THIRD FIVE YEAR REVIEW REPORTSDMS DocID 2073205 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT Third Five-Year Review for...

SDMS DocID 2073205

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORTThird Five-Year Review

forCHISMAN CREEKSUPERFUND SITE

GRAFTON,YORK COUNTY, VIRGINIA

November 2006

Prepared by:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IIIPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

s~ .

JaniesJ. Burke,J2irector DateHazardous Site Cleanup Division

Executive Summary

Cleanup work at the Chisman Creek Superfund Site in Grafton, York County, Virginia includedtwo remedial actions, Operable Unit 1 (OU-1) and Operable Unit 2 (OU-2). The remedy selectedin the OU-1 Record of Decision (ROD) included the following components: an alternate watersupply to homes along Wolf Trap and Aliens Mill Roads; a soil cap in Areas A & B; a low-permeability cap in Area C; collecting contaminated ground water from Area C with treatment atan on-site treatment plant, post-closure monitoring of ground and surface water; and an attempt toplace deed restrictions or other land use controls at Areas A, B, C, and D, including theprohibition of excavation and building on-site, and restriction of ground water use. EPA issuedan Explanation of Significant Differences (BSD) in 1994 to amend the remedy selected in theOU-1 ROD to allow treatment of the contaminated ground water to occur at a publicly ownedtreatment works rather than at the on-site treatment plant. The remedy selected in the OU-2 RODincluded the following components: a stream water quality monitoring program; relocatingapproximately 2,100 feet of the freshwater tributary adjacent to Area C and filling in the oldreach; and a water quality monitoring program for the ponds and the estuary. The assessment ofthe Interim Close-Out Report on December 21, 1990 found that the remedy was constructed inaccordance with the requirements of the RODs and the BSD.

The trigger for this five-year review was the date of the previous five-year review report,November 2, 2001.

The remedy for the Site is protective of human health and the environment in the short term.The remedial action at OU-2 is protective. However, because the remedial action at OU-1 isprotective in the short term, the remedy is protective of human health and the environment in theshort term. The remedial action at OU-1 is protective in the short term because the extent of thevanadium contamination in the shallow ground water aquifer is not presently known, hiaddition, the institutional controls embodied in the January 1988 lease agreement betweenVirginia Power and York County protects human health and the environment in the short termbut does not provide the assurance that they will remain protective over time. A more permanentinstitutional control must be put in place by Virginia Power to ensure protectiveness.

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site name: Chisman Creek Superfund Site

EPA ID: VAD073613663

Region: 3 State: VA City/County: Borough of Grafton, York County.

NPL status: > Final D Deleted D Other (specify).

Remediation Status (choose all that apply):. D Under Construction ^ Operating >• Complete

Multiple OUs?* DYES. > NO Construction completion date: 12/21/1990

Has site been put into reuse? . X YES . NO

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: ^ EPA 0 State D Tribe D Other Federal Agency

Author name: Andrew Palestini

Author title: Remedial Project Manager Author Affiliation: U.S. EPA - Region III

Review period: March 2006 to November 2006

Date(s) of site inspection: August 24, 2006

Type of review: >• Post-SARA Q Pre-SARAD Non-NPL Remedial Action SiteD Regional Discretion

D NPL-Removal onlyQ NPL State/Tribe-lead

Review number: . l(first) D 2 (second) X 3 (third) Q Other(specify)_

Triggering action:D Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #D Construction CompletionD Other (specify)

Actual RA Start at OU# 1X Previous Five-Year Review Report

Triggering action date: November 2, 2001

Due date (five years after triggering action date): November 2, 2006

FiveYear Review Summary Form, cont'd

Issues:

Points of Compliance were never designated.

Cleanup levels for arsenic, nickel, and vanadium have not been formally updated.

Present institutional controls are not protective over time.

Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions:

BSD must be issued to select MW-3A, MW-3B, MW-5, and another as yet selected location asthe points of compliance.

BSD must be issued to formally adopt revised cleanup levels for arsenic, nickel, and vanadium.

BSD must be issued to require Virginia Power to adopt institutional controls which are protectiveover time.

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedy for the Site is protective in the short term.

The remedial action at OU-2 is protective. However, because the remedial action at OU-1 isprotective in the short term, the remedy is protective of human health and the environment in theshort term. The remedial action at OU-1 is protective in the short term because the extent of thevanadium contamination in the shallow ground water aquifer is not presently known. Inaddition, the institutional controls embodied in the January 1988 lease agreement betweenVirginia Power and York County protects human health and the environment in the short termbut does not provide the assurance that they will remain protective over time. A more permanentinstitutional control must be put in place by Virginia Power to ensure protectiveness.

Chisman Creek Superfund SiteFive-Year Review Report

I. Introduction

The purpose of five-year reviews is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective ofhuman health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews aredocumented in five-year review reports. In addition, five-year review reports identify issuesfound during the review, if any, and recommendations to address them. The Agency is preparingthis five-year review pursuant to CERCLA § 121 (the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act, as amended) and the National Contingency Plan (NCP).CERCLA § 121 states:

If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances,pollutants, or contaminants remaining at a site, the President shall review such remedialaction no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action toassure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial actionbeing implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the Presidentthat action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section 106, the President shalltake or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilitiesfor which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions takenas a result of such reviews.

The agency interpreted this requirement further in the National Contingency Plan (NCP); 40C.F.R. §300.430(f)(4)(ii) states:

If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use andunrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than everyfive years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 has conducted a five-yearreview of the remedial actions implemented at the Chisman Creek site in Grafton, York County,Virginia. This review was conducted from March 2006 through November 2006. This reportdocuments the results of the review.

This is the third five-year review conducted at the Chisman Creek Site. The triggering action forthis statutory review is the date of the second five-year review, completed November 2, 2001.All of the reviews cover the entire site, Operable Unit 1 and Operable Unit 2. All of the five-

5

year reviews were performed because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants are lefton site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

The project managers from EPA and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality("VDEQ") met a representative of Virginia Power to jointly inspect the Site on August 24, 2006as part of this five-year review.

II. Site Chronology

The purpose of this section is to list all important site events and relevant dates.

Table 1Chronology of Site Events

Event

Initial discovery of contamination

Placed on National Priorities List

Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision

Operable Unit 2 Record of Decision

Consent Decree

Construction start date for OU-1

Construction completion date for OU-1

Construction start date for OU-2i

Construction completion date for OU-2

Interim Closeout Report

First BSD

First Five-year review

Second Five- Year review

Date

1980

1983

September 30, 1986

March 3 1,1988

September 16, 1987

November 1987

December 1988

April 1988

December 1988

December 21, 1990

March 22, 1994

September 30, 1994

November 2, 2001

III. Background

The purpose of this section is to describe the site characteristics and to identify the threat posedto the public and the environment at the time of the ROD.

Physical Characteristics

The Site is located in Southeastern York County, Virginia, in a 520 acre sub-watershed of theChisman Creek Coastal Basin on the Virginia Peninsula. The predominant surface hydrologicfeature of the area is Chisman Creek, which is located directly east of the Site. Chisman Creek isa tidal estuary 3.75 miles long which flows easterly into Chesapeake Bay. The creek isapproximately 0.5 miles wide at its mouth, where the average depth is 12 feet. Chisman Creeksupports private and commercial marinas and numerous private docks, and is a popular fishingarea for private and commercial fishermen.

History of Contamination

EPA organized remedial cleanup activities at the Site into two operable units. Operable UnitOne ("OU-1") consists of four abandoned sand and gravel pits (Areas A, B, C, and D). OperableUnit Two ("OU-2") consists of three ponds (Ponds A, B, and C), a freshwater tributary stream,and the Chisman Creek estuary. These Site features are shown on Figure 1. The four abandonedsand and gravel pits were filled with fly ash from the Virginia Power (formerly Virginia Electricand Power Company) Yorktown Power Generating Station. The four pits are located adjacent toWolf Trap Road. Sometime between 1971 and 1973, the ash in Area D was excavated anddeposited into Area C. Area D was then re-filled with construction rubble from public utilityconstruction along Wolf Trap Road.

