SFUND RECORDS CTR

0217-00038

1 I i i i i I i f i ll ! l

I iL'

J

SFUND RECORDS CTR

88004706

EVALUATION OF LOGGING AND DEPTH-SPECIFIC SAMPLING OF GOODYEAR AEROSPACE CORPORATION PRODUCTION

WELLS

GOODYEAR AEROSPACE CORPORATION

LITCHFIELD PARK, ARIZONA

RIO 9 025.2

ENGINEERING-SCIENCE DESIGN * RESEARCH • PLANNING

2801 NORTH INTERREGIONAL AUSTIN. TEXAS 78722 * 512/477-9901 OFFICES IN PRINCIPAL CITIES

EVALUATION OF LOGGING AND DEPTH-SPECIFIC SAMPLING

OF GOODYEAR AEROSPACE CORPORATION PRODUCTION WELLS

PREPARED FOR

GOODYEAR AEROSPACE CORPORATION LITCHFIELD PARK, ARIZONA

Prepared by

Engineering-Science, Inc. 2901 North Interregional

Austin, Texas 78722

December 1986

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1 Executive Summary

Introduction Conclusions Recommendations

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 5

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

Logging and Depth-Specific Sampling Procedures

Introduction

Calibration Procedures and Results

Logging and Depth-Specific Sampling Results and Tnterp rotation

Introduction Water Production Zones Interpreted Casing Leaks Water Quality Sampling and Analyses

Conclusions

Litchfield Airport Area RI/FS Phase II, Stage I Activities Plan

Logging and Depth-Specific Sampling Results

Sampling and Logging Data

Page

iii

iv

1-1

1-1 1-2 1-5

2-1

2-1

3-1

4-1

4-1 4-7 4-10 4-10

5-1

ETQ,58 11

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Site Plan

FIGURE 2 GAC Well Number 1 Composite Production Log

FIGURE 3 GAC Well Number 2 Composite Production Log

FIGURE 4 GAC WeU Number 3 Composite Production Log

FIGURE 5 GAC Well Number 4 Composite Production Log

Page

2-2

4-3

4-4

4-5

4-6

ETQ.59 111

LIST OF TABLES

P a g e

TABLE 3,1 Summary of Depth-Specific Sampler Field Decontamination Data for GAC WeU Number 3 3-2

TABLE 4,1 Geophysical Logs and Their Functions 4-2

TABLE 4.2 Summary of GAC Well Perforations 4-8

TABLE 4.3 Depth-Specific Samples CoUected From GAC Production WeU Number 1 4-12

TABLE 4.4 TCE, Chromium, Anion, and Cation Concentrations at Static and Dynamic Conditions in GAC WeU Number 1 4-13

TABLE 4.5 Depth-Specific Samples CoUected From GAC Production WeU Number 2 4-16

TABLE 4,6 TCE, Chromium, Anion, and Cation Concentrations at Static and Dynamic Conditions in GAC WeU Number 2 4-17

TABLE 4,7 Depth-Specific Samples CoUected From GAC Production WeU Number 3 4-18

TABLE 4.8 TCE, Chromium, Anion, and Cation Concentrations at Static and Dynamic Conditions in GAC WeU Number 3 4-19

TABLE 4.9 Depth-Specific Samples CoUected From GAC Production WeU Number 4 4-22

TABLE 4.10 TCE, Chromium, Anion, and Cation Concentrations at Static and Dynamic Conditions in GAC WeU Number 4 4-23

IV

CHAPTER 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Goodyear Aerospace Corporation (GAC) pursuant to the requirements of

Consent Order Docket Number 86-3 issued by Region IX of the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), conducted logging and depth-specific

sampling (Task 4, GAC Phase II Activities Plan) of GAC production wells as

part of Phase II of the Phoenix-Goodyear Airport area (PGA) remedial

investigation/feasibUity study (RI/FS) conducted under the authority of

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

(CERCLA).

EPA's Phase Il /Stage I Activities Plan (February 26, 1986) specifies

the objectives of logging and depth-specific sampling 'in Task 2, This

document is included as Appendix A. The document indicates that data frcm

these activities wiU provide information on the vertical distribution of

contaminants in areas adjacent to and beyond those already investigated

with monitoring weUs. EPA expects spinner logging data to help identify

vertical intervals with relatively higher rates of groundwater flow. EPA

indicates that the data from the spinner logging and depth-specific water

quaUty sampling may aUow a refinement of monitoring weU locations and

possibly substi tute for monitoring weU data. The document also Indicates

that these data may also provide information necessary for determining the

feasibUity of restoring the individual weUs to service by blocking

certain levels to reduce inflow of contaminants.

The logging and depth-specific sampling program was managed by GACs

consultant Engineering-Science, Inc, (ES). The ES project manager was

present during aU sampling and logging of each weU to assure that aU

protocols were followed by the subcontractors p>erforming these tasks. The

ES project manager notified the EPA contractor's representative, Peter Mock

of CH2M-Hill, whenever field conditions required a change in procedures

specified in the final workplan.

1-1 ETQ.56

The conclusions and recommendations which ES has developed based on

the logging and depth-specific sampiing of the four GAC weUs are presented

below.

CONCLUSIONS

. The geophysical logging program (TV, caUper, temperature, r e ­

sist ivity, spinner, gamma-ray, and neutron) confirmed what was

already known about the subsurface hydrogeology at the GAC si te .

The logs indicate that the four weUs are withdrawing water frora

sand lenses at depths between 170 and 220 feet and below 250 feet.

This is consistent with the results of the cluster weU drilling

and the original driUers' logs for these weUs.

. The logs were generaUy useful in determining the physical condi­

tion of the weUs. The TV logs, however, were of marginal effec­

tiveness because of cloudy water in aU weUs. The most useful

logs were the fluid resistivity, differential temperature, and

caUper logs.

. Each well is per fora ted in at least two zones which c rea t e s

interzonal mixing of water quality consti tuents.

. The method commonly used in the 1940s for instaUing production

wells (cable tool and a casing driving head larger than the casing

diameter) is Ukely to have resulted in the formation of an annulus

between the caaing and the borehole waU. Since no cement was used

to prevent vertical migration between the casing and borehole waUs

of these weUs, it is possible, and even probable, that water from

the shaUowest, most contaminated zone of the upper aUuvial unit

is migrating downward and appearing at the uppermost perforations

in each weU. Unfortunately, the logging and sampling program

cannot confirm or refute the presence of this phenomenon.

. The geophysical logging indicated possible casing leaks in two

wells (GAC 2 and 3 ) . The encrustation in these wells prevented

confirmation of these suspected leaks.

1-2 ETQ.56

With the exception of weU 4, the upper perforated zone has higher

flow rates that the lower zone. This corresponds with the relative

permeabUities shown for these zones by the cluster wells.

The depth-specific sampling under static conditions was virtuaUy

useless for evaluating water quaUty of the various aquifer zones.

Since the shaUower groundwater is more mineralized than the water

in the deeper zone, and since trichloroethylene (TCE) is substan­

tiaUy denser than water, the static samples always show the higher

concentrations of contaminants at the maximum weU depth. This is

contradictory to aU other information coUected during Phase I and

Phase II of the RI.

The sampling under dynamic conditions was somewhat more useful than

the static condition sampUng, but the data obtained are difficult

to i n t e r p r e t due to cer ta in unavoidable condi t ions of the tes t

p r o c e d u r e . Firs t , the water column in the weU is strongly mixed

du r ing pumping, resulting in an averaging of concentration with

d e p t h . Thus , unless one zone has very high concentrations of a

contaminant relative to the other zones the concentration differ­

ences between samples may approach the precision and accuracy of

the analytical method used to quantitate the contaminant. Second,

the pumping rates for such tests must be carefuUy adjusted to

a s s u r e than enough water is removed from the weU to measure the

t r u e zonal contaminant concentrations rather than water which

represen t s static conditions but must be kept low enough to avoid

redijcing the measured concentrations due to mixing. In this study,

ES believes that the pumping rates in one or more weUs may not

have been great enough to assure that the lowermost zones were

contributing representative samples. This situation may be

r e s p o n s i b l e for the sampling r e su l t s for two wells ( 2 and 4)

showing greater concentrations at the maximum depths sampled than

at the ShaUowest zone which has been shown by aU other data

( c l u s t e r wells, monitoring wells) to be the most contaminated

interval .

1-3 ETQ.56

The depth-specific sampUng cannot distinguish contaminated water

entering a zone from vertical migration between the weU casing and

the borehole and contamination which is present in the zone. This

is a major shortcoming of the procedure.

GAC weU number 1, which has not been used since the late 1940s,

was free of TCE and other volatile organic compound (VOC) con­

taminat ion in sp i te of being located near the a reas of h ighes t

obse rved TCE concentrations in the shaUow groundwater. This

indicates that this weU is not a conduit for contamination of the

deeper zone by the adjacent shaUow groundwater. The weU does

show the presence of chromium in the range of 0.030 to 0,050 mg/l.

The significance of the presence of this metal, in the absence of

the VOCs found m virtuaUy all samples of contaminated groundwater

coUected for the RI, is unknown.

Based on the results of the logging and depth-specific sampling, ES

concludes that the contaminants found in these weUs originate in

the ShaUow zone of the upper aUuvial aquifer, as found in the

c lu s t e r weU sand monitoring weUs located on the GAC plant site

and the airport. In the absence of these supporting data, however,

it would be difficult to support this conclusion. The method of

migration (through perforations and leaks, vertical migration

between the cas ing and borehole) cannot be deduced with the

procedures used during this program.

On balance, ES concludes that the objectives of the logging and

depth-specific sampUng program were only partiaUy satisfied. The

spinner logging did Indicate the zones contributing the majority of

the flow and the other logs allowed confirmation of weU condition,

aquifer characteristics, and the physical condition of the wells.

The spinner logging flow estimates, however, must be tempered by

the fact that due to physical constraints the weUs were probably

not pumped at the i r maximum capac i t i e s . The dep th-spec i f i c

sampUng program (static and dynamic) were simply not useful for

defining contaminant concentrations with depths because of the

1-4 ETQ,56

i n h e r e n t constraints of the method. ES believes the procedure

could be usefttl if very high concentrations of contaminants are

expec ted in one contributing zone (the mg/l range) and not in the

otheirs. In the program at GAC, the highest contaminant concentra­

tions encountered are so low that the problems of mixing within the

well, pumping rates , and analytical uncertainty at low concentra­

tions make the procedure useless. Also, the inabUity to determine

the presence of vertical migration outside the casing makes the

t e s t procedure of marginal utUity for interpreting vertical

concentration gradients .

, Most of the data coUected on the four production weUs simply

confirmed what was already known from the shaUow monitoring wells,

c lus te r weU sand original logs, and specifications of the weUs.

Given that the cost of logging and sampUng each production well is

at approximately four times the cost of constructing a monitoring

well, the limited additional information obtained from the logging/

depth-specific sampling program is not cost-effective. The program

is part iculariy useless on production weUs with low levels or no

contamination. Even airport weU 3, which has shown the highest

concen t r a t i ons measured in a product ion well, did not exhibi t

concentrations during the April 1986 quarterly sampUng which

indicates that the program would be successful.

RECOMMENDATIONS

. The logging/depth-specific sampling program should not be imple­

mented on any production weUs where expected water-bearing zone

concentrations of key contaminants (chromium and TCE) are lower

than 1 mg/l . This indicates that the only production weU which

should currently be considered as a candidate for such testing is

a i r p o r t well 3 , and this well is marginal in terms of a s su r ing

successful test ing.

1-5 ETQ.56

. To make the program useful for deiecting leaks in the casing of a

weU, the weU should be cleaned and pumped prior to any geophysi­

cal logging. Such leak testing, however, would be more practical

for implementation during the remedial action implementation phase

of the CERCLA program rather than during the RI /FS.

. Because the depth-specific sampUng program, and for that matter

any conventional testing program ES knows of, cannot identify

ve r t i ca l contamination outside of the weU casing such sampUng is

not useful during the RI investigation to identify contaminated

zones and concentrations of contaminants in these zones. There­

fore, depth-specific sampling should not be used on any wells where

such vertical migration is possible.

1-6 ETQ.56

CHAPTER 2

LOGGING AND DEPTH-SPECIFIC SAMPLING PROCEDURES

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the agreement in the Consent Order, EPA provided to GAC,

the specifications, contract documents, and a Ust of qualified contractors

for the logging and sampling tasks . EPA's specifications are included as

Appendix B, Relevant comments of the PLA/IBW Project Committee contained

in a May 23, 1986 EPA memorandum were Incorporated into the specifications.

A copy of this memorandum is also Included in Appendix B, GAC's con­

tractors raised certain objections/exceptions to the scope of work and bid

specifications, EPA's representative, GAC's representative, and GAC's

contractors met to discuss the exceptions, A final set of specifications

was agreed upon by aU involved parties. These agreements are confirmed in

a letter to Jeff Rosenbloom of EPA dated July 18, 1986. A copy is con­

tained In Appendix B .

Section 1.2.1.1 of EPA's specifications states that after the first

four wells have been logged and sampled, the results wfll be discussed with

EPA and the Project Committee to determine whether work at the remaining

six wells wHl be completed. GAC production weUs were logged and sampled,

WeU locations are shown on Figure 1 as GAC weU numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4,

EPA also aUowed for review and discussion of logs and analytical results

after the completion of the first weU (GAC Production WeU Number 3), at

which time, EPA and the Project Committee agreed that spinner-logging under

static conditions and coUection of calibration samples would not be

required for the remaining three weUs,

After the first weU was completed and activities for the second well

begun, EPA requested that GAC have a brine ejector test for tracing fluid

movement conducted under static conditions for the remaining two weUs.

GAC discussed the procedures with the logging subcontractor, who indicated

ETQ.27 2-1

EKGINEERING - SCIENCE-

AIRPORT WELl #1 ^ ^ AIRPORT WELL #2

PHOENIX LITCHFIELD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

AIRPORT 16EIIW-3 CUSTER •»• , -_»-„ .

SITE X 4^^*^~^ RAIL .ROAD TRACKS* ! ftnniK_2

—I — 1 : r ^

16CB-V16GP-3

16EP-1 NEW AIRPORT WELL #3

.^AIRPORT WELL #3

r

6GB-3 (oM>)

16GB-6

UTCHFIELD ROAD

GAC WELL #4 .1teB~4/ieCP^2 ' GACWELLfl

DTI

1 r 1 r

RGURE I SITE PLAN

-I \-

16GMW~2< ,

16 GMW-1 -0*

16 GMW-34

GAC WELL # 3

< O

<

>

GAC CLUSTER

STTE

1 I 1 r

0 100 200 30C ' OC 500 I \ I I \ I

FLE^

bOODyEAR^F:3X21 2-2

that they had not developed the technology and equipment to conduct the

test and did not expect to be able to perform the test for the remaining

two weUs, Documentation is included in Appendix B,

Field conditions during implementation required minor deviations from

the specifications. Since the first four weUs were GAC production weUs,

pump capacity information was readUy avaUable and pumping tests before

and after the logging and sampling activities were not necessary for these

weUs. The specifications aiso stipulated that for pumping activities the

pumps be set at 200 feet and the pumping rate be 1,600 gaUons per minute

(gpm) for wells 2, 3, and 4 and 700 gpm for weU 1, The pump was placed at

110 feet for production wdls, 2, 3, and 4 with pumping rates of 1,000 gpm,

925 gpm, and 1,000 gpm, respectively. The pump was set at 85 feet for weU

number 1 and the pumping rate was 250 gpm. The higher pump setting was

necessary because the shaUower perforation zones were located above 200

feet. Pumpage frcm above the shallowest zone was necessary to measure the

relative flow rates from aU perforation zones.

EPA agreed to accept a television log that had been produced by GAC in

1984 for production weU number 2 rather than having a new log run .

The TV log indicated that the bottom 29 feet of casing was missing in

production well number 1. GACs logging contractor was not willing to risk

the loss of a neutron source in the well; therefore a neutron log was not

performed for this well; however a gamma-ray log was conducted.

In aU instances EPA's representative was notified of aU deviations

from the specifications and approved aU deviations and depths for coUec­

tion of aU samples with the exception of the dynamic sampling of weU

number 1, EPA's representative was notified of the date and time of

dynamic logging of weU number 1 but chose not to oversee the activities.

ETQ.27 2-3

CHAPTER 3

CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

Section 7.3,5 of EPA's specifications outline laboratory caUbration

p r o c e d u r e s for sampling tools . These ac t iv i t i e s , as specif ied , were

conducted in August at the contractor's laboratory in Bakersfield,

California. Analytical data for these samples are included in Appendix C.

The data indicates that there is 92 to 98 percent reproducibUity of a

sample when using the samplers. The data also indicates that decontamina­

tion procedures allowed for only 2 percent or less (samples nos . C-8 and

C-10) carry-over of contaminant concentration between samples.

The field calibration and sampling procedures ouUlned in section

7.3,6 of EPA's specifications were conducted for the first weU logged and

sampled (GAC weU number 3), Field calibration and sampler decontamination

data are included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 3 .1 . The data show

tha t with possibly two except ions (samples S307 and S308) t he re was

essentiaUy no carryover TCE contamination to the blank samples. Even in

these cases, the measured concentrations in the blank were only a fraction

of the TCE found in the depth-specific samples. Under dynamic conditions,

the TCE concen t ra t ions in the sampler b lanks were essent ia l ly at the

detection limit — the average blank concentration of TCE was less than 1

percent of the lowest depth-specific sample concentration measured. The

blank data do show that the distiUed water used for the decontamination of

the sampler and the sampler blanks during testing of GAC weU number 3 was

contaminated with chloroform, bromodichloromethane. and methylene chloride,

GAC potable water, which is treated by onsite deionizatlon and reverse

osmosis systems was therefore used for decontamination procedures for the

remaining three weUs, However, data show that these compounds were also (

detected in blanks for GAC weU number 1, ES concludes that these com­

pounds may be present as a result of laboratory contamination.

3-1 ETQ.28

TABLE 3.1

SIMIARY OF OEPTH-SPECIFIC SA»ff>LER FIELO OECONTAMIHATION DATA FOR

GAC NELL NUMBER 3

Sample Nuinber

Blank or

Oepth-

Speclflc TrIchIoroethyIene

(ug/l) Chloroform

(ug/l) BromodIchloromethane

(ug/l)

Methylene Chloride

(ug/l)

S302 S303 S304

1 8 8 B

0.39 ND 0.72

9.8 9.8 14

2.0 1.9 2.3

NO NO ND

S305 4,9 0.26 0.12 1.0

S306 S307

S308

8 B 8

0.66

2.2

1.2

7.3 8.3 11

1.6

2.0

2.1

0.37

0.16

0.12

S309 14 0.24 0.20 0.68

S310

S311

S312

3 8 8

0.38 0.33

NO

11

11

11

2.1

2.0

2.1

0.21

0.23

0.21

S313 120 1.3 1.2 1

S314

S315

S316

8 8 8

NO

ND

0.23

13 9,8 12

2.7

2

2.3

ND

0.22

1.1

S317 39 0.34 0.34 ND

S318 S319 S320

S321

S322

S323 S324

S325

8 8 B

0 O(dup)

8 8 8

NO 0.13 NO

33 29

0.39 0.14

NO

9.5 9.5 13

0.25

0,36

9,3

9.8

12

2,2

2 2.4

0,21

0,21

1,9

1,9

ND

0.13 0,43

ND

0.35 ND

NO

0,14

0.15

S326 16,5 0.31 0.16 0,58

B represents a distilled water blank taken either from the test chanber or the sampler 2 0 represents the rasults from a depth-specific sample collected from GAC well nunber 3

3-2

EPA and the Project Committee determined that calibration and decon­

tamination procedures were adequate and agreed that calibration procedures

could be waived for the remaining three wells. The procedures for decon­

taminating the logging and sampling tools were continued.

3-3 ETQ.28

CHAPTER 4

LOGGING AND DEPTH-SPECIFIC SAMPLING RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION

Logging and sampling procedures for the four GAC production weUs were

conducted according to EPA's specifications and/or the approved modifica­

tions discussed in Chapter 2. The composite logs. Included as Figures 2,

3, 4, and 5, InitiaUy contained erroneously labeUed fluid conductivity

logs. These logs are actuaUy fiuid resistivity logs; however, the fluid

resistivity logs are equivalent to the conductivity logs for determining

water quaUty changes and perforation zones. The figures also denote the

reported, viewed, and interpreted zones of perforations. The geophysical

logs and their general functions are summarized in Table 4 . 1 ,

AU water samples were analyzed by Arizona Testing Laboratories,

Samples were deUvered to the laboratory on the day they were coUected or

as soon as possible thereafter. Preservation was in accordance with 40 CFR

136 and the QAPP. WeU samples, blanks, dupUcates, and decontamination

samples coUected were analyzed for volatUe organic compounds using EPA

Methods 601 and 602, Only weU samples were analyzed for priority poUu-

tant metals, cations, and anions.

All four production weUs were InstaUed by a cable tool drilUng rig

du r ing the 1940s, The original lithological logs for the wells are

included in Appendix C. AU perforations were cut with a MUls knife, 12

holes to the round and 12-lnches apart. The perforations are approximately

3/8-lnch wide and 3.5-inches long. The casing joints were welded together

and a sUghtiy larger diameter casing drive shoe was used at the bottom of

the casing s t r ing , The presence of the larger diameter casing drive shoe

and the driving action of the casing could have created a narrow annulus

between the casing and the borehole waU,

4-1 ETQ.29

TABLE 4,1

GEOPHYSICAL LOGS AND THEIR FUNCTIONS

Log Functions

Spinner

Fluid resistivity

Temperature gradient

Temperature differential

Caliper

Gamma ray

Neutron

Source and movement of water; casing leaks

Chemical characteristics, source, and movement of water; casing leaks

Water temperature variations; source and movement of water

DetaU water temperature variations; source and movement of water; casing leaks

Casing and screen locations and sizes, major casing leaks

Lithology and stratigraphic correlation

Saturated zone locations; stratigraphic correlation

Reference: "AppUcation of Borehole Geophysics to Water-Resources Investi- J gat ions" . Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the USGS, Book 2, Chapter E l , 1971,

ETQ,53 4-2

\

R-REPORTED PERFORATIONS

TV=VIEWED PERFORATIONS

G=GEOPHYSICALLY INTERPRETED PERFORATIONS

AN OPEN HOLE WAS VIEWED AND GEOPHYSICALLY INTERPRETED BELOW 3 2 4 FEET 4 - 3 FiGURE 2 GAC WELL NUMBER 1

COMPOSBTE PRODUCTION LOG

.-//

L c^n

R=REPORTED PERFORATIONS

TV=:VIEWED PERFORATIONS

G = GEOPHYSICALLY INTERPRETED PERFORATIONS

4 - 4

FIGURE 3 GAC WELL NUMBER 2 COMPOSITE PRODUCTION LOG

-t^vj^ivc-vv:*• '.;;'•;;,;

0 * . « A RAT ItlllTlkOH

1- • ^ - t .• . ' . ' j ' l ' ? - - ; . ' . - 'x, " ••: <•

' • » • f-llai^»' 1...

r ; 5.1

j ; i y iTY ,

'^^R-'i

RESIS '\

r

"I

SOO

•TATtC n * i * c CALinii

L| I j *B0

O M I M T * « * / M

. nM«iun«« *f

RESISTIVITY

OtfTCHHTVU.

" ?

"t :-.

• t . . .

MrriRIKTlAL : u«^ iuTUi i I

• / U / M l « S p i BTHAItiC

it ,",.i.-J,'I.IMJ,.ll.'....ll.l',... I'

raOBUCTKW UMI

R=REPORTED PERFORATIONS

TV=VIEWED PERFORATIONS

G=GEOPHYSICALLY INTERPRETED PERFORATIONS

4 - 5

FIGURE 4 GAC WELL NUMBER ; COMPOSITE PRODUCTION LOG

100

150

R - I TV

2O0

2S0

TjJ'c n'r Y" Y ast API U N I T i „ o „ NeUTIIOM API UMITS

%iffeUnUiai

- G

R-i - 6

TO 294 r ^ ^ h ^ * *

Tt omt M*/M

100

uo

too

RESISTIVITY-

2S0

4 - 6 -STATIC-

R=REPORTED PERFORATIONS

TV=VIEWED PERFORATIONS

6=6E0PHYSICALLY INTERPRETED PERFORATIONS

MiWMifiXg®^ WBWPCNdlNECI^IHa SURVEYS * • •

t f X - n ^ l A l l f t ' lA fT ( . K f ^ t H i ^

^ ^ iK i i 'Tm mwx

0 H U M 7 U

' !

Q4/Xii%»t%liai 9emft«ialu\s

p'y T A 7S»F 73»F T A 7.

S^jfUnnel S^jfUnnd

:

\

I

pumping

punplns log M.2

y . ' < log no.l

<

PUMPING FiGURE 5 GAC WELL NUMBER 4

-Jl^

WATER PRODUCTION ZONES

The water production zones (perforations) for each weU were identi­

fied by a combined evaluation of the TV logs and borehole geophysical logs,

in most cases the reported perforated zones correlated with the viewed (TV)

or interpreted (geophysical logs) perforated zones. Table 4.2 summarizes

the TV and geophysical log camparisons and the condition of the perforated

zones. Encrustation in the perforated zones as weU as in the soUd casing

sections is common. Encrustation is heavy in some weUs, therefore a clear

view of the casing and perforated zones was not possible, A summary of

each TV log is Included in Appendix C,

The geophysical logs most useful in Interpreting the perforated zones

were the Spinner Log, Differential Temperature Log, Fluid Resistivity Log,

and CaUper Log.

The first three logs conducted under pumping conditions were more

useful than those conducted under static or nonpumplng conditions. The

caUper log was only conducted under static conditions.

The spinner logs conducted under pumping conditions yield the most

useful geophysical data in terms of Increasing the hydrologic knowledge of

the GAC subsurface hydrology. The variations in rotation rate of the

spinner tool impeUer indicate variations in the relative groundwater flow

rates into each weU. The results of each spinner log under pumping

conditions is summarized below. Due to obstructions In weU 1. only a

stop-count spinner log under pumping conditions was conducted.

The spinner log results for weU 1 indicate a higher flow rate from

the upper perforated zone (212-222 feet) than from the lower zone (272-286

feet) ,

The spinner log results for well 2 indicate a higher flow rate from

the upper perforated zone (195-220 feet) than from the lower zone (250-280

feet) , A sUght Increase in flow rate occurs at 234 to 238 feet, where a

possible casing leak may exist.

The sp inne r log results for weU 3 indicate a higher flow rate in the

upper perforated zone (194-206 feet), a lower flow rate in the middle

4-7 ETQ,29

1 I I I I I I I i m

i as:

I t

I I I

I ^

I I I

• . . - •

I

TABLE 4.2

SUMMARY OF GAC WELL PERFORATIONS

WeU No.

