FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
DUBUQUE, IOWA
USEPA ID Number: IAD005269527
^tD sr%
I A \
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
Lenexa, Kansas
Cecilia Tapia , Division Director
Date:
-------
Fifth Five-Year Review
Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque
Works
EPA ID Number
IAD005269527
Prepared for:
John Deere Dubuque Works
Our Ref.:
TF001034.0025
Date:
28 February 2013
-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Site Chronology 2
3. Background 2
3.1 Physical Characteristics 2
3.2 Land and Resource Use 3
3.3 History of Contamination 5
3.4 Regulatory History 6
4. Remedial Actions 8
4.1 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study 8
4.2 Record of Decision 9
4.3 Consent Decree and Performance Standards 9
4.4 Remedy Implementation 14
4.4.1 Remedial Design 14
4.4.2 Remedial Performance from Implementation in September 1990 to
March 2008 16
4.4.3 Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance 27
5. Progress since Last Review 28
5.1.1 Protectiveness Statement 28
5.1.2 Recommendations and Status of Follow-up Actions 28
6. Fifth Five-Year Review Findings 32
6.1 Community Notification and Involvement 32
6.2 Document Review 32
6.3 Data Review 33
6.3.1 Groundwater Withdrawal 34
6.3.2 Surface Water 34
6.3.3 NAPL 36
6.3.4 Groundwater Quality 36
G:\ENV\TR1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713.docx i
-------
Table of Contents
6.4 Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance 38
6.5 Site Inspection 39
6.6 Interviews 39
7. Technical Assessment 40
8. Issues 42
9. Recommendations and Required Actions 43
10. Protectiveness Statement 45
11. Next Review 45
Figures
1 Site Location
2 Site Map
3 Well Locations Map
4 Tetrachloroethene Concentrations Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer
5 Trichloroethene Concentrations Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer
6 Benzene Concentrations Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer
Tables
1 Chronolgy of Site Events
2 Constituents of Concern
3 Summary of Groundwater Withdrawal System and NAPL Monitoring
4 Current Performance Standards for Contaminants in Groundwater
5 NPDES Effluent Limitations for the Constituents of Concern in Outfall
011
6 Alluvial Production Well Pumping Summary
7 Paired Well Head Difference Summary
8 Chemical Groundwater Analyses Summary
9 Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Quarterly Monitoring Results
10 SBW-4 Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Monitoring Results
G:\ENV\TR1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713.docx
-------
Appendices
A Documents Reviewed
B Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data
C NPDES Permit
D November 2, 2012 Five-Year Review Site Inspection Check List and
Interview Summary Forms
E Performance Standard Calculations
G:\ENV\TR1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713.docx
-------
Acronyms
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ARARs
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BOD5
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BTEX
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
COC
Contaminants of Concern
COPCs
Constituents of Potential Concern
FID
Flame Ionization Detector
FS
Feasibility Study
ft2
Square Feet
ft bis
Feet below land surface
HAL
Health Advisory Level
HRS
Hazard Ranking System
IDNR
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information
JDDW
John Deere Dubuque Works
kg
Kilogram
lbs/day
Pounds per Day
MCLs
Maximum Contaminant Levels
mg/kg
Milligrams per Kilogram
mg/kg-day
Milligrams per Kilogram Day
mg/L
Milligrams per Liter
msl
Mean Sea Level
MGD
Million Gallons per Day
NAPL
Non-aqueous Phase Liquid
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL
National Priorities List
NRL
Negligible Risk Level
O&M
Operation and maintenance
PCE
Tetrachloroethene
PRP
Potentially responsible party
RA
Remedial Action
RAOs
Remedial Action Objectives
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD
Remedial Design
Rl
Remedial Investigation
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD
Record of Decision
SVOCs
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
G:\ENV\TR1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713.docx
i
-------
Acronyms
TCE
Trichloroethene
TCL
Target Compound List
TPH
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TTO
Total Toxic Organic
UECA
Uniform Environmental Covenants Act
ug/L
Micrograms per Liter
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOCs
Volatile Organic Compounds
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713.docx
-------
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The remedy for the John Deere Dubuque Works (JDDW) site in Dubuque, Iowa includes pumping
groundwater from the alluvial aquifer, using the existing production wells to maintain an inward
hydraulic gradient. The remedy also includes using deed restrictions and Environmental
Covenants to prevent inappropriate use of the plant property in the future. In addition, wells
tapping the alluvial aquifer beneath the JDDW property for the purpose of extracting water for
human drinking purposes or for irrigation of food or feed crops are not allowed.
According to the data reviewed, the site inspection, and the interviews, the remedy is functioning
as intended by the Record of Decision (ROD). There have been no changes in the physical
conditions of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. The selected remedy
remains protective of human health and the environment and complies with Federal and State
requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to this remedial action. Therefore,
this remedy continues to be protective to human health and the environment.
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT O22713.docx 3
-------
Five-Year Review
Summary Form
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: John Deere (Dubuque Works)
USEPA ID: IAD005269527
Region: : 7 State: IA
NPL Status: Non-NPL
City/County: Dubuque/Dubuque
SITE STATUS
Multiple OUs?
NO
Has the site achieved construction completion?
N/A
Lead agency: USEPA
If "Other Federal Agency" was selected above, enter Agency name:
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): KATHERINE THALMAN
Author affiliation: ARCADIS
Review period: 4/1/08 - 3/31/13
Date of site inspection: 11/2/12
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 5
Triggering action date: 08/11/2008
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 08/11/2013
* ["OU" refers to operable unit.]
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT O22713.docx 4
-------
Five-Year Review
Summary Form
Issues/Recommendations
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
N/A
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: Per the USEPA recommendations in Section 9.0 of the 2"a Five-Year Review Report
(1998), the following wells were removed from the groundwater monitoring program, as these
wells have not had any exceedances of the Performance Standards in the last five years:
MW-7S, MW-7D, MW-11S, MW-11D, MW-16, MW-20S, MW-20D, and SBW-3/3N.
Recommendation: The following wells are recommended for removal from the groundwater
monitoring program, as these wells have been below the Cleanup Criteria for all sample
events over the last two reporting periods. Additionally, three of the wells have been below
the Cleanup Criteria during all sample events: MW-8S, MW-9S, MW-12, PW-3A, PW-4A,
PW-5, PW-7A.
Recommend abandonment of wells MW-2, MW-11D, MW-16, MW-20D, and SBW-3N which
were removed from the groundwater monitoring program in September 1998. MW-2 is a
historical monitor well installed during the Rl and was not included in the Consent Decree.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: Mo
nitoring
Issue: Deere shall continue NAPL monitoring and recovery operations until no more than 1/4
of an inch of NAPL is detected and verified in recovery well RW-3 and no more than 1/8 inch
of NAPL is detected and verified in monitoring wells 4, 6, 7S, 8S, 12 and 13S and recovery
wells 4 (replaced by RW-4a), 5 and G-S.
Recommendation: Reduce NAPL monitoring frequency to annually at the wells indicated in
the performance standard (MW-4, MW-6, MW-7S, MW-8S, MW-12, MW-13S, and RW-3,
RW-4(a), RW-5, and G-2S). Limit the monthly groundwater elevation monitoring to the six
paired wells to demonstrate compliance with the inward gradient. All groundwater elevations
needed to develop the contour map are to be completed once a year.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT O22713.docx 5
-------
Five-Year Review
Summary Form
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: The Performance Standards require biennial sampling of monitoring wells for the
constituents of concern. Only two wells have had constituent levels higher than the cleanup
criteria, with the other wells remaining consistently below the Cleanup Criteria.
Recommendation: Reduce frequency of sampling activities from biennial to once per 5-year
reporting period.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: l\
Jo Issue/Reporting
Issue: Quarterly reports are provided to the USEPA demonstrating compliance with the
Performance Standards. These reports include a summary of activities performed on the
site, weekly flow data, and a rolling 12 month average of head differentials at the paired
monitoring wells.
Recommendation: Reduce ongoing status reports to the USEPA and IDNR from quarterly
to annually, due the 30th of January for previous year. John Deere will provide a contour
map annually to correspond with the previous reporting period.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: K
lonitoring
Issue: In October 2004, SBW-4 was added to the monitoring program and NAPL
measurements have been taken monthly. The NAPL thickness has not fluctuated
significantly over the last 5-year reporting period. Recovery well G-2D was installed and used
to draw down the water table providing better recovery in well G-2S and is not one of the
wells specified in the Consent Decree for monitoring the performance of the NAPL
withdrawal system.
Recommendation: Discontinue the monitoring of SBW-4 and close the monitoring well.
JDDW also requests approval for abandonment NAPL recovery well G-2D.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT O22713.docx
6
-------
Five-Year Review
Summary Form
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Extraction and treatment requirements terminate after four consecutive quarters of
sampling indicate that the COC's are below the cleanup criteria. Sampling activities are no
longer performed quarterly.
Recommendation: Extraction and treatment requirements terminate after four consecutive
sampling events indicate that the COC's are below the cleanup criteria.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: l\
lo Issue
Issue: The JDDW documents are no longer present at the Carnegie-Stout Public
Library in Dubuque.
Recommendation: Evaluate the location of the site repository.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
USEPA
USEPA
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
01 Protective (if applicable):
N/A
Protectiveness Statement:
The selected remedy remains protective of human health and the environment and complies with
Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to this remedial action.
Therefore, this remedy continues to be protective to human health and the environment
Sitewide Protectiveness Statement (if applicable)
For sites that have achieved construction completion, enter a sitewide protectiveness determination and
statement. N/A
Protectiveness Determination: N/A Addendum Due Date (if applicable):N/A.
Protectiveness Statement: N/A
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT O22713.docx
7
-------
1. Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region VII, has
conducted a five-year review of the remedial action (RA) implemented at the
John Deere Dubuque Works (JDDW) in Dubuque, Iowa. This review was
conducted for the period April 2008 through March 2013. This report
documents the results of the review. ARCADIS was contracted by JDDW to
support the preparation of the five-year review.
The purpose of five-year reviews is to determine whether the remedy at a site
is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings,
and conclusions of reviews are documented in five-year review reports. In
addition, five-year review reports identify issues found during the review, if any,
and recommendations to address them.
The USEPA is preparing this five-year review pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCI-A) §121
and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). CERCLA §121 (c) states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at
the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less
often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial
action to assure that human health and the environment are being
protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition,
if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action
is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or
[106], the President shall take or require such action. The
President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which
such review is required, and the results of all such reviews, and
any actions taken as a result of such reviews.
The agency interpreted this requirement further in NCP; 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) § 300.430(f)(4)(H):
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site
above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often
than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial
action.
This is the fifth five-year review for the JDDW site. The first five-year review
was completed in September 1995, the second five-year review was
completed in September 1998, the third five-year review was completed in
September 2003, and the fourth five-year Review was completed in August
2008. Subsequent five-year reviews should be completed no later than five
years following the signature of the previous five-year review report. The
triggering action for this statutory review is the date of completion of the fourth
five-year view (August 2008) as shown in USEPA's Wastel_AN database. This
five-year review is required because the JDDW remedial action resulted in
hazardous substance, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on site.
2. Site Chronology
A chronology of site events for the JDDW site is presented in Table 1.
3. Background
3.1 Physical Characteristics
The JDDW plant is located approximately 2.5 miles north of the City of
Dubuque in northeastern Iowa and covers 1,447 acres near the confluence of
the Mississippi and the Little Maquoketa Rivers. Land surface elevations vary
from 600 feet above mean sea level (ft msl) along the Mississippi River close
to the JDDW plant to greater than 850 ft above msl on the uplands away from
the river. The Mississippi River is located east of the site, and the Little
Maquoketa River bisects the JDDW property and enters the Mississippi River
east of the northeast facility boundary. A site map is included as Figure 1.
The plant buildings are located on a relatively flat delta at the confluence of the
Little Maquoketa River and the Mississippi River.
Site geology consists of alluvial sediment overlying bedrock. The alluvial
sediments at the JDDW site vary in thickness from 100 to 158 ft and consist
principally of fine-to-coarse grained sand deposited mainly by glacial
meltwaters. A thin silty layer has also been deposited by the Little Maquoketa
and Mississippi Rivers. The plant site is located above the thickest portion of
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
the alluvium in the Peru Bottoms area. Toward the bluffs, the elevation of the
bedrock increases and the alluvial deposits become thinner. Groundwater flow
in the alluvial aquifer is towards the production wells.
Three distinct bedrock aquifers are present in the Dubuque Iowa area: the
Galena-Platteville aquifer, Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer, and Dresbach Group
aquifer. The Galena-Platteville aquifer is comprised of the Galena, Decorah,
and Platteville Formations of Ordovician age, which are the younger bedrock
units in the vicinity of JDDW. These bedrock units, which consist of limestone
and dolomite with shaley layers, are not present in the JDDW plant area but
are found in the uplands adjacent to the River valley and at the bottom of
shallow filled valleys. The Galena-Platteville aquifer yields small quantities of
water adequate for domestic supply. The Galena-Platteville aquifer is
underlain by the deeper-lying Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer, which is comprised
of the Ordovician age St. Peter Sandstone and Prairie du Chien (Dolomite)
Group and the Cambrian age Jordan Sandstone. This aquifer is a major
source of water across the State of Iowa. In the JDDW plant area, the Galena-
Platteville aquifer and the St. Peter Sandstone (the upper portion of the
Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer) are absent and the alluvium is in direct contact
with the Prairie du Chien Group of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer. The
Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer is underlain by the St. Lawrence Formation and
the Franconia Sandstone, which are relatively impermeable and provides an
effective confining layer between the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer and the
deeper lying Dresbach Group aquifer. The Dresbach Group aquifer consists of
the Galesville Sandstone, the Eau Claire Formation, and the Mt. Simon
Sandstone. This aquifer is not as productive or as widely used as the
Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer.
3.2 Land and Resource Use
General land use in Dubuque County and northeastern Iowa is primarily
agricultural except near major population centers. JDDW is zoned M-2 Heavy
Industrial District by Dubuque County. Areas adjacent to JDDW are zoned R-1
Rural Residential to the north, which includes mostly farms; C-1 Conservancy
to the east; A-1 Agricultural to the west; and C-1 Conservancy, R-2 Single
Family Residential, and R-3 Multifamily Residential to the south.
The JDDW site, although once farmland, remains largely undeveloped except
for the immediate vicinity of the plant operations, which is located on the
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
eastern half of the JDDW site. In 1946, JDDW began manufacturing
operations in a 600,000 square foot (ft2) facility. A site map is included in
Figure 2. Prior to 1976, several major additions to the plant were completed
predominantly to the south of the original building. As a result of these
additions, the facility occupied more than 5,000,000 ft2, which included the
original plant building, storage areas, waste disposal areas, and parking lots.
In 1997, 1998, and 2003, JDDW reduced the size of the facility by closing
down and demolishing buildings. In 1997, JDDW closed down and
demolished Heat Treat buildings E, E1, E2 and E3, which comprised 78,694 ft2
(Figure 2). In 1998, JDDW closed down and demolished buildings J, K, and I
used for miscellaneous manufacturing, which comprised 405,482 ft2 (Figure
2). In 2003, JDDW demolished Engine Manufacturing Buildings U, V, and V1,
which comprises 448,600 ft2 (Figure 2). The demolition of these buildings
reduces the size of the facility by 932,776 ft2.
In the past, JDDW has employed over 8,000 workers in the manufacture of
heavy construction equipment including backhoes, bulldozers, and forestry
equipment. As of 31 January 2013, approximately 2220 John Deere workers
are employed at the plant.
The portion of the Mississippi River adjacent to the site is part of the Upper
Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge established in 1924. A CMSP &
Pacific Railroad track lies between the plant and the Mississippi River (Figure
2). Approximately 20 cottages are located between the JDDW facility and the
Mississippi River on the flood plain (Geraghty & Miller, 1990). Nineteen of the
20 cottages sites are leased from the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) to private residents. The remaining cottage site is not owned by the
USACE and is privately owned.
It is anticipated that the current land uses of the JDDW plant and adjacent
areas will continue into the future. JDDW has a deed restriction that limits the
use of the current plant property to industrial activity only.
The JDDW plant water supply is obtained from two bedrock wells installed in
the lower Cambrian-Ordovician limestone aquifer (PW-1 and PW-2) and six
wells installed in the alluvial aquifer (PW-3A, PW-4A, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7A,
and PW-8). The JDDW potable water supply is obtained from the two bedrock
wells PW-1 and PW-2. Process and cooling water for the plant are provided
by alluvial wells PW-3A, PW-4A, and PW-7A. Alluvial well PW-5 is retained as
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
a backup well, and alluvial wells PW-6 and PW-8 are reserved for fire
protection. A well location map illustrating the locations of production wells
PW-3A, PW-4A, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7A and PW-8 is included as Figure 3.
Three production wells were replaced in the 1990's. After obtaining USEPA's
approval, production well PW-3 was abandoned in April 1997 due to changes in
plant production and replaced with PW-3A. Production well PW-4 was replaced
with PW-4A in May 1995 and PW-7 was replaced with PW-7A in September
1995, because water being pumped from these wells contained large volumes
of sand. The locations of former production wells PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7 are
also shown on Figure 3.
3.3 History of Contamination
Potential sources of environmental contamination were identified in the
Remedial Investigation (Rl) conducted at the JDDW site in 1988. Identified
sources of contamination included a former landfill, a foundry, a chrome basin
at the industrial wastewater treatment plant, a coal storage yard, and a diesel
fuel line leak located under the plant which occurred in 1980.
Throughout its history, the JDDW facility has used two separate landfills for
waste disposal. The older landfill, identified as a potential source of
contamination in the Rl report, was placed in a natural depression in the Little
Maquoketa River floodplain, near the northern end of the facility. The old
landfill was utilized from 1946 until 1974 and is approximately 20 acres in area.
Prior to 1974, JDDW placed wastes up to the banks of the river. In 1974, the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) required the wastes be moved
to at least 140 ft from the riverbanks. The wastes were bulldozed back and
fences were placed along the perimeter of the landfill. The newer landfill is not
included in the Remedial Action.
Prior to 1968, wastes were placed in the low areas of the old landfill and
combustible material was burned. Wastes disposed in the older landfill include
caustics (sodium or potassium hydroxide), acids (hydrochloric or sulfuric),
petroleum distillates (solvents, grinding oils, etc.), heavy metals (chromium,
lead, and zinc used in electroplating), cyanide, paint sludge, and foundry sand
containing 1 percent oil-based resin. The quantities of materials disposed in
the old landfill are not known (Geraghty & Miller, 1998).
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
In October 1980, a fuel layer was present on the shallow water table under
building G-2 as a result of an underground diesel fuel line leak. An estimated
200,000 gallons of diesel fuel leaked from the line. Recovery well G-2S was
installed in October 1980 and JDDW initiated fuel recovery operation on
November 10, 1980. Groundwater was separated from the fuel using an
oil/water separator. The recovered fuel was retained for onsite reclamation,
and the water from the oil/water separator was discharged via a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted discharge to the
Mississippi River. In May 1981, recovery well G-2D was installed and used to
draw down the water table providing better recovery in well G-2S. Eighteen
monitoring wells were installed between February and June 1981 to monitor
groundwater quality related to the fuel spill. Groundwater monitoring results
indicated that the spill was limited to an area around G-2 extending to and
including PW-3. Recovery Wells RW-3, RW-4 and RW-5 were installed in 1981
near corresponding production wells PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. In April 1982,
pumping of both G-2 recovery wells was discontinued after approximately
20,610 gallons of diesel were recovered and diesel recovery at RW-3 was
initiated. Diesel recovery from RW-4 was initiated in June 1982 and
discontinued in November 1983 after recovering 20 gallons of diesel fuel. RW-
5 did not yield measurable quantities of diesel and recovery was not initiated.
By October 1985, approximately 86,000 gallons of diesel fuel had been
recovered. Locations of the monitoring wells and the recovery wells are shown
on Figure 3.
3.4 Regulatory History
The JDDW facility was identified as a potential hazardous waste site on June
5, 1981. A Preliminary Assessment Report issued in July 1983 cited an initial
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score of 34.95 (low to moderate hazard). In
1984, a Site Investigation was performed, and in 1985, JDDW contracted
Geraghty & Miller (now ARCADIS) to perform site studies related to the former
landfill.
In September 1985, the USEPA proposed the JDDW site for inclusion on the
National Priorities List (NPL). An HRS score of 28.5 is sufficient to place a site
on the NPL; however, the site was never placed on the final NPL. The USEPA
and Deere & Company, Inc. entered into an Administrative Consent Order on
September 30, 1986 requiring the development of a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site. The RI/FS process was near completion,
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
when on June 24, 1988, the USEPA announced its new national policy in the
Federal Register (53 FR 23978), whereby Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) treatment, storage, or disposal facilities would not be
placed on the NPL. As a result of this policy, the USEPA announced its
intention to remove several sites, including the JDDW site, from the list of sites
proposed for the NPL. One of the main purposes of this policy was to avoid
spending Superfund money at RCRA sites that are subject to the corrective
action authorities of RCRA. The policy does not prohibit site cleanup from
proceeding under a CERCLA Consent Decree under which the potentially
responsible party (PRP) funds the work. Region VII decided to continue to
treat the facility as a Superfund site. Deere & Company, Inc. has been the
sole owner and operator of the site, is the only PRP for onsite contamination,
and has funded the remedial work at the site to date.
The Rl report was submitted to the USEPA in August 1988. The purpose of
the Rl was to collect necessary data to characterize the site and to assess the
potential release of hazardous materials from waste management units, waste
disposal, or product leakage and/or spillage. The Rl focused on potential
constituent sources identified through a review of plant operations. Potential
sources identified in the Rl included the former landfill, the foundry (old foundry
ponds), the chrome basin at the industrial wastewater treatment plant, several
isolated waste oil/ coolant spills, the coal storage yard, and the 200,000-gallon
diesel fuel line leak, which occurred in 1980. Rl activities included collection of
data to characterize air, surface water, sediments, surface soils, subsurface
soils, and groundwater quality. The floating hydrocarbon was also analyzed
and it was found to be predominantly diesel fuel, with lesser concentrations of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) not typically associated with diesel fuel. It
was suspected that leaks occurring prior to 1980 may have contributed to the
other "non-diesel" VOCs found within the floating layer. The floating layer was
renamed non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL).
Low concentrations of VOCs were detected in the alluvial aquifer groundwater
underlying the JDDW site; however, specific sources of the VOCs were not
identified. Low concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes
(BTEX) were associated with the diesel fuel spill. Low levels of chlorinated
volatile organics, which are not common components of diesel, were also
detected in groundwater samples. The source of the chlorinated compounds
was assumed to be from previous solvent handling practices at the site. The
JDDW site constituents of concern identified during the Rl are listed in Table 2.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Rl analytical results were used in a risk assessment to evaluate potential
threats to human health and the environment. Results of the risk assessment
analysis concluded that waste disposal activities at the site did not represent
an unacceptable risk to the public health and environment (Geraghty & Miller,
1990). However, there was potential future exposure of residents located east
of the JDDW facility to groundwater containing organic contaminants related to
discontinuation of pumping for long periods of time.
4. Remedial Actions
4.1 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
Based on the results of the Rl, three remedial action objectives were
developed which included:
• Ensure long-term quality of the plant potable water supply;
• Continue to prevent offsite migration of the potentially contaminated
groundwater; and
• Restore groundwater quality in the alluvial aquifer.
The Feasibility Study (FS) report was submitted to the USEPA concurrently
with the Rl report in August 1988. The purpose of the FS was to identify and
evaluate a range of remedial alternatives based on the data collected and the
remedial action objectives developed during the Rl. The alternatives
addressed potential threats to public health, welfare, and the environment.
The USEPA-approved alternatives included the following:
• Installation of an alternative potable water supply for the JDDW facility;
• Continued pumping of plant production wells for onsite containment of
potentially impacted groundwater;
• NAPL recovery primarily associated with the diesel line leak; and
• Continued groundwater monitoring.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
8
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
On August 5, 1988, the USEPA published a notice of completion of the FS and
the proposed plan for remedial action. A public comment period was
established and the public comments were documented in the Administrative
Record.
4.2 Record of Decision
The Rl and FS resulted in the USEPA selecting a remedy in its Record of
Decision (ROD), which was signed by the USEPA Regional Administrator,
Region VII on September 29, 1988.
The final RA specified in the ROD includes the following:
1. Developing an alternative potable water supply for the plant;
2. Extracting water from the alluvial aquifer using the existing production
wells. This action maintains drawdown around the plant and landfill
areas, thus protecting nearby wells and controlling contaminant
releases;
3. Continuing to extract and treat NAPL from the alluvial production well
PW-3;
4. Using deed restrictions to prevent inappropriate use of the plant
property in the future. Future use of the current plant property will be
limited to industrial activity only. In addition, water wells tapping the
alluvial aquifer beneath the JDDW property would not be allowed; and
5. Developing a contingency plan which would assure that contaminants
do not migrate offsite in the event of a plant shutdown.
4.3 Consent Decree and Performance Standards
In September 1989, the USEPA and JDDW entered into a Consent Decree
requiring the development of a Remedial Design (RD) and implementation of
RA. The Performance Standards, an attachment to the Consent Decree,
established the guidelines for RA and the RA end point. The Consent Decree
performance standards and USEPA approved modifications to the performance
9
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
standards that have occurred since signing the Consent Decree are
summarized below:
1. Develop an alternate water supply for the site.
2. Continue to extract water from the alluvial aquifer under the Site, at rates
which will maintain an inward gradient condition adequate to contain
contaminants and prevent migration to private wells offsite.
Performance standards for No. 2 are as follows:
A. Pumpage rate: Simulations performed during the RI/FS estimated
that a minimum pumping rate of 1.2 million gallons per day (MGD)
would maintain an inward gradient condition adequate to contain
the contaminant plume in the alluvial groundwater beneath the
site. The Consent Decree required that as part of the RD phase of
the work, JDDW would review the existing data and further
analyze the hydrology beneath the Site to more accurately
estimate the minimum pumping rate required to capture the
contaminated groundwater flow, and prepare a Well Management
Plan. The Well Management Plan supersedes the 1.2 MGD
guideline in the Consent Decree.
B. Maintenance and verification of hydraulic gradient: As part of the
verification that contaminants are not migrating offsite, a minimum
of three piezometer pairs would be utilized near the perimeter of
the site. The monitoring well pairs and required water-level
differences are listed below:
• South perimeter monitoring well pair MW-1 and MW-20S -
water-level difference at least 0.10 ft;
• East perimeter monitoring well pair MW-5 (MW-5 was
replaced with MW-5N in 1994) and MW-6 water-level
difference at least 0.15 ft; and
• North perimeter monitoring well pair MW-10 and MW-11S-
water-level difference at least 0.15 ft.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
10
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
The groundwater elevation measured at the outer well of the
monitoring well pair should be higher than the groundwater
elevation at the inner well of the pair. The Consent Decree
specified that the water levels would be measured at least once
every 4 hours. The difference in groundwater levels at each
monitoring well pair is calculated on a rolling annual average basis.
In July 1997, the USEPA approved reducing the frequency of
recording groundwater level measurements from every 4 hours to
monthly.
The Mississippi River stage adjacent to the site would be measured
on a normally scheduled working day basis to within 0.1 ft.
Although it was not specified in the performance standards, the
Little Maquoketa River stage was also measured on a working day
basis. In October 2001, the USEPA approved reducing the stage
monitoring of the Little Maquoketa River from daily to monthly at the
same time as the water levels. In June 2004, USEPA approved
reducing the river stage monitoring of the Mississippi River to
monthly at the same time as the monitor well water levels.
Measure water levels on a monthly basis for the 14 shallow
monitoring wells listed in Table 3 and prepare contour maps of
water levels in these wells and in the Mississippi and Little
Maquoketa Rivers. Water levels are also measured in Production
Wells PW-3 (now PW-3A), PW-4 (now PW-4A), PW-5, and PW-7
(now PW-7A). After one year, if the water levels in the three
perimeter monitoring well pairs indicated a consistent inward
gradient, contour maps would be prepared on a quarterly basis for
the next two years. Although quarterly contour maps are no longer
required, JDDW has continued to prepare water-level maps on a
quarterly basis.
C. Monitoring performance of the withdrawal well system: The
Consent Decree required alluvial production wells PW-3 (now PW-
3A), PW-4 (now PW-4A), PW-5, and PW-7 (now P-7A) and the 14
monitoring wells listed in Table 3 to be sampled quarterly for the
first year and annually thereafter for the constituents of concern
listed in Table 2. In September 1998, the USEPA approved
reducing the groundwater monitoring frequency to biennial,
11
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
eliminating hexavalent chromium, lead, and copper sampling from
all wells in the monitoring program, and reducing the number of
monitoring wells included in the monitoring program (Table 3). In
June 2004, USEPA approved abandoning and removing MW-13D
from the monitoring program.
D. Discharge of surface water from the site: The Consent Decree
required JDDW to obtain a revised NPDES permit with the
groundwater monitoring constituents included for sampling at
Outfalls 002, 005, and 011. Outfalls 002 and 005 discharge non-
contact cooling water, drinking fountain water, and storm water
through the north and south sedimentation ponds, respectively.
These ponds are equipped with oil skimmers. Outfall 011
discharges wastewater from a physical, chemical, and biological
treatment plant, which treats all process wastewater from the
facility (IDNR, 1999).
E. Completion of the work. Alluvial groundwater is required to be
extracted and sampled until the constituents of concern are
reduced to below the federal Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) or applicable Iowa state groundwater remediation
regulations, whichever are more stringent. The State of Iowa has
defined the groundwater action level to be the Lifetime Health
Advisory Level (HAL) if one exists. If there is no HAL, the action
level is the Negligible Risk Level (NRL). It there is no HAL or NRL,
the action level is equal to the MCL. For constituents for which
there is no MCL or State requirement, the following regulatory
sources shall be used in descending order to identify completion
levels.
• Proposed MCL;
• The USEPA Office of Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
Levels;
• Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) verified reference dose or 10"6
cancer potency factor and ingestion of 2 liters of water per day
by a 70 kilogram (kg) adult; and
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
-------
• The USEPA Office of Research and Development Health Effect
Assessment Criteria.
The groundwater extraction will continue until four consecutive quarters
of monitoring indicate that the alluvial water quality beneath the Site has
been at or below completion levels in effect at that time. In December
1996, the USEPA and IDNR approved the use of federal MCLs for those
contaminants with MCLs as cleanup goals instead of the more stringent
HALs and NRLs. The current groundwater Performance Standards
identified as of February 2013 for the constituents of concern are listed in
Table 4.
3. Develop contingency plans to ensure that contaminants in the alluvial
aquifer do no migrate offsite in the event of plant shutdown or modifications,
which decrease pumpage rates.
4. Continue to extract non-agueous phase liguid ("NAPL") from the alluvium
and to separate the NAPL, with the groundwater effluent to be discharged
through NPDES outflows and the remaining materials to be transported for
offsite management at a permitted RCRA hazardous waste disposal facility,
unless Deere demonstrates the alternative disposition measures meet all
applicable or relevant and appropriate reguirements, and the USEPA
approves such alternative measures.
Performance standards for No. 4 are as follows:
A. NAPL management: The NAPL management is outlined in
Number 4 above.
B. Record keeping: Record volume of NAPL and volume of
contaminated water withdrawn on a normal scheduled workweek
basis for each recovery well. NAPL thickness is measured
quarterly at NAPL recovery wells RW-3 (now RW-3A), RW-4 (now
RW-4A), RW-5, and G-2S and the monitoring wells listed in Table
3. SBW-4 was added to the NAPL monitoring program in the
Fourth Quarter of 2004.
C. Monitoring performance of the NAPL withdrawal system: Alluvial
production wells PW-3 (now PW-3A), PW-4 (now PW-4A), PW-5,
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
and PW-7 (now PW-7A) and six monitoring wells listed in Table 3
are to be sampled quarterly for the first year and annually
thereafter for BTEX and trichloroethene (TCE). These wells are
monitored concurrently with 2(c). In September 1998, the USEPA
approved reducing the groundwater monitoring frequency to
biennial and reducing the number of monitoring wells included in
the monitoring program (Table 3).
D. Completion of work. NAPL monitoring and recovery operations
shall continue until no more than %-inch of NAPL is detected and
verified in RW-3 (now RW-3A), and no more than 1/8-inch of
NAPL is detected and verified in monitoring wells MW-4, MW-6,
MW-7S, MW-8S, MW-12, and MW-13S and recovery wells RW-4,
RW-5, and G-2S. When %-inch or less of NAPL is detected at
RW-3 (now RW-3A) and/or 1/8-inch or less of NAPL is detected at
any other of the above listed wells, the well in question shall be
purged of three well volumes and allowed to stabilize for 24 hours
before a verification thickness measurement is taken.
Before certifying completion of the NAPL phase of work, the wells
listed in the paragraph above will be analyzed for BTEX, TCE, and
total petroleum hydrocarbons. If the BTEX and TCE
concentrations are below performance standards for four
consecutive quarters, the NAPL extraction and treatment
requirements are considered complete.
4.4 Remedy Implementation
4.4.1 Remedial Design
The RD was started on February 7, 1989 and the RD report was approved by
the USEPA in September 1990. Pursuant to Section IV of the Consent Decree
paragraphs 18 and 23, Deere & Company, Inc. filed the required deed
restriction and a copy of the Consent Decree with the Dubuque County
Recorder's Office on January 19, 1990. The RD report addressed
implementation of the requirements set in the ROD and Consent Decree. The
RD report included documentation on the modifications made to the JDDW
potable well system and a Groundwater Management Plan.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
4.4.1.1
Potable Well System Modifications
Installation of an alternative potable water supply for the JDDW facility was
completed in 1988. Prior to 1988, the potable water and plant process water
source for the plant included groundwater from the alluvial aquifer. In 1988,
JDDW separated the potable water piping from other plant process water piping
and connected it solely to bedrock wells PW-1 and PW-2 installed in the lower
Cambrian-Ordovician limestone aquifer. The bedrock aquifer provides higher
quality water without the potential for contamination from surficial sources.
4.4.1.2 Groundwater Management Plan
The Groundwater Management Plan included three components: a Well
Management Plan, a Groundwater Monitoring Plan, and a NAPL Management
Plan. JDDW initiated groundwater monitoring activities required by the Consent
Decree in January 1990.
The Well Management Plan addressed the containment and recovery of
impacted alluvial aquifer groundwater. The Plan was developed from the RD
modeling results and included alluvial production well system operating
guidelines to maintain a minimum total pumping rate necessary to create an
inward hydraulic gradient, to prevent offsite migration of VOCs. The Well
Management Plan indicated that under extreme hydrologic conditions, the
optimum minimum total pumping rates from production wells PW-4 and PW-7
required to maintain the hydraulic head differences in the three perimeter wells
are 0.52 MGD and 0.37 MGD, respectively. The total minimum rate of 0.89
MGD is lower than the earlier estimated total pumping rate of 1.2 MGD derived
during the RI/FS. The Well Management Plan also provided operating
guidelines for contingency activities implemented if the alluvial production
system is shutdown or modified. The Well Management Plan supersedes the
1.2 MGD guideline in the Consent Decree.
During the third five-year review JDDW evaluated and updated the Well
Management Plan. Since 1997, JDDW has been in the process of reducing the
size of the facility by closing down and demolishing buildings. As a result of
the process reduction, the amount of water required to operate the facility has
decreased. During previous years, JDDW has needed to pump significantly
more process water than the Well Management Plan required to insure that
groundwater containment was achieved. With the process change, JDDW
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
planned to reduce the water withdrawal from the alluvial aquifer to amounts
that may approach the minimum requirements of the Well Management Plan.
The reduction in groundwater withdrawal has optimized the use of the
production wells and reduced JDDW's operating costs. In March and April
2003, the JDDW groundwater model was updated to incorporate the
replacement and relocation of production wells PW-3A, PW-4A, and PW-7A.
The updated groundwater model was then used to update the Well
Management Plan to insure that the minimum water withdrawal requirements
were accurate for the current production well configuration. A memorandum
that summarizes the modifications made to the existing model as well as the
revisions to the Well Management Plan was included in the Third Five-Year
Review Report (ARCADIS, 2003). Using the updated Well Management Plan,
JDDW determined that they could use three production wells to provide water
for the plant and meet the environmental requirements. JDDW decided to use
production wells PW-3A, PW-4A, and PW-7A. The pump from PW-4A was
placed in PW-3A and the PW-5 pump was placed in PW-4A. PW-5 was
retained as a backup well.
The Groundwater Monitoring Plan identified groundwater quality sampling and
hydraulic monitoring to be completed for the duration of the RA and reporting
requirements. The monitoring program provided assurance that the RA would
be effective and would prevent offsite migration of potentially contaminated
groundwater and restore groundwater quality in the alluvial aquifer. A
contingency monitoring program was also included in the Groundwater
Monitoring Plan. The NAPL Management Plan presented existing and future
NAPL recovery operations and reporting requirements. Table 3 summarizes
the monitoring required by the Groundwater and NAPL Management Plans.
4.4.2 Remedial Performance from Implementation in September 1990 to March 2008
The five-year reviews completed in September 1995, September 1998,
September 2003, and August 2008 concluded that the response actions
implemented by JDDW, together with the long-term monitoring, continue to
protect the public health, welfare, and the environment at the JDDW site.
