V •
'.1A*-build iu'iij. 1 luvuhU wsl.itMe i > ip t>\ (lit.' !'.N"'\ \
I >U«*tcranct VysA ^ • UvadiU a\4sl>t>k* i i dac». V. JN.V- .
Uencwits M i) V fts *\K ,f\t-/"? |'>jkl^..4:KAT_ - >~v«V*s 3S-«H(«*¦? *••**t*-^-
/'!i.V{^ _><¦ hj, j H tJ-.. t~L>'# t_
2, Site-Spcrifle Health and Safer* !'U« C R-Mdilv .->>«! »bu> ' l*j> K-v*uic f C'N A\
„k i i€\ ' 1j> umr^Hc it-poPi*'p'4.!i i' Rcad.h & ¦j-.'jbie . Tp to \ijte \ ; K 3. •"
Reru»*k« }t4s£ .! > pjVt. ©£ jf^.v /I ?jm L-
Permits H«;d Hcniu Agrmttmss
i Ad ihsc.wtgi i* mm iK-v.eh iXdivMo
1 tilUC!« dlSCh.Mgv ''t\ll'V IXlnl'l!
t > Waste disposul IPO J A I Rfjtuti} ,n.ul.'Mt u Up to ,
iTOu„ 1 Ravxs available
Rerosrks
5, Gas Generation Records ~ Readily available O Up to dale
Remarks
^eftiernfiit Record* ~"1 Re»JU\ avii'.aMt H)p !¦> date (j. N «\
T ,,n»ui,»bte ' 5 >p to <1 iu> V)
RiuUaik^
Diwlwrgt C cnipl/anco Records ., •
! 1 Ait OReadily available ~ Up to date ' ""'N' \ xt
11U sic.- (effluent) O Readily available ~ Up t ^ 0 Xx^ N' \ '
ki*tii4rks
10, Oat!> 4e«v« Staniri " i^Mvhis .WA-bc*!? 1 U; >v j.tit '^'-1*,^
Rcna-V N~s S !> f!f 4 *? * . , S
rWT rC \l Akffo^% .W
v *i^w _ * ¦-* il!i? h.^__ky 0>"V,y ct^* . ______
D-3
-------
IV. O&M COSTS
<»&\t O'^-muvtion
x> •».. >n : • r r-i -a n ft. v,k, >
i t^Pl' ,r-> f i , n!> k }>•>> »-s\»
i 1 • i A (,i< i ,«i. n" >t * >> m V tv uil facility
O Other
Nt-Jto";:?;11 ^,,A,„ ^ji^. ¦¦
O Funding mechanism'agr cement in place
ku< >u, M v «s; ^tan- -# 5> oc-r* Iwf >' H^iiMown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From
To
~ Breakdown attached
Date
Dale
Total cost
From
To
O Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
0 Breakdown attached
Date
Total cost
From
To
~ Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
O Breakdown attached
Date
Dale
Total cost
3. Unanticipated or ll««s»al!y I*M OA U i «ts Dnring Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
¥, \( Ci.Ss AN)* i , \ N .
D-4
-------
c.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
1.
< -vi ?' "*,<•. v.plemented Irr. 1 j
W ,i> td'ti. »<•. ,u\;t!v H <, (H f >»n> > su i\ ttiforced O Yes ONr {
T\po ,»rnhn is>> u>; '--f iilf-- Jrivel^ »>'£ j> ,
1 u\j,.cn."5 »v «i ?>T 'vfs/^.t s -1-" i
'l-.wpctteiHe ja«h^
M<> >u- ftsir
*\v
'JfiYcs DNo
ReriHN.-i v • r , ¦ . •-.. lead agency Vs V
1
1
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met ,\t>* [ i M
Violations have been reported
Other problems or suggestions; O Report attached
W\' A
% N a.
2.
Remarks
ON A
D.
General
1.
Viidaisni/treipissliif O Location shown on site map )L K\> veWi, evident
Remarks
JL.
1^^ nrf usc chior s < f i\
Remarks
3.
Land «\e changes off site ON/A
VI. GENERAL, SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads "^Applicable ON/A
1.
ioi.fs d.t naged M , O Location shown fit? ,n.v < To
*t'it" f •-
D-5
-------
1. Other Site Conditions
Remarks Nl A
A. Landfill Siirfnc#
1.
VII.
s o
Vcv< .n-K'C, %
is)
! alio > -'.H'1 on site map O Settlement not evident
Depth _
ttion shown on site map O Cracking not evident
Widths Depths
3. Erosion
Area! extent
Remarks
4, Holes
Ariv' i
Re
O Location shown on site map O Holes not evident
Depth ____ ,
5, \ t ' " [i
11 lu-s t n.k », . „,Ki »\ ji jbs oi
rty established O No signs of stress
er (armored rock, concrete, etc.) O N/A
?, Bulges >1 .i >n shown on site map I H^lges not evident
Area! extent _____
Remarks
D-6
-------
8.
Wet Areas/Winter Damage
~ Wet areas
'J Ponding
O Seeps
O Soft jubgrade
Remarks
~ Wet areas/wtler damage not evident
~ l ocation shown on site map Areal extent
n f on map a
x vV 1 map \vi!
i. i \ i>. • h,. < a on L¦* > \t< r sp' ihe „ 'ope
r \uri'kv .)»u! • ci > ;•< .i:\i ^«iu\ ihi* ru .< t,i
1.
Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks
O Location shown on site map O N./A or okay
2,
Bench Breached
Remarks
1 i >>. a, >i s •>:.<"«» on site map \ at okay
3.
ttench Ovi-t topped
Rt-n> r, L»
~ vi" f, : • vn on site map ON/A or okay
C.
KltfiwiiUuiiOrij ' >n ,¦« n
>Cn/a
4 1 * i ^ ^ uu H ^ ^ v,l< ^
L
Settlement
Areal extent
'o.i ^ho%vti, ,n site map O No evidence of settlement
Eema;l,f
2.
o! •V.<. Warttjn OLocr
Uv'u sKo'a r u,i map D No evidence of degradation
3.
Erosion
Areal extent
lion siunt u itn site map OKj, : „ cf erosion
Rcv»,i,ks
D-7
-------
4.
O Location shown on site map ~ Mo evidence of undercutting
Depth
5.
Obstructions pav CN, ,)*, ,> tactions
H1 ocation show-.. .i«. ¦ t- Area! extent
R-'msre
6,
\ i-tsxi» X % k,tk Type
wth
»l obstruct flow
Area! extern
D. Cover Pmrlr iimns . KM/A
1.
^ j* ^ A.cHv'*^ Passive
J »\oih - U ~ ¦ 0 I H5v\t.v,sr|» n Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
O Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2.
Gas Mouit.-vn; Firbts
~ Properly s stiaeiy sampled O Good condition
O Evidence« O Needs Maintenance O N/A
Remarks
3.
, v,-., c. ,\i,vl ra;»cu\io;> > .".h.iph ly sampled ~ Good condition
'1 " u'e<> ^ St\ . iNeeds Maintenance DN/A
4.
: kw \\ k n.T, uu.^4 ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
I. .'vat.vt" < * "t.. ~ Needs Maintenance ON/A
5,
Settlement Monuments > . .rated ~ Routinely surveyed DN/A
Kfuudi,
D-l
-------
E.
• >i!ection and Treatment
¦•vp1 uihu' \
1.
iIay 11 »atment Facilities
arms* O Thermal destruction O Collection for reuse
condition^ Needs Maintenance
2.
Gas Coll.\ i; n W«|w M*)»iMk's asui
OGood ci«,ti!i,,s»si \'. eds Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.ggas raoru adjacent homes or buildings)
~ Good condition!) Needs Maintenance
Remarks
it Drainage Layer
Outlet Pipes Inspected
Remarks
O Functioning DM/A
2,
Outlet Rock Inspected
Remarks
O Functioning O N/A
C.
Dentition Sedimentation Ponds
0 App i .,1 Ic H N \
1.
SiltalioB Areal extent
u'r, ON/A
O Sillation not evident
Remarks
2.
Erosion Area' e\t^>
Deuth
O Erosion not evident
Remarks
3.
Outlet Works C
Remarks
~ N/A
1
4,
Dam E
Remarks
ON/A
D-9
-------
11. Retaining Walls
~ Applicable
1
1.
Deformations
O Location she
rmation not evident
Horizontal displacement > > .-,i ,<«' u->>s'! v>
Rotational displacement
Remarks
2.
Degradation
O Location shown on site map
O Degradation not evident
Remarks
I.
IVnnuncT Ditches/Off -5>m Pi5\ ,'nv<,e D APt>he -ole
C- \
I.
Siltation
on site map O Siltation not evident
Areal extent
Jflnt.il
Remarks
2,
uwth i ! » ,ao,s - 'h te map
. N
hs not impi >k> uCm\
Type _
3,
Erosion
O Lei, a' ..i» »Ntuon site map
O Erosion not evident
Arcal extent
Kx'UIlk,'
4.
Discharge Structure ~ Functioning ON/A
Remarks
VIII. VERWU Ka; u,m
> iot Biwiiiorei
Frequency
i .i tvidence of breaching
Head different
;
—
D-10
-------
IV GmW\m\.\Vai'Si:m-AiT u XTHRKIMUMIs ^Applicable ON A
A. GroiiaJ'vatrr I xrracn.jii Wells, I'timps. and Pipelines i," AjpplicabL *5$ A/A
1. Pump*;, VWJIhuil Plumbing, nod I Ifrtriral
uooj co-KX-t.on, ' All enquire,! «;i!s I'lopf-K operating. ! Needs Maintenance O N/A.
Remark
2, (Atrai iion System Pipeline"., V hIh*?., VnWe Bmts, jet) Otltw Sppurhntatim
i i l»« vd conciitioiiO Needs -<> *,(ct
Remarks
3. Sparr fa< h and L'qmpraent
; RvJ,"*!^ a\,.liable ~ Good conditionD Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
nemans
B. H'iSacr VMt*t Otllettf.w SUuetiii
1, Ntmtrus, t'umpo »ihI I'h
i Oov,1 i »!.aiin>-\ ' fvtsSimc-ii^i'
liwnaiKS
2, Surface Water Collection System Pipeline v \ atves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
O Good conditionD Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3. .Span" INr.'s jimI Equipment
i: Rciidilv iiva'iable ~ Good conditionD Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Rerv.'k:.
D-t:
-------
C. Trt
rmcnt System O Applicable ^NA
1,
\«etttiiMM 1 r.iin (Check components that apply)
vj Nirtat? rero.iv tl OOil/water separation ~ Bioremediation
> J A»i s<» ipjt.ui' O Carbon adsorbers
J Additi'«. u j , chciaiR.r'3®-i; ;}.v,i'ent)
'Joj I tv i, muu J >'ce i - M i^.u'ranc.
f. Sm.'uiiaa pior;rh n!«i< v, cow i^no'.orial
! S4iv.j.i 111tg,'ntrtin;enaf,c- hy ckapUve.1 u.:i' up 'o Jale
Qu0(1 Ci'S!«lu'.«),-K I NVod< Ma Uk'SUta C
Remnrks
3.