In 1957 and 1958, two units of the Yorktown Power Generating Station began burning coalmixed with coke from a nearby petroleum refinery. Fly ash was produced from these units until1974, when Virginia Power converted them to burn fuel oil. Virginia Power contracted with ahauler to remove and dispose of the residues, cinders, and fly ash generated at the YorktownStation. Large quantities of this waste were transported and deposited in the four abandonedsand and gravel pits. Homeowners in the vicinity of the Site reported that no dust controlmeasures were used, and fly ash apparently blew from the trucks and the pits. Little, if any,attempt was made to control erosion, and, during heavy rains, fly ash and other sedimentswashed from the pits into Chisman Creek and its tributaries.

In addition, the fly ash waste also affected the ground water beneath the disposal areas. In 1980,a private drinking well on Wolf Trap Road, just west of Area C, was reported to containdiscolored water. In 1980 and 1981, the Virginia State Water Control Board and the VirginiaState Board of Health sampled the residential wells in the vicinity of the pits to determine thetypes and concentrations of contaminants affecting the local ground water. These and other testsrevealed elevated levels of heavy metals in the ground water, surface water, and soils in and

7

around the disposal areas. As a result of the data gathered and conclusions drawn by thesestudies, the Site was included on the National Priorities List ("NPL") in 1983.

Land and Resource Use*s

As stated previously, the site was originally used as sand and gravel pits. The abandoned pitswere then filled with fly ash from the Yorktown Power Generating Station. During the remedialdesign ("RD") for OU-1, the residents in the area of the Site voiced their concern of having theseareas fenced off at the end of the cleanup. The residents suggested that the areas could somehowbe used for recreation. In response, Virginia Power investigated the feasibility of converting twoof the abandoned pit areas into public playing fields. Virginia Power then entered into a leaseagreement with York County whereby soccer fields were constructed over Area A and baseballfields were constructed over Area C as part of the Site cleanup. The lease agreement, the onlyinstitutional control in place at the site, states that the county will maintain the fields and thecaps, except for any erosion which may occur from failures in design or extraordinary naturaloccurrences. The annual lease payment for the fields is equal to the amount of taxes, fees, andassessments the county would levy against Virginia Power. The fields were opened in May1991.

Basis for Taking Action

EPA performed the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") for both operable units.Through the investigations conducted, EPA found that contaminants were in the fly ash itself; inthe sediments of Chisman Creek and its tributaries; in ground waters within and adjacent to thepits; and in pond and stream surface waters tributary to Chisman Creek. Nickel and vanadiumwere the most ubiquitous and abundant of the trace metal contaminants. Arsenic, beryllium,chromium, copper, molybdenum, and selenium were also found at elevated concentrations.

IV. Remedial Actions

The purpose of this section is to discuss initial plans, implementation history, and current statusof the remedy.

Original Selected Remedy

As stated previously, EPA has organized its cleanup activities at the Site into two operable units.The Record of Decision ("ROD") for OU-1 was issued on September 30, 1986. The OU-1 RODaddresses exposure to the fly ash, ingestion of ground water, and protection and restoration ofwetlands.

The objectives of the OU-1 ROD are to prevent human exposure to the fly ash on-site andingestion of ground water, and to protect and restore wetlands. To address these objectives, theremedy selected in the OU-1 ROD contains the following major components:

• Install an alternate water supply to homes along Wolf Trap and Aliens Mill Roads;

• Install a low-permeability cap in the area of the filled sand and gravel pit designatedas Area C and a soil cap in those Areas designated as A & B (Area D warranted noremedial action since the fly ash originally placed there was removed and placed atArea C in the early 1970's);

• Collect contaminated ground water from Area C, with treatment at an on-sitetreatment plant and discharge to the Chisman Creek non-tidal tributary;

• Initiate Post-closure monitoring of ground and surface water, and

• Attempt to place deed restrictions or other land use controls at the four Areas,including the prohibition of excavation and building on-site, and restriction of groundwater use.

The ROD for OU-2 was issued on March 31, 1988. The OU-2 ROD addresses the surfacedrainage modifications for Ponds A, B, and C and a monitoring program for the ponds, theChisman Creek estuary, and a fresh water tributary.

The objectives of the OU-2 ROD are to prevent degradation and restore the quality of surfacewater and sediments, and to protect and restore wetlands. To address these objectives, theremedy selected in the OU-2 ROD contains the following major components:

• Implement a stream water quality monitoring program for the freshwater tributary toevaluate the effectiveness of the OU-1 remedial actions;

• Relocate approximately 2100 feet of the freshwater tributary adjacent to Area C andfilling in the old reach; and

• Implement a water quality monitoring program for the ponds and the estuary tomonitor the effectiveness of the OU-1 remedial actions.

Subsequent to issuing the OU-1 ROD, Virginia Power entered into a Consent Decree with EPAto conduct Remedial Design/Remedial Action ("RD/RA") for the site under the authority ofCERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.. commonly referred to as "Superfund."

In response to the local community's desire that the Site be used for recreation, EPA approvedthe design and construction of ball fields on Areas A and C. Soccer fields were placed on top ofthe soil cover at Area A and baseball fields were placed on top of the cap at Area C. The utilitiesfor the baseball fields were placed within a trench filled with clean soil. This provides access tothe lines to perform maintenance without the risk of exposure to the fly ash. Virginia Power, the

9

owner of the land, is leasing the land and the improvements to York County for operation of anon-profit public recreation park facility. The lease agreement is dated January 1, 1988.According to the agreement, York County is responsible for operation and maintenance of thefields except for any failures in design or extraordinary natural occurrences. The annual rent isan amount equal to the amount necessary to pay all real estate taxes, license fees, permit fees,and assessments. The duration of the lease is for an initial term often years, with fiveconsecutive self-renewing option periods often years each. York County is able to not renew orextend the term of the lease at the beginning of each of the five option periods. The agreementexpires at the end of the fifth option period, for a total of 60 years. York County has continuedthe lease after the initial ten year period by allowing the first option period to self-renew thelease.

All remedial action activities have been completed at the Site, with all of the remedial responseactivities being conducted with the concurrence of VDEQ.

Construction activities for OU-1 were initiated in November 1987 and were completed inDecember 1988. As documented in a Superfund Site Interim Closeout Report, dated December21, 1990, all activities were completed to EPA's specifications and met the full intention of theOU-1 ROD. The water line extension serving the homes on Wolf Trap and Aliens Mill Roadswas completed by the Newport News water works and the connections to the waterline werecompleted by York County.

Construction activities for OU-2 were also completed in December 1988. As documented in theSuperfund Site Interim Closeout Report, dated December 21, 1990, all activities were completedto EPA's specifications and met the full intention of the OU-2 ROD.

Subsequent Site Activities

In accordance with the ROD and the Consent Decree, Virginia Power was required to constructthe on-site water treatment plant before the effluent discharge standards could be developed. Inorder to ensure the effluent discharge from the water treatment plant would meet theCommonwealth of Virginia's Marine Water Quality Standards, EPA identified Applicable orRelevant and Appropriate Requirements ("ARARs"). These ARARs were chosen to control theflow of treated effluent to Chisman Creek and to ensure that the expected concentrations ofarsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, and zinc in the treated effluent were within theestablished Marine Water Quality Standards. Construction started in November 1987.Consistent with the OU-1 ROD and the established ARARs, the ground water beneath Area Cwas collected in a subsurface drainage system, treated on-site, and discharged to a tributary ofChisman Creek.

On March 22, 1994, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences ("BSD") to revise thelocation for the treatment and disposal of the contaminated ground water from the on-sitetreatment plant to an off-site publicly owned treatment works ("POTW"), the York River

10

Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is part of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District ("HRSD").The untreated ground water collected from Area C is suitable for direct discharge into theexisting POTW because it meets the existing POTW's established pre-treatment requirements.

As a result of EPA's issuance of the BSD in March 1994, the original ARARs established for theon-site treatment plant were no longer effective. In place of these requirements, the IndustrialWastewater Discharge Permit issued by HRSD has specified pre-treatment discharge limitswhich must be met for the contaminants at the Site. A complete listing of the pre-treatmentlimits and the requirements for sampling, monitoring, and submitting data are contained in theWastewater Discharge Permit, which has been entered into the Chisman Creek SiteAdministrative Record File.