During the 1994 to 2008 period, the following modifications were made to the
alluvial groundwater recovery system, NAPL recovery system, and
groundwater monitoring network, after obtaining USEPA's approval:
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
• JDDW received approval from USEPA in September 1994 to relocate
well MW-5 due to construction activities. This well was relocated in the
fourth quarter of 1994 and was renamed MW-5N.
• Production wells PW-4 and PW-7 were replaced because water being
pumped from these wells contained large volumes of sand. Production
well PW-4 was replaced with PW-4A in May 1995 and PW-7 was
replaced with PW-7A in September 1995.
• NAPL recovery well RW-4 was also replaced in May 1995 with RW-4A.
• In August 1995, JDDW replaced monitoring well SBW-3 with SBW-3N
due to inadvertent covering of SBW-3 with concrete.
• In April 1997, JDDW received approval from the USEPA to relocate
Production Well PW-3 and Recovery Well RW-3 due to changes in plant
production. The old wells were abandoned on April 21, 1997. The
replacement wells were called PW-3A and RW-3A. The replacement
well locations are shown on Figure 3.
• As recommended in the September 2003 Five-Year Review Report, a
NAPL monitoring program was developed for SBW-4 well which
included adding this well to the quarterly NAPL monitoring in 2004.
The following modifications were made to the Consent Decree performance
requirements:
• In December 1996, the USEPA and IDNR approved the use of federal
MCLs for those contaminants with MCLs as cleanup goals instead of
the more stringent HALs and NRLs.
• In July 1997, JDDW received approval from the USEPA to reduce the
frequency of recording groundwater-level measurements at the
perimeter piezometer pairs from every 4 hours to monthly.
• In the September 1998 Five-Year Review Report, JDDW received
approval from the USEPA to reduce the frequency of groundwater
monitoring to every two years beginning in 1998. This approval was
granted because the groundwater data collected in 1998 was
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
comparable to the 1997 data. Additionally, lead, copper, and
hexavalent chromium were eliminated from all monitoring wells
sampled and the wells included in the biennial groundwater sampling
events were reduced from the 18 wells specified in the Consent Decree
to MW-6, MW-8S, MW-9D, MW-9S, MW-12, MW-13D, MW-13S, and
alluvial production well PW-3A, PW-4A, PW-5, and PW-7A (Table 3).
• In June 2002, JDDW received approval from the USEPA to abandon
monitoring well MW-9D because the physical state of the well inhibited
its usefulness as a monitoring well. The well could not be sampled
during the 2000 and 2002 biennial events because an obstruction,
located approximately 25 ft below ground surface (ft bis), prohibited the
introduction of any variety of submersible pumps to the depth of the
water table. USEPA also approved the recommendation not to replace
MW-9D, by stating that it is apparent that there are enough other
monitoring well locations at which to gather data, and at this point in
time, the cessation of sampling at MW-9D does not represent a critical
loss of meaningful data, especially since this location hasn't
demonstrated contamination above MCLs. Monitoring well MW-9D
was abandoned on August 22, 2002, in accordance with IDNR
requirements by a licensed well contractor.
• In June 2004, JDDW received approval from the USEPA to remove
monitor well MW-13D from the biennial groundwater sampling event
and abandon the well (Table 3). MW-13D was abandoned on October
29, 2008, in accordance with IDNR requirements by a licensed well
contractor. In addition, USEPA approved reducing the river stage
monitoring of the Mississippi River to monthly, at the same time as the
monitor well water levels. In the third quarter of 2011, JDDW started
measuring the Mississippi River stage monthly.
4.4.2.1 Maintain Inward Gradient
During the September 1990 to March 2008 period, the groundwater extraction
system continued to be fully operational and functional. Operation of the
system created a hydraulic capture zone to contain contaminants. The system
met the performance criteria for hydraulic capture of the groundwater except
during the weeks of December 25, 1995, December 28, 1999, November 6,
13, and 20, 2000 and December 3, 2000 when the weekly minimum pumping
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
rates were 0.82, 0.91, 0.85, 0.81, 0.78, and 0.72 MGD, respectively. These
rates are below the 0.89 MGD minimum pumping rate specified in the Water
Management Plan and the 1.2 MGD guideline specified in the Consent
Decree. During the weeks of January 15, 22, and 29, 2006; February 19 and
26, 2006, and March 5 and 19 the weekly minimum pumping rates were 1.03,
0.96, 1.00, 1.14, 1.12, 1.1, and 1.05 MGD, respectively. These rates are
above the 0.89 MGD minimum pumping rate specified in the Water
Management Plan, but below the 1.2 MGD guideline specified in the Consent
Decree.
Despite the reduced pumping rate, monitoring water levels showed that an
inward hydraulic gradient had been maintained. Water levels in the three
piezometer pairs at the perimeter of the site consistently exhibited rolling
annual average head differences greater than the minimum requirements,
established in the performance standards.
4.4.2.2 Performance ofWithdrawal System
Between September 1990 and March 2008, groundwater quality monitoring
was performed in accordance with the Consent Decree. Groundwater
samples were collected in the required onsite wells listed in Table 3 quarterly
in 1990, annually between 1991 and 1998, and biennially thereafter. The
tetrachloroethene (PCE) concentrations detected in MW-6, MW-9S, MW-13S,
and SBW-3; the TCE concentrations detected in MW-6, MW-9S, MW-13S,
MW-16, PW-4, and SBW-3; and the benzene concentrations detected in MW-
13S, PW-3 and PW-5 have been above performance standards, as shown in
the summary of analytical data presented in Appendix B. As discussed
above, JDDW replaced monitoring well SBW-3 with SBW-3N in August 1995.
Concentrations of PCE and TCE were not detected in SBW-3N and USEPA
approved removing this well from the monitoring program in 1998. Chromium
concentrations exceeded the standard in MW-11S during one Quarter,
February 1990.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 illustrate trends in concentrations of PCE, TCE, and
benzene, respectively, from September 1990 to February 2008. The following
bullets summarize trend plots for MW-6, MW-9S, MW-13S, PW-3/PW-3A and
PW-4/PW-4A.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
• MW-6: In MW-6, concentrations of PCE were not detected until 1997
when the concentration temporarily increased to above the MCL.
Concentrations of PCE detected in MW-6 decreased in 1998 and have
remained below the MCL. Concentrations of TCE in MW-6 fluctuated
between 1990 and 2008. Concentrations of TCE increased to above
the MCL in 1991, 1993, and 2000 and subsequently decreased to
below the MCL during the next sampling event. Concentrations
increased to above the MCL in 2006 and decreased to a concentration
equal to the MCL in 2008.
• MW-9S: In MW-9S, concentrations of PCE and TCE increased
between 1990 and 1993 and then decreased to below the MCL in
1994. In 1997, PCE and TCE concentrations increased to above the
MCL and decreasing trends occurred between 1997 and 2002.
Concentrations of TCE and PCE decreased to below the MCL in 1998
and 2002, respectively, and have remained below the MCL.
• MW-13S: In MW-13S, concentrations of PCE decreased between
1990 and 1992 to below the MCL and concentrations remained below
the MCL between 1992 and 2008. Concentrations of TCE were not
detected in MW-13S until 1995 when the concentration temporarily
increased to above the MCL. Concentrations of TCE detected in MW-
13S decreased in 1996 and have remained below the MCL.
Concentrations of benzene were not detected in MW-13S until 1992
when the concentration increased to above the MCL. Concentrations of
benzene in MW-13S decreased to below the MCL in 1994 and a
second increasing trend occurred between 1997 and 2002. Between
2002 and 2008, concentrations decreased too slightly above the MCL.
• PW-3/PW-3A: Concentrations of benzene in PW-3/PW-3A fluctuated
between 1990 and 1997. Concentrations of benzene increased to
above the MCL in 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1996 and subsequently
decreased to below the MCL. Concentrations of benzene detected in
PW-3A remained below the MCL between 1996 and 2008.
• PW-4/PW-4A: Concentrations of TCE in PW-4/PW-4A fluctuated
between 1990 and 1993. Concentrations of TCE increased to above or
equal to the MCL in 1990 and 1993 and subsequently decreased to
below the MCL in 1991 and 1994, respectively. Concentrations of
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
-------
benzene detected in PW-4/PW-4A remained below the MCL between
1994 and 2008.
Between 1990 and 2008, TCE, benzene, and PCE concentrations have
fluctuated, with concentrations generally declining, with the exception of
benzene in MW-13S in 2002. In 1997, increases in concentrations of PCE and
TCE were detected in MW-9S and benzene in MW-13S. These concentration
increases correspond to the relocation of production well PW-3A in 1997. It
appears that the relocation of PW-3A in 1997 modified the groundwater flow
path in the vicinity of MW-13S, resulting in residual benzene associated with
the NAPL being drawn into the monitoring well. During subsequent sampling
events, the concentrations of PCE and TCE detected in MW-9S decreased to
below the MCL. Concentrations of benzene detected in MW-13S increased
in 2002 and exhibited a decreasing trend between 2002 and 2008.
4.4.2.3 NAPL Recovery
NAPL recovery occurred in Wells G-2S, RW-4, and RW-3 from November
1980 to July 1991. During this time, 138,163 gallons of NAPL were recovered.
No measurable amounts of NAPL were recovered from January 1991 through
July 1991, although 3.67 million gallons of groundwater were pumped from
RW-3 during this time.
NAPL recovery operations were discontinued in July 1991; however the
recovery wells and monitoring wells listed in Table 3 have continuously been
monitored for NAPL thickness as required by the Consent Decree.
Until January 1998, less than %-inch of NAPL had been measured at RW-3
since recovery operations ceased. As a result of relocating PW-3 and RW-3,
approximately 4.6 inches of NAPL was detected in new recovery well RW-3A
in January 1998. Lab analysis shows the material is consistent with No. 6 fuel
oil. The NAPL was removed in three days. Twenty-hours after removal, the
NAPL was measured at a thickness less than 1/8-inch. Measurements in April
1998 showed a thickness of 0.01 ft (less than 1/8-inch), and during the five-
year review site visit in May 1998, NAPL was measured at a thickness of 0.02
ft (1/4 inch). NAPL was recorded in RW-3A during the third (0.48 ft) and fourth
(0.21 ft) quarters of 1998. NAPL was absent from RW-3A between January
1999 and October 2006. Measurements in January and April 2007 showed a
thickness of 0.01 ft (less than 1/8-inch).
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
NAPL was detected at a thickness of a trace to 0.02 ft in MW-9S in July 2002.
The MW-9S dedicated pump motor would not operate on June 18, 2002 when
the biennial groundwater sampling event was conducted. The MW-9S pump
was removed and inspected and it was determined that the source of the
NAPL was the dedicated pump's motor. The motor's casing had deteriorated
to a point where the motor leaked some of its own oil into the well. The NAPL
was removed from MW-9S, using absorbent material and NAPL was not
detected in the well during subsequent monitoring events.
NAPL was detected at a thickness ranging from 0.01 to 0.03 ft in MW-6
between October 1998 and July 2000. NAPL has not been detected in MW-6
since July 2000. Between 1998 and 2008, NAPL has been sporadically
measured up to 0.01 ft (approximately 1/8 inch) in NAPL monitoring wells MW-
8S (October 1999), MW-12 (July 2004 and 2006, April 2007), MW-13S (April
2000), G-2S (October 2006, July 2007, and January 2008), RW-4A (January
and July 2000), and RW-5 (April 2007). Several wells not listed in Consent
Decree Performance Standard No. 4, (b) Record Keeping have been included
in the NAPL discussion presented in the quarterly reports. NAPL has been
measured up to 0.01 ft (approximately 1/8 inch) in monitoring wells MW-1
(April 2007) and SBW-3N (July 2007 and January 2008) and 0.02 ft in
monitoring well MW-20S (April 2000).
4.4.2.4 SBW-4 NAPL Monitoring
The USEPA had approved abandoning monitoring well SBW-4 during the
second five-year review; however, the abandonment was delayed because
0.11 feet of NAPL was detected in the well on May 24, 1999. SBW-4 was
installed to a depth of approximately 25 ft bis in the former landfill during the
RFI to collect samples for chemical analysis to characterize the landfill source
area and assess the physical dimensions of the landfill. The well is screened
across the landfill materials.
On May 25, 1999, an absorbent sock was installed in SBW-4. The absorbent
sock was removed and checked on May 26, 1999 and approximately 4 ounces
of NAPL was removed from the well. After the sock was removed, the well
was checked for the presence of NAPL and none was detected. SBW-4 was
monitored for NAPL during May, June and July 1999. NAPL was not detected
in SBW-4 during this monitoring period, and in July 1999, the NAPL monitoring
for SBW-4 was discontinued. As part of the third five-year review for JDDW,
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
SBW-4 was checked to determine if NAPL was in the well. On September 23,
2003, an absorbent sock was placed in SBW-4 and NAPL was present on the
sock when it was removed from the well. In the Third Five-Year Review
Report, JDDW recommended a plan detailing the NAPL monitoring program
for SBW-4 would be developed and implemented.
A NAPL monitoring program was developed for SBW-4 and a NAPL
Monitoring Plan was submitted to the USEPA in the May 21, 2004
correspondence: Third Five-Year Review Report March 1998 to September
2003 Recommendations (ARCADIS, 2004). JDDW proposed measuring the
NAPL thickness in SBW-4 and collecting a sample of the NAPL for analysis of
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) by method USEPA 8015 and semi-volatile
organic compounds (SVOCs) by USEPA Method 8270 during the June 2004
biennial groundwater sampling event. JDDW proposed installing an absorbent
sock to remove the remaining NAPL after the sample was collected. After the
NAPL is removed, JDDW proposed to monitor the NAPL in SBW-4 daily for
one week, weekly for three weeks, and monthly for a quarter to assess the
infiltration rate of the NAPL. SBW-4 would then be monitored quarterly during
the NAPL monitoring program.
The SBW-4 NAPL monitoring plan was implemented during the June 2004
biennial monitoring. Due to the highly viscous nature of the NAPL, the NAPL
thickness could not be measured with an oil water interface probe. As the oil
water interface probe was lowered into the well, the probe became coated with
NAPL and the sensors in the probe could not take readings. A bailer was used
to collect the NAPL samples for laboratory analysis. Based on the amount of
NAPL present in the bailer, it is estimated 0.6 ft of NAPL was present in the
well on June 8, 2004. After the NAPL laboratory sample was collected, an
absorbent sock was placed in the well to remove the NAPL. JDDW had
proposed monitoring the NAPL in SBW-4 daily for one week, weekly for three
weeks, and monthly for a quarter to assess the infiltration rate of the NAPL.
However, this monitoring was not performed due to the inability of the oil water
interface probe to measure the thickness of the NAPL. Beginning in the fourth
quarter of 2004, JDDW proposed to monitor the NAPL thickness quarterly by
replacing the absorbent sock in SBW-4 during the quarterly NAPL monitoring
program.
The NAPL sample was analyzed for SVOCs and was also submitted for a
fingerprint evaluation utilizing gas chromatography with a flame ionization
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
detector (FID) by Core Laboratories of Houston, Texas. The fingerprint
evaluation indicated that "the sample appears to be hydrocarbon based with
the predominant constituents eluting in a range of molecular weights, typically
associated with normal decane (nC10) to beyond pentatriacontanes (nC35+)".
The majority of the fingerprint elutes between the C15 and C35 ranges as a
typical hydrocarbon "hump". Pristane and phytane peaks are present in the
chromatogram and both compounds are normally associated with
hydrocarbons. Phytane is considered to be the product of the "diagenesis of
phytol at low pressures and temperatures from naturally occurring organic
deposits". Both compounds are commonly found in unrefined crude oils and
may be used as biomarkers for geochemical interpretations.
The SVOCs analysis identified concentrations of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(100 milligrams per kilogram [mg/Kg]), pentachlorophenol (170 mg/Kg), 2-
methylnaphthalene (1.5 mg/Kg), and naphthalene (0.37 mg/Kg). No other
SVOCs were detected above the reporting limits that were attainable, due to
the elevated concentrations of some of the target compounds.
SBW-4 was added to the quarterly NAPL monitoring program beginning in the
fourth quarter of 2004. SBW-4 was monitored for NAPL monthly during this
quarter. The absorbent sock that was placed in SBW-4 in June 2004 was
removed in October 2004 and approximately 1.19 ft of NAPL was present in
the well. NAPL was not present in SBW-4 in November 2004 and 0.01 ft of
NAPL was present in the well in December 2004. During each of these
monitoring events, the absorbent sock was removed to measure the NAPL and
then reinstalled in the well. After the NAPL was removed from the well, the
absorbent sock was replaced.
NAPL was also monitored monthly during the first and second quarters of
2005. Beginning in the third quarter of 2005, the NAPL was monitored
quarterly. The results of the NAPL monitoring are presented in Table 10.
During the November 2004 to January 2008 period, the NAPL thickness
present in SBW-4 has for the most part been 0.01 feet or not detected.
4.4.2.5 Discharge of Surface Water from Site
The JDDW Site has multiple permitted outfalls with various monitoring
requirements and discharge limits, which are listed in the 1999 NPDES permit
presented in Appendix C. Surface water discharge through the NPDES
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
permitted outfalls to the Mississippi River and the Little Maquoketa River are
monitored and reported in monthly wastewater monitoring reports, in
accordance with the NPDES Permit for the JDDW facility. Only Outfalls 002,
005, and 011 were identified by the Consent Decree for monitoring discharges
for the constituents of concern. The discharge from Outfalls 005 and 006 are
combined and referred to as Outfall 801 in the NPDES Permit.
The March 5, 1991 NPDES permit amendment required that Outfalls 002 and
005 be monitored monthly for copper and quarterly for total toxic organic (TTO)
pollutants. The TTO pollutant list is comprised of the JDDW site constituents
of concern (Table 2). The permit established copper limits for Outfall 002
(0.071 milligrams per liter [mg/L], 0.39 pounds per day [lbs/day]) and Outfall
005 (0.04 mg/L, 3.004 lbs/day). Additionally, the effluent limitations for metal
finishing, which include copper, lead and hexavalent chromium, and TTO
pollutants were added for Outfall 011 (Table 5). Outfalls 002 and 005 were
analyzed for copper and TTO pollutants in July 1992. Copper levels identified
in Outfalls 002 (0.01 mg/L, 0.07 lbs/day) and 005 (0.01 mg/L, 0.35 lbs/day) in
July 1992 did not exceed established effluent limitations (USEPA, 1995). The
TTO constituents identified in Outfalls 002 (0.042 mg/L, 0.277 lbs/day) and 005
(0.041 mg/L, 1.269 lbs/day) were all BTEX compounds (USEPA, 1995).
A revised NPDES permit was issued by IDNR for the JDDW facility on
September 3, 1992. The final effluent from Outfall 011 was required to be
analyzed once every six months for TTO pollutants. The TTO effluent limit for
Outfall 011 is listed on Table 5. The inorganic constituents of concern, lead,
copper and hexavalent chromium, were required to be analyzed two times a
week. The IDNR did not consider it necessary to continue to monitor Outfalls
002 or 005 for copper and TTO pollutants. Amendments to the September 3,
1992 NPDES permit were issued on January 21, 1994 and August 14, 1995.
The effluent limitations set for lead, copper and hexavalent chromium at Outfall
011 in the September 3, 1992 NPDES Permit and in the August 14, 1995
revision to the permit are listed in Table 5. The revised permit expired on
September 1, 1997 and at IDNR's direction, JDDW continued operating under
this permit until a new permit was issued on July 15, 1999.
Outfalls 002 and 005 are regularly monitored for flow rate, oil and grease, pH,
and temperature. The combined flow from Outfall 005 and 006, referred to as
Outfall 801 in the NPDES Permit, and Outfall 002 are also monitored for Acute
Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia and Acute Toxicity, Pimephales. Effluent limitations
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
and monitoring requirements for these parameters are set in the NPDES
permits. Between September 1990 and July 1999, none of the parameters
monitored in Outfall 005 exceeded the effluent limitations. Beginning in
February 1994, Outfall 002 was also monitored for total residual chlorine in
accordance with a January 21, 1994 amendment to the NPDES Permit, which
took effect August 1, 1994. At Outfall 002, the daily maximum total residual
chlorine effluent limitation was slightly exceeded during one week in May 1999.
During the September 1990 to July 1999 period, all concentrations of lead,
copper, and hexavalent chromium detected at Outfall 011 were below the
permitted discharge limits, except for four days in April 1995 when hexavalent
chromium exceeded the effluent limitation and one day in July 1994 when lead
exceeded the effluent limitation. None of the TTO constituents of concern
were detected at Outfall 011 during this period. Outfall 011 is also regularly
monitored for flow rate, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended
solids, pH, temperature, cadmium, total chromium, cyanide, nickel, lead, oil
and grease, silver, and zinc. Total chromium exceeded effluent limitations
three days in April 1995 and BOD5 exceeded effluent limitations one day in
November 1992 and one day in October 1993. All other constituents
monitored at Outfall 011 did not exceed the effluent limitations set in the
NPDES permit.
A new NPDES permit was issued on July 15, 1999 and expired on July 14,
2004. At IDNR's direction, JDDW is continuing to operate under this permit
until a new permit is issued. The July 15, 1999 NPDES permit is included as
Appendix C. The following modifications were made in the July 15, 1999
NPDES permit:
• The hexavalent chromium monitoring requirement was removed for
Outfall 011 in the July 1999 NPDES permit. (Note: The source of
hexavalent chromium at JDDW was eliminated when the chrome
electroplating operation was discontinued in October 1994. The
electroplating equipment was physically removed from the site in
January 1996.)
• The monitoring frequency for cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead,
nickel and zinc at Outfall 011 was reduced from twice a week to
quarterly.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
• The temperature effluent limits were eliminated for Outfalls 002, 005,
and 011.
The NPDES effluent Outfall 011 limitations for the constituents of concern and
sampling frequency are listed in Table 5.
Between July 1999 and March 2008, none of the parameters monitored at
Outfall 005 exceeded the effluent limitations set forth in the July 1999 NPDES
permit. At Outfall 002, the monthly average flow rate exceeded the effluent
limitations in May, June and July 2002. In Outfall 011, concentrations of lead,
copper, and TTO constituents of concern were identified at levels below the
permitted discharge limits. Outfall 011 is also regularly monitored for flow rate,
BOD5, total suspended solids, pH, temperature, cadmium, total chromium,
cyanide, nickel, oil and grease, silver and zinc. None of these constituents
exceeded effluent limitations except for the daily maximum flow rate in March
2001.
4.4.3 Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance
Since the alluvial aquifer groundwater recovery system at the JDDW site is the
plant production well system, the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the
system includes general activities associated with plant operations.
Consequently, consistent O&M of the extraction system is assured. The costs
associated with maintaining the system are included in the plant's operating
budget. O&M costs for the RA include costs for hydraulic and groundwater
quality monitoring, administrative services and reporting, and the alternate
water supply. Since these costs were not compiled in the previous five-year
review report and cannot be used to indicate potential remedy problems, these
costs were not included in this five-year review report.
Since 1997, JDDW has been in the process of reducing the size of the facility
by closing down and demolishing buildings. As a result of the process
reduction, the amount of water required to operate the facility has decreased.
During previous years, JDDW has needed to pump significantly more process
water than the Well Management Plan required to insure that groundwater
containment was achieved. The reduction in groundwater withdrawal has
optimized the use of the production wells and reduced JDDW's operating
costs. During the third five-year review JDDW evaluated and updated the Well
Management Plan. Using the updated Well Management Plan, JDDW
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
determined that they could use three production wells to provide water for the
plant and meet the environmental requirements. JDDW decided to use
production wells PW-3A, PW-4A, and PW-7A. The pump from PW-4A was
placed in PW-3A and the PW-5 pump was placed in PW-4A. PW-5 was
retained as a backup well.
5. Progress since Last Review
5.1.1 Protectiveness Statement
The August 2008 Five-Year Review Report stated that the groundwater
extraction system continues to be fully operational and functional. Operation of
the system creates a hydraulic capture zone that contains and withdraws the
contaminated groundwater. All progress reports submitted to date indicate an
inward hydraulic gradient has been maintained. The response actions
implemented by JDDW, together with the long-term monitoring, continue to
protect the public health, welfare, and environment.
5.1.2 Recommendations and Status of Follow-up Actions
The fourth five-year review recommendations include the following: JDDW
should continue to monitor and maintain the hydraulic gradient; monitor the
presence of NAPL and perform NAPL recovery as necessary; and monitor the
surface water and groundwater. Issues, recommendations and follow-up
actions identified in the fourth five-year review and the status of follow-up
actions are summarized below.
Issue: A potential exposure route continues to exist via ground water to
the twenty nearby residences located between the eastern boundary of
the site and the Mississippi River, and the private alluvial wells at these
residences have not been sampled since 1986
Recommendation: It is recommended that these wells be sampled again to
verify that the remedy is continuing to prevent contaminants from migrating off-
site.
Follow-up Action: JDDW collected potable water samples from 19 of the 20
private wells located east of the JDDW facility during September 26 through
29, 2011 (Figure 2). Private well EA04 was not sampled due to the owner
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
refusing entry The potable water samples were analyzed for Site constituents
of concern (COC) VOCs using USEPA Method 8260C. The sampling results
for the potable well sampling were submitted in the 2011 Fourth Quarter Long-
Term Monitoring Report (ARCADIS, January 2012).
Estimated concentrations of Site COCs were detected in private well EA12
(trichloroethene) and EA16 (benzene, toluene, and total xylenes). However,
detections were well below applicable criteria. Groundwater elevations
collected at the Site have consistently indicated an inward gradient thus
verifying that COCs could not have migrated off-Site potentially impacting the
private wells. Therefore, the selected remedy continues to be protective of
human health and the environment. Detected concentrations at the private
wells may have originated from an off-Site source.
Issue: Capping of the former landfill was not a component of the
remedial action, and since USEPA Region VII human health risk staff
calculated slightly elevated risk levels for direct contact or inhalation of
fugitive dust based on 20-year-old data for a number of contaminants
found in landfill soils.
No action recommendation for landfill was based on data from 20 years
ago. USEPA Region VII human health risk staff calculated slightly
elevated risk levels for direct contact or inhalation of fugitive dust-
Recommendation: A new, separate evaluation of the former landfill should be
performed.
Follow-up Action: Since 20 years had passed since the Rl soil data were
collected, additional surface soil data were collected and a human health risk
assessment was conducted to evaluate the analytical results and potential
human health risk. The Human Health Risk Assessment for the John Deere
Dubuque Works Former Landfill, Dubuque, Iowa was submitted to USEPA on
April 27, 2012. USEPA provided comments on the risk assessment on
October 19, 2012. Responses to USEPA's comments and a revised risk
assessment were submitted to USEPA on November 28, 2012 and accepted
by USEPA on December 10, 2012. The following summarizes the data used
in the risk assessment as well as the exposure pathways considered in the
report and results.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
JDDW collected surficial soil samples from 20 locations in the area of the
former landfill on September 26 and 27, 2011. Surficial soil samples were
collected from areas with exposed soil (without vegetation). The surficial soil
samples were analyzed of target compound list (TCL) SVOCs and TCL metals.
The sampling data were submitted in the 2011 Fourth Quarter Long-Term
Monitoring Report (ARCADIS, January 2012) and included in the Human
Health Risk Assessment.
The risk assessment was performed to evaluate the potential current and
future risks and hazards to human health associated with constituents detected
in soil at the Site's former landfill from recently collected samples. The soil data
were evaluated and constituents of potential concern (COPCs) identified. The
COPCs for the former landfill were: arsenic, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead,
manganese, mercury, acenaphthylene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene,
benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, carbazole,
indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, and phenanthrene.
Exposure to soil on the former landfill was evaluated for a hypothetical
adolescent trespasser, an outdoor site worker, and a hypothetical future
construction worker. Soil exposure through incidental ingestion of and dermal
contact with soil, and inhalation of fugitive dust were evaluated in the risk
assessment. The results of the risk assessment indicated that direct exposure
to constituents in surface soils will not result in unacceptable risks or hazards.
Consequently, the selected remedy remains protective of human health.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
30
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Issue: The USEPA has recently adopted the practice of reviewing and
updating the institutional controls during five-year reviews. The USEPA
has come to realize that the filing of a Consent Decree with the County
Recorder, as was done in 1990 for this site, amounts to more of a notice
to a future buyer rather than an immediately effective, enforceable,
institutional control that runs with the land. Since that last previous five-
year review, the State of Iowa bas adopted the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act (UECA). effective July 1. 2005. The Iowa UECA statute
provides a simple procedure for the creation and implementation of
Environmental Covenants which run with the land and avoids most
common law problems involved with previous types of institutional
controls-
Recommendation: The USEPA recommended that a UECA with appropriate
land use restrictions be put in place at the JDDW.
Follow-up Action: Two Environmental Covenants were recorded for the
JDDW Superfund Site with the Dubuque County Recorder on April 29,
2009. Deere & Company, Inc. is both the grantor and the grantee in the
Environmental Covenant for the main part of the site. Du Trac Community
Credit Union is the grantor and Deere & Company, Inc. the grantee in the
Environmental Covenant for the small piece of property that Du Trac bought
from Deere & Company, Inc.. The Environmental Covenant for the Du Trac
Credit Union property was rerecorded with the County Recorder on May 20,
2009 to include Exhibit B of the document.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
31
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
6. Fifth Five-Year Review Findings
The fifth five-year review team includes Owens Hull of USEPA, Bob Drustrup
of IDNR, Russell Eberlin and Melanie Gotto of JDDW, and Pedro Fierro and
Kathy Thalman of ARCADIS. The five-year review includes community
notification, document review, interviews with plant personnel, a site
inspection, review of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), and monitoring data evaluation.
6.1 Community Notification and Involvement
The community was notified by the USEPA via public notice published on
November 7, 2012 in the Telegraph Herald, that the five-year review was being
conducted. After the five-year review is completed, the results of the review
will be provided to the local site repository.
6.2 Document Review
The following documents were reviewed during the fifth five-year review:
• USEPA Record of Decision (USEPA, 1988);
• Consent Decree (USEPA, 1989);
• Final Remedial Design Report (Geraghty & Miller, 1990);
• September 1995 Five-Year Review Report (USEPA, 1995);
• September 1998 Five-Year Review Report (CDM, 1998);
• September 2003 Five-Year Review Report (ARCADIS, 2003);
• August 2008 Five-Year Review Report (USEPA, 2008);
• Quarterly Long Term Monitoring Reports from the second quarter of
2008 through the first quarter of 2013 (ARCADIS, 2008-2013);
• The July 15, 1999 NPDES permit (IDNR);
32
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
• The JDDW NPDES Database for monthly NPDES Reports was used to
determine exceedances of effluent limitations for the period April 2008
to March 2013;
• On November 2, 2012, the USEPA went to the local site repository to
evaluate record keeping. USEPA found that the JDDW documents
were no longer present at the Carnegie-Stout Public Library in
Dubuque. The documents included in the site repository in February 4,
2008 are listed in Appendix A;
• John Deere Dubuque Works Five-Year Review Investigation Work Plan
(ARCADIS, August 2011); and
• Former Landfill Human Health Risk Assessment (ARCADIS, 2012
[Revised November 2012])
The following ARARs documents were reviewed:
• Federal Clean Water Act/Safe Drinking Water Act (Federal Maximum
Contaminant Levels);
• The USEPA Office of Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory Levels;
• IRIS verified reference dose or 10"6 cancer potency factor and ingestion
of 2 liters of water per day by a 70 kilogram adult;
• The USEPA Office of Research and Development Health Effects
Assessment Criteria; and
• Iowa state groundwater remediation regulations (Iowa Environmental
Protection Commission, Chapter 133, "Rules for Determining Cleanup
Actions and Responsible Parties").
A detailed document list is presented in Appendix A.
6.3 Data Review
Data reviewed during the five-year review included groundwater withdrawal
amounts, water-level data, groundwater quality data, NAPL recovery, and
33
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
surface water discharge data collected between April 2008 and March 2013.
This data was compared to the site Performance Standards specified in the
Consent Decree.
6.3.1 Groundwater Withdrawal
During the April 2008 to March 2013 period, the groundwater extraction system
continued to be fully operational and functional. Operation of the system
created a hydraulic capture zone to contain contaminants. The volume of
groundwater pumped out of production wells has exceeded the 0.89 MGD
minimum pumping rate specified in the Water Management Plan and the 1.2
MGD guideline specified in the Consent Decree, except during the weeks of
November 22, 2009 and February 7 and 14, 2010 when the minimum weekly
pumping rates were 1.15, 1.01, and 1.03 MGD, respectively. These rates are
below the 1.2 MGD guideline specified in the Consent Decree. As discussed
above, the Well Management Plan supersedes the 1.2 MGD guideline in the
Consent Decree. Table 6 presents a summary of the well pumping rates.
Despite the reduced pumping rate, monitoring water levels showed that an
inward hydraulic gradient had been maintained. Water levels in the three
piezometer pairs at the perimeter of the site have consistently exhibited rolling
annual average head differences greater than the minimum requirements
established in the Consent Decree Performance Standards. A summary of the
rolling head differences at each of the three piezometer pairs is provided in
Table 7.
6.3.2 Surface Water
The JDDW Site has multiple permitted outfalls with various monitoring
requirements and discharge limits, which are listed on the July 1999 NPDES
permit (Appendix C). Surface water discharge through the NPDES permitted
outfalls to the Mississippi River and the Little Maquoketa River has been
monitored and reported in monthly wastewater monitoring reports in
accordance with the NPDES Permit for the JDDW facility. The site
constituents of concern are monitored in Outfall 011 as specified by the
Consent Decree.
As discussed previously, a revised NPDES permit was issued by IDNR for the
JDDW facility on July 15, 1999. The revised permit expired on July 14, 2004
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
and at IDNR's direction, JDDW is continuing to operate under this permit until
a new permit is issued. The July 15, 1999 NPDES permit is included as
Appendix C. The NPDES effluent Outfall 011 limitations for the constituents
of concern and sampling frequency are listed in Table 5.
Surface water discharge through the NPDES permitted outfalls to the
Mississippi River and the Little Maquoketa River have been monitored and
reported in monthly wastewater monitoring reports to IDNR, in accordance with
the July 15, 1999 NPDES permit for the JDDW.
Outfalls 002, 005, and 006 are regularly monitored for flow rate, oil and grease,
and pH. The combined flow from Outfall 005 and 006, referred to as Outfall
801 in the NPDES Permit, and Outfall 002 are also monitored for Acute
Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia and Acute Toxicity, Pimephales. Outfall 002 is also
monitored for total residual chlorine. None of the parameters monitored at
Outfall 002, 005, and 006 have exceeded the effluent limitations set forth in the
July 1999 NPDES permits during the past five years.
In accordance with the NPDES permit, the final effluent from Outfall 011 was
analyzed once every six months for TTOs. The inorganic constituents of
concern, lead and copper, were analyzed quarterly. In Outfall 011,
concentrations of lead and copper were identified at levels below the permitted
discharge limits (Table 5). Outfall 011 was analyzed for TTO constituents of
concern in April and October of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The
wastewater monitoring data reviewed from April 2008 to March 2013 indicate
the TTO concentrations were below effluent limitations.
Outfall 011 is also regularly monitored for flow rate, BOD5, total suspended
solids, pH, temperature, cadmium, total chromium, cyanide, nickel, oil and
grease, silver and zinc. None of these constituents, except for BOD5,
exceeded effluent limitations during the five-year review period. BOD5
concentrations exceeded the permit limits twice in March 2011 due to
wastewater originating offsite.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
6.3.3 NAPL
NAPL operations were discontinued on July 21, 1991; however, NAPL
thickness has been continuously monitored quarterly at the well locations listed
in Table 3. As recommended in the September 2003 Five-Year Review
Report, a NAPL monitoring program was developed for well SBW-4, which
included adding this well to the quarterly NAPL monitoring in 2004. This section
discusses the quarterly NAPL monitoring and SBW-4 NAPL monitoring
performed between April 2008 and March 2013.
NAPL has only been sporadically measured up to 0.01 ft (approximately 1/8
inch) in NAPL monitoring wells MW-7S (January and April 2009, April 2010),
MW-8S (April 2009 and 2010), MW-12 (October 2010), MW-13S (April 2008),
G-2S (January 2009, July 2010 and 2011), RW-3A (July 2009) and RW-5
(April and July 2008) (Table 9). Several wells not listed in Consent Decree
Performance Standard No. 4, (b) Record Keeping have been included in the
NAPL discussion presented in the quarterly reports. NAPL was measured up
to 0.01 feet (approximately 1/8 inch) in three of these wells, MW-11S (October
2010), MW-20S (April 2008), and SBW-3N (April 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011).
The SBW-4 NAPL monitoring plan was implemented during the June 2004
biennial monitoring. The results of the NAPL monitoring performed between
2008 and 2013 are presented in Table 10. NAPL measurements have
predominately been at or below 0.01 ft in well SBW-4 since 2007. During the
March 2012 monthly inspection/monitoring event, a field decision was made by
JDDW to temporarily remove the absorbent sock to assess the fluctuation and
infiltration rate of NAPL over time. During the month of March 2012, JDDW
monitored the NAPL in well SBW-4 weekly for two weeks and then biweekly.