' K A ('1 !' °!<»idary containment ONeeds Maintenance
4
Discharge Structuie and Appwmiisiivs
t;N;A 1 "cridmo*r * Nrrai S^a^temncr
Remarks
5,
!'r ainitnf RMiullngis)
l5?s' ^ ' Ck.v;. wlnMiiusn ; vf and doot \\ay») U Xiiecis tupatr
Oiuntcals and -vu prwn p^x'.h su v.*
Remarks
6.
Monitoring B elH , pump urw iwmcu;
* 1 Prc^erh «YY>HedsK-krd ! u*\ < ly sampled O Gooc' .wiuilion
_i ,\lk uq'.rad vm It* hv.itcd Li NeetU Mdiute,ku>ce [ 1 S 'A
Remarks
D. Monitortitg Data
1,
?tl» • out:t>eH sutwi.'iea on t>riu ~ Is of acceptable quality
2.
Moanonuk dam Mip^esn
3 G;tvrivJ\vj»u t'iunw »s fftat.ieK cvn'o'Kv ^ .. e>>it nninant concentrations are declining
D-12
-------
I). Monitored Natural Attenuation
1, IVtouitpnm; \\elb u .tniu! altenuatso.; rwrcdO
Y* P»s Good condition
% All itVjU jit.: \\HI> letauv v \et(U Mi,-niinaisce ON/A
Remarks
X OltlifRlFMHW.h
¦ appl ¦"! iS'.t' s.io w!sr» it,-- (\Hatnnc, attach aa s»Kjxvtu>tt M'^eet describing
'Bclccnaif i>h «\ins taod-u liKwa'o? witn th>* *emedy. An exAmpk would be soil
_ \i '.WSKKVUIOVS
A, Iinpk-ini'itatH Ft-xteJj
Ost-. c\tv uvjt,, 4 no p >» 'autiu , ^ is htuK ' !L»* h « •: v,i< ' v ; •«, 4 designed
lky,U' v\'5h * (.» iff >v'a. >>t <> h.u 'tu «>• 'u?v s tc v.•>!• h 0 <0 >¦ s(ua>K Ctwta"ur.d,ii jlutne,
ui'iii Hi/c m'j, j-ttvui gas enn.wi i\, el > ) (
-T*U __Kefct"S*iy _C". -?Vi cf Hvr>k 4rVn ^ >U"' ,^"t^h>uyft'o|v
C-V" *_ t"*l iM. 3 AkJ> J~ ^ ^ 1'0 ^
~£v» jklAl-.t M «!<¥•< s rt.1 tA»\O^iViJ+k* .\ S ti , fVr tt^y
>Q) otO&M _ _________
last's vi>) ••%btnri u*\w : f ^ '¦ >, 'nolt ttio>> ,n J i U[ie cu v lvVJ ,es I;
J!••'« au >r re! .Hip >ta> >i a'.unt w»«i .ow Uv . p;js.N t>v,,u #s o* ibr *. vtetu
i*. i c v-y-jjl,"T «*>l*
N- v^k p> v x— * ^ _
D-13
-------
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. If . ,
3" >WV,: <\_V'* _ v- \y i iv^, r.*.!* A f J v
.•*>"£ s > AV--¦r4*r
.jx -rVvi :S^
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportune!--; rcr optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of t!
IUv i* v> .r (l ^ ^; ;*>. n, ^ k.a t
D-14
-------
APPENDIX E
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
-------
Photo 1 Date: November 29, 2018
Location: Bee Cee Manufacturing Site Direction: West
Description: Looking West at MW-3 and MW-4
Photo 2 Date: November 29, 2018
Location: Bee Cee Manufacturing Site Direction: Northwest
Description: Looking Northwest at MW-3 and MW-4
l
-------
F
Photo 3 Date: November 29,2018
Location: Bee Cee Manufacturing Site Direction: Northwest
Description: Looking Northwest MW-2
Photo 4 Date: November 29, 2018
Location: Bee Cee Manufacturing Site Direction: North
Description: Looking North MW-1
2
-------
Photo 5 Date: November 29,2018
Location: Bee Cee Manufacturing Site Direction: North
Description: Looking North at MW-5 (Weaver popcorn facility)
Photo 6 Date: November 29,2018
Location: Bee Cee Manufacturing Site Direction: North
Description: Looking North at MW-6 (Weaver Popcorn facility)
3
-------
Photo 7 Date: November 29, 2018
Location: Bee Cee Manufacturing Site Direction: West
Description: Looking west near the former Bee Cee Manufacturing Facility (soil removal area completed in 1992).
This is the area that needs additional soil sampling to determine if soils still remain a risk.
Photo 8 Date: November 29, 2018
Location: Bee Cee Manufacturing Site Direction: Northwest
Description: Looking Northwest near Bee Cee Manufacturing Facility
4
-------
Photo 9 Date: November 29,2018
Location: Bee Cee Manufacturing Site Direction: Southeast
Description: Looking Southeast near the Weaver popcorn facility (this is the area where additional soil sampling
was completed in 2010).
Photo 10 Date: November 29, 2018
Location: Bee Cee Manufacturing Site Direction: East
Description: Looking East near the Weaver popcorn property (this is the area where soil sampling was completed in
2010). MW-3 and MW-4 in the background.
5
-------
APPENDIX F
INTERVIEW RECORD
-------
mmurn, mssr-omb-p
Site Name: _£ I \ \ X < t -'fi Jl£.
Subject, f ; si £ >V^v- I » ¦ Q\V>
INTERVIEW UH ORD
EPA ID No-MCd S P fiJJ*.
T >«h*: f§ ', §0 «%y> { Date: a mfm
Type, i ek'.phone KytOH»
s,> c*; -wK-s t «w,i X fjwstvM t
<>h .-.Mil, /!).> i C'r
. Ate
ivV
Of I nmenntvm
A a\
.A10 £ 3 g 3 £
Dev.w fol!c.ft « V t jf A «iv4 k^la Afcl*rs»*»v> © -f
V»c- v ; rV, i iVv l"W ih"fi ;i"^JUs4v-Ut f'« vk
a V .<, \ V «?u I V»w? £**¥£.» *"Y lit J
I* \,e (,-r^cvt AhJ, \S c>¦=• T X s o V \ W W «» J- o uVr^ii fW,
v.^Wt U; w<» \> ft -^'^a <,-H '* C..HciSt's
V«\ U :t „^Wi H + ^*v> WAN
f >AX r, C e'v- \ 4, u ^ +• \ t\ -. 1 V* A a£ Vv Vlft- k«-£A. ^
i'u-t ¦.v\v-\\ i- w>*t ^ot -\ V , owM
-------
OSWEFt No. 9355.7-03B-P
iN!TKVii \V KK ORO
Site Name. c Cw M n * w\\K» f
Sub jet; \
^ M'V ION- inof> 5
! * Pg)|0,y. | t g p A > ,s i>,^
«.vvl .-1-, Individual Cootai Hit
¦ iCHJ. W U.A.VtV" forCcY?* Co,
• • neot 4
1 * . si »h» 2if |>
Nan
%iiress;
Vrh
Summary Of < ¦ rsation
P^v.v Col/.
v». '¦-? v. «v»vc <•¦*• «>» •
W<+K ^ »>¦*> **/ V. .V-'W < — -*<*
Wt\\.5 v/OhXJl fcv Wv <2. > y;i *• *«>, *v fk*rt *5. 'hi- jr> ~^a
j\ .-? vv.^' .1V *- '}. vy* *'v» < -> V-'V Vs-SisV #'«
by AID^,
Page I of
(\,t»
-------
OSWLR No. 9355.7-C3B-P
INTF RVIFW RECORD
Site Name: Qua Ce6 Mtmul\
Subject:
EPA 10 No.-. /1o5 190M0S,
Time: |};Vo«* Date: 3,'i 111';
Type: 9 Telephone
Location of Visit;
Incoming 9 Outgoing
Contact Made By;
Name: [)»
.v^vt
be-k
vuuuiumayu;.
Title: RcmMi*. 1 Organization: B-fA
Individual Contacted:
Name. _kvfje. tion: /lPfv£
Telephone No: j!"73--757- f«»o
Fax No: . ,
E-Mail Address: Kfje. ^Vi|arso»i© Jjtt%v»i©,3DV
Street Address: 6d>T /"7 £~
City, State, Zip: sok C-i 4vy /MO
Summary Of Conversation
P»geI of
I -
-------
fmmi aoMssoaJMfi
To; tthtM
Subject: RE; Bee Cee Manufacturing nrR Questions
Dates Wednesday, March 06, 2019 11:39:31 AM
Please see my responses below.
Thanks,
-Kyle
From; Pollock, Devin
Sent; Wednesday, March 6, 2019 10:53 AM
To: Anderson, Kyle
Subject: Bee Cee Manufacturing FYR Questions
Kyle,
I wanted to send you some questions as part of the FYR process for the Bee Cee Manufacturing Site.
Please see the questions below:
• What is your overall impression of the Site (any issues or concerns)?
Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and
results.
The state continues tc * ' * *site "*¦ * _x 1 unsis.
The slate remains in c Jen
inspections at this site. Each year the state prepares an O&M inspection report and a
; ,, , ,, : tgto " '¦ ' : " ' say
• Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a
response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses.
None I
• Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules,
or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the
protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts if
-------
applicable.
ior anything which would affect the
• Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up or in the last
five years? if so, please give details.
None known.
• Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management or operation?
lion between the EPA and the state remains effective with the management
Thanks,
Devin Pollock
USEPA Region 7
-------
APPENDIX G
TABLES
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Table 1-1: SUMMARY OF SELECTED SITE GMOUNDWATEH SAMPLING DATA
M.W-1
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
Ilex Cr
(p/1)
Total Cr
(p/1)
Hex Cr
{p/1)
Total Cr
(p/I)
Ilex Cr
(p/1)
Total Cr
(H/i)
Hex Cr
{p/1)
Total Cr
ftt/i)
HexCr
(p/I)
Total Cr
(p/1)
Ri 92
24.1
tfMMl
iMNi
NA
NA
liBHHil
¦MHn
NA
NA
FIG 93
--
40.7
¦ill
NA
NA
iililll8
jjliMil
NA
NA
AM 94
<10
<
73,
NA
NA
< 10
<25
NA
NA
am m
< 10
8*
NA
NA
< 10
5.95
NA
NA
AM %
ND
|~
MBm
NA
NA
ND
ND
NA
NA
AM 9?
ND
£
NA
NA
ND
ND
N A
NA
am m
ND
41
llMBi
NA
NA
1
7.47
NA
NA
AM '-w
ND
11
89.9
NA
NA
MM
_ „:IIL : _
NA
NA
AM 00
ND
jflHMll
MMMlii
NA
NA
—
NA
NA
AM, 01
ND
ND
15.7
NA
NA 1 1 i : - 2
NA
NA
AM 03
ND
ND
42.4
NA
NA
30
.7
NA
NA
AM 04
ND
ND
liMfeil
41.2
NA
NA
10
15.1
NA
NA
AM 05
ND
ND
59
46.3
NA
NA 24
NA
NA
AM 06
ND
0.6
MillS
30
30,4
NA
NA
9.67
NA
NA
AM 07
ND
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
SMsngpMI
30
29.7
NA
NA
AM 08
ND
N
60
47.3
ND
0.25
13
11.7
ND
0.84
AM 09
ND
o.