As part of the Post Closure monitoring program, a Consolidated Monitoring Plan ("CMP") wasdeveloped. A complete listing of the sample collection, and data reporting requirements tomonitor the ground water in the vicinity of the Site as well as the ground water collected in thesubsurface drainage system are contained in the CMP. Virginia Power provides analyticalresults of this sampling to EPA and VDEQ in monthly status reports.

The ground water in the Area C collection system will continue to be monitored to ensure that allpre-treatment standards for the POTW are met. Virginia Power will continue to maintain theArea C ground water collection system and the tie-in to the POTW sewerage system.At this time, EPA is performing oversight of the Operation and Maintenance ("O&M")responsibilities conducted by Virginia Power to monitor the effectiveness of the completedactions at the Site. These O&M oversight activities are being conducted with the support ofVDEQ.

Current Status of the Remedy

As indicated previously in Section I, EPA and VDEQ performed an inspection of the site onAugust 24, 2006. Since there are no operating facilities at the site, our inspection consisted ofwalking around each of the areas, looking for any erosion problems, and touring theneighborhoods in the vicinity of the site. At Area A we discovered two areas of erosion whichwe pointed out to the Virginia Power representative as needing additional landscaping. Noerosion problems were found at Area C. Both areas were otherwise well cared for. Area B andthe ponds are properly fenced.

V. Progress Since the Last Review

The purpose of this section is to discuss the progress taken on recommendations and follow-upactions included in the previous five-year report.

In the previous five-year report, EPA recommended the three follow-up actions listed below:

11

0 That the horizontal wells making up the ground water collection system be cleaned out topurge any buildup of solids which may have occurred during the 13 years the system hadbeen in operation.

0 That a more permanent institutional control be put in place because the lease agreementbetween York County and Virginia Power was not considered protective over time as it couldbe terminated at the end of each ten-year period.

0 That EPA Region 3 issue an BSD to select the three perimeter wells (MW-3A, MW-3B, andMW-5) as the points of compliance and to change the cleanup levels for nickel and arsenic 'once the MCL for arsenic was finalized. At the time of the previous five-year review, EPAwas awaiting completion of a study by the National Academy of the Sciences beforefinalizing the MCL.

Of these three recommendations, only the first one was completed, hi response to a requestmade by EPA Region 3, Virginia Power cleaned out the horizontal wells making up the groundwater collection system in November 2003. The header pipe was cleaned by high-pressure waterand the manholes were vacuum cleaned. A representative sample of the solids in the manholesystem was tested and found to be non-hazardous.

In regards to the two remaining recommendations, EPA Region 3 planned to require a morepermanent institutional control in the same BSD as selecting compliance points and changing thecleanup levels for arsenic and nickel. However, while preparing the BSD, VDEQ requested thatan additional compliance point be added and it was discovered that the reference dose forvanadium was revised. At the time of the previous five-year review, vanadium still had only asecondary MCL, meaning that it was based on esthetics and was not health-based. Based on thenew reference dose, EPA Region 3 calculated a new site-specific cleanup level of 37 ug/L.Presently holding up processing the BSD is the fact that the extent of the vanadiumcontamination is not known. Institutional controls and extent of contamination are interrelated.Because institutional controls can only be placed on those areas which are impacted bycontamination, EPA needs to determine the extent of the contamination before determining theareas which need institutional controls. EPA Region 3 and Virginia Power are now actively inthe process of determining the extent of the vanadium contamination, as indicated below.

EPA's priority in this process is to determine whether human health is being protected. The firststep taken was to determine if anyone in the vicinity of the site was being exposed to vanadiumin their drinking water. Since the extent of the vanadium contamination was not known, EPAand Virginia Power worked together to devise a scope of work to first determine if any homes inthe vicinity of the site could be impacted. Although water lines were extended to this area aspart of the OU-1 ROD remedy, a review of the connection ordinance showed that some homescould have been grandfathered or located too far from the water lines and, therefore, not requiredto connect to the public water system. Also, all wells existing at the time the water lines wereinstalled were not required to be abandoned.

12

URS, a consultant under contract to Virginia Power, developed five maps of the area of the site.The first map shows the ground water flow directions, using the ground water levelmeasurements from peizometers. The second map shows the residences in the vicinity withprivate wells. The third map shows which of those residences have wells less than 30 feet deepand are therefore in the upper aquifer where the contamination is. The fourth map shows thatthere are four residences in the vicinity of the site that are not connected to public water. Thefifth and final map shows that none of these four residences that have not connected to the publicwater system have shallow wells. Therefore, no one in the vicinity of the site is being exposed tothe vanadium contamination.

Virginia Power is now in the second phase of this process.

VI. Five-Year Review Process

The purpose of this section is to describe the activities performed during the five-year reviewprocess as well as providing a summary of findings, when appropriate.

The five-year review team was led by Andrew Palestini of EPA, Remedial Project Manager(RPM) for the Chisman Creek Site, and included members from the Regional Technical Supportstaff with expertise in hydrology and risk assessment. Thomas Modena of the VDEQ assisted inthe review as the representative for the support agency.

To involve the community in the five-year review process, an advertisement was placed in thelocal newspaper informing the public that EPA was undertaking the review and that they shouldcontact Andrew Palestini or Carrie Deitzel if they had any comments or concerns. Oneelectronic mail message was received and responded to in which the person indicated that theywere unaware the site was on EPA's Superfund list.

The water quality monitoring program for the ponds and the estuary described in the CMPincludes chemical testing of the surface water and sediment in the estuary. According to theCMP, if the value of any site related metal contaminant exceeds the appropriate trigger value inthe CMP, a composite resample will be taken within 30 days. In addition, if the resample alsoexceeds the trigger value, bioassay testing will be undertaken. As with the previous five-yearreview, no trigger values were exceeded during the last five years.

The ground water monitoring results since the previous five-year review report were reviewed todetermine whether the levels of the contaminants of concern in the ground water meet themaximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or other cleanup levels. The first part of this review is todetermine the status of the MCLs or other cleanup levels, to determine whether any havechanged. EPA finalized the MCL for arsenic since the date of the previous five-year review.The cleanup level for arsenic will now be set at the new MCL, 10 ug/L. Prior to the previousfive-year review, EPA remanded the MCL for nickel because of a lawsuit brought by the NickelInstitute. Without an MCL in place, EPA Region 3 determined a site-specific cleanup level of

13

312 ug/L. Although this cleanup level for nickel was never formally changed in an BSD, EPARegion 3 is proceeding as though the cleanup level is 312 ug/L. Finally, the reference dose forvanadium has been revised since the previous five-year review. The site-specific cleanup levelfor vanadium will now be set at 37 ug/L.

Ground water monitoring at the site consists of semi-annual sampling for the following: arsenic,cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, vanadium, zinc (all total and dissolved), sulfate, totaldissolved solids, total suspended solids, and the field parameters conductivity, pH, andtemperature. Attached are tables (Tables 2-11) containing the analytical results of the groundwater monitoring from 2000 to the present for the ten monitoring wells (MW-3A, MW-3B, MW-5, MW-10A, MW-10B, MW-12A, MW-12B, MW-13A, MW-13B, and MW-18). MW-5 andMW-18 are shallow wells, as are MW-3B, MW-10B, MW-12B, and MW-13B.

A review of the accumulated analytical data shows that the only wells at which the ground waterexceeded the site cleanup levels are MW-5, MW-13B, and MW-18, all shallow wells. Inaddition, arsenic and vanadium are the only contaminants that were detected at dissolvedconcentrations which exceeded their respective cleanup levels.

Dissolved arsenic was detected above the cleanup level at all three of these wells at varioustimes. It was detected on four occasions at MW-5, with the latest and highest level (14 ug/L) onSeptember 29, 2004; on three occasions at MW-13B, with the latest and highest level (12 ug/L)on September 21, 2005; and on four occasions at MW-18, with the latest detection on March 8,2006 and the highest level (14 ug/L) on September 29, 2004. As shown in the tables ofmonitoring well data, the analytical results for arsenic hover around the MCL level of 10 ug/L.