No significant changes were noted in NAPL thickness during this time period.
During the second, third, and fourth quarterly reporting periods of 2012, JDDW
monitored NAPL thicknesses in well SBW-4 monthly without the presence of
the absorbent sock and no significant changes were observed.
6.3.4 Groundwater Quality
In June 2010, February and June 2011, and October/November 2012,
groundwater samples were collected from MW-6, MW-8S, MW-9S, MW-12,
MW-13S and alluvial production well PW-3A, PW-4A, PW-5, and PW-7A
(Table 3). JDDW performed confirmatory groundwater sampling events in
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
February and June 2011 to determine if COC concentrations detected
remained below MCLs.
A summary of the analytical data is presented in Appendix B. Wells that have
COC above federal MCLs are listed in Table 8. Contaminants that have been
above MCLs during the last five years of monitoring include TCE and benzene.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 illustrate the trends in concentrations of PCE, TCE, and
benzene in the alluvial aquifer from 1990 to 2012. Between 1990 and 2012,
TCE, benzene, and PCE concentrations fluctuated with concentrations
generally declining with the exception of TCE in MW-6. In 1997, increases in
concentrations of PCE and TCE were detected in MW-9S and benzene in MW-
13S. During subsequent sampling events, the concentrations of PCE and TCE
detected in MW-9S decreased to below the MCL. These concentration
increases correspond to the relocation of production well PW-3A in 1997.
Between 1990 and 1997, the benzene concentrations detected in MW-13S
exceeded the MCL only during one sampling event (September 1992). The
concentrations of benzene detected in MW-13S began to increase after
production well PW-3 was replaced with PW-3A, which occurred in 1996
(Figure 6, Appendix B). It appears that the relocation of PW-3A modified the
groundwater flow path in the vicinity of MW-13S, resulting in residual benzene
associated with the NAPL being drawn into the monitoring well. The
concentrations of benzene detected in MW-13S increased from 19 |jg/L in
August 2000 to 130 |jg/L in June 2002. Concentrations of benzene detected in
MW-13S exhibited a decreasing trend between 2002 and 2010 with
concentrations decreasing to below the detection limit. In November 2012,
concentrations increased to 12 |jg/L.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
Concentrations of TCE detected in MW-6 fluctuated between 1990 and 2012.
Concentrations of TCE increased to above the MCL in 1991,1993, 2000, 2006
and June 2011 and subsequently decreased to equal to or below the MCL
during the next sampling event. The increase in TCE concentrations may be
due to fluctuations in the water table caused by variations in the groundwater
withdrawal, from the alluvial aquifer and flooding of the Mississippi River.
6.4 Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance
Since the alluvial aquifer groundwater recovery system at the JDDW site is the
plant production well system, the O&M of the system includes general activities
associated with plant operations. Consequently, consistent O&M of the
extraction system is assured. The costs associated with maintaining the
system are included in the plant's operating budget. O&M costs for the RA
include costs for hydraulic and groundwater quality monitoring, administrative
services and reporting, and the alternate water supply. Since these costs were
not compiled in the previous five-year review report and cannot be used to
indicate potential remedy problems, these costs were not included in this five-
year review report.
In 2010, a multiphase project was initiated to improve performance and
optimize pumping at Process Wells PW-3A, PW-4A and PW-7A. The project
allowed for non-potable well system automation and reliability
improvements. The critical aspects of this project are outlined below:
• Common pumps were purchased for PW-3A, PW-4A and PW-7A to
replace the obsolete pumps that were in use at the time of the project
initiation.
• Variable frequency drives were installed on all wells to improve energy
efficiency and enable automated control of the pumping at the wells.
• A dual electric feed was installed to PW-4A to allow operation of the well
during power outages.
• A control system was installed allowing for remote access and
programming of the well operation. Automatic modulating valves were
installed and tied into the well control system, enabling the system to
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
increase water withdrawal during low demand periods and maintain the
inward hydraulic gradient.
The establishment of the new Process Well control system has provided
increased reliability that minimum pumping requirements are met and that the
corresponding hydraulic gradient is maintained.
6.5 Site Inspection
On November 2, 2012, Owens Hull of the USEPA and Russell Eberlin and
Melanie Gotto of JDDW conducted the site inspection to evaluate components
of the remediation with respect to the Consent Decree and Decision
Documents. The Site Inspection Check List is presented in Appendix D. The
purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy,
including the presence of fencing to restrict site access and the condition of the
site monitoring wells.
The selected remedy includes developing an alternate water supply for the
plant, maintain an inward hydraulic gradient using production wells to prevent
off-site contaminant migration, extract and treat NAPL, and implement deed
restrictions to prevent inappropriate land use in the future. The remedy is
functioning as intended and protective of human health.
No significant issues were identified during the site inspection. The production
wells and monitoring wells at the JDDW site are in good condition and well
maintained. The site perimeter fence as well as an Environmental Covenant
placed on the Site ensures institutional controls are maintained. Periodic
monitoring is also conducted to ensure the current and long-term
protectiveness of the remedy is maintained.
On November 2, 2012, the USEPA went to the local site repository to evaluate
record keeping. USEPA found that the JDDW documents were no longer
present at the Carnegie-Stout Public Library in Dubuque. The documents
included in the site repository in February 4, 2008 are listed in Appendix A.
6.6 Interviews
Mr. Owens Hull conducted interviews about the O&M of the site remedy with
Mr. Russell Eberlin and Ms. Melanie Gotto of JDDW on November 2, 2012.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
Mr. Eberlin stated he did not have any major concerns regarding the Site. He
did have some suggestions to consider during the review process including
abandonment of monitoring wells that have historically met cleanup criteria as
wells as opportunities to reduce the NAPL monitoring frequency. He stated the
Facility is in compliance with all required permits and the remedy is operating
as intended. Ms. Gotto stated she did not have any major concerns regarding
the site. She agreed there are ways to optimize the sampling events. Ms. Gotto
stated the remedy remains effective and is operating as intended.
Mr. Owens Hull conducted a telephone interview with Kathy Thalman of
ARCADIS on January 29, 2013. Ms. Thalman stated the remedy is effective at
maintaining an inward gradient and there are no indicators of off-site migration
based on recent sampling. Ms. Thalman did not have any major concerns
regarding the effectiveness of the remedy.
Mr. Owens Hull conducted an interview with Bob Drustrup of the IDNR on
October 11, 2012. Mr. Drustrup did not indicate he had any concerns
regarding the site. He stated the remedy remains protective. The interview
documentation form and interview records are presented in Appendix D.
7. Technical Assessment
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision
documents?
YES:
The review of the documents, ARARs, risk assumptions, and the results of the
site inspection indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD.
The JDDW groundwater extraction system is fully operational and functional.
Operation of the system creates a hydraulic capture zone that contains and
withdraws the contaminated groundwater. All progress reports submitted to
date indicate that an inward hydraulic gradient has been maintained. During
the 2013 groundwater sampling event, concentrations of constituents of
concern were below USEPA MCLs in all wells included in the groundwater
monitoring program except MW-13S and MW-6. The TTO, lead and copper
concentrations detected in Outfall 011 did not exceed NDPES effluent limits.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
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?
YES:
This five-year review includes a review of newly promulgated requirements of
Federal and State environmental laws. The ROD identified federal MCLs and
Iowa's Groundwater Protection Policy identified ARARs to be attained in the
extraction of contaminated groundwater.
The Consent Decree Performance Standards require that alluvial groundwater
be extracted and sampled until the constituents of concern are reduced to
below the federal MCLs or applicable Iowa state groundwater remediation
regulations, whichever are more stringent. The State of Iowa (Chapter 133.
"Rules for Determining Cleanup Actions and Responsible Parties" Section
133.4(3)b.2) has defined the groundwater action level to be the Lifetime HAL if
one exists. If there is no HAL, the action level is the NRL. It there is no HAL or
NRL, then the action level is equal to the MCL. For constituents for which
there is no MCL or State requirement, the following regulatory sources shall be
used in descending order to identify completion levels.
• Proposed MCL;
• The USEPA Office of Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
Levels;
• IRIS verified reference dose or 10"6 cancer potency factor and
ingestion of 2 liters of water per day by a 70 kg adult; and
• The USEPA Office of Research and Development Health Effect
Assessment Criteria.
The groundwater extraction will continue until four consecutive quarters of
monitoring indicate that the alluvial water quality beneath the Site has been at
or below completion levels in effect at that time or if JDDW demonstrates to the
USEPA that contaminant concentrations are below background levels.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
In October 1995, JDDW requested that the IDNR allow the use of MCLs as
cleanup goals rather than the HALs and NRLs. The IDNR, along with the
USEPA, approved the use of MCLs in December 1996. This change in
ARARs did not affect the protectiveness of the current remedy at the JDDW
site.
During the April 2008 to March 2013 period, there were no changes in ARARs.
Table 5 lists the current performance standards for the JDDW site. There
have been no changes in the physical condition of the site and in land use near
the site that would affect the protectiveness remedy.
There have been no changes in the toxicity factors for the contaminants of
concern that were used in the baseline risk assessment. Standard risk
assessment methodologies have not changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy. The remedy is progressing as expected.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into
question the protectiveness of this remedy.
There is no additional information that calls into question the protectiveness of
the remedy.
Technical Assessment Summary
According to the data reviewed, the site inspection, and the interviews, the
remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. There have been no changes
in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the
remedy. There have been no changes in the toxicity factors for the
contaminants of concern that were used in the baseline risk assessment.
Standard risk assessment methodologies have not changed in a way that
could affect the protectiveness of the remedy. There is no additional
information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
8. Issues
The JDDW documents are no longer present at the Carnegie-Stout Public
Library in Dubuque.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
9. Recommendations and Required Actions
This fourth five-year review has developed the following recommendations:
JDDW should continue to monitor and maintain the hydraulic gradient; monitor
the presence of NAPL and perform NAPL recovery as necessary; and monitor
the surface water and groundwater.
Issue: The JDDW documents are no longer present at the Carnegie-Stout
Public Library in Dubuque
Recommendation: Evaluate the location of the site repository.
Background: Per the USEPA recommendations in Section 9.0 of the Second
Five-Year Review Report (1998), the following wells were removed from the
groundwater monitoring program, as these wells have not had any
exceedances of the Performance Standards in the last five years:
• MW-7S, MW-7D, MW-11S, MW-11D, MW-16, MW-20S, MW-
20D, and SBW-3/3N
Recommendation: The following wells are recommended for removal from
the groundwater monitoring program, as these wells have been below the
Cleanup Criteria for all sample events over the last the last two reporting
periods. Additionally, three of the wells have been below the Cleanup Criteria
during all sample events:
• MW-8S, MW-9S, MW-12, PW-3A, PW-4A, PW-5, PW-7A
Recommend abandonment of wells MW-2, MW-11D, MW-16, MW-20D, and
SBW-3N which were removed from the groundwater monitoring program in
September 1998. MW-2 is a historical monitor well installed during the Rl and
was not included in the Consent Decree.
Background: Deere shall continue NAPL monitoring and recovery operations
until no more than 1/4 of an inch of NAPL is detected and verified in recovery
well RW-3 and no more than 1/8 inch of NAPL is detected and verified in
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
monitoring wells 4, 6, 7S, 8S, 12 and 13S and recovery wells 4 (replaced by
RW-4a), 5 and G-s.
Recommendation: Reduce NAPL monitoring frequency to annually at the
wells indicated in the performance standard (MW-4, MW-6, MW-7S, MW-8S,
MW-12, MW-13S, and RW-3, RW-4A, RW-5, and G-2S). Limit the monthly
groundwater elevation monitoring to the six paired wells to demonstrate
compliance with the inward gradient. All groundwater elevations needed to
develop the contour map are to be completed once a year.
Background: The Performance Standards require biennial sampling of
monitoring wells for the constituents of concern. Only two wells have had
constituent levels higher than the cleanup criteria, with the other wells
remaining consistently below the Cleanup Criteria.
Recommendation: Reduce frequency of sampling activities from biennial to
once per 5-year reporting period.
Background: Quarterly reports are provided to the USEPA demonstrating
compliance with the Performance Standards. These reports include a
summary of activities performed on the site, weekly flow data, and a rolling 12-
month average of head differentials at the paired monitoring wells.
Recommendation: Reduce ongoing status reports to the USEPA and IDNR
from quarterly to annually, due the 30th January for previous year. John Deere
will provide a contour map annually to correspond with the previous reporting
period.
Background: In October 2004, SBW-4 was added to the monitoring program
and NAPL measurements have been taken monthly. The NAPL thickness has
not fluctuated significantly over the last 5-year reporting period. Recovery well
G-2D was installed and used to draw down the water table providing better
recovery in well G-2S and is not one of the wells specified in the Consent
Decree for monitoring the performance of the NAPL withdrawal system.
Recommendation: Discontinue the monitoring of SBW-4 and close the
monitoring well. JDDW also requests approval for abandonment NAPL
recovery well G-2D.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Background: Extraction and treatment requirements terminate after 4
consecutive quarters of sampling indicate that the COC's are below the
cleanup criteria. Sampling activities are no longer performed quarterly.
Recommendation: Extraction and treatment requirements terminate after 4
consecutive sampling events indicate that the COC's are below the cleanup
criteria.
10. Protectiveness Statement
The selected remedy remains protective of human health and the environment
and complies with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or
relevant and appropriate to this remedial action. Therefore, this remedy
continues to be protective to human health and the environment.
11. Next Review
The sixth five-year review should be conducted by August 11, 2018.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\J DDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT
022713.docx
45
-------
Fifth Five-Tear
Review Report
April 2008 to larch 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Tables
-------
TABLE 1 Page 1 of 3
CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Date
Event
August 1, 1980
Discovery
Julyl, 1983
Preliminary Assessment Report Issued
July 1 to September 1, 1983
Site Inspection
December 18, 1984
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Package
September 18, 1985
The USEPA Proposed the JDDW site for inclusion on the NPL.
September 30, 1986
The USEPA and JDDW enter into an Administrative Order on Consent requiring the
development of a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site.
June 24, 1998
The USEPA proposes removing the JDDW site as a candidate for inclusion in the NPL;
however, the USEPA determined that JDDW should continue with remedial activities as
required by the USEPA for compliance with CERCLA
August 3, 1988
JDDW Submitted the RI/FS Report to the USEPA
August 5, 1988
The USEPA published a notice of completion for the RI/FS and the proposed plan for
remediation. A public comment period was established and public comments were
documented in the administrative record.
September 29, 1988
The ROD was signed by the USEPA summarizing the USEPA's decisions for site
remediation. This is also the date of the completion of the RI/FS.
December 18, 1989
The USEPA and JDDW enter into a Judicial Consent Decree requiring the development of a
Remedial Design (RD) Report and Remedial Action (RA).
January 1990
JDDW initiated groundwater monitoring activities according to the Consent Decree. Quarterly
RA reports were prepared and submitted the USEPA.
February 7, 1989
Remedial design start
January 19, 1990
JDDW lodged required deed restriction with Dubuque County Records office.
September 1990
The Final RD Report was submitted to and approved by USEPA. This date marks the start of
the RA activities
1994
MW-5 was replaced with MW-5N in the 4th Quarter of 1994
May 1995
JDDW replaced PW-4 with PW-4A due to large volumes of sand in the water pumped from
the well.
August 10, 1995
JDDW replaced SBW-3 with SBW-3N because of an inadvertent concrete pour over SBW-3.
September 18, 1995
JDDW replaced PW-7 with PW-7A due to large volumes of sand in the water pumped from
the well.
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\FiveYearReview\Report\Tables\Table 1 - JDDWSIte Chronology.rtf
-------
TABLE 1 Page 2 of 3
CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Date
Event
September 22, 1995
Completion of the initial Five-Year Review
July 1996
The USEPA approved reducing the frequency of water level measurements in wells from once
every four hours of operation to once monthly.
December 1996
The USEPA approved the use of Federal MCLs at JDDW instead of the more stringent NRLs
and HALs.
December 1996
JDDW requested to abandon Wells G2S and G2D
April 1997
The USEPA approved the relocation of Well PW-3 to PW-3A
September 30, 1998
Completion of the second Five-Year Review
July 1997
Frequency of groundwater level measurements in perimeter wells was reduced from every
four hours to monthly.
September 30, 1998
USEPA approved abandonment of selected monitoring wells after an entire round of
groundwater sampling; the groundwater sampling frequency be changed to biennially, and
the elimination of lead, chromium, and copper analyses from all wells in the monitoring
program.
May 1999
Historical soil boring wells SBW-2, SBW-5; piezometers PZ-1-86, PZ-2-82, PZ-3-86, PZ-4-86,
PZ-5-86, PZ-6-86, PZ-8-86, PZ-9-86, PZ-10-86; monitoring wells MW-3, MW-7D, MW-8D,
MW-14, MW-15, MW-17 and MW-19D were abandoned
October 25, 2001
USEPA approved reducing the stage monitoring the Little Maquoketa River from daily to
monthly at the same time as water levels
June 18, 2002
USEPA approved abandonment of MW-9D
August 22, 2002
MW-9D was abandoned
September 25, 2003
Completion of the third Five-Year Review
June 4, 2004
USEPA approved reducing the river stage monitoring of the Mississippi River to monthly at
the same time as the monitor well water levels
June 4, 2004
USEPA approved abandoning monitor well MW-13D. JDDW removed this well from the
monitoring program in 2004.
August 11, 2008
Completion of the fourth Five-Year Review
October 29, 2008
MW-13D was abandoned
April 29, 2009
Two Environmental Covenants were recorded for the John Deere Dubuque Works Superfund
Site with the Dubuque County Recorder
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\FiveYearReview\Report\Tables\Table 1 - JDDWSIte Chronology.rtf
-------
TABLE 1 Page 3 of 3
CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Date
Event
October 2011
JDDW started measuring the Mississippi River stage monthly in the third quarter of 2011
September 2012
The pump house previously housing the Mississippi River Stage Gauge was demolished per a
request of the Corps of Engineers in the third quarter of 2012. The monitoring point was
moved to an access point southeast of MW-5N in September 2012 at NPDES permitted
Outfall 006.
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\FiveYearReview\Report\Tables\Table 1 - JDDWSIte Chronology.rtf
-------
TABLE 2 Page 1 of 1
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuqe, Iowa
Constituents
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethene
1.2-Dichloroethene (total)
Ethylbenzene
1,1,2,2-T etracloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
1.1.2-T richloroethane
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
Metals
Copper
Hexavalent Chromium
Lead
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Tables\Table 2.xls
-------
TABLE 3 Page 1 of 3
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL SYSTEM AND NAPL MONITORING
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Groundwater Withdrawal System Monitoring
NAPL Recovery Monitoring
Inward
Well
Well
Well
Hydraulic
hydraulic
Consent
Quality
Quality
Volume
Consent
Quality
Compliance
Notes
Name
Depth
Diameter
Water
Gradient
Decree
Revised
Revised
Decree
Revised
(ft bis)
(inches)
Level
Wells
Quality
19982'
20043/
Quality
19982'
Monitorina Wells
MW-1
60
4
X
Paired with
X 1/
MW-20
MW-2
60
4
MW-3
59
4
Abandoned in 5/99.
MW-4
60
4
X
MW-5/
42/43
4
X
Paired with
X 1/
MW-5 was replaced with MW-5N in the 4th Quarter of 1994
MW-5N
MW-6
MW-6
60
4
X
Paired with
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-5
MW-7S
38
4
X
X
X
X
The 8/98 Five-Year Review Report approved removing this well from the
monitoring program- USEPA reserves the right to include this well in future
sampling programs. See a/
MW-7D
130.5
4
Abandoned 5/99
MW-8S
62.5
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-8D
145
4
Abandoned 5/99
MW-9S
60
4
X
X
X
X
X 1/
MW-9D
150
4
X
X
Obstruction at 25 ft bis prohibited introduction of any variety of pump into well -
JD proposed to abandon this monitor well in the July through September 2000
Quarterly Report (page 6), Abandoned in 8/02
MW-10
49
4
X
Paired with
X 1/
MW-11
MW-11S
49
4
X
Paired with
X
X 1/
The 8/98 Five-Year Review Report approved removing this well from the
MW-10
monitoring program- USEPA reserves the right to include this well in future
sampling programs. See a/
MW-11D
110
4
X
The 8/98 Five-Year Review Report approved removing this well from the
monitoring program- USEPA reserves the right to include this well in future
sampling programs. See a/
MW-12
60
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-13D
133
4
X
X
The 9/03 Five-Year Review Report recommended abandoning this well.
USEPA approved abandoning the well. JDDW removed this well from the
monitoring program and abandoned the well on October 29, 2008.
MW-13S
60
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-14
60
4
Abandoned 5/99
MW-15
60
4
Abandoned 5/99
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Reviev\AReport\Tables\Table 3 Monitoring Summary with well construction data.xls
-------
TABLE 3 Page 2 of 3
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL SYSTEM AND NAPL MONITORING
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Groundwater Withdrawal System Monitoring
NAPL Recovery Monitoring
Notes
Well
Name
Well
Depth
(ft bis)
Well
Diameter
(inches)
Hydraulic
Water
Level
Inward
hydraulic
Gradient
Wells
Consent
Decree
Quality
Quality
Revised
19982'
Quality
Revised
20043'
Volume
Consent
Decree
Quality
Quality
Revised
19982'
Compliance
MW-16
60
4
X
X "
The 8/98 Five-Year Review Report approved removing this well from the
monitoring program- USEPA reserves the right to include this well in future
sampling programs. See a/
MW-17
69
4
Abandoned 5/99
MW-18
41
4
X
MW-19S
50
4
X
MW-19D
110
4
Abandoned 5/99
MW-20S
62.5
4
X
Paired with
MW-1
X
X "
The 8/98 Five-Year Review Report approved removing this well from the
monitoring program- USEPA reserves the right to include this well in future
sampling programs. See a/
MW-20D
109
4
X
The 8/98 Five-Year Review Report approved removing this well from the
monitoring program- USEPA reserves the right to include this well in future
sampling programs. See a/
X-17
NA
NA
X
PZ-1-86
135
2
Abandoned 5/99
PZ-2-86
140
2
Abandoned 5/99
PZ-3-86
135
2
Abandoned 5/99
PZ-4-86
106
2
Abandoned 5/99
PZ-5-86
140
2
Abandoned 5/99
PZ-6-86
140
2
Abandoned 5/99
PZ-7-86
138
2
X
PZ-8-86
133
2
Abandoned 5/99
PZ-9-86
137
2
Abandoned 5/99
PZ-10-86
140
2
Abandoned 5/99
SBW-2
27.4
2
Abandoned 5/99
SBW-3
38.8
2
In 8/10/95 SBW-3 was replaced with SBW-3N because concrete poured over
SBW-3
SBW-3N
39
2
X
X
X "
In 8/10/95 SBW-3 was replaced with SBW-3N because concrete poured over
SBW-3. The 8/98 Five-Year Review Report approved removing this well from
the monitoring program- USEPA reserves the right to include this well in future
sampling programs. See a/
SBW-4
24.7
2
X 4'
This well was supposed to be abandoned in 5/99 but NAPL found in well. As
recommended in the 9/03 Five-Year Review Report, a NAPL monitoring
program was developed for this well which included adding the well to the
quarterly NAPL monitoring.
SBW-5
17
2
Abandoned 5/99
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Reviev\AReport\Tables\Table 3 Monitoring Summary with well construction data.xls
-------
TABLE 3 Page 3 of 3
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL SYSTEM AND NAPL MONITORING
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Groundwater Withdrawal System Monitoring
NAPL Recovery Monitoring
Notes
Well
Name
Well
Depth
(ft bis)
Well
Diameter
(inches)
Hydraulic
Water
Level
Inward
hydraulic
Gradient
Wells
Consent
Decree
Quality
Quality
Revised
19982'
Quality
Revised
20043/
Volume
Consent
Decree
Quality
Quality
Revised
19982'
Compliance
Production
Wells
PW-1
1382
15
PW-2
425
10
PW-3/
PW-3A
135
24
X
X
X
X
X
X
April 1997 USEPA approved relocation of PW-3 to PW-3A. PW-3 was
abandoned in April 12, 1997.
PW-4/
PW-4A
133
24
X
X
X
X
X
X
In May 1995, PW-4 was replaced with PW-4A because large volumes of sand
in the water pumped from the well
PW-5
139
24
X
X
X
X
X
X
PW-6
136
30
PW-7/
PW-7A
140
24
X
X
X
X
X
X
In September 1995, PW-7 replaced with PW-7A due to large volumes of sand
in the water pumped from the well
PW-8
139
10
NAPL Reco
verv Well
s
RW-3/
RW-3A
80
6
X
X
April 1997 USEPA approved relocation of RW-3 to RW-3 A, RW-3 was
abandoned on April 12, 1997, NAPL recoverv was discontinued in Julv 1991
RW-4/
RW-4A
80
6
X
X
In May 1995 RW-4 was replaced with RW-4A the same time as PW-4 was
replaced with PW-4 A, NAPL recovery was discontinued in July 1991
RW-5
80
6
X
X
NAPL recovery was discontinued in July 1991
G-2S
60
8
X
X
NAPL recovery was discontinued in July 1991, JDDW requested to abandon in
Dec 1996
G-2D
80
8
JDDW requested to abandon in Dec 1996
ft bis = Feet below land surface
NA = Not available
USE PA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
a/ = The removal of this well was conditional on the maintenance of the inward hydraulic gradient and no changes in the
groundwater withdrawal program. If the gradient or the withdrawal program changes, the USEPA reserves the right to
include these wells in future sampling programs.
1/ = These wells were not included in the Consent Decree Performance Standard No 4.
2/ = The reduction in the number of wells required for quality monitoring was approved by USEPA in the September 1998 Second Five-Year Review Report.
3/ = Abandoning monitor well MW-13D and removing the well from the biennial water quality monitoring program was approved by USEPA on June 4, 2004.
4/ = Beginning in the 4th quarter of 2004, SBW-4 was added to the NAPL monitoring program.
Blue shading indicates existing well.
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Reviev\AReport\Tables\Table 3 Monitoring Summary with well construction data.xls
-------
TABLE 4 Page 1 of 1
CURRENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Analytes
Federal MCL
IRIS
HEAST
(mq/l)
(mq/l)
(mq/l)
Benzene
5
Carbon Tetrachloride
5
Chloroform
80 2/
Hexavalent Chromium
100 3/
110 (a)
Copper
1,300 v
1,1-Dichloroethane
-
-
990 (b)
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
70 4/
Ethyl benzene
700
Lead
15 1/
1,1,2,2-Tetracloroethane
-
0.2
Tetrachloroethene
5
Toluene
1,000
1,1,1-Tricloroethane
200
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
Trichloroethene
5
Xylenes
10,000
Footnotes:
- = Indicates that no level has been established.
1/ = The criteria for lead and copper are action levels, not MCLs.
21 = MCL for Trihalomethanes (total).
3/ = MCL for total chromium.
4/ = cis-1,2-Dichloroethene; MCL for trans-1,2-dichloroethene is 100 ^g/L.
(a) = The Performance Standard Calculations for chromium (VI) are found in Appendix E.
(b) = The Performance Standard Calculations for 1,1-dicloroethane are found in Appendix E.
(c) = The Performance Standard Calculations for 1,1,2,2-tetrachlorethane corresponds to the acceptable
concentration at a 10-6 target risk level..
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level (February 2013).
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System, 2013.
HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, July 1997.
Sources: USEPA Office of Water 2013.
USEPA Integrated Risk Information System 2013.
USEPA 1991.
IDNR 2010.
g:\proj\tf1034/2003/Five-Year Review/Table 4 2008 Monitoring Performance Standards Rev.xls]
-------
TABLE 5 Page 1 of 1
NPDES EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN OUTFALL 011
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Monitoring
Constituent Frequency
Effluent Limitation
Daily Maximum
30 Day Average
Concentration Mass
mg/L lbs/day
Concentration Mass
mg/L lbs/day
September 3, 1992 NPDES Permit
Lead
Copper
Chromium (VI)
Total Toxic Organics*
2/week
2/week
2/week
1/6 months
0.69 2.00
0.94 2.73
0.41 1.20
2.13 6.00
0.43 1.26
0.63 1.83
0.27 0.82
NEL NEL
September 3, 1992 NPDES Permit - August 14, 1995 Amendmenl
Lead
Copper
Chromium (VI)
Total Toxic Organics*
2/week
2/week
2/week
1/6 months
0.69 2.00
0.81 2.70
1.00 3.40
2.13 6.00
0.43 1.26
0.54 1 ..80
0.67 2.30
NEL NEL
July 15, 1999 NPDES Permit
Lead
Copper
Chromium (VI)
Total Toxic Organics*
1/3 months
1/3 months
NEL
1/6 months
0.69 2
0.81 2.70
NEL NEL
2.13 NEL
0.43 1.26
0.54 1 ..80
NEL NEL
NEL NEL
Footnotes:
* = Total Toxic Organics include benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene, ethylbenzene, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, tetrachloroethene, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, xylenes.
NEL = No effluent limitation
mg/L = Milligrams per liter
lbs/day = Pounds per day
G:\ENV\TR1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Tables\Table 5.xls
-------
TABLE 6 Page 1 of 1
ALLUVIAL PRODUCTION WELL PUMPING SUMMARY
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Period
Alluvial Aquifer Pumping (MGD)
Year
Quarter
Minimum
Maximum
Average
2008
2
1.96
2.33
2.11
3
1.95
2.58
2.19
4
1.29
1.92
1.52
2009
1
1.21
1.70
1.51
2
1.32
2.16
1.82
3
1.54
2.22
1.85
4
1.15
1.53
1.36
2010
1
1.01
1.54
1.32
2
1.47
3.24
1.80
3
1.63
2.19
1.93
4
1.21
2.16
1.52
2011
1
1.63
2.15
1.78
2
1.54
2.09
1.78
3
1.80
2.33
1.98
4
1.60
1.83
1.68
2012
1
1.32
2.09
1.72
2
1.46
2.12
1.79
3
1.62
2.36
2.00
4
1.42
2.01
1.77
2013
1
Footnotes:
MGD = Millions of gallons per day
Alluvial Wells include production wells PW-3A, PW-4A, PW-5, and PW-7A.
PW-5 is currently offline, but available as backup if needed.
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Tables\Table 6 MGD Water Withdrawel.xls
-------
TABLE 7 Page 1 of 1
PAIRED WELL HEAD DIFFERENCE SUMMARY
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Year
Annual Average Head Difference (feet)*
MW-10 & MW-11S
MW-5N and MW-6
MW-1 & MW-20S
Actual
Required
Actual
Required
Actual
Required
2008
0.45
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.30
0.10
2009
0.48
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.24
0.10
2010
0.36
0.15
0.18
0.15
0.27
0.10
2011
0.52
0.15
0.25
0.15
0.35
0.10
2012
0.46
0.15
0.30
0.15
0.28
0.10
2013**
0.15
0.15
0.10
Footnotes:
* = Numbers represent the annual average of the difference between the outer and inner well pair. A
positive value indicates that the potentiometric surface slopes toward the main facility
** = Includes First Quarter Only
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Tables\
Table 7 Paired Well Head Difference Summary2013.xls
-------
TABLE 8 Page 1 of 1
CHEMICAL GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS SUMMARY
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Benzene (MCL= 5 ug/L)
Well
2010 (2)
2011(1)
2011(2)
2012 (4)
MW-13S
<1.0
<10
<1.0
12
Trichloroethene (MCL= 5 ug/L)
Well
2010 (2)
2011(1)
2011(2)
2012 (4)
MW-6
4.4
1.1
9.1
2.2
Footnotes:
JDDW = John Deere Dubuque Works
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
() = Quarter in which data was collected
ug/L= Micrograms per liter
MCL= Maximum Contaminant Level
Note: Only wells which have contaminants detected above the MCLs have been included in this
table. All data is listed for a well location if at least one sample contained concentrations above
MCLs.
Sources of the groundwater data are the quarterly reports submitted by JDDW to USEPA.
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Tables\
Table 8 - Chemical GW Analysis Summary 2008.xls
-------
TABLE 9 Page 1 of 2
NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUID (NAPL) QUARTERLY MONITORING RESULTS
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Monitoring
Location
2008
2009
2010
04/21/08
07/14/08
10/16/08
01/22/09
04/03/09
07/15/09
10/16/09
01/15/10
04/22/10
07/15/10
10/13/10
MW-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-5N
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-7S
ND
ND
ND
0.01
0.01
ND
ND
ND
0.01
ND
ND
MW-8S
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
0.01
ND
ND
MW-9S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-11S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.01
MW-12
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.01
MW-13S
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-18
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-19S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-20S
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SBW-3N
0.01
ND
ND
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
0.01
ND
ND
PZ-7-86
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X-17
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
G-2S
ND
ND
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.01
ND
RW-3A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
RW-4A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
RW-5
0.01
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SBW-4 1/
0.06
0.01
0.01
ND
0.01
0.01
0.01
ND
0.01
0.01
0.01
Footnotes on Page 2
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Tables\
Table 9 - John Deere NAPL thickness 2008 to 2012.xls
-------
TABLE 9 Page 2 of 2
NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUID (NAPL) QUARTERLY MONITORING RESULTS
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Monitoring
Location
2011
2012
2013
01/14/11
04/14/11
07/15/11
10/07/11
01/05/12
04/04/12
07/03/12
10/12/12
MW-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-5N
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-7S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-8S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-9S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-11S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-12
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-13S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-18
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NM
NM
NM
MW-19S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NM
NM
NM
MW-20S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SBW-3N
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PZ-7-86
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NM
NM
NM
X-17
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NM
NM
NM
G-2S
ND
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
RW-3A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
RW-4A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
RW-5
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SBW-4 1/
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
ND
0.01 2/
0.01 2/
0.01 2/
Footnotes:
NAPL = Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
NM = Not measured
ND = NAPL was not detected in well
NAPL thickness is in feet.
Bold indicates well included in Consent Decree Performance Standard No 4.
1/ = SBW-4 was added to the quarterly NAPL monitoring program beginning in the fourth quarter of 2004.
2/ = The absorbent sock was removed from SBW-4 in March 2012 to assess the fluctuation and infiltration
rate of NAPL over time.
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Tables\
Table 9 - John Deere NAPL thickness 2008 to 2012.xls
-------
TABLE 10 Page 1 of 2
SBW-4 NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUID (NAPL) MONITORING RESULTS
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Date Measured
NAPL Thickness
(feet)
5/24/1999
0.11
5/26/1999
4 ounces of NAPL was removed
from the well
5/18/1999
ND
6/17/1999
ND
7/16/1999
ND
9/23/2003
NAPL Present on absorbent towel
6/8/2004
0.6
10/26/2004
1.19
11/17/2004
ND
12/17/2004
0.01
1/12/2005
0.02
2/22/2005
ND
3/15/2005
0.01
4/20/2005
ND
5/17/2005
0.01
6/16/2005
0.01
7/19/2005
0.01
10/20/2005
0.01
1/19/2006
0.01
4/18/2006
0.01
7/19/2006
ND
10/18/2006
0.01
1/24/2007
0.01
4/19/2007
0.01
7/20/2007
ND
10/24/2007
0.01
1/15/2008
ND
4/21/2008
0.06
7/14/2008
0.01
10/16/2008
0.01
1/22/2009
ND
4/3/2009
0.01
7/15/2009
0.01
10/16/2009
0.01
Footnotes on page 2.
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Tables\
Table 10 - SBW-4 NAPL Thickness.xls
-------
TABLE 10 Page 2 of 2
SBW-4 NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUID (NAPL) MONITORING RESULTS
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Date Measured
NAPL Thickness
(feet)
1/15/2010
ND
4/22/2010
0.01
7/15/2010
0.01
10/13/2010
0.01
1/14/2011
0.01
4/14/2011
0.01
7/15/2011
0.01
10/7/2011
0.01
1/5/2012
ND
3/1/2012 1/
ND
3/2/2012
ND
3/9/2012
0.01
3/16/2012
0.02
3/30/2012
0.01
4/4/2012
0.01
5/3/2012
0.01
6/1/2012
0.01
7/3/2012
0.01
8/9/2012
0.01
9/24/2012
0.01
10/12/2012
0.01
11/14/2012
0.01
12/13/2012
0.01
NAPL = Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
ND = NAPL was not detected in well.
1/ = The absorbent sock was removed from SBW-4 in March 2012
to assess the fluctuation and infiltration of NAPL over time.