37.7
ND
0.41
ND
11 s
ND
1.41
AM 10
NS
N
MiMBffll
26.2
ND
0.25
16
13.8
ND
1.33
AM 11
NS
N
I^Bii
43.2
ND
0.25
".13
9.1
2.83
2.5
AM 12
NS
N
Jft.te
43.2
ND
0.63
15.9
16.3
2.31
2,03
AM 13
NS
NS
41.5
39.5
ND
ND
4.98
4.55
ND
1.26
AM 14
NS
NS
15
12.7
ND
ND
12
10.5
ND
ND
AM 15
NS
NS
5,0
4.%
ND
ND
6.6
6.79
ND
2.89
AM 16
NS
NS
7.5
5.81
ND
ND
9.8
7.57
2.5
ND
AM 1?
NS
NS
16
13.7
ND
ND
10.0
9.45
ND
0.59
Rf = Remedial Investigation Hex Cr = Hexavalent chromium
FIG = Further Investigation of GW Total Cr = "Total Chromium
AM = Annual Monitoring ND =» Non Detect
Shaded = values are above site remediation goals NA = Not Available
-------
APPENDIX H
FIGURES
-------
FIGURE 1
-------
Bee Cee Manufacturing
Dunklin County, Missouri
Figure I
-------
APPENDIX I
SITE SAMPLING REPORTS
-------
Abbreviated Sampling Report
Bee Cee Manufacturing Site
Order Number 150318008
Maiden, Dunklin County, MO
Site Information:
LDPR Code: FRBEC __ ESP Staff: jean Counihan,
Job Code: NJOOBFEC Ken Hannon
Investigation Pate: 3'' 17/15
Introduction:
Hazardous Waste Program (HWP) requested the Knvironmental Services Program (ESP)
personnel collect groundwater grab samples from eight monitoring wells at the Bee Cee
Manufacturing Site located in Maiden, Dunklin County, Missouri. Sampling was conducted as
part of an annual groundwater monitoring event. i'SP Environmental Specialists Sean Counihan
and Ken Hannon traveled to the site on March 17, 2015, to conduct sampling. H WP
Rnvironmenta! Specialist Hvan Kifer was also present during the sampling event.
Field Methods:
ESP personnel deployed clean V II). polyethylene tubing to within the screened interval of
each well. The tithing was attached to a peristaltic pump, which was used to evacuate each well
at a flow rate ot"approximately 200-501) ml/minute. Personnel placed the tubing down to the
bottom of the well and then pulled the tubing up two feet to ensure water was being drawn from
within each well's screened interval. Evacuated water was collected in a five-gallon bucket and
later poured out on the ground away from the wells.
Personnel determined water quality parameters every three minutes during well evacuation and
samples were collected once parameters stabilized (pH +/'- 0.2, turbidity 50 Nephelometric
Turbidity Units [NTUJ, and specific conductance and temperature within 10%). Sample
containers were then filled directly from the tubing. Specific conductance, temperature,
turbidity, and pH measurements were recorded at the time each sample was collected. Samples
were filtered and/or preserved in the field as appropriate for the anahtes of concern and placed
on ice in coolers. All samples were transported buck to the ESP laboratory in Jefferson City and
submitted for total and hexavalent chromium analyses.
Observations:
AH wells* protective casings and locks were intact upon arrival. The weather during sampling
was sunny and approximately 65 degrees Fahrenheit Winds were from the northeast at 15-25
-------
Bee Cec Manutaclming Site
Abbreviated Sampling Memo
March 17,2015
Page 2
miles per hour.
Well MW-3 did show a slight increase in turbidity from the previous sampling year, although
there had a been downward trend observed when compared to several other past sampling
events, 1 urbidity readings had decreased from 351 to 38 to ^.93 lo 1,8(1 NTUs respective!) when
compared lo the March 2011, 2012. 2013 and 2014 sampling events. The 4.51 NTH reading was
a slight increase in turbidity from the previous year. 1 he increase could be in pail to a large
amount of rainfall and snovvmclt thai had occurred in this area over the past few months. All the
wells sampled during this sampling event showed initial high turbid its' when purging procedures
were initiated. VIW-4 again contained a noticeably high amount of an orange slime (iron
bacteria.') in the purge water but cleared up after initial purging. Any discoloration or turbidity
noted during the other well s initial evacuation cleared up significantly by the time samples were
collected.
Refer to I able 1 for a description and location of each sample collected. Refer to Table 2 for
additional information recorded for each monitoring well.
Refer to the site map for the approximate locations of samples collected. Also attached are
analytical results of samples collected.
-------
Bee Cee Manufacturing Site
Abbreviated Sampling Memo
March P. 2015
Page 3
/vjH(LnvnM"f{
Kenneth Hannon
Environmental Specialist
Field Services Unit
Environmental Services Program
Eric
Sappington
Digitally signed by Eric Sappington
DN: cn=Erlc Sappington, o=DNR,
ou=Reld Services Unit,
email=eric.sappington@dni\mo.gov
, c-US
Date: 2015.05,04 13:54:5? -05 W
Eric Sappington
Unit Chief
Environmental Emergency Response/Field Services Unit
Environmental Services Program
c:
Evan Kifer. Environmental Specialist, HWP
-------
Table 1
Sample L isting
Bee Cee Manufacturing Site
Maiden. Dunklin County, Missouri
March 17.2015
Sample
Number
Date
Collected
Time
Collected
Sample Description
3-n 15
1430
Sample was clear and colorless. Purge water contained an oranae iinae that cleared prior to sarnplin°
15041 J 1
3 i 7,-15
! 44.-
_ °' MW Sample was clear and colorless. Purge water contained an orange tinge that cleared prior to sampling
150415
150416
3.17-15
1^03
Water_grab of MW-8. Sample was clear and colorless- Purge water contained an orange tintje that cleared prior to sampling
3''1715
1530
Water grab ot MW-/. Sample was clear and colorless. Purse water contained an orange tinge that cleared prior to sampling
150417
3/17,'15
1S50
WalcLSrab 01 MW-6. Sample was clear and colorless. Purge water contained an orange tin^c that cleared prior to sampling
151)418
3 ¦' 17*15
1620
Watg,grab SlMW-5. Sample was clear and colorless. Purse water contained an orange tint>c that cleared prior to sampling
150410
3 17/15
1610
Water grab of M\V -4. Sample had a slight orange tin«e and pursue contained a heavier orange tinge
15042(1
3/17 15
1648
W8'?!!™.!5 ofMW-3. Sample was clear and colorless. Purge water contained an orartae tinee that cleared nrior to sampling
150421
3/17 15
1648
Duplicate of 150420. ~ ' —-c_
Table 2
Monitoring Well Information
Bee Cee Manufacturing Site
Maiden, Dunklin County. Missouri
March 17, 2015
Well Identification
Diameter/Construction
Total Depth (ft)
From TOC
Depth to Water (ft )
From TOC
Water Column (ft)
Purge Rate (ml/min)
!U~t
2" I'Vf
iTiJi
1 9^90
9.08
450
\lW-4
r p\ c
51.40
9.90
• 1.50
450
IW-5
\
H
0.30
8.81
475
1W-6
p\ c
28.60
10,60
8.00
400
MW-7
2" P\ 0
29.15
10.50
8.65
400
MW-8
2" PVC
:.7S
10 80
17.91
400
IW-9
2" PVC
29.95
10.66
18.29
400
MW-IO
2" PVC
29.10
11.00
8.10
450
-------
£jet cc
Qr.ic -.i/nk
lArrtK/o 1T :_/3S ^
55
lOT •
- «w/^V ^ f V.;^ S Vrcnfif. / »v +fc' £>*"' S~D ' I
(^ssd :
rfn >s3j
JpvHfl ) pTM - /f• 0
Tf"k/ = 2'7>/
R&'te ' () p^/pm"
c,-?n>
&.?2
G.rj
iL 2
j4,,S
<6,3
iiM
i^c.V
j^Lt
3>. 15"
xi7
~2.cr
/.to
H
T(*y>
_CyA
Itfb
_J-04 >SO^i Q Tim*-" M ?0
r_C,l-tiy . <..vli>f ir^S oA'Ui ^ filial/S
V-
-------
J , I .PfW.r f°:£4 .
T
6 >£ \ 4 HdT ' I •"* ^
i«-tp J14 . ff | g-,*i
/I 1 I5,f:,4 J gsr.n
HtTht
I .\&%f
q H '
^ W-0
0TW
Tel&l
- |£>.
*-»• • *
Pw !
Te.#|> 1 ;6^5 11& W
7mrh | 3 2^ 1 3,41
O n,J =-- to, $0
R*. ff '
f4 | S",0£*
it
Cr*t\ i/?'"?>/
I i
T^ffct
y—i- <¦" t-
•t-s4 i&.Hi
J6.JT L*-7
r/1,? 1
7 £
if !*€li %„ ' l'
Cio'^dy
C% ¦ /
/£. 7
n f ,*¦ J
# O ¦ P I
7"/ /nX l 15~ j?0
if.? J ?
/"7
j -
ro»
£>r«' |C;3,«
- ifiTi
if' t S" t'V |
||«f | {»¦! K I | S > J
I .... <¦•. 1 , ^ ,j- j--
T tVnfc
" , ¦ • • ,• : i
J d#l / iT
Ctre\r(Z>!
¦# 14 tr j 7, • v njk^_v__ J ' -•»'3
no i -*• «• I i 5 , « i lie . I
Is,,# ^ P" I 2 £ j | 1 |j t
:U II'Z \ 82,1
Xt>l4 fs"0 i t"i T.'/ru'
-------
f»
t ; - i i - *
€ »p/: I li&,H J /$"#?! I
r^ij t.-il hil l
2 -
T«-^r ' ^ t
fx>'" T»,sfu' fCu
£ RA£ uf, .-+t.^
. ¦¦ .. ;-. • «• " - ;
U^^y Kt,€"
¦¦yti'\s - ^ £®3 f f,f|h+ •v'^c^fc
; =••>¦¦:
or-. SCttf"' e\V» »W rt t M«f i ;
-------
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FIELD SHEET AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
W"
Egg
Description of Delivery
~ Tape sesled and Initialed Total No. Of Containers: f
Q Shipped Carrier:
0 Hand Delivered By:
Collector's Name: „ iLn
Kenneth Harmon
(Pkose Print)
USE ONLY!
_____ Q
~
KCRO £
MoDOT f
115*0 [TsTrO n"5LRO 0~siS~O~WPP ~ MGS Q HWP 0 ESP
MDC n DHSS n other:
\So2>vSM
Location:
S\8>
Sample Number
Sample
Collected
Analyses Requested
Disinfect.
Type
Held Parameters
(include units)
Matrix
(theck onej
Container
Type
Preservative
Type
Number of
(Sample A|
Date;
3/17/2015
Total and Hexavaient Cr.
(ehnkcm)
0 None
Q Chlorine
~ UV
D Oione
~ Other:
D.O.
