Sixth Five Year Review Report for Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site Hastings Adams County Nebraska


SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
HASTINGS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SUPERFUND SITE
HASTINGS, ADAMS COUNTY, NEBRASKA

Sr^

*1 pro^

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

Digitally signed by Scott
D. Hayes
Date: 2022.07.25
16:19:42 -05'00'

Scott D. Hayes, Acting Director

Superfund & Emergency Management Division

Scott D.
Hayes

-------
Table of Contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS	

I.	INTRODUCTION	

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM	

II.	RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY	

Basis for Taking Action	

Response Actions	

Well No. 3 Subsite (OU7, OU13, OU17,OU18)

Colorado Avenue Subsite (OUOl, OU09)	

Second Street Subsite (OU12, OU20)	

North Landfill Subsite (OU2, OUIO)	

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite (OU03, OU06, 01 11)	1

South Landfill Subsite (OU05)	

Area-Wide Hastings Site (0U19)	

Status of Implementation	

Well No. 3 Subsite (OU07, 0U13, 0U17, 0U18)

Colorado Avenue Subsite (OUOl, OU09)	

Second Street Subsite (0U12, OU20)	

North Landfill Subsite (OU02, OUIO)	

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite (OU03, OU06, 0U11)	

South Landfill Subsite (OU05)	

Area-Wide Hastings Site (0U19)	

System Operation/Operation and Maintenance	

Well No. 3 Subsite (OU07, 0U13, 0U17, 0U18)

Colorado Avenue Subsite (OUOl, OU09)	

Second Street Subsite (0U12, OU20)	

North Landfill Subsite (OU02, OUIO)	

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite (OU03, OU06, 0U11)	

South Landfill Subsite (OU05)	

Area-Wide Hastings Site (0U19)	

III.	PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW	

IV.	FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS	

Community Notification & Site Interviews	

Well No. 3 Subsite	

Second Street Subsite	

Colorado Avenue Subsite	

North Landfill	

I AR-V1AR-C0	

South Landfill	

Data Review	

Well No. 3 Subsite (0U18)	

Colorado Avenue Subsite (0U1)	Error! Bookmark not defined

Second Street Subsite (OU20)

North Landfill (OU02, OUIO)

11

-------
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite (OU6)	26

South Landfill	27

Institutional Control Area	28

Site Inspection	29

V.	TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT	29

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?	29

Well No. 3 Subsite (OU18)	29

Colorado Avenue Subsite (OUOl, OU09)	30

Second Street Subsite (OU12, OU20)	30

North Landfill Subsite (OU02, OU10)	30

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite (OU06)	31

South Landfill Subsite (OU05)	31

Area-Wide Hastings Site (OU19)	31

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?	32

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness
of the remedy?	32

VI.	ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS	32

OTHER FINDINGS	33

VII.	PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT	34

VIII.	NEXT REVIEW	36

FIGURES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY
APPENDIX C - ARARS

APPENDIX D - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTS
APPENDIX E - INTERVIEWS
APPENDIX F - PUBLIC NOTICE
APPENDIX G - MANN-KENDALL RESULTS
APPENDIX H - ANALYTICAL TABLES

in

-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

AOC

Administrative Order on Consent

ARAR

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

bgs

below ground surface

coc

Contaminant of Concern

CT

carbon tetrachloride

1,1-DC A

1,1-dichloroethane

1,1-DCE

1,1 -dichloroethylene

EDB

1,2-dibromom ethane

EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

FYR

Five-Year Review

HI

Hazard Index

IC

Institutional Control

ICA

Institutional Control Area

IWA

In-well aeration

MCL

Maximum Contaminant Level

MNA

Monitored natural attenuation

NAD

Naval Ammunition Depot

NDEE

Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy

NFA

No Further Action

NPL

National Priorities List

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

ORC

Oxygen-release chemical

OU

Operable Unit

PAH

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

PCE

T etrachloroethylene

PRP

Potentially Responsible Party

RA

Remedial Action

RAO

Remedial Action Objective

ROD

Record of Decision

RPM

Remedial Project Manager

SVE

Soil Vapor Extraction

1,1,1-TCA

1,1,1 -trichloroethane

TCE

tri chl oroethy 1 ene

^g/L

micrograms per liter

UAO

Unilateral Administrative Order

USACE

United States Army Corps of Engineers

UU/UE

Unlimited use and unrestricted exposure

VOC

Volatile organic compound

iv

-------
I. INTRODUCTION

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

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

This is the Sixth FYR for the Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site (Site). The
triggering action for this statutory review is the signature date of the previous FYR, August 25, 2017.
The FYR has been prepared because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the
Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).

The Site consists of 21 operable units (OUs); ten of the OUs will be addressed in this FYR. Table 1 is a
summary of all OUs, the subsite they are associated with, and the geographic areas where they are
located. Five OUs not addressed in this FYR are OUs 03, 07, 11, 13, and 17, because the remedies have
been completed and there are no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at these
OUs at levels that prevent UU/UE. OUs 04, 08, 14, 15, 16, and 21 are part of the former Naval
Ammunition Depot (NAD) and are not included in this FYR because a separate FYR has been
conducted to evaluate these remedial actions (RA).

Table 1: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site Operable Units

Subsile

(ieographic Area

Well No. 3 Subsite
OU07 - Soils

OU13 - Plume 1 Groundwater

OU17 - Plume 2 Soils

OU18 - Plume 2 Groundwater

Central Industrial Area

Colorado Avenue Subsite
OU01 - Groundwater
OU09 - Source Control

Second Street Subsite

OU12 - Source-Area Soils

OU20 - Offsite Groundwater Plume

North Landfill Subsite
OU02 - Groundwater
OU10 - Source Control

Commercial Area and
Closed City Landfills

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite
OU03 - Soils
OU06 - Groundwater

OU11 - 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) Soils

South Landfill Subsite

OU05 - Source Control and Groundwater

-------
Former Naval Ammunition Depot (NAD)

OU04 - Soils

OU08 - Vadose Zone

OU14 - Groundwater

OU15 - Soils

OU16 - Soils

OU21 - Munitions

Hastings East Industrial Park/Former NAD

Noil Siihsilc-Spccific ()l

Area-Wide Groundwater Action
OU19 - Groundwater

The Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site FYR was led by Bill Gresham, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Remedial Project Manager (RPM); and Laura Price, EPA
RPM. Participants included Jessica Kidwell, EPA Hydrogeologist; Ann Jacobs, EPA Human Health
Risk Assessor; Catherine Wooster-Brown, EPA Ecological Risk Assessor; Jessie Loughman, United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Project Manager; Jennifer Phillippe, USACE Technical
Lead; and Jeffrey Weiss, USACE Hydrogeologist. The review began on 8/17/2021.

Site Background

The EPA designated the contaminated area generally outlined by the boundary of the groundwater
contamination as the Site. The Site has been organized into three geographic areas in and around the city
of Hastings (City): the Central Industrial Area, the Commercial Area and Closed City Landfills, and the
Hastings East Industrial Park/former NAD (Figure 1). The Site was placed on the National Priorities List
in 1986.

Central Industrial Area

This area encompasses commercial and industrial properties situated in the heart of the city, along the
Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. Three subsites make up this area: Well No. 3, Colorado
Avenue, and Second Street (Figure 2).

• The Well No. 3 Subsite contains a groundwater plume of carbon tetrachloride that has been
remediated and a second contaminant plume of chlorinated industrial solvents, primarily
trichloroethene (TCE). This plume is currently being managed by the potentially responsible
party (PRP).

• The Colorado Avenue Subsite contains soil and groundwater contaminated by industrial solvents
related to vapor degreasing operations at an industrial facility during the 1960s and 1970s.
Groundwater contamination was discovered in 1983 when the City attempted to return a
municipal well (M-18) back into service at a location approximately one-half mile east of the
source area.

• The Second Street Subsite contains soil and groundwater contamination from a coal gas plant
which operated from 1894 to 1931. Historical investigations identified benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylene, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in subsite soils and
groundwater.

Commercial Area and Closed City Landfills

This area is situated at the eastern edge of the city and contains three subsites: North Landfill, FAR-
MAR-CO, and South Landfill.

-------
• The North Landfill Subsite originated as a brick maker's clay pit which was later operated by the
City as a landfill in the early 1960s. Various municipal and industrial wastes were disposed at the
landfill which have contributed to groundwater contamination. The site is currently unused.

• The FAR-MAR-CO Subsite has been utilized for the storage and handling of agricultural
products, primarily grains, for more than 30 years. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
including grain fumigants, have seeped into the soils and groundwater because of operations and
a spill from fumigant equipment. Land use at the site has not changed. A separate area of
1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) contamination was discovered during the EPA investigation at
the subsite in 1987.

• The South Landfill Subsite originated as a clay pit which was constructed into a two-cell landfill
with a drainage ditch between the cells. The landfill was operated by the city of Hastings from
the early 1960s to the early 1980s and received both municipal and industrial waste. The site is
currently used as a recreational dog park.

Hastings East Industrial Park and Former NAD

• The former NAD is located east of the city of Hastings and covers more than 72 square miles, on
approximately 48,000 acres. The property was used for loading armaments until the early 1950s,
and later for de-militarizing armaments until it was decommissioned in the early 1960s.
Remediation at the six OUs in this area (OU04, OU08, OU14, OU15, OU16, and OU21) are the
subject of a separate FYR and will not be evaluated in this FYR.

-------
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

EPA ID:

NED980862668

Region: 7

NPL Status: Final

State: NE

City/County: Hastings, Adams/Clay County

SITE STATUS

Multiple OUs?

Yes

Has the site achieved construction completion?

No

Lead agency: EPA:

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Bill Gresham and Laura Price

Author affiliation: EPA Region 7

Review period: 8/17/2021 - 2/28/2022

Date of site inspection: 8/4/2021

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 6

Triggering action date: 8/25/2017

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 8/25/2022

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action

In 1984, the EPA began investigating sources of VOC contamination in groundwater in the Hastings
area. The presence of VOCs in potential drinking water was the primary basis for taking action. The
specific VOCs found in groundwater and soil at each subsite vary based on source activities. The
decision documents for each subsite established action levels for groundwater, soil, and soil gas as
appropriate for each subsite (see Table 2). Action levels for groundwater were established at the state or
federal drinking water standard or, where no drinking water standard was established, were based on the
lesser of an lxlO"6 excess cancer risk or a non-cancer hazard index (HI) of 1.0. Action levels for soil and
soil gas also were risk-based and/or considered protective of groundwater.

4

-------
Table 2. Subsite Contaminants and Action Levels

( ()( s

Well
\o 3
(i\\

( UL! I.I

( olorado
A\enue
(i\V

( UL! I.I

( olorado
A\enue

Soil
ippim )

2 Sl reel

Soils
1I-20 Iccl

(111 L! k 12 1

¦>

S live I
Stills
2(1 llvl
(my ky)

¦>

S live I
(i\V

(LIU I.I

IAR-
\l AK-
CO
(i\\

( UL! Ll

\orlh
Landfill
(i\V

( UL! I.I

Soulh
Landfill
(i\\

( UL! Ll

Benzene

-

-

-

16.0

0.034

5.0

-

-

5.0

Benzo(a)anthracene

-

-

-

21

0.39

0.1

-

-

-

Benzo(a)pyrene

-

-

-

2.1

8.2

0.2

-

-

-

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

-

-

-

21

0.79

0.1

-

-

-

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

-

-

-

210

45

0.2

-

-

-

Carbon Tetrachloride

5.0

-

-

-

-

-

5.0

-

-

Chrysene

-

-

-

2,100

39

4.0

-

-

-

1,2-DCA

-

5.0

0.10

-

-

-

-

-

5.0

1,1-DCE

7.0

7.0

1.50

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,2-DCE

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7.0

cis-DCE

-

70

-

-

-

-

-

70

70

trans-DCE

-

100

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

-

-

-

2.1

0.17

0.1

-

-

-

Dibenzofuran

-

-

-

1,239

5.7

-

-

-

-

1,4-Dioxane

-

0.461

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ethyl Benzene

-

-

-

400

13

700

-

-

-

Ethyl Dibromide (EDB)

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.05

-

-

Fluoranthene

-

-

-

17,824

260

-

-

-

-

Fluorene

-

-

-

17,824

200

1300

-

-

-

Indeno( 1,2,3 -cd)pyrene

-

-

-

21

2.1

0.1

-

-

-

Isopropyl Benzene

-

-

-

88

2.3

-

-

-

-

Methylene Chloride

-

5.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2-Methylnaphthalene

-

-

-

1,239

-

-

-

-

-

Naphthalene

-

-

-

14

0.08

100

-

-

-

Pyrene

-

-

-

16,710

1,200

450

-

-

-

Styrene

-

-

-

1,481

3.5

100

-

-

-

T etrachloroethy lene
(PCE)

5.0

5.0

0.30

-

-

-

-

-

5.0

1,1,1-TCA

200

200

15

-

-

-

-

-

200

1,1,2-TCA

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Trichloroethylene
(TCE)

5.0

5.0

0.25

-

-



-

5.0

5.0

Toulene

-

-

-

654

12

1,000

-

-

-

Vinyl Chloride

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2.0

2.0

Xylenes

-

-

-

418

210

10,000

-

-

-

Notes:

(1) Tapwater screening level for HQ=1 (EPA Regional Screening Levels, November 2019)

COC = Contaminant of Concern
= Not a COC for this subsite
|ig/L = micrograms per liter
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
ppmv = parts per million by volume

Groundwater from the aquifer is a source for drinking, irrigation, and industrial water use, and exposures
to contaminated groundwater may pose a significant human health risk. The Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1986 to address VOC
contamination in groundwater.

5

-------
Due to site groundwater occurring at a depth of 110 to 135 feet below ground surface (bgs),
opportunities for ecological exposure to site contamination are limited. Potential ecological exposures
would be primarily associated with impacted source area soils and contaminated groundwater brought to
the surface by irrigation wells.

Response Actions

Well No. 3 Subsite (OU7, OU13, OU17, OU18)

In 1989, the EPA issued an interim ction Record of Decision (ROD) selecting soil vapor extraction
(SVE) to remediate the soils contaminated with carbon tetrachloride (CT) (OU7). Plume 1 (OU13)
originated from this soil source.

In 1991, the EPA discovered TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCE, and PCE in groundwater (Plume 2, OU18).
The Dutton-Lainson Company (Dutton-Lainson) property located at 1601 West Second Street was
identified by the EPA as a potential source (OU17) of Plume 2 (OU18). A second interim action ROD
was signed in 1993 that selected extraction and treatment remedies for both plumes.

In May 2001, the EPA released the final ROD for the Well No. 3 Subsite, selecting no further action
(NFA) for OUs 07, 17 (source control OUs), and 13 (Plume 1 groundwater OU), where active
remediation had already been completed. The extraction and treatment system for OU18, selected in the
1993 Interim Action ROD, was not installed; rather, the 2001 final ROD selected continuation of the
Plume 1 remedy at extraction well 3 (the former decommissioned municipal supply well M-3) to address
the Plume 2 contaminants.

Well No. 3 Subsite Remedial Action Objectives

The final ROD for the Well No. 3 Subsite, signed on May 17, 2001, established the following Remedial
Action Objectives (RAOs):

•	Restore the aquifer to drinking water standards within a reasonable time frame;

•	Reduce or eliminate further contamination of groundwater; and

•	Minimize or eliminate contaminant migration to groundwater and surface water to levels that
ensure beneficial reuse of the resources.

The major components of the remedy selected in the 2001 final ROD include the following:

•	Plume 2 Groundwater (OU18) - continue the operation of the extraction and treatment system
installed for Plume 1 at the former municipal supply well M-3 until Safe Drinking Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are attained and verified for the Plume 2 contaminants;

•	NFA for OUs 07, 17 (source control OUs), and 13 (Plume 1 groundwater); and

•	Selected MCLs as the cleanup level for Plume 2 contaminants.

The target cleanup levels established in the final ROD are presented in Table 2.

6

-------
Colorado Avenue Subsite (OUOl, OU09)

On September 28, 1988, the EPA issued a ROD for the initial Source Control Operable Unit (OU09),
selecting SVE technology to address approximately 800,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil.
Following are the OU09 RAOs, based on the OU09 ROD and supporting feasibility study (EPA, 2006):

•	Eliminate the threat posed to the local groundwater aquifer by preventing migration of
contaminants from the soils to the groundwater thereby minimizing the potential for further
human exposure by ingestion of groundwater contaminated by COCs;

•	Reduce the levels of COCs to established performance standards; and

•	Conduct soil gas and groundwater sampling to demonstrate compliance with the criteria
established in the Scope of Work.

The components of the remedy selected in the ROD are as follows:

•	Extraction of volatile contaminants from the silt and sand unsaturated zones;

•	Monitoring contaminants in the soils above the aquifer; and

•	Monitoring groundwater contamination at the Subsite.

On September 28, 1990, after failing to negotiate an agreement to implement the SVE technology with
the PRPs, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to Dravo Corporation and Desco
Corporation to construct and operate the Phase I SVE system.

An interim action ROD for the groundwater contamination (OUOl) was signed in 1991 and established
the following RAOs:

•	Eliminate the threat posed to human health and the environment by preventing human ingestion
of groundwater contaminated by TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, PCE, 1,1-DC A, and 1,1-DCE above levels
that exceed the 10"4 cancer risk;

•	Reduce the levels of COCs to the performance standards established in the Scope of Work; and

•	Perform groundwater monitoring to demonstrate sustained compliance with the performance
standards.

The major components of the selected interim action remedy included (EPA, 1991):

•	Extraction of contaminated groundwater to achieve contaminant mass removal and plume
containment;

•	Treatment of contaminated groundwater by granular activated carbon with contingencies for air
stripping and air emissions treatment or use of ultraviolet oxidation;

•	Reinjection and/or use of the treated groundwater; and

•	Groundwater monitoring to measure interim action effectiveness.

The EPA issued a second UAO in 1993 requiring the PRPs to implement the groundwater interim
actions.

In 1998, the OUOl remedy was amended to expedite groundwater restoration in a cost-effective manner
and avoid discharge issues associated with the groundwater extraction and treatment system. The
performance goal for the interim action remedy for the groundwater is containment of the 10"4 risk level

7

-------
for TCE. Based on the OUOl 1991 Feasibility Study (FS), the OUOl 1991 ROD, and the OUOl 1998
ROD amendment, this value was 290 micrograms per liter (|ig/L). The remedy, as amended, included
the following major components (EPA, 1998):

• In-place treatment of contaminated groundwater using in situ technologies, i.e., air sparging, in-
well air stripping;

• Monitored natural attenuation (MNA); and

• Mass removal and containment to be achieved to the extent required by the 1991 ROD.

The final ROD for groundwater contamination (OUOl), signed on March 30, 2020, established the
following RAOs for the Subsite:

• Prevent further migration of contaminated groundwater in excess of the MCLs or risk-based
levels;

• Protect human health from exposure to COCs in groundwater above MCLs or risk-based levels;
and

• Restore groundwater throughout the Subsite to beneficial use as a drinking water source.
The components of the combined remedy selected in the ROD are as follows:

• Institutional Controls - The Institutional Control Area (ICA) (Figure 1) was established in 2001
(and extended in December 2014) by the EPA in consultation with the NDEE. The ICA
provided for an alternate water supply for affected users, a well inventory, a ban on new potable
wells, and a groundwater monitoring program. The city of Hastings implemented the
components of this action, including establishing the ICA through a city ordinance, conducting
sampling, testing of private wells, and preparing annual ICA reports. It is now illegal to drill
new potable water supply wells within the ICA. To monitor the future installation of private
wells within the ICA, the city of Hastings has enacted a zoning ordinance requiring an
application process. Furthermore, existing wells are monitored and treated, if necessary, to
minimize potential risk from COCs.

• Groundwater Extraction - Groundwater extraction would be accomplished by continued
pumping from the five existing industrial water supply wells at the Whelan Energy Center
(WEC) (WEC-A through WEC-C, WEC-E, and WEC-F, as shown on Figure 7), which are
located near the downgradient edge of the plume and effectively function to hydraulically
contain the plume. Well D (see Figure 7), located at the northeast corner of Highway 6 and the
Union Pacific Railroad, would continue to operate with the extracted water being pumped to the
WEC. Typically, groundwater is extracted from the individual WEC wells at rates ranging from
approximately 113 to 698 gallons per minute. Groundwater is extracted from Well D at an
average pumping rate of approximately 413 gallons per minute.

• Groundwater Treatment - Extracted groundwater from the WEC well field and Well D would
continue to be beneficially used as non-contact cooling water (i.e., dry steam cooling)
associated with the coal-fired power plant operations. During this process, the cooling towers
would "strip" out VOCs from the contaminated groundwater thereby serving as an effective
treatment method via volatilization (a process similar to air stripping).

-------
• Long Term Monitoring - A monitoring program will be developed and implemented to monitor
performance and effectiveness of the remedial action and demonstrate that contaminant
concentrations continue to decrease over time.

Second Street Subsite (OU12, OU20)

A SVE system and a separate groundwater extraction and treatment system using liquid-phase granular
activated carbon began in 1997. In 1998, an oil/water separator was installed in the groundwater
treatment system. This initial RA was designed to address the source area. A second RA was initiated in
2000 to address downgradient groundwater contamination by installing an IWA and treatment system.

Remedial Action Objectives

For OU12 (Source Area Soils), a final ROD was signed in September 2006, selecting excavation and
treatment of contaminated source area soils along with in-situ chemical oxidation of lower vadose and
saturated zone soils. The RAOs for the 2006 ROD were as follows:

•	Reduce or prevent the ingestion, inhalation, and direct contact with soils having contaminant
concentrations in excess of preliminary remediation goals; or which result in an excess cancer
risk greater than lxlO"6 or a Hazard Index (HI) of greater than 1.0, whichever is less; and

•	Reduce or prevent migration of soil contaminants to provide protection of groundwater, so that
the MCLs are not exceeded; or result in an excess cancer risk greater than lxlO"6 or a HI of
greater than 1.0, whichever is less.

The OU12 ROD was amended in 2008, to broaden the scope of cleanup activities to include the active
treatment of groundwater at the Subsite in the remediation of source materials by addressing
contamination in the groundwater and dense non-aqueous phase liquid in the saturated zone. The RAOs
were revised as follows:

•	To reduce or prevent the incidental ingestion, inhalation, and direct dermal contact of
contaminants of concern in excess of risk-based standards for industrial settings through the
excavation and treatment of shallow soils from the surface to 20 feet bgs;

•	To prevent further contaminant migration and degradation of the downgradient plume through
the treatment of soils at depths greater than 20 feet bgs and treatment of groundwater so that
MCLs or risk-derived standards are not exceeded; and

•	To restore groundwater to its beneficial use as a potable water source through the excavation and
treatment of soil and treatment of groundwater so that MCLs or risk-derived standards are not
exceeded.

The OU12 ROD was amended again in 2018 to change the treatment approach from ISCO to in situ
thermal remediation (ISTR) to address the contaminated soils and source materials at the Subsite. Based
on the minor contaminant reduction observed, the difficulty in injecting the substrate, and the estimated
length of time to remediate using ISCO, the EPA evaluated ISTR and found the current technology to be
more cost-effective than ISCO and capable of meeting the RAOs and cleanup levels in a more timely
manner. The remedy selected in this Amendment modified the RAOs to:

•	Reduce the mass of site-related COCs from subsurface media in the unsaturated (vadose) zone
and the upper ten feet of the saturated zone by 90 percent to support groundwater restoration.

9

-------
The newly selected 0U12 remedy is expected to significantly reduce the mass of site-related COCs in
OU12 that are the source of the OU20 dissolved-phase groundwater plume. Over time, the dissolved-
phase plume is expected to decrease in size and concentration through the natural processes of
dispersion and dilution. Remedial goals will be based on asymptotic levels and/or a 90 percent reduction
of site-related COCs from subsurface media in the unsaturated (vadose) zone and upper 10 feet of the
saturated (phreatic) zone below the capillary fringe. The current mass of COCs in the media of concern
will be calculated using existing contaminant data from previous sampling and/or additional data
obtained during the Remedial Design. Post-remedy analysis will include on-site soil sampling and
groundwater monitoring, and an evaluation of the analytical data collected from the OU20 dissolved-
phase groundwater plume. Once the goals of the OU12 remedial action are met, final chemical-specific
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for groundwater will be established for
the Subsite under the OU20 ROD.

For OU20 (Groundwater), an interim ROD was signed in July 2003 selecting in situ treatment combined
with extraction and treatment of the groundwater. The RAOs identified in the interim ROD are as
follows:

• Prevent further migration and further worsening of the downgradient plume;

• Remediate or contain the contaminated groundwater to reduce risk; and

• Provide a remedy which will achieve the long-term objectives when combined with a suitable
remedy for the source area.

Long-term goals were defined as follows:

• Reduce the contaminant levels in the groundwater to levels less than the MCL or MCL goals, if
they are greater than zero, and/or to state clean up levels derived from Nebraska Title 118
Ground Water Quality Standards and Use Classification regulations, or to levels where the
excess cancer risk is computed as being less than one additional cancer per million persons of
population (lxlO"6) or where the HI is less than 1.0, so that the aquifer can be restored to its
beneficial use; and

• Prevent further degradation of the aquifer's groundwater.

The target cleanup levels established in the amended OU12 ROD and OU20 interim ROD are presented
in Table 2.

North Landfill Subsite (OU2, OU10)

In 1991, the EPA issued a ROD for an interim remedial action to address both source control (OU10)
and groundwater contamination (OU02). In October 1992, the City and Dutton-Lainson entered an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to perform the Remedial Design. In 1996, the design for OU10
was completed and consisted of improving the landfill cap and restricting public access and future land
use. In 1998, the City, Dutton-Lainson, Dravo, and the U.S. Navy entered a Consent Decree to
implement the Remedial Design. The landfill improvements were completed in the summer of 1999.

North Landfill Subsite Remedial Action Objectives

The EPA issued a final ROD for OU02 in August 2006 and established the following RAOs:

-------
• Prevent human exposure to groundwater contaminated above regulatory standards or risk-based
standards; and

• Restore groundwater to contaminant levels that would allow for its future beneficial use.

The Remedial Action for the source control (OUIO) consisted of improving the landfill cap and
restricting public access and future land use.

The remedy components in the OU02 ROD include the following:

• Natural Attenuation;

• Groundwater Monitoring;

• Groundwater Use Restrictions;

• Hydraulic Containment Using Vertical Extraction Wells; and

• Use As Non-Contact Cooling Water.

The target cleanup levels established in the 2006 OU02 ROD are presented in Table 2.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite (OU03, OU06, OU11)

In 1987, a separate area of soil contaminated with 1,1,1-TCA was found at the Subsite (OU11). A ROD
for OU11 was signed by the EPA in September 1990, in which NFA was selected for the 1,1,1-TCA soil
contamination. The EPA entered an AOC with Morrison Enterprises in June 1996 to perform a
groundwater Remedial Action for OU06.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Remedial Action Objectives

On September 30, 1988, the EPA signed a ROD selecting SVE as the technology to address the
commercial grain fumigant contamination in soils (OU03) at the FAR-MAR-CO Subsite. In January
1992, Farmland Industries Inc. agreed to design a full-scale SVE system. In August 1995, an
Explanation of Significant Differences to the ROD was issued by the EPA to extend the SVE operation
as a measure to mitigate the migration of groundwater contamination leaving the source area. Farmland
Industries Inc. and the current owner of the Subsite, Cooperative Producers, Inc., entered a Consent
Decree with the EPA which required that they perform source control using SVE.

In 2007, the EPA signed a ROD for OU06 selecting enhanced in situ bioremediation, continued
extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater, and additional groundwater monitoring as the
final Remedial Action. The RAO for OU06 is as follows:

• Attain MCLs for the COCs in the groundwater migrating from the Subsite. The remedial
alternatives to be evaluated will focus on an area of attainment for the Subsite, comprised of the
zone where current water quality data establish the presence of 1,2-dibromomethane (EDB) and
CT emanating from the Subsite above the MCLs. Overall, the final remedy selected will be
protective of human health and the environment and follow ARARs and the AOC.

RAOs will be met when MCLs for the COCs are achieved in the OU06 plume.

The major components of the remedy selected in the final September 2007 ROD include the following:

-------
• Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation near the Source Zone;

• Groundwater Extraction at Well D;

• Treatment and Disposal at Industrial Facility; and

• Expanded Monitoring Program.

The target cleanup levels established in the final OU6 ROD are presented in Table 2.

South Landfill Subsite (OU05)

In response to a release or a substantial threat of a release of hazardous substances at or from the
Subsite, the EPA conducted the Remedial Investigation for the Subsite and issued the Remedial
Investigation Report on December 27, 1996. In 1998, the City, Dravo, and Dutton-Lainson prepared a
Feasibility Study; the EPA prepared an addendum to the Feasibility Study in June 2000. An ecological
risk assessment was not performed because of the absence of surface exposure threats to ecological
receptors (EPA, 2000).

South Landfill Subsite Remedial Action Objectives

The final ROD was executed on September 28, 2000, with NDEE concurrence. The RAOs in the ROD
are as follows:

• Restore the aquifer to drinking water standards within a reasonable (20-year) time-frame;

• Control landfill surface water runoff and erosion;

• Reduce or eliminate further contamination of groundwater; and

• Minimize or eliminate contaminant migration to groundwater and surface water to levels that
ensure the beneficial reuse of the resources.

The selected remedy consists of the following:

• Surface water controls and a geosynthetic clay liner (or alternative) cap for soil and landfill
contents; and

• Groundwater use restrictions and MNA for groundwater.

The target cleanup levels established in the final OU05 ROD are presented in Table 2.

Area-Wide Hastings Site (OU19)

An Area-Wide FS was completed in November 2000. The FS evaluated environmental conditions and
proposed active and completed remedial measures on a site-wide basis, to ensure that the Area-Wide
remedy is consistent with the various actions that have already been implemented at the Subsites. The
Area-Wide Hastings Site is not a Subsite; rather it is an area established to protect potential receptors
from unacceptable risks posed by the contaminated groundwater emanating from the six Subsites in the
Central Industrial Area, the Commercial Area, and Closed City Landfills.

The EPA has entered AOCs and Consent Decrees at the North Landfill, South Landfill, Well No. 3, and
FAR-MAR-CO Subsites and has issued UAOs to the PRPs at the Colorado Avenue Subsite.

-------
Area-Wide Hastings Site Remedial Action Objectives

An interim ROD was issued by the EPA on June 22, 2001, with NDEE concurrence. The RAOs in the

ROD are as follows:

•	Prevent the ingestion of groundwater that exceeds MCLs, or the lxlO"6 excess cancer risk level
or a HI of 1;

•	Provide containment of groundwater that exceeds the MCL or lxlO"6 target cleanup goals to
protect against further degradation of the groundwater;

•	Reduce the mass of contaminants within the groundwater containment area; and

•	Restore the aquifer to full beneficial use within a reasonable time frame.

The selected remedy is as follows:

•	Domestic groundwater use restrictions to prevent the installation of drinking water wells in the
contaminated area;

•	Installation of warning signs to advise the public that the water in the area may not meet public
drinking water standards;

•	Monitoring compliance with groundwater use restrictions to prevent unacceptable exposures;

•	Inventory all existing groundwater wells to identify all domestic, irrigation, industrial and
monitoring wells in the ICA;

•	Provide an alternate source of water for domestic use to any residences currently relying on
private wells within the ICA that are impacted by contamination attributable to the Hastings
Sub sites;

•	A groundwater monitoring program which will include periodic groundwater sampling of
selected wells identified in the areas of contamination and downgradient from the contamination
zones to identify the extent of the plumes and potential downgradient water users who may be at
risk; and

•	Preparation of an annual report which summarizes the activities occurring, compiles all the
monitoring data collected, evaluates the effectiveness of plume containment measures, evaluates
the effectiveness of the groundwater use restriction in preventing exposure, and evaluates the
need for additional actions to control unacceptable exposures.

The ICA established as a component of the remedy encompasses all source areas and contaminant

plumes emanating from the six Subsites in the Central Industrial Area, the Commercial Area, and

Closed City Landfills.

The target cleanup levels are established in the RODs for each Subsite and are summarized in Table 2.

Status of Implementation

Institutional controls which have been implemented at the Site are summarized in Table 3 below.

13

-------
Table 3. Summary of Implemented ICs

Mcrii.i

IC s
Needed

IC sC idled Coi-
in (lie Decision
Documents

lni|>;ic(cd
P:irccl(s)

Ohjeclixe

l ille of IC InslriiineiH
Implanon led ;ind l);i(e
(or pliinned)

Groundwater

Yes

Area-Wide

Domestic groundwater

use restriction, well
drilling restriction, and
public warning signs
around the ICA.

Area-Wide Consent
Decree (Civil Action No.
8:03-cv-531), 8/14/2003
and city of Hastings City
Ordinance #3754,
11/13/2000

Soils

Yes

Second
Street
Subsite

Limit property use to
commercial only
through an
environmental
covenant.

Amendment to the ROD
for Second Street
Subsite OU12,
September 2008

Well No. 3 Subsite (OU07, OU13, OU17, OU18)

In May 2001, the EPA released the final ROD for the Well No. 3 Subsite, selecting No Further Action
(NFA) for OU07, OU17, and OU13. No additional discussion of remediation at these OUs will be
included in this document.

For the OU18 (Plume 2), the 2001 ROD selected continuation of the Plume 1 remedy at the former
decommissioned City well (M-3). The EPA and Dutton-Lainson signed a Consent Decree to perform the
work. Dutton-Lainson began operating the groundwater extraction system in May 2003, and initiated
groundwater monitoring in June 2003. Target VOC concentrations at M-3 were consistently below
MCLs while the groundwater extraction was operating. In 2014, extraction at M-3 was discontinued as
part of a pilot shutdown study to evaluate its impact on groundwater concentrations in OU18 (Plume 2).
As of January 2022, semiannual groundwater sampling continues, but well M-3 remains shut down
because contaminant concentrations have continued to decrease.

Colorado Avenue Subsite (OU01, OU09)

OU09

Construction of the Phase I SVE (Figure 5) system began in 1995, and the system began operating in
July 1996. Dravo installed the shallow Phase II SVE wells in 2007; however due to an arson fire on
September 29, 2007, the SVE system was rendered inoperable. Dravo installed a replacement SVE
system in 2009, comprised of both Phase I and Phase II SVE wells. The replacement system was
revised to combine areas containing similar levels of residual contamination into treatment zones. The
goal of the revision was to allow areas near completion to be closed efficiently and focus treatment on
those areas with higher residual contamination. After meeting performance goals, with EPA approval,
the OU09 SVE system was shut down on November 15, 2017, and decommissioned on December 12
and 13, 2017. All facilities were removed from the Subsite.

-------
OUOl

In January 1996, Dravo proposed a plan to install a small-scale air-sparging pilot test. The EPA agreed
to allow the pilot test to proceed before requiring implementation of the pump-and-treat system for
OUOl. After completion of this work in 1998, Dravo requested and was granted an amendment by the
EPA to the 1991 Interim Action ROD. This allowed the PRPs to perform the interim action using newer
technologies, including air stripping and IWA.

In 1999, the Phase I and Phase II groundwater treatment wells were installed. These systems were
designed to treat the most contaminated portion of the groundwater plume. The Phase I system
consisted of three air-sparging wells but was never operated. The Phase II treatment system consisted
of three IWA wells and began operating in December 1999 (IWA 1 thru 3). The system was formally
closed in August 2010. IWA-1 and IWA-2 were abandoned in December 2010 while IWA-3 was
abandoned in July 2011. The Phase III treatment systems began operating in November 2002 and
included three IWA wells (IWA-4, -5, and -6) in the north and one IWA well (IWA-7) in the south.

In 2012, the EPA accepted Dravo's statement that the IWA systems had achieved the interim
performance standards as set forth in the Consent Decree, and that the on-site active treatment phase of
the OUOl RA was concluded. The EPA directed Dravo to proceed with the post-treatment monitoring.
The monitoring consists of routine annual sampling and laboratory analysis procedures essentially
consistent with the previous semi-annual groundwater sampling program conducted for OUOl. The
IWA system was closed and removed April 2016.

A Phase IV investigation was conducted in 2011 to complete plume delineation efforts. In 2013, based
on the investigation, five nested wells were installed downgradient of the Subsite completing plume
delineation. In October 2013, a Consent Decree was signed to complete a Compilation and Evaluation
Report, Ecological Risk Assessment, Remedial Investigation Report, and a Feasibility Study. The
completion of these documents led to the final ROD being signed in 2020.

On July 9, 2018, Dravo Corporation notified the EPA that it had converted to an LLC and dissolved
under Pennsylvania law. The last sampling event conducted by Dravo for OUOl under the 2006 Consent
Decree was in August 2020. Dravo informed the EPA on April 2, 2022, that due to the dissolution, it
would be unable to continue to conduct annual sampling. The EPA intends to continue sampling in the
fall of 2022.

Second Street Subsite (OU12, OU20)

In 1995, the EPA approved a Removal Action Memorandum for the Second Street Subsite. The
remedies outlined in the Action Memorandum included the following actions:

• SVE followed by conversion of this system to bioventing; and

• Pumping and treating groundwater at the groundwater extraction and treatment system (GETS).
Operation of the GETS and SVE system began in 1996.

The interim ROD for OU20, signed in 2003, included continued operation of the existing remedial
treatment systems, in situ bioremediation treatment using oxygen-release chemical (ORC), and
groundwater extraction and treatment. The first in situ ORC treatment to enhance bioremediation was

-------
completed in November 2005, followed by annual treatment with groundwater monitoring to evaluate
effectiveness.

NDEE took over Long Term Remedial Action activities from the EPA in June 2017. The SVE and IWA
systems were shut down shortly after the transfer. Upon direction from NDEE, the GETS was
permanently shut down on May 28, 2021, for fluid and media removal and disposal in initial preparation
for the GETS demolition and OU12 thermal remediation.

Excavation and thermal treatment of soils in Areas 1, 3, and 4 of the source zones were completed in
May 2011 by the EPA. The excavation activities removed contaminated soils and source materials
above the remedial goals identified in the 2008 ROD amendment. In Area 1, the excavation was
completed to the maximum 20-foot depth specified in the ROD amendment, but COCs remain above
groundwater protection levels below 20 feet. A review of the data collected below 20 feet showed the
remaining COC levels were approximately an order of magnitude lower than the maximum levels
detected in Area 1. In Areas 3 and 4 excavations were completed to the base of the gas holder located in
these areas. Excavated soils were thermally treated and met all remediation goals of the ROD.

North Landfill Subsite (OU02, OU10)

In the fall of 1998, the PRPs began constructing landfill improvements at OU10, which were completed
in the summer of 1999. The design process for groundwater (OU02) was suspended by the EPA to allow
the City and Dutton-Lainson to participate in a Remedial Action for the downgradient groundwater
operable unit at the FAR-MAR-CO Subsite. The groundwater contamination originating from the FAR-
MAR-CO Subsite has commingled with groundwater contamination emanating from the North Landfill
Subsite. The EPA negotiated agreements with both parties to complete a final FS for groundwater
remediation in 2005. The PRPs also conducted quarterly vadose zone monitoring for eight quarters to
determine if the landfill continues to be a source of VOCs to the aquifer. The results of this monitoring
indicated that the landfill is not currently the major source of TCE contamination. Performance
standards were met for groundwater (OU02) in 2017 and quarterly groundwater monitoring ceased.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite (OU03, OU06, OU11)

The SVE system was installed for source control (OU03) during the fall of 1997 with startup in
November 1997. The period of extended operation was initiated in May 2000 and was completed in
2003. The SVE system was removed once sampling verified the attainment of the performance
standards.

Construction and installation of the OU06 groundwater extraction system (Well D) began in December
1996. Pumping of groundwater to control the CT and EDB plume began in July 1997 and continues. In
2007, the EPA issued a ROD selecting enhanced in-situ bioremediation, continued extraction and
treatment of contaminated groundwater, and additional groundwater monitoring as the final RA. The
EPA anticipated that it would take 40 to 45 years to restore the aquifer to MCLs based on the 2007
ROD. The EPA and the PRP, in consultation with NDEE, negotiated a Consent Decree in June 2008 to
develop the final remedial design at the Subsite. The EPA approved the PRP's remedial design
document in April 2010.

-------
South Landfill Subsite (OU05)

The EPA negotiated a Consent Decree with the PRPs, and remedial design work began in 2004. The
EPA and NDEE reviewed the PRPs' alternative landfill cover study and agreed that an
evapotranspiration cover could be implemented as the landfill cap for the South Landfill Subsite. An
evapotranspiration landfill cap was installed in 2005. A methane investigation was also conducted in
2005.

The PRPs conducted additional groundwater investigation activities to monitor plume configuration and
support the evaluation of MNA for groundwater. Studies to define the extent of the South Landfill
Subsite plume were conducted in phases, and the PRPs submitted a Monitored Natural Attenuation
Evaluation Report to the Agencies in 2017. The agencies noted that MNA did not appear capable of
achieving MCLs within the 20-year period established in the ROD (that is, by 2020) or of preventing
plume migration, and requested predictive fate and transport groundwater modeling and further
evaluation of remedial options. Using a more robust data set than was available at the time of the ROD,
the PRPs produced a Focused Feasibility Study with predictive fate and transport groundwater
modeling. Modeling results indicating that MNA would take 60 to 80 years to restore groundwater to
drinking water standards under MNA. The PRP study did not find significant improvement by the other
remedial measures evaluated.

The EPA Office of Research and Development is presently supporting the EPA Region 7 in identifying
remedial issues and opportunities for improvement, such as enhancements to the evapotranspiration cap.

Area-Wide Hastings Site (OU19)

The city of Hastings implemented components of the remedy, including the ICA, through City
Ordinance No. 3754, conducting sampling and testing of private wells, and prepared the annual ICA
reports. As shown in Table 4, the ICA is an institutional control which restricts domestic groundwater
use and well drilling within areas impacted by the six Subsites in the Central Industrial Area, the
Commercial Area, and Closed City Landfills. Public warning signs are located around the perimeter of
the ICA. The EPA and the Area-Wide PRP Group completed a Consent Decree to facilitate full-scale
implementation of the remedy. The Area-Wide PRP Group initiated work efforts in 2004 and completed
its first annual ICA groundwater report in early 2005. Monitoring the quality of the groundwater and
privately-owned drinking water wells is a part of the site remedy currently being performed by the
PRPs. The ICA extends to areas east of the city, and the water quality data are useful for tracking the
advancement of the contaminant plumes.

System Operation/Operation and Maintenance

Well No. 3 Subsite (OU07, OU13, OU17, OU18)

Pumping at extraction well M-3 ceased on September 2, 2014, as part of a two-year pilot study shut
down. As of January 2022, semiannual groundwater sampling continues, but well M-3 remains shut
down because contaminant concentrations have continued to decrease.

Colorado Avenue Subsite (OU01, OU09)

The OU09 SVE system was shut down in November 2017 and decommissioned in December 2017 after
meeting performance goals.

-------
The OUOl Phase III IWA system was placed in stand-by mode in the summer of 2012 and the wells
were abandoned in April 2016 after meeting performance goals (Figure 5).

Second Street Subsite (OU12, OU20)

O&M activities for the GETS were transferred to NDEE in June 2017. Although the GETS consisted of
three extraction wells (MW-09, EXW-01, and EXW-03), ultimately only extraction well MW-09 was
operated. This was due to it being the only well that was optimally located and screened within the
contaminant plume. The GETS was permanently shut down on May 28, 2021, for fluid and media
removal and disposal in initial preparation for the GETS demolition and OU12 thermal remediation.

O&M activities for the SVE and IWA systems were transferred from the EPA to NDEE in 2017. Both
systems were shut down shortly after the transfer.

The in situ bioremediation O&M activities consist of injecting an oxygen-releasing chemical annually.
Per NDEE staff, the annual injections continue as of 2021.

North Landfill Subsite (OU02, OU10)

Reports documenting the maintenance and/or inspection of the landfill cap at the North Landfill were
submitted annually. No issues were identified in the reports or during the FYR inspection.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite (OU03, OU06, OU11)

Well D is operated in part by the city, and forms part of the final remedy for the North Landfill Subsite.
Both routine maintenance and regular (monthly) monitoring of Well D are required. As per the fifth
Modification to the Statement of Work to the Consent Decree between the EPA and the Settling
Defendants (March 2018), Morrison Enterprises' obligation to ensure continued operation of WEC-D
was terminated. Wells designated for secondary containment, IN-05 and IN-11, are neither owned nor
operated by the PRP.

South Landfill Subsite (OU05)

Reports documenting the maintenance and/or inspection of the landfill cap at the South Landfill were
submitted annually. No issues were identified in the reports or during the FYR inspection.

Area-Wide Hastings Site (OU19)

O&M activities within the ICA are conducted by the Area-Wide PRP Group, coordinated by the city.
Activities include gathering information on wells, including ownership and construction details for wells
located within and adjacent to the ICA, data compilation and reporting, inspection of signage,
monitoring well maintenance and installation, and public education.

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW

This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the last five-year review,
recommendations from the last five-year review and the current status of those recommendations.

-------
Table 4: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2017 FYR

Sub site

Protectiveness

Protectiveness Statement

OU#

Determination

Well No. 3
18

Short-term Protective

The implemented remedy at OU 18 currently protects human
health and the environment because ICs are in place to prevent
potential exposure to site contaminants and remedies
implemented to date have reduced contaminant concentrations.
To ensure the remedy will be protective in the long term it is
recommended that groundwater be sampled for 1,4-dioxane. The
northern portion of the OU 18 plume needs to be investigated to
ensure nature and extent of contamination are understood.

Colorado Avenue
01

Will be Protective

The remedy currently protects human health and the
environment because ICs are in place restricting well drilling
and preventing unacceptable use of contaminated groundwater.
To be protective in the long term, the remedy for the
groundwater plume should be implemented as described in the
ROD.

Colorado Avenue
09

Protective

The remedy is protective of human health and the
environment.

Second Street
12

Protective

The remedy is protective of human health and the
environment.

Second Street
20

Protective

The remedy is protective of human health and the
environment.

North Landfill
02

Protective

The remedy is protective of human health and the
environment.

North Landfill
10

Protective

The remedy is protective of human health and the
environment.

FAR-MAR-CO

06

Short-term Protective

The implemented remedy at OU6 currently protects human
health and the environment because ICs are in place to prevent
potential exposure to site contaminants. For the remedy to be
protective in the long term, a capture zone analysis needs to be
performed to determine if the extraction and treatment system is
properly designed and operated.

South Landfill
05

Protectiveness Deferred

A protectiveness determination of the remedy at OU05 cannot
be made at this time until further information is obtained.

Further information will be obtained by taking the following
action: evaluate vapor intrusion pathway of houses within 100
feet of the groundwater plume. It is expected this action will take
approximately two years to complete, at which time a
protectiveness determination will be made.

Area-Wide
19

Protective

The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

19

-------
Table 5: Status of Recommendations from the 2017 FYR

Subsite

OU#

Issue

Recommendations

Current
Status

Current Implementation
Status Description

Completion

Date (if
applicable)

Well
No. 3
18

Potential presence of 1,4-
dioxane in groundwater
due to the presence of
1,1,1-TCA

Sample for 1,4-
dioxane

Completed

1,4-dioxane was sampled
at wells IAS-2 and IAS-4;
both samples were non-
detect.

8/12/2020

Well
No. 3
18

Based on detections of
TCE above the MCL in
CW-8, BW-17, and BW-
18, it is possible that the
northern portion of the
plume is not being
captured or that another
source exists.

The northern portion
of the plume should
be further evaluated.

Completed

This was evaluated in the
Conceptual Site Model
using data from various
investigations.

2/4/2020

Well
No. 3
18

The remedy called for
continued operation of
well M-3 until remedial
action objectives were
met. A shutdown pilot of
well M-3 for nearly three
years has not resulted in
a change of Site
conditions but may be
outside the scope of the
ROD. Adoption of MNA
as the remedy may be
appropriate, given the
lack of COC rebound in
associated monitoring
wells, but further
evaluation is necessary.

An evaluation of the
ROD should be
undertaken to
determine what
administrative steps
are needed to
accommodate possible
continued

nonoperation of well
M-3.

Completed

Target VOC
concentrations at M-3
were consistently below
MCLs while the
groundwater extraction
was operating. Even with
M-3 shutdown, VOC
concentrations at other
wells continued to decline
to the point that only one
monitoring well has
detections slightly above
MCLs. Based on this
information the EPA
determined no further
action is warranted at the
Subsite other than
continued monitoring.

2/28/2022

South
Landfill
05

The South Landfill
Plume is longer than
previously understood.

Fully evaluate the
extent of the South
Landfill Plume and
reexamine
effectiveness of
natural attenuation
remedy and plume
stability. If it is
determined the plume
is not stable,
additional remedial
action should be
evaluated.

Ongoing

The PRPs completed
MNA Evaluation and
Strategy reports in 2017
and 2018, as well as a
Focused Feasibility Study
with predictive
groundwater monitoring
and a Revised Focused
Feasibility Study in 2019
and 2020. The EPA ORD
is evaluating enhancement
of existing remedial
components.



South
Landfill
05

Although most of this
plume underlies
agricultural fields,
additional vapor
intrusion sampling (e.g.,
sub-slab vapor, indoor
air) may be warranted at

Perform a vapor
intrusion evaluation

Completed

Further evaluation of
existing information was
performed. It was
determined that no
residences are within 100
lateral feet of the plume
adjacent to the source area.



20

-------
Subsite

OU#

Issue

Recommendations

Current
Status

Current Implementation
Status Description

Completion

Date (if
applicable)



residences within 100
lateral feet of TCE in
shallow groundwater at
concentrations exceeding
the modeled groundwater
target concentration for
vapor intrusion (140
Hg/L).





Further, groundwater is
more than 100 feet below
ground surface, and VI
work at the nearby Garvey
Elevator site and Former
NAD Subsite presented no
evidence of a significant
VI risk.



FAR-
MAR-
CO
06

Capture zone analysis
has not been performed.
It is unknown whether
the system is properly
designed and operated.

Conduct periodic
capture zone analyses
for relevant extraction
wells, including Well
D and WEC Wells A,
B, C, E and F to better
demonstrate
containment.

Completed

A capture zone analysis
was completed. It found
that the six groundwater
monitoring locations
which remain in the FAR-
MAR-CO Subsite
monitoring program were
within the estimated
hydraulic capture zone
produced by site extraction
wells.

February 7,
2021

IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Community Notification & Site Interviews

A public notice was made available by a newspaper posting in the Hastings Tribune on 8/28/2021,
stating that there was a five-year review and inviting the public to submit any comments to the EPA. No
public comments were received for evaluation and inclusion in this FYR.

During the FYR process, interviews were conducted for Subsites to document any perceived problems
or successes with the remedy that has been implemented to date. The results of these interviews are
summarized by Subsite below.

Well No. 3 Subsite

Two interviews were conducted for the Well No. 3 Subsite. No specific concerns related to the remedy
were noted by either person interviewed, which included a representative from the NDEE (Wade
Gregson) and the Project Manager (Tina Llyod) from Arcadis who is the PRP's consultant.

Second Street Subsite

Two interviews were conducted one with the city of Hastings Environmental Director (Marty Stange)
and the other a representative from NDEE (Scott Summerside) were completed for the Second Street
Subsite. The NDEE representative noted that it was difficult to assess current effectiveness of the
remedy in OU12 since implementation of in-situ thermal treatment was planned for 2022. He noted that
the annual injection of ORC for OU20 was effective. He also recommended a review of the remedial
action objectives for OU12 upon completion of the in-situ thermal treatment. The Environmental
Director with the City did not express any concerns about the subsite but would like to be kept abreast of
project operations including receiving reports.

21

-------
Colorado Avenue Subsite

Two interviews were conducted for the Colorado Avenue Subsite: one with a representative of the
NDEE (Jim Borovich) and the other a Project Manager (Brian Steffes) from Michael Baker Inc., who is
the PRP's consultant. The Project Manager did not have any concerns regarding the project. The NDEE
representative noted that the Subsite was in an indeterminate state due to the responsible party's
corporate dissolution. Due to the dissolution, the PRP did not perform the most recent annual
groundwater sampling and the final remedial design has not been completed.

North Landfill

A representative of the NDEE (Jim Borovich) was interviewed for the North Landfill and did not note
any changes from the last FYR.

FAR-MAR-CO

A representative of the NDEE (Jim Borovich) and from the consultant (Harvey Cohen) were interviewed
for the FAR-MAR-CO Subsite. Both indicated that there were no significant changes since the last FYR
and that the Subsite was in long-term monitoring.

South Landfill

A representative from the NDEE (Scott Summerside) was interviewed for the South Landfill Site. The
NDEE representative noted that decreasing data trends were debatable based on Agency technical
review comments and responses on the Focused Feasibility Study.

Data Review

The Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site consists of seven Subsites as shown on Figure 1.
Groundwater data was only collected from four of the Sites during the previous five years: Well No. 3,
Colorado Avenue, Second Street, and FAR-MAR-Co. The other Subsites (North Landfill, South
Landfill) are not included in this data review.

Groundwater at the Site generally flows from west to east. At Colorado Avenue the most widespread
contaminants are PCE and TCE, which extends from the western edge to the eastern edge of the Subsite.
Figure 4 includes a plume map of the TCE and PCE concentrations site wide. The Second Street Subsite
includes benzene (Figure 10) and naphthalene (Figure 9) plumes, and the FAR-MAR-CO includes
carbon tetrachloride and ethyl bromide plumes, which are discussed in subsequent sections. During the
previous five years, remedial groundwater extraction was limited to the GETS at the Second Street
Subsite and the six Whelan Energy industrial wells. The Whelan Energy wells provide hydraulic
containment of contaminated groundwater associated with the Colorado Avenue and nearby subsites.
Extracted groundwater is applied as non-contact cooling water at the power plant, which volatilizes the
VOCs. Irrigation wells may also affect groundwater distribution seasonally across the Site.

Data review for each Subsite considered multiple lines of evidence as available, including the site
conceptual model, Subsite remedial status, and environmental data (e.g., long term changes in well
concentrations and plume distribution, as well as recent trends). Statistical analysis of environmental

-------
data (Appendix G) from the FYR period was conducted for all data sets with detects of at least half the
cleanup level, using current EPA software (Statistical Software ProUCL 5.1.00 for Environmental
Applications for Data Sets with and without Non-detect Observations). A confidence level of 95% was
applied to identify statistically significant trends.

Well No. 3 Subsite (OU18)

Groundwater sampling at the Well No. 3 Subsite has been conducted on a semiannual basis at a network
of five monitoring wells during this FYR period (Figure 4). The limited number of wells reflects the
limited lateral and vertical extent of remaining groundwater contamination. Historically sampled wells
that are no longer sampled continue to be gauged to verify groundwater flow conditions. For this
Subsite, data review focused on available VOC groundwater data from Spring 2017 through Winter
2021 (Arcadis, 2022). Of the primary contaminants of concern, only PCE and TCE were detected and
only TCE was detected at concentrations exceeding cleanup levels.

During the FYR period, two monitoring wells had TCE detections exceeding the cleanup level (5 |ig/L):
CW-8 and BW-17S (Arcadis, 2022). Detections in these two wells were stable over this period. The
most elevated TCE detection—17.8 |ig/L in March 2019—was detected at well BW-17S directly
downgradient of the Well No. 3 Subsite boundary. By December 2021, the TCE concentration at well
BW-17S had dropped to 2.5 |ig/L (duplicate sample 2.9 |ig/L), but concentrations were too variable to
indicate a significant decreasing trend. TCE was non-detect in the corresponding intermediate well,
indicating no vertical shift in concentration. TCE concentrations in downgradient Colorado Avenue
Subsite well IAS-4 were evaluated to ensure contamination was not continuing to migrate laterally at
concentrations exceeding cleanup levels. Because well IAS-4 is sampled annually, TCE data were only
available for June 2021. The June 2021 TCE concentration at well IAS-4 was an estimated 0.64 |ig/L,
below the laboratory reporting limit and Subsite cleanup level.

The previous FYR recommended adding 1,4-dioxane to the Well No. 3 analyte list because it commonly
occurs with 1,1,1-TCA. Although concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA have attenuated below the cleanup level,
the concern was that 1,4-dioxane may be more persistent in groundwater. Because 1,4-dioxane migrates
rapidly in groundwater (EPA, 2017), this contaminant, if present, would likely be found in the
downgradient reaches of the Well No. 3 contamination plume. Since the Colorado Avenue Subsite is
directly downgradient of the Well No. 3 Subsite and the chlorinated VOC plumes appear to overlap
slightly, 1,4-dioxane results in existing annual groundwater monitoring data from the Colorado Avenue
Subsite were evaluated first. Detections of 1,4-dioxane in the Colorado Avenue data set were located
within the core of the Colorado Avenue plume, and 1,4-dioxane was not detected in more upgradient
portions of the Colorado Avenue plume (e.g., IAS-2, IAS-4) (e.g., Michael Baker, 2020). Based on these
data, the Well No. 3 Subsite does not appear to be a contributing source of 1,4-dioxane. As such, 1,4-
dioxane analysis was not added at the Well No. 3 Subsite.

Colorado Avenue Subsite (OU01)

During the FYR period, groundwater sampling at the Colorado Avenue Subsite has been conducted
annually from a network of 17 post-treatment monitoring wells, with four of these wells being sampled
from two intervals each (Figure 5). In 2020, this number was reduced when single-interval well BW-13
was damaged and could not be sampled. During the previous FYR, MW-2 also had been sampled but
had to be abandoned in 2016. Active remediation in the Source Area ended in 2016 and post-treatment
monitoring of the Source Area has been ongoing since. For this Subsite, data review focused on

-------
available VOC groundwater data from 2017 through 2020 (Michael Baker, 2020). Because robust
statistical analysis is not well supported by the four rounds of post-treatment groundwater data available,
statistics continue to consider eight rounds of groundwater data. Noteworthy changes specific to the
FYR period (after discontinuation of treatment) are acknowledged. Of the primary site contaminants of
concern, PCE and TCE were detected at concentrations exceeding cleanup levels.

PCE: During the FYR period, 12 well locations (12 out of 20 sampled intervals) had PCE detections
exceeding the cleanup level (5 |ig/L). The most elevated PCE detection—34 |ig/L in 2018—was
detected at well BW-14 (150'), located downgradient of the Colorado Avenue Subsite source area but in
the near-source portion of the associated groundwater contamination plume. This groundwater
contamination plume has shifted downgradient toward the six WEC industrial cooling water wells,
which ultimately are expected to capture and volatilize any contaminants of concern that persist in the
downgradient reaches of the plume (see Figure 6). By May 2021, concentrations in well BW-14 (150')
dropped to an estimated 0.4 |ig/L, no significant concentration trend was noted. Other near-source and
downgradient monitoring wells had decreasing or no significant concentration trends, except for well
GM-1D (160'). PCE concentrations in well GM-1D increased from an estimated 0.97 |ig/L in 2013 to
34 |ig/L in 2020, potentially reflecting a shift of the plume core toward the WEC extraction wells.

TCE: During the FYR period, 12 well locations (13 out of 20 sampled intervals) had PCE detections
exceeding the cleanup level (5 |ig/L). The most elevated TCE detection—31 |ig/L in 2017—was
detected at well GM-1D (160'), located downgradient of the Colorado Avenue Subsite source area but in
the near-source portion of the associated groundwater contamination plume. By May 2021,
concentrations in well GM-1D (160') dropped to 15 |ig/L, with a decreasing concentration trend. Other
near-source and downgradient monitoring wells had decreasing or no significant concentration trends.
The WEC extraction wells are ultimately expected to capture and volatilize any contaminants of concern
that persist in the downgradient reaches of the plume (see Figure 6).

Second Street Subsite (OU20)

Groundwater sampling was conducted on a semiannual basis at a network of 25 monitoring wells. For
this Subsite, data review focused on available VOC and PAH groundwater data from Spring 2017
through Spring 2021 (Olsson, 2021). Of the contaminants of concern associated with the former
manufactured gas plant, four (naphthalene, benzene, toluene, styrene) exceeded their cleanup levels
during the FYR period. PCE and TCE also were detected at concentrations above cleanup levels, but
these are not Second Street Subsite contaminants of concern and reflect overlap by other groundwater
contamination plumes (e.g., Colorado Avenue Subsite).

During the FYR period, seven monitoring wells had naphthalene detections exceeding the cleanup level
(1.1 |ig/L) (Olsson, 2021). Detections in these wells were stable or decreasing over this period. The most
elevated naphthalene detection—22,000 |ig/L in April 2017—was detected at well EMW-06,
immediately downgradient edge of the source area and treatment component. By May 2021,
concentrations in well EMW-06 had dropped to 10,100 |ig/L, but no significantly decreasing
concentration trend was noted. Concentrations at MW-09 and PZ-01 in the source area were decreasing.
Naphthalene plume maps from 2017 and 2021 were available for comparison as an additional line of
evidence that the contamination plume is stable or shrinking (Figure 9). Reductions in the extent and
concentration of the naphthalene plume indicate that PAHs in groundwater have been contained and are
being remediated.

-------
During the FYR period, eight monitoring wells had benzene detections exceeding the cleanup level (5
|ig/L) (Olsson, 2021). Detections of benzene were stable or decreasing over this period. The most
elevated benzene detection—2,590 |ig/L in June 2018—was detected at well HWS-11 between the
source area and the downgradient Pine Avenue in situ treatment "fence." By May 2021, concentrations
in well HWS-11 dropped an order of magnitude, to 231 |ig/L; however, variability in this well is such
that no significant decreasing concentration was noted. No significant concentration increases were
noted in downgradient wells. Benzene plume maps from 2017 and 2021 were available for comparison
as an additional line of evidence that the benzene contamination plume is stable or shrinking (Figure
10). Reductions in the extent and concentration of the benzene plume indicate that site-related VOCs in
groundwater have been contained and are being remediated.

During the FYR period, two monitoring wells had toluene detections exceeding the cleanup level (1,000
|ig/L) (Olsson, 2021). Detections of toluene were stable or decreasing over this period. The most
elevated toluene detection—3,530 |ig/L in June 2018—was detected at well HWS-11 between the
source area and the downgradient Pine Avenue in situ treatment "fence." By May 2021, concentrations
in well HWS-11 dropped an order of magnitude, to 57.3 |ig/L, without significant concentration
increases in downgradient wells.

Although no monitoring wells had ethylbenzene detections exceeding the cleanup level (700 |ig/L)
(Olsson, 2021), one well had a notable increase in concentrations. Detections of ethylbenzene were
stable or decreasing over this period, except at SW-10S, where concentrations increased from non-detect
in 2017 and 2018 to 56.2 |ig/L in May 2021. The Spring 2021 semiannual groundwater monitoring
report attributes increasing concentrations at SW-10S to plume redistribution with the discontinuation of
the IWA system on June 5, 2017. When the IWA system was operating, the plume was pulled
downward to the pump intake through the deep screen and the treated water was released through the
shallow screen at the water table.

During the FYR period, four monitoring wells had styrene detections exceeding the cleanup level (100
|ig/L) (Olsson, 2021). Detections in these wells were stable or decreasing over this period. The most
elevated styrene detection—3,800 |ig/L in April 2017—was detected at well EMW-06, immediately
downgradient edge of the source area and treatment component. By May 2021, concentrations in well
EMW-06 had dropped to 2,720 |ig/L, but no significantly decreasing concentration trend was noted.
Concentrations at MW-09 and PZ-01 in the source area were decreasing.

During the FYR period, PCE detections exceeded the cleanup level (5 |ig/L) in twelve monitoring wells,
at least three of which were identified as associated with the Colorado Avenue Subsite (Olsson, 2021).
Detections in these wells were stable or decreasing over this period. The most elevated PCE detection—
162 |ig/L in November 2017—was detected at well MW-09, in the source area and treatment
component. By May 2021, concentrations in well MW-06 had dropped to an estimated 24.7 |ig/L, with a
significantly decreasing concentration trend. It is noted that PCE concentrations in SW-05I moved from
non-detect in April 2017 (and prior) to 28.1 |ig/L in November 2017 and then generally stabilized. The
Spring 2021 semiannual groundwater monitoring report attributes this to vertical plume redistribution
with the discontinuation of the IWA system on June 5, 2017, as described above.

During the FYR period, TCE detections exceeded the cleanup level (5 |ig/L) in eleven monitoring wells,
at least three of which were identified as associated with the Colorado Avenue Subsite (Olsson, 2021).
The most elevated TCE detection—66.7 |ig/L in November 2017—was detected at well EXW-03, in the
source area and treatment component. By May 2021, concentrations in well EXW-03 had dropped to 1.5

-------
|ig/L, with a significantly decreasing concentration trend. Concentrations in downgradient areas also
were stable or decreasing, except in HWS-08, located downgradient of the Second Street Subsite source
area and the Foote Oil UST site. The Spring 2021 semiannual groundwater monitoring report associates
this well with the Colorado Avenue Subsite. TCE concentrations in HSW-08 increased from 7.8 |ig/L in
November 2017 to 39.1 |ig/L in May 2021. It is noted that TCE concentrations in SW-05I moved from
non-detect in April 2017 (and prior) to 5.5 |ig/L in November 2017 and then generally stabilized. The
Spring 2021 semiannual groundwater monitoring report attributes this to vertical plume redistribution
with the discontinuation of the IWA system on June 5, 2017, as described above.

North Landfill (OU02, OU10)

During the FYR period, two quarterly groundwater sampling events were completed in 2017. The
responsible parties submitted a Work Completion Report and Remedial Action Completion Report in

2017 and revised these in response to the EPA comments in 2018 (Arcadis, 2017, 2018). The EPA
agreed that Consent Decree performance standards had been achieved at the North Landfill Subsite. No
further monitoring or data review has been conducted specific to this Subsite. Because multiple Subsite
plumes (e.g., Colorado Avenue, FAR-MAR-CO) intersect with the North Landfill Subsite, groundwater
monitoring and restoration activities will continue in the general area.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite (OU6)

During the FYR period, groundwater sampling was conducted on a semiannual basis at a network of six
to eight monitoring wells. For this Subsite, data review focused on available VOC groundwater data
from Spring 2017 through Spring 2021 (S.S. Papadopulos, 2021). Carbon tetrachloride and ethylene
dibromide (EDB), the primary contaminants of concern at this Subsite, exceeded their cleanup levels
during the FYR period. TCE also was detected at concentrations above its cleanup level, because the
Colorado Avenue Subsite plume intersects this Subsite.

Three monitoring wells had carbon tetrachloride detections exceeding the cleanup level (5 |ig/L) (S.S.
Papadopulos, 2021). No trends were identified in these wells over this period. The most elevated carbon
tetrachloride detection—40 |ig/L in April 2021—was detected at well MW-8, near the source area. This
is the most recent result for MW-8, no increasing trend is noted because concentrations in this well are
highly variable. Carbon tetrachloride results at well MW-8 otherwise ranged from 36.5 |ig/L in May

2018 to non-detect in November 2020 during the FYR period. At well MQ-08, the 2021 First Semi-
annual Monitoring Report attributes elevated carbon tetrachloride concentrations to a feral carbon
tetrachloride plume moving through the FAR-MAR-CO Subsite.

Four monitoring wells had EDB detections exceeding the cleanup level (0.05 |ig/L) (S.S. Papadopulos,
2021). No trends were identified in these wells over this period. The most elevated EDB detection—
0.181 |ig/L in March 2018—again was detected at well MW-8, near the source area. EDB results from
the FYR period are similarly variable, dropping to non-detect in November 2020 and rising again to 0.16
|ig/L in April 2021.

Three monitoring wells had TCE detections exceeding the cleanup level (5 |ig/L) (S.S. Papadopulos,
2021). No trends were identified in these wells over this period. The most elevated TCE detection—37.5
|ig/L in April 2021—was detected at industrial cooling well WEC A, which, along with the other WEC
extraction wells, serves to contain both the FAR-MAR-CO and Colorado Avenue plumes, as well as

-------
historic groundwater contamination from the North Landfill which had migrated beyond the location of
WEC D before WEC D was installed.

South Landfill Subsite (OU05)

During the FYR period, two quarterly groundwater sampling events for VOC analysis were completed
in March and June 2017. These data were presented with quarterly data collected since September 2015
in Monitored Natural Attenuation Strategy and Focused Feasibility Study reports prepared for the
subsite (Arcadis, 2018, 2020). Absent more recent data, this data set was reviewed in support of this
FYR. The Subsite contaminants of concern PCE, TCE, cz's-1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride, 1,1-DCA, and 1,1-
DCE exceeded EPA MCLs within this data set and during this FYR period.

PCE detections exceeded the cleanup level (5 |ig/L) in four monitoring wells within the South Landfill
perimeter (Arcadis, 2020). Detections in these wells had no significant trend or were decreasing over
this period. The most elevated PCE detection this FYR period—9.2 |ig/L in March 2017—was detected
at well SL-4S, located centrally along the eastern landfill boundary.

TCE detections exceeded the cleanup level (5 |ig/L) in 14 monitoring wells. The most elevated TCE
detection this FYR period—293 |ig/L in March 2017—was detected at well SL-3, located within the
landfill perimeter. At these 14 wells, concentrations within or proximate to the South Landfill perimeter
were decreasing or had no significant trend, while concentrations in the more distal plume were
increasing or had no significant trend. The distribution of these concentration trends implies that
groundwater contamination associated with the South Landfill is migrating downgradient away from the
source area. The increasing concentration trends were noted in five wells (SL-1 IS, SL-1 ID, SL-12D,
SL-16S, SL17S) in both shallow and deep depth intervals (i.e., above and below the upper confining
layer, where present). Notably, well SL-16S represents a zone of likely plume mixing with a
downgradient VOC groundwater contamination plume at OU14 of the Former Blaine Naval
Ammunition Depot (Olsson, 2013). The 2021 FYR Report for the Former Blaine Naval Ammunition
Depot, which includes more recent groundwater monitoring data, attributes TCE and/or PCE in OU14
background monitoring wells to the South Landfill Subsite (USACE, 2021). Concentrations in these
background wells were below the EPA MCLs. The northern OU14 VOC plume is hydraulically
contained and treated by a Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (beneath the upper confining
layer) and monitored natural attenuation (above the upper confining layer).

Detections of cz's-1,2-DCE exceeded the cleanup level (70 |ig/L) in one monitoring well within the
South Landfill perimeter (Arcadis, 2020). Detections in this well were decreasing over this period. The
most elevated cz's- 1,2-DCE detection this FYR period—59.9 |ig/L in March 2017—was below the
cleanup level.

Vinyl chloride detections exceeded the cleanup level (2 |ig/L) in four monitoring wells within the South
Landfill perimeter (Arcadis, 2020). Detections in these wells had no significant trend over this period.
The most elevated vinyl chloride detection this FYR period—18.7 |ig/L in March 2017—was detected at
well SL-3.

1,1-DCA detections exceeded the cleanup level (2.8 |ig/L) in four monitoring wells within the South
Landfill perimeter (Arcadis, 2020). Detections in these wells had no significant trend or were increasing
over this period. The most elevated 1,1-DCA detection this FYR period—19.2 |ig/L in June 2017—was

-------
detected at well SL-2. Increasing groundwater concentration trends beneath the landfill may indicate that
the source is continuing to contribute contamination to groundwater.

1,1-DCE detections exceeded the cleanup level (7 |ig/L) in two monitoring wells within the South
Landfill perimeter (Arcadis, 2020). Detections in these wells had no significant trend or were decreasing
over this period. The most elevated 1,1-DCE detection—12 |ig/L in June 2017—was detected at well
SL-2.

Institutional Control Area

The city of Hastings/Hastings Utilities maintains the ICA (Figure 1) with oversight by the EPA and
NDEE. Well inventories are conducted to identify production or special wells within the ICA area, not
including monitoring or groundwater remediation wells. Hastings Utilities maintains an ICA well
inventory database and checks it against the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources water well
database. During the FYR period, Hastings Utilities identified 227 production or special wells, including
102 domestic wells, 90 irrigation wells, 13 industrial wells, 17 municipal wells, 1 livestock well, 1 pond
filling well, 1 fire protection well, and 2 heat pump discharge wells. Of these wells, 112 were added to
the inventory in 2015 when the ICA boundary was extended two miles south to include the Garvey
Elevator Superfund site; four more were identified though continuing efforts in this FYR period. Note
that no new wells of this nature were permitted or drilled within the ICA boundary during this FYR
period; existing wells were added to the inventory as found (Hastings Utilities, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021).

Per the Area-Wide Work Plan, Hastings Utilities seeks to conduct baseline sampling for VOCs and
semi-volatile organic compounds at each well within the ICA, and then establish a continued sampling
frequency (annual to every three years) based on whether analytes are detected above or below the EPA
MCL or are non-detect. As of reporting year 2020, baseline sampling had been completed at
approximately 72 of the 116 wells added with the ICA boundary extension and subsequent inventories;
another 44 remained in queue (Hastings Utilities, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021).

During the FYR period, 67 sample sets were collected from 42 wells (Hastings Utilities, 2018, 2019,
2020, 2021). Primary contaminants of concern detected in reporting years 2017 through 2020 are as
follows.

PCE was detected in 7 samples from 4 of the wells at concentrations ranging from 1.3 to 5.11 |ig/L. All
PCE detections were in groundwater samples from industrial or irrigation wells, where exposure
potential is expected to be limited. The single exceedance of the MCL (5 |ig/L) occurred at irrigation
well ICA 161, corresponding with the maximum TCE detection. Sprinkler irrigation systems are
considered a potentially complete but insignificant exposure pathway at the Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Site based on evaluation by the EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program for the beneficial reuse of contaminated groundwater. The spray irrigation technology
used removes (strips) the VOCs from contaminated groundwater. The EPA demonstrated that the
removal rates for the volatile contaminants exceeded 95% with some removal rates reaching 100%.
Therefore, since the chemicals are essentially removed before they reach the surface soil and/or
terrestrial plants, the exposure potential is insignificant.

TCE was detected in 34 samples from 15 of the wells at concentrations ranging from 1.01 to 90.4 |ig/L
Concentrations at eleven of the wells exceeded the MCL (5 |ig/L) during one or more sampling events.
All TCE detections were in groundwater samples from industrial or irrigation wells, where exposure

-------
potential is expected to be limited, except for one detection below the MCL in well ICA 172 at a
commercial business. This detection was below the MCL, and TCE was non-detect in a repeat sampling
event. Well ICA 172 will continue to be sampled, and if necessary, additional action will be taken to
mitigate potential exposure to TCE levels above the MCL.

Carbon tetrachloride was detected in 16 samples from eight of the wells at concentrations ranging from
2.2 to 30.9 |ig/L. Concentrations in three of the wells exceeded the MCL (5 |ig/L) during one or more
sampling events. Most carbon tetrachloride detections were in groundwater from industrial or irrigation
wells, where exposure potential is expected to be limited, with three exceptions. At domestic well ICA
551, carbon tetrachloride was first detected at a concentration below the MCL during the FYR period.
Based on the well location and past non-detect results, well ICA 551 was prioritized for resampling and
nearby domestic well ICA 360 was prioritized for baseline sampling. It was verified that the home was
connected to a reverse osmosis water treatment system and that carbon tetrachloride concentrations were
below levels of concern for livestock watering (NDEE, 2019). Although subsequent carbon tetrachloride
results did exceed the MCL at ICA 551 (Hastings Utilities, 2020), the potential for human exposure had
been mitigated. Carbon tetrachloride also was detected in domestic wells ICA 149 and ICA 360 during
the FYR period, but at concentrations below the MCL. Well ICA 149 has been sampled since 1994, is
not used for consumption, and has a decreasing concentration trend. As noted above, the detection at
well ICA 360 was a baseline. Both wells will continue to be sampled, and if necessary, additional action
will be taken to mitigate exposure to carbon tetrachloride levels above the MCL.

EDB was detected in six samples from six of the wells at concentrations ranging from 0.00567 to 0.0323
|ig/L. None of the EDB detections exceeded the MCL (0.05 |ig/L). All the detections occurred in 2019
at WEC wells A, B, C, D, E, and F, likely reflecting capture of the FAR-MAR-CO Subsite plume.

Site Inspection

The inspection of Subsites was conducted on 8/4/2021. Attendees at each Subsite can be found on the
inspection checklists in Appendix D. The purpose of the inspections was to assess the protectiveness of
the remedy. No items of concern were noted that would impact the current or future protectiveness at
each Subsite except the South Landfill. EPA noted on the South Landfill Subsite inspection that "The
OU5 remedy is not performing as designed. Groundwater contamination associated with OU5 has
continued to migrate downgradient of the source area. Evaluation of activities which may improve the
OU5 remedy is under way."

In the Area-Wide Hastings (OU19) inspection, the EPA noted that some signs identifying the ICA
boundary were missing or vandalized and needed replacement.

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

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

Well No. 3 Subsite (OU18)

As noted above, the ROD for the Well No. 3 Subsite required continued operation of the well M-3
extraction and treatment system until MCLs are attained and verified for OU18 contaminants. Extraction
at well M-3 has been discontinued since the pilot shutdown in 2014. However, the remedy is still
progressing as intended with respect to the groundwater RAOs of restoring the aquifer and reducing or

-------
eliminating further contamination of groundwater. The last round of groundwater sampling data
reviewed (December 2021) had no OU18 COC results exceeding an MCL. During the FYR period, only
one COC (TCE) in one well (BW-17S) had a 95% UCL that exceeded its MCL. Although no significant
concentration trend is indicated, the overall footprint of the plume appears to have diminished. TCE data
sets for all other wells were non-detect or had no significant concentration trend. Moreover, the TCE
concentration in downgradient well IAS-4 remains significantly below the MCL, implying that OU18
contamination is attenuating and not just migrating downgradient.

Colorado Avenue Subsite (OUOl, OU09)

The SVE remedy for OU09 (Source Control) has been fully implemented and achieved its performance
goals prior to being shut down in 2017.

The EPA is currently negotiating with the PRPs for the implementation of the newly established OUOl
(Groundwater) remedy. Until the remedy can be implemented, OU19 ICA serves to protect human
health from exposure to COCs in groundwater above MCLs or risk-based levels. The WEC wells
continue to capture the contaminated groundwater plume for beneficial reuse and groundwater
monitoring data indicate that overall plume concentrations are generally decreasing or moving toward
the point of capture.

Second Street Subsite (OU12, OU20)

Previous OU12 (Source Area Soils) remedial actions have made progress toward preventing exposure
and further contaminant migration. Progress toward restoration of groundwater to have beneficial use
within a reasonable timeframe was limited by residual COC mass in the unsaturated and upper saturated
zones. Completion of ISTR and subsequent data collection will be necessary to evaluate the success of
the amended OU12 remedy.

The RAOs for OU20 (Offsite Groundwater Plume), preventing migration of contamination and
remediating or containing groundwater contamination, are being met as ORC injections continue to
address contamination in the aquifer. Reductions in the extent and concentration of contaminants of
concern associated with the former manufactured gas plant (i.e., naphthalene, benzene, toluene, styrene)
indicate that site-related VOCs in groundwater have been contained and are being remediated.

North Landfill Subsite (OU02, OU10)

The remedy for groundwater (OU2) functioned as designed and was completed September 30, 2017
(Arcadis, 2017). The EPA agreed that Consent Decree performance standards had been achieved at the
North Landfill Subsite. As such, no further action is planned for OU2. Because multiple Subsite plumes
(e.g., Colorado Avenue, FAR-MAR-CO) intersect with the North Landfill Subsite, groundwater
monitoring and restoration activities will continue in the general area.

The RA for source control (OU10) were landfill cap updates and restricting public and future access.
The landfill cap updates were completed in 1999 and, based on the FYR inspection, are functioning as
intended.

-------
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite (OU06)

The remedy for groundwater (OU06) at the FAR-MAR-CO Subsite appears to be functioning as
designed based on available groundwater data. Data collected during the FYR period do not show
significant concentration trends, long-term monitoring data indicate that concentrations are gradually
decreasing and could achieve MCLs within a reasonable timeframe. Capture zone analysis for the WEC
wells indicates that capture zones are sufficient to meet the RAO of preventing groundwater
contaminants above MCLs from migrating outside the boundary of the Subsite.

South Landfill Subsite (OU05)

The source control and groundwater (OU05) remedy at the South Landfill Subsite appears to be
underperforming. The OU19 ICA serves to protect human health from exposure to COCs in
groundwater above MCLs or risk-based levels.

MNA did not achieve the groundwater RAO of restoring the aquifer to MCLs within 20 years (that is,
by 2020). MNA likely reduced further contamination of groundwater but did not prevent plume
migration altogether. Recent predictive fate and transport groundwater modeling indicated that MNA
would take 60 to 80 years to restore groundwater to drinking water standards, with continued plume
migration, and the associated FFS found no significant improvement by the other remedial measures
evaluated. The South Landfill plume now overlaps a downgradient VOC groundwater contamination
plume at the Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot (Olsson, 2013). This downgradient VOC plume is
hydraulically contained and treated by a Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System beneath the
upper confining layer and addressed by MNA above the upper confining layer. Further groundwater
monitoring and capture analysis is needed to verify that these measures contain the South Landfill
plumes. An evaluation of the ROD should be undertaken to determine what administrative steps are
necessary to address the groundwater aspects of the remedy.

Regarding source control, the landfill cap appears to be achieving RAOs related to control of landfill
surface water runoff and erosion based on the FYR inspection. In response to the FFS completed this
FYR period, the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducted a review of the landfill
cap as installed and identified multiples opportunities to assess and improve its evapotranspiration
properties and better prevent infiltration (EPA, 2021). Efforts to this effect are ongoing.

Area-Wide Hastings Site (OU19)

The Area-Wide Hastings (OU19) remedy is generally functioning as intended to meet the RAO of
preventing ingestion of contaminated groundwater. Annual ICA reports are reviewed for unexpected
contaminant detections or increasing trends that may indicate the potential for an exposure in
exceedance of the MCL. Sampling will continue as specified in the Area-Wide Work Plan, and if
necessary, additional actions are taken to mitigate exposure to contaminant levels above the MCL.
Baseline sampling is still underway to address the 2015 expansion of the ICA boundary, and this effort
should be completed as expeditiously as possible within the next FYR period.

The OU19 remedy appears to be meeting the RAO of containing the extent of contaminated
groundwater within the ICA since no further expansion of the ICA has been necessary since 2015. The
continued operation and/or completion of remedies at the six Subsites provide evidence for the RAO of
reducing contaminant mass and progress toward the RAO of restoring groundwater to beneficial use

-------
within a reasonable timeframe (the established 20-year timeframe at the South Landfill subsite
excepted).

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?

The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of remedy selection
for each Subsite remain valid except for the South Landfill Subsite. There have been changes to toxicity
data and human health risk assessment methods. Those changes do not impact the protectiveness of the
remedies selected. The previous FYR identified the vapor intrusion exposure pathway as a potential
change to exposure assumptions at the South Landfill Subsite and this previously documented issue
remains a concern.

Appendix C summarizes changes to the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) during the last five years; however, none of the changes impact the protectiveness of the
remedies.

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

No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedies at
the Site. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) did not identify any significant climate change
hazards for the Site (GAO, 2019). If climate change increases precipitation, this could increase
contaminant leaching from soil to groundwater, affect transport of groundwater contamination plumes,
promote flooding that could impact the integrity of vegetative caps, or elevate groundwater levels to
contact contaminated vadose zone soils. If climate change caused a prolonged drought, this could
promote greater groundwater extraction, which could affect transport of groundwater contamination
plumes or reduce groundwater levels such that extraction or monitoring wells were less effective.

VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

Issues/Recommendations

()l (s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in (lie l-ive-Year Review:

OUOl, OU06, OU09, OU12, OU18, OU20

Issues ;incl Recommendations Identified in 1 lie Hve-Year Review:

OU(s): South
Landfill, OU05

Issue Category: Changed Site Conditions

Issue: The extent of the South Landfill Plume is no longer fully
understood.

Recommendation: Fully evaluate the extent of the South Landfill Plume
and reexamine the effectiveness of natural attenuation remedy and plume
stability. If it is determined that the plume is not stable, additional remedial
action should be evaluated.

-------
Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Party

Milestone Date

No

Yes

PRP

EPA

9/30/2024



OU(s): South
Landfill, OU05

Issue Category: Changed Site Conditions

Issue: The landfill cap does not meet the criteria for an evapotranspiration
cap and thus isn't preventing infiltration.

Recommendation: Evaluate implementation of the recommendations from
the EPA ORD memo.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Party

Milestone Date

No

Yes

PRP

EPA

9/30/2025

OU(s): Area-Wide,
OU19

Issue Category: C

•ther

Issue: Most of the site plume underlies agricultural fields and other
sparsely populated areas, and groundwater is more than 100 feet below
grade. Vapor intrusion evaluation (e.g., soil gas sampling) may be
warranted at locations throughout the Subsite.

Recommendation: Perform a vapor intrusion evaluation as part of the
Area-Wide RI/FS.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Party

Milestone Date

Yes

Yes

PRP

EPA

9/30/2023

OU(s): Area-Wide,
OU19

Issue Category: Changed Site Conditions

Issue: One residential well in the ICA shows the presence of CT above the
MCL.

Recommendation: Further evaluate the source and continuing presence of
CT in this location and verify that the current treatment system continues to
effectively mitigate the contamination.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Party

Milestone Date

Yes

Yes

PRP

EPA

9/30/2023

OTHER FINDINGS

The following are recommendations that were identified during the FYR but do not affect current and/or
future protectiveness:

• Ongoing negotiations with the responsible parties have led to a delay in remedy implementation
for the groundwater plume as selected in the Final ROD. However, until the remedy can be
implemented, OU19 ICA serves to protect human health from exposure to COCs in groundwater
above MCLs or risk-based levels. The WEC wells continue to capture the contaminated

33

-------
groundwater plume for beneficial reuse and groundwater monitoring data indicate that overall
plume concentrations are generally decreasing or moving toward the point of capture.

• Signage for the ICA needs to be replaced.

• When final remedies are in place for all subsites, a final ROD for the Area-Wide OU will be
needed, necessitating an abbreviated RI/FS which incorporates a VI evaluation and an all-new
baseline risk assessment, to include an ecological risk assessment.

VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:

OU1 (Colorado Avenue Short-term Protective
Sub site)

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy currently protects human health and the environment because
ICs are in place restricting well drilling and preventing unacceptable use of contaminated
groundwater. To be protective in the long term, the final remedy for the groundwater plume should
be implemented.

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:

OU2 (North Landfill Subsite) Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Operable Unit:

OU5 (South Landfill Subsite)

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Protectiveness Determination:
Protectiveness Deferred

Planned Addendum
Completion Date:
9/30/2024

A protectiveness determination of the remedy at OU05 cannot be made at this time until further
information is obtained. Further information will be obtained by taking the following actions: evaluate
modifications to reduce infiltration through the landfill cap and assess migration extent of
contaminated groundwater.

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:

OU6 (FAR-MAR-CO Subsite) Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

-------
Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit:	Protectiveness Determination:

OU9 (Colorado Avenue Protective
Sub site)

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit:	Protectiveness Determination:

OUIO (North Landfill Subsite) Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit:	Protectiveness Determination:

OU12 (Second Street Subsite) Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit:	Protectiveness Determination:

OU18 (Well No. 3 Subsite) Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit:	Protectiveness Determination:

OU19 (Area-Wide Hastings Protectiveness Deferred
Site)

A protectiveness determination of the remedy at OU19 cannot be made until further information is
obtained. Further information will be obtained by taking the following actions: the presence of CT
above the MCL in a domestic well will be further evaluated, and remedial steps taken as necessary.

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit:	Protectiveness Determination:

OU20 (Second Street Subsite) Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

35

-------
VIII. NEXT REVIEW

The next five-year review report for the Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site is
required five years from the completion date of this review.

36

-------
SCALE:

S.O. NO.: 109174
DSN/DWN: BS/RRR

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL

international Moon Township, Pennsylvania

FIGURE 1

SEVEN SUBSITES OF THE HASTINGS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE

& INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL AREA (ICA)

HASTINGS NEBRASKA

-------
0

c

~
2

8

o
z

W 7th St

W 6th St

>
<

•*
>
<

c

0

K
01

J

W 6th S!

W 5th St «,
<

z

Waynoka St



>
<

E 7th St S







o
z

E f





E 5th St



W 4tn St

£
*
z

hy Routo

Well #3 Subsite

W 4th St

W 3rd St

£

a

a.
u)
0
n

n
CO

<

c

c

0
5
ra
O

*

E 4

Colorado Avenue Subsite

W 1st St

W lit St

-4—H
—I—1

litL.