Dissolved vanadium was only detected above the cleanup level at MW-5 and MW-13B. It hasbeen consistently detected at MW-5 since the date of the last five-year review in the range of1,986 to 4,055 ug/L. It was detected above the cleanup level at MW-13B on only one occasion,when 49 ug/L was detected on September 21, 2006.

Except for the levels of vanadium detected at MW-5, the monitoring well sampling data did notshow any clear cut progressions. As such, EPA Region 3 requested assistance from MacStatConsulting, Ltd in Colorado Springs, Colorado for an objective statistical interpretation of theseresults. The statistical analyses of the data from MW-13B and MW-18B indicate that neitherwell offers strong statistical evidence that the average arsenic level has clearly exceeded theMCL. At MW-5, the conclusion is also unclear. There is simply too much fluctuation above andbelow the clean-up level to be sure that the true average now exceeds the limit at this well. Thesampling data for vanadium from MW-5 are easier to interpret. The statistical analysis of thesampling data from MW-5 indicates that the confidence bands are clearly much greater than theclean-up limit, indicating that the mean vanadium level is statistically greater than the clean-uplevel.

Overall, it appears that something occurred (and perhaps still is occurring) about 10-12 years ago14

to cause the concentrations of both arsenic and vanadium at MW-5 to increase to new meanlevels. These new levels appear to be relatively stable (with significant fluctuation also evident).The evidence is not clear, that the concentrations are still increasing at this point. As witharsenic, there is some indication that not only is the vanadium level not getting worse, but alsothat it might be beginning to decline. Continued monitoring of the ground water sampling datawill indicate whether the levels are leveling off or decreasing.

In light of the above, ground water will continue to be collected and treated until all cleanuplevels are being met at the perimeter wells. Ground water sampling at the monitoring wells willalso continue.

VII. Technical Assessment

The purpose of this section of the five-year review is to answer the following three questions:

0 Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

0 Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives(RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid?

0 Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of theremedy?

Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

As indicated in Section IV, the remedy selected in the OU-1 ROD included the followingcomponents: an alternate water supply to homes along Wolf Trap and Aliens Mill Roads; a soilcap in Areas A & B; a low-permeability cap in Area C; collecting contaminated ground waterfrom Area C with treatment at an on-site treatment plant, post-closure monitoring of ground andsurface water; and an attempt to place deed restrictions or other land use controls at Areas A, B,C, and D, including the prohibition of excavation and building on-site, and restriction of groundwater use. EPA issued an BSD in 1994 to amend the remedy selected in the OU-1 ROD to allowtreatment of the contaminated ground water to occur at a POTW rather than at the on-sitetreatment plant. The remedy selected in the OU-2 ROD included the following components: astream water quality monitoring program; relocating approximately 2,100 feet of the freshwatertributary adjacent to Area C and filling in the old reach; and a water quality monitoring programfor the ponds and the estuary.

Most of the remedy continues to operate and function as designed. Extending the water lines toWolf Trap and Aliens Mill Roads to serve those homes in the area of the Site is preventinghuman exposure to the contaminated ground water. Capping the former pits is preventing humanand environmental exposures to the fly ash. Relocating the tributary to Chisman Creek andfilling in the old reach is preventing human and environmental exposure to the sediments in the

15

old reach. Finally, the institutional controls are presently preventing contact with the fly ash andcontaminated ground water under the former Areas A and C disposal pits. The lease agreementbetween Virginia Power and York County continues to be effective because the county isfulfilling its obligation to monitor and police all activities on the fields as well as the uses of theproperties so that the integrity of the final covers, or other components of the containmentsystem, is not disturbed or damaged. However, although the horizontal wells constituting theground water collection system continue to collect ground water at Area C, they are not meetingthe intent at the time of the ROD to lower the ground water under Area C such that the groundwater would no longer be in contact with the fly ash. But by collecting the ground water anddischarging it to the POTW for treatment, the remedy is reducing the amount of contaminatedground water migrating from Area C and from discharging to Chisman Creek.

Although not specifically stated in either ROD, the point of compliance to determine whether thesite cleanup goals were being met was inferred to be under Area C. The levels of nickel in thethree perimeter wells (MW-3 A, MW-3B, and MW-5) have decreased since pumping began andhave been consistently below the expected Site-specific cleanup level of 312 ug/L. The levels ofarsenic at MW-3 A and MW-3B have consistently been lower than 3 ug/L since the last five-yearreview but have twice exceeded the MCL at MW-5 - in March 2002 (12 ug/L) and September2004 (14 ug/L). The levels of vanadium in the ground water have consistently exceeded thecleanup level at MW-5 and on one occasion at MW-13B in September 2005.

Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives(RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid?

As indicated previously, the MCL for nickel was remanded. EPA Region 3 has calculated a site-specific cleanup level for nickel of 312 ug/L.

EPA finalized the MCL for arsenic since the previous five-year review report. The MCL forarsenic is now 10 ug/L.

Finally, the reference dose for vanadium has been revised. Using this new factor, the newcleanup level for vanadium is now 37 ug/L.

Because neither ROD included an estimated time to reach the Remedial Action Objectives(RAOs) and with the lowering of the MCLs for arsenic and, especially, vanadium, a discussionon whether the remedy is progressing as expected cannot be made. EPA Region 3 will continueto compare the monitoring well sampling data against the cleanup levels and determine anestimated timeframe to reach the RAOs by the next five-year review.

Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of theremedy?

A more permanent institutional control should be put in place because the existing lease16

agreement between York County and Virginia Power is not considered protective over time as itcould be terminated at the end of each ten-year period.

VIII. ISSUES

The purpose of this section is to detail any issues related to current site operations, conditions, oractivities which would prevent the remedy from being protective.

The remedy selected in the OU-1 ROD did not include a point of compliance; that is, location(s)where ground water samples will be taken and the sampling data evaluated to determine whetherthe clean-up levels for the site are being achieved.

The clean-up levels for arsenic, nickel, and vanadium have changed from the time of the OU-1ROD.

Virginia Power and York County entered into a lease agreement in January 1988 wherebyVirginia Power agreed to lease the land to the County for recreational use and the County agreedto maintain the playing fields. The lease agreement states that the county shall employreasonable effort to monitor and police all activities on and uses of the property so that theintegrity of the final cover, or other components of the containment system, will not be disturbedor damaged. The agreement also states that the county shall not disturb any remediated areas sixinches below the surface. To date, the caps and ball fields are being well maintained by YorkCounty and Virginia Power. The institutional controls are successfully preventing contact withthe contaminated soil and ground water. The term of the agreement is for an initial period oftenyears, with five ten-year options. The initial ten-year period has been completed and the leaseagreement, is now into the first ten-year option period. Because the term for the lease agreementis renewable by the County every ten years, the agreement may be terminated in the future. Assuch, it is not considered protective over time.

Table 12Issues

Issue

Points of Compliance werenever designated.Cleanup levels for arsenic,nickel, and vanadium have notbeen formally updated.Present institutional controlsare not protective over time.

Currently AffectsProtectiveness

No

No

No

Affects FutureProtectiveness

No

No

Yes

17

IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

The purpose of this section is to specify the required and suggested improvements to current siteoperations, activities, remedy, or conditions.

EPA Region 3 will issue an BSD to select MW-3A, MW-3B, and MW-5 and the additional wellrequested by VDEQ as the points of compliance and to change the cleanup levels for arsenic,nickel and vanadium.

The lease agreement is not considered protective over time because it can be terminated at theend of each ten-year period. EPA will include a requirement in the BSD that Virginia Powermust enact a more permanent institutional control.

Table 13Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

Issue

Points ofCompliancewere neverdesignated.

Cleanuplevels forarsenic,nickel, andvanadiumhave notbeenformallyupdated.Presentinstitutionalcontrols arenotprotectiveover time.

Recommendation/Follow-up Action

BSD must be issuedto select MW-3A,MW-3B, MW-5,and another as yetselected location asthe points ofcompliance.BSD must be issuedto formally adoptrevised cleanuplevels for arsenic,nickel, andvanadium.