35DCM
1
flow
$( Water
,3SQJL»
1
PH
-i
~ Soil
~ Organic
~ Sludge
D Other:
For LabUsaOnfy
CfcyLfnf
Time-,
i^W
Temp.
-jLxltXiSS
— —
Other:
Turbidity
f, B6 ffTU
)$(> H / V
(Sample B)
3/17/2015
13 None
O Chlorine
~ uv
D Oime
~ Other:
D.O.
Tiisr-
1
Flow
Q5 Water
1
C.HJT
n Sail
Lab Use Only
SttW^X)
Time:
f-l 17"
Temp.
/-A-rV IS-,9 *<•
n Sludge
D Other:
—_
Other:
Turbidity
l) -J 6 VliA
>Co'i jr
{Sample C)
Date:
3/17/2015
0 "we
Q CNonne
0 uv
~ Ozone
PI Other;
D.O.
8 Water
2
1^1"
1
Flow
asocu
^4CT^
j—
pH
~ 5o«
For lob toe Only
Time:
/ <3 ST
Temp.
t6,H "C
~ ~[
til
Other:
Turbidity
5..61 A>7«
__
Ztrj^
{Sample DJ
Out
3/17/2015
Total »nd Hexavaient Cr.
0 None
~ Chlorine
~ uv
D
O Ottei
D.O.
R Water
2SSCW
Tipwr-
—T—-
Flow
«L
i
PH
tend.
J Sot
for 1Mb Use Qnfy
Time:
1S30-
Temp.
i6,? **
3 Sludge
Other:
~ Other:
Turbidity
)P,(t tJTli
Relinquished By: J, > ,
a£^32^o
itecerved By:
3- If
T,me: li:5
S
Relinquished 8y:
deceived By;
Dale;
Time:
Relinquished By:
Received By:
Data:
Time:
MBMI EiwrtroMMflOl Stnlces Prognm
®18 mm Mth, Mfason C*y, MO 6S1M 873) S1MI1S
Page 1 of 2
-------
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT Of NATURAL RESOURCES
FIELD SHEET AND CHAIN-Of-CUSTOOY RECORD
Sample ft ldpr-.
FEBEC
|)ob Code:
NJOOBEEC
Sample Reference ID:
Facility ID;
Site/Study Name:
Bee tee Manufacturing
County:
Dunklin
iample Comment (where and how the sample was collected):
well faW-/0
B Grsb O Composite Q Modified Q Other:
SPS Coordinates
(UTM Zone 15
HAP83 Oniyl
"SampTe B [ujjT
X lasting
Y Northing
Accuracy
n
a
(cheek am]
S»E (meters)
PDOP
Sample Event Typaslcto:kme)
~ Bypws/SSO
Q Complaint
~ Emergency Response
Q Inspection
0 Investigation
~ Monitoring
Q Special Project
Sample Type; {cluck one}
H Mr g——
Q Container Q Spill
~ QVQC O Wipes
0 Groundwater Q Storm Water
Q Organic Q Surtace Water
Q Sediment Q OKdwrge
Q Sludge
~ Prinking Water Supply
FEBEC
TtobtodtT
NJOOBEEC
Sample Reference ID:
Facility ID:
Sample Comment (where and how lie sample was collected):
u«?i( rw-i
Site/Study Name:
See tee Manufacturing
County:
Dunklin
0 Grab ~ Composite ~ Modified
D OOw:
SPS Coordinates
(UTM Zone 15
HAPaiOtiy)
~Sampi« C fiDPR:
X Easting
Y Worthing
Accuracy
E
(thttkemeJ
EPE (meters)
POOP
Sample Event Type:fetet*aflg)
~ Bvpks/sso
Q complaint
O Emergency Response
0 Inspection
0 Investigation
Q Monitoring
0 Special Project
Sample Type: jcheck
-------
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FIELD SHEET AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
HI
fffetseWnlf
SStote U kcro n~**o QoS5 TT&ro n swro IT
~ WoOQT ~ MOC ~ OHSS d Other:
»r% Mime:
Kenneth Harmon
fl Tape seated and mil
~ Shipped
0 H»nd Ocffwrtd
DesciTptiw^Del^rv*
T«tal No. Of Containers:
Carrier;
By:*
WPP
Simple Number
Sample
Collected
Analyses Requested
O MSS 0 HWP Q ESP
Disinfect.
Type
Field Parameters
(include units)
IAB USE ONtY!
Laboratory 10:
Matrix
(check ant)
Container
J2L
Preservative
36
Type
location:
Number of
Containers
IfOHIl
(Sample A)
Date:
3/17/2015
Total and Hexavalent Cr.
Forieb Use Only
(Sample B)
for Lab Use Only
Time:
I rs-0
Dale:
3/3,7/2015
Time;
16 ZD
Total and Hexawtont Cr,
(check oneI
0 None
~ Chlorine
~ w
O Ozone
~ Other:
0.0.
flow
Cond,
Temp.
Other:
Turbidity
B
Q Chlorine
~ W
~ Ozone
O other:
D.O.
flow
EIL
Cond.
Temp.
Other:
Turbidity
AjfiJL
JSJLf£_
TT
A Water
~ Soil
O Organic
~ Sludge
~ Other:
JBESg.
jstsmit
I
3L
10 7tt
f.'ik.
H Water
5 SoM
3] Organic
3] Sludge
~ Other:
?.3<5 biV*
HC
\ZOH ic\
Cample C)
3/17/2015
fitrlab Use Only Time:
\iL) o
0 None
Q Chlorine
~ W
~ Ozone
dj Other:
D.O.
flow
PH
Cond.
Temp.
Other:
TurbWfty
7.33
2z±LJA1l.
Water
~ St*.
1] Organic
D Sludge
2] Other:
am
J3SB
m
P5T
iCOHZO
(Sample Of
Date:
3/17/2015
Total and Hexavalent Cr.
for tub Use Only
Time:
i
Rtlr»n«ishtd By:
Refinqufchsc By:
Jljja&Zl&ZL.
ReSnqushed By.
0 None
PI Chlorine
~ W
O Ozone
~ Other:
D.O.
Flow
eh__
Cond.
Jt-Sl
/ S"fe.3
Temp.
Other:
c/.t v(.
g Water
Sod
3 Organic
~ Sludge
~ «her:
—
Turbidity
, ST/ mtt
Received I
s —
Date:
Received By:
Date:
3-W-1S
jpci«d
By:
Date:
Time;
1!:S5T
Time:
Time:
MDNR Ewlroommul Sswlces Program
2710 Wwt Mn, Jefew City»MO SS109 (573) 57&-3J1S
fi§S i Of 2
-------
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT Of NATURAL RESOURCES
HELD SHEET AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
"SampleA [ldprT
FE8EC
Facility ID:
Sample Comment (where and how the sample was collected):
ytfl
Job Cod*:
NJOOBEfC
Slte/Stiidy
Sample Comment (where and how the sample was collected);
w-tii
Bee Cee Manufacturing
"W~Srab~TJ~Composlte ~""hiod/id ~55*r~
County;
DunkBn
Sample fmmt fmmstctmk onei
~ B««VS5D
~ Complaint
Q Emergency Response
Q IrapeCHon
0 investigation
O Monitoring
~ Speonpn^tet
Sample Type: (check am}
~ a* 0*15
Q Container Q Spill
~ QiVQt ~ Wipes
0 Groundwater Q Storm Water
0 Organic Q
O Sediment Q Discharge
D Sludge
j Water Supply
GPS Coordinates
(UTM Zone 15
NAD83 Only)
X Easting
Y Worthing
Accuracy
((heck one}
~ EPE(metws)
~ PDOP
Q Complaint
0 Emergency Response
0 Inspection
0 Investigation
O Monitoring
0 Special Project
O Container Q Spill
~ QWQC O Wipes
~ Groundwater Q Storm Water
0 Organic Q Surface Water
~ Sediment 0 Discharge
0 Sludge
~ Drinking Water Supply
Facility ID;
Site/Study Name:
Sample Comment {where and how the sample was collected):
Bee Cee Manufacturing
Dunklin
T3~5* ~ Composite ~ ModifW {"J Other:
We 1/ PHV-
Sample Event Typa;fcheck rntj
~ BfpasslSSO
O Complaint
PI Emergency Response
~ Inspection
0 Investigation
O Mentoring
S«mpl« Type: {check me)
ITa* 0 m"
~ Container Q Spill
~ QA/QC O wipes
0 Groundwater O Storm Water
l~1 Organic 0 Surface Water
~ Sediment Q Discharge
0 Sludge
Sample Comment (where and how the sample was collected):
wpD my-J
0 Grab TT"5n'iF«5e Q 0 Ottxw;
{UTM Zone 15
NA083 On)y)
Remarta:
X Easting
¥ Worthing
Accuracy
(check am)
n~T5if(S»Ssr
~ POOP
~ Bypass/So
Q Complaint
~ Emergency Response
~ Inspection
0 Investigation
0 Monitoring
O Special Project
Air ~ Soil
Container 0 Spill
QA/QC ~ Wipes
Groundwater 0 Storm Water
Organic Q Surface Water
Sediment Q Discharge
Sludge
Drinking Water Syppty
X8°c
MDNR eovironmemai Services Program
2710 West Main. Jefferson City, MO 651<» (5731526-3315
Page 2 of 2
-------
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT Of NATURAL RESOURCES [f •
FIELD SHEET AND CHA1N-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
~ Taps sealed and initialed Total No. Of Containers; fs
~ Shipped Carrier:
0 Hand Delivered Sy:
Loiiector'sfcame: „ u „
Kenneth Harmon
(Please Print)
W
Laboratory ID:
Location:
Affiliation: U
KCKO £
HoOOT f
] HERO ~ alio ~ SLRO ~ SWRO ~ WPP Q M6S Q HWP 0 ESP
HOC ~ OHS5 ~ Offier:
Sample Number
Sample
Collected
Analyses Requested
Disinfect.
Type
field Parameters
(include units)
Matrix
icMdt ant;
Container
Type
Preservative
Type
Number of
i& 1IU
(Sample A)
3/17/2015
(check arte)
13 None
O Chlorine
~ uv
~ Ozone
~ Other:
D.O.
"OTT
-gKBl-
1
Flow
Sfi Water
"Sep
"Tt
1
PH
I 1 *
Illl
~~~~
Cond
For lot Use Only
kj4U%)
Time:
Temp,
Other:
Turbidity,
p__
Date:
» 1 S &
~ ~~~~
D.O.
lalll
~ ~~~~
flow
19}
pH
Cond.
for ukUmOatf
Time:
Temp.
Other:
Turbidity
(Sample 0
Date:
,
~ ~~~~
0.0.
~ water
Flow
1 Soil
fertfli Oft Oalf
Dmc:
Temp.
D Sludge
~ Ottw;
Other:
Turbidity
(Sample D)
Dale:
~ ~~~~
D.O.
~ Water
~ M
Fit
P» .......
Cond.
~ Organic
~ Sludge
fot lob Use Onty
rime:
Temp.