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Tables\
Table 10 - SBW-4 NAPL Thickness.xls
-------
Fifth FIve-Ysar
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
-------
LEGEND:
FEATURES MAPPED IN 1956
FEATURES MAPPED IN 1972
FEATURES MAPPED AFTER 1978
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
SCALE
2000
Area Manager
G. PAGE
Project Director
P. FIERRO
Task Manager
K. THALMAN
Technical Review
K. THALMAN
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
SITE LOCATION
DUBUQUE, iOWA
Project Number
TF001034.0019
Drawing Date
17 APRIL 2008
Figure
-------
ER LOCATION OF BUILDINGS
E, E1, E2, E3, U.V.V1
FORMER LOCATION OF BUILDINGS
I. J, AND K
AREA OF DEMOLISHED BUILDINGS
fig* *
SPURCE: NAVTEQ (2007)
J '
» w HJf a~Jk
SCALE^ONE
Area Manager
G. PAGE
Project Director
P. FIERRO
Task Manager
K. THALMAN
Technical Review
K. THALMAN
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
SITE MAP
DUBUQUE, iOWA
Project Number
TF001034.0019
Drawing Date
17 APRIL 2008
-------
LITTLE MAQUOI
STAFF
-"3
Sf
S|
Bg
§§
CC <
(9 3
o o
LEGEND
-$¦ SHALLOW MONITORING WELL
^ DEEP MONITORING WELL
¦ PRODUCTION WELLS
O PIEZOMETER
~ SOIL BORING WELL
RECOVERY WELL
¦fS" OUTFALL
I 1
I AREA OF DEMOLISHED BUILDINGS
I I
AN X THROUGH THE SYMBOL INDICATES THE WELL HAS
BEEN ABANDONED.
SCALE IN FEET
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
DUBUQUE, IOWA
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
WELL LOCATIONS MAP
-------
Tetrachloroethene Concentrations
Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer
Figure 4. Tetrachloroethene Concentrations Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer, John Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa
-------
Trichloroethene Concentrations
Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer
MW-6
MW-9S
MW-13S
PW-4/PW-4A
MCL (5 ug/L)
11/15/88
5/8/94
10/29/99
4/20/05 10/11/10 4/2/16
Date Sampled NOTE: Non-detects are plotted at 0.
Figure 5. Trichloroethene Concentrations Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer, John Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa
-------
Benzene Concentrations
Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer
Date Sampled NOTE: Non-detects are plotted at 0.
Figure 6. Benzene Concentrations Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer, John Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa
-------
Fifth five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Appendix A
Documents Reviewed
-------
APPENDIX A
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Reports
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2013 First Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John Deere
Dubuque Works, April 2013
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2012 Fourth Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John
Deere Dubuque Works, January 2013
ARCADIS, 2012 Former Landfill Human Health Risk Assessment, John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa, April 2012 [Revised November 2012]
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2012 Third Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John Deere
Dubuque Works, October 2012
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2012 Second Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John
Deere Dubuque Works, July 2012
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2012 First Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John Deere
Dubuque Works, April 2012
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2011 Fourth Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John
Deere Dubuque Works, January 2012
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, Recommended Evaluation of
Institutional Controls: Supplement to the "Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance" OSWER
Directive 9355.7-18, December 2011
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, Five-Year Review Summary Form
Template, December 2011
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2011 Third Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John Deere
Dubuque Works, October 2011
ARCADIS U.S., Inc, John Deere Dubuque Works Five-Year Review Investigation Work Plan.
August 2011.
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2011 Second Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John
Deere Dubuque Works, June 2011
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2011 First Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John Deere
Dubuque Works, April 2011
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Appendices\Appendix A - 2013 List of 5-Year Reports \
DRAFT.doc
-------
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2010 Fourth Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John
Deere Dubuque Works, January 2011
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2010 Third Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John Deere
Dubuque Works, October 2010
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2010 Second Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John
Deere Dubuque Works, July 2010
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2010 First Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John Deere
Dubuque Works, April 2010
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2009 Fourth Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John
Deere Dubuque Works, January 2010
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2009 Third Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John Deere
Dubuque Works, October 2009
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2009 Second Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John
Deere Dubuque Works, July 2009
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Final Report 2009 First Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John Deere
Dubuque Works, April 2009
ARCADIS US, Inc. Final Report 2008 Fourth Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John Deere
Dubuque Works, January 2009
ARCADIS G&M, Inc., Final Report 2008 Third Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John
Deere Dubuque Works, October 2008
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, Fourth Five Year Review April 2003 to
March 2008, for John Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa, USEPA ID No. IAD005269527,
August 11, 2008
ARCADIS G&M, Inc., Final Report 2008 Second Quarter Long-Term Monitoring Report, John
Deere Dubuque Works, July 2008
ARCADIS G&M, Inc., Third Five-Year Review Report March 1998 to September 2003
Recommendations, ARCADIS 2004.
ARCADIS G&M, Inc., Third Five Year Review March 1998 to September 2003 for John Deere
Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa, USEPA ID No. IAD005269527, September 25, 2003
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 1998. Second Five-Year Review Report for John Deere
Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa, August 1998.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1990, Final Remedial Design Report, September 1990
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Appendices\Appendix A - 2013 List of 5-Year Reports 2
DRAFT.doc
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, Comprehensive Five-Year Review
Guidance, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA 540-R-01-007, June 2001
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995, Five-Year Review Report, John Deere
Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa, September 1995
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Remedial Investigation Report, August 1988
ARARs
40 CFR 141.80; Subpart I, Control of Lead and Copper
40 CFR 141.64; Subpart G, Maximum Contaminant Levels for Disinfection By Products
USEPA Office of Water 2013 (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.cfm).
USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level Standards as of February 2013
(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html).
USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 2013 (http://www.epa.gov/iris).
IDNR 2010 Iowa Environmental Protection Commission, Chapter 133, "Rules for Determining
Cleanup Actions and Responsible Parties
(https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/ACO/IAC/LINC/Chapter.567.133.pdf) dated 13 January 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-01 B. December 13.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997. Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables, FY-1997 Update. Office of Research and Development and Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/R-97/036. OERR 9200.6-303(97-1). NTIS
No. PB97-921199. July.
NPDES Records
Iowa Department of Natural Resources National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit for John Deere Dubuque Works, Iowa NPDES Permit Number 31-26-1-07,
Date of Issuance: July 15, 1999, Date of Expiration: July 14, 2004.
April 2008 through March 2013 John Deere Dubuque Works, Wastewater Monitoring Reports,
Facility #31-26-1-07, April 2003-March 2013. The JDDW NPDES Database for monthly NPDES
Reports was used to determine exceedances of effluent limitations for the period April 2008 to
March 2013.
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Appendices\Appendix A - 2013 List of 5-Year Reports 3
DRAFT.doc
-------
Site Repository Documents on February 4. 2008 - Carnegie-Stout Public Library.
Dubuque. Iowa - November 2. 2012 Site Inspection found documents had been removed
from library.
ARCADIS G&M, Inc., Third Five Year Review March 1998 to September 2003 for John Deere
Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa, USEPA ID No. IAD005269527, September 25, 2003
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1988, Remedial Investigation, John Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque,
Iowa, Final Draft, August 1, 1988. Volumesl through 14.
G&M Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1988, Feasibility Study, Final Draft Report prepared for John
Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa, August 1988.
United States Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District, 1986, Environmental Assessment
for Real Estate Action, Proposed Long-term Strategy for Maintenance Dredging at John Deere
Dubuque Works, Dubuque County, Iowa, April 1986.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995, John Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque,
Iowa, Superfund Site, Administrative Record Addendum, October 1995, Region VII, Superfund
Division, USEPA - Five Year Review Report, John Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa,
September 1995 conducted by USEPA Region VII, Kansas City, KS.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Record of Decision, John Deere
Dubuque Works Company Superfund Site, Dubuque, Iowa, USEPA Region VII, Kansas City,
Kansas, September 29, 1988.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, John Deere Dubuque Works Superfund Site,
Dubuque, Iowa, 1988, Administrative Record Index, August 1988
John Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa, Superfund Site, Administrative Record, File 1/4
Containing Documents Dated From January 1, 1912 to April 27, 1984
John Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa, Superfund Site, Administrative Record, File 2/4
Containing Documents Dated From May 11, 1984 to April 1, 1986
John Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa, Superfund Site, Administrative Record, File 3/4
Containing Documents Dated From April 9,1986 to May 14, 1987
John Deere Dubuque Works, Dubuque, Iowa, Superfund Site, Administrative Record, File 4/4
Containing Documents Dated From April 15, 1987 to June 30, 1988
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\Appendices\Appendix A - 2013 List of 5-Year Reports 4
DRAFT.doc
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Appendix B
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data
-------
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER QUALITY RESULTS SUMMARY, MONITORING WELLS AND PRODUCTION WELLS
1990-2012
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS, DUBUQUE, IOWA
Inorganic
Organic
Source
Sample
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
1,1-Di-
1,1-Di-
1,2-Di
Chloro-
1,1,1-Tri-
Carbon
Tri-
1,1,2-
Benzene
Tetra-
1,1,2,2-
Toluene
Ethyl-
Total
or
Collection
(VI)
chloro-
chloro-
chloro-
form
chloro-
Tetra-
chloro-
Trichloro-
chloro-
Tetra-
benzene
Xylenes
Location
Date
ethene
ethane
ethene
ethane
chloride
ethene
ethane
ethene
chloro-
(total)
ethane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Reporting Limit *
10
10
10
5.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Cleanup Criteria
100
100
1,300
15
7
700
70
100
200
5
5
5
5
5
0.2
1,000
700
10,000
MW-6
11/1/2012
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1.1
< 1.0
2.2
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-6
6/8/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.31 J
< 1.0
5.4
< 1.0
9.1
< 1.0
< 1.0
1.2
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-6
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.28 J
< 1.0
1.1
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.33 J
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-6
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
3.3
< 1.0
4.4
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.74 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
MW-6
2/5/2008
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.49 J
< 1.0
2.0
< 1.0
5.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.38 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-6
6/21/2006
—
—
—
—
< 1.0 UJ
0.18 J
0.77 J
< 1.0
4.0
< 1.0
8.6
< 1.0
5
o
V
0.70 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-6
6/10/2004
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1.7
< 1.0
2.1
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.34 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-6
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.28 J
< 0.50
1.8
< 0.50
3.5
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-6
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
1.7
< 0.50
3.3
< 0.50
6.3
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-6
7/15/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
1.6
< 0.50
1.7
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-6
7/8/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
1.5
< 0.50
2.7
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
5.6
< 1.0
0.96
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-6
7/18/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
1.8
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-6
7/19/1995
< 10
< 10
< 20
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-6
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 6
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
1.2
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-6
8/25/1993
< 10
o
00
V
A
o
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
2
< 10
1
< 10
7
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-6
8/12/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-6
7/3/1991
< 10
—
10.7
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
3
< 10
< 10
< 10
10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-6
11/8/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
2.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-6
8/30/1990
< 10
—
< 4.0
3.3
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-6
5/9/1990
< 10
—
< 4.00
11.6
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-6
2/28/1990
< 10
...
< 5.0
11.6
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-7S
11/1/2012
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-7S
6/8/2011
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-7S
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-7S
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-7S
2/5/2008
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-7S
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-7S
6/8/2004
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-7S
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-7S
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-7S
7/15/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-7S
7/8/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
1.10
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-7S
7/17/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-7S
7/19/1995
< 10
< 10
< 20
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-7S
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
6
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-7S
8/25/1993
< 10
o
00
V
3.1
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-7S
11/17/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-7S
7/3/1991
< 10
—
12.7
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-7S
11/9/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-7S
8/29/1990
< 10
—
4.6
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-7S
5/8/1990
< 10
—
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-7S
2/27/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\02-11 GW_ANAL APPENDIXB 09212011 Revised 010813.xlsx/masteranalytical
Page 1 of 10
-------
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER QUALITY RESULTS SUMMARY, MONITORING WELLS AND PRODUCTION WELLS
1990-2012
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS, DUBUQUE, IOWA
Inorganic
Organic
Source
Sample
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
1,1-Di-
1,1-Di-
1,2-Di
Chloro-
1,1,1-Tri-
Carbon
Tri-
1,1,2-
Benzene
Tetra-
1,1,2,2-
Toluene
Ethyl-
Total
or
Collection
(VI)
chloro-
chloro-
chloro-
form
chloro-
Tetra-
chloro-
Trichloro-
chloro-
Tetra-
benzene
Xylenes
Location
Date
ethene
ethane
ethene
ethane
chloride
ethene
ethane
ethene
chloro-
(total)
ethane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Reporting Limit *
10
10
10
5.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Cleanup Criteria
100
100
1,300
15
7
700
70
100
200
5
5
5
5
5
0.2
1,000
700
10,000
MW-8S
11/1/2012
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-8S
6/7/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.53 J
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-8S
2/14/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-8S
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
MW-8S
2/42008
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-8S
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
5
o
V
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.2 UB
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-8S
6/9/2004
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-8S
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-8S
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-8S
7/15/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-8S
7/8/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
0.87
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-8S
7/16/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-8S
7/19/1995
< 10
< 10
< 20
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-8S
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 6
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-8S
8/25/1993
< 10
o
00
V
A
o
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-8S
8/12/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-8S
7/2/1991
< 10
—
o
MD
V
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-8S
11/7/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-8S
8/30/1990
< 10
—
< 4.0
1.8
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-8S
5/8/1990
20
—
< 4.00
4.60
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-8S
2/26/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
9.8
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-9S
11/1/2012
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
0.22 J
0.25 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1.5
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-9S
6/7/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
0.39 J
2.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.52 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
3.4
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-9S
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.87 J
< 1.0
0.50 J
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-9S
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
2.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
MW-9S
2/5/2008
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
0.54 J
0.40 J
< 1.0
0.24 J
< 1.0
0.29 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
2.6
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-9S
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
< 1.0 J
0.47 J
0.74 J
< 1.0
0.24 J
< 1.0
0.53 J
< 1.0
< 1.0 J
4.6
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-9S
6/9/2004
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
0.81 J
0.68 J
< 1.0
0.42 J
< 1.0
0.45 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
3.2
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-9S
8/14/2002
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.28 J
< 1.0
< 0.50
0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-9S
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
1.1
2.9
< 0.50
1.7
< 0.50
1.1
< 1.0
< 0.50
7
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-9S
7/15/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
2.2
3.3
< 0.50
4.4
< 0.50
2.2
< 1.0
< 0.50
17
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-9S
7/8/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
6.8
45
< 0.50
19
< 0.50
7.0
< 1.0
< 0.50
28
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
2.5
MW-9S
7/17/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
2.2
< 0.50
0.61
< 1.0
< 0.50
2.9
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-9S
7/19/1995
< 10
< 10
< 20
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-9S
7/19/1994
< 10
< 11
< 25
< 6
< 0.50
0.37 J
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.80
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
1.2
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-9S
08/24/093
< 10
o
00
V
A
o
1.3
< 10
6
< 10
< 10
23
< 10
6.0
< 10
1
17
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-9S
8/11/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
3.2
3.7
< 5.0
18
< 5.0
5.4
< 5.0
< 5.0
11
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-9S
7/2/1991
< 10
—
o
V
< 1.0
< 10
5
4
< 10
20
< 10
4
< 10
< 10
10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-9S
11/7/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
13
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-9S
8/30/1990
< 10
—
< 4.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-9S
5/8/1990
< 10
—
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
8
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-9S
2/26/1990
< 10
...
< 5.0
4.7
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
9
< 5
1
< 5
< 5
4
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\02-11 GW_ANAL APPENDIXB 09212011 Revised 010813.xlsx/masteranalytical
Page 2 of 10
-------
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER QUALITY RESULTS SUMMARY, MONITORING WELLS AND PRODUCTION WELLS
1990-2012
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS, DUBUQUE, IOWA
Inorganic
Organic
Source
Sample
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
1,1-Di-
1,1-Di-
1,2-Di
Chloro-
1,1,1-Tri-
Carbon
Tri-
1,1,2-
Benzene
Tetra-
1,1,2,2-
Toluene
Ethyl-
Total
or
Collection
(VI)
chloro-
chloro-
chloro-
form
chloro-
Tetra-
chloro-
Trichloro-
chloro-
Tetra-
benzene
Xylenes
Location
Date
ethene
ethane
ethene
ethane
chloride
ethene
ethane
ethene
chloro-
(total)
ethane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Reporting Limit *
10
10
10
5.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Cleanup Criteria
100
100
1,300
15
7
700
70
100
200
5
5
5
5
5
0.2
1,000
700
10,000
MW-9D
Monitoring well MW-9D was abandoned on August 22, 2002.
MW-9D
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-9D
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-9D
7/21/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-9D
7/8/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
1.1
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-9D
7/17/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-9D
7/19/1995
< 10
< 10
< 20
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-9D
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
7
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
1.8
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-9D
8/24/1993
< 10
o
oo
V
5.0
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-9D
8/11/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-9D
7/2/1991
< 10
—
o
MD
V
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-9D
11/8/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-9D
8/30/1990
< 10
—
4.1
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-9D
5/8/1990
< 10
—
4.5
< 2.00
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-9D
2/26/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
1.6
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-11S
11/1/2012
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-11S
6/7/2011
—
—
—
—
...
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11S
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-11S
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
...
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11S
2/5/2008
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-11S
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
...
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11S
6/8/2004
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-11S
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
...
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11S
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MW-11S
7/16/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-11S
7/9/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-11S
7/17/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-11S
7/19/1995
< 10
< 10
< 20
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-11S
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 6
< 0.50
0.26 J
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
0.32 J
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-11S
9/7/1993
< 10
o
oo
V
A
o
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-11S
8/12/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-11S
7/3/1991
< 10
—
o
MD
V
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-11S
11/10/1990
22
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-11S
8/30/1990
< 10
—
4.3
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-11S
5/10/1990
< 10
—
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-11S
2/27/1990
140
...
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\02-11 GW_ANAL APPENDIXB 09212011 Revised 010813.xlsx/masteranalytical
Page 3 of 10
-------
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER QUALITY RESULTS SUMMARY, MONITORING WELLS AND PRODUCTION WELLS
1990-2012
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS, DUBUQUE, IOWA
Inorganic
Organic
Source
Sample
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
1,1-Di-
1,1-Di-
1,2-Di
Chloro-
1,1,1-Tri-
Carbon
Tri-
1,1,2-
Benzene
Tetra-
1,1,2,2-
Toluene
Ethyl-
Total
or
Collection
(VI)
chloro-
chloro-
chloro-
form
chloro-
Tetra-
chloro-
Trichloro-
chloro-
Tetra-
benzene
Xylenes
Location
Date
ethene
ethane
ethene
ethane
chloride
ethene
ethane
ethene
chloro-
(total)
ethane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Reporting Limit *
10
10
10
5.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Cleanup Criteria
100
100
1,300
15
7
700
70
100
200
5
5
5
5
5
0.2
1,000
700
10,000
MW-11D
11/1/2012
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11D
6/7/2011
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11D
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11D
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11D
2/5/2008
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11D
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11D
6/8/2004
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11D
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11D
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-11D
7/16/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-11D
7/9/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-11D
7/17/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-11D
7/19/1995
< 10
< 10
< 20
< 5
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-11D
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 6
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-11D
8/24/1993
19
o
CO
V
A
O
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-11D
8/12/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-11D
7/3/1991
< 10
—
o
V
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-11D
11/10/1990
< 10
...
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-11D
8/30/1990
12
—
5.8
1.7
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-11D
5/10/1990
< 10
...
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-11D
2/27/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
2.5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\02-11 GW_ANAL APPENDIXB 09212011 Revised 010813.xlsx/masteranalytical
Page 4 of 10
-------
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER QUALITY RESULTS SUMMARY, MONITORING WELLS AND PRODUCTION WELLS
1990-2012
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS, DUBUQUE, IOWA
Inorganic
Organic
Source
Sample
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
1,1-Di-
1,1-Di-
1,2-Di
Chloro-
1,1,1-Tri-
Carbon
Tri-
1,1,2-
Benzene
Tetra-
1,1,2,2-
Toluene
Ethyl-
Total
or
Collection
(VI)
chloro-
chloro-
chloro-
form
chloro-
Tetra-
chloro-
Trichloro-
chloro-
Tetra-
benzene
Xylenes
Location
Date
ethene
ethane
ethene
ethane
chloride
ethene
ethane
ethene
chloro-
(total)
ethane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Reporting Limit *
10
10
10
5.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Cleanup Criteria
100
100
1,300
15
7
700
70
100
200
5
5
5
5
5
0.2
1,000
700
10,000
MW-12
11/1/2012
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-12
6/7/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-12
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-12
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
MW-12
2/5/2008
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-12
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-12
6/9/2004
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-12
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
3.2
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-12
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
22
0.64
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-12
7/15/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
3.9
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-12
7/9/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-12
7/18/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-12
7/17/1995
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
4.4
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-12
7/19/1994
< 15
< 15
4.3 J
< 6
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-12
9/7/1993
< 10
o
00
V
5.6
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-12
8/11/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
23
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-12
7/3/1991
< 10
—
10.7
< 1.0
< 10
29
3
< 10
1
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-12
11/7/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
1.5
< 5
< 5
7
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-12
8/29/1990
< 10
—
< 4.0
3.1
< 5
10
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-12
5/8/1990
20
—
< 4.00
2.10
< 5
12
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-12
2/26/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
8.4
< 5
7
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-13S
11/1/2012
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
12
< 1.0
< 1.0
1.2
13
39
MW-13S
6/8/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
MW-13S
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 20
MW-13S
6/23/2010
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
5.0
10
MW-13S
2/6/2008
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
5.5
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.30 J
3.9
7.3
MW-13S
6/21/2006
—
—
—
—
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
13 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.78 UB
5
3
MW-13S
6/10/2004
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
24
< 1.0
< 1.0
3.2
37
62
MW-13S
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.23 J
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
130 J
< 0.50
< 1.0
17 J
250 J
520 J
MW-13S
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
19
< 0.50
< 1.0
2.4
150
130
MW-13S
7/15/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
1.4
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
15
< 0.50
< 1.0
1.9
8.3
3.7
MW-13S
7/9/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
1.2
2.4
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.51
< 1.0
18
0.84
< 1.0
2.6
72
60
MW-13S
7/16/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-13S
7/18/1995
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 20
< 0.62
1.5
4.8
< 0.50
9.3
< 0.50
11
< 1.0
1.8
4.8
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-13S
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 6
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.5
< 0.50
0.51
< 1.0
< 0.50
1.3
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-13S
8/25/1993
< 10
o
00
V
3.9
1.5
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-13S
8/12/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
1.3
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
48
< 5.0
< 5.0
2.0
6.1
10
MW-13S
7/3/1991
< 10
—
10.6
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
2
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
6
< 10
< 10
2
4
MW-13S
11/8/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
6
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-13S
8/29/1990
< 10
—
6.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
12
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-13S
5/9/1990
< 10
—
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
13
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-13S
2/26/1990
< 10
...
< 5.0
3.1
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
14
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\02-11 GW_ANAL APPENDIXB 09212011 Revised 010813.xlsx/masteranalytical
Page 5 of 10
-------
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER QUALITY RESULTS SUMMARY, MONITORING WELLS AND PRODUCTION WELLS
1990-2012
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS, DUBUQUE, IOWA
Inorganic
Organic
Source
Sample
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
1,1-Di-
1,1-Di-
1,2-Di
Chloro-
1,1,1-Tri-
Carbon
Tri-
1,1,2-
Benzene
Tetra-
1,1,2,2-
Toluene
Ethyl-
Total
or
Collection
(VI)
chloro-
chloro-
chloro-
form
chloro-
Tetra-
chloro-
Trichloro-
chloro-
Tetra-
benzene
Xylenes
Location
Date
ethene
ethane
ethene
ethane
chloride
ethene
ethane
ethene
chloro-
(total)
ethane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Reporting Limit *
10
10
10
5.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Cleanup Criteria
100
100
1,300
15
7
700
70
100
200
5
5
5
5
5
0.2
1,000
700
10,000
MW-13D
Monitoring well MW-13D was abandoned on October 29, 2008.
MW-13D
2/5/2008
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-13D
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-13D
6/8/2004
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-13D
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-13D
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-13D
7/15/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-13D
7/9/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-13D
7/16/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.70
< 1.0
< 0.50
2.00
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-13D
7/18/1995
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 5
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-13D
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 6
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-13D
8/24/1993
< 10
o
CO
V
A
O
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-13D
8/12/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-13D
7/3/1991
< 10
—
o
V
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-13D
11/8/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-13D
8/29/1990
< 10
...
4.6
1.6
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-13D
5/9/1990
< 10
—
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-13D
2/27/1990
< 10
...
< 5.0
3.3
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-16
11/1/2012
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
MW-16
6/8/2011
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
...
...
MW-16
2/15/2011
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
MW-16
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
...
...
MW-16
2/5/2008
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
MW-16
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
...
...
MW-16
6/8/2004
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
MW-16
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
...
...
MW-16
8/22/2000
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
MW-16
7/16/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.65
< 0.50
0.84
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-16
7/9/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.77
< 0.50
1.30
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-16
7/18/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
1.40
< 0.50
1.70
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-16
7/18/1995
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.91
< 0.50
2.5
< 0.50
2.9
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-16
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 12
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
1.3
< 0.50
3.5
< 1.0
< 0.50
0.31 J
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-16
8/25/1993
< 10
o
CO
V
A
O
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
1
< 10
1
< 10
2
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-16
8/11/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
2.3
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-16
7/2/1991
< 10
...
o
V
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
1
< 10
-
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-16
11/7/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
»»
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-16
8/29/1990
< 10
...
6.2
2.1
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
»»
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-16
5/10/1990
< 10
—
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
«)
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-16
2/28/1990
< 10
...
< 5.0
3.2
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
8
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\02-11 GW_ANAL APPENDIXB 09212011 Revised 010813.xlsx/masteranalytical
Page 6 of 10
-------
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER QUALITY RESULTS SUMMARY, MONITORING WELLS AND PRODUCTION WELLS
1990-2012
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS, DUBUQUE, IOWA
Inorganic
Organic
Source
Sample
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
1,1-Di-
1,1-Di-
1,2-Di
Chloro-
1,1,1-Tri-
Carbon
Tri-
1,1,2-
Benzene
Tetra-
1,1,2,2-
Toluene
Ethyl-
Total
or
Collection
(VI)
chloro-
chloro-
chloro-
form
chloro-
Tetra-
chloro-
Trichloro-
chloro-
Tetra-
benzene
Xylenes
Location
Date
ethene
ethane
ethene
ethane
chloride
ethene
ethane
ethene
chloro-
(total)
ethane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Reporting Limit *
10
10
10
5.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Cleanup Criteria
100
100
1,300
15
7
700
70
100
200
5
5
5
5
5
0.2
1,000
700
10,000
MW-20S
11/1/2012
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20S
6/8/2011
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20S
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20S
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20S
2/5/2008
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20S
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20S
6/8/2004
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20S
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20S
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20S
7/16/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-20S
7/7/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-20S
7/17/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-20S
7/18/1995
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-20S
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 6
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.34 J
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-20S
9/7/1993
< 10
o
CO
V
A
O
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-20S
8/12/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-20S
8/22/1991
< 10
—
7.3
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-20S
11/9/1990
< 10
...
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-20S
8/29/1990
< 10
—
< 4.0
3.1
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-20S
5/11/1990
< 10
...
< 4.00
2.60
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-20S
2/27/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
2.3
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-20D
11/1/2012
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20D
6/8/2011
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
MW-20D
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20D
6/22/2010
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
MW-20D
2/5/2008
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20D
6/20/2006
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
MW-20D
6/8/2004
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20D
6/18/2002
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
MW-20D
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
MW-20D
7/16/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-20D
7/7/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-20D
7/17/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-20D
7/18/1995
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-20D
7/19/1994
< 15
< 15
< 25
< 6
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
MW-20D
8/25/1993
< 10
o
CO
V
A
O
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-20D
8/11/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
MW-20D
7/3/1991
< 10
—
< 10.0
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
MW-20D
11/9/1990
< 10
...
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-20D
8/30/1990
12
—
< 4.0
2.2
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-20D
5/11/1990
< 10
...
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
MW-20D
2/27/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
2.7
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
G:\ENV\TF\1001-1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\02-11 GW_ANAL APPENDIXB 09212011 Revised 010813.xlsx/masteranalytical
Page 7 of 10
-------
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER QUALITY RESULTS SUMMARY, MONITORING WELLS AND PRODUCTION WELLS
1990-2012
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS, DUBUQUE, IOWA
Inorganic
Organic
Source
Sample
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
1,1-Di-
1,1-Di-
1,2-Di
Chloro-
1,1,1-Tri-
Carbon
Tri-
1,1,2-
Benzene
Tetra-
1,1,2,2-
Toluene
Ethyl-
Total
or
Collection
(VI)
chloro-
chloro-
chloro-
form
chloro-
Tetra-
chloro-
Trichloro-
chloro-
Tetra-
benzene
Xylenes
Location
Date
ethene
ethane
ethene
ethane
chloride
ethene
ethane
ethene
chloro-
(total)
ethane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Reporting Limit *
10
10
10
5.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Cleanup Criteria
100
100
1,300
15
7
700
70
100
200
5
5
5
5
5
0.2
1,000
700
10,000
PW-3A
10/31/2012
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
2.9
0.66 J
< 1.0
0.33 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-3A
6/7/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
1.3
0.63 J
< 1.0
0.45 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.49 J
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-3A
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
0.24 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-3A
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
1.9 J
0.76 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.37 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
PW-3A
2/4/2008
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
1.1
0.45 J
< 1.0
0.61 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
4.1
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.22 J
1.8
2.6
PW-3A
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
< 1.0 UJ
1.8
1.1
< 1.0
0.53 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.2 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
PW-3A
6/8/2004
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
2.0
1.6
< 1.0
0.89 J
< 1.0
0.19 J
< 1.0
2.4
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 UB
0.50 J
1.2 J
PW-3A
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
3.1
3.9
< 0.50
1.4
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.98
PW-3A
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
2.0
2.7
< 0.50
1.7
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
0.51
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
PW-3A
7/16/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
1.4
2.9
< 0.50
1.7
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
0.81
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
1.1
PW-3A
7/8/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
4.7
5.6
< 0.50
2.4
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
0.98
< 0.50
0.58
PW-3A
9/4/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
35
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
16
< 0.50
< 0.50
PW-3
7/16/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
2.7
6.2
< 0.50
2.5
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
9.2 J
< 0.50
< 1.0
7.5 J
44 J
140 J
PW-3
7/18/1995
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 10
< 0.50
1.6
4.5
< 0.50
1.7
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
2.9
< 0.50
< 1.0
1.9
26
90
PW-3
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3
< 0.50
2.9
< 0.50
< 0.50
1.8
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
6.4
< 0.50
< 1.0
4.9
30
110
PW-3
8/23/1993
< 10
o
00
V
A
o
< 1.0
< 10
3
10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
13
< 10
< 10
16
71
340
PW-3
8/10/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 12
< 12
< 12
< 12
< 12
< 12
< 12
< 12
< 12
< 12
< 12
< 12
72
100
PW-3
7/2/1991
< 10
—
o
MD
V
< 1.0
< 25
3
30
< 25
3
< 25
< 25
< 25
14
< 25
< 25
14
63
210
PW-3
11/8/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
9
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
17
53
PW-3
8/28/1990
< 10
—
< 4.0
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
17
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
10
< 10
< 10
10
32
130
PW-3
5/10/1990
< 10
—
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 25
< 25
37
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
33
150
PW-3
2/28/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
1.2
< 5
2
56
< 5
1
< 5
4
< 5
11
< 5
< 5
15
33
140
PW-4A
10/31/2012
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.41 J
< 1.0
0.78 J
< 1.0
2.1
< 1.0
3.8
0.59 J
< 1.0
0.29 J
3.7
4.4
PW-4A
6/7/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.37 J
< 1.0
0.82 J
< 1.0
2.3
< 1.0
2.4
0.74 J
< 1.0
0.60 J
2.2 UB
< 2.0
PW-4A
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.42 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1.4
< 1.0
1.2
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-4A
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.67 J
< 1.0
1.8 J
< 1.0
3.0
0.67 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
3.8
7.9
PW-4A
2/4/2008
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.40 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-4A
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
0.2 J
0.17 J
0.62 J
< 1.0
1.6
< 1.0
2.9
< 1.0
1.1 J
0.84 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
4.0
11
PW-4A
6/8/2004
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.42 J
< 1.0
1.1
< 1.0
1.9
< 1.0
2.8
0.65 J
< 1.0
< 1.0 UB
5.2
19
PW-4A
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.55
< 0.50
0.86
< 0.50
1.5
< 1.0
0.74 J
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50 UJ
1.4 J
6.2 J
PW-4A
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.66
< 0.50
1.2
< 0.50
1.8
< 1.0
1.60
0.87
< 1.0
0.39
6.4
29
PW-4A
7/14/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
1.2
< 0.50
1.4
< 1.0
0.79
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
7.1
25
PW-4A
7/9/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
2.1
< 0.50
< 1.0
0.51
7.4
22
PW-4A
7/16/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
0.59
1.3
< 0.50
1.8
< 0.50
2.6
< 1.0
0.99
0.90
< 1.0
0.79
7.8
25
PW-4A
7/18/1995
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.52
< 0.50
0.71
< 0.50
1.5
< 1.0
1.9
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
12
45
PW-4
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 6
< 0.50
0.48 J
< 0.50
< 0.50
1.2
< 0.50
2.7
< 1.0
0.54
0.62
< 1.0
< 0.50
3.0
8.5
PW-4
8/23/1993
< 10
o
00
V
A
o
< 1.0
< 10
1
2
< 10
2
< 10
5
< 10
3
1
< 10
< 10
8
30
PW-4
8/10/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
8.4
PW-4
7/2/1991
< 10
—
o
MD
V
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
3
< 10
3
< 10
3
< 10
< 10
< 10
3
10
PW-4
11/7/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
12
PW-4
8/28/1990
< 10
—
4.6
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
6
< 5
6
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
11
PW-4
5/10/1990
< 10
—
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
5
20
PW-4
2/28/1990
< 10
...
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
3
< 5
3
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
3
7
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\02-11 GW_ANAL APPENDIXB 09212011 Revised 010813.xlsx/masteranalytical
Page 8 of 10
-------
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER QUALITY RESULTS SUMMARY, MONITORING WELLS AND PRODUCTION WELLS
1990-2012
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS, DUBUQUE, IOWA
Inorganic
Organic
Source
Sample
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
1,1-Di-
1,1-Di-
1,2-Di
Chloro-
1,1,1-Tri-
Carbon
Tri-
1,1,2-
Benzene
Tetra-
1,1,2,2-
Toluene
Ethyl-
Total
or
Collection
(VI)
chloro-
chloro-
chloro-
form
chloro-
Tetra-
chloro-
Trichloro-
chloro-
Tetra-
benzene
Xylenes
Location
Date
ethene
ethane
ethene
ethane
chloride
ethene
ethane
ethene
chloro-
(total)
ethane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Reporting Limit *
10
10
10
5.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Cleanup Criteria
100
100
1,300
15
7
700
70
100
200
5
5
5
5
5
0.2
1,000
700
10,000
PW-5
10/31/2012
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-5
6/6/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-5
2/16/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
7.3
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-5
6/21/2010
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-5
2/4/2008
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-5
6/19/2006
—
—
—
—
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-5
6/8/2004
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-5
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.19 J
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
1.1 J
< 0.50
< 1.0
0.48 J
3.0 J
1.3 J
PW-5
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
7.6
< 0.50
< 1.0
5.3
52
130
PW-5
7/15/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
3.3
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
4.8
30
150
PW-5
7/9/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
PW-5
7/16/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
PW-5
7/18/1995
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 10
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.71
< 0.50
0.83
< 0.50
1.0
< 1.0
16
< 0.50
< 1.0
38
56
270
PW-5
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
PW-5
8/24/1993
< 10
o
00
V
3.3
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
21
27
217
PW-5
8/10/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 8.5
< 8.5
< 8.5
< 8.5
< 8.5
< 8.5
< 8.5
< 8.5
< 8.5
< 8.5
< 8.5
55
49
250
PW-5
7/1/1991
< 10
—
< 10.0
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
PW-5
11/9/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
23
22
100
PW-5
8/28/1990
< 10
—
6.2
8.6
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
40
39
180
PW-5
5/10/1990
< 10
—
< 4.00
7.2
< 50
< 50
< 50
< 50
< 50
< 50
< 50
< 50
< 50
< 50
< 50
75
54
320
PW-5
2/28/1990
< 10
—
< 5.0
5.6
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
PW-7A
10/31/2012
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-7A
6/7/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-7A
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.19 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-7A
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
PW-7A
2/4/2008
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.38 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-7A
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.40 J
< 1.0
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-7A
6/8/2004
—
—
—
—
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.29 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 2.0
PW-7A
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.17 J
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
PW-7A
8/22/2000
—
—
—
—
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.42
< 0.50
0.73
< 1.0
< 0.50
0.49
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
PW-7A
7/14/1998
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
PW-7A
7/9/1997
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
PW-7A
7/16/1996
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.52
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
PW-7
7/18/1995
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
PW-7
7/19/1994
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.34 J
< 0.50
0.32 J
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
PW-7
9/23/1993
< 10
o
00
V
A
o
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
PW-7
8/10/1992
< 10
< 10
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
PW-7
7/2/1991
< 10
—
o
MD
V
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
PW-7
11/7/1990
< 10
—
8.2
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
PW-7
8/28/1990
< 10
—
5.7
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
PW-7
5/23/1990
< 10
—
4.2
< 2.00
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
PW-7
2/28/1990
< 10
...