BSD must be issuedto require VirginiaPower to adoptinstitutionalcontrols which areprotective overtime.

PartyResponsible

EPA

EPA

EPA

OversightAgency

N/A

N/A

N/A

MilestoneDate

After extentof vanadiumcontamination isknown.



AffectsProtectiveness?

CurrentNo

No

No

FutureNo

No

Yes

18

X. Protectiveness Statement

The remedy for the Site is protective in the short term.

The remedial action at OU-2 is protective. However, because the remedial action at OU-1 isprotective in the short term, the remedy is protective of human health and the environment in theshort term. The remedial action at OU-1 is protective in the short term because the extent of thevanadium contamination in the shallow ground water aquifer is not .presently known. Inaddition, the institutional controls embodied in the January 1988 lease agreement betweenVirginia Power and York County protects human health and the environment in the short termbut does not provide the assurance that they will remain protective over time. A more permanentinstitutional control must be put in place by Virginia Power to ensure protectiveness.

XI. Next Five-Year Review

Since Site conditions do not allow for unlimited use or unrestrictive exposure under currentconditions, EPA will conduct another five-year review of the Chisman Creek Site five yearsfrom the date of this report.

19

Key

O GroundwaterMonitoring Well

O Piezometer

Groundwaler FlowDirection

2004 Potentiometric Surface Map

Date:April 2005

Drawn by:

KAH

Checked by:

KAH

Source:GlobeXplorer, AirPhotoUSA

URS Project No.:21355104

Reviewed by:KAH

Photo Taken:

12-1-2000

Approved by:

JOS

Scale:1" = approx 370'

Figure 1 - revised

Chisman Creek Superfund SiteYork County, Virginia

URS CORPORATION5540 FALMOUTH ST.,SUITE 201RICHMOND, VA 23230

Groundwater Data (2000-present)Downgradient Deep Well MW-3A

Chisman Creek Superfund Site, York County, Virginia

Parameter Name

Metals (mg/L)ARSENIC, DISSOLVED

ARSENIC, TOTAL

CADMIUM, DISSOLVED

CADMIUM, TOTAL

COPPER, DISSOLVED

COPPER, TOTAL

LEAD, DISSOLVED

LEAD, TOTAL

NICKEL, DISSOLVED

NICKEL, TOTAL

SELENIUM, DISSOLVED

SELENIUM, TOTAL

SULFATE S04

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS,

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS

VANADIUM, DISSOLVED

VANADIUM, TOTAL

ZINC, DISSOLVED

ZINC, TOTAL

Field Parameters

CONDUCTIVITY (UMHOS)

pH (S.U.)

TEMPERATURE (Degrees C)

EPACleanup

Level

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

1.3

1.3

0.015

0.015

0.312

0.312

0.05

005

-

-

-

0.037

0.037

-

-

-

-

-

3/6/2000

<0.003

<0.003

O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

0.004 J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

0.034

<0.003

<0.003

0.63

178.5

8.8 J

<0.002

<0.002

0.016 J

0.023 J

240

6.09

15.58

9/13/2000

<0.003

O.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0003

<0002

<0.002

<0.005

O.005

O.003

<0.003

0.87

145

<4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

228

6.56

15.6

3/13/2001

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

•=0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

1.12

170

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/28/2001

O.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

0.51

165.5

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/27/2002

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

0.57

170

15

<0.002

<0002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/17/2002

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0003

<0.003

0.44

160

- 5.9

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/18/2003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

0.002 J

<0.005

<0005

•=0.003

<0.003

2

170

7.7

O.002

<0.002

<0.015

0.017 J

270

7.58

15

9/24/2003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

0.92

156

1 J

<0.002

0.003 J

<0.015

<0.015

274

7.51

1528

3/3/2004

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0003

O.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

0.28 J

158

1.9J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

231

6.4

15.44

9/29/2004

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

0.003 J

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

•=0.003

0.46

155

1.7 J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

O.015

239

8.5

15.2

3/15/2005

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

0.003

O.003

0.41

145.5

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

264

6.74

15.12

9/21/2005

<0.003

0.004 J

O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0003

<0.003

0.6

169

<1

<0.002

0.002 J

<0.015

<0.015

256

6.81

15.79

3/7/2006

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

0.37

149

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

254

6.7

14.93

Notes:Degrees C = Degrees Celsius.J = Concentration is between LOD and LOQ, and is considered estimated.mg/L = Milligrams per liter.S.U. = Standard Units.UMHOS = Micromhos.

Hv".--'*?»7:il= Dissolved concentration exceeds EPA Cleanup Level

Groundwater Data (2000-present)Downgradient Shallow Well MW-3B


Parameter Name


ARSENIC, TOTAL

CADMIUM, DISSOLVED

CADMIUM, TOTAL

COPPER, DISSOLVED

COPPER, TOTAL

LEAD, DISSOLVED

LEAD, TOTAL

NICKEL, DISSOLVED

NICKEL, TOTAL

SELENIUM, DISSOLVED

SELENIUM, TOTAL

SULFATE S04

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS


VANADIUM, DISSOLVED

VANADIUM, TOTAL

ZINC, DISSOLVED

ZINC, TOTAL

Field Parameters


pH (S.U.)


EPACleanup

Level

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

1.3

1.3

0.015

0.015

0.312

0.312

'0.05

005

-

-

-

0.037

0.037

-

-

-

-

-

3/6/2000

<0.003

<0.003

•=0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

0.003 J

<0.002

0.002

0.097

0.104

<0.003

0.004 J

107.73

225

15J

<0.002

0.002 J

0.058 J

0.043 J

247

5.05

15.38

9/13/2000

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

0.038 '

0.049

O.003

<0.003

63.73'

161

6J

<0.002

<0.002

0.027 J

0.035 J

196

6

18.5

3/13/2001

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

O.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

0.046

0.043

<0.003

<0.003

64.08

175

10.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/28/2001

O.003

<0.003

<0 0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0:003

<0.002

<0.002

0.042

0.049

<0.003

<0.003

58.9

153

6.9

<0.002

0.002 J

<0.015

0.016 J

-

-

-

3/27/2002

O.003

<0003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

0.003 J

0.041

0.04

<0.003

<0.003

60.54

167.5

63.5

<0.002

0.004 J

<0.015

0.017 J

-

-

-

9/17/2002

<0.003

<0003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

0.003 J

0.05

0.046

O.003

<0.003

68.34

171

15.4

O.002

<0.002

<0.015

0.017 J

-

-

-

3/18/2003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

0.086

0.088

<0.003

<0.003

156.05

236

12.3

<0.002

<0.002

0.027 J

0.035 J

344

4.14

12.24

9/24/2003

<0.003

<0.003

0.0004 J

0.0003 J

<0003

<0.003 ~

<0.002

<0.002

0.039

0.04

<0.003

<0.003

66.98

140.5

1.8J

<0.002 •

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

228

5.01

17.36

3/3/2004

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<O.QQ3

<0.003

O.002

<0.002

0.07

0.069

<0.003

<0.003

86.29

202.5

1.3 J

<0.002

<0.002

0.027 J

0.07 J

258

4.88

13.41

9/29/2004

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

0.043

0.041

<0.003

<0.003

58.71

134.5

1.6 J

<0.002

<0002

<0.015

0.021 J

182

5.2

17.6

3/15/2005

O.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<O.OQ3

<0003

<0.002

<0.002

0.047

0.046

<0.003

<0.003

78.44

142.5

<1

<0002

<0.002

0.019 J

0.02 J

222

5.1

12.15

9/21/2005

<0.003

<0003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003-

<0.002

<0.002

0.033

0.033

<0.003

<0.003

57.79

161

18.5

<0.002

<0002

0.039 J

0.017 J

172

6.24

17.19

3/7/2006

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003 -

<0.002

<0.002

0.044

0.046

<0.003

<0.003

65.1

136

<1

<0.002

<0.002

0.019 J

0.02 J

188

4.75

13.33


.. |= Dissolved concentration exceeds EPA Cleanup Level

Groundwater Data (2000-present)

Downgradient Shallow Well MW-5Chisman Creek Superfund Site, York County, Virginia

Parameter Name


ARSENIC, TOTAL

CADMIUM, DISSOLVED

CADMIUM, TOTAL

COPPER, DISSOLVED

COPPER, TOTAL

LEAD, DISSOLVED

LEAD, TOTAL

NICKEL, DISSOLVED

NICKEL, TOTAL

SELENIUM, DISSOLVED

SELENIUM, TOTAL

SULFATE SO4



VANADIUM, DISSOLVED

VANADIUM, TOTAL

ZINC, DISSOLVED

ZINC, TOTAL

Field Parameters


pH (S.U.)


