evaluation of logging & depth-specific sampling of
TRANSCRIPT
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