No,

Repor ted Perfora t ion

In t e rva l s ( feet)

Viewed a n d / o r I n t e r p r e t e d P e r f o r -

tion In t e rva l s Condition of Perforat ion

In t e rva l s

210-220 280-290

195-219 250-280

204-206 224-238

170-180 266-294

None vis ible , b u t open bottom from 324'-353' ( T V ) ; 212«-222', 272'-286* & below 324' (SD*TD)

214'-222', 252'(TV) (poor v i ew) ; 195'-224', 250'-280' ( S D . C D . T C . i R D )

204' and 205'-297' ( T V ) , 194'-206', 224'-238', 280'-296* ( C , T S . R D , S D )

169'-179' ( T V ) ; 172'-197' & 257'-269 ' (T,RD,C,&SD)

HeavUy e n c r u s t e d (TV) 272'-286' zone is smaUer than 10" Indicat ing p roba ­ble e n c r u s t a t i o n . A wash­out is ev iden t below 324'(C)

Encrus ta t ion is ev iden t in perforated zones (TV) . The diameters of both pe r fo ra ­tion zones v a r y indicat ing p robab le enc rus t a t i on (C)

Encrus ta t ion over 95% of perforat ion zone (TV)

Encrus ta t ion p r e s e n t b u t severa l perfora t ion rows a p p e a r open (wa te r c l e a r s ) . CaUper log va r i e s ind ica t ­ing some enc rus t a t ion

TV = Television log S = Sp inner log T = Differential t empera tu re log D = Dynamic (pumping)

ST = Stat ic log C = CaUper log R = Fluid res i s t iv i ty log

4-8 ETQ.54

perforated zone (224-238 feet) , and the lowest flow rate in the lowermost

perforated zone (280-296 feet) .

The sp inner log results for weU 4 indicate relatively comparable to

sUghtiy higher flow rates from the lower perforated zone (257-269 feet)

than from the upper zone (177-197 feet) . A narrow section (172-175 feet)

of the upper zone does, however. Indicate the highest flow rate of the

weU. The pumping rate during the logging (1,000 gpm) may not have been

great enough to sufficientiy stress the complete sections of both perfor­

ated zones or the lower zone may in fact have an overaU higher permeabU-

Ity than the upper zone. A higher permeabiUty within the lower zone may

tend to cause contaminants to move verticaUy downward along the annulus.

A discussion of the abnormal water quaUty analyses of weU 4 is found

later in this chapter under "Water QuaUty and Analyses."

In summary, the higher flow rates In the GAC wells are from the upper

perforated zones located between approximately 170 and 220 feet. The lower

flow rates are generaUy from the perforated zones below 220 feet. These

data are similar to the other hydrogeologic data previously generated for

the site (cluster weUs) which identified a highly permeable upper zone of

the upper aUuvium unit and a moderate to highly permeable lower zone.

The gamma ray neutron logs conducted in each weU yielded additional

and similar hydrogeological data in terms of aquifers and confining layers.

The gamma neutron logs of the GAC weUs correlate weU with expected

Uthologies in the upper aUuvium unit . Although the sand and clay content

varies within the strata and from weU to weU, one significant correlation

of apparentiy clean sand and/or gravel exists at approximately 170 to 220

feet in each weU, In weU 1 three lenses of sand and/or gravel exist, in

weUs 2 and 3 two lenses exist, and in weU 4 one wide lense exists within

the range of 170 to 220 feet. In each case the neutron logs indicate

Increased saturation in these sand and/or gravel lenses.

In each weU the perforations were made opposite or near these sand

and/or gravel lenses . The selection of the perforation zones in the 1940s

were made, of course, without the advantage of these logs and were based on

the driUers observations.

4-9 ETQ.29

Each gamma neutron log indicates the presence of probable upper

confining s t rata between approximately 130 and 150 feet. The drUlers'

logs describe this general zone as containing clay, cemented sand, sand­

stone, and/or gypsum. Also, probat>le lower confining strata exist between

approximately 220 and 250 feet, although some sand lenses are present ,

INTERPRETED CASING LEAKS

Two weUs (2 and 3) have some interpreted casing leaks which have not

been confirmed. The encrustation in these weUs prevented an actual view

of these Interpreted leaks.

In weU 2 the caliper log indicated interpreted leaks at 40, 112, and

238 feet in depth. The fluid resistivity log indicated an interpreted leak

at 234 feet deep.

In well 3 the sp inne r log and the different ial t empera tu re log

indica te an I n t e r p r e t e d leak at 180 feet d e e p . The TV log indicated

clearer water at approximately this same depth. The clearer water may

indicate water moving into the weU at this point.

More detaUed geophysical logs and TV logs after cleaning the weUs

would be necessary to confirm the presence of these Interpreted leaks.

WATER QUALITY SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Water quaUty sampUng during both static and dynamic (pumping)

conditions was conducted for each weU. The results of the water quaUty

analyses for each weU are described below.

T h e s t a t i c condit ion sampling is misleading due to the re la t ive

stagnant condition of the weU water and due to the higher specific gravity

of TCE and chromium, causing these compounds to sink in the weU. The

dynamic sampUng is more truly representative of the aquifer water quality,

but mixing of the groundwater from the two perforated zones tends to

decrease the vertical contaminant concentration gradients thus making

interpretation of contamination in each zone difficult. The lower per­

forated zones in weUs 1, 2, and 3 have the lowest flow rates , therefore an

4-10 ETQ.29

almost static condition may exist within and close to this lower zone.

Water quaUty data from this lowest zone may therefore be misleading.

Water quaUty sample depths in well 1 were selected based on field

evaluation of the logs . Static water samples were collected at depths of

85, 150, 230, and 340 feet deep. The 85-foot sample was coUected to

evaluate the water qual i ty before the fluid r e s i s t i v i t y dec rease and

temperature increase. The 150-foot sample was coUected to evaluate the

water quaUty where the fluid resistivity began to change with depth and

the temperature was coolest. The 230-foot sample was coUected to evaluate

the water quaUty just below the upper perforated zone. The 340-foot

sample was coUected to evaluate the water quaUty within the bottom hole

washout section.

The dynamic water quaUty samples were coUected from depths of 200,

250, 310, and 340 feet. The 200-foot sample was coUected to evaluate

water quaUty just above the upper perforated zone. The 250-foot sample

was coUected to evaluate water quaUty in a section of temperature and

fluid resistivity increases. The 310-foot sample was coUected to evaluate

water qual i ty in ano the r sect ion of t empera tu re and fluid r e s i s t i v i t y

increases. The 340-foot sample was coUected to evaluate water quaUty

within the bottom hole washout section.

T h e iden t i f i ca t ion of sample numbers for the s ta t ic and dynamic

samples are Usted in Table 4 . 3 . Table 4.4 is a summary of the results of

the static and dynamic sample analyses. The laboratory data are included

in Appendix C.

TCE was detected in the 85-foot static condition sample only. The

decontamination data indicates that the TCE was carried over via the

sampler. The samplers had recently been used at the Indian Bend Wash site

where groundwater TCE concentrations are much greater than those at GAC.

The chromium concentrations in the static samples indicate an increase with

depth as do the dynamic condition concentrations. Most of the other

parameters have simUar concentrations at depth in both the static and

dynamic conditions. WeU 1 has not been pumped for 40 years . The static

condition analyses are misleading, as previously discussed. The dynamic

4-11 ETQ.29

TABLE 4.3

DEPTH-SPECIFIC SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM GAC PRODUCTION WELL NUMBER 1

Sample Number Sample Descr ipt ion

Static Conditions

5101 decontamination of 2-1/8-lnch sampler 5102 decontamination of 3-inch sampler 5103 85-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler 5104 150-foot weU sample with 3-inch sampler 5105 230-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler 5106 340-foot weU sample with 3-inch sampler 5107 duplicate 340-foot weU sample 5108 GAC distiUed water blank

Dynamic Conditions

5109 200-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler 5110 250-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler S i l l decontamination of 2-1/8-inch sampler 5112 310-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler 5113 decontamination of 2-1/8-inch sampler 5114 340-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler 5115 duplicate 340-foot weU sample

4-12

ETQ.34

^f?'-

TABLE 4.4

TCE, CHROMIUM, ANION. AND CATION CONCENTRATIONS AT STATIC AND DYNAMIC CONDITIONS IN

GAC WELL NUMBER 1

Static Conditions Dynamic Conditions

I

Somple Number Sample Depth (ft)

Cons t i tuen t s :

TCE (ppb) Chromium (mg/ l ) Calcium (mg/ l ) Magnesium (mg/l ) Sodium (mg/l) Potassium (mg/l ) Chloride (mg/ l ) Bicarbonate (mg/ l ) Fluoride (mg/ l ) Sulfate (mg/l) Nitrate ,N (mg/D

S103 85

1.2 ND 11 5.5

112 5.2

116 134

0 .4 3

ND

S104 150

ND ND 37 27

112 6 .1

216 90

0.5 45

1.4

S105 230

NO 0.018

80 57

109 7 .8

322 93

0 . 3 71

8 .1

S106 340

ND 0.056.

79 56

116 7 . 8

324 03

0 . 3 77

7 .9

Sl07* 340

ND ----------

S109 205

ND 0.031

101 64 99

6 . 3 334 190

0 . 3 87

8.8

SllO 250

ND 0.031

78 54

110 6 .5

308 193

0 . 3 71

8.2 .

S112 310

ND */0.048

64 45

128 6 .2

294 190

0 . 3 70

/ 7.6

S114 340

ND 0.065

73 52

116 6.2

306 193

0 . 3 73

7 .8

S115** 340

ND ----------

ND - None detected • Duplicate sample of 8106 - VOA only

**' Duplicate sampie of S114~V0A only - Analysis not performed for sample

condition analyses may also be misleading due to the low pumping rate (250

gpm). The low pumping rate and the lack of continuous well use over the

years may have not induced suf.ficient flow to reUably measure contaminant

concentrations in the pumped zones.

Water quality sample depths for weU 2 were selected based on field

evaluation of the logs . Static groundwater samples were coUected at 120,

160, 200, and 260 feet In depth. The sample coUected at 120 feet was used

to evaluate the water quaUty In the section where the fluid resistivity

log indicates anomalous quaUty water and the temperature log indicates

t empera tu re s t ab i l i za t ion . A sample was collected from 160 feet to

evaluate the water quaUty where the fluid resistivity log Indicates

another anomalous quaUty water section and the temperature log Indicates

the section of lowest water temperature. The 200-foot sample was coUected

from the upper perforated zone where the fluid resistivity had stabilized

and the temperature was increasing. The 260-foot sample was coUected to

evaluate the water quality at the depth of the lower-most water quaUty

anomaly as Indicated by temperature and fluid resistivity logs. This

section is also where the deepest perforations are located.

Under pumping conditions, samples were coUected from 160, 205, 240,

255, and 270 feet below the surface. The 160-foot sample was coUected in

a section indicated by maximum flow rate and where, according to the logs,

the fluid r e s i s t i v i ty indicated a water qual i ty anomaly at the coolest

temperature. The 205-foot sample was coUected to evaluate the water

quaUty in the upper perforated zone. A 240-foot sample was coUected from

the section where fluid resistivity had stabilized, the temperature had

sUghtiy increased, the flow rate was only 36 percent of the total pumping

ra te , and the section was between two perforated zones. The 255-foot

sample was collected to evaluate the water quaUty in the lower perforated

zone where the fluid resistivity was shown to be the highest. The 270-foot

sample was coUected from a section where the temperature was the highest,

the fluid resistivity has significantly decreased, and the pumping capacity

was at the lowest in the weU even though the zone was perforated.

4-14 ETQ.29

The identification of sample numbers for static and dynamic samples is

Usted in Table 4 . 5 . Static and dynamic sampling results are summarized in

Table 4 .6 . Laboratory data is Included in Appendix C,

The static condition analyses indicate an apparent Increase In TCE and

chromium with depth, but under static conditions water quality sampUng is

misleading, as previously discussed. The dynamic condition analyses,

performed whUe t rue aquifer water was entering the weU, indicate an

apparent general decrease in TCE to a depth of 255 feet, but an increase at

270 feet. This higher concentration Is from the lower perforated zone and

the zone of lowest flow. Therefore, the TCE analyses may be misleading.

The chromium and other parameter analyses are generaUy similar throughout

the depth of the weU.

Water quaUty sample depths in weU 3 were selected based on field

evaluation of the logs. Static samples were coUected at 130, 170, and

200-foot dep ths . The 130-foot sample represents water quaUty prior to the

change in temperature at 140 feet. The 170-foot sample was coUected to

evaluate water quaUty after the tanperature change and prior to the change

in fluid resistivity. The 200-foot sample in the upper perforated zone was

collected to evaluate water qual i ty af ter the fluid r e s i t iv i ty c h a n g e .

Dynamic water quaUty samples were coUected at 175, 210, and 260 feet.

The 175-foot sample was coUected to evaluate water quaUty prior to the

183-foot deviations noted on the spinner and fluid resistivity logs. The

210-foot sample was coUected to evaluate water quaUty below the 183-foot

deviations and prior to the 260-foot slight water velocity increase. The

260-foot sample in the lower perforated zone, was coUected to evaluate the

water quaUty at the location of the slight velocity increase.

Table 4.7 Usts the identification of sample numbers representing

static and dynamic samples. The data included in Table 4.8 is a summary of

static and dynamic weU samples and duplicate samples. Actual laboratory

data is included in Appendix C.

The static sample data shows the highest concentrations of TCE,

chromium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, sulfate, and nitrate at 200 feet in

depth . The dynamic sample results show the highest TCE at the 175-foot

4-15 ETQ.29

TABLE 4.5

DEPTH-SPECIFIC SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM GAC PRODUCTION WELL NUMBER 2

Sample Number Sample Description

Static Conditions

S201 S202 S203 S204 S205 S206

Dynamic Conditions

S207 S208 S209 S210 S211 S212 S214 S417 S418

120-foot weU sample with 3-inch sampler 160-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler decontamination of 3-lnch sampler 200-foot weU sample with 3-lnch sampler decontamination of 2-1/8-lnch sampler 260-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler

160-focrt weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler 205-foot weU sample with 3-inch sampler 240-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler dupUcate 240-foot weU sample 2S5-foot sample with 3-lnch sampler decontamination of 2-1/8-lnch sampler 270-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler decontamination of 3-inch sampler 265-foot weU sample with 3-inch sampler

4-16

ETQ,32

(^"•Ct?! i fl*ft-^1^ ' ' - • •• - ' • *

TABLE 4,6

TCB, CHROMIUM. ANION, AND CATION CONCENTRATIONS AT STATIC AND DYNAMIC CONDITIONS IN

GAC WELL NUMBER 2

Static Conditions Dynamic Conditions Sample N u m b e r Sample D e p t h ( f t )

C o n s t i t u e n t s :

T C E ( p p b ) Chromium ( m g / l ) Calcium ( m g / i )

«. Magnes ium ( m g / i ) JL Sodium ( m g / l ) "* P o t a s s i u m ( m g / l )

C h l o r i d e ( m g / i ) B i c a r b o n a t e ( m g / i ) F l u o r i d e ( m g / l ) Su l f a t e ( m g / l ) N i t r a t e , N ( m g / I )

S201 120

10.6 O.Oil

108 59 89

6 .5 294 127 .

0 .3 126

7 .0

S202 160

12.7 0.033

103 57 88

6 .4 290 127

0 ,2 114

7 .2

S204 200

12.0 -^ 0 .045

98 54 88

6 . 0 280 129

0 .2 106

7 .4

S206 260

16.0 0 .060

96 55 89

0 . 0 270 129

0 .2 101

7 . 5

S207 160

6 . 1

S208 205

3 .5

S20d 240

3.6 0 .030 0.034 0.052

101 58 85

4 .8 286 135

0 . 3 138

7 . 9

63 41 88

4 .6 210 135

0 .3 72

6 .5

46 36

112 5.4

216 125

0 . 3 73

6 .5

S210* 240

3 .2 ----------

S211 S214 255 270

2 . 0 5 .8 0 .042 0.050

37 48 28 39 84 116

4 . 1 5 .4 162 224 106 125

0 . 3 0 . 3 55 38

5 .5 6 .6

* Duplicate sample of S209 - VOA only - Analysis not performed for sample

TABLE 4.7

DEPTH-SPECIFIC SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM GAC WELL NUMBER 3

Sample Number Sample Description

Sta t ic Condit ions

S301

S302 S303 S304 S305 S306 S307 S308 S309 S310 S3U S312 S313

Composite final decontamination rinse of logging equipment CyUnder nozzle without 3-lnch sampler CyUnder nozzle with 3-lnch sampler 3-inch sampler from cyUnder 130-foot weU sample in 3-inch sampler CyUnder nozzle without 2 1/8-inch sampler CyUnder nozzle with 2 1/8-inch sampler 2 1/8-inch sampler frpm cyUnder 170-foot weU sample in 2 1/8-lnch sampler CyUnder nozzle without 3-lnch sampler Cylinder nozzle with 3-lnch sampler 3-lnch sampler from cyUnder 200-foot sample in 3-lnch sampler

Dynamic Condi t ions

•fl S314 S315 S316 S317 S318 S319 S320 S321 S322

S323 S324 S325 S326

Cylinder nozzle without 3-lnch sampler CyUnder nozzle with 3-inch sampler 3-lnch sampler from cyUnder 175-foot weU sample in 3-lnch sampler Cylinder nozzle without 2 1/8-lnch sampler CyUnder nozzle without 2 1/8-lnch sampler 2 1/8-inch sampler from cyUnder 210-foot weU sample from 2 1/8-inch sampler 210-foot weU sample from 2 1/8-inch sampler (dupUcate) CyUnder nozzle without 3-inch sampler CyUnder nozzle with 3-inch sampler 3-inch sampler from cyUnder 260-foot weU sample from 3-inch sampler

4 - 1 8

DTG1.MM.37

*•••:•": S L ^' .T. ' - r '" .

TABLE 4.8

TCE, CHROMIUM, ANION, AND CATION CONCENTRATIONS AT STATIC AND DYNAMIC CONDITIONS

IN GAC WELL NUMBER 3

Sample Number:

Sample Depth ( fee t ) ;

Static Conditions

S305

130

S309

170

S313

200

S317

175

Dynamic Conditions

S321

210

S322*

210

S326

260

I

Cons t i tuen t s :

TCE ( p p b )

Chromium (mg/l)

Calcium (mg/l )

Magnesium (mg/l)

Sodium (mg/l )

Potassium (mg/l)

Chloride (mg/ l )

Bicarbonate (mg/l)

Fluoride (mg/ l )

Sulfate (mg/ l )

Ni t ra te , N (mg/l)

4.9

0.022

115

61

82

6.0

282

104

0.3

137

6.4

14.0

u 0.043

130

64

86

6.0

296

160

0.3

141

7.3

120.00

0.520

334

143

129

6.5

572

198

0.2

517

10.5

39.0

0.18

179

79

93

4.9

360

170

0.3

210

8.6

33.0

0.14

137

62

97

4.7

318

136

0.3

154

7.3

29.0 16.25

0.14

109

51

103

4.7

284

160

0.3

111

0.3

^Duplicate sample of S321 - VOA only.

- Analysis not performed for sample.

level. The dynamic sampUng data correspond well with the spinner, fluid

r e s i s t i v i t y , and t e m p e r a t u r e logs which indicate tha t water from the

uppermost perforated zone is entering the weU. The static sampling data,

on the other hand, suggest that the TCE Is entering nearer the bottom of

th i s well bu t the s ta t ic sampling analyses is misleading for reasons

previously discussed.

Water quaUty sample depths in weU 4 were selected based on field

evaluation of the logs. Static water samples were coUected at depths of

80, 130, 170, and 250 feet below the surface. The 80-foot sample was

coUected to evaluate water quaUty above the sUght decrease indicated on

the fluid resistivity log at 105 feet. The 130-foot sample was coUected

to evaluate the water quaUty between the 105-foot and 170-foot deviations

on the fluid resistivity log. Data from the 170-foot sample was used to

evaluate the water quaUty in the perforated area between 170 and 180 feet

in depth. The 250-foot sample was coUected to determine the water quaUty

below the upper perforated zone and at a depth sUghtly above the lower

perforated zone.

Dynamic water quaUty samples were coUected from depths of 150, 175,

210, 255, and 265 feet below the surface. The 150-foot sample was col­

lected to evaluate the water quaUty above the 170 to 180-foot perfora­

tions. The 175-foot sample was coUected to determine conditions in the

section of the 170 to 180-foot perforations. The 210-foot sample data was

coUected to evaluate the water quaUty conditions in the sections below

the 170 to 180-foot perforations where the logs indicate that the fluid

resitivity and temperature were relatively stable. The sample coUected at

255 feet was coUected to evaluate the water quaUty in the smaU section

of reduced velocity and a section above a slight reduction in temperature

and a s l ight i nc rease in fluid res i s t iv i ty Indicated on the logs . The

265-foot sample data was coUected to evaluate the water quality in the

lower perforated zone.

4-20 ETQ.29

The identification of sample numbers for static and dynamic samples

are contained in Table 4 .9 . Table 4.10 is a summairy of the results of

static and dynamic sample and duplicate sample analyses. Laboratory data

Is included in Appendix C.

The static condition analyses indicate an apparent increase in TCE and

other parameters with depth but these data are misleading. The dynamic

condition analyses also indicate an apparent increase in TCE at depth but

at a much lower concentration. WeU 4 spinner log data Indicated that an

overaU sUghtiy higher flow rate existed in the lower perforated zone. As

stated in section 4 . 1 , an overall higher permeabUity in the lower per ­

forated zone may have caused contaminants to flow rapid ly along the

anniUus. The other parameter analyses at depth have simUar concentra­

tions .

4-21 ETQ.29

TABLE 4.9

DEPTH-SPECIFIC SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM GAC PRODUCTION WELL NUMBER 4

Sample Number Sample Description

Static Conditions

S401 S402 S403 S404 S405 S406 S407 S408 S409

Dynamic Conditions

S410 S411 S412 S413 S414 S415 S416 S417 S418

decontamination of 2-1/8-inch sampler GAC water blank 80-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-inch sampler decontamination of 3-inch sampler 130-foot weU sample with 3-inch sample decontamination of 2-1/8-inch sampler 170-foot weU sample with 2-1/8-lnch sampler decontamination of 3-lnch sampler 250-foot weU sample with 3-inch sampler

150-foot weU sample with 175-foot weU sample with decontamination of 3-lnch 210-foot weU sample with duplicate 210-foot sample decontamination of 3-inch 255-foot weU sample with decontamination of 3-lnch 26S-foot weU sample with

3-lnch sampler 2-1/8-inch sampler sampler 3-inch sampler

sampler 3-inch sampler sampler 3-inch sampler

ETQ.30 4-22

TADLE 4.10

TCE. CHROMIUM. ANION. AND CATION CONCENTRATIONS AT STATIC AND DYNAMIC CONDITIONS IN

GAC WELL NUMBER 4

Static Conditions Dynamic Conditions

I

CJ

Sample N u m b e r Sample D e p t h ( f t )

C o n s t i t u e n t s :

TCE ( p p b ) Chromium ( m g / l ) Calcium ( m g / l ) Magnes ium ( m g / l ) Sodium ( m g / l ) P o t a s s i u m ( m g / l ) C h l o r i d e ( m g / l )

S403 80

16.4 ND

151 82 90

6 . 1 370

B i c a r b o n a t e ( m g / l ) 130 ^ F l u o r i d e ( m g / l ) S u l f a t e ( m g / l ) N i t r a t e , N ( m g / l )

0 .2 188

6.9

S405 130

101.0 ND

222 115

85 6 .8

482 122

0.2 320

1.0

S407 170

120.0 0 .026

303 154

94 7 . 5

544 176

0 .2 478

11.2

S409 250

120.0 ND

300 140

91 7 . 5

526 196

0 .2 396

11.6

S410 150

28 .4

S411 175

31 .5

S413 210

28 .5 0 .021 0 .023 0 .022

194 107 98

6 .7 484 139

0 . 3 210

10.5

182 103 101

7 . 0 486 137

0 .3 202

10,7

160 98

112 7 . 3

464 115

0 . 3 197

10.6

S414* 210

36 .2 ----------

S416 S418 255 265

41 . 2 4 3 . 9 0 .021 0.022

163 171 98 103

120 129 7 . 1 7 . 4

476 508 114 112

0 . 3 0 . 3 193 197

11 .1 11.4

ND - None detected * Duplieate sample of S413 - VOA only - Analysis not performed for sample

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

The data coUected and evaluated during this task of the investigation

of the extent of contamination phase of the project have resulted in the

foUowing significant findings:

. The GAC production weUs were InstaUed by the cable tool method

which may have resulted in the formation of a narrow annulus

between the casing and the borehole waU.

. This annulus may be an avenue of groundwater and contaminant

vertical migration.

. The weUs are perforated in at least two zones of each weU which

creates the potential for Interaquifer groundwater mixing.

. Construction, age, and encrustation are factors which limit the

usefulness of the data from the weils in the overaU objective of

this phase of the project.

. The TV logs were only partiaUy useful in evaluating the physical

condition of each well.

. The geophysical logs in genera l were useful in evaluat ing the

physical condition of the weUs.

. The fluid resistivity, differential temperature, and caUper were

the most useful geophysical logs.

. The static condition sampling was not useful and the analyses were

misleading.

. The dynamic (pumping) condition sampling was more useful than the

s t a t i c condit ion sampling, b u t the dynamic condit ion sampling

aUowed the mixing of waters from two or more perforated zones.

. The upper perforated zones of aU wells except weU 4 have higher

flow rates as compared to the lower perforated zones.

5-1 ETQ.43

The TCE concentrations in all weUs except weU 4 are higher in the

upper perforated than in the lower perforated zone. The overall

higher permeabiUty in the lower perforated zone may have caused

contaminants to migrate along the annulus into this zone, or the

pumping rate may not have been sufficient to puU the stagnant TCE

contaminated water found under static conditions from the zone.

TCE is apparentiy entering the production weUs from the upper

p e r f o r a t e d z o n e s . Monitoring well c lus te r ana lyses have also

resulted in tiiis finding.

The sampUng protocol initiaUy specified for these tasks, i . e . ,

s ta t ic sampUng and pumping from wells open at two or more zones,

resiUted in questionable and misleading data.

5-2 ETQ.43

APPENDIX A

;LD AIRPORT PHASE II , STAGE I ACTIVITIES PLAN

" LITCHFIELD AIRPORT AREA RI/FS

1

LITCHFIELD AIRPORT AREA RIFS PHASE II, STAGE I ACTIVITIES PLAN

INTRODDCTION

Groundwater containinated with voIati''3« 'or9anic compounds and chromium has been observed in the vicinity of the Phoenix-Litchfield Airport. Since groundwater contamination is the primary concem in the area, the RIFS focuses on groundwater related activities. Compared to many other sites on the National Priorities List, groundwater contamination in the area appears to be relatively widespread and deep. Potential Phase II monitoring well installation costs are therefore relatively high, and maximum use must be made of existing or less-costly data. Phase II has been divided into two stages to allow for an efficient and informed development of the remaining monitoring well program. Activities assigned to Stage I will be used to refine the understanding of contami­nation and geohydrology in the area such that potentially costly Stage II activities -are better planned.