2nd Street Subsite

W South St

W South St

E South St

X

S

y

W A St

St

E A St

IPFT-LS

W B St

W B St

W 0 St

>
<

C
0
tfl
li
•

E

IL

>
4

It
<0

c
>
<

c

0
•-

*
0
IS

WC St

c
>
<

2

fa

0

a
>
<

c

0>

3

'£
o

w Carter w

Parti

we st

wc st

¦c

w

1

0
O
(A

E B St

o
>
<

c

8

C

2

o
>
<
w

>
C
•

Q

CO

WD St

WESt

01
>
<

0

VI

0
*)

>
<

0
<0

c
c

2

w

s
<

<0

>
<

"O

c
c

V
0
£

*

>
<

V

0
to

§
<



£

<

33

\

' &

at

z

Ui

o

^ PRO^V

N

A

1:7,700

Figure 2 - Site Location Map
Well #3, Colorado Avenue and 2nd Street Subsites

Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site

0 412.5 825	1,650	2,475

3,300
H Feet

Drawn By:
ASG '

Checked By:
FWM

Date:
March 2012

US Army Corps
of Engineers ®

-------
	1: l i y 11 u M JI	

z	<

fc

. •„ —	5

c
u

E 5th St

E 7th St
$

-f 	

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite

ir~

E4:h St

North Landfill Subsite

Kingston

E 2nd St

South Landfill Subsite

0

t	>

<

£

<0

N Paul St £

m

(0
lltnt St

Explanation

Landfill Boundary

E 7th St

£

<

33

\

^tDSrX

ro
-z

1X1

o

<7

^ PRO^V

N

A

1:11,000

Figure 3 Location Map
North Landfill, FAR-MAR-CO and South Landfill Subsites

Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site

600 1,200

2,400

3,600

4,800
Feet

Drawn By:

ASG

Checked By:
FWM

Date:
March 2012

US Army Corps
of Engineers ®

-------
iGS

lNf1

warns

m&Mi





IAS-4

TCE

PCE

1,1-DCE

1,1,1-TCA

0.64 J

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

¦r -T-

CW-8

TCE

PCE

1,1-DCE

1.1.1-TCA

3.1

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

CW-9
NS

/



WfeQ®

BW-17S (parent sample and dup)

TCE

PCE

1,1-DCE

1,1,1-TCA

10.4

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

9.9

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0



BW-17M

TCE

PCE

1,1-DCE

—i

o
>

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

E©35$®

|M

ft

Mb



•0 £t



^ f —¦'t

- w*

5 Sit

M

i oi

rd

EJSSJ

BW-18S

TCE

PCE

1,1-DCE

1,1,1-TCA

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0





BW-18M

TCE

PCE

1,1-DCE

1,1,1-TCA

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

I

i

1

ro
Q

2 O
< O
c

CO o
* »
CNJ =

6)

CNJ

"T3 05
(D O

USEPA MCL

TCE

PCE

1,1-DCE

1,1,1-TCA

5

S

6

200

J

W't.4«1i
W U1|< St

« wttllyS'

"E VV !t |t| S1

J

2	VV

igam^sszMD
(Ha.81

,p

—W-Hlghway-B	u-

Legend

Active Monitoring Well
Colorado Avenue Subsite Well
ir Inactive Monitoring Well
Other Nearby Subsites
Hastings Well No. 3 Subsite

NOTES:

1.	Bolded values indicate an exceedance of USEPA MCL.

2.	Concentrations are shown in pg/L.

3.	IAS-4 data from August 2020 sampling event. Data provided in
2020 Annual Post-Treatment Monitoring (PTM) Report for Operable
Unit 1 dated October 5, 2020, prepared by Michael Bake
International.

4.	Acronyms:

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

MCL = Maximum Contaminent Level

TCE = Trichloroethene

PCE = Tetrachloroethene

1,1 -DCE = 1,1-Dichloroethene

1,1,1-TCA= 1,1,1-Trichloroethane

VOC = Volatile Organic Compound

< = less than

|jg/L = micrograms per liter
NS = Not Sampled
J = Estimated value

o

220

440

SCALE IN FEET

1 inch = 440 feet

HASTINGS WELL NO. 3 SUBSITE OU18
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA
HASTINGS WELL NO. 3 SUBSITE

VOC CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
JUNE 2021

^ARCADIS

-------
6th St

COLORADO
AVENUE SUBSITE

wsr









0

#th Ave

ft

1







6th St

















6th St





4th~5r

5th St







4th St

3i u 3i.

PHASE 2—
PINE AVENUE

PHASF'2	

CEDAR AVENUE
!WA SYSTEM

3rd St

(2 Robb

4th St

^-IWA-2(ABANDONED)—

0W-4SV

0W-4D.f^-

2nd St

MLW-2

MW-ZZ-ft-l

MW-2 (abandoned)^|WA-i"^Ibandoned)

_/HWA-3(ABANDONED)-
14













East Park

St












<



2
<



(1)
>
<

,

C

m
<



O)



"O

c

IN

IWA-4(ABANDONED)t)-

b 3r
-------
<;\_Cormeuse\109174 Consent RDRA\CAD\PHASE IV\109174_HAST_71.dwg

LEGEND:

PTM WELL LOCATION
FORMER WELL LOCATION

15 O 150 JCE CONCENTRATION AND SAMPLE DEPTH (ug/L)
5 & 10 (ug\L) TCE CONCENTRATION CONTOURS
ND NON DETECTED
NS NO SAMPLE

SCALE: 1 "=600"
S.O. NO.: 109174
DSN/DWN:

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2020
FILE: 109174_HAST_71
CHK:

Michael Baker

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL

international Moon Township, Pennsylvania

FIGURE 6

TCE CONCENTRATION CONTOURS-2020
POST - TREATMENT MONITORING

COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

-------
|108

!S. COLORADO

Iave	

'NORTH I
[LANDFILL!

PCE PLUME

[ORIGINATING UP GRADIENT
OF 2ND STREET SUBSITE

MW—08tj3

35.6 (3/2015)1

TCE PLUME NOT
ORIGINATING AT
COLORADO AVE

[(3/2015)1

Wri" E'lw

6.2 (150')(4/2017) *

7.2 (150')(4/2017) |

2T(148-)HWA-4D

^(TgriwA-sp^
I lw!P §m

fil mL ' G-M&Jbf

14(150')(4/2017) B

' 26 (150,)(4/2017) If

MW-5

|1.3(11/2011)j

»ww—6 ¦DHL1—-LJS|

11/2011) 5^15 (150')

:Xjl1 (160')(4/2017) p. ¦ -m

h ¦ '

1	v'15(168-)F-	2

P!h . " 15(178-) fc&„ jrji

KNl CSflflttjpPf(16O')(4/2017)«

x V-BW-21

£^Jp I'U 3 (168')(4/2017)

V		 *(4/2017) |

MjgMl6J (167-)(4/2017)^B

^-BW-24

i 26 (150')(4/2017)H

^¦l4(150|H4^2017)B

-

(29.6 (7/2015)MP>

ID.W02HK2D1

IHIGHWAY 6|

^WElilSD&r
[40.2 (6/2015)1

|ND (130')(5/2014) |

[60 (160')(5/2014) I

.'SOUTH.

iWemMi

130.5 (6/2015)1

M1.1 (135')(4/2017)
^2.3 (160")(4/2017)|
JI18.7 (175') MM
yj9.2 (190-)

1160 (229')(5/2014) l

I	' f.MWSjBRl

9.6 (6/2015)

ENLARGEMENT

ENLARGEMENT 1

iDwjMSif

[COMMUNITY.
I COLLEGE \

WHELAN
ENERGY
CENTER

M?BW=@a

¦|ND (135*)]
¦InD (160") I
b|ND (175')
| J 1.6 (190') I

I GOLF I

IcourseI

fuSST MQ=i1,0'i4lk1s* *
10.64J (156")(5/2014)%/
B2.4 (195')(5/2014)[feU

6.2 (6/2015)

^"jjK^]30(180') |

ggdg3LlOO(215')|

DW05M/5DKEM
¦ f 0.71 J (1657)]
«2£ (215')

¦|42<177,	'

'	fKaw-1!% Ji

0.46J (176")(4/2017)	J./InD (150')(5/2014)1

¦ |^Kd(128') /"'f? I * 'I

I y i|||l6(150')(4/2017) r	^ ~i

M^^29(150')(4/2 __B .	A

¦*- M ND 1,75,1 ~Wtrm-H 2 :*tfc

'•	' IW5.7 (150')(4/2017)|

I .VbW»6-S^14-2(17^3 -m

ND M4Q'V4tV \ 9

pg,Mwif2»MBl

— 8.2 (148')(4/2017)
^j7.8 (160")(4/2017)

¦ 6.6 (160')(4/2016)l
11 5.2 (17S')HK|

H J 21 (1752J^^H

j 12 (153')(4/2017) l

5.7 (153')(4/2017jP
ND (175')5T^3Eiie.
0.33J (195')(4/2017)|
I	,T_. ^

b, tt i»i" f '

lsorjfH~srREEj"e

|1.3 (223") I

NDTE

SAMPLES COLLECTED MAY 2015 UNLESS NOTED

AREA OF ENLARGEMENT 1
1" = 200"

AREA OF ENLARGEMENT 2

1" = 200"

DSN/DWN:
CHK:
S.O. NO.:
FILE:

TLC/RRR

TLC

109174

109174_FFS18_05

COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
Moon Township, Pennsylvania

Michael Baker

NTERNATIONAL

EXTENT OF TCE AND PCE AT THE MCL
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

JANUARY 2018

-------
-------
n

i ¦

JST



i. *



J*—



I P



Data Source: 2016 Adams County Aerial

200

L

1 inch = 200 feet

HFeet

NOTES:

Results are in micrograms per liter (|jg/L).

Results in (parentheses) are duplicate results.

J - estimated concentration above the adjusted method

detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.

U - indicates the compound was analzyed for, but not detected.

Results shown are from 8260 VOC method, see data tables for

additional 8270 SVOC method data.

Legend

© Sampled Well Location	Naphthalene Contour (|jg/L)

® Unsampled Well Location	— 1.1

¦ Injection Well Location	1,000

Groundwater Elevation Contour	5,000

Groundwater Flow Direction

Hastings Second Street Superfund Site

Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy
Hastings, Nebraska
Olsson Project # 019-0109
Naphthalene Contours May 2020
Figure 9

-------
1

1

i

JL

w



•



' Up



1

1 \.

Data Source: 2016 Adams County Aerial

200

L

1 inch = 200 feet

HFeet

NOTES:

Results are in micrograms per liter (|jg/L).

Results in (parentheses) are duplicate results.

J - estimated concentration above the adjusted method

detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.

U - indicates the compound was analzyed for, but not detected.

Legend

• Sampled Well Location
® Unsampled Well Location
¦ Injection Well Location

Groundwater Elevation Contour
Groundwater Flow Direction

Hastings Second Street Superfund Site

Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy
Hastings, Nebraska
Olsson Project # 019-0109
Benzene Contours May 2020
Figure 10

-------
S.S. Papadopulos 8e Associates, Inc.

Figure 11 Capture Zones Generated from Water Levels Measured in 2015, with Maximum EDB and CT Concentrations Measured in Wells

-------
•****• South Landfill Boundary —— Constant Head Boundary ® Active Extraction

Well

l' " i Model Domain Extents D Mo flow Cell

Area / Zone

Total
Mass (lbs)

Percent of

Total Mass

Average
Saturated
Thickness of
Impacted Aquifer
(ft)

Mass Flux Percentage

>100 ppb

>50 ppb

>25 ppb

>5 ppb

Full Plume

4,031

100%

Variable

NA

NA

NA

NA

Source (A)

3,189

79%

26

56%

83%

90%

100%

>100 ppb (B)

175

4%

39

23%

72%

90%

100%

>50 ppb (C)

514

13%

91

0%

13%

45%

100%

<50 ppb (D)

153

4%

104

0%

0%

41%

100%

Notes:

-	The mass flux assessment was performed
using the groundwater model developed for
the site and discussed in Appendix E

-	ft - feet

-	lbs - pounds

-	ppb - part per billion

-	TCE - trichloroethene

SOUTH LANDFILL SUBSITE

HASTINGS, NE

TCE MASS FLUX ASSESSMENT

«ARCADIS

Design & Consultancy
for natural and
built assets

12

-------
ICA Wells	A	Irrigation

Well Type	•	Municipal

A COE Monitoring	¦	PRP

¦ Domestic	~	Private Monitoring

• Industrial |	| New 20151 CA Boundary

Date: 3/18/2020

Hastings Area Wide Well Inventory Map
Figure 13

HASTINGS
UTILITIES

-------
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCE LIST

-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST

Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, 2000, Feasibility Study, South Landfill Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska, April
2000.

Arcadis. 2017a. Second Quarter 2017 RD/RA Groundwater Monitoring Report, Hastings
Groundwater Contamination Site, North Landfill Subsite, Operable Unit 2, Hastings, Nebraska.
August 10.

Arcadis. 2017b. Third Quarter 2017 RD/RA Groundwater Monitoring Report, Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Site, North Landfill Subsite, Operable Unit 2, Hastings, Nebraska. October 2.

Arcadis. 2017c. Work Completion Report. Operable Unit 2, North Landfill Subsite Hastings
Groundwater Contamination Site. October 12.

Arcadis. 2018. Work Completion Report (Rev. 1). Operable Unit 2, North Landfill Subsite Hastings
Groundwater Contamination Site. June 14.

Arcadis. 2021a. Second 2020 Semi-Annual Progress Report, Hastings Well No. 3 Subsite OU18,
Hastings, Nebraska. March 5.

Arcadis. 2021b. First 2021 Semi-Annual Progress Report, Hastings Well No. 3 Subsite OU18,
Hastings, Nebraska. September 1.

Arcadis. 2022. Second 2021 Semi-Annual Progress Report, Hastings Well No. 3 Subsite OU18,
Hastings, Nebraska. January 31.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2019. Interactive Graphic: Superfund Sites and Climate
Change, https://files.qao.qov/multimedia/qao-20-73/interactive/index.html. Access November 21,
2021.

Hastings Utilities. 2018. Hastings Institutional Control Area, Annual Report, Reporting Year 2017.
May 4.

Hastings Utilities. 2019. Hastings Institutional Control Area, Annual Report, Reporting Year 2018.
April 26.

Hastings Utilities. 2020. Hastings Institutional Control Area, Annual Report, Reporting Year 2019.
April 30.

Hastings Utilities. 2021. Hastings Institutional Control Area, Annual Report, Reporting Year 2020.
April 9.

Michael Baker International (MBI). 2017. Annual Post-Treatment Monitoring Report-2017, Operable
Unit 1, Colorado Avenue Groundwater Contamination Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska. June.

MBI. 2018a. Annual and Final Remedial Action Report, January 2017 - December 2017, Colorado
Avenue Subsite Operable Unit (OU) 9, Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Hastings,
Nebraska. January 12.

MBI. 2018b. Annual Post Treatment Monitoring Report-2018, Operable Unit 1, Colorado Avenue
Groundwater Contamination Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska. June.

-------
MBI. 2019. Annual Post Treatment Monitoring Report-2019, Operable Unit 1, Colorado Avenue
Groundwater Contamination Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska. September.

MBI. 2020. Annual Post Treatment Monitoring Report-2020, Operable Unit 1, Colorado Avenue
Groundwater Contamination Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska. October.

Olsson Inc. (Olsson). 2021a. Fall 2020 Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring and O&M. Hastings
Second Street Superfund Site, Hastings, Nebraska. January 4.

Olsson Inc. (Olsson). 2021b. Spring 2021 Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring and O&M. Hastings
Second Street Superfund Site, Hastings, Nebraska. Rev. 01. October 6.

S.S. Papadopulos & Associates Inc (SSP&A). FAR-MAR-CO Subsite, 2017 Second Semi-Annual
Monitoring Report. January 10.

SSP&A. 2018. FAR-MAR-CO Subsite, 2018 First Semi-Annual Monitoring Report. August 11.

SSP&A. 2018. FAR-MAR-CO Subsite: Projections of OU Response Actions. August 19.

SSP&A. 2018. FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Second Semi-Annual Monitoring Report. December 10.

SSP&A. 2019. FAR-MAR-CO Subsite, 2019 First Semi-Annual Monitoring Report. June 13.

SSP&A. 2019. FAR-MAR-CO Subsite, Second Semi-Annual Monitoring Report. December 11.

SSP&A. 2020. FAR-MAR-CO Subsite, 2020 First Semi-Annual Monitoring Report. July 12.

SSP&A. 2021. FAR-MAR-CO Subsite, 2020 Second Semi-Annual Monitoring Report. January 18.

SSP&A. 2021. Capture Zone Analysis Memo, FAR-MAR-CO Subsite. February 7.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
(NDEQ), 2000. Addendum to South Landfill Subsite Feasibility Study, Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Site, Hastings, Nebraska. June 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (5204G), EPA 540-R-01-007, OSWER No. 9355.7-
03B-P.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. "Five-Year Review Recommended Template."
OLEM 9200.0-89. January.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. Natural Attenuation Monitoring Summary,
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska. January 27.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2021a. South Hastings Landfill Superfund Site,
Hastings, Nebraska (OU5) Technical Review and Recommendations for Potential Improvements to
the Existing Landfill Cover. April 16.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2021b. Remedial Design Fact Sheet. Hastings

-------
Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, OU12, Hastings, Nebraska. August.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2021c. Certification of Completion of Work. Hastings
Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, Second Street Subsite, Operable Units 02 and 12,
Hastings, Nebraska. December 16.

-------
APPENDIX B
CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS

-------
Area or Subsite

Event

Date

Area-Wide Hastings Site (Area-Wide Ground Water Action) (OU19)



Initial Discovery (of problem)

7/1/1984



Special Notice Issued

9/23/1985



Site proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL)





Final listing on EPA NPL

6/10/1986



Administrative Order issued by NDOH requiring compliance with EPA
Maximum Contaminant Levels





Installation of 25 groundwater monitoring wells (EPA)





First Five-year Review (FYR) Report signed

5/27/1997



Final Remedial Investigation (Rl) Report





Area-wide Feasibility Study (FS)

April 2000



Interim Remedial Action ROD

2001



Area-wide FS issued

2000



Interim Remedial Action ROD

2001



ICA adopted

2001



Second FYR Report signed

7/2/2002



Consent Decree

2/26/2004



First Annual Institutional Control Area (ICA) groundwater report
completed

2005



Third FYR Report signed

7/17/2007



ICA plume map updated

2010



Hastings Wellhead Protection Plan with ICA controls adopted by the
Hastings Utilities Board of Public Works

6/17/2010



Dravo Dissolution

7/5/2018

FAR-MAR-CO (OU3, OU11)



RI/FS completed

9/30/1988



Record of Decision (ROD) signed for FAR-MAR-CO soils

9/30/1988



Operable Unit (OU) 11 removal action completed

12/23/1989



ROD signed (OU11)

9/1990



Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) signed for FAR-MAR-CO
soil vapor extraction (SVE) plus phase

8/22/1995



Consent Decree (CD) issued for Farmland Industries

5/7/1997



Operation and Maintenance (O&M) start

12/19/1997



Certification of Completion

2003

FAR-MAR-CO (OU6)



Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)

10/20/1995



Action Memorandum (AM) issued

12/6/1995



Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP) Removal Action (RA)

9/16/1996



Installation of groundwater extraction system (Well D)

12/1996



Initiation of RA

7/17/1997



Five-year Report on Well D

12/5/2002



Revised FS submitted by PRP

7/2007

Page 1 of 4

-------


ROD issued selecting enhanced in-situ bioremediation, continued





extraction/treatment of groundwater, and groundwater monitoring as
the final remedial action

2007



Field work to address data gaps in the nature and extent of

5/2009



groundwater contamination completed



RA Work completed

2010

Colorado Avenue (OU9)



ROD signed

9/28/1988



PRP Phase I Remedial Design (RD)

1/17/1995



PRP Removal Action (RA)

9/27/1995



Soil-gas investigation at Phase I area

72004



CD signed by EPA and Dravo Corporation (Dravo), et al

1/2006



Revised Phase II design approved

9/29/2006



Initiation of Phase II SVE additional construction

12/2006



SVE system decommissioned

12/13/2017



SVE completion

2/22/2018



Dravo Dissolution

7/5/2018

Colorado Avenue (OU1)



Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) issued to Dravo and Desco

9/28/1990



Corporation to construct SVE system (Phase I)



Interim Action ROD signed to address groundwater contamination

9/30/1991



Second UAO issued requiring PRP implementation of groundwater
interim actions

1993



Phase I SVE system operational

7/1996



ROD Amendment issued allowing air stripping and in-well aeration
(IWA)

5/25/1998



Phase I and II groundwater treatment wells installed

1999



PRP Phase I and II RD and RA

3/12/1999



Phase II treatment system operational using IWA

12/1999



Phase III treatment system operational using four IWA wells

11/2002



CD signed by EPA and Dravo, et al

1/2006



CD signed by Dravo and EPA

5/2006



Phase II SVE wells installed

2007



SVE System rendered inoperable due to arson fire

9/29/2007



Settlement agreement with Dravo initiating Phase IV investigation

5/2007



SVE system replaced by Dravo

2009



Phase II IWA system (Pine Avenue) closed

8/2010



1,4-dioxane added as a Chemical of Concern

2010



Phase II IWA system (Cedar Avenue) closed

4/2011



Settlement agreement amended requiring Dravo to further investigate
groundwater contamination in the Phase IV area

5/2011



OU1 Phase IV Additional Groundwater Investigation Report

11/2011



Phase III IWA System Closed

1/2012



Phase IV Well installation

2013



Phase IV Remedial Investigation Report

2015



Dravo Dissolution

7/5/2018



Final ROD

3/30/2020

Page 2 of 4

-------
Well IN

o. 3 Soils (0U7)



Interim Action ROD issued

9/26/1989



Fund-lead RD

12/13/1991



EPA entered into State Superfund Contract with the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality

7/1992



Fund-lead RA complete

8/17/1993



Certification of Completion

11/1994



ROD issued selecting No Further Acton (NFA)

5/2001

Well IN

o. 3 Plume 2 Soils (OU17)



EE/CA

5/11/1995



AM issued

7/20/1995



PRP removal complete

4/15/1997



SVE plus phase complete

6/10/1998



Certificate of Completion

12/8/1999



ROD issued selecting NFA

5/2001

Well IN

o. 3 Plume 1 Groundwater (OU13)



Well No. 3 Subsite identified when samples from Municipal Well M-3
were found contaminated with carbon tetrachloride (CT)

1983



Municipal Well M-3 removed from service due to presence of CT

1985



ROD issued for Interim Action Source Control selecting SVE with
granular activated carbon for vadose zone remediation

9/26/1989



Soil-gas surveys and groundwater sampling identified CT
contamination

1989/1990



RI/FS to define extent of CT

1991



SVE system operational

6/1992-6/1993



Interim Action ROD designated Plume 1 as OU13

1993



ROD signed

6/30/1993



Plume 1 groundwater cleanup began

1994



Phase I treatment system began operation

1994



ESD issued for the Phase 1 remedial action

12/13/1994



ROD amended/extraction and treatment system installed in M-3

1995



Second ESD issued implementing the Phase 2 remedial action

7/23/1996



Phase II extraction system began operation using M-3 as an extraction
well

1996



City of Hastings assumed responsibility for operation and maintenance
for the groundwater extraction and treatment system

12/1996



Five-year Review Report issued for the Hastings Site focusing on the
Well No. 3 Subsite remediation efforts

5/27/1997



Extracted water from M-3 began use as irrigation water for a city park

1998



Remedial Action Report

12/11/98



ROD amendment selected MCLs as performance goal for Plume 1

1999



ROD issued selecting NFA

5/2001

Well IN

o. 3 Plume 2 Groundwater (OU18)



RI/FS to define extent of Plume 1 revealed Plume 2

1991



Interim Action ROD designated Plume 2 as OU18

1993



ROD signed

6/30/1993



EPA/Dutton-Lainson signed CD and Dutton-Lainson took over
groundwater extraction

10/2002

Page 3 of 4

-------


EPA investigation determined plume was beyond system capture zone

2008



Pilot shut down of extraction well M-3

9/2014

Second Street (OU12, OU20)



AM issued

1995



Initiation of SVE system and groundwater extraction and treatment
system using liquid-phase granular activated carbon

1997



Interim ROD issued selecting in-situ treatment with groundwater

7/2003



extraction and treatment (OU20)





Oxygen-release Compound (ORC) injection began

11/2005



Final ROD signed (OU12)

9/2006



ROD amendment signed to include active treatment of groundwater
(OU12)

2008



CD signed by EPA and city of Hastings

2010



Excavation and thermal treatment completed (OU12)

5/2012



NDEQ assumes O&M activities (OU20)

6/4/2017



ROD amendment signed for thermal remediation

9/18/2018

North Landfill (OU2, OU10)



Site operated as a landfill by city of Hastings

1962-1964



Interim Action ROD issued for groundwater (OU2) and source control
(OU10)

1991



EPA approved landfill cap design

1995



Landfill improvements completed (OU10)

1999



Final FS negotiated for groundwater remediation

2005



Final ROD issued (OU2)

8/2006



Field work to address data gaps in the nature and extent of
groundwater contamination completed

7/2009

South Landfill (OU5)



Site operated as a landfill by city of Hastings

Early 1960s-
early 1980s



Rl Report completed

12/1996



FS Report completed

4/2000



Addendum to FS Report

6/2000



ROD signed

9/28/2000



RD/RA CD

11/12/2003



Evapotranspiration landfill cap construction completed

2/2005



Direct-push technology (DPT) groundwater sampling identified VOC
contamination east of the landfill source area

2007



Additional DPT groundwater sampling to delineate plume

4/2010



Additional DPT groundwater sampling to delineate plume

1/2011



Additional DPT groundwater sampling to delineate plume

8/2011



Implementation of Monitored Natural Attenuation

2013

Page 4 of 4

-------
APPENDIX C
ARARS

-------
Section 121(d)(2)(A) of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act specifies that
Superfund remedial actions must meet any Federal standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that are
determined to be legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). ARARs are those
standards, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that specifically address a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a Superfund site.

Changes (if any) in ARARs are evaluated to determine if the changes affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Each ARAR and any change to the applicable standard or criterion are discussed below.

Chemical-specific ARARs for the specific compounds and media at each Subsite were evaluated (Tables C-l
through C-8).

Table C-L Summary of Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARAR Changes for the South Landfill Subsite 0115.

Chemical

2000 ROD
Clean up
Level
(Hg/L)

Basis for
Cleanup Level

Current Regulations (|ig/L)

ARARs More or
Less Stringent than
Clean up Levels?

State

Federal

1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE)

7

Federal MCL

7

7

No changes

cis-l,2-Dichloroethene (cis-l,2-DCE)

70

Federal MCL

70

70

No changes

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

5

Federal MCL

5

5

No changes

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

5

Federal MCL

5

5

No changes

Vinyl Chloride (VC)

2

Federal MCL

2

2

No changes

Table C-2. Summary of Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARAR Changes for the FAR MAR CO Subsite 0116.

Chemical

2007 ROD
Cleanup Level
(Hg/L)

Basis for
Cleanup Level

Current
Regulations (ug/L)

ARARs More or Less
Stringent than Cleanup
Levels?



State

Federal

Carbon Tetrachloride (CT)

5

Federal MCL

5

5

No changes

Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)

0.05

Federal MCL

0.05

0.05

No changes

Table C-3 Summary of Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARAR Changes for the North Landfill Subsite 0112.

Chemical

2006 ROD
Cleanup
Level
(M-g/L)

Basis for
Cleanup Level

Current Regulations
(M-g/L)

ARARs More or Less
Stringent than Clean up
Levels?

State

Federal

cis- 1,2-DCE

70

Federal MCL

70

70

No changes

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

5

Federal MCL

5

5

No changes

Vinyl Chloride

2

Federal MCL

2

2

No changes

-------
Table C-4. Soil Cleanup Levels for Second Street Sub site 01112.

Chemical

Cleanup Level
for Industrial
PRG (cancer)
(mg/kg)

Cleanup Level
for Industrial
PRG (non-
cancer) (mg/kg)

Basis for Cleanup Level

2022 Industrial RSL
(mg/kg) c = cancer nc =
noncancer

RSLs More or Less
Stringent than
Cleanup Levels?

Benzene

16

-

Based on 1 x 10-6 lifetime cancer target risk

5.1(c)

More Stringent1

Benz(a)anthracene

21

-

Based on 1 x 10-6 lifetime cancer target risk

20.6 (c)

Less Stringent

Benzo(a)pyrene

2.1

-

Based on 1 x 10-6 lifetime cancer target risk

2.1(c)

Samet

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

21

-

Based on 1 x 10-6 lifetime cancer target risk

21.1(c)

Same

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

210

-

Based on 1 x 10-6 lifetime cancer target risk

211 (c)

Less Stringent

Chrysene

2,100

-

Based on 1 x 10-6 lifetime cancer target risk

2,110 (c)

Same

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

2.1

-

Based on 1 x 10-6 lifetime cancer target risk

2.1(c)

Same

Dibenzofuran

	

1,239.00

Based on non-cancer hazard index of 1

l,170(nc)

More Stringent1

Ethyl Benzene

400

-

Based on 1 x 10-6 lifetime cancer target risk

25.4 (c)

More Stringent

Fluoranthene

—

17,824

Based on non-cancer hazard index of 1

30,10033,500 (nc)

Less Stringent

Fluorene

—

17,824

Based on non-cancer hazard index of 1

30,100 (nc)

Less Stringent

Indeno( 1,2,3 -cd)pyrene

21

-

Based on 1 x 10-6 lifetime cancer target risk

21.123.4(c)

Same

Isopropyl Benzene or Cumene

88



sat

10,00011,100 (sat)

Less Stringent

2-Methylnaphthalene

—

1,239.00

Based on non-cancer hazard index of 1

3,010 (nc)

More Stringent1

Naphthalene

14



Based on 1 x 10-6 lifetime cancer target risk

8.57 (c)

More Stringent

Pyrene

—

16,710

Based on non-cancer hazard index of 1

22,600 (nc)

Less Stringent

Styrene

1,481



sat

34,800 (sat)

Less Stringent

Toluene

654



sat

46,800 (sat)

Less Stringent

Xylenes

418



sat

2,500 (sat)

Less Stringent

-------
Table C-5. Summary of Cancer Risks and Chronic Non-Cancer Hazards for Colorado Avenue Sub site (JUL

Location

Receptor

Exposure Pathway

Excess
Cancer
Risk1

Note

Total
Non-
cancer
Hazard
Index2

Target Organ

Hazard
Indices > l3

Note





Groundwater
Ingestion





10







Future Child
Resident

Groundwater
Dermal Contact



Excess cancer risk due to
ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation of household

2

10 (Kidney)
27 (IS)
27 (DS)

Non-cancer hazards primarily due to
ingestion, dermal contact and
inhalation of household vapors from





Household Vapors



20





Total



31







Groundwater
Ingestion

2.00E-04

vapors from groundwater
containing 1,4-Dioxane and
TCE.





groundwater containing cis-l,2-DCE
(effects on Kidney) and TCE (effects
on IS, DS, and Kidney).

Exposure
AreaB

Future

Lifetime

Resident

Groundwater
Dermal Contact

4.00E-05







Household Vapors

3.00E-04













Total

5.00E-04













Groundwater

5.00E-05



9









Ingestion







Non-cancer hazards primarily due to
ingestion of groundwater containing
cis-l,2-DCE (effects on Kidney) and



Industrial/

Commercial

Worker

Groundwater
Dermal Contact

NE

No COCs - Excess cancer
risk within EPA's generally
acceptable risk range.

NE

2 (Kidney)
2(IS)
2 (DS)



Household Vapors

NE

NE

TCE (effects on IS, DS, and Kidney).





Total

5.00E-05



2





-------
Table C-6. Summary of Short Term (Acute) Non-Cancer Hazards from Exposure to TCEfor Colorado Avenue Sub site (JUL

Location

Receptor

Exposure Pathway

Total Non-cancer
Hazard Index1

Target Organ Hazard
Indices > l2

Notes





Groundwater Ingestion

3







Future Adult Resident

Groundwater Dermal
Contact

0.4

13 (DS)

Acute Non-cancer hazard due to groundwater
containing TCE (cardiac malformation).





Household Vapors

10





Exposure



Total

15





Area A



Groundwater Ingestion

1







Industrial/
Commercial Worker

Groundwater Dermal
Contact

NE

None

No COCs - No target organ His > 1.





Household Vapors

NE









Total

1









Groundwater Ingestion

5







Future Adult Resident

Groundwater Dermal
Contact

1

25 (DS)

Acute Non-cancer hazard due to groundwater
containing TCE (cardiac malformation).





Household Vapors

19





Exposure



Total

25





AreaB



Groundwater Ingestion

2







Industrial/
Commercial Worker

Groundwater Dermal
Contact

NE

2 (DS)

Acute Non-cancer hazard due to groundwater
containing TCE (cardiac malformation).





Household Vapors

NE









Total

2





-------
Table C-7. Summary of Cancer Risks and Chronic Non-Cancer Hazards for Colorado Avenue Sub site (JUL

Location

Receptor

Exposure Pathway

Excess
Cancer
Risk1

Note

Total
Non-
cancer
Hazard
Index2

Target Organ Hazard
Indices > l3

Note

Exposure
Area A

Future Child
Resident

Groundwater
Ingestion



Excess cancer risk due to
ingestion, dermal
contact, and inhalation
of household vapors
from groundwater
containing 1,1,2,2-TCA,
1,1,2-TCA, 1,4-Dioxane,
PCE, and TCE.

195

62 (Liver) 731
(RSPS) 103 (Kidney)
674 (RPS) 40
(CNS) 38 (BW)
88 (IS) 9
(Blood) 90 (DS)
35 (Thyroid) 10 (GI
Tract) 4 (Adrenal)

Non-cancer hazards primarily due to
ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation of household vapors from
groundwater containing 1,1,2,2-TCA
(Liver), 1,1,2-TCA (Blood, RSPS),
1,1-DCE (Liver), 1,4-Dioxane (Liver,
Kidney, RSPS), cis-l,2-DCE
(Kidney), PCE (CNS), trans-1,2-DCE
(Blood, RSPS, Liver), and TCE (IS,
DS, Kidney).





Groundwater
Dermal Contact



41





Household Vapors



1453





Total





1689







Future

Lifetime

Resident

Groundwater
Ingestion

2.00E-02













Groundwater
Dermal Contact

3.00E-03













Household Vapors

7.00E-01













Total

7.00E-01











Industrial/

Commercial

Worker

Groundwater
Ingestion

4.00E-03

Excess cancer risk due to
ingestion of groundwater
containing 1,1,2,2-TCA,
1,1,2-TCA, 1,4-Dioxane,
PCE, and TCE.

33

6 (Liver) 8
(Kidney) 14 (RPS)
2 (CNS) 3
(BW) 5 (IS)

2	(Blood) 6 (DS)

3	(Thyroid) 2 (GI
Tract)

Non-cancer hazards primarily due to
ingestion of groundwater containing
1,1,2,2-TCA (Liver), 1,1,2-TCA
(Blood), 1,4-Dioxane (Liver,
Kidney), cis-1,2-DCE (Kidney), PCE
(CNS), trans-1,2DCE (Blood), and
TCE (IS, DS, Kidney).





Groundwater
Dermal Contact

NE

NE

-------
Location

Receptor

Exposure Pathway

Excess
Cancer
Risk1

Note

Total
Non-
cancer
Hazard
Index2

Target Organ Hazard
Indices > l3

Note





Household Vapors

NE



NE





Total

4.00E-03

33

Exposure
AreaB

Future Child
Resident

Groundwater
Ingestion



Excess cancer risk due to
ingestion, dermal contact
and inhalation of
household vapors from
groundwater containing
1,1,2,2-TCA, 1,1,2-
TCA, 1,4-Dioxane, and
TCE.

7

3 (Kidney) 633
(RSPS) 3 (Kidney)
13 (RPS) 3 (Life
Span)

Non-cancer hazards primarily due to
ingestion, dermal contact and
inhalation of household vapors from
groundwater containing 1,1,2-TCA
(RSPS) and 1,4-Dioxane (Liver,
Kidney, RSPS).

Groundwater
Dermal Contact

1

Household Vapors

647

Total

655

Future

Lifetime

Resident

Groundwater
Ingestion

4.00E-03





Groundwater
Dermal Contact

6.00E-04

Household Vapors

2.00E-02

Total

2.00E-02

Industrial/

Commercial

Worker

Groundwater
Ingestion

7.00E-04

Excess cancer risk due to
ingestion of groundwater
containing 1,1,2,2-TCA,
1,1,2-TCA, and 1,4-
Dioxane.

1

None

No COCs - No target organ His > 1.

Groundwater
Dermal Contact

NE

NE

Household Vapors

NE

NE

Total

7.00E-04

1

-------
Table C-8. Summary of Short Term (Acute) Non-Cancer Hazards from Exposure to TCEfor Colorado Avenue Sub site (JUL

Location

Receptor

Exposure Pathway

Total

Non-

cancer

Hazard

Index1

Target
Organ
Hazard
Indices >
l2

Note

Exposure
Area A

Future Adult
Resident

Groundwater
Ingestion

16

81 (DS)

Acute Non-cancer hazard due to
groundwater with Non-Detect TCE
(cardiac malformation).





Groundwater
Dermal Contact

3







Household Vapors

63









Total

81







Industrial/

Commercial

Worker

Groundwater
Ingestion

8

8 (DS)

Acute Non-cancer hazard due to
groundwater with Non-Detect TCE
(cardiac malformation).



Groundwater
Dermal Contact

NE







Household Vapors

NE









Total

8





Exposure
AreaB

Future Adult
Resident

Groundwater
Ingestion

0.03

None

No COCs - No target organ His > 1.





Groundwater
Dermal Contact

0.005









Household Vapors

0.1









Total

0.2







Industrial/

Commercial

Worker

Groundwater
Ingestion

0.02

None

No COCs - No target organ His > 1.



Groundwater
Dermal Contact

NE









Household Vapors

NE









Total

0.02





Federal and State laws and regulations other than the chemical-specific ARARs discussed in Tables C-l through
C-8 that have been promulgated or changed during the review period are described in Table D-2.

There have been no revisions to laws or regulations that affect the protectiveness of the remedy.

The following action- or location-specific ARARs have not changed in the past five years, and therefore do not
affect protectiveness:

-------
•	Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 USC 300 and Sec. 300 Pub. L. 99-339; National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations: MCLs, 40 CFR 141 Subpart B and Subpart G

•	SDWA MCLs, 40 CFR Part 141, subpart F, 141.50-141.16

•	Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 USC 1251 et. seq.: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES),

•	Clean Air Act (CAA), 33 USC 1251 et seq: National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter, 40 CFR 50.6

•	Groundwater Quality Standards and Use Classification MCLs Title 118 and Title 129

•	SWDA, Subtitle C as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976: 42 USC Section
6901 et. seq.

•	RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Requirements: 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F

•	CAA, 33 USC 1251 et seq: National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 40 CFR 50.6

•	OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, 29 CFR 1910.120

•	OSHA Safety and Health Standards for Construction Workers, 29 CFR 1926

•	Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices: 40 CFR Part 257

•	Hazardous Waste Management Systems General: 40 CFR Part 263, 265, 267

•	Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations: 49 CFR Parts 107, 171-177

•	CWA, 33 USC Sections 1253, 1255-1300, 1302-1318, 1320-1376

•	CAA, 42 USC sections 7401 et. seq.

•	National Ambient Air Quality Standards/NESHAPS/ NSPS/BACT/PSD/LAER, 40 CFR 50.1-. 17, .50-
.54; .150- 154, 480-.489; 40 CFR53.1-.33; 40 CFR 61.01-. 18, 50-.112, 240-.247

•	Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 USC Section 4901 et seq.

•	Nebraska Integrated Solid Waste Management Act, Neb. Rev. Statues 13-1701 et. seq.

•	Nebraska Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, Title 128

•	Integrated Solid Waste Management Regulations, Title 132

•	Groundwater Quality and Use Classification, Title 118

•	Rules and Regulations for Injection Wells and Mineral Production Wells, Title 122

•	Identification and listing of Hazardous Wastes and Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
Waste: 40 CFR Part 261

•	Nebraska Hazardous Waste Management Regulations: Title 128

•	Integrated Solid Waste Management Regulations: Title 132

•	Groundwater Quality Standards and Use Classification: Title 118

-------
Table C-2 Summary ofARAR Changes for Site in the Past Five Years

Requirement and Citation

Document (3)

Description (4)

Effect on

Comments (6)

Amendment Date (7)

(1) (2)





Protectiveness (5)





Federal

2020 ROD OU1

Establishes requirements for

Applicable

Applicable if remedial

85 FR 72539

Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste



management of non-



activities include



Management Standards, 40 CFR, Part



hazardous wastes.



management of non-



257







hazardous wastes
(e.g., soil cuttings from
well installation
activities).



Air Stripping

2006 ROD OU2

Establishes standards for

Applicable

Applicable to earth

July 2018: 81-

NDEQ: Air Pollution Control Regulations,



ambient air quality to



moving activities and

1504(1)(2), 81-

Title 129



protect public health and
welfare.



remedial actions that
may include mixing or
other processes that
result in the potential
release of particulates.

1505(1)(12)

Federal

2007 ROD

Establishes procedure and

Applicable

May be applicable or



Identification and Listing of Hazardous

OU6

criteria for modification or



relevant and



Wastes, 40 CFR, Part 260



revocation of any permit.



appropriate if the
substances at the site
are to be excluded

Feb. 22, 2019: 84 FR

Standards Applicable to Generators of



Establishes standards for

Applicable

from the list of

5939; 83 FR 61563;

Hazardous Waste, 40 CFR, Part 262



generators of hazardous
waste.



hazardous wastes.
Applicable if selected
alternative involves
treatment, storage or

Nov. 30, 2018: 83 FR
451; January 2018: 83
FR 38263

Standards for Owners and Operators of







disposal of hazardous



Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage,



Establishes minimum

Applicable

waste on-site, or

January 2018: 83 FR

and Disposal Facilities, 40 CFR, Part 264



national standards that
define the acceptable
management of hazardous
waste for owners and
operators of facilities that
treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous waste.



transportation off-site.

Subparts B through O
may be applicable or
relevant and
appropriate to on-site
and off-site remedial
actions.

453 and 454; and
Subpart FF.

-------
Requirement and Citation
(1)(2)

Document (3)

Description (4)

Effect on

Protectiveness (5)

Comments (6)

Amendment Date (7)

Federal

Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29
USC, Sec. 656

2007 ROD OU6

Regulates worker health and
safety.

Applicable

Applies to all response
activities under NCP.
Air emissions shall not
result in work-place
exposure to
contaminants above
permissible exposure
limits (PELS).

2019: Added subsection
d.

Federal

Identification and listing of Hazardous
Wastes and Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste, 40 CFR
Part 262

2006 ROD
OU12

Any waste identified as
hazardous wastes would
have to be handled as such.

Applicable

Would be applicable in
identifying if a
substance in the soils
at the Second Street
Subsite is identified as
a hazardous waste.

February 22, 2019: 84
FR 5939 and 83 FR
61563; November 30,
2018: 83 FR 451;
January 2018: 83 FR
38263.

Federal

Hazardous Waste Management Systems
General, 40 CFR Parts 260-268

2006 ROD
OU12

Established procedures and
definitions pertaining to
generation, treatment,
storage, or disposal of solid
and hazardous wastes.

Relevant and
appropriate

Requirements may be
applicable or relevant
and appropriate.

260: July 2020: 85 FR
40606; 261 and 262:
February 2019: 84 FR
5939; 264: October
2021: 86 FR; 266:
December 2019: added
subpart P hazardous
Waste Pharmaceuticals
84 FR 5940; 268:
December 2019: 84 FR
67217.

Federal

Clean Water Act, 33 USC Sec. 1251-1376

2006 ROD
OU12

Water discharge.

Relevant and
appropriate

No comments.

1254: amendments in
2018: subsec. (b)(8).
Pub L. 115-270, 4103,
added par. (8). Subsec.
(u)(7) and added par. &.
And subsec. (w), added
subsec. w.

1301: amendments in
2018: amended subsec.
a,e,f, and g.

1319: added subsec. H
in 2019

-------
Requirement and Citation
(1)(2)

Document (3)

Description (4)

Effect on

Protectiveness (5)

Comments (6)

Amendment Date (7)

Federal

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), 40 CFR Parts 122-125

2006 ROD
OU12

Requires permits for the
discharge of pollutants from
any point source into the
waters of the United States.
A permit is not required for
on-site CERCLA response
actions, but the substantive
requirements are applicable
if an alternative involves
discharge into a creek or
other surface water on-site.

Applicable

May apply to actions
such as excavation
dewatering when
waters generated are
discharged to the
ground or surface
water. The
requirements of this
regulation may be
applicable.

February 2019: 84 FR
3336; 84 FR 3338 and
November 2020: 85 FR
69198.

Federal

Water Quality Criteria, 40 CFR, Part 131

2006 ROD
OU12

Establishes non-enforceable
standards to protect aquatic
life. May be relevant and
appropriate to surface water
discharges or may be a TBC.

Applicable

May apply to actions
such as excavation
dewatering when
waters generated are
discharged to the
ground or surface
water. The
requirements of this
regulation may be
applicable.

October 2018: 83 FR
52166

Federal

Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Regulations, 40 CFR, Part 147

2006 ROD
OU12

Provides for requirements
for the protection of
underground sources of
drinking water.

Relevant and
appropriate

The requirements
would be applicable or
relevant and
appropriate.

August 2019: 84 FR
44230

-------
Requirement and Citation

Document (3)

Description (4)

Effect on

Comments (6)

Amendment Date (7)

(1)(2)





Protectiveness (5)





State

2006 ROD

Establishes numeric

Applicable

May apply to actions

2019

Water Well Construction and

OU12

environmental quality



such as excavation



Abandonment Standards, Title 117



standards for the surface



dewatering when







waters of the State. May be



waters generated are







relevant and appropriate to



discharged to the







surface water discharge or a



ground or surface







TBC.

Applicable

water. The

July 2017

Rules and Regulations Pertaining to the







requirements of this



Issuance of Permits Under the National







regulation may be



Discharge Elimination System, Title 119



Requires a permit for



applicable.







discharging pollutants from



May apply to actions







a point source into the



such as excavation







waters of the State. Would



dewatering when







be complied with if treated



waters generated are







effluent is discharged off-

Applicable

discharged to the

June 2019





site to a surface water body.



ground or surface



Nebraska Air Quality, Title 129



Any on-site discharge would



water. The







need to comply with



requirements of this







substantive standards, but a



regulation may be







permit would not be



applicable.







required.











Establishes control



The requirements of







technology standards for



this regulation may be







emission of toxic air



applicable.







pollutants from new,











modified, or reconstructed











sources. Regulations











pertaining to fugitive











emissions (such as dust)











would be applicable if they











are more stringent than











federal requirements.







1	- This is the general requirement (drinking water standards, hazardous waste standards, air quality standards, etc.) presented in the ROD.

2	- This is the specific requirement (paragraph, section) that is presented in the ROD. If a complete citation is not provided in the ROD, please state so.

3	- This is the document where the requirement was found. NOTE: some sites have several RODs; one for each OU.

4	- This is a brief description of the requirement (this should be included in the ROD).

5	- This column is where we discuss if there have been changes to the requirement and whether they affect the protectiveness of the remedy.

6	- This column provides additional information for the site that illustrates either why protectiveness is (or is not) affected.

7	- This column presents when the requirement was changed, if applicable.

-------
-------
APPENDIX D
SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTS

-------
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist - Well No. 3

L SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Hastings Groundwater Superfund Site

—

Date of inspection: August 4,2021

Well #3 (OU07; OU13; OU17; OU18)





Location and Region: Grand Island, NE EPA



EPA ID: NEN980862668

Region 7





Agency, office, or company leading the five-year



Weather/temperature: Clear, sunny 86 °

review: U.S. EPA





Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)





|	| Landfill cover/containment

|	| Monitored natural attenuation

1 1 Access controls

1 1 Groundwater containment

1 1 Institutional controls

1 1 Vertical barrier walls

1 1 Groundwater pump and treatment





|	| Surface water collection and treatment





IXI Other Soil Vaoor/Groundwater Extraction and Air Striroine

Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached



1 1 Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. Consultant - Arcadis TinaLlovd



Proiect Manaser September 22.2022

Name



Title Date

Interviewed |	| at site |	| at office |XI by email

Phone no. 913-998-6916

Problems, sueeestions: [XI Re do rt attached See Attachment H for interview reports

2. O&M staff

Name



Title Date

Interviewed |	| at site |	| at office |	| by phone

no.

Problems, suggestions: 1 1 Report attached









-------
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency Nebraska Department of Environment & Energy

Contact Wade Gregson		State RPM	September 9. 2021 402-471-3377

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ^ Report attached See Attachment H for interview record	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name	Title	Date Phone no.

Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached 	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached 	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached 	

4. Other interviews (optional) ~ Report attached.

-------
m. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1.

O&M Documents







1 1 O&M manual Q Readily available Q Up to date Kl N/A





I	| As-built drawings |	| Readily available |	| Up to date [XI N/A





I	| Maintenance logs |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





Remarks













2.

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan EH Readily available EH Up to date

N/A



EH Contingency plan/emergency response plan O Readily available EH Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













3.

O&M and OSHA Training Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













4.

Permits and Service Agreements







I	| Air discharge permit |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





I	| Effluent discharge |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





I	| Waste disposal, POTW |	| Readily available

I	| Up to date

IE|n/a



1 I Other permits I I Readily available

I	| Up to date

EH N/A



Remarks













5.

Gas Generation Records EH Readily available EH Up to date ^ N/A





Remarks













6.

Settlement Monument Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

N/A



Remarks













7.

Groundwater Monitoring Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

N/A



Remarks













8.

Leachate Extraction Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

N/A



Remarks













9.

Discharge Compliance Records

EH Up to date





I	| Air |	| Readily available

M N/A



I	| Water (effluent) |	| Readily available

I	| Up to date

N/A



Remarks













10.

Daily Access/Security Logs EH Readily available

EH Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













-------
IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization

~ State in-house ~ Contractor for State
I I PRP in-house ^ Contractor for PRP
I I Federal Facility in-house Q Contractor for EPA
I I Other	

2. O&M Cost Records (was not reviewed)

I I Readily available Q Up to date
I iFunding mechanism/agreement in place

Original O&M cost estimate	O Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From



To





n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached



Date



Date

Total cost







3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

Describe costs and reasons:

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS M Applicable Dn/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged	~ Location shown on site map ~ Gates secured ^ N/A

Remarks

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures	I I Location shown on site map 1^1 N/A

Remarks

-------
c.

Institutional Controls (ICs)

1.

Implementation and enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Q Yes 1 iNo 1^1 N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Q Yes Q No ^ N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)



Frequency

Responsible party/agency
Contact

Name Title Date Phone no.



Reporting is up-to-date O Yes O No ^ N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency Q Yes Q No ^ N/A



Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met O Yes O No ^ N/A
Violations have been reported O Yes O No ^ N/A
Other problems or suggestions: Q Report attached

2.

Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate O ICs are inadequate O N/A
Remarks The OU19 Record of Decision (ROD) provided for establishing an ICA, an alternate water
supply for affected users, and a well inventory and groundwater monitoring program. The ICA was
implemented through Hastings and City Ordinance No. 3754. ICs mandated by the OU19 ROD are in
place and serving their intended purpose. The OU19 ICAs serve to protect the public from groundwater
contamination associated with other Hastings
subsites.

D.

General

1.

Vandalism/trespassing Q Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks

2.

Land use changes on site ^ N/A

Remarks

3.

Land use changes off site ^ N/A

Remarks

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A.

Roads ~ Applicable Kl N/A

1.

Roads damaged Q Location shown on site map Q Roads adequate Q N/A
Remarks

-------
B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks

VII. LANDFILL COVERS ~ Applicable M N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots)

Areal extent	

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Settlement not evident
Depth	

2. Cracks

Lengths_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ Cracking not evident
Widths	 Depths	

Erosion

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Erosion not evident
Depth	

Holes

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Holes not evident
Depth	

5. Vegetative Cover	Q Grass	Q Cover properly established Q No signs of stress

~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)

Remarks

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) Q N/A

Remarks

7. Bulges

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ Bulges not evident
Height	

-------
8.

Wet Areas/Water Damage

1 1 Wet areas
1 1 Ponding
1 1 Seeps

1 1 Soft subgrade
Remarks

1 1 Wet areas/water damage not evident
I | Location shown on site map Areal extent
I | Location shown on site map Areal extent
1 1 Location shown on site map Areal
extent

I |Location shown on site map Areal extent







9.

Slope Instability O Slides

Areal extent
Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q No evidence of slope
instability







B.

Benches Q Applicable
(Horizontally constructed mounds
in order to slow down the velocity
channel.)

M N/A

of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined

1.

Flows Bypass Bench

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q N/A or okay







2.

Bench Breached

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q N/A or okay







3.

Bench Overtopped

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q N/A or okay







C.

Letdown Channels O Applicable ^ N/A

(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)

1.

Settlement O Location shown on site map O No evidence of settlement

Areal extent Depth

Remarks







2.

Material Degradation Q Location shown on site map O No evidence of degradation

Material type Areal extent

Remarks







3.

Erosion Q Location shown on site map Q No evidence of erosion

Areal extent Depth

Remarks







-------
4.

Undercutting ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of undercutting

Areal extent Depth

Remarks









5.

Obstructions Type I | No obstructions

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Size

Remarks











6.

Excessive Vegetative Growth Type

1 1 No evidence of excessive growth

1 1 Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Remarks











D.

Cover Penetrations ~ Applicable ^ N/A





1.

Gas Vents ~ Active ~ Passive
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance

~ n/a

Remarks

1 1 Good condition









2.

Gas Monitoring Probes

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a









3.

Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a









4.

Leachate Extraction Wells

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a









5.

Settlement Monuments ~ Located
Remarks

1 1 Routinely surveyed

~ n/A









-------
E.

Gas Collection and Treatment O Applicable

[E| n/a

1.

Gas Treatment Facilities

1 1 Flaring Q Thermal destruction
1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

1 1 Collection for reuse







2.

Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks









3.

Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance Q N/A

Remarks







F.

Cover Drainage Layer Q Applicable

[E| n/a

1.

Outlet Pipes Inspected O Functioning
Remarks

~ n/a







2.

Outlet Rock Inspected O Functioning
Remarks

~ n/a







G.

Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Q Applicable

|E|n/a

1.

Siltation Areal extent Depth

1 I N/A



1 1 Siltation not evident
Remarks









2.

Erosion Areal extent Depth



1 1 Erosion not evident
Remarks









3.

Outlet Works Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks









4.

Dam O Functioning Q N/A
Remarks









-------
H. Retaining Walls

I	| Applicable |XI N/A

1.

Deformations

Horizontal displacement

1 1 Location shown on site map Q Deformation not evident
Vertical displacement



Rotational displacement
Remarks









2.

Degradation

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q Degradation not evident







I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge O Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Siltation Q Location shown on site map Q Siltation not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks







2.

Vegetative Growth Q Location shown on site map ^ N/A
1 1 Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent Type
Remarks







3.

Erosion

Areal extent
Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map ^ Erosion not evident
Depth







4.

Discharge Structure

Remarks

1 1 Functioning ^ N/A







VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable M N/A

1.

Settlement

Areal extent
Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q Settlement not evident
Depth







2.

Performance MonitoringType of monitoring
1 1 Performance not monitored

Frequency 1 1 Evidence of breachine

Head differential

Remarks







-------
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A

A.

Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ^ Applicable Q N/A

1.

Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q All required wells properly operating Q Needs Maintenance ^ N/A
Remarks





2.

Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available O Good condition Q Requires upgrade O Needs to be provided
Remarks

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines O Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

2.

Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available O Good condition Q Requires upgrade O Needs to be provided
Remarks

C. Treatment System	^ Applicable Q N/A

-------
1.

Treatment Train (Check components that apply)

1 1 Metals removal Q Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
1^1 Air stripping Q Carbon adsorbers
I | Filters

I | Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)

I | Others

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
1 1 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
1 1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
1 1 Equipment properly identified
I | Quantity of groundwater treated annually
I lOuantity of surface water treated annually

Remarks The dluhd and treat svstem was shut down on September 2. 2014. currently onlv samoline of
the monitorine wells are done.

2.

Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Proper secondary containment Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

4.

Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

5.

Treatment Building(s)

1^1 N/A O Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Q Needs repair

1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks

6.

Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
1 1 All required wells located O Needs Maintenance O N/A
Remarks

D. Monitoring Data

1.

Monitoring Data

1^1 Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality

2.

Monitoring data suggests:

1^1 Groundwater plume is effectively contained ^ Contaminant concentrations are declining

D. Monitored Natural Attenuation

-------
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

I I Properly secured/locked	Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition

I I All required wells located Q Needs Maintenance	^ N/A

Remarks

X. OTHER REMEDIES	

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the
physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor
extraction.	

XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A. Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).

All components of the site remedy have been implemented. The remedial actions at QU07. OU13. and
OU17 are complete, and No Further Action was selected for these OUs. The groundwater treatment
system for OU18 has remained turned off since September 2014. Two wells in the OU18 monitoring
network have had TCE detections above the MCL (wells BW-17S and CW-8) in the last five years.

B. Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
The treatment system has been shut down since September 2014.

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be
compromised in the future.

No issues were identified in this FYR.	

D. Opportunities for Optimization	

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Optimization is not needed.	

-------
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist - Second Street

L SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Hastings Groundwater Superfund Site

-

Date of inspection: August 4,2021

Second Street (OU12; OU20)





Location and Region: Grand Island, NE EPA



EPA ID: NEN980862668

Region 7





Agency, office, or company leading the five-year



Weather/temperature: Clear, sunny 86 °

review: U.S. EPA





Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)





I	| Landfill cover/containment

I	| Monitored natural attenuation

I	| Access controls

I	| Groundwater containment

1 1 Institutional controls

1 1 Vertical barrier walls

1X1 Groundwater pump and treatment





I	| Surface water collection and treatment





[X] Other Soil Vaoor Extraction and Air Striroins usins In Well Aeration and enhanced in-situ

bioremediation usins an Oxv sen-release Compound or ORC



Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached



1 1 Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. Consultant

Name



Title Date

Interviewed |	| at site |	| at office |	| by email

Phone no.

Problems, susscstions: 1 iRcoort attached





2. O&M staff

Name



Title Date

Interviewed |	| at site |	| at office |	| by phone

no.

Problems, suggestions: 1 1 Report attached









-------
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency Nebraska Department of Environment & Energy

Contact Scott Summerside		State RPM	November 18. 2021 402-471-4247

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ^ Report attached See Attachment H for interview record	

Agency City of Hastings	

Contact Marty Stange	 Environmental Director September 22. 2021 402-462-3651

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ^ Report attached See Attachment H for interview record	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached	

4. Other interviews (optional) ~ Report attached.

-------
m. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1.

O&M Documents







I	| O&M manual |	| Readily available |	| Up to date |XI N/A





1 1 As-built drawings Q Readily available Q Up to date £3 N/A





1 1 Maintenance logs Q Readily available Q Up to date Kl N/A





Remarks













2.

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan O Readily available O Up to date

IE|n/a



1 1 Contingency plan/emergency response plan O Readily available O Up to date

N/A



Remarks













3.

O&M and OSHA Training Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













4.

Permits and Service Agreements







I	| Air discharge permit |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





1 1 Effluent discharge Q Readily available Q Up to date Kl N/A





1 1 Waste disposal, POTW O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



1 I Other permits I I Readily available

1 1 Up to date

~ n/a



Remarks













5.

Gas Generation Records O Readily available O Up to date Kl N/A





Remarks













6.

Settlement Monument Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



Remarks













7.

Groundwater Monitoring Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













8.

Leachate Extraction Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













9.

Discharge Compliance Records







I	| Air |	| Readily available

I	| Up to date

N/A



1 1 Water (effluent) O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













10.

Daily Access/Security Logs O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



Remarks













-------
IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization

~	State in-house
I I PRP in-house

~	Federal Facility in-house

I I Other	

1^1 Contractor for State
I I Contractor for PRP
I I Contractor for EPA

2. O&M Cost Records (was not reviewed)

I I Readily available Q Up to date
I iFunding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate	

~ Breakdown attached

From

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

To

Date	Date

From	To

Date	Date

From	To

Date	Date

From	To

Date	Date

From	To

Date

Date

Total cost

Total cost

Total cost

Total cost

Total cost

~	Breakdown attached

~	Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached

~	Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

Describe costs and reasons:

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS M Applicable Dn/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged

Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ Gates secured ^ N/A

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures	I I Location shown on site map 1^1 N/A

Remarks

-------
c.

Institutional Controls (ICs)

1.

Implementation and enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Q Yes 1 iNo 1^1 N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Q Yes Q No ^ N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)



Frequency

Responsible party/agency
Contact

Name Title Date Phone no.



Reporting is up-to-date Q Yes Q No ^ N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency O Yes O No ^ N/A



Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met Q Yes Q No ^ N/A
Violations have been reported O Yes O No ^ N/A
Other problems or suggestions: Q Report attached

2.

Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate O ICs are inadequate O N/A
Remarks: The OU19 Record of Decision (ROD) provided for establishing an ICA, an alternate water
supply for affected users, and a well inventory and groundwater monitoring program. The ICA was
implemented through Hastings and City Ordinance No. 3754. ICs mandated by the OU19 ROD are in
place and serving their intended purpose. The OU19 ICAs serve to protect the public from groundwater
contamination associated with other Hasting's subsites.

D.

General

1.

Vandalism/trespassing Q Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks

2.

Land use changes on site ^ N/A

Remarks

3.

Land use changes off site ^ N/A

Remarks

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A.

Roads Q Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Roads damaged Q Location shown on site map Q Roads adequate Q N/A
Remarks

-------
B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks

VII. LANDFILL COVERS ~ Applicable |EI N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots)

Areal extent	

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Settlement not evident
Depth	

2. Cracks

Lengths_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ Cracking not evident
Widths	 Depths	

3. Erosion

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ Erosion not evident
Depth	

4. Holes

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Holes not evident
Depth	

5. Vegetative Cover	Q Grass	Q Cover properly established Q No signs of stress

~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)

Remarks

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) Q N/A

Remarks

7. Bulges

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Bulges not evident
Height	

-------
Wet Areas/Water Damage

I I Wet areas

~	Ponding
I I Seeps

~	Soft subgrade
Remarks

~	Wet areas/water damage not evident

I I Location shown on site map Areal extent	

~	Location shown on site map Areal extent	

I I Location shown on site map Areal
extent	

I iLocation shown on site map Areal extent	

9. Slope Instability

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Slides Q Location shown on site map Q No evidence of slope
instability

B. Benches	Q Applicable ^ N/A

(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)

1. Flows Bypass Bench

Remarks

~ Location shown on site map

~ N/A or okay

2. Bench Breached

Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay

3. Bench Overtopped

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map

I I N/A or okay

C. Letdown Channels Q Applicable ^ N/A

(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)

1. Settlement

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q No evidence of settlement
	 Depth	

Material Degradation Q Location shown on site map O No evidence of degradation

Material type	 Areal extent	

Remarks

Erosion

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of erosion
	 Depth	

-------
4.

Undercutting ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of undercutting
Areal extent Depth



Remarks













5.

Obstructions Type I | No obstructions

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Size

Remarks











6.

Excessive Vegetative Growth Type

1 1 No evidence of excessive growth

1 1 Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Remarks











D.

Cover Penetrations ~ Applicable ^ N/A





1.

Gas Vents ~ Active ~ Passive
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance

~ n/a

Remarks

1 1 Good condition









2.

Gas Monitoring Probes

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a









3.

Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a

















4.

Leachate Extraction Wells

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a









5.

Settlement Monuments ~ Located
Remarks

1 1 Routinely surveyed

~ n/A









-------
E. Gas Collection and Treatment	O Applicable ^ N/A

1. Gas Treatment Facilities

~ Flaring	~ Thermal destruction ~ Collection for reuse

I I Good condition Q Needs Maintenance

Remarks

2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping

~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks

F. Cover Drainage Layer	~ Applicable ^ N/A

1. Outlet Pipes Inspected	I I Functioning	I I N/A

Remarks

2. Outlet Rock Inspected	Q Functioning	Q N/A

Remarks

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Q Applicable ^ N/A

1. Siltation Areal extent	 Depth		I I N/A

~ Siltation not evident
Remarks

2. Erosion	Areal extent	 Depth

~ Erosion not evident
Remarks

3. Outlet Works	I I Functioning I I N/A

Remarks

4. Dam	Q Functioning Q N/A

Remarks

-------
H.	Retaining Walls	Q Applicable ^ N/A

I.	Deformations	I I Location shown on site map I I Deformation not evident

Horizontal displacement	 Vertical displacement	

Rotational displacement	

Remarks

2. Degradation	Q Location shown on site map Q Degradation not evident

Remarks

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge	Q Applicable ^ N/A

1. Siltation	I I Location shown on site map I I Siltation not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

2. Vegetative Growth Q Location shown on site map O N/A
I I Vegetation does not impede flow

Areal extent	 Type	

Remarks

3. Erosion	~ Location shown on site map ~ Erosion not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

4. Discharge Structure Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable M N/A

1. Settlement	I I Location shown on site map I I Settlement not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

2. Performance MonitoringType of monitoring	

I I Performance not monitored

Frequency	 	~ Evidence of breaching

Head differential	

Remarks

-------
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A

A.

Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ^ Applicable Q N/A

1.

Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical

1^1 Good condition Q All required wells properly operating Q Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks





2.

Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1^1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1^1 Readily available ^ Good condition Q Requires upgrade O Needs to be provided
Remarks

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines O Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

2.

Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks

C. Treatment System	^ Applicable Q N/A

-------
1.

Treatment Train (Check components that apply)

1 1 Metals removal Q Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
1^1 Air stripping Q Carbon adsorbers
I | Filters

I | Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)

I | Others

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
1 1 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
1 1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
1 1 Equipment properly identified
I | Quantity of groundwater treated annually
I lOuantity of surface water treated annually

Remarks The SVE and IWA systems were shut down after the O&M was transferred to NDEE in 2018.

2.

Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1 1 N/A ^ Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Proper secondary containment Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

4.

Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

5.

Treatment Building(s)

1 1 N/A ^ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Q Needs repair

1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks

6.

Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs Maintenance Q N/A
Remarks

D. Monitoring Data

1.

Monitoring Data

1^1 Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality

2.

Monitoring data suggests:

1^1 Groundwater plume is effectively contained ^ Contaminant concentrations are declining

-------
D.

Monitored Natural Attenuation

1.

Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs Maintenance ^ N/A
Remarks

X.

OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.

XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A.

Implementation of the Remedy



Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).



All components of the site remedy have been implemented at OU12. OU20 remedial actions have not vet
started.

B.

Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.

The DiiniD and treat svstem is ooeratine and functioning as intended. The SVE and IWA treatment
system were shut down in September 2018.

C.

Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be
compromised in the future.

No issues were identified in this FYR.

D.

Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Optimization is not needed.







-------
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist - Colorado Avenue

L SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Hastings Groundwater Superfund Site

—

Date of inspection: August 4,2021

Colorado Avenue (OUOl; OU09)





Location and Region: Grand Island, NE EPA



EPA ID: NEN980862668

Region 7





Agency, office, or company leading the five-year



Weather/temperature: Clear, sunny 86 °

review: U.S. EPA





Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)





I	| Landfill cover/containment

I	| Monitored natural attenuation

|	| Access controls

|	| Groundwater containment

1 1 Institutional controls

1 1 Vertical barrier walls

1X1 Groundwater pump and treatment





|	| Surface water collection and treatment





[X] Other Soil Vaoor Extraction and Air Striroine usins In Well Aeration



Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached



1 1 Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. Consultant Brian Steffes



Proiect Manaeer 10/18/21

Name



Title Date

Interviewed |	| at site |	| at office |XI by email

Phone no. 412-269-6013

Problems, sueeestions: 1 iRcoort attached See Attachment H for interview record

2. O&M staff

Name



Title Date

Interviewed |	| at site |	| at office |	| by phone

no.

Problems, suggestions: 1 1 Report attached









-------
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency Nebraska Department of Environment & Energy

Contact Jim Borovich		State RPM	September 9. 2021 402-471-2223

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ^ Report attached See Attachment H for interview record	

Agency	

Contact			 	 	

Name Title Date	Phone no.

Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached	

4. Other interviews (optional) ~ Report attached.

-------
m. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1.

O&M Documents







1 1 O&M manual Q Readily available Q Up to date Kl N/A





I	| As-built drawings |	| Readily available |	| Up to date [XI N/A





I	| Maintenance logs |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





Remarks













2.

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan EH Readily available EH Up to date

N/A



EH Contingency plan/emergency response plan O Readily available EH Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













3.

O&M and OSHA Training Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













4.

Permits and Service Agreements







I	| Air discharge permit |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





I	| Effluent discharge |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





I	| Waste disposal, POTW |	| Readily available

I	| Up to date

IE|n/a



1 I Other permits I I Readily available

I	| Up to date

EH N/A



Remarks













5.

Gas Generation Records EH Readily available EH Up to date ^ N/A





Remarks













6.

Settlement Monument Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

N/A



Remarks













7.

Groundwater Monitoring Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

N/A



Remarks













8.

Leachate Extraction Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

N/A



Remarks













9.

Discharge Compliance Records

EH Up to date





I	| Air |	| Readily available

M N/A



I	| Water (effluent) |	| Readily available

I	| Up to date

N/A



Remarks













10.

Daily Access/Security Logs EH Readily available

EH Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













-------
IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization

~ State in-house ~ Contractor for State
I I PRP in-house ^ Contractor for PRP
I I Federal Facility in-house Q Contractor for EPA
I I Other	

2. O&M Cost Records (was not reviewed)

I I Readily available Q Up to date
I iFunding mechanism/agreement in place

Original O&M cost estimate	O Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From



To





n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached



Date



Date

Total cost







3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

Describe costs and reasons:

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS M Applicable Dn/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged	~ Location shown on site map ~ Gates secured ^ N/A

Remarks

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures	I I Location shown on site map 1^1 N/A

Remarks

-------
c.

Institutional Controls (ICs)

1.

Implementation and enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Q Yes 1 iNo 1^1 N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Q Yes Q No ^ N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)



Frequency

Responsible party/agency
Contact

Name Title Date Phone no.



Reporting is up-to-date O Yes O No ^ N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency Q Yes Q No ^ N/A



Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met O Yes O No ^ N/A
Violations have been reported O Yes O No ^ N/A
Other problems or suggestions: Q Report attached

2.

Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate O ICs are inadequate O N/A
Remarks: The OU19 Record of Decision (ROD) provided for establishing an ICA, an alternate water
supply for affected users, and a well inventory and groundwater monitoring program. The ICA was
implemented through Hastings and City Ordinance No. 3754. ICs mandated by the OU19 ROD are in
place and serving their intended purpose. The OU19 ICAs serve to protect the public from groundwater
contamination associated with other Hasting's subsites.

D.

General

1.

Vandalism/trespassing Q Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks

2.

Land use changes on site ^ N/A

Remarks

3.

Land use changes off site ^ N/A

Remarks

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A.

Roads ~ Applicable Kl N/A

1.

Roads damaged Q Location shown on site map Q Roads adequate Q N/A
Remarks

-------
B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks

VII. LANDFILL COVERS ~ Applicable M N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots)

Areal extent	

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Settlement not evident
Depth	

2. Cracks

Lengths_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ Cracking not evident
Widths	 Depths	

Erosion

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Erosion not evident
Depth	

Holes

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Holes not evident
Depth	

5. Vegetative Cover	Q Grass	Q Cover properly established Q No signs of stress

~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)

Remarks

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) Q N/A

Remarks

7. Bulges

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ Bulges not evident
Height	

-------
8.

Wet Areas/Water Damage

1 1 Wet areas
1 1 Ponding
1 1 Seeps

1 1 Soft subgrade
Remarks

1 1 Wet areas/water damage not evident
I | Location shown on site map Areal extent
I | Location shown on site map Areal extent
1 1 Location shown on site map Areal
extent

I |Location shown on site map Areal extent







9.

Slope Instability O Slides

Areal extent
Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q No evidence of slope
instability







B.

Benches Q Applicable
(Horizontally constructed mounds
in order to slow down the velocity
channel.)

M N/A

of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined

1.

Flows Bypass Bench

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q N/A or okay







2.

Bench Breached

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q N/A or okay







3.

Bench Overtopped

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q N/A or okay







C.

Letdown Channels O Applicable ^ N/A

(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)

1.

Settlement O Location shown on site map O No evidence of settlement

Areal extent Depth

Remarks







2.

Material Degradation Q Location shown on site map O No evidence of degradation

Material type Areal extent

Remarks







3.

Erosion Q Location shown on site map Q No evidence of erosion

Areal extent Depth

Remarks







-------
4.

Undercutting ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of undercutting

Areal extent Depth

Remarks







5.

Obstructions Type I | No obstructions

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Size

Remarks









6.

Excessive Vegetative Growth Type

1 1 No evidence of excessive growth

1 1 Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Remarks









D.

Cover Penetrations ~ Applicable ^ N/A



1.

Gas Vents ~ Active ~ Passive
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance

~ n/a

Remarks

1 1 Good condition







2.

Gas Monitoring Probes

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a







3.

Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a







4.

Leachate Extraction Wells

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a







5.

Settlement Monuments ~ Located ~ Routinely surveyed
Remarks

~ n/A









E.

Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable ^ N/A



-------
1. Gas Treatment Facilities

I I Flaring	Q Thermal destruction Q Collection for reuse

I I Good condition Q Needs Maintenance

Remarks

2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping

I I Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
I I Good condition Q Needs Maintenance Q N/A
Remarks

F. Cover Drainage Layer	~ Applicable ^ N/A

1. Outlet Pipes Inspected	I I Functioning	I I N/A

Remarks

2. Outlet Rock Inspected	O Functioning	Q N/A

Remarks

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Q Applicable ^ N/A

1. Siltation Areal extent	 Depth	 		~ N/A

~ Siltation not evident
Remarks

2. Erosion	Areal extent	 Depth

~ Erosion not evident
Remarks

3. Outlet Works	I I Functioning I I N/A

Remarks

4. Dam	Q Functioning Q N/A

Remarks

H. Retaining Walls

I	| Applicable IXI N/A

1. Deformations

1 1 Location shown on site map O Deformation not evident

Horizontal displacement

Vertical displacement

Rotational displacement



Remarks





-------
2.

Degradation Q Location shown on site map Q Degradation not evident
Remarks

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge O Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Siltation Q Location shown on site map Q Siltation not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks

2.

Vegetative Growth Q Location shown on site map O N/A
1 1 Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent Type
Remarks

3.

Erosion Q Location shown on site map Q Erosion not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks

4.

Discharge Structure Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable M N/A

1.

Settlement O Location shown on site map O Settlement not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks

2.

Performance MonitoringType of monitoring
1 1 Performance not monitored

Frequency 1 1 Evidence of breachine

Head differential

Remarks

IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines	^ Applicable Q N/A

1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical

I I Good condition Q All required wells properly operating Q Needs Maintenance ^ N/A
Remarks Systems have been decommissioned.

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks

-------
3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines O Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

2.

Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available O Good condition Q Requires upgrade O Needs to be provided
Remarks

-------
C. Treatment System	^ Applicable O N/A

1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)

~	Metals removal	~ Oil/water separation	~ Bioremediation

~	Air stripping	~ Carbon adsorbers

I I Filters	

I I Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)	

I I Others	

I I Good condition	Q Needs Maintenance

I I Sampling ports properly marked and functional

~	Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date

~	Equipment properly identified

I I Quantity of groundwater treated annually	

I I Quantity of surface water treated annually	

Remarks The IWA system was shut down in 2016 and the SVE system was shut down in 2017 when
performance goals were achieved.

2.

Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Proper secondary containment Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

4.

Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

5.

Treatment Building(s)

1^1 N/A O Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Q Needs repair

1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks

6.

Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs Maintenance Q N/A
Remarks

D. Monitoring Data

3.

Monitoring Data

1^1 Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality

4.

Monitoring data suggests:

1^1 Groundwater plume is effectively contained ^ Contaminant concentrations are declining

-------
D.

Monitored Natural Attenuation

1.

Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 All required wells located O Needs Maintenance ^ N/A
Remarks

X.

OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.

XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A.

Implementation of the Remedy



Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).



All components of the site remedy have been implemented and achieved for OU09. OUOl remedial
actions have not vet started.

B.

Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
The treatment system has been shut down since December 2017.

C.

Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be
compromised in the future.

No issues were identified in this FYR.

D.

Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Optimization is not needed.



-------
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist - North Landfill

L SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Hastings Groundwater Superfund Site

-

Date of inspection: August 4,2021

North Landfill (OUs 2,10)





Location and Region: Grand Island, NE EPA



EPA ID: NEN980862668

Region 7





Agency, office, or company leading the five-year



Weather/temperature: Clear, sunny 86 °

review: U.S. EPA





Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)





1X1 Landfill cover/containment



Monitored natural attenuation

1X1 Access controls

I	| Groundwater containment

1^1 Institutional controls

1 1 Vertical barrier walls

1X1 Groundwater pump and treatment





|	| Surface water collection and treatment





|	| Other





Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached



1 1 Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. Consultant N/A



1

Name



Title Date

Interviewed |	| at site |	| at office |	| by email

Phone no.

Problems, suggestions; 1 1 Report attached





2. O&M staff Marty Stange Environmental Director, City of Haastings 09/22/2021

Name



Title Date

Interviewed Q at site O at office O by phone



by email Phone no.

Problems, suggestions: [X] Report attached









-------
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency Nebraska Department of Environment & Energy

Contact Jim Borovich		State RPM	October 18. 2021 402-471-2223

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ^ Report attached See Attachment H for interview record	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name	Title	Date Phone no.

Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached 	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached 	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached 	

4. Other interviews (optional) ~ Report attached.

-------
m. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1.

O&M Documents







I	| O&M manual |	| Readily available |	| Up to date |XI N/A





1 1 As-built drawings Q Readily available Q Up to date £3 N/A





1 1 Maintenance logs Q Readily available Q Up to date Kl N/A





Remarks













2.

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan O Readily available O Up to date

IE|n/a



1 1 Contingency plan/emergency response plan O Readily available O Up to date

N/A



Remarks













3.

O&M and OSHA Training Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













4.

Permits and Service Agreements







I	| Air discharge permit |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





1 1 Effluent discharge Q Readily available Q Up to date Kl N/A





1 1 Waste disposal, POTW O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



1 I Other permits I I Readily available

1 1 Up to date

~ n/a



Remarks













5.

Gas Generation Records O Readily available O Up to date Kl N/A





Remarks













6.

Settlement Monument Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



Remarks













7.

Groundwater Monitoring Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













8.

Leachate Extraction Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













9.

Discharge Compliance Records







I	| Air |	| Readily available

I	| Up to date

N/A



1 1 Water (effluent) O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













10.

Daily Access/Security Logs O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



Remarks













-------
IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization

~	State in-house	~ Contractor for State
1^1 PRP in-house Q Contractor for PRP

~	Federal Facility in-house ~ Contractor for EPA

I I Other	

2. O&M Cost Records (was not reviewed)

I I Readily available Q Up to date
I iFunding mechanism/agreement in place

Original O&M cost estimate	 	~ Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From	To	 	 ~ Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

Describe costs and reasons:

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS M Applicable Dn/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged	~ Location shown on site map ^ Gates secured ^ N/A

Remarks

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures	I I Location shown on site map 1^1 N/A

Remarks

-------
c.

Institutional Controls (ICs)

1.

Implementation and enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Q Yes l^lNo 1 1 N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Q Yes ^ No Q N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)



Frequency

Responsible party/agency
Contact

Name Title Date Phone no.



Reporting is up-to-date Q Yes Q No ^ N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency O Yes O No ^ N/A



Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met Q Yes Q No ^ N/A
Violations have been reported O Yes O No ^ N/A
Other problems or suggestions: Q Report attached

2.

Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate O ICs are inadequate O N/A
Remarks The OU19 Record of Decision (ROD) provided for establishing an ICA, an alternate water
supply for affected users, and a well inventory and groundwater monitoring program. The ICA was
implemented through Hastings and City Ordinance No. 3754. ICs mandated by the OU19 ROD are in
place and serving their intended purpose. The OU19 ICAs serve to protect the public from groundwater
contamination associated with other Hastings
subsites.

D.

General

1.

Vandalism/trespassing Q Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks

2.

Land use changes on site ^ N/A

Remarks

3.

Land use changes off site ^ N/A

Remarks

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A.

Roads Q Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Roads damaged Q Location shown on site map Q Roads adequate Q N/A
Remarks

-------
B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks

VII. LANDFILL COVERS |EI Applicable ~ N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots)

Areal extent	

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map
Depth	

Settlement not evident

2. Cracks

Lengths_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ^ Cracking not evident
Widths	 Depths	

3. Erosion

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map
Depth	

Erosion not evident

Holes

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map
Depth	

Holes not evident

Vegetative Cover	Q Grass	Q Cover properly established ^ No signs of stress

~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)

Remarks

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) N/A

Remarks

7. Bulges

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map
Height	

Bulges not evident

-------
Wet Areas/Water Damage

I I Wet areas

~	Ponding
I I Seeps

~	Soft subgrade
Remarks

1^1 Wet areas/water damage not evident

I I Location shown on site map Areal extent	

~ Location shown on site map Areal extent	

I I Location shown on site map Areal
extent	

I iLocation shown on site map Areal extent	

9.

Slope Instability ~ Slides

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map
instability

| No evidence of slope

B. Benches	Q Applicable ^ N/A

(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)

1. Flows Bypass Bench

Remarks

~ Location shown on site map

~ N/A or okay

2. Bench Breached

Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay

3. Bench Overtopped

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map

I I N/A or okay

C. Letdown Channels Q Applicable ^ N/A

(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)

1. Settlement

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q No evidence of settlement
	 Depth	

Material Degradation Q Location shown on site map O No evidence of degradation

Material type	 Areal extent	

Remarks

Erosion

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of erosion
	 Depth	

-------
4.

Undercutting ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of undercutting
Areal extent Depth



Remarks













5.

Obstructions Type I | No obstructions

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Size

Remarks











6.

Excessive Vegetative Growth Type

1 1 No evidence of excessive growth

1 1 Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Remarks











D.

Cover Penetrations ~ Applicable ^ N/A





1.

Gas Vents ~ Active ~ Passive
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance

~ n/a

Remarks

1 1 Good condition









2.

Gas Monitoring Probes

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a









3.

Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a

















4.

Leachate Extraction Wells

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a









5.

Settlement Monuments ~ Located
Remarks

1 1 Routinely surveyed

~ n/A









-------
E. Gas Collection and Treatment	O Applicable ^ N/A

1. Gas Treatment Facilities

~ Flaring	~ Thermal destruction ~ Collection for reuse

I I Good condition Q Needs Maintenance

Remarks

2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping

~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks

F. Cover Drainage Layer	~ Applicable ^ N/A

1. Outlet Pipes Inspected	I I Functioning	I I N/A

Remarks

2. Outlet Rock Inspected	Q Functioning	Q N/A

Remarks

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Q Applicable ^ N/A

1. Siltation Areal extent	 Depth		I I N/A

~ Siltation not evident
Remarks

2. Erosion	Areal extent	 Depth

~ Erosion not evident
Remarks

3. Outlet Works	I I Functioning I I N/A

Remarks

4. Dam	Q Functioning Q N/A

Remarks

-------
H.	Retaining Walls	Q Applicable ^ N/A

I.	Deformations	I I Location shown on site map I I Deformation not evident

Horizontal displacement	 Vertical displacement	

Rotational displacement	

Remarks

2. Degradation	Q Location shown on site map Q Degradation not evident

Remarks

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge	^ Applicable ^ N/A

1. Siltation	I I Location shown on site map 1^1 Siltation not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

2. Vegetative Growth Q Location shown on site map O N/A
1^1 Vegetation does not impede flow

Areal extent	 Type	

Remarks

3. Erosion	~ Location shown on site map ^ Erosion not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

4. Discharge Structure Q Functioning ^ N/A
Remarks

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable M N/A

1. Settlement	I I Location shown on site map I I Settlement not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

2. Performance MonitoringType of monitoring	

I I Performance not monitored

Frequency	 	~ Evidence of breaching

Head differential	

Remarks

-------
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A

A.

Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ^ Applicable Q N/A

1.

Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q All required wells properly operating Q Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks





2.

Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available O Good condition Q Requires upgrade O Needs to be provided
Remarks

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines O Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

2.

Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks

C. Treatment System	^ Applicable Q N/A

-------
1.

Treatment Train (Check components that apply)

1 1 Metals removal Q Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
1 1 Air stripping Q Carbon adsorbers
I | Filters

I | Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)

I | Others

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
1 1 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
1 1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
1 1 Equipment properly identified
I | Quantity of groundwater treated annually
I lOuantity of surface water treated annually
Remarks.

2.

Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Proper secondary containment Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

4.

Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

5.

Treatment Building(s)

1^1 N/A O Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Q Needs repair

1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks

6.

Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs Maintenance Q N/A
Remarks

D. Monitoring Data

5.

Monitoring Data

1^1 Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality

6.

Monitoring data suggests:

1^1 Groundwater plume is effectively contained ^ Contaminant concentrations are declining

-------
D.

Monitored Natural Attenuation

1.

Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition

1 1 All required wells located Q Needs Maintenance Q N/A

Remarks

X.

OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.

XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A.

Implementation of the Remedy



Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).



The final ROD for OU2 at the North Landfill Subsite issued in Aueust 2006 selected the following
RAOs: Prevent human exposure to groundwater contaminated above reeulatorv standards or risk-based
Standards: and Restore sroundwater to contaminant levels that would allow for its future beneficial use.
Overall, the final remedy selected was protective of human health and the environment and was in
compliance with ARARs and the AOC.



The remedy selected in the OU2 ROD consists of the following features:

Natural Attenuation
Groundwater Monitoring
Groundwater Use Restrictions

Hydraulic Containment Using Vertical Extraction Wells
Use As Non-Contact Cooling Water
The OU2 remedy was effective in addressing the RAOs, and declared complete as of July 2018.

B.

Adequacy of O&M

-------
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
_0&M consists of semi-annual sampling, during which maintenance issues are identified and addressed.
This is effective in relation to the long-term protectiveness of the remedy.

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be
compromised in the future.

No issues were identified in this FYR.

D. Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Optimization is not needed.

-------
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist - South Landfill

L SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Hastings Groundwater Superfund Site -

Date of inspection: August 4,2021

North Landfill (OU 5)



Location and Region: Hastings, NE EPA Region 7

EPA ID: NEN980862668

Agency, office, or company leading the five-year

Weather/temperature: Clear, sunny 86 °

review: U.S. EPA



Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)



1X1 Landfill cover/containment IXI

Monitored natural attenuation

1X1 Access controls I	|

Groundwater containment

IXI Institutional controls Q

Vertical barrier walls

IXI Groundwater pump and treatment



I | Surface water collection and treatment



|	| Other



Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached

1 1 Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. Consultant N/A

1

Name

Title Date

Interviewed Q at site Q at office Q by email Phone no.

Problems, suggestions; 1 1 Report attached



2. O&M staff Marty Stange Environmental Director, City of Hastings 09/22/2021

Name

Title Date

Interviewed |	| at site |	| at office |	| by phone 1X1

by email Phone no.

Problems, suggestions: [X] Report attached







-------
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency Nebraska Department of Environment & Energy

Contact Scott Summerside		State RPM	October 20. 2021 402-471-4247

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ^ Report attached See Attachment H for interview record	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name	Title	Date Phone no.

Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached 	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached 	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached 	

4. Other interviews (optional) ~ Report attached.

-------
m. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1.

O&M Documents







1 1 O&M manual Q Readily available Q Up to date Kl N/A





I	| As-built drawings |	| Readily available |	| Up to date [XI N/A





I	| Maintenance logs |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





Remarks













2.

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan EH Readily available EH Up to date

N/A



EH Contingency plan/emergency response plan O Readily available EH Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













3.

O&M and OSHA Training Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













4.

Permits and Service Agreements







I	| Air discharge permit |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





I	| Effluent discharge |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





I	| Waste disposal, POTW |	| Readily available

I	| Up to date

IE|n/a



1 I Other permits I I Readily available

I	| Up to date

EH N/A



Remarks













5.

Gas Generation Records EH Readily available EH Up to date ^ N/A





Remarks













6.

Settlement Monument Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

N/A



Remarks













7.

Groundwater Monitoring Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

N/A



Remarks













8.

Leachate Extraction Records EH Readily available

EH Up to date

N/A



Remarks













9.

Discharge Compliance Records

EH Up to date





I	| Air |	| Readily available

M N/A



I	| Water (effluent) |	| Readily available

I	| Up to date

N/A



Remarks













10.

Daily Access/Security Logs EH Readily available

EH Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













-------
IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization

~ State in-house ~ Contractor for State
1^1 PRP in-house Q Contractor for PRP
I I Federal Facility in-house Q Contractor for EPA
I I Other	

2. O&M Cost Records (was not reviewed)

I I Readily available Q Up to date
I iFunding mechanism/agreement in place

Original O&M cost estimate	O Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From



To





n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached

From

Date

To

Date

Total cost

n

Breakdown

attached



Date



Date

Total cost







3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

Describe costs and reasons:

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS M Applicable Dn/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged	~ Location shown on site map ^ Gates secured ^ N/A

Remarks

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures	I I Location shown on site map 1^1 N/A

Remarks

-------
c.

Institutional Controls (ICs)

1.

Implementation and enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Q Yes l^lNo 1 1 N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Q Yes ^ No Q N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)



Frequency

Responsible party/agency
Contact

Name Title Date Phone no.



Reporting is up-to-date O Yes O No ^ N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency Q Yes Q No ^ N/A



Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met O Yes O No ^ N/A
Violations have been reported O Yes O No ^ N/A
Other problems or suggestions: Q Report attached

2.

Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate O ICs are inadequate O N/A
Remarks The OU19 Record of Decision (ROD) provided for establishing an ICA, an alternate water
supply for affected users, and a well inventory and groundwater monitoring program. The ICA was
implemented through Hastings and City Ordinance No. 3754. ICs mandated by the OU19 ROD are in
place and serving their intended purpose. The OU19 ICAs serve to protect the public from groundwater
contamination associated with other Hastings
subsites.