EPACleanup

Level

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

1 3

1.3

0.015

0.015

0.312

0.312

0.05

0.05

-

-

-

0.037

0037

-

-

-

-

-

3/6/2000

0.007 J

0.016

<0 0003

<0.0003

<0.003

O.003

<0.002

<0.002

0.092

0.084

0.003

<0.003

31.22

268

<4

2.352 '.'•

3.127

0.05 J

<0.015

259

7.1

14.83

9/13/2000

•; 0.011

0.012

O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

•=0.003

<0.002

O.002

0.041

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

29.97

325

<4

'2.987 •

2.905

<0.015

<0.015

302

5.88

19.2

3/13/2001

0.007 J

0.008 J

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

O.003

<0.002

<0.002

0.102

0.101

O.003

<0.003

22.99

263.5

3.9 J

. : 2:802 ,"•2.18

• 0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/28/2001

. 0.01 3; -

0.013

O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003 -

<0.002

<0.002

0.128

0..12

0.003 J

0.004 J

35

289

<1 '

.: V J3.37,p •-'",3.44

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/27/2002

,-, p.012 -;. '0.014

<0.0003

<0.0003

O.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

0.159

0.144

0.005 J

0.004 J

30.77

333

7.5

'"- "3.659" '•

3.48

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/18/2003

0.010

0.015

O.0003

<0.0003

<O.Q03

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

0.118

0.118

0.005 J

0.005 J

28.26

192.5

2.2 J

iv.2.631>

3.244

<0.015

<0.015

277

5.26

12.97

9/24/2003

0.009 J

0.012

0.0003

O.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

0.125

0.124

O.003

0.003 J

37.25

226

1.9 J

•, ;2.'556*""'

3.238

O.015

O.015

278

5.36

18.92

3/3/2004

0.008 J

0.172

O.0003

0.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

0.004 J

0.166

0.156

O.003

O.003

23.64

151

236.5

" .'' 2.452 ,"'-r

2.796

0.021 J

O.015

338

7.25

14.38

9/29/2004

•/.. p.oi,4,J.*0.041

O.0003

O.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

0.002 J

0.102

0.101

O.003

O.003

22.67

176

282

74:055:11.95

0.015

0.034 J

221

5.5

199

3/15/2005

0.009 J

0.023

O.0003

O.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

0.084

0.093

O.003

O.003

2232

168

110

": 2-455 "rf

5.749

O.015

0.015

267

7.12

141

9/21/2005

0.010

0.044

O.0003

O.0003

O.003

O.003

0.002

0.004 J .

0.14

0.198

O.003

O.003

24.29

452.5

16.6

;f.;,3.290 J'

8.871

O.015

0.015 J

369

7.2

19.6

3/8/2006

0.010

0.03

O.0003

O.0003

O.003

<0.003

<0.002

0.003 J

0.13

0.14

O.003

O.003

24.06

202

12.3

"K 1'.986' -"'

4.146

O.015

O.015

318

5.92

14.37


•_..i'ff:j= Dissolved concentration exceeds EPA Cleanup Level

Groundwater Data (2000-present)Upgradient Deep Well MW-10A


Parameter Name


ARSENIC, TOTAL

CADMIUM, DISSOLVED

CADMIUM, TOTAL

COPPER, DISSOLVED

COPPER, TOTAL

LEAD, DISSOLVED

LEAD, TOTAL

NICKEL, DISSOLVED

NICKEL, TOTAL

SELENIUM, DISSOLVED

SELENIUM, TOTAL

SULFATE S04



VANADIUM, DISSOLVED

VANADIUM, TOTAL

ZINC, DISSOLVED

ZINC, TOTAL

Field Parameters


pH (S.U.)


EPACleanup

Level

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

1.3

1.3

0.015

0.015

0.312

0.312

0.05

0.05

-

-

-

0.037

0.037

-

' -

-

-

-

3/6/2000

<0.003

<0.003

O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

O.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

0.017 J

<0.003

<0.003

4.79

191.5

<4

0.004 J

0.004 J

0.057 J

O.015

280

6.65

14.94

9/13/2000

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

6.02

168

<4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

0.015 J

281

6.52

16.3

3/13/2001

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

•=0.005

<0.005

«0.003

<0.003

6.99

201

<1

<0.002

0.002 J

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/28/2001

O.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

O.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0003

58

189

<1

0.004 J

0.003 J

<0.015

0.031 J

-

-

-

3/27/2002

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

5.39

192

2.5 J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/17/2002

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

5.23

172.5

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0015

-

-

-

3/1812003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

5.76

188

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

0.022 J

316

7.39

1472

9/24/2003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

O.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

6.67

178.5

<1

<0.002

0.003 J

<0.015

<0.015

317

7.6

14.91

3/4/2004

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

6.54

171

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

273

7.8

15.51

9/30/2004

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0003

6.03

139

15.2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

281

7.9

15.2

3/15/2005

<0.003

<0.003

O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

5.9

173

<1

<0.002

0.002 J

<0.015

<0.015

306

7.02

14.13

9/21/2005

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

O.003

<0.002

<0.002

O.005

0.005 J

<0.003

<0.003

6.33

201.5

5

O.002

0.004 J

<0.015

<0.015

306

7.94

1609

3/7/2006

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

0.006 J

<0005

<0.003

<0.003

7.58

280 •

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

294

6.81

14.78


J= Dissolved concentration exceeds EPA Cleanup Level

Groundwater Data (2000-present)Upgradient Shallow Well MW-10B


Parameter Name


ARSENIC, TOTAL

CADMIUM, DISSOLVED

CADMIUM, TOTAL

COPPER, DISSOLVED

COPPER, TOTAL

LEAD, DISSOLVED

LEAD, TOTAL

NICKEL, DISSOLVED

NICKEL, TOTAL

SELENIUM, DISSOLVED

SELENIUM, TOTAL

SULFATE S04



VANADIUM, DISSOLVED

VANADIUM, TOTAL

ZINC, DISSOLVED

ZINC, TOTAL

Field Parameters


pH (S.U.)


EPACleanup

Level

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

1.3

1.3

0.015

0.015

0.312

0.312

0.05

0.05

-

-

-

0.037

0.037

-

-

-

-

-

3/6/2GOO

<0.003

<0.003

O.0003

0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

0.011 J

0.006 J

<0.003

<0.003

2.76

104

<4

<0.002

<0.002

0.023 J

0.021 J

152

6.76

15.93

9/13/2000

O.003

O.003

O.0003

O.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0002

<0.005

<0.005

O.003

<0.003

2.98

108

<4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

136

6.3

15.4

3/13/2001

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

O.003

<0.003

3.74

115

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/28/2001

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

O.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

O.005

<0.003

<0.003

3.42

104

1.1 J

<0.002

<0002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/27/2002

O003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

O.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

O.003

3.34

164.5

<1

O.002

O.002

O.015

0.015

-

-

-

9/17/2002

O.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

3.69

138

1.1 J

<0.002

O.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/18/2003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

5.19

118

<1

<0.002

<0.002

O.015

<0015

144

5.86

14.6

9/24/2003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0 0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