Other:
~ Other:
Turbidity
Refinquisbed 8y: j, , ,
—_——.— ' UJ&nstt53ri.„
D,„
-15
Ti-
__J
Relinquished By:
Received By:
5# fee:
Time: —1
Relinquished By:
Received By:
Date
Tim«: ——————-4
MD1* t**tr»nm«nui Sefvtccj Program
mo West M»i», Jellamn Qtf, MO 8$»S fSBf S2I-33IS
Pip I of 2
-------
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FIELD SHEET AND CHAIN-Of-CUSTODY RECORD
Sample A Iidpr:
FE8EC
Job Code:
NJOOBtEC.
[SampteRefefence 10:
Facility 10;
Site/Study Name;
See tee Manufacturing
County:
Sample Comment (where and how the sample was collected):
GPS Coordinates
{UTM Zone IS
MAD83 Only)
0 Grab Q Composite ~ M^ified
Dunklin
D other:
Sample Event Type:fcto*enef
Sample B
X Easting
Y Worthing
Accuracy
fdxdtamj
PDOP
U Bypass/SSO
n Complaint
O Emergency Response
0 Inspection
|3 Investigation
Q Monitoring
O Special Project
kmt}
O ^ ~ Sol!
1H Container Q Spill
~ QA/QC ~ Wipes
0 Groundwater Q Storm
~ Organic Q Surface Water
Q Sediment tH Discharge
D Sludae
f"~] DtirrMng Water Supply
IDPR:
JofcCeie;
Sample Reference ID:
Facility ID;
Sft#/5tǤ? name
County;
Sample Event TypeifciwrftoneJ
Sample Comment (where and how the saraph was collected);
~ Grab ~ composite ~ Modified Q Other
SPS l
(UTM lotto 15
NAP83 Onty)
"Sampie"
X easting
Y NortWng
Accuracy
(check am}
Q EPE (meters)
~ Bypass/SSO
Q Complaint
Q Emergency Response
Q inspection
0 Investtoation
Q Monitoring
0 Special Project
Sample Type: (check ami
~ A» ~ Soil
0 Container Q Spill
~ QA/QC ~ Wipes
0 Groundwater Q Storm Water
0 Organic Q Surface Water
Q Sediment Q Discharge
O Sludge
n MnMng Water Stipply
LDPR:
[JotTcodc
"pimpSteferencelD:
Facility IB:
Site/Study Name:
Sample Comment (where and how the ample was collected):
County:
"~""Grab ~ Composes !_J
~ Otter:
GPS Coordinates
(UTM Zone IS
MAD83 0»lyJ
Sample D
X Easting
Y Northing
Accuracy
(check me)
~ EPE (meters)
HI POOP
Sample Event Typesfrfieet sue)
FT" B/pasySSO
~ Complaint
Q Emergency Response
Q Inspection
0 Investigation
Q Monitoring
Q Specisi Project
Sample Type; (check one)
~ A* ~ Soil
Q Container Q Spill
~ QA/QC ~ Wipes
[3 Groundwater Q Stonm
Q Organic
~ Sediment 0 Discharge
O Sludge
~ Prinking Water Supply
LDPR:
Job Coit:
Sample Reference ID;
Facility ID;
Site/Study Name:
County.
Sample Comment {where and how tha sample was eoltecte#
~ Grab O Composite ~ Modified ~ Other:
SPS Coordinates
{UTM Zone 15
MA083 Onty)
Remarks:
X lasting
Y Northing
Accuracy
(dwdtom)
~ W (meter*)"
am
Sample Event Type;fo>fdi our;
Q Bypass/SSO
Q Complaint
Q Emergency Response
Q Inspection
0 Investigation
O Monitoring
Q Special Project
Sample Type: (thetkom)
~ ** "" ~ So#
Q Container Q Spill
o QA/QC ~ wpes
(3 Groundwater Q Storm Water
0 Organic Q Surface Water
~ Sediment ~ Discharge
0 Sludge
~ OrioMng
<3-S°C-
MDNR Environmental Services Program
2710 West Main, Jefferson City, MO 65109 <573} 526-331S
Cage Jef2
-------
Or «&¦
STATE OF MISSOURI
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
PO Box 176 Jefferson City MO 05102-0176
Environmental Services Program
RESULTS OF SAMPLE ANALYSES
LOPR/Job Cods; Program, Contact:
FEBEC/NJOOBEEC HWP Evan Kifer
Evan Kifer
Hazardous Waste Program
Q-
Order ID:
150318008
Report Date;
5/1/2015
Sample: AC44779 Customer#: 150413
¦ ¦lllllll Site; Bee Gee Manufacturing County: Dunklin
Collect Data: 3/17/2015 2 20:00 PM Collector; KENNETH HANNON Affiliation: ESP
Comments: Grab: Well WW-10
Project; NJ00BEEC
Test
6020 Metals-Total Recoverable
Dissolved Hexavaient Chromium
Field pH
Field Specific Conductivity
Field Temperature
field Turbidity
Sample: AC44780
Parametar/Method
Chromium/SW 848 8020
Dissolved Hexavaient
Chromium/SW 848 7196A
Field pH/EPA 150 1
Field Specific Conductivity/SM 2510
Field Temperature/EPA 170.1
Field Turbidity/EPA 180.1
Result
Units
Qualifiers)
1.45
pg/L
08
<0.002
mg/L
ND
6.58
pH Units
141.1 uS/cm
16.3 C
1,80
MTU
Customer#: 150414
Collect Date: 3/17/2015 2:45:00 PM
Bee Cee Manufacturing
Collector: KENNETH HANNON
County: Dunklin
Affiliation: ESP
Comments: Grab; Well MW-9
Project: NJ00BEEC
Test
Parameter/Method
Result
Units
6020 Metals-Total Recoverable
Chromium/SW 848 6020
3.15
pg/L
Dissolved Hexavaient Chromium
Dissolved Hexavaient
<0.002
mg/L
Chromium/SW 846 7196A
Field pH
Field pH/EPA 150.1
6.45
pH Units
Field Specific Conductivity
Field Specific Conductivity/SM 2510 85.3 uS/cm
Field Temperature
Field Temperature/EPA 170.1
15.9 C
Field Turbidity
Field Turbidity/EPA 180.1
4 76
NTU
Qualifier^
ND
Ocder ID: 150318008 {1/3)
Page 1 of 3
-------
Sample: AC44781 Customer i: 150415
llllllllllllllll S,tK Bee Gee Manufacturing County: Dunklin
Colled Date: 3/17/2015 3:05:00 Ptrt Colteetor: KENNETH HANNON Affiliation: ESP
Comments; Grab; Well MW-8
Project: M
test
6020 Metals-Total Recoverable
Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium
Field pH
Field Specific Conductivity
Field Temperature
Field Turbidity
Paramstar/Method
.Result
2.60
<0.002
Units
J2uaflflsr{s)
Chromium/SW 846 6020
Dissolved Hexavalent
Chromlum/SW 848 7198A
Field pH/EPA 150.1 6.43
Field Specific Conductivity/SM 2510 105.4 uS/Offl
Field Temperature/EPA 170,1 18.4 C
Field Turbidity/EPA 180.1
3.82
pg/L
mg/L
pH Units
NTU
ND
Sample: AC44782
|
Collect Date: 3/17/2015 3:30:00 PM
Collector: KENNETH HANNON
Comments: Grab, Well MW-7
Customer#: 150416
County: Dunklin
Affiliation: ESP
Project: NJ00BEEC
iTest
Parameter/Method
Result
6020 Metals-Total Recoverable
Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium
Field pH
Field Specific Conductivity
Field Temperature
Field Turbidity
Chromium/SW 848 8020 3.41
Dissolved Hexavalent 0.0028 - ¦¦
Chromium/SW 848 719SA
Field pH/EPA 150.1 8.5?
Field Specific Conductivity/SM 2510 179.2 uS/cm
Field Temperature/EPA 170.1 16 7 C
Field Turbidity/EPA 180.1 10.8
Unite
Mg/L
mg/L
pH Units
NTU
Qualifl»r(s)
Sample: AC44783
lllllllllllllll Site: Bee Cee Manufacturing
Collect Date: 3/17/2015 3:50:00 PM Collector: KENNETH HANNON
Customer#: 150417
County: Dunklin
Affiliation: ESP
Comments: Grab; Well MW-8
Project: NJOOBEEC
Tost
6020 Metals-Total Recoverable
Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium
Field pH
Field Specific Conductivity
Field Temperature
Field Turbidity
Parameter/Method Result
Chromium/SW 846 8020 2.89
Dissolved Hexavalent <0.002
Chromium/SW 846 7196A
Field pH/EPA 150.1 8.48
Field Specific Conduct! vity/SM 2510 227 uS/cm
Field Temperature/EPA 170.1 15.8 C
Field Turbidity/EPA 180,1 9.10
Units
«/L
mg/L
pB Units
NTU
Qualifiers) _
ND '
Sample: AC44784
Collect Date: 3/17/2015 4:20:00 PM
Site: Bee Cee Manufacturing
Collector: KENNETH HANNON
Customer#: 150418
County: Dunklin
Affiliation: ESP
Comments: Grab; Well MW-8
Project: NJ00E
Test _
020 Metals-Total Recoverable
Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium
Field pH
Field Specific Conductivity
ield Temperature
Field Turbidity
Parameter/Method Result
Chromium/SW 848 6020 8.79
Dissolved Hexavalent 0.0066
Chromium/SW 846 7198A
Field pH/EPA 150.1 5.92
Field Specific Conductivity/SM 2510 135.5 uS/cm
Field Temperature/EPA 170.1 14.3 C
Field Turbidity/EPA 180.1 7.36
Units
Mg/L
mg/L
pH Units
NTU
Qualifier^)
Order ID: 150318006 (2/3)
Page 2 of 3
-------
Sample; AC44785
Customer#: 150419
¦llllllll
Site: Bee Cee Manufacturing
County: Dunklin
Collect Data: 3/17/2015 4:40:00 PM Collector: KENNETH HANNON
Affiliation: ESP
Comments: Grab, Well MW-4
Project: NJOOBEEC
Test
Parameter/Method Result
Units
Qualifier^)
6020 Metals-Total Recoverable
Chromium/SW 848 8020 --0 50
|jg/L
ND, 08
Dissolved Hexavalertt Chromium
Dissolved Hexavalent <0 002
mg/L
ND
Chromium/SW 848 7198A :
Field pH
Field pH/EPA 150 1 7 33
pH Units
Field Specific Conductivity
Field Specific Conductrvity/SM 2510 281 uS/cm
Field Temperature
Field Temperature/EPA 170.1 18.0 C
Field Turbidity
Field Turbidity/EPA 180.1 87.9
NTU
Sample: AC44788
Customer #:
150420
iiirim miii ii
Sit#: Bee Cee Manufacturing
County: Dunklin
Collect Date: 3/17/2015 4,48-00 PM Collector: KENNETH HANNON
Affiliation: ESP
Comments: Grab; Well MW-3
Project: NJOOBEEC
Test
Parameter/Method Result .