< 5.0
1.7
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\02-11 GW_ANAL APPENDIXB 09212011 Revised 010813.xlsx/masteranalytical
Page 9 of 10
-------
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER QUALITY RESULTS SUMMARY, MONITORING WELLS AND PRODUCTION WELLS
1990-2012
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS, DUBUQUE, IOWA
Inorganic
Organic
Source
Sample
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
1,1-Di-
1,1-Di-
1,2-Di
Chloro-
1,1,1-Tri-
Carbon
Tri-
1,1,2-
Benzene
Tetra-
1,1,2,2-
Toluene
Ethyl-
Total
or
Collection
(VI)
chloro-
chloro-
chloro-
form
chloro-
Tetra-
chloro-
Trichloro-
chloro-
Tetra-
benzene
Xylenes
Location
Date
ethene
ethane
ethene
ethane
chloride
ethene
ethane
ethene
chloro-
(total)
ethane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Reporting Limit *
10
10
10
5.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Cleanup Criteria
100
100
1,300
15
7
700
70
100
200
5
5
5
5
5
0.2
1,000
700
10,000
SBW-3N
10/31/2012
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SBW-3N
6/8/2011
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SBW-3N
2/15/2011
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SBW-3N
6/22/2010
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SBW-3N
2/4/2008
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SBW-3N
6/20/2006
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SBW-3N
6/8/2004
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SBW-3N
6/18/2002
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SBW-3N
8/22/2000
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
SBW-3N
7/14/1998
67
62
< 10
4.1
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
SBW-3N
7/7/1997
48
51
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
SBW-3N
7/16/1996
< 10
98
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
SBW-3
7/18/1995
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SBW-3
7/19/1994
37
34
< 25
< 6
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
0.26 J
1.2
< 0.50
0.49 J
< 1.0
< 0.50
0.43 J
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
SBW-3
9/23/1993
30
29.2
4.5
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
2
< 10
1
< 10
< 10
1
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
SBW-3
8/11/1992
42
39
< 25
< 3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
5.8
< 5.0
2.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
8.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
SBW-3
7/4/1991
58
—
11.0
< 1.0
< 10
2
< 10
< 10
13
< 10
3.0
< 10
< 10
6
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
SBW-3
11/8/1990
30
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
SBW-3
8/30/1990
70
—
6.2
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
15
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
SBW-3
5/9/1990
40
—
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 5
8
< 5
< 5
34
< 5
5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
SBW-3
2/28/1990
17
—
< 5.0
< 1.0
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
13
< 5
3
< 5
< 5
1
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
# Samples
215
125
215
215
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
# Detected Values
17
6
27
36
1
48
57
3
79
0
76
0
41
49
0
44
47
53
Maximum Value
140
98
12.7
11.6
< 50
29.0
56
35
34
< 50
11
< 50
130
28
< 50
75
250
520
Minimum Value
< 10
< 8
< 10
< 5.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 1.0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
Laboratory services provided by TestAmerica (formerly Quanterra Environmental Services), Arvada, Colorado
ug/L = Micrograms per liter.
(dup) = Duplicate sample.
< = Not detected at or above specified detection limit.
* = Reporting limit was raised by the laboratory for some compounds as noted to address matrix interference.
J = Estimated by laboratory due to value below lower calibration limit or positive result has been classified as qualitative during data validation
UB = Analyte detected in associated blank; result is non-detect at the reporting limit or the value reported if above the reporting limit.
UJ = Analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected. The sample quantitation limit is presented, and should be considered approximate.
— = Not analyzed.
Bold = Detected Values
Bold/Highlighted = Detected values above clean-up criteria
Exceedances are compared to the reporting limit (RL).
Nondetected concentrations are less than the reporting limit (RL).
G:\ENV\TF\1001 -1100\TF1034\2013\Five Year Review\Report\02-11 GW_ANAL APPENDIXB 09212011 Revised 010813.xlsx/masteranalytical
Page 10 of 10
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Appendix C
NPDES Permit
-------
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
PERMITTEE
John Deere Dubuque Works
18600 South John Deere Road
P.O. Box 538
Dubuque, Iowa 52004
NPDES PERMIT
IDENTITY AND LOCATION OF FACILITY
John Deere Dubuque Works
Section 35, T-90N, R-2E
Dubuque County, Iowa
RECEIVING WATERCOURSE
Little Maquoketa and Mississippi Rivers
IOWA NPDES PERMIT NUMBER: 31-26-1-07
DATE OF ISSUANCE: July 15, 1999
DATE OF EXPIRATION: July 14, 2004
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO FILE FOR
RENEWAL OF THIS PERMIT BY: January 14, 2004
EPA NUMBER - IA 0000051
This permit is issued pursuant to the authority of section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1342fb»
owa ..ode section 4.5B. 174, and rule 567-64.3, Iowa Administrative Code. You are authorized to operate the
m£LTT aR': t0tdlSChr,arg=the polIutants sPedfied in thi= i« accordance with «h» effluent iLia ions
monitoring requirements and other terms set forth in this permit. '
hZZZTt^dTL^nnh^°ftr!S Written n°tiCe °f appeal and retluest for administrative
nv,ann& with the director of this department withm 30 days of receipt of this permit.
mSI'S1™' °PT!iT 0f l0Wa NPDES permit ^ the department for
the facility identified above is revoked by the issuance of this Iowa NPDES operation permit.
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Paul Wsjohnson, Director
WAYNE FARRAND, Supervisor
Wastewater Section
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
-------
Facility Name: John Deere Dubuque Works
Permit Number; 3126107
Page 2
Outfall
Number Description
001 Old foundry area storm water only discharge
002 Non-contact cooling water, drinking fountain drains and storm water discharge through the north sedimentation pond which is equipped with
an on skimmer, r
003 Treated domestic wastewater from an extended aeration treatment plant with polishing pond.
004 Condenser cooling water from electrical generator,
005 anoUstourier01108 ***"' drink"1S fountain drains md stoim water discharge through the south sedimentation pond which is equipped with
aao Stormwater discharge from Buildings W-3,4,5 and C-26,27 through the new sedimentation pond which is equipped with an oil skimmer.
Discharge consists of tractor wash booth drain, optional landfill leachate when recirculation is not viable and storm water discharge thru a
sedimentation pond
009 Building Y storm water only discharge,
010 Drinking fountain drains and Building W-6 storm water discharge.
011 Wastewater from a physical chemical and biological treatment plant which treats all process wastewater from the facility.
012 Lot-A storm water only discharge.
013 West foundry area storm water only discharge.
014 North end area storm water only discharge from a pallet reclaim and scrap salvage area.
015 North V-l storm water only discharge from a parts storage yard.
016 North Y-lot area storm water only discharge from a tractor storage yard.
017 Ringle yard area storm water only discharge from a tractor storage and shipping yard.
018 Center Y-lot storm water only discharge from a tractor storage yard.
019 South Y-lot storm water only discharge from a tractor storage yard.
020 South truck gate storm water only discharge from vehicle parking areas.
021 Building x-16 storm water only discharge.
022 Landfill ravine storm water only discharge,
023 Gottschalk ravine storm water only discharge from a natural ravine.
024 Site 4 test area stormwater only discharge.
025 NW comer property storm water only discharge
026 Guler ravine storm water only discharge.
027 X-18 access road storm water only discharge.
028 Dirt draw bar area storm water only discharge.
801 Combined discharge of outfalls 005 and 006.
-------
Effluent Limitations
Pa
Fac. y Names JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
Permit Number: 3126107
OUTFALL NO.; 002 NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER, DRINKING FOUNTAIN DRAINS AND STORM WATER DISCHARGE THROUGH THE NORTH SEDIMENTATION
You are prohibited from discharging pollutants except in compliance with the following effluent 1imi tat it
I r
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Concent rat ion
Mass
II! 1 1
1 1 I 7 Day | 30 Day | Daily
Wastewater Parameter I Season!T vpe Averaqe !Ave raae 1 Max imum
1 i i i
I 7 Day | 30 Day I Daily |
FLOW
YEARLY|FINALj | 3.5000j 6.4000
Units |Averaqe |Averaqe |Max imum | Units
PH (MINIMUM - MAXIMUM)
YEARLY|FINALj 6.0000j j 9.0000
MGD III]
CHLORINE,TOTAL RESIDUAL
STD UNITS| III
OIL AND GREASE
YEARLYjFINAL| j .0500| .0760
YEARLY j FINAL j J 10.Q000J 15.0000
MG/L J j 1.50| 2,20| LBS/DAY
ACUTE TOXICITY. CERIODAPHNIA
MG/L | j 258.00j 517.00j LBS/DAY
ACUTE TOXICITY, PIMEPHALES
YEARLY|FINAL 1 J |
YEARLYlFINALl I |
j j 1.00| |NON TOXIC
If
| | 1 .00 j J NON TOXIC
j
i I ! !
I II!
!!i!
I !
1 1 1 I I
III
!!!!!
Ill
II!
I !
I III
I
j i
NOTE: If seasonal limits apply, summer is from April 1 through October 31, and winter is from November 1 through March 31.
-------
Page 4
Facility Name: John Deere Dubuque Works
Permit Number: 31-26-1-07
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Outfall No.: 003
Treated domestic wastewater from an extended aeration treatment plant with
polishing pond.
You are prohibited from discharging pollutants except in compliance with the
following effluent limitations:
Wastewater
'arameter
Season
Type
30-day Avg
mg/I
Daily Max
mg/1
30-day Avg
lbs/day
TV • ¦ * tt
Daily Max
ibs/day
Flow (mgd)
Yearly
Final
0.20
0.24
-
-
bod5
Yearly
Final
30.0
45.0
50.0
75.0
TSS
Yearly
Final
30.0
45.0
50.0
75.0
Coliform, Fecal *
Seasonal
Final
-
20,700
Organisms/100 ml
-
-
pH (Mm. - Max.)
Yearly
Final
6.0
9.0
STD UNITS
-
* Limits apply from April 1 through October 31
The discharge of total residual chlorine is prohibited. If chlorine is added to the discharge the concentration
shall not exceed method detection limits using the EPA approved method with the lowest detection limit.
-------
PageS
Facility Name; John Deere Dubuque Works
Permit Number; 31-26-1-07
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Outfall No.: 004 Condenser cooling water from electrical generator
You are prohibited from discharging pollutants except in compliance with the following effluent
limitations:
Wastewater Parameter
Season
Type
30-day
Average
Daily
Maximum
30-day Avg
lbs/day
Daily Max
lbs/day
Flow
Yearly
Final
21.5 mgd
23.0 mgd
Chlorine, Total Residual
Yearly
Final
-
0.20 mg/1
-
-
pH (minimum-maximum)
Yearly
Final
6.0 Std Units
10.0 Std Units
-
-
•"Temperature
Yearly
Final
-
5.4° Fahrenheit
-
* SeePage 19
-------
Fao.ity Name: JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS pB 6
Effluent Limitations
Permit Number: 3126107
OUTFALL NO.: 005 NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER, DRINKING FOUNTAIN DRAINS AND STORM WATER DISCHARGE THROUGH THE SOUTH SEDIMENTATION
You are prohibited from discharging pollutants except in compliance with the following effluent limitations
! i !
1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
1 Concentration t
i 1 1
1 Wastewater Parameter |Season|Tvoe
III It
7 Day | 30 Day | Daily | 7 Day | 30 Day
. i
Da i1y [
1PH (MINIMUM - MAXIMUM) j YEARLY J FINAL
Average 1 Average jMaximum | Units j Averaae J Average
6.0000j | 9.0000 j STD UNITS| j
101L AND GREASE |YEARLY|FINAL
i 10.0000 15.0000 MG/L I I
j
i 1 !
| | | |
I 1
| | j !
j
! j j
ill
j
!
111 I
|
1
j
j
i
j
j
j
1
1
1
J
1
I
!
I
1
1
1
j
J
1
! !
I
j
I
|
I !
j
i i
j
| i "1 j
j
I ! j j
j
!
j
ii!
I
! 1 ! 1
i
I
l ¦ !
j
I i i i i 1 1 j
j
! | | j
i
! L I I i l i I
NOTE: If seasonal limits apply, summer is from April 1 through October 31. and winter is from November 1 through March 31.
-------
Effluent Limitations
Fac- y Names JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
Permit Number: 3126107
OUTFALL NO.; 006 STORMWATER DISCHARGE FROM BUILDINGS W-3.4,5 AND C-26,27 THROUGH THE NEW SEDIMENTATION POND WHICH IS EQUIPPED WIT
You are prohibited from discharging pollutants except in compliance with the following effluent limitations.
Wastewater Parameter
PH (MINIMUM - MAXIMUM)
i |
I I I 7 Day
Season j Type [Average
[yearly!finalI s.onnn
Concent rat ion
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Mass
j r i 1 r
30 Day Daily | | 7 Day j 30 Day j Daily
Average
Maximum
Units jAverage j Average jMaximuro
9,0000 i STD UNITS1 j I
Unit s
OIL AND GREASE
I YEARLY I FINAL I
10.0000
15.OOODI MG/L
NOTE: If seasonal limits apply, summer is from April 1 through October 31, and winter is from November 1 throu9h March 31
-------
Effluent Limitations
Pa
8
Fac y Name: JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
Permit Number: 3126107
OUTFALL NO.: 008 DISCHARGE CONSISTS OF TRACTOR WASH BOOTH DRAIN, OPTIONAL LANDFILL LEACHATE WHEN RECIRCULATION IS NOT VIABLE AND
You are prohibited from discharging pollutants except in compliance with the following effluent limitations
Wastewater Parameter
I FLOW
I"
I AMMONIA NITROGEN m
Concentration
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Mass
Season I Type lAverage
j 7 Day j 30 Day | Daily
vearlvJfiNAL
JAN
1 FINAL I
Average Maximum
.0500
. 2280
29.00001 43.0000
I 7 Day
Units I Average
| 30 Day | Da i1y
1 Average I Maximum
MGD
MG/L
Uni ts
I AMMONIA NITROGEN fNl
FEB
[FINAL I
29.0000
43.0000
MG/L
AMMONIA NITROGEN fNl
MAR
[ FINAL I
11.0000 1 16.0000
I AMMONIA NITROGEN fNl
I APR
'FINAL I
1 1 .0000
16.0000
MG/L
I AMMONIA NITROGEN fNl
MAY
I FINALI
11.0000
16.00001 MG/L
13.001 LBS/OAV
IAMMONIA NITROGEN (SI
I JUN
IFINAL
15.00001 22.0000
I AMMONIA NITROGEN (N)
I AMMONIA NITROGEN fN)
I JUL
I FINAL I
lO.OOOQl 15.0000
MG/L
AUG
I FINALl
IQ.OOOOi 15.00001 MG/L
9,00
13.001 LBS/DAY
13.001 LBS/DAY i
I AMMONIA NITROGEN fNl
I SEP
[FINAL
11.00001 16.00001 MG/L
13.001 LBS/DAY j
AMMONIA NITROGEN fNl
OCT
I FINAL
11.00001 16.00001 MG/L
I AMMONIA NITROGEN fNl
NOV
I FINAL
11.00001 16.00001 MG/L
9. 00 |
9.001
13.00j
13.001
I AMMONIA NITROGEN fNl
DEC
I FINAL
11.00001 16.00001
MG/L
IPH (MINIMUM - MAXIMUM)
YEARLY!FINAL
6.0000
g.OOOOlSTD UNITS
I CADMIUM.TOTAL (AS CD 1
[CHROMIUM.TOTAL (AS CR)
YEARLY 1 FINAL
.08701
¦ 1300
YEARLYlFINALl
1400!
¦ 2000
MG/L
MG/L
1 2
¦ 18 I LBS/DAY
"I
171 LBS/PAY I
I COPPER.TOTAL (AS CU1
YEARLYlFINAL
13001
1900
MG/L
I LEAD.TOTAL fAS PB)
YEARLYlFINAL
.45001
¦ 6800
MG/L
.361 LBS/DAY i
[ZINC.TOTAL (AS ZN)
I YEARLY I FINAL!
4-
1.13001 1.7000
MG/L
.97 I
1 ¦ 45 I LBS/DAY
NOTE: If seasonal limits apply, summer is from April 1 through October 31, and winter is from November 1 through March 31
-------
Fac'. y Name: JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
Pa 9
Permit Number*: 3126107 Effluent Limitations
OUTFALL NO.: 011 WASTEWATER FROM A PHYSICAL CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANT WHICH TREATS ALL PROCESS WASTEWATER FROM THE
V0U arB PrOMbUed fr°m di8Char0ing po! I u t ant s except in compliance with the following effluent limitations:
NOTE: If seasonal limits app.y, summer is from April , through October 31. and -inter is from November 1 through March 31
-------
Faen y Names JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
Permit Number: 3126107
OUTFALL NO.: 0D1 COMBINED DISCHARGE OF OUTFALLS 005 AND 006
Effluent Llmitati
Pa,
Vou are prohibited from discharging pollutants except in compliance with the following effluent limitations:
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
1 1
1 Wastewater Parameter j Season
i
i
Type
1
1 7 Day
1Averane
30 Day
Awe racje
Da i ) y | | 7 Day
mass
! i
30 Day j Dai I y |
j FL0W (YEARLY
FINAL|
9,5400
Maximum | Units jAveraqe
1
1 acute toxicity, ceriodaphnia [yearly
FINAL|
22.9600| MGD j
1 ACUTE TOXICITY, PIMEPHALES 1 YEARLY
FINAL 1
! |
1 DO j
1 I
1 —
1 00 j
1
j — —
I
I
[ " * J
I !!!!!! 1
i — — 1 1 i 1 I 1 1
1
1
l
I
II
I
1 — —
I!!!
1
1 " —
I
j
i
1
I
•
— —
i
1—H
..
! | j | j
!
III!
1
Ill
1 j
I I I I
i
i
i
i
i
!
j j
I
i
j
— i_.. i i
1 1 1 1 |
i
NOTE: If seasonal Mn.1t. apply, summer 1s from April 1 through October 31, and winter is from November 1 throuflh March 31
-------
Facility Name: JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
Permit Number: 3126107
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
(8) Samples and measurements taken shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored wastewater,
,n 40 cfb p,r*,3e °r ™
-------
Facility Name.- JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
Page 12
Permit Number-: 3126107
Monitoring arid Reporting Requirements
(a) Samples and measurements taken shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored wastewater.
"" ,n 40 cfr p*r*136 °r °,h*r <" »¦"«»
(c) Chapter 63 of the rules provides you with further emanation of your monitoring requirements.
(d) to report a! 1 data including calculated resu 1 ts needed to determine compliance with the limitations con-
.... ¦K.:?n;Tsri.;rss,Tvs:-?s.si,T^"s,TrTsn:,Ts;.-i:.B^rTSSE;.*h"
Outf a
Numbe
1 1 i
r | Wastewater Parameter
I Samp 1e
1 Freauencv
1 Sample
Type
uu~ ruu« I 1/MONTH
24 HR
Igrab
TOTAL
FINAL
EFFLUENT
im LMiNiMUM - MAXIMUM.)
I TEMPERATURE
11/MONTH
I 1/MONTH
1 GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
1 TEMPERATURE
I 1/MONTH
1 GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT -
004
IcHLORINE,TOTAL RESIDUAL
11/BATCH
RIVER
CE OF
INTAKE UPSTREAM OF ACTUAL INTAKE BEYOND INFLUEN
RE-CIRCULATED WATFR
004
' GRAB
CONDENSER OUTLET 02
uu« i wnLUKlNt» TOTAL RESIDUAL | 1/BATCH
GRAB
CONDENSER OUTLET #4
UU3
1rn (MINIMUM ~ MAXIMUM)
(oil AND GREASE
|1/WEEK
I 1/WEEK
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
005
-Uv,.
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
UUD | I tlVIPtKA I UKL i 1 /WEEK
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
UUq
1Hn kMi N1MUM - MAXIMUM)
101L AND GREASE
11/WEEK
[1/WEEK
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
006
i
f^„ ¦=¦= —
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
uuc ? » tWlr fcKA I UKfc. I 1 /WEEK
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
008 j FLOW j,/WeEK
24 HR
TOTAL
FINAL
EFFLUENT
uuo
(AMMUNIA Nil RUBEN IN)
1PH (MINIMUM - MAXIMUM)
11/3 MONTH
11/MONTH
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
008
ICADMIUM.TOTAL (AS CD)
I
GRAB
1
FINAL
EFFLUENT
008
|CHROMIUM,TOTAL (AS CR)
|l/MONTH 1
|1/MONTH i
GRAB
1
FINAL
EFFLUENT
008
I COPPER,TOTAL (AS CU)
I 1/MONTH |
GRAB
[
FINAL
EFFLUENT
008
IlEAD,TOTAL (AS PB)
I 1/MONTH j
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
008
I TEMPERATURE
j
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
008
IziNC,TOTAL (AS ZN)
11/MONTH j
I 1/MONTH |
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
OOS
GRAB
[
FINAL
EFFLUENT
-------
Facility Name: JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
Page 13
Permit Number": 3126107
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
(a} Samples and measurements taken shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored wastewater.
,Sha! 1 bB reCorded on forms Provided by the department, and
1 ast day of each month? ° the reportins peHod' Vour sporting period is
submitted to the department by the
on a monthly basis, ending on the
Gutfa 11 |
Number Wastewater Parameter
I Sample
.1 Freauencv
Samp 1e
Tvoe
r —
l s i umiviwa I hk
|STORMWATER
1 1/3
1 1 /3
MONTH
VISUAL
SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
i
MONTH
VISUAL
1 SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
u.. TLUW |7/WEEK
24 HR TOTAL
IfINAL EFFLUENT
1 oiui-ricrai LAL UXYUEN DEMAND (BQD5)
(total suspended solids
I2/WEEK
(2/WEEK
24 HR COMP
1 FINAL EFFLUENT
1PH (MINIMUM - MAXIMUM)
I2/WEEK
24 HR COMP
FINAL EFFLUENT
1 CADMIUM,TOTAL (AS CD)
GRAB
FINAL EFFLUENT
0 1 1
IcHROMIUM,TOTAL (AS CR)
I 1/3
1 1/3
MONTH
24 HR COMP
FINAL EFFLUENT
U 1 i
I COPPER,TOTAL (AS CU)
1 1/3
MONTH
24 HR COMP
FINAL EFFLUENT
I CYANIDE,TOTAL (AS CN)
1 1/6
MONTH
24 HR COMP
FINAL EFFLUENT
IlEAD,TOTAL (AS PB)
( 1 /3
MONTH
GRAB
FINAL EFFLUENT
1
j
I 1/3
MONTH
24 HR COMP
FINAL EFFLUENT
1
1
1
1N1UKfcL,101AL (AS NI)
|oiL AND GREASE
MONTH j
24 HR COMP
FINAL EFFLUENT
1
1
|
|SILVER,TOTAL (AS AG)
(2/WEEK |
GRAB |
FINAL EFFLUENT
I
I
1 TEMPERATURE
1 1/6
MONTH
24 HR COMP |
FINAL EFFLUENT " ' j
ItOTAL TOXIC ORGANICS
I2/WEEK
GRAB
FINAL EFFLUENT " J
1
1 1/6
MONTH |
GRAB j
FINAL EFFLUENT
I
1
IZINC,TOTAL (AS ZN)
i 1/3
I
MONTH |
24 HR COMP (
FINAL EFFLUENT
i
!
1BfcNZENE
1ETHYLBENZENE
] 1/6
1 1 /6
MONTH |
MONTH (
GRAB |
FINAL EFFLUENT
1
|
j TRICHLOROETHANE
1 1 /6
MONTH |
GRAB |
FINAL EFFLUENT
1
f
I
01 1
11,1-DICHLOROETHENE
I 1/6
GRAB |
FINAL EFFLUENT
1
1
0 1 1
l
MONTH |
GRAB |
FINAL EFFLUENT
J
-------
Facility Name: JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
Page 14
Permit Number: 3126107
Monitoring and Reporting Requi rements
(a) Samples and measurements taken shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored wastewater.
co) in 40 c™ 136 °r °,B,r ™th°d- <"-<>-»
CO Chapter 63 of the rules provides you with further explanation of your monitoring requirements
U) Hftlenth'da^ir^n^^^ by the ^tment, and submitted to the department by the
last day of each month report,ng penod. Your reporting period is on a monthly basis, ending on the
Outfal1
Number
i
I Wastewater Parameter
I Samp 1e
.1 Freauencv
1 Sample
f Type
1
M.i'Uiu-tLUKUtiMMNt j-j/6 MONTH | GRAB
I FINAL
EFFLUENT
w 1 ¦ i i ,£-uiLHLUKut:mciNt M/6 MONTH
(GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
Uit UlLUKUhURM J 1/6 MONTH
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
u 1 ' 1 i , i , I - 1kICHLukut1 MANE (1/6 MONTH
GRAB
{final
EFFLUENT
1tINALHLUKIDt
11/6 MONTH
I 1/6 MONTH
GRAB
(final
EFFLUENT
(1,1,2,2,—TETRACHLORDETHANE
I 1/6 MONTH
GRAB
final
EFFLUENT
J iHiUMLUKUfcfHENE
I 1/6 MONTH
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
TETRACHLOROETHENE
I 1/6 MONTH
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT "
I Ui.Ufc.Nt;
I 1/6 MONTH
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
AYLfcNfc
I 1/3 MONTH
GRAB
FINAL
EFFLUENT
1 UKMWA i tK
I 1/3 MONTH
VISUAL
SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
1OKMWA1fcK
!1/3 MONTH |
VISUAL
SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
,
STORMWATER
1 i
VISUAL
SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
017
018
I STORMWATER
ISTORMWATER
I 1/3 MONTH |VISUAL
i 1/3 MONTH VISUAL
SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
I019 STORMWATER
i I
I020ISTORMWATER
I 1/3 MONTH VISUAL
SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
1/3 MONTH VISUAL |SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
131UKMWAIfcK
j 1/3
1 1/3
MONTH
VISUAL
I SEE
PAGE
7
OF
STORM
WATER
REQUIREMENTS
i STORMWATER
1STORMWATER
1 1/3
MONTH
VISUAL
1 SEE
PAGE
7
OF
STORM
WATER
REQUIREMENTS
I 1/3
MONTH
VISUAL
i SEE
PAGE
7
OF
STORM
WATER
REQUIREMENTS
ISTORMWATER
i
1
MONTH
VISUAL
1 SEE
1
PAGE
7
OF
STORM
WATER
REQUIREMENTS
-------
Facility Name: JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
Permit Number: 3126107
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
(a) Samples and measurements taken shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored' wastewater.
Cb) Analytical and sampling methods as specified in 40 CFR Part 136 or other methods approved in writing
by the department, shall be utilized,
(c) Chapter 63 of the rules provides you with further explanation of your monitoring requirements.
Page 15
(d) You are required to report all data including calculated
tained in this permit. This includes daily maximums and
have concentration (mg/13 and mass (lbs/day) limits. A!
(e) Results of al1 monitoring shall be recorded on forms provided by the department, and submitted t
fifteenth day following the close of the reporting period. Your reporting period is on a monthl
last day of each month.
, , - - results needed to determine compliance with the limitations con-
tained 1n this permit. This includes daily maximums and mlnimums, 30-day averages and 7-day averages for all oarameters that
have concentration (mg/1) and mass (lbs/day) limits. Also, flow data shall be reported In m1?Tion9g^ ions ier day CM&5) .
o the department by the
y basis, ending on the
1 Outfa 11
I Number
i
| Wastewater Parameter
1 Sample
.1 Frequency
! Sample
Type
1 026
I
| STORMWATER
I 1/3 MONTH
I1/3 MONTH
1 VISUAL
SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
1 027
1
STORMWATER
1
(visual
I VISUAL
SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
1 028
1
STORMWATER
t1/3 MONTH
Ib/week '
SEE PAGE 7 OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
1 801
I
FLOW
I 1/12 MONTHS
124 HR TOTAL
FINAL EFFLUENT
1 801
1
ACUTE TOXICITY, CERIODAPHNIA
I 1/12 MONTHS
I 24 HR C0MP
FINAL EFFLUENT
1 BOt
1
ACUTE TOXICITY. PIMEPHAi.ES
I 24 HR C0MP
FINAL EFFLUENT
!
I
j j
! 1
j
II —
|
j
1
!
I
•
i
!
i
f
j
|
i
I ¦
1 I
-------
Page 16
Facility Name: John Deere Dubuque Works
Permit Number: 31-26-1-07
SPECIAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Total Residual Chlorine: Outfall 004
Samples shall be collected at the condenser discharge before mixing with other wastestrearns. Samples need to be
collected only on days that the condenser is chlorinated.
Total Toxic Organics: Outfall Oil
Total Toxic Organic pollutants shall be limited to the following parameters:
CARBON TET.
CHLOROFORM
BENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
XYLENE
TCE
Stormwater: Outfall 009, 010,014,015, 016,017,018,019,020,021,023, 024, 025, 026,027, and 028
See the attached "Stormwater Discharge Requirements" for Outfall applicability and monitoring parameters.
Where an OutfaU requires stormwater monitoring, the monitoring shall be conducted at the frequency and
location specified by the "Monitoring and Reporting Requirements".
If John Deere maintains that each outfall in the groupings drains similarly compared to the other outfalls in
the same groupings and probably contain similar pollutants, it is acceptable to conduct stormwater
monitoring at only one of the outfalls in each grouping.
1,1 DCE
1,1 DCA
T-1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
1,1,2 - TRICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE
-------
Page 17
Facility Name: John Deere Dubuque Works
Permit Number: 31-26-1-07
Outfall Number: 002
Ceriodaphnia and Pimephales Toxicity Effluent Testing
1. For facilities that have not been required to conduct toxicity testing by a previous
NPDES permit, the annual toxicity test shall be conducted within three months of
permit issuance and at least annually thereafter. For facilities that have been required to
conduct toxicity testing by a previous NPDES permit, the initial annual toxicity test
shall be conducted within twelve months (12) of the last toxicity test.
2. The test organisms that are to be used for acute toxicity testing shall be Ceriodaphnia
dubia and Pimephales promelas. The acute toxicity testing procedures used to
demonstrate compliance with permit limits shall be those listed in 40 CFR Part 136 and
adopted by reference in rule 567-63.inV The method for measuring acute toxicity is
specified in USEPA. 1993. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fourth Edition. Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio August 1993
EPA/600/4-90/027F.
3. The diluted effluent sample must contain a minimum of 91.8% effluent and no
more than 8.2% of culture water.
4. One valid positive toxicity result will require quarterly testing for effluent toxicity.
5. Two successive valid positive toxicity results or three positive results out of five
successive valid effluent toxicity tests will require a toxic reduction evaluation to be
completed to eliminate the toxicity.
6. A non-toxic test result shall be indicated as a "1" on the monthly operation report. A
toxic test result shall be indicated as a "2" on the monthly operation report. DNR Form
542-1381 shall also be submitted to the DNR field office along with the monthly
operation report.
Ceriodaphnia and Pimephales Toxicity Effluent Limits
The 30 day average mass limit of "1" for the parameters Acute Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia
and Acute Toxicity, Pimephales means no positive toxicity results.
Definition: "Positive toxicity result" means a statistical difference of mortality rate between
the control and the diluted effluent sample. For more information see USEPA.
1993 • Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and
Marine—Organisms. Fourth Edition, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio August
1993, EPA/600/4-90/027F.
-------
Page 18
Facility Name: John Deere Dubuque Works
Permit Number: 31-26-1-07
Outfall Number: 801
Ceriodaphnia and Piroephales Toxicity Effluent Testing
1. For facilities that have not been required to conduct toxicity testing by a previous
NPDES permit, the annual toxicity test shall be conducted within three month,¦^ of
permit issuance and at least annually thereafter. For facilities that have been required to
conduct toxicity testing by a previous NPDES permit, the initial annual toxicity test
shall be conducted within twelve months (12) of the last toxicity test.
2. The test organisms that are to be used for acute toxicity testing shall be Ceriodaphnia
dubia and Pimephales promelas. The acute toxicity testing procedures used to
demonstrate compliance with permit limits shall be those listed in 40 CFR Part anrt
adopted by reference in rule 567—63. lflV The method for measuring acute toxicity is
specified in USEPA. 1993. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fourth Edition. Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio August 1993,
EPA/600/4-90/027F.
3. The diluted effluent sample must contain a minimum of 79% effluent and no more
than 21% of culture water.
4. One valid positive toxicity result will require quarterly testing for effluent toxicity.
5. Two successive valid positive toxicity results or three positive results out of five
successive valid effluent toxicity tests will require a toxic reduction evaluation to be
completed to eliminate the toxicity.
6. A non-toxic test result shall be indicated as a "1" on the monthly operation report, A
toxic test result shall be indicated as a "2" on the monthly operation report. DNR Form
542-1381 shall also be submitted to the DNR field office along with the monthly
operation report.
Ceriodaphnia and Pimephales Toxicity Effluent Limits
The 30 day average mass limit of "1" for the parameters Acute Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia
and Acute Toxicity, Pimephales means no positive toxicity results.
Definition: Positive toxicity result" means a statistical difference of mortality rate between
the control and the diluted effluent sample. For more information see USEPA.
1993- Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms. Fourth Edition. Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio August
1993, EPA/600/4-90/027F.
-------
Page 19
Facility Name: John Deere Dubuque Works
IA NPDES permit#: 31-26-1-07
Outfall #: 004
SPECIAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Compliance with the temperature limitations for Outfall #004, which prohibits the
discharge of ^ water which would increase the ambient stream temperature by
more than 3 C (5.4 F), shall be determined by using the following formula for
calculating temperature increase:
AT = £D)x(Td.Tq)
Q
Where:
AT = temperature increase across mixing zone
T(j = temperature of discharge (°F)
Tq = temperature of river at intake (°F)
D = discharge flow (mgd)
Q = mixing zone flow (82.3 mgd)
The temperature of the river at intake (Tq) shall be measured upstream of the
actual intake at a point beyond the influence of re-circulated water flow.
-------
STORM WATER DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
This section authorizes the discharge of storm water from industrial activity associated with industrial activity
from facilities that manufacture transportation equipment, industrial, or commercial machinery:
PART I. DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGES COVERED UNDER THIS PERMIT
A. Discharges Covered Under This Section
This section applies to discharges(s) of storm water associated with the following industrial activities;
• industrial plant yards; material handling sites; refuse sites;
• sites used for application or disposal of process wastewater;
• sites used for storage and maintenance of material handling equipment;
• sites used for residual treatment, storage, or disposal; shipping and receiving areas;
• manufacturing buildings; storage areas for raw material and intermediate and finished products; and
• areas where industrial activity has taken place in the past and significant materials remain and are
exposed to storm water.
B. Storm Water Discharge Not Associated With Industrial Activity
Storm water discharges associated with industrial activity authorized by this permit may be combined with other
sources of storm water that are not classified as associated with industrial activity pursuant to 40 CFR
122.26(b) (14).
C. Limitation on Coverage
Unless otherwise authorized elsewhere in this NPDES permit, the following discharges are not authorized by
this permit:
- the discharge of hazardous substances or oil resulting from an on-site spili;
- storm water discharge associated with industrial activity from construction activity, specifically any land
disturbing activity of five or more acres;
D- Non-storm Water Discharges
The following non-storm water discharges are authorized by this permit provided the non-storm water
component of the discharge is in compliance with the conditions in Part III.A.3.g. of the pollution prevention
plan required by this permit:
discharges from fire fighting activities; fire hydrant flushing; potable water sources including waterfine flushing;
drinking fountain water, uncontaminated compressor condensate, irrigation drainage; lawn watering; routine
external building washdown that does not use detergents or other compounds; pavement washwaters where
spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have not occurred (unless all spilled material has been removed)
and where detergents are not used; air conditioning condensate; compressor condensate; uncontaminated
springs; uncontaminated ground water; and foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with
process materials such as solvents.
Page 1
6/18/97
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Appendix D
November 2,2012 Five-Year Review Site Inspection Check List and
Interview Summary Forms
-------
Appendix C
Five-Year Review Interviews
c-i
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
[This page intentionally left blank.]
C-2
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
Five-Year Review Interviews
Information gathered from interviews during the site inspection may be key to
understanding site status. Interviews should be conducted with various individuals or groups,
including the operation and maintenance (O&M) site manager, O&M staff, local regulatory
authorities and response agencies, community action groups or associations, site neighbors, and
other stakeholders.
When conducting an interview, the interviewer should note the date of the interview, and
the name, title, and affiliation of the person interviewed. The interviewer should also indicate
whether the interview was conducted at the site, the office, or by phone. Written documentation of
the interview should briefly summarize the discussion, address any problems or successes with the
implementation of the remedy, and provide suggestions for future reference. Forms to use during
interviews are provided at the end of this appendix.
The following tables provide lists of potential individuals to interview and the type of
information which may be obtained during the interviews. The potential individuals to be
interviewed are categorized by their ability to provide the following types of information:
Background information;
State and local considerations;
• Construction considerations; and
Performance, Operation and maintenance problems.
All of these individuals may be contacted during the five-year review. In most cases
interviewing only a few key individuals will provide sufficient information for the review.
Background Information
The individuals listed below may provide information concerning previous and current
concerns about the site, influences that affected the remedy decision, and further clarification on
decisions made during remedy selection.