The purpose of this plan is to describe in detail those tasks to be.undertaken in Stage I. The overall approach of Phase II is summarized in the document entitled "Summary of Proposed Activities, Phase II of Remedial Investigation, Litchfield Airport Area, Goodyear, Arizona. m

In addition to describing what is to be done in Stage I, this plan also describes expected observations, their use­fulness to the RIFS and the estimated costs and schedule. As such, this plan serves as the first detailed supplement to the more general Summary of Proposed Activities for Phase II. A similar plan will be developed for Stage II based on the results of Stage I.

Taslcs to be completed in Stage I include soil gas sampling, spinner logging and depth sampling of existing production wells, data evaluation, a determination of source verifica­tion requirements, preliminary screening of remedial action technologies and groundwater management techniques, contin­uation of ongoing monitoring activities, preparation of a report summarizing the Stage I results, and development of a detailed plan for Stage II. Monthly modeling subcommittee and bi-monthly project committee meeting attendance would continue. Stage I tasks are scheduled to begin in early January and run through late June and are estimated to cost about $440,000. '

TASK 1 - SOIL GAS SAMPLING

Soil gas sampling will be conducted to provide qualitative indications of the presence of volatile organic chemicals

(VOC) in the wash that drains Luke AFB and transects the study area. This may allow the refined assessment of the area as a potential source. The presence of VOC's in the soils may be detected by this procedure because of the vola­tile nature of the contaminants. This method has been used at several contamination sites in the Salt River Valley in­cluding the Unidynamics facility.^"TCE was detected in soil gas adjacent to disposal dry wells at Unidynamics.

The general procedure for the soil gas investigation at the Phoenix-Litchfield Airport will consist of the following subtasks:

a) Define area to be investigated and VOC's to be analyzed for based on available VOC data.

b) Select a f i m to conduct the soil gas sampling and chemical analysis.

c) Design grid of sampling locations along the wash.

d) Conduct soil gas sampling. It is assumed for budgeting that 5 linear miles along the wash will be tested at 400 to 600 foot centers.

e) Compile soil gas concentration data and related OA/QC information. Plot soil gas concentration data on plan view map. Estimate probable extent of contaminated soil and recommend further investigation of soil gas, if necessary.

f) Prepare a brief summary of soil gas investigation acti­vities and results for presentation to Project Committee.

At the present time, soil gas sampling to aid in plume defi­nition is not anticipated due to the depth to groundwater, estimated low contaminant concentrations, and limited success of plume definition of Unidynamics, Task 1 is scheduled to begin in early January and run until mid-April.

TASK 2 - SPINNER LOGGING/DEPTH SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY SAMPLING

Spinner logging and depth-specifie water quality sampling will be conducted in approximately six exi5tipg a <-ivo anH intact ive prod'T -*'•'<•'" uoiie which produce or have produced contaminated water in order to assess the contaminated in­tervals. This will provide information on the vertical dis­tribution of contaminants in areas adjacent to and beyond those already investigated with monitoring wells. It is expected that spinner logging will identify vertical in­tervals with relatively higher rates of groundwater flow. Based on the results of the spinner logging, water quality samples will be collected from the major zones of groundwater

flow and production with either a thief sampling device or packers. The choice of sampling device will depend on the construction and equipment of the particular well and the success of using the thief sampling device as the inves­tigation proceeds. The data collected from spinner logging and depth-specific water quality sampling may allow a re-** finepent of monitoring well locations and possibly substitute for monitoring well data. Spinner logging and depth-specific water cpiality sampling may also provide information necessary for determining.the feasibility of restoring the individual wells to service by blocking certain levels to reduce inflow of contaminants. Spinner logging has been applied by the U.S. Geological Survey to wells in the Salt River Valley. Depth-specific water quality sampling for VOC's has been applied by the City of Tempe in the Indian Bend Wash area.

The general procedure for spinner logging and depth-specific water quality sampling will consist of the following sub-tasks:

a) Identification of contaminated existing production wells which could be logged amd sampled in the area.

b) Obtaining permission to conduct work on wells from own­ers and coordination of well use and oversight with owners. Obtaining equipment specifications and pro­duction characteristics from owners, if available.

c) Selection of discharge arrangement for pumped water based on estimated volume to be pumped, proximity to sewers, cost of containment and transport (i.e, truck), cost of on-site treatment options and the expected con­centrations of pumped water for each well.

d) Selection of a non-contract laboratory for chemical analysis of groundwater samples (CH2M HILL or local).

e) Selection of firm to perform spinner logging services.

f.). Selecti-0n T o.£:£firm to perform pump manipulation services.

g) Coordination of work to be done with owners, logging company, and pump company.

h) Commencement of work on each well:

i) Conduct step-discharge test of existing well. This will consist of 2 one-hour steps and 1 four-hour step for the purpose of determining the wells performance. The results of this step-discharge test will be used to determine the best pumping rate for logging and sampling.

Aquifer parameters will also be estimated from the step-discharge test.

ii) Remove existing pump from well.

iii) Run television log of the entire well and record the log on videotape for the owner. Note any cascading water.

iv) Compare actual perforated intervals to re­ported perforated intervals and evaluate con­dition of perforation openings.

V) Run static spinner log of perforated intervals.

vi) Evaluate static spinner log results.

vii) If there is room for spinner logging tool and attachment cable when the owner's pump is in place, replace owner's pump and prepare for spinner log. If room is not avail2ible, place largest available submersible pump in well and prepare for spinner log.

viii) Run spinner log of perforated intervals while pump is running.

ix) Evaluate pumping spinner log results.

x) Choose intervals of major groundwater produc­tion, if apparent.

xi) Collect samples from major producing zones, if apparent, or from even intervals of perfo­rations (no more than 10 in number).

xii) Package and send samples to laboratory for analysis for VOA's (EPA 601), chromium, and major anions and cations plus nitrate, fluo­ride.

xiii) Remove sampling and logging eqtiipment and replace owner's pump as necessary.

xiv) Run owner's pump to determine any significant changes in production.

XV) When samples results are received, analyze results and prepare brief summary of spinner logging and depth sampling activities and results for presentation to owner and Project Committee.

Task 2 is scheduled to begin in early January and run through early May.

TASK 3 - DATA EVALUATION

Before proceeding to Stage II and determining the locations of monitoring wells, a thorough evaluation of the available data in light of the soil gas sampling and spinner logging/ depth specific water quality sampling results will be neces­sary. Additional work to be completed as part of this task will be completion of a water quality data base. The data base is needed to allow efficient access to the large volumes of water quality and site characteristic data already col­lected and expected to be collected. This data base, to be established by CH2M HILL, is more focused than the broad data base required for ADWR modeling efforts. With a com­plete evaluation of all available information, a refined understanding of the site will be formed which will in turn refine the location of monitoring wells in Stage II. Spe­cific subtasks under this task will include:

a) Completion of the data base with data collected thus far and other information available in agency files not already included. An inventory of abandoned wells will be provided.

b) Development of a refined estimate of the vertical and areal extent of the groundwater contamination. Eval­uation of lithologic breaks. Evaluation of soil gas sampling results with respect to the availeUsle water quality data. Evaluation of spinner logging/depth-spe­ci fie water quality sampling results with respect to previously collected water quality data and lithologic data in the area. Evaluation of time trends in VOC concentrations. Evaluation of available inorganic water quality data. Evaluation of spatial and time trends in water levels. Evaluation of groundwater flow paths and contaminant transport over time on regional and local

..... ...scales. Estimate impact of cascading water in existing production wells.

c) Coordinate with ADWR modeling activities.

d) Estimate aeral and vertical water-level response to proposed long-term aquifer test.

Task 3 is scheduled to be ongoing from early January to early May.

TASK 4 - PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF REMEDIAL kCTIOVS

Preliminary screening of remedial actions is required prior to initiating Stage II to allow focusing of the field activ­ities on specific data needs. Specific steps to be taken include refinement of the general response actions identified in the ordg4«nal workplan; identification and screening of appropriate technologies and groundwater management tech­niques; and preliminary assembling of likely altematives. Initial identification and screening will be conducted by EPA, ADWR, and ADHS. A draft summary of identified tech­nologies and techniques, the screening process, and,antic­ipated remaining data requirements will be prepared and distributed to the project coxuaittee for review and comment. A meeting will be held to solicit input from the committee. Since screening and altemative identification is an ongoing process throughout the RIFS, a final screening document will not be issued at this time. Input from the project committee will be incorporated into planned Stage II field activities which will be described in the report to be developed fol­lowing Stage I. Task 4 is scheduled to be conducted from early May to late June.

TASK 5 - ONGOING MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Monitoring of water levels and water quality conducted as part of Phase I will continue under Phase II Stage I in order to identify possible exposure and develop a record of time trends in these parameters. At present, monthly water level measurements and quarterly water quality sampling in all monitoring wells and selected existing production wells are anticipated. Quarterly sampling is scheduled for March and June.

TASK 6 - DRAFT PHASE II STAGE I SUMMARY REPORT

At the completion of Phase II Stage I, a summary report will be prepared for review and comment by the project committee. The report will discuss all Stage I activities and results, including those from ongoing'monitoring. The report will include a detailed plan for Stage II. The report is sched­uled to be prepared from early May to late June.

TASK 7 - SOURCE VERIFICATION

As a supplement to the source verification report prepared in Phase I, a records search will be conducted to determine if additional field investigation is warranted to identify, characterize, and quantify specific potential sources of contamination such as underground tanks, residue from past or present surface impoundments, contaminated soils, or lo­calized volumes of highly contaminated groundwater. The

records search will consist of additional review of data already available on chemical usage and disposal, collection and review of past and present facility layout or construc­tion plans, collection and review of euiy available soil and groundwater sampling results from samples collected within the facility, and a site visit to aid in identifying possible Tsampling needs and locations.

At the present time, source verification activities are planned for the'airport area. Following the records search, a decision would be made in conjunction with the project committee on whether additional field investigation would be useful at the airport or other sites. If so, a detailed p l a n of investigation will be developed and submitted to the project committee for review and comment. Actual implemen­tation of field tasks would be a part of Stage II. Task 7 is scheduled to begin in early February and last through early April.

TASK 8 - COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Community relations activities during the first-stage of the Phase II RIFS are expected to include completion of a fact sheet in January sxumnarizing the results from Phase I and preparation of a fact sheet in late May and June summarizing the results from the first-stage of Phase II. Allowance is also made for holding and attending a public meeting schedule for February due to the substantial schedule increase and a possible need to present modifications to the original work plan. Community relations activities for the remainder of the project will be refined based on the results of Stage I.

TASK 9 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT/QUALITY CONTROL

Project management/quality control activities during the first-stage of the Phase II RIFS include budget and schedule control; attendance at monthly planning meetings with EPA, bi-monthly project committee meetings and monthly modeling subcommittee meetings; attendance at negotiation neetings with potentially responsible parties; review of project de­liverables and reports or proposals issued by potentially responsible parties; and overall technical direction of the project-

Anticipated major project deliveraUales during Stage I include specifications for soil gas sampling and spinner logging including produced water disposal requirements; a scope of work for field source verification activities; a draft pre­liminary screening of alternatives summary; a report provid­ing the results of Stage I and offering a refined scope of work for Stage II; and specifications for hiring a subcon­tractor to obtain monitoring well site access. All deliver­ables will be submitted to the project committee for review and comment.

cy ' Project Schedule and Costs

The planned schedule for Phase II, Stage I activities is shown in Figure 1. The schedule assumes that activities needed to plan and accomplish the proposed tasks will con­tinue while plans or reports are under review by the project committee. Two weeks is allowed for committee review. Re­sponse to comments will likely be a memorandum summarizing the comments and responses. Repetitive document issuance is not intended until the final Stage I report is prepared. The schedule also assumes that authorization to proceed with the proposed tasks is.received in mid-January.

A sunmiary of estimated Stage I costs are presented in Ta­ble 1. The costs presented assume that all work will be completed by CH2M HILL. Potentially responsible party par­ticipation or tentatively planned subcontracting to Ecology and Environment may cause these estimated costs to change. Figure 2 represents an estimate of monthly spending through the end of Stage I to assist in allocation of funds by EPA. Detailed Stage I costs estimates for each task are also at­tached.

INITIAL SCOPE OF PHASE II STAGE II ACTIVITIES

The remainder of Phase II activities, i.e.. Stage II may be similar to the activities described in the original Phase II proposal. The results of Stage I activities are expected to play a significant role in refining those activities. At present, the following activities are expected to be under­taken in order to overcome the data deficiencies as described in the Phase II proposal.

1) Pre-Drilling activities such as preparation of drilling and geophysical logging specifications.

2) Acquisition of drilling site access.

3) Coordination with ADWR on digital modeling analyses of regional and local groundwater flow, ^—.-.'..-.-

4) Drilling of Sub-unit A monitoring wells.

5) Drilling Sub-units B and C monitoring wells.

6) Conducting long-term aquifer tests, including estab­lishing produced water disposal requirements.

7) Analysis of data.

8) Continue screening of alternative remedial actions.

9) Continue monitoring of water levels and water quality.

10) Present interim progress reports concerning Stage II activities.

11) Present Final Remedial Investigation report.

12) Update RI documents (QAPP, sampling plans, health and safety plan) as required.

13) Community relations activities.

14) Oversight of work.by potentially responsible parties.

SFR77/128

Table 1 Estimated Phase II, Stage I

RIFS Cost Summary

Litchfield Airport Area RIFS

Task

1. - Soil Gas Sampling

2. - Spinner Logging and Depth Sampling

3. - Data Re-evaluation

4. - Preliminary Alternative Screening

5. - On-going Monitoring

6. - Report Preparation

7. - Source Verification

8. - Community Relations

9. - Project Management

Totals

LOE Hours

244

912

616

120

24

480

180

132

820

3,528

Total Cost

$32,500

168,600

62,500

13,600

28,400

38,600

15,000

10,600

72,300

$442,100

SFR77/132

PHASE I I , STAGE I ESTI^WTEO SCHEDULE LITCHFIELD AIRPORT AREA RIFS DECEMBER 13 , 1?85

MONTH/ JAN FEB fWR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TASK UEEK/ 8 4 8 13 17 21 26 38 34

1 - S o i l Gas S a m p l i n g » « » » » « • « • « • • • •

2 - S p i n n e r L o g g i n g / « • •«»««»««•«»«### Depth s a m p ) i n g

3 - 0 * t A R e - « v a ] u a t i o n « « • • • • « » • « » « • • # • •

4 - A l t » p n a t i v e »»»»•» Pp» -»c r»»n i ng

5-Mon i t o r I n g • • « « « « « « « « • « « « « • • • • • « « •

6 - R » p o r t Dra- f t # « « « • •

7 -Soorc» Uork • » « » • • » # » #

8 -Comnun i t y • « • * • # • • R e l a t i o n s

9 - P r o j » c t Management » • « « • » • » » » » « » « « « • • « • • • •

ASSUMES J<a JUARY 6 START DATE

APPENDIX B

LOGGING AND DEPTH-SPECIFIC SAMPLING RESULTS

UNITED STATES EfvViROfviiViiiJT,::.: ;-'r

MEMORANDUM

DATE: April 11, 198 6

SUBJECT: Review of spinner-logging/soil-gas specifications

FROM: Jeff Rosenbloom, Remedial Project Manager

TO: PLA/IBW Project Committee and Intersted Persons

Enclosed for your review and comment are the specifications

for spinner logging and soil gas testing. I would appreciate

all comments by telephone or in writing by May 1, 198 6, I will

respond to your comments on or before the next Committee meeting.

Thank you for your time in reviewing the enclosed materials.

If you have any questions or wish to .<;ubmit comments, please call

me at (415) 974-7513,

Enclosure

DRAFT SPECIFICATIONS FOR

GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING AND DEPTH-SPECIFIC

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT RI/FS PHASE II, STAGE 1, TASK 1

SECTION 1: SUMMARY OF WORK

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 WORK INCLUDED: This section describes the project

in general, and provides an overview of the extent of the

work to be performed under this Contract. Detailed require­

ments and extent of work are stated in the applicable Speci­

fication sections. The Contractor shall, except as other­

wise specifically stated herein or in any applicable parts

of the Contract Documents, provide and pay for all labor,

materials, equipment, tools, construction equipment, and

other facilities and services necessary for proper exe­

cution, testing, and completion of the work under this Con­

tract.

1.1.2 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: The Contract Documents in­

clude the Bidding Requirements, Contract Forms, Conditions

of the Contract, Specifications, Drawings, Addenda, and all

requirements and provisions incorporated therein by specific

reference thereto. They are intended to be self-explanatory

and cooperative, and to describe and provide for a complete

work. Bidders are required to familiarize themselves with

the provisions of the Contract Documents and make available

to prospective suppliers and subcontractors such information

derived therefrom that applies to suppliers and subcontrac­

tors.

1.1.3 SPECIFICATIONS: The Specifications included in

these Contract Documents establish the performance and

W63590.FL PHS4/002 8foCOMO8/d.2301

1 PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1.2.1 GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING AND TESTING:

1.2.1.1 General: When completed, this project will provide

geophysical logs, borehole television surveys, pumping

tests, and depth-specific water samples from 10 existing wa­

ter supply wells listed in Table 8-1. When the first 4

wells have been logged and sampled, the results will be dis­

cussed with EPA and the Project Committee and a decision

will be made as to whether to complete the work at the re­

maining 6 wells.

1.2.1.2 Work Included: Mobilization of equipment for

borehole television and geophysical surveys; installation

and removal of temporary piping; operating, removing and

resetting existing piunping equipment; setting, operating and

removing test pumps; conducting borehole geophysical logs

and television surveys, and collecting depth-specific water

samples.

1.2.2 SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS:

1.2.2.1 Wells will be tested, logged and sampled in the

order specified by the engineer.

1.2.2.2 In order to meet the overall objectives of this

project, elements of work must be completed or substantially

completed in the following sequence:

1. Install piping for disposal of water from tests

2. Conduct pumping test as specified in Section 5:

PUMPING TEST using existing pump. (For equipped

W63590.FL PHS4/002 sfoCOMO8/d.2301

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

10, Remove test pumping equipment, reset well owner's

pump (if eguipped) and repeat capacity test

11, Mobilize equipment to next site as directed by the

engineer

* * * * * *

W63590.FL PHS4/002 sfoCOM08/d.2301

1 1 1 I 1 I I I i t •I »

I X

I .1

I 3

I 1

I a

I I I

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

2.2.2 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AND CONTAMINANTS PRESENT:

The Phase I Data Summary/Report (Ecology and Environment,

1986) provides data on the Phoenix-Litchfield Airport area

which indicate that the water table in the Upper Alluvium

Unit occurred at depths of approximately 39 to 95 feet below

ground surface in 1986. Groundwater in the area appeared to

be flowing from the east towards the west, northwest and

southwest in 1986. Sediments tapped by the wells to be

logged and sampled appear to be Quaternary basin fill,

fluvial and alluvial fan deposits of the Upper Alluvial and

Middle Fine Grained Units ranging in composition from clays

and silts to gravels and cobbles. Preliminary sampling of

groundwater from existing production and monitoring wells

indicates that chromium above the USEPA primary water stan­

dard is present. Carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride,

trichlorofluoromethane, chloroform, 1,1,l-trichl6roethane

(1,1,1-TCA), 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA), 1,1-dichloroethene

(DCE), 1,2,-trans-dichloroethene (tDCE), trichloroethene

(TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and benzene are the most

commonly found organic compounds in groundwater in the area.

2.2.3 All information obtained by the engineer regarding

site conditions, topography, subsurface information, ground­

water elevations, existing construction of site facilities

as applicable, and similar data will be available for in­

spection at the office of the engineer upon request. Such

information is offered as supplementary information only.

Neither CH2M HILL nor EPA assumes any responsibility for the

completeness or for the Contractor's interpretation of such

supplementary information.

W63590.FL SITE CONDITIONS PHS4/003 sfoCOMO8/d.2402

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

permission has been granted, locate through the Blue Stake

Center, expose, and provide temporary support for all exist­

ing underground utilities.

2.4.3 The Contractor shall be solely and directly re­

sponsible to the owner and operators of such properties for

any damage, injury, expense, loss, inconvenience, delay,

suits, actions, or claims of any character brought because

of any injuries or damage which may result from the op­

erations under this Contract.

2.4.4 Neither CH2M HILL nor its officers or agent shall

be responsible to the Contractor for damages as a result of

the Contractor's failure to protect the wells upon which the

work is being conducted and utilities encountered in t:he

work.

2.4.5 In the event of interruption of service or damage

to the wells, domestic water, sewer, storm drain, or other

utility services as a result of accidental breakage due to

construction operations, promptly notify the proper authori­

ty. Cooperate with said authority in restoration of service

as promptly as possible and bear all costs of repair. In no

event shall interruption of any utility service be allowed

outside working hours unless granted by the owner of the

•utility.

2.4.6 Drainage culverts that are removed by the Contrac­

tor shall be replaced in kind at the expense of the Contrac­

tor.

2.4.7 The Contractor shall replace, at his own expense,

any and all other existing utilities or structures removed

or damaged during construction, unless otherwise provided

for in these Contract Documents.

W63590.FL SITE CONDITIONS PHS4/003 sfoCOMO8/d.2402

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

2.6.3 Without additional compensation, the Contractor

may remove and replace in a condition as good as or better

than original, any small structures such as fences, mailbox­

es, and signposts that interfere with the Contractor's op­

erations.

2.7 EASEMENTS

2.7.1 Where portions of the work will be located on pub­

lic or private property, easements and permits will be ob­

tained by CH2M HILL. Easements will provide for the use of

property for operations purposes only to the extent indicat­

ed on the easements. The Contractor shall confine his op­

erations to within the easement limits.

2.7.2 It is anticipated that all the required easements

and access permits will be obtained before work is started.

However, should the procurement of any easement or permit be

delayed, the Contractor shall schedule his work in such a

way that his operations are confined to areas where ease­

ments or permits have been obtained or are not required,

until such a time as the easement or permit has been

secured.

2.8. PAYMENT

2.8.1 GENERAL: Payment for the work in this section if

needed will be included as part of the lump sum bid or ap­

propriate unit prices as part of MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION

and CLEANUP stated in the Proposal. The lump sum and unit

prices as stated in the Proposal, shall include all inci­

dental work.

* * * * * *

W6359O.FL SITE CONDITIONS PHS4/003 sfoCOMO8/d.2402

SECTION 3: SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

3.1 SCOPE

3.1.1 WORK INCLUDED: Work covered by these Agreement

Documents will be conducted in the vicinity of and on a haz­

ardous waste site that has been placed on the EPA National

Priorities List. All work completed by the Subcontractor

shall be accomplished in accordance with the Site Safety

Plan as established by CH2M HILL.

3.2 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

3.2.1 GENERAL:

3.2.1.1 Contractors shall comply with the Site Health and

Safety Plans as required by CH2M HILL. Expected hazardous

conditions and required clothing and respiratory equipment

use are identified in these Plans.

All Contract personnel engaged in field investigation work

must be trained for such activity. Training shall include,

but not be limited to, use of personnel protection equipment

(including respirators), decontamination, hazard recogni­

tion, safe operating procedures, and emergency response.

All Subcontractor personnel who enter hazardous sites will

be required, at a minimum, to pass an entry physical ex­

amination that meets the OSHA requirements for respirator

use (29 CFR 1910.134). THe Subcontractor shall provide cer­

tification that provisions of 29 CFR 1910.134 have been met

for all employees onsite.

W63590.FL PHS4/004 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY sfoCOMO8/d.2403

(OSHA); all other applicable federal, state, county, and

local laws, ordinances, codes, and the reguirements set

forth herein; and any regulations that may be specified in

other parts of these Contract Documents. Where any of these,

are in conflict, the more stringent requirement shall be

followed. The Contractor's failure to thoroughly familiar­

ize himself with the aforementioned safety provisions shall

not relieve him from compliance with the obligations and

penalties set forth therein.

3.3.1.3 The Contractor shall at all times provide for safe

access to the work as authorized by government officials and

CH2M HILL,

3.4. PAYMENT

3.4.1 GENERAL:

3.4.1.1 Payment for materials and equipment reguired under

this section, will be made at the unit price for Levels C

personnel protection as stated in the Contractor's Proposal,

3.4.1.2 Equipment required, but not listed on the Contrac­

tor 's Proposal, shall be considered incidental to perfor­mance of work. No Specific payment shall be made.

W63590.FL PHS4/004 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY sfoCOMO8/d.2403

4.1.2.6 Wash water and solutions remaining after decon­

tamination of equipment will also be considered a hazardous

waste. The Subcontractor will be required to place all

waste designated by the site Engineer in sealed United

States Department of Transportation (DOT) approved 55-gallon

drums. All containers shall be labeled and dated. The Con­

tractor shall provide the 55-gallon drums and arrange for

EPA approved disposal.

4.2 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

4.2.1 GENERAL:

4.2.1.1 The Contractor must provide all equipment neces­

sary for the decontamination process (excluding the clean

and distilled water) such as trisodium phosphate, methanol,

a mobile hot water high pressure washer, buckets, brushes,

etc.

4.2.1.2 Subcontractor shall provide United States Depart­

ment of Transportation (U.S. DOT)-approved containers having

55-gallon capacity and sealable, watertight lids as

required. Labeling materials shall also be supplied by the

Contractor.

4.3. WORKMANSHIP

4.3.1 GENERAL: The Contractor shall follow the general

decontamination plans, as specified by CH2M HILL in the Site

Health and Safety Plan. Prior to mobilization, the Contrac­

tor will finalize all personnel decontamination needs,

equipment, and procedures with CH2M HILL. A decontamination

station, satisfying Level C or D requirements and equipped

with a means of catching all water, will be supplied by the

Contractor.

W63590.FL DECONTAMINATION OF PERSONNEL PHS4/005 AND EQUIPMENT sfoCOMO8/d.2404

SECTION 5: MOBILIZATION AND CLEANUP

5.1 SCOPE

5.1.1 WORK INCLUDED; This section covers that work nec­

essary to move in and move out personnel and equipment, set

up and remove pump pulling rigs, test pumps and appurte­

nances, geophysical logging equipment, and temporary facil­

ities, and clean up sites, complete.

5.2 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

5.2.1 GENERAL: Provide all materials and equipment

required to accomplish the work as specified.

5.3 WORKMANSHIP

5.3.1 GENERAL:

5.3.1.1 Set up equipment within the area designated by the

Engineer. Accomplish all required work in accordance with

applicable portions of these Specifications.

5.3.1.2 Bidders are advised to carefully inspect the exist­

ing facilities before preparing their proposals. The re­

moval and replacement of minor obstructions such as elec­

trical conduits, water, waste piping, and similar items

shall be anticipated and accomplished, even though not spe­

cifically mentioned.