D.

General

1.

Vandalism/trespassing Q Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks

2.

Land use changes on site ^ N/A

Remarks

3.

Land use changes off site ^ N/A

Remarks

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A.

Roads ~ Applicable Kl N/A

1.

Roads damaged Q Location shown on site map Q Roads adequate Q N/A
Remarks

-------
B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks

VII. LANDFILL COVERS M Applicable ~ N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots)

Areal extent	

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map
Depth	

Settlement not evident

2.

Cracks

Lengths_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map
Widths	 Depths	

Cracking not evident

Erosion

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map
Depth	

Erosion not evident

Holes

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map
Depth	

Holes not evident

5. Vegetative Cover	Q Grass	Q Cover properly established ^ No signs of stress

~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)

Remarks

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) N/A

Remarks

7. Bulges

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map
Height	

Bulges not evident

-------
8.

Wet Areas/Water Damage

1 1 Wet areas
1 1 Ponding
1 1 Seeps

1 1 Soft subgrade
Remarks

1^1 Wet areas/water damage not evident
I | Location shown on site map Areal extent
I | Location shown on site map Areal extent
1 1 Location shown on site map Areal
extent

I |Location shown on site map Areal extent







9.

Slope Instability O Slides

Areal extent
Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map ^ No evidence of slope
instability







B.

Benches Q Applicable
(Horizontally constructed mounds
in order to slow down the velocity
channel.)

M N/A

of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined

1.

Flows Bypass Bench

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q N/A or okay







2.

Bench Breached

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q N/A or okay







3.

Bench Overtopped

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q N/A or okay







C.

Letdown Channels O Applicable ^ N/A

(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)

1.

Settlement O Location shown on site map O No evidence of settlement

Areal extent Depth

Remarks







2.

Material Degradation Q Location shown on site map O No evidence of degradation

Material type Areal extent

Remarks







3.

Erosion Q Location shown on site map Q No evidence of erosion

Areal extent Depth

Remarks







-------
4.

Undercutting ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of undercutting

Areal extent Depth

Remarks









5.

Obstructions Type I | No obstructions

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Size

Remarks











6.

Excessive Vegetative Growth Type

1 1 No evidence of excessive growth

1 1 Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Remarks











D.

Cover Penetrations ~ Applicable ^ N/A





1.

Gas Vents ~ Active ~ Passive
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance

~ n/a

Remarks

1 1 Good condition









2.

Gas Monitoring Probes

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a









3.

Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
1^1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1^1 Good condition

~ n/a









4.

Leachate Extraction Wells

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a









5.

Settlement Monuments ~ Located
Remarks

1 1 Routinely surveyed

~ n/A









-------
E.

Gas Collection and Treatment O Applicable

[E| n/a

1.

Gas Treatment Facilities

1 1 Flaring Q Thermal destruction
1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

1 1 Collection for reuse







2.

Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks









3.

Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance Q N/A

Remarks







F.

Cover Drainage Layer Q Applicable

[E| n/a

1.

Outlet Pipes Inspected O Functioning
Remarks

~ n/a







2.

Outlet Rock Inspected O Functioning
Remarks

~ n/a







G.

Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Q Applicable

|E|n/a

1.

Siltation Areal extent Depth

1 I N/A



1 1 Siltation not evident
Remarks









2.

Erosion Areal extent Depth



1^1 Erosion not evident
Remarks









3.

Outlet Works Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks









4.

Dam O Functioning Q N/A
Remarks









-------
H. Retaining Walls

I	| Applicable |XI N/A

1.

Deformations

Horizontal displacement

1 1 Location shown on site map Q Deformation not evident
Vertical displacement



Rotational displacement
Remarks









2.

Degradation

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q Degradation not evident







I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ^ Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Siltation Q Location shown on site map ^ Siltation not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks







2.

Vegetative Growth Q Location shown on site map O N/A
1^1 Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent Type
Remarks







3.

Erosion

Areal extent
Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map ^ Erosion not evident
Depth







4.

Discharge Structure

Remarks

1 1 Functioning ^ N/A







VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable M N/A

1.

Settlement

Areal extent
Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q Settlement not evident
Depth







2.

Performance MonitoringType of monitoring
1 1 Performance not monitored

Frequency 1 1 Evidence of breachine

Head differential

Remarks







-------
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A

A.

Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ^ Applicable Q N/A

1.

Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q All required wells properly operating Q Needs Maintenance ^ N/A
Remarks





2.

Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available O Good condition Q Requires upgrade O Needs to be provided
Remarks

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines O Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

2.

Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available O Good condition Q Requires upgrade O Needs to be provided
Remarks

C. Treatment System Kl Applicable O N/A

1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)



|	| Metals removal |	| Oil/water separation

I	| Bioremediation

I	| Air stripping |	| Carbon adsorbers



| | Filters



1 I Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)



| | Others



1 1 Good condition O Needs Maintenance



I	| Sampling ports properly marked and functional



I	| Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date



I	| Equipment properly identified



1 I Quantity of groundwater treated annually



1 iQuantity of surface water treated annually



Remarks.



-------
2.

Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Proper secondary containment Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

4.

Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

5.

Treatment Building(s)

1^1 N/A O Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Q Needs repair

1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks

6.

Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
1 1 All required wells located O Needs Maintenance O N/A
Remarks

D. Monitoring Data

7.

Monitoring Data

1^1 Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality

8. Monitoring data suggests:

1 1 Groundwater plume is effectively contained Q Contaminant concentrations are declining



D.

Monitored Natural Attenuation

1.

Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition

1 1 All required wells located Q Needs Maintenance Q N/A

Remarks

X.

OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.

XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A.

Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).

-------
The final ROD for OU5 at the South Landfill Subsite issued in September 2000 selected the following
RAOs:

Restore the aquifer to drinking water standards within a reasonable (20 year) timeframe; Control landfill
surface water runoff and erosion; Reduce or eliminate further contamination of groundwater; Minimize
or eliminate contaminant migration to the groundwater and surface water, to levels that ensure the
beneficial reuse of the resources.

The remedy selected in the OU5 ROD consists of the following features:

Surface water controls and GCL (or alternative) cap for soil and landfill contents
Groundwater use restriction and monitored natural attenuation for groundwater.

The OU5 remedy is not performing as designed. Groundwater contamination associated with OU5 has
continued to migrate downgradient of the source area. Evaluation of activities which may improve the
OU5 remedy is underway.

B. Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
_0&M consists of maintenance of the landfill perimeter fence and seasonal mowing of parts of the
surface, as well as periodic inspection.

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be
compromised in the future.

No issues were identified in this FYR.	

D. Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.

Optimization is not likely needed, though thorough evaluation of the remedy is underway in
conjunction with EPA ORD and NDEE.	

-------
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist - FAR-MAR-CO

L SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Hastings Groundwater Superfund Site

-

Date of inspection: August 4,2021

FAR-MAR-CO (OUs 3,6,11)





Location and Region: Grand Island, NE EPA



EPA ID: NEN980862668

Region 7





Agency, office, or company leading the five-year



Weather/temperature: Clear, sunny 86 °

review: U.S. EPA





Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)





I	| Landfill cover/containment



Monitored natural attenuation

I	| Access controls

I	| Groundwater containment

1 1 Institutional controls

1 1 Vertical barrier walls

1X1 Groundwater pump and treatment





|	| Surface water collection and treatment





|	| Other





Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached



1 1 Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. Consultant - SSPA Harvev Cohen



Proiect Manaser October 18.2021

Name



Title Date

Interviewed O at site O at office Kl by email

Phone no. (301) 500-2258

Problems, suggestions: KlReoort attached See Attachment H for interview reports

2. O&M staff N/A

Name



Title Date

Interviewed Q at site O at office O by phone

no.

Problems, suggestions: 1 1 Report attached









-------
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency Nebraska Department of Environment & Energy

Contact Jim Borovich		State RPM	October 18. 2021 402-471-2223

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ^ Report attached See Attachment H for interview record	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name	Title	Date Phone no.

Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached 	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached 	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached 	

4. Other interviews (optional) ~ Report attached.

-------
m. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1.

O&M Documents







I	| O&M manual |	| Readily available |	| Up to date |XI N/A





1 1 As-built drawings Q Readily available Q Up to date £3 N/A





1 1 Maintenance logs Q Readily available Q Up to date Kl N/A





Remarks













2.

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan O Readily available O Up to date

IE|n/a



1 1 Contingency plan/emergency response plan O Readily available O Up to date

N/A



Remarks













3.

O&M and OSHA Training Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













4.

Permits and Service Agreements







I	| Air discharge permit |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





1 1 Effluent discharge Q Readily available Q Up to date Kl N/A





1 1 Waste disposal, POTW O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



1 I Other permits I I Readily available

1 1 Up to date

~ n/a



Remarks













5.

Gas Generation Records O Readily available O Up to date Kl N/A





Remarks













6.

Settlement Monument Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



Remarks













7.

Groundwater Monitoring Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













8.

Leachate Extraction Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













9.

Discharge Compliance Records







I	| Air |	| Readily available

I	| Up to date

N/A



1 1 Water (effluent) O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













10.

Daily Access/Security Logs O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



Remarks













-------
IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization

I I State in-house Q Contractor for State
I I PRP in-house ^ Contractor for PRP
I I Federal Facility in-house Q Contractor for EPA
I I Other	

2. O&M Cost Records (was not reviewed)

~ Readily available ~ Up to date
I iFunding mechanism/agreement in place

Original O&M cost estimate	Q Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From	To	 	 Q Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

Describe costs and reasons:

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS M Applicable Dn/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged	I I Location shown on site map I I Gates secured 1^1 N/A

Remarks

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures	I I Location shown on site map 1^1 N/A

Remarks

-------
c.

Institutional Controls (ICs)

1.

Implementation and enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Q Yes 1 iNo 1^1 N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Q Yes Q No ^ N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)



Frequency

Responsible party/agency
Contact

Name Title Date Phone no.



Reporting is up-to-date Q Yes Q No ^ N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency O Yes O No ^ N/A



Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met Q Yes Q No ^ N/A
Violations have been reported O Yes O No ^ N/A
Other problems or suggestions: Q Report attached

2.

Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate O ICs are inadequate O N/A
Remarks The OU19 Record of Decision (ROD) provided for establishing an ICA, an alternate water
supply for affected users, and a well inventory and groundwater monitoring program. The ICA was
implemented through Hastings and City Ordinance No. 3754. ICs mandated by the OU19 ROD are in
place and serving their intended purpose. The OU19 ICAs serve to protect the public from groundwater
contamination associated with other Hastings
subsites.

D.

General

1.

Vandalism/trespassing Q Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks

2.

Land use changes on site ^ N/A

Remarks

3.

Land use changes off site ^ N/A

Remarks

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A.

Roads Q Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Roads damaged Q Location shown on site map Q Roads adequate Q N/A
Remarks

-------
B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks

VII. LANDFILL COVERS ~ Applicable |EI N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots)

Areal extent	

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Settlement not evident
Depth	

2. Cracks

Lengths_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ Cracking not evident
Widths	 Depths	

3. Erosion

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ Erosion not evident
Depth	

4. Holes

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Holes not evident
Depth	

5. Vegetative Cover	Q Grass	Q Cover properly established Q No signs of stress

~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)

Remarks

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) Q N/A

Remarks

7. Bulges

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Bulges not evident
Height	

-------
Wet Areas/Water Damage

I I Wet areas

~	Ponding
I I Seeps

~	Soft subgrade
Remarks

~	Wet areas/water damage not evident

I I Location shown on site map Areal extent	

~	Location shown on site map Areal extent	

I I Location shown on site map Areal
extent	

I iLocation shown on site map Areal extent	

9. Slope Instability

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Slides Q Location shown on site map Q No evidence of slope
instability

B. Benches	Q Applicable ^ N/A

(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)

1. Flows Bypass Bench

Remarks

~ Location shown on site map

~ N/A or okay

2. Bench Breached

Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay

3. Bench Overtopped

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map

I I N/A or okay

C. Letdown Channels Q Applicable ^ N/A

(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)

1. Settlement

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q No evidence of settlement
	 Depth	

Material Degradation Q Location shown on site map O No evidence of degradation

Material type	 Areal extent	

Remarks

Erosion

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of erosion
	 Depth	

-------
4.

Undercutting ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of undercutting
Areal extent Depth



Remarks













5.

Obstructions Type I | No obstructions

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Size

Remarks











6.

Excessive Vegetative Growth Type

1 1 No evidence of excessive growth

1 1 Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Remarks











D.

Cover Penetrations ~ Applicable ^ N/A





1.

Gas Vents ~ Active ~ Passive
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance

~ n/a

Remarks

1 1 Good condition









2.

Gas Monitoring Probes

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a









3.

Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a

















4.

Leachate Extraction Wells

1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks

1 1 Routinely sampled
1 1 Needs Maintenance

1 1 Good condition

~ n/a









5.

Settlement Monuments ~ Located
Remarks

1 1 Routinely surveyed

~ n/A









-------
E. Gas Collection and Treatment	O Applicable ^ N/A

1. Gas Treatment Facilities

~ Flaring	~ Thermal destruction ~ Collection for reuse

I I Good condition Q Needs Maintenance

Remarks

2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping

~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks

F. Cover Drainage Layer	~ Applicable ^ N/A

1. Outlet Pipes Inspected	I I Functioning	I I N/A

Remarks

2. Outlet Rock Inspected	Q Functioning	Q N/A

Remarks

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Q Applicable ^ N/A

1. Siltation Areal extent	 Depth		I I N/A

~ Siltation not evident
Remarks

2. Erosion	Areal extent	 Depth

I I Erosion not evident
Remarks

3. Outlet Works	I I Functioning I I N/A

Remarks

4. Dam	Q Functioning Q N/A

Remarks

-------
H. Retaining Walls	Q Applicable ^ N/A

1. Deformations I I Location shown on site map I I Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement	 Vertical displacement	

Rotational displacement
Remarks

2. Degradation	Q Location shown on site map Q Degradation not evident

Remarks

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge	Q Applicable ^ N/A

1. Siltation	I I Location shown on site map I I Siltation not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

2. Vegetative Growth Q Location shown on site map ^ N/A
I I Vegetation does not impede flow

Areal extent	 Type	

Remarks

3. Erosion	~ Location shown on site map ^ Erosion not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

4. Discharge Structure Q Functioning ^ N/A
Remarks

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable |EI N/A

1. Settlement	I I Location shown on site map I I Settlement not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

2. Performance MonitoringType of monitoring	

I I Performance not monitored

Frequency	 	~ Evidence of breaching

Head differential	

Remarks

-------
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A

A.

Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ^ Applicable Q N/A

1.

Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q All required wells properly operating Q Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks





2.

Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available O Good condition Q Requires upgrade O Needs to be provided
Remarks

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines O Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

2.

Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks

-------
c.

Treatment System ^ Applicable O N/A

1.

Treatment Train (Check components that apply)

1 1 Metals removal O Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
1^1 Air stripping Q Carbon adsorbers
I | Filters

I | Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)

I | Others

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
1 1 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
1 1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
1 1 Equipment properly identified
I | Quantity of groundwater treated annually
I lOuantity of surface water treated annually

Remarks The dluhd and treat svstem was shut down on September 2. 2014. currently onlv the monitorine



wells are used.

2.

Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Proper secondary containment Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

4.

Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

5.

Treatment Building(s)

1^1 N/A O Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Q Needs repair

1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks

6.

Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs Maintenance Q N/A
Remarks

D. Monitoring Data

9.

Monitoring Data

1^1 Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality

-------
10.

Monitoring data suggests:





1X1 Groundwater plume is effectively contained £

3 Contaminant concentrations are declining

D.

Monitored Natural Attenuation

1.

Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition

1 1 All required wells located O Needs Maintenance O N/A

Remarks

X.

OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.

XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A.

Implementation of the Remedy



Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).



The final ROD for the FAR-MAR-CO Subsite issued in September 2007 selected the following RAOs:
Attain MCLs for the COCs in the groundwater migrating from the subsite. The remedial
alternatives to be evaluated will focus on an area of attainment for the subsite. comprised of the
zone where current water-aualitv data establish the presence of EDB and CT emanating from the
subsite above the MCLs. Overall, the final remedy selected will be protective of human health
and the environment and will be in compliance with ARARs and the AOC.



The remedy selected in the ROD consists of the following features:

•	Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation near the Source Zone

•	Groundwater Extraction at Well D

•	Treatment and Disposal at Industrial Facilitv

•	Expanded Monitoring Program



The remedy has been effective in addressing the RAOs.

B.

Adequacy of O&M

-------
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
_0&M consists of semi-annual sampling, during which maintenance issues are identified and addressed.
This is effective in relation to the long-term protectiveness of the remedy.

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be
compromised in the future.

No issues were identified in this FYR.

D. Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Optimization is not needed.

-------
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist - Area Wide (0U19)

L SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Hastings Groundwater Superfund Site

-

Date of inspection: August 4,2021

Area Wide (OU 19)





Location and Region: Hastings, NE EPA Region 7

EPA ID: NEN980862668

Agency, office, or company leading the five-year



Weather/temperature: Clear, sunny 86 °

review: U.S. EPA





Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)





I	| Landfill cover/containment



Monitored natural attenuation

I	| Access controls

I	| Groundwater containment

1 1 Institutional controls

1 1 Vertical barrier walls

1X1 Groundwater pump and treatment





|	| Surface water collection and treatment





|	| Other





Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached



1 1 Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. Consultant- N/A





Name



Title Date

Interviewed |	| at site |	| at office |	| by email

Phone no. Q

Problems, suggestions; 1 1 Report attached





2. O&M staff Marty Stange

_Environmental Director September 22, 2021

Name



Title Date

Interviewed Q at site O at office O by phone

no. : 402-462-3651

Problems, suggestions; IXI Report attached See Attachment H for interview record.



-------
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency Nebraska Department of Environment & Energy

Contact _Billy Wesley		State RPM	September 15. 2021 402-471-2988

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ^ Report attached See Attachment H for interview record	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name	Title	Date Phone no.

Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached 	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached 	

Agency	

Contact	 	 	 	

Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Q Report attached 	

4. Other interviews (optional) ~ Report attached.

-------
m. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1.

O&M Documents







I	| O&M manual |	| Readily available |	| Up to date |XI N/A





1 1 As-built drawings Q Readily available Q Up to date £3 N/A





1 1 Maintenance logs Q Readily available Q Up to date Kl N/A





Remarks













2.

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan O Readily available O Up to date

IE|n/a



1 1 Contingency plan/emergency response plan O Readily available O Up to date

N/A



Remarks













3.

O&M and OSHA Training Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













4.

Permits and Service Agreements







I	| Air discharge permit |	| Readily available |	| Up to date IXI N/A





1 1 Effluent discharge Q Readily available Q Up to date Kl N/A





1 1 Waste disposal, POTW O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



1 I Other permits I I Readily available

1 1 Up to date

~ n/a



Remarks













5.

Gas Generation Records O Readily available O Up to date Kl N/A





Remarks













6.

Settlement Monument Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



Remarks













7.

Groundwater Monitoring Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













8.

Leachate Extraction Records O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













9.

Discharge Compliance Records







I	| Air |	| Readily available

I	| Up to date

N/A



1 1 Water (effluent) O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

IE|n/a



Remarks













10.

Daily Access/Security Logs O Readily available

1 1 Up to date

N/A



Remarks













-------
IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization

I I State in-house Q Contractor for State
~ PRP in-house ~ Contractor for PRP
I I Federal Facility in-house Q Contractor for EPA
I I Other	

2. O&M Cost Records (was not reviewed)

~ Readily available ~ Up to date
I iFunding mechanism/agreement in place

Original O&M cost estimate	Q Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From	To	 	 Q Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



From



To





| | Breakdown attached



Date



Date

Total cost



3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

Describe costs and reasons:

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS M Applicable Dn/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged	I I Location shown on site map I I Gates secured 1^1 N/A

Remarks

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures	I I Location shown on site map 1^1 N/A

Remarks

-------
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)

1. Implementation and enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented	~ Yes |E|No Dn/A

Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced	~ Yes |E|No Qn/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)	Self-reporting	

Frequency Annual

Responsible party/agency Hastings Utilities	

Contact Marty Stange	 Environmental Director_ August 4, 2021 402-462-3651

Name Title

Date Phone no.

Reporting is up-to-date

^ Yes QNo Qn/A

Reports are verified by the lead agency

^ Yes DNo Dn/A

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met

^ Yes QNo Qn/A

Violations have been reported

~ Yes |E|No Dn/A

Other problems or suggestions: Q Report attached

2. Adequacy	^ ICs are adequate Q ICs are inadequate	Q N/A

Remarks The OU19 Record of Decision (ROD) provided for establishing an ICA, an alternate water
supply for affected users, and a well inventory and groundwater monitoring program. The ICA was
implemented through Hastings and City Ordinance No. 3754. ICs mandated by the OU19 ROD are in
place and serving their intended purpose. The OU19 ICAs serve to protect the public from groundwater
contamination associated with other Hastings subsites. ICA signage was imperfect, with those at 12th &
Showboat, Prairie Lake & Baltimore, Idlewilde & Marian, Hwy 6 & Southern Hills, and 12th &
Burlington not found during the site perimeter drive.

D. General

1. Vandalism/trespassing I I Location shown on site map I I No vandalism evident

Remarks One of the IC area signs (at 12th & Showboat Road) has been repeatedly vandalized. Hastings
Utilities requested that they be allowed to not replace this particular sign, as doing so has only resulted in
vandalized new signs. EPA concurred.

2. Land use changes on site ^ N/A

Remarks

3. Land use changes off site 1^1 N/A

Remarks

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads	~ Applicable ^ N/A

-------
1.

Roads damaged

Remarks

1 1 Location shown on site map Q Roads adequate

~ n/a









B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks

VII. LANDFILL COVERS ~ Applicable |EI N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots)

Areal extent	

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Settlement not evident
Depth	

2. Cracks

Lengths_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q Cracking not evident
Widths	 Depths	

3. Erosion

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ Erosion not evident
Depth	

4. Holes

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ Holes not evident
Depth	

5. Vegetative Cover	Q Grass	Q Cover properly established Q No signs of stress

~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)

Remarks

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) Q N/A

Remarks

-------
7.

Bulges

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map
Height	

~ Bulges not evident

Wet Areas/Water Damage

~ Wet areas
I I Ponding
I I Seeps

I I Soft subgrade
Remarks

I I Wet areas/water damage not evident

~ Location shown on site map Areal extent	

I I Location shown on site map Areal extent	

~ Location shown on site map Areal
extent	

I iLocation shown on site map Areal extent	

9.

Slope Instability ~ Slides

Areal extent_
Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q No evidence of slope
instability

B. Benches	Q Applicable ^ N/A

(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)

1. Flows Bypass Bench

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map

I I N/A or okay

2. Bench Breached

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map Q N/A or okay

3. Bench Overtopped

Remarks

I I Location shown on site map

I I N/A or okay

C. Letdown Channels O Applicable ^ N/A

(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)

1.

Settlement

Areal extent_
Remarks

~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of settlement
	 Depth	

-------
2.

Material Degradation Q Location shown on site map O No evidence of degradation

Material type Areal extent

Remarks

3.

Erosion Q Location shown on site map Q No evidence of erosion

Areal extent Depth

Remarks



4.

Undercutting Q Location shown on site map Q No evidence of undercutting

Areal extent Depth

Remarks

5.

Obstructions Type I | No obstructions

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Size

Remarks

6.

Excessive Vegetative Growth Type

1 1 No evidence of excessive growth

1 1 Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow

I | Location shown on site map Areal extent

Remarks

D.

Cover Penetrations O Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Gas Vents O Active O Passive

1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs Maintenance

~ n/a

Remarks

2.

Gas Monitoring Probes

1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs Maintenance Q N/A
Remarks

3.

Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)

1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs Maintenance O N/A
Remarks

-------
4. Leachate Extraction Wells

I I Properly secured/locked	Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition

~ Evidence of leakage at penetration	~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A

Remarks

5. Settlement Monuments	Q Located O Routinely surveyed Q N/A

Remarks

E. Gas Collection and Treatment	O Applicable ^ N/A

1. Gas Treatment Facilities

~ Flaring	~ Thermal destruction ~ Collection for reuse

I I Good condition Q Needs Maintenance

Remarks

2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping

~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks

F. Cover Drainage Layer	~ Applicable ^ N/A

1. Outlet Pipes Inspected	I I Functioning	I I N/A

Remarks

2. Outlet Rock Inspected	Q Functioning	Q N/A

Remarks

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Q Applicable ^ N/A

1. Siltation Areal extent	 Depth		I I N/A

~ Siltation not evident
Remarks

2. Erosion	Areal extent	 Depth

I I Erosion not evident
Remarks

-------
3.

Outlet Works

Remarks

1 1 Functioning

~ n/a









4.

Dam

Remarks

1 1 Functioning

~ n/A

















H.	Retaining Walls	Q Applicable ^ N/A

I.	Deformations	I I Location shown on site map I I Deformation not evident

Horizontal displacement	 Vertical displacement	

Rotational displacement	

Remarks

2. Degradation	Q Location shown on site map Q Degradation not evident

Remarks

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge	O Applicable ^ N/A

1. Siltation	I I Location shown on site map I I Siltation not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

2. Vegetative Growth Q Location shown on site map ^ N/A
~ Vegetation does not impede flow

Areal extent	 Type	

Remarks

3. Erosion	~ Location shown on site map ^ Erosion not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

4. Discharge Structure Q Functioning ^ N/A
Remarks

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable M N/A

1. Settlement	I I Location shown on site map I I Settlement not evident

Areal extent	 Depth	

Remarks

-------
2. Performance MonitoringType of monitoring	

I I Performance not monitored

Frequency	 	~ Evidence of breaching

Head differential	

Remarks

IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A

A.

Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ^ Applicable Q N/A

1.

Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q All required wells properly operating Q Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks





2.

Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available O Good condition Q Requires upgrade O Needs to be provided
Remarks

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines O Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

2.

Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment

1 1 Readily available Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks

-------
c.

Treatment System ^ Applicable O N/A

1.

Treatment Train (Check components that apply)

1 1 Metals removal O Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
1^1 Air stripping Q Carbon adsorbers
I | Filters

I | Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)

I | Others

1 1 Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
1 1 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
1 1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
1 1 Equipment properly identified
I | Quantity of groundwater treated annually
I lOuantity of surface water treated annually

Remarks The dluhd and treat svstem was shut down on September 2. 2014. currently onlv the monitorine



wells are used.

2.

Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3.

Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Proper secondary containment Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

4.

Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

1^1 N/A O Good condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks

5.

Treatment Building(s)

1^1 N/A O Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Q Needs repair

1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks

6.

Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs Maintenance Q N/A
Remarks

D. Monitoring Data

11.

Monitoring Data

1^1 Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality

-------
12.

Monitoring data suggests:





1X1 Groundwater plume is effectively contained £

3 Contaminant concentrations are declining

D. Monitored Natural Attenuation

1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

1^1 Properly secured/locked	^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition

~ All required wells located ~ Needs Maintenance	~ N/A

Remarks

X. OTHER REMEDIES	

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.

XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A. Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).

The interim action ROD for the Area Wide Subsite issued in June 2001 selected the following RAOs:
Prevent the ingestion of ground water that exceeds MCLs. or the 1 x 10-6 excess cancer risk
Level: Provide containment of ground water that exceeds the MCL or 1 x 10-6 target cleanup goals
to protect against further degradation of the ground water: Reduce the mass of contaminants within the
ground water containment area: and Restore the aquifer to full beneficial use within a reasonable time
frame.

The remedy selected in the ROD consists of the following features:

	Restriction of domestic use of groundwater: Installation and maintenance of ICA warning signs:

Monitoring compliance with ground water use restrictions to prevent unacceptable exposures: An inventory of all
existing ground water wells to identity all domestic, irrigation, industrial and monitoring wells in the ICA:
Providing an alternate source of water for domestic use to any residences currently relying on private wells within
the ICA that are impacted by contamination attributable to the HGWCS; A ground water monitoring program
which will include periodic ground water sampling of selected wells identified in the areas of contamination and
down gradient from the contamination zones; and Preparation of an annual report which summarizes the activities
occurring under the new ordinance, compiles all the monitoring data collected, evaluates the effectiveness of
plume containment measures, evaluates the ordinance for its effectiveness in preventing exposure, and evaluates
the need for additional city actions (i.e., additional monitoring wells or alternative water supplies) to control
unacceptable exposures.

The remedy has been effective in addressing the RAOs.

-------
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
_0&M consists of semi-annual sampling, during which maintenance issues are identified and addressed.
This is effective in relation to the long-term protectiveness of the remedy.

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be
compromised in the future.

As noted, there were issues associated with ICA signage noted during the inspection. Replacement of the
sign repeatedly vandalized is not recommended, but a report from the City on signs noted as missing is
required.	

D. Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Optimization is not needed.	

-------
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEWS

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review - NORTH LANDFILL SUBSITE

Time:

Date: 10/25/21

Type: ~ Telephone ~ Visit
Location of Visit: N/A

Other

~ Incoming ~ Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Bill Gresham

Title: Remedial Project Manager Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Jim Borovich

Title: Groundwater Geologist Organization: NDEE

Telephone No: 402/471-2223
Fax No:

E-Mail Address: jim.borovich@nebraska.gov

Street Address: PO Box 98922

City, State, Zip: Lincoln, NE 68509-8922

Summary Of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project? Pretty much status quo since last 5YR.

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing? Yes

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?

Unknown

4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Describe the staff and frequency of site inspections and
activities. Unknown

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling
routines since start-up? Unknown

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up? NA

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? No

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? No

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details. No

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operations? No	

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site Well #3

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review

Time: 10:30 am

Date: 9-7-2021

Type: ~ Telephone ~ Visit
Location of Visit: N/A

Other

Incoming ~ Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price/Bill Gresham

Title: Remedial Project Manager

Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Wade Gregson

Title: Environmental Specialist II Organization: Nebraska DEE

Telephone No: (402) 471-3377

Fax No: (402) 471-2909

E-Mail Address: wade.gregson@nebraska.gov

Street Address: 245 Fallbrook Boulevard
City, State, Zip: Lincoln, NE 68521

Summary of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project?

The Well No. 3 subsite (Operable Unit #18) is an USEPA lead National Priority List (NPL) site that is being
managed by the potentially responsible party (PRP). EPA has done a good job of enforcing the remedial
requirements at the site since the initial 1989 Interim Record of Decision (ROD) selected soil vapor extraction
(SVE) to remove the initial contaminant of concern (carbon tetrachloride, designated as Plume 1) from the source
area of the site. USEPA later identified a second plume containing the following volatile organic compounds
(VOC): TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCE, and PCE, which was designated at Plume 2. The ROD was amended to
address both plumes with extraction and treatment remedies. USEPA has actively directed the PRP's consultants
to conduct remedial operations and groundwater monitoring activities in accordance with the ROD and ROD
Amendment. Plume 1 achieved clean-up standards and has a no further action (NFA) status. Currently Plume 2 is
being monitored, with only low levels of the contaminants of concern (COCs) that exhibit a decreasing trend.
USEPA has coordinated with the City as part of the overall Hastings Groundwater Contamination NPL site
requirements, conducted five previous Five-Year Reviews, and worked with the PRP's new consulting firm to
develop a suitable site closure strategy based on natural attenuation and groundwater monitoring requirements.
USEPA has also worked with the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy at all points along the way to
allow the State agency with consistent opportunities for conducting technical review of all reports and work plan
documents and to provide valuable input in that process. NDEE is looking forward to the possibility that this
subsite will eventually achieve the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) cleanup goals.

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?

The SVE and groundwater extraction system have been discontinued, and the site is currently managed under
monitored natural attenuation (MNA) conditions. The remedy performance is adequate, plume conditions are in
steady state, and contaminant concentrations show decreasing trends while nearing the MCL cleanup goals.

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are
decreasing?

-------
As stated above, the monitoring data shows decreasing trends which appear to be approaching levels near and
below the COC's MCLs.

4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Describe the staff and frequency of site inspections and
activities.

No - not applicable.

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or
sampling routines since start-up?

Not since the last Five-Year Review.

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up?

No - not applicable.

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts?

Not applicable for the current Five-Year Review.

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration?

No.

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.

No.

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operations?

Continue to conduct MNA activities in order to continue advances toward achieving possible future NFA status.

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site Well#3

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review

Time:

Date: 9/22/2021

Type: EH Telephone EH Visit
Location of Visit: N/A

Other

~ Incoming ~ Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price/Bill Gresham Title: Remedial Project Manager Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Tina Lloyd

Title: Principal Geologist

Organization: Arcadis

Telephone No: 913-998-6916

Fax No: 913-492-0902

E-Mail Address: tina.lloyd@arcadis.com

Street Address: 8725 Rosehill, Suite 350
City, State, Zip: Lenexa, Kansas 66215

Summary Of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project?

The responses to all questions are specific to the Well No. 3 Subsite.

Active remediation of the Plume 2 source zone soils (OU17) and groundwater (OU18) were
previously completed. Work completed for OU18 shows good progress regarding the achievement
of cleanup goals and restoration of the aquifer.

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?

The completed active remedies for soil and groundwater performed well. Remediation of OU17 via
soil vapor extraction (SVE) was initiated in 1996 and completed in 1998 as cleanup goals had been
attained. For OU18, hydraulic capture at the former Hastings well M-3 and groundwater
treatment (i.e. pump and treat) was conducted from 2003 until 2014. Pumping at M-3 was
discontinued in 2014 as part of a pilot shutdown study, and M-3 remains offline as target VOC
concentration at OU18 have continued to decline since the shutdown. Current OU18 activities
related to the remedy consist of semi-annual monitoring of the residual portion of the groundwater
plume, which shows declining concentration trends over time.

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?

Concentrations of target VOCs within the OU18 groundwater monitoring network show sustained
declining trends over time that are the result of successful remediation of subsurface impacts and
attenuation of residual target VOCs in groundwater following remediation. Recent groundwater
monitoring data (collected through the first half of 2021) are consistent with the declining trends
observed since remediation was completed at OU17 and OU18. Currently, all monitoring wells,
but one, contain concentrations of target VOCs below the MCLs. One monitoring well has stable
concentrations of one analyte (TCE) that ranges near the MCL.

4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Describe the staff and frequency of site inspections and
activities.

As active remediation has been completed and groundwater monitoring is the primary O&M
work, a continuous site presence is not necessary. On a semi-annual basis, staff conduct well

-------
inspections as part of the groundwater monitoring events. Any maintenance activities are
completed during the semi-annual events or as needed.

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or
sampling routines since start-up?

The active remedial systems have been decommissioned, which resulted in a significant
reduction in maintenance and monitoring. The concentrations of target VOCs in groundwater
have exhibited a decreasing trend resulting in reduction of the monitoring program and O&M
requirements overtime.

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up?

I am not aware of any unexpected O&M difficulties or costs since start-up.

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts?

Since active remediation is complete, O&M and sampling have been correspondingly reduced.
The groundwater monitoring program has been reduced overtime to the current semi-annual
frequency. The number of wells monitored has also been reduced as sampling demonstrates target
VOCs are consistently detected below the MCLs.

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration?
I am not aware of any community concerns.

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing,
or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.

I am not aware of any such events, incidents, or activities.

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management
or operations?

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site 2nd St.

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review Hastings Second Street Subsite

Time: 3:00 pm

Date: 11/17/21

Type: ~ Telephone Q Visit
Location of Visit: N/A

Other

~ Incoming Q Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price/Bill Gresham

Title: Remedial Project Manager

Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Scott Summerside

Title: Environmental Specialist II Organization: NDEE

Telephone No: 4024714247
Fax No: 4024712909

E-Mail Address: scott.summerside@nebraska.gov

Street Address: 245 Fallbrook Blvd
City, State, Zip: Lincoln, NE 68521

Summary Of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project? It is hard to evaluate the project right now because a new
remedy is about to be implemented in the next year: in situ thermal remediation.

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing? It is too soon to determine
the effectiveness of the thermal treatment.

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?
OU20 monitoring data/trends are documented in semi-annual reports provided to the EPA. There has
been no significant change in the extant of the groundwater contamination plume in recent years.

4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Describe the staff and frequency of site inspections and
activities. No systems are currently operating continuously. The GETS has been shut down to allow for
OU12 thermal remediation to occur. ORC injections are being performed once a year on the OU20
downgradient plume. Groundwater is monitored semi-annually.

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling
routines since start-up? Yes

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up? Yes

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? Yes

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? I am
not aware of any recent concerns.

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details. No

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operations? EPA and NDEE may need to reevaluate the subsite RAOs after the completion of the
thermal remedy. It is possible that a TI waiver may be needed at some point for the Hastings Second
Street Subsite.

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site -
Second Street Sub site

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review

Time: 14:30

Date: 9/22/2021

Type: ~ Telephone ~ Visit
Location of Visit: N/A

Other

~ Incoming ~ Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price/Bill Gresham

Title: Remedial Project Manager

Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Marty Stange

Title: Environmental Director

Organization: City of Hastings,
NE

Telephone No: 402-462-3651
Fax No: 402-463-1705

E-Mail Address: mstange@hastingsutilities.com

Street Address: 1228 North Denver Avenue
City, State, Zip: Hastings, NE 68901

Summary Of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project? The project is complicated and as such has been
ongoing for many years.

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? It seems to be functioning well as the issues of water
contamination that may affect the municipal wells has not been an issue in the last several year.
How well is the remedy performing? Specifically, I do not have any information on its efficiency or
ability to meet it goals.

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Monitor data of active municipal wells has not shown and
contaminates related to this site. Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing? I
do not have any information specifically noted for this subsite.

4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? It seems that someone is maintaining the equipment as
need. Describe the staff and frequency of site inspections and activities. It would be helpful with my
new position to know whom to contact regarding the daily operations of the subsite.

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling
routines since start-up? Information not available to me at this time.

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up? Not aware of any
issues.

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? Since I do not interact with the
site on a daily basis I have no information or opinion on this issue.

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? No
concerns noted. I did contact Mrs. Deb Bergmann and Mrs. Jenny Sidlo to see if they have any
concerns. They did not.

-------
9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency responses from local authorities? None noted. If so, please give details.

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operations? As noted above it would helpful to have contact information for the persons responsible
for the day-to-day operations.

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site -
Colorado Avenue Subsite

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review

Time:

Date:

Type: ~ Telephone ~ Visit
Location of Visit: N/A

Other

~ Incoming ~ Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price/Bill Gresham

Title: Remedial Project Manager

Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Brian Steffes

Title: Project Manager

Organization: Michael Baker Intl.

Telephone No: 412.398.0191
Fax No: 412.375.3996

E-Mail Address: bsteffes@mbakerintl.com

Street Address: 100 Airside Dr
City, State, Zip: Coraopolis, PA 15108

Summary Of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project? Good progress; the project is nearing completion.

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing? The SVE system
successfully remediated the source area (OU9) and was closed and removed by December 2017. The
Interim Remedial Action (in-well aeration [IWAJ) for groundwater (OU1) successfully reduced COCsto
below the interim standards and the IWA system was closed and removed by April 2016.

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?

Groundwater monitoring data from the Post-Monitoring Treatment (PTM) wells shows continued
reductions in concentrations of COCs.

4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Describe the staff and frequency of site inspections and
activities. There is no continuous O&M presence. A geologist inspects the PTM wells once a year during
PTM sampling.

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling
routines since start-up? Yes, the SVE system and IWA systems have been removed, so no further O&M is
needed. The PTM wells are sampled and inspected once a year.

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up? No.

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? No.

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? Not

aware of any community concerns.

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details. Not aware of any incidents or
issues.

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operations? No.	

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review - COLORADO AVE SUBSITE

Time:

Date: 10/25/21

Type: ~ Telephone Q Visit
Location of Visit: N/A

Other

~ Incoming Q Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price

Title: Remedial Project Manager

Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Jim Borovich

Title: Groundwater Geologist Organization: NDEE

Telephone No: 402/471-2223
Fax No:

E-Mail Address: jim.borovich@nebraska.gov

Street Address: PO Box 98922

City, State, Zip: Lincoln, NE 68509-8922

Summary Of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project? Project is in limbo as we determine how final remedial
design will proceed w/ insolvency of PRP.

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing? Unknown. Final remedy
has not been implemented for groundwater contamination and most recent monitoring information is
close to two years old.

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?

Unclear.

4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Describe the staff and frequency of site inspections and
activities. No due to Covid restrictions and PRP insolvency.

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling
routines since start-up? Yes, due to Covid impacts/restrictions and insolvency of PRP.

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up? NA

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? No

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? No

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details. No

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operations? No

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review Hastings South Landfill

Time: 3:17 pm Date: 10/21/21

Type: ~ Telephone ~ Visit
Location of Visit: N/A

Other

~ Incoming ~ Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price/Bill Gresham Title: Remedial Project Manager Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Scott Summerside

Title: Environmental Specialist II Organization: NDEE

Telephone No: 4024714247
Fax No: 4024712909

E-Mail Address: scott.summerside@nebraska.gov

Street Address: 245 Fallbrook Blvd
City, State, Zip: Lincoln, NE 68521

Summary Of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project? Neutral (see #2)

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing? The remedy is currently
being re-evaluated under a draft FFS.

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?
This is debatable according to what is documented in the draft FFS and the technical review
comments/response to comments presented so far.

4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Describe the staff and frequency of site inspections and
activities. No.

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling
routines since start-up?

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up? N/A.

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? No

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? No

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details. No

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operations? Not at this time as the remedy is currently under re-evaluation.	

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Superfund Site -

Area Wide (OU19)

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review

Time: Date: 9/22/2021
14:48

Type: Telephone Visit Other
Location of Visit: N/A

Incoming Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price/Bill
Gresham

Title: Remedial Project
Manager

Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Marty Stange

Title: Environmental
Director

Organization: City of Hastings, NE

Telephone No: 402-462-3651

Fax No: 402-463-1705

E-Mail Address:
mstange®,hastingsutilities.com

Street Address: 1228 North Denver Avenue
City, State, Zip: Hastings, NE 68901

Summary Of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project? The project monitoring and well
permit appears to be working well. We have had few concerns by the public or
attempts to get well permits.

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? It seems to be functioning well as the monitoring
indicates the plume are within the ICA boundaries. How well is the remedy performing? The
goal is to protect the public from drinking contaminated water appears to be working. No
incidents of drinking contaminated water have been reported. Most well owners
understand the concerns and potential for contaminated water.

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Monitoring data of active municipal, industrial, and
irrigation wells has shown a general decrease in contaminates. Plume migration is slow and

-------
the current monitor frequency is able to define the plume locations. Are there any trends
that show contaminant levels are decreasing? Yes, most trends are decreasing.

4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Yes, Environmental staff monitor area drilling
and construction activities. Describe the staff and frequency of site inspections and activities.
Being employees of the city, monitoring is ongoing and is preformed daily or as needed.

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules,
or sampling routines since start-up? None noted.

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up? None Noted

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? Yes, as concentration
levels drop the frequency of testing is reduced to appropriate levels.

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? No concerns noted. I did contact Mrs. Deb Bergmann and Mrs. Jenny Sidlo
to see if they have any concerns. They did not.

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing,
or emergency responses from local authorities? None noted except for a couple of ICA signs
that were missing. If so, please give details. One sign may have blown away and was not
found. One sign appears to be an act of vandualism. This sign placement has been modified
to reduce losing the sign.

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management or operations? No.

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Superfund Site -

North Landfill

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review

Time: Date: 9/22/2021
14:48

Type: Telephone Visit Other
Location of Visit: N/A

Incoming Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price/Bill
Gresham

Title: Remedial Project
Manager

Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Marty Stange

Title: Environmental
Director

Organization: City of Hastings, NE

Telephone No: 402-462-3651

Fax No: 402-463-1705

E-Mail Address:
mstange®,hastingsutilities.com

Street Address: 1228 North Denver Avenue
City, State, Zip: Hastings, NE 68901

Summary Of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project? The project appears to be in the final
stages of control.

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? Yes. How well is the remedy performing? Sufficient
to protect further impact to the groundwater.

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Groundwater monitoring shows limited impact by
North Landfill site. Plume migration is slow and the current monitor frequency is able to
define the plume locations. Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are
decreasing? Yes, most trends are decreasing.

-------
4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Yes, Environmental and Landfill staff monitor
the North Landfill area as needed and in accordance with applicable reporting
requirements. Describe the staff and frequency of site inspections and activities. Being
employees of the city, monitoring is ongoing and is preformed daily or as required.

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules,
or sampling routines since start-up? None noted.

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up? None noted
since the landfill cap has been installed.

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? The passive system of
a landfill cap and monitoring does not have many opportunities for optimizing O&M.

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? No concerns noted. I did contact Mrs. Deb Bergmann and Mrs. Jenny Sidlo
to see if they have any concerns. They did not.

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing,
or emergency responses from local authorities? None noted. If so, please give details.

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management or operations? No.

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Superfund Site -

South Landfill

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review

Time: Date: 9/22/2021
14:48

Type: Telephone Visit Other
Location of Visit: N/A

Incoming Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price/Bill
Gresham

Title: Remedial Project
Manager

Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Marty Stange

Title: Environmental
Director

Organization: City of Hastings, NE

Telephone No: 402-462-3651

Fax No: 402-463-1705

E-Mail Address:
mstange®,hastingsutilities.com

Street Address: 1228 North Denver Avenue
City, State, Zip: Hastings, NE 68901

Summary Of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project? The project appears to be in the final
stages of control.

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? Yes to a certain degree. How well is the remedy
performing? It is known that migration of VOC contamination is occurring. To what extent
at this time, 1 am trying to better understand the issue.

-------
3.	What does the monitoring data show? Groundwater monitoring shows limited impact by
South Landfill site as the concentration are low. Plume migration is slow and the current
monitor frequency is able to define the plume locations. Are there any trends that show
contaminant levels are decreasing? Yes, it appears some areas are decreasing. Need more
information on the subsite to better understand the history.

4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Yes, Environmental, Landfill, and Parks
Department staff monitor the South Landfill area as needed and in accordance with
applicable reporting requirements. With the site being a dog park the public is quick to
mention any issues. Describe the staff and frequency of site inspections and activities. Being
employees of the city, monitoring is ongoing and is preformed daily or as required.

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules,
or sampling routines since start-up? None noted other than mowing issues. We are
attempting to promote a pollinator habitat in lieu of prairie hay harvesting.

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up? None noted
since the landfill phtyocap has been installed.

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? The passive system of
a landfill cap and monitoring does not have many opportunities for optimizing O&M.

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? No concerns noted. I did contact Mrs. Deb Bergmann and Mrs. Jenny Sidlo
to see if they have any concerns. They did not.

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing,
or emergency responses from local authorities? None noted. If so, please give details.

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management or operations? No.

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review

Time: 12:00 pm

Date: 9/15/21

Type: Telephone
Location of Visit: N/A

Visit

Other

Incoming Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price/Bill Gresham

Title: Remedial Project Manager

Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Billy Wesley

Title: Environmental Specialist II

Organization: Nebraska DEE

Telephone No: (402)471-2988

Fax No: (402) 471-2909

E-Mail Address: billv.weslev@nebraska.gov

Street Address: 245 Fallbrook Boulevard
City, State, Zip: Lincoln, NE 68521

Summary of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project?

The project is continuing to make progress. USEPA has worked with the NDEE at all points
along the way to allow the State agency consistent opportunities for conducting technical
review of all reports and work plan documents and to provide valuable input in that process.

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?

The remedies seem to be taking the project in the right direction. Contaminant concentrations
show decreasing trends.

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are
decreasing?

No.

4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Describe the staff and frequency of site
inspections and activities.

No.

5. Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules,
or sampling routines since start-up?

-------
No.

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up?

No.

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts?

No.

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration?

No.

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing,
or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.

No.

10. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management or operations?

No.

-------
INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site,
FAR-MAR-Co Subsite

EPA ID No.: NED980862668

Subject: Five-Year Review

Time: N/A

Date: 10/18/21

Type: ~ Telephone ~ Visit	Kl Other

Location of Visit: N/A

~ Incoming ~ Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Laura Price/Bill Gresham Title: Remedial Project Manager Organization: EPA

Individual Contacted:

Name: Harvey A. Cohen, PhD, PG

Title: Principal Hydrogeologist

Organization: S.S. Papadopulos &
Associates, Inc.

Telephone No: 301-718-8900

Fax No: 301-718-8909

E-Mail Address: hcohen@sspa.com

Street Address:
City, State, Zip:

1801Rockville Pike
Suite 220

Rockville, MD 20852

Summary Of Conversation

1.	What is your overall impression of the project?

The project is progressing smoothly through its final phases. Active source control
measures were completed in July 2010, and concentrations of COCs in groundwater
continue to decline. While concentration decrease, potential risk pathways are
controlled by MNA, groundwater containment, and institutional controls (Hastings
Institutional Control Area).

2.	Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?

-	The remedy is performing as expected. Following implementation of SVE, and
source area enhanced bioremediation (SAEB), concentrations of COCs have decreased
in the source area and in downgradient monitoring wells, and continue to do so.

3.	What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant
levels are decreasing?

-	Monitoring data show continuing decreasing trends in all wells/COCs with one
exception discussed below. Since 2010, the number of wells in the monitoring
program has been reduced from more than 20 wells to 5, reflecting achievement of
performance standards in most locations. In 2020 and 2021, EDB, the only COC
unique to the FAR-MAR-CO subsite, exceeded the performance standard in just a
single monitoring well - MW-08, in the source area.

Concentrations of CT have also fallen exponentially in most wells, and current
concentrations are generally at or below the performance standard. In the FAR-
MAR-CO subsite source area well, MW-08, concentrations continue to decline with

1

-------
an exponential trend. CT concentrations during 2020-2021 were in the range of < 1
ug/L to 38 ug/L.

CT concentrations have recently increased in well MQ-08, which is north of the
primary FAR-MAR-CO plume. This CT plume (with no EDB) has been recognized
by EPA as originating in an alternate source area, and is referred to as the "feral
plume."

4.	Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? Describe the staff and frequency of site
inspections and activities.

There is no continuous O&M presence. The only on-site activity is semi-annual
sampling.

5.	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance
schedules, or sampling routines since start-up?

As noted above, there is currently no active remediation, and the only maintenance
issue is ensuring integrity of the monitoring wells. Sampling frequency has been
reduced from quarterly to semi-annual with USEPA approval.

6.	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up?

-	No.

7.	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts?

Sampling efforts have been optimized repeatedly since 2010 as wells have been
removed from the monitoring program after achieving performance standards.

8.	Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration?

-	No.

9.	Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism,
trespassing, or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.

-	No

10.	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management or operations?

-	No

2

-------
APPENDIX F
PUBLIC NOTICE

-------
«MtariaT>Aqp*H,3gn

!»iii,i»lii,tea:

* *4yj^ '"" a*«4 r*^'* I" 11) 'V

..^"iTV;	; ^§1** WMg y.«fe«.«).¦

'"	"** ss%#ii»*i i»«iwi it »ift.

-¦Mi pass »a listi is 2%,

ftC tOV>C*T~>., »..v.

§#« 7 ^ *t Wmif ciovpf

f» SUtiBiiMa

• mmm >-<"•> ¦ •

kl«B«S K!S	S'Pli

wws^mMmms..

JJjJ HHHI Sum*.

	IllltBll

			

W0»*»J«O,	

0wfte im"z* waL...

lllfllti »&«! pi»IS.plSlliv*.

	

ItaMiHifSB pimtiiSmtw ISIS......

" "tell

JxTVBSWTHW m WMmmm CfBSK

_. 4.yiE*

Marine tin Omaha among those killed In Mghanistan

igrt la

asriSSfs**'

Psfttltiitt. CillllJfIlls.
iiiiil%f -is* n*» mrnii mtmi'f
lis WNI €Mfc IflW. St# lb# Pllltfl#:
¦««R> mm «iil|jia«l flat M».
riiitie nfiiir Bniiaiiiiif fan ill-
',• ' " . .-'i "In"'; " i >"
lit. Ib nui In- lis ddt-had,

<>	, r.'t t.M •

iil not «*to te«Mk1sai» ii»-
#ta«HMit«»li»i».
• v •	. ,i, ,t .,,i .«•

SitlWWtrif IS TtsSHlJij f&JS jT'lUrlMli IS

t^jHKsaR.""

Clissfs	»Ssf®*-

He*, IShxia Btfesnsfci,,. mm |b $

. . > - «*•*>" ¦ '> >

pmi'tttii *» >»¦ *llenaiiiii.. <§¦

gjMf-||J^	ffldWI

»•%<•» im—i

•il ilittii iMuft* mmmmm
sail Oarl	" ~

fifr *lM*rtbl
MB- *! !««•». lit mgrt WD

"W» *¦¦>*» *»

•Miilsi, IMutiwifcitt Mil««

illtfciitiffce
iinii»ril»aiB SIM "lp
II»»fc««lllBt#fll	1ST tlli

MM «ai •t«m» MOM iltli
iifcittlsit. Caqnnlnqse it

jiaf fiiiiii|rwi»«f

isg as. fcirtajs tills iIme Out

iimmtrn mil p*™ mm jinn



Homeless man sentenced in multiple drug case

StoMHdwtmdf nHBdKtfluraa* isihItiiihw*

.ciarpp inn® jmssbiim®
r« -i.ir	- '.-I- f'		

»s •»!•• * i; • « ¦ mm

,«CBmb< at ftmm »# prtMA
minim |im>i«B>Hi' ty^i AdHHPmuyOM-
t«rn>jwu*tai|

mat m twjm •*	lngiisirlli amneMl

cralkfertaidqiMl-

arm

IS >, ,..w. .1

• Ii»«l»«I2.K flaws
®f ibA

a»Sfc!8&111f«fa5,

Child pornography charge sent to district court

mxws asa

xat rr ¦ n sT r, « ?

EWHrHfitsfAi- asm

China rcmniiismirhiyjicsi export market, troublemaker

m '

S I 1 M

JL »«*as»

IB. 1*11



i

to ffi* 4»§& eanttflK* to
fMptIA aaaaalSMwar.

«#»

»Sa«p»s..
iiS -its:

Chto—«n»*i w«r
w — ¦»»«¦« b

Ttat4muo« i—m>i
oau

^ y ^ yfe |ias»

n.is IT* «»».""

•fe^ »if »1 < aayi'wil-iHri

mm jwr, -M-
DHuteaM

uu ¦ ... '¦¦¦

Am Abk- mf

I mititmtft.
Mm 4*hy4nn

. • • I.

til...	1

ClOlIi Itlipi »*t J**#

«»iuariMl i*»*.

r^®p?
wfcw; sEiiacr send:

www!. ipsnSf. d«el9r«A

jMMrtmw mmi "»t im

-immmig t* Oun* *

it Atma *ww» twmte
»»»"» h*4 taeat

I.!«.«»»» cmprOtcib mil

tm aaKjtoOjritM .*

«M	aSia

s»Hk>» onrMwnwjr:»
n»tne«.

pilWHH	•

v ¦ ,!' I f , . . w

aimioKfct. l.anjii!®.

-

Hm immm (Ww «**
fc

III" Sl»» IB

m	tew - ""

Oime

is Uw	is

jdWMBtWB

IK Mt9»r

•nwWMmmiiam it.

jsysiflL

PUWJC HOTICE

... m"warf h» S*

HI , .1 u. . . !•„. ,

mil m* m * mtf he *r

AiawisM nuttUf

Hk-»ae in i r mr.B. n< .¦ - ""V r -. «¦ 11

-------
line, large and vtilTd
E.gan-;t a groan back-
rtrop of tuwtod cam,
tills Donald Trump
tfao other, snaikc and
raatn wrcd 7, dwlarr-s
ll-ini If Had on. vrUH, oil
Aiwrksems soon will ft*
"tw slEling rar OtliK"

in LurpEparts of Gv-
U.S.. many — maybe- utcti
rnas; - Amcnon Dura
>¦ is AlnadT ar» trurfcling
Inr Chin* and. e wn Btcnv
UNxnesm. tt»y got tte»
eaur M*ynf Ibrcw Pres-
btenr DanflU Tramp, not
Jt# fKd«i

PotHaju (llrW fpStiSP
down, m Uvifci ircuidlng
to tint tngte rootamad
In Uw W5c»riarisin ugTLv
Prasldpcu J60 Rvfc< rr . w iwti At* UK r*rm	»r rrwjiK

I tf* ftj» «*"»•*'; vri* r acucr^.Ttl Bar«¥X»T Hi Ir-a-j-nrrtrri

+)>*—-11	1 , f !¦>.-/• • - r»,i»	111 <»' «•- rs TTT»>»I |»- I -• \*9 Aft

t^if	t». kifft Alt'

1 Ib«i Mtn»'*n«Ti rijT.j t? jfii artrnw •jnrUkh'tiiinbii -hi;*! 0 trifirtm
1-1; -i - 4-.* «u»^-w	j« f- c I. mi* '% tl •• ' <*«rr «-" r c •«-¦ 41 =r?

i ttof-d-- v	t<# MiM Afr-.vi:' rv ^ •_4p»—n

SffTtUt HfeJKf.iT

| = J .	M .... ,>V

.is t-raitm«HU*u*«tiai4M¥,*p?

H -r fcro*.	r-~. r v, •,

ii j is* .4. *ii

HCTh? (jiited fc< me ro» l>?ci to  21^

MIR/VCLl]

Ch@

•wtuillll*

SfKswn Wfrmieraliips are soil Jrraiabie t' pu^nase on ft* HCTwetarts
^-asitctlaaarocin

RjtJlIM ?*1 0»J*l*jn (JC4M	U

atpsiiKa HGT» Sreal kbh ni rmm
aiiiBK nmiff tvrwfm ii rl i £kemtM
rrlri l(s,py LeaUs an fled en xil im
Nt NFtld boMB N» :H si I mvjl WOBST
rwrs»rxJ-f. « vif |K 1tv)i« wmgi a^tJI
•}]i C»ii»

«e-i£3-iED0
LtuI hdOvtMil'yi^n

A MOST MARVROUS SEASON
Mjsc, Mage. Mrslsry & Murder

NOTICE OF BUDGET HEARING
AND BUDGET SUMMARY

KENE&AW RURAL FRE D^RlCT
N

~drAHNEVi'ADftMB Dxrty. Hatcaaka
P*JH.»C KCTflCt ta hsnsby g«r<, n oanpfiirrten*tf«ftMfv	I

Bn^aom d fofMr^r Tk.

PkMMHtftaFliFr^rM^MiiPajnH I LHi4.lt
hnonirt %alhcBfti ii l-KMi
-------
APPENDIX G
MANN-KENDALL RESULTS

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Well #3 Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

TCE (|ag/L)

CW-8

BW-17S

03/2017

4

9.2

09/2017

2.5

7.5

03/2018

3.5

10.5

09/2018

4.5

10.3

03/2019

5.8

17.8

09/2019

6.5

1.3

05/2020

0.81

NS

07/2020

1 U

8.9

10/2020

1.2

2.7 (5.6)

06/2021

3.1

10.4 (9.9)

12/2021

1.6

2.5 (2.9)

Minimum

0.81

1.3

Maximum

6.5

17.8

95% UCL

4.2

11.1

MK Trend

None

None

Result exceeds MCL = 5 ng/L
Italics	Reporting limit exceeds MCL

NS	Not sampled

U	Not detected at the reporting limit shown

* CW-8 sampled in May 2020 by another consultant for local due diligence

project.

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Well #3 Subsite

Trichloroethene (TCE) Detections (|ig/L), March 2017-December 2021, Cleanup Level = 5 ng/L

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

~LS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

11

0.9500
0.0500
12.8452
•0.S228
-9

0.2710
0.2667

-0.2590
4.6913

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	10

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

S tandard D eviation of S	11.1803

Standardized Value of S	-0.7155

M-K Test Value (S)	-9

T abulated p-value	0.2420

Approximate p-value	0.2371

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.4945

0 LS R egression I ntercept	11.1600

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	6

Generated Index

-------
Wlann-Kendall Trend Test

S

CO

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

10
0.9500
0.0500

10.7858
0.9271

11

0.1900
0.17B9

0.0423
0.G833

Generated Index

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, FAR-MAR-CO Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

Carbon













Tetrachloride













(M-g/L)

MQ-04

MQ-08

MW-8

WEC A



WEC B

Mar-17

2.07

14.7

7.16

6.83



2.25

Sep-17

3.36

24

13

5.97



3.09

May-18

3.66

26.8

36.5

8.8



3.48

Sep-18

2.09

21.4

19.6

1.22



2.56

Mar-19

2.16

14.7

27.2

4.55



1.9

Oct-19

1.89

9.1

28.9

1

U

1

Apr-20

2

10.1

10.4

1

U

1

Nov-20

3.3

20.5

1 U

1

U

1.2

Apr-21

2.2

22.2

40

5.1



1.4

Minimum

1.89

9.1

1 U

1

U

1

Maximum

3.66

26.8

40

8.8



3.48

95% UCL

3.0

22.0

28.9

5.9



2.6

MK Trend

None

None

None

None



None



Result is at or above MCL (5 ng/L)







Italics

Reporting limit is at or above MCL







NS	Not sampled

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, FAR-MAR-CO Subsite

Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Detections (ng/L), March 2017-April 2021 (9 pts), Cleanup Level = 5 |ig/L

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

S tandard D eviation of S	9.5917

S tandardized Value of S	-0.1043

M-KTest Value (S)	-2

Tabulated p-value	0.4600

Approximate p-value	0.4585

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.0530

OLS Regression Intercept	2.790G

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	S

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	9.5394

Standardized Value of S	-0.4193

M-KTest Value (S)	-5

T abulated p-value	0.3810

Approximate p-value	0.3375

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.4387

OLS Regression Intercept	20.3500

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

-------
40

32

24

i

16

8

0

(

9

7

<

O

S5

3

1

0

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

S tandard D eviation of S	9.5917

S tandardized V alue of S	0.5213

M-K Test Value (S)	6

T abulated p-value	0.3060

Approximate p-value	0.3011

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	0.8743

0 LS R egression I ntercept	16.0461

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

4	6

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardised Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.3986
-1.7024
-17
0.0600
0.0443

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

-0.6275
7.0786

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

2

4	6

Generated Index

10

-------
Wlann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5394
-1.6773
-17
0.0600
0.0467

-0.2598
3.2858

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, FAR-MAR-CO Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

Ethylene
Dibromide

(Hg/L)

MQ-04



MW-8



MW-14

WEC-A



WEC-B



Mar-17

0.0525



0.102



0.041

0.0601



0.0338



Sep-17

0.055



0.0966



0.0117

0.0512



0.0342



May-18

0.0509



0.181



0.0612

0.0591



0.0264



Sep-18

0.0384



0.143



0.0509

0.0234



0.0282



Mar-19

0.0102



0.136



0.0524

0.0305



0.0135



Oct-19

0.027



0.161



0.073

0.017



0.014



Apr-20

0.03

U

0.046



0.04

0.03

U

0.03

U

Nov-20

0.03

U

0.03

U

0.048

0.03

U

0.03

U

Apr-21

0.03

U

0.16



0.041

0.03

U

0.03

U

Minimum

0.0102



0.03

U

0.0117

0.017



0.0135



Maximum

0.055



0.181



0.073

0.0601



0.0342



95% UCL

0.0449



0.15



0.0571

0.0453



0.0301



MK Trend

None



None



None

None



None



Result is at or above MCL (0.05 ng/L)
Italics	Reporting limit is at or above MCL

NS	Not sampled

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, FAR-MAR-CO Subsite

Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Detections (|J.g/L), March 2017-April 2021 (9 pts), Cleanup Level = 0.05 ng/L

0.0191

0.0141

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.398G
-1.7024
-17
0.0600
0.0443

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.0036

OLS Regression Intercept 0.0542

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	6

Generated Index

0.0541
0.0491
0.0441

Mann-Keridall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-KTest Value(S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

0.066

0.046

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope -0.0037
0 LS R egression I ntercept 0.1356

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	6

Generated Index

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-0.3128
-4

0.3810
0.3772

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall Trend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-KTest Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

-------
0.020

4	G

Generated Index

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5394
0.0000
1

0.5400
0.5000

OL5 Regiession Line (Blue)

0 L9 R egression 9 lope 0.0015
0L9 Regression Intercept 0.0392

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall Trend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

< 0.0409
O

LU

^ 0.0359

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.3996
-1.7024
-17
0.0600
0.0443

-0.0041
0.0575

4	6

Generated Index

-------
Mann-Kendall Trend Test

0.0330
0.0310
0.0290
0.0270

[0 0.0250

O

Hi

^ 0.0230

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.3986
-0.2128
-3

0.4G00
0.4157

-0.0008
0.0296

Generated Index

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, FAR-MAR-CO Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

Trichloroethylene

(ug/L)	MQ-05

Mar-17	11.3

Sep-17	NS

May-18	NS

Sep-18	NS

Mar-19	NS

Oct-19	NS

Apr-20	NS

Nov-20	NS

Apr-21	NS

Minimum	NS

Maximum	11.3

95% UCL <4 Detects
MK Trend <4 Detects

MW-8

WECA

WECB

3.81

28

3.33

5

23.7

3.66

10.8

18.7

2.67

6.83

9.73

3.37

6.58

21

1.96

5.94

8.74

2.8

2.7

8.7

3.9

1

U 6.8

3.8

7.2

37.5

3.3

1

6.8

1.96

10.8

37.5

3.9

7.33

24.6

3.58

None	None	None

Italics
NS

Result is at or above MCL (5 ng/L)
Reporting limit is at or above MCL
Not sampled

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, FAR-MAR-CO Subsite

Trichloroethylene (TCE) Detections (|ig/L), March 2017-April 2021 (9 pts), Cleanup Level = 5 ng/L

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

S tandard D eviation of S	9.5917

S tandardized Value of S	-0.3128

M-K Test Value (S)	-4

T abulated p-value	0.3810

Approximate p-value	0.3772

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.2588

OLS Regression Intercept	6.8342

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	6

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

2G

<
o

111

5 21

Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	9.5917

Standardized Value of S	-1.5639

M-K Test Value (S)	-16

T abulated p-value	0.0600

Approximate p-value	0.0589

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-0.5615

OLS Regression Intercept	20.9042

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

-------
Mann-Kendall Trend Test

CO

o

LU
£

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	9.5917

Standardized Value of S	0.3128

M-K Test Value (S)	4

T abulated p-value	0.3810

Approximate p-value	0.3772

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	0.03S5

0 LS R egression I ntercept	3.0164

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

-------
S.S. Papadopulos 8e Associates, Inc.

MQ-04

CD

3

c
o

CC

-i—•

c
0

o
c
o
o

o
o
o —

o
o

o
o





p



CT





EDB



o

CT Not Detected.

Plotted at Reporting Limit.

A

EDB Not Detected.

Plotted at Reporting Limit.

81

CT Not Detected.

Reporting Limit is Not Available.

&

EDB Not Detected.

Reporting Limit is Not Available.

— —

CTMCL



— —

EDB MCL



If reporting limits are not available, CT non-detects are plotted at a default value of 0.02 j_tg/L. EDB non-detects are plotted at a default value of 0.01 j-ig/L.

-------
S.S. Papadopulos 8e Associates, Inc.

MQ-08

CD

3

c
o

CC

-i—•

c
0

o
c
o
o

o
o —I

o
o

y.

'033X>

\

-------
S.S. Papadopulos 8e Associates, Inc.

MW-08

o

Jan-98 Jan-02 Jan-06 Jan-10 Jan-14 Jan-18



CT





EDB



o

CT Not Detected.

Plotted at Reporting Limit.

A

EDB Not Detected.

Plotted at Reporting Limit.

81

CT Not Detected.

Reporting Limit is Not Available.

&

EDB Not Detected.

Reporting Limit is Not Available.

— —

CTMCL



— —

EDB MCL



If reporting limits are not available, CT non-detects are plotted at a default value of 0.02 j-ig/L. EDB non-detects are plotted at a default value of 0.01 j-ig/L.

-------
S.S. Papadopulos 8e Associates, Inc.

CD

3

c
o

CC

-i—•

c
0

o
c
o
o

MW-14

o
o
o -J

o
o
o

o
o

o -

o
o

IB

-

ocwn rrrrrn

\ i

/ %* •	• • ft.

w T)0 0000<

Lk

AA—\

A

	1	1				1	1	1	r

Jan-98 Jan-02 Jan-06 Jan-10 Jan-14 Jan-18



CT





EDB



o

CT Not Detected.

Plotted at Reporting Limit.

A

EDB Not Detected.

Plotted at Reporting Limit.

81

CT Not Detected.

Reporting Limit is Not Available.

&

EDB Not Detected.

Reporting Limit is Not Available.

— —

CTMCL



— —

EDB MCL



If reporting limits are not available, CT non-detects are plotted at a default value of 0.02 j_tg/L. EDB non-detects are plotted at a default value of 0.01 j-ig/L.

-------
S.S. Papadopulos 8e Associates, Inc.

Well A

o
o —I



CD

3

c
o

CC

-i—•

c
0

o
c
o
o

o
o





CT





EDB



o

CT Not Detected.

Plotted at Reporting Limit.

A

EDB Not Detected.

Plotted at Reporting Limit.

81

CT Not Detected.

Reporting Limit is Not Available.

&

EDB Not Detected.

Reporting Limit is Not Available.

— —

CTMCL



— —

EDB MCL



If reporting limits are not available, CT non-detects are plotted at a default value of 0.02 j_tg/L. EDB non-detects are plotted at a default value of 0.01 j-ig/L.

-------
S.S. Papadopulos 8e Associates, Inc.

Well B

CD

3

c
o

CC

-i—•

c
0

o
c
o
o

1	f

Jan-98



CT





EDB



o

CT Not Detected.

Plotted at Reporting Limit.

A

EDB Not Detected.

Plotted at Reporting Limit.

81

CT Not Detected.

Reporting Limit is Not Available.

&

EDB Not Detected.

Reporting Limit is Not Available.

— —

CTMCL



— —

EDB MCL



If reporting limits are not available, CT non-detects are plotted at a default value of 0.02 j_tg/L. EDB non-detects are plotted at a default value of 0.01 j-ig/L.

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

PCE (ng/L)

SL-2

SL-3



SL-4S

SL-5S

SL-08S

Sep-2015

7.8

5.9



8.8

6.1

1.5

Dec-2015

7.1

6.6



8.8

4.3

2.1

Mar-2016

7.7

5.7



8

4.9

1.5

Jun-2016

8.1

5

U

8.6

4.8

1.2

Sep-2016

7.3

5.6



8.2

5

2.9

Dec-2016

4.8

5

U

6.2

4.5

2.8

Mar-2017

4.5

5

U

9.2

4.4

2.2

Jun-2017

7

5

U

8.2

6.1

2.4

Minimum

4.5

5



6.2

4.3

1.2

Maximum

8.1

6.6



9.2

6.1

2.9

95% UCL

7.7

5.9



8.9

5.5

2.5

MK Trend

None





None

None

None

Result is at or above MCL (5 ng/L)
Italics	Reporting limit is at or above MCL

Not

NS	sampled

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Detections (ng/L)
8 Quarters, September 2015 - June 2017
Cleanup Level = 5 |ig/L



Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n 8

7.9

7.4

6.9

CM 6.4

_l

CO

5.9
5.4
4.9
4.4













Confidence Coefficient 0.9500
Level of Significance 0.0500
Standard Deviation of S 8.0829
Standardized Value of S -1.6083
M-K Test Value (S) -14
Tabulated p-value 0.0540
Approximate p-value 0.0539





































OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope -0.3345
OLS Regression Intercept 8.2929













Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the













specified level of significance.



























1 2 3 4 5
Generated Index

7

9



Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	7.5277

Standardised Value of S	-2.2583

M-K Test Value (S)	-18

T abulated p-value	0.0160

Approximate p-value	0.0120

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-0.1881

0 LS R egression I ntercept	6.3214

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

-------


Mann-Kendall Trend Test





Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n 8

9.1
8.6
8.1















Confidence Coefficient 0.9500
Level of Significance 0.0500
Standard Deviation of S 7.9582
S tandardized Value of S -0.6283
M-K Test Value (S) -6
T abulated p-value 0.2740
Approximate p-value 0.2649

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope -0.0952
OLS Regression Intercept 8.6786















V>

<7> 7.6

7.1
6.6
6.1





















Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

























1 2 3 4 5

Generated Index

7

9



Mann-Kendall Trend Test

v)

LD

« 5.2

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0208

Standardized Value of S	0.0000

M-K Test Value (S)	-1

Tabulated p-value	0.5480

Approximate p-value	0.5000

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.0060

OLS Regression Intercept	5.0393

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

-------


Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n 8

SL08S











Confidence Coefficient 0.9500
Level of Significance 0.0500
Standard Deviation of S 8.0208
Standardized Value of S 0.9974
M-K Test Value (S) 9
T abulated p-value 0.1190
Approximate p-value 0.1593













OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope 0.1478
0 LS R egression I ntercept 1.4107













Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

1.5
1.2





























1 2345G789

Generated Index



-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

TCE (ng/L) SL-2	SL-3

Sep-2015	14.9	294

Dec-2015	16.7	330

Mar-2016	14.8	278

Jun-2016	16	303

Sep-2016	16.9	334

Dec-2016	25.5	278

Mar-2017	10.7	293

Jun-2017	14.1	246

Minimum	10.7	246

Maximum	25.5	334

95% UCL	19.0	314
MK Trend None None

SL-4S	SL-5S	SL-07S

10.8	174	37.1

14.6	164	46.2

11.3	136	36.2
10.5	147	42.7

12.5	132	31.7

17.6	126	19.4
13.5	131	13.5

11.7	135	25.4

10.5	126	13.5

17.6	174	46.2

14.4	155	39.1
None

SL-08S SL-09	SL-11S

82.7	2.2	18.9

94.4	2.2	19.9
63.1	1.9 21

54.5	1.6	22.7
160	3.9	23.2
130	3.4	22.6
113	2.8 23
120	3	26.7

54.5	1.6	18.9

160	3.9	26.7

126	3.2	23.9
None None Increasing

SL-11D SL-12S SL-12D

3.1	14.3	3.9
3.8	14.9	4.1

4.5	16.6	4.6

6.2	17.7	6.1

5.3	18.8	6.3
7.2	17.9	5.5

9.6	17.5	5.9

9.4	16.8	7.5

3.1	14.3	3.9

9.6	18.8	7.5

7.8	17.8	6.3
Increasing None Increasing

TCE (|ag/L)
Sep-2015
Dec-2015
Mar-2016
Jun-2016
Sep-2016
Dec-2016
Mar-2017
Jun-2017

SL-14
49.3
51.3
51
50
52.7
49.3
51.1
46.7

SL-15S
2.6

2.2
2.6
1.5
2.1

1.3

1.4
1.3

SL-16S

5.1

5.3

5.2

5.4
6.1

6
6.4
6.6

SL-17S
7.4
9.4
9.7
10
11.6
12.3
14.1
14.3

SL-17D
21.1
25.8
23.4
21.8

22.7

22.8
23.6

28

Shaded Result is at or above MCL (5 ng/L)
Italics Reporting limit is at or above MCL
NS	Not sampled

Minimum
Maximum
95% UCL
MK Trend

46.7
52.7
51.4
None

1.3
2.6
2.3

5.1
6.6

6.2
Increasing

7.4
14.3
12.7
Increasing

21.1
28

25.2
None

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

Trichloroethylene (TCE) Detections (|ig/L)
8 Quarters, September 2015 - June 2017
Cleanup Level = 5 |ig/L

Mann-Kendall Trend Analyse

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	-0.1237

M-K Test Value (S)	-2

Tabulated p-value	0.4520

Approximate p-value	0.4508

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-0.0310

0 LS R egression I ntercept	16.3393

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

IVIann-Kendall Trend Test

3	4	5	6

Generated Index







Mann-Kendall Trend Test





Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

g

324











Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S

0.9500
0.0500
8.0208











Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)
T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

-0.9974
-9

0.1190
0.1593

SL3











OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence

-5.8333
320.7500











of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.



2G4





























244

















2

3 4 5 6
Generated Index

7

9





-------
17

1G

15

W 14

CO

13

12

11

10

(

173

165

157

CO

LD

« 149

141

133

125

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

0.3500
0.0500
8.0829
0.8186
6

0.2740
0.2681

0.2583
11.6500

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

S tandardized Value of S	-2.1032

M-K Test Value (S)	-18

T abulated p-value	0.0160

Approximate p-value	0.0177

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-5.7500

0 LS R egression I ntercept	169.0000

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

2

3

4	5

Generated Index

-------
4	5

Generated Index

8

0.9500
0.0500
8.0829
-2.1032
-18
0.0160
0.0177

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope -3.6524
OLS Regression Intercept 47.9607

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysis

52 112

00

o

—I

(f)

92

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	0.8660

M-K Test Value (S)	8

T abulated p-value	0.1190

Approximate p-value	0.1932

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	7.8607
OLS Regression Intercept 66.8393

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

-------
3.9
3.G

3.3

3.0

O)
o

rh21

2.4

2.1

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n 8
Confidence Coefficient 0.9500
Level of Significance 0.0500
Standard Deviation of S 8.0208
Standardized Value of S 0.7481
M-K Test Value (S) 7
T abulated p-value 0.2740
Approximate p-value 0.2272

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope 0.1833
0 LS R egression I ntercept 1.8000











































Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.



























1.8
1.5















1 2345G789

Generated Index



Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysis

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)
T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

0.9500
0.0500
8.0829
2.5981
22
0.0020
0.0047

0.8976
18.2107

Statistically significant evidence
of an increasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

-------




Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n 8











Confidence Coefficient 0.9500
Level of Significance 0.0500
Standard Deviation of S 8.0829
Standardized Value of S 2.8455
M-K Test Value (S) 24
T abulated p-value 0.0010

9























Approximate p-value 0.0022

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope 0.9560
0 LS R egression I ntercept 1.8357

Statistically significant evidence

SL11D





















of an increasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4

3













1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Generated Index

8 9



Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysis

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	1.3609

M-K Test Value (S)	12

T abulated p-value	0.0890

Approximate p-value	0.0868

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	0.4226

0 LS R egression I ntercept	14.9107

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

-------


Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n 8

7.3
6.8
6.3













Confidence Coefficient 0.9500
Level of Significance 0.0500
Standard Deviation of S 8.0829
Standardized Value of S 2.3506
M-K Test Value (S) 20
Tabulated p-value 0.0070
Approximate p-value 0.0094

























« 5.8
5.3
4.8
4.3
3.8













OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope 0.4417
OLS Regression Intercept 3.5000













Statistically significant evidence
of an increasing trend at the













specified level of significance.





























1 2345G789

Generated Index



Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysis

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0208

Standardized Value of S	-0.4987

M-K Test Value (S)	-5

T abulated p-value	0.3600

Approximate p-value	0.3090

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.2571

0 LS R egression I ntercept	51.3321

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

3	4	5

Generated Index

-------
4	5

Generated Index

8

0.9500
0.0500
7.9582
-2.3875
-20
0.0070
0.0085

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope -0.1952
OLS Regression Intercept 2.7538

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall Trend Analysts

CO
(£>

I]

if)

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)
T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

0.9500
0.0500
8.0829
2.8455
24
0.0010
0.0022

0.2274
4.7393

Statistically significant evidence
of an increasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

-------
14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T r end Anaf^sts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regiession Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

0.9500
0.0500
8.0829
3.3404
28
0.0000
0.0004

0.9667
6.7500

Statistically significant evidence
of an increasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysis

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	1.3609

M-K Test Value (S)	12

T abulated p-value	0.0890

Approximate p-value	0.0868

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	0.4333

0 LS R egression I ntercept	21.7000

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

c/'s- 1,2-DCE

(Mg/L)	SL-2	SL-3

Sep-2015	40.9	72

Dec-2015	37.7	82.9

Mar-2016	37.3	76

Jun-2016	38.6	64.1

Sep-2016	37.7	80.1

Dec-2016	32.8	68.8

Mar-2017	19.8	59.9

Jun-2017	30.7	52.9

Minimum	19.8	52.9

Maximum	40.9	82.9

95% UCL	39.0	76.5

MK Trend Decreasing De<

SL-4S SL-5S	SL-08S

31.4	53.7	22.7

33.6	63.3	25.4

32.4	58	19.1

26.4	56.9	17.2

33.6	41.1	38.8

32.2	50.4	29.3

35	44.8	24.7

34.2	42.3	31.4

26.4	41.1	17.2

35	63.3	38.8

34.1	56.7	30.8

None Decreasing None

Italics
NS

Result is at or above MCL (70 ng/L)
Reporting limit is at or above MCL
Not sampled

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Detections (|ig/L)
8 Quarters, September 2015 - June 2017
Cleanup Level = 70 |ig/L

IVIann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall Trend Analyse

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0208

Standardized Value of S	-2.2442

M-K Test Value (S)	-19

T abulated p-value	0.01 GO

Approximate p-value	0.0124

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-2.0869

OLS Regression Intercept	43.8286

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

<7

_i

CO 67

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	-1.8558

M-K Test Value (S)	-16

T abulated p-value	0.0310

Approximate p-value	0.0317

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-3.0274

0 LS R egression I ntercept	83.2107

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

-------
34

32

30

28

28

62

59

56

53

50

47

44

41

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

0.9500
0.0500
8.0208
1.2468
11

0.1380
0.1062

0.3952
30.5714

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysis

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)
T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

0.9500
0.0500
8.0829
-1.8558
-16
0.0310
0.0317

-2.5107
62.6107

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

-------
Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

V)

CO 29

q>

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

S tandardized V alue of S	0.8660

M-K Test Value (S)	8

T abulated p-value	0.1190

Approximate p-value	0.1932

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	1.3048
OLS Regression Intercept 20.2036

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

VC (ng/L) SL-2	SL-3	SL-4S	SL-5S

Sep-2015	5.2	17.5	3.3	11.5

Dec-2015	4.7	21.3	3.8	12.3

Mar-2016	1.9	17.2	4.4	10.1

Jun-2016	2.9	16.4	3.9	11.6

Sep-2016	3.4	15.2	1.9	11.5

Dec-2016	3.8	17.1	2.4	14.6

Mar-2017	2.2	18.7	3.6	12.3

Jun-2017	4.5	15.1	3.2	12.2

Minimum	1.9	15.1	1.9	10.1

Maximum	5.2	21.3	4.4	14.6

95% UCL	4.4	18.7	3.9	12.9
MK Trend None None None None

Italics
NS

Result is at or above MCL (2 ng/L)
Reporting limit is at or above MCL
Not sampled

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

Vinyl Chloride Detections (|ig/L)
8 Quarters, September 2015 - June 2017
Cleanup Level = 2 |ig/L

4	5

Generated Index

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope -0.1333
0 LS R egression I ntercept 4.1750

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

8

0.8500
0.0500
8.0829
-0.3712
-4

0.3600
0.3553

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

4	5

Generated Index

8

0.9500
0.0500
8.0829
-1.3S09
-12
0.0890
0.0868

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope -0.3726
0 LS R egression I ntercept 18.9893

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

-------
Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	-0.6186

M-K Test Value (S)	-6

T abulated p-value	0.2740

Approximate p-value	0.2681

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-0.1155

OLS Regression Intercept	3.8321

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

4	5

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysis

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	7.9582

Standardized Value of S	0.8796

M-K Test Value (S)	8

T abulated p-value	0.1190

Approximate p-value	0.1895

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	0.2179
0 LS R egression I ntercept 11.0321

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

1,1-DCA

(Hg/L) SL-2 SL-4S SL-5S SL-07S	SL-09

Sep-2015	15.9	13.7	14.3	1.6	1.9

Dec-2015	14.8	14.6	13.3	1.7	2.1

Mar-2016	17.9	13.1	14.9	1.5	2.5

Jun-2016	17.6	11.5	14.8	1	U 2.2

Sep-2016	19.2	14.9	14.9	4	2.2

Dec-2016	13.3	15.7	18	1.9	1.9

Mar-2017	12.1	14.2	16.6	1	U 2.2

Jun-2017	19.1	11.9	17.6	1.2	2.3

Minimum	12.1	11.5	13.3	1	U 1.9

Maximum	19.2	15.7	18	4	2.5

95% UCL	18.0	14.7	16.7	3.0	2.3

MK Trend None None Increasing None	None

Italics
NS

Result is at or above MCL (2.8 ng/L)
Reporting limit is at or above MCL
Not sampled

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA) Detections (|ig/L)
8 Quarters, September 2015 - June 2017
Cleanup Level = 2.8 (ig/L

4	5

Generated Index

IVIann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall Trend Analyse

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

15.0
14.4

« 13.8

-i

(/)

13.2

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

-------
OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	0.5833

0 LS R egression I ntercept 12.9250

Statistically significant evidence
of an increasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

8

0.9500
0.0500
8.0208
2.2442
19
0.0160
0.0124

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0208

Standardized Value of S	-0.4987

M-K Test Value (S)	-5

Tabulated p-value	0.3600

Approximate p-value	0.3090

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.0250

0 LS R egression I ntercept	1.8500

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

-------
Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T r end Anaf^sts

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	7.7889

Standardized Value of S	0.8987
M-K Test Value (S) 8

T abulated p-value	0.1190

Approximate p-value	0.1844

OLS Regiession Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	0.0179

OLS Regression Intercept	2.0821

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

1,1-DCE

(Hg/L)	SL-2	SL-4S	SL-5S

Sep-2015	15.5	7.8	2.7

Dec-2015	14.6	10	3

Mar-2016	13.2	9	2.6

Jun-2016	14.5	7.4	2.9

Sep-2016	15.5	8.3	3

Dec-2016	12.8	8.7	4

Mar-2017	8.5	10.6	2.8

Jun-2017	12	9.3	2.6

Minimum	8.5	7.4	2.6

Maximum	15.5	10.6	4

95% UCL	14.9	9.6	3.3
MK Trend Decreasing None None

Italics
NS

Result is at or above MCL (7 ng/L)
Reporting limit is at or above MCL
Not sampled

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, South Landfill Subsite

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Detections (jig/L)
8 Quarters, September 2015 - June 2017
Cleanup Level = 7 |ig/L

IVIann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall Trend Analyse

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0208

Standardized Value of S	-1.9948

M-K Test Value (S)	-17

T abulated p-value	0.0310

Approximate p-value	0.0230

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.6571

0 LS R egression I ntercept	16.2821

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index







Mann-Kendall Trend Test





Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

g













Confidence Coefficient

0.9500

10.3











Level of Significance

0.0500











Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

8.0829
0.8660
8

9.8











T abulated p-value

0.1190











Approximate p-value

0.1932

9.3











OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0.1607











OLS Regression Slope

SL4S











OLS Regression Intercept
Insufficient statistical evidence

8.1643

'











of a significant trend at the



8.3
7.8
7.3











specified level of significance.











2

3 4 5 6
Generated Index

7

9





-------
IVlann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T r end Anaf^sts

CO M
uo
_l
V)

3.2

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)
T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

0.9500
0.0500
7.9582

0

0.5480

0L5 Regiession Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope 0.0310
0 LS R egression I ntercept 2.8107

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Colorado Avenue Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

TCE (Mg/L)

BW-13

BW-14

BW-21

BW-22

BW-23

BW-24

G-7D

GM-1D

IAS-4



MLW-1

(Sample Depth)

(150')

(150')

(168')

(152')

(175')

(150')

(150')

(160')

(148')



(155')

Baseline

320

64

1,000

270

100

920

1,700

46

100



92 J

(2002-2006)

(147)



(17?)







