RECE:VED

JUL 1 4 2017

EN v RONME.'HAL RFMEDIATJON

Comprehensive Investigation Report Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Kansas City, Kansas

Prepared for

Kansas Department of Health and Environment

July 2017

Prepared by

On Behalf of Union Carbide Corporation

Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .. ........................... ............... ............................................ .. .......... .. .. .... .. v

1 Introduction ................. .. ..... ......... ................. .. ............ .. ....... .. .................... ........... ......... ... . 1-1

2 Background ... ........ ............... ...... .... .. ........................ ........ ............................................. ..... 2-1 2.1 Property Descript ion ................................................................ ........ ............. ... .. .......... ... . 2-1 2.2 Facility History .. ............. ............................................................................... ........... ....... .. 2-1

2.2.1 PCB Soil Removal Action .................... .... ........................ .. .... .......... .. .. .. ...... .. ...... . 2-1 2.2.2 TCE in Groundwater ............................... ................ .. ............ .. ... ..... .... ... .. .. .. .. .... .. 2-2 2.2.3 Consent Order ..... ...... .... ....... .... ... ................. .......... .. ..... ... .... ... ...... .. ....... ..... ........ 2-2

3 Site Setting .............. ........................ .... ..... .. ........... ..... ..................................... ... .... ....... .. ... 3-1 3.1 Geology .. ........... .. .. .... .. ..... ....................... .. ....................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Hydrogeology .... ........... ....................................................................... .............. .. ........... .. 3-1 3.3 Meteorology ....... ...... .... ..................................................................... ..................... .... ..... 3-2

4 Investigation Activities .................................. ... ... ............... ...... ........... ............. ........... ....... . 4-1

5 Nature and Extent of Contamination ................ ........ ............................ .. .... .......... .. ............. 5-1 5.1 Soil ........................................ ................................................................... ..... ........ ............ 5-1

5.1.1 Polychlorinated Biphenyls ................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Trichloroethene and Degradation Products ............ ........................................... 5-1

5.2 Groundwater .. ....... ................ .. .... .. ................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.1 Onsite .... ... .. .................... ..... ........ .. ......... .................................... .......... ..... .......... 5-3 5.2.2 Offsite ................................. .. .... .. ...................... .. ................................................ 5-3

6 Human Health Risk Assessment ................ ........... ............. ......................... ... .. ....... ............. . 6-1 6.1 Conceptual Site Model ..... .. ......... .... ............ ........... .......................................................... 6-1

6. 1.1 Source Area ... .. .. .. ......... .. ............... .. .......... ...................... .. ............. .................... . 6-1 6.1.2 Transport Pathways and Exposure Media ........ .... .. .... ........ .. .... .. ........ ................ 6-1 6.1.3 Exposure Pathways and Routes ... .. ...... .. ..... .... .... ....... ... .... .. .. ....... .. .................... . 6-1

6.2 Soil .. ......... ...... .... ................ ..... .. .. ....... ... ....... ........ .... .. ...... ..... .. .. ... ...... .. ... ..... .......... ..... ...... 6-2 6.2.1 Contaminant Characterization ................ .... ...... .. .............. .... .................... .... ...... 6-2

6.2.2 Toxicity Assessment ........................................................ ... ... .. ...... .... ...... ......... ... 6-2 6.2.3 Exposure Assessment ............ .. ............................................................... .. ..... ..... 6-3 6.2.4 Qua litative Risk Characterization ........... ... ........................................... ............... 6-3 6.2.5 Conclusions ...... ........................ .............................. .. ......................................... .. 6-4

6.3 Groundwater ... ........... ..... ..... ... ....... ........ .......................................................................... 6-4 6.3.1 Background .... ........... ............ ............................................................................ .. 6-4 6.3.2 Contaminant Characterization ............................................................................ 6-4 6.3.3 Toxicity Assessment ............................................................ .. ......... ............. .. ... .. . 6-5 6.3.4 Exposure Assessment .............................................. ........ ....... .. .. ... ......... ......... .. . 6-5 6.3.5 Qualitative Risk Characterization .. .. ......................... .. ............. ............. .. .. .. .... ... .. 6-6 6.3.6 Conclusions .......... ................. .... .................. .... ........ ................ ......... ...... .... .... ..... 6-6

7 Ecological Risk Assessment .. ..... ......................... .......................... .. .......................... ............ 7-1 7.1 Screening-Level Problem Formulation ............................................................ .. ....... .. .. .. .. 7-1

7.1.1 Ecological Setting and Habitats ........ .. .......... .. ..................... ... ....... ........ ... .. .... ..... 7-1 7.1.2 Conceptual Site Model ...... .. .. .. ................................................. .............. .... ....... .. 7-2

7.2 Scientific Management Decision Point ...................................................... ........ .. ..... ..... .. 7-2

EN0718l b l l l';Mf·.E Il l

COMPREHENSIVF INVl S l IGAT ION REPORT

8 Summary .... ... ... ...... ..... . .......... .. .. .... .. ... ..... ... . .. .... .... ......................................................... ... 8-1 8.1 Human Hea lth Risk Assessment Risk Drivers ................................................................... 8-1

8.1.1 Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Soil ........................................................................ 8-1 8.1.2 Volati le Organic Compounds in Groundwater ......... ........................................... 8-1

8.2 Eco logical Risk Assessment Risk Drivers ............................ .. ............................................ 8-1 8.3 General Response Actions .................. ........ .. ..... .. ............................................................ 8-1

9 References .... .. . ... . ..... . .. .. ... . .... .... ..... ... .... .... ... .. .. . ... ... ... . ... .. . .. ...... .... ....... .......... ... .. ...... ... ..... . 9-1

Appendix

A Trend Graphs B Well Construction Table

Tables

5-1 Summary of Onsite Soil VOC Data in Unsaturated Soil 5-2 Summary of June 2016 VOC Data and Select Groundwater Parameters-Onsite Monitoring Wells 5-3 Summary of June 2016 VOC Data and Select Groundwater Parameters-Offsite Monitoring Wells 6-1 Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern 6-2 Toxicity Information 6-3 Potential Exposure Pathways-Soil 6-4 Summary of Groundwater Resul ts from June 2016 6-5 Potential Exposure Pathways-Groundwater

Figures

1-1 Project Location and Vicinity Map 2-1 Property Layout 3-1 Cross Section Locations 3-2 Cross Section A-A' 3-3 Cross Section B-B' 3-4 Potentiometric Surface Map 4-1 Onsite Interim AS and SVE Remedy Layout 4-2 Offsite Interim AS Remedy Layout 4-3 Onsite Interim ISCO Remedy Injection Areas 5-1 Historical Confirmation Results for PCBs in Soil 5-2 Onsite Soil VOC Data - Unsaturated Soil 5-3 June 2016 Onsite Monitoring Well Results 5-4 June 2016 Offsite Monitoring Well Results 5-5 TCE Plume - Plan View (June 2016) 5-6 TCE Plume - Profile View Looking North (June 2016) 5-7 cis-1,2-DCE Plume - Plan View (June 2016) 5-8 cis-1,2-DCE Plume - Profile View Looking North (June 2016) 5-9 Changes in Center of VOC Mass in Groundwater Plume 7-1 Ecological Conceptual Site Model

IV EN'Jll816lll'>MH

Acronyms and Abbreviations AS

BER

bgs

CAS

CFR

CH2M

Cl

cm/s

cm 2/s CSF

CSM

cis-1,2-DCE

trans-1,2-DCE

DPT

EIES

ERA

ISCO

IUR

KDHE

mg/L

MCL

mg/kg

MIP

MVS

PCB

RfC

RfD

RSK

Site

SL ERA

SMDP

TCE

TSCA

ucc Unison

UPRR

US EPA

rno718Jbll 15Mn

air sparge

Bureau of Environmental Remediation

below ground surface

Corrective Action Study

Code of Federal Regulations

CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc.

Comprehensive Investigation report

centimeters per second

square centimeters per second

cancer slope factors

conceptual site model

cis-1,2-dichloroethene

tra ns-1,2-d ichloroethene

direct-push technology

Environmental International Electrical Services, Inc.

ecological risk assessment

in situ chemical oxidation

inhalation unit risk

Kansas Department of Health and Environment

milligrams per liter

maximum contaminant level

milligram per kilogram

membrane interface probe

Mining Visualization System

polychlorinated biphenyl

reference concentration

reference dose

Risk-based Standards for Kansas

The contaminant source area in soil and overall groundwater plume (onsite and offsite)

screening-level ecological risk assessment

Scientific Management Decision Points

trichloroethene

Toxic Substances Control Act

Union Carbide Corporation

former Unison Transformer Services, Inc.

Union Pacific Railroad

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

v

r C1'1,1f k[Hf t;~ VE INVf<;TIGAT (JN REPORT

VI

voe Zimmer

"'

vapor intrusion

volatile organic compound

Newmark Grubb Zimmer

fN07181til J)<JWF

SECTION 1

Introduction CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M) has prepared this Comprehensive Investigation (Cl) Report on behalf of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) for the former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. (Unison) facility at 3126 Brinkerhoff Road in Kansas City, Kansas (Figure 1-1). The Cl was prepared following the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Bureau of Environmental Remediation (BER)/Remedial Section Guidance Scope of Work for a Comprehensive Investigation (Cl)/Corrective Action Study (CAS}

(KDHE 2005).

UCC has conducted soil and groundwater sampling and implemented interim remedial measures to address chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with former manufacturing processes at the facility . voes being addressed in soil and groundwater include trichloroethene (TCE) and TCE degradation products (cis-1,2-dichloroethene [cis-1,2-DCE], trans-1,2-dichloroethene [trans-1,2-DCE], and vinyl chloride). Although the former facility is referred to as the site in historical documents submitted to KDHE, the source area in soil and overall groundwater plume constitute what will be termed the "Site" herein. The former facility, source area, and underlying groundwater plume constitute what is referred to in historical documents and this Cl as the onsite area . Properties not associated with former facility operations and that portion of the groundwater plume hydraulically downgradient of the onsite area constitute what is referred to in historical documents and this Cl as the offsite area. Sampling activities and interim remedial measures have been completed pursuant to the Consent Order (COA 97-E-0036) between UCC and KDHE.

The objective of this Cl is to summarize investigation activities completed between 1994 and August 2016. The Cl is organized as follows:

• Section 1-lntroduction • Section 2-Background

• Section 3-lnvestigations Activities

• Section 4-Nature and Extent of Contamination • Section 5-Human Health Risk Assessment

• Section 6-Ecological Risk Assessment

• Section 7-Summary

• Section 8-References

EN0/ ,8Jbll ISMrF I I

SECTION 2

Background 2.1 Property Description The property located at 3126 Brinkerhoff Road consists of a 0.7-acre parcel surrounded by industrial facilities in the Fairfax Industrial District of Kansas City, Kansas. The Fairfax District is zoned as heavy industrial. There are no residential properties within the Fairfax District, and groundwater within the district is not used for municipal purposes. The nearest residential areas are located approximately 0.5 mile to the south and west, upgradient relative to groundwater and upslope topographically from the property.

The property consists of a vacant 14,000-square-foot warehouse bui lding and attached two-story office area (Figure 2-1). The remainder of the property consists of a paved parking and loading area to the east and aggregate covered area to the north. The property is enclosed by a gated chain-link fence.

Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) owns property immediately west that contains an inactive siding and two sets of active rail lines. To the south, the warehouse is located immediately adjacent to another (structurally separate) warehouse. Both the 3126 Brinkerhoff Road property and the property on which the adjoining warehouse is located are owned by Newmark Grubb Zimmer (Zimmer). Zimmer has been the sole landowner since the property was developed in the 1960s. UCC currently leases the 3126 Brinkerhoff Road property from Zimmer. Other than ongoing groundwater monitoring and remediation activities, there are no active manufacturing operations on t he property.

2.2 Facility History From 1983 to 1986, Environmental International Electrical Services, Inc. (EIES) decontaminated and reclaimed electrical transformers with fluids containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) . TCE was used as part of the transformer-cleaning process. During this period, deficiencies in the handling of TCE were reported . In 1986, EIES overhauled and improved chemical-handling processes and storage. In 1988, Unison obtained operating rights from EIES. A commercial re-permitting process was completed in late 1989, and the facility operated on a limited basis until 1991. At that time, the facility was shut down, decommissioned, and equipment was removed from the warehouse . No releases were reported during the brief period that the facility was operated by Unison.

2.2.1 PCB Soil Removal Action Starting in December 1992, PCB-contaminated metal from various equipment and ductwork within the warehouse were removed and landfilled, and the interior walls were sandblasted. The residual dust from sandblasting operations was collected and landfilled. PCB-contaminated concrete from the floor within the warehouse and the underlying 2 feet of soil were excavated and landfilled at a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)-permitted facility. Upon approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Unison replaced the excavated soil with approximately 2 feet of clean soil fill (Unison 1994). Approximately 2,220 tons of PCB-contaminated soil and asphalt from the exterior parking areas were also excavated and landfilled at an approved disposal facility.

In early 1993, an approximate 50-by-10-foot area along the west wall (northwest corner) of the warehouse was determined to be contaminated with PCBs and TCE (Figure 2-1). The northwest corner of the warehouse is where degreasing equipment and solvent holding tanks had formerly been located. Soil sampling completed as part of the excavation activities indicated that PCB contamination was present to 10 feet below the building footing within this area. Excavation activities were temporarily suspended in 1993 due to a high water table caused by a significant regional flooding event of the

I N0718161 l l '>M~ F 2 l

UlMPRtHfNSIVI N\'IC.liGATION RrPOf.:T

Missouri River. In March 1994, additional excavation activities were completed along the west wall

(northwest corner) of the warehouse to address the contamination previously detected below 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) but not accessible due to the 1993 flooding. To preserve the physical and structural integrity of the west building wall, soil was excavated in "cells," down to a final depth of 13 feet below the building footer. This depth was equivalent to a total depth of approximately 19 feet below the interior grade of the warehouse floor and 16 feet below the exterior grade. Flowing sands were encountered at this depth, and the excavation was terminated to avoid failure of the excavation walls, building collapse-associated safety concerns, and possible damage to the adjoining rail lines.

Excavated soils were disposed of at an approved facility. The excavation was backfilled with fine-grained clean soil fill and the concrete floor in the southern half of the warehouse was replaced (Unison 1994). The fill thickness decreases from west to east inside the warehouse .

2.2.2 TCE in Groundwater Based on historical documentation and investigation data, the northwest corner of the warehouse was the source of TCE related contamination in groundwater (UCC 1997). This is the same area in which the 1993 and 1994 PCB soil removal activities were completed. Prior to Unison operation, it is believed that spent TCE cleaning solvent leaked from storage tanks and equipment within the warehouse onto the floor and migrated into the underlying soil via a seam between the concrete floor and west wall of the warehouse . The TCE solvent migrated downward along the building footer and through underlying soil until it reached the water table associated with the saturated sand aquifer. At the water table, the TCE solvent dispersed into the shallow portion of the aquifer. The dissolved portion of the TCE plume in groundwater migrated downgradient of the source area in the direction of groundwater flow forming a plume that eventually extended offsite. With exception of isolated pockets of TCE mass outside the excavation area, a vast majority of the unsaturated TCE-impacted soil within the source area was removed as part of the 1993 and 1994 excavation .

2.2.3 Consent Order Although impacts to soil and groundwater associated with the Site are believed to have occurred prior to Unison' s operations, Unison and its parent company, UCC, assumed responsibility for cleanup and closure activities. UCC entered into a Consent Order with KDHE in 1996 (COA 97-E-036) to address TCE contamination in groundwater.

2 ' rNl,71811.I I JSM>f

SECTION 3

Site Setting 3.1 Geology The Site is underlain by unconsolidated alluvial deposits associated with the Missouri River, which is located approximately 4,000 feet north and 8,000 feet east of the property (Figure 1-1). Figures 3-1 through 3-3 present geologic cross sections within the vicinity of the 1993 and 1994 PCB excavation area. The geology presented on the cross sections is generally representative of geology within the Fairfax District.

The warehouse floor is elevated relative to the rest of the property and is constructed on top of 3 to 4 feet of clay fill. The fill material and remainder of the onsite surface materials are immediately underlain by a fine-grained unit composed of native silts and clays that range in depth from 15 to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) . The central to northwestern portions of the warehouse are underlain by up to approximately 20 feet of clay fill placed as backfill following part of the 1990s' PCB soil removal action as discussed in detail in Section 2.2.1. Offsite surface materials are underlain by the same fine-grained unit. The silts and clays are generally unsaturated, except during periods of high water-table conditions.