5.3.2 SECURITY FENCE: Contractor's security fence may be

constructed for the protection of materials, tools, and

W63590.FL MOBILIZATION AND CLEANUP PHS4/012 sfoC0M09/d.102/1

SECTION 6: STANDBY TIME AND DOWN TIME

6.1 SCOPE

6.1.1 DEFINITIONS:

6.1.1.1 Standby time shall be paid for eguipment and crew

for any portion of a normal work day when CH2M HILL's rep­

resentative orders work to cease.

6.1.1.2 Downtime shall mean that time, other than standby

time, during which work could occur but does not or when

machinery is broken down, materials or equipment are not

available, or the Contractor elects not to conduct work,

6.2. PAYMENT

6.2.1 GENERAL:

6.2.1.1 Payment for standby time (resulting from each spe­

cific cause) shall be at the unit price per hour as stated

in the Contractor's Proposal for STANDBY TIME.

6.2.1.1 All downtime shall be at the sole expense of the

Contractor.

* * * * * *

W63590. PHS4/006 . STANDBY TIME AND DOWN TIME sfoCOMO8/d.2405

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT ?,DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

7.2.2 DOWNHOLE TOOL REQUIREMENTS:

7.2.2.1 The neutron tool shall be of the type intended for

the qualitative determination of formation porosity. All

neutron logging operations will be conducted in cased holes.

7.2.2.2 The caliper tool shall be capable of measuring di­

ameters in cased holes between 14 and 24 inches in diameter

to a tolerance of plus or minus 1/2 inch.

7.2.2.3 The temperature tool shall be capable of resolving

temperature changes of 0.1 degree C over the temperature

range of 15 to 30 degrees C. The temperature tool shall be

no more than 3 inches in diameter.

7.2.2.4 The fluid conductivity tool shall be capable of

resolving conductivity changes of 50 micromohs in the range

of 500 to 2,000 micromohs.

7.2.2.5 The spinner flowmeter shall be of the type utiliz­

ing a rotating magnet and nonmechanical switch to sense ro­

tation. The minimum diameter of the impeller shall be 3

inches, and the meiximum outside diameter of the tool shall

be 3-5/8 inches. The flowmeter tool shall be capable of

op>eration in either the continuous traverse mode or station­

ary mode. Time-drive recording shall be provided for sta­

tionary mode operations. To the degree practicable, the

flowmeter tool shall be centralized in the casing or screen

during all operations.

7.2.2.6 The fluid sampling tool shall have a minimum sam­

ple capacity of 1 liter. All threaded joints and valves

shall be designed to be watertight to a minimum depth of

W63590.FL GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING PHS4/007 6foCOMO8/d.2406

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT ?.DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

shown on the logs. Log headings shall be filled in com­

pletely, with sufficient information to identify the well,

the type of log, and pertinent eunbient conditions. All logs

shall include a repeat section of the zone or zones of in­

terest, as designated by the engineer.

7.3.2 RECORDING•AND SCALE SELECTION: The engineer will

specify the logging speed and vertical scale units commensu­

rate with the purpose of the logs. It is the responsibility

of the Contractor to see that scales, calibration and stan­

dardization, and other pertinent data are recorded on each

log. In general, API format should be applied where appli­

cable.

7.3.3 CLEANING AND DECONTAMINATION: Prior to each log­

ging run, downhole logging and sampling eguipment shall be

cleaned by washing with tap water and detergent, rinsing

with potable water, followed by a rinse with methanol or

isopropanol, and allowed to air-dry. A 40 ml sample of the

rinsate shall be analyzed for VOA's. The logging cable to

be submerged shall be wiped down with a clean towel saturat­

ed with methanol or isopropanol.

7.3.4 PURGING OF FLUID SAMPLER: After cleaning the flu­

id sampler as described above, it shall be prepared for each

saunpling run as follows:

A. With the bottom valve and fill valves open, purge

air from the sampler with dry nitrogen gas

B. Close the fill valve, connect a vacuum pump to the

bottom valve and evacuate the sampler to an in­

ternal pressure of approximately 0.1 atmosphere

W6359O.FL GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING PHS4/007 sfoC0MO8/d.2406

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT ?.DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

40 ml samples in VOA vials from the sampling port

located on the side of the chsunber.

6) Remove the seimpling tool and transfer a portion of

the sampled volume to two 4 0 ml VOA vials.

7) Decontaminate the sampling tool as described Sec­

tion 7, Subsection 3.3.

8) Insert the sampling tool into the organic free

water filled chamber and collect a 1-liter sample.

While the sampling tool is immersed, also extract

two 40 ml sampling VOA vials from the sampling

port located on the side of the chamber.

9) Remove the sampling tool and transfer a portion of

the sample volume to two 40 ml VOA vials.

10) Decontaminate the sampling tool as described in

Section 7, Subsection 3.3.

11) Repeat Steps 4 through 10.

All VOA samples collected during this procedure will be col­

lected, stored, shipped, and analyzed according to the pro­

cedures outlined in CH2M HILL's Quality Assurance Project

Plan.

7.3.6 SAMPLING TOOL AND DECONTAMINATION FIELD CALI­

BRATION PROCEDURE: The following procedure is required be­

fore each depth-specific water sample is taken to provide

quality assurance:

W63590.FL GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING PHS4/007 sfoCOMO8/d.2406

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT ?.DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

7.3.7 DELIVERABLES: Furnish five field copies of each

log within 8 hours of completing each series of logs. Fur­

nish reproducible copies or originals of all logs within 10

days of completion of all logging operations. Furnish water

quality samples in a suitable container at 4''C for all

depths specified by the engineer.

7.4. PAYMENT

7.4,1 GENERAL: Payment for all work, materials, and

eguipment specified in this section will be made at the unit

price per log series as stated in the Contractor's Proposal

in Schedule A, GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING and DOWNHOLE SAHPLING.

Cost of logging tool insurance shall be included in the unit

price.

* * * * * * * *

W6359O.FL GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING PHS4/007 sfoCOM08/d.2406

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

8.2.1.4 The pumping unit prime mover, controls, and appur­

tenances shall be capable of being operated without inter­

ruption for a period of 16 hours.

8.2.1.5 Contractor shall furnish engine-driven equipment or

shall make his own arrangements for power for well pumping

test. The well owner shall be contacted concerning power

costs where applicable.

8.2.2 FLOW MEASURING DEVICE: Provide machined orifice

plate(s) or flowmeter(s) capable of measuring the pump dis­

charge within plus or minus 5 percent of true flow for

flowrates from 500 gpm to 2,500 gpm.

8.2.3 DISCHARGE PIPING: Furnish, install, maintain, and

operate discharge piping for the pump unit of sufficient

size to conduct pumped water to the waste area designated by

the Engineer. Disposal of pumped water will be dependent on

individual well site conditions and contaminant concen­

trations. For proposal purposes, water disposal will be

determined on a case-by-case basis coordinated with EPA and

bid on a time and materials basis.

8.2.4 ACCESS PIPE: Provide and install a 4-inch minimum ID

pipe to permit passage of the geophysical logging tools.

The pipe shall be similar to that used to protect the fluid

sampling tool but it shall terminate approximately 2 feet

below the pump and be sufficient strength to remain open for

the duration of the test. The access pipe shall be posi­

tioned so as to permit insertion of the geophysical logging

tools.

8.2.5 SOUNDER TUBING:

W63590.FL PUMPING TEST PHS4/008 sfoCOMO8/d.2407

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

rate listed in Table 8-1, 2 hours at 85 percent of the nomi­

nal test rate, and 4 hours at 105 percent of the nominal

test rate.

8.3.2.3 For wells with existing installed pumps, repeat the

specific capacity test following reinstallation of the per­

manent pump.

8.3.3 REMOVAL OF EXISTING PUMPS:

8.3.3.1 When directed by the engineer, remove the existing

installed pumping equipment and store in accordance with the

well owner's instructions.

8.3.3.2 The Contractor shall be responsible for disconnect­

ing, securing, and reconnecting all utilities associated

with the existing well pumps.

8.3.3.3 Immediately upon completion of the geophysical log­

ging and downhole seunpling operations, and when directed by

the engineer, reinstall the well owner's pump and conduct a

performance specific capacity test as described in para­

graph. Successful reinstallation of the well owner's equip­

ment will be evaluated by CH2M HILL and the well owner.

8.3.4 PUMPING TEST (WHILE LOGGING):

8.3.4.1 Operate the pumping test equipment continuously at

the maximum rates of discharge listed in Table 8-1 or as

prescribed by the engineer.

8.3.4.2 DISPOSAL OF WATER: Disposal'of water shall be the

responsibility of the Contractor. The method and place of

disposal shall be specific for each well's conteuninant con­

tents as directed by the engineer. EPA will be consulted as

to the proper method of disposal for each well.

W6359O.FL PUMPING TEST PHS4/008 sfoCOMO8/d.2407

Table 8-1 NEt.L CONSTRUCTION AND TEST PUMP Di\TA

Hell I .D . No.

(B-l-1) 4IVAB (B-l-1) lOBCC (B-l-1)lOBDB

(B1-1)16AAB (B1-1)16AAA

(B-l-1)16ADB

(B-l-1)16ACD3

(B-l-1)16ACD2

(B-l-1)9DDB

(B-l-1)lOCCD

Owiershlp

Goodyear Farms

C. Goodyear 92 C. Goodyear 13

GAC 12

GAC #•

GAC »4

P U 13

P U #2

C. Goodyear 15

C. Goodyear 11

Reported

Depth, Ft,

702

600

390

330

320

302

348

240

501

405

Casing Diameters and Depths 1 2

20" 0-702

16" 0-400, 12" 0-600

16" 0-375

20" 0-375

20" 0-330

20" 0-320

20" 0-302

Unknown

Unknown

10" 0-501

140 400 246 195 204 170 170

225 289

16 10 12 16 16 16 ~ — 14 10

1600

700 1200

1600

1600

1600

1200

700

200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

*Hells not equipped with pumps

Cblumn Heading E>tplanatlons

1 - Depth to first perforation, feet

2 - Maximum test pump diameter. Inches

3 - Expected test pumping rate, gallons per minute, subject to drawdown limitation imposed by pump setting depth

4 - Maximum pump setting depth expected

H63590.FL PHSl/010 sfoCOM08/d.2312

J

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

monitor shall provide a continuous television picture during

the inspection. The video system shall provide a clear,

focused, well-lighted image of the well taken at a time when

the water is clear. The original video tape recorded during

the inspection shall be inspected for completeness and

provided to the well owner as a permanent record of the com­

pleted well,

9.4 PAYMENT

9.4.1 GENERAL: Payment for all work, materials, and equip­

ment specified in this section will be made at the lump sum

price stated in the Contractor's Proposal for VIDEO IN­

SPECTION AND TAPING.

* * *

W63590.FL WELL VIDEO INSPECTIONS AND TAPING PHS4/009 sfoCOMO8/d.2408

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

satisfied himself as to the quantities involved, including

materials and equipment, and conditions of work involved,

including the fact that the description of the quantities of

work and materials, as included herein, is brief and is in­

tended only to indicate the general nature of the work and

to identify the said quantities with the detailed require­

ments of the Contract Documents, and that this Proposal is

made according to the provisions and under the terms of the

Contract Documents, which Documents are hereby made a part

of this Proposal.

The Bidder further agrees that he has exercised his own

judgement regarding the interpretation of the subsurface

information and has utilized all data which he believes per­

tinent from the Engineer, and other sources in arriving at

his conclusions.

The Bidder further certifies that he has exercised all

options available to him toward reaching the goals for mi­

nority business enterprise utilization specified in these

Documents.

CONTRACT EXECUTION AND BONDS

The Bidder agrees that if this Proposal is accepted, he

will, within 10 days, not including Sundays and legal holi­

days, after notice of award, sign the Contract in the form

annexed hereto, and will at that time, deliver to the Engi­

neer The Performance Bond required herein, and will to the

extent of his bid, furnish all machinery, tools, apparatus,

and other means of construction and do' the work and fumish

all the materials necessary to complete all work as spec­

ified or indicated in the Contract Documents.

W63590.FL PHS4/011 sfoCOMO8/d.2409

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

SALES AND USE TAXES

The Bidder agrees that all sales and use taxes are included

in the stated bid prices for the work, unless provision is

made herein for the Bidder to separately itemize the es­

timated amount of sales tax.

LUMP SUM OR UNIT PRICE WORK

The Bidder further proposes to accept as full payment for

the work proposed herein the amounts computed under the pro­

visions of the Contract Documents and based on the following

lump sum or unit price amounts, it being expressly under­

stood that the unit prices are independent of the exact

quantities involved. The Bidder agrees that the lump sum

prices and the unit prices represent a true measure of the

labor and materials required to perform the work, including

all allowances for overhead and profit for each type and

unit of work called for in these Contract Documents. The

amounts shall be shown in both words and figures. In case

of a discrepancy, the amount shown in words shall govern.

BID SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE A: Pumping Tests and Borehole Television Survey:

Item Est. Unit.

No. Description Qty. Unit Price Amount

1. Mobilization and cleanup 10 Each $ $

for pumping tests and

borehole television survey

2. Remove and reset Owner's 10 Each $_

pump

W63590.FL PHS4/011 sfoCOMO8/d.2409

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

4. Run temperature, fluid 10 Each $

conductivity and spinner flowmeter

logs in wells while pumping

5. Obtain water samples at 120 Each $

depths selected by the Engineer

under both pumping and nonpumping

conditions

6. Level C Protective Equipment 3 Each $

7. Decontamination of Personnel

and Equipment 20 Hours $

8. Standby Time 30 Hours $

SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE B $

TOTAL, SCHEDULES A & B

W63590.FL PHS4/011 sfoCOMO8/d.2409

1 I

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

Source size

Detector type

Source to detector distance

Caliper tool, maximum range

Temperature tool

Maximum range degrees C to degrees C

Resolution (gross counts/degree C, , or

ohms/degrees C )

Spinner flowmeter tool

Impeller diameter

Impeller housing diameter^

Impeller material

Rotation sensing element (magnetic reed , Hall

effect , or other ) (Specify )

Minimum flow velocity sensed, feet/min.(Through

impeller housing)

Method of centralizing

Centralizer range(s)

Fluid seunpler (motorized)

Sample chamber volume

W63590.FL • PHS4/011 sfoCOMO8/d.2409

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

SUBCONTRACTORS

The Bidder further proposes that the following subcontract­

ing firms or business will be awarded subcontracts for the

following portions of the work in the event that the Bidder

is awarded the Contract:

[A; ]

Name

Street City State Zip

[B: ]

Name

Street City State Zip

l£l I

Name

Street City State Zip

ID; ]

Name

W63590.FL PHS4/011 sfoCOM08/d.2409

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

Name

Street City State Zip SURETY

If the Bidder is awarded a construction Contract on this

Proposal, the Surety who provides the Performance Bond and

will be

whose address is

Street City State Zip

BIDDER

The name of the Bidder submitting this Proposal is

doing business at

Street City State Zip

which is the address to which all communications concerned

with this Proposal and with the contract shall be sent.

The names of the principal officers of the corporation sub­

mitting this Proposal, or of the partnership, or of all per­

sons interested in this Proposal as principals are as fol­

lows:

W63590.rL PHS4/011 sfoC0MO8/d.2409

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

If Corporation

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned corporation has caused

this instrument to be executed and its seal affixed by its

duly authorized officers this day of

, 19 .

(SEAL)

Name of Corporation

By

Title

Attest Secretary

* * * * * *

W63590.FL PHS4/011 sfoCOM08/d.2409

t PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

equipment of Contractor and subcontractors. At completion

of the work, remove fence from the site and restore the area

to its original condition as determined by CH2M HILL and the

owner.

5.3.3 CONTAMINATION PRECAUTIONS: Avoid contamination of

the wells or project area. Do not dump waste oil, rubbish,

or other similar materials on the ground.

5.3.4 CLEANUP OF WORK AREAS: Upon completion work at

each well, remove from the site all equipment, debris,

unused materials, temporary facilities, and other miscella­

neous items resulting from or used in the operations. Re­

place or repair any facility which has been damaged during

the work. Restore the site as nearly as possible to its

original condition as determined by CH2M HILL and the

property owner.

5.4 PAYMENT

5.4.1 GENERAL; Payment for all work, materials, and

equipment specified in this section will be at the unit

price per well for work described in Schedules A and B of

the Contractor's Proposal as stated in the Contractor's Pro­

posal for MOBILIZATION AND CLEANUP.

* * * * * *

W63590.FL MOBILIZATION AND CLEANUP PHS4/012 sfoCOMO8/d,2410

SOIL GAS SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT W63590.SG

1.4 SITE ACCESS

CH2M HILL has the responsibility to provide legal ac­

cess to soil gas sampling sites. The Subcontractor has

the responsibility to provide physical access to all

sites. The Subcontractor must adhere to all safety,

access, and working conditions, as required by the EPA

and CH2N HILL's Site Health and Safety Plans.

1.5 SUBCONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITY PROPERTIES

AND SERVICE

Where the Subcontractor's operations could cause damage

or inconvenience to telephone, television, power, oil,

gas, or water systems, the Subcontractor shall make all

arrangements necessary for the identification and pro­

tection of theses utilities and services.

The Subcontractor shall be solely and directly respon­

sible to the owners and operators of such properties

for any damage, injury, expense, loss, inconvenience,

delay, suits, actions, or claims of any character

brought because of any injuries or damage that may re­

sult from the operations under this Subcontract. Nei­

ther CH2M HILL's representative, nor its officers or

agents shall be responsible to the Subcontractor for

damages as a result of the Subcontractor's failure to

identify and protect utilities encountered in the work.

In the event of interruption to domestic water, sewer,

storm drain, or other utility services as a result of

accidental breakage due to operations, the Subcontrac­

tor shall immediately notify the proper authority. The

Subcontractor shall cooperate with said authority in

restoration of service as promptly as possible.

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/101 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS SFR104/d.201

SECTION 2: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

2.1 SCOPE

2.1.1 WORK INCLUDED: This section describes the project

in general terms, and provides an overview of the work to be

performed under this Subcontract. Detailed reguirements are

stated in applicable Specifications sections.

2.2 MATERIALS

2.2.1 GENERAL: The Subcontractor shall, except as spe­

cifically stated in this Subcontract, provide all labor,

materials, equipment, tools, and other facilities and ser­

vices necessary for proper completion of all work under this

Subcontract.

2.3 WORKMANSHIP

2.3.1 GENERAL

2.3.1.1 The Subcontractor shall guarantee that all work

will be performed in a worlcmanlike manner by personnel qual­

ified in conducting sampling and analysis of soil gas and

will conform with these Specifications.

2.3.1.2 Wherever in these Specifications the words "ap­

proved" (unmodified) or "approved by the site engineer"are

used, they shall be understood to mean "as approved by the

project engineer, geologist, or other authorized CH2M HILL

representative." Where approvals are'required, the Contrac­

tor shall keep a written signed record of those approvals

and report such approvals in the log of daily field activ­

ities.

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/102 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SFR104/d.207

SOIL GAS SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT W63590.SG

at least 5 feet and analyzed in the field for TCE, PCE, DCE,

1,1,1-TCA, and total hydrocarbons in accordance with the

detailed Specifications.

2.4.2 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AND CONTAMINANTS PRESENT:

The Phase I data Summary/Report (Ecology and Environment,

1986) provide data on the Phoenix-Litchfield Airport area

which indicate that the water table occurred at depths of

approximately 39 to 95 feet below ground surface in 1986.

Groundwater in the area appeared to be lowing from the east

towards the west, northwest and southwest in 1986. Sedi­

ments at and above the water table appear to be Quaternary

basin fill, fluvial and alluvial fan deposits of the Upper

Alluvial Unit ranging in composition from clays and silts to

gravels and cobbles. Preliminary sampling of groundwater

from existing production and monitoring wells indicates that

chromium above the USEPA primary water standard is present.

Carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride,

trichlorofluoromethane, chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane

(1,1,1-TCA), 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA), 1,1-dichloroethene

(DCE), 1,2,-trans-dichloroethene (tDCE), trichloroethene

(TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and benzene are the most

commonly found organic compounds in groundwater in the area.

2.4.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

2.4.4.1 SCOPE:

2.4.4.1.1 WORK INCLUDED: This section covers the work, ma­

terials, and equipment necessary for sampling and analyzing

soil gas in the field.

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/102 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SFR104/d.207

SOIL GAS SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT W63590.SG

2.4,4.2.3 SAMPLING WORKMANSHIP

2.4.4.2.3.1 Coordinate the start of sampling with CH2M

HILL. Provide at all times a thoroughly experienced, compe­

tent chemist and sampler during all operations at each lo­

cation.

2.4.4.2.3.2 Decontaminate all probes, tubing, syringes

and equipment prior to initiation of sampling. Place per­

forated probes to the depth of at least five feet below land

surface or as approved by the site engineer.

2.4.4.2.3.3 Probes will be advanced to at least five feet

below ground surface. If augering is required to penetrate

a tight layer, the top of the perforations of the probe will

be pushed below the bottom of the augered hole such that

ambient air will not be drawn in during sampling. Whatever

equipment is used for advancing the probe, fumes from the

equipment will be routed away from the probe placement.

Sampling locations will be mapped in the field by CH2M HILL

prior to sampling and final locations will be determined by

the site engineer. The three areas shown in Figure 1 will

be investigated with two approaches. Soil gas samples will

be extracted at 400 foot intervals along the wash. The

remaining two areas will be investigated by extracting soil

gas on a square grid with 300 foot spacing between sampling

points.

2.4.4.2.3.4 The samples will be collected from the gas

stream being withdrawn from the seunple" probe (see Figure 2)

at a measured rate of 100 milliliters per minute or less.

One tubing volume will be evacuated prior to withdrawing a

sample for analysis. A hypodermic syringe will be inserted

through the silicone rubber tubing and down into the

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/102 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SFR104/d.207

SOIL GAS SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT W63590.SG

G) Probe and adaptor numbers

H) Number of sampling points used.

I) Observations (i.e., ground conditions, concrete,

asphalt, soil appearance, surface water, odors,

vegetation, etc.)

J) Backfill procedure and materials,

K) The actual sample location marked on the site map

provided by CH2M HILL,

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/102 TECHNICy^ SPECIFICATIONS SFR104/d.207

SOIL GAS SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT W63590.SG

2.4.2.4 ANALYSIS EQUIPMENT:

2.4.2.4.1 Provide one mobile gas chromatograph capable of

analyzing directly injected samples of soil gas or water.

Provide electron capture detector (ECD) for TCE, TCA, PCE,

and DCE, and flame ionization detector (FID) for total

hydrocarbon analyses.

2.4.2.4.2 Provide a mobile chromatographic column of a 1/8"

diameter packed type containing All tech OVIOI. To assure

the identity of a compound, provide -a SPIOOO column after

the OVl01 analysis.

2.4.2.4.3 Provide a mobile computing integrator to plot the

chromatogram and measure the size of the peaks.

2.4.2.4.4 Provide analytical standard solutions made from

certified purity standards. Provide sufficient syringes,

glassware and laboratory supplies to properly conduct all

analyses. Provide suitable sample containers for soil gas

split samples which will be analyzed by a laboratory on a

GC/MS to quantify TCE, PCE, TCA and DCE for quality assur­

ance purposes.

2,4.2.4,4.1 The composite analytical equipment including

direct injection technique, packed columns, chromatograph

and integrators shall have a detection limit of 0.01 (or

less) micrograms per liter of soil gas for TCE, TCA, PCE,

DCE and total hydrocarbons.

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/102 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SFRl04/d.207

SOIL GAS SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT W63590,SG

that none are reused without cleaning. All probes shall be

cleaned prior to use by steam cleaning or

hot-water/high-pressure wash. Each probe shall be numbered

and its number noted on the data sheet for the sampling lo­

cation where it was used.

2.4.2.5.6 ADAPTORS: "Clean" and "used" adaptors shall be

stored in separate areas. Sufficient adaptors shall be

provided such that none are reused without cleaning. All

adaptors shall be washed in hot-water and baked in the gas

chromatograph oven overnight at a minimum temperature of

60°C. Each adaptor shall be numbered and its number noted

on the data sheet for the sampling location where it was

used.

2.4.2.5.7 CHROMATOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: On the first page of

each days chromatograms the following system parameters

shall be noted:

A) Gas flows for H-, N^, and air

B) Tank Pressures for H-, N-, and air

C) Temperatures

1. Injector

2. Column

3. Detector

D) I n t e g r a t o r pareuneters 1. Attenuation

2. Peak markers

3. Baseline offset

E) Column

1. Type

2. Length and diameter

3. Packing material

4. Temperature

F) Operator

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/102 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SrR104/d.207

SECTION 3: SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

3.1 SCOPE

3.1.1 WORK INCLUDED: Work covered by these Agreement

Documents will be conducted in the vicinity of and on a haz­

ardous waste site that has been placed on the EPA National

Priorities List. All work completed by the Subcontractor

shall be accomplished in accordance with the Site Safety

Plan as established by CH2M HILL.

3.2 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

3.2.1 GENERAL:

3.2.1.1 Subcontractors shall comply with the Site Health

and Safety Plans as required by CH2M HILL. Expected hazard­

ous conditions and required clothing and respiratory equip­

ment use are identified in these Plans.

All Subcontract personnel engaged in field investigation

work must be trained for such activity. Training shall in­

clude, but not be limited to, use of personnel protection

equipment (including respirators), deconteunination, hazard

recognition, safe operating procedures, and emergency re­

sponse .

All Subcontractor personnel who enter hazardous sites will

be required, at a minimum, to pass an entry physical ex­

amination that meets the OSHA requirements for respirator

use (29 CFR 1910.134). The Subcontractor shall provide cer­

tification that provisions of 29 CFR 1910.134 have been met

for all employees onsite.

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/103 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY SFR104/d.202

SOIL GAS SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT W63590.SG

(OSHA); all Other applicable federal, state, county, and

local laws, ordinances, codes, and the requirements set

forth herein; and any regulations that may be specified in

other parts of these Subcontract Documents. Where any of

these are in conflict, the more stringent requirement shall

be followed. The Subcontractor's failure to thoroughly fa­

miliarize himself with the aforementioned safety provisions

shall not relieve him from compliance with the obligations

and penalties set forth therein,

3.3.1.3 The Subcontractor shall at all times provide for

safe access to the work as authorized by government offi­

cials and CH2M HILL.

3.4. PAYMENT

3.4.1 GENERAL:

3.4.1.1 Payment for materials and equipment required under

this section, will be made at the unit price for Levels C

personnel protection as stated in the Subcontractor's Pro­

posal for HEALTH AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT,

3.4.1.2 Equipment required, but not listed on the Subcon­

tractor's Proposal, shall be considered incidental to per­

formance of work. No specific payment shall be made.