Interview
Information Sought
Previous EPA Staff/Management
- staff members may offer insight and clarification on decisions
made during remedy selection and implementation
Nearest Neighbors
- neighbors may provide insight into the enforcement of institutional
controls, changes in land use, trespassing, and unusual or
unexpected activity at the site
C-3
-------
OS If'£7? No. 9355.7-03B-P
Interview
Information Sought
Community Representatives*
- members of the community may provide a broader view of site
activities and issues than can be obtained during the site
inspection
* Several types of individuals may be interviewed: residents/businesses adjacent to or on the site;
residents/businesses within the path of migration; local civic leaders, local officials, Community Advisory Group
(CAG), Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) group, and local environmental groups; and other audiences listed in the
community profile in the Community Involvement Plan.
Some example interview questions are given below.
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
2. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community?
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
4. 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.
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management
or operation?
State and Local Considerations
State and local authorities may provide you with information about changes in State laws
and regulations and present and prospective land uses and restrictions.
Interview
Information Sought
State Contacts (including those responsible
for State water quality, hazardous waste,
and environmental health issues)
Local Authorities (such as police,
emergency response or fire departments,
and local environmental or planning offices)
changes in State laws and regulations that may impact
protectiveness
whether the site has been in compliance with permitting or
reporting requirements
information on site activities, status, and issues
status of institutional controls, site access controls, new
ordinances in place, changes in actual or projected land use,
complaints being filed, and unusual activities at the site
C-4
-------
Some example interview questions are given below.
OSWER No. 9355.7-03 B-P
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
2. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and
results.
3. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a
response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses.
4. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
5. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management or operation?
Construction Considerations
It is important for you to determine the status of construction at the site and to ensure that
health and safety concerns are addressed.
Interview
Information Sought
Construction Contractor
- progress of project and changes in design due to field conditions
revisions to the O&M Manual, implementation of the Health and
Safety Plan/Contingency Plan
insight into potential O&M problems
Construction Manager
overview of all contractor construction activities at the site, health
and safety issues, site protectiveness during construction, and the
quality of the construction
Local Emergency Response Officials
- adequacy of contractor's Health and Safety Plan and the
contractor's implementation of the Plan
adequacy of contractor's emergency response duties as outlined
in the Contingency Plan or Emergency Response Plan of the
Health and Safety Plan
Some example interview questions for remedial actions still under construction are given
below.
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
2. What is the current status of construction (e.g., budget and schedule)?
3. Have any problems been encountered which required, or will require, changes to this
remedial design or this ROD?
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
4. Have any problems or difficulties been encountered which have impacted construction
progress or implementability?
5. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project (i.e.,
design, construction documents, constructability, management, regulatory agencies, etc.)?
Performance, Operation And Maintenance Problems
The following individuals may provide information to you regarding the performance of the
remedy and status of O&M at the site so that the team can assess the progress of the
implementation and effectiveness of the remedy, and any O&M problems.
Interview
Information Sought
O&M Manager/Operating Contractor
- O&M status of the remedy, compliance with permit and reporting
requirements, and complaints filed
effectiveness of the O&M Plan
information about any potential causes for concern about the
remedy
- progress and performance of the remedy
O&M Staff
- effectiveness of the O&M Manual
- information about any potential causes for concern about the
remedy
Recommendations for adjusting the mode of operation or
optimizing the operations protocol
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Consultant
original concepts behind the O&M of the remedy
questions about remedial design parameters, expected
performance and cost, and changes that have occurred during
implementation
Some example interview questions are given below.
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
2. Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?
3. What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels
are decreasing?
4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff and activities. If
there is not a continuous on-site presence, describe staff and frequency of site inspections
and activities.
5. Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules,
or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the
protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.
C-6
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
6. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up or in the last
five years? If so, please give details.
7. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? Please describe
changes and resultant or desired cost savings or improved efficiency.
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project?
C-7
-------
OSWERNo 9355.7-03B-P
INTERVIEW DOCUMENTATION FORM
The following is a list of individual interv iewed for this five-year review. See the attached
contact record(s) for a detailed summary of the interviews.
fcrWi I i
/lussd ... EtripltKiTfajr S^>c
-------
OSWERNo 9355.7-03B-P
II INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: JoUn V-tCCC !> ^\M4^cf»JL
™e:gufrwftk, -SisAiXUt^ef
jaUft' Octre
Organization:
Telephone No: (.5(ei\ S^i *52-5^
Fax No:
|| E-Mail Address^^lrvt^SeJtTOlaWVMe. cow
J 1 , ^
Street Address: 1 $600 iouHv To\avv
City,State,Zip:tf«, I"A -53COI
Summary Of Conversation
V (j) \A_ 0"^ v"
Cov\cJLr>A_S g^4-£ . fit Mi V\AaM_ s
ys-S-K^^ co^ASl^^f" ivjrM^ -Ha*.
^roCJLiS \vA.cto^ i^j (A.^<^na4oNA.\Avu^ 6f v^OVaHtO
vJsiAS "+\a^ W°^K- V Ivto (\t«S^ v^-ct cljL^vV- \J^>
Ci^^uiOv WHA\ 0|}^c4\jv\HHl 4\s rei^CL
/^KVL mo^VVotM^ frt^M^vcj, H< S+ckd *4W tox\U^
)S \W. C0VAA^\|(AMU. Ui^UA a.i m4«m. 6c c) •
¦¦ ~
Page 1 of
C-9
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Vtrf Dw Urfv*. kW/
EPA ID So.OAVCCSX,ci&l
Subject: f]f^JA fj^t £tl/Idul
Timezld'OOa.*. Date:/(fj.)(2 \
Type: ~ Telephone ^Visit ~ Other
Location ofVlsit^Vivt \UOTt Uum
~ Incoming c Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name:OlMAA< iLH
Title: pjfi{
Organization: £ p?4
Individual Contacted:
Namv/HilfaAtt. fcoifa
l>M.
„ . .. T«W IKeoc
Organization: D.,W v>y
Telephone No:(5^^) 5^1-6537
Fax No:
E-Mail Address^-fU r^WvtU ikWDeert.t**
Street Address: |4£,00 Sou+Lv *5oLh. R><\
City, State, Zipot , XA 53061
Summary Of Conversation
/t^S. 6f-/fa s4tcW6 sLl, i */L^-
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: L)qCK (
Subject: Plf4jx ffot KhtU
Tvpe: BJ^felephone ~ Visit ~ Other
EPA ID NoST7
Time: i: ZOjfM Date: t (^
Type: ^Telephone
Location of Visit:
~ Incoming ~ Outgoing
Contact Made By:
tLiJ
Title:
AW
Organization: £PA
Individual Contacted:
Names TLJtMM\¦ Title: Sc$ctu^sf Organization: /tffcajl S
. .
Telephone No: (S /3) 5STS".S~7 V (
Fax No:
E-Mail Address: ."Ha juS JU
Street Address: fT)cS\r«.
City, State, Zip: < 480
Ta.\m(»&• , fL 3JC
{ tM.
Summary Of Conversation
/Vij. tAJ
cof" t\A\.
-fLuH. £-rt /\o oF off'st-k- *m!>j~scufftvvj
ov\_ • f"ls. "7^*^<^io
p\
-------
OSIVER No 9355 7-03B-P
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: 7^? UlafKf
EPA ID No.•OAt>60&t)ct SX1
Subject: ££^ ^ft£u-
Time:/(--Sg^v< 1 Date:(flff ))f3.
Type: O^Ieiephone
Location of Visit:
~ Visit
~ Other
~ Incoming ~ Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Title:
Organization p ^
Name: ^Q]>rO3 C&ii
City, State, Zip:^ ( X{K 50l\\
Summary Of Conversation
Individual Contacted:
^/jr ~]){xJ S-f~Wj> ?vy\J 1 c ccU_ Wjl 1/VA.l
^QVACX-Ci^J ftJ
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
Appendix D
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist
D-1
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
[This page intentionally left blank.]
D-2
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist
Purpose of the Checklist
The site inspection checklist provides a useful method for collecting important information
during the site inspection portion of the five-year review. The checklist serves as a reminder of
what information should to be gathered and provides the means of checking off information
obtained and reviewed, or information not available or applicable. The checklist is divided into
sections as follows:
I. Site Information
II. Interviews
III. On-site Documents & Records Verified
IV. O&M Costs
V. Access and Institutional Controls
VI. General Site Conditions
VII. Landfill Covers
VIII. Vertical Barrier Walls
IX. Groundwater/Surface Water Remedies
X. Other Remedies
XI. Overall Observations
Some data and information identified in the checklist may or may not be available at the
site depending on how the site is managed. Sampling results, costs, and maintenance reports may
be kept on site or may be kept in the offices of the contractor or at State offices. In cases where the
information is not kept at the site, the item should not be checked as "not applicable," but rather it
should be obtained from the office or agency where it is maintained. If this is known in advance, it
may be possible to obtain the information before the site inspection.
This checklist was developed by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). It
focuses on the two most common types of remedies that are subject to five-year reviews: landfill
covers, and groundwater pump and treat remedies. Sections of the checklist are also provided for
some other remedies. The sections on general site conditions would be applicable to a wider
variety of remedies. The checklist should be modified to suit your needs when inspecting other
types of remedies, as appropriate.
The checklist may be completed and attached to the Five-Year Review report to document
site status. Please note that the checklist is not meant to be completely definitive or restrictive;
additional information may be supplemented if the reviewer deems necessary. Also note that
actual site conditions should be documented with photographs whenever possible.
D-3
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
Using the Checklist for Types of Remedies
The checklist has sections designed to capture information concerning the main types of
remedies which are found at sites requiring five-year reviews. These remedies are landfill covers
(Section VII of the checklist) and groundwater and surface water remedies (Section IX of the
checklist). The primary elements and appurtenances for these remedies are listed in sections which
can be checked off as the facility is inspected. The opportunity is also provided to note site
conditions, write comments on the facilities, and attach any additional pertinent information. If a
site inc ludes remedies beyond these, such as soil vapor extraction or soil land farming, the
information should be gathered in a similar manner and attached to the checklist.
Considering Operation and Maintenance Costs
Unexpectedly widely varying or unexpectedly high O&M costs may be early indicators of
remedy problems. For this reason, it is important to obtain a record of the original O&M cost
estimate and of annual O&M costs during the years for which costs incurred are available.
Section IV of the checklist provides a place for documenting annual costs and for commenting on
unanticipated or unusually high O&M costs. A more detailed categorization of costs may be
attached to the checklist if available. Examples of categories of O&M costs are listed below.
Operating Labor - This includes all wages, salaries, training, overhead, and fringe benefits
associated with the labor needed for operation of the facilities and equipment associated with the
remedial actions.
Maintenance Equipment and Materials - This includes the costs for equipment, parts, and other
materials required to perform routine maintenance of facilities and equipment associated with a
remedial action.
Maintenance Labor - This includes the costs for labor required to perform routine maintenance of
facilities and for equipment associated with a remedial action.
Auxiliary Materials and Energy - This includes items such as chemicals and utilities which can
include electricity, telephone, natural gas, water, and fuel. Auxiliary materials include other
expendable materials such as chemicals used during plant operations.
Purchased Services - This includes items such as sampling costs, laboratory fees, and other
professional services for which the need can be predicted.
Administrative Costs - This includes all costs associated with administration of O&M not included
under other categories, such as labor overhead.
D-4
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
Insurance. Taxes and Licenses - This includes items such as liability and sudden and accidental
insurance, real estate taxes on purchased land or right-of-way, licensing fees for certain
technologies, and permit renewal and reporting costs.
Other Costs - This includes all other items which do not fit into any of the above categories.
D-5
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
D-6
-------
OSWERNo 9355.7-03B-P
Please note that "O&M" is referred to throughout this checklist. At sites where Long-Term
Response Actions are in progress, O&M activities may be referred to as "system operations" since
these sites are not considered to be in the O&M phase while being remediated under the Superfund
program,
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist (Template)
(Working document for site inspection. Information may be completed by hand and attached to the
Five-Year Review report as supporting documentation of site status. "N/A" refers to "not applicable.")
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: UhrtK
Date of inspection:
nfj hx
Location and Region:]),, 1
EPA ID: XADOCSM 5^7
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review: gpft JUyiM 1
Weather/temperature:
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
Landfill cover containment
Access controls
^Institutional controls
V Groundwater pump and treatment
Surface water collection and treatment
Other
Monitored natural attenuation
/Groundwater containment
Vertical barrier walls
Attachments:
Inspection team roster attached
Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
t vnro [
1. O&M site manager fV j I EWlM.
Name
Interviewed at sitd at office by phone Phone no. (Sa^
Date
kt site
Problems, suggestions;
Report attached
i «R>vv JijlJTx
2. O&M staff^i/fl/u'.g
Name Title
Interviewed ([at site) at office by phone Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; Report attached
Date
D-7
-------
OSWERNo 9355.7-03B-P
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.
AgencyjI.jteJa 6? /{JcJvteJ. o\l(CC£
C ontact
Name
Problems; suggestions; Report attached
Title
fuittua/ johifix
•J Date Phnnp no
Phone no.
Agency
Contact
Name
Title
Date
Phone no.
Problems; suggestions;
Report attached
Agency
Contact
Name
Title
Date
Phone no.
Problems; suggestions;
Report attached
Agency
Contact
Name
Title
Date
Phone no.
Problems; suggestions;
Report attached
4.
Other interviews (optional) Report attached.
rit/waM. ' /¦(
D-8
-------
OSiVER No, 9355.7-03B-P
III, ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
O&M manual
As-built drawings
Maintenance logs
Remarks
^Readily available
steadily available
"Readily available
vtp to date
vl/p to date
x/p to date
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ^Readily available
Contingency plan emergency response plan ^Readily available
Remarks
"'t'p to date
Ajp to date
N/A
N/A
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks
"'Readily available
A. p to date
N/A
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
Air discharge permit
Effluent discharge
Waste disposal, POTW
Other permits
Remarks
Readily available
t/keadily available
Readily available
Readily available
vf'p to date
»^Up to date
Up to date
Up to date
N/A
N/A
vrf/A
vtf/A
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks
leadily available Up to date ^N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks
Readily available
Up to date
~N/A
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records
Remarks
Readily available
*/Up to date
N/A
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks
Readily available
Up to date
~N A
9.
Discharge Compliance Records
Air
Water (effluent)
Remarks
¦" Readily available
^ Readily available
v Up to date
*Ajp to date
N/A
N/A
10.
Daily Access/Security Logs
Remarks
''Readily available
to date
N/A
D-9
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
IV. O&M COSTS
O&M Organization
State in-housc Contractor for State
<4>RP in-house ^/Contractor for PRP
Federal Facility in-house Contractor for Federal Facility
Other
O&M Cost Records
Readily available v{jp to date
Funding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From To Breakdown attached
Breakdown attached
Breakdown attached
Breakdown attached
Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
Date
Date
Total cost
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ^Applicable N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing damaged Location shown on site map v^ates secured N/A
Remarks
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures Location shown on site map v^/A
Remarks
D-10
-------
OSWERNo 9355.7-03B-P
c.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
1,
Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Yes ^rJo
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Yes ^fs'o
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)
N/A
N/A
Frequency
Responsible party/agency %Ua "DxtfC W«^N/A
Remarks
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A.
Roads Applicable N/A
1.
Roads damaged Location shown on site map •''Roads adequate
Remarks
N/A
D-ll
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
B.
Other Site Conditions
Romnr-lrc
-
VII.
LANDFILL COVERS Applicable vfc/A
A.
Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (Low spots)
Areal extent
Remarks
Location shown on site map Settlement not evident
Depth
2.
Cracks
Lengths
Location shown on site map Cracking not evident
Widths Depths
Remarks
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 Grass 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 Bulges not evident
Height
D-12
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
8.
Wet Areas/Water Damage
Wet areas/water damage not evident
Wet areas
Location shown on site map Areal extent
Ponding
Location shown on site map Areal extent
Seeps
Location shown on site map Areal extent
Soft subgrade
Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks
9.
Slope Instability Slides Location shown on site map No evidence of slope instability
Areal extent
Remarks
B.
Benches Applicable v^/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
Location shown on site map N/A or okay
Remarks
2.
Bench Breached
Location shown on site map N/A or okay
Remarks
3.
Bench Overtopped
Location shown on site map N/A or okay
Remarks
C.
Letdown Channels Applicable *^N/A
(Channel Heed 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
Location shown on site map No evidence of settlement
Areal extent
Depth
Remarks
2.
Material Degradation
Location shown on site map No evidence of degradation
Material type
Areal extent
Remarks
3.
Erosion
Location shown on site map No evidence of erosion
Areal extent
Depth
Remarks
_—
D-13
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
4.
Undercutting Location shown on site map No evidence of undercutting
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
5.
Obstructions Type
Location shown on site map
Size
Remarks
No obstructions
Areal extent
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Type
No evidence of excessive growth
Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks
D.
Cover Penetrations Applicable v^N/A
1.
Gas Vents Active
Properly secured/locked Functioning
Evidence of leakage at penetration
N/A
Remarks
Passive
Routinely sampled Good condition
Needs Maintenance
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
Properly secured/locked Functioning
Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks
Routinely sampled Good condition
Needs Maintenance N/A
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
4.
Leach ate Extraction Wells
Properly secured/locked Functioning
Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks
Routinely sampled Good condition
Needs Maintenance N/A
5.
Settlement Monuments Located Routinely surveyed N/A
Remarks
D-14
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment
Applicable *X°t/A
1.
Gas Treatment Facilities
Flaring
Good condition
Remarks
Thermal destruction Collection for reuse
Needs Maintenance
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
«4l/A
1.
Outlet Pipes Inspected
Remarks
Functioning
N/A
2.
Outlet Rock Inspected
Remarks
Functioning
N/A
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds
Applicable
*^J/A
1.
Siltation Area! extent
Depth
N/A
Siltation not evident
Remarks
2.
Erosion Areal extent Depth
Erosion not evident
Remarks
3.
Outlet Works
Remarks
Functioning N/A
4.
Dam
Remark -
Functioning N/A
D-15
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
H. Retaining Walls Applicable */N/A
I. Deformations Location shown on site map Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement _ Vertical displacement
Rotational displacement
Remarks
2.
Degradation Location shown on site map Degradation not evident
Remarks
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge Applicable w^/A
1.
Siltation Location shown on site map Siltation not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
2.
Vegetative Growth 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 Functioning N/A
Remarks
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS Applicable «^s'/A
1.
Settlement Location shown on site map Settlement not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remark
2.
Performance MonitorlngType of monitoring
Performance not monitored
Frequency Evidence of breaching
Head differential
Remarks
D-16
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES Applicable N/A
A.
Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines V^pplicable N/A
1.
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
^Xiood condition VAU required wells properly operating Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
2.
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
»4jood condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided
Remarks
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable v^j/A
1.
Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical
Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided
Remarks
D-17
-------
OSlVERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
c.
Treatment System Applicable y^/A
1.
Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
Metals removal Oil/water separation
Air stripping Carbon adsorbers
Filters
Bioremediation
Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)
Others
Good condition Needs Maintenance
Sampling ports properly marked and functional
Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
Equipment properly identified
Quantity of groundwater treated annually
Quantity of surface water treated annually
Remarks
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
N/A Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
N/A Good condition Proper secondary containment Needs Maintenance
Remarks
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
N/A Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
5.
Treatment Building(s)
N/A Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)
Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks
Needs repair
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled
All required wells located Needs Maintenance
Remarks
Good condition
N/A
D. Monitoring Data
1.
Monitoring Data ,
routinely submitted on time v4s of acceptable quality
2.
Monitoring data suggests: .
v Groundwater plume is effectively contained vl'ontaminant concentrations are declining
D-18
-------
OSWERNo 9355.7-03B-P
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
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 cov ered 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.
XI. 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.).
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). ,
it*, jjfJjf c4fa ft (AU. dy .faicLuJtS All A
u odu fnf -f'jU 1 Odud&ffl
i -\/ d/ftu/ic 'r iXa i'toi C-±j waJdd
a ofFjfi-/<- jyUl&rfi2sh.7 *k.e/iVf_ at*
ixj-in. l4'i\: AMi "PLl •
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 .
7Ll ££*A ujtjll ^Lvu), vVlOlai'hi(M i
h± f q o A C cr
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
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.
promised
D Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
KffiAfKc rrnvnAOiAjft^t/ /HqmJ/pt- Mr . f A
^Qyu4e.«Ufl uJ±JAl -4Aajs1' '
iti£r»0 ceJAsi &£.UtuH6 *wLl c (&/aaa. C rifc/lX fo/ CQl
jtc of t^QviH-u r.0^ eJla
"r8 M cast ^Ffct-diUt-
V\aa/<,
rri-tevtV BlC COti.
D-20
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Appendix E
Performance Standard Calculations
-------
1.1-Diehloroethane
C(mg/L) = THI x BW xATx 365 days/year
EF x ED x [(-JL x K x IR) * (—L_ x //Ml
RfD. RfD w,i
Parameters
Definition
Default Value
C
Chemical Concentration in water mg/L
-
THI
Target Hazard Index (unitless)
1
RfD0
Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
1.0 x 10"1 mg/kg-day
RfD;
Inhalation Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
1.4 x 10"1 mg/kg-day
BW
Adult Body Weight (kg)
70 kg
AT
Averaging Time (yr)
30 yr
EF
Exposure Frequency (days/yr)
350 days/yr
ED
Exposure Duration (yr)
30 yr
IR,
Daily Indoor Inhalation Rate (m3/day)
15 m3/day
IR.
Ingestion Rate (L/day)
2 L/day
K
Volatilization Factor (L/m3)
0.5 L/m3
Ti
C(mg/L) = —ii— = 0.99 mg/L
7.5 2
(U4 + oI
Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B,
Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals), p. 22,
-------
1.1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
TR x BW x AT x 365 daystvear
C(mg/L) -
EF x ED x [(,SFi x K x JRJ + (SFa X /tfj]
Parameters
Definition
Default Value
C
Chemical Concentration in water mg/L
-
TR
Target Excess Individual Lifetime Cancer
Risk (unitless)
10*
SF0
Oral Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)"1
2.0 x 10"1 mg/kg-day1
sf5
Inhalation Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)"1
2.0 x 10"1 mg/kg-day"1
BW
Adult Body Weight (kg)
70 kg
AT
Averaging Time (yr)
70 yr
EF
Exposure Frequency (days/yr)
350 days/yr
ED
Exposure Duration (yr)
30 yr
IR,
Daily Indoor Inhalation Rate (m3/day)
15 m3/day
l»w
Ingestion Rate (L/day)
2 L/day
K
Volatilization Factor (L/m3)
0.5 L/m3
C(mg/L) = ——^ X 10~4 = 8.95 x 10"5 mg/L
(7.5 x 0.2) + (2 x 0.2)
Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B,
Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals), p. 23.
-------
Hexavalent Chromium
THI x BW x AT x 365 days/year
C(mg/L)
EFxEDx [( —5— x Kx IIIa _U xIRJ]
RfDi RfDa
Parameters
Definition
Default Value
C
Chemical Concentration in water mg/L
-
THI
Target Hazard Index (unitless)
1
Rfl)0
Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
3 x 10 "3
RfDj
Inhalation Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
none
BW
Adult Body Weight (kg)
70 kg
AT
Averaging Time (yr)
30 yr
EF
Exposure Frequency (days/yr)
350 days/yr
ED
Exposure Duration (yr)
30 days/yr
IRa
Daily Indoor Inhalation Rate (m3/day)
15 m3/day
T
Ingestion Rate (L/day)
2 L/day
K
Volatilization Factor (L/m3)
0,5 L/m3
73
C(mg/L) = ™r~ = 0.110 mg/L
( )
Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Supcrfund, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B,
Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals), p. 22.
g:\proj\tfl034\2003\5-year review\Hexavalent Chromium
-------
FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS
DUBUQUE, IOWA
USEPA ID Number: IAD005269527
^tD S7^
PHO^
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
Lenexa, Kansas
Cecilia Tapia , Division Director
Date:
-------
Fifth Five-Year Review
Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque
Works
EPA ID Number
IAD005269527
Prepared for:
John Deere Dubuque Works
Our Ref.:
TF001034.0025
Date:
28 February 2013
-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Site Chronology 2
3. Background 2
3.1 Physical Characteristics 2
3.2 Land and Resource Use 3
3.3 History of Contamination 5
3.4 Regulatory History 6
4. Remedial Actions 8
4.1 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study 8
4.2 Record of Decision 9
4.3 Consent Decree and Performance Standards 9
4.4 Remedy Implementation 14
4.4.1 Remedial Design 14
4.4.2 Remedial Performance from Implementation in September 1990 to
March 2008 16
4.4.3 Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance 27
5. Progress since Last Review 28
5.1.1 Protectiveness Statement 28
5.1.2 Recommendations and Status of Follow-up Actions 28
6. Fifth Five-Year Review Findings 32
6.1 Community Notification and Involvement 32
6.2 Document Review 32
6.3 Data Review 33
6.3.1 Groundwater Withdrawal 34
6.3.2 Surface Water 34
6.3.3 NAPL 36
6.3.4 Groundwater Quality 36
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx i
-------
Table of Contents
6.4 Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance 38
6.5 Site Inspection 39
6.6 Interviews 39
7. Technical Assessment 40
8. Issues 42
9. Recommendations and Required Actions 43
10. Protectiveness Statement 45
11. Next Review 45
Figures
1 Site Location
2 Site Map
3 Well Locations Map
4 Tetrachloroethene Concentrations Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer
5 Trichloroethene Concentrations Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer
6 Benzene Concentrations Detected in the Alluvial Aquifer
Tables
1 Chronolgy of Site Events
2 Constituents of Concern
3 Summary of Groundwater Withdrawal System and NAPL Monitoring
4 Current Performance Standards for Contaminants in Groundwater
5 NPDES Effluent Limitations for the Constituents of Concern in Outfall
011
6 Alluvial Production Well Pumping Summary
7 Paired Well Head Difference Summary
8 Chemical Groundwater Analyses Summary
9 Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Quarterly Monitoring Results
10 SBW-4 Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Monitoring Results
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx jj
-------
Table of Contents
Appendices
A Documents Reviewed
B Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data
C NPDES Permit
D November 2, 2012 Five-Year Review Site Inspection Check List and
Interview Summary Forms
E Performance Standard Calculations
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Acronyms
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ARARs
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BOD5
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BTEX
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
COC
Contaminants of Concern
COPCs
Constituents of Potential Concern
FID
Flame Ionization Detector
FS
Feasibility Study
ft2
Square Feet
ft bis
Feet below land surface
HAL
Health Advisory Level
HRS
Hazard Ranking System
IDNR
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information
JDDW
John Deere Dubuque Works
kg
Kilogram
lbs/day
Pounds per Day
MCLs
Maximum Contaminant Levels
mg/kg
Milligrams per Kilogram
mg/kg-day
Milligrams per Kilogram Day
mg/L
Milligrams per Liter
msl
Mean Sea Level
MGD
Million Gallons per Day
NAPL
Non-aqueous Phase Liquid
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL
National Priorities List
NRL
Negligible Risk Level
O&M
Operation and maintenance
PCE
Tetrachloroethene
PRP
Potentially responsible party
RA
Remedial Action
RAOs
Remedial Action Objectives
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD
Remedial Design
Rl
Remedial Investigation
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD
Record of Decision
SVOCs
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
i
-------
Acronyms
TCE
Trichloroethene
TCL
Target Compound List
TPH
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TTO
Total Toxic Organic
UECA
Uniform Environmental Covenants Act
ug/L
Micrograms per Liter
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOCs
Volatile Organic Compounds
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The remedy for the John Deere Dubuque Works (JDDW) site in Dubuque, Iowa includes pumping
groundwater from the alluvial aquifer, using the existing production wells to maintain an inward
hydraulic gradient. The remedy also includes using deed restrictions and Environmental
Covenants to prevent inappropriate use of the plant property in the future. In addition, wells
tapping the alluvial aquifer beneath the JDDW property for the purpose of extracting water for
human drinking purposes or for irrigation of food or feed crops are not allowed.
According to the data reviewed, the site inspection, and the interviews, the remedy is functioning
as intended by the Record of Decision (ROD). There have been no changes in the physical
conditions of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. The selected remedy
remains protective of human health and the environment and complies with Federal and State
requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to this remedial action. Therefore,
this remedy continues to be protective to human health and the environment.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
3
-------
Five-Year Review
Summary Form
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: John Deere (Dubuque Works)
USEPA ID: IAD005269527
Region: : 7 State: IA
NPL Status: Non-NPL
City/County: Dubuque/Dubuque
SITE STATUS
Multiple OUs?
NO
Has the site achieved construction completion?
N/A
Lead agency: USEPA
If "Other Federal Agency" was selected above, enter Agency name:
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): KATHERINE THALMAN
Author affiliation: ARCADIS
Review period: 4/1/08 - 3/31/13
Date of site inspection: 11/2/12
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 5
Triggering action date: 08/11/2008
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 08/11/2013
* ["OU" refers to operable unit.]
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
4
-------
Five-Year Review
Summary Form
Issues/Recommendations
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
N/A
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: Per the USEPA recommendations in Section 9.0 of the 2"a Five-Year Review Report
(1998), the following wells were removed from the groundwater monitoring program, as these
wells have not had any exceedances of the Performance Standards in the last five years:
MW-7S, MW-7D, MW-11S, MW-11D, MW-16, MW-20S, MW-20D, and SBW-3/3N.
Recommendation: The following wells are recommended for removal from the groundwater
monitoring program, as these wells have been below the Cleanup Criteria for all sample
events over the last two reporting periods. Additionally, three of the wells have been below
the Cleanup Criteria during all sample events: MW-8S, MW-9S, MW-12, PW-3A, PW-4A,
PW-5, PW-7A.
Recommend abandonment of wells MW-2, MW-11D, MW-16, MW-20D, and SBW-3N which
were removed from the groundwater monitoring program in September 1998. MW-2 is a
historical monitor well installed during the Rl and was not included in the Consent Decree.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: Mo
nitoring
Issue: Deere shall continue NAPL monitoring and recovery operations until no more than 1/4
of an inch of NAPL is detected and verified in recovery well RW-3 and no more than 1/8 inch
of NAPL is detected and verified in monitoring wells 4, 6, 7S, 8S, 12 and 13S and recovery
wells 4 (replaced by RW-4a), 5 and G-S.
Recommendation: Reduce NAPL monitoring frequency to annually at the wells indicated in
the performance standard (MW-4, MW-6, MW-7S, MW-8S, MW-12, MW-13S, and RW-3,
RW-4(a), RW-5, and G-2S). Limit the monthly groundwater elevation monitoring to the six
paired wells to demonstrate compliance with the inward gradient. All groundwater elevations
needed to develop the contour map are to be completed once a year.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\DesktopVJDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx 5
-------
Five-Year Review
Summary Form
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: The Performance Standards require biennial sampling of monitoring wells for the
constituents of concern. Only two wells have had constituent levels higher than the cleanup
criteria, with the other wells remaining consistently below the Cleanup Criteria.
Recommendation: Reduce frequency of sampling activities from biennial to once per 5-year
reporting period.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: l\
Jo Issue/Reporting
Issue: Quarterly reports are provided to the USEPA demonstrating compliance with the
Performance Standards. These reports include a summary of activities performed on the
site, weekly flow data, and a rolling 12 month average of head differentials at the paired
monitoring wells.
Recommendation: Reduce ongoing status reports to the USEPA and IDNR from quarterly
to annually, due the 30th of January for previous year. John Deere will provide a contour
map annually to correspond with the previous reporting period.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: K
lonitoring
Issue: In October 2004, SBW-4 was added to the monitoring program and NAPL
measurements have been taken monthly. The NAPL thickness has not fluctuated
significantly over the last 5-year reporting period. Recovery well G-2D was installed and used
to draw down the water table providing better recovery in well G-2S and is not one of the
wells specified in the Consent Decree for monitoring the performance of the NAPL
withdrawal system.
Recommendation: Discontinue the monitoring of SBW-4 and close the monitoring well.
JDDW also requests approval for abandonment NAPL recovery well G-2D.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
6
-------
Five-Year Review
Summary Form
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Extraction and treatment requirements terminate after four consecutive quarters of
sampling indicate that the COC's are below the cleanup criteria. Sampling activities are no
longer performed quarterly.
Recommendation: Extraction and treatment requirements terminate after four consecutive
sampling events indicate that the COC's are below the cleanup criteria.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
JDDW
USEPA
OU(s): 01
Issue Category: l\
lo Issue
Issue: The JDDW documents are no longer present at the Carnegie-Stout Public
Library in Dubuque.
Recommendation: Evaluate the location of the site repository.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
NO
NO
USEPA
USEPA
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
01 Protective (if applicable):
N/A
Protectiveness Statement:
The selected remedy remains protective of human health and the environment and complies with
Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to this remedial action.
Therefore, this remedy continues to be protective to human health and the environment
Sitewide Protectiveness Statement (if applicable)
For sites that have achieved construction completion, enter a sitewide protectiveness determination and
statement. N/A
Protectiveness Determination: N/A Addendum Due Date (if applicable):N/A.
Protectiveness Statement: N/A
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
7
-------
1. Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region VII, has
conducted a five-year review of the remedial action (RA) implemented at the
John Deere Dubuque Works (JDDW) in Dubuque, Iowa. This review was
conducted for the period April 2008 through March 2013. This report
documents the results of the review. ARCADIS was contracted by JDDW to
support the preparation of the five-year review.
The purpose of five-year reviews is to determine whether the remedy at a site
is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings,
and conclusions of reviews are documented in five-year review reports. In
addition, five-year review reports identify issues found during the review, if any,
and recommendations to address them.
The USEPA is preparing this five-year review pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCI-A) §121
and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). CERCLA §121 (c) states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at
the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less
often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial
action to assure that human health and the environment are being
protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition,
if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action
is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or
[106], the President shall take or require such action. The
President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which
such review is required, and the results of all such reviews, and
any actions taken as a result of such reviews.
The agency interpreted this requirement further in NCP; 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) § 300.430(f)(4)(H):
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site
above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial
action.
This is the fifth five-year review for the JDDW site. The first five-year review
was completed in September 1995, the second five-year review was
completed in September 1998, the third five-year review was completed in
September 2003, and the fourth five-year Review was completed in August
2008. Subsequent five-year reviews should be completed no later than five
years following the signature of the previous five-year review report. The
triggering action for this statutory review is the date of completion of the fourth
five-year view (August 2008) as shown in USEPA's Wastel_AN database. This
five-year review is required because the JDDW remedial action resulted in
hazardous substance, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on site.
2. Site Chronology
A chronology of site events for the JDDW site is presented in Table 1.
3. Background
3.1 Physical Characteristics
The JDDW plant is located approximately 2.5 miles north of the City of
Dubuque in northeastern Iowa and covers 1,447 acres near the confluence of
the Mississippi and the Little Maquoketa Rivers. Land surface elevations vary
from 600 feet above mean sea level (ft msl) along the Mississippi River close
to the JDDW plant to greater than 850 ft above msl on the uplands away from
the river. The Mississippi River is located east of the site, and the Little
Maquoketa River bisects the JDDW property and enters the Mississippi River
east of the northeast facility boundary. A site map is included as Figure 1.
The plant buildings are located on a relatively flat delta at the confluence of the
Little Maquoketa River and the Mississippi River.
Site geology consists of alluvial sediment overlying bedrock. The alluvial
sediments at the JDDW site vary in thickness from 100 to 158 ft and consist
principally of fine-to-coarse grained sand deposited mainly by glacial
meltwaters. A thin silty layer has also been deposited by the Little Maquoketa
and Mississippi Rivers. The plant site is located above the thickest portion of
the alluvium in the Peru Bottoms area. Toward the bluffs, the elevation of the
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
bedrock increases and the alluvial deposits become thinner. Groundwater flow
in the alluvial aquifer is towards the production wells.
Three distinct bedrock aquifers are present in the Dubuque Iowa area: the
Galena-Platteville aquifer, Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer, and Dresbach Group
aquifer. The Galena-Platteville aquifer is comprised of the Galena, Decorah,
and Platteville Formations of Ordovician age, which are the younger bedrock
units in the vicinity of JDDW. These bedrock units, which consist of limestone
and dolomite with shaley layers, are not present in the JDDW plant area but
are found in the uplands adjacent to the River valley and at the bottom of
shallow filled valleys. The Galena-Platteville aquifer yields small quantities of
water adequate for domestic supply. The Galena-Platteville aquifer is
underlain by the deeper-lying Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer, which is comprised
of the Ordovician age St. Peter Sandstone and Prairie du Chien (Dolomite)
Group and the Cambrian age Jordan Sandstone. This aquifer is a major
source of water across the State of Iowa. In the JDDW plant area, the Galena-
Platteville aquifer and the St. Peter Sandstone (the upper portion of the
Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer) are absent and the alluvium is in direct contact
with the Prairie du Chien Group of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer. The
Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer is underlain by the St. Lawrence Formation and
the Franconia Sandstone, which are relatively impermeable and provides an
effective confining layer between the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer and the
deeper lying Dresbach Group aquifer. The Dresbach Group aquifer consists of
the Galesville Sandstone, the Eau Claire Formation, and the Mt. Simon
Sandstone. This aquifer is not as productive or as widely used as the
Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer.
3.2 Land and Resource Use
General land use in Dubuque County and northeastern Iowa is primarily
agricultural except near major population centers. JDDW is zoned M-2 Heavy
Industrial District by Dubuque County. Areas adjacent to JDDW are zoned R-1
Rural Residential to the north, which includes mostly farms; C-1 Conservancy
to the east; A-1 Agricultural to the west; and C-1 Conservancy, R-2 Single
Family Residential, and R-3 Multifamily Residential to the south.