(155')









Jun-13

17

58

13

4

14

39

25

36

35



1A

May-14

9.7

58

22

11

24

30

56

20

6.9



5.6

May-15

7

20

J 36

10

27

15

26

34

5.8



5.1

Apr-16

7.7

17

22

9.2

26

26

31

J 32

2.2



11

Apr-17

5.7

16

13

6.2

16

J 26

14

31

5.1



12

Apr-18

7.7

18

11

J 5.1

18

18

30

25

6.3



12

Apr-19

7.6

14

12

6.5

24

13

27

22

0.6

J

11

Aug-20

Damaged

0.47

J 16

J 4.7

14

1.8

23

15

0.64

J

2.3

Minimum

5.7

0.47

11

J 4

14

1.8

14

15

0.6

J

2.3

Maximum

17

58

36

11

27

39

56

36

35



12

95% UCL

11.7

72.9

23.8

8.9

24.0

28.8

41.5

31.9

27.1



10.8

MK Trend

None



None

None

None



None







None

TCE (Mg/L)
(Sample Depth)

MLW-2
(1481)

MLW-2
(160')

MW-17
(160')

MW-2
(133')

MW-24
(135')

MW-24
(160')

Shaded: Result exceeds MCL (5 ng/L)
Italics: Reporting limit exceeds MCL





Baseline

180

150

1,300

360

NS

NS











(2002-2006)





(180')

















Jun-13

NS

9.5

15

3.9

13

8.6











May-14

15

5.6

15

69

5.6

8











May-15

9.1

17

14

75

4.4

8.7











Apr-16

4.3

11

14

55

1.9

5.7











Apr-17

8.2

7.8

11

Abandoned

1.1

2.3











Apr-18

4.2

7

9.5

Abandoned

0.7 J

1.7











Apr-19

3.2

5.8

8.9

Abandoned

m
o

1.7 J











Aug-20

13 J

13

J 6.3

Abandoned

1 u

0.87 J











Minimum

3.2

5.6

6.3

3.9

m
o

0.87











Maximum

15

17

15

75

13

8.7











95% UCL

None

None



None















MK Trend

11.5

12.2

13.9

88.8

6.4

7.0











Hastings	Colorado Avenue Subsite	Page 1

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Colorado Avenue Subsite

Trichloroethene (TCE) Detections (|ig/L), June 2013-August 2020 (8 pts), Cleanup Level = 5 jig/L

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Marin-Kendall Trend Analysis

n	7

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.5828

Standardized Value of S	-1.3672

M-K Test Value (S)	-10

Tabulated p-value	0.0680

Approximate p-value	0.0858

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

~ LS R egression S lope	-1.1964

0 LS R egression I ntercept	13.7000

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

3	4	5

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

0.9500
0.0500
8.0208
-2.7429
-23
0.0020
0.0030

-7.4965
58.9182

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

Hastings

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 2

-------
34

30

26

22

18

14

10

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	7.9582

S tandardized V alue of S	-0.8796

M-K Test Value (S)	-8

T abulated p-value	0.1190

Approximate p-value	0.1895

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-1.3452

0 LS R egression I ntercept	24.1786

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	-1.1135

M-K Test Value (S)	-10

T abulated p-value	0.1380

Approximate p-value	0.1328

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.4202

OLS Regression Intercept	8.9786

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 3

-------
26

24

22

20

18

1G

14

36

31

26

21

16

11

6

1

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

0.9500
0.0500
7.9582
-0.3770
-4

0.3600
0.3531

-0.4405
22.3571

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysis

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)
T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

0.9500
0.0500
8.0208
-2.4935
-21
0.0070
0.0063

-4.0048
39.1214

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 4

-------
4	5

Generated Index

8

0.9500
0.0500
8.0829
-0.6186
-6

0.2740
0.2681

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope -1.9524
OLS Regression Intercept 37.7857

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

4	5

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

I

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	-2.1032

M-K Test Value (S)	-18

T abulated p-value	0.0160

Approximate p-value	0.0177

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-1.9643

0 LS R egression I ntercept	35.7143

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Hastings

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 5

-------
30
25

CO

^ 20

^T

(fi
<

15

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

S tandardized V alue of S	-2.1032

M-K Test Value (S)	-18

T abulated p-value	0.0160

Approximate p-value	0.0177

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-3.1860

0 LS R egression I ntercept	22.1543

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

4	5

Generated Index

8

0.9500
0.0500
7.9582
0.1257
2

0.4520
0.4500

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

0.1548
7.6036

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Hastings

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 6

-------
15

13

11

9

7

5

3

15

13

11

9

7

5

1	2	3	4	5	G	7	8

Generated Index

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0L9 Regression Slope -0.6393
0 LS R egression I ntercept 10.7000

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

7

0.9500
0.0500
G.G583
-1.2015
-9

0.1190
0.1148

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Generated Index

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	-0.1237

M-K Test Value (S)	-2

T abulated p-value	0.4520

Approximate p-value	0.4508

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-0.0917

0 LS R egression I ntercept	10.0000

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 7

-------
14

12

10

8

6

72

G2

52

42

32

22

12

2

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

0.9500
0.0500
7.9582
-3.1414
-2G
0.0000
0.0008

•1.2845
17.4929

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

1.0	1.5	2.0	2.5	3.0	3.5	4.0	4.5	5.0

Generated Index

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope 15.9300
0 LS R egression I ntercept 10.9000

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

0.9500
0.0500
2.9439
0.3397
2

0.3750
0.3670

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 8

-------
4	5

Generated Index

8

0.9500
0.0500
8.0829
-2.8455
•24
0.0010
0.0022

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

-1.4571
10.0571

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

I

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0208

Standardized Value of S	-2.7429

M-K Test Value (S)	-23

T abulated p-value	0.0020

Approximate p-value	0.0030

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-1.3096

0 LS R egression I ntercept	10.5896

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

Hastings

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 9

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Colorado Avenue Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level.

PCE (ng/L)

BW-13

BW-14



BW-21

BW-22

BW-23

BW-24

G-7D

GM-1D

IAS-2

MLW-

(Sample Depth)

(150')

(150')



(168')

(152')

(175')

(150')

(150')

(160')

(148')

(155')

Baseline

ND {147')

ND



35 J

2.3 J

5 U

26

87

1J

0.049 J

10 U

(2002-2006)







(17?)







(155')







Jun-13

1.1

19



3.1

1.8

0.55

J 3.9

12

0.97

J 2.1

1

May-14

3.7

25

U

8.3

7.1

2.5

4.8

11

0.7

J 4.7

0.9

May-15

3.2

22

J

10

8.5

4.9

2.8

25

3

2.1

1.7

Apr-16

3.2

23



9.7

9.7

4.1

8.9

29

6.3

2.9

3.9

Apr-17

4.8

29



9.4

7.2

1.2

J 14

26

7.6

1.5

5.7

Apr-18

5.5

34



9.5

J 6.2

14

12

23

9.9

1.3

12

Apr-19

3.7

27



9.2

6.3

4.1

8.4

19

13

1

U 9.8

Aug-20

Damaged

0.4

J

7.8

3.7

3.5

1.1

23

34

1

0.4 J

Minimum	1.1	0.4	J 3.1	1.8	0.55	J 1.1	11	0.7	J	1	U	0.9

Maximum	5.5	34	10	9.7	14	14	29	34	4.7	12

95% UCL	4.6	29.1	9.9	8.0	10.5	10.1	25.4	16.7	2.9	7.4

MK Trend	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	Increasing	Decreasing	None

PCE (ng/L)

MLW-1

MLW-2

MW-17

MW-2

OW-4D



(Sample Depth)

(190')

(160')

(160')

(133')

(175')



Baseline

32

10 U

45 J

NR

ND



(2002-2006)





(180')







Jun-13

1.5

1

U 3.4

1 U

0.29

J

May-14

3.9

0.9

11

5.4

0.6



May-15

1.8

4.2

J 9.3

5.6

1

U

Apr-16

1.3

6.6

14

4.3

0.5

J

Apr-17

1.3

4.5

15

Abandoned

2.6



Apr-18

1.7

2.5

17

Abandoned

6



Apr-19

2.8

3.6

16

Abandoned

1.9



Aug-20

1.8

15

11

Abandoned

0.45

J

Minimum

1.3

0.9

3.4

1 U

0.29

J

Maximum

3.9

15

17

5.6

6



95% UCL

2.9

7.9

15.1

6.7

2.9



Shaded: Result exceeds MCL (5 ng/L)
Italics: Reporting limit exceeds MCL

MK Trend

None

None

None

None

None

Hastings

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 10

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Colorado Avenue Subsite

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Detections (jig/L), June 2013-August 2020 (8 pts), Cleanup Level = 5 |ig/L

Mann-Kendall T rend Ana^sts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

7

0.9500
0.0500
S.50S4
1.53S9
11

0.0680
0.0622

0.4643
1.7429

1.0

012345678

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

o

01	23456789

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall T rend Analyse

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	0.6186

M-K Test Value (S)	6

T abulated p-value	0.2740

Approximate p-value	0.2681

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-0.9310

0 LS R egression I ntercept	26.6143

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Hastings

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 11

-------
4	5

Generated Index

8

0.9500
0.0500
8.0829
-0.1237
-2

0.4520
0.4508

Wlann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

0.4238
6.4679

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept







Mann-Kendall Trend Test



Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis



10











Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)
T abulated p-value

0.9500
0.0500
8.0829
-0.3712
-4

0.3600



























Approximate p-value

0.3553

OJ













OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope

-0.0012

CO

4

2













OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

6.3179













2

3 4 5 G
Generated Index

7

9





Hastings

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 12

-------
14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

13

11

9

7

5

3

1

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T r end Anaf^sts

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regiession Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept 1

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

0.9500
0.0500
8.0208
0.7481
7

0.2740
0.2272

0.S315
1.5143

4	5

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall Trend Analysts

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	0.1237

M-K Test Value (S)	2

Tabulated p-value	0.4520

Approximate p-value	0.4508

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	0.3702

0 LS R egression I ntercept	5.3214

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	5

Generated Index

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 13

-------
29

26

23

20

17

14

11

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

0.3500
0.0500
8.0208
0.2494
3

0.4520
0.4015

1.2857
15.2143

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	8

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	8.0829

Standardized Value of S	3.0929

M-K Test Value (S)	26

Tabulated p-value	0.0000

Approximate p-value	0.0010

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	3.7465

OLS Regression Intercept	-7.4257

Statistically significant evidence
of an increasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Generated Index

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 14

-------


Mann-Kendall Trend Test





Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n 8

4.4

3.9
3.4

I

rt 2.9
<

2.4
1.9
1.4
0.9















Confidence Coefficient 0.9500
Level of Significance 0.0500















Standard Deviation of S 7.9582
S tandardized Value of S -2.3875
M-K Test Value (S) -20















Tabulated p-value 0.0070
Approximate p-value 0.0085













OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope -0.3571
OLS Regression Intercept 3.S821













Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.





























«







1 2 3 4 5

Generated Index

7

9





Mann-Kendall Trend Test



Mann-Kendall Trend Analysts

12
10









Confidence Coefficient 0.9500
Level of Significance 0.0500
Standard Deviation of S 8.0829
Standardized Value of S 1.1135









M-K Test Value (S) 10
T abulated p-value 0.1380
Approximate p-value 0.1328

U>

1 6

5

4









OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope 0.8690
0 LS R egression I ntercept 0.5143









Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.















1 2 3 4 5 S

Generated Index

8 9



Hastings

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 15

-------






Mann-Kendall Trend Test



Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n 8

3.7

3.2

I"

i

2.2















Confidence Coefficient 0.9500
Level of Significance 0.0500
Standard Deviation of S 7.9582
S tandardized Value of S 0.1257
M-K Test Value (S) 2
Tabulated p-value 0.4520



























Approximate p-value 0.4500

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope -0.0440
0 LS R egression I ntercept 2.2107

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.































1.7





































0 1

2 3 4 5

Generated Index

7

9









Mann-Kendall Trend Test



'

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n 8

15
13
11

O

to













Confidence Coefficient 0.9500













Level of Significance 0.0500
Standard Deviation of S 8.0829
Standardized Value of S 1.3609







M-K Test Value (S) 12
Tabulated p-value 0.0890
Approximate p-value 0.0868

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope 1.2417
OLS Regression Intercept -0.8000

« 9













—I













Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the

7







specified level of significance.

5
3









1



2

3 4 5 G
Generated Index

7

9



Hastings

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 16

-------
4	5

Generated Index

8

0.9500
0.0500
8.0208
1.7455
15
0.0540
0.0405

OL5 Regiession Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope 1.2179
OLS Regression Intercept 8.G071

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

IVIann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall Trend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	1.0100

0 LS R egression I ntercept 1.5500

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

0.9500
0.0500
2.9439
0.3397
2

0.3750
0.3670

2.0	2.5	3.0

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

Hastings

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 17

-------




Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall Tiend Analysis

0W4Da175









Confidence Coefficient 0.9500
Level of Significance 0.0500
Standard Deviation of S 8.0829
Standardized Value of S 0.8660
M-K Test Value (S) 8
T abulated p-value 0.1190
Approximate p-value 0.1932





















OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope 0.2943
OLS Regression Intercept 0.3432











Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.













0











1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8

Generated Index

Hastings

Colorado Avenue Subsite

Page 18

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration trends or concentrations at least half the
cleanup level.

Naphthalene

(M-g/L)

MW09

EXW03

PZ01

EMW06

HWS08



HWS10

HWS11

04/2017

18000

120

16000

22000

NS



250

2800

11/2017

6790

12.5

12400

11900

18



147

2990

06/2018

5750

3.7

9100

12500

10

U

290

6120

12/2018

3040

106

12900

8730

10

U

126

1920

05/2019

2190

87.1

10300

6550

0.32



261

4360

11/2019

3370

37.1

5050

10700

0.35



50.7

3350

05/2020

4070

12.2

8830

6620

0.94



0.069

810

11/2020

1920

3.6

8530

10300

2.3



22.8

354

05/2021

3050

38.5

6960

10100

15.4



135

821

Minimum

1920

3.6

5050

6550

0.32



0.069

354

Maximum

18000

120

16000

22000

18



290

6120

95% UCL

10028

75.1

12068

13898

34.5



208.5

3776

MK Trend

Decreasing

None

Decreasing

None

None



None

None



Result is at or

above MCL (1.:

1 M-g/L)











Italics

Reporting limit is at or above

i MCL











NS	Not sampled

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 1

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Naphthalene Detections (ng/L), Spring 2017-Spring 2021 (9 pts), Cleanup Level = 1.1 jig/L

IVIann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall Trend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
¦1.9809
•20
0.0220
0.0238

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope -1,290.6667
0 LS R egression I ntercept 11,806.6667

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	9.5917

Standardized Value of S	-1.1468

M-K Test Value (S)	-12

T abulated p-value	0.1300

Approximate p-value	0.1257

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-6.7433

0 LS R egression I ntercept	80.4611

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	6

Generated Index

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 2

-------
14776

12776

10776

8776

6776

4776

0

21164

18664

16164

13664

11164

8664

6164

0

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-2.3979
-24
0.0060
0.0082

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-936.0000

0 LS R egression I ntercept 14,687.7778

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-1.5639
-16
0.0600
0.0589

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope -1,036.5000
0 LS R egression I ntercept 16,226.9444

insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	6

Generated Index

Second Street Subsite

Page 3

-------
4	5

Generated Index

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope -0.9982
0 LS R egression I ntercept 11.6557

insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

8

0.9500
0.0500
8.0208
•0.2494
¦3

0.4520
0.4015

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

4	6

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

S tandard D e viation of S	9.5917

Standardized Value of S	-1.5639

M-K Test Value (S)	-16

Tabulated p-value	0.0600

Approximate p-value	0.0589

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope -24.7960
OLS Regression Intercept 266.4878

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 4

-------
Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-1.3553
-14
0.0900
0.0877

OLS Regiession Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-416.9000

OLS Regression Intercept 4,698.3889

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 5

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Comparison of Naphthalene Plumes, 2017 and 2021



ft

Data Source: 2016 Adams County Aerial

1	200

1	IFM'1

1 11nch - 2M feet

& OLSSON®

NOTES:

Results are micrograms per Her (ptyL}.

Results in (parenseses) aredup'cate results.

j - esUmated concentration aoove the adjusted rnetnod

aetector limn and Below the adjusted reporting limit.

U - Inacates the compound was anaizyea for. Mi! not detected.

Results shown are torn 3263 VOC method, see data taaies for

additional 8270 SVOC method data.

Sampled Well Location	2017 Naphthalene Contour (pg/L)

Unsampted Well Location	1.1

Groundwater Elevation Contour ¦ 1,000
- Groundwater FSow Direction	5,000

— 10,000

Hastings Second Street Superfund Site
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Hastings. Nebraska
Oisson Project # Q16-3691
Naphthalene Contours November 2017
Figure 5

Data Source: Google Maps Imagery N0TES:	Legend	Hastings Second Street Superfund Site

Resists are in micrograms per Her (pgH).	0 Sampled Well Location	Naphthalene Contour (pg'L)	Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy

A 		 		 Resets in (parentheses) are duplicate results.	Wphr-siUt

~ Y~ I I Feet J - estimated concentration above the adjusteo melhod	• Unsampled Well Location	1-1	y. ' ,.

' 1 inch = 200 feet detection limit and below the adjusted reportng limt	_ w... .. 	. nnn	Oisson Project # 020-1614

U - indicates the compound was aralzyed for, but not detected.	Injecoo Wei Location	.000	Naphthalene Contours Spring 2021

a Resuits shown are from 8200 VOC method, see data tables for	Groundwater Elevation Contour	5.000	FigureS

N , J V Jf M | additional 8270 SVOC method data.	^

^ Groundwater Flow Direction	10,000

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 6

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration trends or concentrations at least half the
cleanup level

Benzene

(Hg/L)

MW09



EXW03



PZ01

EMW06

HWSll

SW12



SW13I

SW10S

SW05I



SW15D

04/2017

5.5



9.6



840

790

940

1

U

230

1 U

1

U

4.6

11/2017

11.9



0.6

U

1330

1030

1170

3.1



1780

94

0.06

U

0.37

06/2018

6

U

0.58



571

977

2590

0.64



19.8

553

0.21



0.11

12/2018

10.5



1.1



963

535

771

8.4



304

24.5

0.35



0.56

05/2019

7.9

U

0.079

U

957

479

1960

20.6



33.5

159

0.24



0.08

11/2019

11



0.079

U

1060

325

1270

4.8



251

128

3.9



0.11

05/2020

6.1



0.21



919

340

214

0.079

U

430

292

1.5



0.21

11/2020

3.1



0.088

U

770

246

133

2



207

128

1.2



1.6

05/2021

3.4

U

0.51



317

444

231

0.14

U

111

239

0.46



0.18

Minimum

3.1



0.079



317

246

133

0.079



19.8

1

0.06



0.08

Maximum

11.9



9.6



1330

1030

2590

20.6



1780

553

3.9



4.6

95% UCL

9.0



15



1038

753

1548

8.7



1093

285

1.7



6.4

MK Trend

None



None



None

Decreasing

None

None



None

None

None



None

Result is at or above MCL (5 ng/L)
Italics Reporting limit is at or above MCL
NS	Not sampled

Hastings	Second Street Subsite	Page 7

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Benzene Detections (ng/L), Spring 2017-Spring 2021 (9 pts), Cleanup Level = 5 |ig/L

G

Generated Index

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-0.9393
-10
0.1790
0.1740

-0.5683
10.1093

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept



Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis



n 9















Confidence Coefficient 0.9500







Level of Significance 0.0500









Standard Deviation of S 9.5394









Standardized Value of S -1.4676

8





M-K Test Value (S) -15









T abulated p-value 0.0900









Approximate p-value 0.0711









OLS Regression Line (Blue)

6







0 LS R egression S lope -0.6610

CO







OLS Regression Intercept 4.7321

X
111







Insufficient statistical evidence









of a significant trend at the

4







specified level of significance.

2













\





Q

2 4 6 8 10





Generated Index



Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 8

-------
4	6

Generated Index

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-49.6500

0 LS R egression I ntercept 1,10G. 8056

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-1.1468
-12
0.1300
0.1257

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardised Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

4	6

Generated Index

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-2.3979
-24
0.0060
0.0082

-87.0000
1,009.0000

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

IVIann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 9

-------
2472

2072

1672

1272

872

472

72

0

21

18

15

12

9

8

3

0

0

4	6

Generated Index

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-170.0000

0 LS R egression I ntercept 1,881.0000

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-1.3553
-14
0.0900
0.0877

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardised Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-0.5213
-6

0.3060
0.3011

-0.1910
5.4839

4	6

Generated Index

Second Street Subsite

Page 10

-------
Mann-Kendall T tend Analysis

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	9.5917

Standardized Value of S	-0.3128

M-K Test Value (S)	-4

T abulated p-value	0.3810

Approximate p-value	0.3772

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-73.7933

OLS Regression Intercept	743.0000

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	G

Generated Index

1478
1226
CO 976

5

v>

726

IVIann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	9.5394

Standardized Value of S	1.2579

M-K Test Value (S)	13

T abulated p-value	0.1300

Approximate p-value	0.1042

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	10.5917

0 LS R egression I ntercept 126.8750

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	6

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 11

-------
6

Generated Index

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
1.1468
12
0.1300
0.1257

0.1232
0.3753

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	9.5394

Standardized Value of S	-0.4193

M-K Test Value (S)	-5

T abulated p-value	0.3810

Approximate p-value	0.3375

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.2373

OLS Regression Intercept 2.0556

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 12

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Comparison of Benzene Plumes, 2017 and 2021

I	200

""T*- '	IP""

' 1 men - 200 fee!

CAolsson .

Hastings Second Street Superfund Site

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Hastings. Nebraska
Olsson Project# 016-3801
Benzene Contours November 2017
Figure 4

Legend

Sampled Well Location	2017 Benzene Contour (pg/L)

e Unsamp ed Well Location	5

Groundwater Elevation Contour	*00

^ Groundwater Flow Direction —1,000

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 13

-------
NOTES:

Resets are in micrograms per l eer (jjgi'L).

Results in (parentheses) are duplicate results.

J - estimated concentration above the adjusted method

detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit

U - indicates the compound was analzyed for, but not detected.

Legend

© Sampled Well Location	Benzene Contour (pg/L)

© Unsampled Well Location	5

¦ Injection Well Location	— 100

Groundwater Elevation Contour
4 Groundwater Flow Direction

Hastings Second Street Superfund Site
Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy
Hastings, Nebraska
Olsson Project #020-1614
Benzene Contours Spring 2021
Figure 4

Data Source: Google Maps Imagery

\	200

"V— I	I Feet

'	1 inch = 200 feet

olsson

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 14

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level

Toluene

(Hg/L) EMW06	HWS11

04/2017	1700	1300

11/2017	1780	1160

06/2018	1850	3530

12/2018	1240	722

05/2019	578	2470

11/2019	562	1210

05/2020	437	110

11/2020	387	35.2

05/2021	580	57.3

Minimum	387	35.2

Maximum	1850	3530

95% UCL	1842	1908
MK Trend

Result is at or above MCL (1,000 ng/L)

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 15

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Toluene Detections (|ig/L), Spring 2017-Spring 2021 (9 pts), Cleanup Level = 1,000 |ig/L

4	G

Generated Index

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-202.7167

OLS Regression Intercept 2,026.2500

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
•2.1894
•22
0.0120
0.0143

IVIann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Ana^sts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

w
T.

Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-1.9809
-20
0.0220
0.0238

-244.9533
2,401.9333

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	6

Generated Index

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 16

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level

Ethylbenzene

(Hg/L)	MW09	PZ01

04/2017	370	110

11/2017	110	376

06/2018	89.1	106

12/2018	74.2	227

05/2019	32.9	435

11/2019	37.1	287

05/2020	43.6	380

11/2020	19	296

05/2021	21.3	99

EMW06 HWS11	SW10S

300	200	1 U

406	156	0.18 U

466	354	0.9 U

332	86.3	0.9 U

195	260	3

282	143	4.1

224	24.1	34.7

284	14.7	40.5

284	25.7	56.2

Minimum
Maximum
95% UCL
MK Trend

19
370
206

99
435
338
None

195
466
360
None

14.7
354
213

0.18
56.2
29.9
Increasing

Result is at or above MCL (700 ng/L)

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 17

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Ethylbenzene Detections (jig/L), Spring 2017-Spring 2021 (9 pts), Cleanup Level = 700 ng/L

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-KTest Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue]

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-2.8149
-28
0.0010
0.0024

-29.9317
238.2361

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	9.5394

Standardized Value of S	-1.8869

M-KTest Value (S)	-19

T abulated p-value	0.0380

Approximate p-value	0.0296

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-0.6928

0 LS R egression I ntercept	5.3164

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Generated Index

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 18

-------
4	G

Generated Index

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
0.1043
2

0.4600
0.4585

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	5.4000

OLS Regression Intercept 230.3333

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	9.5394

S tandardized Value of S	-1.0483

M-K Test Value (S)	-11

T abulated p-value	0.1790

Approximate p-value	0.1473

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-16.06G7

OLS Regression Intercept 388.4444

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	G

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 19

-------
4	5

Generated Index

8

0.9500
0.0500
8.0829
•1.6083
-14
0.0540
0.0539

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

M ann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

-1.4169
11.1486

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

° 144

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

S tandard D e viation of S	9.5917

Standardized Value of S	-2.6064

M-K Test Value (S)	-26

Tabulated p-value	0.0030

Approximate p-value	0.0046

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-25.5150

0 LS R egression I ntercept 251.0861

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	6

Generated Index

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 20

-------
4	G

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T tend Analysis

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	9.5917

Standardized Value of S	-1.9809

M-K Test Value (S)	-20

T abulated p-value	0.0220

Approximate p-value	0.0238

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope	-28.7387

0 LS R egression I ntercept	284.1056

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n	9

Confidence Coefficient	0.9500

Level of Significance	0.0500

Standard Deviation of S	9.5394

Standardized Value of S	2.9352

M-K T est Value (S)	29

T abulated p-value	0.0010

Approximate p-value	0.0017

OLS Regression Line (Blue}

OLS Regression Slope	6.8780

0 LS R egression I ntercept -18.6600

Statistically significant evidence
of an increasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	6

Generated Index

IVIann-Kendall Trend Test

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 21

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Statistics were calculated for Subsite contaminants of concern in wells with increasing concentration
trends or concentrations at least half the cleanup level

Styrene

(Hg/L)

MW09

PZ01

EMW06

HWS11

04/2017

840

450

3800

310

11/2017

345

367

3430

506

06/2018

296

97.4

3530

1320

12/2018

120

316

2420

277

05/2019

55

19

1290

892

11/2019

84.3

49.5

2710

551

05/2020

126

88.4

2050

82.9

11/2020

64.2

86.3

2780

35.3

05/2021

81.2

6.2

2720

61.7

Minimum

55.0

6.2

1290

35.3

Maximum

840

450

3800

1320

95% UCL

506

458

3233

714

MK Trend

Decr63sins

Decreasing

None

None

Result is at or above MCL (100 ng/L)

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 22

-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site, Second Street Subsite

Styrene Detections (ng/L), Spring 2017-Spring 2021 (9 pts), Cleanup Level = 100 |ig/L

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-KTest Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue]

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
•2.1894
-22
0.0120
0.0143

-70.8883
577.9G39

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

O ooc
N *
Q-

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-KTest Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue)

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
¦2.3979
-24
0.0060
0.0082

-48.3633
40S.2389

Statistically significant evidence
of a decreasing trend at the
specified level of significance.

Hastings

Second Street Subsite

Page 23

-------
3627

3227

2827

2427

2027

1G27

1227

0

1203

1003

803

603

403

203

3

0

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysts

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-1.1468
-12
0.1300
0.1257

OLS Regiession Line (Blue)

0 LS R egression S lope	-149.0000

OLS Regression Intercept 3,492.7778

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

4	6

Generated Index

Mann-Kendall Trend Test

Mann-Kendall T rend Analysis

n

Confidence Coefficient
Level of Significance
Standard Deviation of S
Standardized Value of S
M-K Test Value (S)

T abulated p-value
Approximate p-value

OLS Regression Line (Blue]

OLS Regression Slope
OLS Regression Intercept

Insufficient statistical evidence
of a significant trend at the
specified level of significance.

9

0.9500
0.0500
9.5917
-1.5639
-16
0.0600
0.0589

-76.7583
832.2250

4	6

Generated Index

Second Street Subsite

Page 24

-------
APPENDIX H
ANALYTICAL RESULTS

-------
WELL #3
ANALYTICAL RESULTS

-------
Target VOCs Detected in Groundwater Samples, 1984 -2021
Hastings Well No. 3 Subsite OU18, Hastings, Nebraska

«ARCADIS





Tetrachloroethene

Trichloroethene

1,1-Dichloroethene

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane





(PCE)

(TCE)

(1,1-DCE)

(1,1,1-TCA)

Sample ID

Date

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

USEPA MCL



5

5

5

200

Active Monitoring Wells









CW-8

09/10/92

4 J

290 J

35 J

22 J

CW-8

09/17/92

<1

150

2

2

CW-8

03/09/96

<5

36

<5

<5

CW-8

04/10/96

<5

40

<5

<5

CW-8

07/16/96

<5

34

<5

<5

CW-8

10/24/96

<5

26

<5

<5

CW-8

02/04/97

<5

23

<5

<5

CW-8

04/29/97

<5

27

<5

<5

CW-8

08/06/97

<5

29

<5

<5

CW-8

10/20/97

<5

40

<5

<5

CW-8

12/30/97

<5

58

<5

<5

CW-8

04/01/98

<5

37

<5

<5

CW-8

06/09/98

<5

37

<5

<5

CW-8

07/20/98

<5

31

<5

<5

CW-8

08/18/98

<5

32

<5

<5

CW-8

09/23/98

<5

22

<5

<5

CW-8

10/19/98

<5

14

<5

<5

CW-8

11/16/98

<5

13

<5

<5

CW-8

12/16/98

<5

11

<5

<5

CW-8

01/18/99

<5

10

<5

<5

CW-8

02/15/99

<5

11

<5

<5

CW-8

03/15/99

<5

16

<5

<5

CW-8

06/11/99

<5

41

<5

<5

CW-8

09/13/99

<5

33

<5

<5

CW-8

12/13/99

<5

15

<5

<5

CW-8

03/14/00

<5

13

<5

<5

CW-8

06/15/00

<5

26

<5

<5

CW-8

10/25/00

<5

44

<5

<5

CW-8

12/04/00

<5

67

<5

<5

CW-8

03/08/01

<5

57

<5

<5

CW-8

06/12/01

<5

51

<5

<5

CW-8

09/18/01

<5

40

<5

<5

CW-8

12/03/01

<1

31

1.5

<1

CW-8

03/13/02

<1

24

1.2

<1

CW-8

06/03/02

<1

37

<1

<1

CW-8

09/18/02

1.2

35

<1

<1

CW-8

12/09/02

<1

62

1.8

<1

CW-8

03/17/03

1.0

67

1.9

1.0

CW-8

07/02/03

<1

58

1.4

<1

CW-8

12/05/03

<1

57

1.4

<1

CW-8

06/15/04

<1

73

1.1

<1

CW-8

12/07/04

<1

57

<1

<1

CW-8

06/13/05

<1

46

<1

<1

CW-8

12/14/05

<1

28

<1

<1

CW-8

06/06/06

<1

32

<1

<1

CW-8

12/06/06

<1

13

<1

<1

CW-8

06/07/07

<1

8.2

<1

<1

CW-8

12/05/07

<1

6.0

<1

<1

CW-8

10/17/08

<0.50

17

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

03/05/09

<0.50

6.7

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

09/17/09

<0.50

25

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

03/16/10

<0.50

30

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

09/06/10

<0.50

24

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

03/16/11

<0.50

17

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

09/05/11

<0.50

49

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

03/25/12

<0.50

26

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

09/16/12

<0.50

26

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

03/14/13

<0.50

27

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

09/04/13

<0.50

48

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

03/26/14

<0.50

21

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

09/08/14

<0.50

24

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

03/07/15

<0.50

2.9

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

09/10/15

<0.50

25.8

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

03/13/16

<0.50

24.1

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

09/05/16

<0.50

10.2

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

03/05/17

<0.50

4.0

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

09/04/17

<0.50

2.5

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

03/03/18

<0.50

3.5

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

09/02/18

<0.50

4.5

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

03/23/19

<0.50

5.8

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8

09/07/19

<0.50

6.5

<0.50

<0.50

CW-8*

05/18/20

<1.0

0.81

<1.0

<1.0

CW-8

07/15/20

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

Hastings Subsite Tables 2nd 2021 ,xlsx\T4 Hist VOC

Page 1 of 7

-------
Target VOCs Detected in Groundwater Samples, 1984 -2021
Hastings Well No. 3 Subsite OU18, Hastings, Nebraska

«ARCADIS



Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

1,1-Dichloroethene
(1,1-DCE)

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

Sample ID

Date

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

USEPA MCL

5

5

5

200

CW-8

10/28/20

<1.0

1.2

<1.0

<1.0

CW-8

06/15/21

<1.0

3.1

<1.0

<1.0

CW-8

12/03/21

<1.0

1.6

<1.0

<1.0













BW-17S

12/01/00

NA

120

NA

NA

BW-17S

03/01/01

<8

140

<8

<8

BW-17S

06/01/01

12

110

14

10

BW-17S

09/01/01

0.58

140

0.78

<0.5

BW-17S

12/01/01

0.88

170

<0.5

<0.5

BW-17S

01/01/02

NA

170

NA

NA

BW-17S

03/01/02

<10

160

<10

<10

BW-17S

04/03/02

<1

160

<1

<1

BW-17S

06/01/02

<10

23

<10

<10

BW-17S

09/01/02

<5

150

<5

<5

BW-17S

12/01/02

<10

160

<10

<10

BW-17S

03/01/03

NA

180

NA

NA

BW-17S

04/01/04

NA

280

NA

NA

BW-17S

05/01/05

NA

73

NA

NA

BW-17S

05/01/06

NA

120

NA

NA

BW-17S

09/11/07

<5

38

<5

<5

BW-17S

10/16/07

<5

36

<5

<5

BW-17S

03/12/08

0.88

39

0.25

<0.10

BW-17S

10/20/08

0.82

33

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

03/05/09

<0.50

32

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

09/17/09

0.61

28

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

03/16/10

0.69

33

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

09/06/10

0.72

33

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

03/16/11

0.85

26

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

09/05/11

<0.50

15

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

03/23/12

<0.50

12

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

09/16/12

<0.50

11

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

03/14/13

<0.50

9.1

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

09/04/13

<0.50

10

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

03/26/14

<0.50

5.3

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

09/08/14

<0.50

8.6

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

03/07/15

<0.50

12.5

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

09/07/15

0.77

10.5

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

03/13/16

0.51

9.5

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

09/05/16

<0.50

8.8

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

03/05/17

<0.50

9.2

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

09/04/17

<0.50

7.5

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

03/03/18

<0.50

10.5

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

09/02/18

<0.50

10.3

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

03/23/19

<0.50

17.8

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

09/07/19

<0.50

1.3

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17S

07/14/20

<1.0

8.9

<1.0

<1.0

BW-17S

10/28/20

<1.0

2.7

<1.0

<1.0

BW-17S Dup

10/28/20

<1.0

5.6

<1.0

<1.0

BW-17S

06/15/21

<1.0

10.4

<1.0

<1.0

BW-17S Dup

06/15/21

<1.0

9.9

<1.0

<1.0

BW-17S

12/02/21

<1.0

2.5

<1.0

<1.0

BW-17S Dup

12/02/21

<1.0

2.9

<1.0

<1.0













BW-17M

12/01/00

NA

12

NA

NA

BW-17M

03/01/01

<1

25

<1

<1

BW-17M

06/01/01

19

200

23

17

BW-17M

09/01/01

<0.5

11

<0.5

<0.5

BW-17M

12/01/01

0.51

14

<0.5

<0.5

BW-17M

01/01/02

NA

14

NA

NA

BW-17M

03/01/02

<10

10

<10

<10

BW-17M

04/03/02

<10

10

<10

<10

BW-17M

06/01/02

<0.5

6.6

<0.5

<0.5

BW-17M

09/01/02

<1

6.8 J

<1

<1

BW-17M

12/01/02

<10

<10

<10

<10

BW-17M

03/01/03

NA

10

NA

NA

BW-17M

04/01/04

NA

28

NA

NA

BW-17M

04/01/05

NA

19

NA

NA

BW-17M

09/11/07

<5

<5

<5

<5

BW-17M

10/16/07

<5

<5

<5

<5

BW-17M

03/12/08

0.49

17

<0.10

0.1

BW-17M

10/20/08

<0.50

8.7

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

03/05/09

<0.50

8.2

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

09/17/09

<0.50

3.9

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

03/16/10

<0.50

3.6

<0.50

<0.50

Hastings Subsite Tables 2nd 2021 ,xlsx\T4 Hist VOC

Page 2 of 7

-------
Target VOCs Detected in Groundwater Samples, 1984 -2021
Hastings Well No. 3 Subsite OU18, Hastings, Nebraska

«ARCADIS



Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

1,1-Dichloroethene
(1,1-DCE)

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

Sample ID

Date

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

USEPA MCL

5

5

5

200

BW-17M

09/06/10

<0.50

1.8

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

03/16/11

<0.50

0.75

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

09/05/11

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

03/23/12

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

09/16/12

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

03/14/13

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

09/04/13

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

03/26/14

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

09/08/14

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

03/07/15

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

09/07/15

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

03/13/16

<0.50

1.1

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

09/05/16

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

03/05/17

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

09/04/17

<0.50

0.69

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

03/03/18

<0.50

0.56

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

09/02/18

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

03/23/19

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

09/07/19

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-17M

07/14/20

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

BW-17M Dup

07/14/20

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

BW-17M

10/28/20

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

BW-17M

06/15/21

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

BW-17M

12/02/21

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0













BW-18S

12/01/00

NA

33

NA

NA

BW-18S

03/01/01

<8

84

<8

<8

BW-18S

06/01/01

<25

200

<25

<25

BW-18S

09/01/01

5.5

42

2.9

3.9

BW-18S

12/01/01

15

120

18

13

BW-18S

03/01/02

15

140

27

12

BW-18S

04/04/02

18

150

16

13

BW-18S

06/01/02

10

120

10

<10

BW-18S

09/01/02

6.1

51

<5

<5

BW-18S

12/01/02

<10

78

<10

<10

BW-18S

03/01/03

<5

2

<5

<5

BW-18S

04/01/04

NA

10

NA

NA

BW-18S

04/01/05

NA

13

NA

NA

BW-18S

09/11/07

<5

6

<5

<5

BW-18S

03/12/08

1.8

11

0.76

0.32

BW-18S

10/17/08

1.2

6.1

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

03/05/09

<0.50

5.0

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

09/17/09

0.54

3.0

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

03/16/10

1.1

8.8

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

09/06/10

0.67

6.2

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

03/16/11

0.80

5.1

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

09/05/11

<0.50

2.2

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

03/23/12

<0.50

1.2

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

09/16/12

<0.50

1.1

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

03/14/13

<0.50

1.1

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

09/04/13

<0.50

2.8

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

03/26/14

<0.50

1.5

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

09/08/14

<0.50

1.7

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

03/07/15

<0.50

6.8

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

09/10/15

<0.50

2.8

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

03/13/16

<0.50

2.3

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

09/05/16

<0.50

1.1

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

03/05/17

<0.50

0.53

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

09/04/17

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

03/03/18

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

09/02/18

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

03/23/19

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

09/07/19

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S Dup

09/07/19

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18S

07/14/20

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

BW-18S

10/28/20

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

BW-18S

06/15/21

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

BW-18S

12/03/21

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0













BW-18M

12/01/00

NA

20

NA

NA

BW-18M

03/01/01

8

88

12

9

BW-18M

06/01/01

<1

25

<1

<1

BW-18M

09/01/01

19

110

20

15

BW-18M

12/01/01

23

180

24

19

Hastings Subsite Tables 2nd 2021 ,xlsx\T4 Hist VOC

Page 3 of 7

-------
Target VOCs Detected in Groundwater Samples, 1984 -2021
Hastings Well No. 3 Subsite OU18, Hastings, Nebraska

«ARCADIS





Tetrachloroethene

Trichloroethene

1,1-Dichloroethene

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane





(PCE)

(TCE)

(1,1-DCE)

(1,1,1-TCA)

Sample ID

Date

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

USEPA MCL



5

5

5

200

BW-18M

03/01/02

24

160

32

17

BW-18M

04/04/02

26

200

25

20

BW-18M

06/01/02

18

180

18

13

BW-18M

09/01/02

5.8

35

<5

<5

BW-18M

12/01/02

<10

23

<10

<10

BW-18M

03/01/03

NA

29

NA

NA

BW-18M

04/01/04

NA

37

NA

NA

BW-18M

04/01/05

NA

29

NA

NA

BW-18M

11/01/05

NA

50

NA

NA

BW-18M

12/01/05

NA

29

NA

NA

BW-18M

09/11/07

<5

22

<5

<5

BW-18M

03/12/08

1.5

17

0.57

0.24

BW-18M

10/17/08

1.3

19

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

03/05/09

1.0

17

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

09/17/09

1.0

14

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

03/16/10

0.91

12

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

09/06/10

0.67

11

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

03/16/11

0.68

10

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

09/05/11

0.64

7.6

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

03/23/12

0.54

7.0

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

09/16/12

<0.50

3.2

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

03/14/13

<0.50

1.1

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

09/04/13

<0.50

2.7

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

03/26/14

<0.50

5.2

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

09/08/14

<0.50

7.3

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

03/07/15

<0.50

7.5

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

09/10/15

<0.50

5.9

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

03/13/16

0.55

3.8

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

09/05/16

<0.50

1.1

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

03/05/17

<0.50

0.55

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

09/04/17

<0.50

0.51

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

03/03/18

<0.50

0.70

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

09/02/18

0.55

1.3

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

03/23/19

<0.50

1.6

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

09/07/19

0.60

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

BW-18M

07/14/20

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

BW-18M

10/28/20

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

BW-18M

06/15/21

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

BW-18M

12/03/21

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0













Inactive Monitoring Wells









CW-4

10/03/91

<5

35

<5

<5

CW-4

12/13/91

<10

18

<10

<10

CW-4

03/17/92

<1

3

<1

<1

CW-4

06/14/92

4

52

4 J

5

CW-4

09/15/92

3

27

3

<1

CW-4

12/17/92

2

18

2

2

CW-4

03/24/93

<1

6

1

<1

CW-4

09/16/93

<1

6.7

1.2

<1

CW-4

12/08/93

<1

6

1

<1

CW-4

04/05/94

0.5

4

<2

<0.6

CW-4

06/28/94

2

14

4

3

CW-4

03/09/96

52

351

38

47

CW-4

04/10/96

59

385

49

58

CW-4

07/16/96

21

113

14

16

CW-4

10/24/96

25

98

15

18

CW-4

02/04/97

14

64

8

10

CW-4

04/29/97

9

48

7

6

CW-4

08/06/97

46

206

29

27

CW-4

10/20/97

17

79

10

10

CW-4

12/30/97

11

44

6

5

CW-4

04/01/98

6

21

<5

<5

CW-4

06/09/98

10

44

7

6

CW-4

07/20/98

<5

11

<5

<5

CW-4

08/18/98

7

24

<5

<5

CW-4

09/23/98

11

42

6

5

CW-4

10/19/98

9

31

<5

<5

CW-4

11/16/98

8

31

<5

<5

CW-4

12/16/98

6

19

<5

<5

CW-4

01/18/99

<5

13

<5

<5

CW-4

02/15/99

<5

9

<5

<5

CW-4

03/15/99

<5

9

<5

<5

CW-4

06/11/99

<5

15

<5

<5

CW-4

09/13/99

<5

10

<5

<5

Hastings Subsite Tables 2nd 2021 ,xlsx\T4 Hist VOC

Page 4 of 7

-------
Target VOCs Detected in Groundwater Samples, 1984 -2021
Hastings Well No. 3 Subsite OU18, Hastings, Nebraska

«ARCADIS



Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

1,1-Dichloroethene
(1,1-DCE)

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

Sample ID

Date

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

USEPA MCL

5

5

5

200

CW-4

12/13/99

<5

7

<5

<5

CW-4

03/14/00

<5

<5

<5

<5

CW-4

06/15/00

<5

9

<5

<5

CW-4

10/25/00

<5

<5

<5

<5

CW-4

12/04/00

<5

<5

<5

<5

CW-4

03/08/01

<5

<5

<5

<5

CW-4

06/12/01

<5

<5

<5

<5

CW-4

09/24/01

<5

<5

<5

<5

CW-4

12/03/01

<1

1.7

<1

<1

CW-4

03/14/02

<1

1.6

<1

<1













CW-7

10/04/91

19

700

55

89

CW-7

12/14/91

23

740

63

68

CW-7

03/18/92

19

492

33

24

CW-7

06/12/92

16

450

36

43

CW-7

09/15/92

11

210

18

24

CW-7

12/15/92

9

150

17

20

CW-7

03/23/93

6

130

12

10

CW-7

06/23/93

6

79

10

<12

CW-7

09/16/93

6.2

82

9.6

9.2

CW-7

12/07/93

8

100

10

12

CW-7

04/04/94

24

230

22

29

CW-7

06/28/94

37

240

43

47

CW-7

03/09/96

<5

20

<5

<5

CW-7

04/10/96

<5

19

<5

<5

CW-7

07/16/96

<5

11

<5

<5

CW-7

10/24/96

<5

20

<5

<5

CW-7

02/04/97

<5

19

<5

<5

CW-7

04/29/97

<5

34

<5

<5

CW-7

08/06/97

10

85

13

11

CW-7

10/20/97

11

86

12

11

CW-7

12/30/97

11

80

11

10

CW-7

04/01/98

12

78

12

10

CW-7

06/09/98

13

75

13

11

CW-7

07/20/98

10

62

11

9

CW-7

08/18/98

20

106

17

13

CW-7

09/23/98

19

100

18

14

CW-7

10/19/98

20

99

16

13

CW-7

11/16/98

20

101

16

12

CW-7

12/16/98

22

96

14

11

CW-7

01/18/99

21

92

13

11

CW-7

02/15/99

18

77

13

10

CW-7

03/15/99

24

92

13

10

CW-7

06/11/99

25

89

15

11

CW-7

09/14/99

29

95

14

11

CW-7

12/10/99

22

75

10

7

CW-7

03/15/00

25

76

11

8

CW-7

06/15/00

37

93

13

10

CW-7

10/25/00

26

67

7

13

CW-7

12/04/00

22

64

8

6

CW-7

03/08/01

8

24

<5

<5

CW-7

06/12/01

<5

14

<5

<5

CW-7

09/18/01

<5

11

<5

<5

CW-7

12/03/01

1.5

4.9

<1

<1

CW-7

03/13/02

1.3

5.2

<1

1.3

CW-7

06/03/02

<1

2.5

<1

<1

CW-7

09/18/02

1.7

4.8

<1

<1

CW-7

12/09/02

1.5

4.6

<1

<1

CW-7

03/17/03

1.0

3.5

<1

<1

CW-7

07/02/03

<1

2.6

<1

<1

CW-7

12/05/03

1.3

4.9

<1

<1

CW-7

06/15/04

<1

3.0

<1

<1

CW-7

12/07/04

<1

2.7

<1

<1













CW-9

09/10/92

170 J

730 J

86 J

230 J

CW-9

09/17/92

160

920

130

170

CW-9

12/17/92

200

990

150

200

CW-9

03/26/93

85

430

44

59

CW-9

06/23/93

33

190

23

31

CW-9

09/16/93

16

170

27

29

CW-9

12/08/93

2

36

4

5

CW-9

04/05/94

1

21

4

3

CW-9

06/30/94

7

108

19

20

CW-9

03/09/96

30

250

39

40

Hastings Subsite Tables 2nd 2021 ,xlsx\T4 Hist VOC

Page 5 of 7

-------
Target VOCs Detected in Groundwater Samples, 1984 -2021
Hastings Well No. 3 Subsite OU18, Hastings, Nebraska

«ARCADIS



Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

1,1-Dichloroethene
(1,1-DCE)

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

Sample ID

Date

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

USEPA MCL

5

5

5

200

CW-9

04/10/96

31

211

37

34

CW-9

07/16/96

48

188

29

30

CW-9

10/24/96

114

309

43

44

CW-9

02/04/97

66

296

36

38

CW-9

04/29/97

50

197

30

24

CW-9

08/06/96

86

296

43

36

CW-9

10/20/97

236

544

68

66

CW-9

12/30/97

249

580

70

64

CW-9

04/01/98

159

364

51

46

CW-9

06/09/98

72

195

26

23

CW-9

07/20/98

78

205

28

25

CW-9

08/18/98

112

291

36

30

CW-9

09/23/98

107

264

33

29

CW-9

10/19/98

105

253

32

27

CW-9

11/16/98

72

184

21

18

CW-9

12/16/98

58

167

21

16

CW-9

01/18/99

42

119

14

13

CW-9

02/15/99

31

79

12

10

CW-9

03/15/99

26

68

10

8

CW-9

06/11/99

14

43

7

5

CW-9

09/13/99

13

39

6

<5

CW-9

12/13/99

10

30

<5

<5

CW-9

03/14/00

7

20

<5

<5

CW-9

06/15/00

<5

12

<5

<5

CW-9

10/25/00

<5

12

<5

<5

CW-9

12/04/00

<5

14

<5

<5

CW-9

03/08/01

<5

13

<5

<5

CW-9

06/12/01

<5

8

<5

<5

CW-9

09/20/01

<5

7

<5

<5

CW-9

12/03/01

2.6

9.1

1

<1

CW-9

03/14/02

1.8

6.2

<1

<1

CW-9

06/03/02

1.4

4.4

<1

<1

CW-9

09/18/02

1.5

5.3

<1

<1

CW-9

12/09/02

<1

3.6

<1

<1

CW-9

03/07/03

1.3

4.9

<1

<1

CW-9

07/02/03

<1

2.4

<1

<1

CW-9

12/05/03

2.6

8.4

<1

<1

CW-9

06/15/04

2.4

6.2

<1

<1

CW-9

12/07/04

2.4

6.8

<1

<1

CW-9

06/13/05

1.0

3.1

<1

<1

CW-9

12/14/05

2.1

5.4

<1

<1

CW-9

06/06/06

1.6

3.9

<1

<1

CW-9

12/06/06

2.4

5.0

<1

<1

CW-9

06/07/07

<1

<1

<1

<1

CW-9

12/05/07

<1

2.4

<1

<1

CW-9

10/17/08

0.62

1.4

<0.50

<0.50

CW-9

03/05/09

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

CW-9

09/17/09

<0.50

0.98

<0.50

<0.50

CW-9

03/16/10

0.61

1.7

<0.50

0.92

CW-9

09/06/10

<0.50

1.2

<0.50

<0.50

CW-9

03/16/11

<0.50

1.5

<0.50

<0.50

CW-9

09/05/11

0.70

1.8

<0.50

0.84

CW-9

03/25/12

<0.50

0.78

<0.50

<0.50

CW-9

09/19/12

1.0

2.0

0.58

1.0

CW-9

03/14/13

1.0

1.8

<0.50

1.0

CW-9

09/04/13

1.1

1.6

<0.50

0.9













CW-10

09/16/92

<1

10

1

<1

CW-10

07/02/03

2.9

8

1.5

<1

CW-10

12/05/03

<1

1.5

<1

<1

CW-10

06/15/04

<1

<1

<1

<1

CW-10

12/07/04

<1

<1

<1

<1

CW-10

06/13/05

<1

<1

<1

<1

CW-10

12/30/05

<1

<1

<1

<1













MW-1S

09/01/89

8

61

4 J

19

MW-1S

06/01/90

<5

29

<5

9 J

MW-1S

12/12/90

6

50

7.7

20

MW-1S

03/19/91

<5

26

<5

12

MW-1S

03/19/92

7

80

24

<5

MW-1S

06/01/92

NA

80

NA

NA

MW-1S

09/01/92

NA

46

NA

NA

MW-1S

06/22/93

8

46

13

27

MW-1S

12/01/94

NA

21

NA

NA

Hastings Subsite Tables 2nd 2021 ,xlsx\T4 Hist VOC

Page 6 of 7

-------
Target VOCs Detected in Groundwater Samples, 1984 -2021
Hastings Well No. 3 Subsite OU18, Hastings, Nebraska

«ARCADIS





Tetrachloroethene

Trichloroethene

1,1-Dichloroethene

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane





(PCE)

(TCE)

(1,1-DCE)

(1,1,1-TCA)

Sample ID

Date

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

(ug/L)

USEPA MCL



5

5

5

200

MW-1S

05/01/95

NA

87

NA

NA

MW-1S

03/01/02

NA

50

NA

NA

MW-1S

03/01/03

NA

ND

NA

NA

MW-1S

04/01/04

NA

ND

NA

NA

MW-1S

04/01/05

NA

ND

NA

NA

MW-1S

10/17/08

0.98

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

MW-1S

03/04/09

0.89

0.57

<0.50

<0.50

MW-1S

09/17/09

0.70

0.90

<0.50

<0.50

MW-1S

03/16/10

0.52

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

MW-1S

09/06/10

0.59

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

MW-1S

09/05/11

<0.50

0.90

<0.50

<0.50

MW-1S

03/25/12

<0.50

0.86

<0.50

<0.50

MW-1S

09/16/12

<0.50

1.1

<0.50

<0.50

MW-1S

03/14/13

<0.50

1.1

<0.50

<0.50

MW-1S

09/04/13

<0.50

0.51

<0.50

<0.50

MW-1S

03/26/14

<0.50

0.68

<0.50

<0.50

MW-1S

09/08/14

<0.50

1.0

<0.50

<0.50













M-3

10/25/84

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

04/09/85

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

09/18/85

<5

<5

<5

<5

M-3

12/18/85

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

06/09/88

<5

<5

<5

<5

M-3

06/13/88

<5

65

<5

8

M-3

09/30/91

<5

<5

<5

<5

M-3

12/10/91

<10

<10

<10

<10

M-3

03/18/92

1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

06/10/92

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

09/17/92

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

12/17/92

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

03/23/93

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

06/22/93

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

12/08/93

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

04/06/94

0.6

<0.5

<2

<0.6

M-3

06/29/94

<0.3

<0.5

<2

<0.6

M-3

06/25/03

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

07/30/03

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

08/21/03

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

09/03/03

<1

1

<1

<1

M-3

10/31/03

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

11/26/03

<1

1.4

<1

<1

M-3

12/05/03

<1

1.3

<1

<1

M-3

06/15/04

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

12/07/04

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

06/13/05

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

12/30/05

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

06/06/06

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

12/06/06

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

06/07/07

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

12/05/07

<1

<1

<1

<1

M-3

10/17/08

0.92

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

M-3

03/04/09

0.88

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

M-3

09/17/09

0.90

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

M-3

03/16/10

1.0

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

M-3

09/01/10

1.1

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

M-3

03/16/11

0.87

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

M-3

09/05/11

1.0

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

M-3

03/25/12

0.89

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

M-3

09/16/12

0.70

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

M-3

03/14/13

0.80

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

M-3

09/04/13

0.91

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

M-3

03/26/14

0.86

<0.50

<0.50

<0.50

<	Not detected at or above the reporting limit.

J	Estimated value

ND	Not detected, reporting limit not provided

ug/L	Micrograms per liter.

NA	Not Analyzed

BOLD	Concentration exceeds MCL

* CW-8 sampled in May 2020 by another consultant for local due diligence project.

Hastings Subsite Tables 2nd 2021 ,xlsx\T4 Hist VOC

Page 7 of 7

-------
SECOND STREET
ANALYTICAL RESULTS

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well OW-05D

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

BTEXs (uq

/L)

Other VOCs (ug/L)

PAHs (uq/L

Physical

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)

Ethyl Benzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-
DCA)

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Styrene

Naphthalene (N)

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
(mg/L)

10/27/1997

175-185

4

U

4

U

4

U

8

U

ND

4

U

4

U

4

U

5

U

8.1

03/29/1998

175-185

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

5.3

12/08/1998

175-185

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

4

U

4

U

15



6.2

04/19/1999

175-185

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

4

U

4

U

5

U

5.41

08/19/1999

175-185

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

4

U

4

U

5

U

6

04/25/2006

180

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

5.86

11/27/2006

180

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

2

U

8.66

04/23/2007

177

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

2

U

7.72

10/28/2007

177

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

2

U

8.32

04/21/2008

177

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

7.13

10/15/2008

177

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1

U

6.61

04/16/2009

177

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1

U

9.62

10/14/2009

176

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

5.1

04/21/2010

177

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

8.35

10/19/2010

177

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

5.83

04/26/2011

177

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

7.5

10/12/2011

177

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

7.38

04/26/2012

176

LO

o

UJ

LO

o

UJ

0.5

U

1

U

ND

LO

o

UJ

LO

o

UJ

LO

o

UJ

#N/A



7.2

10/17/2012

177

1

U

1



1

U

2

U

1

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

7.66

05/13/2013

177

1

u

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

6.67

10/28/2013

177

0.5

u

2.7



0.5

U

1

U

2.7

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1.3



6.56

05/08/2014

177

0.5

u

0.5

U

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

5.87

10/30/2014

177

0.5

u

1.1



0.5

u

1

U

1.1

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

U

6.9

05/14/2015

177

1

u

1

U

1

u

3

U

ND

1

u

1

u

1

u

2

U

7.15

10/08/2015

177

LO

o

UJ

LO

o

UJ

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

u

LO

o

UJ

0.5

u

0.5

U

7.38

10/11/2016

177

1

u

1

UJ

1

UJ

3

UJ

ND

1

u

1

UJ

5

u

2

UJ

7.17

11/06/2017

177

0.06

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

0.27

J

0.12

u

0.5

U

7.86

05/07/2018

177

0.06

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

0.2

J

0.12

u

0.5

u

7.04

11/05/2018

177

0.06

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.49

J

0.17

u

0.12

u

0.5

u

8.57

05/13/2019

177

0.13

u

0.17

u

0.2

u

0.42

u

ND

0.33

u

0.12

J

0.19

u

0.36

u

5.87

11/05/2019

177

0.08

u

0.15

J

0.12

u

0.34

u

0.2 J

0.14

u

0.17

u

0.15

u

0.53

u

6.18

05/11/2020

177

0.08

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

u

ND

0.14

u

0.17

u

0.15

u

0.53

u

8.49

11/02/2020

177

0.09

u

0.18

u

0.18

u

0.54

u

ND

0.23

u

0.25

u

0.17

u

0.56

u

8.30

5/3/2021

177

0.14

u

0.25

u

0.12

u

0.28

u

ND

0.21

u

0.21

u

0.12

u

0.82

u

8.20

ROD Cleanup Level	5 1,000 700 10,000	100	1.1

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

ND - Not detected.	N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.

In the 4/25/2006 sample tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected at 1.4 ug/L.

In the 4/26/2012 sample chloroform was qualified as 1.3 U* ug/L, and acetone was detected at 6.1 J ug/L.

In the 10/08/2015 sample, chloroform was detected at 0.68 ug/L.

In the 5/07/2018 sample, chloroform was detected at 0.27 J and trichloroethene was detected at 0.20 J ug/L.

In the 11/05/2018 sample, chloroform was detected at 0.23 J and chloromethane was detected at 0.24 J ug/L.

In the 05/11/2020 sample, chloroform was detected at0.17J ug/L.

In the 11/02/2020 sample, chloroform was detected at 0.40J ug/L.

In the 05/03/21 sample, chloroform was detected at 0.30J ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well MW-09

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

BTEXs (uq/L)

Other VOCs (uq/L)

Total Volatiles (ug/L)

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)

Ethylbenzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

Styrene

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Isopropylbenzne

01/09/1997

140

3,600

4,300

240 J

3,800

11,940

N/A

2,200

620 U

620 U

620 U

53,530

03/27/1997 A

140

5,500

7,200

320

4,300

17,320

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

20,240

11/04/1997

140

5,100

9,200

450

5,200

19,950

4 U

3,900

4 U

4 U

N/A

23,850

03/31/1998

140

4,200

4,700

220

3,900

13,020

4 U

1,800

40 U

40 U

N/A

14,820

07/01/1998

140

3,700

5,900

300

3,800

13,700

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

13,700

08/26/1998

140

3,580

5,500

25 U

3,190

12,270

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

12,270

12/02/1998

140

4,200

6,100

310

2,510

13,120

N/A

2,600

4 U

4 U

N/A

15,869

12/16/1998

140

3,900

5,700

260

3,900

13,760

4 U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

13,760

04/23/1999

140

4,100

6,300

310

4,000

14,710

4 U

2,700

4 U

4 U

N/A

N/A

08/24/1999

140

2,400

5,200

3,000

3,600

14,200

4 U

2,600

4 U

4 U

N/A

N/A

09/16/1999

140

2,600

4,300

300

3,400

10,600

6

2,200

4 U

4 U

N/A

12,800

03/30/2000

140

1,880

3,760

233

2,785

8,658

9.6 U

1,870

10.4 U

10.4 U

N/A

10,535

11/29/2000

140

840

2,500

140

2,330

5,810

2 U

1,300

2 U

2 U

N/A

7,110

08/13/2001

140

820

2,100

36 J

1,900

4,856

N/A

1,100

0.5 U

0.5 U

2.8 J

6,122

02/12/2002

140

1,300

3,300

180

4,000

8,780

N/A

2,200

5 U

5 U

5.8

10,986

05/29/2002

140

450

1,300

110

1,200

3,060

10 U

710

10 U

10 U

10 U

3,840

12/11/2002

140

720

2,100

94

1,600

4,514

5 U

1,400

5 U

5 U

10

6,791

09/23/2003

140

530

1,400

110

1,700

3,740

5 U

760

20

5 U

8

4,537

04/06/2004

140

350

1,300

80

1,430 J

3,160

10 U

650

10 U

10 U

10 U

3,834

10/15/2004

140

220

720

130 J

1,560

2,630

6.8

620

5 U

5 U

11

3,311

03/04/2005

140

170

740

69

1,500

2,479

10 U

800

10 U

10 U

10 U

3,341

10/25/2005

140

140

660

56

960

1,816

5 U

360

11

5 U

5.5

2,328

04/29/2006

140

200

450

72 U*

1,040

1,690

5 U

410

10 U

30

6.9

2,186

12/07/2006

140

150

420

69

880

1,519

5 U

320

9.7

64

7.3

1,936

03/28/2007

140

130

540

100

1,720

2,490

5 UJ

760

7.8

5 U

9.6

3,390

05/01/2007

140

120

550

60

1,030

1,760

5 U

500

13

100

6.9

2,432

11/08/2007

140

88

430

56

1,820

2,394

5 U

780

14

5 U

7.8

3,332

04/30/2008

140

74

340

50 U

750

1,164

50 UJ

250 J

50 U

66

50 U

1,550

10/21/2008

140

64

250

32

600

946

20 U

240

20 U

73

20 U

1,186

03/23/2009

140

130

610

120

2,020

2,880

100 U

910

100 U

120

100 U

3,910

04/22/2009

140

65

100

34

320

519

5 U

62

12

65

5 U

581

ROD Cleanup Level	5 1,000	700 10,000	100

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	N/Aor*N/A - Not analyzed.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.	J - Result is an estimate.

A - For 03/27/97 sampling, highest results (03/27/97b) used (from three samples).

* - These results are from the NPDES samples.	UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well MW-09 (Continued)

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

BTEXs (uq/L)

Other VOCs (uq/L)

Total Volatiles (ug/L)

Benzene(B)

Toluene (T)

Ethylbenzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

Styrene

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Isopropylbenzne

10/19/2009

140

90

390

63

890

1,433

5 U

400

23

130

7.2

2,019

10/19/2009

140

120 J

890 J

100 J

2,210

3,320

5 U

1,100

27

150 J



4,597

03/23/2010

140

100

440

74

870

1,484

5 U

360

29

140

7.2

2,069

04/22/2010

140

88

420

65

940

1,513

5 U

340

23

120

7.8

2,031

10/21/2010

140

84

610

55

1,120

1,869

5 U

420

20

93

6.1

2,448

04/27/2011

140

100

520

70

1,050

1,740

4 U

340

29

140

7

2,256

10/17/2011

140

43

580

110

1,760

2,493

5 U

690

24

140

10

3,388

04/26/2012

140

66

480

70

1,190

1,806

25 U

340

25 U

100

25 U

2,246

10/16/2012

140

47

260

40

760

1,107

5 U

280

8.8

48

5.9

1,474

03/25/2013

140

44

290 J

56

1,150

1,540

10 U

180

10 U

56

10 U

1,789

10/28/2013

140

50 U

250

59

1,150

1,459

50 U

50 U

50 U

66

50 U

1,525

05/08/2014

140

130 U

270

130 U

1,430

1,700

130 U

190

130 U

130 U

130 U

1,890

11/03/2014

140

11

280

170

2,880

3,341

5 U

1,100

9.3

54

15

4,519

05/13/2015

140

7.8

180

140

1,890

2,218

5 U

600

16

74

15

2,923

10/08/2015

140

8.8

190

160

1,710 J

2,069

5 U

470 J

15

75

9.6

2,676

05/23/2016

140

50 U

210

190

1,940

2,340

50 U

590

50 U

73

50 U

3,003

10/18/2016

140

9.6 J

350 J

350

3,300

4,009.6

5 UJ

1,800

12 J

35

5 U

5,856.6

04/18/2017

140

5.5

380

370

2,630

3,385.5

5 U

840

36

120

16

4,397.5

11/20/2017

140

11.9 J

237

110

1,510

1,868.9 J

12 U

345

52.3 J

162

7.0 U

9,948.1

06/14/2018

140

6 U

226

89.1 J

1,270

1,585.0 J

12 U

296

41.8 J

87.9

7.0 U

8,210.8 J

12/03/2018

140

10.5 J

219

74.2 J

745

1,048.7 J

12 U

120

33.0 J

74.4 J

7.0 U

4,599.5 J

05/15/2019

140

7.9 U

71.3 J

32.9 J

489

593.2 J

14 U

55 J

19.3 J

38.7 J

20.0 U

3,696.2 J

11/07/2019

140

11 J

71.7 J

37.1 J

580

699.8 J

14 U

84.3 J

17.0 U

50.9 J

20.0 U

4,470.2 J

05/13/2020

140

6.1 J

73.2

43.6

734

856.9 J

3.5 U

126

16.9 J

32.6

9.2 J

5,464.4 J

11/05/2020

140

3.1 J

40.4

19 J

518

580.5 J

5.8 U

64

13.7 J

31.1

6.1 J

2,856.4 J

05/06/2021

140

3.4 U

51.4

21.3 J

561

633.7 J

5.3 U

81.2

9.5 J

24.7 J

6.9 J

3,689.4 J

ROD Cleanup Level	5 1,000	700 10,000	100

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	N/Aor*N/A - Not analyzed.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.	J - Result is an estimate.

A - For 03/27/97 sampling, highest results (03/27/97b) used (from three samples).

* - These results are from the NPDES samples.	UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

In the 10/16/2012 sample cyclohexane was detected at 24 ug/L.

In the 10/18/2016 sample cyclohexane was detected at 31 ug/L and methylcyclohexane at 10J ug/L.

In the 4/18/2017 sample, cyclohexane was detected at 31J ug/L and methylcyclohexane at 11 ug/L.

In the 11/20/2017 sample, methylene chloride was detected at 38.6J ug/L, naphthalene at 6,790 ug/L, n-propylbenzene at 17.4 ug/L, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene at 99.9J ug/L.

In the 6/14/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected at 5,750 ug/L, n-propylbenzene was detected at 14.8 J ug/L, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was detected at 341 ug/L,
and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene was detected at 94.2 J ug/L

In the 12/3/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected at 3,040 ug/L, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was detected at 198 ug/L, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene was detected at 52.9 J ug/L,
methylene chloride was detected at 32.5 J ug/L, and styrene was detected at 120 ug/L.

Well MW-09 is an extraction well that is sampled at its sample tap and has captured NAPLs in the past. Therefore, physical parameters are not measured at this well.

In the 05/15/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected at 2,190 ug/L, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was detected at 160 ug/L, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene was detected at 47.1 J ug/L.

In the 05/13/2020 sample, the following compounds were detected: n-butylbenzene at 5.9 J ug/L, cyclohexane at 12.4 J ug/L, cis-1,2-dichloroethene at 4.4 J ug/L, isopropylbenzene at 9.2 J ug/L,

methylcyclohexane at 2.8 J ug/L, n-propylbenzene at 8.6 J ug/L, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene at 246 ug/L, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene at 72.7 ug/L.

In the 11/5/2020 sample, the following compounds were detected: Cyclohexane at 10 J ug/L, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene at 178 ug/L, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene at 48.9 ug/L, and cis-1,2-Dichloroethene at
3.9 J ug/L

In the 5/6/2021 sample, the following compounds were detected: Cyclohexane at 11.1 J ug/L, cis-1,2-Dichloroethene at 3.4J ug/L, Naphthalene at 2,660 ug/L, n-Propylbenzene at 7.1 J ug/L, 1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene at 194 ug/L, and 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene at 57.8 ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well MW-09 (Continued)





Non-Carcinogenic PAHs (ug/L)

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Naphthalene (N)

1-Methylnaphthalene

2-Methylnaphthalene

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Total Non-
Carcinogenic PAHs
(ug/L)

01/09/1997

140

11,000

3,200

5,900

1,000 U

5,900

310

N/A

150

U

1,300



760

180



53,530

03/27/1997 A

140

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



NA

11/04/1997

140

965

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



965

03/31/1998

140

12,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



12,000

07/01/1998

140

7,800

N/A

N/A

38

520

76

10 U

46



240



350

75



9,125

08/26/1998

140

4,200

N/A

N/A

2,700

3,300

58

7.6 U

21

U

460



270

480



11,462

12/02/1998

140

14,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



14,000

12/16/1998

140

5,200

N/A

N/A

280

34

66

10 U

10

U

120



250

10

U

5,930

04/23/1999

140

16,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



16,000

08/24/1999

140

21,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



21,000

09/16/1999

140

17,000

4,300 J

11,000

180

930

330

22

250



620



120

400



35,152

03/30/2000

140

6,780

1,200

2,360

30.3

434

39.4

2.3

25.7



154



218

37



11,283

11/29/2000

140

3,100

N/A

1,700

27

250

36

3.4

26



75



210

42



5,469

08/13/2001

140

4,300

N/A

1,000 J

100 U

360

100 U

100 U

100

U

100

U

100 U

100

U

5,660

02/12/2002

140

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



NA

05/29/2002

140

2,700

N/A

1,300

50 U

190

50 U

50 U

50

U

50

U

82

50

U

4,272

12/11/2002

140

1,950

N/A

1,540

23

292

31

0.15 U

19



114



183

33



4,185

09/23/2003

140

5,320

1,800 J

3,670

53

540

110

3

72



270



540

100



12,478

04/06/2004

140

1,640

601

1,140

17

184

13

0.26

3



8



79

5



3,690

10/15/2004

140

8,100

566

513

18.1

181

18.3

0.26 U

8.5



51.9



102

12



9,570

03/04/2005

140

2,300

N/A

1400

25

280

20

20 U

7



74



110

20

U

4,216

10/25/2005

140

3,800

N/A

990

15

190

16

2 U

9



45



76

13



5,148

04/29/2006

140

7,700

6,700

6,700

160

1300

390

17

320



650



2,000

390



26,327

12/07/2006

140

3,200

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



3,200

03/28/2007

140

470

N/A

690

18

150

26

2 U

21



56



130

27



1,588

05/01/2007

140

5,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



5,000

11/08/2007

140

680

N/A

600

17

110

28

4 U

25



55



100

35



1,701

04/30/2008

140

3,800

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

35



3,800

10/21/2008

140

2,200

740

1,500

13

270

14

5 U

7



42



71

10



4,867

ROD Cleanup Level	1.1	0.63

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.

J - Result is an estimate.

A - For 03/27/97 sampling, highest results from three NPDES samples used.

* - These results are from the NPDES samples.

In the 04/29/2006 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results.
In the 10/21/2008 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results.

0.2

ND - Not detected.

N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.

The value listed in the table is the PAH result.
The value listed in the table is the PAH result.

370

100

Naphthalene was reported at 3,800 ug/L in the VOC results.
Naphthalene was reported at 3,500 ug/L in the VOC results.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well MW-09 (Continued)





Non-Carcinogenic PAHs (ug/L)

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Naphthalene (N)

1-Methylnaphthalene

2-Methylnaphthalene

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Total Non-
Carcinogenic PAHs
(ug/L)

03/23/2009

140

3,800

N/A

2,500



55

380



86

10 U

66

180

340



97

7,504

04/22/2009

140

1,000

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

1,000

10/19/2009

140

1,500

N/A

1,300



16

150

J

23

5 U

16

61

120

J

17

3,203

03/23/2010

140

2,400

N/A

5,900



29

350



60

5 UJ

39

130

300



45

9,253

04/22/2010

140

5,300

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

5,300

10/21/2010

140

1,800

N/A

1,000



10

140

J

15

5 U

7.8

43

95

J

10

3,121

04/27/2011

140

4,500

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/17/2011

140

4,500

N/A

1,300



20

260

J

16

5 U

9.3

51

120

J

15

6,291

04/26/2012

140

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/16/2012

140

840

N/A

1,200



23 J

200



21 J

2 U

8.9

65

100

J

15 J

2,473

03/25/2013

140

1,500

N/A

1,400



23

230



36

5 U

18

76

180



25

3,488

10/29/2013

140

6,200

N/A

1,300



19

220

J

19

5 U

13

72

130

J

19

7,992

05/08/2014

140

6,500

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

6,500

11/03/2014

140

12,000

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

12,000

05/13/2015

140

7,700

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

7,700

10/08/2015

140

7,900

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

7,900

05/23/2016

140

10,000 J

N/A

4,200

J

64 J

730

J

96 J

10 U

67 J

220 J

500

J

100 J

15,987

10/18/2016

140

29,000 J

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

29,000

04/18/2017

140

18,000 J

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

18,000

11/20/2017

140

6,790

N/A

2,150



38.9

384



92.7

7.3

68.1

206

425



95.8

10,258

06/14/2018

140

5,750

N/A

962



10.3

195



50.7

2.6

26.1

112

213



35.5

7,357

12/03/2018

140

3,040

N/A

0.12

J

3.3

2.9



5.3

0.36

5.3

11.8

1.5



6.5

3,077 J

05/15/2019

140

2,190

N/A

0.38

J

4.9

4.9



13.7

1

13.1

25.5

23.5



16.7

2,294 J

11/07/2019

140

3,370

N/A

0.34

J

8.7

10.7



18.9

1.1

14.5

46.3

71.5



17.9

3,560 J

05/13/2020

140

4,070

N/A

17.4



14.5

47.6



18.6

0.72

10.0

70.6

93.7



12.1

4,355

11/05/2020

140

1,920

N/A

0.0

U

11.7

34.4



12.6

0.046 U

4.2

49.1

65.2



5.7

2,103

05/06/2021

140

3,050

N/A

948



13.7

130



3.6

0.29

5.8

45.8

67.8



8.2

4,273

ROD Cleanup Level	1.1	0.63	0.2	370	100

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	ND - Not detected.

J - Result is an estimate.	N/A or#N/A - Not analyzed.

* - These results are from the NPDES samples.

In the 10/19/2009 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 4,900 ug/L in the VOC results.
In the 10/17/2011 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 11,000 ug/L in the VOC results.
In the 10/16/2012 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 3,500 ug/L in the VOC results.
In the 05/23/2016 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 6,300 ug/L in the VOC results.
In the 11/20/2017 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 4,250 ug/L in the PAH results.
In the 6/14/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 169 ug/L in the PAH results.
In the 12/3/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 0.27 J ug/L in the PAH results.
In the 05/15/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 0.55 ug/L in the PAH results.
In the 11/5/2019 sample, naphthalene was only detected In VOC
In the 11/5/2020 sample, naphthalene was only detected In VOC

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well MW-09

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)









Carcinogenic PAHs

(ug/L)













Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

o
c
0
_c
c
CO

o



o
c
0
_c
c
CO

o



0



0
c
0

Q.
"O

O
CO

cm"



u
"E

0>

U)

o

1*

W 3

V)
X

£
u
'E

A 

V)

¦a <

u u
¦ "E "E

C 0) 0)
O U) U)



C
0
CO



C
0
CO



0

if)
_c

O



c
0
"O
C



o —

_ in

o <
H Q.

Total N
Carcinc
(ug/L)

c c

$ E E

o re re
H O O

(ug/L)

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

53,530

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

NA

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

965

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

12,000

N/A



25



18



10

U

15



25



10

U

83

9,125

9,208



59



11



1.8

U

14



15



4.3

U

99

11,462

11,561



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

14,000

N/A



17



14



12



10

U

22



10

U

65

5,930

5,995



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

16,000

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

21,000

N/A



150



100



74



30



150



28



532

35,152

35,684



12.7



7.8



0.068

U

8.6



12.5



2.4



46

11,283

11,328



17



12



9.2



3.7



16



3.4



61

5,469

5,531



100

U

100

U

100

U

100

U

100

U

100

U

502

5,660

6,162



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



ND

NA

ND



50

U

50

U

50

U

50

U

50

U

50

U

ND

4,272

ND



10



6



2.3



3.6



10



0.15

U

32

4,185

4,217



43
1



28
1



22
0.35



11
0.59



40
1



6.9
0.36



151
4

12,478
3,690

12,629
3,695



3.8



1.4



2



0.59

U

2.9



0.36

U

10

9,570

9,580



20

U

20

U

20

U

4

UJ

20

U

40

U

ND

4,216

ND



4.2



2.8



2

U

2

U

4.2



2

U

11

5,148

5,159



180



130



97



41



170



24



642

26,327

26,969



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

3,200

N/A



11



7.3



8.1



2

U

11



2.1



40

1,588

1,628



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

5,000

N/A



16



12



8



4

U

15



4

U

51

1,701

1,753



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

3,800

3,800



5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

4,867

4,867



37



27



19



10

U

37



10

U

120

7,504

7,624



01/09/1997
03/27/1997
11/04/1997
03/31/1998
07/01/1998
08/26/1998
12/02/1998
12/16/1998
04/23/1999
08/24/1999
09/16/1999
03/30/2000
11/29/2000
08/13/2001
02/12/2002
05/29/2002
12/11/2002
09/23/2003
04/06/2004
10/15/2004
03/04/2005
10/25/2005
04/29/2006
12/07/2006
03/28/2007
05/01/2007
11/08/2007
04/30/2008
10/21/2008
03/23/2009

140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140

ROD Cleanup Level	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.2	1.6	0.1

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	ND - Not detected.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.	N/A or#N/A - Not analyzed.

J - Result is an estimate.

A - For 03/27/97 sampling, highest results (03/27/97b) used (from three samples).

* - These results are from the NPDES samples.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well MW-09













Carcinogenic PAHs

(ug/L)













Sample Date

Inteival
Sampled
(feet)

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Total Carcinogenic
PAHs (ug/L)

Total Non-
Carcinogenic PAHs
(ug/L)

Total (Non-
Carcinogenic and
Carcinogenic) PAHs
(ug/L)

04/22/2009

140

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

1,000

1,000

10/19/2009

140

7



5

U

5

U

5

U

6



5

U

13

3,203

3,216

03/23/2010

140

14



9.3



5

U

5.6



14



5

U

42.9

9,253

9,296

04/22/2010

140

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

5,930

5,930

10/21/2010

140

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

16,000

16,000

10/17/2011

140

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

35,152

35,152

04/26/2011

140

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

10/16/2012

140

4.4

J

2.7

J

2

U

2

U

3.8

J

2

U

10.9

5,469

5,480

03/25/2013

140

8.4



5.3



5

U

5

U

8.0



5

U

21.7

3,488

3,510

10/29/2013

140

6.7



5.0

U

5

U

5

U

5.8



5

U

12.5

7,992

8,005

05/08/2014

140

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

6,500

6,500

11/03/2014

140

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

12,000

12,000

05/23/2016

140

35.0

J

20.0

J

15

J

10

U

35.0

J

10

U

115.0

15,987

16,102

10/18/2016

140

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

29,000

29,000

04/18/2017

140

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A

18,000

11/20/2017

140

37.2



19.2



19.7



0.13

U

32.6



6.8



115.5

5,152

5,267

06/14/2018

140

16.7



10.3



10.7



0.02

U

11.9



2.5



115.5

5,149

5,265

12/03/2018

140

2.1



1.1



0.53



0.76



1.9



0.32



6.71

3,077 J

3,084 J

05/15/2019

140

6.4



3.7



3.9



0.028

U

5.4



0.97



20.37

2,294 J

2,314 J

11/07/2019

140

6.6



4.2



2.7



1.6



6



1.2



22.3

3,560 J

3,582 J

05/13/2020

140

4.5



2.4



2.1



0.80



3.8



0.72



14.32

3,560 J

3,574 J

11/05/2020

140

0.48



0.096



0.04

U

0.03

U

0.35



0.049

U

1.04

0

1 J

05/06/2021

140

2.1



0.96



0.80



0.37



1.8



0.40



6.43

4,273

4,280

ROD Cleanup Level	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.2	1.6	0.1

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	ND - Not detected.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.	N/A or#N/A - Not analyzed.

J - Result is an estimate.

* - These results are from the NPDES samples.

In the 11/20/2017 sample, dibenz(a,h)anthracene was detected at 3.6 ug/L.

In the 6/14/2018 sample, dibenz(a,h)anthracene was detected at 1.2 ug/L.

In the 12/03/2018 sample, dibenz(a,h)anthracene was detected at 0.16 ug/L.

In the 5/15/2019 sample, dibenz(a,h)anthracene was detected at 0.40 ug/L.

In the 5/13/2020 sample, dibenz(a,h)anthracene was detected at 0.26 ug/L.

In the 5/6/2021 sample, dibenz(a,h)anthracene was detected at 0.12 ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well EXW-03





BTEXs (ug/L)

Other VOCs (ug/L)

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)

Ethyl benzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

Styrene

Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

12/12/2006

135

54



43



5.6



153



255.60



5

U

5 U

67



21



03/28/2007

135

7.8



5.6



5

U

62



75.4



5

UJ

6.4

11



5

U

05/01/2007

135

51



27



5

U

193



271



5

U

11

55



67



11/08/2007

135

12



9.7



5

U

95



116.7



5

U

20

11



5

U

04/28/2008

135

51



34



5

U

98



183



5

UJ

7.7

30

J

32



10/20/2008

135

35



28



5

U

82



145



5

U

11

27



43



03/23/2009

135

100

U

100

U

100

U

200

U

ND



100

U

100 U

100

U

100

U

04/20/2009

135

32



22



5

U

116



170



5

U

21

32



79



10/13/2009

135

33



24



5

U

126



183



5

U

17

38



65



10/20/2009

135

22

J

15

J

5

U

116



153



5

U

23 J

45



78

J

03/23/2010

135

20

J

15

J

5

U

102



137



5

U

20

26



72



10/21/2010

135

22

J

17

J

5

UJ

133

J

172



5

UJ

15 J

26

J

46

J

05/04/2011

135

23



17



5

U

109



149



5

U

15

21



55



10/13/2011

135

16



18



5

U

126



160



5

U

24

35



87



04/25/2012

135

5.6



10



5

U

97



112.6



5

U

17

19



72



10/17/2012

135

8.3



10



5

U

91



109.3



5

UJ

13

22



56



03/26/2013

135

15



24

U

5.8



164



184.8



5

U

9.7

42



47



10/29/2013

135

25

U

25

U

25

U

172



172



25

U

25 U

25

U

56



05/07/2014

135

9.3



12



5

U

94



115.3



5

U

7

24



31



10/30/2014

135

50

U

50

U

50

U

153



153



50

U

50 U

50

U

50

U

05/12/2015

135

5.4



5.3



5

U

48



58.7



5

U

19

7



82



10/07/2015

135

18



21



7.8



192



238.8



5

U

20

41



76



05/19/2016

135

11

J

14



8.6



111



144.6



5

U

37

24



110



10/18/2016

135

5

UJ

5

UJ

5

UJ

37

J

37



5

UJ

24 J

5

UJ

88

J

04/18/2017

135

9.6



11



8.1



82



110.7



5

u

19

7.8



67



11/20/2017

135

0.6

U

1.7

U

3.5

J

4.2

U

3.5

J

1.2

u

66.7

1.2

U

1

U

06/14/2018

135

0.58

J

0.85

U

0.9

U

2.1

U

0.58

J

0.6

u

27.1

0.6

U

0.5

U

12/03/2018

135

1.1



1.6



2.2



21.9



26.8



0.12

u

10.2

0.85

J

5.5



05/15/2019

135

0.079

U

0.16

J

0.32

J

3.5



3.98

J

0.14

u

2.5

0.15

U

5.7



11/07/2019

135

0.079

U

0.14

U

0.15

J

0.34

U

0.15

J

0.14

u

1.9

0.15

U

5.9



05/13/2020

135

0.21

J

0.47

J

0.32

J

1.2

J

2.2

J

0.14

u

0.92 J

0.41

J

0.23

J

11/05/2020

135

0.088

U

0.18

U

0.18

U

0.54

U

ND



0.23

u

0.33 J

0.17

U

1.1



05/06/2021

135

0.51



1.4



1.0

J

7.1



10.01

J

0.21

u

1.5

1.1



0.78

J

ROD Cleanup Level	5	1,000	700	10,000	100

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.

J - Result is an estimate.

In the 05/01/2007 sample 2-butanone was detected at 5.4 ug/L.

The 11/08/2007 data is from ASR 3683.

In the 04/20/2009 sample methyl acetate was detected at 16 ug/L.

Well EXW-03 is an extraction well that is sampled at its sample tap. Because MW-09, another extraction well, has captured NAPLs in the past,
physical parameters are not measured at this well.

ND - Not detected.

N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well EXW-03



















Non-Carcinogenic

PAHs (ug/L)

















Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Naphthalene (N)

1 -Methyl naphthalene

2-Methyl naphthalene

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Total Non-
Carcinogenic PAHs
(ug/L)

12/12/2006

135

900

J

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



900

03/28/2007

135

2

U

N/A

2

U

4



8

7



2

U

15



7



3



19



63

05/01/2007

135

1,600



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



1,600

11/08/2007

135

4

U

N/A

6



15



56

16



4

U

9



45



53



12



217

04/28/2008

135

300



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



300

10/20/2008

135

42

J

16 J

32

J

5

U

11 J

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

101

03/23/2009

135

410



N/A

4

U

12



19

36



4



28



49



100



38



696

04/20/2009

135

660



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



240

10/13/2009

135

430



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



240

10/20/2009

135

5

U

N/A

5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

03/23/2010

135

5

U

N/A

5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

UJ

5

UJ

5

U

5

U

5

UJ

ND

10/21/2010

135

5

U

N/A

5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

UJ

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

05/03/2011

135

260



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



ND

10/17/2011

135

250



N/A

5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

250

04/25/2012

135

#N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

10/17/2012

135

360



N/A

2

U

3.6



11

2

U

2

U

2

U

7.2



2

U

2

U

381.8

03/26/2013

135

5

U

N/A

5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

10/29/2013

135

830



N/A

7



5

U

32

5

U

5

U

5

U

10



11



5

U

890

05/07/2014

135

360



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



360

10/30/2014

135

1,200



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



1,200

05/12/2015

135

10

U

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



10 U

10/07/2015

135

810



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



810

05/19/2016

135

310



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



310

10/18/2016

135

88

J

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



88

04/18/2017

135

120



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



120

11/20/2017

135

12.5

J

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



12.5 J

06/14/2018

135

3.7

J

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



3.7 J

12/03/2018

135

106.0



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



106

05/15/2019

135

87.1



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



87.1

11/07/2019

135

37.1



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



37.1

05/13/2020

135

12.2



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



12.2

11/05/2020

135

3.6

J

N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



3.6 J

05/06/2021

135

38.5



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



38.5

ROD Cleanup Level	1	0.63	370	140

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	ND - Not detected.	UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

J - Result is an estimate.	N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.

In the 10/20/2008 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result.

Naphthalene was not detected with a 5 ug/L detection limit in the PAH results.

In the 10/17/2011 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed is the VOC result.

Naphthalene was not detected with a 5 ug/L detection limit in the PAH results.

In the 10/17/2012 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed is the VOC result.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well PZ-01









BTEXs

ug/L)















Other

VOCs (ug/L)















PAHs
(ug/L)

Physical











LU



X



a)
c

.c



(1)











(1)
c
(1)











(1)
c
a)



z



O
Q

c
(D
O)

Sample
Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)



(1)
c
(D
N
C
(1)
£
.c
LLJ



(1)
c
0)

X

5

o
H

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroei
(1,2-DCA)



Trichloroether
(TOE)



Styrene



Cyclohexane



N
c
(1)
£2

Q.

o

Q.

o
w



Acetone



2-Butanone



Tetrachloroetl
(POE)



a)
c
0)

.C
.c
Q.