The fine-grained unit and thickest part of the clay fill in the northwestern portion of the warehouse are underlain by an extensive fine- to medium-grained alluvial sand unit that extends to bedrock. The thickness of the sand unit increases in the direction of the Missouri River channel and becomes more medium to coarse grained with depth. Lower-permeability seams and isolated lenses of silt and clay are present at varying depths within the saturated portion of the alluvial sand. In some areas beneath the Site, the sand, silt, and clays are more highly interbedded than others, including beneath the northwest corner of the warehouse. Organic material (wood fragments) have been observed with the interbedded clay, silt, and sand units.

The top of bedrock has been estimated to range from approximately 104 feet bgs onsite to at least 148 feet bgs at the furthest downgradient boring advanced offsite. The depth to bedrock is estimated because it is based on where refusal was encountered with direct-push technology (DPT) equipment. Reference materials indicate that the first bedrock unit present beneath the Fairfax District is the Pleasanton Group, which is about 70 feet thick and consists primarily of impermeable to low­permeable shale and limestone.

3.2 Hydrogeology The alluvial sand is the dominant unconsolidated water-bearing unit beneath the Site. Groundwater levels vary seasonally in response to precipitation trends, with higher elevations occurring in the in the spring through summer months. Groundwater is typically first encountered between approximately 15 and 25 feet bgs.

Overall, groundwater flows in an easterly direction. However, the Missouri River levels influence the groundwater flow direction. Higher river levels result in more of a southeasterly flow direction. Lower river levels result in more of an easterly to northeasterly flow direction. Figure 3-4 illustrates how the flow direction is influenced by the Missouri River stage. Based on quarterly monitoring observations over the past 3 years, the horizontal hydraulic gradient is relatively flat and has generally ranged from 0.0002 to 0.002 feet per foot. As observed in clustered well pairs, there is little to no vertical hydraulic gradient within the sand aquifer.

Aquifer slug tests were performed at offsite wells in 2007 (CH2M 2008a). The hydraulic conductivity ranged from 0.01 centimeter per second (cm/s) (27 feet per day) to 0.02 cm/s (57 feet per day) . The

EN07J8,6lll'>MYE ~-I

transmissivity ranged from 30 square centimeters per second (cm2/s) (18,000 gallons per day per foot) to 60 cm2/s (38,000 gallons per day per foot) . Hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity values were slightly higher in deeper monitoring wells. The higher values might be attributed to the coarsening of alluvial sand with depth.

Assuming an average gradient of 0.0005 and effective porosity of 30 percent, the calculated Darcy groundwater seepage velocity ranges from approximately 16 feet per year (0.045 feet per day) to 35 feet per year (0.095 feet per day).

3.3 Meteorology Wyandotte County is located in a humid continental climate region characterized by warm to hot summers, cold winters, and moderate surface winds. Over a period of 24 years, the mean annual precipitation in Kansas City, Missouri, has been approximately 37 inches. Precipitation occurs as both rainfall and snowfall, depending on the season.

~ ) [N0718lt.l I ISM'I

SECTION 4

Investigation Activities Since 1994, UCC has completed numerous onsite and offsite subsurface investigations to assess the nature and extent of TCE and its degradation products in soil and groundwater. The investigations have provided a thorough understanding of the horizontal and vertical extent of Site-related VOC-impacted soil and groundwater. Investigation activities have included soil and groundwater grab sample collection from DPT soil borings, membrane interface probe (MIP) technology surveys, and monitoring wel l installation and sampling. In some cases, a combination of the activities has been implemented as part of an investigation.

The following were the major investigation activities completed between 1994 and 2004:

• 1994, 1996, and 1997-lnitial onsite investigations completed following the PCB soil removal action to delineate the extent of TCE in groundwater (Unison 1997)

• 1998-Plume delineation study completed to further assess the extent of TCE in onsite and offsite groundwater (UCC 1999)

• 2002-0ffsite groundwater investigation along Fiberglass Road (Key Environmental 2002)

• 2003-0ffsite groundwater investigation on Gardner Asphalt Corporation property, east of Fiberglass Road (Key Environmental 2004)

The following is a summary of more recent investigation activities completed by CH2M between 2005 and 2015:

• Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring-Pursuant to the Consent Order (COA 97-E-0036) between UCC and KDHE, quarterly monitoring ofVOCs in groundwater has been conducted in onsite and offsite monitoring wells since 1997. The monitoring well network has been modified during this time period based on evaluation of the groundwater data. Currently, 6 onsite wells and 15 offsite wells are sampled quarterly (21 wells total). In the second quarter each year, an additional 10 onsite wells and 8 offsite wells are sampled (39 wells total). The groundwater monitoring results are provided to KDHE in the form of quarterly Site status reports.

• Site Characterization-In 2005, a Site characterization investigation was completed onsite and on the Central Solutions Property (3130 Brinkerhoff Road) located directly north of the property. This investigation included a MIP survey and soil and groundwater confirmation sampling.

The investigation was conducted to refine the conceptual site model and, as needed, optimize an onsite interim remedy that had been constructed in 2004 and in operation since early 2005. The onsite interim remedy consisted of soil vapor extraction and co-metabolite amended air sparging (AS) . Figure 4-1 presents the layout of the onsite interim remedy. The CAS will present further details associated with the onsite interim remedy. Results of this investigation were provided to KDHE in the site characterization report (CH2M 2006).

• Offsite Interim Measures Evaluation Study-In 2007, an offsite investigation was completed on several properties to refine the conceptual site model and support development of an offsite remedial approach. Offsite properties on which investigation activities were completed included the following: Fagan Company (3125 Brinkerhoff Road), Neff Packaging Systems (355 Sunshine Road), Arbor Woods (3150 Dodge Road), National Fire Suppression (501 Sunshine Road), Forbo Adhesives (vacant lot), and Wallis Lubricants (445 Sunshine Road). The businesses listed were the property owners at the time of the investigation.

This investigation included a MIP survey and soil and groundwater confirmation sampling. In addition, pneumatic slug tests were completed in seven offsite monitoring wells to estimate

EN07J8 1 6Jll'>M~F

CllMPREHEW>IVl INVl'>l C1Al ON Rll'C'kl

hydrogeologic properties of the aquifer. Results of this investigation are provided in the Offsite

Interim Measures Evaluation Study Report (CH2M 2008a). The results were used as a basis for the design of an offsite interim measure implemented in 2009 to reduce TCE and cis-1,2-DCE concentrations within the offsite plume core delineated as part of the study. The offsite interim remedy consisted of co-metabolite amended biosparging. Figure 4-2 presents the location and layout of the offsite interim remedy. The CAS will present further details associated with the offsite

interim remedy.

• Soil Vapor Investigation-In August 2008, an investigation was completed onsite and offsite to derive onsite-specific groundwater and soil gas screening levels protective of indoor air. Groundwater grab, soil gas (shallow and deep). subslab soil gas, and indoor air samples were collected . The groundwater screening levels were developed using the Johnson and Ettinger (1991) Models (J&E Models; groundwater and soil gas, USEPA 2004) . Results of this investigation and onsite-specific action levels calculated can be found in the technical memorandum Development of Groundwater and Soil Gas Screening Levels Protective of Indoor Air (CH2M 2008b) .

• Upgradient Plume Assessment-In May 2011 and September 2012, soil and groundwater grab samples were collected upgradient on the UPRR property. The purpose of the investigation was to determine whether there was an upgradient source contributing to recalcitrant TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride concentrations observed in several onsite monitoring wells, including PZ-03, MW-06, MW-08, and MW-09. The results of the upgradient investigations are presented in the Second Quarter 2011 Monitoring Report (CH2M 2011) and Third Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report (CH2M 2013a).

The data were also used in conjunction with the quarterly groundwater monitoring data to support evaluation and implementation of an in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) interim remedy upgradient of the property and select areas onsite . Figure 4-3 presents the locations in which the ISCO interim remedy was implemented onsite. The CAS for the Unison Site will present further details associated

with the ISCO interim remedy.

• Downgradient Plume Assessment- In June 2012, May 2013, September 2013, and August 2016, groundwater investigation activities were completed to delineate the leading edge of the cis-1,2-DCE groundwater plume downgradient of the quarterly groundwater monitoring well network. Groundwater grab samples were collected at the following offsite properties: Batliner Paper Stock Company (305 Sunshine Road). Reinjes and Hilter Co. (101 Sunshine Road). and A&E Custom Manufacturing (3150 Chrysler Road), and General Motors (3201 Fairfax Trafficway). Additionally, borings were advanced within the right-of-way located on the west side of Fiberglass Road adjacent to 401 Kindleberger Road and on the east side of the Fairfax Trafficway (immediately adjacent to the General Motors property). The results of the 2012 and 2013 investigations are presented in the Second Quarter 2012 Monitoring Report (CH2M 2012), Second Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report (CH2M 2013b), and the September 2013 Downgradient Groundwater Plume Assessment Technical Memorandum (CH2M 2013c). The results of the 2016 investigation were presented to KDHE during a conference call in August 2016 and was documented in a technical memorandum submittal to KDHE in First Quarter 2017.

• Onsite Investigation-In August 2015 and August 2016, additional onsite investigation activities were conducted to evaluate whether residual mass adsorbed to soil was contributing to the persistent detections ofTCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride observed in monitoring wells on the western edge of the property (particularly the MW-08, MW-09, and SV-89 areas). Soil, groundwater grab, and groundwater monitoring well samples were collected as part of this investigation. The results from the 2015 investigation were first presented to KDHE during a September 2015 meeting. The results from both the August 2015 and 2016 investigations was documented in a technical memorandum

submittal to KDHE in First Quarter 2017. The soil data have been presented in the Cl.

SECTION 5

Nature and Extent of Contamination The nature and extent of contamination are reflective of current conditions following implementation of onsite and offsite interim remedies. Further details associated with the interim remedies will be presented in the CAS Report.

5.1 Soil The following subsections present an understanding of residual PCBs, TCE, and degradation products currently present in onsite soil.

5.1.1 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Soil confirmation samples were collected in 1993 following removal of the concrete and upper 2 feet of soil within the warehouse (see Section 2.2.1). PCBs detected in the confirmation samples collected at 2 feet bgs from sampling zones EUl through EU4 were below the USEPA cleanup criterion of 10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (Figure 5-1; Unison 1993).

Soil confirmation samples were also collected in 1994 as part of the PCB soil removal action that focused on deeper soil in the northwest corner of the warehouse (see Figure 5-1 and Section 2.2.1). To preserve the physical and structural integrity of the west building wall, soil was excavated in "cells," down to a final depth of 13 feet below the building footer. The excavation was terminated at this depth because flowing sands were encountered and posed a risk of destabilizing the excavation, building wall, and adjoining railroad lines. As a result, some PCB-contaminated soil (greater than 10 mg/kg) was left in place within the lower portions (nominally 19 feet bgs) of the excavation (Unison 1997). Sample locations within the deeper excavation cells were not surveyed therefore locations are not presented on the figure.

5.1.2 Trichloroethene and Degradation Products Some PCB-contaminated soil was left in place within the lower portion of the excavation in the northwest corner of the warehouse for safety reasons as noted above. The soil left in place also contained TCE at concentrations below the cleanup criterion of 60 mg/kg (Unison 1994; Westinghouse Remediation Services, Inc. 1995).

Soil samples were collected as part of the 2005 onsite investigation, 2007 offsite investigation, and 2011 upgradient investigation and submitted for VOC analysis. In 2005, TCE was detected in SB-06 (17.5 to 20.0 feet bgs) and SB-08 (5 .0 to 7.5 feet bgs) at concentrations above the KDHE residential soil to groundwater pathway screening level of 0.0842 mg/kg but below the KDHE residential soil pathway screening level of 5.850 mg/kg (Table 5-1) . The data were collected approximately 1 year after implementing the onsite interim remedy. SB-06 was located on the east side of the building, hydraulically downgradient of the groundwater source area, and the sample was collected from the lower portion of the fine-grained unit (Figure 5-1). SB-08 was located in the east-central portion of the warehouse, and the sample was collected from the fine-grained unit. The presence of TCE in soil at this shallower sample depth is presumably indicative of native material not excavated as part of the 1993 and 1994 PCB soil removal action. In 2011, TCE was detected at the residential soil to groundwater pathway screening level at SB-36 (10.0 feet bgs) (Table 5-1). SB-36 was located on the UPRR property approximately 12 feet west of the northwest corner of the warehouse where the 1993 and 1994 PCB soil removal action had been implemented inside the building, and the soil sample was collected from the mid- to lower portion of the fine-grained unit (Figure 5-1).

l:N0718lblllt;Mf [ S I

' OMF'REHEN~IVf INVl~ Ti(1A TION Rf POK

Since cessation of the onsite interim remediation measures in 2014, TCE has been detected in soil at two

soil boring locations at concentrations above the KDHE residential soil to groundwater pathway screening level of 0.0842 mg/kg but below the KDHE residential soil pathway screening level of

5.850 mg/kg (Table 5-1) . The first boring was located approximately 6 feet north of the northwest corner of the warehouse, and TCE was detected at 0.0975 mg/kg at approximately 16.5 feet bgs (Figure 5-1). The second boring was located approximately 9 feet south of the historical excavation area close to the west wall of the warehouse. TCE was detected in this second boring at concentrations of 0.806 mg/kg at approximately 6.0 feet bgs and 3.920 mg/kg at approximately 16.7 feet bgs. Cis-1,2-DCE was detected in soil at a boring located approximately 3 feet north of the northwest corner of the warehouse at a concentration of 7.050 mg/kg at 17.0 feet bgs (Table 5-1; Figure 5-1). The cis-1,2-DCE concentration is greater than the KDHE residential soil-to-groundwater pathway screening level of

0.855 mg/kg but below the KDHE residential soil pathway screening level of 23 .0 mg/kg.

TCE and cis-1,2-DCE have been detected in soil samples collected at other depths below the referenced soil screening levels. The highest TCE and cis-1,2-DCE concentrations have mainly been detected in the lower portion of the fine-grained unit, beneath the western portion of the warehouse and within the vicinity of the 1993 and 1994 PCB soil removal action . Vinyl chloride and trans-1,2 -DCE have not been detected in unsaturated soil samples. The data indicate that there is currently not a widespread soil source contributing to TCE and daughter product concentrations in groundwater. The interface between the overlying fine-grained unit and underlying sand aquifer acts as a smear zone as the water table rises and drops across this zone. TCE and cis-1,2-DCE will likely continue to slowly back diffuse into groundwater from soil within these isolated areas of residual concentrations as the water table rises and drops. The smear zone is not present offsite where the groundwater plume deepens. At this point, clean groundwater overlies the deeper TCE and cis-1,2-DCE concentrations in groundwater, and contact between TCE and cis-1,2-DCE in groundwater and overlying unsaturated soil does not occur.

5.2 Groundwater This section presents the extent of TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride in groundwater at the time of the June 2016 quarterly groundwater monitoring event. Table 5-2 and Figure 5-2 summarize TCE and degradation products detected in groundwater sampled from onsite monitoring wells in June 2016. Table 5-3 and Figure 5-3 summarize TCE and degradation products detected in groundwater from offsite monitoring wells in June 2016.

Figures 5-4 through 5-7 present the estimates of the horizontal and vertical extent of the TCE and cis-1,2-DCE groundwater plumes, respectively, based on June 2016 data. The figures were generated using Mining Visualization System (MVS) software (by CTech Corporation) primarily using TCE and cis-1,2-DCE groundwater concentrations from the June 2016 sampling event. Groundwater grab data from the 1998 plume delineation study and the 2011 and 2012 investigation work along the UPRR tracks were used to bound the upgradient edges of the plume. Groundwater grab data from September 2007 were used to bound the fringes of the plume where TCE and cis-1,2-DCE concentrations were either nondetect or below their respective KDHE Risk-based Standards for Kansas (RSK) values. Groundwater grab data from the May 2013 sampling along Chrysler Road and September 2013 and August 2016 sampling along Fairfax Trafficway were added to provide further definition of the plume hydraulically downgradient of Fiberglass Road . The figures also present data along horizontal and vertical slice planes that intercept the areas of highest concentration within the groundwater plume. Portions of the plume within the slice plane are represented by the bolder colors, and portions of the plume outside the slice plane are represented by a translucent color. TCE concentrations northwest of the Unison property are not accurately depicted on Figure 3-3 . The MVS software does not accurately generate the edges of the plume in this area due to the low data density west of the UPRR property and north and west of PZ-02

and MW-10

c 2 [Nil/ JlsH>I JI ~l\1H

~ECTION S NAfURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

Figure 5-8 presents the changes of the center of total voe mass estimated for the groundwater plume between 2004 and 2015. Data from 2016 were not included because only two quarterly groundwater sampling events have been completed at the time of this report's publication. The center of mass was calculated using the average total VOC data for 30 of the monitoring wells sampled quarterly. Using the Thiessen polygon method, annual average concentrations were used to estimate the total VOC mass within each plume volume as defined by the polygons and the underlying aquifer depths where contamination was encountered. These individual mass calculations were summed to estimate the total plume VOC mass. Four groundwater profile borings were used to define the vertical stratification and downgradient plume limits hydraulically downgradient of the monitoring well network.