The JDDW site, although once farmland, remains largely undeveloped except
for the immediate vicinity of the plant operations, which is located on the
eastern half of the JDDW site. In 1946, JDDW began manufacturing
operations in a 600,000 square foot (ft2) facility. A site map is included in
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Figure 2. Prior to 1976, several major additions to the plant were completed
predominantly to the south of the original building. As a result of these
additions, the facility occupied more than 5,000,000 ft2, which included the
original plant building, storage areas, waste disposal areas, and parking lots.
In 1997, 1998, and 2003, JDDW reduced the size of the facility by closing
down and demolishing buildings. In 1997, JDDW closed down and
demolished Heat Treat buildings E, E1, E2 and E3, which comprised 78,694 ft2
(Figure 2). In 1998, JDDW closed down and demolished buildings J, K, and I
used for miscellaneous manufacturing, which comprised 405,482 ft2 (Figure
2). In 2003, JDDW demolished Engine Manufacturing Buildings U, V, and V1,
which comprises 448,600 ft2 (Figure 2). The demolition of these buildings
reduces the size of the facility by 932,776 ft2.
In the past, JDDW has employed over 8,000 workers in the manufacture of
heavy construction equipment including backhoes, bulldozers, and forestry
equipment. As of 31 January 2013, approximately 2220 John Deere workers
are employed at the plant.
The portion of the Mississippi River adjacent to the site is part of the Upper
Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge established in 1924. A CMSP &
Pacific Railroad track lies between the plant and the Mississippi River (Figure
2). Approximately 20 cottages are located between the JDDW facility and the
Mississippi River on the flood plain (Geraghty & Miller, 1990). Nineteen of the
20 cottages sites are leased from the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) to private residents. The remaining cottage site is not owned by the
USACE and is privately owned.
It is anticipated that the current land uses of the JDDW plant and adjacent
areas will continue into the future. JDDW has a deed restriction that limits the
use of the current plant property to industrial activity only.
The JDDW plant water supply is obtained from two bedrock wells installed in
the lower Cambrian-Ordovician limestone aquifer (PW-1 and PW-2) and six
wells installed in the alluvial aquifer (PW-3A, PW-4A, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7A,
and PW-8). The JDDW potable water supply is obtained from the two bedrock
wells PW-1 and PW-2. Process and cooling water for the plant are provided
by alluvial wells PW-3A, PW-4A, and PW-7A. Alluvial well PW-5 is retained as
a backup well, and alluvial wells PW-6 and PW-8 are reserved for fire
protection. A well location map illustrating the locations of production wells
PW-3A, PW-4A, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7A and PW-8 is included as Figure 3.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Three production wells were replaced in the 1990's. After obtaining USEPA's
approval, production well PW-3 was abandoned in April 1997 due to changes in
plant production and replaced with PW-3A. Production well PW-4 was replaced
with PW-4A in May 1995 and PW-7 was replaced with PW-7A in September
1995, because water being pumped from these wells contained large volumes
of sand. The locations of former production wells PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7 are
also shown on Figure 3.
3.3 History of Contamination
Potential sources of environmental contamination were identified in the
Remedial Investigation (Rl) conducted at the JDDW site in 1988. Identified
sources of contamination included a former landfill, a foundry, a chrome basin
at the industrial wastewater treatment plant, a coal storage yard, and a diesel
fuel line leak located under the plant which occurred in 1980.
Throughout its history, the JDDW facility has used two separate landfills for
waste disposal. The older landfill, identified as a potential source of
contamination in the Rl report, was placed in a natural depression in the Little
Maquoketa River floodplain, near the northern end of the facility. The old
landfill was utilized from 1946 until 1974 and is approximately 20 acres in area.
Prior to 1974, JDDW placed wastes up to the banks of the river. In 1974, the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) required the wastes be moved
to at least 140 ft from the riverbanks. The wastes were bulldozed back and
fences were placed along the perimeter of the landfill. The newer landfill is not
included in the Remedial Action.
Prior to 1968, wastes were placed in the low areas of the old landfill and
combustible material was burned. Wastes disposed in the older landfill include
caustics (sodium or potassium hydroxide), acids (hydrochloric or sulfuric),
petroleum distillates (solvents, grinding oils, etc.), heavy metals (chromium,
lead, and zinc used in electroplating), cyanide, paint sludge, and foundry sand
containing 1 percent oil-based resin. The quantities of materials disposed in
the old landfill are not known (Geraghty & Miller, 1998).
In October 1980, a fuel layer was present on the shallow water table under
building G-2 as a result of an underground diesel fuel line leak. An estimated
200,000 gallons of diesel fuel leaked from the line. Recovery well G-2S was
installed in October 1980 and JDDW initiated fuel recovery operation on
November 10, 1980. Groundwater was separated from the fuel using an
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
oil/water separator. The recovered fuel was retained for onsite reclamation,
and the water from the oil/water separator was discharged via a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted discharge to the
Mississippi River. In May 1981, recovery well G-2D was installed and used to
draw down the water table providing better recovery in well G-2S. Eighteen
monitoring wells were installed between February and June 1981 to monitor
groundwater quality related to the fuel spill. Groundwater monitoring results
indicated that the spill was limited to an area around G-2 extending to and
including PW-3. Recovery Wells RW-3, RW-4 and RW-5 were installed in 1981
near corresponding production wells PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. In April 1982,
pumping of both G-2 recovery wells was discontinued after approximately
20,610 gallons of diesel were recovered and diesel recovery at RW-3 was
initiated. Diesel recovery from RW-4 was initiated in June 1982 and
discontinued in November 1983 after recovering 20 gallons of diesel fuel. RW-
5 did not yield measurable quantities of diesel and recovery was not initiated.
By October 1985, approximately 86,000 gallons of diesel fuel had been
recovered. Locations of the monitoring wells and the recovery wells are shown
on Figure 3.
3.4 Regulatory History
The JDDW facility was identified as a potential hazardous waste site on June
5, 1981. A Preliminary Assessment Report issued in July 1983 cited an initial
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score of 34.95 (low to moderate hazard). In
1984, a Site Investigation was performed, and in 1985, JDDW contracted
Geraghty & Miller (now ARCADIS) to perform site studies related to the former
landfill.
In September 1985, the USEPA proposed the JDDW site for inclusion on the
National Priorities List (NPL). An HRS score of 28.5 is sufficient to place a site
on the NPL; however, the site was never placed on the final NPL. The USEPA
and Deere & Company, Inc. entered into an Administrative Consent Order on
September 30, 1986 requiring the development of a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site. The RI/FS process was near completion,
when on June 24, 1988, the USEPA announced its new national policy in the
Federal Register (53 FR 23978), whereby Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) treatment, storage, or disposal facilities would not be
placed on the NPL. As a result of this policy, the USEPA announced its
intention to remove several sites, including the JDDW site, from the list of sites
proposed for the NPL. One of the main purposes of this policy was to avoid
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
spending Superfund money at RCRA sites that are subject to the corrective
action authorities of RCRA. The policy does not prohibit site cleanup from
proceeding under a CERCLA Consent Decree under which the potentially
responsible party (PRP) funds the work. Region VII decided to continue to
treat the facility as a Superfund site. Deere & Company, Inc. has been the
sole owner and operator of the site, is the only PRP for onsite contamination,
and has funded the remedial work at the site to date.
The Rl report was submitted to the USEPA in August 1988. The purpose of
the Rl was to collect necessary data to characterize the site and to assess the
potential release of hazardous materials from waste management units, waste
disposal, or product leakage and/or spillage. The Rl focused on potential
constituent sources identified through a review of plant operations. Potential
sources identified in the Rl included the former landfill, the foundry (old foundry
ponds), the chrome basin at the industrial wastewater treatment plant, several
isolated waste oil/ coolant spills, the coal storage yard, and the 200,000-gallon
diesel fuel line leak, which occurred in 1980. Rl activities included collection of
data to characterize air, surface water, sediments, surface soils, subsurface
soils, and groundwater quality. The floating hydrocarbon was also analyzed
and it was found to be predominantly diesel fuel, with lesser concentrations of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) not typically associated with diesel fuel. It
was suspected that leaks occurring prior to 1980 may have contributed to the
other "non-diesel" VOCs found within the floating layer. The floating layer was
renamed non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL).
Low concentrations of VOCs were detected in the alluvial aquifer groundwater
underlying the JDDW site; however, specific sources of the VOCs were not
identified. Low concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes
(BTEX) were associated with the diesel fuel spill. Low levels of chlorinated
volatile organics, which are not common components of diesel, were also
detected in groundwater samples. The source of the chlorinated compounds
was assumed to be from previous solvent handling practices at the site. The
JDDW site constituents of concern identified during the Rl are listed in Table 2.
Rl analytical results were used in a risk assessment to evaluate potential
threats to human health and the environment. Results of the risk assessment
analysis concluded that waste disposal activities at the site did not represent
an unacceptable risk to the public health and environment (Geraghty & Miller,
1990). However, there was potential future exposure of residents located east
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
of the JDDW facility to groundwater containing organic contaminants related to
discontinuation of pumping for long periods of time.
4. Remedial Actions
4.1 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
Based on the results of the Rl, three remedial action objectives were
developed which included:
• Ensure long-term quality of the plant potable water supply;
• Continue to prevent offsite migration of the potentially contaminated
groundwater; and
• Restore groundwater quality in the alluvial aquifer.
The Feasibility Study (FS) report was submitted to the USEPA concurrently
with the Rl report in August 1988. The purpose of the FS was to identify and
evaluate a range of remedial alternatives based on the data collected and the
remedial action objectives developed during the Rl. The alternatives
addressed potential threats to public health, welfare, and the environment.
The USEPA-approved alternatives included the following:
• Installation of an alternative potable water supply for the JDDW facility;
• Continued pumping of plant production wells for onsite containment of
potentially impacted groundwater;
• NAPL recovery primarily associated with the diesel line leak; and
• Continued groundwater monitoring.
On August 5, 1988, the USEPA published a notice of completion of the FS and
the proposed plan for remedial action. A public comment period was
established and the public comments were documented in the Administrative
Record.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
8
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
4.2 Record of Decision
The Rl and FS resulted in the USEPA selecting a remedy in its Record of
Decision (ROD), which was signed by the USEPA Regional Administrator,
Region VII on September 29, 1988.
The final RA specified in the ROD includes the following:
1. Developing an alternative potable water supply for the plant;
2. Extracting water from the alluvial aquifer using the existing production
wells. This action maintains drawdown around the plant and landfill
areas, thus protecting nearby wells and controlling contaminant
releases;
3. Continuing to extract and treat NAPL from the alluvial production well
PW-3;
4. Using deed restrictions to prevent inappropriate use of the plant
property in the future. Future use of the current plant property will be
limited to industrial activity only. In addition, water wells tapping the
alluvial aquifer beneath the JDDW property would not be allowed; and
5. Developing a contingency plan which would assure that contaminants
do not migrate offsite in the event of a plant shutdown.
4.3 Consent Decree and Performance Standards
In September 1989, the USEPA and JDDW entered into a Consent Decree
requiring the development of a Remedial Design (RD) and implementation of
RA. The Performance Standards, an attachment to the Consent Decree,
established the guidelines for RA and the RA end point. The Consent Decree
performance standards and USEPA approved modifications to the performance
standards that have occurred since signing the Consent Decree are
summarized below:
1. Develop an alternate water supply for the site.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
9
-------
2. Continue to extract water from the alluvial aquifer under the Site, at rates
which will maintain an inward gradient condition adequate to contain
contaminants and prevent migration to private wells offsite.
Performance standards for No. 2 are as follows:
A. Pumpage rate: Simulations performed during the RI/FS estimated
that a minimum pumping rate of 1.2 million gallons per day (MGD)
would maintain an inward gradient condition adequate to contain
the contaminant plume in the alluvial groundwater beneath the
site. The Consent Decree required that as part of the RD phase of
the work, JDDW would review the existing data and further
analyze the hydrology beneath the Site to more accurately
estimate the minimum pumping rate required to capture the
contaminated groundwater flow, and prepare a Well Management
Plan. The Well Management Plan supersedes the 1.2 MGD
guideline in the Consent Decree.
B. Maintenance and verification of hydraulic gradient: As part of the
verification that contaminants are not migrating offsite, a minimum
of three piezometer pairs would be utilized near the perimeter of
the site. The monitoring well pairs and required water-level
differences are listed below:
• South perimeter monitoring well pair MW-1 and MW-20S -
water-level difference at least 0.10 ft;
• East perimeter monitoring well pair MW-5 (MW-5 was
replaced with MW-5N in 1994) and MW-6 water-level
difference at least 0.15 ft; and
• North perimeter monitoring well pair MW-10 and MW-11S-
water-level difference at least 0.15 ft.
The groundwater elevation measured at the outer well of the
monitoring well pair should be higher than the groundwater
elevation at the inner well of the pair. The Consent Decree
specified that the water levels would be measured at least once
every 4 hours. The difference in groundwater levels at each
monitoring well pair is calculated on a rolling annual average basis.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
In July 1997, the USEPA approved reducing the frequency of
recording groundwater level measurements from every 4 hours to
monthly.
The Mississippi River stage adjacent to the site would be measured
on a normally scheduled working day basis to within 0.1 ft.
Although it was not specified in the performance standards, the
Little Maquoketa River stage was also measured on a working day
basis. In October 2001, the USEPA approved reducing the stage
monitoring of the Little Maquoketa River from daily to monthly at the
same time as the water levels. In June 2004, USEPA approved
reducing the river stage monitoring of the Mississippi River to
monthly at the same time as the monitor well water levels.
Measure water levels on a monthly basis for the 14 shallow
monitoring wells listed in Table 3 and prepare contour maps of
water levels in these wells and in the Mississippi and Little
Maquoketa Rivers. Water levels are also measured in Production
Wells PW-3 (now PW-3A), PW-4 (now PW-4A), PW-5, and PW-7
(now PW-7A). After one year, if the water levels in the three
perimeter monitoring well pairs indicated a consistent inward
gradient, contour maps would be prepared on a quarterly basis for
the next two years. Although quarterly contour maps are no longer
required, JDDW has continued to prepare water-level maps on a
quarterly basis.
C. Monitoring performance of the withdrawal well system: The
Consent Decree required alluvial production wells PW-3 (now PW-
3A), PW-4 (now PW-4A), PW-5, and PW-7 (now P-7A) and the 14
monitoring wells listed in Table 3 to be sampled quarterly for the
first year and annually thereafter for the constituents of concern
listed in Table 2. In September 1998, the USEPA approved
reducing the groundwater monitoring frequency to biennial,
eliminating hexavalent chromium, lead, and copper sampling from
all wells in the monitoring program, and reducing the number of
monitoring wells included in the monitoring program (Table 3). In
June 2004, USEPA approved abandoning and removing MW-13D
from the monitoring program.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
D. Discharge of surface water from the site: The Consent Decree
required JDDW to obtain a revised NPDES permit with the
groundwater monitoring constituents included for sampling at
Outfalls 002, 005, and 011. Outfalls 002 and 005 discharge non-
contact cooling water, drinking fountain water, and storm water
through the north and south sedimentation ponds, respectively.
These ponds are equipped with oil skimmers. Outfall 011
discharges wastewater from a physical, chemical, and biological
treatment plant, which treats all process wastewater from the
facility (IDNR, 1999).
E. Completion of the work. Alluvial groundwater is required to be
extracted and sampled until the constituents of concern are
reduced to below the federal Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) or applicable Iowa state groundwater remediation
regulations, whichever are more stringent. The State of Iowa has
defined the groundwater action level to be the Lifetime Health
Advisory Level (HAL) if one exists. If there is no HAL, the action
level is the Negligible Risk Level (NRL). It there is no HAL or NRL,
the action level is equal to the MCL. For constituents for which
there is no MCL or State requirement, the following regulatory
sources shall be used in descending order to identify completion
levels.
• Proposed MCL;
• The USEPA Office of Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
Levels;
• Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) verified reference dose or 10"6
cancer potency factor and ingestion of 2 liters of water per day
by a 70 kilogram (kg) adult; and
• The USEPA Office of Research and Development Health Effect
Assessment Criteria.
The groundwater extraction will continue until four consecutive quarters
of monitoring indicate that the alluvial water quality beneath the Site has
been at or below completion levels in effect at that time. In December
1996, the USEPA and IDNR approved the use of federal MCLs for those
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
contaminants with MCLs as cleanup goals instead of the more stringent
HALs and NRLs. The current groundwater Performance Standards
identified as of February 2013 for the constituents of concern are listed in
Table 4.
3. Develop contingency plans to ensure that contaminants in the alluvial
aquifer do no migrate offsite in the event of plant shutdown or modifications,
which decrease pumpage rates.
4. Continue to extract non-agueous phase liquid ("NAPL'") from the alluvium
and to separate the NAPL, with the groundwater effluent to be discharged
through NPDES outflows and the remaining materials to be transported for
offsite management at a permitted RCRA hazardous waste disposal facility,
unless Deere demonstrates the alternative disposition measures meet all
applicable or relevant and appropriate reguirements, and the USEPA
approves such alternative measures.
Performance standards for No. 4 are as follows:
A. NAPL management: The NAPL management is outlined in
Number 4 above.
B. Record keeping: Record volume of NAPL and volume of
contaminated water withdrawn on a normal scheduled workweek
basis for each recovery well. NAPL thickness is measured
quarterly at NAPL recovery wells RW-3 (now RW-3A), RW-4 (now
RW-4A), RW-5, and G-2S and the monitoring wells listed in Table
3. SBW-4 was added to the NAPL monitoring program in the
Fourth Quarter of 2004.
C. Monitoring performance of the NAPL withdrawal system: Alluvial
production wells PW-3 (now PW-3A), PW-4 (now PW-4A), PW-5,
and PW-7 (now PW-7A) and six monitoring wells listed in Table 3
are to be sampled quarterly for the first year and annually
thereafter for BTEX and trichloroethene (TCE). These wells are
monitored concurrently with 2(c). In September 1998, the USEPA
approved reducing the groundwater monitoring frequency to
biennial and reducing the number of monitoring wells included in
the monitoring program (Table 3).
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
D. Completion of work. NAPL monitoring and recovery operations
shall continue until no more than %-inch of NAPL is detected and
verified in RW-3 (now RW-3A), and no more than 1/8-inch of
NAPL is detected and verified in monitoring wells MW-4, MW-6,
MW-7S, MW-8S, MW-12, and MW-13S and recovery wells RW-4,
RW-5, and G-2S. When %-inch or less of NAPL is detected at
RW-3 (now RW-3A) and/or 1/8-inch or less of NAPL is detected at
any other of the above listed wells, the well in question shall be
purged of three well volumes and allowed to stabilize for 24 hours
before a verification thickness measurement is taken.
Before certifying completion of the NAPL phase of work, the wells
listed in the paragraph above will be analyzed for BTEX, TCE, and
total petroleum hydrocarbons. If the BTEX and TCE
concentrations are below performance standards for four
consecutive quarters, the NAPL extraction and treatment
requirements are considered complete.
4.4 Remedy Implementation
4.4.1 Remedial Design
The RD was started on February 7, 1989 and the RD report was approved by
the USEPA in September 1990. Pursuant to Section IV of the Consent Decree
paragraphs 18 and 23, Deere & Company, Inc. filed the required deed
restriction and a copy of the Consent Decree with the Dubuque County
Recorder's Office on January 19, 1990. The RD report addressed
implementation of the requirements set in the ROD and Consent Decree. The
RD report included documentation on the modifications made to the JDDW
potable well system and a Groundwater Management Plan.
4.4.1.1 Potable Well System Modifications
Installation of an alternative potable water supply for the JDDW facility was
completed in 1988. Prior to 1988, the potable water and plant process water
source for the plant included groundwater from the alluvial aquifer. In 1988,
JDDW separated the potable water piping from other plant process water piping
and connected it solely to bedrock wells PW-1 and PW-2 installed in the lower
Cambrian-Ordovician limestone aquifer. The bedrock aquifer provides higher
quality water without the potential for contamination from surficial sources.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
4.4.1.2 Groundwater Management Plan
The Groundwater Management Plan included three components: a Well
Management Plan, a Groundwater Monitoring Plan, and a NAPL Management
Plan. JDDW initiated groundwater monitoring activities required by the Consent
Decree in January 1990.
The Well Management Plan addressed the containment and recovery of
impacted alluvial aquifer groundwater. The Plan was developed from the RD
modeling results and included alluvial production well system operating
guidelines to maintain a minimum total pumping rate necessary to create an
inward hydraulic gradient, to prevent offsite migration of VOCs. The Well
Management Plan indicated that under extreme hydrologic conditions, the
optimum minimum total pumping rates from production wells PW-4 and PW-7
required to maintain the hydraulic head differences in the three perimeter wells
are 0.52 MGD and 0.37 MGD, respectively. The total minimum rate of 0.89
MGD is lower than the earlier estimated total pumping rate of 1.2 MGD derived
during the RI/FS. The Well Management Plan also provided operating
guidelines for contingency activities implemented if the alluvial production
system is shutdown or modified. The Well Management Plan supersedes the
1.2 MGD guideline in the Consent Decree.
During the third five-year review JDDW evaluated and updated the Well
Management Plan. Since 1997, JDDW has been in the process of reducing the
size of the facility by closing down and demolishing buildings. As a result of
the process reduction, the amount of water required to operate the facility has
decreased. During previous years, JDDW has needed to pump significantly
more process water than the Well Management Plan required to insure that
groundwater containment was achieved. With the process change, JDDW
planned to reduce the water withdrawal from the alluvial aquifer to amounts
that may approach the minimum requirements of the Well Management Plan.
The reduction in groundwater withdrawal has optimized the use of the
production wells and reduced JDDW's operating costs. In March and April
2003, the JDDW groundwater model was updated to incorporate the
replacement and relocation of production wells PW-3A, PW-4A, and PW-7A.
The updated groundwater model was then used to update the Well
Management Plan to insure that the minimum water withdrawal requirements
were accurate for the current production well configuration. A memorandum
that summarizes the modifications made to the existing model as well as the
revisions to the Well Management Plan was included in the Third Five-Year
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Review Report (ARCADIS, 2003). Using the updated Well Management Plan,
JDDW determined that they could use three production wells to provide water
for the plant and meet the environmental requirements. JDDW decided to use
production wells PW-3A, PW-4A, and PW-7A. The pump from PW-4A was
placed in PW-3A and the PW-5 pump was placed in PW-4A. PW-5 was
retained as a backup well.
The Groundwater Monitoring Plan identified groundwater quality sampling and
hydraulic monitoring to be completed for the duration of the RA and reporting
requirements. The monitoring program provided assurance that the RA would
be effective and would prevent offsite migration of potentially contaminated
groundwater and restore groundwater quality in the alluvial aquifer. A
contingency monitoring program was also included in the Groundwater
Monitoring Plan. The NAPL Management Plan presented existing and future
NAPL recovery operations and reporting requirements. Table 3 summarizes
the monitoring required by the Groundwater and NAPL Management Plans.
4.4.2 Remedial Performance from Implementation in September 1990 to March 2008
The five-year reviews completed in September 1995, September 1998,
September 2003, and August 2008 concluded that the response actions
implemented by JDDW, together with the long-term monitoring, continue to
protect the public health, welfare, and the environment at the JDDW site.
During the 1994 to 2008 period, the following modifications were made to the
alluvial groundwater recovery system, NAPL recovery system, and
groundwater monitoring network, after obtaining USEPA's approval:
• JDDW received approval from USEPA in September 1994 to relocate
well MW-5 due to construction activities. This well was relocated in the
fourth quarter of 1994 and was renamed MW-5N.
• Production wells PW-4 and PW-7 were replaced because water being
pumped from these wells contained large volumes of sand. Production
well PW-4 was replaced with PW-4A in May 1995 and PW-7 was
replaced with PW-7A in September 1995.
• NAPL recovery well RW-4 was also replaced in May 1995 with RW-4A.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
• In August 1995, JDDW replaced monitoring well SBW-3 with SBW-3N
due to inadvertent covering of SBW-3 with concrete.
• In April 1997, JDDW received approval from the USEPA to relocate
Production Well PW-3 and Recovery Well RW-3 due to changes in plant
production. The old wells were abandoned on April 21, 1997. The
replacement wells were called PW-3A and RW-3A. The replacement
well locations are shown on Figure 3.
• As recommended in the September 2003 Five-Year Review Report, a
NAPL monitoring program was developed for SBW-4 well which
included adding this well to the quarterly NAPL monitoring in 2004.
The following modifications were made to the Consent Decree performance
requirements:
• In December 1996, the USEPA and IDNR approved the use of federal
MCLs for those contaminants with MCLs as cleanup goals instead of
the more stringent HALs and NRLs.
• In July 1997, JDDW received approval from the USEPA to reduce the
frequency of recording groundwater-level measurements at the
perimeter piezometer pairs from every 4 hours to monthly.
• In the September 1998 Five-Year Review Report, JDDW received
approval from the USEPA to reduce the frequency of groundwater
monitoring to every two years beginning in 1998. This approval was
granted because the groundwater data collected in 1998 was
comparable to the 1997 data. Additionally, lead, copper, and
hexavalent chromium were eliminated from all monitoring wells
sampled and the wells included in the biennial groundwater sampling
events were reduced from the 18 wells specified in the Consent Decree
to MW-6, MW-8S, MW-9D, MW-9S, MW-12, MW-13D, MW-13S, and
alluvial production well PW-3A, PW-4A, PW-5, and PW-7A (Table 3).
• In June 2002, JDDW received approval from the USEPA to abandon
monitoring well MW-9D because the physical state of the well inhibited
its usefulness as a monitoring well. The well could not be sampled
during the 2000 and 2002 biennial events because an obstruction,
located approximately 25 ft below ground surface (ft bis), prohibited the
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
introduction of any variety of submersible pumps to the depth of the
water table. USEPA also approved the recommendation not to replace
MW-9D, by stating that it is apparent that there are enough other
monitoring well locations at which to gather data, and at this point in
time, the cessation of sampling at MW-9D does not represent a critical
loss of meaningful data, especially since this location hasn't
demonstrated contamination above MCLs. Monitoring well MW-9D
was abandoned on August 22, 2002, in accordance with IDNR
requirements by a licensed well contractor.
• In June 2004, JDDW received approval from the USEPA to remove
monitor well MW-13D from the biennial groundwater sampling event
and abandon the well (Table 3). MW-13D was abandoned on October
29, 2008, in accordance with IDNR requirements by a licensed well
contractor. In addition, USEPA approved reducing the river stage
monitoring of the Mississippi River to monthly, at the same time as the
monitor well water levels. In the third quarter of 2011, JDDW started
measuring the Mississippi River stage monthly.
4.4.2.1 Maintain Inward Gradient
During the September 1990 to March 2008 period, the groundwater extraction
system continued to be fully operational and functional. Operation of the
system created a hydraulic capture zone to contain contaminants. The system
met the performance criteria for hydraulic capture of the groundwater except
during the weeks of December 25, 1995, December 28, 1999, November 6,
13, and 20, 2000 and December 3, 2000 when the weekly minimum pumping
rates were 0.82, 0.91, 0.85, 0.81, 0.78, and 0.72 MGD, respectively. These
rates are below the 0.89 MGD minimum pumping rate specified in the Water
Management Plan and the 1.2 MGD guideline specified in the Consent
Decree. During the weeks of January 15, 22, and 29, 2006; February 19 and
26, 2006, and March 5 and 19 the weekly minimum pumping rates were 1.03,
0.96, 1.00, 1.14, 1.12, 1.1, and 1.05 MGD, respectively. These rates are
above the 0.89 MGD minimum pumping rate specified in the Water
Management Plan, but below the 1.2 MGD guideline specified in the Consent
Decree.
Despite the reduced pumping rate, monitoring water levels showed that an
inward hydraulic gradient had been maintained. Water levels in the three
piezometer pairs at the perimeter of the site consistently exhibited rolling
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
annual average head differences greater than the minimum requirements,
established in the performance standards.
4.4.2.2 Performance ofWithdrawal System
Between September 1990 and March 2008, groundwater quality monitoring
was performed in accordance with the Consent Decree. Groundwater
samples were collected in the required onsite wells listed in Table 3 quarterly
in 1990, annually between 1991 and 1998, and biennially thereafter. The
tetrachloroethene (PCE) concentrations detected in MW-6, MW-9S, MW-13S,
and SBW-3; the TCE concentrations detected in MW-6, MW-9S, MW-13S,
MW-16, PW-4, and SBW-3; and the benzene concentrations detected in MW-
13S, PW-3 and PW-5 have been above performance standards, as shown in
the summary of analytical data presented in Appendix B. As discussed
above, JDDW replaced monitoring well SBW-3 with SBW-3N in August 1995.
Concentrations of PCE and TCE were not detected in SBW-3N and USEPA
approved removing this well from the monitoring program in 1998. Chromium
concentrations exceeded the standard in MW-11S during one Quarter,
February 1990.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 illustrate trends in concentrations of PCE, TCE, and
benzene, respectively, from September 1990 to February 2008. The following
bullets summarize trend plots for MW-6, MW-9S, MW-13S, PW-3/PW-3A and
PW-4/PW-4A.
• MW-6: In MW-6, concentrations of PCE were not detected until 1997
when the concentration temporarily increased to above the MCL.
Concentrations of PCE detected in MW-6 decreased in 1998 and have
remained below the MCL. Concentrations of TCE in MW-6 fluctuated
between 1990 and 2008. Concentrations of TCE increased to above
the MCL in 1991, 1993, and 2000 and subsequently decreased to
below the MCL during the next sampling event. Concentrations
increased to above the MCL in 2006 and decreased to a concentration
equal to the MCL in 2008.
• MW-9S: In MW-9S, concentrations of PCE and TCE increased
between 1990 and 1993 and then decreased to below the MCL in
1994. In 1997, PCE and TCE concentrations increased to above the
MCL and decreasing trends occurred between 1997 and 2002.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Concentrations of TCE and PCE decreased to below the MCL in 1998
and 2002, respectively, and have remained below the MCL.
• MW-13S: In MW-13S, concentrations of PCE decreased between
1990 and 1992 to below the MCL and concentrations remained below
the MCL between 1992 and 2008. Concentrations of TCE were not
detected in MW-13S until 1995 when the concentration temporarily
increased to above the MCL. Concentrations of TCE detected in MW-
13S decreased in 1996 and have remained below the MCL.
Concentrations of benzene were not detected in MW-13S until 1992
when the concentration increased to above the MCL. Concentrations of
benzene in MW-13S decreased to below the MCL in 1994 and a
second increasing trend occurred between 1997 and 2002. Between
2002 and 2008, concentrations decreased too slightly above the MCL.
• PW-3/PW-3A: Concentrations of benzene in PW-3/PW-3A fluctuated
between 1990 and 1997. Concentrations of benzene increased to
above the MCL in 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1996 and subsequently
decreased to below the MCL. Concentrations of benzene detected in
PW-3A remained below the MCL between 1996 and 2008.
• PW-4/PW-4A: Concentrations of TCE in PW-4/PW-4A fluctuated
between 1990 and 1993. Concentrations of TCE increased to above or
equal to the MCL in 1990 and 1993 and subsequently decreased to
below the MCL in 1991 and 1994, respectively. Concentrations of
benzene detected in PW-4/PW-4A remained below the MCL between
1994 and 2008.
Between 1990 and 2008, TCE, benzene, and PCE concentrations have
fluctuated, with concentrations generally declining, with the exception of
benzene in MW-13S in 2002. In 1997, increases in concentrations of PCE and
TCE were detected in MW-9S and benzene in MW-13S. These concentration
increases correspond to the relocation of production well PW-3A in 1997. It
appears that the relocation of PW-3A in 1997 modified the groundwater flow
path in the vicinity of MW-13S, resulting in residual benzene associated with
the NAPL being drawn into the monitoring well. During subsequent sampling
events, the concentrations of PCE and TCE detected in MW-9S decreased to
below the MCL. Concentrations of benzene detected in MW-13S increased
in 2002 and exhibited a decreasing trend between 2002 and 2008.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
4.4.2.3 NAPL Recovery
NAPL recovery occurred in Wells G-2S, RW-4, and RW-3 from November
1980 to July 1991. During this time, 138,163 gallons of NAPL were recovered.
No measurable amounts of NAPL were recovered from January 1991 through
July 1991, although 3.67 million gallons of groundwater were pumped from
RW-3 during this time.
NAPL recovery operations were discontinued in July 1991; however the
recovery wells and monitoring wells listed in Table 3 have continuously been
monitored for NAPL thickness as required by the Consent Decree.
Until January 1998, less than %-inch of NAPL had been measured at RW-3
since recovery operations ceased. As a result of relocating PW-3 and RW-3,
approximately 4.6 inches of NAPL was detected in new recovery well RW-3A
in January 1998. Lab analysis shows the material is consistent with No. 6 fuel
oil. The NAPL was removed in three days. Twenty-hours after removal, the
NAPL was measured at a thickness less than 1/8-inch. Measurements in April
1998 showed a thickness of 0.01 ft (less than 1/8-inch), and during the five-
year review site visit in May 1998, NAPL was measured at a thickness of 0.02
ft (1/4 inch). NAPL was recorded in RW-3A during the third (0.48 ft) and fourth
(0.21 ft) quarters of 1998. NAPL was absent from RW-3A between January
1999 and October 2006. Measurements in January and April 2007 showed a
thickness of 0.01 ft (less than 1/8-inch).
NAPL was detected at a thickness of a trace to 0.02 ft in MW-9S in July 2002.
The MW-9S dedicated pump motor would not operate on June 18, 2002 when
the biennial groundwater sampling event was conducted. The MW-9S pump
was removed and inspected and it was determined that the source of the
NAPL was the dedicated pump's motor. The motor's casing had deteriorated
to a point where the motor leaked some of its own oil into the well. The NAPL
was removed from MW-9S, using absorbent material and NAPL was not
detected in the well during subsequent monitoring events.
NAPL was detected at a thickness ranging from 0.01 to 0.03 ft in MW-6
between October 1998 and July 2000. NAPL has not been detected in MW-6
since July 2000. Between 1998 and 2008, NAPL has been sporadically
measured up to 0.01 ft (approximately 1/8 inch) in NAPL monitoring wells MW-
8S (October 1999), MW-12 (July 2004 and 2006, April 2007), MW-13S (April
2000), G-2S (October 2006, July 2007, and January 2008), RW-4A (January
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
and July 2000), and RW-5 (April 2007). Several wells not listed in Consent
Decree Performance Standard No. 4, (b) Record Keeping have been included
in the NAPL discussion presented in the quarterly reports. NAPL has been
measured up to 0.01 ft (approximately 1/8 inch) in monitoring wells MW-1
(April 2007) and SBW-3N (July 2007 and January 2008) and 0.02 ft in
monitoring well MW-20S (April 2000).
4.4.2.4 SBW-4 NAPL Monitoring
The USEPA had approved abandoning monitoring well SBW-4 during the
second five-year review; however, the abandonment was delayed because
0.11 feet of NAPL was detected in the well on May 24, 1999. SBW-4 was
installed to a depth of approximately 25 ft bis in the former landfill during the
RFI to collect samples for chemical analysis to characterize the landfill source
area and assess the physical dimensions of the landfill. The well is screened
across the landfill materials.
On May 25, 1999, an absorbent sock was installed in SBW-4. The absorbent
sock was removed and checked on May 26, 1999 and approximately 4 ounces
of NAPL was removed from the well. After the sock was removed, the well
was checked for the presence of NAPL and none was detected. SBW-4 was
monitored for NAPL during May, June and July 1999. NAPL was not detected
in SBW-4 during this monitoring period, and in July 1999, the NAPL monitoring
for SBW-4 was discontinued. As part of the third five-year review for JDDW,
SBW-4 was checked to determine if NAPL was in the well. On September 23,
2003, an absorbent sock was placed in SBW-4 and NAPL was present on the
sock when it was removed from the well. In the Third Five-Year Review
Report, JDDW recommended a plan detailing the NAPL monitoring program
for SBW-4 would be developed and implemented.
A NAPL monitoring program was developed for SBW-4 and a NAPL
Monitoring Plan was submitted to the USEPA in the May 21, 2004
correspondence: Third Five-Year Review Report March 1998 to September
2003 Recommendations (ARCADIS, 2004). JDDW proposed measuring the
NAPL thickness in SBW-4 and collecting a sample of the NAPL for analysis of
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) by method USEPA 8015 and semi-volatile
organic compounds (SVOCs) by USEPA Method 8270 during the June 2004
biennial groundwater sampling event. JDDW proposed installing an absorbent
sock to remove the remaining NAPL after the sample was collected. After the
NAPL is removed, JDDW proposed to monitor the NAPL in SBW-4 daily for
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
one week, weekly for three weeks, and monthly for a quarter to assess the
infiltration rate of the NAPL. SBW-4 would then be monitored quarterly during
the NAPL monitoring program.