Z



Dissolved Ox\
(mg/L)

11/13/2003

140

1,700

370



50

U

500

2,570

50

U

50

U

240



50

U

50

U

50

U

50

U

50

U

3,900



10.62

6/8/2004

134

36

14



10

U

98

148

10

U

26



15



10

u

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

970

J



11/30/2004

135

190

18



10

u

58

266

10

U

19



18



10

u

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

618



0.54

4/29/2006

135

760

98

U*

26

u*

166 U*

760

19



13



41



5

u

5.2



29

J

5



5

U

920



5.46

12/12/2006

135

7,000

1,900



210



2,370

11,480

5

U

42



2,200



5.5



22



5

U

5

U

5

U

9,300

J

0.58

5/3/2007

135.3

5,200

1,400



160



1,880

8,640

5

U

44



1,500



11



18



56



17



18



11,000



0

10/30/2007

130

7,800

2,400



220



2,410

12,830

5

U

19

J

2,800

J

19



12



5

U

5

U

5

U

11,000



2.64

4/30/2008

130

11,000

2,800



290



2,730

16,820

250

UJ

250

U

2,400

J

250

u

250

U

250

U

250

U

250

U

11,000



0.99

10/21/2008

135

1,500

190



50

u

480

2,120

50

U

50

U

170



50

u

50

U

50

U

50

U

50

U

5,000



4.39

4/15/2009

130

810

140



300

J

170

1,120

5

U

48



110



8



21



100



21



8.3



1,300



0

10/13/2009

130

6,200

2,100



720



2,470

10,770

5

U

32



1,800



17



23



5

U

5

U

5.2



17,000

J

0

4/21/2010

130

3,700

770



190



1,820

6,290

5

U

39



1,000



9.8



27



5

U

5

U

5

U

12,000

J

0

10/19/2010

130

2,600

620



120



1,050

4,390

5

U

35



740



5

u

16



5

U

5

U

5

U

3,400



0.16

5/4/2011

130

1,200

350



180



1,780

3,510

5

U

23



1,100



16



17



5

U

5

U

5

U

9,000



0.56

10/12/2011

130

2,200

830



140



1,810

4,980

5

U

38



1,100



8.2



37



5

UJ

5

UJ

7



9,900

J

0.37

4/25/2012

130

2,000 J"

700

J"

170

u

1,860 J"

4,560

170

U

170

U

720

J"

170

u

170

U

330

U

330

U

170

U

#N/A



1.64

10/17/2012

130

1,600

500



72



1,720

3,892

5

U

28



620



5

u

36



5

UJ

5

U

5



8,500



2.9

5/22/2013

130

2,400

350



5

u

1,830

4,585

5

U

76



390



10



56



5

U

5

U

8



12,000



0.79

10/27/2013

130

990

150



100

u

1,520

2,660

100

U

100

U

100

U

100

u

100

U

200

U

200

U

100

U

13,000



1.17

5/6/2014

130

550

130



100

u

600

1,280

100

U

100

U

100

U

100

UJ

100

U

200

U

200

U

100

U

8,000



1.78

10/30/2014

126

1,100

250



50

u

1,320

2,670

50

U

50

U

530



50

u

50

U

100

U

100

U

50

U

11,000



0.42

5/14/2015

130

980

1,100

J

160



2,000 J

4,240

5

U

100



760



17



90



10

U

5

U

25



12,000



0.49

10/7/2015

130

1,100

500

J

58



1,410

3,068

5

U

34



720

J

5

u

31



35



10

U

12



13,000



0.53

5/23/2016

130

710

500

U

500

u

660

1,370

500

U

500

U

500

U

500

u

500

U

1,000

U

1,000

U

500

U

9,200



0.68

10/18/2016

130

800

290



5

u

1,100

2,190

5

U

31



480



5

u

36



5

UJ

5

UJ

20



19,000

J

0.5

4/19/2017

130

840

360



110



1,200

2,510

5

U

39



450



5

u

34



5

U

5

U

21



16,000

J

0.4

11/9/2017

130

1,330

453



376



1,700

3,859

12

u

52

J

367



33

u

33

J

188

U

59

U

16

J

12,400



1

5/10/2018

130

571

64.2

J

106



692

1,433 J

12

u

31.2

J

97.4

J

33

u

30.1

J

308

J

59

U

17.7

J

9,100



0.94

11/7/2018

130

963

223



227



1,390

2,803

5

u

36.9

J

316.0



33

u

35.8

J

188

U

59

u

10.0

U

12,900



0.95

5/16/2019

130

957

186



435



1,080

2,658

33

u

58.3

J

19.0

U

10

u

35.8

J

740

U

180

u

15.8

J

10,300



0.93

11/7/2019

130

1,060

155



287



725

2,227

14

u

36.3

J

49.5

J

8

u

20.0

U

330

U

136

J

22.0

U

5,050



1.64

5/14/2020

130

919

212



380



906

2,417

7

u

46.9

J

88.4



4

u

28.6

J

165

u

82

J

12.5

J

8,830



0.55

11/5/2020

130

770

178



296



987

2,231

12

u

47.8

J

86.3



13

u

34.7

J

235

u

120

u

15.2

J

8,530



0.78

5/6/2021

130

317

103



99.0



383

902

10.6

u

30.3

J

6.2

U

11.8

u

23.4

J

127

u

48.8

u

21.9

J

6,960



1.24

ROD Cleanup Level	5 1,000	700	10,000	100	1.1

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit. J - Result is an estimate.	A blank cell indicates that the datum for that event was not found.	N/A or#N/A - Not analyzed.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank. J" - Qualified as estimated because the RPD result exceeded the QA/QC criteria.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

In the 4/29/2006 sample naphthalene results were reported in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 420 ug/L in the PAH results.

In the 4/29/2006 sample the following contaminants were detected: 2-methylnaphthalene at 88 ug/L, acenaphthene at 5.3 ug/L, acenaphthylene at 73
anthracene at 3.4 ug/L, fluoranthene at 2.3 ug/L, fluorene at 4 ug/L, phenanthrene at 19 ug/L, and pyrene at 2.6 ug/L.

In the 10/17/2012 sample tetrachloroethane was detected at 5.4 ug/L.

In the 5/23/2016 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 6,300 ug/L in the VOC results.

In the 5/23/2016 sample the following contaminants were detected: acenaphthene at 37 ug/L, acenaphthylene at 700 ug/L, anthracene at 20 ug/L, fluoranthene at 6.0J ug/L, fluorene at 44J ug/L,

2-methylnapthalene at 1,300 ug/L, phenanthrene at 110J ug/L, and pyrene at7.2J ug/L.

In the 11/09/2017 sample the following contaminants were detected: acenaphthene at 28.7 ug/L, acenaphthylene at 482 ug/L, anthracene at 13.4 ug/L, benzo(a)anthracene at 0.38 ug/L, benzo(a)pyrene at 0.19 ug/L,
benzo(b)fluoranthene at0.11 ug/L, benzo(g,h,i)perylene at0.055J, benzo(k)fluoranthene at0.13, chrysene at0.30 ug/L, dibenz(a,h)anthracene at0.024J, fluoranthene at4.5 ug/L, fluorene at39.2 ug/L, indeno(1,2,3-
cd)pyrene at0.045J, 2-methylnaphthalene at 827 ug/L, phenanthrene at 67.8 ug/L, and pyrene at 3.6 ug/L

In the 11/09/2017 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 6,570 ug/L in the PAH results.

In the 5/10/2018 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 4,820 ug/L in the PAH results.

In the 11/07/2018 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 5,720 ug/L in the PAH results.

In the 5/16/2019 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 6,850 ug/L in the PAH results.

In the 11/07/2019 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 2,690 ug/L in the PAH results.

In the 05/14/2020 sample naphthalene was detected in both VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 5,950 ug/L in the PAH results.

In the 11/5/2020 sample naphthalene was detected in both VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 7000 ug/L in the VOC results.

In the 5/6/2021 sample, naphthalene was detected in both VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Napthalene was reported at 5,670 ug/L in the VOC results.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well EMW-06





BTEXs (ug/L)

Other VOCs (ug/L)

PAHs (ug/L)

Physical









llT





0
c

01



0











0
c
ro



0
c







c

0











g



sz













X



0



z



O)

Sample

Interval
Sampled

Benzene (B)

P

0
c
0

0
c
0
N
C
0
-Q
>.
SZ

0
c
_0

X
ro


X

HI
I—
m

0

0

1	^
" £
o 9



0
sz
0

o

o ^
LU
.2 O



0
c
0

S-



0
c
ro

X

0
sz
o
o
>,



JZ

o
o
&
>.
sz
0



N
C
0
-Q
>.
Q.
O
Q.
O



0
c
0

ro
sz

Q.

ro



o 2-

§1

o _

(/) p.

.52 X

Date

(feet)

H

LLJ

H

H





H t



W



O



5



tn



z



Q 9-

10/21/2010

129

2,000

3,000

230

2,280

7,510

5

U

5.1



2,000



82



17



6.3



4,400



0.41

5/4/2011

131

1,600

5 U

390

2,800

4,790

5

U

7.3



5

U

200



31



5.6



13,000



0.12

10/12/2011

131

1,500

4,500

450

4,500

10,950

5

U

8



4,300



160



27



5

U

14,000

J

0.78

4/25/2012

128

890 J**

2,800 J**

310 J**

3,100 J**

7,100

170

U

170

U

2,500

j„

170

U

170

U

170

U

#N/A



5.76

10/17/2012

129

830

3,800

410

4,200

9,240

5

U

6.6



4,000



310



26



5

U

9,700



2.08

5/22/2013

129

780

3,600

500

4,800

9,680

50

U

50

U

4,400



190



50

U

50

U

15,000



1

10/27/2013

128

650

3,800

520

5,300

10,270

100

U

100

U

100

U

160



100

U

100

U

18,000



0.53

5/6/2014

129

480

2,300

300

2,970

6,050

200

U

200

U

2,700



200

U

200

U

200

U

12,000



4.28

10/30/2014

127.5

820

3,500

570

5,200

10,090

50

U

50

U

4,200



170



50

U

50

U

16,000



0

5/14/2015

128

770

3,700

530

5,600

10,600

5

U

24



4,400



180



97



29



14,000



0.54

10/8/2015

126

650 J

1,200

590 J

3,140

5,580

5

U

6



1,300



180



23



8.3



9,700



0.6

5/22/2016

128

1,200

2,600

490

4,900

9,190

100

U

100

U

4,000



180



100

U

100

U

16,000



0.54

10/18/2016

128.5

430

1,900

350

4,200

6,880

5

U

5



4,500



190



25



5

U

23,000

J

0.62

4/19/2017

128.5

790

1,700

300

4,200

6,990

5

U

5

U

3,800



150

J

20



5

U

22,000

J

0.63

11/19/2017

128.5

1,030

1,780

406

3,950

7,166

24

U

34

U

3,430



101

J

66

U

14

U

11,900



0.57

5/9/2018

128.5

977

1,850

466

4,480

7,773

200

U

200

U

3,530



200

U

200

U

200

U

12,500



11.86

11/5/2018

128.5

535

1,240

332

3,130

5,237

200

U

200

U

2,420



200

U

200

U

200

U

8,730



2.41

5/13/2019

128.5

479

578

195

2,210

3,462

14.0

U

17.0

U

1,290



59.9

J

10.0

U

20.0

U

6,550



1.81

11/5/2019

128.5

325

562

282

3,550

4,719

14.0

U

17.0

U

2,710



103



10.0

U

20.0

U

10,700



1.29

5/11/2020

128.5

340

437

224

2,850

3,851

14.0

U

17.0

U

2,050



69.2

J

10.0

U

20.0

U

6,620



1.24

10/26/2020

128.5

246

387

284

3,530

4,447

23.0

U

25.0

U

2,780



85

J

100

U

19.0

U

10,300



0.64

5/4/2021

128.5

444

580

284

3,970

5,278

21.2

U

21.0

U

2,720



94.8

J

13.2

J

9.7

U

10,100



0.79

ROD Cleanup Level	5	1,000	700	10,000	100	1.1

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	J - Result is an estimate.	N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.

J** - Qualified as estimated because the RPD result exceeded the QA/QC criteria.

In the 10/21/2010 sample 2-hexanone was detected at 6.3 ug/L.

In the 10/8/2015 sample, acetone was detected at 19 ug/L and 2-butanone was detected at 16 ug/L.

In the 5/22/2016 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 11,000 ug/L in the VOC results.
In the 5/22/2016 samples the following contaminants were detected: acenaphtene at 27 ug/L, acenaphthylene 510 ug/L, anthracene 10 ug/L, fluorene at 73J ug/L, 2-methylnapthalene at 3,000 ug/L,
phenanthrene 65J ug/L, and pyrene at 4.6J ug/L.

In the 11/09/2017 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 5,700 ug/L in the PAH results.
In the 5/09/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 5,070 ug/L in the PAH results.
In the 11/05/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 5,570 ug/L in the PAH results.
In the 05/13/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 3,680 ug/L in the PAH results.
In the 11/05/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 5,280 ug/L in the PAH results.
In the 5/11/2020 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 5,650 ug/L in the PAH results.
In the 11/5/2020 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 8,210 ug/L in the PAH results.
In the 5/4/2021 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 7,840 ug/L in the PAH results.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well HWS-08





BTEXs (ug/L)

Other VOCs (ug/L)
Second Street

Physical

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)

Ethylbenzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

Styrene

Cyclohexane

Isopropylbenzene

Methyl cyclohexane

2-Hexanone

Acetone

2-Butanone

Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) (mg/L)

10/29/1997

115-135

3,100



4,100



1,000



3,480



11,680



29



NA



NA



NA



4

U

4

U

4

U

0.9

03/31/1998

115- 135

3,800



4,700



690



2,630



11,820



26



NA



NA



NA



4

U

4

U

4

U

1.5

12/05/1998

115- 135

1,800



1,700



180



980



4,660



14



NA



NA



NA



4

U

4

U

4

U

0

12/5/1998 QCC

115- 135

710



630



120



730



2,190



8



NA



NA



NA



4

U

4

U

4

U

0.01

08/23/1999

115-135

1,500



1,200



160



870



3,730



13

U

NA



NA



NA



4

U

4

U

4

U

0.1

11/15/2003

Product

NC



NC



NC



NC



NA



NC



NC



NC



NC



NC



NC



NC



NC

11/08/2005

115-135

380

J

310



94



580



1,364

J

5

U

54

J

13



29



5

U

140

J

26





04/29/2006

132

800



300



170



440



1,710



5

U

76



13



33



5

U

5

U

5

U

1.09

12/12/2006

133

1,100



600



390



600



2,690



5

U

77



19



29



5

U

5

U

5

U

1.07

05/03/2007

Product

NC



NC



NC



NC



NA



NC



NC



NC



NC



NC



NC



NC



NC

10/30/2007

133

700



420



440



820



2,380



7.6

J

170



27



93



13



5

U

5

U

6.46

04/29/2008

133

370



220



150



126



866



5

UJ

64



12



44



8.6



81

J

23



0.65

10/20/2008

133

700



620



180



480



1,980



5.1



43



9.6



27



18



5

U

5

U

2.25

04/15/2009

134

150



150



62



300



662



5.1



24



7.6



18



18



71



23



0.23

10/13/2009

133.5

360



460



180



570



1,570



5

U

64



11



29



5

U

5

U

5

U

2.62

04/20/2010

135

130

J

140

J

47

J

157

J

474



5

U

22

J

5

U

8.3

J

5

U

5

U

5

U

0.29

10/20/2010

133

17



27



14



49



107



5

U

8.2



5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

6.9

05/03/2011

137

150



230



73



258



711



5

U

39



5

U

11



5

U

5

U

5

U

1.42

10/12/2011

133.5

120



200



81



267



668



5

U

33



5.6



9.5



5

UJ

5

UJ

5

UJ

1.18

04/24/2012

126

140

J"

290

J**

83

J"

320

J**

833



25

U

48

J"

25

U

25

U

50

U

50

U

50

U

1.21

04/24/2012

135

53

J"

7.2

U

5

U

24

J**

77



5

U

16

J"

5

U

5

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

5.53

10/16/2012

134

37



95



69



157



358



5

U

60



5.5



11



5

UJ

5

UJ

5

U

4.45

05/21/2013

126.5

130



190



180



350



850



5

U

90



16



28



5

U

5

U

5

U

0.69

10/27/2013

133

570



710



210



460



1,950



5

U

150



17



34



10

u

10

U

10

U

0.67

05/06/2014

128

260



400



150



430



1,240



10

U

23



10

U

10

U

20

u

20

U

20

U

1.04

10/29/2014

126

200



490



100



490



1,280



50

U

50

U

50

U

50

U

100

u

100

U

100

u

0.47

05/13/2015

126.5

18



70

J

27



80



195



5

U

16



5

U

5

U

5

u

10

U

5

u

1.72

10/07/2015

134

9



17



10



28



64



5

U

6.3



5

U

5

U

10

u

10

U

10

u

1.77

05/22/2016

127

5

UJ

22

J

14

J

29

J

65



5

UJ

19

J

5

UJ

5

UJ

10

UJ

10

U

10

u

2.15

10/16/2016

127.5

11



38



31

J

65



145



5

U

16



5

U

5



5

u

5

U

5

u

0.84

11/09/2017

130

10.9



11



14.2



44.3



80.4



0.12

U

10.7



1.5



3.2



1.2

u

1.9

u

0.59

u

2.42

05/08/2018

130

2.2



13.6



9.1



21.7



47



1.0

u

11.9



1.2



6.8



10.0

u

10.0

u

10.0

u

14.1

11/05/2018

130

1.8



3.8



4.6



8.6



18.8



1.0

u

8.3



1.0

U

3.8



10.0

u

14.1



10.0

u

3.64

05/13/2019

130

0.2

J

1.5



1.7



0.34

U

3.4

J

0.15

u

1.7



0.23

J

0.53

J

1.0

u

15



97.2



2.48

11/05/2019

130

0.63



0.22

J

0.48

J

0.34

U

1.33

J

0.15

u

0.079

U

0.20

U

0.47

J

1.0

u

3.3

u

0.70

u

2.41

05/11/2020

130

0.08

U

1.7



3.3



3.8



8.80



0.15

u

0.079

U

0.54

J

1.4



1.0

u

3.3

u

0.70

u

3.13

10/26/2020

130

0.62



1.7



1.3



1

J

4.62

J

0.17

u

3.7



0.29

J

1.1

J

1.5

u

4.7

u

2.40

u

1.71

05/04/2021

130

0.28

J

1.6



3.5



7.9



13.28

J

0.12

u

5.1



0.44

J

1.9



1.1

u

2.5

u

1.0

u

2.56

ROD Cleanup Level	5	1,000	700	10,000	100

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	NC - Not Collected.	A blank cell indicates that the datum for that event was not found.

J - Result is an estimate.	N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.	UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

J* - Result was qualified as estimated because naphthalene was found in the associated equipment rinsate blank.
J**- Qualified as esitmated because duplicate RPDs exceeded the QA/QC criteria.

No sample was collected in November 2003 and May 2007 because free product (LNAPL) was present in this well.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well HWS-08

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Other VC

Foote Oil

Cs (ug/L)

Colorado Avenue

PAHs
(ug/L)

Physical

1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-
DCA)

1,2-Dibromoethane

(EDB)

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Tetrachloroethene

(PCE)

Naphthalene (N)

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
(mg/L)

10/29/1997

115-135

180

N/A

4 U

4 U

472

0.9

03/31/1998

115- 135

81

N/A

5.1

4 U

170

1.5

12/05/1998

115- 135

41

N/A

4 U

4 U

140

0

12/5/1998 QCC

115- 135

29

N/A

4 U

4 U

124

0.01

08/23/1999

115- 135

17

N/A

4 U

4 U

160

0.1

11/15/2003

Product

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

11/08/2005

115-135

11

6.7

5 U

5 U

170



04/29/2006

132

20

14

10 U

5 U

87 J*

1.09

12/12/2006

133

5 U

17

5 U

10

170 J

1.07

05/03/2007

Product

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

10/30/2007

133

5 U

13

5 UJ

7.5

220

6.46

04/29/2008

133

5 UJ

5.4 J

5 U

37

93

0.65

10/20/2008

133

5 U

8

5 U

44

99

2.25

04/15/2009

134

5 U

8

6.3

120

99

0.23

10/13/2009

133.5

5 U

5 U

5.1

77

190 J

2.62

04/20/2010

135

5 U

5 U

5 U

72 J

65 J

0.29

10/20/2010

133

5 U

5 U

5 U

33

16

6.9

05/03/2011

137

5 U

5 U

5 U

68

74

1.42

10/12/2011

133.5

5 U

5 U

5 U

58

57 J

1.18

04/24/2012

126

25 U

25 U

25 U

70 J"

#NA

1.21

04/24/2012

135

5 U

5 U

5.6 J"

75 J"

#NA

5.53

10/16/2012

134

5 UJ

5 U

5 U

32

83

4.45

05/21/2013

126.5

5 U

5 U

5 U

24

170

0.69

10/27/2013

133

5 U

5 U

5 U

20

170

0.67

05/06/2014

128

10 U

10 U

10 U

31

120

1.04

10/29/2014

126

50 U

50 U

50 U

69

140

0.47

05/13/2015

126.5

5 U

5 U

12

100

37

1.72

10/07/2015

134

5 U

5 U

11

89

14

1.77

05/22/2016

127

5 UJ

5 UJ

11 J

78 J

11 J

2.15

10/16/2016

127.5

5 U

5 U

7.4 J

65

52

0.84

11/08/2017

130

0.12 U

0.17 U

7.8

46.6

18

2.42

05/08/2018

130

1.0 U

1.0 U

19.4

125

10.0 U

14.1

11/05/2018

130

1.0 U

1.0 U

16.2

98.3

10.0 U

3.64

05/13/2019

130

0.14 U

0.18 U

25.6

143

0.32 J

2.48

11/05/2019

130

0.14 U

0.18 U

25.6

136

0.35 J

2.41

05/11/2020

130

0.14 U

0.18 U

28.2

115

0.94 J

3.13

10/26/2020

130

0.23 U

0.19 U

28.7

86.7

2.30

1.71

05/04/2021

130

0.22 U

0.20 U

39.1

92.4

15.4

2.38

ROD Cleanup Level	1.1

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	NC - Not Collected.

J - Result is an estimate.	N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.

J*- Result was qualified as estimated because naphthalene was found in the associated equipment
rinsate blank.

J**- Qualified as estimated because the RPD result exceeded the QA/QC criteria.

A blank cell indicates that the datum for that event was not found.

No sample was collected in November 2003 and May 2007 because free product (LNAPL)
was present in this well.

In the 04/29/2006 sample the following were detected: 2-methylnaphthalene at 20 ug/L,
acenaphthylene at 4.6 ug/L, and phenanthrene at 2.7 ug/L.

In the 11/08/2017 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 0.22J ug/L in the PAH result.
In the 11/07/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 1.1 J ug/L in the PAH result.
In the 05/13/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in the PAH results and but not in the VOC results.

In the 05/11/2020 sample, naphthalene was detected in the PAH results and in the VOC results. The result listed is the VOC result The PAH result was 0.56J ug/L
In the 10/26/2020 sample, naphthalene was detected in the PAH results and in the VOC results. The result listed is the PAH result, The VOC result was 1.1 J ug/L

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well HWS-09





BTEXs (ug/L)

Other VOCs (ug/L)

PAHs (ug/L)

Physical

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)

Ethyl benzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-
DCA)

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Styrene

Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Naphthalene (N)

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
(mg/L)

10/31/1997

115-135

170



23



4

U

42



235

4

U

190



9



4

U

41.4



0.3

03/30/1998

115-135

38



22



6.2



25.7



91.9

4

U

93



4

U

4

U

35



5.5

12/04/1998

115-135

42



4

U

4



4

U

46

4

U

260



4

U

4

U

61



<0.5

04/23/1999

115-135

36



22



21



42



121

21



150



4

U

4

U

20



1.74

08/20/1999

115-135

8.3



4

U

4

U

4

U

8.3

16



100



4

U

4

U

7.8



1.5

04/29/2006

132

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

10

U

5

U

5

U

2

U

1.93

11/27/2006

132

0.81



0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.81

0.5

U

3



0.5

U

1.6



2

U

2.9

04/23/2007

136

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.83



0.5

U

1.9



2

U

7.48

10/28/2007

136

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

3



2

U

2.69

04/21/2008

133

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

4.56

10/15/2008

135

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.97



0.5

U

2.5



1

U

4.35

04/20/2009

135

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.81



0.5

U

1.1



1

U

8.92

10/14/2009

135

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1.3



1

U

2.3



1

U

6.48

04/21/2010

135

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

2.8



1

U

5.8



1

U

10.16

10/19/2010

137

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

3.4



1

U

6.1



2

U

5.07

04/26/2011

138

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

2.4



1

U

5



2

U

6.03

10/12/2011

130

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

2.7



1

U

4.2



2

U

5.48

04/26/2012

126

0.5

UJ

0.5

UJ

0.5

U

1

U

ND

0.5

U

1.4

J

0.5

UJ

4.1

J

NA



7.52

10/17/2012

130

1.8



1

U

1

U

2

U

1.8

1

U

4.5



1

UJ

8



30



5.6

05/13/2013

128

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

5.1



10

U

4.02

10/28/2013

130

19



2.6

U*

0.5

U

3



22

0.5

U

11



0.5

U

15



85



1.68

05/05/2014

130

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

ND

5

U

5



5

U

19



5

U

6.13

10/27/2014

125.5

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

ND

5

U

5.2



5

u

22



5

U

4.9

05/18/2015

122.5

1

U

1

U

1

U

3

U

ND

1

U

3.9



1

u

11



2

U

6.41

10/08/2015

130

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

u

2.6



0.5

u

7



0.5

U

6.23

05/17/2016

123

1

U

1

U

1

u

3

U

ND

1

u

3.9



1

u

14



2

U

6.49

10/11/2016

123

1

U

1

U

1

u

3

U

ND

1

u

3



5

u

9.2



2

UJ

5.55

04/19/2017

123

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

U

ND

1

u

3



1

u

7.5



2

U

6.29

11/08/2017

123

0.06

u

1.1



0.18

u

3

u

1.1

0.12

u

7



0.12

u

15.8



0.13

J

5.91

05/08/2018

123

0.50

u

1.8



1.0

u

3.0

u

1.8

1.0

u

6.2



1.0

u

16.3



10.0

u

13.31

11/05/2018

123

0.50

u

1.8



1.0

u

3.0

u

1.8

1.0

u

3.1



1.0

u

6.8



10.0

u

7.27

05/13/2019

123

0.08

u

1.9



0.12

u

0.34

u

1.9

0.14

u

2.4



0.15

u

8.6



0.1

J

8.24

11/05/2019

123

0.079

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

u

ND

0.14

u

1.6



0.15

u

4.6



0.099

u

7.65

05/11/2020

123

0.079

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

u

ND

0.14

u

1.2



0.15

u

2.2



0.530

u

8.16

10/26/2020

123

0.500

u

0.83

J

0.18

u

0.54

u

0.83 J

0.23

u

0.86

J

0.17

u

1.9



0.150

J

8.16

05/04/2021

123

0.14

u

0.25

u

0.12

u

0.28

u

ND

0.21

u

0.93

J

0.12

u

1.2



0.067

J

8.12

ROD Cleanup Level	5 1,000	700	10,000	100	1.1

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.	ND - Not detected.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

In the 4/29/2006 sample acenaphthylene was detected at 2.2 ug/L.

In the 11/27/2006 sample acetone was detected at 7.5 ug/L.

In the 10/28/2013 sample isopropylbenzene was detected at 0.98 ug/L.

In the 5/13/2019 sample naphthalene was detected in the PAH results but not detected in the VOC results. The result is the PAH result.

In the 11/05/2019 sample naphthalene was detected in the PAH results but not detected in the VOC results. The result is the PAH result.

In the 10/26/2020 sample naphthalene was detected in the PAH results but not detected in the VOC results. The result is the PAH result.

In the 5/4/2021 sample, napthalene was detected in the PAH results but not detected in the VOC results. The resit in the table is the PAH result.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well HWS-10











BTEXs (ug/L)



















Other VOCs (ug/L)













Physical

































Second Street















Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Benzene(B)

Toluene (T)

Ethylbenzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

Styrene

Cyclohexane

Acetone

Isopropylbenzene

Methyl cyclohexane

2-Butanone

4-Methyl-2 -Pentanone

2-Hexanone

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
(mg/L)

10/29/1997

115-135

1,800



1,300



240

640



3,980

8



N/A



4

U

N/A

N/A



4

U

N/A



N/A

1.9

03/31/1998

115-135

2,300



1,300



300

480



4,380

4

U

N/A



4

U

N/A

N/A



4

U

N/A



N/A

1.8

12/05/1998

115-135

4,300



2,600



660

1,870



9,430

28



N/A



4

U

N/A

N/A



4

U

N/A



N/A

1.08

12/10/1998

115-135

7,700



5,300



760

2,380



16,140

33



N/A



4

U

N/A

N/A



4

U

N/A



N/A

0.02

08/23/1999

115-135

8,100



6,600



920

3,310



18,930

37

U

N/A



4

U

N/A

N/A



4

U

N/A



N/A

0.1

11/12/2003

115-135

4,100



6,300



800

2,800



14,000

50

U

180



50

U

50 U

71



50

U

50

U

50 U

3.7

11/08/2005

115-135

1,100

J

460



190

690



2,440

5

U

61

J

33

J

5 U

27



6.2

J

5

U

5 U

10.62

04/29/2006

132

430



95

U*

42 U*

203 U*

770

5

U

17



71

J

5 U

5.9



13



5

U

5 U

1.14

12/12/2006

133

1,300



410



230

750



2,690

24



40



5

U

11

11



5

U

5

U

5 U

0.94

05/03/2007

135

1,800



890



250

920



3,860

20



97



100



16

40



34



5.2



5 U

0

10/30/2007

133.5

1,500



1,100



280

900



3,780

9.1

J

110



5

U

16

47



5

U

5

U

5 U

0.86

04/29/2008

133

1,800



1,600



330

1,000



4,730

50

UJ

120



50

U

50 U

50

U

50

U

50

U

50 U

0.62

10/21/2008

133

1,600



1,000



300

750



3,650

10

U

91



20

U

16

44



20

U

10

U

10 U

1.25

04/15/2009

133

920



460



320 J

380

J

2,080

10

U

85



55



18

43



14



10

U

10 U

0.32

10/13/2009

133

3,500



2,800



590

1,690



8,580

6.3



200



5

U

33

96



5

U

12

J

41 J

3.41

04/20/2010

135.5

3,500

J

2,900

J

640 J

2,560

J

9,600

5

UJ

160

J

5

UJ

25 J

64

J

5

UJ

13

J

49 J

0.45

09/28/2010

133

1,800

J

2,500

J

470 J

2,140

J

6,910

5.6



230



5

U

21

88



5

U

8



36 J

0.92

05/03/2011

137

1,600



2,400



490

2,550



7,040

5

U

200



5

U

22

94



5

U

12



45 J

0.57

10/12/2011

132.5

770



1,600



340

1,590



4,300

5

U

140



5

UJ

22

82



5

UJ

5

UJ

5 UJ

0.55

04/24/2012

127

570



1,400



360

1,390



3,720

100

U

260



200

U

100 U

100

U

200

U

200

U

200 U

0.41

04/24/2012

135.5

650

j**

1,800

j**

420 J"

1,670

j**

4,540 J"

130

U

300

j**

250

U

130 U

130

U

250

U

250

U

250 U

1.69

10/17/2012

134

470



360



310

680



1,820

5

U

170



5

UJ

16

52



5

U

5

U

5 UJ

5

05/21/2013

133.5

340



58



380

488



1,266

6.8



180



5

U

27

93



5

U

8.6



5 U

1.14

10/27/2013

133

100



320



190

295



905

5.7



120



33



12

26



10

U

10

U

10 U

0.76

05/05/2014

133

90



180



180

247



697

5

U

59



10

U

12

22



10

U

10

U

10 U

0.49

05/05/2014

133 DUP

98



190



180

259



727

5

U

65



10

U

12

24



10

U

10

U

10 U

0.49

10/29/2014

125

46



120



120

202



488

5

U

46



47



11

16



10

U

10

U

10 U

0.10

05/13/2015

133.5

70



570



160

640



1,440

5

U

96



10

U

15

49



5

U

5

U

5 U

0.59

10/07/2015

134

220



100



170

440



930

5

U

89



10

U

14

41



10

U

10

U

10 U

0.82

05/22/2016

134

310



190



180

670



1,350

12

J

170

J

29



13 J

52

J

10

u

10

U

10 U

0.80

10/16/2016

132

350



56



380 J

174



960

5

U

100



5

U

18

42



5

u

5

U

5 U

0.89

04/18/2017

133

180



170



260

430



1,040

5

U

72

J

5

U

16

64



5

u

5

U

5 U

0.36

11/09/2018

133

158



64



174

201



597

0.6

U

101



9.4

U

10.3

18.8



13.8

J

2.1

U

6 U

1.13

05/08/2018

133

37.8



76.3



146

312



572

5.3



47.6



50

u

9.9

18.2



50.0

u

50.0

U

50.0 U

13.56

11/05/2018

133

57.3



61.0



198

266



582.3

5.0

U

73.3



102



12.3

28.3



50.0

u

50.0

U

50.0 U

2.78

05/13/2019

133

23.8



47.2



120

191



382.0

0.8

u

46.4



54.9



10

15.7



35.6

J

2.8

u

5.0 U

0.49

11/05/2019

133

11.3



18.4



100

65.5



195.2

1.5

J

0.40

U

16.5

u

8.6

9.7



3.5

u

2.8

u

5.0 U

0.57

05/11/2020

133

4.0



0.2

U

0.2 U

0.4

U

4.0

0.2

u

0.10

U

7.4

u

0.2 U

0.26

J

1.8

u

1.3

u

1.6 U

1.11

10/26/2020

133

18.7



5.9



32.9

31.1



88.6

1.0

J

61.00



4.7

u

10.5

27.4



2.4

u

1.7

J

1.5 U

1.45

05/04/2021

133

10.0



49.5



80.5

159



299.0

0.12

u

69.1



2.5

u

5.9

27.8



0.98

u

0.74

u

1.1 U

1.17

ROD Cleanup Level	5	1,000	700	10,000	100

DUP - Duplicate	U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	J - Result is an estimate.	NA or #NA - Not analyzed.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

J* - Result was qualified as estimated because naphthalene was found in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

J" - Qualified as estimated because the RPD result exceeded the QA/QC criteria.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

In the 4/29/2006 sample 2-methylnaphthalene was detected at 14 ug/L and acenaphthylene was detected at 5.7 ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well HWS-10

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Foote

Other VOCs
Oil

(ug/L)

Colorado Ave.

PAHs
(ug/L)

Physical

1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-
DCA)

1,2-Dibromoethane
(EDB)

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Naphthalene (N)

Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) (mg/L)

10/29/1997

115-135

190

N/A

4 U

4 U

117

1.9

03/31/1998

115-135

120

N/A

6.3

6.3

130

1.8

12/05/1998

115-135

460

N/A

4 U

4 U

690

1.08

12/10/1998

115-135

400

N/A

4 U

4 U

320

0.02

08/23/1999

115-135

240

N/A

4 U

4 U

620

0.1

11/12/2003

115-135

50 U

73

50 U

50 U

450

3.7

11/08/2005

115-135

28

30

5 U

5 U

170

10.62

04/29/2006

132

7.4

14

10 U

10 U

210

1.14

12/12/2006

133

5 U

33

5 U

5 U

180 J

0.94

05/03/2007

135

5 U

57

5 U

5 U

200

0

10/30/2007

133.5

7

48

5 UJ

5 UJ

200

0.86

04/29/2008

133

50 UJ

50 UJ

50 U

50 U

230

0.62

10/21/2008

133

10 U

10 U

10 U

13

180

1.25

04/15/2009

133

10 U

12

10 U

54

160

0.32

10/13/2009

133

8.8

12

5 U

23

500 J

3.41

04/20/2010

135.5

9.1 J

22 J

5 UJ

28 J

500 J

0.45

09/28/2010

133

5 U

18

5 U

14

240

0.92

05/03/2011

137

5 U

15

5 U

18

850

0.57

10/12/2011

132.5

5 U

5 U

5 U

11

150 J

0.55

04/24/2012

127

130 U

130 U

130 U

130 U

#N/A

0.41

04/24/2012

135.5

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

#N/A

1.69

10/17/2012

133.5

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

220

5

05/21/2013

133.5

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

280

1.14

10/27/2013

133

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

120

0.76

05/05/2014

133

5 U

5 U

8.9

11

110

0.49

05/05/2014

133 DUP

5 U

5 U

10

13

120

0.49

10/29/2014

125

5 U

5 U

9.7

24

180

0.1

05/13/2015

133.5

5 U

5 U

18

34

310 J

0.59

10/07/2015

134

5 U

5 U

12

17

170

0.82

05/22/2016

134

5 UJ

5 UJ

15 J

22 J

150 J

0.8

10/16/2016

132

5 U

5 U

7.5 J

9.9

260

0.89

04/18/2017

133

5 U

5 U

11

12

250

0.36

11/09/2017

133

0.6 U

0.85 U

6.3

9.2

147

1.13

05/08/2018

133

5.0 U

5.0 U

16.1

22.8

290

13.56

11/05/2018

133

5.0 U

5.0 U

8.7

8.9

126

2.78

05/13/2019

133

1.1 J

0.90 U

18.7

21

261

0.49

11/05/2019

133

0.70 U

0.90 U

16.9

24.6

50.7

0.57

05/11/2020

133

0.33 U

0.10 U

21.8

44.2

0.069 J

1.11

10/26/2020

133

0.23 U

0.19 U

10.5

12.4

22.8

1.45

05/04/2021

133

0.21 U

0.20 U

19.8

29.9

135

1.17

ROD Cleanup Level	1.1

DUP - Duplicate	U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.

J - Result is an estimate.	NA or #NA - Not analyzed.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

J* - Result was qualified as estimated because naphthalene was found in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

In the 4/29/2006 sample naphthalene results were reported in both the VOC and PAH results.

The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 120 J* ug/L in the PAH results.

In the 4/29/2006 sample 2-methylnaphthalene was detected at 14 ug/L and acenaphthylene

was detected at 5.7 ug/L.

In the 4/15/2009 sample chloroform was detected at 6.3 ug/L.

In the 11/09/2017 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 1.0 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/8/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 71.3 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 11/5/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 88.1 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 05/13/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 60.3 ug/L in the PAH result.
In the 11/05/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 23.8 ug/L in the PAH result.
In the 5/11/2020 sample, naphthalene was detected only in the PAH analysis.

In the 10/26/2020 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and the PAH analysis. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 12.4 ug/L in the PAH result
In the 5/4/2021 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH analysis. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 91.0 ug/L in the PAH results.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well HWS-11

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

BTEXs (uq/L)

Other VOCs (uq/L)

PAHs (uq/L)

Physical

Benzene(B)

Toluene (T)

Ethylbenzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Styrene

Cyclohexane

1,2-Dibromoethane

(EDB)

Methyl cyclohexane

Isopropylbenzene

2- Hexanone

Naphthalene (N)

Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) (mg/L)

09/17/1993

132

16



5

U

5

U

5

U

16

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

NA

05/06/2004

130

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

6.53

11/17/2004

132

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

6.2

11/01/2005

132

58

J

8.8



5

U

38



104.8

5

U

5

U

5.1



5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

110



9.23

04/27/2006

132

14



5

U

5

U

5

U

14

5

U

10

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

32

U*

6.39

12/06/2006

132

750

J

120

J

48

J

370

J

1,288

5

UJ

5

UJ

150

J

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

970

J

10.86

12/06/2006

132 DUP

750

J

140

J

60

J

400

J

1,350

5

UJ

5

UJ

180

J

12

J

14

J

5

U

5

U

5

U

1,000

J

10.86

05/03/2007

133.5

720



170



70



500



1,460

18



5

U

200



17



13



5



5

U

5

U

1,100



4.74

10/22/2007

133.5

1,500



190



110



880



2,680

68



7.6



440

J

50



31



20



7.9



5

U

2,000

J

0.37

04/29/2008

133

880



95



54



360



1,389

18

J

10

U

50

J

33



12

J

11



10

U

10

U

20

U

4.48

10/21/2008

133

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

9.28

04/19/2009

133

120



1.3



0.5

U

27.8



149.1

0.5

U

0.5



0.5

U

2.5



0.83



0.5

U

0.5

U

5

U

61



10.24

10/12/2009

133.5

960



110



120



570



1,640

17



0.5



190



30



6.4



9



7.8



5

U

1,400



2.05

04/20/2010

133

1,200

J

240

J

180

J

770

J

2,390

11

J

7.3

J

360

J

36

J

5

UJ

11

J

6.5

J

10

J

2,100

J

3.26

09/28/2010

133.5

850

J

170

J

120



530



1,670

8.2



5.9



300



30



5

U

8.8



5.1



9.3

J

1,400



5.07

05/03/2011

135

850



300



340



500

U

1,490

13



9.7



250

U

82

J

5

U

24



9.6



13

J

1,100



4.29

10/11/2011

134

610



290



110



340



1,350

5

U

5

U

190



19



5

U

6.8



5

U

5

U

810

J

5.15

10/11/2011

134 DUP

620



300



110



340



1,370

5

U

5

U

190



19



5

U

7



5

U

5

U

800

J

5.15

04/24/2012

133

870

J**

820

J**

120

J**

510

J**

2,320 J"

25

U

25

U

270

J**

25

U

25

U

25

U

25

U

50

U

#NA



6.03

04/24/2012

133 DUP

110

J**

120

J**

20

J**

74

J**

324 J"

5

U

5

U

41

J**

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

#NA



6.03

10/16/2012

133.5

370



330



68



171



939

5

UJ

5

U

100



17



5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

650



6.9

10/16/2012

133.5 DUP

380



340



70



178



968

5

UJ

5

U

110



18



5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

670



6.9

05/22/2013

133.5

1,100



1,100



200



570



2,970

7.6



5.3



330



34



5

U

11



5.6



12



2,000



3.41

10/26/2013

126

1,300



1,100



180



550



3,130

9.6



5.2



350



32



5

U

13

J

7.2



5

U

1,900



4

10/26/2013

134

1,400



1,200



200



620



3,420

9.3



5.7



380



36



5

U

14

J

7.1



5

U

1,900



3.55

10/26/2013

134 DUP

1,400



1,200



200



640



3,440

9.2



5.8



390



36



5

U

14

J

7.4



5



2,000



3.55

05/06/2014

133

1,200



1,100



120



470



2,890

50

U

50

U

300



50

U

50

U

50

U

50

U

100

u

2,200



2

10/29/2014

127

1,000



880



150



520

J

2,550

5

UJ

5

U

270

J

40



5

UJ

15



6.9



10

u

1,900



0.92

05/13/2015

133.5

1,400



1,700



220



1,160



4,480

5

U

7



890



100



5

U

26



13



5

u

3,900



1.46

10/07/2015

133

1,400



1,800



240

J

1,060



4,500

5

U

6.9



680



69



5

u

19



10



10

u

4,300



1.31

05/23/2016

133

2,000



2,300



210



1,490



6,000

25

U

25

U

940



78



25

u

25

U

25

U

50

u

5,600

J

1.83

10/17/2016

133

1,500



1,400



280



1,250



4,430

5

U

11



700



60



5

u

17



5

U

5

u

5,200



0.64

04/19/2017

132

940



1,300



200



670



3,110

5

U

5.2



310



49

J

5



12



7.8



5

u

2,800



1.18

11/09/2018

132

1,170



1,160



156



675



3,161

2.4

U

6.5

J

506



41.2



3.4

u

7.2

J

7.7

J

2.8

u

2,990



0.89

05/09/2018

132

2,590



3,530



354



1,880



8,354

50.0

U

50.0

U

1320



84.7



50.0

u

50.0

U

50.0

U

500

u

6,120



23.79

11/05/2018

132

771



722



86.3



440



2,019.3

50.0

U

50.0

U

277



50.0

U

50.0

u

50.0

U

50.0

U

500

u

1,920



2.21

05/13/2019

132

1,960



2,470



260



1,290



5,980.0

2.8

U

7.1

J

892



55.4



3.6

u

8.8

J

11.1

J

20.0

u

4,360



0.92

11/05/2019

132

1,270



1,210



143



827



3,450

7.0

u

8.5

U

551



33.1

J

9.0

u

5.0

U

12.2

J

50.0

u

3,350



1.29

05/11/2020

132

214



110



24.1



130



478

3.3

u

4.6

J

82.9



8.4

J

1.0

u

1.0

U

3.4

J

16.2

u

810



2.23

10/26/2020

132

133



35



14.7



61



244

2.3

u

2.5

U

35.3



5.8

J

1.9

u

10.0

U

1.9

U

15.0

u

354



2.05

05/04/2021

132

231



57.3



25.7



146



460.0

2.1

u

2.1

U

61.7



6.7

J

2.0

u

1.2

U

4.3

J

11.0

u

821



2.80

ROD Cleanup Level	5	1,000	700	10,000	100	1.1

DUP - Duplicate	U - Not detected. Number is detection limit. ND - Not detected.	J - Result is an estimate.	NA or #NA - Not analyzed.

U*- Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

J** - Qualified as estimated because the RPD result exceeded the QA/QC criteria.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

Naphthalene results were reported in both of the 4/27/2006 VOC and PAH samples. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 19 J* ug/L in the PAH results.

In the 4/27/2006 sample 2-methylnaphthalene was detected at 3.1 ug/L.

In the 5/03/2007 sample acetone was detected at 8.7 ug/L.

In the 10/26/2013 134' duplicate sample methyl acetate was detected at 8.2 ug/L.

In the 5/6/2014 sample methyl acetate was detected at 73 ug/L.

In the 10/7/2015 sample, acetone was detected at 27 ug/L.

In the 5/23/2016 sample naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 3,800 ug/L in the VOC results.

In the 5/23/2016 sample the following contaminants were detected: acenaphthene at 12J ug/L, acenaphthylene at 180J ug/L, fluorene at 30J ug/L, 2-methylnaphthalene at 1,300J ug/L,
and phenanthrene at 26J ug/L.

In the 11/09/2017 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 1,400 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/09/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 3,360 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 11/05/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 1,070 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 05/13/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 3,310 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 11/05/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 1,730 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/11/2020 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 629 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 10/26/2020 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 158 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/4/2021 sample. Naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 577 ug/L in the PAH result.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-04

Sample Date

Interval Sampled
(feet)

BTEXs (uq/L)

Other VOCs (u

q/L)

PAHs (uq/L)

Physical

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)

Ethylbenzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

Styrene

Naphthalene (N)

Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) (mg/L)

10/30/1997

120-130

110



4

U

8



4

U

126

17



4

U

4

U

5

U

4.8

10/30/1997

120- 130 DUP

100



4

U

8



4

U

116

4

U

4

U

4

U

5

U

4.8

04/02/1998

120-130

180



5.1



18



7.9



211

17



4

U

4

U

15



1.4

12/04/1998

120-130

210



26



27



27



290

19



4

U

4

U

35



NS

04/23/1999

120-130

350



150



60



108



668

27



4

U

4

U

5.2

U

0.01

08/23/1999

120-130

180



19



23



11



233

15



4

U

4

U

25



0.1

03/01/2001

120-130

200



14



19



26



259

10

U

10

U

10

U

72



0.16

11/13/2001

120-130

9.5



7.5



5

U

33



55

5

U

5

U

8.2



230



0

11/12/2003

127

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

88



4.67

05/06/2004

127

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

0.5

11/17/2004

127

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10

U

24.6



0.34

04/19/2005

127

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

1.03

11/01/2005

127

5

UJ

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

0.36

04/26/2006

127

1.8



1

U

1

U

1

U

1.8

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

4.23

11/27/2006

127

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.54



0.5

U

2

U

0.88

04/23/2007

128.5

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

2

U

0.11

10/28/2007

128.5

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

2

U

6.77

04/21/2008

128.5

1

U

1

UJ

1

UJ

1

UJ

ND

1

U

1

UJ

1

UJ

2

U

5.78

10/15/2008

126

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1

U

4.4

04/19/2009

128.5

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1

U

11.79

10/14/2009

128

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

6.67

04/22/2010

128

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

5.52

10/19/2010

128

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

u

2

U

3.66

04/26/2011

128.5

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

U

7.59

10/12/2011

128

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

U

3.15

04/26/2012

128

0.5

UJ

0.5

UJ

0.5

U

1

U

ND

0.5

UJ

0.5

UJ

0.5

UJ

#N/A



3.56

10/17/2012

129

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

u

1

UJ

2

U

6.44

05/13/2013

123

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

u

1

u

1

UJ

2

U

3.23

10/28/2013

128

0.67



1.8

u*

0.5

u

1

U

0.7

0.5

UJ

0.85



0.5

u

6

U*

1.36

05/08/2014

129

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

U

3.09

11/01/2014

126.5

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

U

1.88

05/16/2015

127.5

1

U

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

u

1

u

2

U

2.82

10/11/2015

125

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

U

1.43

10/11/2016

127.5

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

u

5

u

2

UJ

1.28

11/09/2017

128.5

0.06

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

1.3



0.12

u

0.5

u

1.99

05/08/2018

128.5

0.06

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

1.7



0.12

u

0.5

u

1.27

11/07/2018

128.5

0.32

J

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

0.32 J

0.48

J

1.5



0.12

u

4.9

J

1.83

05/16/2019

128.5

0.13

u

0.17

u

0.20

u

0.42

u

ND

0.33

u

1.4



0.19

u

0.45

J

1.30

11/07/2019

128.5

4.5



0.14

J

0.12

u

2.1

J

6.74 J

0.14

u

2



0.17

J

22.1



1.98

05/14/2020

128.5

0.079

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

u

ND

0.14

u

1,4



0.15

u

1.7

J

5.75

11/5/2020

128.5

0.088

u

0.18

u

0.18

u

0.54

u

ND

0.23

u

2.0



0.17

u

2.9

J

2.83

05/06/2021

128.5

0.14

u

0.25

u

0.12

u

0.28

u

ND

0.21

u

1.3



0.12

u

0.82

u

6.63

ROD Cleanup Level	5	1,000	700	10,000	100	1.1

DUP - Duplicate	ND - Not detected.	NS - Not sampled	NA or #NA - Not analyzed.

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

U* - Qualified as not detected because the compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

In the 3/1/2001 sample 2-Methylnaphthalene was detected at 15 ug/L.

In the 11/17/2004 sample naphthalene results were reported in both the PAH and VOC results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was
reported at 10 U ug/L in the VOC results.

In the 11/17/2004 sample the following were detected: 1-methylnaphthalene at 2.5 ug/L, 2-methylnaphthalene at 2.8 ug/L, and acenaphthylene at 1.6. .ug/L.

In the 11/27/2005 sample acetone was detected at 23 ug/L.

In the 4/23/2007 sample acetone was detected at 5.4 J ug/L.

In the 10/28/2013 sample tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected at 1.8 ug/L, but BVSPC modified this result to non-detect (U*) because PCE was detected in the associated rinsate
blank.

In the 11/1/2014 sample PCE was detected at 0.84 ug/L, but BVSPC modified this result to non-detect (U*) because PCE was detected in the associated rinsate blank.

In the 10/11/2015 sample PCE was detected at 0.81 ug/L.

In the 10/11/2016 sample PCE was detected at 2.5 ug/L.

In the 5/05/2018 sample, PCE was detected at 17.5 ug/L

In the 11/07/2018 sample, PCE was detected at 15.0 ug/L

In the 5/16/2019 sample, PCE was detected at 17.6 ug/L

In the 11/07/2019 sample, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was detected at 0.55J ug/L, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene was detected at 0.23J ug/L, and PCE was detected at 13.7 ug/L.

In the 5/14/2020 sample, cis-1,2-dichloroethene was detected at 0.19 J ug/L and PCE at 13.8 ug/L.

In the 11/5/2020 sample, cis-1,2-dichloroethene was detected at 0.37 J ug/L, 1,2-dichloroethene at 0.37 J ug/L, and PCE at 19.6 ug/L.

In the 5/6/2021 sample, 1,2-Dichloroethene (Total) was detected at 0.32J ug/L, cis-1,2-Dichloroethene at 0.32J ug/L, and tetrachloroethene at 12.3 ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-16





BTEXs (ua/L)

Other VOCs (u

/L)

PAHs (ua/L)

Phvsical

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Benzene(B)

Toluene (T)

Ethylbenzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-
DCA)

Styrene

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Acetone

Cyclohexane

Isopropylbenzene

Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

2-Butanone

Naphthalene (N)

Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) (mg/L)

05/22/2013

150

5

U

5

U

5

U

75

75

5

UJ

5

U

5.5

5

UJ

5

U

21

36

5

U

3.900

0.86

10/26/2013

144

20



5

U

5

U

79

99

5

U

5

U

6.8



5

U

5

U

15



52

8.1

J

1,600

6.85

10/26/2013

150

18



5

U

5

U

76

94

5

U

5

U

7.3



5

U

5

U

15



60

8



2,500

3.97

10/26/2013

156

9.5



5

U

5

U

48

57.5

5

U

5

U

5.7



5

U

5

U

12



48

N/A



2.400

4.65

05/06/2014

150

8.7

5

U

5

U

158

167

5

U

5

U

9.1

10

U

5.8

28

59

10

U

6.900

0.48

10/28/2014

144

7.1



5

U

5

U

136

143.1

5

U

5

U

7.6



17



5

U

24



50

10

U

5,600

1.31

10/28/2014

150

5

U

5

U

5

U

102

102

5

U

5

U

6.9



10

U

5

U

20



41

10

U

4,800

3.48

10/28/2014

150 DUP

5

U

5

U

5

U

104

104

5

U

5

U

7



10

U

5

U

20



44

10

U

4,100

3.48

10/28/2014

156

5

U

5

U

5

U

82

82

5

JJ

5

U

5.1



10

U

5

U

16



35

10

U

3.500 J

2.59

05/13/2015

150

5

U

5

U

5

U

85

85

5

U

5

U

6.1

10

U

5

U

27

32

5

U

4.400

0.58

10/07/2015

144

5

U

5

U

5

U

67.8

67.8

5

U

5

U

5.8



10

U

5

U

15



33

10

U

3,900

0.49

10/07/2015

150

5

U

5

U

5

U

46

46

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

5

U

13



27

10

U

2,900

0.45

10/07/2015

156

5

U

5

U

5

U

30

30

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

5

U

8.8



16

10

U

1.700

0.37

05/22/2016

144

25

U

25

U

25

U

57

57

25

U

25

U

25

U

50

U

25

U

25

U

36

50

U

2,900

0.73

05/22/2016

150

25

U

25

U

25

U

49

49

25

U

25

U

25

U

50

U

25

U

25

U

29 U

50

U

3,100

0.98

05/22/2016

156

5

UJ

5

UJ

5

UJ

39 J

39

5

JJ

5

UJ

5.1

J

10

U

5

UJ

14

J

25 J

10

U

1.600

0.62

10/16/2016

144

5

U

5

U

5

UJ

90

90

5

U

5

U

9

J

5

U

5

U

20



66

5.6



3,500

0.53

10/16/2016

144 DUP

5

U

5

U

5

UJ

89

89

5

U

5

U

9

J

5

U

5

U

20



64

5.2



3,800

0.53

10/16/2016

150

5

U

5

U

5

UJ

65

65

5

U

5

U

8.2

J

5

U

5

U

18



57

5

U

3,900

0.31

10/16/2016

156

5

U

5

U

5

UJ

55

55

5

U

5

U

7

J

5

U

5

U

16



48

5

U

3.300

1.63

04/18/2017

144

5

U

5

U

5

U

64

64

5

U

5

U

11



5

U

5

U

21



49

5

U

2,600

0.56

04/18/2017

150

5

U

5

U

5

U

61

61

5

U

5

U

10



5

U

5

U

20



48

5

U

4,300

0.3

04/18/2017

156

5

U

5

U

5

U

43

43

5

U

5

U

7



5

U

5

U

15



35

5

U

2.700

0.5

11/09/2017

144

21.8



43.6



13.8

J

62

141.2

2.4

U

9.5

J

12.3

J

37.6

U

6.6

U

8.5

J

36

11.8

U

2,730

0.79

11/09/2017

150

7.8



21.3



8.2



64

101.3

0.6

U

0.6

U

9.8



9.4

U

3

J

7.6



32.3

3

U

1,930

0.68

11/09/2017

156

12.3

J

16

J

5.8

J

29.8

63.9 J

2.4

U

2.4

U

3.4

U

37.6

U

6.6

U

4.4

J

25.6

41.5

J

1.310

1.49

05/09/2018

144

10

U

20

U

20

U

60 U

ND

20

U

20

U

20

U

200

U

20

U

20

U

39.6

200

U

2,650

15.55

05/09/2018

150

12.5

U

25

U

25

U

75 U

ND

25

U

25

u

25

U

250

u

25

U

25

U

33.9

250

U

2,360

15.43

05/09/2018

156

10

U

20

U

20

U

60 U

ND

20

U

20

u

20

U

200

u

20

u

20

U

27.8

200

U

1.530

17.9

11/05/2018

144

10.0

U

20.0

U

20.0

U

60.0 U

ND

20.0

u

20.0

u

20.0

U

200

u

20.0

u

20.0

U

24.8

200

U

583

2.33

11/05/2018

150

12.5

U

25.0

u

25.0

u

75.0 U

ND

25.0

u

25.0

u

25.0

U

250

u

25.0

u

25.0

U

25.0 U

250

U

517

2.42

11/05/2018

156

2.5

U

5.0

u

5.0

u

15.0 U

ND

5.0

u

5.0

u

5.0

U

50.0

u

5.0

u

5.0

U

15.2

50.0

u

103

2.67

05/13/2019

144

3.0

J

5.9

J

2.4

u

6.8 U

8.9 J

2.8

u

3.5

J

3.4

U

66.0

u

1.6

u

4.0

U

8.5 J

14.0

u

736

3.66

05/13/2019

150

3.4

J

4.0

J

2.5

J

16.7 J

26.6 J

1.4

u

1.6

J

6.0

J

33.0

u

2.4

J

8.5

J

16.8

7.0

u

920

0.47

05/13/2019

156

0.65



1.4



0.30

J

15.9

18.3 J

0.1

u

0.2

u

3.5



6.0

J

0.1

u

7.2



11.9

4.7

J

695

0.90

11/05/2019

144

1.6

u

3.8

J

2.4

u

23.1 J

26.9 J

2.8

u

3.0

u

7.5

J

66.0

u

1.6

u

10.7

J

35.2

14.0

u

1,810

0.60

11/05/2019

150

1.0

J

1.5

J

1.2

u

16.4 J

18.9 J

1.4

u

1.5

u

4.4

J

33.0

u

0.79

u

7.5

J

20.7

7.0

u

1,160

0.33

11/05/2019

156

6.3



2.1

J

1.2

u

29.8 J

38.2 J

1.4

u

1.5

u

4.0

J

33.0

u

2.00

J

12.5



16.8

7.0

u

1,560

0.23

05/11/2020

144

1.6

u

2.8

u

2.4

u

6.8 U

ND

2.8

u

3.0

u

7.5

J

66.0

u

1.6

u

5.8

J

18.4 J

14.0

u

1,130

0.67

05/11/2020

150

0.79

u

1.4

u

1.2

u

11.1 J

11.1 J

1.4

u

1.5

u

4.9

J

33.0

u

0.79

u

3.9

J

12.1

7.0

u

947

0.69

05/11/2020

156

0.79

u

1.4

u

1.2

u

3.4 U

ND

1.4

u

1.5

u

2.3

J

33.0

u

0.79

u

2.1

J

4.9 J

7.0

u

374

0.43

10/26/2020

144

1.8

u

3.6

u

3.6

u

21.3 J

21.3 J

4.6

u

3.4

u

5.0

U

94.0

u

5.0

u

8.5

J

20.6

48.0

u

1,700

0.54

10/26/2020

150

0.88

u

1.8

u

1.8

u

17.2 J

17.2 J

2.3

u

1.7

u

3.3

J

47.0

u

2.5

u

7.0

J

14.2

24.0

u

1,350

0.34

10/26/2020

156

0.88

u

1.8

u

1.8

u

14.5 J

14.5 J

2.3

u

1.7

u

2.5

U

47.0

u

2.5

u

7.2

J

10.3

24.0

u

1,020

0.23

05/04/2021

144

2.70

u

5.1

u

2.4

u

22.7 J

22.7 J

4.2

u

2.5

u

5.4

J

50.8

u

4.7

u

10.9

J

25.8

19.5

u

1,750

0.50

05/04/2021

150

1.40

u

2.5

u

1.2

u

16.8 J

16.8 J

2.1

u

1.2

u

3.9

J

25.4

u

2.4

u

9.4

J

16.6

9.8

u

1,310

0.52

05/04/2021

156

1.4

u

2.5

u

1.2

u

15.0 J

15.0 J

2.1

u

1.2

u

2.7

J

25.4

u

2.4

u

8.8

J

12.3

9.8

u

979

0.36

ROD Cleanup Level	5 1,000	700 10,000	100	1.1

U - Not detected. Number Is reporting limit.	NA or #NA - Not analyzed.	J - Result Is an estimate.	J" - Qualified as estimated because the RPD result exceeded the QA/QC criteria.

DUP - Duplicate	UJ - Not detected. Number Is detection limit. The detection limit Is an estimate.

In the 10/23/2007 samples EDB (1,2-dibromoethane) was detected at 43 ug/L and methylcyclohexane was detected at 20 ug/L.

In the 9/28/2010 samples acetonewas detected at 21, 20, and 17 ug/L In the 144', 150', and 156' samples, respectively.

In the 5/03/2011 sample from the 144 ft bgs, methylcyclohexane was detected at 5.2 ug/L. It was also detected In the 156 ft bgs duplicate sample at 5.4 ug/L.

In the 5/22/2016 sample at 150' Interval, naphthalene was detected In both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed In the table Is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 2,600 ug/L In the VOC results.

In the 5/22/2016 sample at 150' Interval the following contaminants were detected: acenaphthene at 37 ug/L, acenaphthylene at 470 ug/L, anthracene at 19 ug/L, fluoranthene at 4.1 J ug/L, fluorene at 22J ug/L,
2-methylnaphthalene at 1,600 ug/L, phenanthrene at 120J ug/L, and pyrene at 5.3J ug/L.

In the 11/09/2017 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 144 feet. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 2,730 ug/L in the VOC result.

In the 11/09/2017 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 150 feet. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 1,930 ug/L in the VOC result.

In the 11/09/2017 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 156 feet. The value listed in the table is the PAH result. Naphthalene was reported at 1,310 ug/L in the VOC result.

In the 5/09/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 144 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 908 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/09/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 150 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 1,210 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/09/2018 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 156 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 666 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/13/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 144 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 239 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/13/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 150 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 494 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/13/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 156 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 390 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 11/05/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 144 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 1,130 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 11/05/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 150 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 721 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 11/05/2019 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 156 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 921 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/11/20 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 144 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 1,000 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/11/20 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 150 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 641 ug/L in the PAH result.

In the 5/11/20 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 156 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 184 ug/L in the PAH result
In the 10/26/2020 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 144 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 774 ug/L in the PAH result
In the 10/26/2020 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 150 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 858 ug/L in the PAH result
In the 10/26/2020 sample, naphthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 156 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 800 ug/L in the PAH result
In the 5/4/2021 sample, napthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 144 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 1,330 ug/L in the PAH results
In the 5/4/2021 sample, napthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 150 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 1,100 ug/L in the PAH results
In the 5/4/2021 sample, napthalene was detected in both the VOC and PAH results at 156 feet. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was reported at 673 ug/L in the PAH results

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-01





BTEXs (uq/L)

Other VOCs (uq/L)

Physical

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)

Ethyl Benzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

Styrene

Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) (mg/L)

10/30/1997

161 -181

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

4 U

4

U

4

U

6.9

03/27/1998

161 -181

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

4 U

4

U

4

U

6.5

12/03/1998

161 -181

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

4 U

4

U

4

U

4.67

04/23/1999

161 -181

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

4 U

4

U

4

U

4.96

08/19/1999

161 -181

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

4 U

4

U

4

U

4.7

02/26/2001

161 -181

10

U

10

U

10

U

NA



ND

10

U

10 U

10

U

10

U

2.26

11/12/2001

161 -181

51



5

U

5

U

42



93

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

0.87

05/04/2004

170

17



5

U

5

U

22.3



39.3

5

U

38

5

U

5

U

1.19

11/18/2004

170

10

U

10

U

10

U

36



36

10

U

10 U

10

U

10

U

0.12

11/18/2004

170 DUP

10

U

10

U

10

U

34



36

10

U

10 U

10

U

10

U

0.12

04/20/2005

170

10

U

10

U

10

U

13



13

10

U

10 U

10 U



10

U

0.03

11/01/2005

170

5

UJ

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

8.93

04/27/2006

170

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

10 U

5

U

5

U

5.37

11/27/2006

170

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1.9



1.9

0.5

U

0.51

0.5

U

0.53



3.42

04/23/2007

165

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5 U

0.5

U

0.5

U

6.61

10/24/2007

165

30



18



2.2



69



119.2

1

U

1.4

15

J

3.4



0.73

04/28/2008

165

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

UJ

5 U

5

UJ

5

U

2

10/13/2008

165

5

U

5

U

5

U

6.5



6.5

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

3.83

04/14/2009

165

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

8.07

10/12/2009

165

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

3.96

04/20/2010

162

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5.59

09/30/2010

165

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1 U

1

U

1

U

6.04

04/26/2011

165

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1 U

1

U

1

U

5.21

10/16/2011

165

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

U

ND

1

u

1 U

1

U

1

U

4.83

04/29/2012

162.5

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

u

0.5 U

0.5

u

0.5

U

7.72

10/18/2012

165

1

u

1

u

1

u

2

U

ND

1

u

1 U

1

UJ

1

U

7.2

05/14/2013

162.5

1

u

1

u

1

u

2

U

ND

1

u

1 U

1

UJ

1

u

5.35

10/29/2013

162.5

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

u

0.5 U

0.5

u

0.66



8.45

05/10/2014

162.5

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

u

0.5 U

0.5

u

0.5

u

6.09

10/28/2014

162.5

5

u

5

u

5

u

10

U

ND

5

u

5 U

5

u

5

u

4.38

05/12/2015

162.5

5

u

5

u

5

u

15

U

ND

5

u

5 U

5

u

5

u

6.27

10/11/2015

162.5

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

u

0.5 U

0.5

u

1.1

u*

5.97

05/17/2016

162.5

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

U

ND

1

u

1 U

1

u

3.4



5.86

10/12/2016

162.5

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1 U

5

u

5



2.35

10/12/2016

162.5 DUP

1

u

1

u

1

u

1



1

1

u

1 U

5

u

5.1



2.35

04/22/2017

162.5

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1 U

1

u

4



2.57

11/07/2017

162.5

0.06

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

0.39 J

0.12

u

2.6



3.94

05/08/2018

162.5

0.06

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

0.37 J

0.12

u

1.3



5.89

11/06/2018

162.5

0.06

u

0.17

u

1.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.49

J

0.17 U

0.12

u

0.47

J

4.96

05/14/2019

162.5

0.13

u

0.17

u

0.20

u

0.42

u

ND

0.33

u

0.16 J

0.19

u

0.38

J

5.12

11/05/2019

162.5

0.079

u

0.15

J

0.12

u

0.34

u

0.15 J

0.14

u

0.17 U

0.15

u

0.26

J

5.06

05/12/2020

162.5

0.079

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.14

u

ND

0.14

u

0.17 U

0.15

u

0.22

u

9.32

11/03/2020

162.5

0.088

u

0.18

u

0.18

u

0.54

u

ND

0.23

u

0.25 U

0.17

u

0.15

u

7.01

5/4/2021

162.5

0.14

u

0.25

u

0.12

u

0.28

u

ND

0.21

u

0.21 U

0.12

u

0.33

u

8.42

ROD Cleanup Level	1,000	700	10,000

DUP - Duplicate	U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.
UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

Pine Avenue IWA System Startup June 2001.

100

N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.

ND - Not detected.
J - Result is an estimate.

J* - Result was qualified as estimated because naphthalene was found in the associated equipment rinsate blank.
In the 10/24/2007 sample isopropylbenzene was detected at 9.1 ug/L.

In the 5/10/2014 sample 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) was not detected. The dectection limit was 0.0194.ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-01

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

PAHs (uq/L)

Naphthalene (N)

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Fluoranthene

1-Methylnaphthalene

2-Methylnaphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

10/30/1997

161 -181

8.3



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

03/27/1998

161 -181

28



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

12/03/1998

161 -181

5

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

04/23/1999

161 -181

5

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

08/19/1999

161 -181

5

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

02/26/2001

161 -181

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

11/12/2001

161 -181

800



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

05/04/2004

170

430



2 UJ

2.4 J

2 U

2 U

N/A

2 UJ

2 U

2 U

11/18/2004

170

667



7.9

84.3

4

0.9

262

307

29.4

1.2

11/18/2004

170 DUP

744



8.1

85.4

4.4

0.91

283

328

30.4

1.2

04/20/2005

170

990

J

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

11/01/2005

170

10

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

04/27/2006

170

13

J*

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

11/27/2006

170

41



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

04/23/2007

165

2

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10/24/2007

165

1,700



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

04/28/2008

165

87



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10/13/2008

165

320



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

04/14/2009

165

5

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10/12/2009

165

10

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

04/20/2010

162

10

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

09/30/2010

165

2

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

04/26/2011

165

2

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10/16/2011

165

2

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

04/29/2012

162.5

#N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10/18/2012

165

2

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

05/14/2013

162.5

2

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10/29/2013

162.5

1

J

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

05/10/2014

162.5

1

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10/28/2014

162.5

79



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

05/12/2015

162.5

10

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10/11/2015

162.5

1

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

05/17/2016

162.5

2

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10/12/2016

162.5

54

J

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10/12/2016

162.5 DUP

55

J

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

04/22/2017

162.5

34



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

11/07/2017

162.5

4

J

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

05/08/2018

162.5

1

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

11/06/2018

162.5

0.80

J

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

05/14/2019

162.5

1.00

J

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

11/05/2019

162.5

1.20

J

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

11/05/2019

162.5

0.53

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

05/12/2020

162.5

0.50

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

11/03/2020

162.5

0.56

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

05/04/2021

162.5

0.82

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

ROD Cleanup Level	1.1

DUP - Duplicate	U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

0.63

N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.
ND - Not detected.

140

Pine Avenue IWS System Startup June 2001.	J - Result is an estimate.

J* - Result was qualified as estimated because naphthalene was found in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

In the 11/18/2004 sample naphthalene was detected in both the PAH and VOC primary and duplicate samples. The values listed in the table are the PAH results. Naphthalene was

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-11





BTEXs (ug/L)

Other VOCs (ug/L)

PAHs (ug/L)

Physical

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Benzene (B)

Toulene (T)

Ethyl Benzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

Styrene

Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Naphthalene (N)

Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) (mg/L)

11/03/2005

170

5

UJ

5

U

5

U

10

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

10.00

U

4.84

10/23/2012

170

5

U

5

U

5

U

15

U

ND

5

UJ

5

U

5

U

5

U

10.00

U

19.98

05/15/2013

161

1

U

1

U

1

U

3

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

1

U

2.00

U

7.29

05/15/2013

168

1

U

1

U

1

U

3

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

1

U

7.40



6.59

10/24/2013

168

1

U

1

U

1

U

3

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

2.00

U

13.06

05/14/2014

168

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.89



2.30



4.63

10/27/2014

168

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1.3



1.3

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1.3



80.00

J

4.03

05/12/2015

168

5

U

5

U

5

U

15

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

10.00

U

5.68

10/11/2015

168

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.78

U*

0.50

U

10.64

10/11/2015

168 DUP

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.74

U*

0.50

U

10.64

05/18/2016

168

1

U

1

U

1

U

3

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

1.6



2.00

U

6.67

10/12/2016

168

1

U

1

U

1

U

3

U

ND

1

U

1

U

5

U

3.3



3.60

J

16.5

04/23/2017

168

1

U

1

U

1

U

3

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2.8



2.00

U

5.32

11/07/2017

168

0.16

J

0.17

U

0.18

U

0.42

U

0.16 J

0.12

U

0.5

J

0.12

U

3.1



8.80

J

6.76

05/08/2018

168

0.06

U

0.17

U

0.18

U

0.42

U

ND

0.12

U

0.23

J

0.12

U

1.2



0.50

U

6.83

11/06/2018

168

0.060

U

0.17

U

0.18

U

0.42

U

ND

0.46

J

0.29

J

0.12

U

0.90

J

0.73

J

7.63

05/14/2019

168

0.13

U

0.17

U

0.2

U

0.42

U

ND

0.33

U

0.12

J

0.19

U

0.29

J

0.36

U

5.32

11/05/2019

168

0.079

U

0.14

U

0.12

U

0.34

U

ND

0.14

U

0.17

U

0.15

U

0.22

U

0.53

U

7.02

05/12/2020

168

0.079

U

0.14

U

0.12

U

0.34

U

ND

0.14

U

0.17

U

0.15

U

0.22

U

0.53

U

9.85

11/03/2020

168

0.088

U

0.18

U

0.18

U

0.54

U

ND

0.23

U

0.25

U

0.17

U

0.15

U

0.56

U

7.3

05/04/2021

168

0.14

U

0.25

U

0.12

U

0.28

U

ND

0.21

U

0.21

U

0.12

U

0.33

U

0.82

U

8.23

ROD Cleanup Level	5	1,000	700	10,000	100	1.1

Notes

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	ND - Not detected.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

Treatment chemical injections conducted Nov. 2005, 2007, and 2009; Dec. 2006, 2008 - 2013; Jan. 2015; Dec. 2015; June and Sept. 2017; May - Aug. 2018; June
2019; May - July 2020

In the 10/24/2013 sample DO was detected at 13.06 mg/L. This level exceeds the oxygen saturation limit for water.

In the 5/14/2014 sample 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) was not detected. The detection limit was 0.0196 ug/L.

In the 10/27/2014 sample isopropylbenzene was detected at 0.88 ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-12





BTEXs (uq

/L)

Other VOCs (uq/L)

PAHs (uq/L)

Physical













Ethyl Benzene (E)

><





(N

.
Q.
O
Q.
O

a>



Styrene



-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-131

DUP - Duplicate	U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	J - Result is estimated.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.	ND - Not detected.	N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.

J** - Qualified as estimated because the RPD result exceeded the QA/QC criteria.

_____ Treatment chemical injections conducted Nov. 2005, 2007, and 2009; Dec. 2006, 2008 - 2013; Jan. 2015; Dec. 2015; June and Sept. 2017; May - Aug. 2018; June 2019; May - July 2020
In the 10/22/2007 sample methyl tert-butyl ether was detected at 10 ug/L.

In the 10/13/2008 sample chloroform was detected at 6.6 ug/L.

In the 10/7/2015 sample, acetone was detected at 27 ug/L.

In the 4/19/2017 sample, acetone was detected at 21 and 19 ug/L in the primary and duplicate samples, respectively.

In the 05/14/2020 sample, the following compounds were detected: 2-Butanone at 8.0 J ug/L, acetone at 23.3 J ug/L, n-butybenzene at 0.95 J ug/L, 1,2,4- trimethybenzene at 7.4 ug/L, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene at 5.4 ug/L
In the 11/05/2020 sample, the following compounds were detected: 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene at 10.0 J ug/L, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene at 5.8 J ug/L
In the 5/6/2021 sample, 2-Butanone (MEK) was detected at 23.1 J ug/L

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-13D





BTEXs (uq/L)

Other VOCs (ug/L)

PAHs

(ug/L)

Physical













UJ



X





CD
c
ro
_c





CD







CD
c
CD
_c



z



(D
c

c

(D
O)



Interval

m

CD
c



p

CD
c



c
CD
N
c
CD
CD



CD
c
0

X



if)

I—
CD

o
o
_c

o

§



CD
_c

Id
o
o



CD
c



CD

o
o
_c

o



(D
c
(D
(0
_c



_c
£

Cl

O 3

> E,

Sample
Date

Sampled
(feet)

N
C
CD
CD



o
I—



_c
LLJ



ro
o
i—



ro
o
i—

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well HWS-13

Sample
Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

BTEXs (ua'D

Other VOCs (ua'D

PAHs (ua/L)

Physical

S

c
c
CO

&

w
c
c
CO

UJ

><

><
UJ

CO

1 <

o o
5 9

c

S LU

w

z

Q.

z

s 1!

$ o
Q 9.

12/08/1994
11/03/1997
03/25/1998
12/09/1998
04/22/1999
08/20/1999
05/05/2004
11/16/2004
04/20/2005
04/25/2006
04/25/2006
12/06/2006
05/01/2007
10/23/2007
10/23/2007
04/27/2008
10/14/2008
04/22/2009
10/19/2009
04/25/2010
10/18/2010
10/18/2010
05/01/2011
10/10/2011
05/01/2012
10/15/2012
05/15/2013
10/24/2013
05/10/2014
10/27/2014
05/18/2015
10/11/2015
05/18/2016

04/22/2017
04/22/2017
11/07/2017
05/08/2018
11/06/2018
05/14/2019
11/05/2019
05/12/2020
11/03/2020
05/04/2021

128
128
128
128
128
128
128
134

126
132

132 DUP

125

127
124

124 DUP

126

124

127

125
125
127

127 DUP

127
125
125

128.5

128
124.5
128.5

128

125

126
124

124
124 DUP
126
126
124
124
124
124
124
124

4 U
4 U
4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U
7 U*

10 U
10 U
1 U
1 U
15 J'

5	U
1 U
1 U
1 U

0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 UJ
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
0.5 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
0.06 U
0.06 U
0.06 U
0.13 U
0.08 U
0.29 J
0.09 U
0.14 U

4 U
4 U
4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U

5	U
10 U
10 U

1 U
1 U
1.1 J'
5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 UJ
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
1.4

1 U
0.5 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.14 U
0.14 U
0.18 U
0.25 U

4 U
4 U
4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U

5	U
10 U
10 U

1 U
1 U
0.5 UJ
5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
0.5 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
0.18 U
0.18 U
0.18 U
0.2 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.18 U
0.12 U

6 U
8 U
4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U
10.3

10 U
10
1 U
1 U
13 J'

5	U
1 U
1 U

1	U
0.5 U
0.5 U

2	U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U

1	U

2	U

2	U

3	U
1 U
1 U
3 U
1 U
3 U

3 U
3 U
0.42 U
0.42 U
0.42 U
0.42 U
0.34 U
0.34 U
0.54 U
0.28 U

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

10.3
ND
ND
ND
ND

29.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.4
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

0.29 J
ND
ND

4 U
4 U
4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U

5	U
10 U
10 U

1 U
1 U
0.5 UJ
5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 UJ
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
0.5 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.44 J
0.33 U
0.14 U
0.14 U
0.23 U
0.21 U

39
1,000
320
970
120
59
18
10
10
12
12

4.5 J

5.7

1 U
1 U
1 U

1.8
1.1

1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 UJ
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
0.5 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.097 U
0.17 U
0.23 J
0.25 U
0.21 U

4 U
4 U
4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U

5	U
10 U
10 U

1 U
1 U
3 J'
5 U
1 UJ
1 UJ
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 UJ
1 U
1 UJ
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
0.5 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.19 U
0.15 U
0.33 J
0.17 U
0.12 U

N/A

5 U
5.8
17

5 U
5 U
130 U*
10 U
10 U
2 U
2 U
68 J'
10 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
1 U

1	U

2	U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 UJ

#N/A
2 U
2 U
2 U

1	U
0.5 UJ

2	U
0.5 U

2 U

2 U
2.0 U
3.0 J
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.36 U
0.53 U
4.30 J
0.56 U
0.82 U

N/A

5.5

6.6
5.82
5.08

5.9
7.55
10.74
8.51
5.99
5.99
13.72

7.68
7.92
7.92

10.53
7.43
13.65
6.77
8.16
11.71
11.71
10.41
11.99

8.7
8.55
7.96
8.59

6.67
7.48
8.04

8.4

8.69

8.12
8.12
8.57
9.10

8.68
6.74
8.72
9.84
9.08
8.95

ROD Cleanup Level	5	1,000	700	10,000	100	1.1

Well HWS-13 Notes

DUP-Dupicate	U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	Pine Avenue IWS System Startup June 2001.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

U J - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

J* - Result was qualified as estimated because contaminant was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

ND - Not detected.	N/A or#N/A - Not analyzed.

Treatment chemical injections conducted Nov. 2005, 2007, and 2009; Dec. 2006, 2008 - 2013; Jan. 2015; Dec. 2015; June and Sept. 2017; May - Aug. 2018; June 2019;
May - July 2020

In the 4/25/2006 sample tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected at 2 ug/L in both the primary and duplicate sample.

In the 12/06/2006 sample cis-1,2-dichloroethene was detected at 0.74 J ug/L.

In the 12/06/2006 and 04/14/2009 samples DO was detected at 13.7 mg/L. This level exceeds the oxygen saturation limit for water.

In the 10/23/2007 sample acetone was detected at 11 ug/L in the primary sample.

In the 4/27/2008 sample 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) was not detected. The detection limit was 0.021 ug/L.

In the 10/14/2008 sample chloroform was detected at 0.53 ug/L.

In the 5/01/2011 sample EDB was not detected. The detection limit was 0.02 ug/L.

In the 5/1/2012 sample PCE was detected at an estimated concentration of 0.95 ug/L.

In the 5/10/2014 sample EDB was not detected. The detection limit was 0.0195 ug/L.

In the 5/12/2020 sample, PCE was detected at 0.42 J; 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene was detected at 0.21 J.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradlent Plume

Well QW-04S

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

BTEXs (uq/L)

Other VOCs (uq/L)

PAHs (uq/L)

Physical

£"

0)
c
0)
c
0)
CD

0)
c
0)
D

o

llT

0)
c
0)
c
0)
CD

LLJ

X
0)
c
a>

X
o

><
LLI

CO
o

CN

a>
c

"53
o
o

<


c
a>

"53
o
o

a>
c
a>

55

a>
c
a>

"55
o
o

ro llT

j® CL

Z

a>
c
a>

CL

z

O
Q
c
o>

0

1	_

O

5 I

07/05/1994
11/03/1997
03/30/1998
12/11/1998
04/21/1999
05/05/2004
11/15/2004
04/21/2005
11/02/2005
04/25/2006
12/06/2006
05/01/2007
10/23/2007
04/27/2008
10/14/2008
04/16/2009
10/18/2009
04/25/2010
04/25/2010
10/18/2010
04/27/2011
10/17/2011
04/30/2012
10/21/2012
05/15/2013
10/29/2013
05/13/2014
11/02/2014
05/19/2015
05/19/2016

04/22/2017
11/08/2017
05/09/2018
11/06/2018
05/15/2019
11/06/2019
05/13/2020
11/04/2020
05/05/2021

120-140
120-140
120-140
120-140
120-140

137

138
137

137

138

138
140
140

139
139
137
139

130
138.5

139

140

139

140
139
139
139

138.5
137
139
139

137
139
139
139
139
139

131
139
139

1 u

4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U
8.9

10 U
10 UJ

5	UJ
1 U

6.4 J*
5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 UJ
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U

1 U
0.060 U
0.060 U
0.060 U
0.079 U
0.079 U
0.079 U
0.088 U
0.14 U

1 U
4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U

5	U
10 U
10 UJ

5 U
1 U
0.61 J*
5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 UJ
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U

1 U
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.14 U
0.14 U
0.14 U
0.18 U
0.25 U

1 U
4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U

5	U
10 U
10 U

5 U
1 U
0.5 UJ
5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 UJ
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U

113121

1 u
1 u

0.18 U
0.18 U
0.18 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.18 U
0.12 U

1 U
8 U
4 U
4 U

4	U

5	U
10 U
10 U

5 U
1 U
7.5 J*
5 U
1 U

1	U
0.5 U
0.5 U

2	U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 UJ

1	U

2	U

2	U
1 U
1 U
1 U

3	U
3 U

3 U
0.42 U
0.42 U
0.42 U
0.34 U
0.34 U
0.34 U
0.54 U
0.28 U

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
14.51
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

10 U
4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U

5	U
10 U
10 U

5 U
1 U
0.5 UJ
5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U

1	U

2	U
1 U
1 UJ

0.5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
I U
1 U

1 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.49 J
0.14 U
0.14 U
0.14 U
0.23 U
0.21 U

200
1,400
1,600
1,300
1,700
17

10 U
16 J
5 U
1.1
0.95 J
5 U

1	U

2

0.92
0.92
1 U
1 U

1	U

2	U
1 U
1 UJ

0.5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.68
0.5 U
1 U
1 U

1 U
0.24 J
0.23 J
0.69 J
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.24 J
0.25 U
0.21 U

10 U
4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U

5	U
10 U
10 U

5 U
1 U
1.9 J*
5 U
1 UJ
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U

1	U

2	U
1 U
1 UJ

0.5 U
1 UJ
1 UJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U

1 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.17 U
0.12 U

10 U
4 U
4 U
4 U

4	U

5	U
10 U
10 U

5 U
1.4

0.5 UJ
5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U

1	U

2	U
1 U
1 UJ

0.5 U
1 U
1 U
0.88
0.59
0.5 U
1 U
1 U

1 U
0.98 J
0.7 J
3.80 J
0.43 J
0.90 J
0.71 J
0.19 J
0.33 U

N/A
5 U

4	U

5	U
5 U

110
10 U
27 U*
10 U
2 U
87 J*
10 U
2 U
2 U
1.3

1	U

2	U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 UJ

#N/A
2 U
2 U
0.57 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
2 U
2 U

2 U
0.61 J
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.53 U
0.53 U
1.8 J
0.56 U
0.82 U

N/A

7.5
8.4

8.75
6.58
8.75
11.3
9.58
10.78
7.22
15.39
9.55
8.43
10.49
8.38
13.38
8.78

7.14
7.37

10.78

8.26
9.09

8.3

9.72

7.73
8.68

6.92
9.48
8.09

8.27

7.93
8.31
8.35

7.94
7.16

8.15

9.6
9.77
9.55

ROD Cleanup Level	5	1,000	700	10,000	100	1.1

Well OW-04S Notes

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	J - Result is an estimate.

N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.	ND - Not detected.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

J* - Result was qualified as estimated because naphthalene was found in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

Treatment chemical injections conducted Nov. 2005, 2007, and 2009; Dec. 2006, 2008 - 2013; Jan. 2015; Dec. 2015; June and Sept. 2017; May - Aug. 2018; June 2019;
„_____May- July 2020

In the 4/21/2005 sample acetone was detected at 7.5 J ug/L.

In the 12/6/2006 sample acetone was detected at 7.5 J ug/L.

In the 12/6/2006 and 04/16/2009 samples, DO was detected at 15.39 and 13.38 mg/L, respectively. These levels exceed the oxygen saturation limit for water.

In the 4/27/2008 sample 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) was not detected. The detection limit was 0.022 ug/L.

In the 4/27/2011 sample EDB was not detected. The detection limit was 0.02 ug/L.

In the 5/13/2014 sample EDB was not detected. The detection limit was 0.0193 ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well OW-04D





BTEXs (uq/L)

Other VOCs (uq/L)

Physical

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled
(feet)

Benzene(B)

Toluene (T)

Ethyl Benzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

Trichloroethene
(TOE)

Styrene

Cyclohexane

1,2-Dibromoethane
(EDB)

Isopropylbenzene

Tetrachloroethene
(POE)

Dissolved Oxygen

(DO) (mg/L)

11/03/1997

175-185

4

U

4

U

4

U

6

U

ND

4

U

4

U

4

U

N/A



N/A



N/A



4

U

6.1

03/30/1998

175-185

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

4

U

4

U

N/A



N/A



N/A



4

U

6.1

12/11/1998

175-185

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

44



4

U

N/A



N/A



N/A



4

U

5.35

04/21/1999

175-185

4

U

4

U

4

U

4

U

ND

4

U

67



4

U

N/A



N/A



N/A



4

U

4.44

11/12/2003

175-185

520



5

U

5

U

34



554

30



16



5

U

12



10



11



5

U

5.15

05/05/2004

172

890



5

U

5

U

23



913

20



44

U*

5

U

9.5



5.4

J

11



5

U

1.41

05/05/2004

172 DUP

780



5

U

5

U

18.5



798.5

16



36



5

U

7.8



5

U

8.9



5

U

1.41

11/16/2004

180

1,500



10

U

10

U

100

J

1,600

170

J

11

J

11

J

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

2.1

11/16/2004

180 DUP

1,100



10

U

10

U

110

J

1,210

160

J

12

J

11

J

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

2.1

04/21/2005

180

2,100



10

U

10

U

77



2,177

72



12

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

0

04/21/2005

180 DUP

4,100



10

U

10

U

95



4,215

88



14

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

0

11/02/2005

172

1,300

J

27



14



520



1,861

100

J

8.4



88



12

J

33



17



5

U

7.84

04/29/2006

180

190



5

U

5

U

7

U*

190

6.3



10

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

0.76

12/06/2006

180

58

J*

5.1



5

U

38

J*

101.1

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

1.01

05/01/2007

175

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

0

10/23/2007

176

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U.

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

5.26

04/27/2008

176

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

0.022

U

1

U

1

U

14.67

10/14/2008

175

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

9.45

10/14/2008

175 DUP

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

9.45

04/16/2009

176

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

20

10/18/2009

176

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

1.2



16.93

04/25/2010

176

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1



1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

2.4



13.59

04/25/2010

176 DUP

1

U

1

U

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1.1



1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

2.5



13.59

10/18/2010

176

1

U

1

U

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

14.3

04/27/2011

176

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

u

1

U

0.02

U

1

U

1

U

13.86

10/17/2011

176

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

u

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

17.67

04/30/2012

176

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

17.07

10/21/2012

176

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

u.

1

U

1

u

1

u

1

U

7.92

05/15/2013

176

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

u.

1

U

1

u

1

u

1

u

15.11

10/29/2013

176

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1.9



6.31

05/13/2014

176

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.019

u

0.5

u

0.64



8.48

11/02/2014

177

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

17.7

05/15/2015

176

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

U

ND

1

u

1

u

1

u

1

u

1

U| 1

u

1

u

11.28

05/18/2016

176

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

u

1

u

1

u

1

u

1

u

1

u

12.78

04/23/2017

176

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

u

1

u

2

u

1

u

1

u

2.5



12.4

11/08/2017

176

0.06

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

0.93

J

0.12

u

0.33

u

0.17

u

0.07

u

6.5



10.57

05/09/2018

176

0.060

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

1.1



0.12

u

0.33

u

0.17

u

0.07

u

5.1



10.98

11/06/2018

176

0.060

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.45

J

0.66

J

0.12

u

0.33

u

0.17

u

0.07

u

4.5



11.00

05/15/2019

176

0.079

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

u

ND

0.14

u

0.24

J

0.15

u

0.079

u

0.18

u

0.20

u

1.3



9.13

11/06/2019

176

0.079

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

u

ND

0.14

u

0.17

u

0.15

u

0.08

u

0.18

u

0.20

u

1.1



12.02

05/13/2020

176

0.079

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

u

ND

0.14

u

0.35

J

0.15

u

0.079

u

0.18

u

0.20

u

1.2



13.88

11/04/2020

176

0.088

u

0.18

u

0.18

u

0.54

u

ND

0.23

u

0.25

u

0.17

u

0.25

u

0.19

u

0.19

u

0.37

J

16.26

05/05/2021

179

0.14

u

0.25

u

0.12

u

0.28

u

ND

0.21

u

0.40

J

0.12

u

0.24

u

0.20

u

0.097

u

0.68

J

12.71

ROD Cleanup Level	5	1,000 700 10,000	100

Well OW-04D Notes

DUP - Duplicate	U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	J - Result is an estimate.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.	N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.

J* - Result was qualified as estimated because naphthalene was found in the associated equipment rinsate blank.	ND - Not detected.