Due to changes in the monitoring well network and variable frequency of monitoring results at each well over time, proxy (i.e., substitute) values were assigned using the prior sampling event results to those wells with missing concentration data for a given year. This was required to provide continuity of the mass estimated. If a monitoring well was not sampled, then the actual concentration in that well at the time of the sampling event is unknown. Therefore, the use of proxy values may overestimate or underestimate mass values because the changes in chemical of concern levels are not accounted for when an older concentration value is used. Approximately 8 percent of the monitoring well VOC data were proxy values. Because of the large volume of actual results used compared to the relativity few proxy values used, this is not expected to effect a large bias in the results.

5.2.1 On site Significant reduction in onsite voe plume mass has occurred because of interim remedies measures completed . Since 2004, when interim remedies were implemented onsite to reduce VOC concentrations in groundwater, TCE and cis-1,2-DCE concentrations have decreased in onsite monitoring wells. TCE concentrations have significantly decreased from a maximum concentration of 7.51 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (MW-06) to less than 0.005 mg/L (MW-07, PZ-01, and SV-93). Cis-1,2-DCE concentrations also decreased from a maximum concentration of 15 mg/L (MW-06) to less than 0.005 mg/L (MW-10, PZ-02, and SV-90). Residual portions of the onsite TCE and cis-1,2-DCE groundwater plumes are likely being sourced from isolated pockets of mass adsorbed to low-permeability soil beneath the western portion of the warehouse inaccessible to the 1993 and 1994 PCB soil removal action and interim remedies. TCE and cis-1,2-DCE concentrations generally decrease in onsite monitoring wells located hydraulically downgradient, suggesting that the residual source is not large enough to support a continuous source resulting in significant impact to downgradient groundwater. Vertically, the TCE and cis-1,2-DCE plumes extend from near the top of the saturated zone (approximately 20 feet bgs) to a maximum depth of approximately 50 feet bgs. As shown in Figures 5-4 through 5-7, the onsite TCE and cis-1,2-DCE plumes are no longer significantly contributing to the offsite portion of the groundwater plume.

Vinyl chloride and trans-1,2-DCE are detected less frequently in onsite monitoring wells. When detected, vinyl chloride has more often been observed in deeper onsite monitoring wells (screened approximately 40 to 50 feet bgs).

5.2.2 Off site The offsite TCE plume is located hydraulically downgradient (east to northeast) of where the offsite interim remedy has been implemented (see Section 3.0). Residual TCE concentrations have generally been detected in the upper portion of the aquifer near the eastern and southeastern boundaries of the offsite remedy target treatment zone. The TCE plume deepens and significantly dissipates as it migrates in the downgradient direction between Dodge and Fiberglass roads. TCE has not been detected at depth hydraulically downgradient of Fiberglass Road . Figures 5-4 and 5-5 show evidence of shallow TCE plumes along and hydraulically downgradient of Fiberglass Road that are not associated with the Unison TCE plume based on their vertical position in the aquifer in relation to the deeper groundwater plume

EN081 ~151056Mrr

COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION REPORT

associated with the Site. A shallow TCE plume is known to originate within the vicinity of 3155 and 3151 Fiberglass Road; however, the full nature and extent of this plume is still being investigated by others.

The offsite cis-1,2-DCE plume has a much larger footprint than the TCE plume. The cis-1,2-DCE plume

extends hydraulically downgradient (east to northeast) from Brinkerhoff Road towards Fiberglass Road. The plume is relatively flat within the upper portion of the aquifer between Brinkerhoff and Dodge roads, and then the plume begins to deepen within the aquifer east of Dodge Road. Clean shallow groundwater is located on top of the cis-1,2-DCE plume between Dodge and Fiberglass roads. In the Fiberglass Road area, an isolated shallow downgradient cis-1,2-DCE plume appears to comingle with the Unison cis 1,2-DCE plume. Figure 5-7 shows evidence of the cis-1,2-DCE plume becoming shallower east of Fiberglass Road. The shallow cis-1,2-DCE plume is most likely attributed to the anaerobic biodegradation of the shallow TCE source (not related to the Unison Site) detected in the area.

Trans-1,2-DCE is not frequently detected offsite . Vinyl chloride is more frequently detected along the downgradient portion of the plume east of Fiberglass Road rather than to the west. Vinyl chloride has been detected in the deeper well of clustered well pairs west of Fiberglass Road. The presence of vinyl chloride suggests that anaerobic biodegradation is a predominant degradation pathway in the deeper portions of the aquifer.

~N07!816111SMKE

SECTION 6

Human Health Risk Assessment 6.1 Conceptual Site Model The conceptual site model (CSM) relates potentially exposed receptors with contaminated media based on physical site characteristics and completed exposure pathways. Important components of the CSM are identifying potential source areas, transport pathways, exposure media, exposure pathways and routes, and receptor groups. Actual or potential exposures of receptors associated with a site are determined by identifying the most likely and relevant pathways of contaminant release and transport. A complete exposure pathway has the following three components: (1) a source of constituents that results in a release to the environment, (2) a pathway of constituent transport through an environmental medium, and (3) an exposure or contact point for a receptor. The main objective of the CSM is to identify any complete and critical exposure pathways that may be present at the site . Key components of the CSM are discussed in the following subsections.

6.1.1 Source Area As discussed in Section 2, the former facility had been used for decontamination and reclamation of electrical transformers that had fluids containing PCBs. TCE was used as a cleaning solvent as part of the transformer-cleaning process. It is believed that the PCBs and TCE migrated into the underlying soil via seams in the concrete floor of the warehouse. At the water table, the TCE solvent dispersed into the shallow portion of the aquifer.

6.1.2 Transport Pathways and Exposure Media A transport pathway describes the mechanisms whereby site-related constituents, once released, might be transported from a source to media (soil, sediment, and surface water), where exposures might occur to human receptors.

The dissolved TCE plume in the shallow portion of the aquifer migrated downgradient of the source area in the direction of groundwater flow forming a plume that currently extends offsite. The plume is composed of TCE and the degradation products cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride. PCBs sorb strongly to soil particles and, therefore, cannot be transported in groundwater unless TCE is present at concentrations near the solubility limit (UNISON 1994). TCE concentrations are currently well below solubility limits at the Site.

Overall groundwater flow is to the east, but the flow exhibits northeast and southeast patterns in some areas downgradient of the Unison property. The current flow rate and size of the TCE plume discussed in Section 3 suggests that TCE discharge to the Missouri River is not considered a complete pathway.

Because the primary release was to soil beneath the building, runoff, erosion, and vapor dust are not considered transport pathways.

6.1.3 Exposure Pathways and Routes An exposure pathway links a source with one or more receptors by one or more media and exposure routes. Exposure, and thus potential adverse effects, can occur only if a complete exposure pathway exists. Exposure pathways have been evaluated for both soil and groundwater and are further discussed in the following sections.

EN0718lbl llSMt.f 61

OMPF<EHU,)IVE INVf ~ TIGA TION Rl PORT

6.2 Soil Based on discussions with KDHE and USE PA in August 2013, it was determined that a qualitative human health risk assessment could be completed for the PCBs left in place in soil. Therefore, a site-specific quantitative risk assessment for soil has not been completed as part of this Cl.

Starting in December 1992, PCB-contaminated metal from various equipment and ductwork within the warehouse was removed and landfilled, and the interior walls were sandblasted. PCB-contaminated

concrete from the floor within the warehouse and the underlying 2 feet of soil were excavated and landfilled at a TSCA-permitted facility. Upon approval from USEPA, Unison replaced the excavated soil with approximately 2 feet of clean soil fill. Approximately 2,220 tons of PCB-contaminated soil and asphalt from the parking lot areas were also excavated and landfilled offsite.

An approximate 50-by-10-foot area along the west wall (northwest corner) of the warehouse was determined to be contaminated with PCBs and TCE. Soil sampling indicated the presence of contamination to 10 feet below the building footer. To preserve the physical and structural integrity of the building wall , soil was excavated in "cells," down to a final depth of 13 feet below the building footer and landfilled off site. To avoid failure of walls and undermining the structural integrity of the building footer and adjacent rail lines, excavation activities did not progress deeper. As a result, some PCB­contaminated soil remains in place approximately 13 feet below the building footer (19 feet bgs) that exceeds the PCB criteria of less than 10 mg/kg - 95% UCL. Analytical testing conducted in March 1994 determined TCE concentrations in soil were below the TCE criteria of less than 60 mg/kg - 95% UCL (UCC 1997).

UCC documented in Response to KDHE Technical Review Comments on the Request to Shut Down Onsite SVE Operations (CH2M 2008) that existing TCE concentrations in vadose zone soil are below KDHE Risk-Based Standards for the soil to groundwater pathway. Additionally, indoor air sampling conducted in August 2008, indicated that the TCE concentrations are more than one order-of-magnitude below KDHE's Tier 2 Risk-Based Indoor Air Values (CH2M 2008). Therefore, TCE was excluded from subsequent discussion of human health risks in soil and, in particular, from within the building footprint .

Excavations were backfilled with clean fine-grained soils. The deepest part of the fill is located along the western wall of the warehouse within the SO-foot by-10-foot area and extends to approximately 19 feet bgs. The remainder of the excavation was sloped upwards from west to east to facilitate access to the excavation area; therefore, the thickness of the clay fill decreases from west to east inside the warehouse.

6.2.1 Contaminant Characterization A summary of the PCB data used in the qualitative risk assessment is provided in Table 6-1. The data set includes soil confirmation samples collected in 1993 following completion of shallow excavation activities. The samples were collected from approximately 2 feet bgs.

Based on comparison of the maximum detected concentration in surface soil (7 .9 mg/kg) at 2 feet bgs to the TSCA criterion (between 1 and less than or equal to 10 mg/kg with a cap) for high-occupancy areas (i.e., areas where occupancy will exceed an average of 6.7 hours per week), PCBs were not identified as a chemical of potential concern for soil under current site conditions.

6.2.2 Toxicity Assessment Some chemicals elicit both systemic (noncarcinogenic) toxic effects and cancer (carcinogenic) effects. The noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicity information for PCBs is provided in Table 6-2.

Carcinogenic effects are quantified by comparing intake or exposure to cancer slope factors (CSFs) or inhalation unit risks (IURs). The CSF and IUR are defined as a plausible upper-bound estimate of the probability of developing cancer per unit intake of a constituent over a lifetime (USEPA 1989).

h2.

SEC. flON 6· HUMAN HEAL TH RISr. ASSESSMENT

In general, CSFs and IURs can be derived from the results of chronic animal bioassays, human epidemiological studies, or both.

Noncarcinogenic effects are quantified by comparing intake or exposure to either reference doses (RfDs) or reference concentrations (RfCs) . The RfD is a health-based dose, expressed as constituent intake rate in units of milligrams per ki logram per day (mg/kg-day), used in evaluating noncarcinogenic effects. The RfD is based on the assumption that thresholds exist for certain toxic effects such as liver or kidney damage but may not exist for other toxic effects such as carcinogenicity. In general, the RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime of exposure (USEPA 1989).

6.2.3 Exposure Assessment A human health CSM presents potential exposure media (in this instance, soil), exposure points, receptors, and exposure routes, and is included in Table 6-3.

6.2.3.1 Land Use and Zoni ng

The property consists of a 14,000-square-foot warehouse building, a paved parking and loading area to the east, and an aggregate-covered area to the north (Figure 2-1). The property is enclosed by a gated chain-link fence. Other than ongoing groundwater monitoring, there are no active operations at the former facility.

The property is located in the Fairfax District of Kansas City, Kansas, an area that is zoned as Heavy Industrial and surrounded by industrial facilities. There are no residential areas within this Fairfax District. Land use the Fairfax District is not likely to change in the future. The nearest residential areas are located approximately one-half mile to the south and west (hydraulically upgradient) beyond the railroad tracks.

6.2.3.2 Potentially Exposed Populat ions

For current land uses, no onsite receptors were identified because the former facility is not in use. The trespasser scenario was not considered a significant pathway for current land use because the property is completely fenced, secured, and routinely inspected.

For future land use, onsite industrial workers, trespassers, and construction workers could be exposed to PCBs in soil 2 feet bgs or deeper if the concrete warehouse floor and underlying clean fill are removed. Exposures could be through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of particulate emissions from soil.

6.2.4 Qualitative Risk Characterization The following bulleted list provides a qualitative evaluation of current and future risks at onsite and offsite exposure points.

• Current-Due to the lack of onsite receptors, there are no current onsite soil exposure points. There are no current offsite exposure points.

• Future-If the property is redeveloped for industrial use, there is the remote potential fo r onsite receptors to contact PCBs in soil beneath the concrete floor and underlying clean fill (2 feet bgs) if the PCB-impacted soil is exposed. Based on the TSCA self-implementing criterion in defined high­occupancy areas, PCBs may remain between 1 and less than or equal to 10 mg/kg with a cap in place. TSCA regulation Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 761.61(a)7 defines a cap as being a minimum 6 inches of asphalt, concrete, or similar material, or 10 inches of compacted soil. The warehouse currently has an approximate 2-foot compacted soil cap in place over the PCB-

G· 3

COMrRE:HENSIVE INWSTIGATION REPORT

impacted soil, and the concrete floor will be replaced as part of future building restoration activities. As long as the cap remains in place, the criterion is met. There are no future offsite exposure points.

6.2.5 Conclusions Due to the lack of onsite receptors, there are no current onsite soil exposure points. There are no current

offsite exposure points. If t he property is developed in the future and PCB-impacted soils are exposed, then the potential risks will exceed the TSCA self-implementing criteria for defined high-occupancy areas, which is that PCBs may remain between 1 and less than or equal to 10 mg/kg with a cap.

To ensure that future potential human receptors do not have exposure to PCB-impacted soil and the cap

remains in place, UCC will fully restore the concrete floor within the warehouse. This includes repairs to the existing concrete floor where penetrations have been made as part of the ongoing soil and groundwater voe investigation and remediation activities. UCC will also be working with KDHE to implement a deed restriction for VOCs in groundwater and will include restrictions to prevent future tenants from disturbing the concrete flooring inside the warehouse without KDHE approval.

6.3 Groundwater A site-specific quantitative risk assessment was not performed for groundwater as part of this report since the Site is being remediated using state and federal cleanup criteria and levels established by KDHE.

The Tier 2 RSK manual (KDHE 2010) is being used to establish the groundwater cleanup goals. The groundwater cleanup goals presented in the Tier 2 Risk-Based Summary Table presented in Appendix A of the RSK manual are derived with the assumption that the aquifer is a source of potable water. For those chemicals with available maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the Tier 2 groundwater cleanup goals for both residential and non-residential land use scenarios are the MCLs. For all other chemicals addressed in the RSK manual, the groundwater cleanup goals are risk-based levels.

To confirm that the groundwater cleanup goals are protective of potential groundwater exposure pathways at the Site, a receptor exposure pathway ana lysis was prepared for onsite and offsite groundwater associated with the Site . The pathway analysis includes a review of potential groundwater exposure points, receptors, and exposure routes to identify potential exposure scenarios for the Site .

6.3.1 Background Summaries of the Site-specific geology and hydrogeology are provided in Sections 2.3 and 2.4, respectively. The TCE groundwater plume originated beneath the western portion of the warehouse building where degreasing and chemical storage equipment were formerly located. Based on historical records, it is assumed that the releases of TCE occurred in the early 1980s when EIES operated the facility . The TCE would have migrated downward through gaps between the concrete slab and exterior wall or expansion joints in the slab. Any TCE released along the wall would have migrated vertically downward along the building footing, through the vadose zone, and into the sand aquifer beneath the property. TCE and its degradation products subsequently migrated beneath offsite properties located hydraulically downgradient (east) via groundwater advection (CH2M 2006) .