The SBW-4 NAPL monitoring plan was implemented during the June 2004
biennial monitoring. Due to the highly viscous nature of the NAPL, the NAPL
thickness could not be measured with an oil water interface probe. As the oil
water interface probe was lowered into the well, the probe became coated with
NAPL and the sensors in the probe could not take readings. A bailer was used
to collect the NAPL samples for laboratory analysis. Based on the amount of
NAPL present in the bailer, it is estimated 0.6 ft of NAPL was present in the
well on June 8, 2004. After the NAPL laboratory sample was collected, an
absorbent sock was placed in the well to remove the NAPL. JDDW had
proposed monitoring the NAPL in SBW-4 daily for one week, weekly for three
weeks, and monthly for a quarter to assess the infiltration rate of the NAPL.
However, this monitoring was not performed due to the inability of the oil water
interface probe to measure the thickness of the NAPL. Beginning in the fourth
quarter of 2004, JDDW proposed to monitor the NAPL thickness quarterly by
replacing the absorbent sock in SBW-4 during the quarterly NAPL monitoring
program.
The NAPL sample was analyzed for SVOCs and was also submitted for a
fingerprint evaluation utilizing gas chromatography with a flame ionization
detector (FID) by Core Laboratories of Houston, Texas. The fingerprint
evaluation indicated that "the sample appears to be hydrocarbon based with
the predominant constituents eluting in a range of molecular weights, typically
associated with normal decane (nC10) to beyond pentatriacontanes (nC35+)".
The majority of the fingerprint elutes between the C15 and C35 ranges as a
typical hydrocarbon "hump". Pristane and phytane peaks are present in the
chromatogram and both compounds are normally associated with
hydrocarbons. Phytane is considered to be the product of the "diagenesis of
phytol at low pressures and temperatures from naturally occurring organic
deposits". Both compounds are commonly found in unrefined crude oils and
may be used as biomarkers for geochemical interpretations.
The SVOCs analysis identified concentrations of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(100 milligrams per kilogram [mg/Kg]), pentachlorophenol (170 mg/Kg), 2-
methylnaphthalene (1.5 mg/Kg), and naphthalene (0.37 mg/Kg). No other
SVOCs were detected above the reporting limits that were attainable, due to
the elevated concentrations of some of the target compounds.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
SBW-4 was added to the quarterly NAPL monitoring program beginning in the
fourth quarter of 2004. SBW-4 was monitored for NAPL monthly during this
quarter. The absorbent sock that was placed in SBW-4 in June 2004 was
removed in October 2004 and approximately 1.19 ft of NAPL was present in
the well. NAPL was not present in SBW-4 in November 2004 and 0.01 ft of
NAPL was present in the well in December 2004. During each of these
monitoring events, the absorbent sock was removed to measure the NAPL and
then reinstalled in the well. After the NAPL was removed from the well, the
absorbent sock was replaced.
NAPL was also monitored monthly during the first and second quarters of
2005. Beginning in the third quarter of 2005, the NAPL was monitored
quarterly. The results of the NAPL monitoring are presented in Table 10.
During the November 2004 to January 2008 period, the NAPL thickness
present in SBW-4 has for the most part been 0.01 feet or not detected.
4.4.2.5 Discharge of Surface Water from Site
The JDDW Site has multiple permitted outfalls with various monitoring
requirements and discharge limits, which are listed in the 1999 NPDES permit
presented in Appendix C. Surface water discharge through the NPDES
permitted outfalls to the Mississippi River and the Little Maquoketa River are
monitored and reported in monthly wastewater monitoring reports, in
accordance with the NPDES Permit for the JDDW facility. Only Outfalls 002,
005, and 011 were identified by the Consent Decree for monitoring discharges
for the constituents of concern. The discharge from Outfalls 005 and 006 are
combined and referred to as Outfall 801 in the NPDES Permit.
The March 5, 1991 NPDES permit amendment required that Outfalls 002 and
005 be monitored monthly for copper and quarterly for total toxic organic (TTO)
pollutants. The TTO pollutant list is comprised of the JDDW site constituents
of concern (Table 2). The permit established copper limits for Outfall 002
(0.071 milligrams per liter [mg/L], 0.39 pounds per day [lbs/day]) and Outfall
005 (0.04 mg/L, 3.004 lbs/day). Additionally, the effluent limitations for metal
finishing, which include copper, lead and hexavalent chromium, and TTO
pollutants were added for Outfall 011 (Table 5). Outfalls 002 and 005 were
analyzed for copper and TTO pollutants in July 1992. Copper levels identified
in Outfalls 002 (0.01 mg/L, 0.07 lbs/day) and 005 (0.01 mg/L, 0.35 lbs/day) in
July 1992 did not exceed established effluent limitations (USEPA, 1995). The
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
TTO constituents identified in Outfalls 002 (0.042 mg/L, 0.277 lbs/day) and 005
(0.041 mg/L, 1.269 lbs/day) were all BTEX compounds (USEPA, 1995).
A revised NPDES permit was issued by IDNR for the JDDW facility on
September 3, 1992. The final effluent from Outfall 011 was required to be
analyzed once every six months for TTO pollutants. The TTO effluent limit for
Outfall 011 is listed on Table 5. The inorganic constituents of concern, lead,
copper and hexavalent chromium, were required to be analyzed two times a
week. The IDNR did not consider it necessary to continue to monitor Outfalls
002 or 005 for copper and TTO pollutants. Amendments to the September 3,
1992 NPDES permit were issued on January 21, 1994 and August 14, 1995.
The effluent limitations set for lead, copper and hexavalent chromium at Outfall
011 in the September 3, 1992 NPDES Permit and in the August 14, 1995
revision to the permit are listed in Table 5. The revised permit expired on
September 1, 1997 and at IDNR's direction, JDDW continued operating under
this permit until a new permit was issued on July 15, 1999.
Outfalls 002 and 005 are regularly monitored for flow rate, oil and grease, pH,
and temperature. The combined flow from Outfall 005 and 006, referred to as
Outfall 801 in the NPDES Permit, and Outfall 002 are also monitored for Acute
Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia and Acute Toxicity, Pimephales. Effluent limitations
and monitoring requirements for these parameters are set in the NPDES
permits. Between September 1990 and July 1999, none of the parameters
monitored in Outfall 005 exceeded the effluent limitations. Beginning in
February 1994, Outfall 002 was also monitored for total residual chlorine in
accordance with a January 21, 1994 amendment to the NPDES Permit, which
took effect August 1, 1994. At Outfall 002, the daily maximum total residual
chlorine effluent limitation was slightly exceeded during one week in May 1999.
During the September 1990 to July 1999 period, all concentrations of lead,
copper, and hexavalent chromium detected at Outfall 011 were below the
permitted discharge limits, except for four days in April 1995 when hexavalent
chromium exceeded the effluent limitation and one day in July 1994 when lead
exceeded the effluent limitation. None of the TTO constituents of concern
were detected at Outfall 011 during this period. Outfall 011 is also regularly
monitored for flow rate, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended
solids, pH, temperature, cadmium, total chromium, cyanide, nickel, lead, oil
and grease, silver, and zinc. Total chromium exceeded effluent limitations
three days in April 1995 and BOD5 exceeded effluent limitations one day in
November 1992 and one day in October 1993. All other constituents
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
monitored at Outfall 011 did not exceed the effluent limitations set in the
NPDES permit.
A new NPDES permit was issued on July 15, 1999 and expired on July 14,
2004. At IDNR's direction, JDDW is continuing to operate under this permit
until a new permit is issued. The July 15, 1999 NPDES permit is included as
Appendix C. The following modifications were made in the July 15, 1999
NPDES permit:
• The hexavalent chromium monitoring requirement was removed for
Outfall 011 in the July 1999 NPDES permit. (Note: The source of
hexavalent chromium at JDDW was eliminated when the chrome
electroplating operation was discontinued in October 1994. The
electroplating equipment was physically removed from the site in
January 1996.)
• The monitoring frequency for cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead,
nickel and zinc at Outfall 011 was reduced from twice a week to
quarterly.
• The temperature effluent limits were eliminated for Outfalls 002, 005,
and 011.
The NPDES effluent Outfall 011 limitations for the constituents of concern and
sampling frequency are listed in Table 5.
Between July 1999 and March 2008, none of the parameters monitored at
Outfall 005 exceeded the effluent limitations set forth in the July 1999 NPDES
permit. At Outfall 002, the monthly average flow rate exceeded the effluent
limitations in May, June and July 2002. In Outfall 011, concentrations of lead,
copper, and TTO constituents of concern were identified at levels below the
permitted discharge limits. Outfall 011 is also regularly monitored for flow rate,
BOD5, total suspended solids, pH, temperature, cadmium, total chromium,
cyanide, nickel, oil and grease, silver and zinc. None of these constituents
exceeded effluent limitations except for the daily maximum flow rate in March
2001.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
4.4.3 Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance
Since the alluvial aquifer groundwater recovery system at the JDDW site is the
plant production well system, the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the
system includes general activities associated with plant operations.
Consequently, consistent O&M of the extraction system is assured. The costs
associated with maintaining the system are included in the plant's operating
budget. O&M costs for the RA include costs for hydraulic and groundwater
quality monitoring, administrative services and reporting, and the alternate
water supply. Since these costs were not compiled in the previous five-year
review report and cannot be used to indicate potential remedy problems, these
costs were not included in this five-year review report.
Since 1997, JDDW has been in the process of reducing the size of the facility
by closing down and demolishing buildings. As a result of the process
reduction, the amount of water required to operate the facility has decreased.
During previous years, JDDW has needed to pump significantly more process
water than the Well Management Plan required to insure that groundwater
containment was achieved. The reduction in groundwater withdrawal has
optimized the use of the production wells and reduced JDDW's operating
costs. During the third five-year review JDDW evaluated and updated the Well
Management Plan. Using the updated Well Management Plan, JDDW
determined that they could use three production wells to provide water for the
plant and meet the environmental requirements. JDDW decided to use
production wells PW-3A, PW-4A, and PW-7A. The pump from PW-4A was
placed in PW-3A and the PW-5 pump was placed in PW-4A. PW-5 was
retained as a backup well.
5. Progress since Last Review
5.1.1 Protectiveness Statement
The August 2008 Five-Year Review Report stated that the groundwater
extraction system continues to be fully operational and functional. Operation of
the system creates a hydraulic capture zone that contains and withdraws the
contaminated groundwater. All progress reports submitted to date indicate an
inward hydraulic gradient has been maintained. The response actions
implemented by JDDW, together with the long-term monitoring, continue to
protect the public health, welfare, and environment.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
5.1.2 Recommendations and Status of Follow-up Actions
The fourth five-year review recommendations include the following: JDDW
should continue to monitor and maintain the hydraulic gradient; monitor the
presence of NAPL and perform NAPL recovery as necessary; and monitor the
surface water and groundwater. Issues, recommendations and follow-up
actions identified in the fourth five-year review and the status of follow-up
actions are summarized below.
Issue: A potential exposure route continues to exist via ground water to
the twenty nearby residences located between the eastern boundary of
the site and the Mississippi River, and the private alluvial wells at these
residences have not been sampled since 1986
Recommendation: It is recommended that these wells be sampled again to
verify that the remedy is continuing to prevent contaminants from migrating off-
site.
Follow-up Action: JDDW collected potable water samples from 19 of the 20
private wells located east of the JDDW facility during September 26 through
29, 2011 (Figure 2). Private well EA04 was not sampled due to the owner
refusing entry The potable water samples were analyzed for Site constituents
of concern (COC) VOCs using USEPA Method 8260C. The sampling results
for the potable well sampling were submitted in the 2011 Fourth Quarter Long-
Term Monitoring Report (ARCADIS, January 2012).
Estimated concentrations of Site COCs were detected in private well EA12
(trichloroethene) and EA16 (benzene, toluene, and total xylenes). However,
detections were well below applicable criteria. Groundwater elevations
collected at the Site have consistently indicated an inward gradient thus
verifying that COCs could not have migrated off-Site potentially impacting the
private wells. Therefore, the selected remedy continues to be protective of
human health and the environment. Detected concentrations at the private
wells may have originated from an off-Site source.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Issue: Capping of the former landfill was not a component of the
remedial action, and since USEPA Region VII human health risk staff
calculated slightly elevated risk levels for direct contact or inhalation of
fugitive dust based on 20-vear-old data for a number of contaminants
found in landfill soils.
No action recommendation for landfill was based on data from 20 years
ago. USEPA Region VII human health risk staff calculated slightly
elevated risk levels for direct contact or inhalation of fugitive dust-
Recommendation: A new, separate evaluation of the former landfill should be
performed.
Follow-up Action: Since 20 years had passed since the Rl soil data were
collected, additional surface soil data were collected and a human health risk
assessment was conducted to evaluate the analytical results and potential
human health risk. The Human Health Risk Assessment for the John Deere
Dubuque Works Former Landfill, Dubuque, Iowa was submitted to USEPA on
April 27, 2012. USEPA provided comments on the risk assessment on
October 19, 2012. Responses to USEPA's comments and a revised risk
assessment were submitted to USEPA on November 28, 2012 and accepted
by USEPA on December 10, 2012. The following summarizes the data used
in the risk assessment as well as the exposure pathways considered in the
report and results.
JDDW collected surficial soil samples from 20 locations in the area of the
former landfill on September 26 and 27, 2011. Surficial soil samples were
collected from areas with exposed soil (without vegetation). The surficial soil
samples were analyzed of target compound list (TCL) SVOCs and TCL metals.
The sampling data were submitted in the 2011 Fourth Quarter Long-Term
Monitoring Report (ARCADIS, January 2012) and included in the Human
Health Risk Assessment.
The risk assessment was performed to evaluate the potential current and
future risks and hazards to human health associated with constituents detected
in soil at the Site's former landfill from recently collected samples. The soil data
were evaluated and constituents of potential concern (COPCs) identified. The
COPCs for the former landfill were: arsenic, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead,
manganese, mercury, acenaphthylene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene,
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, carbazole,
indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, and phenanthrene.
Exposure to soil on the former landfill was evaluated for a hypothetical
adolescent trespasser, an outdoor site worker, and a hypothetical future
construction worker. Soil exposure through incidental ingestion of and dermal
contact with soil, and inhalation of fugitive dust were evaluated in the risk
assessment. The results of the risk assessment indicated that direct exposure
to constituents in surface soils will not result in unacceptable risks or hazards.
Consequently, the selected remedy remains protective of human health.
Issue: The USEPA has recently adopted the practice of reviewing and
updating the institutional controls during five-year reviews. The USEPA
has come to realize that the filing of a Consent Decree with the County
Recorder, as was done in 1990 for this site, amounts to more of a notice
to a future buyer rather than an immediately effective, enforceable,
institutional control that runs with the land. Since that last previous five-
year review, the State of Iowa bas adopted the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act (UECA). effective July 1. 2005. The Iowa UECA statute
provides a simple procedure for the creation and implementation of
Environmental Covenants which run with the land and avoids most
common law problems involved with previous types of institutional
controls-
Recommendation: The USEPA recommended that a UECA with appropriate
land use restrictions be put in place at the JDDW.
Follow-up Action: Two Environmental Covenants were recorded for the
JDDW Superfund Site with the Dubuque County Recorder on April 29, 2009.
Deere & Company, Inc. is both the grantor and the grantee in the
Environmental Covenant for the main part of the site. Du Trac Community
Credit Union is the grantor and Deere & Company, Inc. the grantee in the
Environmental Covenant for the small piece of property that Du Trac bought
from Deere & Company, Inc.. The Environmental Covenant for the Du Trac
Credit Union property was rerecorded with the County Recorder on May 20,
2009 to include Exhibit B of the document.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
6. Fifth Five-Year Review Findings
The fifth five-year review team includes Owens Hull of USEPA, Bob Drustrup
of IDNR, Russell Eberlin and Melanie Gotto of JDDW, and Pedro Fierro and
Kathy Thalman of ARCADIS. The five-year review includes community
notification, document review, interviews with plant personnel, a site
inspection, review of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), and monitoring data evaluation.
6.1 Community Notification and Involvement
The community was notified by the USEPA via public notice published on
November 7, 2012 in the Telegraph Herald, that the five-year review was being
conducted. After the five-year review is completed, the results of the review
will be provided to the local site repository.
6.2 Document Review
The following documents were reviewed during the fifth five-year review:
• USEPA Record of Decision (USEPA, 1988);
• Consent Decree (USEPA, 1989);
• Final Remedial Design Report (Geraghty & Miller, 1990);
• September 1995 Five-Year Review Report (USEPA, 1995);
• September 1998 Five-Year Review Report (CDM, 1998);
• September 2003 Five-Year Review Report (ARCADIS, 2003);
• August 2008 Five-Year Review Report (USEPA, 2008);
• Quarterly Long Term Monitoring Reports from the second quarter of
2008 through the first quarter of 2013 (ARCADIS, 2008-2013);
• The July 15, 1999 NPDES permit (IDNR);
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
31
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
• The JDDW NPDES Database for monthly NPDES Reports was used to
determine exceedances of effluent limitations for the period April 2008
to March 2013;
• On November 2, 2012, the USEPA went to the local site repository to
evaluate record keeping. USEPA found that the JDDW documents
were no longer present at the Carnegie-Stout Public Library in
Dubuque. The documents included in the site repository in February 4,
2008 are listed in Appendix A;
• John Deere Dubuque Works Five-Year Review Investigation Work Plan
(ARCADIS, August 2011); and
• Former Landfill Human Health Risk Assessment (ARCADIS, 2012
[Revised November 2012])
The following ARARs documents were reviewed:
• Federal Clean Water Act/Safe Drinking Water Act (Federal Maximum
Contaminant Levels);
• The USEPA Office of Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory Levels;
• IRIS verified reference dose or 10"6 cancer potency factor and ingestion
of 2 liters of water per day by a 70 kilogram adult;
• The USEPA Office of Research and Development Health Effects
Assessment Criteria; and
• Iowa state groundwater remediation regulations (Iowa Environmental
Protection Commission, Chapter 133, "Rules for Determining Cleanup
Actions and Responsible Parties").
A detailed document list is presented in Appendix A.
6.3 Data Review
Data reviewed during the five-year review included groundwater withdrawal
amounts, water-level data, groundwater quality data, NAPL recovery, and
surface water discharge data collected between April 2008 and March 2013.
32
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
This data was compared to the site Performance Standards specified in the
Consent Decree.
6.3.1 Groundwater Withdrawal
During the April 2008 to March 2013 period, the groundwater extraction system
continued to be fully operational and functional. Operation of the system
created a hydraulic capture zone to contain contaminants. The volume of
groundwater pumped out of production wells has exceeded the 0.89 MGD
minimum pumping rate specified in the Water Management Plan and the 1.2
MGD guideline specified in the Consent Decree, except during the weeks of
November 22, 2009 and February 7 and 14, 2010 when the minimum weekly
pumping rates were 1.15, 1.01, and 1.03 MGD, respectively. These rates are
below the 1.2 MGD guideline specified in the Consent Decree. As discussed
above, the Well Management Plan supersedes the 1.2 MGD guideline in the
Consent Decree. Table 6 presents a summary of the well pumping rates.
Despite the reduced pumping rate, monitoring water levels showed that an
inward hydraulic gradient had been maintained. Water levels in the three
piezometer pairs at the perimeter of the site have consistently exhibited rolling
annual average head differences greater than the minimum requirements
established in the Consent Decree Performance Standards. A summary of the
rolling head differences at each of the three piezometer pairs is provided in
Table 7.
6.3.2 Surface Water
The JDDW Site has multiple permitted outfalls with various monitoring
requirements and discharge limits, which are listed on the July 1999 NPDES
permit (Appendix C). Surface water discharge through the NPDES permitted
outfalls to the Mississippi River and the Little Maquoketa River has been
monitored and reported in monthly wastewater monitoring reports in
accordance with the NPDES Permit for the JDDW facility. The site
constituents of concern are monitored in Outfall 011 as specified by the
Consent Decree.
As discussed previously, a revised NPDES permit was issued by IDNR for the
JDDW facility on July 15, 1999. The revised permit expired on July 14, 2004
and at IDNR's direction, JDDW is continuing to operate under this permit until
a new permit is issued. The July 15, 1999 NPDES permit is included as
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Appendix C. The NPDES effluent Outfall 011 limitations for the constituents
of concern and sampling frequency are listed in Table 5.
Surface water discharge through the NPDES permitted outfalls to the
Mississippi River and the Little Maquoketa River have been monitored and
reported in monthly wastewater monitoring reports to IDNR, in accordance with
the July 15, 1999 NPDES permit for the JDDW.
Outfalls 002, 005, and 006 are regularly monitored for flow rate, oil and grease,
and pH. The combined flow from Outfall 005 and 006, referred to as Outfall
801 in the NPDES Permit, and Outfall 002 are also monitored for Acute
Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia and Acute Toxicity, Pimephales. Outfall 002 is also
monitored for total residual chlorine. None of the parameters monitored at
Outfall 002, 005, and 006 have exceeded the effluent limitations set forth in the
July 1999 NPDES permits during the past five years.
In accordance with the NPDES permit, the final effluent from Outfall 011 was
analyzed once every six months for TTOs. The inorganic constituents of
concern, lead and copper, were analyzed quarterly. In Outfall 011,
concentrations of lead and copper were identified at levels below the permitted
discharge limits (Table 5). Outfall 011 was analyzed for TTO constituents of
concern in April and October of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The
wastewater monitoring data reviewed from April 2008 to March 2013 indicate
the TTO concentrations were below effluent limitations.
Outfall 011 is also regularly monitored for flow rate, BOD5, total suspended
solids, pH, temperature, cadmium, total chromium, cyanide, nickel, oil and
grease, silver and zinc. None of these constituents, except for BOD5,
exceeded effluent limitations during the five-year review period. BOD5
concentrations exceeded the permit limits twice in March 2011 due to
wastewater originating offsite.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
6.3.3 NAPL
NAPL operations were discontinued on July 21, 1991; however, NAPL
thickness has been continuously monitored quarterly at the well locations listed
in Table 3. As recommended in the September 2003 Five-Year Review
Report, a NAPL monitoring program was developed for well SBW-4, which
included adding this well to the quarterly NAPL monitoring in 2004. This section
discusses the quarterly NAPL monitoring and SBW-4 NAPL monitoring
performed between April 2008 and March 2013.
NAPL has only been sporadically measured up to 0.01 ft (approximately 1/8
inch) in NAPL monitoring wells MW-7S (January and April 2009, April 2010),
MW-8S (April 2009 and 2010), MW-12 (October 2010), MW-13S (April 2008),
G-2S (January 2009, July 2010 and 2011), RW-3A (July 2009) and RW-5
(April and July 2008) (Table 9). Several wells not listed in Consent Decree
Performance Standard No. 4, (b) Record Keeping have been included in the
NAPL discussion presented in the quarterly reports. NAPL was measured up
to 0.01 feet (approximately 1/8 inch) in three of these wells, MW-11S (October
2010), MW-20S (April 2008), and SBW-3N (April 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011).
The SBW-4 NAPL monitoring plan was implemented during the June 2004
biennial monitoring. The results of the NAPL monitoring performed between
2008 and 2013 are presented in Table 10. NAPL measurements have
predominately been at or below 0.01 ft in well SBW-4 since 2007. During the
March 2012 monthly inspection/monitoring event, a field decision was made by
JDDW to temporarily remove the absorbent sock to assess the fluctuation and
infiltration rate of NAPL over time. During the month of March 2012, JDDW
monitored the NAPL in well SBW-4 weekly for two weeks and then biweekly.
No significant changes were noted in NAPL thickness during this time period.
During the second, third, and fourth quarterly reporting periods of 2012, JDDW
monitored NAPL thicknesses in well SBW-4 monthly without the presence of
the absorbent sock and no significant changes were observed.
6.3.4 Groundwater Quality
In June 2010, February and June 2011, and October/November 2012,
groundwater samples were collected from MW-6, MW-8S, MW-9S, MW-12,
MW-13S and alluvial production well PW-3A, PW-4A, PW-5, and PW-7A
(Table 3). JDDW performed confirmatory groundwater sampling events in
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
February and June 2011 to determine if COC concentrations detected
remained below MCLs.
A summary of the analytical data is presented in Appendix B. Wells that have
COC above federal MCLs are listed in Table 8. Contaminants that have been
above MCLs during the last five years of monitoring include TCE and benzene.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 illustrate the trends in concentrations of PCE, TCE, and
benzene in the alluvial aquifer from 1990 to 2012. Between 1990 and 2012,
TCE, benzene, and PCE concentrations fluctuated with concentrations
generally declining with the exception of TCE in MW-6. In 1997, increases in
concentrations of PCE and TCE were detected in MW-9S and benzene in MW-
13S. During subsequent sampling events, the concentrations of PCE and TCE
detected in MW-9S decreased to below the MCL. These concentration
increases correspond to the relocation of production well PW-3A in 1997.
Between 1990 and 1997, the benzene concentrations detected in MW-13S
exceeded the MCL only during one sampling event (September 1992). The
concentrations of benzene detected in MW-13S began to increase after
production well PW-3 was replaced with PW-3A, which occurred in 1996
(Figure 6, Appendix B). It appears that the relocation of PW-3A modified the
groundwater flow path in the vicinity of MW-13S, resulting in residual benzene
associated with the NAPL being drawn into the monitoring well. The
concentrations of benzene detected in MW-13S increased from 19 |jg/L in
August 2000 to 130 |jg/L in June 2002. Concentrations of benzene detected in
MW-13S exhibited a decreasing trend between 2002 and 2010 with
concentrations decreasing to below the detection limit. In November 2012,
concentrations increased to 12 |jg/L.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Concentrations of TCE detected in MW-6 fluctuated between 1990 and 2012.
Concentrations of TCE increased to above the MCL in 1991,1993, 2000, 2006
and June 2011 and subsequently decreased to equal to or below the MCL
during the next sampling event. The increase in TCE concentrations may be
due to fluctuations in the water table caused by variations in the groundwater
withdrawal, from the alluvial aquifer and flooding of the Mississippi River.
6.4 Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance
Since the alluvial aquifer groundwater recovery system at the JDDW site is the
plant production well system, the O&M of the system includes general activities
associated with plant operations. Consequently, consistent O&M of the
extraction system is assured. The costs associated with maintaining the
system are included in the plant's operating budget. O&M costs for the RA
include costs for hydraulic and groundwater quality monitoring, administrative
services and reporting, and the alternate water supply. Since these costs were
not compiled in the previous five-year review report and cannot be used to
indicate potential remedy problems, these costs were not included in this five-
year review report.
In 2010, a multiphase project was initiated to improve performance and
optimize pumping at Process Wells PW-3A, PW-4A and PW-7A. The project
allowed for non-potable well system automation and reliability improvements.
The critical aspects of this project are outlined below:
• Common pumps were purchased for PW-3A, PW-4A and PW-7A to
replace the obsolete pumps that were in use at the time of the project
initiation.
• Variable frequency drives were installed on all wells to improve energy
efficiency and enable automated control of the pumping at the wells.
• A dual electric feed was installed to PW-4A to allow operation of the well
during power outages.
• A control system was installed allowing for remote access and
programming of the well operation. Automatic modulating valves were
installed and tied into the well control system, enabling the system to
increase water withdrawal during low demand periods and maintain the
inward hydraulic gradient.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
The establishment of the new Process Well control system has provided
increased reliability that minimum pumping requirements are met and that the
corresponding hydraulic gradient is maintained.
6.5 Site Inspection
On November 2, 2012, Owens Hull of the USEPA and Russell Eberlin and
Melanie Gotto of JDDW conducted the site inspection to evaluate components
of the remediation with respect to the Consent Decree and Decision
Documents. The Site Inspection Check List is presented in Appendix D. The
purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy,
including the presence of fencing to restrict site access and the condition of the
site monitoring wells.
The selected remedy includes developing an alternate water supply for the
plant, maintain an inward hydraulic gradient using production wells to prevent
off-site contaminant migration, extract and treat NAPL, and implement deed
restrictions to prevent inappropriate land use in the future. The remedy is
functioning as intended and protective of human health.
No significant issues were identified during the site inspection. The production
wells and monitoring wells at the JDDW site are in good condition and well
maintained. The site perimeter fence as well as an Environmental Covenant
placed on the Site ensures institutional controls are maintained. Periodic
monitoring is also conducted to ensure the current and long-term
protectiveness of the remedy is maintained.
On November 2, 2012, the USEPA went to the local site repository to evaluate
record keeping. USEPA found that the JDDW documents were no longer
present at the Carnegie-Stout Public Library in Dubuque. The documents
included in the site repository in February 4, 2008 are listed in Appendix A.
6.6 Interviews
Mr. Owens Hull conducted interviews about the O&M of the site remedy with
Mr. Russell Eberlin and Ms. Melanie Gotto of JDDW on November 2, 2012.
Mr. Eberlin stated he did not have any major concerns regarding the Site. He
did have some suggestions to consider during the review process including
abandonment of monitoring wells that have historically met cleanup criteria as
wells as opportunities to reduce the NAPL monitoring frequency. He stated the
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Facility is in compliance with all required permits and the remedy is operating
as intended. Ms. Gotto stated she did not have any major concerns regarding
the site. She agreed there are ways to optimize the sampling events. Ms. Gotto
stated the remedy remains effective and is operating as intended.
Mr. Owens Hull conducted a telephone interview with Kathy Thalman of
ARCADIS on January 29, 2013. Ms. Thalman stated the remedy is effective at
maintaining an inward gradient and there are no indicators of off-site migration
based on recent sampling. Ms. Thalman did not have any major concerns
regarding the effectiveness of the remedy.
Mr. Owens Hull conducted an interview with Bob Drustrup of the IDNR on
October 11, 2012. Mr. Drustrup did not indicate he had any concerns
regarding the site. He stated the remedy remains protective. The interview
documentation form and interview records are presented in Appendix D.
7. Technical Assessment
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision
documents?
YES:
The review of the documents, ARARs, risk assumptions, and the results of the
site inspection indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD.
The JDDW groundwater extraction system is fully operational and functional.
Operation of the system creates a hydraulic capture zone that contains and
withdraws the contaminated groundwater. All progress reports submitted to
date indicate that an inward hydraulic gradient has been maintained. During
the 2013 groundwater sampling event, concentrations of constituents of
concern were below USEPA MCLs in all wells included in the groundwater
monitoring program except MW-13S and MW-6. The TTO, lead and copper
concentrations detected in Outfall 011 did not exceed NDPES effluent limits.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
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?
YES:
This five-year review includes a review of newly promulgated requirements of
Federal and State environmental laws. The ROD identified federal MCLs and
Iowa's Groundwater Protection Policy identified ARARs to be attained in the
extraction of contaminated groundwater.
The Consent Decree Performance Standards require that alluvial groundwater
be extracted and sampled until the constituents of concern are reduced to
below the federal MCLs or applicable Iowa state groundwater remediation
regulations, whichever are more stringent. The State of Iowa (Chapter 133.
"Rules for Determining Cleanup Actions and Responsible Parties" Section
133.4(3)b.2) has defined the groundwater action level to be the Lifetime HAL if
one exists. If there is no HAL, the action level is the NRL. It there is no HAL or
NRL, then the action level is equal to the MCL. For constituents for which
there is no MCL or State requirement, the following regulatory sources shall be
used in descending order to identify completion levels.
• Proposed MCL;
• The USEPA Office of Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
Levels;
• IRIS verified reference dose or 10"6 cancer potency factor and
ingestion of 2 liters of water per day by a 70 kg adult; and
• The USEPA Office of Research and Development Health Effect
Assessment Criteria.
The groundwater extraction will continue until four consecutive quarters of
monitoring indicate that the alluvial water quality beneath the Site has been at
or below completion levels in effect at that time or if JDDW demonstrates to the
USEPA that contaminant concentrations are below background levels.
In October 1995, JDDW requested that the IDNR allow the use of MCLs as
cleanup goals rather than the HALs and NRLs. The IDNR, along with the
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
USEPA, approved the use of MCLs in December 1996. This change in
ARARs did not affect the protectiveness of the current remedy at the JDDW
site.
During the April 2008 to March 2013 period, there were no changes in ARARs.
Table 5 lists the current performance standards for the JDDW site. There
have been no changes in the physical condition of the site and in land use near
the site that would affect the protectiveness remedy.
There have been no changes in the toxicity factors for the contaminants of
concern that were used in the baseline risk assessment. Standard risk
assessment methodologies have not changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy. The remedy is progressing as expected.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into
question the protectiveness of this remedy.
There is no additional information that calls into question the protectiveness of
the remedy.
Technical Assessment Summary
According to the data reviewed, the site inspection, and the interviews, the
remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. There have been no changes
in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the
remedy. There have been no changes in the toxicity factors for the
contaminants of concern that were used in the baseline risk assessment.
Standard risk assessment methodologies have not changed in a way that
could affect the protectiveness of the remedy. There is no additional
information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
8. Issues
The JDDW documents are no longer present at the Carnegie-Stout Public
Library in Dubuque.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
41
-------
9. Recommendations and Required Actions
This fourth five-year review has developed the following recommendations:
JDDW should continue to monitor and maintain the hydraulic gradient; monitor
the presence of NAPL and perform NAPL recovery as necessary; and monitor
the surface water and groundwater.
Issue: The JDDW documents are no longer present at the Carnegie-Stout
Public Library in Dubuque
Recommendation: Evaluate the location of the site repository.
Background: Per the USEPA recommendations in Section 9.0 of the Second
Five-Year Review Report (1998), the following wells were removed from the
groundwater monitoring program, as these wells have not had any
exceedances of the Performance Standards in the last five years:
• MW-7S, MW-7D, MW-11S, MW-11D, MW-16, MW-20S, MW-
20D, and SBW-3/3N
Recommendation: The following wells are recommended for removal from
the groundwater monitoring program, as these wells have been below the
Cleanup Criteria for all sample events over the last the last two reporting
periods. Additionally, three of the wells have been below the Cleanup Criteria
during all sample events:
• MW-8S, MW-9S, MW-12, PW-3A, PW-4A, PW-5, PW-7A
Recommend abandonment of wells MW-2, MW-11D, MW-16, MW-20D, and
SBW-3N which were removed from the groundwater monitoring program in
September 1998. MW-2 is a historical monitor well installed during the Rl and
was not included in the Consent Decree.
Background: Deere shall continue NAPL monitoring and recovery operations
until no more than 1/4 of an inch of NAPL is detected and verified in recovery
well RW-3 and no more than 1/8 inch of NAPL is detected and verified in
monitoring wells 4, 6, 7S, 8S, 12 and 13S and recovery wells 4 (replaced by
RW-4a), 5 and G-s.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Recommendation: Reduce NAPL monitoring frequency to annually at the
wells indicated in the performance standard (MW-4, MW-6, MW-7S, MW-8S,
MW-12, MW-13S, and RW-3, RW-4A, RW-5, and G-2S). Limit the monthly
groundwater elevation monitoring to the six paired wells to demonstrate
compliance with the inward gradient. All groundwater elevations needed to
develop the contour map are to be completed once a year.
Background: The Performance Standards require biennial sampling of
monitoring wells for the constituents of concern. Only two wells have had
constituent levels higher than the cleanup criteria, with the other wells
remaining consistently below the Cleanup Criteria.
Recommendation: Reduce frequency of sampling activities from biennial to
once per 5-year reporting period.
Background: Quarterly reports are provided to the USEPA demonstrating
compliance with the Performance Standards. These reports include a
summary of activities performed on the site, weekly flow data, and a rolling 12-
month average of head differentials at the paired monitoring wells.
Recommendation: Reduce ongoing status reports to the USEPA and IDNR
from quarterly to annually, due the 30th January for previous year. John Deere
will provide a contour map annually to correspond with the previous reporting
period.
Background: In October 2004, SBW-4 was added to the monitoring program
and NAPL measurements have been taken monthly. The NAPL thickness has
not fluctuated significantly over the last 5-year reporting period. Recovery well
G-2D was installed and used to draw down the water table providing better
recovery in well G-2S and is not one of the wells specified in the Consent
Decree for monitoring the performance of the NAPL withdrawal system.
Recommendation: Discontinue the monitoring of SBW-4 and close the
monitoring well. JDDW also requests approval for abandonment NAPL
recovery well G-2D.
Background: Extraction and treatment requirements terminate after 4
consecutive quarters of sampling indicate that the COC's are below the
cleanup criteria. Sampling activities are no longer performed quarterly.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Recommendation: Extraction and treatment requirements terminate after 4
consecutive sampling events indicate that the COC's are below the cleanup
criteria.
10. Protectiveness Statement
The selected remedy remains protective of human health and the environment
and complies with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or
relevant and appropriate to this remedial action. Therefore, this remedy
continues to be protective to human health and the environment.
11. Next Review
The sixth five-year review should be conducted by August 11, 2018.
C:\Documents and Settings\wclint09\Desktop\JDDW Fifth Five-Year Review Report DRAFT 022713-2.docx
44
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Figures
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Tables
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Appendix A
Documents Reviewed
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Appendix B
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Appendix C
NPDES Permit
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Appendix D
November 2, 2012 Five-Year Review Site Inspection Check List and
Interview Summary Forms
-------
Fifth Five-Year
Review Report
April 2008 to March 2013
John Deere Dubuque Works
Dubuque, Iowa
Appendix E
Performance Standard Calculations
------- |