Units
QunUfietfs)
6020 Metals-Total Recoverable
Chromium/SW 846 6020 4.98
pg/L
Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium
Dissolved Hexavalertt 0.0050
mg/L
Chromium/SW 848 7196A
Field pH
Field pH/EPA 150.1 4.92
pH Units
Field Specific Conductivity
Field Specific Conductivity/SM 2510 158.3 uS/cm
Field Temperature
Field Temperature/EPA 170.1 9.8 C
Field Turbidity
Field Turbidity/EPA 180.1 4.51
NTU
Sample; AC44787
Customer #:
150421
IlflMHIIIIHlfllHIIHHflU
Site: Bee Cee Manufacturing
County: Dunklin
Collect Date: 3/17/2015 12:00:00 AM Collector: KENNETH HANNON
Affiliation: ESP
Comments: Grab: Blind Duplicate
Project: NJOOBEEC
Test
Parameter/Method Result
Units
Quaiifter(s)
B020 Metals-Total Recoverable
Chromium/SW 848 8020 4 97
pg/l
Dissolved Hexavatent Chromium
Dissolved Hexavalent 0.0050
mg/L
Chromium/SW 848 7196A
The analysis of this sample was performed In accordance with procedures approved or recognized by the U. S Environmental Protection Agency,
Data Qualifcrfs)
05 Estimated value, detected below PQt 08 Anaiyte present in blank at > % reported value
3JM- NO Not detected at reported value
Chris Boldt, Laboratory Manager
Environmental Services Program
Division of Environmental Quality
Order ID; 150318008 {313)
Page 3 of 3
-------
Abbreviated Sampling Report
Bee Cee .Manufacturing Site
Maiden, Dunklin County, MO
Site Information:
LDPR Code: FEBEC _ - ESP Staff: Sean Comiihan „
Job Code: NJCWBEEC KenJtija$«L__^
Investigation Date: 5/11/16
Introduction:
Hazardous Waste Program fKWP> requested the Fnvironmeutai Services Progt am (FKP^
personnel collect groundwater grab sampler ftom lout momtormg wells at ihe Bee Cee
Manufacturing Site located in Maiden. Dunklm Gnmn, Missouri Sampling w as conducted a>
part of an annual groundwater monitoring event, HSP Hwsromnental Specialists Scan Counihtm
and Ken Hannon trase'ed to the site on May \ I, „!o!6„ to conduct samphm;. 11 \V P
Environmental Specialists Fvan Kafer and Kvlc Anderson were aiso present during the sampling
e\ cut along with Andtew Cneseke from I'SUPA
Field Methods:
FSP personnel deployed clean V! D. polyethylene tubing to within the screened interval of each
well. The tubing was attached to a peristal he pump, which was used to e\ aenate each well at a
How rate of approximately 200-500 mfnunute Pei sonnel placed the Hibing down to the bottom
of the well and then pa'led the ashing up two feet to ensure water was being diawn ftom within
each well's screened interval. Fvaeaatod water was collected in a live-gallon bueket and Utter
poured out on the ground awu> irom the wells.
Personnel determined water quaht> parameters every dime minutes during wdl evacuation and
samples were collected once parameters .stabilized tpf i - - 0 2. turbidity 50 Nephelometric
Turbidity Units [Nil1], and specific conductance and temperature within 10%f Sample
eonfatrteis were then filled directly from the tubing. Specific conductance, temperature,
turbidity, and pH measurements were recorded at the time each sample was collected. Samples
were filtered ami-or preserved in the field as appropriate for the analyses of concern and placed
on ice tn eoolers All samples wete transported back to the FSP lahorators in Jefferson City and
submitted for total md hexa\ akmt chromium aiMi)Stts,
Observations:
All wells' protective casings and lucks were intact upon arrival The weather dun up, sampling
was sunny and approximate!) 84 degrees Fahrenheit Winds w ere from the southwest at 15-25
-------
Bse I'ee Manulactunng ^tU1
Yt.bie, uted Sampling Mvnx
M.u 11, 23m
miles per hour.
MW-4 again conx.vmd a n>ituv,xl.>i\ high amount of an omngu sume (u*or. bacteria?) in the purge
water tut cleared up aftet initial purging. \m ii!M.ok".tt;on 01 turbidity noted during the other
well's miu.il ev> ila time samples were collected.
Refer to Table 1 foe a dcaci »piu>ii and locution of each sample collected. Refer to Table 2 for
additional information rcceided lor each monitoring well. Also attached are the chain of custody
and malyticJ icsuiih of sample^ collected.
By Eric Suppington at 2 59 pm, Mug 09, 2018
trie Nappingkm
i nil Chief
I nvitvmmemal L ires gene . Rc^poi^e Hdd Services Unit
F.iiuionmonta! Services Program
HoyrvnSf{
Kenneth Harmon
Environmental Specialist
Field Services Unit
Environmental Services Program
APPROVED
c: L'van Kifei, 1'iivuunmental Spcuahsu HWP
K\le Anderson, Fnvsroamenud Spcciad.st. IIWP
-------
Fable 1
Sample t is! my
Bv-e C'ec Vfamilacfutmg Sitv-
Maiden, Dunklin Counts Missouri
May N. Tmo
Sample
Dale
Number
(ollecfecl
1
16?"6^
•>< I 1 ! 0
i (%J !;<,{i
> i 1 Hi
So_*
¦'•')! -Ifc !
1 ''2 ToS
^ II 16 |
!f076»s
Time
Sample Description
Wnfc-j-jj' 'J' ot MVV -o _ Sample \\j*s cleji .mci utlotk « P v\]rp:tn|>
¦ \Vatv-i guh a! Sample \»e« cleat ami toleiless s\nee w;stei u.nlanud ,ui «>»angf tmgv- that Je<»»e() jn wt to sampling
W.itCi i)l MW-i Sample had a flight <'r.titjy tinge and pisfve tonuuneti a Ueavifi orange tinee
W.ite uab <>f MNV-j ^Sampk u„>\ eleai ami ei'lni less, foige vm!ci vonuii'itvl.» milk) tinge that (ic,»sctljpiit>r to sampling _
n*i>V(]KUuntv Nh^uuri
via\ ii _i < (>•»
Well Id
« i i nidi lk\ub i ft * I
>ie;>nihaSu»r> J l omu'C'^'I ! , ' . 1
f I !>' !» « < « [
I to '.Citet ! it!
From TOC
MW
hl'A-'-
MW ^
MW-6
1 ,-v <>
s 1.42
19,91
28
, .
-------
Collector's Name;
Buuti
!m&$e rnntj
m
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL liSOURCES
FIELD SHEET AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
Q Tape stated and
~ *
ri w
n osjm
, ) othvt
Sit
How
Cond.
Temp
Otnet
cf*1" '•«
k/ . £•_
Wsler
~
[J Cigar*
P lyt'w
O Ottwrt
A" Til
/, *7
ifisa-jfefe.
ias^Lfen
21:
Dair.
I f 2 7 i- " j s , ,
(5#mpte Cj
Cr.
For Lab Use Only
fkrsa'®
i
•>
o.e
p i Mo lt>
[" | riiiiTif%'
n *
~ 0"««e
D oiw.
Fk'W, 1
£*?'/
^ZZZZl5II£__
(Hbw I
TiXktv * J.V,-
' <,1 L a
? J*JL a""'
[>< Wjtv<
[j ^
Organv.
(_ ] Sudije
[] "*«•'
Sad, JUU.
Sam'
L
CK>_
Becoivfid By
Received By;
6tL
D"* 51 til to
Time,
: 11 4c
Date.
TifTI0X
¦Reilmuishetl By:
Rtctiwi By:
Date;
vdkr Emrt!oiw»iitt3l SemeesP«iram
2730 W*5t M»k «y, MO 65109 e?IJSt6-S31S
I>a|el8f2
-------
Facility ID:
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FIELD SHEET AND CHAIN-QF-CUSTODY RECORD
Sample A
LOPR:
FEBEC
lob Code:
NJOOBEEC
Site/Study Name:
Sample Comment fwhera and ho* the sample was collected):
r*\ yJ • i Cs+v 17 fo
Bee Gee Manufacturing
13 Srat* Q Composite Q Modified Q other:
Sample Reference 10:
County:
Dun kin
GPS Coordinates
(UTM Zone IS
NAD83 Only
a
Y Northing
Accuracy
(cheek uoel
[J EPE (meters)
D poop
Igmpie Stent Typeiiaerit one}
n Complaint
Q Emergency Response
G tepection
0 Investigation
O Monitoring
0 SectBi Project
Sample B [iopr:
FIB6C
&MWpleTfpg {check got)
n f*r ~ Soi
Q Container Q Spill
~ sWQC fj Wipes
[3 Groundwater Q Storm Water
Q Organic [~] Surface Wat<
~ Sediment Q Discharge
Q Sludge
D_Mgn8Wat»Stippty
lob Code:
NJOOBEEC
Site/Study Name:
Bee Cec Manufacturing
* Comment {where and how the sample was colectei):
Sample Reference 10;
County:
Dunklin
Grab
Campsite
Modified
Other:
Facility ID: '
Site/Study Nam,: geg Cee Manufectufing
Duni;;n
Sample Event lype-.fchnk <*»>
Sample Typa: (chtdoml
Q Bypass/SSO
Q Complaint
0 Emergence ttespr csi
Q Inspection
0 Investigation 1
D Monitorinq
~ «r ~ Soil
~ OffeMS' Q Spill
~ QWQC [1 Wloes
Q Groundwater Q storm Warn
Q Organic [_] $jrfae« Vteitei
Q SeiOrtifitl jj] Oschargs
~ Sludge
£T
Sample Comment {where and how the sample was collected); Q Grab ( i fompovti' U Modlfed [j oilier:
fh U -pH , T^~®~ f&"£-*}
SPS Coordinates
{UTM Zone IS
NAD83 Only)
X Eartteg
[ ¥ Northing
Accuracy (dmkont)
0 Fit- Cncte >)
~ WOP
O Special Project
Sample C
BPS Coordinates
Y Northing
lelmskmm^
¦UTM Zone 15
H" tPe{m««rs)
PAD83 On!y)
===s===^^
L==^^
~ 9DOP
Sample Event Typeifcteckontj
TTCSSss*
~ CorrpiaSnt
~ Emergency Tesjw pedai Pisjject
Sample Type: (check me)
Q Container [] Spill
~ WQC ~ Wipes
0 Groundwater Q Storm Water
~ [_J surface Wate'
[J Sct'imeiii £ J Disctogp
Q Sludge
Onok'rtq Wite Supply
LDPR:
FEBEC
[job Cotte:
rMce 10,
Sample D
IDPR:
FEBEC
Facility ID:
S»a/Study Name:
jlob Cote;
NJOOBEEC
Sample Comment {where and how the sample was coltectiij:
. I D ** *W7ur',.