6.3.2 Contaminant Characterization Results of the June 2016 groundwater sampling event are summarized in Table 6-4. Based on comparison of maximum detected concentrations to the RSK Tier 2 Groundwater Cleanup Goals, the contaminants of concern in groundwater are cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride .

b 4 INU/l8lblJlSMn

SECT ON 6-HUMAN HEAL TH RISY ASSl SSM£ NI

6.3.3 Toxicity Assessment Some of the chemicals of concern elicit both systemic (noncarcinogenic) toxic effects and cancer (carcinogenic) effects. The noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicity information for each contaminant of concern specified in Section 6.2.2 is provided in Table 6-2 .

Carcinogenic effects are quantified by comparing intake or exposure to CSFs or IURs. The CSF and IUR is defined as a plausible upper-bound estimate of the probability of developing cancer per unit intake of a constituent over a lifetime {USE PA 1989). In general, CSFs and IURs can be derived from the results of chronic animal bioassays, human epidemiological studies, or both.

Noncarcinogenic effects are quantified by comparing intake or exposure to either reference dose (RfDs) or reference concentrations. The RfD is a health-based dose, expressed as constituent intake rate in units of mg/kg-day, used in evaluating noncarcinogenic effects. The RfD is based on the assumption that thresholds exist for certain toxic effects such as liver or kidney damage, but may not exist for other toxic effects such as carcinogenicity. In general, the RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime of exposure (US EPA 1989).

6.3.4 Exposure Assessment A human health CSM presents potential exposure media (in this instance groundwater), exposure points, receptors, and exposure routes, and is included in Table 6-5.

6.3.4.1 Land Use and Zoni ng

The property is located in the Fairfax Industrial District of Kansas City, Kansas. The Fairfax District is zoned as heavy industrial. The land use is not likely to change in the future . UPRR owns property immediately west of the property that contains an inactive siding and two sets of active rail lines. The nearest residential areas are located approximately 0.5 mile to the south and west beyond the railroad tracks and upslope of the property.

The property is a 0.7-acre parcel, covered mainly by a 14,000-square-foot warehouse building with an attached two-story office area. The remainder of the property consists of a paved parking and loading area to the east and an aggregate-covered area to the north. The property is enclosed by a gated chain­link fence. To the south, the warehouse shares the same structure with a segregated warehouse. Other than ongoing groundwater monitoring, there are no active operations at the former facility .

6.3.4.2 Groundwater Use

Groundwater in the Fairfax Drainage District is not used for potable or municipal purposes. The industrial area is bounded by the Missouri River to the north and east and the uplands to the west and south. The direction of groundwater flow is generally to the east and northeast towards the river.

6.3.4.3 Potential ly Exposed Populations

For current land use, no onsite receptors were identified because the former facility is not in active use. However, industrial workers (i.e., at adjacent or downgradient businesses) were identified as potential current offsite receptors for indoor air (impacted by volatile chemicals in groundwater). No existing potable wells were identified in the study area.

For future land uses, onsite and offsite industrial worke rs were identified as potential future receptors for groundwater and indoor air (impacted by volatile chemicals in groundwater). It was assumed that potable wells could be installed onsite or offsite in the future.

f N08 I '.\l r, l056M Y,E

COMPRtH[NSIVt INVfSTIGAllON RlPOkT

6.3.4.4 Potential Exposure Pathways

For current land use, offsite industrial workers could be exposed to voes through inhalation of vapors that migrate from groundwater into indoor air. This pathway is potentially complete where the plume is at the top of the saturated zone (e.g., TCE and cis-1,2-DCE plume west of Dodge Road), and it is not complete where the plume is covered by clean groundwater (e.g., cis-1,2-DCE plume east of Dodge Road).

For future land uses, onsite and offsite industrial workers could be exposed to VOCs through inhalation of vapors that migrate from groundwater into indoor air. As previously stated, this scenario is more viable where the plume is at the top of the saturated zone and not covered by clean groundwater (e.g., cis-1,2-DCE plume east of Dodge Road). Additionally, onsite and offsite industrial workers could be exposed to

voes through ingestion and dermal contact of chemicals in groundwater through potable use.

6.3.5 Qualitative Risk Characterization The following bulleted list provides a qualitative evaluation of current and future risks at onsite and

offsite exposure points:

• Current-Due to the lack of current onsite receptors, there are no current onsite groundwater exposures. There are no current offsite groundwater users in the industrial area, and groundwater generally flows east and northeast to the river at the boundary of this industrial area .

• Future-If groundwater is used as a potable source in the future, then potential risks will exceed acceptable levels until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved.

The groundwater cleanup goals for the three chemicals of concern are based on MCLs for potable use. As indicated in the Kansas Vapor Intrusion Guidance (KDHE 2007), KDHE does not use generic groundwater screening values to evaluate health risks from the vapor intrusion (VI) pathway. In August 2008, an investigation was completed onsite and offsite to derive site-specific groundwater and soil gas screening levels protective of indoor air. Groundwater screening levels were developed using the Johnson and Ettinger (1991) Models (J&E Models; groundwater and soil gas) (USE PA 2004) and presented to KDHE in a technical memorandum submitted in January 2009 (CH2M 2009). An indoor air protectiveness threshold value of 0.77 mg/L was developed for TCE, and a threshold value of 3,500 mg/L was developed for cis-1,2-DCE. KDHE submitted an approval response letter in March 2009 contingent on UCC having a plan in place should TCE and cis-1,2-DCE concentrations were detected above these threshold values in onsite groundwater. A contingency plan to restart the onsite interim SVE remediation system was developed if this scenario occurred.

Therefore, the Tier 2 RSK groundwater cleanup goals are adequately protective for the VI pathway.

6.3.6 Conclusions A site-specific quantitative risk assessment was not prepared for groundwater since the Tier 2 RSKs for Kansas (KDHE 2010) are being used as the cleanup goals for groundwater based on the assumption of a future potable use scenario. The contaminants of concern in groundwater include cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, and

vinyl chloride. Due to the lack of current onsite receptors, there are no current onsite groundwater exposures. There are no current offsite groundwater users within 4 miles of the Site. If groundwater is used as a potable source in the future, then potential risks will exceed acceptable levels until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved.

As indicated in the Kansas Vapor Intrusion Guidance (KDHE 2007), KDHE does not use generic groundwater screening values to evaluate health risks from the VI pathway. Groundwater cleanup goals based on

potable use are expected to be adequately protective for the VI pathway.

b I>

SECTION 7

Ecological Risk Assessment The ecological risk assessment (ERA) was conducted following USEPA guidance (USEPA 1992, 1997, 1998) using a tiered step-wise approach including Scientific Management Decision Points (SM DPs).

SM DPs represent points in the ERA process where agreement on conclusions, actions, or methodologies is needed so that the ERA process can continue (or terminate) in a technically defensible manner. The results of the ERA at a particular SMDP are used to determine how the ERA process should proceed,

for example, to the next step in the process or directly to a later step. The process continues until a final decision has been reached (i.e., remedial action if unacceptable risks are identified, or no further action if risks are acceptable).

The first step was to conduct a screening-level ecological risk assessment (SLERA). The SLERA consists of three key components: (1) problem formulation, (2) analysis, and (3) risk characterization . The problem formulation portion of the ERA involves the following:

• Compiling and reviewing existing information on the ecological setting

• Compiling and reviewing available biological data and habitats

• Developing a CSM that identifies and evaluates potential source areas, transport pathways, fate and transport mechanisms, exposure media, exposure pathways and routes, and receptors

• Developing assessment and measures of effects for complete exposure pathways

The analysis portion of the ERA is divided into two parts: exposure assessment and effects assessment. Also included is an evaluation of the uncertainties associated with the models, assumptions, and methods used in the ERA, and their potential effects on the conclusions of the assessment.

7.1 Screening-Level Problem Formulation This section presents the problem formulation for the Site, which establishes the goals, scope, and focus of the SLERA. It summarizes the ecological setting of the Site in terms of the habitats and biota known or likely to be present and the types of chemicals present in ecologically relevant media. The CSM is presented to provide an understanding of chemical sources, transport pathways, exposure media, exposure pathways and routes, and ecological receptors. Assessment and measurement endpoints will be identified. An assessment endpoint is an explicit expression of the environmental component or

value that is to be protected. A measurement endpoint is a measurable ecological characteristic that is related to the component or value chosen as the assessment endpoint.

7.1.1 Ecological Setting and Habitats The property is located in the Fairfax Industrial District of Kansas City, Kansas. The Fairfax District is zoned

as heavy industrial. The property is mainly composed of a 14,000-square-foot warehouse building with an attached two-story office area. The remainder of the property consists of a paved parking and loading area to the east and aggregate covered area to the north. Because of the heavy industrial nature of the property and its size (i .e., less than 1 acre), there are no ecological habitats expected to support ecological receptors.

No surface water features are found in the proximity of the property. The Missouri River is located approximately 4,000 feet north and 8,000 feet east of the property.

ENOE:l3151056Mf E I I

lOMPRFllFNSl\I[ INVLSTIGAJION RtPORT

7.1.2 Conceptual Site Model The CSM relates potentially exposed receptor populations with potent ia l source areas based upon

physical site characte rist ics and completed exposure pathways. Important components of the CSM are identifying potential source areas, transport pathways, exposure media, exposure pathways and routes,

and receptor groups. Actual or potentia l exposures of ecological receptors associated with a site are determined by identifying the most likely and relevant pathways of contaminant release and transport. A complete exposure pathway has the fo llowing three components: (1) a source of constituents that results in a release to the environment, (2) a pathway of constituent transport through an environmenta l medium, and (3) an exposure or contact point for an ecological receptor. The main objective of the CSM is to identify any complete and critical exposure pathways that may be present at the site . Figure 7-1 illustrates a diagrammatic CSM for the Site. Key components of the CSM are discussed in the following subsections.

7.1.2.1 Source Area

As discussed in Section 2.1, the former facility had been used for decontamination and reclamation of electrical transformers that had fluids containing PCBs. TCE was used as a cleaning solvent as part of the transformer-c leaning process. The primary historical source of TCE in groundwater came from impacted soil beneath the building.

7.1.2.2 Tra nsport Pathways and Exposure M edia

A transport pathway describes the mechanisms whereby site-re lated constituents, once re leased, might be transported from a source to ecologically relevant media (soil, sediment, and surface water), where exposures might occur to ecological receptors.

Multiple potentia l pathways of contaminant migration from the source area are identified in the CSM. The potential transport pathways can contribute to the spread of contamination from the source area. Because the primary release was to soil beneath the building, runoff, erosion, and vapor dust are not considered transport pathways to offsite media.

Overall groundwater flow is to the east, but t he flow exhibit s northeast and southeast patterns in some areas hydraulically downgradient of the property. The current flow rate and size of the TCE plume discussed in Section 3 suggests that TCE discharge to the Missouri River is not considered a complete pathway.

Therefore, groundwater and subsurface soils (i.e., beneath the building) are not potential exposure media for ecological receptors.

7.1.2.3 Exposure Pathways and Rout es

An exposure pathway links a source with one or more receptors by one or more media and exposure routes. Exposure, and thus potential adverse effects, can occur only if a complete exposure pathway exists. Even if a pathway is potentially complete, if the potential for exposure is low due to limited area or habitat, further quantitative evaluation my not be warranted. Figure 7-1 presents an exposure pathway analysis for the Site. Given that the soil contamination is subsurface and below a bui lding, exposure to soil is not considered a complete pathway to ecological receptors onsite. There is no evidence of groundwater discharge to surface water or to surface soils and is not considered a complete pathway.

7.2 Scientific Management Decision Point The information supports a conclusion of no ecological risk for the fo llowing reasons:

• There are no ecological habitats expected to support ecologica l receptors due to the heavy industrial nature of the former facility and its size (i.e., less than 1 acre) .

1] 'Nr7lblld!ISMK[

SECTION 7 ECOLOGICAL RIS~ ASSES'.'>MENT

• No surface water features are found in the proximity of the property.

• A pathway analysis shows that soil contaminated with PCBs is isolated to the subsurface below the building, has not been transported offsite, and therefore is an incomplete pathway for ecological receptors.

• A pathway analysis shows that there is no evidence of groundwater discharge to surface water or to surface soils and therefore is an incomplete pathway for ecological receptors.

EN08J31Sl056Mr l l ~

SECTION 8

Summary 8.1 8.1.1

Human Health Risk Assessment Risk Drivers Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Soil

Due to the lack of onsite receptors, there are no current onsite and offsite soil exposure points. If the property is developed in the future and PCB-impacted soils are exposed by removing the concrete floor within the warehouse and underlying 2 feet of clean fill, the potential risks could become unacceptable, and the TSCA self-implementing criteria for defined high-occupancy areas without further conditions (less than or equal to 1 mg/kg) will be exceeded.

8.1.2 Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater The human health risk assessment concluded that the contaminants of concern in groundwater include TCE and its degradation products cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride . The groundwater cleanup goals for the three contaminants of concern are based on KDHE Tier 2 RSK values:

• TCE - 0.005 mg/L • Cis-1,2-DCE - 0.070 mg/L

• Vinyl chloride - 0.002 mg/L

Due to the lack of current onsite receptors, there are no onsite groundwater exposures. There are currently no offsite groundwater users within 4 miles of the property. However, if groundwater is used as a potable source in the future, potential risks from these contaminants of concern will exceed acceptable levels until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved. The groundwater cleanup goals based on potable use are expected to be adequately protective for the VI pathway.

8.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Risk Drivers The ERA concluded that there are no complete exposure pathways for ecological receptors. Therefore, there are no ecological risk drivers for the Site.

8.3 General Response Actions The following list of general response actions will be evaluated as part of the CAS:

• Soil

No action

Improvements to existing soil cap and Environmental Use Controls Improvements to existing soil cap, replace concrete flooring, and Environmental Use Controls

• Groundwater

No action Monitored Natura l Attenuation, monitoring onsite wells only, and Environmental Use Controls

Monitored Natural Attenuation, Long-term monitoring including onsite and offsite wells, and Environmental Use Control.

The final remedy selected for the Site will include a contingency plan to be implemented if performance monitoring data demonstrate that the remedy is no longer protective of human health and the environment. The CAS will provide further details on the contingency plan.

r N08 I 3 I') JOSl1M~r 8 J

SECTION 9

References CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M). 2006. Site Characterization Report. Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Facility in Kansas City, Kansas. June.

CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M). 2008a. Of/site Interim Measures Evaluation Study Report. June.

CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M). 2008b. Development of Groundwater and Soil Gas Screening Levels Protective of Indoor Air. December.

CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M). 2009. Technical Memorandum: Development of Groundwater and Soil Gas Screening Levels Protective of Indoor Air.

CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M) . 2011. Second Quarter 2011 Monitoring Report. September.

CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M). 2012. Second Quarter 2012 Monitoring Report. September.

CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M) . 2013a. Third Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report. December.

CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M) . 2013b. Second Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report. September.

CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M) . 2013c. September 2013 Downgradient Groundwater Plume Assessment Technical Memorandum. December.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) . 2005. Scope of Work (SOW} for a Comprehensive Investigation (CJ)/Corrective Action Study (CAS}.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) . 2007. Kansas Vapor Intrusion Guidance. Chemical Vapor Intrusion and residential Indoor Air. June.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). 2010. Risk-Based Standards for Kansas, RSK Manual - 5 rh Version. October.

Key Environmental. 2002 . First Quarter 2002 Status Report (1Q02). May.

Key Environmental. 2004. Fourth Quarter 2003 Status Report (4Q03) . February.

Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) . 1997. Comprehensive Investigation/Corrective Action Study (CJ/ CAS} Workplan. December.

Union Carbide Corporation ( UCC). 1999. Plume Delineation Report for the Unison Kansas City, KS Site. February.

Unison Transformer Services, Inc. (Unison). 1 993. Verification Sampling@ Brinkerhoff. Letter to USEPA, Region VII from Unison. April.

Unison Transformer Services, Inc. (Unison). 1994. Baseline Risk Assessment and Groundwater Quality Report. September.

Unison Transformer Services, Inc. (Unison) . 1997. Cl/CAS Workplan for the Unison Site, Kansas City, KS. December.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002. December.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment.

E PA/630/R-92/001.

f N0/ 18lbl I !'>Mn 9 l

C OMPRF IH NSIV[ INVFSTIGATION REPORT

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for

Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final.

EPA/540/R-97 /006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USE PA). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment.

EPA/630/R 95/002F.U .S.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. User's Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor

Intrusion into Buildings. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. February.