* * * * * *

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/103 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY SFR104/d.202

SOIL GAS SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT W63590,SG

4,3 WORKMANSHIP

4.3.1 GENERAL:

4.3.1.1 Arrange schedule with CH2M HILL at least five (5)

days prior to initiation of seunpling. Clean all equipment

and tools under supervision of site engineer prior to mobi­

lization on site. Set up eguipment at locations designated

by site engineer, decontaminating equipment when it becomes

necessary to reuse. Approximate area to sampled is shown on

Figure 1. Final locations will be determined in the field

by the site Engineer prior to and during mobilization. Ac­

complish all required work in accordance with applicable

portions of these Specifications or as approved by the site

Engineer.

4.3.1.2 Some obstructions may not be shown on the site

plan. The Subcontractor is advised to carefully inspect the

existing facilities before beginning any work at the site.

Relocation adjacent to obstructions shall be anticipated and

accomplished, even though not shown or specifically men­

tioned .

4.3.1.3 CH2M HILL accepts no liability for costs incurred

due to Contractors failure to thoroughly exeunine the site

and review existing site plans, data, and these specifica­

tions.

4.3.2 CLEANUP OF CONSTRUCTION AREAS;

4.3.2.1 Avoid contamination of the project area. Do no

dump waste oil, rubbish, or other materials on the ground.

Restore site, as nearly as possible, to original condition

as determined by the site engineer.

W63590.SG APRIL 7, 1986 PHS3/104 MOBILIZATION AND CLEANUP SFRl04/d.203

SOIL GAS SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT W63590.SG

crew will be as stated in the Subcontractor's Proposal under

MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION.

* * * * * *

W63590.SG APRIL 7, 1986 PHS3/104 MOBILIZATION AND CLEANUP SFRl04/d.203

SOIL GAS SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT W63590.SG

5.1.2.5 Upon completion of sampling and analysis activ­

ities, all eguipment shall be decontaminated before leaving

the site as approved by CH2M HILL,

5.1.2.6 Wash water and solutions remaining after decon­

tamination of equipment will also be considered a hazardous

waste. The Subcontractor will be required to place all

waste designated by the site Engineer in sealed United

States Department of Transportation (DOT) approved 55-gallon

drums. All containers shall be labeled and dated. The Sub­

contractor shall provide the 55-gallon drums and arrange for

EPA- approved disposal.

5.2 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

5.2.1 GENERAL:

5.2.1.1 The Subcontractor must provide all equipment nec­

essary for the decontamination process (excluding the clean

and distilled water) such as trisodium phosphate, methanol,

hot water high pressure washer, buckets, brushes, etc.

5.2.1.2 Subcontractor shall provide United States Depart­

ment of Transportation (U.S, DOT)-approved containers having

55-gallon capacity and sealable, watertight lids as

required. Labeling materials shall also be supplied by the

Subcontractor.

5.3. WORKMANSHIP

5.3.1 GENERAL: The Subcontractor shall follow the gen­

eral decontamination plans, as specified by CH2M HILL in the

Site Health and Safety Plan. Prior to mobilization, the

Subcontractor will finalize all personnel decontamination

needs, eguipment, and procedures with CH2M HILL. A

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/105 DECONTAMINATION OF PERSONNEL

AND EQUIPMENT SFRl04/d.204

SOIL GAS SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT W63590.SG

5.4,1,5 Payment for supplying 55-gallon drums shall be

compensated at the unit price specified in the Subcontrac­

tor's Proposal for haulage of waste.

* * * * * *

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/105 DECONTAMINATION OF PERSONNEL

AND EQUIPMENT SPR104/d.204

NOTE TO BIDDER: Use preferably BLACK ink for completing

this PROPOSAL Form.

PROPOSAL

To: [A:

Address: [B;

Project Title: [Ci

Project No.: [D: ]

Bidder's person to contact for additional information on

this Proposal:

Name:

Telephone:

BIDDERS DECLARATION AND UNDERSTANDING

The undersigned, hereinafter called the Bidder, declares

that the only persons or parties interested in this Proposal

are those named herein, that this Proposal is, in all re­

spects, fair and without fraud, that it is made without

collusion with any official, and that the Proposal is made

without any connection or collusion with any person submit­

ting another Proposal on this Contract.

The Bidder further declares that he has carefully examined

the Contract Documents for the construction of the project,

that he has personally inspected the site, that he has

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/107 SFR104/d.206

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE

The Bidder further agrees to furnish the engineer, before

commencing the work under this Contract, the certificates of

insurance as specified in these Documents.

START OF CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACT COMPLETION TIME

The Bidder further agrees to begin work within 10 calendar

days after the date of the execution of the Contract and to

complete the construction, in all respects, of each schedule

for which his Proposal is accepted within 90 calendar days

after the date of execution of the Contract,

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

In the event the Bidder is awarded the Contract and shall

fail to complete the work within the time limit or extended

time limit agreed upon, as more particularly set fr>j.th in

the Contract Documents, liquidated damages shall be paid to

EPA at the rate of $^ per day for all work under one con­

tract until the work shall have been satisfactorily complet­

ed as provided by the Contract Documents. Sundays and legal

holidays shall be excluded in determining days in default.

ADDENDA

The Bidder hereby acknowledges that he has received Addenda

No's. , , , , , , (Bidder

shall insert No. of each Addendum received) and agrees that

all addenda issued are hereby made part of the Contract Doc­

uments, and the Bidder further agrees that his Proposal(s)

includes all impacts resulting from said addenda.

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/107 SrR104/d.206

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

3 Soil Gas sampling and 50 hr $ $

Analysis in Mobile Lab

including duplicate and

blank analyses and collection

of one split seunple and supplies

4 Per Diem (2 people) 5 day $_

5 Standby Time 5 hr $_

6 Level C Protection 2 each $_

7 Clean-up, Decontamination 5 hr $__

8 Haulage of waste 1 barrel $_

9 Laboratory Analyses (GC/MS)5 samples $_

SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE A

SCHEDULE B: SOIL GAS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS AT THE HANGAR

AREA AND ABANDONED SLUDGE DISPOSAL PIT AREA

Item Est. Unit

No. Description Qty. Unit Price Amount

1 Mobilization/Demobili- 1 lump $ $

zation

Probe Placement and 5 ' hr $_

Removal (50 locations)

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/107 SFR104/d.206

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

REQUIRED INFORMATION ON BIDDER'S EQUIPMENT

1. Equipment for Placing and Pulling Probes

Type

2.

Manufacturer and Model Number

Power source and power rating

Vacuum Pump

Type

In-line flow meter type

3. Probes

Type

Perforations

4. Adaptors

Type ______ __

Seals

5. Mobile Gas Chromatograph

Type

Manufacturer and Model Number

ECD and FID Description

6. Mobile Computing Integrator

Type ___^_^^________^______

Manufacturer and Model Number

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/107 SFR104/d.206

PHOENIX-LITCHFIELD AIRPORT DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

The names of the principal officers of the corporation sub­

mitting this Proposal, or of the partnership, or of all per­

sons interested in this Proposal as principals are as fol­

lows :

If Sole Proprietor or Partnership

IN WITNESS hereto the undersigned has set his (its) hand

this day of , 19

Signature of Bidder

Title

W63590.SG April 7, 1986 PHS3/107 SPR104/d.206

^ J UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

'*<t«iOt**^ REGION IX

215 Fremont Street San Francisco, Ca. 94105

MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 23, 1986

SUBJECT: Responsiveness Summary for comments on the spinner-logging/soil-gas specifications .

FROM: Jeff Rosenbloom, Remedial Project Manager Ifllf JjC-.'-'''

TO: PLA/IBW Project Committee and Intersted Persons

Attached for your information are responses to comments made on the draft technical specifications for spinner logging/ depth sampling and soil gas surveying for the Indian Bend Wash and Phoenix-Litchfield Airport Area projects. The draft tech­nical specifications and responses to comments are intended to provide technical guidelines for accomplishing the work. Vari­ations to the technical content such as changes in eguipment sizes or modifications to drawdown test procedures are allowable as long as the performance goals are achieved. Proposed varia­tions should be discussed with EPA.

Parties that will be perfoxrming the work are responsible for incorporating the attached responses and the technical content of the draft technical specifications into final specifications that adhere to their own requirements. EPA and it's contractor, CH2M HILL, assume no responsibility for the format of the final specifications or the content with respect to contractual requi­rements, health and safety requirements, personnel or eguipment decontamination, or disposal of waste materials. Furthermore, EPA and it's contractor, CH2M HILL, assume no responsibility for the performance and workmanship of the parties performing the work or any of their subcontractors, except in the cases where the specified work is being performed by CH2M HILL.

Parties performing the specified work are assumed to have qualified personnel available for on-site supervision of any

subcontractors. Field decisions as to the conduct of the work are the responsibility ot the pertorming parties. EPA and/or CH2M HILL representatives will normally be available to discuss tield moditications to the specitied work.

If you have additional comments, please call me by Friday, May 30, 1986. It there are no other comments, the specifica­tions will stand as approved. Thank you for reviewing the enclosed materiais in such a brief period. It you have any questions, or wish to submit comments, please call me at (415) 974-7513.

Enclosure

The comments received as of May 12, 1986, on our Draft Spec­ifications for Geophysical Logging and Depth-Specific Water Quality Seunpling, Indian Bend Wash RI/FS Phase II, Stage 1, Task 1, undated, and the same for Phoenix-Litchfield Airport are addressed in this memorandum.

COMMENTS FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

COMMENT NO. 1

Section 1.2.2.2.A. Correct section references.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 1

The five typographical errors in section references should be corrected.

COMMENT NO. 2

Section 1.2.2.2. The sampling is not specified as being done while pumping or when pump is off. Clarify.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 2

MEMORANDUM Page 2 May 23, 1986 W63600.FL

COMMENT NO.

Section 1.2.2.2,10. Assume that repeating capacity test after reinstalling pump is to assure owner of no permanent ill effects to the well. This should be clarified.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 3

COMMENT NO. 4

Section 8.2.4. I have doubts as to the utility of tempera­ture measurements in the access tube while pumping. The temperature differences will be small anyway, and the access tube may not equilibrate rapidly. Also, the passage of oth­er tools may disrupt temperature regime.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 4

COMMENT NO. 5

Any drawdowns in nearby, available wells should be monitored during pumping tests for evaluation for aquifer characteris­tics (especially since this could be done easily).

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 5

COMMENTS FROM ADWR

COMMENT NO. 1

All results from the spinner logging/depth sampling should be presented to the Committee.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 1

Available results will be presented to the Committee at the meeting(s) following their collection.

MEMORANDUM Page 3 May 23, 1986 W63600.FL

COMMENT NO. 2

Section 2.3.1 contradicts Section 2.1.2,

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 2

Actually, Section 2.1.2 places final legal responsibility for work, while Section 2.3.1 provides for continued cooper­ative completion of the project.

COMMENT NO. 3

The Health and Safety Plan is not provided.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 3

COMMENT NO. 4

Why is no gamma ray log specified in Section 7?

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 4

Scrutiny of the results of logging City of Tempe No. 6 indi­cate that the gamma ray log provided little indication of stratigraphic variations. ^•••MBtitHiiiiHk MSI

COMMENT NO. 5

In Sections 8.3,2.1 and 8.3.3.3, how will consent from well owners be acguired?

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 5

Before the well is logged, the owner again will be contacted by the contracting party for permissi'on in the form of a

EPA will provide assistance, if requested.

COMMENT NO. 6

Is there enough room in the wells to be logged for the spec­ified equipment?

MEMORANDUM Page 4 May 23, 1986 W63600.FL

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO,

COMMENT NO

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 7

COMMENTS FROM ADHS

COMMENT NO. 1

Item 1.2.1.1 states that depending what the findings are for the first four (4) wells, there may not be a need to com­plete work on the remaining six (6) wells.

Why not include an alternative bid item for four (4) wells. This will allow the contractors to submit bids for the ten (10) wells as currently proposed and also a bid for four (4) wells, if this is all that is necessary to accomplish t:his work.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO, 1

GENERAL COMMENTS

The payment sections of the specification do not mention progress payment provisions. What documentation will be required? What about terms for final payment, final inspec­tion, certifications, warranties, release of retainage, etc.?

The specification should include language which alerts the potential bidders that a performance schedule will be required. It should also specify the kinds of schedules

MEMORANDUM Page 5 May 23, 1986 W63600.FL

which would be considered acceptable (i.e., bar chart, CPM, etc.).

The MBE/WBF requirement needs further clarification as de­scribed by 40 CFR 33.240. It should also give consideration to women-owned businesses and small businesses.

There is no mention about bid bond, bid guarantee, etc, requirements. A performance bond requirement is mentioned but what percentage? There is also no mention of a payment bond (labor/materials).

There is no mention that the contract will need to pay Davis Bacon Wages as reguired on federally assisted contracts. After the contract is awarded, who will issue the notice to proceed (NTP)?

Will the contract documents include required model subagree-ment clauses as per 40 CFR 38.1030?

RESPONSE TO GENERAL COMMENTS

The answers to these questions depend on the internal re-quirements of thecontracting entity which may not be EPA,

COMMENTS FROM ERROL L, MONTGOMERY AND ASSOCIATES, INC,

COMMENT NO. 1

Section 1.2.1,1, The water supply wells listed in Table 8-1 include two wells located south of the Salt River. It is our understanding that Motorola will not be responsible for testing these wells or for the cost of testing these wells, and that all testing costs for the wells located south of Salt River will be maintained separate from the remaining 11 wells,

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 1

Agreed.

MEMORANDUM Page 6 May 23, 1986 W63600.FL

COMMENT NO. 2

Section 2.2.2. Reference is made in this section to the E & E Phase I Report. We have not received the final draft of the Report.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 2

The Committee is scheduled to receive the final draft of E and E's Phase 1 Report during the week of May 19, 1986.

COMMENT NO. 3

Section 2,4.2, The draft specifications indicate that Blue Staking will be the responsibility of the Contractor. We believe Blue Staking should be the responsibility of the party supervising the Contractor.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 3

memmB COMMENT NO. 4

Sections 3.1, 3,2,1,1, and 3,2,1.2, Discussion in the spe­cifications that work will be conducted in the vicinity of and on a hazardous waste site, expected hazardous condi­tions, personnel training, entry physical examination, pos­sible requirement of level C protection, etc, is not war­ranted and would result in higher Contractor costs. EPA Community Well Sampling Plan, dated July 2, 1984, states in Appendix B, Item C, under Hazard Evaluation, that "Activi­ties associated with sampling should not pose any potential health effects". Level of protection given in that document is Level D for the Indian Bend Wash area, QAPP (page 5-26) defines hazardous samples as "samples containing from 10 parts per million up to 15 percent^ of any one conteuni-nant", -To our knowledge no single contaminant in ground­water samples from wells in the Indian Bend Wash study area has approached the 10,000 parts per billion level. We pro­pose that required level of protection be no higher than Level D.

MEMORANDUM Page 7 May 23, 1986 W63600.FL

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 4

The guidelines presented are based on procedures established for hazardous waste work involving CH2M HILL personnel. "VlHK

ever, CH2M HILL ov ^ abide by a CH2M HILL-approved pre-established safety plan.

COMMENT NO. 5

Section 4.1.2.1. We believe the requirement for a decon­tamination station is not warranted and should be eliminat­ed. Maximum concentration of TCE observed to date in the 13 wells proposed for depth-specific water sampling was 1,400 parts per billion reported for the SRP Granite Reef well after installation of the casing liner,

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO, 5

The guidelines presented are based on procedures established for hazardous waste work involving CH2M HILL personnel. The contracting party is not bound by these guidelines. How­ever, CH2M HILL oversight personnel will abide by a CH2M HILL-approved pre-established safety plan,

COMMENT NO, 6

Section 4,1,2.2. If the term "gross contcunination" is to be included in the specification, it should be accompanied by a definition for the term.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 6

The guidelines presented are based on procedures established for hazardous waste work involving CH2M HILL personnel. The contracting party is not bound by these guidelines. How­ever, CH2M HILL oversight personnel will abide by a CH2M HILL-approved pre-established safety plan.

COMMENT NO. 7

Section 4.1.2.6. We believe that classification of wash water and solutions remaining after decontamination of equipment as hazardous waste, requirements to contain all waste in ADOT approved 55-gallon drums, and requirements to

MEMORANDUM Page 8 May 23, 1986 W63600.FL

make arrangements for EPA approved disposal are not warrant­ed and should be eliminated. Only clean water, trisodium phosphate, and methanol (4.2.1.1) are to be used in the de­contamination process. Trisodium phosphate and methanol are not included in the current hazardous substance list.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 7

The guidelines presented are based on procedures established for hazardous waste work involving CH2M HILL personnel. The contracting party is not bound by these guidelines. How­ever, CH2M HILL oversight personnel will abide by a CH2M HILL-approved pre-established safety plan.

COMMENT NO. 8

Section 7.3.3. We believe that reguirements to sample rinsate for laboratory chemical analyses are not warranted and should be eliminated.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 8

The guidelines presented are based on procedures established for hazardous waste work involving CH2M HILL personnel. The contracting party is not bound by these guidelines. How­ever, CH2M HILL oversight personnel will abide by a CH2M HILL-approved pre-established safety plan.

COMMENT NO. 9

Section 7.3.5. Because cross-contamination could occur, we believe that the stainless steel calibration chcunber(s) should not be located at the field work-site.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO.

MEMORANDUM Page 9 May 23, 1986 W63600.FL

COMMENT NO. 10

Section 8.3.4.2. Disposal of water is a significant problem which must be resolved with EPA, ADWR, and ADHS prior to award of the contract. The specifications indicate that the contractor is responsible for disposal of water, however there is no provision in the bid schedule for payment.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 10

COMMENTS FROM THE U.S. EPA/OWPE

COMMENTS NO. 1 AND 2

The title of this document does not reflect or fit the actu­al context of the draft document. It is not so much a docu­ment of specifications but more generally a summary of what will be necessary.

The information provided by this document is very general. There is not enough information to guide the contractor in performing properly this task of the RI/FS, More details should be included since this is an enforcement site where the responsible party is undertaking the work to be done,

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS NO. 1 AND 2

COMMENT NO. 3

Mobilization and cleanup is repeated two times in the docu­ment.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 3

We are not aware of a similar section.

MEMORANDUM Page 10 May 23, 1986 W63600.FL

COMMENT NO. 4

Caliper logs are useful in assessing the competence of cas­ing in aged or deep wells. The need for this type of exeuni-nation is unclear from the data provided.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO, 4

The caliper logs will provide reliable information on the construction details of each well. This information is required for the proper placement of the pumps and other downhole instrumentation and for the analysis is the data (i,e,, information on the well diameter is required to cal­culate production rates from the spinner log data),

COMMENT NO. 5

What is the rationale for using spinner flowmeters? Piezo­meters offer a more reliable way of measuring hydraulic gra­dient. Even if the spinner flowmeter works, it just gives a narrow set of data which is not sufficient to determine the fiowrate for the information between wells.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 5

The flowmeter data will be used to measure the fluid flow-rates within each well. These data will then be used to determine the production rates from each zone open to the well. The data will not be used to explicitly determine hydraulic gradients or flow between wells,

COMMENT NO, 6

We believe Teflon tape should be the first choice over Viton O-rings for sealing the sampling device,

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO, 6

COMMENT NO, 7

Need to identify the type and schedule of steel (e,g, 304 schedule 5) to be used and the rationale for its selection such that heavy metal contamination will be avoided or other interferences,

MEMORANDUM Page 11 May 23, 1986 W63600.FL

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 7

The time period for running each pumping test should be based on estimates of effective porosity that we get from lab analysis of sediments sampled.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 8

The purposes of the initial specific capacity test are to determine the pumping rate to be used during the spinner logging and to provide baseline data to compare the perfor­mance of the well after the logging is completed (to satisfy the owner that the well was not damaged during the logging procedure).

COMMENT NO. 9

Why do the wells need to be filmed? The need for well video and taping is unclear from the information provided.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 9

H^^^^^jTt^^^^^^ff

PHS3/104

The comments received as of May 12, 1986, on our Draft Spec­ifications for Soil Gas Sampling and Analysis, Indian Bend Wash RI/FS Phase II, Stage 1, Task 1, dated April 7, 1986, and the same for Phoenix-Litchfield Airport are addressed in

i;a tihis memorandijm.

COMMENTS FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

COMMENT NO. 1

In Section 2.4.1, it is not clear what is to be done if large areas of paving inhibit sampling. The pavement may be cored, but this is added expense. Clarify.

In Section 2.4.4.2.3, from my understanding, soil gas work should be done while the soil is dry as possible. Some pro­vision should be included for avoiding recently wetted ar­eas, especially along the wash.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 1

The specifications should indicate that paved and moist ar­eas are to be avoided if possible; however, paving can be "punched through" by some soil gas contractors with little delay.

I I 1 I 1 1

I i -

I

I i..

I I I a ,-

I I a .

I I I

MEMORANDUM Page 2 May 23, 1986 W63600.FG

COMMENTS FROM THE U.S. EPA/OWPE

COMMENT NO. 1

In Section 1.3, Information on Site Conditions, were pedologic or soil profile descriptions available also for inspection?

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 1

These data should be referenced. The reference is : "Soil Survey of Maricopa County, Arizona (Central Part)", by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service published September, 1977.

COMMENT NO. 2

In Section 2, Technical Specifications, no QA/QC require­ments for soil gas sampling have been specified nor refer­enced in this document.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 2

QA/QC requirements are present throughout the document, but are not gathered into a separate section for the bidder's use in bidding the work.

COMMENT NO. 3

In Section 2.4.1, Summary of Work, the wash which drains Luke AFB will be sampled for soil gas at 400 foot intervals. Why are we sampling at 400 foot intervals? How did you ar­rive at this figure?

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 3

The 400-foot interval was chosen for the purpose of deter­mining if any contamination occurs along the wash. If war­ranted, this interval could be changed,

COMMENT NO, 4

In Section 2.4.2, Hydrogeologic Conditions:

o Organic carbon level in soil horizon and groundwater should be determined.

MEMORANDUM Page 3 May 23, 1986 W63600.FG

o Were hydrophobic chemicals in groundwater or soil de­tected?

o It would be useful to have a pedologic description of affected soils since possible contamination may be in the unsaturated or surface soil zone.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 4

The comments address work performed during previous phases of this investigation which are discussed in the Phase I report and the Soil Conservation Service report.

COMMENT NO. 5

In Section 2.4.4.2.3, Sampling Workmanship, what is meant by "soil appearance"? Is it natural soil profile, disturbed soil, overburden, or.,,?

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO, 5

Soil appearance includes the conditions mentioned and any other conditions that the field personnel deem appropriate such as color, composition, moisture content, etc,

COMMENTS FROM ERROL L, MONTGOMERY AND ASSOCIATES, INC,

COMMENT NO. 1

Section 2,4,2, Reference is made in this section to the E & E Phase I Report. We have not received the final draft of the Report.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 1

The Committee is scheduled to receive the final drafts of E and E's Phase 1 Report during the week of May 19, 1986.

COMMENT NO. 2

Section 2,4.4,2,3,3, Reguired probe depth may be modified by the site hydrologist; see SECTION 2.4.4.2.3.2,

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 2

Agreed.

^

MEMORANDUM Page 4 May 23, 1986 W63600.FG

COMMENT NO,

Section 2.4.4.2.3.4. Reference to "square" should be removed. Sampling site locations may not be at exactly 600 foot spacing. Because locations for sampling sites may require adjustment in the field, the specifications should indicate that locations for individual sampling sites may be moved as much as 100 feet from a specified site, at the dis­cretion of the site hydrologist.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 3

The specifications should be revised to stipulate 600-foot centers as a general guideline.

COMMENT NO. 4

Section 2.4.2.5.4. If the analytical results from the first duplicate sample are within fifty percent of the original sample, a second duplicate is not warranted and the require­ment should be eliminated.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 4

Agreed,

COMMENT NO. 5

Section 3.2,1,2, Possible requirement of level C protection is not necessary and would result in higher Contractor costs, EPA Community Well Sampling Plan, dated July 2, 1984, states in Appendix B, Item C, under Hazard Evaluation that "Activities associated with [groundwater] sampling should not pose any potential health effects". Level of protection given in that document is Level D for the Indian Bend Wash area, QAPP (page 5-26) defines hazardous samples as "samples containing from 10 parts per million up to 15 percent of any one contaminant". To our knowledge no single contaminant in groundwater samples from wells in the Indian Bend Wash study area has approached the 10,000 parts per billion level. Concentrations of contaminants in soils would be expected to be less than for groundwater. We pro­pose that required level of protection for soil gas op­erations be no higher than Level D,

MEMORANDUM Page 5 May 23, 1986 W63600.FG

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO,

The guidelines are based on procedures established for haz­ardous waste work involving CH2M HILL personnel. The con­tracting party is not bound by these guidelines. However, CH2M HILL oversight personnel will abide by a CH2M HILL-approved pre-established safety plan.

COMMENT NO. 6

Section 5.1.2.1. We believe the requirement for a decon­tamination station is not warranted and should be eliminat­ed. Maximum concentration of TCE in groundwater samples from wells in the Indian Bend Wash area was 2,500 parts per billion. Concentrations of contaminants in soils would be expected to be less than for groundwater.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 6

The guidelines are based on procedures established for haz­ardous waste work involving CH2M HILL personnel. The con­tracting party is not bound by these guidelines. However, CH2M HILL oversight personnel will abide by a CH2M HILL-approved pre-established safety plan.

COMMENT NO. 7

Section 5.1.2.2. If the term "gross contamination" is to be included in the specification, it should be accompanied by a definition for the term.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 7

The guidelines are based on procedures established for haz­ardous waste work involving CH2M HILL personnel. The con­tracting party is not bound by these guidelines. However, CH2M HILL oversight personnel will abide by a CH2M HILL-approved pre-established safety pleui.,

COMMENT NO. 8

Section 5.1.2.6. We believe that classification of wash water and solutions remaining after decontamination of equipment as hazardous waste, requirements to contain all waste in ADOT approved 55-gallon drums, and requirements to make arrangements for EPA approved disposal are not warrant

MEMORANDUM Page 6 May 23, 1986 W63600.FG

ed and should be eliminated. Only clean water, trisodium phosphate, and methanol (4.2.1.1) are to be used in the de­contamination process. Trisodium phosphate and methanol are not included in the current hazardous substance list.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 8

The guidelines are based on procedures established for haz­ardous waste work involving CH2M HILL personnel. The con­tracting party is not bound by these guidelines. However, CH2M HILL oversight personnel will abide by a CH2M HILL-approved pre-established safety plan.

Isopropanol should be used as a rinse rather than methanol.

PHS3/103

Tis<-lil<>r/K<K*un'k Enviiftiiniciitiil En 'iii«i>i's

July 18,1986

Mr. Jeff Rosenbloom (T-4-2) Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region DC 215 Fremont Street San ftancisco, Califomia 94105

Dear Mr. Rosenbloom:

This letter is to update you on the status of Goodyear Aerospace Coiporation's (GAC) Phase n work for the Phoenix-Litchfield Airport Area RI/FS project and to request EPA's approval of certain modificatioQS in the work plans for specific Phase n tasks.