BeeCse Manufacturing
__ pi Com()osjti, f] Mofsr^g
County:
iSample Reference !D:
Dunklin
6 PS Coordinates
(UTM Zone 15
NAD83 Only}
X Easting
Y Northing
Accuracy
{chic* tmej
0*~^*{m5Brer*
~ POOP
Sample Event Tvpt: {check ant}
IIW^mQ
~ Complaint
Q Emergency Response
O Inspection
(3 Investigation
~ Monitoring
~ Special Project
Saw pie Type: jehtdtom)
~ «r 13 Sal
~ Container Q Spill
~ QA/QC ~ Wipes
0 Groundwater Q Storm Water
D Organic Q Surface
~ Sediment (3 JSfscharje
f) "jiLdgp
Water Su;
MONR Pnrfl r>m* nr^l Swrvfres Pros-ram
?710W»<;1 Main t»ffn/tnn Cl*v MO fiMOT WIS) q
D*»*m •» «-r
-------
r
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FIELD SHEET AMD CHA1N-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
Description of Delivery
[I Tape sealed and initialed Total No. Of Containers:
f~] Shipped Carrier:
0 Hand Delivered By;
Cclector's Name:
f«ea« Print)
Kenneth Hannon
Affiliation: D WRO Q"SSo
[~1 MoDOT ~ MDC
Sample Mumber
i» '*! (*'
(Sample A|
for tab Use Only
Sample
Collected
DaW
5/11/2016
lime:
,D»te:
(Sawpfe i)
for Lab Use Only
TJ fcvTO"
[1 DHSS
i.P0"
~ Other:
"~ SWRO n WPP ~ MGS O HWT R f-SP
Analyses Requested
Total and Bexavaleot Cr.
Disinfect.
Type
'rhecknae)
D.O.
PI None
Mow
{_"] Chfenne
..
n »•
Corwl.
LJ 0!hpf*
Othet_._
Field Parameters
imiyJe u/iitsi
zjz:
•+- ¦
_ 4——
i
V
-4
=t
¦+—¦
——
L
LftB USE ONLY I
Laboratory ID:
\6Q5QOO^
Matrix
(fftftA .vw:
#5 Water
~
["I Orginit
~ SwU*
! "J Ctbe-
5coma „c*f\
D Water
r ^
lJ 5>«j»nit
y
\"J OtJwi
Container
Type
Preservative
Type
T
locaticn.
1>1A~
Number of
Containers
¦ I
"p
—J—
_J_
+
_4~
i=
+1
I Date
|j«iph; C)
tor Lab i
Ontftir
{Sample P|
far Isb Us* Only
Relinquished By;
Relinquished By
Reilnoulshec) By;
D.O.
L3
riow
fl {"»¦<•«!
P'
~ IW
tend
L~l UWHJ
n
Ol'.e,
——
f~1 Water
Sol
Otqaita
I I Sludge
' ] vther
~
n
T~
L I Now
I] th'ttrtw
~ uv
1 1 0»!«
LJ
P.O.
Flow
pH
Cond
Temp,
_j_
4_
—,i
• -4-
OPw
lj xv3w<
Li
fl ^nfcie
~ Other:
±
deceived By;
?eeelved 3y:
?ecel«d 9y;
Date:
Tiw
4 o
Tinw
Time;
mows Eiwlronrneitai Sfretces Program
2710 West Main, Dry. MO 65300 (573) 526431S
Pigtlttfl
-------
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT Of NATURAL RESOURCES
FIELD SHEET AND CHAIN-OF-CU5TQDY RECORD .
Sample A
FEBEC
Code;
NJOOBEEC
Sample Reference ID;
Facility ID;
SPS Coordinates
(UTM Zoae 15
WAP83 Only)
Stte/Stuif Name:
Bee tee Manufacturing
County:
Sample Comment (where and how the sample wss collected):
l3> 1/ *>d tA*f>L .
0 Stib fl Oxvpottr ~ Modifwd"
Dunklin
rl otv •
X Easting
YNortMpg
Accuracy
(check one}
LJ £l'£ {meters)
fl POOP
Sample Event Type:(check me)
~ 8yp«VS5Q
{_) CMiiipiafnt
Q fcmenjency Raspefce
Q Inspection
0 Investigation
t~l Mcwtloi'ftg
0 SfifiMt Project
Sample Type: (check a*;
Air
Container
OVQC
O son
~
~
spill
Wipes
Groundwater ~ Stotm Water
Organic ~ Surface Water
Sfdiment [fj Disdta»ge
Sludge
Printing Water Supply
Sampei pint;
Job Code:
Sample Reference ID:
FadRty IB;
Site/Study Name:
Sample Comment (where and how the sample wa» colectpdh
~ 6H»H ~ Composite ~
Other!
GPS Coordinates
(UTM Zone IS
WADM Onl#
Sample C
X Easting
y Worth Inf
Accuracy
(check om)
0 frPf (rr«s^)
k
POOP
jjarnple Event Ifpeiftfewtonej
Sypaa/SSO
Q Complaint
O Emergency Response
Q Inspection
Q InvestSgitlon
O Monitoring
O SpetMl P(&|«*
Sample Ty pe: letiesk em}
[Tis—~
[_] Coinstner f~l Sp-li
~ QVQC Q Wipes
[J Groundwattt Q Storm Water
O Organic (
~ Mdtmert Q DiscfM">'
~ Sludge
~ DrinMng Water Supply
IDPR;
lob Coda:
[sanipie Rfteren
Facility ID:
Site/Study Name:
Sample Comment {where and how the simple was collected);
Li Ottwr;
SPS Coordinates
{UTM Zone 15
HA083 Only)
X tasting"
V Northing
Accuracy
(Atckam)
Q tP£ (meters)
~ POOP
Sample Event Typeset coe/
~ B^pass/SSD
O Compirtnt
O Emergency Response
~ Inspection
~ investigation
Q MonAwing
~ Special Project
Sample Type: (check one)
~ Air Q Sol!
~ Container ~ Sp«i
~ WQC ~ Mpas
jH] Groundwater Q Storm Water
Q Organic
~ Sediment ["J Discharge
~ Staff®
~ DfinMnfl Water Supply
Sample D u>ph:
Job Coda:
"jsample
Reference 10:
facility ID:
Site/Study Name:
Sample Comment (where and how th« sample was collected):
County:
n »»t> rrMoSsr™
Other:
GPS Coordinates
{UTM Zone IS
NAD83 Only)
Remarks:
X Easting
¥ Worthing
Accuracy
Icheck me)
ETepe 'm etas)
Sample Event Iype;/ci>ectoMj
~ ayp«vsso
Q Complaint
~ Emergency Response
~ Inspection
Q Investigation
Q Monitoring
Special Project
Sample Type: ftfretk em!
~ ** ~ Soli
~ Container f] SpAi
mm D Mpes
Groundwater Q Storm Water
Q Ongante Q Surfaa Water
fl Swimrnt ["| Dtalwoe
n siudee
B
5-z-o
MDNR Environmental Sarvfces Projrwn
*710 W«t Main tafftwmn Cllv MO (TClf*) HIV
*1 -\t "1
-------
Missouri Department of Natural
Environmental Services Progiam
PO Box 178 Jetfetson Citv MO 05102-0176
RESULTS OF SAMPLE ANALYSES
LDPR/Job Code;
FEBEC/NJOOBEEC
Program, Conuct.
HWP Evan Kifer
Evan Kifer
Hazardous Waste Program
ces
Order ID
150512000
Report Date:
6/28/2016
II
Sample: AC73276
llllllll Site: Bee Gee Manufacturing
Collect Date: 5/11/2016 2:35:00 PM Collector: KENNETH HANNON
Comments: Grab, MW-06. ID# 162765
Customer #: 162765
County: Dunktm
Affiliation: ESP
Project: NJ00E
Test
6020 Metais-Totai Recoverable
Dissolved Hexavaient Chromium
Field pH
Field Specie Conductivity
Field Temperature
field Turtidity
Sample: AC73277
lllillilllllll Slte: BeeCeefcfe
Collect Date: 511112018 3:00 00 PM Collecto
Parameter/Method Result
Chrcmium/SW 846 6020 <0 80
Dissolved Hexavaient 0 0025
Chrommm/SW 846 71$6A
Field pH/EPA !50 1 6 34
Field Specific Conductiviiy/SM 2510 266 u$/cro
Field 'I empefaiye/l-'PA 70 1 20 0 C
Kieid 'Uiffai(My.TPA v _
Units
U§fl
mg/L
pH Units
MTU
Qualifter(s)
NO. 06
05
HANNON
Comment*. Grab. MW-05, ID# 162756
Customer f: 162/66
County: Dunklin
Affiliation: ESP
Project: NJ00BPEC
[Test
BlkV VMais let< > Kr crxerable
rtpxtiaier,; v momiurn
If iWd pri
)f ip>d Jpeafic Co iductivity
field Temperature
,F «eid <
Parameter/Method
Chromsuni/SW 846 6020
Dissolved Hexavaient
Chronwm/SW 646 7196A
Field pH/EFA 150 1
Field Specific Conduct v.ty
Field Temperature/E^A 1?,
field Tuibidity/EPA 18«i *
Result
7,5?
0 0098
6 46
2510 108 9 uSIcm
tS 2 C
1.1
Units
Mi/i
mg/l
pH Units
MTU
Qualifierts)
06
Order ID: 180812009 (1/2)
Page 1 of 2
-------
Customer #; 16278?
Site: E
>0 PM
Dunklin
Affiliat
Pararnoter/Mothod
/cm
pH Units
Project:
QuaUfter(s)
NO, 06
m
ltd i ufbidity __
S i»'v>rh> 4C""32,?^
1
Collect Data:
Site; Bee Gee Manufacturing
1 55 00 PM Collector; ¦ >'
Affiliat
Dunklin
Project: NJOOBEEC
iissolvecl Hexavatent Chromti
¦i eld pH
ietcl Specific Conductivity
>ield Temperature
" ^€7,1180
p.t II-k it n
alltct Date:
6 18
12510 150 2 uS/cm
18 6 C
<1
Site: Bee Gee Mam
I Collector:
pH Unite
Metals-1 otal Recoverable crtromium/bw two ou/u
>ived Hexavatent Chromium Dissolved Hexavalent
Chromium/SW 848 7196
Result
5 92
0 0075
ncl Duplicate
Units
Ijgit
mg/L
impie was perioirm
-1 £35
i t>ii > ¦"! • i > s appio,
Affilia
Dunklm
P
Project: N
Qualifier(3)
06
PQI
015 Estimated value QC data eulsnle linns
Curl Luecktnhoff,
-,i »• -j -> i • . f." -
t • < < 1>, !•' in'» i '
-------
r i"
L< , h
(' ¦¦
P.'
: yV;
r
7,
r;...:
„ _
; v1 ; .
i.,.
i-.
•• ; C
<
¦
?"> i \ r u < * • , *-v
~i1 7" : ' ¦ : ~
Ub
.->7,.* -l u r: '
, r
¦¦
r' t.-0 ---r ¦
-------
-------
Abbreviated Sampling Report
Bee Cee Manufacturing Site
Maiden. Dunklin ( ounty, MO
Site Information:
1 I >i,R Code: 1 fOFC _ ESP Staff: Ken Harmon
Job (We: MWih'.
Investigation Oau? S_S '7 .
Introduction:
Hazardous Waste Piogram (HWT) requested the rnvinur.tu'jita! Services Program (IrSP)
peisonnci collect groutidwa.ei grab samples iVora font momtonng wc'K at the Bee fee
Manufacturing Site located in Maiden, Dunkim ( os.mt>„ Missouri Sampling w,>s conducted as
part oi an annuai ground u atei momtoting event I*V»P F nuronmentat Specialist ken Harmon
trav clcd to the site on August 8. ,'!!)! 7, to conduct :,t>rop!nu;. HWP Lnuromntntal Specialist
Kvle Anderson was also present dining die Mamphtig euait.