Westinghouse Remediation Services, Inc. 1995. Report Building Restoration Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Kansas City, Missouri. Submitted to Union Carbide Corporation, Mark Ligget, 3126

Brinkerhoff Road, Kansas City, Kansas 66115. August 29 .

-l 2 tN07181Cdll'iM~E

-I

Q.)

o-

m

{/')

Table 5-1. Summary of Onsite Soil VOC Data in Unsaturated Soil

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

Non-Residential KDHE

Soil to GW Pathway Analyte

Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.855

Trichloroethene 0.0842

tra ns-1,2-Dich loroethene 1.22

Vinyl Chloride 0.0205

Notes:

Only VOCs reported in this table are TCE and degradation products

Bold indicates that the analyte was detected.

Shading indicates that the analyte was detected at a concentration above the Non-

Residential KDHE Soil to Groundwater Pathway.

• Sample was "I" flagged and re-run at a higher reporting limit, but TCE was not detected

above the higher limit of 707 ppb.

b This is the duplicate result. TCE was detected in the raw sample at 152 ppb.

<= The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported sample

quantitation limit.

J =The analyte was positively identified: the associated numerical va lue is the

approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample.

mg/kg = milligram per kilogram

EN0718161115MKE

SB-01 SB-01 SB-OS SB-06

12/7/2005 12/7/2005 12/7/2005 12/ 21/2005

1.0-3.S 15.0-17.5 18.0-20.0 17.5-20.0

< 0.00605 < 0.00639 < 0.00522 0.032

< 0.00605 < 0.00639 < 0.00522 0.116

< 0.00605 < 0.00639 < 0.00522 < 0.00654

< 0.0121 < 0.0128 < 0.0104 < 0.0131

SB-08 SB-35 SB-35 SB-36 SB-36 SB-37 SB-37

12/8/2005 5/18/2011 5/18/2011 5/18/2011 5/ 18/ 2011 5/ 18/ 2011 5/ 18/ 2011

5.0-7.S 5.0-5.0 10.0-10.0 5.0-5.0 10.0-10.0 5.0-5.0 7.0-7.0

< 0.00532 0.00169 J 0.0075 0.00113J 0.00349 J < 0.00615 < 0.00571

0.152 J 0.0107 0.0309J 0.0138 0.0842 0.00384 J 0.0034 J

< 0.00532 < 0.00609 < 0.00668 < 0.00697 < 0.00674 < 0.00615 < 0.00571

< 0.0106 < 0.0122 < 0.0134 < 0.0139 < 0.0135 < 0.0123 < 0.0114

1of4

Table 5-1. Summary of Onsite Soil VOC Data in Unsaturated Soil

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

Non-Residential KDHE

Soil to GW Pathway Analyte

Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.855

Trichloroethene 0.0842

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.22

Vinyl Chloride 0.0205

Notes:

Only voes reported in this table are TCE and degradation products

Bold indicates that the analyte was detected.

Shading indicates that the analyte was detected at a concentration above the Non-

Residential KDHE Soil to Groundwater Pathway.

• Sample was "I" flagged and re-run at a higher reporting limit, but TCE was not detected

above the higher limit of 707 ppb.

b This is the duplicate result. TCE was detected in the raw sample at 152 ppb.

< =The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported sample

quantitation limit.

J =The analyte was positively identified: the associated numerical value is the

approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample.

mg/kg= milligram per kilogram

EN0718161115MKE

SB-38

5/17/2011

5.0-5.0

< 0.00615

0.00678

< 0.00615

< 0.0123

SB-38 SB-39 SB-39 SB-40

5/17/2011 5/17/2011 5/17/2011 9/27/2012

7.0-7.0 5.0-5.0 10.0-10.0 5.0-5.0

< 0.0057 < 0.00625 < 0.00694 < 0.00648

0.00972 0.00139 J 0.000997 J < 0.00648

< 0.0057 < 0.00625 < 0.00694 < 0.00648

< 0.0114 < 0.0125 < 0.0139 < 0.013

SB-40 SB-41 SB-41 SB-42 SB-42 SB-43 SB-43

9/27/2012 9/26/2012 9/26/2012 9/26/2012 9/26/2012 9/26/2012 9/26/2012

16.0-16.0 10.0-10.0 17.0-17.0 5.0-5.0 17.0-17.0 5.0-5.0 17.0-17.0

< 0.00691 < 0.00563 < 0.00683 < 0.0072 0.000994J 0.00135 J 0.005 J

< 0.00691 0.000768J 0.0127 0.00705 J < 0.0064 0.00107 J < 0.00562

< 0.00691 < O.OOS63 < 0.00683 < 0.0072 < 0.0064 < 0.00652 < 0.00562

< 0.0138 < 0.0113 < 0.0137 < 0.0144 < 0.0128 < 0.013 < 0.0112

2 of 4

Table 5-1. Summary of Onsite Soil VOC Data in Unsaturated Soil

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

Non-Residential KDHE

Soil to GW Pathway Analyte

Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/ kg)

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.855

Trichloroethene 0.0842

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.22

Vinyl Chloride 0.0205

Notes:

Only VOCs reported in this table are TCE and degradation products

Bold indicates that the analyte was detected.

Shading indicates that the analyte was detected at a concentration above the Non­

Residential KDHE Soil to Groundwater Pathway.

• Sample was "I" flagged and re-run at a higher reporting limit , but TCE was not detected

above the higher limit of 707 ppb.

b This is t he duplicate result. TCE was detected in the raw sample at 152 ppb.

< =The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported sample

quantitation limit.

J =The ana lyte was positively identified: the associated numerical value is the

approximate concentrat ion of the analyte in t he sample.

mg/kg= milligram per kilogram

EN0718161115MKE

SB-44 SB-44 SB-45 SB-45

9/26/2012 9/26/2012 9/27/2012 9/27/2012

5.0-5.0 12.0-12.0 5.0-5.0 16.0-16.0

< 0.00708 < 0.00618 < 0.00652 0.00344 J

0.00419 J < 0.00618 < 0.00652 < 0.00965

< 0.00708 < 0.00618 < 0.00652 < 0.00965

< 0.0142 < 0.0124 < 0.013 < 0.0193

SB-46 SB-46 SB-61 SB-62 SB-63 SB-64 SB-64

9/27/2012 9/27/2012 8/11/2015 8/11/2015 8/11/2015 8/12/2015 8/12/2015

5.0-5.0 16.0-16.0 17.0-17.5 16.0-16.4 12.2-12.5 6.0-6.4 16.7-17.0

< 0.00643 0.00629 J 7.05 0.0137 0.0317 < 0.677 0.02

0.005991 < 0.00811 < 0.993 0.0153 0.0435 0.806 3.92

< 0.00643 0.000941 J < 0.993 < 0.00664 < 0.00626 < 0.677 < 0.699

< 0.0129 < 0.0162 < 0.993 < 0.00664 < 0.00626 < 0.677 < 0.699

3 of 4

Table 5-1. Summary of Onsite Soil VOC Data in Unsaturated Soil

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

Non-Residential KDHE

Soil to GW Pathway Analyte

Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.855

Trichloroethene 0.0842

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.22

Vinyl Chloride 0.0205

Notes:

Only VOCs reported in this table are TCE and degradation products

Bold indicates that the analyte was detected.

Shading indicat es that the analyte was detected at a concentration above the Non­

Residential KDHE Soil to Groundwater Pathway.

• Sample was "I" flagged and re-run at a higher reporting limit, but TCE was not detected

above the higher limit of 707 ppb.

b This is t he duplicate result. TCE was detect ed in the raw sample at 152 ppb.

<=The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported sample

quantitation limit.

J =The analyte was positively identified: the associated numerical value is t he

approximate concentration of the analyt e in t he sample.

mg/kg= milligram per kilogram

EN0718161115MKE

SB-65 SB-65

8/14/2015 8/14/2015

42.0-42.5 44.0-44.S

0.0246 < 0.00547

0.00603 < 0.00547

< 0.00516 < 0.00547

< 0.00516 < 0.00547

SB-67 SB-68 SB-69 SB-70 SB-71 SB-72

8/12/2015 8/9/2016 8/9/2016 8/9/2016 8/9/2016 8/9/2016

16.5-16.6 18.0-18.5 16.0-16.5 6.S-6.8 16.5-17.0 17.2-18.0

0.0501 17.1 < 0.00544 < 0.00544 < 0.00671 < 0.00607

0.0975 < 0.837 0.714 0.113 0.464 1• 1.03b

< 0.00604 < 0.837 < 0.00544 < 0.00544 < 0.00671 < 0.00607

< 0.00604 < 0.837 < 0.00544 < 0.00544 < 0.00671 < 0.00607

4 of 4

Table 5-2. Summary of June 2016 VOC Data and Select Groundwater Parameters-Onsite Monitoring Wells Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

location Sample Date

Analyte Units RSK Volatile Organic Compounds

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene mg/L 0.07 Trichloroethene mg/L 0.005

Trans-1,2-Dich loroethene mg/L 0.1

Vinyl chloride mg/L 0.002

Groundwater Field Porometers

pH NA Specific Conductivity mS/cm Temperature ·c Oxidation-reduction Potential mV Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Turbidity NTU

Notes:

Only voes reported in t his table are TCE and degradation products Bold indicates that the analyte was detected.

Shading indicates that the analyte was detected at a concentration above the

RSK.

<=The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported

sample quantitation limit.

J =The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is the

approximate concent ration of the analyte in the sample.

mg/L = milligrams per liter

·c = degree Celsius

mv = millivolt

mS/cm = milliSiemens per centimeter

NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit RSK = Risk-based Standards for Kansas (Kansas Department of Health and

Environment; October 2010)

voe= volatile organic compound

EN0718161115MKE

MW-06

6/22/2016

0.0481 0.0309 < 0.005

< 0.002

7.24

1.526

19.93

8.3

0.20

2.08

MW-07 MW-08 MW-09 MW-10 MW-11

6/22/2016 6/21/2016 6/21/2016 6/23/2016 6/20/2016

0.267 0.426J 0.275J < 0.005 0.192 < 0.005 0.0419J 0.904J 0.0261 0.0133 0.00799 < 0.0125 < 0.025 < 0.005 0.00582 0.0228 < 0.005 < 0.01 < 0.002 < 0.002

7.49 6.38 6.92 7.41 7.04

1.930 1.234 2.374 1.075 1.231 19.47 16.51 16.94 18.07 19.40 -143.3 -373.9 -359.6 109.8 -38.8

0.11 0.27 0.20 0.26 0.17 2.74 19.6 9.61 3.64 6.39

MW-30 MW-G PZ-01 PZ-02 PZ-03 PZ-04 STW-02 SV-90 SV-93 SV-96

6/ 21/2016 6/22/2016 6/21/2016 6/20/2016 6/22/2016 6/20/ 2016 6/20/2016 6/22/2016 6/20/2016 6/20/2016

0.264 0.291 0.0114 < 0.005 0.0769 0.0181 0.0325 < 0.005 0.0342 0.0304 0.0312 0.0134 < 0.005 0.00833 0.0552 0.00527 0.0752 0.00696 < 0.005 0.0437 0.005 0.00977 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

< 0.002 0.0066 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 <0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002

7.36 7.19 6.95 6.73 6.19 7.20 6.68 6.73 7.17 7.46 1.082 1.333 1.273 0.929 0.605 1.503 0.656 0.544 0.858 1.010 18.27 19.77 18.37 15.95 16.25 18.02 16.11 15.77 19.13 18.87 9.5 -84.4 32.1 -174.5 -318.6 0.7 -218.3 -382.1 -0.1 -12.5

0.14 0.12 0.20 2.79 1.27 0.39 0.51 0.65 0.17 0.10 2.65 1.94 2.16 1.20 2.21 2.42 23.4 2.21 2.67 2.09

1of1

Table 5-3. Summary of June 2016 VOC Data and Select Groundwater Parameters-Offsite Monitoring Wells Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

Location MW-86S MW-87D MW-88S MW-89D MW-90S MW-910 MW-92S MW-93D MW-94S MW-95D MW-96 MW-97 MW-99 MW-100 MW-101S MW-1020 MW-1035 MW-104D MW-105S MW-106D MW-107 MW-108 MW-109

Analyte Units MCL Sample Date 6/ 23/2016 6/23/ 2016 6/ 21/2016 6/21/ 2016 6/ 21/ 2016 6/21/2016 6/ 22/ 2016 6/ 22/ 2016 6/ 23/2016 6/23/ 2016 6/ 21/2016 6/ 21/2016 6/ 21/ 2016 6/ 21/ 2016 6/ 20/2016 6/ 20/2016 6/ 22/ 2016 6/ 22/2016 6/20/2016 6/20/ 2016 6/20/2016 6/ 20/ 2016 6/ 23/2016

RSK Volatile Organic Compounds

cis-1,2-Dich loroethene Trichloroethene T ra ns-1,2-Dichl oroethene Vinyl chloride Groundwater Field Parameters

pH Specific Conductivity Temperature Oxidation-reduction Potential Dissolved Oxygen Turbidity Notes: Bold indicates that the analyte was detected.

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

NA mS/cm

·c mV

mg/L NTU

0.07 0.005

0.1 0.002

O.D7 0.005

0.1 0.002

Shading indicates that the analyte was detected at a concentration above the RSK. < =The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit.

J = The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. mg/L = milligrams per liter ·c =degree Celsius mV = millivolt mS/ cm = milli5iemens per centimeter NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit RSK =Risk-based Standards for Kansas (Kansas Department of Health and Environment; October 2010) voe = volatile organic compound

EN0718161115MKE

0.194 0.0067 0.00664 < 0.002

6.94 1.186 18.19 -21.8 0.13 9.64

0.331 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0056

6.89 1.149 18.41 -117.2 0.14 12.0

0.23 0.0726 < 0.005 < 0.002

6.49 1.409 16.85 -403.7 0.36 30.4

0.0148 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00381

6.42 1.345 16.98 -393.6 0.36 12.9

0.0982 0.0193 < 0.005 < 0.002

6.75 1.212 17.60 -78.6 0.24 13.9

< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.002

6.91 1.252 17.67 -91.0 0.17 5.50

0.254 0.499 < 0.005 < 0.0125 0.00651 < 0.0125 < 0.002 < 0.005

7.05 0.893 18.46 -40.4 0.22 3.48

6.95 1.110 19.21 -112.6 0.13 5.96

< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.002

6.32 1.199 16.61 -364.0 0.35 10.21

< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.002

6.41 1.401 16.34 -361.3 0.27 7.20

0.368 < 0.0125 < 0.0125 < 0.005

6.89 1.215 19.05 -107.2 0.19 1.68

0.138 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00281

6.90 1.224 20.04 -103.9 0.34 10.9

0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00942

6.19 1.363 16.19 -321.6 0.42 11.7

0.0369 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00359

6.42 1.379 16.05 -329.6 0.38 8.25

0.0691J o.oon9 < 0.005 < 0.002

7.15 1.800 19.58 -81.1 0.14 3.69

0.0475 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00451

7.18 1.471 20.69 -93.6 0.08 3.66

0.174 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.002

6.48 1.480 16.88 -344.2 0.43 18.5

0.039 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.002

6.38 1.339 16.87 -331.4 0.37 9.63

0.274 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.002

6.39 1.334 16.69 -233.7 0.52 3.49

0.0432 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00324

6.38 1.253 16.45 -210.1 D.35 4.83

< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.002

7.00 0.378 17.28 -155.7 4.75 2.99

0.104 0.0538 0.00519 < 0.002

6.54 0.910 17.12 -192.4 0.72

1.13

0.113 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.002

6.50 1.392 16.50 -382.2 0.38 9.60

l of l

Tabte 6-1. Occurrence, DlstribuUon, and Setectlon of Chemicals of Potential Concern Former Umson Trans armer Services, Inc Site

Expasure Point

Surface Soil

(0·2ft)

(1)

CAS Number Chemical

PCB PCB

Minimum

Concentration Qualifier

0.1

Muimum detrcted concentration is used for screening

Maximum Conuntration loc•tion of Muimum

Qualifier Units Concentration

7.9 mg/Kg EU-2-M

121 TSCA Self-Implementing Cntena In Oetined High Occupancy Areas - PCBs may remain between 1 and less t han

or equal to 10 ppm w1tli a cap

OetKtion

Frequency

24/32

This would be applicable to residential , unrestncted use or other uses where occupancy will exceed an average of 6.7 hours/week.