On July 1,1986, Annette Ponds of Engineering-Science, Inc. and Randy Clark of GAC attended the PLA technical committee meeting. At this meeting, three GAC tasks were discussed: the sewer sampling on the airport; the instaUation and sampling of shallow monitoring wells on the airport and GAC property; and the spiimer logging/depth-specific sampling of selected production wells. Each of these tasks is discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.

The sewer sampling program was m<xiiAed to address the items you and I discussed on the phone several weeks ago. Samples of sediment from the outfall ditches will be collected and analyzed. Final decisions on the location of all sample stations will be made in the field as described in the sampling plan. ES/GAC will use isopropanol to clean equipment for this, and all other, field sampling efforts in the Phase II work. The sewer sampling wiU be performed during the week of July 14th.

The monitoring well installation/san^ling draft bid specifications were reviewed and all of EPA's coinments will be incorporated into the specifications which wUl be sent to potential bidders. We plan to send the documents to bidders in mid-July, giving them three weeks to respond. This implies that we should be able to start the instaUation in late August or early September. The actual start date will, of course, be a function of the ability of the selected contractor to mobilize quickly and of GAC and ES to provide the necessary logistical and supervisory support to the program. We will kȣp you advised of the status and schedule of this task as we proceed.

On July 2,1986 Annette Ponds of ES and Peter Mock of CHjM-Hill met with representatives of the only bidder on the spinner logging/depth-specific sampling

l i e £<i.st .Main Hound Hook, Tf.\s».s 7 m M .512.244.9058

Mr. Jeff Rosenbloom Page 2 , July 18,1986

task, Robert Huskisson of Layne-Western and Gary Corbell of Welenco. The bidders had raised certain objections/exceptions to the scope of work and bid specifications and the objective of this meeting was to reach agreement on a final set of specifications which would become part of the contract between GAC and the contractors. The exceptions discussed, and our understanding of the agreed-upon specifications, are desciibed below.

The contractor took exception to the liability clause at paragraph 2.4.3. SpecificaUy, there are two items for which the contractor will not accept liability. First, they asked for a waiver from liability for any damages which may result from the approved discharge of potentially contaminated water from the wells, either to GAC's sewer system or the City of Goodyear's sanitaiy sewer system. We are prepared to waive this requirement assuming EPA and the ADHS both agree to this means of temporary disposal. Since these are production wells containing very low concentrations of contaminants, we do not believe this will be a problem. In fact, in the City of Goodyear's case, it should be possible to send the water directly to the public water supply if sufficient storage c^adty is available.

Welenco is also concerned diat some wells may be in sufficiently poor condition that there is a risk of loss of the neutron logging device without any negligence on the part of the contractor. Apparently, loss of this radionuclide source in a production well could result in having to cement the entire well and diey are not willing to accept this Uability. We propose to put a clause in the contract which would aUow the Welenco field representative to determine, on a well-specific basis using the TV logs and other information available on the well being woiked on, if they are willing to accept liability for the neutrcMi logging of that particular weU. In other words, if the weU is deemed to be in baid condition it would not be neutron-logged. We would of course consult with you before such a field decision was finaUzed. On weUs which Welenco deems to be of acceptable condition for neutron logging, then they would be responsible for any negligence on their part This is the only acceptable altemative to this problem that we can think of, because obviously GAC cannot accept UabiUty for damage or destruction of a production well owned by others if the logging contcactOT believes a significant risk exists.

The contractor took exception to the equipment cleaning provision at paragraph 4.1.2.3 of the specifications. SpecificaUy, the contractor questioned where the cleaning facilities would be to allow this provision to be iii^)lemented. GAC agreed to provide the necessaiy wash pad area and faciUties to meet the requirements of this paragraph.

The contractor took exception to &e provisions of paragraph 4.1.2.6 regarding disposal of wash water and similar solutions. Neither Lanyne-Westem nor Welenco is a registered hazardous waste generator. GAC wiU manage the wastes generated during the spiimer logging/depth-specific sampling program and wiU see to it that they are properly disposed of. GAC also agreed to supply the drums for waste coUection described by paragraph 4.4.1.4.

TiM'lil«'r/K«wiin-k

IIG Eiist Main HOIUKI H<M-k,Tt'.\.»s TmHA 5l:i.24-4.M()5H

Mr. Jeff Rosenbloom Page 3 July 18,1986

The contractor requested that the temperature measurements required by paragraph 7.2.2.3 be made in degrees Farenheit rather than Celsius. Also the contractor wishes to run differential temperature logs. These changes were accepted.

With respect to the fiuid conductivity measurements (paragraph 7.2.2.4) the contractor stated that the "laboratory accuracy" level shown in the specifications could not necessarily be obtained in the field. It was agreed that the conductivity measurements would be done to a level of accuracy representing "best available technology" for this type of measuremenL The contractor wiU be responsible for identifying what this level of accuracy is for tbe field measurements.

For the spiimer logging (paragraph 7.2.2 J ) the contractor wiU use the 3-inch diameter spiimer caUed for in the specifications for the weUs with 16 inch diameter or larger casings. For the smaUer diameter production wells on the list, a smaUer spinner flow meter wiU be used.

Two changes/clarifications were made in paragraph 7.2.2.6, the depth-specific sampling specifications. First, the sandier will be a two Uter unit aUowing sufficient sample to be coUected for all chemical analyses at a specific depth. Second, since the wrap of ceUophane on the bottom of the PVC sampling access tube would be broken when the first sample is coUected, it was agreed that this i^ovision would be substituted with a requirement that the weU be bailed to remove any oil accumulations on the water surface.

In paragraph 7.3.6 the contractors pointed out that the necessity of field recaUbrating (with a blank) the sampling tool between the coUection of each depth-specific sample would greatly increase the required time for testing of a well. Also, the analytical costs wiU be enormous since this represents a field blank for every sample. It was agreed that this recalibration would be done as indicated in the specifications for the first well If the results from the first well test demonstrate that the cleaning procedures are sufficient to prevent cross-contamination, then GAC wiU request EPA approval of a field calibration waiver for die remaining wells.

The contractor pointed out that transfer of the samples fiom the coUection device to the VOA vials would result in some loss of volatiles due to the fact that the samples in the coUection device would be under pressure. They propose to use a specially developed connection to minimize these losses - this approach was approved.

The contractor stated that they were not awarp of any TV camera which could meet the requirements of paragraph 9.2.1. It was agreed that the counter-proposal of a camera providing an 8 inch to 14 inch picture would be acceptable for this project

There were several other minor exceptions/changes requested which do not relate to the technical scope of the project These were resolved satisfactorily.

Tis<-JiliT/K«M'iin>k

IKiEiist Main Hound Hock. 'J\'.\a.s 7»n(i4 .012.244.UOoH

Mr. Jeff Rosenbloom Page 4 July 18, 1986

The contractors stated that 7 to 10 days would be required to complete the work on each weU. The planned mobilization date is August 4th with logging beginning on August 11th. The first weU logged will be GAC No. 3. The work schedule wiU be fiom 5:00 AM to 3:00 PM Monday through Saturday. As you and I discussed on the phone, the results fiom this weU will be available for review at the PLA technical committee meeting on August 19. We wUl not start the logging of the other GAC weUs until after the committee meeting to aUow incorporation any changes to the program which are deemed necessaiy.

The contractors stated that they do not mind observers, but do not want them close to the rig/equipment and interrupting woric to ask questions. The loggers are willing to take breaks to describe to the observers specific activities. Obviously, EPA ^ its contractor representative on-site wiU have immediate access to the GAC contractors' representatives on site. We request, however, that this access always be through GAC's field representative (either GAC or ES staff) who wiU be present at the work site at aU times. We have instructed the contractor to foUow only those instmctions issued by the GAC field representative.

With respea to observers other than EPA and its contractor, we need to know in advance who they are and when they wish to come on site. Since the GAC plant gate is not continuaUy manned until 7:00 AM, observers wishing to arrive earUer should enter with the work crew members at 5:00 AM. We would appreciate it if you could poU those who might be interested in viewing the logging so we can determine die number of individuals and proposed timing of the visits and decide whether or not we wiU have to limit the number of observers on particular days. Also, aU observers wiU have to bring their own safety equipment (Oass D).

Please let us know iinmediately if you have any questions about or problems with the above items. We are moving forward as quickly as we can to get the Phase n field work under way. We appreciate the efforts you have made to expedite this program.

Sincerely,

^ - - ^ Lial F. Tischler, Ph.D., P£. Parmer

xc: B. BeU, GAC G. PhiUips, GAC R. Qark, GAC T. Ito, Goodyear J. Smerglia, Goodyear A. Ponds, ES

T>.s<'liJ<'r/KiK'UH'k

11(> Eiist Main Hound H<Mrk, Texas 7H(i(i4 .')12.244.9()r>J{

WEU, ENGfNEERING SURVEYS

October 21, 1986

Mrs. Azmette Ponds Engineering-Science, Inc, 2901 North Interregional Austin, Texas 78722

Subject: Brine Fluid Tracer

Dear Mrs. Ponds,

This is further to our recent telephone conversation about a brine ejector system for tracing fluid movements.

We have recently undertaken the task of developing a system that will detect very small vertical movements of water in wells such as those at Goodyear Aerospace. However, since all of the hardware has not yet been fabricated or assembled and since, as a result, testing has not yet been conducted, we are unable to forecast at this time when such a device will be operational. As a result, we will be unable to offer this service on the next well at Goodyear and seriously doubt whether it will be available for the fourth well.

Ue will keep you advised of test results and update you as to when a completion date is anticipated.

If you have any questions, please advise.

Sincerely,

9 ^ Joseph L. Newman President

4B17 DISTRICT BLVD.: . BAKERSFIELD . CA 93309 (B05) -^834-8106i^?mm

APPENDIX C

SAMPLING AND LOGGING DATA

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street • Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Date: August 11, 1986

Lab. No.: 8911

Sample:

Received:

Submitted by:

Water

8-6-86

Marked: Project: 46351.00 Calibration-Spinner Logging Your P.O. 26942-M

Engineering Science Annette S. Ponds

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Time Station Location Sta. No. Date

C-l 8/5/86 9:45 A. TCE Chamber Nozzle

C-2 8/5/86 9:55 A. distilled water chamber nozzle

C-3 8/5/86 10:40 A. TCE chamber nozzle w/sampler

C-4 8/5/86 10:45 A. Sampler TCE chamber

C-5 8/5/86 2:05 P. Distilled water nozzle w/sampler

C-6 8/5/86 2:15 P. Sampler distilled water chamber

C-7 8/5/86 2:20 P. TCE chamber nozzle

C-8 8/5/86 2:25 P. distilled water chamber nozzle

C-9 8/5/86 2:35 P. TCE chamber nozzle w/sampler

IC-IO 8/5/86 2:40 P. Sampler TCE chamber

C-ll 8/5/86 2:55 P. Distilled water nozzle w/sampler

|C-12 8/5/86 3:05 P. Sampler distilled water chamber

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

1020 Er-b

< 0.1 ppb

940 ppb

1050 ppb

< 0.1 ppb

< 0.1 ppb

950 ppb

1.2 ppb

920 ppb

1000 ppb

< 0.1 ppb

2.1 ppb

< = less than

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street D Phoenix, Arizona 85007 • 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Date: August 12, 1986 Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Lab. No.: 8911 Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Sample: Water Marked: project: 46351.00 . . Calibration-Spinner Logging

Received: 8-6-86 Your P.O. 26942-M

Submitted by: Engineering Science

""^^^^^^ S ^ ^ ^ O F LABORATORY TESTS

Spike: 91.6 % Recovery

Duplicate Sample:

C-l: 1090 ppb

C-l: 1020 ppb

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J . Drake

C^AIN OF CUSTODY RECORD PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME

SAMPLERS (signatures) ( / '

( /A c t^f J . -f! -7iXj.y STA. NO. DATE TIME

u STATION LOCATION

& o z

si REMARKS

0 - i M L I JOd " ^ r V y'1'nr.yLi-1 t>( .'/^f.. z i^lZ. iKiii 7:M M - \ \ \ \ f i unl i^t {*lM„<Lr, tinrih j A c A U [ u n i ' . , . - . - ^1-,

cnL hM. ^fvL fC'f (h(\u>i<i'. I'i/fk u)JUiiit^l(t y lcn n a( LJL kk. f±j^ Xti ,/Snilllfr T r ^ nl>n.Mh. f. 7 cn :'r>rY->i % : r ^ j / » i H , i i,-- , i r -J I v . - i ^

LlL. {th ZjLiL d l A l l I , ! l l ' » l ' I . ^ J ' i / : l<f ( l ' . . f i f (ih'lA i r r

L l l A 'kM iiau. T^'r (jliahjur i^'iiki X Li± MhL i i i t w {W\ii\{C- \mh\ i\\(\M^.ii. m d f

• J \ ^ \ f ^ U < l . ' i - ( | r . ' - j u - n . ^ . ' If.

tl JlJl, »: -A i ' T(f^ (U'Xi ilxt fU .ri\c idj'-.aivijl.'t M/ I ' ^ n U n ( ' ' •>^i ] — l • ' • 1' T ' I I -J—L

• V ' ^ . ' . i r - / t^ / k l . y ' i r . '. ^ ' C . fLtii V.'/d f (tnViJhf 'fYf o l u v h i i n , . ' . ( , * - * ! •

C - l l M L V.-rir ^'I'ljljid i ' " l r ' " . ' lh n,/viirj,'' :/^

''/2Vkhl:^r,\ \ i ^ \ •.(If..,..-!,, \ r f i \ l r A I M A - . f l i . i i . L / ^ ima Recelvad bv: (Slajtatiira) 7 " Relinqulihed t^y. ^ Igna tu re ) Date/TIi

M (,

Received bjr: (Signature) Relinquiahed by: (Slgnatura) Oata/Ilma

i 1-^ ' /Data/ l ima Received t^ : X^lgnotura) \ Relinquiahed by: (Signature)

/

Oota/Tima Received by: (Signoture) Relinquiahed by: (Signaiure)

Relinqiilahed by: (Signature) Dole/Time Received for iob. by: (SIgnoiure) Dota/nma Remarks

w-.*-S'

The follovlns are the l o g s of Veils f L , i 2 , i Z , and i^ located at the Aireraft plant:

Weir-#1 ro" sfeiix

started Ao^. 12, 19'*1 " ' ^ Piaiohed Aug. 21, 1^1

This W e U Is located about 1218.21 ft. vest acd 7^.7 ft. south of ths iateraeetlOQ of BuekeTe 3oad and Lltehfield A Fetnie.

0 ft. 25 " 50--88-"

9 3 -105 " 225 " H«3 " 200 " 210 " 260 " 270 " 280 " 310 "

to 25 ft. " 50 " - 88 "

" 93 " " 105 " " 125 " " llio " " 200 " " 210 " " 260 " - 270 " " 280 " " 310 " " 360 "

cnllcbff pack sand clay and gravel cement c«ieoted sand ceasnt aad sacd day—water bad hard eallebe—-nater bad sand—mter good hesTing sand

saady clay heaving aaad—water good clay—vater very good

Hater Level— DravdovD -to ^ ft. vlth bailer Pipe in veil—324 ft. 8 in. Perforated f7(» 210 to 22C aad from 280 to 290

/20" WelJ^

Started June 22, V ^ Z Fiaiehed JUI7 B, 1 ^

This -vsU is located aboat 1010.71 ft. mst and II&.9 ft. south of iateraeotion of BUckcTC Road and Litchfield Avemre.

/f5-.£/^

\to

Top Uo ft. 50 " 32 "

93 " 126 "

155 " IB2 " 190 " 2JfO " {21H " 256 " 300 " 312 " (300-

to 'kQ ft. " 50 " " 62f " " 99 " " 126 "

" 155 " • 182 " " 190 " .. gijQ ,

" 256 " " 30<) " » 300 " " 312 " " 330 -" 330 "

hard caliche gravel & boulders clay end gravel, ucter bc.d aaad. water bad hard clsy aaadstone ee&eated sand fine gravel fiae Band fine gravel vQter good) elay and sand clay aad gravel red, sticky clay ao vater)

Pipe easing perforated Aroa 195* to 219' aad from 250* to SBO* Cat vith Mills kalfe, 12 boles to the rouad, 12 laches apart. Sise of boles, 3/8" vide aad 3^" loag. Pipe io veil 330 ft.

Hell ^ ^ 20

Tti.U wen is located 35^.63 ft, vest and 95*1 ft. south of the iatersectioB of BaekeTe Boad aad Lltehfield Aveaue.

SOp 12 ft. 21 " 28 " 36 " ka -82 -98 -128 " 150 " 158 " 172 "

^ . . 178-/^^ ' 186 " iW-'^-. 204 "

206 " ^7^-^T>i2Zk "

238 " 2kh " 269"

y n ^ / ^ 280" 312 ^ 314 -

to 12 ft. " 21 " " 28 " " 36 " •• 48 * - 82 " " 9B " " I2S " " 150 • - 158 " " 172 " " 178 -" 186 " " 204 " « 206 " - 224 " " 238 " " 244 " " 269" " 280 " " 312 " " 314 " " 320 "

caliche aaady eli^ pack saad aaad k gravel aaad & boulder clay & gravel gravel river silt clay gypsuffl rock saad soad stoae clay & saad gravel coto'se saad saad stoae gravel censnted saad saad & elay Joiat dajr clay & gravel gravel hard elay

VaXer level - 38 ft.

Pipe in Well - 320 ft.

PerforatiOBS 204 ft. to 206 ft. 224 - " 238 " 280 " " 312 "

Well eended up to 286 ft. level after developaeat (Test Pcoplag)

LOO OP WELL f4

'».fl

Started Jtily 12, 1944 Flaished July 27, 1944

0 to 11 ft.

n 24 42 54 70 8o 90 95 105 135 150 155 160 175 195 220 234 242 266 298

24 42 54 70 80 90 95 105 135 150 ' 155 160' 175 195 220 234 242 266 298 302

ealieha eaad aad elay bard elay boulders aad gravel eoorse gravel aad elay eessatad gravel caliche aad gravel

clay aad gyp rock hard elay sticky elay saad stone clay eley aad gravel " flae gravel saad saad vith little gravel elay saad aad gravel elay aad gravel bard clay

is

Ammnt of pipe in veil—302* of 20" (velded ftos top to 124*) Perforated from—266' to 294* aad 170* to l80* Va.tsr level vhea drilled—45*

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street D Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

PQP; Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Attn: Mr. Terry DeQuina Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Qg g. November 28, 1986

Lab. No.: 0390

Sampie: Water

Received: 11-12-86

Submitted by: Benny Rema Ido

Marked: Your P.O. 3967O-E Sampled: 11-11-86 Project: 46351.00

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Samples Marked:

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Seleniun Silver Thallium Tin Vanadium Zinc

Calciuin Magnesium Sodium Potassium Chloride Bicarbonate Carbonate Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate

S103

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.5 ND 0.055 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.030 11 5.5

112 5.2

116 134

0 0.4 3 ND

S104

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.0 ND 0.049 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 37 27

112 6.1

216 90 0 0.5

45 1.4

S105

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.018 0.068 ND 3.6 ND 0.17 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.036

80 57 109

' 7.8 322 93 0 0.3

71 8.1

S106

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.056 mg/L 0.014 ND 4.6 mg/L ND 0.24 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 79 56 116 7.8

324 93 0 0.3

77 7.9

ND = None Detected Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

4m Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street • Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

PQP; Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Attn: Mr. Terry DeQuina Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ.85340-0085

Date:

Lab. No.:

November 2 8 , 1986

0470

Sample: Water

Received: 11 -14 -86

Submitted by: Benny Rena ldo

Marked: ^ -O- 39670-E Sampled: 11-12-86 Project: 46351-00

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

Samples Marked

Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Tin Valadium Zinc

Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Chloride Bicarbonate Carbonate Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate

S109

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.031 0.051 ND 0.73 ND 0.021 ND 0.046 ND ND ND ND ND ND

101 64 99 6.3

334 190

0 0.3

87 8.8

SllO

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.031 0.022 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.075

78 54

110 6.5

308 193 0 0.3

71 8.2

S112

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.048 0.029 ND 1.9 ND 0.094 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.036

64 45

1,28 6.2

294 190 0 0.3

70 7.6

S114

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.065 ND ND 3.9 0.012 0.10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.060

73 52 116 6.2

306 193 0 0.3

73 7.8

ND = None Detected

mg/L

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA^ TESTING. LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street D Phoenix, Arizona 85007 U 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp . A t t n : Mr. T e r r y DeQuina P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ 85340-0085

Sample: Water

Received: 1 1 / 1 2 / 8 6

Submitted by: same

Marked:

Date: December 9, 19 86

Lab. No.: 0 390

Your P .O. 39670-E Sampled: 11-11-86 P r o j e c t ; 46351 .00

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

SlOl S102 S103

tv

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl ch lo r ide Chloroethane Methylene ch lo r ide 1 ,1-Dichloroethene 1,1-Dichloroethane t r a n s - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 1 ,1 ,1 -Tr i ch lo roe thane Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodi chlorome thane 1,2-Dichloropropane t r ans -1 ,3 -Dich lo ropropene T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Dibromochloramethane 1 ,1 ,2 -Tr i ch lo roe thane c i s -1 ,3 -Dich lo rop ropene 2 -Chloroe thy lv iny l e t h e r Bromoform 1 ,1 ,2 ,2 -Te t r ach lo roe thane Te t r ach lo roe thy lene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

< = l e s s than

< 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 .5

1.5 < 0 .5 < 0.5 < 0 .5 < 0.5

5.4 < 0.5 < 0 .5 < 0.5 < 1 . ' < 1 . < 1 .

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < <

< < < < < <

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 ,5 1.3 1,4 0 .5 0 .5 0 ,5 8.0 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 1 . 1, 1 .

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < < < < < < < < < < <

0. 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

X 4

X 1

X *

13

5p .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 5

.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

» .2

< 1,

R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street D Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Attn: Mr. Terry DeQuina Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Date:

Lab. No.:

December 9, 19 86

0390

Sample: Water

Received: 1 1 / 1 2 / 8 6

Submitted by: ^ ^ j ^ ^

Marked: Your P , 0 . Sampled: P r o j e c t :

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Chloromethane Bromomethane Viny l c h l o r i d e C h l o r o e t h a n e Methylene c h l o r i d e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e t r a n s - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e Chloroform 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e 1 , 1 , 1 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromod i chlorome t h a n e 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e t r a n s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Dibromochloramethane 1 , 1 , 2 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e c i s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e 2 - C h l o r o e t h y l v i n y l e t h e r Bromoform 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 - T e t r a c h l o r o e t h a n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e C h l o r o b e n z e n e 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1 , 4 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e Benzene To luene E t h y l b e n z e n e

S104

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

<

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 .5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 .5 0.5 0.5 0.5

7'.6

39670 11 -11 -86 46351 .00

S105

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < <

<

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 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5

l ! 4

S106

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < < < <

0 .5ppb 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 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0.5 0 ,5 0 ,5 X •

X •

X •

X •

X m

X •

< = l e s s than R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West M a d i s o n Street D Phoenix, A r i zona 85007 D 602/254-6181

Ppp. Goodyear Aerospace Corp. At tn ; Mr. Terry DeQuina P lan t Engineering L i t c h f i e l d Park, AZ 85340-0085

Sample: Water

Received: 11/12/86

Submitted by: same

Marked:

Date: December 9, 19 86

Lab. No.: 039°

Your P.O. 39670 Sampled: 11-11-86 Project: 46351.00

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

S107 S108

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,1-Dichloroethane trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Carbon te t rach lor ide Bromodichloromethane 1,2-Dichloropropane trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethylene Dibromochloramethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl e ther Bromoform 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene

< 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 ,5 < 0,5 < 0 ,5 < 0 .5 < 0 .5 < 0 .5 < 0 .5 < 0.5 < 0 .5 < 0 .5 < 1 , ' < 1 . < 1.

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < <

< < < < < <

0.5 ppb 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 0,5 1.4 0.5 0 .5 0.5 8.6 0.5 0 .5 0 .5 1 . 1. 1.

< = less than Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Difake ''

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street O Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace C o r p . A t t n : Mr. T e r r y DeQuina P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ 85340-0085

Sample: W a t e r Marked:

Received: 1 1 / 1 4 / 8 6

Submitted by: same

Date: December 9, 19 86x

Lab. No.: 0470

Your P .O. 39670-E Sampled; 11-12-86 P r o j e c t : 46351.00

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

S109 Sl lO S i l l

Chloromethane Bromomethane Viny l c h l o r i d e C h l o r o e t h a n e Methylene c h l o r i d e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e t r a n s - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e Chloroform 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e 1 , 1 , 1 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodich lo romethane 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e t r a n s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Dibromochloramethane 1 , 1 , 2 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e c i s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e 2 - C h l o r o e t h y l v i n y l e t h e r Bromoform 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

< = less than

< 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 .5 < 0.5 < 0,5 < 0 .5 < 0 .5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0 ,5 < 0,5. < 1. < 1, < 1, < 1. < 1.

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < <

< < < < < < < <

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 .5 0.5 1.2 0,5 0 .5 0.5 8 .1 0.5 0 .5 0.5 X e

X •

X m

X •

X •

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

0 .5ppb 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 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 ,5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 1 . 1 . 1 ,

< 1, < 1,

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street • Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace C o r p . A t t n ; Mr. T e r r y DeQuina P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ 85340-0085

Sample: Water Marked:

Received: 1 1 / 1 4 / 8 6

Submitted by: same

Date: December 9, 19 86x

Lab. No.: 0470

Your P .O. 39670-E Sampled: 11-12-86 P r o j e c t ; 46351 .00

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

S112 S113 S114

y

Chloromethane Bromomethane V i n y l c h l o r i d e C h l o r o e t h a n e Methylene c h l o r i d e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e t r a n s - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e Chloroform 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e 1 , 1 , 1 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodich lo romethane 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e t r a n s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Dibromochloramethane 1 , 1 , 2 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e c i s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e 2 - C h l o r o e t h y l v i n y l e t h e r Bromoform 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroetnane Te tra chloroe thylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

< = less than

< 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 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0,5 < 1. ' < 1. < 1. < 1. < 1. < 1.

< 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 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0,5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 1. < 1. < 1.