O.005

<0.003

<0.003

5.33

114.5

14.2

<0.002

0.002 J

<0.015

<0.015

183

6.35

15.44

3/4/2004

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

4.41

138

<1

O.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

211

7.1

15.29

9/30/2004

<0.003

<0.003

O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

' <0 002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

4.54

131

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

228

6.9

15.52

3/15/2005

O.003

<0.003

0.0003

O.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

O.005

O.005

O.003

O.003

4.98

145

<1

O.002

O.002

O.015

0.015

252

6.89

15

9/21/2005

O.003

0.003

O.0003

O.0003

O.003

0.008 J

O.002

O.002

O.005

O.005

0.003

O.003

4.32

184.5

21.4

O.002

0.003 J

O.015

O.015

219

7.5

15.6

3/7/2006

O.003

0.003

O.0003

O.0003

O.003

O.003

0.002

O.002

O.005

O.005

0.003

O003

4.87

147.5

<1

O.002

O.002

O.015

O.015

235

6.59

15.2


'-U= Dissolved concentration exceeds EPA Cleanup Level



Parameter Name

Metals (mg/L)

ARSENIC, DISSOLVED

ARSENIC, TOTAL

CADMIUM, DISSOLVED

CADMIUM, TOTAL

COPPER, DISSOLVED

COPPER, TOTAL

LEAD, DISSOLVED

LEAD, TOTAL

NICKEL, DISSOLVED

NICKEL. TOTAL

SELENIUM, DISSOLVED

SELENIUM, TOTAL

SULFATE SO4



VANADIUM, DISSOLVED

VANADIUM, TOTAL

ZINC, DISSOLVED

ZINC, TOTAL

Field Parameters


pH (S.U.)


EPACleanup

Level

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

1.3

• 1.3

0.015

0.015

0.312

0.312

0.05

0.05

-

-

-

0.037

0.037

-

-

-

-

-

3/6/2000

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

O.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

0.014 J

0.012 J

<0.003

<0.003

5.84

209

<4

<0.002

O.002

0.015 J

0.018 J

238

7.3

16.37

9/13/2000

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

O.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<Q.OQ3

7.27

180

<4

<0.002

<0.002

0.017 J

0.029 J

284

6.66

16.9

3/13/2001

<0.003

<0.003

<o.ogo30.0008 J

<0003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

8.21

199

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/28/2001

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

•=0.003

<Q.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<Q.QQ3

6.57

200

106.7

0.002 J

0.002 J

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/27/2002

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

6.08

212

2.6 J

<0.002

<0.002

O.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/17/2002

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005 •

<0003

<0.003

5.82

200

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/18/2003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0005

<0.003

0.003

6.51

197

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

327

7.62

15.08

9/24/2003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

7.5

199

<1

O.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

311

6.94

15.85

3/3/2004

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

6.72

185

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

293

7.7

15.7

9/29/2004

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<O.QQ3

6.58

192.5

1.4 J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

294

8.4

15.3

3/15/2005

<0003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0002

<0005

<0.005

<0.003

<Q.OQ3

6.81

197

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

321

7.67

14.14

9/21/2005

O.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

O.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

681

223.5

3J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

278

7.6

16.1

3/7/2006

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

O.003

O.002

<0.002

<0.005

•=0.005

<0.003

<0.003

7.26

188

2J

O.002

•=0.002

O.015

•=0.015

313

713

14.68

Notes:

Degrees C = Degrees Celsius.J = Concentration is between LOD and LOQ, and is considered estimated.mg/L = Milligrams per liter.S.U. = Standard Units.UMHOS = Micromhos.

'l= Dissolved concentration exceeds EPA Cleanup Level



Parameter Name

Metals (mg/L)

ARSENIC, DISSOLVED

ARSENIC, TOTAL

CADMIUM, DISSOLVED

CADMIUM, TOTAL

COPPER, DISSOLVED

COPPER, TOTAL

LEAD, DISSOLVED

LEAD, TOTAL

NICKEL, DISSOLVED

NICKEL, TOTAL

SELENIUM, DISSOLVED

SELENIUM, TOTAL

SULFATE S04



VANADIUM, DISSOLVED

VANADIUM, TOTAL

ZINC. DISSOLVED

ZINC, TOTAL

Field Parameters


pH (S.U.)


EPACleanup

Level

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

1.3

1.3

0.015

0.015

0.312

0.312

0.05

0.05

-

-

-

0.037

0.037

-

-

-

-

-

3/6/2000

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

0.006 J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

0.034

<0.003

<0.003

347.7

1087.5

<4

<0.002

<0.002

0.015 J

0.015 J

1154

7.47

15.54

9/13/2000

<0.003

<0.003

O.0003

<0.0003

O.003

'O.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

394.22

1151

<4

<0.002

0.007 J

<0.015

0.017 J

1211

6.53

16.3

3/13/2001

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

406.06

1196.5

<1

<0.002

<0002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/28/2001

O.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

- <0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

468.47

1305.5

<1

0.015

0.018

O.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/27/2002

<0.003

•=0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

O.003

O:003

•=0.002

<0.002

•=0.005

-=0005

•=0.003

O.003

439.2

1164

5.4

0.005 J

0.006 J

0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/17/2002

O.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

344.37

1021

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/18/2003

O003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

349.08

916.5

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

1204

7.3

14.96

9/24/2003

<0.003

<0.003

O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

O003

364.13

1028

<1

0.005 J

0.007 J

<0.015

<0.015

1203

7.04

15.37

3/3/2004

O.003

<0.003

0.0003

O.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

O'.OOS

O.005

O.003

O.003

324.71

1004

<1

O.002

O002

O.015

O.015

1178

7.7

15.4

9/29/2004

O.003

O.003

O.0003

O.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

O.005

O.005

O.003

O.003

318.3

1050.5

<1

O.002

O.002

O.015

O.015

1126

7.9

16.4

3/15/2005

O.003

O.003

0.0003

O.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

O.005

O.005

O.003

O.003

358.31

985

1.7 J

O.002

O.002

O.015

O.015

1305

7.36

14.19

9/21/2005

O.003

O.003

O.0003

0.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

O.005

O.005

O.003

O.003

405.62

1205.5

<1

O.002

O.002

O.015O.015

1343

7.69

15.47

3/7/2006

O.003

0.003

O.0003

O.0003

O.003

O.003

0.002

O002

O.005

O.005

O.003

O.003

326.78

1072

2.5 J

O002

O.002

O.015

O.015

1294

7.09

14.82

Notes: '

Degrees C = Degrees Celsius.

J = Concentration is between LOD and LOQ, and is considered estimated.mg/L = Milligrams per liter.

S.U. = Standard Units.UMHOS = Micromhos.

•.^•. fVy;= Dissolved concentration exceeds EPA Cleanup Level



Parameter Name

Metals (mg/L)

ARSENIC, DISSOLVED

ARSENIC, TOTAL

CADMIUM, DISSOLVED

CADMIUM, TOTAL

COPPER, DISSOLVED

COPPER, TOTAL

LEAD, DISSOLVED

LEAD, TOTAL

NICKEL, DISSOLVED

NICKEL, TOTAL

SELENIUM, DISSOLVED

SELENIUM, TOTAL

SULFATE S04



VANADIUM, DISSOLVED

VANADIUM, TOTAL

ZINC, DISSOLVED

ZINC, TOTAL

Field Parameters


pH (S.U.)