(3)

(4)

EN0718161115MKE

Regional Screening levels IRSLs) for industrntl SOii (June 2015), based o n a nsk level of 1 • lo' and an HQ = 1

RSL for PCBs (li1gli risk) was u5e'd for PCBs.

Ratlonale Codes Selection Reason· Above Scrttning levels (ASL)

Deletion Reason: Below Scrttning l evel (BSl)

Potential Potential Ranae of Concentration Used Screenint: Tollkity \fakJe ARAR/TBC Value ARAR/TBC

Detedion limits for Screenins {l) Backfround V•lue (2) (3) Souru COPC Ft.1

0.1-0.1 7 9E.+OO NA 1.0E+-01 TSCA 9.7E-01 RSL No

COPC = Ch.-mical of Potential Concern

ARAR/TBC =Applicable o r Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/

To Be Considered

ca = Carcinogenic

nc = Noncarcinogemc

NA = Not available

RSL = Regional Screening l evel

HQ "' Hazard Quot ient

PCB = Polyclilorinat~ Bipheny1

TSCA - To•k Subst ances Control Act

Ration. .. for

Selection or

Deletion(4)

BSL

1of1

Table 6-2. Toxicity Information Former Unison Transf ormer Services, Inc. Site

Carcinogenic Toxicity Information Noncarcinogenic Tox:icity Information

Chemical of Concern CAS No.

Oral SFO

(mg/kg-day)"'

1,2-cis-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene

Vinyl Chloride

PCB (high risk)

Notes:

NA ; Not Applicable

156-59-2 79-01-6

75-01-4

1336-36-3

I ; Integrated Risk Information System

SFO ; slope factor

IUR ; Inhalation unit risk

RfD ; reference dose RfC ; reference concentration

PCB; Polychlorinated biphenyl

mg/kg-day= milligram per kilogram per day

µg/m3 =microgram per cubic meter

mg/m3 =milligram per cubic meter

Weight of Evidence definitions:

NA 4.6E-02

7.2E-01

2.0E+OO

IUR

Source (µg/m'r' Source

NA 4.lE-06

4.4E-06

5.7E-04

Weight of Evidence/Cancer

Guideline

Description

NA Carcinogenic to humans

A

B2

Mutagen

No Yes

Yes

No

Oral RfD

(mg/kg-day)

2.0E-03 5.0E-04 3.0E-03

NA

Inhalation RfC

Source (mg/m3) Source

NA 2.0E-03 l.OE-01

NA

Group A chemicals (known human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient evidence to support the causal association between exposure to the agents in humans and cancer.

Group B2 chemicals (probable human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals but inadequate or a lack of evidence in humans.

EN0718161115MKE

Primary Target Organ(s)

Kidney

Developmental, Immune System, Heart liver NA

l of l

Table 6-3. Potential Exposure Pathways-Soil Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Si te

Scenario nmeframe

Future

EN0718161115MKE

Medium

Soil (2 feet)

Exposure Medium

Soil

AmbientAir

Exposure Point

Soil

Emissions from Soil

Receptor Population

Industrial Worker

Construction

Worker

Trespasser

Industrial Worker

Construction

Worker

Trespasser

Receptor Exposure Onsite/ Rationale for Selection or Exclusion Age Route Off site of Exposure Pathway

Adult Ingestion,

Onsite Industrial workers could contact soil at the site. Dermal

Adult Ingestion,

Onsite Construction workers could contact soil during intrusive activities at the site. Dermal

Adolescent Ingestion,

Onsite Trespassers could contact soil at the site. Dermal

Adu lt Inhalation Onsite Industrial workers could inhale fugitive dust from soil while at the site.

Adu lt Inhalation Onsite Construction workers could inhale fugitive dust from soil during intrusive

activities at the site.

Adolescent Inhalation On site Trespassers could inhale fugitive dust from soil while at the site.

l of l

Table 6-4. Summary of Groundwater Results from June 2016

Onsite- Off site-Frequency Maximum Maximum

Analyte of Detection Detected (mg/L) Detected (mg/L)

cis-1,2-DCE 32/39 0.426 J 0.499

TCE 18/39 0.904 J 0.0726

trans-1,2-DCE 7/39 0.00977 0.00664

Vinyl chloride 9/39 0.0228 0.00942

Notes:

•Based on a target cancer risk of 10·5 and target hazard index of 1.

mg/L = milligrams per liter

cis-1,2-DCE = cis-1,2-dichloroethene

TCE = trichloroethene

tra ns-1,2-DCE = t ra ns-1,2-dich loroethene

RSK Tier 2 Groundwater Cleanup Goal (Non-residential Scenario) (mg/L) •

0.070

0.005

0.100

0.002

J =The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample.

EN0718161115MKE 1of1

Table 6-5. f'otential Exposure Pathways-Groundwater

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Scenario Exposure

Timeframe Medium Medium Exposure Point

Current/Future Groundwater Indoor Air Offsite Groundwater to Indoor Air

Future Groundwater Groundwater Onsite Tap Water

Offsite Tap Water

Indoor Air Onsite Groundwater to Indoor Air

EN0718161115MKE

Receptor Exposure

Population Receptor Age Route

Industrial Worker Adult Inhalation

Industrial Worker Adult Ingestion,

Dermal

Industrial Worker Adult Ingestion,

Dermal

Industrial Worker Adult Inhalation

Onsite/Offsite

Off site

On site

Off site

Onsite

Rationale for Selection or Exclusion of Exposure Pathway

Industrial workers could inhale volatile groundwater constituents that migrate to the

indoor air of an offsite building.

Groundwater in the Fairfax District is not used for municipal purposes. However, risk­

based standards are derived with the assumption that aquifers in Kansas are sources of

potable water.

Groundwater in the Fairfax District is not used for municipal purposes. However, risk­based standards are derived with the assumption that aquifers in Kansas are sources of

potable water.

Industrial workers could inhale volatile groundwater constituents that migrate to the indoor air of an onsite building.

1of1

U")

Q)

!i,_

::J b.O

L

L

Legend - Interstate

Highway Major Road Rivers and Streams

Base Map Data Source: ESRI

~ N

0 3,500

~~~~-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Feet 1.750

Figure 1-1 Project Location and Vicinity Map

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

R IENBG\00 Prno\O\Dow Chem1ca~Umson\MMF11es\491690 Comorehens1ve lnvest1nation Re"""\2017UuneUoctate\F1oure 2-1 - S.te Lavout mxd6127/2017cboNman

Legend $ Monitoring Well

Piezometer Rail Road Fence

en ~ (.)

~ f-0 <i 0 a:: _J

<{ a:: (.)

u:

~ z Q z ::>

--· 3126 Brinkerhoff Property Limits

--

.: .. : 1993/1994 PCB Soil Excavation Area

CENTRAL SOLUTIONS BUILDING ASPHALT PAVEMENT

L-------------~=====::11"-~ -----------------------------. ---~---- 1 !------------------------------------- I I $ MW-10 Pt -04 I ~ (GRAVEL)

PZ-02 (LOADING RAMP)

MW-08 $ $ MW-08R MW-og $ $ MW-09R

UNISON BUILDING

i-. $ MW-07 MW-06 'll'

$ MW-13

(EARTHEN FLOOR)

$ MW-G

.

(OFFICE)

'

\ I

$ MW-11

•• I I I

$ MW-30 I I

I 1 I

(ASPHALT) I I I I

I

I j $ t W-12

I n I

~ (CONCRETE FLOOR) , ,, PZ-t I PZ-03 ~ 1 . ________ ....

>I ------------------------··~-=-==-=-----~~~-----L ~-----------------------:.----------- - -~ le

ADJOINING BUILDING

0 50

~~~~~!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Feet

25

1 inch = 25 feet

CP :;o z /\ m :;o I 0 ,, ,, :;o 0 )> 0

I

Figure 2-1 Property Layout

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Kansas City, KS

R IENBG\00 Pro1\D\Dow Chem1canUmson\MaoFlles\491690 Comorehens1ve lnvest1aat1on Reoortl2017\JuneUocate\F1aure 3-1 - Cross Secbon Locations mxcll/27/2017cbowman

Legend • 2011 Soil Boring .A. 2015 Soil Boring

Air Sparge Well $ Monitoring Well

Piezometer 4 SoyGold Test Well S SVE Well .c,, SVE Piezometer

Fence

SB-67

CENTRAL SOLUTIONS BUILDING ASPHALT PAVEMENT

'----------------========== ..... 11\-------------------------------------, ~------------------------------------- I I I I .C,, SV-PZ-2 I I S SV-91 .C,, SV-PZ-1 S SV-92 S SV-84 S SV-97 PZ-04 I

I AS-99 MW-1 0 $ AS-88 I I AS-87 S SV-83 I I I I I I I l I I I I I I PZ-02 I I I

I B

AS-98

l AS-107R I

SB-63 AS-108

AS-110

AS-109

AS-111 tt STW-03

AS-112

AS-89 AS-86

SV-96S

~ SIW-01 \ ~~ MW-08 STW-01 STW-02

SB-61 -4-:... r "' AfB$ , ~ SB-36 -.-- - ~ ~ ,A~S-~1.!.;13:....-~----------------~--...-......--r-----~-----1

I . I SIW-02"'

AS-105 MW-11 $ I

---

.. I

I I : ·· MW~9 SB-66 _..---r ,-... ~ -'. -~S-97 1 SB-62 I ·::;; ~·:"-. :·

I ~/ ,::· .. ~-.. -• ~ '$ : LSV~ .. . :· I .;. ~ ;· -• : I ·;-. •: :·: I -~ ..

• sB-37 I •. 1As!9'6 . . ~ - - .-

~:_.:;: .. -_'i: ::

-~:;:::: =;z:~ IA'§!95~

ssJ~_... "' . SS:-38 I -SV-89 ' B'

SV-88

AS-94

AS-90

AS-100 S SV-85

UNISON BUILDING

AS-101

,& SB-65

AS-103

$ $ MW-07 MW-06

AS-114

$ MW-13

AS-117

AS-92

AS-120

AS-102

AS-91

AS-115 AS-116

$ MW-G AS-118

AS-119

AS-121

AS-93

I

I

AS-104

J

u

AS-83

S SV-95

MW-30 $

AS-S4 S SV-94 I

AS-122 S SV-93

AS-85

$ ~W-12

I • AS-106 S SV-99

i I I

SV-98 l PZ-Oi1

SV-87 s SV-PZ-4... s SV-86 s ... L I pz_03 SV-PZ-5 ------• .. ~.§.~..f,;Q~-----------"

~------------------------------------=.----------------- ~~

ADJOINING BUILDING

~ -- 3126 Brinkerhoff Property Limits N

CJ 1993/1994 PCB Soil Excavation Area - Cross Section Location

0 25

1 inch = 25 feet

50 Feet

OJ ::0 z A rn ::0 I 0 ,, ,, ::0 0 )> 0

Figure 3-1 Cross Section Locations

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. S ite Kansas City, KS

'

A West

0

-10

-20

<D -30 Q)

LL

-40

-50

-60

LEGEND:

Site Fence

Approximate depth

" C9 co en

of warehouse footing __ .........,1-£...''--L....,/.'--L....,/.:...L..£..L.£..L.£~ 6 feet south of cross

section

SB-67 (soil)

16.5 - 16.6 TCE 0.0975 cis-1,2-DCE 0.0501 PCE 0.0453

SB-67 (groundwater)

38.0 Non-detect

SB-67 (soil)

45.0 - 45.5 Non-detect

SB-67 (groundwater

50.0 Non-detect I

*Cross section based on borings advanced and samples collected August 2015 Groundwater concentrations reported as milligrams per liter Soil concentrations reported as milligrams per kilogram Concentrations detected above respective RSK screening levels are shaded

~Warehouse Footing O Soil Sample

N 0

~

SB-61 (soil)

17.0 - 17.5 cis-1,2-DCE 7.05

SB-61 (soil)

42.8 - 43.1 Non-detect

SB-61 (soil)

50.0 - 50. 7 Non-detect

Sample Location l Fill Material

~--

- LeanClay

I Groundwater Sample

Abbreviations: Depth (ft bgs) I voe I Concentration cis-1 2-DCE

- Fat Clay

- Sandy Silt to Silt

I Poorly Graded Sand ~--

cis-1,2-DCE = cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene PCE = tetrachloroethene TCE = trichloroethene

trans-1 ,2-DCE = trans-1 ,2-dichloroethene VC = vinyl chloride

IV:>uttermilkMDenver . Graphics\CH08211510140EN\491690 01 a _ OowUnison _ l.8'1'aMeyerSTL

PCE TCE

trans-1 ,2-DCE vc

SB-63 (groundwater)

38.0 Non-detect

SB-63 (soil)

44.8 - 45.1 Non-detect

MW-09 (groundwater)

44.0 TCE 0.645 cis-1 ,2-DCE 0.0951

SB-63 (groundwater)

50.0 Non-detect

A' East

0

-60

SB-63 (soil)

12.2 - 12.3 TCE 0.0435 cis-1 ,2-DCE 0.0317

PCE 0.0398

SB-62 (soil)

MW-08 (groundwater)

25.0 TCE 0.098 cis-1 ,2-DCE 0.299

vc 0.00538

SB-62 (soil)

30.5- 31 .0 cis-1 ,2-DCE 0.0139

SB-62 (groundwater)

38.0 cis-1,2-DCE 0.00718

SB-62 (soil)

43.0 - 43.3 cis-1,2-DCE 0.00748

SB-62 (soil)

44.0 - 44.5 Non-detect

SB-62 (groundwater)

50.0 cis-1 ,2-DCE 0.00594

RSK Screening Levels

Soil to Groundwater (mg/kg)

0.855 0.121 0.0842

1.220 0.0205

Groundwater (mg/L)

0.070 0.005 0.005

0.100 0.002

Figure 3-2 Cross Section A-A'

Former Unison Transformer Service, Inc. Site Kansas City, Kansas

0

B North

-1 0

,._ c.o

I co (/)

c.o c.o I co

(/)

Warehouse Footing

,._ C")

I co (/)

-20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;:=.=-=--=_J--------,

SB-64 (groundwater)

-Q) Q)

LL

SB-36 (groundwater 2011)

TCE 0.00671

SB-67 (soil) cis-1 ,2-DCE 0.00438J

SB-37 (groundwater 2011)

19.0 TCE cis-1 ,2-DCE

0.00828 0.00832

16.5 - 16.6 TCE 0.0975 trans-1,2-DCE 0.00045J

-30

-40

-50

cis-1 ,2-DCE 0.0501 PCE 0.0453

SB-67 (groundwater

Non-detect

SB-67 (soil)

SB-67 (groundwater)

50.0 Non-detect

-60

LEGEND:

E?'@ Warehouse Footing

~-~' Fill Material

- Lean Clay

- Fat Clay

- Sandy Silt to Silt

.__ _ __,J Poorly Graded Sand

60' *Cross section based on borings advanced and samples collected August 2015 Groundwater concentrations reported as milligrams per liter Soil concentrations reported as milligrams per kilogram "Concentrations detected above respective RSK screening levels are shaded

Q Soil Sample

I Groundwater Sample

Abbreviations:

cis-1 ,2-DCE = cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene PCE = tetrachloroethene

TCE = trichloroethene trans-1 ,2-DCE = trans-1 ,2-dichloroethene VC = vinyl chloride

Sample Location

Depth (ft bgs) I voe I Concentration cis-1 2-DCE PCE TCE

trans-1 ,2-DCE vc

llWoenn<k'l>cNleove< _ GlapncslCH082115101 •DEN\491690 01 Cl _DowUnson_l8UlaMejOISTL

22.0 TCE

cis-1 ,2-DCE PCE

SB-64 (groundwater)

28.0 TCE 0.272 cis-1,2-DCE trans-1 ,2-DCE 0.017

SB-64 (soi l)

31 .9 - 32.0 TCE 1-----1----1 cis-1,2-DCE 0.100

PCE 0.00609

RSK Screening Levels

Soil to Groundwater Groundwater (mg/kg) (mg/L)

0.855 0.070 0.1 21 0.005

0.0842 0.005 1.220 0.100

0.0205 0.002

B' South

SB-64 (soil)

SB-64 (soil)

16.7 - 17.0 TCE 3.92 cis-1,2-DCE 0.020

PCE 0.0151

SB-38 (groundwater 2011)

TCE 4.87 cis-1 ,2-DCE 1.17 trans-1,2-DCE 0.0205

SV-89 (groundwater)

TCE 0.465 cis-1 ,2-DCE 0.0105

SB-64 (soil)

6.0- 6.4 cis-1 ,2-DCE 0.0582

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

Figure 3-3 Cross Section B-B'

Former Unison Transformer Service, Inc. Site Kansas City, Kansas

IJl l<NKE . ~ IL RN lllld I

l I

I ! 1'

I-w w Ct:: I-(/1

J: I-....