Field Methods:
KSP personnel deployed clean V i P polvetnvlcnc uibiot> to vuihin the screened inki val of
each well The tubing \\ as attached to a penraalne pump, which \vf>s used to evacuate each well
at a flow rate ot'appfoxnnatei) 2u()->it«a to!'minute Personnel placed the tubing clown to the
bottom of the well ami then polled the tubing up two feet to or,sure water was being dtawn from
within each well's scjeened mtet\al i\uuuted watct nas co".ected m a five-gallon backet and
latet poured out on the ground aw a v. ftom lie >udi;
Personnel determine*! wMu parameters cwtv three minutes during well evacuation and
samples v\ ere collected once parameters stahih.'ed (pH 40.2, tarhidi»y - 50 Nephelometric
1 urbidit) Units j N'tland spec*tic conductance and h-niperature u ithm ! tSample
toiuainerh weie then tilled directh from the "atlwtg, Specific conductance, temperature,
turbidity, and pi I measurements weie tecoidcd at die time each sample aa% collected Samples
were filtered arid or preserved in the fit Id as appropriate tor the analytic of concent and placed
on ice in coolers, All samples were transposed hack to the SfSP laboratory in Jefferson City and.
submitted for total arid he\a\alent chromium juahses,
Observations:
All wells' protective casings aad 'uek.s were intact upon atmai The weather during sampling
was hunttv and approximately 84 dc^'txs Fahrenheit Winds nere hom the northwest at 8-3 2
miles per how.
-------
No wells contained any significant amount of turbidity. All well samples collected were
considered clear, colorless and odorless.
Refer to I able i tor a tleseuHton and :oeation o! each wimple collected Retei u< Table 2 for
iuhlitional nitonrutjon recorded for cuds nioim\>nn;.: we!!. \Im> attached ate the chain of custody
and analytical results of samples collected
hue Sappmgkni
' >rn Chief
F:t\ iioatneiual Rirtetgeney Response/Field Services Unit
PnvmMimental Services Program
Kyle Anderson, Environmental Specialist, BWP
Kenneth liaaiuui
Fin jfonmeffliii Specialist
Field Set \ ices Us til
l;nvmmmenM( Kervk-es Program
:APPROVED
-------
I JlM<1 I
Sample I
Bee (Vc Manof.Rliinn^ >ire
Maiden. Dunklin (\mm\, Missouri
Aus'u^t X. ?OI v
[i Kamplr
aai,
Time
i iSiiiisbf
k otii-'CU'd
TT^'.'Tt"
I/I/I?
1 ?' - :"s ^
SSI'
i ^4(1
vt;} i y
8/1/17
1611
"•vYi-i;
"f/g/1?
1628
S -•? 1
if.'S
\il MH
U ll.'t •)! h\\\ -4
tas clear and colorless.
v..;t^plc was clear and colorless.
°.impts' was clear and colorless.
W.tk't it' M\\ ^ S.sm^l!.jv\as cUm; ,uui;oVlos
1 IK*
"f =i|*|e »1
Momto; oh" \V rit»!<.• N;k-
M ikler., Dniihhts ( o>( psi a % <>o< ,,
:" PVC
2" PVC
1
2" PVC
-------
W.irv, -0'. N': bjy/rI
Z.&J MjOO filEl c '*>r T'.-.r*,; / v ib
Dfp'v' * T|,-rvib l1 .
1£Aa^' Kyi*" finite-i'- '¦
5i?c: P, C l.t-#' "v- *>(/ f-
iv, \-{l 5 #li t--' f,:V
; t? '
' ^.,2 &>
J.MJ2, - X V
-i>c ( 0 T"W - / -> , *J" i\s ¦ S' -¦(,>
ib$. n ii
7. '«< /i~ ? i
-------
pTw - /;. (i£lie
!
¦
|-
i H ( ji i V
*> ».p
f (&y :
1ri; s
;=
<, ict :ait <~?zi ¦;;
i^.fr :?-«>. ¦•¦¦-"V
iv ^ 1 I r'ir I?
e .74> I £> (-f 1
F/>v Sl,«/fc ...., f- ;i
jwjJ orw^ci krrn.tn'it /j»V ,
fr-lf
l". fj
1 ««S
r'i 0
1HS '
? ll
I A
..J' [z.n
T.n .-^'7 /*.'*>
¦¦¦
-r2 I Or >.^ - u>. Lf:
¦¦ ¦¦ r
s% r'2
• I.
X "
7--~* iti'i t*n
x0fi
' 7 i21 <
f.
? 5
£. ::
t-r.i
"7 ", *»f • IC c f;
-------
m
¦i
*T
Total
Tct.i! rmd Hc».?v.ife»U £r
t
-------
IIlI
rmt c
•xWif IB;
Site/Study t«arne;
•ample Comment (where and hew the sample wm collected)
vSWOMQ*
Dunfehn
case*.
«e!S; 1
Simple Event lypeUthtti me}
towp**l¥Pe:?e*ar*«Mj
¦ :
| LJ Emen^xv R«oo*s«
If"! fnsp«t«on
~ Sot--
Q tmam ~ W*
O QW ~ Wp«
0 Grot^i-'.vC'.C' ri
-------
m
llltflftt RESOURCES
CUSTOOV RECORD
StertSTSS1"'
P '<*m »HW ;<>M In w««
ll »'«<«*
[7) mmtm,,mr4
" " 'SSV^WMiVl^wiy"**
ftiBi fits 01 Con
: ,1 f i-vr
Siv
«iii
Kenneth Harmon
|Tm«~
!_ woe
JUXL
TH55-
-
"{ }' 5?M0~1X
TH«r~nT55r—S~
Analyse* R«quested
Tauf and Hevavaleftt Ct
imkttSt
-------
w
in
lidWft! !<}'U
-'is.r / c-J !
-------
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Services Program
PO Box 176 Jefferson City MO 65102-0176
RESULTS OF SAMPLE ANALYSES
LDPR/Job Code: Program, Contact
FEBEC/NJOOBEEC HWP t- van Kiten
Order ID:
170809005
Report Date;
9/1/2017
Evan Kifer
Hazardous Waste Program
Sample; AD05722
Collect Date; 8/8/201? 3,2' :00
Test
6020 Metals-Total RecovwaHt
Dissolved Hexavalerit Chromium
Field pH
f«eW Specific Conductivity
Fieh! Tempetaturs
Field Turbidity
Customer f; 173? 17
Site; Bee Cee Manufacturing County. Dunklin
ffd Collector; KEN HANNON Affiliation- FSP'ECR
Comments: Gut) WW 0r>. ID* 1732 !?
Project- NJ00BEEC
Pa'ameter-Metftod _ Result
Ch'omiiiftvSVV 846 6021, 0,59
Dissolved Hexavalent <0.00?
Chromium,fSW 846 ?196A
Field pH€ PA 150 I G t»9
field Specific Conductivity,'SM i'510 444 0 u$/crn
Fiolu Temperature,'EP4 1 1 ,i0 i' C
Ftekl turblilitv/EPA 180 1 1,0
U iifier(s)__
j-ci-'t Cft
mg/l ND
pH i, IpitS
N1U
Sample: AD05723
ill!
Customer#;
Site, flee Cee Manufacturing
Collect Date; 8/8/2017 3;46;Q0 PM Collector; KEN hAMNON
/,C 1B
Count
Affiliation; l">
lim
Comments, MVY-05, 'Off i7*V IP
Project; NJ00BEEC
Test
60i>0 Wetais-Tolal Recoverable!
Dissolved H«xava!ent Chromium
field ph
Field Specific Conductivity
Field Temperature
Field Turbidity
Param«rter/M»thod_ Result
Ch urn U!»i 'SW 84c 6020 9 45
HPxaWent 0 0^0
CrfamHi'ivSW b46 719»-V\
field pM.1-"p'\ 1*>0 t n -V
Field Sptvi'ic ConciuctMfv SM '0 19b C uSH.m
Field te^iper.ituie.FPA 110 > ?3 0 €
field Turbiclity/Ef-A 1Sf t *-t
QualMerjsj
Order ID: 170809005 (1/2)
Paget of2
-------
Sample: AD05724
Collect Dale: 8/8/2017 4:11:00 PM
Comments: Grab; MW-04, ID# 173219.
Project: NJOQBEEC
Test _
6020 Metjiis? Tut.f ^ ovevn"
Dissolved Hewweri
Field siH
Fiold Specific Cmt'ii I.viiy
Field Temperature
Field 1 urfaidity _
Result
Pararneter'MetSioa _ __
Cr.ro«n,*.'-i/^l\ two 00 ,Y vt)
r.iMtoU^d Hfx.H.'iuri >vf!
i h; omt *m 8'/v 7
field pH/EPA 150.1 7.76
1 n-> mv<, *1," * "su t v tySM -M6 h . S en
Field Temperature/EPA 170.1 18.8 C
Htiii "'iitVit/'H'A UH' i „
Units
Qualiiertsl
ND
ND
pH Units
NTU
Sample: AD05T25
Hlltili 1111 illl 1
iiiiw hm ,»s «iii: n:s
Collect Dale" «/8/;l0 i ? 4,28:00 PM
Site: Bee Cee Manufacturing
Collector; KEN HAtMWON
Customer #: 173220
County: Dunklin
Affiliation- tSFMLER
Test
PaiamehniWi'thad
Comments; Grab: MW-03, ID# 173220,
Result Units
Project: NJ00I
Qualifier^)
8020 Metals-Total Recoverable Clromfu«-i'GvV »niv'{3
Dissolved Haxavaient Chromium Dissolved Hexavalenf
Chromium/SW 848 7196A
Field pH > i S,i j-li j PA '• V :
Field Specific Conductivity « i? r>M * *£
Field Turbidity !-»jd 'tulnv1«;v: 1
pH Units
NTU
Sample: AD05726
1111(11111111
Site: Bee Cee Manufacturing
Collect Date: 8/8/2017 12:00:00 AM
Collector: KEI
Customer # 17322?
County: Dunklin
Affiliation: ESP/EER
C -ab:BIir»cl Duplicate.
Profect: NJOOBEECj
Test
6020 Metals ~ ^:al Rt»cou-r >h t*
Dissolved Hoxavaein Cbwtttr"
ParamoteuMetiiod
Ok-mijrn SVV 546 K' .T
Di&seketl
iJhrcm'uns.Sl'v' ' 19I5A
Resu.t
14 5
0 011'
Units
T.„,
malt
Qualifier^)
• «!;>«• iVWv'.ort t\ii
M,'< VVi tp'1 .iM.'po-teii ,jn t-
he arj'js>> j! ttvs s ochn t* >< ,< t> w'ts jus < - - * t'd o* uvr y '¦•zitf i\ ;}"«*¦ v S f'l i»vs
Kevin Thoenert,
Laboratory Manager
Environmental Services Program
Division of Environmental Quality
Order ID; 170809005 (2/2)
Page 2 of 2
------- |