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < <

< < < < < < < < <

0 .5ppb 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 .5 1.1 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 8.2 0 .5 0 .5 0 ,5 X •

X 0

X •

X •

X •

X m

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street O Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. A t tn ; Mr. Terry DeQuina P l a n t Engineering L i t c h f i e l d Park, AZ 85340-0085

Sample: Water Marked:

Received: 11 /14 /86

Submitted by: same

Date: December 9, 19 86

Lab. No.: 0470

Your P.O. 39670-E Sample No. S115 Sampled; 11-12-86 Project: 46351.00

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Y -

I

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl ch lo r i de Chloroethane Methylene c h l o r i d e 1 ,1-Dichloroethene 1,1-Dichloroethane t r a n s - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 1 ,1 ,1 -Tr i ch lo roe thane Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodichloromethane 1,2-Dichloropropane t r ans -1 ,3 -Dich lo rop ropene T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Dibromochloramethane 1 ,1 ,2 -Tr i ch lo roe thane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 2-Chloroe thy lv iny l e t h e r Bromoform 1 ,1 ,2 , 2 -Te t rach loroe thane Te t r ach lo roe thy l ene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-DichlOrobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene

< 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 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0,5 < 0.5 < 1 . ' < 1 . < 1 .

ppb

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

< = l e s s than

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street G Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Qate: November 13, 1986

Lab. No.: 0133

Sample: Water

Received: 10-24-86

Submined by: Benny Rinaldo

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Marked: Your P.O. 39670-E Project: 46351.00 Sampled by: Annette S. Ponds Date Sampled: 10-22-86

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Tin Vanadium Zinc

Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Chloride Bicarbonate Carbonate Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate

S201

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.011 ND ND 2.5 ND 0.088 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.065

108 59 89 6.5

294 127

0 0.3

126 7.0

S202

0.21 ND ND ND ND ND 0.033 ND ND 2.4 ND 0.066 ND 0.046 ND ND ND ND ND 0.12

103 57 88 ' 6.4

290 127 0 0.2

114 7.2

S204

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.045 ND ND 1.6 ND 0.029 ND 0.049 ND ND ND ND ND 0.052 98 54 88 6.0

280 129

0 0.2

106 7.4

S206

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.060 ND ND 11. ND 0.068 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.058

96 55 89 6.0

270 129

0 0.2

101 7.5

ND = None Detected

mg/L

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street C Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park,AZ. 85340-0085

Date: November 17, 1986

Lab. No.: 0243

Sample:

Received:

Water

10-31-86

Marked: Your P.O, P r o j e c t : Sampled:

39670-E 46351.00 10-29-86

Submined by: Benny R i n a l d o

Scunples Marked

Total Aluminum Total Antimony Total Arsenic Total Barium Total Beryllium Total Cadmium Total Chromium Total Cobalt Total Copper Total Iron Total Lead Total Manganese Total Mercury Total Nickel Total Selenium Total Silver Total Thallium Total Tin Total Vanadium Total Zinc Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Chloride Bicarbonate Carbonate Total Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate

ND = none detected

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

S207 S208 S209 S211

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.030 ND ND 0.25 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.041

101 58 85 4,

286 135

0 0.

138 7,

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.034 ND ND 0.16 ND ND ND 0.057 ND ND ND ND ND 0.10

63 41 88 4.6

210 135 0 0.3

72 6.5

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.052 ND ND 0.69 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.057

0.24 ND ND ND ND ND 0.042 ND 0.059 0.53 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.036

46 36

112 5',

216 125 0 0

73 6,

37 28 84 4.

162 106

0 0,

55 5,

S214

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.050 ND ND 2.9 ND 0.021 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.025

48 39 116 5.4

224 125 0 0.3 38 6.6

mg/L

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LAECORATORIES

Robert J." Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street D Phoenix, Arizona 85007 O 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Attn: Mr.Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Date: November 13, 1986

Lab. No.: 0133

Sample: Water

Received: 10-24-86

Submined by: Benny Rinaldo

Marked: Your P.O. 39670-E Project: 46351.00 Sampled by: Annette S. Ponds Date Sampled: 10-22-86

RgPORT QF LABORATORY TESTS

Chloromethane Bromome thane Yinyl chloride Chloroethane Hethylene chloride 1 ,1-Dichloroethene 1 ,1 -Diclil oroethane trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethane ] ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane } ,2-Dichloropropane trans-l,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethylene Dibromochloramethane 1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether Bromoform 1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1 ,3-Dichlorobenzenc 1 ,2-Dichloroben2ene 1 ,4-Dfchlorobenzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

ND = None Detected

S201

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 13. ND ND

ND ND ND ND 10. ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4 ppb

6 ppb 7 ppb

S202

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND 12. ND ND ND ND ND ND

' ND ND ND ND ND ND ND — ND — -

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

S203

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Robert J. '••- - ^ J -Drake'

Arizona Testing Loborarories 817 West Madison Sireet 0 Phoenix. Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Attn: Mr.Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Date: November 13, 1986

Lab. No.: 0133

Sampie:

Received:

Submitted by:

W a t e r

1 0 - 2 4 - 8 6

Marked: Your P.O. 39670-E Project: 46351.00 Sampled by: Annette S. Date Sampled: 10-22-86

Ponds

Benny Rinaldo

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

S204 S205

Chlorome thane Bromome thane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride 1 ,1 - 0 1 cl>l o r o e t h e n e 1 ,1-Dichloroethane trans-l,2-Dichloroethene Chloroform 1 , 2 - D I c l l l o r o e t h a n e 1 ,1 ,1 - T r i c h 1 0 r 0 e Ul a n e Carbon tetrachloride BromodIchloromethane 1 ,2-Di chloropropane trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroe thylene Di bromochloramethane 1 ,1 ,Z-Trichloroethane cis-1 ,3-Uichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether Bromoform 1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Clll orobenzene 1 ,3-Di chlorobenzene 1 ,2-D ichlorobenzene 1 ,4-Dichlorobenzen^ Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

ND None Detected

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 12. ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

0 ppb

ND • ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Respectfully

S206

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 16.0 ppb ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

submitted.

Robert J.

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street D Phoenix. Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

Fgr; G o o d y e a r A e r o s p a c e C o r p . Mr. Randy C l a r k x x x x x P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ. 8 5 3 4 0 - 0 0 8 5

Sampie: W a t e r Marked:

Received: 1 0 - 3 1 - 8 6

Submined by: same

Date: November 1 7 , 19 86

Lab. No.: 02 43

P u r c h a s e O r d e r 396 70-E Sample S - 2 0 7 . Sampled 1 0 - 2 9 - 8 6 P r o j e c t : 4 6 3 5 1 . 0 0

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl c h l o r i d e C h l o r o e t h a n e Methylene c h l o r i d e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e t r a n s - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r 6 e t h e n e Chloroform 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e 1 , 1 , 1 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodichloromethane 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e t r a n s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Dibromochlorame thane 1 , 1 , 2 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e c i s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e 2 - C h l o r o e t h y l v i n y l e t h e r Bromoform 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 - T e t r a c h l o r o e t h a n e Te t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Chlorobenzene 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1 , 4 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e Benzene Toluene E thy lbenzene

< = l e s s than

0. 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0. 6 . 0. 0 . 0 . 0 . 0. 0 . 0 . 0 . 1 1 1 1 1 1

ppb

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Rober t J . Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street a Phoenix. Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For- Goodyear Aerospace Corp. ° Mr. kandy Clark

Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ

Sample: " a t e r

Received: 10-31-86

85340-0085

Date: November 17 , 19 86

Lab. No.: 02 43

Marked- Pu rchase Order 39670-E Sample S208, 10-29-86 P r o j e c t : 46351.00

Submitted by: same

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl c h l o r i d e C h l o r o e t h a n e Methylene c h l o r i d e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e t r a n s - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e Chloroform 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e 1 , 1 , 1 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodichloromethane 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e t r a n s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e Tr i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Dibromochloramethane 1 , 1 , 2 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e c i s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e 2 - C h l o r o e t h y l v i n y l e t h e r Bromoform 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 - T e t r a c h l o r o e t h a n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Chlorobenzene 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1 ,2 -D ich lo robenzene 1 , 4 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e Benzene Toluene E thy lbenzene

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < < < < < < < < < < < < <

0.5 ppb 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 3.5 0.5 0.5 0,5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 *

Resoecti — • a w w l i ^ w w b l

1 ARIZO^

< = l e s s t han

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Rober t J . Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street • Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp . Mr. Randy Cla rk P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ. 85340-0085

Datei^o vember 17, 19 86

Lab. No.: 0243

Sampie:

Received:

Marked: Water

Submined by: 10-31-86

Purchase Order 39670-E Sample S209. 10-29-86 P r o j e c t : 46351.00

fS

same REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl c h l o r i d e C h l o r o e t h a n e Methylene c h l o r i d e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e t r a n s - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e Chloroform 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e 1 , 1 , 1 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodichloromethane 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e t r a n s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Dibromochloramethane 1 , 1 , 2 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e c i s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e 2 - C h l o r o e t h y l v i n y l e t h e r Bromoform 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 - T e t r a c h l o r o e t h a n e Te t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Chlorobenzene 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1 ,2 -D ich lo robenzene 1 , 4 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e Benzene To luene E thy lbenzene

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < < < < < < < < < < < < <

0.5 ppb 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 3.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 . 0 .5

1 Respectf

I ARIZON

< = l e s s t han

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

/ / n /I r V—

Rober t J . Drake

^

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street • Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Mr. Randy Clark P lan t Engineering L i t c h f i e l d Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Sample: W a t e r Marked:

Received: 1 0 - 3 1 - 8 6

Submined by: same

Date: November 1 7 , 19 86

Lab. No.: 0243

Purchase Order 39670-Ex Sample S210, 10-29-86 P r o j e c t ; 46351.00

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

il

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl ch lo r ide Chloroethane Methylene ch lo r ide 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,1-Dichloroethane t r ans -1 ,2 -Dich lo roe thene Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 1 ,1 ,1-Tr ich loroe thane Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodichloromethane 1,2-Dichloropropane t rans -1 ,3-Dich loropropene Tr i chloroe thylene Dibromochloramethane 1 ,1 ,2-Tr ich loroe thane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl e t h e r Bromoform 1 ,1 ,2 ,2-Tet rach loroe thane Te t rach loroe thy lene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzerie

< = l e s s than

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < < < < < < < < < <

0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 , 0 . 0 . 3 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .

1 1 1

ppb

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

^

Robert J . brake

/

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street D Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp . Mr. Randy Cla rk P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ. 85340-0085

Sample: Wa t e r

Received: 10-31-86

Submitted by: same

Date: November 17 , 19 86

Lab. No.: 02 43

Marked: Purchase Order 396 70-E Sample S211 , 10-29-86 P r o j e c t : 46351.00

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl c h l o r i d e C h l o r o e t h a n e Methylene c h l o r i d e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e t r a n s - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e Chlorofonn 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e 1 , 1 , 1 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodichloromethane 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e t r a n s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e Tr i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Dibromochloramethane 1 , 1 , 2 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e c i s - l , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e 2 - C h l o r o e t h y l v i n y l e t h e r Bromofonn 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 - T e t r a c h l o r o e t h a n e Te t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Chlorobenzene 1 ,3 -D ich lo robenzene 1 ,2 -Dich lo robenzene 1 , 4 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e Benzene Toluene E thy lbenzene

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < < < < < < < < < < < < <

0.5 ppb 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 2 .0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 ,

1 Respectf

1 ARIZON

< = l e s s t han

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

^-ttin Robert , J . Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street Q Phoenix, Arizona 85007 a 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Mr. Randy Clark P lan t Engineering L i t c h f i e l d Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Sampie: Wa t e r

Received: 1 0 - 3 1 - 8 6

Submitted by: same

Date: November 1 7 , 19 86

Lab. No.: 0243

Marked: Purchase Order 39670-E Sample: S212, 10-29-86 P r o j e c t : 46351.00

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl ch lo r ide Chloroethane Methylene ch lo r ide 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,1-Dichloroethane t r ans -1 ,2 -Dich lo roe thene Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 1 ,1 ,1 -Tr ich loroe thane Carbon tef t rachlor ide Bromodichloromethane 1,2-Dichloropropane t rans -1 ,3-Dich loropropene Tr i chloroe thylene Dibromochloramethane 1,1,2-Tr i chloroe tha ne c i s - I ,3 -Dich lo ropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl e t h e r Bromoform 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Te trachloroe thylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

< = l e s s than

< 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 . 5 < 0 .5 < 0 .5 < 0 .5 < 0 .5 < 0 . 5 < 0 .5 < 0 . 5 < 0 .5 < 0 .5 < 1 < 1 < 1

ppb

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

/ns A

. n j i L.... M Robert J . Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street D Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

Goodyear Aerospace Corp . For: Mr. Randy Cla rk

P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ. 85340-0085

Date: November 17, 19 86

Lab. No. 0243

Sample:

Received:

Submitted by:

Water

10-31-86

same

Purchase Order 396 70-E Marked: s a m p l e : S213 . 10-29-8 6

P r o j e c t : 46351.00

R EPO RT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl c h l o r i d e C h l o r o e t h a n e Methylene c h l o r i d e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e t r a n s - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e Chloroform 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e 1 , 1 , 1 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodichloromethane 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e t r a n s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Dibromochloramethane 1 ,1 ,2 -Tr i c h l o r o e t hane c i s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e 2 - C h l o r o e t h y l v i n y l e t h e r Bromoform 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

< = l e s s t han

< 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 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 1 < 1 < 1

ppb

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

/

u mm /

Rober t J . Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street C Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp . Mr. Randy Cla rk P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ. 85340-0085

Sample: Water

Received: 10-31-86

Submitted by: same

Date: November 17, 19 86

Lab. No.: 0243

Marked: Purchase Order 3 9670-E Sample :S214, 10-29-86 P r o j e c t : 46351.00

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

ia

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl c h l o r i d e C h l o r o e t h a n e Methylene c h l o r i d e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e t r a n s - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e Chloroform 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e 1 , 1 , 1 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodichloromethane 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e t r a n s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e Tr i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Dibromochloramethane 1 , 1 , 2 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e cis-1., 3-Dichloropropene 2 - C h l o r o e t h y l v i n y l e t h e r Bromoform 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 - T e t r a c h l o r o e t h a n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Chlorobenzene 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1 ,2 -D ich lo robenzene 1 , 4 - D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e Benzene Toluene E thy lbenzene

< = l e s s t h a n

0. 0 . 0 . 0 . 0. 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0. 0 . 0 . 0 . 5 . 0 . 0 . 0. 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 1 1 1 1 1 1

ppb

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

/ . / /

. ^ ^ ' / ' ' r i ' >•'-

Rober t J . Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street G Phoenix. Arizona 85007 n 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Attn: Mr. Randy Claris Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 35340-0085

Oate: September 10, 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

Sampla: Water

Racalvad: 8-18-86

Submittad by: A n n e t t e S. Ponds

Marked: See Below Your P .O. 26942-M Sampled on 8-17-86

Sample N o s . :

Total Aluminum Total Antimony Total Arsenic Total Barium Total Beryllium Total Cadmium Total Chromium Total Cobalt Total Copper Total Iron Total Lead Total Manganese Total Mercury Total Niclcel Total Selenium Total Silver Total Thallium Total Tin Total Vanadium Total Zinc Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Chloride Bicarbonate Carbonate Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate, N

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

5305 mg/L ND ND ND NO ND ND 0.022 NO ND 3.6 ND 0.082 ND ND ND ND ND ND NO 0.17

115 61 82 6.0

282 104 0 0.3

137 6.4

5309 mg/L 0.42 ND ND ND ND ND 0.043 ND ND 2.3 ND 0.069 ND ND NO ND ND ND ND 0.17

130 64 86 6.0

296 160 0 0.3

141 7.3

5310 mg/L 0.33 ND ND ND ND 0.016 ND ND ND 0.33 ND 0.032 HD ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.048 ___ —

___

...

—

5311

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.54 ND 0.040 ND ND ND ND ND ND HD 0.071 ___

— =__ ™

— ——. —

___

5312 mg/L ND HD HD ND HD HD HD HD HD 0.42 HD 0.035 ND ND ND ND ND NO HD 0.032 ___

___

— . „

— -___

ND 3 None Detected

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round RocK, Texas 78664

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING^^LABORATORIES

z^-ium Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Sireet n Phoenix. Arizona 85007 Cl 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Sample: Water

Recaived: 8-18-86

Submitted by: A n n e t t e S. Ponds

Marked:

Oate: September 10 , 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

See Below Your P .O. 26942-M Sampled on 8-17-86

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Samole Nos.:

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromitim Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Tin Vanadium Zinc

Calcium Magnesium Sodiun Potassium Chloride Bicarbonate Carbonate Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate, N

5313 mg/L

0.27 HD ND ND ND ND 0.52 ND HD 1.3 ND 0.045 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.14

334 143 129 6.5

572 198 0 0.2

517 10.5

5314 mg/L

HD ND ND ND ND HD ND HD 0.028 0.32 ND 0.046 ND ND ND ND ND HD HD 0.084

___ -__ ... ___ . « —

5315 mg/L

ND ND NO ND ND 0.0074 ND ND NO 0.25 ND 0.041 ND HD HD ND ND ND ND 0.033 — — -_-—

— — ... .--

.

5316 mg/L

HD ND NO ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.25 ND 0.040 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.034 _»_

— —». . „

___ — . ... . —

5317 ~mg/L

0.21 ND HD ND MD ND 0.18 MD ND 0.33 NO 0.043 ND NO ND ND ND HD HD 0.043

179 79 93 4.9

360 170 0 0.3

210 8.6

ND None D e t e c t e d

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street a Phoenix, Arizona 85007 0 602/254-6101

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Sampla: Water

Received: 8-18-86

Submitted by: A n n e t t e S. Ponds

Marked:

Oate: September 10 , 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

See Below Your P.O. 26942-M Sampled on 8-17-86

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Samole Nos.:

Total Total TOtal Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Tin Vanadium Zinc

Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Chloride Bicarbonate Carbor iate Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate, N

5318 mg/L

. ND ND HD HD ND NO ND ND ND

. 0.63 ND ND ND ND MD ND ND MD MD 0.044 ...-_« .._-.«-•««

..*

._—

...

5319 mg/L

ND ND ND HD HD HD ND MD ND 1.2 ND ND < ND HD ND ND ND ND ND 0.052 .-» ._«. -... • » -«»

• . 9 _

««._ .—w —

—

5320 mg/L

ND ND ND ND ND ND MD MD ND 0.36 ND MD ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.13 «.> . „

-«.-.>«>«> • a —

.-.

..-> *»* «** ...

5321 ing/L

ND ND ND ND ND MD 0.14 HD ND 2.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.10

137 62 97 4.7

318 136 0 0.3

154 7.3

5323 mg/L

ND ND ND ND HD 0.0064 NO NO ND 0.21 ND ND HD HD HO ND MD ND ND 0.063 — .«-— w»*.

——.* -_.. M M *

. m ^ ^

.m^m.^

-__

ND None D e t e c t e d

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Sireet • Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Cl 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Oata: September 10, 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

Sample: Water

Recaived: 8-18-86

Submitted by: A n n e t t e S. Pon4s

Marked: See Below Your P .O. 26942-M Sampled on 8-17-86

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS Samole Nos.:

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron -Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Tin Vanadium Zinc

Calcium Magnet ium Sodium Potassium Chloride Bicarbonate Carbonate Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate, N

5324 mg/L

MD MD ND NO ND MD ND ND NO 0.35 MD ND ND HD ND HD HD HD HD 0.035 — — -=—. _=_

_ — ___ ™ —

5325 mg/L

HD ND HO ND ND ND ND MD HD 0.68 ND ND ND MD ND ND ND ND ND 0.054 ...

— — _

. „ — < •

— _

5326 Tng/L

ND MD MD MD MD ND 0.14 ND MD 1.6 MD HO NO ND NO HD HD ND ND 0.037

109 51 103 4.7

284 160 0 0.3

111 0.3

Average soike recoverv mg/L

78

112 87 85 94

— 100 96

. — 100 100 — 86

. „

98 .--98 82 92

-.-

„ .

—

— —

___

ND " None D e t e c t e d

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert JS' Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 017 West Madison SUeel ' ' Phoenix, A i izona 05(X)7 i i ()()2/254-6I01

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp . A t t n : Mr. Randy C l a r k P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d Pa rk , AZ. 85340-0085

Date: September 10 , 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

Marked: Sample: W a t e r

Received: 3-18-86

Submitted by: Annette S. Ponds

REPORT OP LABORATORY TESTS

Detection Limits

See Below Your P.O. 26942-M Sampled on 8-17-36

Total Aluminum Total Antimony Total Arsenic 'I'otal Barium Total Beryllium Total Cadmium Total Chromium Total Cobalt Total Copper Total Iron Total Lead Total Manganese Total Mercury Total Nickel Total Selenium Total Silver Total Thallium Total Tin Total Vanadium Total Zinc Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Chloride Bicarbonate Carbonate Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate, N

0.2 0.02 0.01 0.2 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.025 0.1 0.005 0.015 0.0002 0.04 0.5 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02

ND " None Detected

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

t ^ Robert J

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street a Phoenix, Arizona 05007 O 602/254-6101

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp . A t t n : Mr . Randy C l a r k P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ 85340-0085

Oate: Sep tenber 5 , 1986

Ub. No.: 9077

Sample: Water Marked: I

Received: 8 - 1 8 - 8 6

Submittad by: Annette S. Ponds

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

See Belou Your P.O. 26942-H

Saaple No.: S302 Data: 8/17/86 Tine: 3:10 A

Chloromethane NO ppb Bromomethane ND Vinyl chloride ND Chloroathane no Methylene chloride ^D 1,1-Oichloroethene ND 1.1-Dichloroethane ND trans-1,2-Oichloroethene NO Chloroform 9.3 1,2-Oichloroethane ND 1,1 ,l-Trichloroeth8ne ND Carbon tetrachloride ND Bromodichloromethane 2.0 1,2-Dichloropropane ND trsns-1,3-Oichloropropene ND Trichloroethylene 0.39 Oibromochloramethane 0.35 1 ,1 ,Z-Tr1chloroethane ND cis-1 ,3-Oichloropropene ND 2-Chloroethylvlnyl ether ND Bromoform ND 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND Tetrachloroethylene NO Chlorobenzene NO 1,3-Dichlorobenzene NO 1,2-Oichlorobenzene ND 1,4-Oichlorobenzene NO Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

S303 8/17/86 8:30 A

NO NO NO ND ND NO ND ND 9.

ND ND ND 1.

ND NO NO 0.

NO NO ND ND NO ND ND NO NO ND

ppb

32

5304;^ 3/17/86 8:38 A

ND ppb ND NO NO . ND ND NO NO 14 ND ND ND 2.5 ND NO 0.72 0.44 NO ND NO ND ND NO ND NO ND ND

NO^None Detected

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully subaitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 17 West Madison Sireel O Phoenix. Arizona 05007 Q 002/254-6101

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ 85340-0085

Data: Septeaber 5, 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

Sampla: Uater

Received: 8-18-86

Submitted by: A n n e t t e S. Ponds

REPORT OP LABORATOnY TESTS

Marked; See Be lou Your P.O. 26942-n

Saaple No.: Date: Time:

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Hethylene chloride 1 ,1-Dichloroethene 1 ,l-01ch)oroet:hane trans-1,2-Dlchloroethene Chloroform 1 ,2-01chloroethane 1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 .Z-Olchloropropane trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethylene Oibromochloramethane 1 ,1,2-Trich1oroeth8ne cis-1 ,3-Oichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether Bromoform l,1,2,2-Tetr8Chloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Oichlorobenzene 1 ,2-Dichloroben2ene 1 ,4-Oichlorobenzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

S305 ' y l I M I ^ b 9:00 A

NO ppb NO ND NO 1.0 NO NO ND 0.26 ND ND NO 0.12 ND NO 4.9 ND ND ND NO 0.25 ND ND ND ND ND NO ND NO NO

S306 ^ 8/17/86 9:20 A

NO ppb NO NO NO 0.37 ND NO ND 7.3 ND ND ND 1.6

NO ND 0.68 0.34 ND NO ND ND ND ND ND NO ND NO - " ——— ^——

S307 8/17/86 9:40 A

ND ppb NO ND ND 0.15 ND NO NO 8.8 NO 0.42 NO 2.0 NO ND 2.2 0.37 NO ND ND NO ND ND ND ND NO NO — -—— ——^

ND=None D e t e c t e d

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully subaitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Loborarories 017 West Madison Street O Phoenix, Arizona OS007 O 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp . A t t n : I4r. Randy C l a r k P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ 85340-0085

Sampla: Ua te r Marked: I

Received: 8 - 1 8 - 8 6

Submitted by: A n n e t t e S.

Date: Sep teaber 5 , 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

See Be lou Your P.O. 26942-M

Ponds

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Sanple No.: Date: Tiae:

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Hethylene chloride 1 ,1-Dichloroethene 1 ,1-0ich1oroethane trans-1,2-01ehloroethene Chloroform 1 ,2-Dlchloroethane ),1,1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1.2-Dlchloropropane trans-l,3-Oichloropropene Trichloroethylene Oibromochloramethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane cis-l,3-Oichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether Bromoform 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Oichlorobenzene 1,2-01ch1oroben2ene 1,4-01chlor6benzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

S308 8/17/86 9:45 A

NO ppb NO ND ND 0.12 NO ND ND 11 NO ND NO 2.1 NO NO 1.2 0.41 NO ND ND ND NO NO ND NO NO NO " -— - —

S309i^ 8/17/86 10:10 A

NO ppb NO NO NO 0.68 ND ND NO 0.24 ND ND NO 0.20 NO ND 14 0.10 ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND

S310 -.^ i l M I Z b 11 :38 A

NO ppb ND NO NO 0.21 NO NO NO 11 NO ND NO 2.1 ND NO 0.33 0.44 ND NO ND ND NO NO ND NO NO ND ~""" w ^ ^

NOsNone D e t e c t e d

cc : Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully subaitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 017 West Madison Street 0 Phoenix. Arizona 05007 D 602/254-6101

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp . A t t n : Mr . Randy C l a r k P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ 85340-0085

Oate: Sep teaber 5 , 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

Sample: Water

Received: 8 - 1 8 - 8 6

Marked: See Be lou Your P.O. 26942-M

Submittad by: A n n e t t e S. Ponds

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Sanpla No: Date: Tina:

S311 ^ 3/17/86 12:20 P

S312 • 8/17/36 12:23 P

S313^ 8/17/86 12:41 P

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Hethylene chloride 1 ,1-Oich1oroethene 1.1-D1cli1oroethane trans-1,2-Oichloroethene Chloroform 1 ,Z-01ch1oroethane 1.1.1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1,2-Dichloropropane trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethylene Oibromochloramethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether Bromoform 1 ,1,2,2-Tetr8Ch1oroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dlchlorobenzene 1,2-Olchlorobenzene 1,4-Oichlor6benzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

NO ppb NO NO ND 0.23 NO NO NO 11 NO NO NO 2.0 NO NO 0,53 0.40 NO ND ND NO NO ND ND ND ND ND ...--.-— -

ND ppb ND NO NO 0.21 NO NO NO 11 NO ND NO 2.1 ND NO NO 0.46 ND NO ND NO ND NO ND NO NO NO .--

--- .

NO p ND ND NO 1.0 2.5 NO NO 1.3 ND ND 2.3 1.2 NO NO 120 0.15 NO NO ND NO ND ND ND ND NO NO ND NO ND

ND^None Detected cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully subnitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

• ^ 1

f ^ 1

i H

m

i i-.v

i l • i .

'I 1

• .