I l\:Vf

Legend

Nll</\L '-.IL I N<,

-----,

V ,JN .., >N ~------- - -

fl\ /I.I\;

rV' A 'IJ

I I I I I I I I I I

.. --LI

0 <l: 0 Ct:: LL. LL. 0 J: Ct:: w ::.:'. z c:r co

'Ill ff I /\( Kfl(,INC,

'>Y'> r M"i

MW-930 $ MW9[] I

,

~: 0 !.'> cc

r·6S~1 MW-870 ,' () ~ ,,,,<?J,

7

,

..

$ Monitoring Well Existing RailRoad

INAI ONAI I J "Ul'Pf~I <..."if(JN

INt

, ,

/

K

A ><A

SUNSHINE ROAD

r..-------·

0 <l: 0 Ct:: w (.!) 0 0 0

WALL·~

I l PRlrANT<;

0

8

.. ..

[ >(

.. .. .. ..

'\JAf<M

t .... .,.

~ llR "l r Lt Cl

..----------'

,

~ I

I f

M KM

t

- - June 2015 Potentiometric Surface (River Stage - 730 ft amsl) D Offsite Target Treatment Zone Notes: - June 201 4 Potentiometric Surface (River Stage - 724 ft amsl) Potentiometric surface contour interval = 0.1 feet -- 3126 Brinkerhoff Property Limits

, MW-109

0 <l: 0 Ct:: (/1 (/1

<l: _J

(.!) Ct:: w co Li:

/\"illl/\Nl CIHMCALCd

1111 >(

FAM >I\ I\: l : <...

_\ N

0 150

~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Feet

75

1 inch = 150 feet

I Al 1Nf I< I /\Pf I~ <.,' l( K

~ MW-98

MW-100 j

I

/; I

1' t

' +

Figure 3-4 Potentiometric Surface Map

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Kansas City, KS

R IENBG\00 Pro"\D\Dow Chem1ca~Umson\M Flles\491690 Com La out mxd6/2712017cbowman

Legend Air Sparge Well

$ Monitoring Well Piezometer SoyGold Test Well

S SVE Well ..,, SVE Piezometer

I I

- 1-lnch Air Injection Hose

+

CENTRAL SOLUTIONS BUILDING ASPHALT PAVEMENT

~-------------------------------------- ------------~-----------------· ------- I I I I I

' _ AS-99

PZ-02

- AS-98

SV-91 -S, SV-PZ-1

AS-108

AS-110

SV-92

$ MW-10

AS-109

q: sTW-03 AS-112

AS-107R . STW-02 STACK D S1 HARGE SIW .... -0_1 ____ $ _ $MW-08'1.~-1$.l+ TO ATMOSPHERE

MW-09Slw-o2 AS-113, GAC OFF GAS

RECEIVER TANK

SV-90

SV-PZ-2

AS-88

AS-90

AIR COMPRESS 1R

AS-100 S SV-85

AS-96

SV-88

AS-95

SV-89

AS-94

UNISON BUILDIN

$ MW-13

AS-102

AS-114

AS-117

AS-92

AS-120

$ MW-G

AS- 119

AS- 121

AS-93

SV-84

AS-89

SV-86 SV-98

SV-97

AS-104

.... ~~ .... ~~ PZ-03 SV-87 ----------------------------------------------------------

ADJOINING BUILDING

AS-87

AS-83

AS-84

AS-122

AS-123 AS-85

AS-106

SV-PZ-06

PZ-04 I

SV-83

AS-86

$ MW-11

SV-95

I I

MW-30 $ I

SV-94

S SV-93

MW- 12$

SV-99

PZ-01

~----------------

- 2-lnch Air Injection Piping - 4-lnch Vapor Extraction Piping

~ N

OJ ;o z l' m ;o I 0 "Tl "Tl ;o 0 )> 0

Fence --· 3126 Brinkerhoff Property Limits

50

~~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Feet 0 25

1 inch = 25 feet

Figure 4-1 Onsite Interim AS and SVE Remedy Layout Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

Kansas City, KS

0 150

AS-208

MW-108 ~

Notes - Note (1) - AS-202 1s an angled well On this figure the hollow point represents the well screen,

the solid point represents the wellhead, and the dashed line represents the well riser and screen The well was offset approximately 40 feet east of the proposed location and drilled at a 30 degree departure from vertical to achieve the target well screen depth of 65 feet bgs

Legend ~ Monitonng Well

Phase I Air Sparge Wells Phase II Air Sparge Wells

Phase I Air Lines ~ N

r t

_fl_ .u

AS-214

AS-217

MW-1015 AS-218 ~ ~ MW-1020

AS-215

AS-219

AS-216

AS-220

AS-221

AS-222

000 0

AS-223 I MW-890

MW-88S ~ I

AS-224

Cl ~ 0 a:: w l? Cl 0 Cl

Figure 4-2 Offsite Interim AS Remedy Layout

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Kansas City, KS

3126 Bnnkerhoff Property Limits Fence

- Phase II Air Lines D Target Treatment Zone D Equipment Building 0 60

~~~~liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Feet

30

1 inch = 60 feet

Legend • Injection Point

Air Sparge Well ~ Monitoring Well

Piezometer EB SoyGold Test Well S SVEWell .., SVE Piezometer

3126 Brinkerhoff Property Limits Fence

CJ Area 1 CJ Area 2

Area 3

Area 1 - 20 to 50 ft bgs

e 2R-11

• 2R-12

CENTRAL SOLUTIONS BUILDING ASPHALT PAVEMENT

-------------------, 1.----------------=====::=-====~--------------...... --- I ~-------------------------------------- I I .., w~ 1 I S SV-91 .., SV-PZ-l S SV-92 S SV-84 S SV-97 Pto

4 I ~ MW-10 AS-88 j AS-99 AS-87 S SV-831

PZ-02

AS-98 AS-89

AS-109

AS-113 lS-4

• ., RECEIVER TANK AS-90

10-2 .... SVE BLOWER

AIR COMPRESSOR AS-100

2-20 S SV-85 S SV-90

• s AS-1031 MW-06

SV-88 • 2-24 ~ MW-07 • 2-16

• 2-21

AS-91

I

• 2-11

e :iR-8

• 2R-1 ; I • 2-7

e2R-7 • 2R-3 •• I AS-95

2-1. I I

• 2-9

• 2R-6 e 2-2

e 2R-2 11 S SV-89 I 2-4 •

• 2~-5 • 2-8

e 2R-4 ;

I I

AS-94

• 2-13

• 2-6

•2-17 2-18

2-19

·~ AS-101 • • 2-22 MW-13

• 2-23

•2-15~

AS-102

PZ-03 S SV-87 .., SV-PZ-4

AS-1 14

AS-117

AS-115 AS-116

MW-G ~

AS-118

AS-92 AS-119

AS-120 AS-121

AS-93

Area 3 SV-98

3-2 • .., 3-1

S SV-86 " • -, SV-PZ-5

AS-105

AS-104

--------------------------------------------~ -----------ADJOINING BUILDING

AS-86

I I I I I

MIP-21 S SV-96

I

~ MW-11

AS-83

S SV-95

~ MW-30 I I I I I

AS-84 S SV-94 I I

AS-122

S SV-93

AS-123 AS-85

~ Mw-12 I

I I

AS-106 S SV-99 i

PZ-0~ I I I

~~~e?~-----------~ --

OJ ;a z 7' m ;a I 0 11 11 ;a 0 )> 0

~ N

0 25 50

Figure 4-3 Onsite Interim ISCO Remedy Injection Areas Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

Kansas City, KS

Area 2 - 20 to 35 ft bgs outside warehouse; 23 to 38 ft bgs inside warehouse Area 3 - 23 to 38 ft bgs

1 inch = 25 feet

Feet

\\brookside\GIS SHAREIENBG\00 Proi\D\Dow Chemicanunison\MaoF11esl491690 Comorehens1ve lnvestiaation Reoort\2017\JuneUodate\F1aure 5-1 - H1stoncal Confirmation Results for PCBs in So11.mxd6/29/2017CG021858

.

t

Legend ..,. Monitoring Well

Piezometer Rail Road Fence

(/) ~ (.) ·<( a:: I-0 <( 0 a:: _J

<( a:: S:2 u... (.)

~ z 0 -z ::::>

I

l

I l l I I

I

I

1 l l I l l I I . .

I

~l •

--· 3126 Brinkerhoff Road Property Limits C'iJ 1993/1994 PCB Soil Excavation Area

i I I I I

I

I

MW-09 f)i

~;r~~KY~~-., .... " '• ·~, " •

~1\~il ~:l!.~ :=.~~.:.:j.~~-~ -::•. ·!~~~ ;. .: . ;

~;~;~~~~ ~{i'·,'.: ;~:-:=:.~.:"! r; .~::!: ·:·."::-·,;. sl •1 , ......... :: ·,.: EU -.:i.; ;::; : ;;:1::

~m~~?~1; ·rg;q~JJ~

I 1.4

H 6.0

A 6.0

PZ 03

"'irMW-08

J BDL

G 8.0

B BDL

MW-09R ., ..,. MW-08R

N 3.9

c BDL

v BDL

s 1.3

N 1.2

K 3.0

F 4.0

c 5.3

M 2.5

D BDL

u 6.4

T 0.1

M 2.9

L 1.0

E 0.3

D 2.6

L 0.2

E BDL

x 0.3

Q

6.3

IEU 31

.,MW 13

p 1.0

I 4.5

H 3.2

A 8.1

K BDL

F BDL

w 0.3

""" ' 'IVV-UI

..,.MW-O D

J 3.4

G 1.9

v 0.8

R S BDL 4.9

0 BDL

J ND

!EU 21

G BDL

B 5.7

N 0.9

K 1.7

F 6.9

c 2.9

I 2.6

H 1.6

u 1.0

T 6.8

..,.MW-G

M 7.9

L 4.7

E 0.6

D 0.4

---------~--------·--------·------------------~-------­L. ---------- ~--------·

ADJOINING BUILDING

Notes: 1) Sample cell dimensions are based on a sketch (not to scale) submitted in a letter to USEPA on April 29, 1993 (Unison 1993). 2) The letter within each cell is associated with the numbering for an EU. 3) Confirmation samples were collected in 1993 following removal of the concrete floor and underlying 2 feet of soil. Samples were collected from 2 feet below ground surface. 4) Concentrations shown are in parts per million (ppm).

_i N

0 7.5 15

L 2.8

G 0.4

(OFFICE)

K 0.1

H 2.4

F E

4.6 !EU 41 2.5

A 2.0

B 1.0

I 8.0

D 0.8

c 1.9

Ail MW-11

~~

MW-30 ...,,

(ASPHALT)

I I I I I I I I

MW-12.,

PZ 01

---------~--------·----~----------------------------

Figure 5-1 Historical Confirmation Results for PCBs in Soil

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Kansas City, KS

1 inch = 15 feet

\\BrookS1dela1s share\ENBG\00 Pro1\D\Dow ChelTllcal\Unison\MaoF11es1491690 Comorehensive lnvest1aabon Reoort\2017\JuneUodate\Fiaure 5-2 - Ons1te Soil VOC Data - Unsaturated Soil mxd7n/2017cbowman

SB-67

Samole Deoth 16.5-16.6

cis-1 2-DCE 0.0501

TCE 0.0975

SB-61

Sample Depth 17.0-17.5

cis-1 2-DCE 7.05

SB-36

Samole Deoth 5.0-5.0 cis-1,2-DCE 0.00113J

TCE 0.0138

SB-37

Samele Deoth S.0-5.0 TCE 0.00384 J

SB-44

Sample Depth 5.0-S.O 12.0-12.0 TCE 0.00419 J < 0.00618

SB-43 Sample Depth 5.0-5.0 cis-12-DCE 0.00135 J TCE 0.00107 J

SB-46 Sample Depth 5.0-5.0

cis -12-DCE < 0.00643 TCE 0.00599J trans-1,2-DCE < 0.00643

SB-42

Sample Depth 5.0-5.0

cis-1 2-DCE < 0.0072

TCE 0.00705 J

SB-41 Sample Depth 10.0-10.0

TCE 0.000768 J

SB-45 Sample Depth 5.0-5.0

cis -1 2-DCE < 0.00652

Legend A December 2005 Soil Boring A May 2011 Soil Boring A September 2012 Soil Boring A August 2015 Soil Boring A August 2016 Soil Boring

Air Sparge Well

$ Monitoring Well Piezometer

4' SoyGold Test Well S SVEWell ..,, SVE Piezometer

I SB-35

Sam cle Deoth 5.0-5.0 10.0-10.0 cis-1 2-DCE 0.00169 J 0.0075

TCE 0.0107 0.0309 J t

AS-94

--· 3126 Brinkerhoff Property Limits

CENTRAL SOLUTIONS BUILDING

SB-05 A ND

SV-88

UNISON BUILDING AS-103

~ ~ MW-07 MW-06

AS-114

AS-91

AS-115

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

SV-96S

AS-105 MW-11 ~

AS-63

I

SB-08

5amole Deoth S.0-7.5

TCE 0.152J

S SV-95

MW-30 $

---.,..,..,...., SB-65 S SV-94 I

I Sample Depth 42.0-42.5 44.0-44.5 AS-116 - cis-1,2-DCE 0.0246 < 0.00547

TCE 0.00603 < 0.00547 MW-13 ~$-----------~$~M~W-G

AS-118 AS-101

AS-117

AS-92 '--~---, AS-11

19 I

SB-72

AS-121 Sample Depthl 17.2- 18.0

AS-122

S SV-93

AS-85 AS-120 cis-12-DCE I < 0.00607

-=::::::o=..._-==~~~~~~-~~--~~--~~·~ Ta I ud' AS-123

AS-102

S SV-86

16.S-17.0 < 0.00671

0.464"

Notes· 1 Detections of TCE and daughter products shown on figure. 2 Detections reported as mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram)

AS-93 ~' SB-70

Sample Depth 16.5-17.0 cis-1 2-DCE < 0.00544

AS-106

$ MW-12 I

I I

S SV-99

i I I

SV-98 TCE O.W PZ-0.1

S 1\1 I ~W~ LJ I -------------- ~~~~~~---~-------~ ---- SB-64

Sample Depth 6.0-6.4 16.7-17.0

cis-1,2-DCE < 0.677 0.02 TCE 0.806 3.92

I

I

RSK Screening Levels Non-Resident ial KDHE Soi l

Analyte to Groundwater Pathway

cis-1,2-DCE 0 .855

TCE 0.0842

tra ns-1,2-DCE 1.22

Vinyt Chlori de 0.0205

OJ :::u z ~ m :::u I 0 11 11

:::u 0 )> 0

.:.::. 1993/1994 PCB Soil Excavation Area Fence

3. Concentrations detec1ed above Non-Residential KDHE Soil to Groundwater Pathway shaded 4. RSK = Risk-Based Standards for Kansas 5. J =The analyte was positively identified: the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample

i N

Figure 5-2 Onsite Soil VOC Data - Unsaturated Soil

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Kansas City, KS

6 < = The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. 7. ND= Not Detected 8. • Sample was "I" flagged and re-run at a higher reporting limit, but TCE was not detected above the higher limit of 707 ppb. 9. • This is the duplicate result. TCE was detected in the raw sample at 152 ppb.