Treatment chemical injections conducted Nov. 2005, 2007, and 2009; Dec. 2006, 2008 - 2013; Jan. 2015; Dec. 2015; June and Sept. 2017; May - Aug. 2018; June 2019; May-
In the 11/12/2003 sample methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) was detected at 6.6 ug/L.

In the 5/5/2004 sample 2-butanone was detected at 5.2 ug/L in the primary sample.

In the 5/5/2004 primary sample, naphthalene results were reported in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the PAH result.

Naphthalene was reported at 1,300 ug/L in the VOC results.

In the 11/2/2005 sample acetone was detected at 7.3 J ug/L and MTBE was detected at 15 ug/L.

In the 4/29/2006 primary sample naphthalene results were reported in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene was
reported at 340 ug/L in the PAH results.

In the 12/6/2006, 4/16/2009, 10/18/2009, 4/25/2010, 10/18/2010, 4/27/2011, 10/17/2011, 4/30/2010, 5/15/2013, 11/02/14, 5/18/16, 11/04/2020 samples, DO was detected
at 14.67, 20, 16.93, 13.59, 14.3, 13.86, 17.67, 17.07, 15.11, 17.7, 18.78 mg/L, and 16.26 mg/L respectively. These levels exceed the oxygen saturation limit for water.

In the 4/29/2006 primary sample naphthalene results were reported in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-10S

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled (feet)

BTEXs (ug/L)

Other VOCs (u

q/L)

Physical

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)

Ethyl Benzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

Styrene

Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) (mg/L)

02/28/2001

127.5

950



310



32

J

370

J

1,662

240



10

U

64



0.36

11/13/2001

127.5

31



19



5

U

68



118

9.8



5

U

15



0.36

04/05/2002

133

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5



3.89

05/21/2002

133

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5



NA

08/20/2002

130

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5



0.17

11/05/2002

130

NA



NA



NA



NA



NA

NA



NA



NA



NA

05/15/2003

130

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10



7.52

11/11/2003

130

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

8.22

05/04/2004

130

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

62

J

5



4.61

11/17/2004

130

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10

U

6.2

04/19/2005

130

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10



7.26

10/31/2005

130

5

UJ

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

10.32

04/26/2006

130

2.3



1

U

1

U

1

U

2.3

1

U

1

U

1

U

8.76

11/28/2006

130

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

11.1

04/25/2007

130.5

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

7.35

10/24/2007

128

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

7.42

04/21/2008

128

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

7.35

10/15/2008

129

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

8.9

04/20/2009

132

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

14.66

10/19/2009

131.5

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

7.36

04/22/2010

133

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

6.06

09/30/2010

133

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

9.3

04/27/2011

131

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

7.9

10/16/2011

134

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

7.75

04/29/2012

133

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

8.28

10/18/2012

133.5

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

9.16

05/14/2013

133

1

U

1

U

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

7.82

10/29/2013

133

0.5

U

0.81



0.5

u

1

U

0.81

0.5

u

0.5

U

0.5

U

9.59

05/10/2014

133

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

U

7.17

05/10/2014

133 DUP

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

U

7.17

11/01/2014

133

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

U

10.3

05/17/2015

133

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

u

1

U

8.19

05/17/2015

133 DUP

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

u

1

U

8.19

10/15/2016

129

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

u

5

U

8.73

11/08/2017

130

94



0.53

J

0.18

u

19



113.53

0.12

u

4.2



0.89

J

5.24

05/09/2018

133

553



5.9



0.90

u

86.3



645.2

0.6

u

12



0.6

u

2.68

11/07/2018

133

24.5



0.86

J

0.90

u

2.1

u

25.36

3.1

J

5.9



1.6

J

4.80

05/15/2019

133

159



2.4

J

3.00

J

25.9

J

190.3 J

5.0

J

7.5

J

1.5

u

2.78

11/06/2019

133

128



3.2

J

4.10

J

45.3



180.6 J

0.7

u

6.4



0.75

u

4.82

05/14/2020

128

292



65.0



34.7



319



710.7

0.7

u

8.0



32.9



6.03

11/04/2020

133

128



15.8

J

40.5



153



337.3 J

6.2

J

9.6

J

8.7

J

1.43

05/05/2021

133

239



13.5

J

56.2



317



625.7 J

4.2

u

6.4

J

18.2

J

2.9

ROD Cleanup Level	5 1,000	700 10,000	100

DUP - Duplicate	U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	ND - Not detected.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.	J - Result is estimated.

N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.	Pine Avenue IWS Startup June 2001.

In the 11/28/2006 sample tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected at 0.97 ug/L.

In the 10/24/2007 sample chloroform was detected at 2.9 ug/L.

In the 04/20/2009 sample DO was detected at 14.66 mg/L. This level exceeds the oxygen saturation limit for water.

In the 10/29/2013 sample PCE was detected at 0.77 ug/L.

In the 5/10/2014 sample 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) was not detected. The detection limit was 0.0196 ug/L.

In the 11/01/2014, sample PCE was detected at 1.2 ug/L, but BVSPC modified this result to non-detect (U*) because PCE

was detected in the associated rinstate blank.

In the 5/9/2018 sample, PCE was detected at 6.2 ug/L.

In the 11/07/2018 sample, PCE was detected at 1.8 J ug/L and naphthalene was detected at 11.7 ug/L.

In the 05/15/2019 sample, PCE was detected at 6.3 J ug/L and naphthalene was detected at 137 ug/L.

In the 11/01/2019 sample, PCE was detected at 6.1 ug/L and naphthalene was detected at 156 ug/L.

In the 05/14/2020 sample PCE was detected at 123 ug/L and napthalene was detected at 1,750 ug/L
In the 11/04/20 PCE was detected at 8.8 J ug/L and napthalene was detected at 858 ug/L.

In the 5/5/2021 sample, the following contaminants were detected: 2-Butanone (MEK), 23.1 J ug/L; Cyclohexane, 91.7 ug/L; cis-1,2-
Dichloroethene, 4.2J ug/L; Isopropylbenzene, 25.0 ug/L; Methylcyclohexane, 17.8J ug/L; Methylene Chloride, 10.2J ug/L; Naphthalene,
1,360 ug/L; n-Propylbenzene, 15.8J ug/L; PCE, 13.3J ug/L; 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 75.4 ug/L; and 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, 43.2 ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-101











BTEXs (ug/L)















Other VOCs (ug/L)









Physical

































Second Street













Sample Date

Inteival
Sampled (feet)

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)

Ethyl Benzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

Styrene

Cyclohexane

Isopropylbenzene

Methycyclohexane

Acetone

2-Butanone

Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) (mg/L)

02/27/2001

155

10

U

10

U

10

U

85



85



10

U

10

U

10 U

10

U

10

U

10

U

0.1

11/13/2001

155

1,100



250



36



770



2,156



210



5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

0.0

04/05/2002

158

1,100



270



43



750



2,163



200





















0.3

05/21/2002

158

220



37



4

J

180



441



52



5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

NA

08/20/2002

155

800



200



12



570



1,582



97





















0.2

05/15/2003

155

650



48



10

U

410



1,008



49



10

U

10 U

10

U

10

U

10

U

9.2

11/11/2003

155

130



26



5

U

53



209



5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

7.2

05/04/2004

155

770



11



5

U

177



958



5

U

23



7

6



68

J

8



0.8

11/18/2004

155

88



10

U

10

U

13



101



10

U

10

U

10 U

10

U

10

U

10

U

3.2

04/20/2005

155

10

U

10

u

10

U

10

U

ND



10

U

10

U

10 U

10

U

10

U

10

U

6.9

11/01/2005

155

44

J

5

u

5

U

5

U

44



5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

9.7

04/27/2006

160

340



5

u

5

U

34



374



5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5



5

U

4.3

12/06/2006

155

56

J*

5

u

5

U

37

J*

93



5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

1.6

05/02/2007

155

2,900



170



180



1,100



4,350



95



110



21

44



49



11



0.0

10/30/2007

155

15



5

u

5

U

5

U

15



5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

4.4

10/30/2007

155 DUP

15



5

u

5

U

5

U

15



5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

4.4

04/28/2008

155

400



5



1

U

145



550



4



36



9

13



9



13



1.1

10/20/2008

165

67



5

u

5

U

9



76



5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

1.7

04/22/2009

155

660



59



33



310



1,062



45



18



9

6



87



24



0.0

10/13/2009

155

1,100



98

J

110

J

1,010

L

2,318



140

J

82

J

23 J

35

J

5

U

5

U

0.0

04/19/2010

155

430

J



13

21



380



831



21



41



17

13



5

UJ

5

U

1.9

09/27/2010

155

950

J

31



120



600



1,701



57



100



17

42



5

U

5

U

0.5

05/03/2011

155

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

ND



5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

U

5

U

4.0

10/11/2011

155

68



5

U

5

U

10

U

68



5

U

5

U

5 U

5

U

5

UJ

5

U

7.8

04/23/2012

155

210

J**

10

U

10

U

20

U

210



10

U

10

U

10 U

10

U

20

U

20

U

3.1

10/16/2012

155

550



5

u

5

U

12



562



5

U

67



9

12



5

UJ

5

U

5.1

05/21/2013

155

870

J

5

u

5

U

79



949



5

U

60



13

26



5

U

5

U

1.0

10/27/2013

155

160



5

u

5

U

10

U

160



5

U

19



5 U

5

U

24



15



1.9

05/05/2014

155

140



5

u

5

U

10

U

140



5

U

8



5 U

5

U

10

U

10

U

1.3

10/29/2014

155

150



50

u

50

U

100

U

150



50

U

50

U

50 U

50

u

100

U

100

u

0.9

05/12/2015

162.5

29



5

u

5

U

21



50



5

U

5

U

5

5

u

12

J

5

u

0.54

10/06/2015

155

5

U

5

u

5

u

10

U

ND



5

U

5

U

5 U

5

u

10

U

10

u

1.27

10/06/2015

155 DUP

5

U

5

u

5

u

10

U

ND



5

U

5

U

5 U

5

u

10

U

10

u

1.27

05/21/2016

155

35

J

5

UJ

5

UJ

18

J

53



5

UJ

5

UJ

6 J

5 UJ

10

U

10

u

0.81

10/17/2016

155

190



5

u

5

UJ

13



203



5

u

7



9

5

u

5

U

5

u

0.56

04/18/2017

155

53



5

u

5

u

15

U

53



5

u

5

U

5 U

5

u

9



5



1.56

11/08/2017

155

0.06

U

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

U

ND



0.12

u

0.33

U

0.07 U

0.33

u

1.9

U

0.59

u

6.54

05/09/2018

155

0.31

J

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

U

0.31

J

0.12

u

0.33

u

0.07 U

0.33

u

1.9

u

0.59

u

5.47

11/07/2018

155

0.060

U

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

U

ND



0.12

u

0.33

u

0.07 U

0.33

u

2.4

J

0.59

u

6.48

05/15/2019

155

0.079

U

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

U

ND



0.15

u

0.08

u

0.20 U

0.10

u

3.3

u

0.70

u

5.71

11/06/2019

155

3.4



0.16

J

0.19

J

1.6

J

5.35

J

0.15

u

0.89

J

0.36 J

0.10

u

3.3

u

0.70

u

6.54

05/13/2020

155

0.1

J

0.14

u

0.12

u

3.2



3.31

J

0.15

u

0.08

u

1.20

0.10

u

3.3

u

0.70

u

0.99

11/04/2020

155

0.1

U

0.18

u

0.18

u

0.5

U

ND



0.17

u

0.25

u

0.19 U

1.00

u

4.7

u

2.40

u

2.17

05/05/2021

155

0.14

U

0.25

u

0.12

u

0.92

J

0.92

J

0.12

u

0.24

u

0.10 J

0.14

J

2.5

u

0.98

u

2.37

ROD Cleanup Level	5 1,000	700 10,000	100

DUP - Duplicate

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.	ND - Not detected.

J - Result is an estimate.

J* - Result was qualified as estimated because naphthalene was found in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

J** - Qualified as estimated because the RPD result exceeded the QA/QC criteria.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

Pine Avenue IWS Startup June 2001.

In the 05/02/2007 sample 4-methyl-2-pentanone was detected at 5.6 ug/L.

In the 5/4/2004 sample naphthalene results were reported in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the
In the 11/18/2004 sample 1-methylnaphthalene was detected at 12.1 ug/L.

In the 04/29/2006 sample naphthalene results were reported in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC
result. Naphthalene was reported at 41 J* ug/L in the PAH results.

In the 4/18/2017 sample, acetone was detected at 8.5 ug/L.

In the 11/08/2017 sample the following contaminants were detected: chloroform at 0.56 J ug/L, 1,2-dichloroethene (total) at 0.72 J ug/L, cis-1,2-dichloroethene at 0.72 J ug/L, and
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene at 0.11 J ug/L.

In the 5/9/2018 sample the following contaminants were detected: chloroform at 0.54 J ug/L, 1,2-dichloroethene (total) at 0.49 J ug/L, cis-1,2-dichloroethene at 0.49 J ug/L, and
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene at 0.13 J ug/L.

In the 11/07/2018 sample the following contaminants were detected: chloroform at 0.62 J ug/L, 1,2-dichloroethene (total) at 1.0 ug/L, cis-1,2-dichloroethene at 1.0ug/L, and
methyl-tert-butyl ether at 0.11 J ug/L.

In the 05/15/2019 sample the following contaminants were detected: chloroform at 0.42J ug/L, 1,2-dichloroethene (total) at 1.0 ug/L, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene at 1.0 ug/L.

In the 11/06/2019 sample the following contaminants were detected: chloroform at 0.26J ug/L, 1,2-dichloroethene (total) at 0.96J ug/L, cis-1,2-dichloroethene at 0.96 ug/L,
isopropybenzene at0.36J ug/L, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene at0.33J ug/L and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene at 0.31 J ug/L.

In the 05/13/2020 sample the following contaminants were detected: chloroform at 0.14J ug/L, 1,2-dichloroethene (total) at 0.29J ug/L, cis-1,2-dichloroethene at 0.29 ug/L, 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene at 0.83J ug/L and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene at 0.62J ug/L.

In the 11/04/2020 sample the following contaminants were detected: chloroform at 0.32J ug/L, 1,2-dichloroethene (total) at 0.32J ug/L, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene at 0.32J ug/L
In the 5/5/2021 sample, the following contaminants were detected: Chloroform, 0.29J ug/L; 1,2-Dichloroethene (Total), 0.51 J ug/L; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene, 0.51 J ug/L; and 1,3,5-
Trimethylbenzene, 0.11 J ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-101 (Continued)

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled (feet)

Other VO
Foote Oil

Cs (ug/L)

Colorado Avenue

PAHs (ug/L)

1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

1,2-Dibromoethane
(EDB)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Naphthalene (N)

2-Methylnaphthalene

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Phenanthrene

02/27/2001

155

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

2,500



960

N/A



190

52

11/13/2001

155

64



5

U

5

U

5

U

2,600



510

8



82

52

04/05/2002

158

88







3

J





3,300



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/21/2002

158

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

2,200



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

08/20/2002

155

5







5







2,800



840

10



130

33

05/15/2003

155

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

1,700



420

10

U

74

10

11/11/2003

155

10



8



5

U

5

U

150



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/04/2004

155

11



15

J

35

u*

5

U

1,100



220 J

2



33

5

11/18/2004

155

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

52



11

N/A



5

N/A

04/20/2005

155

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

15

U

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

11/01/2005

155

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

14



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

04/27/2006

160

5

U

5

U

10

U

5



100

u*

12

2

U

6

2 J

12/06/2006

155

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

69

J*

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/02/2007

155

45



42



5

U

28



1,700



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/30/2007

155

5

U

5

U

5

UJ

5

U

10

U

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/30/2007

155 DUP

5

U

5

U

5

UJ

5

U

10

U

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

04/28/2008

155

5



4



1



9



660



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/20/2008

165

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

77



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

04/22/2009

155

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

1,300



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/13/2009

155

10

J

13



5

U

37

J

5,100

J

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

04/19/2010

155

5

U

5

U

6



68

J

1,200

J

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

09/27/2010

155

6



11



5

U

46



1,900



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/03/2011

155

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/11/2011

155

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

80

J

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

04/23/2012

155

10

U

10

U

10

U

45

J*1

#N/A



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/16/2012

155

5

U

5

U

10



11



130



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/21/2013

155

5

U

5

U

8



35



330



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/27/2013

155

5

U

5

U

5



41



28



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/05/2014

155

5

U

5

U

7



58



42



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/29/2014

155

50

U

50

U

50

U

50

u

670



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/13/2013

155

5

U

5

u

10



70



350



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/06/2015

155

5

U

5

u

9.1



66



89



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/05/2015

155 DUP

5

u

5

u

9.2



67



92



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/21/2016

155

5

UJ

5

UJ

12.0

J

79

J

140

J

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

10/17/2016

155

5

u

5

u

7.6

J

41



120



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

04/18/2017

155

5

u

5

u

9.0

U

56



64



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

11/08/2017

155

0.12

u

0.17

u

5.1



41.5



0.5

U

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/09/2018

155

0.12

u

0.17

u

4.9



37.6



0.9

J

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

11/07/2018

155

0.12

u

0.17

u

5.5



41.9



0.50

U

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/15/2019

155

0.14

u

0.18

u

4.2



35.6



0.53

U

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

11/06/2019

155

0.14

u

0.18

u

2.7



18.1



5.90

J

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/13/2020

155

0.14

u

0.18

u

1.4



15.1



120



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

11/04/2020

155

0.23

u

0.19

u

1.0



7.3



3

J

N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

05/05/2021

155

0.21

u

0.20

u

1.3



6.4



21.5



N/A

N/A



N/A

N/A

ROD Cleanup Level	1.1	0.63

DUP - Duplicate	U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	N/A or#N/A - Not analyzed.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

J - Result is an estimate.	ND - Not detected.

J* - Result was qualified as estimated because naphthalene was found in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

J** - Qualified as estimated because the RPD result exceeded the QA/QC criteria.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

Pine Avenue IWS Startup June 2001.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-05S

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled (feet)

BTEXs (ug/L)

Other VOCs (ug/L)

PAHs (ug/L)

Physical

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)

Ethyl Benzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

Styrene

Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)

Naphthalene (N)

Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) (mg/L)

10/31/1997

120-130

38



4

U

4

U

4

U

38

100



4

U

4

U

4

U

5

U

1.2

04/02/1998

120-130

50



4

U

4

U

4

U

50

140



4

U

4

U

4

U

6.3



1

12/04/1998

120-130

27



4

U

4

U

4

U

27

30



4

U

4

U

4

U

19

U

0.5

04/22/1999

120-130

310





U

4

U

4

U

310

190



4

U

4

U

4

U

51



0.35

08/20/1999

120-130

380



4

U

6.5

U

4.9



384.9

170



4

U

4

U

4

U

140



0.4

05/12/2003

123

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

36



10

U

10

U

0.049

U

6.9

05/12/2003

126

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

37



10

U

10

U

0.049

U

7.21

11/11/2003

128

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

ND

5

U

15



5

U

5

U

5

U

11.44

05/05/2004

128

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

UJ

18

U*

5

UJ

5

UJ

74

U*

7.08

11/15/2004

128

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

8.65

04/20/2005

126

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

8.23

11/02/2005

126

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

4.5

J

1

U

2.8

U*

2

U

9.51

04/25/2006

128

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

3.4



1

U

4.2



2

U

8.18

12/04/2006

127

0.5

U

0.82



0.5

U

0.5

U

0.82

0.5

U

1.1



0.5

U

3.1

U

2

U

8.15

04/25/2007

127.5

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

1.9



0.5

U

1.1



2

UJ

3.17

10/25/2007

127

1

U

2.6



1

U

1

U

2.6

1

U

1



1

UJ

1

U

2

U

3.1

04/22/2008

127.5

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1.4

U*

1

U

1

U

2

U

5.51

10/16/2008

127

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

2.1



1

U

5.29

04/22/2009

127

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1

U

13.46

10/19/2009

127

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

8.05

04/25/2010

127

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

7.65

10/18/2010

126.5

1

U

1

U

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

u

1

U

2

U

7.91

05/01/2011

127.5

1

U

1

U

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

u

1

U

2

U

7.22

10/13/2011

127

1

U

1

U

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

u

1

U

2

U

6.35

04/29/2012

127

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

U

#N/A



6.99

10/22/2012

127

1

u

1

u

1

u

2

u

ND

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

1

u

2

U

10.55

05/14/2013

128

1

u

1

u

1

u

2

u

ND

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

1

u

2

U

5.95

10/29/2013

127

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

u

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.75

J

5.89

05/10/2014

127

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

u

0.75



0.5

u

1.7



0.5

U

5.29

11/03/2014

127

0.5

UJ

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

u

0.5

UJ

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

UJ

9.55

05/18/2015

127

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

u

6.89

05/18/2016

127

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

u

1

u

1

u

2

u

7.4

04/22/2017

127

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

u

1

u

1

u

2

u

7.54

11/07/2017

128

0.06

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

0.17

u

0.12

u

0.49

J

1

J

7.82

05/08/2018

127

0.060

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

0.17

u

0.12

u

0.10

u

0.50

u

8.31

11/06/2018

127

0.060

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.49

J

0.17

u

0.12

u

0.10

u

0.50

u

7.72

05/14/2019

127

0.130

u

0.17

u

0.2

u

0.42

u

ND

0.33

u

0.097

u

0.19

u

0.14

u

0.36

u

7.83

11/05/2019

127

0.079

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

u

ND

0.14

u

0.17

u

0.15

u

0.22

u

0.53

u

6.54

05/12/2020

127

0.130

J

0.14

u

0.12

J

0.34

u

0.25 J

0.14

u

0.17

u

0.17

J

0.28

J

3.40

J

9.3

11/03/2020

127

0.088

u

0.18

u

0.18

u

0.54

u

ND

0.23

u

0.25

u

0.17

u

0.15

u

0.56

u

8.75

05/04/2021

127

0.14

u

0.25

u

0.12

u

0.28

u

ND

0.21

u

0.21

u

0.12

u

0.58

J

0.82

u

8.30

ROD Cleanup Level	5 1,000	700 10,000	100	1.1

DUP - Duplicate	U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	Pine Avenue IWS Startup June 2001.

J - Result is estimated.	ND - Not detected.	N/A or #N/A - not analyzed.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

In the 4/22/2008 sample 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) was not detected. The detection limit was 0.021 ug/L.

In the 4/22/2009 sample DO was detected at 13.46 mg/L. This level exceeds the oxygen saturation limit for water.

In the 5/1/2011 sample EDB was not detected. The detection limit was 0.02 ug/L.

In the 5/10/2014 sample EDB was not detected. The detection limit was 0.0194 ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-051

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled (feet)

BTEXs (uq/L)

Other VOCs (ug/L)

PAHs (uq/L



Physical

Benzene (B)

Toluene (T)

Ethyl Benzene (E)

Total Xylene (X)

Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroethane

(1,2-DCA)

Trichloroethene
(TCE)

Styrene

Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

Naphthalene (N)

Acenaphthylene

2-Methylnaphthalene

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
(mg/L)

10/31/1997

150-160

1,200



440



41



560



2,241

98



4

U

81



4

U

2,900



N/A



N/A



1.4

03/26/1998

150-160

770



180



19



241



1,210

37



4



26



4

U

1,100



N/A



N/A



0.5

12/05/1998

150-160

1,400



830



95



1,740



4,065

67



22



720



4

U

9,400



N/A



N/A



0.07

04/22/1999

150-160

180



100



10



400



690

13



4

U

120



4

U

8,200



N/A



N/A



0.02

08/20/1999

150-160

560



330



30



900



1,820

15



7.3



190



4

U

12,000



N/A



N/A



0.1

08/20/2002"

o

CD

O
LO

8



5

U

5

U

5

U

8

3

J

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

J

N/A



N/A





11/12/2002

150

200



5

U

5

U

11



211

14



5

U

5

U

5

U

190



N/A



N/A



4.3

11/12/2002

153

200



5

U

5

U

10



210

14



5

U

5

U

5

U

190



N/A



N/A



8.3

11/12/2002

156

190



5

U

5

U

10



200

14



5

U

5

U

5

U

190



N/A



N/A



5.42

05/12/2003

153

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

0.049

U

0.36



0.049

U

2.81

05/12/2003

158

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

0.049

U

0.33



0.049

U

3.17

11/11/2003

155

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

N/A



N/A



5.52

05/05/2004

155

7.6

(J*

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

15

(J*

5

U

5

U

110

u*

3.8

J

6.9

J

2.55

11/15/2004

155

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

0.18



0.052

U

0.052

U

2.13

04/20/2005

156

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

ND

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

10

U

N/A



N/A



4.23

11/02/2005

156

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

u*

2

U

N/A



N/A



9.68

04/25/2006

155

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

2.7



2

U

N/A



N/A



6.47

12/04/2006

155

0.5

U

0.55



0.5

U

0.5

U

0.55

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

3.1

u*

2

U

N/A



N/A



7.32

04/25/2007

155

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1.8



2

UJ

N/A



N/A



5.53

10/25/2007

155

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

2.8



2

UJ

N/A



N/A



5.18

04/22/2008

155

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

1

(J*

1

U

1.4



2

U

N/A



N/A



5.34

10/16/2008

155

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1.4



1

U

N/A



N/A



4.44

04/22/2009

155

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

1

U

N/A



N/A



7.96

10/19/2009

155

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

N/A



N/A



3.65

04/19/2010

155

5

U

5

U

5

U

10

U

ND

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

UJ

10

UJ

N/A



N/A



8.25

10/18/2010

155

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

1.1



2

U

N/A



N/A



8.95

05/01/2011

155

1

U

1

U

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

N/A



N/A



7.63

10/13/2011

155

1

U

1

U

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1

U

1

u

1

U

2

U

N/A



N/A



7.51

04/29/2012

155

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

U

0.64

U

0.5

u

2

U

#N/A



N/A



N/A



5.77

10/22/2012

155

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1.4



1

UJ

5.7



2

U

N/A



N/A



6.76

05/14/2013

155

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

U

ND

1

U

1.8



1

UJ

16



2

U

N/A



N/A



2.58

10/29/2013

155

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

U

ND

0.5

u

2.5



0.5

u

10



0.67

J

N/A



N/A



8.41

05/10/2014

155

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

u

0.66



0.5

u

1.9



0.5

U

N/A



N/A



5.75

11/03/2014

155

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

u

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.84



0.5

U

N/A



N/A



7.94

05/18/2015

155

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

U

1

u

1.2



2

U

N/A



N/A



7.26

05/18/2016

155

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

2



1

u

7.4



2

U

N/A



N/A



5.56

04/22/2017

155

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

u

1

u

1

U

2

U

N/A



N/A



6.86

11/07/2017

155

0.06

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

5.5



0.12

u

28.1



0.5

u

N/A



N/A



5.3

05/08/2018

155

0.21

J

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

0.21 J

0.12

u

12.3



0.12

u

60.1



0.5

u

N/A



N/A



3.19

11/06/2018

155

0.35

J

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

0.35 J

0.49

J

15.5



0.12

u

62.3



0.79

J

N/A



N/A



4.36

05/14/2019

155

0.24

J

0.17

u

0.2

u

0.42

u

0.24 J

0.33

u

15.3



0.19

u

48.3



0.36

u

N/A



N/A



6.37

11/05/2019

155

3.9



0.14

u

0.12

u

1.3

J

5.2 J

0.14

u

20.9



0.15

u

58.3



7.8

J

N/A



N/A



5.2

05/12/2020

155

1.5



0.14

u

0.12

u

1.5

J

3 J

0.14

u

10.4



0.15

J

42.3



45.3



N/A



N/A



4.15

11/03/2020

155

1.2



0.18

u

0.18

u

0.54

u

1.2

0.23

u

9.7



0.17

u

23.8



3.7

J

N/A



N/A



3

05/04/2021

155

0.46

J

0.25

u

0.12

u

0.28

u

0.46 J

0.21

u

5.9



0.12

u

14.6



0.82

u

N/A



N/A



6.92

ROD Cleanup Level	5 1,000	700 10,000	100	1.1	0.63

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.	Pine Avenue IWS Startup June 2001.

J - Result is estimated.	ND - Not detected.	Blank cell indicates result not found.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

In the 5/5/2004 sample naphthalene results were reported in both the VOC and PAH results. The value listed in the table is the VOC result. Naphthalene

In the 4/22/2008 sample 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) was detected at 0.078 ug/L.

In the 4/22/2008 sample acetone was detected at 88 ug/L.

In the 10/19/2009 sample 2-butanone was detected at 8.1 J ug/L.

In the 5/1/2011 sample EDB was not detected. The detection limit was 0.025 ug/L.

In the 5/10/2014 sample EDB was not detected. The detection limit was 0.0196 ug/L.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well MW-04	I





BTEXs (ug/L)

Other VOCs (ug/L)

PAHs (ug/L)

'hysica













Ethyl Benzene (E)

X





0
c
ro
sz



LU

o

h

0



0
c

ji







Z



c
0
O)

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled (feet)

Benzene (B)



Toluene (T)



0
c
_0

X
ro
o
H



Total BTEXs

1,2-Dichloroel
(1,2-DCA)



0
sz
0

o
o
sz
o

H



0
o
o
sz
o
ro

0
H



Styrene



0
c
0
ro
sz

Q.

ro

z



Dissolved Oxy
(DO) (mg/L)

11/04/1997

116-136

25



4

U

4

U

4

U

25

4

U

1,700



4

U

4

U

49.2



1

04/01/1998

116-136

17



4

U

4

U

4

U

17

4

U

1,900



4

U

4

U

4

U

1

12/10/1998

116-136

18



4

U

4

U

4

U

18

4

U

1,700



4

U

4

U

5



0.42

04/22/1999

116-136

21



4

U

4

U

4

U

21

4

U

2,400



4

U

4

U

5

U

0.04

04/02/2002

120

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

3

J

5

U

5

U

5

U

NA

04/02/2002

135

5

U

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

120



5

U

5

U

5

U

NA

04/02/2003

135

N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A



N/A

N/A



58



N/A



N/A



N/A



NA

04/21/2004

135

5

U

NA



5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

48



5

U

N/A



N/A





04/20/2005

135

1

U

1

U

NA



3



ND

1

U

25



1

U

N/A



N/A





11/07/2005

133

5 UJ

5

U

5

U

5

U

ND

5

U

11



5

U

5

U

10

U

2.4

04/24/2006

133

1

U

2.6



1

U

1

U

2.6

1

U

5.6

U*

1.2



1

U

2

U



11/29/2006

133

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

5.3



0.5

U

0.5

U

2

U

2.85

04/25/2007

136.5

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

7.6



0.5

U

0.5

U

2

UJ

1.14

10/28/2007

133.5

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

4.8



1

U

1

UJ

2

U

1.83

04/22/2008

134

1

U

1

U

1

U

1

U

ND

1

U

4.4



1

U

1

U

2

U

1.99

10/19/2008

137

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

12



0.85



0.5

U

1

U

1.91

04/20/2009

135

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

0.5

U

ND

0.5

U

1.5



0.5

U

0.5

U

1

U

5.28

10/19/2009

134

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

7.8



1

U

1

U

2

U

2.2

04/25/2010

136

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

3.4



1

U

1

U

2

U

6.57

10/19/2010

138

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

3.5



1

U

1

U

2

U

3.28

04/27/2011

136.5

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

3.5



1

U

1

U

2

U

6.91

10/16/2011

134

1

U

1

U

1

U

2

U

ND

1

U

1.6



1

U

1

U

2

U

11.11

04/29/2012

131.5

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

U

0.68

U*

0.5

U

0.5

u

#N/A



6.52

10/18/2012

134

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

u

ND

1

u

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

2

U

6.93

05/15/2013

122.5

1

U

1

u

1

u

2

u

ND

1

u

1

U

1

U

1

UJ

2

U

5.69

10/29/2013

134

0.5

U

0.57



0.5

u

1

u

0.57

0.5

u

1



1.3



0.5

u

1

J

6

05/14/2014

122.5

0.5

U

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

u

0.5

U

1.4



0.5

u

1

U

5.98

11/01/2014

126

0.5

u

0.5

u

0.5

u

1

u

ND

0.5

u

0.5

U

1.4

U*

0.5

u

1

U

8.28

05/16/2015

125

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

U

2.6



1

u

2

U

6.92

05/17/2016

122

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

U

1.5



1

u

2

U

7.42

04/20/2017

123

1

u

1

u

1

u

3

u

ND

1

u

1

U

1.9

U*

1

u

2

U

7.66

11/06/2017

124.5

0.060

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

0.37

J

0.39

J

0.12

u

0

u

8.97

05/07/2018

124

0.060

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.12

u

0.57

J

0.64

J

0.12

u

1

u

8.09

11/05/2018

124

0.060

u

0.17

u

0.18

u

0.42

u

ND

0.44

J

0.39

J

0.79

J

0.12

u

0.50

u

7.89

05/13/2019

124

0.079

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

u

ND

0.14

u

0.41

J

1



0.15

u

0.53

u

7.06

11/05/2019

124

0.079

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

u

ND

0.14

u

0.28

J

0.75

J

0.15

u

0.53

u

7.87

05/11/2020

122

0.079

u

0.14

u

0.12

u

0.34

u

ND

0.14

u

0.48

J

0.24

J

0.15

u

0.53

u

9.36

11/03/2020

126

0.088

u

0.18

u

0.18

u

0.54

u

ND

0.23

u

0.25

U

0.18

J

0.17

u

0.56

u

9.54

05/04/2021

126

0.14

u

0.25

u

0.12

u

0.28

u

ND

0.21

u

0.21

U

0.33

u

0.12

u

0.82

u

8.94

ROD Cleanup Level

5



1,000



700



10,000















100



1.1





U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.
UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.

In the 4/22/2008 sample 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) was not detected. The detection limit was 0.021 ug/L.

In the 10/19/2009 sample acetone was detected at 7.4 J ug/L.

In the 5/14/2014 sample EDB was not detected. The detection limit was 0.0196 ug/L.

J - Result is an estimate.

N/A or #N/A - Not analyzed.

ND - Not detected.

Blank cell indicates result not found.

January 2021

-------
Upgradient/SSSA Well Results
Second Street Downgradient Plume

Well SW-15D

Sample Date

Interval
Sampled (feet)

BTEXs (ug/L)

Other VOCs (ug/L)

PAHs (ug/L]

Physical

CO

<

CD
c
0

X
ro
o
I—

(/>

i—
CD
ro
o
i—

CD
c
ro
_c

Id
o

o <
Q 9

o^_

 E
o _

f) r\

.<2 O
Q B

11/03/2005
04/24/2006
12/04/2006
04/30/2007
10/29/2007
04/23/2008
04/23/2008
10/20/2008
04/16/2009
10/18/2009
04/26/2010
10/21/2010
04/27/2011
10/16/2011
05/01/2012
05/01/2012
10/20/2012
05/16/2013
10/31/2013
05/14/2014
11/03/2014
05/17/2015

05/19/2016
10/13/2016
04/23/2017
11/08/2017
05/09/2018
11/07/2018
05/15/2019
11/06/2019
05/13/2020
11/04/2020
05/05/2021

175
175
175
175
175
166
178
175
175
175
175
175
175
175

168
175

169

168

169
175

169
175

170
175
175
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170

1 U
1 U
1.8
2.5
1 U
1 U
1.5

3.4
12
40
11

6.5
4.0
2.5
1.3
7.3

1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1.0 U

6
5
5

0.37 J
0.11 J
0.56
0.08 U
0.11 J
0.21 J
1.60
0.18 J

1 U

1 u

0.58
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
5 U
5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
1 U
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.14 U
0.14 U
0.14 U
0.18 U
0.25 U

1 u
1 u

0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
5 U
5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
1 U
0.18 U
0.18 U
0.18 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.18 U
0.12 U

1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U

1	U
0.5 U

0.59
1.9
10 U
10 U

2	U
2 U
1 U

1	U

2	U

2	U
1 U
1 U
1 U

3	U

3 U
3 U
3 U
0.42 U
0.42 U
0.42 U
0.34 U
0.34 U
0.34 U
0.54 U
0.28 U

ND
ND
2.38
2.5
ND
ND
1.5

3.4
12.59

41.9
11

6.5
4.0
2.5
1.3
7.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

6
5
5

0.37 J
0.11 J
0.56
ND
0.11 J
0.21 J
1.60
0.18 J

1.6
1.4

2

0.5 U
1 U

1.6

1.7
2.2
2.2
6.9

5 U
5 U
1.4
1.4

0.5 U
0.8
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
1 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.57 J
0.14 U
0.14 U
0.14 U
0.23 U
0.21 U

1.2

1 U
1.2
1.9
1 U
1 U
1

1.1
1.5
2.4
5 U
10 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 UJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
5 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
1 U
0.13 J
0.06 U
0.06 U
0.16 U
0.16 U
0.16 U
0.09 U
0.13 U

3.3 U*
2.1 U*
0.5 U
0.87
1.1
1

1 U

1.1
0.92

1.5
5 U
5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.54

1.5

1.2

1.8 J**

1.8

1.6

1.9

1.9

2.1
1.6

2.8

3.3

1.9

1.8
2.3
2.0

2.9

1.2

1 u

1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 UJ
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
5 U
5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 UJ
1 UJ
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U

1 U
5 U
1 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.17 U
0.12 U

4.4	U*
5.3

7.5

7.8

5.5
8.7

8.3

9.4

6.6

12

5 U

5.1

4.2

2.9

4.7
5.6
14

11

17 J**
14

13

12

13	J

14

9.5
14.8

17
3.9
15.1
18.6
13.6
12
5.4

1 u
1 u

0.82
0.56

1 UJ
0.34
0.35
0.51
0.89
1.3
5 U
5 U
0.2 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1 U
1 U
0.5 U
0.0195 U
0.5 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
1 U
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.17 U
0.18 U
0.18 U
0.18 U
0.19 U
0.20 U

2 U
0.065 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U

1	U
3.4
46

10 U
10 U

2	U
2 U

#N/A
#N/A
2 U
2 UJ
1 U
1 U

1	UJ

2	U

2 U
2 UJ
2 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.53 U
0.53 U
2.00 J
0.56 U
0.82 U

4.01

9.35
0

5.27
0.45
0.43
1.1
0.59
0

1.29
4.74
0.04
0.14

2.43
2.79
1.89
0.85
0.12
2.54
3.48
2.83

1.22

1.81
2.13

3.44
2.92

1.4
5.66
3.68
4.42
3.25

4.82

ROD Cleanup Level	5 1,000 700 10,000	100	1.1

U - Not detected. Number is detection limit.	N/Aor#N/A- Not analyzed. J - Result is an estimate.

UJ - Not detected. Number is detection limit. The detection limit is an estimate.	ND - Not detected.	Blank cell indicates result not found.

U* - Qualified as not detected because compound was detected in the associated equipment rinsate blank.

J** - Qualified as estimated because the RPD result exceeded the QA/QC criteria.

Treatment chemical injections conducted Nov. 2005, 2007, 2009, Dec. 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, Jan. 2015; June and Sept. 2017; May - Aug. 2018;
	June 2019; May - July 2020

In the 4/24/2006 sample the following contaminants were detected: acenaphthene at 0.13 ug/L, acenaphthylene at 1.1 ug/L, anthracene at 0.12 ug/L, fluoranthrene at 0.12 ug/L,

In the 4/16/2009 sample, isopropylbenzene was detected at 0.62 ug/L.

In the 10/18/2009 sample the following contaminants were detected: isopropylbenzene at 4.3 ug/L, acetone at 39 J ug/L, and 2-butanone at 13 J ug/L.

In the 11/08/2017, chloroform was detected at 0.20 J ug/L.

Inthe 5/11/2018, chloroform was detected at 0.26J ug/L.

In the 11/07/2018 sample, the following contaminants were detected: acetone at 3.9J ug/L, chloromethane 0.33 J ug/L, cis-1,2-dichloroethene at 0.38 J ug/L, and vinyl chloride at 0.33 J ug/L.
In the 05/15/2019 sample, the following contaminants were detected: acetone at 5.3 J ug/L and chloroform at 0.20 J ug/L
In the 11/06/2019 sample, the following contaminant was detected: chloroform at 0.21 J ug/L
In the 05/13/2020 sample, the following contaminant was detected: chloroform at 0.11 J ug/L

In the 11/04/2020 sample, the following contaminants were detected: chloroform at 0.32 J ug/L, 1,2-dichloroethene (total) at 0.30 J ug/L and cis-1,2-dichloroethene at 0.30 J ug/L.

In the 5/5/2021 sample, Chloroform was detected at 0.29J ug/L.

January 2021

-------
COLORADO AVENUE
ANALYTICAL RESULTS

-------
Well ID
Sample Date
Sample Type
Sample Depth (ft bgs)

Volatile Organics (pg/L)
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
1,1,2,2-T etrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane

1.1.2-T	richloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroethane

1.1-Dichloroethene

1.2.3-Trichlorobenzene

1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene

1.2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane

1.2-Dichloropropane

1.3-Dichlorobenzene

1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
2-Butanone (MEK)

2-Hexanone

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)

Acetone

Benzene

Bromochloromethane

Bromodichloromethane

Bromoform

Bromomethane

Carbon disulfide

Carbon tetrachloride

Chlorobenzene

ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2017
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

BW-13	BW-14	BW-21	BW-22	BW-22 BW-23	BW-24	G-7D	GM-1D

4/26/2017	4/26/2017	4/26/2017	4/26/2017	4/26/2017	4/26/2017	4/26/2017	4/26/2017	4/26/2017

Primary	Primary	Primary	Primary	Duplicate	Primary	Primary	Primary	Priamary

150	150	168	150	150 175 150	150	160

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 UJ	1 UJ	1 UJ

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	0.27 J

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1	U	1 U	1 U

2	U	2 U	2 U
1 U	1 U	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 u

0.69 J	0.48 J	2 U

10 U	10 U	10 U

10 U	10 U	10 U

10 U	10 U	10 u

2.1 J	8.8 J	10 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 UJ	1 UJ	1 UJ

1 U	1 U	1 u

1 U	1 U	1 u

1 U	1 u	1 u

1 U	1 u	1 u

0.84 J	0.73 J	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 UJ	1 UJ	1 UJ

1 U	1 U	1 u

1	U	1 U	1 u

2	1.9	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 U

1	U	1 U	1 U

2	U	2 U	2 U
I U	1 U	1 u
1 U	1 U	1 u
1 U	1 U	1 u
1 u	1 u	1 u
1 U	1 U	1 u
1 U	1 U	1 u

5.3	4.8	2 U

10 U	10 U	10 U

10 U	10 U	10 U

10 U	10 U	10 U

10 U	10 U	10 U

1 U	1 U	1 u

1 U	1 U	1 u

1 U	1 u	1 u

1 UJ	1 UJ	1 UJ

1 U	1 U	1 u

1 U	1 U	1 u

1 U	1 U	1 u

1 u	1 U	1 u

0.24 J	1 U	0.3 J

1 U	1 U	1 u

1 U	1 UJ	1 u

1 U	1 U	1 u

0.33 J	1 U	0.5 J

0.4 J	1 U	0.51 J

1 U	1 U	1 U

1	U	1 U	1 U

2	U	2 U	2 U
1 U	1 U	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 u
1 U	1 u	1 u

0.29 J	2 U	2 U

10 U	10 U	10 U

10 U	10 U	10 U

10 U	10 U	10 U

10 U	1.8 J	1.9 J

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 u

1 U	1 UJ	1 u

1 U	1 u	1 u

1 U	1 U	1 u

1 UJ	1 U	1 UJ

1 U	1 U	1 u

K:\_Carmeuse\109174 Consent RDRA\Post Treatment Monitoring\2017 Ann ReportVAttachment B.xlsx Data

Page 1 of 6

-------
ATTACHMENT B

Well ID
Sample Date
Sample Type
Sample Depth (ft bgs)

Volatile Organics (pg/L)

Chloroethane

Chloroform

Chloromethane

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

Cyclohexane

Dibromochloromethane

Dichlorodifluoromethane

Ethylbenzene

Isopropylbenzene

Methyl acetate

Methyl tert-butyl ether

Methylcyclohexane

Methylene Chloride

m-Xylene & p-Xylene

o-Xylene

Styrene

T etrachloroethene
Toluene

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
T richlorofluoromethane
Vinyl chloride

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2017
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

BW-13	BW-14	BW-21

4/26/2017 4/26/2017 4/26/2017
Primary	Primary	Primary

150	150	168

1 U	1 U	1 U

0.35 J	0.55 J	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	0.39 J

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

10 U	10 U	10 u

1 U	1 U	1 u

1 U	1 U	1 u

1	U	1 U	1 u

2	U	2 U	2 U
1 U	1 U	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 u

4.8	29	9.4

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

5.7	16	13

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

BW-22	BW-22	BW-23

4/26/2017 4/26/2017 4/26/2017
Primary	Duplicate	Primary

150	150	175

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

0.3 J	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 u

10 U	10 U	10 u

0.28 J	0.29 J	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1	U	1 U	1 U

2	U	2 U	2 U
1 U	1 U	1 u
1 U	1 U	1 u

7.2	7.1	1.2 J

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

6.2	5.9	16 J

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

BW-24	G-7D GM-1D
4/26/2017 4/26/2017 4/26/2017
Primary Primary Priamary

150	150	160

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

0.73 J	0.32 J	0.95 J

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

10 U	10 U	10 u

0.3 J	1 U	0.66 J

1 U	1 U	1 U

1	U	1 U	1 U

2	U	2 U	2 U
1 U	1 U	1 U
1 U	1 U	1 U

14	26	7.6

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

1 U	1 U	1 U

26	14	31

1 UJ	1 U	1 UJ

1 U	1 U	1 U

K:\_Carmeuse\109174 Consent RDRA\Post Treatment Monitoring\2017 Ann Report\Attachment B.xlsx Data

Page 2 of 6

-------
ATTACHMENT B

Well ID
Sample Date
Sample Type
Sample Depth (ft bgs)

Volatile Organics (fig/L)

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane

1,1,2,2-T etrachloroethane

1,1,2-T richloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane

1.1.2-Trichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroethane

1,1 -Dichloroethene

1.2.3-Trichlorobenzene

1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane

1.2-Dichloropropane

1.3-Dichlorobenzene

1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
2-Butanone (MEK)

2-Hexanone

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)

Acetone

Benzene

Bromochloromethane

Bromodichloromethane

Bromoform

Bromomethane

Carbon disulfide

Carbon tetrachloride

Chlorobenzene

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2017
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

GM-1D
4/26/2017
Duplicate
160

IAS-2
4/26/2017
Primary
148

IAS-4
4/26/2017
Primary
148

MLW-1
4/26/2017
Primary
153

MLW-1
4/26/2017
Primary
195

MLW-2
4/26/2017
Primary
148

MLW-2
4/26/2017
Primary
160

MW-17
4/26/2017
Primary
160

0.31 J
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.48 J
0.5 J
1 U

1	U

2	U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U

1	U

2	U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U

1 U

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1 UJ

1 u

1 u
1 u

1 UJ

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1	u

2	U
1 U

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1	u

2	U

10 u
10 u
10 u
10 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1 UJ

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1 u
1 u

1 UJ

1	u

1	u

1	u

1	u

1	u

2	u
1	u
1	u
1	u
1	u
1	u
1	u

0.33 J

10 u
10 u
10 u
10 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1 UJ
1 U

1 u
1 u
1 u

1 u
1 u

1 UJ

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1	u

2	u
1 u
1 u

1.5

1 u
1 u

1	u

2	U

1.2	J
10 U
10 U

2.3	J

5.6

1 U
1 U
1 UJ
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U

1 U
1 U
1 UJ
1 U
1 U

1 u
1 u

1	u

2	U
1 U
1 U
1 U

1 u
1 u

1	u

2	U
10 U
10 U

10 u

2.6 J

1 u
1 u
1 u

1 UJ
1 U

1 u
1 u
1 u

1 u
1 u

1 UJ

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1	u

2	U

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1	u

2	U

10 u
10 u
10 u

2.8 J
1 U
1 U

1 u

1 UJ

1	u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1 u
1 u

1 UJ

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1	u

2	U

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1	u

2	U

10 u
10 u
10 u
10 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1 UJ

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

0.38 J

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

0.67 J
1 U

1	U

2	U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U

1.7 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
1 U
1 U

1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u

1 UJ

1 u

K:\_Carmeuse\l 09174 Consent RDRA\Post Treatment Monitoring\2017 Ann Report\Attachroent B.xlsx Data

Page 3 of 6

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS





POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT

-2017













COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE















HASTINGS,

NEBRASKA









Well ID

GM-1D

IAS-2

IAS-4

MLW-1

MLW-1

MLW-2

MLW-2

MW-17

Sample Date

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

Sample Type

Duplicate

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

160

148

148

153

195

148

160

160

Volatile Organics (pg/L)

















Chloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Chloroform

1 U

0.83 J

0.33 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Chloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

0.94 J

1 U

1 U

0.79 J

1 U

1 U

0.36 J

0.51 J

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Cyclohexane

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.58 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Dibromochloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Dichlorodifluoromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Ethylbenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Isopropylbenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.31 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Methyl acetate

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

Methyl tert-butyl ether

0.68 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.27 J

Methylcyclohexane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Methylene Chloride

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

m-Xylene & p-Xylene

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

o-Xylene

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.47 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Styrene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

T etrachloroethene

7.6

1.5

1 U

5.7

1.3

1.5

4.5

15

Toluene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

Trichloroethene

31

1.8

5.1

12

0.33 J

8.2

7.8

11

T richlorofluoromethane

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

Vinyl chloride

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.95 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

K:\_Carmeuse\109174 Consent RDRA\Post Treatment Monitoring\2017 Ann Report\Attachment B.xlsx Data	Page 4 of 6

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2017
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

Well ID

MW-22

MW-22

MW-24

MW-24

OW-4D

OW-4S

TB-042617

Sample Date

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Trip Blank

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

125

150

135

160

176

130

NA

Volatile Organics (jig/L)















1,1,1 -T richloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1,1,2,2-T etrachloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-T richloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,1 -Dichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,1 -Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2,4-T richlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2-Dichloropropane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,4-Dioxane

1 J

1.4 J

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U



2-Butanone (MEK)

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

10 u

2-Hexanone

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

10 u

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

10 u

Acetone

10 U

10 U

10 u

10 U

4.8 J

10 u

10 u

Benzene

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 u

Bromochloromethane

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 u

Bromodichloromethane

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 u

Bromoform

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

Bromomethane

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

Carbon disulfide

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

Carbon tetrachloride

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

Chlorobenzene

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

K:\_Canneuse\109174 Consent RDRA\Post Treatment Monitoring\20l7 Ann Report\Attachment B.xlsx Data	Page 5 of 6

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS



POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2017











COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE













HASTINGS,

,NEBRASKA









Well ID

MW-22

MW-22

MW-24

MW-24

OW-4D

OW^S

TB-042617

Sample Date

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

4/26/2017

Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Trip Blank

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

125

150

135

160

176

130

NA

Volatile Organics (fig/L)















Chloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Chloroform

1 U

0.32 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Chloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Cyclohexane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Dibromochloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Dichlorodifluoromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Ethylbenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Isopropylbenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Methyl acetate

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

Methyl tert-butyl ether

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Methylcyclohexane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Methylene Chloride

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

m-Xylene & p-Xylene

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

o-Xylene

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Styrene

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

T etrachloroethene

0.31 J

0.98 J

1 U

0.32 J

2.6

1 U

1 u

Toluene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Trichloroethene

0.52 J

1.6

1.1

2.3

0.46 J

1 U

1 u

T richlorofluoromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Vinyl chloride

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Notes/Qualifiers:

ft bgs - Feet below ground surface
J - Analyte present; reported value is estimated
Hg/L - microgram per liter
NA - Not Applicable
U - Not Detected

UJ - Reported quantitation limit is qualified as estimated
K:\_Carmeuse\109174 Consent RDRAVPost Treatment Monitoring\2017 Ann Report\Attachment B.xlsx Data	Page 6 of 6

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2018
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

Well ID

BW-13

BW-14

BW-21

BW-22

BW-23

BW-23

BW-24

G-7D

GM-1D

IAS-2

IAS-2

IAS-4

Saamplc Date

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Duplicate

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Duplicate

Primary

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

150

150

168

150

175

175

150

150

160

148

148

148

Volatile Organics (ng/L)

























1,1,1 -Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.64 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1 -Dichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.27 J

1 U

0.3 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1 -Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1.8

1 U

1 U

0.34 J

0.3 J

0.34 J

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichloropropane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,4-Dioxane

0.52 J

2 U

0.31 J

3

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

0.6 J

2 U

2 U

2-Butanone (MEK)

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

2-Hexanone

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

Acetone

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

Benzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Bromochloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Bromodichloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Bromoform

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Bromomethane

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

Carbon disulfide

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

Carbon tetrachloride

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

Chlorobenzene

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

Chloroethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Chloroform

1 u

0.75 J

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

0.75 J

0.73 J

0.34 J

Chloromethane

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

0.48 J

0.43 J

0.61 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

K:\_Canneuae\l09174 Consent RDRA\Post Treatment Momtoring\2018 Ann Report\Attachment B.xlsx Data VAL

Page 1 of 4

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2018
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

Well ID

BW-13

BW-14

BW-21

BW-22

BW-23

BW-23

BW-24

G-7D

GM-1D

IAS-2

IAS-2

IAS-4

Saample Date

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Duplicate

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Duplicate

Primary

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

150

150

168

150

175

175

150

150

160

148

148

148

Volatile Organic* (|tg/L)

























cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

1 U

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 U

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

Cyclohexane

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Dibromochlorometbane

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

Dichlorodifluoromethane

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

Ethylbenzene

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

Isopropylbenzene

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

Methyl acetate

10 U

10 U

10 UJ

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

10 U

Methyl teit-butyl ether

1 U

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 U

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 u

1 UJ

Methylcyclohexane

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

Methylene Chloride

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

m-Xylene & p-Xylene

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

o-Xylene

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

Styrene

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

Tetrachloroethene

5.5

34

9.5 J

6.2

14

10

12

23

9.9

1.3

0.8 J

1 U

Toluene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Trichloroethene

7.7

18

11 J

5.1

16

18

18

30

25

1.8

1.7

6.3

Trichlorofluoromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Vinyl chloride

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

K:\_Canneuse\109174 Consent RDRA\Post Treatment Monitoring\20!8 Ann ReportVAttachment B.xlsx Data VAL

Page 2 of 4

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2018
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

Well ID

MLW-1-155

MLW-1-190

MLW-2-148

MLW-2-160

MW-17

MW-22-125

MW-22-150

MW-24-135

MW-24-160

OW-4S

OW-4D

TB-42518

Saample Date

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Trip Blank

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

155

190

148

160

160

125

150

135

160

130

176

N/A

Volatile Organics (ng/L)

























1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane

1 U

1 U

1.5

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1 -Dichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1 -Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichloroethane

1.7

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichloropropane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,4-Dioxane

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

0.32 J

1.6 J

1 J

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

NA

2-Butanone (MEK)

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

2-Hexanone

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK.)

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

Acetone

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

Benzene

13

0.35 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

Bromochloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

Bromodichloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

Bromoform

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

Bromomethane

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

Carbon disulfide

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

Carbon tetrachloride

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

Chlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Chloroethane

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Chloroform

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

2

1 u

Cbloromethane

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

I u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

0.86 J

1 U

1 u

1 u

0.31 J

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

K:\_Carmeuse\l09174 Consent RDRAVPost Treatment Monitoring\2018 Ann Report\Attachment B.xlsx Data_VAL	Page 3 of4

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2018
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

Well ID

MLW-1-155

MLW-1-190

MLW-2-148

MLW-2-160

MW-17

MW-22-125

MW-22-150

MW-24-135

MW-24-160

OW-4S

OW-4D

TB-42518

Saample Date

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

4/25/2018

Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Trip Blank

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

155

190

148

160

160

125

150

135

160

130

176

N/A

Volatile Organics (|ig/L)

























cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

Cyclohexane

1.8

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Dibromochloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Dichlorodifluoromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Ethylbenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Isopropylbenzene

1.3

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Methyl acetate

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

Methyl tert-butyl ether

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 U

1 UJ

I U

1 U

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

Methylcyclohexane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Methylene Chloride

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

m-Xylene & p-Xylene

0.31 J

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

o-Xylene

0.57 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Styrene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Tetrachloroethene

12

1.7

1.9

2.5

17

0.82 J

1.1

1 U

0.5 J

1 U

6

1 u

Toluene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Trichloroethene

12

0.5 J

4.2

7

9.5

1.2

1.3

0.66 J

1.7

1 U

0.96 J

1 u

Trichlorofluoromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Vinyl chloride

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Notes/Qualifiers:

Hg/L - microgram per liter

ft bgs - feet below ground surface

J - Analyte present; reported value is estimated

N/A - Not Applicable

NA - Not Analyzed

U - Not Detected

UJ - Not Detected; the quantitation is an estimation

K:\_Canneu9e\109174 Consent RDRA\Post Treatment Monitoring\2018 Ann Report\Attachment B.xlsx Data VAL

Page 4 of 4

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2019
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

Well ID

BW-13

BW-14

BW-14

BW-21

BW-22

BW-23

BW-24

G-7D

GM-1D

IAS-2

IAS-4

MLW-1-155

Sample Date

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

Sample Type

Primary

Primaiy

Duplicate

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

150

150

150

168

152

175

150

150

160

148

148

155

Volatile Organics (|ig/L)

























1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

I u

1 U

0.37 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1, l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

I u

I u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1-Dichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.2 J

1 U

0.25 J

1 U

0.43 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1-Dichloroethene

0.19 J

1 U

1 U

1 u

0.93 J

0.19 J

0.32 J

0.24 J

0.31 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

I U

1 u

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 UJ

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichloroethane

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.24 J

1 U

1 U

2.1

1,2-Dichloropropane

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,4-Dioxane

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

1.3 J

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2-Butanone (MEK)

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 U

10 U

3.8 J

2-Hexanone

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 u

10 UJ

10 u

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UJ

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

Acetone

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

10 U

10 u

10 u

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

Benzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

16

Bromochloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Bromodichloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Bromoform

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 UJ

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Bromomethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Carbon disulfide

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

Caibon tetrachloride

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

Chlorobenzene

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

Page t of 4

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2019
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

Well ID

BW-13

BW-14

BW-14

BW-21

BW-22

BW-23

BW-24

G-7D

GM-1D

IAS-2

IAS-4

MLW-1-155

Sample Date

4/24/2019

.4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Duplicate

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

150

. 150

150

168

152

175

150

150

160

148

148

155

Volatile Organics (|ig/L) (cont.)

























Chloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 U

Chlorofoim

1 U

0.6 J

0.62 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Chloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

0.17 J

1 U

1 U

0.23 J

0.29 J

0.16 J

0.41 J

1 U

0.71 J

1 U

1 U

1.1

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Cyclohexane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

I U

1.8

Dibromochloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Dichlorodifluoromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Ethylbenzene

1 U

1 U

I U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Isopropylbenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

4.9

Methyl acetate

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UJ

10 u

10 U

10 u

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

Methyl tert-butyl ether

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.14 J

0.12 J

1 u

0.34 J

0.4 J

0.37 J

1 U

1 U

I U

Methylcyclohexane

1 U

1 U

I U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Methylene Chloride

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

m-Xylene & p-Xylene

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2.1

o-Xylene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 V

1 U

2

Styrene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.47 J

Tetrachloroethene

3.7

27

24

9.2

6.3

4.1

8.4

19

13

1 U

1 u

9.8

Toluene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

0.39 J

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

Trichloroethene

7.6

14

14

12

6.5

24

13

27

22

0.21 J

0.63 J

11

Trichlorofluoromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Vinyl chloride

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.76 J

Page 2 of 4

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2019
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

Well ID

MLW-1-195

MLW-1-195

MLW-2-148

MLW-2-160

MW-17

MW-22-125

MW-22-150

MW-24-135

MW-24-160

OW-4D

OW-4S

TB-4-23-18

Sample Date

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

Sample Type

Primaiy

Duplicate

Primaiy

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primaiy

Primary

Primary

Primaiy

Trip Blank

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

195

195

148

160

160

125

150

135

160

175

130

N/A

Volatile Organlcs (|ig/L)

























1,1,1 -Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-TrichlorcH 1,2,2-trifluoroethane

1 U

1 U

1.5

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1 -Dichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1 -Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.27 J

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 UJ

1 u

1 U

1 U

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 UJ

1 u

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 UJ

2 U

2 U

2 U

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichloroethane

1 u

I U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichloropropane

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,4-Dioxane

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

1.9 J

1.4 J

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U



2-Butanone (MEK)

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 U

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 u

2-Hexanone

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 u

10 U

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 U

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 u

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

Acetone

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 U

10 U

10 u

10 U

10 U

10 u

10 U

5.7 J

Benzene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

Bromochloromethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

Bromodichloromethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

Bromoform

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 UJ

1 u

1 U

1 U

Bromomethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

Carbon disulfide

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

Carbon tetrachloride

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 U

Chlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

0.24 J

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

0.22 J

1 u

Page 3 of 4

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS
POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2019
COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

Well ID

MLW-1-1

195

MLW-1-195

MLW-2-148

MLW-2-160

MW-17

MW-22-125

MW-22-150

MW-24-135

MW-24-160

OW-4D

OW-4S

TB-4-23-18

Sample Date

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

4/24/2019

Sample Type

Primary

Duplicate

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primaiy

Trip Blank

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

195



195

148

160

160

125

150

135

160

175

130

N/A

Volatile Organic! (|ig/L) (cont.)



























Chloroethane

1

U

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

Chloroform

1

U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

I U

0.26 J

1 U

0.4 J

0.24 J

1 U

1 U

Chloromethane

1

U

1 u

1 U

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

1

U

1 u

1 U

0.22 J

0.35 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

1

U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Cyclohexane

1

U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Dibromochloromethane

1

U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

Dichlorodifluoromethane

1

U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Ethylbenzene

1

u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Isopropylbenzene

1

u

1 u

I U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Methyl acetate

10

u

10 u

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UJ

10 u

10 U

10 u

Methyl tert-butyl ether

1

u

1 u

1 U

1 U

0.25 J

I U

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 u

1 U

1 u

Methylcyclohexane

1

u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

Methylene Chloride

5

u

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

m-Xylene & p-Xylene

2

u

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

o-Xylene

1

u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Styrene

1

u

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

1 U

T etrachloroethene

2.8



2.6

2.1

3.6

16

0.85 J

0.92 J

1 U

0.55 J

1.9

1 U

1 U

Toluene

1

u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

I U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

1

u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

1

u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 UJ

1 U

1 U

1 U

Trichloroethene

0.53

J

0.42 J

3.2

5.8

8.9

0.95 J

1.4

0.25 J

1.7 J

0.32 J

1 U

1 U

T richlorofluoromethane

1

u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Vinyl chloride

1

u

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

I U

1 U

Notes/Qualifiers:

Hg/L - microgram per liter
ft bgs - feet below ground surface
J - Analyte present; reported value is estimated
N/A - Not Applicable
U - Not Detected

UJ - Not Detected; reported quanitiation limit is estimated

Page 4 of 4

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS





POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2020















COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE















HASTINGS

1, NEBRASKA











Well ID

BW-14

BW-21P

BW-21D

BW-22

BW-23

BW-24

G-7D

GM-1D

IAS-2

Sample Date

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Duplicate

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

150

168

168

150

175

150

150

160

148

Volatile Organics (jig/L)



















1,1,1 -Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.42 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1 -Dichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1 -Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1.1

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dibromo-3 -Chloropropane

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1,2-Dichloroethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1,2-Dichloropropane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1,3 -Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1,4-Dioxane

2 U

2 U

2 U

2.8

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2-Butanone (MEK)

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 U

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

2-Hexanone

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 U

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 U

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

Acetone

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 U

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

Benzene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Bromochloro methane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Bromodichloromethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Bromoform

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Bromo methane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Carbon disulfide

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

Carbon tetrachloride

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Chlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Chloroethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Chloroform

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Chloromethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

0.43 J

0.39 J

1 u

cis-1,3 -Dichloropropene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Page 1 of 6

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS







POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2020

















COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE

















HASTINGS

1, NEBRASKA













Well ID

BW-14

BW-21P

BW-21D

BW-22

BW-23

BW-24

G-7D

GM-1D

IAS-2



Sample Date

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020



Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Duplicate

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

150

168

168

150

175

150

150

160

148

Volatile Organics (jig/L) (cont.)



















Cyclohexane



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Dibromochloro methane



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Dichlorodifluoromethane



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Ethylbenzene



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Isopropylbenzene



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Methyl acetate



10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

Methyl tert-butyl ether



1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

Methylcyclohexane



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Methylene Chloride



5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

m-Xylene & p-Xylene



2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

o-Xylene



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Styrene



1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Tetrachloroethene



0.4 J

7.8

8.5

3.7

3.5

1.1

23

34

1 u

Trichloroethene



0.47 J

16 J

7.6 J

4.7

14

1.8

23

15

0.55 J

Trichlorofluoromethane



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Vinyl chloride



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 U

Page 2 of 6

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS





POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT

-2020













COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE

















HASTINGS, NEBRASKA













Well ID

IAS-4

MLW-1-155

MLW-1-195

MLW-2-148P

MLW-2-148D

MLW-2-160

MW-17

Sample Date

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020



8/12/2020



8/12/2020

8/12/2020

Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary



Duplicate



Primary

Primary

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

148

155

195

148





148



160

160

Volatile Organics (jig/L)





















1,1,1 -Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U



1

u

1

u

1 U

1 U

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U



1

u

1

u

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane

1 U

0.96 J

1 U



0.5

J

0.83

J

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-Trichloro ethane

1 U

1 U

1 U



1

u

1

u

1 U

1 U

1,1 -Dichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U



1

u

1

u

1 U

1 U

1,1 -Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U



1

u

1

u

1 U

1 U

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U



1

u

1

u

1 U

1 U

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U



1

u

1

u

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dibromo-3 -Chloropropane

2 U

2 U

2 U



2

u

2

u

2 U

2 U

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

1 U

1 U

1 U



1

u

1

u

1 U

1 U

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

1,2-Dichloroethane

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

1,2-Dichloropropane

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

1,3 -Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

1,4-Dioxane

2 U

2 U

2 U



2

u

2

u

2 U

2 U

2-Butanone (MEK)

10 u

10 u

10 u



10

u

10

u

10 u

10 u

2-Hexanone

10 u

10 u

10 u



10

u

10

u

10 u

10 u

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)

10 u

10 u

10 u



10

u

10

u

10 u

10 u

Acetone

10 u

10 u

10 u



10

u

10

u

10 u

10 u

Benzene

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

Bromochloromethane

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

Bromodichloromethane

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

Bromoform

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

Bromomethane

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

Carbon disulfide

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ



1

UJ

1

UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

Carbon tetrachloride

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

Chlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

Chloroethane

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

Chloroform

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

Chloromethane

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

1 u

1 u

1 u



1

u

1

u

1 u

1 u

Page 3 of 6

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS





POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2020













COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE













HASTINGS, NEBRASKA











Well ID

IAS-4

MLW-1-155

MLW-1-195 MLW-2-148P

MLW-2-148D

MLW-2-160

MW-17

Sample Date

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020



8/12/2020

8/12/2020

Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Duplicate



Primary

Primary

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

148

155

195

148

148



160

160

Volatile Organics (jig/L) (cont.)

















Cyclohexane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1

U

1 U

1 U

Dibromochloromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1

U

1 U

1 U

Dichlorodifluoromethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1

u

1 U

1 U

Ethylbenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1

u

1 U

1 U

Isopropylbenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1

u

1 U

1 U

Methyl acetate

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10

u

10 U

10 U

Methyl tert-butyl ether

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1

UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

Methylcyclohexane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1

u

1 U

1 U

Methylene Chloride

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5

u

5 U

5 U

m-Xylene & p-Xylene

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2

u

2 U

2 U

o-Xylene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1

u

1 U

1 U

Styrene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1

u

1 u

1 u

Tetrachloroethene

1 u

0.4 J

1.8

0.75 J

1



15

11

Trichloroethene

0.64 J

2.3

1 U

13 J

1.6

J

6.3

6.1

T richlorofluo ro methane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1

u

1 U

1 U

Vinyl chloride

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1

u

1 U

1 U

Page 4 of 6

-------
ATTACHMENT B

ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS



POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2020











COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE











HASTINGS, NEBRASKA









Well ID

MW-22-125

MW-22-150

MW-24-135

MW-24-160

OW-4S

OW-4D

TB-08-12-20

Sample Date

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Trip Blank

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

125

150

135

160

130

176

N/A

Volatile Organics (jig/L)















1,1,1 -Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,1 -Dichloroethane

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,1 -Dichloroethene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2-Dibromo-3 -Chloropropane

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1,2-Dichloroethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1,2-Dichloropropane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1,3 -Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1,4-Dioxane

2 U

0.92 J

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

N/A

2-Butanone (MEK)

10 u

10 U

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

2-Hexanone

10 u

10 U

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)

10 u

10 U

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

Acetone

10 u

10 U

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

Benzene

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Bromochloromethane

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Bromodichloromethane

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Bromoform

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Bromomethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Carbon disulfide

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

Carbon tetrachloride

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Chlorobenzene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Chloroethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Chloroform

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Chloromethane

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

cis-1,3 -Dichloropropene

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Page 5 of 6

-------
ATTACHMENT B





ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY

POST-TREATMENT MONITORING WELLS









POST-TREATMENT MONITORING REPORT - 2020













COLORADO AVENUE SUBSITE













HASTINGS, NEBRASKA











Well ID

MW-22-125

MW-22-150

MW-24-135

MW-24-160

OW-4S

OW-4D

TB-08-12-20



Sample Date

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020

8/12/2020



Sample Type

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Primary

Trip Blank

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

125

150

135

160

130

176

N/A

Volatile Organics (jig/L) (cont.)















Cyclohexane



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Dibromochloromethane



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Dichlorodifluoro methane



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Ethylbenzene



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Isopropylbenzene



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Methyl acetate



10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 u

Methyl tert-butyl ether



1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

1 UJ

Methylcyclohexane



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 u

Methylene Chloride



5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

m-Xylene & p-Xylene



2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

2 U

o-Xylene



1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

Styrene



1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

1 u

Tetrachloroethene



1 u

0.49 J

1 u

0.44 J

1 u

0.45 J

1 u

Trichloroethene



0.44 J

0.85 J

1 u

0.87 J

1 u

1 U

1 u

Trichlorofluoromethane



1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

Vinyl chloride



1 U

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

1 U

1 u

Notes/Qualifiers:

|ig/L - microgram per liter
ft bgs - feet below ground surface
J - Analyte present; reported value is estimated
N/A - Not Applicable
U - Not Detected

UJ - Not Detected; reported quanitiation limit is estimated

Page 6 of 6

-------
FAR-MAR-CO
ANALYTICAL RESULTS

-------
4&Bt) S.S. Papadopuijos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Sine® 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1

CD-06

CT

04/02/2004



ND

ug/L

2

CD-06

CT

09/28/2004



<5

ug/L

3

CD-06

CT

12/10/2004



ND

ug/L

4

CD-06

CT

03/09/2005



<5

ug/L

5

CD-06

CT

06/23/2005



<5

ug/L

6

CD-06

CT

09/20/2005



<5

ug/L

7

CD-06

CT

12/19/2005



<5

ug/L

8

CD-06

CT

03/10/2006



<5

ug/L

9

CD-06

CT

06/14/2006



<5

ug/L

10

CD-06

CT

10/12/2006



<5

ug/L

11

CD-06

CT

12/08/2006



<5

ug/L

12

CD-06

CT

03/13/2007



<5

ug/L

13

CD-06

CT

06/12/2007



<5

ug/L

14

CD-06

CT

09/07/2007



<5

ug/L

15

CD-06

CT

12/04/2007



<5

ug/L

16

CD-06

CT

03/12/2008



<5

ug/L

17

CD-06

CT

10/20/2008



0.11

ug/L

18

CD-06

CT

12/29/2008



0.15

ug/L

19

CD-06

CT

03/11/2009



0.13

ug/L

20

CD-06

CT

06/25/2009



0.1

ug/L

21

CD-06

CT

01/12/2010



<0.10

ug/L

22

CD-06

CT

03/16/2010



<0.10

ug/L

23

CD-06

CT

06/22/2010



<0.10

ug/L

24

CD-06

CT

09/01/2010



<0.10

ug/L

25

CD-06

CT

12/09/2010



<0.10

ug/L

26

CD-06

CT

03/18/2011



<0.10

ug/L

27

CD-06

CT

06/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

28

CD-06

CT

08/31/2011



<0.10

ug/L

29

CD-06

CT

12/12/2011



<0.10

ug/L

30

CI-15

CT

09/02/1997



ND

ug/L

31

CI-15

.. CT." .

Ql/01/1398-

-

ND-

- ug/L -

32

¦ CI-15

CT

08/28/1998



<5

ug/L

33

CI-15

CT

07/19/1999



ND

ug/L

34

CI-15

CT

08/24/1999



ND

ug/L

35

CI-15

CT

07/18/2000



ND

ug/L

36

CI-15

CT

08/27/2001



ND

ug/L

37

CI-15

CT

07/01/2002



ND

ug/L

38

CI-15

CT

08/02/2002



ND

ug/L

39

CI-15

CT

07/16/2003



ND

ug/L

Page 1 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. PAPADOPULOS a J OCIATES, INC.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling

location

. Anafyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

40

CI-15

CT

08/21/2003



<5

ug/L

41

CI-15

CT

07/21/2004



<5

ug/L

42

CI-15

CT

09/03/2004



<5

ug/L

43

CI-15

CT

07/01/2005



<5

ug/L

44

CI-15

CT

08/26/2005



<5

ug/L

45

CI-15

CT

06/26/2006



<5

ug/L

46

CI-15

CT

08/23/2006



<5

ug/L

47

CI-15

CT

07/03/2007



<5

ug/L

48 ¦

CI-15

CT

07/27/2007



0.79

ug/L

49

CI-15

CT

08/20/2007



<5

ug/L

50

CI-15

CT

07/01/2009



0.12

ug/L

51

CI-15

CT

09/08/2009



0.15

ug/L

52

CI-15

CT

07/09/2010



<0.10

ug/L

53

CI-15

CT

09/01/2010



0.1

ug/L

54

CI-15

CT

07/18/2011



0.14

ug/L

55

CI-15

CT

08/31/2011



0.2

ug/L

56

CMW1B

CT

10/29/2008



<0.1

ug/L

57

CMW1B

CT

12/29/2008



0.13

ug/L

58

CMW1B

CT

03/14/2009



0.11

ug/L

59

CMW1B

CT

06/25/2009



0.13

ug/L ¦

60

CMW1B

CT

09/20/2009



0.13

ug/L

61

CMW1B

CT

01/18/2010



0.1

ug/L

62

CMW1B

CT

03/17/2010



0.13

ug/L

63

CMW1B

CT

07/08/2010



0.1

ug/L

64

CMW1B

CT

09/11/2010



<0.10

ug/L

65

CMW1B

CT

12/10/2010



<0.10

ug/L

66

CMW1B

CT

03/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

67

CMW1B

CT

06/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

68

CMW1B

CT

09/12/2011



<0.10

ug/L

69

CMW1B

CT

12/16/2011



0.14

ug/L

70

CMW1BB

CT

10/29/2008

Duplicate

0.31

ug/L

71

CMW1BB

CT

10/29/2008



0.32

ug/L

72

CMW1BB

CT

12/29/2008



0.43

ug/L

73

CMW1BB

CT

03/14/2009



0.43

ug/L

74

CMW1BB

CT

06/25/2009



0.56

ug/L

75

CMW1BB

CT

09/20/2009



0.65

ug/L

76

CMW1BB

CT

01/18/2010



0.69

ug/L

77

CMW1BB

CT

03/17/2010



0.79

ug/L

78

CMW1BB

. CT

07/08/2010



0.92

ug/L

Page 2 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4BSBBb S.S. Papaoopuijos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Anaiyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Resutt

Units

79

CMW1BB

CT

09/11/2010



0.88

ug/L

80

CMW1BB

CT

12/10/2010



0.91

ug/L

81

CMW1BB

CT

03/23/2011



1.2

ug/L

82

CMW1BB

CT

06/23/2011



1.2

ug/L

83

CMW1BB

CT

09/12/2011



1.4

ug/L

84

CMW1BB

CT

12/16/2011



1.7

ug/L

85

CMW1C

CT

10/29/2008



<0.1

ug/L

86

CMW1C

CT

12/29/2008



0.15

ug/l

87

CMW1C

CT

03/14/2009



<0.10

ug/L

88

CMW1C

CT

06/25/2009



<0.10

ug/L

89

CMW1C

CT

09/20/2009



<0.10

ug/L

90

CMW1C

CT

01/18/2010



<0.10

ug/L

91

CMW1C

CT

03/17/2010



<0.10

ug/L

92

CMW1C

¦ CT

07/08/2010



<0.10

ug/L

93

CMW1C

CT

09/11/2010



<0.10

ug/L

94 •

CMW1C

CT

12/10/2010



< 0.10

ug/L

95

CMW1C

CT

03/23/2011



< 0.10

ug/L

96

CMW1C

CT

06/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L .

97

CMW1C

' CT

09/12/2011



<0.10

ug/L

98

CMW1C

CT

12/16/2011



<0.10

ug/L

99

CMW4B

CT

10/29/2008



<0.1

ug/L

¦ 100

CMW4B

CT

12/29/2008



< 0.10

ug/L

101

CMW4B

CT

03/14/2009



<0.10

ug/L

102

CMW4B

CT

06/25/2009



<0.10

ug/L

103

CMW4B

CT

09/20/2009



' < 0.10 ¦

ug/L

• 104-

¦ CMW46

CT

01/18/2010 '



<0.10

ug/L

105

CMW4B

CT

03/18/2010



<0.10

ug/L

106

CMW4B

CT-

07/08/2010



<0.10

ug/L

107

CMW4B

CT

09/06/2010

Duplicate

<0.10

ug/L

108

CMW4B

CT

09/06/2010



<0.10

ug/L

109

. CMW4B.. ¦

CT _

12/lQ/^mO -

- .. :	

.. < 0.10

ug/L

110

CMW4B

CT

03/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

111

CMW4B

CT

06/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

112

CMW4B

CT

09/12/2011

Duplicate

<0.10

ug/L

113

CMW4B

CT

09/12/2011



<0.10

ug/L

114

CMW4B

CT

12/16/2011

¦ Duplicate

¦ < 0.10

ug/L

115

CMW4B

CT

12/16/2011



<0.10

ug/L

116

CMW5B

CT

' 10/29/2008



<0,1

ug/L ¦¦

117

CMW5B

CT

12/29/2008



< 0.10

ug/L ¦

Page 3 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. PAPADOPULOS a J tCIATES, INC.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

118

CMW5B

CT

03/14/2009



<0.10

ug/L

119

CMW5B

CT

. 06/25/2009



< 0.10

ug/L

120

CMW5B

CT

09/20/2009



<0.10

Ug/L

121

CMW5B

CT

03/17/2010



<0.10

ug/L

122

CMW5B

CT

07/08/2010



<0.10

ug/L

123

CMW5B

CT

09/06/2010



< 0.10

ug/L

124

CMW5B

CT

12/10/2010



<0.10

ug/L

125

CMW5B

CT

03/23/2011 .



<0.10

ug/L

126

CMW5B

CT

06/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

127

CMW5B

CT

06/23/2011

Duplicate

<0.10

ug/L

128

CMW5B

CT

09/12/2011



<0.10

ug/L

129

CMW5B

CT

12/16/2011



<0.10

ug/L

130

D-07

CT

09/17/1997



ND

ug/L

131

D-07

CT

09/08/1998



205

ug/L

132

D-07

CT

09/09/1999



181

ug/L

133

D-07

CT

10/09/2000



202

ug/L

134

D-07

CT

03/05/2001



240

ug/L

135

D-07

CT

09/07/2001



190

ug/L

136

D-07

CT

09/05/2002

Duplicate

117

ug/L

137

D-07

¦ CT

09/05/2002



114

ug/L

138

D-07

CT

09/12/2003



' 114

ug/L

139

D-07

CT

06/11/2004



140

ug/L

140

D-07

CT

09/08/2004



129

ug/L

141

D-07

CT

06/01/2005



120

ug/L

142

D-07

CT

09/16/2005



74

ug/L

143

D-07

CT

10/12/2006 '



81

ug/L

144

D-07

CT

09/07/2007



39

ug/L

145

D-07

CT

10/28/2008



40

ug/L

146

D-07

CT

03/11/2009



45

ug/L

147

D-07

CT

09/08/2009



26

ug/L

148

D-07

CT

03/18/2010



22

ug/L

149

D-07

CT

09/01/2010



21

ug/L

150

D-07 '

CT

03/18/2011



9.8

ug/L

151

D-07

CT

08/31/2011



7.9

ug/L

152

GN (Shop Well)

CT

03/09/2015



<0.50

ug/L

153

1-46

CT

09/17/1997



<5

ug/L

154

1-46

CT

12/11/1997



<5

ug/L

155

1-46

CT

03/16/1998



<5

ug/L

156

1-46

CT

06/12/1998



<5

ug/L

¦Page 4 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
iBBHBb S.S. papaoopouds & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

157

1-46

CT

09/09/1998



<5

ug/L ¦

158

1-46

CT

12/16/1998



<5

ug/L

159

1-46

CT

03/19/1999



ND

ug/L

160

1-46

CT

03/26/1999



<5

ug/L

161

1-46

CT

07/07/1999



<5

ug/L

162

1-46

CT

09/07/1999



<5

ug/L

163

1-46

CT-

12/13/1999



<5

ug/L

164

1-46

CT

03/23/2000



ND

ug/L

165

1-46

CT

06/29/2000



ND

ug/L

166

1-46

CT

10/10/2000



ND

ug/L

167

1-46

CT

12/08/2000



ND

ug/L

168

1-46

CT

03/14/2001



ND

ug/L

169

1-46

CT

06/18/2001



ND

ug/L

170

1-46

CT

09/07/2001



ND

ug/L

171

1-46

CT

12/04/2001



ND

ug/L

172

1-46

CT

03/18/2002



<5

ug/L

173

1-46

CT

06/11/2002



<5

ug/L

174

1-46

CT

09/09/2002



ND

ug/L

175

'1-46

CT ¦

12/11/2002



ND

ug/L

176 ¦

1-46

CT ¦

03/01/2003



<5

ug/L

177

1-46

CT

06/01/2003



<5

ug/L

178

1-46

CT ¦

07/09/2003



ND .

ug/L

179

1-46

CT

09/12/2003



<5 ..

ug/L

180

1-46

CT

12/08/2003



ND .

ug/L

181','

1-46

CT

03/12/2004



<5

ug/L ¦

182

1-46

CT

06/29/2004



<5

ug/L

183

1-46

CT

09/08/2004



<5

ug/L ¦

184

1-46

CT

03/09/2005



¦¦ <5

ug/L

185

1-46

CT

06/17/2005



<5

ug/L

186

1-46

CT

06/23/2005



ND

ug/L

187

1-46

	CT . „

09/14/2005



<5 _

	Ug/L

188

1-46

CT

12/14/2005



<5

ug/L

189

1-46

CT

03/10/2006



<5

ug/L

190

1-46

CT

06/08/2006



<5

ug/L

191

1-46

CT

09/05/2006



<5

ug/L

192

1-46

CT

12/06/2006 .



<5

ug/L

193

1-46

CT

03/09/2007



<5

ug/L

194

1-46

CT

"06/1272007"



<5

ug/L ¦

195

1-46

CT

09/06/2007



<5

ug/L

Pag® 5 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
€flBHl S.S. Papadopulos & A tciATEs, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subslte Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Anaiyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

196

1-46

CT

12/05/2007



<5

ug/L

197

1-46

CI

03/12/2008



<5

ug/L

198

1-46

CT

10/20/2008



0.17

ug/L

199

1-46

CT

03/11/2009



1.2

ug/L

200

1-46

CT

09/08/2009



0.32

ug/L

201

1-46

CT

03/16/2010



1.1

ug/L

202

1-46

CT

09/01/2010



0.49

ug/L

203

1-46

CT

03/18/2011



1.1

Ug/L

204

1-46

CT

08/31/2011



0.48

Ug/L

205

1-49

CT

09/02/1997



7

Ug/L

206

1-49

CT

07/01/1998



<5

ug/L

207

1-49

CT

08/28/1998



<5

ug/L

208

. " 1-49

CT

07/19/1999



<5

ug/L

209

1-49

CT

08/24/1999

Duplicate

ND

ug/L

210

' 1-49

CT

08/24/1999



<5

ug/L

211

1-49

CT

09/01/1999



<5

ug/L

212

1-49

CT

06/28/2000



ND

ug/L

213

1-49

CT

06/29/2000



ND

ug/L

214

1-49

CT

10/16/2000



ND

ug/L

215

1-49

CT

12/01/2000



<5

ug/L

216

1-49

CT

06/01/2001



<5

ug/L

217

1-49

CT

07/18/2001



ND

ug/L

218

1-49

CT

08/27/2001



ND

ug/L

219

1-49

CT

09/01/2001



<5

ug/L

220

1-49

CT

07/01/2002



<5

ug/L

221

1-49

CT

08/02/2002



7

ug/L

222

1-49

CT

09/01/2002



7

ug/L

223

1-49

CT

07/16/2003



ND

ug/L

224

1-49

CT

08/21/2003

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

225

1-49

CT

08/21/2003



<5

ug/L

226

1-49

CT

06/28/2004



<5

ug/L

227

1-49

CT

09/03/2004



12

ug/L

228

1-49

CT

07/01/2005

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

229

1-49

CT

07/01/2005



<5

ug/L

230

1-49

CT

07/22/2005



1

ug/L

231

1-49

CT

08/26/2005



<5

ug/L

232

1-49

CT

06/26/2006

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

233

1-49

CT

06/26/2006



<5

ug/L

234

1-49

CT

08/23/2006

Duplicate

<5

y.g/L_

Pag® 6 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4BBj> S.S. Papadopulos ft Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling

Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

235

1-49

CI

08/23/2006



<5

ug/L

236

1-49

CT

07/13/2007

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

237

1-49

CT

07/13/2007



<5

ug/L

238

1-49

CT

07/27/2007



0.7

ug/L

239

1-49

CT

08/20/2007

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

240

1-49

CT

08/20/2007



<5

ug/L

241

1-49

CT

07/01/2009



1.1

ug/L

242

1-49

CT

09/08/2009

Duplicate

0.92

ug/L

243

1-49

CT

09/08/2009



0.9

ug/L

244

1-49

CT

09/01/2010



0.33

Ug/L

245

1-49

CT

07/18/2011



0.3

ug/L

246

1-49

CT

08/31/2011



0.51

ug/L

247

1-49

CT

09/19/2012



0.24

ug/L

248

1-49

CT

06/19/2013



0.19

ug/L

249

1-50

CT

09/17/1997



<5

ug/L

250

1-50

CT

06/12/1998 .



<5

ug/L

251

1-50

CT

09/07/1999



<5

ug/L

252

1-50

CT

06/29/2000



ND

ug/L

253

1-50

CT

10/10/2000



ND

ug/L

254

1-50

CT

12/01/2000



<5

ug/L

255

1-50

CT

06/19/2001



ND

ug/L

256

1-50

CT

09/07/2001



ND

ug/L

257

1-50

CT

06/11/2002



<5

ug/L

258

1-50

CT

07/16/2002



3.8

ug/L

259

1-50

CT

09/05/2002



ND

ug/L

260

1-50

CT

06/02/2003



ND

ug/L

261

1-50

CT

07/01/2003



<5

ug/L

262

1-50

CT

09/12/2003



<5

ug/L

263

1-50

CT

06/15/2004



3.7

ug/L

264

1-50

CT

¦ 06/28/2004



<5

ug/L

265

1-50

CT

09/08/2004.



<5

. ug/L

266

1-50

CT

06/23/2005

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

267

1-50

CT

06/23/2005



<5

ug/L

268

1-50

CT

09/14/2005



<5

ug/L

269

1-50

CT

06/08/2006

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

270

1-50

CT

06/08/2006



<5

ug/L

271

1-50

CT

09/05/2006



<5

ug/L

272

1-50

CT

06/12/2007



<5

ug/L

273

1-50

CT

09/07/2007



<5

ug/L

Page 7 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

S.S. Papaoopulos & As iciates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997

Sampling

Leotion

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

1-50

CT

07/01/2009

1.7

1-50

CT

09/08/2009

0.81

1-50

CT

06/22/2010

1.2

1-50

CT

09/01/2010

1.1

1-50

CT

06/23/2011

0.85

1-50

CT

09/12/2011

<1.0

1-51

CT

09/17/1997

1-51

CT

06/12/1998

16

1-51

CT

09/09/1998

Duplicate

14

1-51

CT

09/09/1998

14

1-51

CT

07/07/1999

13

1-51

CT

09/07/1999

12

1-51

CT

06/28/2000

16

1-51

CT

06/29/2000

16

1-51

CT

10/10/2000

12

1-51

CT

06/18/2001

16

1-51

CT

09/07/2001

10

1-51

CT

06/11/2002

1-51

CT

09/09/2002

1-51

CT

06/09/2003

1-51

CT

09/12/2003

1-51

CT

06/29/2004

Duplicate

11

1-51

CT

06/29/2004

12

1-51

CT

09/08/2004

8

1-51

CT

09/08/2004

1-51

CT

06/17/2005

Duplicate

1-51

CT

06/17/2005

1-51

CT

09/14/2005

1-51

CT

06/08/2006

1-51

CT

09/05/2006

1-51

CT

07/13/2007

<5

1-51

CT

09/06/2007

Duplicate

<5

1-51

CT

09/06/2007

<5

1-51

CT

10/20/2008

3.5

1-51

CT

07/01/2009

2.3

1-51

CT

09/08/2009

0.96

1-51

CT

06/22/2010

2.9

1-51

CT

09/01/2010

6.3

1-51

CT

06/23/2011

3.6

Page 8 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
^KIP S.S.Papadopuijos ft Associates, Inc.