Arizona Testing Laboratories 017 West Mad ison SUeel O Plioenix, Ar izona 05007 O 602/254-6101

F o r : 6 o o d y e a r A e r o s p a c e C o r p . A t t n : M r . Randy C l a r k P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ 8 5 3 4 0 - 0 0 8 5

Data: S e p t e n b e r 5 , 1 9 8 6

Lab. No.: 9 0 7 7

Sample: U a t e r

Received: 3 - 1 3 - 3 6

Submittad by: Annette S. Ponds

REPORT OF LABORATOnY TESTS

Marked: See Below Your P.O. 26942-H

Saaple No.: Date: Tine:

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride 1,1-O1ch1oroethene 1,1-Oichloroethane trans-l,2-Dlchloroethene Chloroform 1,2-Dlchloroethane 1,1.l-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-D1ch1oroprop8ne trans-l ,3-Oichloropropene Trichloroethylene Oibromochloramethane 1 ,1,2-Trichloroeth8ne cis-l,3-Oichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether Bromoform 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dlchlorobenzene 1 ,4-D1ch1or6benzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

NO^None Detected

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

S317^-8/17/86 6:25 P

ND ppb NO ND 0.59 NO ND ND NO 0.34 ND ND ND 0.34 ND NO 39 NO ND ND NO NO NO NO NO ND ND NO ND NO ND

S313 3/17/86 6:40 P

S319 3/17/36 6:43 P

NO NO ND 0.

NO NO ND NO 9.

ND ND ND 2-

ND NO ND

0. NO ND ND NO NO ND ND NO

ND ND

ppb

15

42

ND ND ND 0

ND NO NO ND 9.5

NO ND ND 2.0

NO NO

0. 0.

NO NO NO ND NO NO NO NO

ND ND

ppb

43

13 39

Respectfully subnitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 017 West Madison Street D Phoenix. Arizona 05OO7 O 602/254-6101

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp . A t t n : Mr . Randy C l a r k P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ 35340-0085

Sample: U a t e r Marked:

Received: 3 - 1 3 - 8 6

Submitted by: A n n e t t e S.

Sanple No.: Oate: Time:

Oate: Septenber 5, 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

See Belou Your P.O. 26942-M

Chloromethane Bromome thane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride 1,1-O1ch1oroethene 1,1-Dichloroethane trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Chloroform 1,2-Dlchloroethane 1,1,l-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-01ch1oropropane trans-l,3-Oichloropropene Trichloroethylene Oibromochloramethane 1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether Bromoform 1 ,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dlchlorobenzene 1,2-D1chloroben2ene 1 ,4-Dlch1or6benzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

Ponds

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

S320 _ 8/17/86 6:48

ND 1 NO ND NO NO ND NO ND 13 NO ND ND 2.4 NO

1 NO ND ND ND ND NO NO

• ND ND ND NO NO ND

P

3pb

S321 -8/17/86 7:10 P

NO ppb NO NO NO 0.35 ND ND NO 0.25 ND ND ND 0.21 NO ND 33 ND NO ND

. MO ND ND ND ND ND ND NO

S322 3/17/36 7:15 P

ND ND NO NO NO NO NO ND 0. NO NO 0. 0. ND ND 29 0. NO ND ND NO NO NO NO NO NO ND

ppb

21

32 36

,36

ND NO NO

ND=None Detected

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully subaitted,

ARIZONA TESTING_LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

I I I I I I I I I r j i ;

^!fi

I L . •

I 1 .'

I 1 .

I I

« _

I I

a -

I m -J.

I

Arizona Testing Laboratories 017 West Madison-Streei O Phoenix, Arizona 05OO7 a 602/254-6101

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ 35340-0085

Oate: Septeaber 5, 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

Sample: Uater

Received: 3-18-36

Submitted by: A n n e t t e S. Pond's

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Marked: See Be lou Your P.O. 26942-M

Sanple No.: Date: Tine:

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride 1 ,1-Dichloroethene 1 ,1-Dichloroethane trans-l,2-Dlchloroethene Chloroform 1,2-Dlchloroethane 1 ,1,1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-01ch1oropropane trans-1,3-Olchloropropene Trichloroethylene Oibromochloramethane 1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvlnyl ether Bromoform 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Oichlorobenzene 1,2-D1chloroben2ene 1 ,4-Dich1or6benzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

S323 '-3/17/36 7:20 P

NO ppb ND ND NO ND ND ND ND 9.5 ND ND NO 1.9 ND NO 0.39 0.36 ND ND NO ND NO ND ND ND ND ND "-

—— —

S324 •-8/17/36 7:36 P

NO ppb NO NO NO 0.14 ND ND NO 9.8 NO ND NO 1.9 ND ND 0.14 0.37 ND ND NO ND ND ND ND ND NO ND -— ——— — — — •

S325 ' -8/17/86 7:42 P

ND ppb NO NO ND 0.15 ND NO NO 12 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND ND NO ND ND NO ND ND NO ND -~ ——— — ^ — •

NO^None D e t e c t e d

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Dc/ake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 017 West Madison Street O Phoenix. Arizona 05OO7 O 602/254-6101

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ 35340-0085

Oate: Septenber 5, 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

Sample: Uater

Received: 3-18-86

Submittad by: A n n e t t e S. Pond's

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Marked: See Be lou Your P.O. 26942-M

Saaple No.: S326 -Oate: 3/17/36 Tine: 8:05 P

Chloromethane NO Bromomethane NO Vinyl chloride NO Chloroethane NO Hethylene chloride 0. 1,1-Oichloroethene NO 1,1-Dichloroethane ND trans-l,2-Olchloroethene NO Chloroform 0. 1,2-Dichloroethane NO 1,1,1-Trichloroethane NO Carbon tetrachloride NO Bromodichloromethane 0. 1,2-Dichloropropane "O t'rans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene NO Trichloroethylene 16. Oibromochloramethane NO 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND cis-1,3-Oichloropropene NO 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether NO Bromoform NO 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane NO Tetrachloroethylene NO Chlorobenzene NO 1,3-Dichlorobenzene NO 1,2-Oichlorobenzene MO 1,4-Dlchloroben2ene NO Benzene MD Toluene MD Ethylbenzene MD

ppb

58

31

16

Spike Saaple

Z Recovery

68 81 76 69 73 81 82 85 96 35

72 34 35

78 100 30 77 78 78 78

119 77

ND-None D e t e c t e d

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZO^IA TESTING LABORATORIES

<^^£Ln— Robert J. drake

I

I I I

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Sireet Q Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. p^,,. September 8,1986 Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering , u o• Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Sample: Marked:

Received:

Submitted by:

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Detection Limits

Chloromethane 1 ppb Bromomethane 1 Vinyl chloride "1 Chloroethane 1 Hethylene chloride 0.1 1,1-Oichloroethene 0.1 1,1-Oichloroethane 0.1 trans-1,2-Olchloroethene 0.1 Chloroform 0.1 1,2-Oichloroethane 0.1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.1 Carbon tetrachloride 0-1 Bromodichloromethane 0.1 1,2-Oichloropropane O-^ trans-l ,3-Oichloropropene 0-1 Trichloroethylene 0.1 Oibromochloramethane 0.1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0-^ cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene 0-1 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 1 Bromoform 0.1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.1 Tetrachloroethylene O-^ Chlorobenzene 0.1 1,3-Oichlorobenzene 0.1 1,2-Dlchlorobenzene 0.1 1 ,4-Dich1oroben2ene "-^ Benzene 0.5 Toluene 0.5 Ethylbenzene 0.5

Ethylene Dibromide 10 ppt Dibromochloropropane 20 ppt

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street O Phoenix, Arizona OS007 D 602/254-6101

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

August 28 , 1986

Sample: Water Marked:

Received: 8 -15 -36

Submined by: Same

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Method 601 /602

Your Sample M a r k e d : S-301

Oate:

Lab. No.: 9067

Your P.O. No. 26942-M

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Hethylene chloride 1,1-Oichloroethene 1,l-01chloroethane trans-1,2-Dlchloroethene Chloroform 1,2-01chlore«thane 1,1.l-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1,2-0ich1oropropane trans-l,3-Oichloropropene Trichloroethylene Oibromochloramethane 1 ,1,2-Trichloroethane cis-1,3-Oichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether Bromoform 1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethyl ene Chlorobenzene 1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Oichlorobenzene 1 ,4-01chloroben2ene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

< • less than

<1 ppb <1 <1 <1 3.8 1.9

<1 2.2

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1. <1 <1

<1 <1 <1 <1

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street O Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: G o o d y e a r A e r o s p a c e C o r p o r a t i o n A t t n : M r . Randy CLark^ P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ 8 5 3 4 0 - 0 0 8 5

Date: A u g u s t 2 5 , 1986

Lab. No.: 9067

Sample: W a s t e w a t e r

Received: 8 / 1 5 / 8 6

Submitted by: Same

Marked: S301-A Your P u r c h a s e O r d e r # a 6 9 4 2 - M

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Total Chromium

Total Iron

0 . 1 8 mg/L

8 . 0

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

R o b e r t J . ^ ' D r a k e

Arizona Testing Laboratories 017 West Mad ison Street O Phoenix, Ar izona 85007 U 602/254-6181

For: G o o d y e a r A e r o s p a c e C o r p o r a t i o n A t t n : M r . Randy C l a r k P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ 8 5 3 4 0 - 0 0 8 5

Dale: O c t o b e r 2 2 , 1 9 8 6

Lab. No.: 9 7 8 6

Sample: W a t e r

Received: 1 0 / 3 / 8 6

Submitted by: B e n n y R i n a l d o

Marked: S e e Be low Y o u r P . O . 3 9 6 7 0 - E

Project: 46351.00 Sampled by: Annette S. Ponds

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Samples Harked:

Total Total TotaL Total Total Total Total Total TotaL TotaL Total Total Total TotaL TotaL Total Total Total Total TotaL

Aluminum Ant i mony Arsenic Bar i um Bery L L i um Cadmium Chromi um Cobalt Copper I ron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Se I eni um Si Iver Tha11i um Tin Vanadium Zinc

CaIc i um Magnesium Sodi um Potassium Chlor- de Bi carbonat e Carbonat e Fluori de Sulfate Ni t rate

S402 10/1/86 4:41P mg/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.17

ND ND ND ND NO ND ND NO ND 0.35

ND ND ND ND ND 4 0

ND ND ND

S403 10/1/86 5:06P rag/L 0.

NO ND NO ND ND ND ND ND 1 . 0. 0.

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.

151 82 90 6.

370 130 0 0.

188 6.

28

5 075 24

20

1

2

9

S405 10/1/86 5:59P mg/L 0.

ND ND ND NO ND ND ND k i 3.

ND 1 .

NO ND ND ND ND ND NO 0.

222 115 85 6.

482 122 0 0.

320 1 .

29

7

0

088

8

2

0

S407 10/1/86 6:35P

a g / L 0.38

ND ND ND ND ND 0.026

ND NO 5.0

ND 0.14

ND ND ND ND ND ND NO 0.073

303 154 94 7.5

544 176

0 0.2

478 11.2

S409 10/1/86 7: OOP mg/L 0.36

ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND 19. ND 0.14

NO ND ND NO ND ND ND 0.16

300 149 91 7.5

526 196

0 0.2

396 11 .6

NO = none detected Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

I I I I I I 1 I J I I I

»

I 1. -

I t

I I

i . .

I I I

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madison Street D Phoenix, Arizona 85007 D 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Date: November 4, 1986

Lab. No.: 9885

Sample:

Received:

Water

1 0 - 8 - 8 6

Submitted by: Benny Rinaldo

REPORT OP LABORATORY TESTS

Marked: Your P.O. 39670-E Project: 46351.00 Sampled by: Annette S. Ponds Date Sampled: 10-6-86

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Tin Vanadium Zinc

Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Chlor. Bicarl

ide bonate

Carbonate Fluor; ide Sulfate Nitrate, N

ND = .1 (Jone Detected

S410

0.38 ND ND 0.22 ND MD 0.021 ND 0.40 ND ND ND 0.078 ND ND ND ND ND 0.15

194 107 98 6.7

484 139 0 0.3

210 10.5

S411

ND ND ND 0.26 ND ND 0.023 ND 0.20 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

182 103 101 7.0

486 137 0 0.3

202 10.7

S413

0.23 ND ND MD ND ND 0.022 ND 0.14 ND ND ND 0.052 ND ND ND ND ND 0.038

160 98

112 7.3

464 115 0 0.3

197 10.6

S416

0.25 ND ND 0.49 ND ND 0.021 ND 0.22 ND ND ND 0.062 ND ND ND ND ND 0.064

163 98 120 7.1

476 114 0 0.3

193 11.1

S418

ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.022 ND 0.25 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.030

171 103 129 7.4

508 112 0 0.3

197 11.4

mg/L

Respectfully submitted,

ARI201JA JpSTING^LABORATORIES

Robert Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Mad ison SUeel D Phoenix, Ar izona 05OO7 U 602/254-0101

For: Goodyear Aerospace C o r p o r a t i o n A t t n : Mr. Randy C l a r k P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g L i t c h f i e l d P a r k , AZ. 85340-0085

Dale: O c t o b e r 2 3 , 1 9 8 6

Lab. No.: 9 7 8 6

M.-iikcd: Saiii|)lD: W a t e r

Received: 1 0 - 3 - 8 6

Submitted by: Mr. Benny R i n a l d o

REPORT OF L A B O R A T O n Y TESTS

Your P.O. 39670-E Project: 46351.00

Samples Taken on 10-1-86 By: Annette S. Ponds

Samples Marked

Chlorome Bromomet Vinyl ch Chloroet Hethylen 1 .1-D1ch 1 ,1-Dich trans-l, Chlorof0 1 ,2-Dich 1.1.1-Tr Carbon t Bromodic 1 .2-D1cli trans-1, Trichlor Dibromoc 1,1.2-Tr cis-1 .3-2-Ch1oro Bromofor 1,1.2.2-Tetrachl Chlorobe 1 ,3-D1ch 1,2-Dich l,4.Dich Benzene Toluene EthyIben

thane hane loride hane e chloride loroethene 1oroe thane 2-Dichloroethene rm 1oroethane i chloroethane etraclilorlde hioromethane 1oropropane 3-Dicli1oropropene oe thylene hloramethane ichloroethane Dichloropropene elhylvinyl ether m Tetrachloroethane oroethylene nzene lorobenzene lorobenzene 1orobenzene

3401 4:33 P

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

zene

3402 4:41 P

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Ncr ND

S403 5:06 P

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 pp ND ND

16.4 3.7 ND ND ND

18.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

ND = none detected

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 017 West Maoison Street U Phoenix. Arizona 85007 U 002/254-6101

For- Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Dale: October 23, 1986

Lab. No.: 9786

Sample: Water

Received: 10-3-86

Submitted by: Mr. Benny R i n a l d o

REPORT OF LABORATOnY TESTS

Samples Marked;

Chloromelhane Bromome Lhane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride 1,l-pich1oroethene 1 , l - b l c l i l o r o e t l i a n e trans-l,2-Dlchloroethene Chloroform 1,2-D1cli1oroethane 1 ,1,1-Trichloroelhene Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Diclil oropropane trans-1,3-01chloropropem Trichloroethylene Oibromochloramethane 1 ,1 ,2-Trich1orocth8ne cis-1,3-Uichloropropene 2-Chloroclhy1vinyl ether Bromofonn 1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethan Tetrachloroethylene-Chl orobenzene 1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene 1 ,4-Olchlorobenzene Benzene Toluene Ethy lbe t i i ene

Maiked: Your P.O. 39670-E P r o j e c t : 46351.00

Samples Taken on 1 0 - 1 - 8 6 By: A n n e t t e S. Ponds

S404 5:44 P

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO

e ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

e NO ND ND ND ND ND

3405 5:59 P

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

101. ppb ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

S406 6:10 P

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND HD ND ND ND ND ND ND ___ —;_ ___

ND = none detected

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA.TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Loborotories 017 West Madison Slieel D Phoenix. Arizona 05007 U 602/254-6101

For- Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ. 85340-0085

Date: October 23, 1986

Lab. No.: 5786

Sample: Water

Received: 10-3-86

Submitied by: Mr. Benny R i n a l d o

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

Marked: Your P .O. 39670-E P r o j e c t : 46351 .00

Samples Taken on 10 -1 -86 By: A n n e t t e S- Ponds

Samples Marked:

Chloromethane Bromome thane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,1-Dichloroethane trans-l,2-Dichloroelhene Chloroform 1,2-Dlchloroethane 1,1,1-Trichloroelhane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Di clt loropropane trans-l,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethylene 1 Oibromochloramethane 1,1.2-Trichloroethane c1s-l,3-Uichloropropene 2-Chloroelhylvlnyl ether Bromoform 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Oichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

S407 6:35 P

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

20. ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND ND ND

ppb

3408 6:42 P

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND HD ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND •

S409 7:00 P

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

120. ppb ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND MD ND MD ND ND ND

ND = none detected

Respectfully submitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake

Arizona Testing Laboratories 817 West Madisort Street D Phoenix. Arizona 85007 C 602/254-6181

Date: For: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ 853AQ-0085

see oeLOM Wate r Marked- ^ o " " " P - ° - 3 9 6 7 0 - E

P r o j e c t : 4 6 3 5 1 . 0 0 1 0 / 8 / 8 6 Samp led b y : A n n e t t e S . Ponds

S a m p l e d : 1 0 - 6 - 8 6 Submined by: Benny R i n a l d o

Sample:

Received:

October 31, 1986

Lab. No.: 9885

See Below Your

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

METHOD 601/602

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Hethylene chloride 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,1-Dichloroethane trans-l,2-Dichloroethene Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 1 ,1,1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1p2»Dichloroprop8ne trans-l,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethylene Di bromochloramethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane cis-1,3-Dichloropropenc 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether Bromoform 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichloroben2ene 1,2-Dichloroben2ene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

ND = none detected

S410 SA11 S412

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

28.4 ppb NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

31,5 ppb ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

— _

Respectfully submitted,.

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

.-Robert

Arizona Testing Laboratories 617 West Madtsod Street O Phoenix. Arizona 85007 C 602/254-6161

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ 85340-0085

Dale: October 31, 1986

Lab. No.: 9885

See Below Sample: Water

Received: 1 0 / 8 / 8 6

Submitied by: Benny R i n a l d o

Marked: Your P.O. 39670-E P r o j e c t : 46351.00 Sampled b y : Anne t te S. Ponds

Sampled: 10-6-86

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

METHOO 601/602

Ch lo rome thane Bromomethane V i n y l c h l o r i d e Chloroe thane H e t h y l e n e c h l o r i d e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e 1 , 1 - D i c h l o r o e t h a n e t r a n s - l , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e C h l o r o f o r m 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h 8 n e 1 , 1 , 1 - T r i c h l o r o e t h a n e Carbon t e t r a c h l o r i d e Bromodichloromethane 1 • 2 - D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e t r a n s - l , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e O i b r o m o c h l o r a m e t h a n e 1 , 1 , 2 - T r i c h l o r o c t h a n e c i s - 1 , 3 - D i c h l o r o p r o p e n e 2 - C h l o r o e t h y l v i n y l e t h e r Bromoform 1 ,1,2,2-TetrBChloroethBne Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene 1 ,2-Dichloroben2ene 1 ,4-Dichlorbbenzene Benzene Toluene . EthyIfreflzene

>

i j.

•

.V

S413

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

28.5 ppb ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ' ND ND ND ND ND NO

S414

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND

36.2 ppb ND NO ND ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND

—._ —

S415

NO ND ND ND ND NO ND ND ND NO NO NO ND ND ND NO ND NO ND ND ND ND ND NO NO ND NO

---

_ —

NO = noq« detected

.. - m

Tf-

Respectfully subnitted,

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

i ll |l « J-*

i

J

J W

J

Afizono Testing Laboratories 817 West Madisort Street D Phoenix. Arizona 85007 C 602/254-6181

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ 8534

Date: October 31, 1986

l" I § i i J

Sample: Wat ier

Received: 1 0 / 8 / 8 6

Submitted by: Benny R i n a l d o

Lab. No.: 9885 0-0085

See Below Marked: Your P 0 . 3 9 6 7 0 - E P r o j e c t : 4 6 3 5 1 . 0 0 Sampled b y : A n n e t t e S . Ponds

S a m p l e d : 1 0 - 6 - 8 6

REPORT OF LABORATORY TESTS

METHOD 601/602

Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Hethylene chloride l.l-Dichloroethene 1,1-Dichloroethane trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1 ,T-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1,2-Dichloropropane trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethylene Dibromochloramethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether Bromoform 1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroben2ene 1 ,4-Dichlor6benzene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

NO = none detected

S416

ND NO ND ND ND ND NO ND NO ND ND ND NO NO NO

41.2 ppb

S417 S418

NO ND NO ND ND ND NO NO ND NO NO ND ND ND

ND ND ND NO ND NO NO NO NO ND NO NO NO NO ND NO NO NO ND NO NO ND NO ND ND ND ND NO ND ND NO 43.9- ppb ND ND NO NO NO NO NO ND NO ND ND - ND _ ND NO NO NO ND ND ND ND ND ND

. N O NO ND

Respectfully submitted,

:NG LABORATORIES

I I I

i

i

J

UIELL S C A n VIDEO SURVEYS. INC.

(602) 841-0219

3713 W. Cavalier Phoenix. AZ 85019

CUSTOMER Layne-Western Co.

LOCATION Goodyear Aerospace Corp.

Goodyear, Arizona

DATE 11/8/86

JOB # 611158

WELL J J .

Camera washed and rinsed with alcohol, a i r -dr ied

BAND SETTING

STATIC WATER LEVEL:

r r r 56 FT

TYPE PERFORATIONS:

Nsne noted

FROM_

TO

_FT

FT

No perforations noted in

entire length of casing -

possible open bottom of - w e i r

REDUCTIONS AT:

None

CASED TO 324

_FT

_FT

FT

¥

- w i t h " d r i v e shoe

CURRENT DEPTH 353 FT

DRILLED DEPTH ? FT

J £ INCH DIAMETER CASING

Color snryey

56'

112'

Static water

Water cloudy,

level

clearing some by 90' to

195'

CasinK encrustation becomes black to

195' - — • - •

153'

195'

Bent a i r - l i n e - lying horizontal

Water becwnes cloudy again

205* _

216'

260'

324'

324'

Encrustation becomes heavier, l a r g e f^.*^/'-^]

nodules of growths

& 315' Object - possible 6-8" air line

bridged horizontally

Very heavy growth on casing m i^^^/f'!)

Total depth of casing with drive shoe

Open hole to bottom

339' Englarged washout area 1 5 T T6tal depth/fiil

TAPE TO CUSTOMER yes VHS X OTHER and copy

f i i

I I I f

l« I I J

TV LOG OF GAC WELL NUMBER 2

Depth in Feet

0 - 8 5

Below 85

135

156

195

214

220

222

225

252

302

Observations

Poor visibility

Better visibility, but cloudy water; cannot see casing.

Casing visible, but water still cloudy.

Better visibility; encrustation

Heavy encrustation p^t/Lt,. ^^i^rT

Perforations visible /

Perforations visible ^

Perforations visible J) _

Casing visible

Perforations visible

Bottom of well

Note: Observations made by Engineering-Science personnel

EtQ.55

J

(602) 841-0219

W E L L 3713 W. Cavalier ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ Phoenix, AZ 85019 5 I I A l l VIDEO SURVEYS. INC. >

CUSTOMER DATE

LOCATION JOB #

WELL #

BAND SETTING " _ _

STATIC WATER LEVEL:

' ^ FT

TYPE PERFORATIONS:

FROM FT

TO FT

. REDUCTIONS AT:

FT

FT

CASED TO FT

.: CURRENT DEPTH FT

DRILLED DEPTH FT

INCH DIAMETER CASING

;

,

• — • - • —

• -

*

- • • • —

TAPE TO CUSTOMER VHS OTHER

i UIELL SCAH VIDEO SURVEYS. INC.

(602) 841-0219

3713 W. Cavalier Phoenix, AZ 85019

CUSTOMER,

LOCATION

CONTRACTOR; Layne-Western Co.

Goodyear Aerospace Corporation

Well loca ted under water tower

DATE 10/1/86

JOB m 610129

WELL n_A

I

BAND SETTING 18

STATIC WATER LEVEL:

' ^ 59 FT

TYPE PERFORATIONS:

Mills knife

FROM

TO

169

179

FT

FT

REDUCTIONS AT:

None noted

CASED TO

-CURRENT-DEPTH 273

DRILLED DEPTH

_FT

_FT

_FT

_FT

FT

20. INCH DIAMETER CASING LD.

42' Casing wall damp

59' Static water level, no oil

Very poor visibility to 166'

160' Air line, down to 210••^

Unable to see below 210'

166' to 210' Water clears

169' to 179' Perforations appear. Several

rows of perforations appear open. Water

clears ^

179' and below Very heavy encrustation and

scale, knocked loose y

205' Water becomes cloudy

Poor visibility, unable to see

240' Picture goes black, no visibility

273' Camera rests on bottom

TAPE TO CUSTOMER VHS OTHER

Arizona Testing Loborofories 017 West Madijon Sireel D Phoenix. Aruona 05OO7 O 602/254-6101

For: Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Attn: Mr. Randy Clark Plant Engineering Litchfield Park, AZ 85340-008S

Oata: September S, 1986

Lab. No.: 9077

Sample: Water

Received: 3-18-86

Submitted by: A n n e t t e S. Ponds

REPOnT OF LABORATOnY TESTS

Marked: See Be lou Your P.O. 26942-M

Sample No.: Oate: Tiae:

Chloromethane Bramomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride 1 ,l-01chloroethene 1.1-Dichloroethane trans-l,2-D1cbloroethene Chloroform 1 ,2-Dlchloroethane 1 ,1,1-TrichloroeIhane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1,2-Dichloropropane trans-l ,3-Oichloropropene Trichloroethylene Dibromochloramethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane cis-1,3-Oichloropropene 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether Bromoform 1,1,2 ,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene 1,3-Dichloroben2ene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorbbenzene Benzene Toluene tthylbenzene

S314 8/17/86 5:30 P

NO ND NO NO ND NO ND NO 13 ND 0. NO

2. NO NO ND 0. NO ND NO 0. NO ND NO 0. 0. 0.

ppb

20

7

52

33

14 11 25

S315 8/17/86 5:38 P

S316 8/17/86 5:48 P

22

NO ND NO NO 0

ND NO ND 9.8

ND ND ND

2.0 MD' ND ND 0.43

ND NO ND ND ND NO ND ND ND NO

ppb NO NO ND ND 1,

NO ND ND 12 ND NO NO

2. NO NO 0. 0.

NO NO NO ND ND NO ND NO NO ND

ppb

23 48

NO=None Detected

cc: Lial Tischler 116 East Main Round Rock, Texas 78664

Respectfully submitted/

ARIZONA TESTING LABORATORIES

Robert J. Drake