EPACleanup

Level

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

1.3

1.3

0.015

0.015

0.312

0.312

0.05

0.05

-

-

-

0.037

0.037

-

-

-

-

-

3/6/2000

<0.003

<0.003

'O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

0.004 J

O.002

<0.002

0.008 J

0.019 J

<0.003

<0.003

2.4

241

<4

<0.002

<0.002

0.027 J

0.019 J

328

6.84

16.31

9/13(2000

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

0.004 J

0.005 J

<0.002

0.002 J

<0.005

<O.OOS

<0.003

O.003

1.9

351

11.5J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

0.019 J

458

6.32

179

3/13/2001

<0.003

O.003

<0.0003

0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

3.26

255

6

0.003 J

0.002 J

O.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/28/2001

O.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

2.59

234.5

1.6J

0.004 J

0.003 J

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/27/2002

<0.003

<0.003

<0 0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

3.61

238.5

4.7 J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/17/2002

<0.003

<0003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

2.5

225.5

10.4

O.002

<0002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/18/2003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

" <0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

4

223.5

27.7

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

362

7.14

15.72

9/24/2003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

•=0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

1.68

223

2J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

• <0.015

365

7.03

15.99

3/3/2004

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0002

•=0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

1.5

219.5

1.8 J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

325

7.63

15.67

9/30/2004

<0.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

2.12

233

2.7 J

<0.002

<0.002

O.015

<0.015

328

8.1

16.4

3/15/2005

O.003

0.004 J

<0.0003

O.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

2.51

210

<1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

361

7.35

15.8

9/21/2005

O.003

<0.003

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

2.85

240.5

2.5 J

<0.002

<0.002

O.015

<0.015

355

7.15

16.1

3/7/2006

<0.003

<0003

O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

-<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

3.76

212

3.4 J

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

345

7.27

15.61


J= Dissolved concentration exceeds EPA Cleanup Level



Parameter Name


ARSENIC, TOTAL

CADMIUM, DISSOLVED

CADMIUM, TOTAL

COPPER, DISSOLVED

COPPER, TOTAL

LEAD, DISSOLVED

LEAD, TOTAL

NICKEL, DISSOLVED

NICKEL, TOTAL

SELENIUM, DISSOLVED

SELENIUM, TOTAL

SULFATE S04



VANADIUM, DISSOLVED

VANADIUM, TOTAL

ZINC, DISSOLVED

ZINC, TOTAL

Field Parameters


pH (S.U.)


EPACleanup

Level

001

0.01

0.005

0.005

1.3

1.3

0.015

0.015

0.312

0.312

0.05

0.05

-

-

-

0.037

0.037

-

-

-

-

-

3/6/2000

0.008 J

0.006 J

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0003

O.003

O.002

<0.002

0.111

0.086

<0.003

<0.003

833.46

1471.5

10.3J

0.009 J

0.01

0015J

0.015

2286

6.3

13.82

9/13/2000

0.009 J

0.01

<0.0003

<0.0003

O.003

<0003

0.002 J

<0002

0.048

0.049

<0.003

<0.003

806.51

1513.5

<4

001

0.008 J

<0.015

0.021 J

1840

5.95

18.5

3/13(2001

0.005 J

0.006 J

<0.0003

0.0003

O.003

0.003

O.002

O.002

0.056

0.044

O.003

O.003

743.3

1346

12.6

0.005 J

0.016

0.015

O.015

-

-

-

9/28/2001

0.007 J

001

O.0003

<0 0003

O.003

O.003

O002

0.002

0.049

0.046

O.003

O003

687.54

1456

3.6 J

0.031

0.086

O.015

O.015

-

-

-

3/27/2002

0.007 J

0.007 J

O.0003

0.0003

O.003

O.003

0.002

O.002

0054

0.056

O.003

O.003

•1149.19

2302

6.6

0.028

0.034

O.015

O.015

-

-

-

9/17/2002

0.007 J

0.008 J

O.0003

0.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

O002

0.051

0.047

O.003

O.003

896.85

2026.5

9.5

0.006 J

0.011

O.015

O.015

-

-

-

3/18/2003

0005J

0.012

O.0003

O.0003

0.003

0.003

O.002

O.002

0.057

0.060

O.003

O.003

1093.2

20545

188

0.014

0.05

O.015

O.015

2604

5.81

12.19

9/24/2003

0.011 .-

0.013

O.0003

0.0003

0.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

0.053

0.05

O.003

O.003

1 080.4

2018

2.4 J

0.030

0.031

O.015

O.015

2180

6.42

18.46

3/3/2004

0.008 J

0.017

O.0003

0.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

0.052

0.058

O.003

O.003

909.88

1784

22.8

0.016

0.099

O.015

O.015

2017

6.74

13.05

9/30/2004

• 0.012

0.012

O.0003

O.0003

O.003

<0:003

O.002

O.002

0.056

0.053

O.003

O.003

835.47

1672

6

0.030

0.067

O.015

0.032 J

537

6.6

18.5

3/15/2005

0.006 J

0.007 J

O.0003

0.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

0.048

0.048

O.003

O.003-

852.12

1973

2J

0.030

0.053

O.015

O.015

2100

6.87

12.18

9/21/2005

0.012 •

0.012

O.0003

O.0003

0.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

0.04

0.04

O.003

O003

578.15

14705

4 2 J

.V-T0.049/j?

0052

O015

O.015

1670

6.23

18.25

3/7/2006

0.010

0.013

O.0003

0.0003

O.003

O.003

O.002

O.002

0.055

0.057

O.003

O.003

703.24

1503

3J

0.021

0.058

O.015

O.015

1720 .

6.56

13.35


I/, , -.j) -tj= Dissolved concentration exceeds EPA Cleanup Level



Parameter Name

Metals (mg/L)

ARSENIC, DISSOLVED

ARSENIC, TOTAL

CADMIUM, DISSOLVED

CADMIUM, TOTAL

COPPER, DISSOLVED

COPPER, TOTAL

LEAD, DISSOLVED

LEAD, TOTAL

NICKEL, DISSOLVED

NICKEL, TOTAL

SELENIUM, DISSOLVED

SELENIUM, TOTAL

SULFATE S04 •



VANADIUM, DISSOLVED

VANADIUM, TOTAL

ZINC, DISSOLVED

ZINC, TOTAL

Field Parameters


pH (S.U )


EPACleanup

Level

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

1.3

1.3

0.015

0.015

0.312

0312

0.05

0.05

-

-

-

0.037

0.037

-

-

-

-

-

3/6/2000

0008J

0.007 J

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

0.007 J

<0.003

<0.003

1.47'

1012

72

<0.002

<0.002

0.061 J

0.099

2092

6.38

13.44

9/13/2000

0.009 J

0.010

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

0.005 J

<0.003

<0.003

1.54

938

645

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

2200

610

18

3/13/2001

0.008 J

0.008 J

O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

1.88

869

86

<0.002

<0.002

<0.015

0.035 J

-

-

-

9/28/2001

0.010

0.009 J

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

0008 J

0.011 J

<0.003

<0.003

0.78

1079

77.3

0.010

0.012

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/27/2002

0.010

0.010

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

O.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

1.32

1021.5

68

0.010

0.012

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

9/17/2002

0.010

0.010

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0005

<0.003

<0003

1 68

9525

82

O.002

<0.002

<0.015

<0.015

-

-

-

3/18/2003

0.005 J

0.008 J

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

2.6

857.5

65.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01 5

<0.015

1993

6.24

12.17

9/24/2003

. 0.011 •

0.012

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

3.05

783.5

57.4

0.008 J

0.008 J

<0.015

<0.015

1770

6.88

18.11

3/3/2004

0.010

0.010

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

3.15

873

91

<0.002

<0.002

0.034 J

<0.015

1966

5.76

12.25

9/29/2004

Q.014 ,

0.012

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

<0.003

<0.003

1.34

961

42

<0.002

<0.002

0.032 J

<0.015

1946

6.9

19.2

3/15/2005

0.008 J

0.009 J

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0.002

<0.002

<0.005

<0.005

0.003 J

<0.003

1.8

708.5

70.5

<0.002

0.003 J

<0.015

<0.015

2130

7.4

12.18

9/21/200S

-,:P,on i ..0.011

O.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0003

<0.002

<0.002

0.006 J

0.007 J

<0.003.

<0.003

3.41

1146

54

<0.002

<0.002

O.015

<0.015

1460

6.9

18.4

3/8/2006

- "0.01 2'...

0.012

<0.0003

<0.0003

<0.003

<0.003

<0002

<0.002

0.006 J

0.006 J

<0003

<0.003

1.15

1061

62.5

<0.002

0.002 J

<0.015

<0.015

2260

6.74

12.58

Notes:Degrees C = Degrees Celsius.J = Concentration is between LOD and LOQ, and is considered estimated.mg/L = Milligrams per liter. /S.U. = Standard Units.UMHOS = Micromhos.

3= Dissolved concentration exceeds EPA Cleanup Level

THIRD FIVE YEAR REVIEW REPORTSDMS DocID 2073205 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT Third Five-Year Review for...

Documents

Transcript of THIRD FIVE YEAR REVIEW REPORTSDMS DocID 2073205 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT Third Five-Year Review for...