FAR-MAR-CO Subslfe Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

313

1-51

' CT

08/31/2011

Duplicate

1.6

ug/L

314

1-51

CT

08/31/2011



1.5

ug/L

315

1-51

CT

06/21/2012

Duplicate

0.91

ug/L

316

1-51

CT

06/21/2012



1.4

ug/L

317

1-51

CT

06/19/2013



3

ug/L

318

1-51

CT

06/25/2014

Duplicate

0.56

ug/L

319

1-51

CT

06/25/2014



0.56

ug/L

320

1-58

CT

09/02/1997



12

ug/L

321

1-58

CT

07/01/1998 '



28

ug/L

322

1-58

CT

08/28/1998

Duplicate

23

ug/L

323

1-58

CT

08/28/1998



23

ug/L

324

1-58

CT

09/01/1998



23

ug/L

325

1-58

CT

07/19/1999



69

ug/L

326

1-58

CT

08/24/1999



76

ug/L

327

1-58

CT

06/01/2000 ¦



62/64

ug/L

328

1-58

CT

07/18/2000

,

62

ug/L

329

1-58

CT

10/16/2000



26

ug/L

330

1-58

CT

06/01/2001.



20

ug/L

331

1-58

CT

07/18/2001



20

ug/L

332

1-58

CT

08/27/2001



20

ug/L

333

1-58

CT

09/01/2001



20

ug/L

334

1-58

CT

07/01/2002



9

ug/L .

335

1-58

CT

08/02/2002



12

ug/L

336

1-58

CT

06/16/2003-



5

ug/L

337

1-58

CT

07/01/2003 "



5

ug/L

338

1-58

CT

08/21/2003



<5

ug/L

339

1-58

CT

07/28/2004

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

340

1-58

CT

07/28/2004



<5

ug/L

341

1-58

CT

09/03/2004



¦ <5

ug/L

342

1-58

CT

07/01/2005



<5

ug/L

343

1-58

_ CT . _

¦ jQ7/22/2005-..



. 1.9

- Ug/L

344

1-58

CT

08/26/2005



<5

ug/L

345

1-58

CT

06/26/2006



<5

ug/L

346

1-58

CT

08/23/2006



<5

ug/L

347

1-58

CT

07/13/2007



<5

ug/L

348

1-58

CT

07/27/2007



0.59

Ug/L

349

1-58

CT

08/20/2007



<5

ug/L

350

1-58

CT

• 07/01/2009



0.55

ug/L

351

1-58

CT

09/08/2009



0.29

_ '4g/L _

Page 9 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. PapaoopuijOS ft Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling

Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

352

1-58

CT

07/09/2010



0.27

ug/L

353

1-58

CT

09/01/2010

Duplicate

0.28

ug/L

354

1-58

CT

09/01/2010



0.27

ug/L

355

1-58

CT

07/18/2011



0.18

ug/L

356

1-58

CT

08/31/2011



0.34

ug/L

357

IN-04

CT

09/17/1997



<5

ug/L

358

IN-04

CT

09/08/1998



ND

ug/L

359

IN-04

CT ¦

09/09/1998



<5

ug/L

360 '

IN-04

CT

09/07/1999



<5

ug/L

361

IN-04

CT

10/09/2000



ND

ug/L

362

IN-04

CT

02/26/2001



ND

ug/L

363

IN-04

CT

09/07/2001



ND

ug/L

364

IN-04

CT

09/09/2002



<5

ug/L

365 ¦

IN-04

CT

09/12/2003



<5

ug/L

366

IN-04

CT

06/30/2004



ND

ug/L

367

IN-04

CT

09/08/2004



<5

ug/L

368

SN-04

CT

09/16/2005



<5

ug/L

369

IN-04

CT

12/21/2005



<5

ug/L

370

IN-04

CT

03/10/2006



<5

ug/L

371

IN-04

CT

06/14/2006



<5

ug/L

372

IN-04

CT

09/05/2006



<5

ug/L

373

IN-04

CT

12/08/2006



<5

ug/L

374

IN-04

CT

03/13/2007



<5

ug/L

375

IN-04

CT

06/12/2007



<5

ug/L

376

IN-04

CT

09/06/2007



<5

ug/L

377

IN-04

CT

12/04/2007



<5

ug/L

378

IN-04

CT

03/12/2008



<5

ug/L

379

IN-04

CT

10/20/2008



<0.1

ug/L

380

IN-04

CT

03/11/2009



<0.10

ug/L

381

. IN-04

CT

09/08/2009



<0.10

ug/L

382

IN-04

CT

03/16/2010



<0.10

ug/L

383

IN-04

CT

09/01/2010



<0.10

ug/L

384

IN-04

CT

03/18/2011



<0.10

ug/L

385

IN-04

CT

08/31/2011



1.9

ug/X

386

IN-05

CT

09/17/1997



<5

ug/L

387

IN-05

CT

09/08/1998



ND

ug/L

388

IN-05

CT

09/09/1998



<5

ug/L

389

IN-05

CT

09/07/1999



<5

ug/L

390

IN-05

CT

10/09/2000



ND

ug/L

Page 10 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4SBBH S.S. Papaoopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

391

IN-05

CT

09/07/2001



ND

ug/L

392

IN-05

CT

09/05/2002



ND

ug/L

393

IN-05

CT

09/12/2003



<5

ug/L

394

IN-05

CT

06/08/2004



0.52

ug/L -

395

IN-05

CT

09/09/2004



<5

ug/L

396

IN-05

CT

09/20/2005



<5

ug/L

397

IN-05

CT

09/07/2006



<5

ug/L

398

IN-05

CT

09/06/2007



<5

ug/L

399

IN-05

CT

10/20/2008



0.38

ug/L

400

IN-05

CT

03/11/2009



0.27

ug/L

401

IN-05

CT

09/08/2009



0.12

ug/L

402

IN-05

CT

03/16/2010



0.16

ug/L

403

IN-05

CT

09/01/2010



<0.10

ug/L

404

IN-05

CT

03/18/2011



3

ug/L

405

IN-05

CT

08/31/2011



<0.10

ug/L

406

IN-11

CT

09/17/1997



<5

ug/L

407

IN-11

CT ¦

09/08/1998



ND

ug/L

408

IN-11

CT

09/09/1998



<5 .

ug/L

409

IN-11

CT

09/07/1999



<5

ug/L

410

IN-11

CT

. 10/09/2000



ND

ug/L

411

IN-11

CT

09/07/2001



5

¦ ug/L '

412

IN-11

CT

09/05/2002



5

ug/L

413

IN-11

CT

09/12/2003



7

ug/L

414

IN-11

CT

06/08/2004



11

ug/L

415

IN-11

CT

09/09/2004



6

ug/L

416

IN-11

CT

09/20/2005



9

ug/L

417

IN-11

cr

09/07/2006



8

ug/L

418

IN-11

CT

09/06/2007 .



8

ug/L

419

IN-11

CT

10/20/2008



7.5

ug/L .

420

IN-11

CT

03/11/2009



8.8

ug/L

421 .

IN-11

¦ CT

OS/08/2009..



7.1

' ug/L

422

IN-11

CT

03/16/2010

Duplicate

6.7

ug/L

423

IN-11

CT

03/16/2010



6.7

ug/L

424

IN-11

CT

09/01/2010



5.5

ug/L

425

IN-11

CT

03/18/2011



4.1

ug/L

426

IN-11

CT

08/31/2011



3.5

¦ug/L

427

M Q.-04

CT

09/23/1997



<5

ug/L

428

MQ-04

CT

12/09/1997



12

ug/L

429

MQ-04

CT

03/19/1998



7

		 "B/L .

Page 11 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
49BB) 8.S. PAPAOOPULOS & A )CIATES, INC.

FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

430

MQ-04

CT

06/03/1998



11

ug/L

431

MQ-04

CT

09/15/1998



33

ug/L

432

MQ-04

CT

12/08/1998



83

ug/L

433

¦ MQ-04

CT

03/19/1999



56

ug/L

434

MQ-04

CT

07/05/1999



10

ug/L

435

MQ-04

CT

09/08/1999



73

ug/L

436

MQ-04

CT"

12/01/1999



94

ug/L

437

MQ-04

CT

03/21/2000.



29

ug/L

438

MQ-04

CT

06/27/2000 .

Duplicate

35

ug/L

439

MQ-04

CT

06/27/2000



36

ug/L

440

MQ-04

CT

10/07/2000



142

ug/L

441

MQ-04

CT

12/06/2000

Duplicate

102

ug/L

442

MQ-04

CT

12/06/2000



107

ug/L

443'

MQ-04

CT

03/30/2001



150

ug/L

444

MQ-04

CT

06/18/2001



73

ug/L

445

MQ-04

CT

09/10/2001



52

ug/L

446

MQ-04

CT

12/08/2001



45

ug/L

447

MQ-04

CT

03/18/2002



96

ug/L

448

MQ-04

CT

06/10/2002



80

ug/L

449

MQ-04

CT

09/05/2002



20

ug/L

450

MQ-04

CT

12/10/2002



18

ug/L

451

MQ-04

CT

03/01/2003



32

ug/L

452

MQ-04

CT

06/03/2003



41

ug/L

453

MQ-04

CT

09/15/2003



12

ug/L

454

MQ-04

. CT

12/13/2003



11

ug/L

455

MQ-04

CT

03/12/2004



20

ug/L

456

MQ-04

CT

06/28/2004



29

ug/L

457

MQ-04

CT

09/09/2004



14

ug/L

458

MQ-04

CT

03/08/2005



15

ug/L

459

MQ-04

CT

06/23/2005



38

ug/L

460

MQ-04

CT

09/16/2005



16

ug/L

461

MQ-04

CT

12/21/2005



15

ug/L

462

MQ-04

CT

03/06/2006



22

ug/L

463

MQ-04

CT

06/14/2006



26

ug/L

464

MQ-04

CT

09/07/2006



20

ug/L

465

MQ-04

CT

12/08/2006



15

ug/L

466

MQ-04

CT

03/13/2007



17

ug/L

467

MQ-04

CT

06/08/2007



17

ug/L

468

MQ-04

CT

09/06/2007



13

,UJS/L.

Page 12 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4SBBBb S.S. Rapadopulos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Snbsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

469

MQ-04

CT

12/05/2007



9.1

ug/l

470

MQ-04

CT

03/12/2008



7

ug/l

471

MQ-04

CT

10/20/2008



9.5

ug/L

472

MQ-04

CT

12/29/2008



8

ug/L

473

MQ-04

CT

03/14/2009



9

ug/L

474

MQ-04

CT

06/25/2009



6.2

ug/L

475

MQ-04

CT

09/20/2009



8.8

ug/L

476

MQ-04

CT

01/15/2010 "¦



6

ug/L

477

MQ-04 ¦

CT

03/18/2010



7.8

ug/L

478

MQ-04

CT

07/09/2010



8.7

ug/L

479

MQ-04

CT

09/06/2010



6.8

ug/L

480

MQ-04

¦ CT

12/09/2010



5.3

ug/L

481

MQ-04

CT

03/18/2011

Duplicate

5.8

ug/L

482

MQ-04

CT

03/18/2011



5.7

ug/L

483

MQ-04

CT

06/23/2011



4.8

ug/L

484

MQ-04

CT

09/12/2011



5.6

ug/L

485

MQ-04

CT

12/1^/2011



4.3

ug/L

486

MQ-04

CT

03/25/2012 '



5.7

ug/L

487

MQ-04

CT

09/19/2012



2.7

ug/L

488

MQ-04

¦ CT

03/27/2013



¦ 2.5

ug/L

489

MQ-04

CT

09/12/2013

Duplicate

2.1

ug/L

490

MQ-04

CT

09/12/2013



2.2

ug/L

491

MQ-04

CT

03/26/2014



1.8

ug/L

492

MQ-04

CT

03/26/2014

Duplicate

1.9

ug/L

493 ¦

MQ-04

CT

09/02/2014



2

ug/L

494

MQ-04

CT

03/09/2015



1.3

ug/L

495

MQ-04

CT

09/08/2015



1.9

ug/L

496

MQ-04

CT

03/14/2016



2.8

ug/L

, 497

MQ-04

CT

11/22/2016



3.1

ug/L

498

MQ-04

CT

03/07/2017



2.07

ug/L

499

' MQ-04

CT

09/13/2017;



3.36

ug/L

500

MQ-04

CT

05/01/2018



3.66

ug/L

501

MQ-04

CT

9/26/2018



2.09

ug/L

502

MQ-04

CT

3/27/2019



2.16

ug/L

503

MQ-04

CT

10/17/2019



1.89

ug/L

504

MQ-04

CJ

4/13/2020



2

ug/L

505

MQ-04

CT

11/19/2020



3.3

ug/L

506

MQ-04

CT

04/29/2021



2.2

ug/L

507

MQ-05 .

CT

09/23/1997



<5

ug/L

Pag® 13 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
dflBBl S.S. Papaoopuuos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Held
Duplicate?

Result

Units

508

MQ-05

CT

12/09/1997



<5

ug/L

509

¦ MQ-05

CT

03/19/1998



<5

ug/L

510

¦ MQ-05

CT

06/03/1998



<5

ug/L

511

MQ-05

cr

09/15/1998



<5

ug/L

512

MQ-05

a

12/08/1998



<5

ug/L

513

MQ-05

cr

03/19/1999



¦ <5

ug/L

514

MQ-05

CT

07/06/1999



<5

ug/L

515

MQ-05

CT

09/09/1999 .



<5

ug/L

516

MQ-05

CT

12/01/1999



11

ug/L

517

MQ-05

CT

12/07/1999



<5

ug/L

518

MQ-05

CT

03/21/2000



ND

ug/L

519

MQ-05

CT

06/28/2000



ND

ug/L

520

MQ-05

CT

10/07/2000



ND

ug/L

521

MQ-05

CT

12/06/2000



ND

ug/L

522

MQ-05

CT

03/30/2001



ND

ug/L

523

MQ-05

CT

06/18/2001



ND

ug/L

524

MQ-05

CT

09/10/2001



ND

ug/L

525

MQ-05

CT

12/08/2001



ND

ug/L

526

MQ-05

CT

03/18/2002



<5

ug/L

527

MQ-05

CT

06/10/2002



<5

ug/L

528

MQ-05

CT

10/11/2002

Duplicate

ND

ug/L

529

MQ-05

¦ CT

10/11/2002



ND

ug/L

530

. MQ-05

CT

12/10/2002



ND

ug/L

531

MQ-05

CT

06/03/2003



ND

ug/L

532

MQ-05

CT

09/15/2003

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

533

¦ MQ-05

CT

09/15/2003



<5

ug/L

534

MQ-05

CT

12/13/2003



ND

ug/L

535

MQ-05

CT

03/12/2004

Duplicate

6

ug/L

536

MQ-05

CT

03/12/2004



6

ug/L

537

MQ-05

CT

06/29/2004

Duplicate

<5

ub/l

538

MQ-05

CT

06/29/2004



<5

ug/L

539

MQ-05

CT

09/09/2004



<5

ug/L

540

MQ-05

CT

03/08/2005

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

541

MQ-05

CT

03/08/2005



<5

ug/L

542

MQ-05

CT

06/23/2005



<5

ug/L

543

MQ-05

CT

09/14/2005

Duplicate

• <5

ug/L

544

MQ-05

CT

09/14/2005



<5

ug/L

545

MQ-05

CT

12/21/2005



<5

ug/L

546

MQ-05

CT

03/06/2006



<5

ug/L

547

¦ MQ-05

CT

06/14/2006

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

548

MQ-05

CT

06/14/2006



<5

ug/L

Page 14 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

549

MQ-05

CT

10/13/2006



<5

ug/L

550

MQ-05

CT

12/08/2006

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

551

MQ-05

CT

12/08/2006



<5

ug/L

552

MQ-05

CT

03/13/2007



<5

ug/L

553

MQ-05

CT

06/08/2007



<5

ug/L

554

MQ-05

CT

09/06/2007

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

555

MQ-05

CT

09/06/2007



<5

ug/L

556

MQ-05

CT

03/12/2008



<5

ug/L

557

MQ-05

CT

10/20/2008

Duplicate

0.26

ug/L

558

MQ-05

CT

10/20/2008



0.25

ug/L

559

MQ-05

CT

12/29/2008

Duplicate

0.38

ug/L

560

MQ-05

CT

12/29/2008



0.38

ug/L

561

MQ-05

CT

03/14/2009

Duplicate

0.78

ug/L

562

MQ-05

CT ¦

03/14/2009



0.8

ug/L

563

MQ-05

. CT

06/25/2009

Duplicate

0.77

ug/L

564

MQ-05

CT

06/25/2009



0.72

ug/L

565

MQ-05

CT

09/20/2009

Duplicate

0.2

ug/L

566

MQ-05

CT

09/20/2009



¦ 0.2

ug/L ¦

' 567

MQ-05

CT

01/15/2010



0.56

ug/L

568

MQ-05

CT

03/18/2010



0.95

ug/L

569 ¦

MQ-05

CT

07/09/2010



0.57

ug/L

570

MQ-05

CT

09/11/2010



<0.10

ug/L

571

¦ MQ-05

CT

12/09/2010



, <0.10

ug/L

572

MQ-05

CT

03/23/2011



0.34

ug/L

573

MQ-05

CT

06/23/2011



0.18

ug/L

574

MQ-05

CT

09/12/2011



<0.10

'tig/L

575

MQ-05

CT

12/16/2011



0.13 .

ug/L

576

MQ-05

CT

03/23/2012



0.48

ug/L

577

MQ-05

¦ CT

09/19/2012



<0.10

ug/L

578

MQ-05

CT

03/27/2013



0.27

ug/L

579

MQ-05

CT

09/68/2013



< 0.10

ug/L

580

MQ-05

CT

03/26/2014



<0.5

ug/L

581

MQ-05

CT

04/09/2014



O.H ¦ -

"8/1- '

582

MQ-05

CT

09/02/2014



<0.10

ug/L

583

MQ-05

CT

03/17/2015



<0.50

ug/L

584

MQ-05

CT

. 09/08/2015



<0.50

ug/L

585

MQ-05

CT

03/20/2016



<0.50

ug/L

586

MQ-05

CT

12/07/2016



<1.0

ug/L

587

MQ-05

CT

03/07/2017



<1

¦ ug/L

588

MQ-06

GT

09/23/1997



, <5 ¦

Ug/L

589

MQ-06

CT

12/09/1997



<5

ug/L

Page 15 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
49BBB) S.S. Papadopulos ft Associates, inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

590

MQ-06

CT

03/19/1998



<5

ug/L

591

MQ-06

CT

06/03/1998



23

ug/L

592

MQ-06

CT

09/15/1998



<5

ug/L

593

MQ-06

CT

12/08/1998



<5

ug/L

594

MQ-06

CT

03/19/1999



<5

ug/L

595

MQ-06

CT

06/28/1999



<5

ug/L

596

MQ-06

CT ¦

09/08/1999



<5

ug/L

597

MQ-06

CT

. 12/01/1999



<5

ug/L

598

MQ-06

CT

03/21/2000



ND

ug/L

599

MQ-06

CT

06/29/2000



NO

ug/L

600

MQ-06

CT

10/11/2000



ND

ug/L

601

MQ-06

CT

12/07/2000



ND

ug/L

602

MQ-06

CT

03/30/2001



ND

ug/L

603

MQ-06

CT

06/19/2001



ND

ug/L

604

MQ-06

CT

09/10/2001



ND

ug/L

605

MQ-06

CT

12/08/2001



ND

ug/L

606

MQ-06

CT

12/09/2001



ND

ug/L

607

MQ-06

CT

03/18/2002



<5

ug/L

608

MQ-06

CT

06/10/2002



<5

ug/L

609

MQ-06

CT

09/09/2002



ND

ug/L

610

MQ-06

CT

12/10/2002



ND

ug/L

611

MQ-06

CT

03/01/2003



<5

ug/L

612

MQ-06

CT

06/03/2003



ND

ug/L

613

MQ-06

CT

09/16/2003



<5

ug/L

614

MQ-06

CT

12/13/2003



ND

ug/L

615

MQ-06

CT

03/12/2004



<5

ug/L

616

MQ-06

CT

06/28/2004



<5

ug/L

617

MQ-06

CT

09/09/2004



<5

Ug/L

618

' MQ-06

CT '

03/08/2005



<5

ug/L

619

MQ-06

CT

07/07/2005



<5

ug/L

620

MQ-06

CT

09/16/2005



<5

ug/L

621

MQ-06

CT

12/21/2005



<5

ug/L

622

MQ-06

CT

03/07/2006



<5

ug/L

623

MQ-06

CT

06/14/2006



<5

ug/L

624

MQ-06

CT

10/13/2006



<5

ug/L

625

¦ M€MK

CT

12/08/2006



<5

' ug/L

626

MQ-06

CT

03/13/2007



<5

ug/L

627

MQ-06

CT

06/08/2007



<5

" ug/L

628

MQ-06

CT

09/06/2007



<5

ug/L

629

MQ-06

CT

12/05/2007



<5

ug/L '

630

MQ-06

CT

03/12/2008

Duplicate

<5

Ug/L

Page 16 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
40BBB^ S.S. Pafadopulos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

¦ Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

631

MQ-06

CT

03/12/2008



<5 .

ug/L

632

MQ-06

CT

10/20/2008



0.36

ug/L

633

MQ-06

CT

12/29/2008



0.51

ug/L

634

MQ-06

CT

03/14/2009



0.38

ug/L

635

MQ-06

CT

06/25/2009



0.49

ug/L

636

MQ-06

CT

09/20/2009



0.55

ug/L

637

MQ-06

CT

01/15/2010



0.54

ug/L

638

MQ-06

CT

03/18/2010



0.6

ug/L

639

MQ-06

CT

07/09/2010



0.47

ug/L

640

MQ-06

¦ CT ¦

09/06/2010



0.39

ug/L

641

MQ-06

CT

12/09/2010



0.37

ug/L

642

MQ-06

CT

03/18/2011



0.4

ug/L

643

MQ-06

CT

06/23/2011



0.42

ug/L

644

MQ-06

CT

09/12/2011



0.44

ug/L

645

MQ-06

CT

12/16/2011



0.51

ug/L

646

MQ-08

CT

09/24/1997



<5

ug/L

647

MQ-08

CT

12/09/1997



<5

ug/L

648

MQ-08

CT

03/19/1998



18

Ug/L

649

MQ-08

CT

06/03/1998



23

ug/L

650

MQ-08

CT

10/19/1998

Duplicate

22

ug/L

651

MQ-08

CT

10/19/1998



22

ug/L

652

MQ-08

CT

12/08/1998



23

ug/L

653 "

MQ-08

CT

03/19/1999 .



27

ug/L

654

MQ-08

CT

07/06/1999



18

ug/L

655

MQ-08

CT

09/08/1999



13

ug/L

656

MQ-08

¦ CT

12/01/1999



11

ug/L

657

MQ-0H

CT

03/21/2000



9 .

ug/L

- 658

MQ-08

¦ CT

06/28/2000



7

ug/L

659

MQ-08

¦ ¦ CT

10/10/2000



ND

'¦Ug/L

660 - 1

MQ-08

CT

12/06/2000



ND

ug/L

661

MQ48

CT

03/30/2001



• ND

ug/L

662

MQ-08

CT

06/19/2001



ND

ug/L

663

' MQ-08

¦ 'CT

10/18/2001



ND

Ug/L

664

MQ-08

CT

12/08/2001



ND

ug/L

665

MQ-08

CT

03/18/2002



<5

ug/L

666

MQ-08

CT

06/10/2002



<5

ug/L

667

MQ-08

CT

10/11/2002



ND

ug/L

668

MQ-08

CT

¦ 03/01/2003



<5

Ug/L

669

MQ-08

CT

06/03/2003 ¦¦



ND

ug/L

670

MQ-08

CT

10/31/2003

Duplicate

¦ <5

ug/L

671

MQ-08

CT

10/31/2003



<5



Page 17 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
fHlf S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Anaiyte

Sample Date

Field
¦ Duplicate?

Result

Units

672

MQ-08

CT

12/13/2003



ND

ug/L

673

MQ-08

CT

03/12/2004



<5

ug/L

674

MQ-08

CT

06/28/2004



<5

ug/L

675

MQ-08

CT

09/30/2004



<5

ugfl

676

MQ-08

CT

03/08/2005



<5

ug/L

677

MQ-08

CT

07/11/2005



<5

ug/L

678

MQ-08

CT

10/19/2005



<5

ug/L

679

MQ-08

CT

12/21/2005



<5

ug/L

680

MQ-08

CT

03/06/2006



<5

ug/L

681

MQ-08

CT

06/14/2006



<5

ug/L

682

MQ-08

CT

11/06/2006



<5

ug/L

683

MQ-08

CT

12/06/2006



<5

ug/L

684

MQ-08

CT

03/13/2007



<5

ug/L

685

MQ-08

CT

06/08/2007



<5

ug/L

686

MQ-08

CT

12/05/2007



<5

ug/L

687

MQ-08

CT

03/12/2008



<5

ug/L

688

MQ-08

CT

12/29/2008



0.58

ug/L

689

MQ-08

CT

03/14/2009



0.51

ug/L

690

MQ-08

CT

01/15/2010

Duplicate

1.3

ug/L

691

MQ-08

CT

01/15/2010



1.3

ug/L

692

MQ-08

CT

03/18/2010



1.7

ug/L

693

MQ-08

CT

12/09/2010

Duplicate

1.7

ug/L

694

MQ-08

CT

12/09/2010



1.7

ug/L

695

MQ-08

CT

03/18/2011



4.6

ug/L

696

MQ-08

CT

12/16/2011

Duplicate

8

ug/L

697

MQ-08

CT

12/16/2011



8.1

ug/L

698

MQ-08

CT

03/25/2012

Duplicate

7.9

ug/L

699

MQ-08

CT

03/25/2012



8.2

ug/L

700

MQ-08

CT

09/19/2012

Duplicate

6.9

ug/L

701

MQ-08

CT

09/19/2012



6.8

ug/L

702

MQ-08

CT

03/27/2013



8.5

ug/L

703

MQ-08

CT

09/12/2013



7.9

ug/L

704

MQ-08

CT

03/26/2014



8.7

ug/L

705

MQ-08

CT

10/12/2014

Duplicate

9.7

ug/L

706

MQ-08

CT

10/12/2014



7.6

ug/L

707

MQ-08

CT

03/09/2015



8.9

ug/L

708

MQ-08

CT

10/19/2015

Duplicate

14.4

ug/L

709

MQ-08

CT

10/19/2015



19.3

ug/L

710

MQ-08

CT

03/14/2016



15.3

ug/L

711

MQ-08

CT

11/22/2016



21.3

ug/L

712

MQ-08

CT

03/07/2017



14.7

ug/L

Page 18 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4BBH) S.S. PapaoopuijOs & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result ¦

Units

713

MQ-08

CT

11/16/2017



24

ug/L

714

MQ-08

CT

05/01/2018



26.8

ug/L

715

MQ-08

CT

10/18/2018



21.4

ug/L

716

MQ-08

CT

4/24/2019



14.7

ug/L

717

MQ-08

CT

10/17/2019



9.1

ug/L

718

MQ-08

CT

4/13/2020



10.1

ug/L

719

MQ-08

CT

11/19/2020



20.5

ug/L

720

MQ-08

CT

04/29/2021



22.2

ug/L

721

MQ-09

CT

09/24/1997



<5

ug/L

722

MQ-09

CT

12/09/1997



<5

ug/L

723

MQ-09

CT

03/19/1998



<5

ug/L

724

MQ-09

CT

06/03/1998



<5

ug/L

725

MQ-09

CT

09/15/1998



<5

ug/L

726

MQ-09

CT

12/08/1998



<5

ug/L

727

MQ-09

CT

03/19/1999



<5

' ug/L

728

MQ-09

CT

07/05/1999



<5

ug/L

729

MQ-09

CT

09/08/1999 '¦



<5

ug/L

730

MQ-09

CT

12/01/1999



<5

ug/L

731

MQ-09

CT

03/21/2000



ND

ug/L

732

MQ-09

CT

06/27/2000



ND

Ug/L

733

MQ-09

CT

10/07/2000



ND

ug/L

734

MQ-09

CT

12/07/2000



ND

ug/L

735

MQ-09

CT

03/30/2001



ND

ug/L

736

MQ-09

¦CT

06/18/2001



ND

ug/L

737

MQ-09

CT

09/10/2001



ND

ug/L

738

MQ-09

CT

12/08/2001



ND

Ug/L

739

MQ-09

CT

03/18/2002



<5

ug/L

740

MQ-09

CT

06/10/2002



<5

ug/L

741

MQ-09

CT

09/05/2002



ND

ug/L

742

MQ-09

CT

12/10/2002



ND

ug/L

743

MQ-09

CT

03/01/2003



<5

ug/L

744

MQ-09

CT

06/03/2003



ND

ug/L

745

MQ-09

CT

09/15/2003



8

ug/L

746

MQ-09

CT

12/13/2003



ND

ug/L

747

MQ-09

CT

03/12/2004



<5

ug/L

748

MQ-09

CT

06/28/2004



<5

ug/L

749

MQ-09

CT

09/08/2004



<5

ug/L

750

MQ-09

CT

03/08/2005



<5

ug/L

751

MQ-09

CT

06/23/2005



<5

Ug/L

752

MQ-09

CT

09/13/2005



<5

ug/L

753

MQ-09

CT

12/21/2005



¦ <5

ug/L

6/1/2021

-------
dflBBl S.S. Papadopulos at Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Date Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

754

MQ-09

CT

03/06/2006



<5

ug/L

755

M 0,-09

CT

06/14/2006



<5

ug/L

756

MQ-09

CT

09/07/2006



<5

ug/L

757

MQ-09

CT

12/06/2006



<5

ug/L

758

MQ-09

CT

03/13/2007



<5

ug/L

759

MQ-09

CT

06/08/2007



<5

ug/L

760

MQ-09

CT

09/06/2007



5

ug/L

761

MQ-09

CT

12/05/2007



<5

ug/L

762

MQ-09

CT

03/12/2008



<5

ug/L

763

MQ-09

CT

10/20/2008



3.2

ug/L

764

MQ-09

CT

12/29/2008



3.6

ug/L

765

MQ-09

CT

03/14/2009



3.4

ug/L

766

MQ-09

CT

06/25/2009



5.3

ug/L

767

MQ-09

CT

09/20/2009



7.9

ug/L

768

MQ-09

CT

01/18/2010



7.5

ug/L

769

MQ-09

CT

03/18/2010



9.7

ug/L

770

MQ-09

CT

07/08/2010



13

ug/L

771

MQ-09

CT

09/11/2010



18

ug/L

772

MQ-09

CT

12/09/2010



19

ug/L

773

MQ-09

CT

03/18/2011



22

ug/L

774

MQ-09

CT

06/23/2011



22

ug/L

775

MQ-09

CT

09/12/2011



33

ug/L

776

MQ-09

CT

12/12/2011



34

ug/L

777

MQ-10

CT

01/18/2010



0.16

ug/L

778

MQ-10

CT

03/18/2010



0.28

ug/L

779

MQ-10

CT

07/08/2010



0.29

ug/L

780

MQ-10

CT

09/06/2010



0.25

ug/L

781

MQ-10

CT

12/10/2010



0.23

ug/L

782

MQ-10

CT

03/23/2011



0.24

ug/L

783

MQ-10

CT

06/23/2011



0.22

ug/L

784

MQ-10

CT

09/12/2011



0.22

ug/L

785

MQ-10

CT

12/16/2011



0.19

ug/L

786

MQ-10

CT

03/23/2012



0.18

ug/L

787

MQ-10

CT

02/12/2014



<0.1

ug/L

788

MQ-11

CT

01/18/2010



0.45

ug/L

789

MQ-11

CT

03/18/2010



0.52

ug/L

790

MQ-11

CT

07/08/2010



0.5

ug/L

791

MQ-11

CT

09/06/2010



0.44

ug/L

792

MQ-11

CT

12/10/2010



0.39

ug/L

793

MQ-11

CT

03/23/2011

Duplicate

0.42

ug/L

794

MQ-11

CT

03/23/2011



0.4

		H6/.L	

Page 20 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling

Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

795

MQ-11

CT

06/23/2011



0.53

ug/L

796

MQ-11

CT

09/12/2011 .



1.4

ug/L

797

MQ-11

CT

12/16/2011



1.3

ug/L

798

MQ-11

CT

03/23/2012



2.6

ug/L

799

MQ-11

CT

02/12/2014



1.9

ug/L

800

MQ-12

CT

01/15/2010



<0.10

ug/L

801

MQ-12

CT

03/17/2010



<0.10

ug/L

802

MQ-12

CT

07/08/2010



<0.10

ug/L

803

MQ-12

CT

09/06/2010



<0.10

ug/L

804

MQ-12

CT

12/10/2010



<0.10

ug/L

805

MQ-12

CT

03/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

806

MQ-12

CT

*06/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

807

MQ-12

CT

09/12/2011



<0.10

ug/L

808

MQ-12

CT

12/16/2011



<0.10

ug/L

809

MQ-12

CT

03/23/2012



<0.10

ug/L

810

MQ-12

CT

02/12/2014



<0.1

ug/L

811

MQ-13

CT

01/15/2010



<0.10

ug/L

812

MQ-13

CT

03/17/2010



<0.10

ug/L

813

MQ-13

CT

07/08/2010



<0.10

ug/L

814

MQ-13

CT

09/06/2010



0.12

ug/L

815

MQ-13

CT

12/10/2010



< 0.10

ug/L

816

MQ-13

CT

03/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

817

MQ-13

CT

06/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

818

MQ-13

CT

06/23/2011

Duplicate

<0.10

ug/L

819

MQ-13

CT

09/12/2011

Duplicate

0.12

ug/L

820

MQ-13

CT

09/12/2011



0.12

ug/L

821

MQ-13

CT

12/16/2011



0.12

ug/L

822

MQ-13

CT

03/23/2012



0.11

ug/L

823

MQ-13

CT

02/12/2014



0.12

ug/L

824

MW-08

CT

09/23/1997



623

ug/L .

825

MW-08

CT

12/10/1997



545

ug/L

826

MW-08

CT

03/19/1998



415

ug/L

827 '

MW-08

CT

06/03/1558 '



64

¦ ug/L

828

MW-08

CT

09/18/1998



585

ug/L

829

MW-08

CT

11/30/1998



190

ug/L

830

MW-08

CT

12/01/1998



190

ug/L

831

MW-08

CT

03/23/1999



16

ug/L

832

MW-08

CT

07/06/1999



<5

Ug/L

833

MW-08

CT

09/08/1999



31

ug/L

834

MW-08

CT

12/01/1999



10 ¦

ug/L

835

MW-08

CT

03/21/2000



¦ 5

ug/L

Page 21 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
flU S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subslfe Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

836

MW-08

CT

06/27/2000



7

ug/L

837

MW-08

CT

10/10/2000



301

ug/L

838

MW-08

CT

10/10/2000



294

ug/L

839

MW-08

CT

12/07/2000



112

ug/L

840

MW-08

CT

03/30/2001



¦ 14

ug/L

841

MW-08

CT

06/19/2001



5

ug/L

842

MW-08

CT

09/10/2001



428

ug/L

843

MW-08

CT

12/09/2001

Duplicate

167

ug/L

844

MW-08

CT

12/09/2001



169

ug/L

845

. MW-08

CT

03/11/2002



14

ug/L

846

MW-08

CT

09/09/2002



285

ug/L

847

MW-08

CT

12/10/2002



277

ug/L

848

MW-08

CT

03/01/2003



195

ug/L

849

MW-08

CT

06/03/2003



14

ug/L

850

MW-08

CT

09/15/2003



266

ug/L

851

MW-08

CT

12/13/2003

Duplicate

238

ug/L

852

MW-08

CT

12/13/2003



238

ug/L

853

MW-08

CT

03/19/2004



245

ug/L

854

MW-08

CT

06/02/2004



173

ug/L

855

MW-08

CT

06/02/2004



165

ug/L

856

MW-08

' CT

07/14/2004



184

ug/L

857

MW-08

CT

09/09/2004



167

ug/L

858

MW-08

CT

09/09/2004



170

ug/L

859

MW-08

CT

03/09/2005

Duplicate

235

ug/L

860

MW-08

CT

03/09/2005



235

ug/L

861

MW-08

CT

06/17/2005



220

ug/L

862

MW-08

CT

09/16/2005

Duplicate

197

ug/L

863

MW-08

CT

09/16/2005



208

ug/L

864

MW-08

CT

12/20/2005



169

ug/L

865

MW-08

CT

03/07/2006

Duplicate

214

ug/L

866

MW-08

CT

03/07/2006



211

ug/L

867

MW-08

CT

06/14/2006



219

ug/L

868

MW-08

CT

10/13/2006



207

ug/L

869

MW-08

CT

12/08/2006

Duplicate

165

ug/L

870

MW-08

CT

12/08/2006



163

ug/L

871

MW-08

CT

03/09/2007

Duplicate

150

ug/L

872

MW-08

CT

03/09/2007



155

ug/L

873

MW-08

CT

06/12/2007

Duplicate

193

ug/L

874

MW-08

CT

06/12/2007



190

ug/L

875

MW-08

CT

09/07/2007



182

ug/L

876

MW-08

CT

12/05/2007

Duplicate

92

ug/L

Page 22 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4BBt) S.S. Papadopulos ft Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling

Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

877

MW-08

CT

12/05/2007



98

ug/L

878

MW-08

CT

03/12/2008

Duplicate

50 J

ug/L

879

MW-08

CT

03/12/2008



52 J

ug/L

880

MW-08

CT

10/28/2008

Duplicate

97

ug/L

881

MW-08

CT

10/28/2008



99

ug/L

882

MW-08

CT

12/30/2008

Duplicate

100 ¦

ug/L

883

MW-08

CT

12/30/2008



80

ug/L

884

MW-08

CT

03/15/2009



92

ug/L

885

MW-08

CT

06/25/2009

Duplicate

120

ug/L

886

MW-08

CT

06/25/2009



120

ug/L

887

MW-08

CT

09/20/2009



110

ug/L

888

MW-08

CT

01/18/2010



110

ug/L

889

MW-08

CT

03/17/2010

Duplicate

110

ug/L

890

MW-08

CT

03/17/2010



100

ug/L

891

MW-08

CT

07/08/2010



100

ug/L

892

MW-08

CT

09/11/2010



74

ug/L

893

MW-08

CT

12/09/2010



50

ug/L

894

MW-Q8

CT ¦

03/23/2011



88

ug/L

895

mw-ob

CT

06/23/2011



80

ug/L

896

MW-08

CT"

06/23/2011

Duplicate

80

ug/L

897

MW-08

CT

09/13/2011



85

ug/L

898

MW-08

CT

12/16/2011



65

ug/L

899

MW-08

CT

03/23/2012



¦ 58

ug/L

900

MW-08

CT

09/19/2012



50 ¦

ug/L

901

MW-08

CT

03/27/2013 ¦



61

ug/L

902

MW-08

CT

03/27/2013

Duplicate

64

¦ ug/L.

903

MW-08

CT

09/04/2013



48

ug/L

904

MW-08 .

CT

. 03/26/2014



75

ug/L

905

MW-08

CT

09/02/2014



38

ug/L

906

MW-08

¦CT

¦ 03/09/2015



58.4

ug/L ¦

907

MW-08

CT

09/08/2015



57.3

ug/L

908

MW-08

CT

03/14/2016



70.5

ug/L

909

' MW-08

CT

11/22/2016

Duplicate

22.5

ug/L '

910

MW-08

CT

11/22/2016



22.5

ug/L

911

MW-08

CT

03/07/2017

Duplicate

7.16

.ug/L

912

MW-08

CT

03/07/2017



4.7

ug/L

913

MW-08

CT

09/13/2017

Duplicate

11.6

ug/L

914

MW-08

CT

09/13/2017



10.7

ug/L .

915

MW-08

CT

09/13/2017



13

ug/L '

¦ 916

MW-08

CT

05/01/2018

Duplicate ¦

¦ 34.8

ug/L

917

MW-08

CT

05/01/2018



36.5

ug/L

Page 23 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
iflBfifc S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

918

MW-08

a

9/26/2018

Duplicate

19.4

ug/L

919

MW-08

CT

9/26/2018



19.6

ug/L

920

MW-08

CT

3/27/2019

Duplicate

27.2

ug/L

921

MW-08

CT

3/27/2019



24.9

ug/L

922

MW-08

CT

10/17/2019

Duplicate

27.6

ug/L

923

MW-08

CT

10/17/2019



28.9

ug/L

924

MW-08

CT

4/13/2020

Duplicate

9.4

ug/L

925

MW-08

CT

4/13/2020



11.4

ug/L

926

MW-08

CT

11/19/2020

Duplicate

<1

ug/L

927

MW-08

CT

11/19/2020



<1

ug/L

928

MW-08

CT

04/29/2021



37.9

ug/L

929

MW-08

CT

04/29/2021

Duplicate

40

ug/L

930

MW-14

CT

09/23/1997



109

ug/L

931

MW-14

CT

12/09/1997



92

ug/L

932

MW-14

1 CT

03/01/1998 .



93

ug/L

933

MW-14

CT

03/19/1998



100

ug/L

934

MW-14

CT

06/03/1998



76

ug/L

935

MW-14

CT

09/15/1998



44

ug/L

. 936

MW-14

CT

12/01/1998



65

ug/L

937

MW-14

CT

12/08/1998



59

ug/L

938

MW-14

CT

03/19/1999



57

ug/L

939

MW-14

CT

06/28/1999



38

ug/L

940

MW-14

CT

09/08/1999

Duplicate

15

ug/L

941

MW-14

CT

09/08/1999



15

ug/L

942

MW-14

CT

12/01/1999



33

ug/L

943

MW-14

CT

03/21/2000



34

ug/L

944

MW-14

CT

06/27/2000



15

ug/L

945

MW-14

CT

09/11/2000



1.3

ug/L

946

MW-14

CT

10/07/2000



20

ug/L

947

MW-14

CT

12/07/2000



42

ug/L

948

MW-14

CT

03/30/2001



27

ug/L

949

MW-14

CT

06/20/2001



19

ug/L

950

MW-14

CT

09/10/2001



14

ug/L

951

MW-14

CT

12/09/2001



18

ug/L

952

MW-14

CT

03/18/2002



17

ug/L

953

MW-14

CT

06/11/2002



9

ug/L

954

MW-14

CT

12/10/2002

Duplicate

9

ug/L

955

MW-14

CT

12/10/2002



9

ug/L

956

MW-14

CT

03/01/2003



6

ug/L

957

MW-14

CT

06/03/2003



ND

ug/L

958

MW-14

CT

09/16/2003



7

ug/L

Page 24 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
Vgif S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Date Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Anaiyte

Sample Date

¦ Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

959

MW-14

CT

12/13/2003

Duplicate

7

ug/L

960

MW-14

CT

12/13/2003



7

ug/L

961

MW-14

CT

03/19/2004



<5

ug/L

962

MW-14

CT

06/29/2004



<5

ug/L

963

MW-14

CT

09/09/2004



<5

ug/L

964

MW-14

CT

03/09/2005



<5

ug/L

965

MW-14

CT

06/17/2005



<5

ug/L

966

MW-14

CT

09/16/2005



<5

ug/L

967

MW-14

CT

12/20/2005

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

968

MW-14

CT

12/20/2005



<5

ug/L

969

MW-14

CT

03/07/2006



<5

ug/L

970

MW-14

CT

06/14/2006



<5

ug/L

971

MW-14

CT

10/13/2006



<5

ug/L

972

MW-14

CT

12/08/2006



<5

ug/L

973

MW-14

CT

03/09/2007



<5

ug/L

974

MW-14

CT

06/12/2007



<5

ug/L

975

MW-14

CT

09/07/2007



<5

ug/L

976

MW-14

CT

12/05/2007



<5

ug/L

977

MW-14

CT

03/12/2008



<5

ug/L

978

MW-14

CT

10/28/2008



2.3

ug/L

979

MW-14

CT

12/29/2008



1.6

. ug/L

980

MW-14

CT

03/15/2009



0.87

ug/L

981

MW-14

CT

06/25/2009



0.6

ug/L

982

MW-14.

CT

09/20/2009



2.1

ug/L

983

MW-14

CT

01/18/2010

Duplicate

1.5

ug/L

984

MW-14

¦ CT

01/18/2010



1.5

ug/L .

985

MW-14

CT

03/17/2010



1.2

ug/L

986

MW-14

CT

07/08/2010



0.81

ug/L

987

MW-14

CT

12/09/2010



1.4 ¦

¦ ug/L

988

MW-14

CT

03/23/2011



0.81

ug/L

989

MW-14

CT

06/23/2011



0.81

ug/L

990

MW-14

CT

09/12/2011



0.95

ug/L

991

MW-14

CT

12/16/2011'



1

ug/L

992

MW-14

CT

03/23/2012



1.5

ug/L

993

MW-14

CT

09/19/2012



4.2

ug/L

994

MW-14

CT

03/27/2013



4.2

ug/L

995

MW-14

CT

09/04/2013



4

UE/L

996

MW-14

CT

03/26/2014



3.1

ug/L

997

MW-14

CT

04/09/2014



3 .

¦ ug/L

998

MW-14

CT

09/02/2014



2.2

ug/L

999

¦ MW-14

CT

03/17/2015

Duplicate

1.4

ug/L

Page 25 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
dBBBl S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Anafyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1000

MW-14

CT

03/17/2015



2.4

ug/L

1001

MW-14

CT

09/08/2015



2.4

ug/L

1002

MW-14

CT

03/20/2016



1.4

ug/L

1003

MW-14

CT

12/07/2016

Duplicate

1.48

ug/L

1004

MW-14

CT

12/07/2016



1.22

ug/L

1005

MW-14

CT

03/07/2017



<1 .

ug/L

1006

MW-14

CT

09/13/2017



<1

ug/L

1007

MW-14

CT

05/01/2018



<1

ug/L

1008

MW-14

CT

9/26/2018



<1

ug/L

1009

MW-14

CT

3/27/2019



<1

ug/L

1010

MW-14

CT

10/17/2019



<1

ug/L

1011

MW-14

CT

4/13/2020



1

ug/L

1012

MW-14

CT

11/19/2020



¦ 1.1

ug/L

1013

MW-14

CT

04/29/2021



1.1

ug/L

1014

MW-16

CT

09/23/1997



7

ug/L

1015

MW-16

CT

12/01/1997



7

ug/L

1016

MW-16

CT

12/09/1997



8

Ug/L

1017

MW-16

CT

03/19/1998



<5

ug/L

1018

MW-16

CT

06/03/1998



<5

ug/L

1019

MW-16

CT

09/15/1998

Duplicate

6

ug/L

1020

MW-16

CT

09/15/1998



6

ug/L

1021

MW-16

CT

12/08/1998



<5

ug/L

1022

MW-16

CT

03/19/1999 ¦

Duplicate

ND

ug/L

1023

MW-16

CT

03/19/1999



<5

ug/L

1024

MW-16

CT

06/28/1999



<5

ug/L

1025

MW-16

CT

09/08/1999



<5

ug/L

1026

MW-16

CT

12/01/1999

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

1027

MW-16

CT

12/01/1999



<5

ug/L

1028

MW-16

CT

03/21/2000



ND

ug/L

1029

MW-16

CT

06/27/2000



ND

ug/L

1030

MW-16

CT

10/07/2000



ND

ug/L

1031

MW-16

CT

12/07/2000

Duplicate

ND

ug/L

1032

MW-16

CT

12/07/2000



¦ ND

ug/L

1033

MW-16

CT

03/30/2001



ND

ug/L

1034

MW-16

CT

06/20/2001



ND

ug/L

1035

MW-16

CT

09/10/2001



ND

ug/L

1036

MW-16

. CT

12/09/2001



ND

ug/L

1037

MW-16

CT

03/18/2002



<5

ug/L

1038

MW-16

¦ CT

06/11/2002



<5

ug/L

1039

MW-16

CT

09/09/2002



<5

ug/L

1040

MW-16

CT

12/10/2002



ND

ug/L

Page 26 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1041

MW-16

CT

03/01/2003



<5

ug/L

1042

MW-16

CT

06/03/2003

Duplicate

ND

ug/L

1043

MW-16

CT

06/03/2003



ND

ug/L

1044

MW-16

CT

09/16/2003



<5

ug/L

1045

MW-16

CT

12/13/2003



ND

ug/L

1046

MW-16

CT

03/19/2004

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

1047

MW-16

CT

03/19/2004



<5

ug/L

1048

MW-16

CT

06/29/2004



<5

ug/L

1049

MW-16

CT

09/09/2004



<5

ug/L

1050

MW-16

CT

03/09/2005



<5

ug/L

1051

MW-16

CT

06/17/2005



<5

ug/L

1052

MW-16

CT

09/16/2005



<5

ug/L

1053

MW-16

CT

12/20/2005

Duplicate ¦

<5

ug/L

1054

MW-16

CT

12/20/2005



<5

ug/L

1055

MW-16

CT

03/07/2006



<5

ug/L

1056

MW-16

CT

06/14/2006



<5

ug/L

1057

¦ MW-16

CT

10/13/2006

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

1058

MW-16

CT

10/13/2006



<5

ug/L

1059

MW-16

CT

12/08/2006

¦

<5

ug/L

1060

MW-16

CT

03/09/2007



<5

ug/L ¦

1061

MW-16

CT

06/12/2007



<5

ug/L

1062

MW-16

CT

09/07/2007



<5

ug/L

1063

MW-16 ¦

CT

12/05/2007



<5

ug/L

1064

MW-16

CT

03/12/2008



<5

ug/L

1065

MW-16

CT

10/29/2008



<0.1

ug/L

1066

MW-16

CT

12/29/2008

Duplicate

<0.10

Ug/L

1067

MW-16

' CT

12/29/2008



<0.10

ug/L

1068

MW-16

CT

03/15/2009

Duplicate

<0.10

ug/L

1069

MW-16

CT

03/15/2009



<0.10 ¦

ug/L

1070

MW-16

¦ CT

06/25/2009



0.1

ug/L

1071

MW-16

CT

09/20/2009



<0.10

ug/L

1072

MW-16

CT

01/18/2010



0.1

ug/L

1073

MW-16 ¦-

CT

03/17/2010



¦ <0.10

Ui/L

1074

MW-25

CT

09/22/1997



<5

ug/L

1075

MW-25

CT

12/20/1997



<5

ug/L

1076

MW-25

CT

03/20/1998



<5

ug/L

1077

MW-25

CT

06/01/1998



<5

ug/L

1078

MW-25

CT

. 09/16/1998



<5

ug/L

1079

MW-25

CT

12/09/1998 .



<5

ug/L

1080

MW-25

CT

03/18/1999



<5

ug/L

1081 ¦

MW-25

CT

06/15/1999



<5

	H^L	

Page 27 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4BBD) S.S. papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1082

MW-25

CT

09/14/1999



<5

ug/L

1083

MW-25

CT

12/16/1999



<5

ug/L

1084

MW-25

CT

03/16/2000



ND

¦ ¦ ug/L

1085

MW-25

CT

06/16/2000



ND

' ug/L

1086

MW-25

CT

09/19/2000



ND

Ug/L

1087

MW-25

CT

12/05/2000



ND

ug/L

1088

MW-25

CT

03/14/2001



ND

ug/L

1089

MW-25

CT

06/15/2001



ND

ug/L

1090

MW-25

CT

09/19/2001



ND

ug/L

1091

MW-25

CT

12/04/2001



ND

ug/L

1092

MW-25

CT

03/13/2002



<5

ug/L

1093

MW-25

CT

06/03/2002



<5

ug/L

1094

MW-25

CT

09/19/2002



ND

ug/L

1095

MW-25

CT

12/02/2002



ND

Ug/L

1096

MW-25

CT

03/01/2003



¦ <5

ug/L

1097

MW-25

CT

06/02/2003



ND

ug/L

1098

MW-25

CT

09/05/2003



<5

ug/L

1099

MW-25

CT

12/05/2003



ND

ug/L

1100

MW-25

CT

03/15/2004



<5

ug/L

1101

MW-25

CT

06/24/2004



<5

ug/L

1102

MW-25

CT

09/27/2004



<5

ug/L

1103

MW-25

CT

03/02/2005



<5

ug/L

1104

MW-25

CT

06/14/2005



<5

ug/L

1105

MW-25

CT

09/12/2005



<5

ug/L

1106

MW-25

CT

12/13/2005



<5

ug/L

1107

MW-25

CT

03/03/2006



<5

ug/L

nee

MW-25

CT

06/05/2006



' <5

ug/L

1109

MW-25

CT

09/18/2006



<5

ug/L

1110

MW-25

CT

.12/05/2006



<5

ug/L

nil

MW-25

CT

03/13/2007



<5

ug/L

1112

MW-25

CT

06/06/2007



<5

ug/L

1113

MW-25

CT

09/05/2007



<5

ug/L

1114

MW-25

CT

12/04/2007



<5

ug/L

1115

MW-25

CT

03/11/2008



<5

ug/L

1116

MW-25

CT

10/20/2008

-

<0.1

ug/L.

1117

MW-25

CT

12/30/2008



<0.10 .

ug/L

1118

MW-25

CT

03/14/2009



<0.10

ug/L

1119

MW-25

CT

06/25/2009



<0.10

ug/L

1120

MW-25

CT

09/20/2009

¦ Duplicate

<0.10

ug/L

1121

MW-25

CT

09/20/2009



<0.10

ug/L

1122

MW-25

CT

01/18/2010



< 0.10

ug/L

Page 28 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
40BEBI) S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1123

MW-25

CT

03/17/2010



<0.10

ug/l

1124

MW-25

CT

07/08/2010



<0.10

ug/L

1125

MW-25

CT

09/11/2010



<0.10

ug/L

1126

MW-25

CT

12/10/2010

Duplicate

<0.10

ug/L

1127

MW-25

CT

12/10/2010



<0.10

ug/L

1128

MW-25

CT

03/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

1129

MW-25

CT

06/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

1130

MW-25

CT

09/13/2011

Duplicate

<0.10

ug/L

1131

MW-25

CT

09/13/2011



<0.10

ug/L

1132

MW-25

CT

12/16/2011



<0.10

ug/L

1133

MW-28R

CT

10/22/2004



<5

ug/L

1134

MW-28R

CT

03/08/2005



<5

ug/L

1135

MW-28R

CT

06/23/2005



<5

ug/L

1136

MW-28R

CT

TO/14/2W5



<5

Ug/L

1137

MW-28R

CT ¦

12/20/2005



<5

ug/L

1138

MW-28R

CT

03/06/2006



<5

ug/L

1139

MW-28R

CT

06/08/2006



<5

ug/L

1140

MW-28R

CT

10/12/2006



<5

ug/L

1141

MW-28R

CT

12/06/2006



<5

ug/L

1142

¦ MW-28R

CT

' 03/&9/2007



<5

ug/L

1143

MW-28R

CT

06/08/2007



<5

ug/L

• 1144

MW-28R

CT

09/06/2007



<5

ug/L

1145

MW-28R

CT

12/05/2007



<5

ug/L ¦

1146

MW-28R

CT

03/12/2008



<5 .

ug/L

1147

MW-28R

CT

10/20/2008



1.2

ug/L

¦1148

¦ MW-28R

CT

12/29/2008



1.1

ug/L

1149

MW-28R

CT

03/14/2009



0.82

ug/L

1150

MW-28R

CT

06/25/2009



0.96

ug/L

1151

MW-28R

CT

09/20/20Q9



1

ug/l

1152

MW-28R

CT

03/17/2010

Duplicate

0.74

ug/L

1153

MW-28R

¦CT

¦ 03/17/2010



0.69

ug/L

1154

MW-28R

CT

07/08/2010



0.68

ug/L

1155

MW-28R

CT

09/11/2010

Duplicate

¦ 0.63

ug/L

1156

MW-28R

CT

09/11/2010



0.63

ug/L

1157

MW-28R

CT

12/10/2010



0.44

ug/L

1158

MW-28R

CT

03/23/2011



0.56

ug/L

1159

MW-28R

CT

06/23/2011 .



0.54

ug/L

1160

MW-28R

¦ CT

09/12/2011



0.44

ug/L

1161

MW-28R

CT

12/12/2011



0.54

W/L

1162

MW-28R

CT :

^>2/12/2014"



0.2

ur/L-

1163

NP-001R

¦ CT '

09/17/1997



' 
-------
4fSB0t> S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Sine® 1997



Sampling
Location

Anaiyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1164

NP-001R

CT

06/12/1998



<5

ug/L

1165

NP-001R

CT

09/09/1998



<5

ug/L

1166

MP-001R

CT

06/29/1999



<5

ug/L

1167

NP-001R

CT

.09/07/1999



<5

ug/L

1168

NP-001R

CT

06/16/2000



ND

ug/L

1169

NP-001R

CT

09/15/2000



ND

ug/L

1170

NP-001R

CT

06/19/2001



ND

ug/L

1171

NP-001R

CT

09/19/2001



ND

ug/L

1172

NP-001R

CT

06/11/2002



<5

ug/L

1173

NP-001R

CT

09/05/2002



ND

ug/L

1174

NP-001R

CT

09/19/2002



<5

ug/L

1175

NP-001R

CT

07/09/2003



ND

ug/L

1176

NP-001R

CT

06/17/2004



<5

ug/L

1177

NP-001R

CT

09/28/2004



<5

ug/L

1178

NP-001R

CT

06/23/2005



<5

ug/L

1179

NP-001R

CT

09/12/2005

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

1180

NP-001R

CT

09/12/2005



<5

ug/L

1181

NP-001R

CT

06/08/2006

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

1182

NP-001R

CT

06/08/2006



<5

ug/L

1183

NP-001R

CT

09/29/2006



<5

ug/L

1184

NP-001R

CT

03/13/2007



<5

ug/L

1185

NP-001R

CT

06/12/2007



<5

ug/L

1186

NP-001R

CT

09/12/2007

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

1187

NP-001R

CT

09/12/2007



<5

ug/L

1188

NP-OOIR

CT

10/28/2008



<0.1

ug/L

1189

NP-001R

CT

12/30/2008



<0.10

ug/L

1190

NP-001R

CT

03/11/2009



<2.0

ug/L

1191

NP-001R

CT

07/01/2009



<1.0

ug/L

1192

NP-001R

CT

09/08/2009

Duplicate

<0.10

ug/L

1193

NP-001R

CT

09/08/2009



<0.10

ug/L

1194

NP-001R

CT

01/12/2010



<0.10

ug/L

1195

NP-OOIR

CT

03/16/2010



<0.10

ug/L

1196

NP-001R

CT

06/22/2010



<0.10

ug/L

1197

NP-001R

CT

09/01/2010



<0.10

ug/L

1198

NP-001R

CT

12/10/2010



<0.10

ug/L

1199

NP-001R

CT

03/18/2011

Duplicate

<0.10

ug/L

1200

NP-OOIR

CT

03/18/2011



<0.10

ug/L

1201

NP-001R

CT

06/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

1202

NP-OOIR

CT

06/23/2011

Duplicate

<0.10

ug/L

1203

NP-OOIR

CT

08/31/2011



<0.10

ug/L

1204

NP-OOIR

CT

12/12/2011



<0.10

ug/L

Page 30 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
dfiBHl S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subslte Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Sine® 1997



Sampling

Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1205

PZ-250D

CT

06/23/2011



0.11

ug/L

1206

PZ-250D

CT

09/13/2011



<0.10

ug/L

1207

PZ-250D

CT

12/12/2011



0.1

ug/L

1208

PZ-250S

CT

06/23/2011



<0.10

ug/L

1209

PZ-250S

CT

09/13/2011



<0.10

ug/L

1210

PZ-250S

CT

12/12/2011



<0.10

ug/L

1211

PZ-80D

CT

10/11/2000



ND

ug/L

1212

PZ-80D

CT

12/08/2000



ND

ug/L

1213

PZ-80D

CT

03/30/2001



ND

ug/L

1214

PZ-80D

CT

06/20/2001



ND

ug/L

1215

PZ-80D

CT

09/10/2001



ND

ug/L

1216

PZ-80D

CT

12/09/2001



ND

ug/L

1217

PZ-80D

CT

03/19/2002



<5

ug/L

1218

PZ-80D

CT

06/11/2002



<5

ug/L

1219

PZ-80D

CT

09/05/2002



ND

ug/L

1220

PZ-80D

CT

12/11/2002



ND

ug/L

1221

PZ-80D

CT

06/02/2003



ND

ug/L

1222

PZ-80D

CT

09/16/2003



<5

ug/L

1223

PZ-80D

CT

12/08/2003



ND

ug/L

1224

PZ-80D

CT

03/19/2004



<5

ug/L

1225

PZ-80D

CT

07/07/2004



<5

ug/L

1226

PZ-80D

CT

07/21/2004



<5

ug/L

1227

PZ-80D

CT

09/27/2004



<5

UR/L

1228

PZ-80D .

CT

03/08/2005



<5

ug/L

1229

PZ-80D

CT

09/13/2005



<5

ug/L

1230

PZ-80D

CT-

12/20/2005



<5

ug/L

1231 "

PZ-80D

CT

10/28/2008



0.14

ug/L

1232

PZ-80D

CT

12/30/2008



0.2

ug/L

1233

PZ-80D

CT

03/14/2009



0.17

ug/L'

1234

PZ-80D

CT

06/25/2009



0.14

ug/L

1235

PZ-80D

CT

09/20/2009



0.35

ug/L

1236

PZ-80S

CT

10/11/2000



ND

ug/L

1237

PZ-80S

CT

12/08/2000



ND

ug/L

1238

PZ-80S

CT

03/30/2001



ND

ug/L

1239

PZ-80S

CT

06/20/2001



ND

ug/L

1240

PZ-80S

CT

09/10/2001



ND

ug/L

1241

PZ-80S

CT

12/09/2001



ND

ug/L

1242

PZ-80S

CT

03/19/2002



<5

ug/L

1243

PZ-80S

¦ CT

06/11/2002



<5

ug/L

1244

PZ-80S

CT

09/05/2002



ND

ug/L

1245

PZ-80S

CT

12/11/2002



ND

ug/L

Page 31 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4SBB0^ S.S. Papadofulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Date Since 1997



Sampling

Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field

Duplicate?

Result

Units

1246

PZ-80S

CT

07/02/2003



ND

ug/L

1247

PZ-80S

CT

09/16/2003



<5

ug/L

1248

PZ-80S

CT

12/08/2003



ND

ug/L

1249

PZ-80S

CT

03/19/2004



<5

ug/L

1250

PZ-80S

CT

07/07/2004



<5

ug/L

1251

PZ-80S

CT

07/21/2004



<5

ug/L

1252

PZ-80S

CT

09/27/2004



<5

ug/L

1253

PZ-80S

CT

03/08/2005



<5

ug/L

1254

PZ-80S

CT

09/13/2005



<5

ug/L

1255

PZ-80S

CT

12/20/2005



<5

ug/L

1256

PZ-80S

CT

10/28/2008



<0.1

ug/L

1257

PZ-80S

CT

12/30/2008



0.18

ug/L

1258

PZ-80S

CT

03/14/2009



0.2

ug/L

1259

PZ-80S

CT

06/25/2009



<0.10

ug/L

1260

PZ-80S

CT

09/20/2009



0.3

ug/L

1261

Well A

CT

09/17/1997



8

ug/L

1262

Well A

CT

09/08/1998



9

ug/L

1263

Well A

CT

09/07/1999



15

ug/L

1264

Well A

CT

10/09/2000



14

ug/L

1265

Well A

CT

09/07/2001



13

ug/L

1266

Well A

CT

09/12/2003



9

ug/L

1267

Weil A

CT

09/08/2004



6

ug/L

1268

Well A

CT

12/10/2004



6

ug/L

1269

Well A

CT

03/09/2005



6

ug/L

1270

Well A

CT

03/17/2005



ND

ug/L

1271

Well A

CT

06/13/2005



7

ug/L

1272

Well A

CT

06/16/2005



6

ug/L

1273

Well A

CT

09/13/2005

Duplicate

7

ug/L

1274

Well A

CT

09/13/2005



7

ug/L

1275

Well A

CT

12/19/2005



<5

ug/L

1276

Well A

CT

03/07/2006

Duplicate

7

ug/L

1277

Well A

CT

03/07/2006



7

ug/L

1278

Well A

CT

06/08/2006



<5

ug/L

1279

Well A

CT

09/07/2006



<5

ug/L

1280

Well A

CT

12/06/2006



<5

ug/L

1281

Well A

CT

03/09/2007

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

1282

Well A

CT

03/09/2007



<5

ug/L

1283

Well A

CT

06/12/2007

Duplicate

<5

ug/L

1284

Well A

CT

06/12/2007



<5

ug/L

1285

Well A

CT

09/07/2007



6

ug/L

1286

Well A

CT

12/05/2007



7.9

ug/L

Page 32 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4t£fiQb S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1287

Well A

cr

03/12/2008



<5

ug/L

1288

Well A

ct-

10/17/2008



3.4

ug/L

12B9

Well A

CT

12/30/2008



4

ug/L

1290

Well A

CT

03/11/2009



4.4

ug/L

1291

Well A

CT

07/01/2009

Duplicate

4.5

ug/L

1292

Well A

CT

07/01/2009



4.1

ug/L

1293

Weil A

CT

09/08/2009



4.5

ug/L

1294

Well A

CT

01/12/2010



4.7

ug/L

1295

Well A

CT

03/17/2010



5.2

ug/L

1296 '

Well A

CT

06/22/2010



5.4

ug/L

1297

Well A

CT

09/01/2010



4.9

ug/L

1298

Well A

CT

12/09/2010



4.7

ug/L

1299

Well A

CT

03/18/2011



5.2

ug/L

1300

Well A

CT

06/23/2011



5

ug/L

1301

Well A

CT

08/31/2011



4.7

ug/L

1302

Well A

CT

12/12/2011



6

ug/L

1303

Well A

CT

03/23/2012



7.6

ug/L ¦

1304

Well A

CT

09/19/2012



9.4

ug/L

1305

Well A

CT

03/14/2013



7

ug/L

1306

Well A

CT

03/14/2013

Duplicate

4.7

ug/L

1307

Well A

CT

09/04/2013



9.7

ug/L

1308

Well A

CT

03/25/2014



5.1

ug/L

1309

Well A

CT

09/02/2014

Duplicate

9.2

ug/L

1310

Well A

CT

09/02/2014



9.3

ug/L

1311

Well A

CT

03/09/2015

Duplicate

6.3

ug/L

1312

Well A

CT

03/09/2015



3.4

ug/L

1313

Well A

CT

09/08/2015 .

Duplicate

6.7

ug/L

1314

Well A

CT

09/08/2015



7.3

ug/L

1315

Well A

CT

03/14/2016

Duplicate

10.2

ug/L

1316

Well A

CT

03/14/2016



9.3

ug/L

1317

Well A

CT

11/22/2016



7.98

ug/L

' 1318

Well A

CT

03/07/2017



6.83

ug/L

1319

Well A

CT

09/13/2017 "



5.97

ug/L '

1320

Well A

CT

06/28/2018



8.8

ug/L

1321

Well A

CT

9/26/2018



1.22

ug/L

1322

Well A

CT

3/27/2019



4.55

ug/L

1323

Well A

CT

10/17/2019



<1

ug/L

1324

Well A

CT

5/5/2020



<1

ug/L

1325

Well A

CT

5/5/2020



<1

ug/L

1326

Well A

CT

11/19/2020



<1

ug/L

1327

Well A

CT

05/05/2021



5.1

ug/L

Page 33 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4fiB0l S.S. PAPADOPULOS a AS ICIATES, INC.

FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1328

Well B

CT

09/17/1997



ND

ug/L

1329

Well B

CT

09/08/1998



2

ug/L

1330

Well B

CT

09/07/1999



ND

ug/L

1331

Well B

CT

09/07/2001



7

ug/L

1332

Well B

CT

09/01/2002



6

ug/L

1333

Well B

CT

03/17/2005



10

Ufl/L

1334

Well B

CT

06/13/2005



14

ug/L

1335

Well B

CT

10/17/2008



7.9

ug/L

1336

Well B

CT

12/30/2008



4.2

ug/L

1337

Well B

CT

03/11/2009



8.9

ug/L

1338

Well B

CT

07/01/2009



8.1

ug/L

1339

Well B

CT

09/08/2009



6.7

ug/L

1340

Well B

CT

01/12/2010



6.8

ug/L

1341

Well B

CT

03/17/2010



9.8

ug/L

1342

Well B

CT

06/22/2010



9

ug/L

1343

Well B

CT

09/01/2010



9.3

ug/L

1344

Well B

CT

12/09/2010



7.5

ug/L

1345

Well B

CT

03/18/2011



7.1

ug/L

1346

Well B

CT

06/23/2011



8.5

ug/L

1347

Well B

CT

08/31/2011



4.3

ug/L

1348

Well B

CT

12/12/2011



7.8

ug/L

1349

Well B

CT

03/23/2012



6

ug/L

1350

Well B

CT

09/19/2012



5.6

ug/L

1351

Well B

CT

03/14/2013



6.7

ug/L

1352

Well B

CT

09/04/2013



4

ug/L

1353

Well B

CT

03/25/2014



6.5

ug/L

1354

Well B

CT

09/02/2014



4.7

ug/L

1355

Well B

CT

03/09/2015



3.3

ug/L

1356.

Well B

CT

09/08/2015



3.8

ug/L

1357

Well B

CT

03/14/2016



6.6

ug/L

1358

Well B

CT

11/22/2016



3.9

ug/L

1359

Well B

CT

03/07/2017



2.25

ug/L

1360

Well B

CT

09/13/2017



3.09

ug/L

1361

Well B

CT

06/28/2018



3.48

ug/L

.1362

Well B

CT

9/26/2018



2.56

ug/L

1363

Well B

CT

3/27/2019



1.9

ug/L

1364

Well B

CT

10/17/2019



<1

ug/L

1365

Well B

CT

11/19/2020



1.2

ug/L

1366

Well B

CT

05/05/2021



1.4

ug/L

1367

Well C

CT

09/12/2003



ND

ug/L

Page 34 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4BBBBb S.S. Papaoopuijos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date ¦

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1368

Well C

CT

09/08/2004



<5

ug/L

1369

Well C

a

12/10/2004



ND

¦ ug/L

1370

Well C

a

03/09/2005



<5

ug/L

1371

Well C

CT

' 03/17/2005



2.4

ug/L

1372

Well C

a

06/13/2005



2.6

ug/L

1373

Well C

a

06/16/2005



<5

ug/L

1374

Well C

a

09/13/2005



<5

ug/L

1375

Well C

a

12/19/2005



<5

ug/L

1376

Well C

CT

03/07/2006



<5

ug/L

1377

Well C

CT

06/08/2006



<5

ug/L

1378

Well C

CT

09/07/2006



<5

ug/L

1379..

Well C

CT

12/06/2006



<5

ug/L

1380

Well C

CT

03/09/2007 ¦



<5

ug/L

1381

Well C -

CT

06/12/2007



<5

ug/L

1382

Well C

CT

09/07/2007



<5

ug/L

1183

Well C

CT

12/05/2007



<5

ug/L

1384

Well C

CT

03/12/2008



<5

ug/L

1385

Well C

CT

• 10/17/2008



1.8

ug/L

"1386

Weil C

CT

12/30/2008



1.9

ug/L

1387

Well C

CT

03/11/2009



2.3

ug/L

1388

Well C

CT

07/01/2009



2.2

ug/L

1389

Well C

¦ CT

09/08/2009



2

ug/L

1390

Well C

' CT

01/12/2010



2.3

ug/L

1391

Well C

cr

03/17/2010



2.4 .

ug/L

1392

' Well C

CT

06/22/2010



2.2

ug/L

1393

Well C

. CT

09/01/2010



2.1

ug/L

1394

Well C

CT

12/09/2Q10

Duplicate

2

ug/L

1395

Well C

CT

12/09/2010



2

ug/L.

1396

Well C

CT'

03/18/2011

Duplicate

2

ug/L

1397

Well C

CT

03/18/2011



1.8

ug/L

1398 .

. Well C

CT

06/23/2011 .



1.7 . .

ug/L

1399

Well C

CT

08/31/2011



1.6

ug/L

1400

Well C

CT

12/12/2011



1.6

ug/L

1401

Well C

CT

03/23/2012



1.7

ug/L

1402

Well C

CT

03/25/2014



1.4

ug/L

1403

Well D

CT

07/22/1997



20

ug/L

1404

Well 0

CT

07/22/1997



18

ug/L

1405

Well D

CT

07/22/1997



<5

ug/L

1406

Well D

CT

07/22/1997



16

ug/L

Pag® 35 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4BSEB) S.S. papadopolos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyfe

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1407

Well 0

CT

07/22/1997



13

ug/L

. 1408

Well D

a

07/22/1997



17

ug/L

1409

Well D

CT

07/23/1997

Duplicate

12

ug/L

1410

Well D

CT

07/23/1997



11

ug/L

1411

Well D

cr

07/23/1997



12

ug/L

1412

Well D

CT

07/24/1997



13

ug/L

1413

Well D

CT

07/25/1997



14

ug/L

1414

Well D

a

07/28/1997



13

ug/L

1415

Well D

CT

08/04/1997



13

ug/L

1416

Well D

CT

08/11/1997



12

ug/L

1417

Well D

CT

08/18/1997



12

ug/L

1418

Well D

CT

08/27/1997



12

ug/L

1419

Well D

CT

09/17/1997



13

ug/L

1420

Well D

CT

10/20/1997



11

ug/L

1421

Well D

CT

11/01/1997



0.92

ug/L

1422

Well D

CT

11/17/1997



12

ug/L

1423

Well D

CT

12/11/1997



14

ug/L

1424

Well D

CT

01/15/1998



14

ug/L

1425

Well D

CT

02/01/1998



0.92

ug/L

1426

Well D

CT

02/16/1998



11

ug/L

1427

Well D

CT

03/16/1998



14

ug/L

1428

Well D

CT

05/18/1998



11

ug/L

1429

Well D

CT

06/15/1998



11

ug/L

1430

Well D

CT

07/20/1998



11

ug/L

1431

Well D

CT

08/18/1998



13

ug/L

1432

Well D

CT

09/23/1998



15

ug/L

1433

Well D

CT

10/19/1998



14 .

ug/L

1434

Well D

CT

11/16/1998



15

ug/L

1435

Well D

CT

12/17/1998



16

ug/L

1436

Well D

CT

01/18/1999

Duplicate

16

ug/L

1437

Well D

CT

01/18/1999



15

ug/L

1438

Well D

CT

02/15/1999

Duplicate

17

ug/L

1439

Well D

CT

02/15/1999



16

ug/L

1440

¦ Well D

CT

06/29/1999

Duplicate

13

ug/L

1441

Well D

CT

06/29/1999



12

ug/L

1442

Well D

CT

09/07/1999



14

ug/L

1443

Well D

CT

12/02/1999

Duplicate

18

ug/L

1444

Well D

CT

12/02/1999



19

ug/L

1445

Well D

CT

03/22/2000



20

ug/L

Page 36 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. Papadopolos at Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1446

Well D

a

06/26/2000

Duplicate

21

ug/L

1447

Well D

CT

06/26/2000



23

ug/L

1448

Well D

CT

10/11/2000



21

ug/L

1449

Well D

¦ CT

12/08/2000



21

ug/L

1450

Well D

a

03/30/2001



19

ug/L

1451

Well D

a

04/01/2001



19

ug/L

1452

Well D

CT

06/20/2001



17

ug/L

1453

Well D

CT

09/10/2001



22

ug/L

1454

Wei! 0

a

12/09/2001



18

ug/L

1455

Well D

CT

03/19/2002



17

ug/L

1456

Well D

CT

06/11/2002



14

ug/L

1457

Well D

CT

09/05/2002



21

ug/L

1458

Well 0

CT

12/11/2002



15

ug/L

1459

Well D

CT

03/01/2003



13

ug/L

1460

Well D

CT

06/02/2003



12

ug/L

1461

Well D

CT

07/01/2003



12

ug/L

1462

Well D

CT

09/16/2003



14

ug/L

1463

Well D

CT

12/08/2003



12

ug/L

1464

- Well D

CT

03/01/2004



19/19

¦ ug/L

1465

Well D

CT

03/19/2004



11

ug/L

1466

Well D

CT

06/01/2004



17

ug/L

1467

Well D

CT

07/21/2004



15

ug/L

1468

Weil D

CT

09/27/2004



12

ug/L

1469

Weil D

CT

12/09/2004



10

ug/L

1470

' Well D

CT

03/08/2005 ,



9

ug/L

1471

Well D

CT

03/17/2005



¦ 9.7

ug/L

1472

Well 0

CT

06/13/2005 '



9

ug/L

1473

Well 0

CT

06/17/2005



8

ug/L

1474

Well D

CT

09/13/2005



8

ug/L

1475 •

Well D

CT

12/19/2005



7

ug/L

1476

Well 0

CT

03/86/2806



6

ug/L

1477

Well D

CT

06/14/2006



5

ug/L

1478

Well 0

CT

09/05/2006



5

ug/L

1479

Well D

CT

12/06/2006



<5

ug/L

1480

Well D

CT

03/09/2007



<5 -

ug/L

1481

Well D

CT

06/08/2007



<5

ug/L

1482

Well D

CT

09/06/2007



<5

ug/L

1483

Well 0

CT

12/05/2007



<5

ug/L.

1484

Well D

CT

03/12/2008



<5

ug/L

Page 37 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4SED) S.S. Papadopulos ft Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1485

Well D

CT

10/17/2008



2.6

ug/L

1486

Well D

CT

12/30/2008



2.5

ug/L

1487

Well D

CT

03/11/2009

Duplicate

2.4

ug/L

1488

Well D

CT

03/11/2009



2.3

ug/L

¦ 1489

Well D

CT

06/25/2009



2.2

ug/L

1490

Well D

CT

09/08/2009



2

ug/L

1491

Well D

CT

01/12/2010

Duplicate

2.3

ug/L

1492

Weil D

CT

01/12/2010



2.2

ug/L

1493

Well D

CT

03/17/2010



2.5

ug/L

1494

Well D

CT

06/22/2010



2.3

ug/L

1495

Well D

CT.

09/01/2010

Duplicate

2.2

ug/L

1496

Well D

CT

09/01/2010



2.2

ug/L

1497

Well D

CT

12/09/2010



1.8

ug/L

1498

Weil D

CT

03/18/2011



1.9

ug/L

1499

Well D

CT

06/23/2011



1.7

. ug/L

1500

Well D

CT

08/31/2011



1.8

ug/L

1501

Well D

CT

12/12/2011

Duplicate

1.8

ug/L

1502

Well D

CT

12/12/2011



1.9

ug/L

1503

Well D

CT

03/23/2012

Duplicate

1.3

ug/L

1504

Well D

CT

03/23/2012



1.9

ug/L

1505

Well D *

CT

06/21/2012



6.4

ug/L

1506

Well D .

CT

08/13/2012

Duplicate

1.7

ug/L

1507

Well D

CT

08/13/2012



1.7

ug/L

1508

Well D

CT

09/19/2012



1.5

ug/L

1509

Well D

CT

12/05/2012

Duplicate

1.3

ug/L

1510

Well D

CT

12/05/2012



1.3

ug/L

1511

Well D

CT

03/14/2013



1.3

ug/L

1512

Well D

CT

06/19/2013

Duplicate

1.3

ug/L

1513

Well D

CT

06/19/2013



1.3

ug/L

1514

Well D

CT

09/04/2013

Duplicate

1.7

ug/L

1515

Well D

CT

09/04/2013



1.4

ug/L

1516

Well D

CT

12/12/2013

Duplicate

1.2

ug/L

1517

Weil D

CT

12/12/2013



1.2

Ug/L

1518

Well D

CT

03/26/2014



1.1

ug/L

Page 38 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4BBb S.S. Papadopolos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Concentration Data Sine® 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1519

Well F

CT

03/23/2012



1.8

ug/L

1520

Well F

CT

09/19/2012



0.1

ug/L

1521

Well F

CT

03/14/2013



0.13

ug/L

1522

Well F

CT

09/04/2013



0.23

ug/L

1523

Well F

CT

03/25/2014



0.71

ug/L

* not representative due to well maintenance

Page 39 of 39

6/1/2021

-------
4BBB0b S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subshe Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling

Location

Attaifte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1

CD-06

EDB

05/07/2004



0.02

ug/L

2

CD-06

EDB

03/09/2005



<0.05

ug/L

3

CD-06

EDB

06/23/2005



<0.05

ug/L

4

CD-06

EDB

09/20/2005



<0.05

ug/L

5

CD-06

EDB

12/19/2005



<0.05

ug/L

6

CD-06

EDB

03/10/2006



<0.05

ug/L

7

CD-06

EDB

06/14/2006



<0.05

ug/L

8

CD-06 -

EDB

09/08/2006



<0.05

ug/L

9

CD-06

EDB

12/06/2006



<0.05

ug/L

10

CD-06

EDB

03/09/2007



<0.05

ug/L

11

CD-06

EDB

06/12/2007



<0.05

ug/L

12

CD-06

EDB

08/20/2007



<0.05

ug/L

13

CD-06

EDB

12/04/2007



<0.05

ug/L

14

CD-06

EDB

03/12/2008



<0.05

ug/L

15

CD-06

EDB

10/20/2008



<0.05

ug/L

16

CD-06

EDB

12/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

17

CD-06

EDB

03/11/2009



<0.05

ug/L

18

CD-06

EDB

06/25/2009



<0.05

ug/L

19

CD-06

EDB

01/12/2010



<0.05

ug/L

20

CD-06

- EDB

¦ 03/16/2010



<0.05

ug/L

21

CD-06

EDB

06/22/2010



<0.05

ug/L

22

CD-06

EDB

09/01/2010



<0.05

ug/L

23

CD-06

EDB

12/09/2010



<0.05

ug/L

24

CD-06

EDB

03/18/2011



<0.05

ug/L

25

CD-06

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

26

CD-06

EDB

08/31/2011



<0.05

ug/L

27

CD-06

EDB

12/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

28

CI-15

EDB

09/02/1997



ND

ug/L

29

CI-15

EDB -

07/01/1998



ND

ug/L

30

CI-15'

EDB

08/28/1998



<0.05

ug/L

31

CI-15

EDB

07/19/1999



ND

ug/L

32

CI-15

EDB

08/24/1999



ND

ug/L

33

CI-15

EDB

07/18/2000



ND

ug/L

34

CI-15

EDB

08/27/2001



ND

ug/L

35

CI-15

EDB

07/01/2002



ND

Ug/L

36

CI-15

EDB

08/02/2002



ND

ug/L

37

CI-15

EDB

07/16/2003



ND

ug/L

38

CI-15

EDB

08/21/2003



<0.05

ug/L

39

CI-15

EDB

07/21/2004



<0.05

ug/L

40

CI-15

EDB

09/03/2004



<0.05

ug/L

Page 1 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
4flBBl S.S. Papaoopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

AnaSyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

41

CI-15

EDB

07/01/2005



<0.05

ug/L

42

CI-15

EDB

08/26/2005



<0.05

ug/L

43

CI-15

EDB

06/26/2006



<0.05

ug/L

44

CI-15

EDB

08/23/2006



<0.05

ug/L .

45

CI-15

EDB

07/03/2007



<0.05

ug/L

46

CI-15

EDB

07/27/2007



<.01

ug/L

47

CI-15

EDB

08/20/2007



<0.05

ug/L

48

CI-15

EDB

07/01/2009



<0.05

ug/L

49

CI-15

EDB

09/08/2009



< 0.05

ug/L

50

CI-15

- EDB

07/09/2010



<0.05

ug/L

51

CI-15

EDB

09/01/2010



<0.05

ug/L

' 52

CI-15

EDB

07/18/2011



<0.05

ug/L

53

CI-15

EDB

08/31/2011



<0.05

ug/L

54

CMW1B

EDB

10/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

55

CMW1B

EDB

12/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

56

CMW1B

EDB

03/14/2009



<0.05

ug/L

57

CMW1B

EDB

06/25/2009



< 0.05

ug/L

58

CMW1B

EDB

09/20/2009



<0.05

ug/L

59

¦ CMW1B. ¦

EDB

01/18/2010 .



<0.05

ug/L

60

CMW1B

EDB

03/17/2010



<0.05

ug/L

61

CMW1B

EDB

07/08/2010



<0.05

ug/L

6?

CMW1B

EDB

¦ 09/11/2010



<0.05

ug/L

63

CMW1B

EDB

12/10/2010



< 0.05

ug/L

¦,.64

CMW1B

¦ EDB

03/23/2011



< 0.05

ug/L

65

CMW1B

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

66

CMW1B ¦

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

67

CMW1B ¦

' EDB

12/16/2011



< 0.05

ug/L

68

CMW1BB

EDB

10/29/2008

Duplicate

^ r-

ug/L

' 69

CMW1BB

EDB •

. 10/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

70

CMW1BB

EDB

12/29/2008



<0.05 ¦

ug/L

. 71

CMW1BB

. EDB

03/14/2009



<0.05

ug/L

72

CMW1BB

EDB

06/25/2009



<0.05

ug/L

73

CMW1BB

EDB

09/20/2009



<0.05

ug/L

74

CMW1BB •

EDB

01/18/2010



<0.05

ug/L

75

CMW1BB

EDB

03/17/2010



<0.05

ug/L

76 ¦

CMW1BB

EDB

07/08/2010



<0.05

ug/L



¦ CMW1BB

EDB

09/11/2010



<0.05

ug/L

78

CMW1BB

' EDB

12/10/2010



<0.05

ug/L

79

CMW1BB

EDB

03/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

80

CMW1BB ¦

' EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

Page 2 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
4BHBH S.S. Papadopulos a A igiates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field

Duplicate?

Result

Units

81

CMW1BB

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

82

CMW1BB

EDB

12/16/2011



<0.05

ug/L

83

CMW1C

EDB

10/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

M

CMW1C

EDB

12/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

85

CMW1C

EDB

03/14/2009



<0.05

ug/L

86

CMW1C

EDB

06/25/2009



<0.05

ug/L

87

CMW1C

EDB

09/20/2009



<0.05

ug/L

88

CMW1C

EDB

01/18/2010



<0.05

ug/L

89

CMW1C

EDB

03/17/2010



<0.05

ug/L

90

CMW1C

EDB

07/08/2010



<0.05

ug/L

91

CMW1C

EDB

09/11/2010



<0.05

ug/L

92

CMW1C

EDB

12/10/2010



<0.05

ug/L

93

CMW1C

EDB

03/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

94

CMW1C

' EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

95

CMW1C

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

96

CMW1C

EDB

12/16/2011



<0.05

ug/L

97

CMW4B

EDB

10/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

98

CMW4B

EDB

12/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

99

CMW4B

EDB

03/14/2009



<0.05

ug/L

100

CMW4B

EDB

06/25/2009



<0.05

ug/L

101

CMW4B

¦ EDB

09/20/2009



<0.05

ug/L

102

CMW4B

EDB

01/18/2010



<0.05

ug/L

103

CMW4B

EDB

03/18/2010



<0.05

ug/L

104

CMW4B

EDB

07/08/2010



<0.05

ug/L

105

CMW4B

EDB

09/06/2010

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

106

CMW4B

EDB

09/06/2010



<0.05

ug/L

107

CMW4B

EDB

12/10/2010



<0.05

ug/L

108

CMW4B

EDB

03/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

109

CMW4B

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

110

CMW4B

EDB

09/12/2011

Duplicate

< 0.05

ug/L

111

CMW4B

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

112

CMW4B

EDB

12/16/2011



<0.05

ug/L

113

CMW4B

EDB

12/16/2011

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

114

CMW5B

EDB

10/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

115

CMW5B

EDB

12/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

116

CMW5B

EDB

03/14/2009



<0.05

ug/L

117

CMW5B

EDB

06/25/2009



<0.05

ug/l

118

CMW5B

EDB

09/20/2009



< 0.05

ug/L

119

CMW5B

EDB

03/17/2010



<0.05

ug/L

120

CMW5B

EDB

07/08/2010



<0.05

ug/L

Page 3 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. Papaoopuijos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Sine® 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

121

CMW5B

EDB

09/06/2010



<0.05

ug/L

122

CMW5B

EDB

12/10/2010



<0.05

ug/L

123

CMW5B

EDB

03/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

124

CMW5B

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

125

CMW5B

EDB

06/23/2011

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

126

CMW5B

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

127

CMW5B

EDB

12/16/2011



<0.05

ug/L

128

D-07

EDB

09/17/1997



ND

ug/L

129

D-07

EDB

09/08/1998



<0.05

ug/L

130

D-07

EDB

09/09/1999



ND

ug/L

131

D-07

EDB

10/09/2000



ND

ug/L

132

D-07

EDB

02/05/2001



ND

ug/L

133

D-07

EDB

03/05/2001



ND

ug/L

134

D-07

EDB

09/07/2001



ND

ug/L

135

D-07

EDB

09/05/2002

Duplicate

ND

ug/L

136

D-07

EDB

09/05/2002



ND

ug/L

137

D-07

EDB

09/12/2003



<0.05

ug/L

¦ 138

D-07

EDB

06/11/2004



ND

ug/L

139

D-07

EDB

09/08/2004



<0.05

ug/L

140

D-07

EDB

09/16/2005



<0.05

ug/L

141

D-07

EDB

09/08/2006



<0.05

ug/L

142

D-07

EDB

09/07/2007



<0.05

ug/L

143

D-07

EDB

10/28/2008



<0.5

ug/L

144

D-07

EDB

03/11/2009



<0.50

ug/L

145

D-07

EDB

09/08/2009



<0.50

ug/L

146

GN (Shop

EDB

03/09/2015



<0.05

ug/L

147

M6

EDB

09/17/1997



<0.05

ug/L

148

1-46

EDB

06/12/1998



<0.05

ug/L

149

1-46

EDB

09/09/1998



<0.05

ug/L

150

S-46

EDB

07/07/1999



<0.05

ug/L

151

1-46

¦ EDB

09/07/1999



<0.05

¦ ug/L

152

1-46

EDB

06/29/2000



0.74

ug/L

153

1-46

EDB

10/10/2000



ND

ug/L

154

1-46

EDB

06/18/2001



ND

ug/L

155

1-46

EDB

09/07/2001



ND

ug/L

156

1-46

EDB

06/11/2002



<.05

ug/L

157

1-46

EDB

09/09/2002



ND

ug/L

158

1-46

EDB

03/01/2003



<0.05

ug/L

159

1-46

EDB

06/01/2003



<0.05

ug/L

160

1-46

EDB

07/09/2003



ND

ug/L

Page 4 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
4BBBBb 8.S. Papadofulos a A ioates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subslte Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling

Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

161

1-46

EDB

09/12/2003



<0.05

ug/l

162

1-46

EDB

05/06/2004



1.2

ug/L

163

1-46

EDB

06/29/2004



<0.05

ug/l

164

1-46

EDB

09/08/2004



<0.05

ug/L

165

1-46

EDB

06/17/2005



<0.05

ug/L

166

1-46

EDB

06/23/2005



ND

ug/L

167

1-46

EDB

09/14/2005



<0.05

ug/L

168

1-46

EDB

06/08/2006



<0.05

ug/L

169

1-46

EDB

09/05/2006



<0.05

ug/L

170

1-46

EDB

06/12/2007



<0.05

ug/L

171

1-46

EDB

09/06/2007



<0.05

ug/L

172

1-46

EDB

10/20/2008



<0.05

ug/L

173

1-46

EDB

03/11/2009



<0.05

ug/L

174

1-46

EDB

09/08/2009



<0.05

ug/L

175

1-46

EDB

03/16/2010



<0.05

ug/L

176

1-46

EDB

09/01/2010



<0.05

ug/L

177

1-46

EDB

03/18/2011



<0.05

ug/L

¦ 178

1-46

EDB

08/31/2011



<0.05

ug/L

179

1-49

EDB

09/01/1997

Duplicate

2.4

ug/L

180

1-49

EDB

09/02/1997



2.3

ug/L

181

1-49

EDB

07/01/1998



1.3

ug/L

182

1-49

EDB

08/28/1998



0.61

ug/L

183

1-49

EDB

07/19/1999



0.76

ug/L

184

1-49

EDB

08/24/1999

Duplicate

2.1

ug/L

185

1-49

EDB

08/24/1999



1.9

ug/L

186

1-49

EDB

09/01/1999



2.1

ug/L

187

1-49

EDB

06/28/2000



ND

ug/L

188

1-49

EDB

06/29/2000



ND

ug/L

189

1-49

EDB

10/16/2000

Duplicate

1.5

ug/L

190

1-49

EDB

10/16/2000



1.6

ug/L

191

1-49

EDB

12/01/2000



0.43

ug/L

192

1-49

EDB

06/01/2001



0.43

ug/L

193

1-49

EDB

07/18/2001



0.43

ug/L

194

1-49

EDB

08/27/2001



0.45

¦ ug/L

195

1-49

EDB

09/01/2001



0.45

ug/L

196

1-49

EDB

07/01/2002



0.41

ug/L

197

1-49

EDB

08/02/2002



0.1

ug/L

198

1-49

EDB

09/01/2002



0.11

ug/L

199

1-49

EDB

07/16/2003



0.22

ug/L

200

1-49

EDB

08/21/2003

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

Page 5 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
dfiflHl S.S. Papadopulos ft Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Sine® 1997



Sampling
Location

Anaiyte

. Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

201

1-49

EDB

08/21/2003



<0.05

ug/L

202

1-49

EDB

06/28/2004



0.35

ug/L

203

1-49

EDB

09/03/2004



0.18

ug/L

204

1-49

EDB

07/01/2005

Duplicate

0.32

ug/L

205

1-49

EDB

07/01/2005



0.31

ug/L

206

1-49

EDB

07/22/2005



0.61

ug/L

207

1-49

EDB

08/01/2005



0.31

ug/L

208

1-49

EDB

08/26/2005



0.47

ug/L

209

1-49

EDB

06/26/2006

Duplicate

0.61

ug/L

210

1-49

EDB

06/26/2006



0.64

ug/L

211

1-49

EDB

08/23/2006

Duplicate

0.56

ug/L

212

1-49

EDB

08/23/2006



0.58

ug/L

213

1-49

EDB

07/13/2007

Duplicate

0.18

ug/L

214

1-49

EDB

07/13/2007



0.18

ug/L

215

1-49

EDB

07/27/2007



0.23

ug/L

216

1-49

EDB

08/20/2007

Duplicate

0.2

ug/L

217

1-49

EDB

08/20/2007



0.21

Ug/L

218

1-49

EDB

07/01/2009



0.25

ug/L

219

1-49

EDB

09/08/2009

Duplicate

0.25

ug/L

220

1-49

EDB

09/08/2009



0.21

ug/L

221

1-49

EDB

09/01/2010



0.13

ug/L

222

• 1-49

EDB

07/18/2011 .



0.1

ug/L

223

1-49

EDB

08/31/2011



0.19

ug/L

224

1-49

EDB

09/19/2012



0.07

ug/L

225

1-49

EDB

06/19/2013



0.057

ug/L

226

1-50

EDB

09/17/1997



0.15

Ug/L

227

1-50

EDB

06/12/1998



0.11

ug/L

228

1-50

EDB

09/07/1999



<0.05

ug/L

229

1-50

EDB

06/29/2000



ND

ug/L

230

1-50

- EDB

10/10/2000



ND

ug/L

231

1-50

EDB

12/01/2000



<0.05

Ug/L

232

1-50

EDB

06/19/2001



ND

ug/L

233

1-50

EDB

09/07/2001



ND

ug/L

234

1-50

EDB

06/11/2002



<5

ug/L

235

1-50

EDB

07/16/2002



0.036

ug/L

236

1-50

EDB

09/05/2002



ND

Ug/L

237

1-50

EDB

06/02/2003



ND

Ug/L

238

1-50

- EDB

07/01/2003



<0.05

Ug/L

239

1-50

EDB

09/12/2003



<0.05

Ug/L

240

1-50 '

EDB

06/15/2004



0.02

ug/L

Pag® 6 of 36

-------
4BBj) S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Anafyte

Sample Date

Fieid
Duplicate?

Result

Units

241

1-50

EDB

06/28/2004



<0.05

ug/L

242

1-50

EDB

09/08/2004



<0.05

ug/L

243

1-50

EDB

06/23/2005

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

244

1-50

EDB

06/23/2005



<0.05

ug/L

245

1-50

EDB

09/14/2005



<0.05

ug/L

246

1-50

EDB

06/08/2006

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

247

1-50

EDB

06/08/2006



<0.05

ug/L

248

1-50

EDB

09/05/2006



<0.05

ug/L

249

1-50

EDB

06/12/2007



<0.05

ug/L

250

1-50

EDB

09/07/2007



<0.05

ug/L

251

1-50

EDB

07/01/2009



<0.05

ug/L ¦

252

1-50

EDB

09/08/2009



<0.05

ug/L

253

1-50

EDB

06/22/2010



<0.05

ug/L

254

1-50

EDB

09/01/2010



<0.05

ug/L

255

1-50

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

256

1-50

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

257

1-51

EDB

09/17/1997



0.44

ug/L

258

1-51

EDB

06/12/1998



0.99

ug/L

259

1-51

EDB

09/09/1998

Duplicate

0.89

ug/L

260

1-51

EDB

09/09/1998



0:87

ug/L

261

1-51

EDB

07/07/1999



1.1

ug/L

262

1-51

EDB

09/07/1999



0.95

Ug/L

263

1-51

EDB

06/28/2000



1.7

ug/L

264

1-51

EDB

06/29/2000



1.7

ug/L

265

1-51

EDB

10/10/2000



1.4

ug/L

266

1-51

EDB

06/18/2001



1.7

ug/L

267

1-51

EDB

09/07/2001



0.92

ug/L

268

1-51

EDB

06/11/2002



1.3

ug/L

269

¦ 1-51

EDB

09/09/2002



0.78

ug/L

270

1-51

EDB

06/09/2003



0.98

ug/L

271

1-51

EDB

09/12/2003



0.92

ug/L

272

1-51

EDB

06/29/2004

Duplicate

1.4

ug/L

273

1-51

EDB

06/29/2004



1.4 '

ug/L

274

1-51

EDB

09/08/2004



0.86 .

ug/L

275

1-51

EDB

09/08/2004



0.98

ug/L

276

1-51

EDB

06/17/2005

Duplicate

0.38

ug/L

277

1-51

EDB

06/17/2005



0.38

ug/L

278

1-51

EDB

09/14/2005



0.27

ug/L

279

1-51

EDB

06/08/2006



0.19

ug/L

280

1-51

EDB

09/05/2006



0.21

ug/L

Page 7 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
VUf S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

. Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

281

1-51

EDB

07/13/2007



0.09

ug/L

282

1-51

EDB

09/06/2007

Duplicate

0.1

ug/L

283

1-51

EDB

09/06/2007



0.1

ug/L

284

1-51

EDB

10/20/2008



0.06

ug/L

285

1-51

EDB

07/01/2009



< 0.05

ug/L

286

1-51

EDB

09/08/2009



<0.05

ug/L

287

1-51

EDB

06/22/2010



0.07

ug/L

288

1-51

EDB

09/01/2010



0.17

ug/L

289

1-51

EDB

06/23/2011



0.11

ug/L

290

1-51

EDB

08/31/2011

Duplicate

0.05

ug/L

291

1-51

- EDB

08/31/2011



<0.05

ug/L

292

1-51

EDB

06/21/2012

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

293

1-51

EDB

06/21/2012



0.05

ug/L

294

1-51

EDB

06/19/2013



<0.05

ug/L

295

1-51

EDB

06/25/2014

¦ Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

296

¦ 1-51

EDB

06/25/2014



<0.05

ug/L

297

¦¦ 1-58

EDB

09/02/1997



1.1

ug/L

298

1-58

EDB

07/01/1998



¦ 2.7

ug/L

299

1-58

EDB

08/28/1998

Duplicate

2.9

ug/L ¦

300

1-58

- EDB

08/28/1998



2.9

ug/L

301

1-58

EDB

09/01/1998



2.9

ug/L

302

1-58

EDB

07/19/1999



7.1

ug/L

303

1-58

EDB

08/24/1999



6.9

ug/L

304

1-58

EDB

06/01/2000



4.5/4.7

ug/L

305

S-58

EDB

07/18/2000



4.5

ug/L

306

1-58

EDB

10/16/2000



0.11

ug/L

307

1-58

EDB

06/01/2001



0.27 .

ug/L

308

1-58

EDB

07/18/2001



0.27

ug/L

309

1-58

EDB

08/27/2001



0.2

ug/L

310

1-58

EDB

09/01/2001



0.2

ug/L

311

1-58

EDB

07/01/2002-.



0.05

ug/L

312

1-58

EDB

08/02/2002



0.06

ug/L

313

1-58

EDB ¦

06/16/2003



ND

ug/L

314

1-58

EDB

07/01/2003



<0.05

ug/L

315

1-58

EDB

08/21/2003



0.07

ug/L

316

1-58

EDB

07/28/2004

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L-

317

1-58

EDB

07/28/2004



<0.05

ug/L

318

1-58

EDB

09/03/2004



<0.05

ug/L

319

1-58

EDB

07/01/2005



<0.05 .

ug/L

320

1-58

EDB

08/01/2005



0.03

ug/L

Page 8 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
#BBl S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

321

1-58

EDB

08/26/2005



<0.05

ug/L

322

1-58

EDB

06/26/2006



<0.05

ug/L

323

1-58

EDB

08/23/2006



<0.05

ug/L

324

1-58

EDB

07/13/2007



¦ <0.05

ug/L

325

1-58

EDB

07/27/2007



0.02

ug/L

326

1-58

EDB

08/20/2007



<0.05

ug/L

327

1-58

EDB

07/01/2009



<0.05

ug/L

328

1-58

EDB

09/08/2009



<0.05

ug/L

329

1-58

EDB

07/09/2010



<0.05

ug/L

330

1-58

EDB

07/18/2011



<0.05

ug/L

331

1-58

EDB

08/31/2011



<0.05

ug/L

332

IN-04

EDB

09/17/1997



<.0.05

ug/L

333

IN-04

EDB

09/08/1998



ND

ug/L

334

IN-04

EDB

09/09/1998



<0.05

ug/L

335

IN-04

EDB

09/07/1999



<.0.05

ug/L

336

IN-04

EDB

10/09/2000



ND

ug/L

337

IN-04

EDB

02/05/2001



ND

ug/L

338

IN-04

EDB

02/26/2001



ND

ug/L

339

IN-04

EDB

09/07/2001



0.07

ug/L

340

. IN-04

EDB

09/09/2002.



ND

ug/L

341

IN-04

EDB

09/12/2003



<0.05

ug/L

342

IN-04

EDB

06/30/2004



0.02

ug/L

343

IN-04

EDB

09/08/2004



<0.05

ug/L

344

IN-04

EDB

09/16/2005



<0.05

ug/L

345

IN-04

EDB

12/21/2005



<0.05

ug/L

346

IN-04

EDB

03/10/2006



<0.05

ug/L

347

IN-04

EDB

06/14/2006



<0.05

ug/L

. 348

IN-04

EDB

09/05/2006



<0.05

ug/L

349

IN-04

EDB

12/08/2006



<0.05

ug/L

350

IN-04

EDB

03/13/2007



. <0.05

ug/L

351

IN-04

EDB

06/12/2007



<0.05

ug/L

352

IN-04

EDB

09/06/2007



<0.05

ug/L

353

IN-04

EDB

12/04/2007



<0.05

ug/L

354

' IN-04

EDB

03/12/2008



<0.05

" ug/L '

355

IN-04

EDB

10/20/2008



<0.05

ug/L

356

IN-04

EDB

03/11/2009



<0.05

ug/L

357

IN-04

EDB

09/08/2009



<0.05

ug/L .

358

IN-04

EDB

03/16/2010



<0.05

ug/L

359

IN-04

EDB

09/01/2010



<0.05

ug/L

360

IN-04

EDB

03/18/2011



<0.05

. "g/L	

Pag® 9 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. Papaoopuijos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentnition Data Sine® 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?'

Result

Units

361

IN-04

EDB

08/31/2011



<0.05

ug/L

362

IN-05

EOB

09/17/1997



<.0.05

ug/L

363

IN-05

EDB

09/08/1998



ND

ug/L

364

IN-05

EDB

09/09/1998



<0.05

ug/L

365

IN-05

EDB

09/07/1999



<.0.05

ug/L

366

IN-05

EDB

10/09/2000



ND

ug/L

367

IN-05

EDB

09/07/2001



ND

ug/L

368

IN-05

EDB

09/05/2002 .



ND

ug/L

369

IN-05 ¦

EDB

09/12/2003



<0.05

ug/L

370

' IN-05

EDB

06/08/2004



0.04

ug/L

371

IN-05

EDB

09/09/2004



<0.05

ug/L

372

IN-05

EDB

06/09/2005



¦ 0.01

ug/L

373

IN-05

EDB

09/20/2005



0.06

ug/L

374

IN-05

EDB

09/07/2006



<0.05

ug/L

375

IN-05

EDB

09/06/2007



<0.05

ug/L

376

IN-05

EDB

10/20/2008



<0.05

ug/L

377

IN-05

EDB

03/11/2009



<0.05

¦ ug/L ¦

378

IN-05

EDB

09/08/2009



<0.05

ug/L

379

IN-05

EDB

03/16/2010



<0.05 -

ug/L ¦

380

IN-05

EDB

09/01/2010



<0.05

ug/L

381

IN-05 .

EDB

03/18/2011



<0.05

ug/L

382

IN-05

EDB

08/31/2011



<0.05

ug/L

383

IN-11

EDB

09/17/1997



0.13

ug/L

- 384

IN-11 '

EDB

09/08/1998-



0.12

ug/L

385

IN-11

EDB

09/09/1998



0.12

ug/L

386

IN-11

EDB

09/07/ld99



0.19

ug/L

387

¦ IN-11

EDB

10/09/2000



0.25

ug/L

388

IN-11

EDB

09/07/2001



0.25

ug/L

389

IN-11

EDB

09/05/2002



¦ 0.33

ug/L

390

. IN-11

EDB

09/12/2003



0.19

ug/L

391

¦ IN-11

< EDB

< 06/08/2004



¦ .. 0.17

ug/L

392

IN-11

EDB

09/09/2004



0.11

ug/L

393

IN-11

EDB

06/09/2005



0.15

ug/L

394

IN-11

EDB

09/20/2005



0.12

ug/L

395

IN-11

EDB

09/07/2006



0.08

ug/L

396

IN-11

EDB

09/06/2007



0.08

ug/L

397

IN-11

EDB

10/20/2008



0.08

ug/L

398 ¦

IN-11

EDB

03/11/2009



' 0.06

ug/L

399

IN-11

EDB

09/08/2009



0.06

ug/L

¦ 400

IN-11

EDB

03/16/2010

Duplicate

0.06

ug/L

Page 10 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
4EBEBb S.S. papadopulos a Associates, inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subslte Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

401

IN-11

. EDB

03/16/2010



0.06

ug/l

402

IN-11

EDB

09/01/2010



0.05

ug/L

403

IN-11

EDB

03/18/2011



<0.05

ug/L

404

IN-11

EDB

08/31/2011



<0.05

ug/L

405

MQ-04

EDB

09/23/1997



0.64

ug/L

406

MQ-04

EDB

12/09/1997



0.85

ug/L

¦ 407

MQ-04

EDB

03/19/1998



1.1

ug/L

408

MQ-04

EDB

06/03/1998



2.1

ug/L

409

MQ-04

EDB

09/15/1998



4

ug/L

410

MQ-04

EDB

12/08/1998



5.8

ug/L

411

MQ-04

EDB

03/19/1999



5.4

ug/L

412

MQ-04

EDB

07/05/1999



2.2

ug/L

413

MQ-04

EDB

09/08/1999



6.4

ug/L

414

MQ-04

EDB

12/01/1999



5

ug/L

415

MQ-04

EDB

03/21/2000



3

ug/L

416

MQ-04

EDB

06/27/2000

Duplicate

4.4

ug/L

417

MQ-04

EDB

06/27/2000



4.6

ug/L

418

MQ-04

EDB

10/07/2000



4

ug/L

419

MQ-04

EDB

12/06/2000

Duplicate

2.9

ug/L

420

MQ-04

EDB

12/06/2000



2.9

ug/L

421

¦ MQ-04

EDB

03/30/2001



2.1

ug/L

422

MQ-04

EDB

06/18/2001



0.34

ug/L

423

MQ-04

EDB

09/10/2001



0.25

ug/L

424

MQ-04

EDB

12/08/2001



0.28

ug/L

425

MQ-04

EDB

03/18/2002



0.26

ug/L

426

MQ-04

EDB

06/10/2002



0.22

ug/L

427

MQ-04

EDB

09/05/2002



0.57

ug/L

428

MQ-04

EDB

12/10/2002



0.2

ug/L

429

MQ-04

EDB

03/01/2003



0.28

ug/L

430

MQ-04

EDB

06/03/2003



0.26

ug/L

431

MQ-04

EDB

09/15/2003



0.31

ug/L

432

MQ-04 •

EDB

12/13/2003



0.49

ug/L

433

MQ-04

EDB

03/12/2004



0.19

ug/L

434

MQ-04

EDB

06/28/2004



0.2

ug/L

435

MQ-04

EDB

09/09/2004



0.09

ug/L

436

MQ-04

EDB

03/08/2005



0.17

ug/L

437

MQ-04

EDB

06/23/2005



0.2

ug/L

438

MQ-04

EDB

09/16/2005



0.22

ug/L

439

MQ-04

EDB

12/21/2005



0.18

ug/L

440

MQ-04

EDB

03/06/2006



0.23

ug/L

Page 11 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
^(|p S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Anaiyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

441

MQ-04

EDB

06/14/2006



0.25

yg/L

442

MQ-04

EDB

09/07/2006



0.13

ug/L

443

MQ-04

EDB

12/08/2006



0.16

ug/L

444

MQ-04

EDB

03/13/2007



0.16

ug/L

445

MQ-04

EDB

06/08/2007



0.14

ug/L

446

MQ-04

EDB

09/06/2007



0.12

ug/L

447

MQ-04

EDB

12/05/2007



0.13

ug/L

448

MQ-04

EDB

03/12/2008



0.15

ug/L

449

MQ-04

EDB

10/20/2008



0.12

ug/L

450

MQ-04

EDB

12/29/2008 '



0.09

ug/L

451 ¦

MQ-04

EDB

03/14/2009



0.11

ug/L

452

MQ-04

EDB

06/25/2009



0.05

ug/L

453

MQ-04

EDB

09/20/2009



0.15

¦ ug/L

454

MQ-04

EDB

01/15/2010



0.15

ug/L

455 ¦

MQ-04

EDB

03/18/2010



0.18

ug/L

456

MQ-04

EDB

07/09/2010



0.17

ug/L

457"

MQ-04

EDB

09/06/2010



0.19

ug/L

458

MQ-04 '

EDB

12/09/2010



0.18

. ug/L

459

MQ-04

EDB

03/18/2011

Duplicate

0.14

ug/L

460

MQ-04

EDB

03/18/2011



0.14

ug/L

461

MQ-04

EDB

06/23/2011



0.11

ug/L

462

MQ-04

EDB

09/12/2011



0.13

ug/L

463

MQ-04

EDB -

12/16/2011



0.12

ug/L

464

MQ-04

EDB

03/25/2012



0.11

ug/L

465

MQ-04

EDB

09/19/2012



0.14

ug/L

466

MQ-04

EDB

03/27/2013



0.14

ug/L

467

MQ-04

EDB

' 09/12/2013

' Duplicate

0.14

ug/L

468

MQ-04

EDB

09/12/2013



0.14

ug/L

469

¦ MQ-04

EDB

03/26/2014



0.12

' ug/L

470

MQ-04

EDB

03/26/2014

Duplicate

0.14 ¦

ug/L

471

MQ-04

EDB

09/02/2014



0.12

ug/L

472

MQ-04

EDB

03/09/2015



0.08

ug/L

473

MQ-04

EDB

09/08/2015



0.11

ug/L

474

MQ-04

EDB

03/14/2016



0.12

ug/L

475

¦ MQ-04

EDB

11/22/2016



0.07

ug/L

476

MQ-04

EDB

03/07/2017



0.05

Ug/L

477

MQ-04

EDB

09/13/2017



0.055

ug/L

478

MQ-04

EDB

05/01/2018



0.0509

ug/L

479

MQ-04

EDB

9/26/2018



0.038

¦¦ ug/L

480

MQ-04

EDB

3/27/2019



0.010 ¦

ug/L

Page 12 of 36	6/1/2021

-------
4BBBB) S.S. Papaoofuuos a Ai ksiates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

481

MQ-04

EDB

10/17/2019



0.027

ug/L

482

MQ-04

EDB

4/13/2020



<0.03

ug/L

483

MQ-04

EDB

11/19/2020



<0.03

ug/L

484

MQ-04

EDB

04/29/2021



<0.03

ug/L

485

MQ-05

EDB

09/23/1997



0.93

ug/L

486

MQ-05

EDB

12/09/1997



1.2

ug/L

487

MQ-05

EDB

03/19/1998



2.2

ug/L

488

MQ-05

EDB

06/03/1998



3

ug/L

489 ,

MQ-05

EDB

09/15/1998



1.1

ug/L

490

MQ-05

EDB

12/08/1998



0.7

ug/L

491

MQ-05

EDB

03/19/1999



1.9

ug/L

492

MQ-05

EDB

07/06/1999



0.87

ug/L

493 '

MQ-05

EDB

09/09/1999



0.74

ug/L

494

MQ-05

EDB

12/07/1999



0.59

ug/L

495

MQ-05

EDB

03/21/2000



0.93

ug/L

496

MQ-05

EDB

06/28/2000



0.65

ug/L

497

MQ-05

EDB

10/07/2000



0.42

ug/L

498

MQ-05

EDB

12/06/2000



0.28

ug/L

499

MQ-05

EDB

03/30/2001



0.8

ug/L

500

MQ-05

EDB

06/18/2001



0.7

ug/L

501

MQ-05

EDB

09/10/2001



0.5

ug/L

502

MQ-05

EDB

12/08/2001



0.38

ug/L

503

MQ-05

EDB

03/18/2002



0.58

ug/L

504

MQ-05

EDB

06/10/2002



0.64

ug/L

505

MQ-05

EDB

10/11/2002'

Duplicate

0.27

ug/L

506

MQ-05

EDB

10/11/2002



0.26

ug/L

507

MQ-05

EDB

12/10/2002



0.18

ug/L

SOB

MQ-05

EDB

03/01/2003



0.79

ug/L

509

MQ-05

EDB

06/03/2003



0.93

ug/L

510

MQ-05

EDB

09/15/2003

Duplicate

0.2

ug/L

511

MQ-05

EDB

09/15/2003



0.21

ug/L

512

MQ-05

EDB

12/13/2003



0.23

ug/L

513

MQ-05

EDB

03/12/2004

Duplicate

0.41

ug/L

514

MQ-05

EDB

03/12/2004



0.44

ug/L

515

MQ-05

EDB

06/29/2004

Duplicate

1.2

ug/L

516

MQ-05

EDB

06/29/2004



1.3

ug/L

517

MQ-05

EDB

09/09/2004



0.15

ug/L

518

MQ-05

EDB

03/08/2005

Duplicate

0.3

ug/L

519

MQ-05

EDB

03/08/2005



0.3

ug/L

520

MQ-05

EDB

06/23/2005



0.55 ..

ug/L

Page 13 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
4BBt) s.s. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

521

MQ-05

EDB

09/14/2005

Duplicate

0.08

ug/L

522

MQ-05

EDB

09/14/2005



0.09

ug/L

523

MQ-05

EDB

12/21/2005



0.07

ug/L

524

MQ-05

EDB

03/06/2006



0.34

ug/L

525

MQ-05

EDB

06/14/2006

Duplicate

0.58

ug/L

526

MQ-05

EDS

06/14/2006



0.58

ug/L

527

MQ-05

EDB

09/08/2006



0.06

ug/L

528

MQ-05

EDB

12/08/2006

Duplicate

0.08

ug/L

529

MQ-05

EDB

12/08/2006



0.08

Ug/L

530

MQ-05

EDB

03/13/2007



0.46

ug/L

531

MQ-05

EDB

06/08/2007



0.44

ug/L

532

MQ-05

EDB

09/06/2007

Duplicate

0.06

ug/L

533

MQ-05

EDB

09/06/2007



0.06

ug/L

534

MQ-05

EDB

03/12/2008



0.4

ug/L

535

MQ-05

EDB

10/20/2008

Duplicate

0.1

ug/L

536

MQ-05

EDB

10/20/2008



0.1

ug/L

537

MQ-05

EDB

12/29/2008

Duplicate

0.18

ug/L

538

MQ-05

EDB

12/29/2008



0.18

ug/L

539

MQ-05

EDB

03/14/2009

Duplicate

0.43

ug/L

540

MQ-05

EDB

03/14/2009



0.42

ug/L

541

MQ-05

EDB

06/25/2009

Duplicate

0.38

ug/L

542

MQ-05

EDB

¦ 06/25/2009



0.34

ug/L

543

MQ-05

EDB

09/20/2009

Duplicate

0.05

ug/L

544

MQ-05 ¦

EDB

09/20/2009 ¦



¦ < 0.05

ug/L

545

MQ-05

EDB

01/15/2010



0.28

ug/l

.¦ 546

MQ-05

- EDB

03/18/2010



0.34

ug/L

547

MQ-05

EDB

07/09/2010



0.19

ug/L

548

MQ-05

EDB

09/11/2010



<0.05

ug/L

549

MQ-05

EDB

12/09/2010



<0.05

ug/L

550

MQ-05

¦ EDB

03/23/2011



¦ 0.15

ug/L

551

MQ-05

EDB

06/23/2011 ..



0.06 ¦

ug/L

552

MQ-05

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

553

MQ-05

EDB

12/16/2011



0.07

ug/L

554

MQ-05

EDB

03/23/2012



0.15

ug/L

555

MQ-05

EDB

09/19/2012



<0.05

ug/L

556

MQ-05

EDB

03/27/2013



0.11

ug/L

557

MQ-05

EDB

09/08/2013



<0.05

ug/L

558

MQ-05

EDB

03/26/2014



0.093

ug/L

559 ¦

MQ-05

EDB

04/09/2014



0.12

ug/L

¦ 560

MQ-05

EDB

09/02/2014



< 0.05

ug/L ¦

Page 14 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. Pafaoopulos ft Associates, inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

561

MQ-05

EDB

03/17/2015



<0.05

ug/L

562

MQ-05

EDB

09/08/2015



<0.05

ug/L

563

MQ-05

EDB

03/20/2016



<0.05

ug/L

564

MQ-05

EDB

12/07/2016



0.016

ug/L

565

MQ-05

EDB

03/07/2017



0.05

ug/L

566

MQ-06

EDB

09/23/1997



<0.05

ug/L

567

MQ-06

EDB

12/09/1997



<0.05

ug/L

568

MQ-06

EDB

03/19/1998



<0.05

ug/L

569

MQ-06

EDB

06/03/1998



<0.05

ug/L

570

MQ-06

EDB

09/15/1998



<0.05

ug/L

571

MQ-06

EDB

12/08/1998



<0.05

ug/L

572

MQ-06

EDB

03/19/1999



<0.05

ug/L

573

MQ-06

EDB

06/28/1999



<0.05

ug/L

574

MQ-06

EDB

09/08/1999



<0.05

ug/L

575

MQ-06

EDB

12/01/1999



<0.05

ug/L

576

MQ-06

EDB

03/21/2000



ND

ug/L

577

MQ-06

EDB

06/29/2000



ND

ug/L

578

MQ-06

EDB

10/11/2000



ND

ug/L

579

MQ-06

EDB

12/07/2000



ND

ug/L

580

MQ-06

EDB

03/30/2001



ND

ug/L

581

MQ-06

EDB

06/19/2001



ND

ug/L

582

MQ-06

EDB

09/10/2001



ND

ug/L

583

MQ-06

EDB

12/08/2001



ND

ug/L

584

MQ-06

EDB

12/09/2001



ND

ug/L

585

MQ-06

EDB

03/18/2002



<.05

ug/L

586

MQ-06

EDB

06/10/2002



<.05

ug/L

587

MQ-06

EDB

09/09/2002



ND

ug/L

588

MQ-06

EDB

12/10/2002



ND

ug/L

589

MQ-06

EDB

03/01/2003



<0.05

ug/L

590

MQ-06

EDB

06/03/2003



ND

ug/L

591

MQ-06

EDB

09/16/2003



<0.05

ug/L

592

MQ-06

EDB

12/13/2003



ND

ug/L

593

MQ-06

EDB

03/12/2004



<.05

ug/L

594

MQ-06

EDB

06/28/2004



<0.05

ug/L

595

MQ-06

EDB

09/09/2004



<0.05

ug/L

596

MQ-06

EDB

03/08/2005



<0.05

ug/L

597

MQ-06

EDB

07/07/2005



<0.05

ug/L

598

MQ-06

EDB

09/16/2005



<0.05

ug/L

599

MQ-06

EDB

12/21/2005



<0.05

ug/L

600

MQ-06

EDB

03/07/2006



<0.05

ug/L

Page 15 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. Papadopulos a associates, inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Anaiytt

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

601

MQ-06

EDB

06/14/2006



<0.05

ug/L

602

MQ-06

EDB

09/08/2006



<0.05

ug/L

603

MQ-06

EDB

12/08/2006



<0.05

ug/L

604

MQ-06

EDB

03/13/2007



<0.05

ug/L

605

MQ-06

EDB

06/08/2007



<0.05

ug/L

606

MQ-06

EDB

09/06/2007



<0.05

ug/L

607

MQ-06

EDB

12/05/2007



<0.05

ug/L

608

MQ-06

EDB

03/12/2008

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

609

MQ-06

EDB

03/12/2008



<0.05

ug/L

610

MQ-06

EDB

10/20/2008



<0.05

ug/L

611

MQ-06

EDB

12/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

612

MQ-06

EDB

03/14/2009



<0.05

ug/L

613

MQ-06

EDB

06/25/2009



<0.05

ug/L

614

MQ-06

EDB

09/20/2009



<0.05

ug/L

615

MQ-06

EDB

01/15/2010



<0.05

ug/L

616

MQ-06

EDB

03/18/2010



<0.05

ug/L

617

MQ-06

EDB

07/09/2010



<0.05

ug/L

618

MQ-06

EDB

09/06/2010



<0.05

ug/L

619

MQ-06

EDB

12/09/2010



<0.05

ug/L

620

MQ-06

EDB

03/18/2011



<0.05

ug/L

621

MQ-06

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

622

MQ-06

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

623

MQ-06

EDB

12/16/2011



<0.05

ug/L

624

MQ-08

EDB

09/24/1997



<0.05

ug/L

625

MQ-08

EDB

12/09/1997



0.19

ug/L

626

MQ-08

EDB

03/19/1998



0.63

ug/L

• 627

MQ-0B

EDB

06/03/1998



0.94

ug/L

628

MQ-08

EDB

10/19/1998

Duplicate

0.84

ug/L

629

MQ-08

EDB

10/19/1998



0.91

ug/L

630

MQ-08

EDB

12/08/1998



1.2

ug/L

631

MQ-08

EDB

03/19/1999



1.7

Ug/L

632

MQ-08

EDB

07/06/1999



1.7

ug/L

633

MQ-08

EDB

09/08/1999



1.6

ug/L

634

MQ-08

EDB

12/01/1999



1.2

ug/L

635

MQ-08

EDB

03/21/2000



2.1

ug/L

636

MQ-08

EDB

06/28/2000



1.8

ug/L

637

MQ-08

EDB

10/10/2000



1.7

ug/L

638

MQ-08

EDB

12/06/2000



1.8

¦ ug/L

639

MQ-08

EDB

03/30/2001



1.8

isg/L

640

MQ-08

EDB

06/19/2001



2.2

ug/L

Page 16 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
itjBfll S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

641

MQ-08

EDB

10/18/2001



1.4

ug/L

642

MQ-08

EDB

12/08/2001



1.5

ug/L

643

MQ-08

EDB

03/18/2002



1.5

ug/L

644

MQ-08

EDB

06/10/2002



1.3

ug/L

645

MQ-08

EDB

10/11/2002



0.59

ug/L

646

MQ-08

EDB

03/01/2003



0.63

ug/L

647

MQ-08

EDB

06/03/2003



0.54

ug/L

648

MQ-08

EDB

10/31/2003

Duplicate

0.61

ug/L

649

MQ-08

EDB

10/31/2003



0.59

ug/L

650

MQ-08

EDB

12/13/2003



0.53

ug/L

651

MQ-08

EDB

03/12/2004



0.76

ug/L

652

MQ-08

EDB

06/28/2004



0.63

ug/L

653

MQ-08

EDB

09/30/2004



0.3

ug/L

654

MQ-08

EDB

03/08/2005



0.37

ug/L

655

MQ-08

EDB

07/11/2005



0.33

ug/L

656

MQ-08

EDB

10/19/2005



0.28

ug/L

657

MQ-08

EDB

12/21/2005



0.3

ug/L

658

MQ-08

EDB

03/06/2006



0.22

ug/L

659

MQ-08

EDB

06/14/2006



0.29

ug/L

660

MQ-08

EDB

11/06/2006



0.21

ug/L

661

MQ-08

EDB

12/06/2006



0.19

ug/L

662

MQ-08

EDB

03/13/2007



0.21

ug/L

663

MQ-08

EDB

06/08/2007



0.18

ug/L

664

MQ-08

EDB

12/05/2007



0.17

ug/L

665

MQ-08

EDB

03/12/2008



0.12

ug/L

666

MQ-08

EDB

12/29/2008



0.15

ug/L

667

MQ-08

EDB

03/14/2009



0.11

ug/L

668

MQ-08

EDB

01/15/2010

Duplicate

0.15

ug/L

669

MQ-08

EDB

01/15/2010



0.15

ug/L

670

MQ-08

EDB

03/18/2010



0.14

ug/L

671

MQ-08

EDB

12/09/2010

Duplicate

0.15

ug/L

672

MQ-08

EDB

12/09/2010



0.14

ug/L

673

MQ-08

EDB

03/18/2011



0.12

ug/L

674

MQ-08

EDB

12/16/2011



0.09

ug/L

675

MQ-08

EDB

12/16/2011

Duplicate

0.09

ug/L

676

MQ-08

EDB

03/25/2012

Duplicate

0.07

ug/L

677

MQ-08

EDB

03/25/2012



0.06

ug/L

678

MQ-08

EDB

09/19/2012

Duplicate

0.06

ug/L

679

MQ-08

EDB

09/19/2012



0.07

ug/L

680

MQ-08

EDB

03/27/2013



0.07

ug/L

Page 17 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
IB3BI S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Anaiyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

681

MQ-08

EDB

09/12/2013



<0.05

ug/L

682

MQ-08

EDB

03/26/2014



0.06

ug/L

683

MQ-08

EDB

10/12/2014

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

684

MQ-08

EDB

10/12/2014



<0.05

ug/L

685

MQ-08

EDB

03/09/2015



<0.05

ug/L

686

MQ-08

EDB

10/19/2015

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

687

MQ-08

EDB

10/19/2015



<0.05

ug/L

688

MQ-08

EDB

03/14/2016



0.06

ug/L

689

MQ-08

EDB

11/22/2016



0.020

ug/L

690

MQ-08

EDB

03/07/2017



<0.01

ug/L

691

MQ-08

EDB

11/16/2017



<0.01

ug/L

692

MQ-08

EDB

05/01/2018



0.0165

ug/L

693

MQ-08

EDB

10/18/2018 .



0.016

ug/L

694

MQ-08

EDB

4/24/2019



0.017

ug/L

695

MQ-08

EDB

10/17/2019



0.019

ug/L

696

MQ-08

EDB

4/13/2020



<0.03

ug/L

697

MQ-08

EDB

11/19/2020



<0.03

ug/L

698

MQ-08

EDB

04/29/2021



<0.03

ug/L

699

MQ-09

EDB

09/24/1997



0.75

ug/L

700

MQ-09

EDB

12/09/1997



0.81

ug/L

701

MQ-09

EDB

03/19/1998



0.76

ug/L

702

MQ-09

¦ EDB

06/03/1998



0.68

ug/L

703

MQ-09

EDB

09/15/1998



0.66

ug/L

704

MQ-09

EDB

12/08/1998



0.69

ug/L

705

MQ-09

EDB

03/19/1999



0.29

ug/L

706

MQ-09

EDB

07/05/1999



0.19

ug/L

707

MQ-09

EDB

09/08/1999



0.09

ug/L

708

MQ-09

EDB

12/01/1999



0.05

ug/L

709

MQ-09

EDB

03/21/2000



ND

ug/L

710

MQ-09

EDB

06/27/2000



ND

ug/L

711

MQ-09

EDB

10/07/2000



ND

' "8A

712

MQ-09

EDB

12/07/2000



ND

ug/L

713

MQ-09

EDB

03/30/2001



ND

ug/L

714

MQ-09

EDB

06/18/2001



ND

ug/L

715

MQ-09

EDB

09/10/2001



ND

ug/L

716

MQ-09

EDB

12/08/2001



ND

ug/L

717

MQ-09

EDB

03/18/2002



<0.05

ug/L

718

MQ-09

EDB

06/10/2002



<0.05

ug/L

719

MQ-09

EDB

09/05/2002



ND

ug/L

720

MQ-09

EDB

03/01/2003



<5

ug/L

Page 18 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
flU S.S. Papaoopulos a Associates, Inc.

FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

721

MQ-09

EDB

06/03/2003



ND

ug/L

722

MQ-09

EDB

09/15/2003



<0.05

ug/L

723

MQ-09

EDB

12/13/2003



ND

ug/L

724

MQ-09

EDB

03/12/2004



<.05

ug/L

725

MQ-09 .

EDB

06/28/2004



<0.05

ug/L

726

MQ-09

EDB

09/08/2004



<0.05

ug/L

727

MQ-09

EDB

03/08/2005



<0.05

ug/L

728

MQ-09

EDB

06/23/2005



<0.05

ug/L

729

MQ-09

EDB

09/13/2005



<0.05

ug/L

730

MQ-09

EDB

12/21/2005



<0.05

ug/L

731

MQ-09

EDB

03/06/2006



<0.05

ug/L

732

MQ-09

EDB

06/14/2006



<0.05

ug/L

733

MQ-09

EDB

09/07/2006



<0.05

ug/L

734

MQ-09

EDB

12/06/2006



<0.05

ug/L

735

MQ-09

EDB

03/13/2007



<0.05

ug/L

736

MQ-09

EDB

06/08/2007



<0.05

ug/L

737

MQ-09

EDB

09/06/2007



<0.05

ug/L

738

MQ-09

EDB

12/05/2007



<0.05

ug/L

739

MQ-09

EDB

03/12/2008



<0.05

ug/L

740

MQ-09

EDB

10/20/2008



<0.05

ug/L

741

MQ-09

EDB

12/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

742

MQ-09

EDB

03/14/2009



<0.05

ug/L

743

MQ-09

EDB

06/25/2009



<0.05

ug/L

744

MQ-09

EDB

09/20/2009



<0.05

ug/L

745

MQ-09

EDB

01/18/2010



<0.05

ug/L

746

MQ-09

EDB

03/18/2010



<0.05

ug/L

747

MQ-09

EDB

07/08/2010



<0.05

ug/L

748

MQ-09

EDB

09/11/2010



<0.05

ug/L

749

MQ-09

EDB

12/09/2010



<0.05

ug/L

750

MQ-09

EDB

03/18/2011



<0.05

ug/L

751

MQ-09

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

752

MQ-09

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

753

MQ-09

EDB

12/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

754

MQ-10

EDB

01/18/2010



<0.05

ug/L

755

MQ-10

EDB

03/18/2010



<0.05

ug/L

756

MQ-10

EDB

07/08/2010



<0.05

ug/L

757

MQ-10

EDB

09/06/2010



<0.05

ug/L

758

MQ-10

EDB

12/10/2010



<0.05

ug/L

759

MQ-10

EDB

03/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

760

MQ-10

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

Page 19 of 36	6/1/2021

-------
48Bt> S.S. Papadopulqs a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subslte Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Sine® 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

761

MQ-10

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

762

MQ-10

EDB

12/16/2011



<0.05

ug/L

763

MQ-10

EDB

03/23/2012



<0.05

ug/L

764

MQ-10

EDB

02/12/2014



<0.05

ug/L

765

MQ-11

EDB

01/18/2010



<0.05 •

ug/L

766

MQ-11

EDB

03/18/2010



<0.05

ug/L

767

MQ-11

EDB

07/08/2010



<0.05

ug/L

768

MQ-11

EDB

09/06/2010



<0.05

ug/L

769

MQ-11

EDB

12/10/2010



<0.05

ug/L

770

MQ-11

EDB

03/23/2011

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L ¦

771

MQ-11

EDB

03/23/2011



<0.05

¦ ug/L

772

MQ-11

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

773

MQ-11

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

774

MQ-11

EDB

12/16/2011



<0.05

ug/L

775

MQ-11

EDB

03/23/2012



<0.05

ug/L

776

MQ-11

EDB

02/12/2014



<0.05

ug/L

777

MQ-12

EDB

01/15/2010



<0.05

ug/L

778

MQ-12

EDB

03/17/2010



<0.05

ug/L

779

MQ-12

EDB

07/08/2010



¦ < 0.05

ug/L

780

MQ-12

EDB

09/06/2010



<0.05

ug/L

781

MQ-12

EDB

12/10/2010



<0.05

ug/L

782

MQ-12

EDB

03/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

783

MQ-12

EDB

06/23/2011



¦ <0.05

Ug/L

784

MQ-12

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

¦ 785

MQ-12

EDB

12/16/2011 .



<0.05

ug/L

786

MQ-12

EDB

03/23/2012



< 0.05

ug/L

787

MQ-12

EDB

02/12/2014



<0.05

ug/L

788

MQ-13

EDB

01/15/2010



<0.05

ug/L

789

MQ-13

EDB

03/17/2010



¦ <0.05

ug/L

790

MQ-13

EDB

07/08/2010



<0.05

¦ ug/L

791

MQ-13

EDB

09/06/2010



<0.05

ug/L

792

MQ-13

EDB

12/10/2010



<0.05

ug/L

793

MQ-13

EDB

03/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

794

MQ-13

EDB

06/23/2011 .



<0.05

ug/L

795

MQ-13

EDB

06/23/2011

Duplicate

<0.05

. ug/L

796

MQ-13

EDB

09/12/2011

Duplicate ¦

<0.05

ug/L

797

MQ-13

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

798

MQ-13

EDB

12/16/2011



<0.05

ug/L V-

799

MQ-13

EDB

03/23/2012



< 0.05

ug/L ¦

800

MQ-13

EDB

02/12/2014



<0.05

ug/L

Pag® 26 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, (nc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

801

MW-08

EDB

09/23/1997



463

ug/L

802

MW-08

EDB

12/10/1997



436

ug/L

803

MW-08

EDB

03/19/1998



334

ug/L

804

MW-08

EDB

06/03/1998



70

ug/L

805

¦ MW-08

EDB

09/18/1998



738

ug/L

806

MW-08

EDB

11/30/1998



262

ug/L

807

MW-08

EDB

12/01/1998



262

ug/L

808

MW-08

EDB

03/23/1999



21

ug/L

809

MW-08

EDB

. 06/01/1999



3.6

ug/L

810

MW-08

EDB

07/06/1999



3.6

ug/L

811

MW-08

EDB

09/08/1999



43

ug/L

812

MW-08

EDB

12/01/1999



9.5

ug/L

813

MW-08

EDB

03/21/2000



5.8

ug/L

814

MW-08

EDB

06/27/2000



2.7

ug/L

815

MW-08

EDB

10/10/2000

Duplicate

353

ug/L

816

MW-08

EDB

10/10/2000



346

ug/L

817

MW-08

EDB

12/07/2000



88

ug/L

818

MW-08

EDB

03/30/2001



15

ug/L

819

MW-08

EDB

06/19/2001

Duplicate

2.8

ug/L

820

MW-08

EDB

06/19/2001



3

ug/L

821

MW-08

EDB

09/10/2001



353

ug/L

822

MW-08

EDB

12/09/2001

Duplicate

156

ug/L

823

MW-08

EDB

12/09/2001



161

ug/L

824

MW-08

EDB

03/11/2002



15.5

ug/L

825

MW-08

EDB

06/03/2002



3.1

ug/L

826

MW-08

EDB

09/09/2002



224

ug/L

827

MW-08

EDB

12/10/2002



233

ug/L

828

MW-08

EDB

03/01/2003



220

ug/L

829

MW-08

EDB

06/03/2003



17

ug/L

830

MW-08

EDB

09/15/2003



197

ug/L

831

MW-08

EDB

12/13/2003

Duplicate

249

ug/L

832

MW-08

EDB

12/13/2003



231

ug/L

833

MW-08

EDB

03/19/2004



302

ug/L

834

MW-08

EDB

06/02/2004



207

ug/L

835

MW-08

EDB

06/02/2004



217

ug/L

836

MW-08

EDB

07/14/2004



241

ug/L

837

MW-08

EDB

09/09/2004



96

ug/L

838

MW-08

EDB

09/09/2004



86

ug/L

839

MW-08

EDB

03/09/2005

Duplicate

216

ug/L'

840

MW-08

EDB

03/09/2005



220

ug/L

Page 21 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
dflBfiH S.S. Papaoopulos a Associates, Inc.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Sine® 1997



Sampling

Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

841

MW-08

EDB

06/17/2005



264

ug/L

842

MW-08

EDB

09/16/2005

Duplicate

113

ug/L

843

MW-08

EDB

09/16/2005



119

ug/L

844

MW-08

EDB

12/20/2005



0.95

ug/L

845

MW-08

EDB

03/07/2006

Duplicate

2

ug/L

E46

MW-08

EDB

03/07/2006



2

ug/L

847

MW-08

EDB

06/14/2006



2.3

ug/L

848

MW-08

¦ EDB

09/08/2006



1.2

Ug/L

849

MW-08

EDB

12/08/2006

¦¦ Duplicate

1.1

ug/L

850

MW-08

EDB

12/08/2006



1.2

ug/L

811

MW-08

EDB

03/09/2007

Duplicate

0.66

ug/L

852

MW-08

EDB

03/09/2007



0.65

ug/L

853

MW-08 ¦

EDB

06/12/2007

Duplicate

0.91

ug/L

854

MW-08

EDB

06/12/2007



0.92

ug/L

855

MW-08

EDB

09/07/2007



1

¦ ug/L

856

MW-08 .

EDB

12/05/2007

- Duplicate

1.4

ug/L

857

MW-08

EDB

12/05/2007



1.4

ug/L

858

MW-08

EDB

03/12/2008

Duplicate

1.4

ug/L

859

MW-08

EDB

03/12/2008



1.5

ug/L

860

MW-08

EDB

10/28/2008 .

Duplicate

1.2

ug/L

861

MW-08

EDB

10/28/2008



1.2

ug/L

8$2

MW-08

EDB

12/30/2008

Duplicate

, 0.96

ug/L

863 .¦

MW-08

EDB

12/30/2008



0.94

ug/L -

. 864

¦ MW-08

' EDB

03/15/2009



1.3

ug/L

865

MW-08

- EDB

06/25/2009

Duplicate'

1.2

ug/L

866

MW-08

EDB

06/25/2009



1.3

ug/L

867

MW-08

EDB

09/20/2009



1.2

ug/L

868

MW-0B

EDB

01/18/2010



1.2

ug/L

869

MW-08

EDB

03/17/2010

Duplicate

1.3

ug/L

870

MW-08 •

EDB

03/17/2010



1.2

Ug/L

871

Mw-oe

EDB

07/08/2010



1.4

ug/L

872

MW-08

EDB

09/11/2010



0.9

ug/L

873

MW-08

EDB

12/09/2010



1.1

ug/L

874

MW-08

EDB

03/23/2011



0.91

ug/L

875

MW-08

EDB

06/23/2011



0.92

ug/L

876

MW-08

EDB

06/23/2011

Duplicate

0.89

ug/L

877

MW-08

EDB-

09/13/2011



0.91

ug/L

• 878

MW-08

• EDB

12/16/2011



0.84

ug/L

879

MW-08

EDB

03/23/2012



¦ 0.57

ug/L

880

MW-08

EDB

09/19/2012 '



0.7

ug/L

Page 22 of 36	6/1/2021

-------
4BBBB* S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

881

MW-08

EDB

03/27/2013



0.84

ug/L

882

MW-08

EDB

03/27/2013

Duplicate

0.81

ug/L

883

MW-08

EDB

09/04/2013



0.38

ug/L

884

¦ MW-08

EDB

03/26/2014



¦ 0.86 ,

ug/L

885

MW-08

EDB

09/02/2014



0.54

ug/L

886

MW-08

EDB

03/09/2015



0.5

ug/L

887

MW-08

EDB

09/08/2015



0.39

ug/L

888

MW-08

EDB

03/14/2016



0.53

ug/L

889

MW-08

EDB

11/22/2016

Duplicate

0.20

ug/L

890

MW-08

EDB

11/22/2016



0.21

ug/L

891

MW-08

EDB

03/07/2017

Duplicate

0.10

ug/L

892

MW-08

EDB

03/07/2017



0.08

ug/L

893

MW-08

EDB

09/13/2017

Duplicate

0.0966

ug/L

894

MW-08

EDB

09/13/2017



0.0817

ug/L

895

MW-08

EDB

09/13/2017



0.082

ug/L

896

MW-08

EDB

05/01/2018

Duplicate

0.172

ug/L

897

MW-08

EDB

05/01/2018



0.181

ug/L

898

MW-08

EDB

9/26/2018

Duplicate

0.143

ug/L

899

MW-08

EDB

9/26/2018



0.140

ug/L

900

MW-08

EDB

3/27/2019

Duplicate

0.131

ug/L

901

MW-08

EDB

3/27/2019 .



0.136

ug/L

902

MW-08

EDB

10/17/2019

Duplicate

0.161

ug/L

903

MW-08

EDB

10/17/2019



0.154

ug/L

904

MW-08

EDB

4/13/2020

Duplicate

0.041

ug/L

905

MW-08

EDB

4/13/2020



0.046

ug/L

906

MW-08

EDB

11/19/2020

Duplicate

<0.03

ug/L

907

MW-08

EDB

11/19/2020



<0.03

ug/L

908

MW-08

EDB

04/29/2021



0.16

ug/L

909

MW-08 DUP

EDB

04/29/2021

Duplicate

0.16

ug/L

910

MW-14

EDB

09/23/1997



356

ug/L

911

MW-14

EDB

12/09/1997



289

ug/L

912

MW-14

EDB

03/01/1998



410

ug/L

913

MW-14

EDB

03/19/1998



399

ug/L

914

MW-14

EDB

06/03/1998



273

ug/L

915

MW-14

EDB

09/15/1998



148

ug/L

916

MW-14

EDB

12/01/1998



245

ug/L

917

MW-14

EDB

12/08/1998



247

ug/L

918

MW-14

EDB

03/19/1999



194

ug/L

919

MW-14

EDB

06/28/1999



110

ug/L

920

MW-14

EDB

09/08/1999

Duplicate

50

ug/L

Page 23 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
^SMlP S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAE-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

921

MW-14

EDB

09/08/1999



49

ug/L

922

MW-14

EDB

12/01/1999



159

ug/L

923

MW-14

EDB

03/21/2000

Duplicate

185

ug/L

924

MW-14

EDB

03/21/2000



183

ug/L

925

MW-14

EDB

06/27/2000



85

ug/L

926

MW-14

EDB

09/11/2000



0.2

ug/L

927

MW-14

EDB

10/07/2000



318

ug/L

928

MW-14

EDB

12/07/2000



383

ug/L

929

MW-14

EDB

03/30/2001



211

ug/L

930

MW-14

EDB

06/20/2001



154

ug/L

931

MW-14

EDB

09/10/2001



116

ug/L

932

MW-14

EDB

12/09/2001



47

ug/L

933

MW-14

EDB

03/18/2002



53

ug/L

934

MW-14

EDB

06/11/2002



11

ug/L

935

MW-14

EDB

12/10/2002

Duplicate

1.5 .

ug/L

936

MW-14

EDB

12/10/2002



1.4

ug/L

937

MW-14

EDB

03/01/2003



1.7

ug/L

938

MW-14

EDB

06/03/2003



1.4

Ug/L

939

MW-14

EDB

09/16/2003



0.5

ug/L

940

MW-14 '

EDB

12/13/2003

Duplicate

1.4

ug/L

941

MW-14

EDB

12/13/2003



1.4

ug/L

942

: MW-14

EDB

03/19/2004



0.97

ug/L

943

MW-14

, EDB

06/29/2004



0.93

ug/L

944

MW-14

EDB

09/09/2004



0.66

ug/L-

945

MW-14

EDB

03/09/2005



¦¦ 0.67

ug/L

946

¦ MW-14

EDB

06/17/2005



0.63

ug/L

947

MW-14

EDB

09/16/2005



1.2

ug/L

948

MW-14

EDB

12/20/2005

Duplicate

0.41

ug/L

949

¦ MW-14

EDB

12/20/2005



0.42

ug/L

950

MW-14

. EDB

03/07/2006



0.42

ug/L

951

MW-14

EDB

06/14/2006



¦ 0.45

¦Ug/L,

952

MW-14

EDB

09/08/2006



' 0.41

ug/L

953

MW-14

EDB

12/08/2006



. 0.44

ug/L

954

MW-14

EDB

03/09/2007



0.3

ug/L

955

MW-14

EDB

06/12/2007



0.25

ug/L

956

MW-14

EDB

09/07/2007



0.38

ug/L

957

MW-14

EDB

12/05/2007



0.38

ug/L

958

MW-14

EDB

03/12/2008



0.31

¦ ub/l

959

MW-14

EDB

10/28/2008



0.28

ug/L

960

MW-14

EDB

12/29/2008



0.23

ug/L

Page 24 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
4BSBj> S.S. papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Date Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

961

MW-14

EDB

03/15/2009



0.2

ug/L

962

MW-14

EDB

06/25/2009



0.16

ug/L

963

MW-14

EDB

09/20/2009



0.27

ug/L

964'

MW-14

EDB

01/18/2010

Duplicate

0.35

ug/L

965

MW-14

EDB

01/18/2010



0.35

ug/L

966

MW-14

EDB

03/17/2010



0.3

ug/L

967

MW-14

EDB

07/08/2010



0.26

ug/L

968

MW-14

EDB

12/09/2010



0.31

ug/L

969

MW-14

EDB

03/23/2011



0.23

ug/L

970

MW-14

EDB

06/23/2011



0.19

ug/L

971

MW-14

EDB

09/12/2011



0.15

ug/L

972

MW-14

EDB

12/16/2011



0.14

ug/L

973

MW-14

EDB

03/23/2012



0.15

ug/L

974

MW-14

EDB

09/19/2012



0.19

ug/L

¦975

MW-14

EDB

03/27/2013



0.18

ug/L

976

MW-14

EDB

09/04/2013



0.1

ug/L

977

MW-14

EDB

03/26/2014



0.097

ug/L

978

MW-14

' EDB

04/09/2014



0.25

ug/L

979

MW-14

EDB

09/02/2014



0.09

ug/L

980

MW-14

EDB

03/17/2015

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

981

MW-14

EDB

03/17/2015



0.12

ug/L

982

MW-14

EDB

09/08/2015



<0.05

ug/L

983

MW-14

EDB

03/20/2016



0.08

ug/L

984

MW-14

EDB

12/07/2016

Duplicate

0.034

ug/L

985

MW-14

EDB

12/07/2016



0.036

ug/L

986

MW-14

EDB

03/07/2017



0.04

1 ug/L

987

MW-14

EDB

09/13/2017



0.0117

ug/L

988

MW-14

EDB

05/01/2018



0.0612

ug/L

989

MW-14

EDB

9/26/2018



0.051

ug/L

990

MW-14

EDB

3/27/2019



0.052

ug/L

991

MW-14

EDB

10/17/2019



0.073

ug/L

992

MW-14

EDB

4/13/2020



0.04

ug/L

993

MW-14

EDB

11/19/2020



0.048

ug/L

994

MW-14

EDB

04/29/2021



0.041

ug/L

995

MW-16

EDB

09/23/1997



7.3

ug/L

996

MW-16

EDB

12/01/1997



¦ 5.2

ug/L

997

MW-16

EDB

12/09/1997



4.9

ug/L

998

MW-16

EDB

03/19/1998



2.9 .

. ug/L

999

MW-16

EDB

06/03/1998



2.4

ug/L

1000

MW-16

EDB

09/15/1998

Duplicate

4.5

ug/L

Page 25 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
4BBH) S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentnitioii Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1001

MW-16

EDB

09/15/1998



4.4

ug/L

1002

MW-16

EDB

12/08/1998



3

ug/L

1003 ¦

MW-16

EDB

03/19/1999

Duplicate

1.4

ug/L

1004

MW-16

EDB

03/19/1999



1.5

ug/L

1005

MW-16

EDB

06/28/1999



0.84

ug/L

1006

MW-16

EDB

09/08/1999



2.5

ug/L

1007

MW-16

EDB

12/01/1999 •

Duplicate

3.7

ug/L

1008

MW-16

EDB

12/01/1999

Duplicate

3.6

ug/L

1009

MW-16

EDB

12/01/1999



3.7

ug/L

1010

MW-16

EDB

03/21/2000



2.9

ug/L

1011

MW-16

EDB

06/27/2000



2.7

ug/L

1012

MW-16

EDB

10/07/2000



2.9

ug/L

1013

MW-16

EDB

12/07/2000

Duplicate

2.4

ug/L

1014

MW-16

EDB

12/07/2000



2.4

ug/L

1015

MW-16

EDB

03/30/2001

Duplicate

2.5

ug/L

1016

MW-16

EDB

03/30/2001



2.3

ug/L

1017

MW-16

EDB

06/20/2001



2.9

ug/L

1018

MW-16

EDB

09/10/2001



2

ug/L

1019

MW-16

EDB

12/09/2001



2.6

ug/L

1020

MW-16

EDB

06/01/2002



2.2

ug/L

1021

MW-16

EDB

06/18/2002



2.5

ug/L

1022

MW-16 ¦

EDB

09/09/2002



1.2

ug/L

1023

MW-16

EDB

12/10/2002



1.1

ug/L

1024

MW-16

EDB

03/01/2003



1.3

ug/L

1025

MW-16

. EDB

06/03/2003

Duplicate

1.2

ug/L

1026

MW-16

EDB ¦¦

06/03/2003



1.1

ug/L

1027

MW-16

EDB

09/16/2003



0.63

ug/L

1028

MW-16

EDB

12/13/2003



0.91

ug/L ¦

1029

MW-16

EDB

03/19/2004

Duplicate

0.82

ug/L ¦

1030

MW-16

EDB

03/19/2004



0.85

Ug/L

1031

MW-16

EDB

06/29/2004-



0.55 ¦ ¦

¦ Ug/L

1032

MW-16

EDB

09/09/2004



0.44

ug/L

1033

MW-16

EDB

03/09/2005



0.35

ug/L

1034

MW-16

EDB

06/17/2005



0.26

ug/L

1035

MW-16

EDB

09/16/2005



0.19

ug/L

1036

MW-16

EDB

12/20/2005

Duplicate

0.2

ug/L

1037

MW-16

EDB

12/20/2005



0.19

ug/L

1038

MW-16

EDB

03/07/2006 .



0.16

ug/L ¦ ¦

1039

MW-16

EDB

06/14/2006



0.15

ug/L

1040

MW-16

EDB

09/08/2006

Duplicate - ¦

0.11

ug/L

Page 26 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. PAPADOPULOS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1041

MW-16

EDB

09/08/2006



0.12

ug/L

1042

MW-16

EDB

12/08/2006



0.14

ug/L

1043

MW-16

EDB

03/09/2007



0.14

ug/L

1044

MW-16

EDB

06/12/2007



0.14

ug/L

1045

MW-16

EDB

09/07/2007



0.15

ug/L

1046

MW-16

EDB

12/05/2007



0.15

ug/L

1047

MW-16

EDB

03/12/2008



0.15

ug/L

1048

MW-16

EDB

10/29/2008



0.13

ug/L

1049

MW-16

EDB

12/29/2008

Duplicate

0.1

ug/L

1050

MW-16

EDB

12/29/2008



0.12

ug/L

1051

MW-16

EDB

03/15/2009

Duplicate

0.07

ug/L

1052

MW-16

EDB

03/15/2009



0.08

ug/L

1053

MW-16

EDB

06/25/2009



0.09

ug/L

1054

MW-16

EDB

09/20/2009



0.13

ug/L

1055

MW-16

EDB

01/18/2010



0.09

ug/L

1056

MW-16

EDB

03/17/2010



0.12

ug/L

1057

MW-25

EDB

09/16/1998



N/D

ug/L

1058

MW-25

EDB

10/20/2008



<0.05

ug/L

¦ 1059

MW-25

EDB

12/30/2008



<0.05

ug/L

1060

MW-25

EDB

03/14/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1061

MW-25

EDB

06/25/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1062

MW-25

EDB

09/20/2009

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1063

MW-25

EDB

09/20/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1064

MW-25

EDB

01/18/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1065

MW-25

EDB

03/17/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1066

MW-25

EDB

07/08/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1067

MW-25

EDB

09/11/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1068

MW-25

EDB

12/10/2010

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1069

MW-25

EDB

12/10/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1070

MW-25

EDB

03/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1071

MW-25

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1072

MW-25

EDB

09/13/2011

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1073

MW-25

EDB

09/13/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1074

MW-25

EDB

12/16/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1075

MW-28R

EDB

10/22/2004



<0.05

ug/L

1076

MW-28R

EDB

03/08/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1077

MW-28R

EDB

06/23/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1078

MW-28R

EDB

09/14/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1079

MW-28R

EDB

12/20/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1080

MW-28R

EDB

03/06/2006



<0.05

ug/L

Page 27 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
<£Z> S.S. Pafadopulos & Associates, Inc.

FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Sine® 1997



Sampling

Location

Anaiyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1081

MW-28R

EDB

06/08/2006



<0.05

ug/L

1082

MW-28R

EDB

09/08/2006



<0.05

ug/L

1083

MW-28R

EDB

12/06/2006



<0.05

ug/L

1084

MW-28R

EDB

03/09/2007



<0.05

ug/L

1085

MW-28R

EDB

06/08/2007



<0.05

ug/L

1086

MW-28R

EDB

09/06/2007



<0.05

ug/L

1087

MW-28R

EDB

12/05/2007



<0.05

ug/L

1088

MW-28R

EDB

03/12/2008



<0.05

ug/L

1089

MW-28R

EDB

10/20/2008



<0.05

ug/L

1090

MW-28R

EDB

12/29/2008



<0.05

ug/L

1091

MW-28R

EDB

03/14/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1092

MW-28R

EDB

06/25/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1093

MW-28R

EDB

09/20/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1094

MW-28R

EDB

03/17/2010

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1095

MW-28R

EDB

03/17/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1096

MW-28R

EDB

07/08/2010



< 0.05

ug/L

1097

MW-28R

EDB

09/11/2010

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1098

MW-28R

EDB

09/11/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1099

MW-28R

EDB

12/10/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1100

MW-28R

EDB

03/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1101

MW-28R

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1102

MW-28R

EDB

09/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L ¦

1103

MW-28R

EDB

12/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L '

1104

MW-28R

EDB

02/12/2014



<0.05

ug/L

1105

NP-001R

EDB

09/09/1998



N/D

ug/L

1106

NP-001R

EDB

10/28/2008



<0.05

ug/L

1107

NP-001R

EDB

12/30/2008



< 0.05

ug/L

1108

NP-001R

EDB

03/11/2009



< 0.05*

ug/L

1109

NP-001R

EDB

07/01/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1110

NP-001R

EDB

09/08/2009

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1111

NP-001R

EDB

09/08/2009



< 0.05

¦ ug/L

1112

NP-001R

EDB

01/12/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1113

NP-001R

EDB

03/16/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1114

NP-001R

EDB

06/22/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1115

NP-001R

EDB

09/01/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1116

NP-001R

EDB

12/10/2010



<0.05

ug/L

1117

NP-001R

EDB

03/18/2011

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1118

NP-001R

EDB

03/18/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1119

NP-001R

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1120

NP-001R

EDB

06/23/2011

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

Page 28 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
4BBD) S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subslfe Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling

Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1121

NP-001R

EDB

08/31/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1122

NP-001R

EDB

12/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1123

PZ-250D

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

yg/L

1124

PZ-250D

EDB

09/13/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1125

PZ-250D

EDB

12/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1126

PZ-250S

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1127

PZ-250S

EDB

09/13/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1128

PZ-250S

EDB

12/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1129

PZ-80D

EDB

10/11/2000



ND

ug/L

1130

PZ-80D

EDB

12/08/2000



ND

ug/L

1131

PZ-80D

EDB

03/30/2001



0.14

ug/L

1132

PZ-80D

EDB

06/20/2001



0.39

ug/L

1133

PZ-80D

EDB

09/10/2001



0.03

ug/L

1134

PZ-80D

EDB

12/09/2001



0.05

ug/L

1135

PZ-80D

EDB

03/19/2002



0.06

ug/L

1136

PZ-80D

EDB

06/11/2002



0.12

ug/L

1137

PZ-80D ¦

EDB

09/05/2002



ND

ug/L

1138

PZ-80D

EDB

12/11/2002



ND

ug/L

1139

PZ-80D

EDB

03/01/2003



<0.05

ug/L

1140

PZ-80D

EDB

06/02/2003



0.1

ug/L

1141

PZ-80D

EDB

09/16/2003



<0.05

ug/L

1142

PZ-80D

EDB

12/08/2003



ND

ug/L

1143

PZ-80D

EDB

03/19/2004



<.05

ug/L

1144

PZ-80D

EDB

07/07/2004



<0.05

ug/L

1145

PZ-80D

EDB

07/21/2004



<0.05

ug/L

1146

PZ-80D

EDB

09/27/2004



0.05

ug/L

1147

PZ-80D

EDB

03/08/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1148

PZ-80D

EDB

09/13/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1149

PZ-80D

EDB

12/20/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1150

PZ-80D

EDB

10/28/2008



<0.05

ug/L

1151

PZ-80D

EDB

12/30/2008



<0.05

ug/L

1152

PZ-80D

EDB

03/14/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1153

PZ-80D

EDB

06/25/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1154

PZ-80D

EDB

09/20/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1155

PZ-80S

EDB

10/11/2000



ND

ug/L

1156

PZ-80S

EDB

12/08/2000 .



ND

ug/L

1157

PZ-80S

EDB

03/30/2001



0.15

ug/L

1158

PZ-80S

EDB

06/20/2001



0.38

ug/L

1159

PZ-80S

EDB

09/10/2001



ND

ug/L

1160

PZ-80S

EDB

12/09/2001



ND

ug/L

Page 29 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
jSBBb S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1161

PZ-80S

EDB

03/19/2002



0.06

ug/L

1162

PZ-80S

EDB

06/11/2002



0.12

ug/L

1163

PZ-80S

EDB

09/05/2002



ND

ug/L

1164

PZ-80S

EDB

12/11/2002



ND

ug/L

1165

PZ-80S

EDB

07/02/2003



ND

ug/L

1166

PZ-80S

EDB

09/16/2003



<0.05

ug/L

1167

PZ-80S

EDB

12/08/2003



ND

ug/L

1168

PZ-80S

EDB

03/19/2004



<.05

ug/L

1169

PZ-80S

EDB

07/07/2004



<0.05

ug/L

1170

PZ-80S

EDB

07/21/2004



0.06

ug/L

1171

PZ-80S

EDB

09/27/2004



0.05

ug/L

1172

PZ-80S

EDB

03/08/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1173

PZ-80S

EDB

09/13/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1174

PZ-80S

EDB

12/20/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1175

PZ-80S

EDB

10/28/2008



<0.05

ug/L

1176

PZ-80S

EDB

12/30/2008



<0.05

ug/L

1177

PZ-80S

EDB

03/14/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1178

PZ-80S

EDB

06/25/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1179

PZ-80S

EDB

09/20/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1180

Well A

EDB

09/17/1997



0.86

ug/L

1181

Well A

EDB

09/08/1998



1

Ug/L

1182

Well A

EDB

09/07/1999



2.2

ug/L

1183

Well A

EDB

10/09/2000



0.19

ug/L

1184

Well A

EDB

09/07/2001



0.31

ug/L

1185

Well A

EDB

09/12/2003 .



0.38

ug/L

1186

Well A

EDB

09/08/2004



0.24

ug/L

1187

Well A

EDB

09/08/2004



0.21

ug/L

1188

Well A

EDB

12/10/2004



¦ 0.2 :

ug/L

1189

Well A

EDB

03/09/2005



0.11

ug/L

1190

Well A

EDB

06/13/2005



0.1

ug/L

1191

Well A

EDB

06/16/2005



0.25

ug/L

1192

Well A

EDB

09/13/2005

Duplicate

0.09

ug/L

1193

Well A

EDB

09/13/2005



0.09

ug/L

1194

Well A

EDB

12/19/2005



0.14

ug/L

1195

Well A

EDB

03/07/2006

Duplicate

0.29

ug/L

1196

Well A

EDB

03/07/2006



0.3

ug/L

1197 '

Well A

EDB

06/08/2006



0.23

ug/L

1198

Well A

EDB

09/07/2006



0.12

ug/L

1199

Well A

EDB

12/06/2006



0.11

ug/L

1200

Weil A

EDB

03/09/2007

- Duplicate

¦ 0.07

ug/L

Page 30 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
flU S.S. papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1201

Weil A

EDB

03/09/2007



0.08

ug/L

1202

Well A

EDB

06/12/2007

Duplicate

0.19

ug/L

1203

Well A

EDB

06/12/2007



0.19

ug/L

1204

Well A

EDB

09/07/2007



0.28

ug/L

1205

Well A

EDB

12/05/2007



0.3

ug/L

1206

Well A

EDB

03/12/2008



0.12

ug/L

1207

Well A

EDB

10/17/2008



0.08

ug/L

1208

Well A

EDB

12/30/2008



0.1

ug/L

1209

Well A

EDB

03/11/2009



0.15*

ug/L

1210

Well A

EDB

07/01/2009

Duplicate

0.18

ug/L

1211

Well A

EDB

07/01/2009



0.18

ug/L

1212

Well A

EDB

09/08/2009



0.15

ug/L

1213

Weil A

EDB

01/12/2010



0.14

ug/L

1214

Weil A

EDB

03/17/2010



0.16

ug/L

1215

Well A

EDB

06/22/2010



0.17

ug/L

1216

Weil A

EDB

09/01/2010



0.14

ug/L

1217

Well A

EDB

12/09/2010



0.16

ug/L

1218

Well A

EDB

03/18/2011



0.11

ug/L

1219

Well A

EDB

06/23/2011



0.11

ug/L

1220

Well A

EDB

08/31/2011



0.08

ug/L

1221

Well A

EDB

12/12/2011



0.1

ug/L

1222

Well A

EDB

03/23/2012



0.1

ug/L

1223

Well A

EDB

09/19/2012



0.12

ug/L

1224

Well A

EDB

03/14/2013



<0.05

ug/L

1225

Well A

EDB

03/14/2013

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1226

Well A

EDB

09/04/2013



<0.05

ug/L

1227

Weil A

EDB

03/25/2014



<0.05

ug/L

1228

Well A

EDB

09/02/2014

Duplicate

0.08

ug/L

1229

Well A

EDB

09/02/2014



0.09

ug/L

1230

Well A

EDB

03/09/2015

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1231

Well A

EDB

03/09/2015



<0.05

ug/L

1232

Weil A

EDB

09/08/2015

Duplicate

0.06

ug/L

1233

Well A

EDB

09/08/2015



0.06

ug/L

1234

Well A

EDB

03/14/2016

Duplicate

0.07

Ug/L

1235

Well A

EDB

03/14/2016



0.08 .

ug/L

1236

Well A

EDB

11/22/2016



0.07

ug/L

1237

Well A

EDB

03/07/2017



0.06

ug/L

1238

Well A

EDB

09/13/2017



0.0512

ug/L

1239

Well A

EDB

06/28/2018



0.0591

ug/L

1240

Well A

EDB

9/26/2018



0.023

ug/L

Page 31 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
1811111 S.S. Papadopiilos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Anaiyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1241

Well A

EDB

3/27/2019



0.031

ug/L

1242

Well A

EDB

10/17/2019



0.017

ug/L

1243

Well A

EDB

5/5/2020



<0.03

ug/L

1244

Well A

EDB

11/19/2020



<0.03

Ug/L

1245

Well A

EDB

05/05/2021



<0.03

ug/L

1246

Well B

EDB

09/17/1997



ND

ug/L

1247

Well B

EDB

09/08/1998



0.08

ug/L

1248

Well B

EDB

09/07/1999



ND

ug/L

1249

Well B

EDB

09/07/2001



0.06

ug/l

¦ 1250

Well B

EDB

09/01/2002



<0.05

ug/L

1251

Well B .

EDB

06/14/2005



0.24

ug/L

1252

Well B -

EDB

10/17/2008



0.09

ug/L

1251

Well B

EDB

12/30/2008



0.09

ug/L

1254

Well B

EDB

03/11/2009



0.1

ug/L

1255

Well B

EDB

07/01/2009



0.11

ug/L

1256

Well B

EDB

09/08/2009



0.11

ug/L

1257

Well B

EDB

01/12/2010



0.09

ug/L

1258

Well B

EDB

03/17/2010



0.11

ug/L

1259

Well B

EDB

06/22/2010



0.13

ug/L

1260

Well B

EDB

09/01/2010



0.11

ug/L

1261

Well B

EDB

12/09/2010



0.1

ug/L

1262

Well B

EDB

03/18/2011



0.07

ug/L

1263

Well B

EDB

06/23/2011



0.08

ug/L

1264

Weil B

EDB

08/31/2011



0.06

ug/L

1265

Well B

EDB

12/12/2011



0.07

ug/L

1266

Well B

EDB

03/23/2012



0.05

ug/L

1267

Well B

EDB

09/19/2012



0.09

ug/L

1268

Well B

EDB

¦ --03/14/2013



0.08

ug/L

1269

Well B

EDB

09/04/2013



<0.05

ug/L

1270

Well B

EDB ¦

03/25/2014



0.058

ug/L

1271

Well-B

EDB

¦ 09/02/2014



<0.05

ug/L

1272

Well B

EDB

03/09/2015



<0.05

ug/L

1273

Well B

EDB

09/08/2015



<0.05

ug/L

1274

Well B

EDB

03/14/2016



<0.05

ug/L

1275

Well B

EDB

11/22/2016



0.035

ug/L

1276

Well B

EDB

03/07/2017



0.03

ug/L

1277

Well B

EDB

¦ 09/13/2017



0.0342

ug/L

1278

Well B

EDB

06/28/2018



0.0264

ug/L

1279

Well B

EDB

9/26/2018



0.628

ug/L

1280

Well B

EDB

3/27/2019



0.014

ug/L

Page 32 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
4fBD) S.S. Papadopulos a Associates, inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1281

Well B

EDB

10/17/2019



0.014

ug/L

1282

Well B

EDB

5/5/2020



<0.03

ug/L

1283

Well B

EDB

11/19/2020



<0.03

ug/L

1284

Well B

EDB

05/05/2021



<0.03

ug/L

1285

Well C

EDB

10/01/2000



0.07

ug/L

1286

Well C

EDB

09/01/2002



<0.05

ug/L

1287

Well C

EDB

09/08/2004



<0.05

ug/L

1288

Well C

EDB

03/09/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1289

Well C

EDB

06/14/2005



0.04

Ug/L

1290

Well C

EDB

06/16/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1291

Well C

EDB

09/13/2005



<0.05

ug/L

1292

Well C

EDB

12/19/2005



0.05

ug/L

1293

Well C

EDB

03/07/2006



<0.05

ug/L

1294

Well C

EDB

06/08/2006



<0.05

ug/L

1295

Well C

EDB

09/07/2006



<0.05

ug/L

1296

Well C

EDB

12/06/2006



<0.05

ug/L

1297

Well C

EDB

03/09/2007



<0.05

ug/L

1298

Well C

EDB

06/12/2007



<0.05

ug/L

1299

Well C

EDB

09/07/2007



<0.05

ug/L

1300

Well C

EDB

12/05/2007 ¦



0.05

ug/L

1301

Well C

EDB

03/12/2008



<0.05

ug/L

1302

Well C

EDB

10/17/2008



<0.05

ug/L

1303

Well C

EDB

12/30/2008



0.07

ug/L

1304

Well C

EDB

03/11/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1305

Well C

EDB

07/01/2009



<0.05

ug/L

1306

Well C

EDB

09/08/2009



0.06

ug/L

1307

Well C

EDB

01/12/2010



0.06

ug/L

1308

Well C

EDB

03/17/2010



0.07

ug/L

1309

Well C

EDB

06/22/2010



0.08

ug/L

1310

Well C

EDB

09/01/2010



0.07

ug/L

1311

Well C

EDB

12/09/2010

Duplicate

0.06

ug/L

1312

Well C

EDB

12/09/2010



0.06

ug/L

1313

Well C

EDB

¦ 03/18/2011

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1314

Well C

EDB

03/18/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1315

Well C

EDB

06/23/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1316

Well C

EDB

08/31/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1317

Well C

EDB

12/12/2011



<0.05

ug/L

1318

Well C

EDB

03/23/2012



<0.05

ug/L

1319

Well C

EDB

03/25/2014



<0.05

ug/L

1320

Well D

EDB

07/22/1997



4.3

ug/L

Pag® 33 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. Papaoopvajos & Associates, inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1321

Well D

EDB

07/22/1997



2.8

ug/L

1322

Well D

EDB

07/22/1997



4.2

ug/L

1323

Well D

EDB

07/22/1997



4.8

ug/L

1324

Well D

EDB

07/22/1997



3.5

ug/L

1325

Well D

EDB

07/22/1997



4.4

ug/L

1326

Well D

EDB

07/23/1997

Duplicate

3.5

ug/L

1327

Well D

EDB

07/23/1997



3.5

ug/L

1328

Well D

EDB

07/23/1997



3.4

ug/L

¦ 1329

Well D

EDB

07/24/1997



3.5

ug/L

1330

Well D

EDB

07/25/1997



3.9

ug/L

1331

Well D

EDB

07/28/1997



3.5

ug/L

1332

Well D

EDB

08/04/1997



3.1

Ug/L

1333

Well D

EDB

08/11/1997



3.4

ug/L

1334

Well D

EDB

08/18/1997



3.6

ug/L

1335

Well D

EDB

08/27/1997



2.9

ug/L

1336

Well D

EDB

09/17/1997



3

ug/L

1337

Well D

EDB

10/20/1997



2.5

ug/L

1338

Well D

EDB

11/17/1997



2.8

ug/L

1339

Well D

EDB

12/11/1997



2.6

ug/L

1340

Well D

EDB

01/15/1998 .



2.7

ug/L

1341

Well 0

EDB

02/16/1998



2.6

ug/L

1342

Well D

EDB

03/16/1998



2.6

¦ ug/L

1343

Well D

EDB

05/18/1998



2.5

ug/L

1344

Well D

EDB

06/15/1998



2.4

ug/L

1345

Well D

EDB

07/20/1998



2.7

ug/L

1346

WeHD

EDB

08/18/1998



2.5

ug/L

1347 ¦

Well 0

EDB

09/23/1998



2.8

ug/L

1348

Well D

EDB

10/19/1998



2.8

ug/L

1349

Well D

EDB

11/16/1998



2.8

ug/L

1350

Well D

EDB

12/17/1998



3.2

' Ug/L

1351 -

Well 0

EDB ¦

01/18/1999

Duplicate

3

ug/L .

1352

Well D ¦

EDB

01/18/1999



3

ug/L

1353

Well D

EDB

02/15/1999

Duplicate

3

ug/L

1354

Well D

EDB

02/15/1999



3

ug/L

1355

Well D

EDB

06/29/1999

Duplicate

3.2

ug/L

¦ 1356

Well D

EDB

06/29/1999



3.1

ug/L

1357

Well D

EDB

09/07/1999



2.7

ug/L

1358

Well D

EDB

12/02/1999

Duplicate

2.4

ug/L '

1359

Well D

EDB

• 12/02/1999



• 2.2

ug/L •

1360

Well D

EDB

03/22/2000



1.2

ug/L

Page 34 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
 S.S. papadopulos a Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAM-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Date Sine® 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1361

Well 0

EDB

06/26/2000

Duplicate

0.72

ug/L

1362

Well D

EDB

06/26/2000



0.7

ug/L

1363

Well D

EDB

10/11/2000



0.28

ug/L

1364

Well D

EDB

12/08/2000



0.2

ug/L

1365

Well D

EDB

03/30/2001



0.2

ug/L

1366

Well D

EDB

04/01/2001



0.2

ug/L

1367

Well D

EDB

06/20/2001



0.2

ug/L

1368

Well D

EDB

09/10/2001



0.15

ug/L

1369

Well D

EDB

12/09/2001



0.16

ug/L

1370

Well D

EDB

03/19/2002



0.15

ug/L

1371

Well D

EDB

06/11/2002



0.15

ug/L

1372

Well D

EDB

09/05/2002



0.12

ug/L

1373

Well D

EDB

12/11/2002



0.12

ug/L

1374

Well D

EDB

03/01/2003



0.14

ug/L

1375

Well D

EDB

06/02/2003



0.1

ug/L

1376

Well D

EDB

07/01/2003



0.1

ug/L

1377

Well D

EDB

09/16/2003



0.11

ug/L

1378

Well D

EDB

12/08/2003



0.14

ug/L

1379 ¦

Well D

EDB

03/01/2004



0.2/0.19

ug/L

1380

Well D

EDB

03/19/2004



0.14

ug/L

1381

Well D

EDB

06/01/2004



0.2

ug/L

1382

Well D

EDB

07/21/2004



0.14

ug/L

1383

Well D

EDB

09/27/2004



0.17

ug/L

1384

Well D

EDB

12/09/2004



0.1

ug/L

1385

Well D

EDB

03/08/2005



0.16

ug/L

1386

Well D

EDB

06/14/2005



0.11

ug/L

1387

Well D

EDB

06/17/2005



0.09

ug/L

1388

Well D •

EDB

09/13/2005



0.09

ug/L

1389

Well D

EDB

12/19/2005



0.1

ug/L

1390

Well D

EDB

03/06/2006



0.09

ug/L

1391

Well D

EDB

06/14/2006



0.08

ug/L

1392

Well D

EDB

09/05/2006



0.08

ug/L

1393

Well D

- EDB

12/06/2006



0.09

ug/L

1394

Well D

EDB

03/09/2007



0.08

ug/L

1395

Well D

EDB

06/08/2007



0.07

ug/L

1396

Well D

EDB

09/06/2007



0.09

ug/L

1397

Well D

EDB

12/05/2007



0.07

ug/L

1398

Well D

EDB

03/12/2008



0.09

ug/L

1399

Well D

EDB

10/17/2008



0.1

ug/L

1400

Well D

EDB

12/30/2008



0.09

ug/L

Page 35 of 36

6/1/2021

-------
S.S. papaoopuljos ft Associates, Inc.
FAR-MAR-CO Subsite Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Concentration Data Since 1997



Sampling
Location

Analyte

Sample Date

Field
Duplicate?

Result

Units

1401

Well D

EDB

03/11/2009

Duplicate

0.07

ug/L

1402

Well D

EDB

03/11/2009



0.07

ug/L

1403

Well D

EDB

06/25/2009



0.07

ug/L

1404

WdID

EDB

09/08/2009



0.08

ug/L

1405

Well D

EDB

01/12/2010

Duplicate

0.08

ug/L

1406

Well D

EDB

01/12/2010



o.oe

ug/L

1407

Well 0

EDB

03/17/2010



0.07

ug/L

1408

Well D

EDB

06/22/2610



0.09

ug/L

1409

Well D

EDB

09/01/2010

Duplicate

0.08

ug/L

1410

Well D

EDB

09/01/2010



0.09

Ug/L

1411

Well D

EDB

12/09/2010



0.09

ug/L

1412

Well D

EDB

03/18/2011



0.07

ug/L

1413

Well D

EDB

06/23/2011



0.06

ug/L

1414

Well D

EDB

08/31/2011



0.07

ug/L

1415

Well D

EDB

12/12/2011



0.06 ¦

ug/L

1416

Well 0

EDB

12/12/2011

Duplicate

0.06

ug/L

1417

Well D

EDB

• 03/23/2012

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1418

WeHD

EDB

03/23/2012



0.06

ug/L

1419

Well D *

EDB

06/21/2012



. 0.12

Ug/L

1420

Well D

EDB

08/13/2012

Duplicate

: 0.07

ug/L

' 1421

Well D

EDB

08/13/2012



0.06

ug/L

1422

Well D

EDB

09/19/2012



0.05

ug/L

1423

Well 0

EDB

12/05/2012

Duplicate

0.05 ¦

ug/L

1424

Well D

EDB ¦

12/05/2012



0.05 ¦

ug/L

1425

Well D

EDB

03/14/2013



¦ ¦ 0.05 '

ug/L

1426

Well D '

EDB

06/19/2013

Duplicate

<0.05

¦ Ug/L

1427

¦ Well D

EDB

06/19/2013



< 0.05

¦ ug/L

1428

Well D

EDB

09/04/2013

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1429

Well 0

EDB

09/04/2013



<0.05

ug/L

1430

Well D

EDB

12/12/2013

Duplicate

<0.05

ug/L

1431

WeilO

EDB

12/12/2013 -



<0.05

- ¦ ug/L

1432

Well D

EDB

03/26/2014



<0.05

ug/L

1433

Well F

EDB

03/23/2012



<0.05

ug/L

1434

Well F

EDB

09/19/2012



<0.05

ug/L

1435

Well F

EDB

03/14/2013



< 0.05

ug/L

1436

Well F

EDB

09/04/2013



<0.05

ug/L

1437

Well F

EDB

03/25/2014



<0.05

' ug/L

* not representative due to well maintenance

Page 36 of 36

6/1/2021

-------