0 25 50 ~~~~~§iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Feet

1 inch = 25 feet

R·\ENBG'lJO Proi\D\Do\\ Chemica~Uni<;011\Ma ifiles\491690 Comnrehen•ive lnveSliPalion Renort\201 7\luneUn< ate\fioure 5-3 · lune 2016 Onsite Monitorin• Wei Resuhs.mxd6/27/20 17cbo-.man

RSK Screening Level

cis-1,2-DCE 0.07

TCE 0.005

trans-1,2-DCE 0.1

Vinyl chloride 0.002 I

Legend Air Sparge Well Location

$ Monitoring Well Location Piezometer

' SoyGold Test Well SVE Well Locations

..,, SVE Piezometer Fence

- -· 3126 Brinkerhoff Property Limits

t 4 l I l

PZ-02

TCE I o.oosn I

MW-08

cis-1,2-DCE I OA26J

TCE I O.G419J

CENTRAL SOLUTIONS BUILDING ASPHALT PAVEMENT

L------ --------------======·----------.... ----------...... ----------------.., ~--------------------------------------- I I 1' SV-PZ-2 I I SV-91 ..,, SV-PZ-l V-92 SV-84 SV-97

I .it>. AS-88 AS-99 ~ l I MW-10 I

1 Im I o.om I I I I I

STW-02

AS-98 cis-1,2-DCE 0.0325

TCE 0.0752

\ AS-109

I A .:o7R -............._ ~ AS-107 A -110

~ STW-0 1

SIW-0 1 ~ \ -.. If-$

AS-108 STW-03

AS-111 AS-11 2

AS-87

A -89

AS-105

I SV-83 I

I I I

A -86

/

~ \ AS-113 ~---M_w___,-0_9 __ ---1

1 1

~~~------"Slw-02------------------------------,

cis-1,2-DCE I 0.275 J 1--r 1 AS-97

AS-83

TCE I 0.904 J AS-90 SV-95

PZ-04

cis -1,2-DCE 0.0181

TCE 0.00527

I SV-96

cis-1,2-DCE 0.0304

TCE 0.0437

\ MW-11

cis-1,2-DCE 0.192

I _ TCE 0.0133

trans-1,2-DCE 0.00582

I td ~ -z :::s::: I --~

~ -

1-,T_CE _ __ s _v-_,j ,.--0.oo&-. -96----tl--r -t

MW-07

cis -1,2-DCE I 0.267

Vinyl chloride I 0.022B

AS-96

\I I A -95

! I SV-89

AS-100 SV-85

UNISON BUILDING A -103 AS-91

SV-88

-~:S-114 AS-IOI ~MW- 13 · -

~-------""-~ AS-117

AS- 11 5 AS-116

AS-118

AS-92 MW-06

AS- 11 9 cis-1,2-DCE I 0.0481

TCE I 0.0309 AS-120 AS-12 1

AS-102

AS-94 AS-93

MW-G AS-84

ci s-1,2-DCE 0.291

TCE 0.0134

tra ns -1,2-DCE 0.00977

Vi nyt chi ori de 0.0066

AS- 122

A -104 A -123 AS-85

AS-106

"' I

SV-94 I

I -~ SV-93

I lcis-1,2-DCE I I

$~W-12 I I

SV-99 i I

:J:: 0 'Tj 'Tj

~ 0 ;:p. t:l

0.0342 I

l~"1------'P~Z-~Orl----l

PZ-03

cis -1,2-DCE I 0.0769

TCE I 0.0552

SV· PZ 4 SV-86 I L--- SV-87 ..,, V 98 ..,, SV-PZ-5 ~ SV-~-06 ----------"

~- --------------------------------- -- ~~----------------------------ADJOINING BUILDING

I

cis-1,2-DCE 0.0114

I

MW-30

cis-1,2- DCE 0.264

TCE 0.03U

tra ns -1,2-DCE 0.005

I -Notes: 1. Detections ofTCE and daughter

products shown on figure. 2. Samples collected in June 2016

_\ N

Figure 5-3 June 2016 Onsite Monitoring Well Results

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

3. Detections reported as mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram) 4. Concentrations detected above RSKs shaded 5. RSK = Risk-Based Standards for Kansas 6. J = The analyte was positively identified; the

associated numerical value is

0 25 50

Feet

1 inch = 25 feet

MW-925

ci s-1,2-DCE 0.254

tra ns-1,2-DCE 0.00651

MW-930

cis-1,2-DCE 0.499

DUHN KE FURNITURE I J

+ t

UNISON SITE - ;---+---...i

MW-87D

uneU da1e\Fi ure 5-4 - une 2016 Offsle Monilorin Well Resulls.mxd6/27/2017cbowman

MW-1035

cis-1,2-DCE 0.174

MW-1040

n NATIONAL FIRE SUPPRESSION

INC.

SUNSHINE ROAD

WALLIS LUBRICANTS

H.B. Fuller

MW-1015

cis-1,2-DCE 0.0691 J

0.00779

~---M_W_-_10_2_D __ ---1 O O ci s-1,2-DCE

Vinyl chloride

0.0475 g~ 0.00451 00

~·, :Do MW-89D

HB Fuller

cis-1,2-DCE 0.0148

Vinyl chloride 0.00381 MW-1055

< cis-1,2-DCE 0.274

MW-106D

cis-1,2-DCE 0.0432

Vinyl chloride 0.00324 '---'-.,-r---e----,l' _ _J /

0 < 0 0:: (/) (/)

:s (.') 0:: w ID u::

(

,-t

ASHLAND CHEMICAL CO

MW-109

cis -1,2-DCE 0.113

GARDNER.RAYMONDT & KATHLEEN HYER

(VACANT)

MW-96

cis-1,2-DCE 0.368 ---+--- ....

----... _,..--

MW-97

000° 000

---- ............._

I 1

+ + .. BATLINER

PAPER STOCK

I I I i i 1 MW-100

cis -1,2-DCE

Vinyl chloride

MW-99

cis -1,2-DCE 0.25

Vinyl chloride 0.00942

$ MW-98

\

t I 1 •

I; +./-

~ cis-1,2-DCE 0.138

""' ~~

l cis-1,2-DCE 0.331 I-

Vinyl Chloride 0.0056 w w 0:: I-(/) MW-865 :I:

cis -1,2-DCE 0.194 I-,... TCE 0.0067

trans-1,2-DCE 0.00664

FOWLER ENVELOPE

co

RSK Screening Level

cis-1,2-DCE 0.07

TCE 0.005

trans-1,2-DCE 0.1

Vinyl chloride 0.002

Legend $ Monitoring Well Location

Phase I Air Sparge Wells Phase II Air Sparge Wells

--· 3126 Brinkerhoff Property Limits

FAGAN COMPANY

MW-945

ND

MW-95D

ND

Existing RailRoad D Target Treatment Zone

FAGAN COMPANY

0.104

0.0538

tra ns-1,2-DCE 0.00519

Notes:

ARBOR WOODS

MW-910

ND

K.C ABRASIVES

co

I. Detections of TCE and daughter products shown on figure.

2. Samples collected in June 2016

0

8

3. Detections reported as mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram) 4. Concentrations detected above RSKs shaded 5. RSK = Risk-Based Standards for Kansas 6. ND = ot Detected

MW-885

cis -1,2-DCE 0.23

TCE 0.0726

I MW-905

cis -1,2-DCE O.G982

TCE 0.0193

I

1

ERGO NA RM OR I

/

G M.C KMDI

__i N

0 < 0 0:: (/) (/)

< ...J (!) 0:: w ID u::

Vinyl chloride

150

~~~!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij Feet

0 75

1 inch = 150 feet

0.00281

I

NIGRO FAMILY

PARTNERSHIP

J +

\

.. t

\. \ 11

1

Figure 5-4 June 2016 Offsite Monitoring Well Results

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

...... Q) Q)

LL

Northing

31 4,500

314,000

313,500

313,000

2,270,000

ES091812103846MK[ SS TCE Pltme_Ptan_ View 2017 ai

/

'U ro 0

0:::

0 ..c ..... Q) ~ c

·;:: CD

o SB-25W

'U ro 0

0::: Q) O>

'U 0 0

o SB-32W

MW-103S/ 0 104

MW-92S/9

0 MW-94S/95D

2,271,000

o SB-60

'U ro 0

0::: (/) (/)

ro e> Q) .0 i.L

OSB-29W

OMW-109

OSB-31W

Feet

o SB-47

OSB-49

c SB-33 o SB-48

2,272,000 2,273,000

Slice plane intersects areas of highest concentration within the TCE plume. Footprint shown representative of TCE above 0.005 mg/L.

- . .... ~·. . . - -·

0.0025 mg/L 0.01 mg/L 0.1 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L

o SB-73

o SB-59

OSB-58

Easting

0 LEGEND

D 3126 Brinkerhoff Road Property Limits

-- Buildings and Roads

- Section Cut Slice Plane

NOTES TCE = trichloroethene

mg/l = milligrams per liter

Gray shading represents the footprint of the plume outside of the section cut.

MW-98 was not sampled after 2009.

The kriged plume shells generated using mining visual­ization system (MVS) contain only modeled concentrations above the RSK and MCL for TCE (0.005 mg/L).

Non-detected concentrations were kriged using half laboratory the reporting limit.

Bounded by historical data from grab samples collected from soil boring locations presented on this figure.

To maximize clarity of the plume shells shown, monitoring well and groundwater grab boring labels are only shown for select locations.

Figure 5-5 June 2017 TCE Plume - Plan View

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Kansas City, Kansas

0 LEGEND

D 3126 Brinkerhoff Road Property Limits

- Section Cut Slice Plane

ES091812103846MKE 5-6_ TCE_PlumeJ1d1le bolu~No!th_201 7 revl a1

2.270.000 2.271 .000 2272,000

Feet

Slice plane intersects areas of highest concentration with in the TCE plume. Footprint shown representative of TCE above 0.005 mg/L.

0.0025 mg/L 0.01 mg/L

NOTES TCE = trichloroethene

µg/L = micrograms per liter

Gray shading represents the footprint of the plume outside of the section cut.

MW-98 was not sampled after 2009.

The kriged plume shells generated using mining visualization system (MVS) contain only modeled concentrations above the RSK and MCL for TCE (0.005mg/L).

Non-detected concentrations were kriged using half laboratory the reporting limit.

0.1 mg/L 1.0 mg/L

Bounded by historical data from grab samples collected from soil boring locations presented on this figure.

Monitoring well and groundwater grab boring labels are consistent with those shown on previous figure.

For wells and borings in an approximate north-south alignment, the southernmost well/boring number is shown.

10.0 mg/L

Figure 5-6 June 2016 TCE Plume - Profile View Looking North

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Kansas City, Kansas

Northing

314,500

-Q) 31 4,000 Q)

LL

/ /

/

/ PZ-0

313.500 0 1W/1WA

313,000

2,270.000

ES091812103846MKE 5 7JX:E_Plume_Plan Vtew 2017 rev2.ai

-0 ca 0 0::

0 MW-94S/95D

2,271.000

-0 ca 0 0:: Q) Ol -0 0 0 o SB-32W

o SB-60

-0 ca 0

0:: en en ca Ol .... Q)

..0 LL

·O SB-31W

Feet 2,272.000 2.273,000

Slice plane intersects areas of highest concentration within the DCE plume. Footprint shown representative of DCE above 0.07 mg/L.

0.0025 mg/L 0.01 mg/L 0.1 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L

0 SB-7

SB-5

SB-5

Easting

0 LEGEND

D 3126 Brinkerhoff Road Property Limits

-- Buildings and Roads

- Section Cut Slice Plane

NOTES cis-1 ,2-DCE = cis-1,2-dichloroethene

mg/L =milligrams per liter

Gray shading represents the footprint of the plume outside of the section cut.

MW-98 was not sampled after 2009.

The kriged plume shells generated using mining visualization system (MVS) contain only modeled concen­trations above the RSK and MCL for TCE (0.07 mg/L) .

Non-detected concentrations were kriged using half laboratory the reporting limit.

Bounded by historical data from grab samples collected from soil boring locations presented on this figure.

To maximize clarity of the plume shells shown, monitoring well and groundwater grab boring labels are only shown for select locations.

Figure 5-7 June 2017 DCE Plume - Plan View

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Kansas City, Kansas

0

Q) Q)

LL

LEGEND

Elevation

775

750

725

700

675

650

625

2,270,000

D 3126 Brinkerhoff Road Property Limits

- Section Cut Slice Plane

ES091812103846MKE S-7 _DCE~Pkme_PfofJle lookmgNonha1

s ...... N

s ..- LO ON

I I

N ca CL Cf)

0 LO (j') --(/) 'o;;t (j')

~ ~

0 'o;;t 0 ...... --(/) ('I) 0 ......

~ ~

2,271,000

s 'o;;t N

I

ca (/)

2,272,000

Feet

('I) ('I)

I

ca (/)

co (j')

"""""" ca ca (/) (/)

2,273,000

co LO

I

ca (/)

Easting

Slice plane intersects areas of highest concentration within the DCE plume. Footprint shown representative of DCE above 0.07 mg/L.

0.0025 mg/L 0.01 mg/L 0.1 mg/L

NOTES cis-1 ,2-DCE = cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene

µg/L = micrograms per liter

Gray shading represents the footprint of the plume outside of the section cut.

MW-98 was not sampled after 2009.

The kriged plume shells generated using mining visualiza­tion system (MVS) contain only modeled concentrations above the RSK and MCL for cis-1 ,2-DCE (0.07 mg/L).

Non-detected concentrations were kriged using half laboratory the reporting limit.

Bounded by historical data from grab samples collected from soil boring locations presented on this figure.

Monitoring well and groundwater grab boring labels are consistent with those shown on previous figure.

For wells and borings in an approximate north-south alignment, the southernmost well/boring number is shown.

1.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L

Figure 5-8 June 2016 DCE Plume - Profile View Looking North

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Kansas City, Kansas

ate\F1 ure 5-9 - Chan es in Center of VOC Mass in Groundwater Plume.mxd6127/2017cbowman

1-lJJ lJJ Ct'. 1-(/)

I I­r-

Legend

OlJIH~Kl

f LJl..;NITL l<l

I WI [I< · 'liVf Pi

(,

I l r

/~ ( l NTR/\l

<;() l 1 ION'-,

I I ;.-.--------,

[ '1W N <;,JN -------

I /\ 1\1\J ( ' Mfl/\'~

I I I I I I I I I I

- U

Cl <( 0 Ct'. LL LL 0 I Ct'. lJJ ~ z Ci'. co

Existing RailRoad

NE ff l'A( KAC, N( <;y~TfM<;

·/\',/\l\J CJMr /\NY

• Center of VOC Mass ~ Monitoring Well D Offsite Target Treatment Zone

Phase I Air Sparge Wells Phase II Air Sparge Wells

--· 3126 Brinkerhoff Property Limits

l ~

r

Notes:

INAllONAI ,,J "uPt'l<F '>'-.ION

INC

" /\ l</\'-,IVf

SUNSHINE ROAD

l./il/v 91 ~ ~

Cl <( 0 Ct'. lJJ (.'.) Cl 0 Cl

W/\l I IS l UBRIC/\N I<,

Ml/V b8S

I'' _QCS

EJ< N/\l<M f

0

8

1. The center of total voe mass (i.e. TCE, cis-1,2-DCE. trans-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride) is presented for 2004 through 2015.

2. The center of mass was calculated using the average total voe data for 30 of the monitoring wells sampled quarterly.

1

t

J

l +

See Section 4.2 in the Comprehensive Investigation Report for further details.

HB I uller

Hf:'

2013 2015.

rr" oo oo ooo

I I .....-----., ~ l./i'J~

D / ; ,1)9, 0

/ /

Cl <( 0 Ct'. (/) (/) <( __J

(.'.) Ct'. lJJ co LL

Mr KM

0 150

~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim Feet 75

1 inch = 150 feet

/\<:JHI /\ND CHEMICAi CO

(,Al<l'N[ R f<AYMON l I /<. K/IT ~1 l f N llYf P

VA( /\NT

'L...---•-~-.1

Nil f,J T l/\M Y

PAI< N[l-I ·jl

t

L/\ll INLl-I f"/\Pl R '>roe K

+

I I I

J T

... t

t

Figure 5-9 Changes in Center of VOC Mass in Groundwater Plume

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site Kansas City, KS

Primary Source

Industrial

Activities

Notes:

I

Primary Release

Mechanism

Spills . I

Secondary

Source

'T

Surface soil

~

~

Secondary

Release

Mechanism

Dust generation

and volatilization

Leaching,

percolation, and

infiltration

t- ....

....

Tertiary Source

Sub-surface soils

Ground Water ~,.

Tertiary Release

Mechanism

Leaching,

percolation, and

infiltration

, I -~

~

~

___.

-~

Exposure

Medium

Air

Surface soil

Sub-surface soil

Ground water

H r---.

___.

___.

Exposure

Route

Inhalation

ln11:estion

Dermal contact

or root uptake

Dietary•

Ingestion

Dermal contact

or root uptake

Dietary•

Ingestion

Dermal contact

or root uptake

Dietary•

Plants

I I x

I

I

x

I x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Ecological Receptors

Ecological Receptor Groups

Invertebrates Amphibians/Reptiles Birds Mammals

x x

I x

I x

I x x

I

x

I

x

I x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

• =Complete and significant pathway - A complete and significant pathway means there is a potential for a contaminant to reach a receptor via the proposed route, and there is a high potentia l that the receptor will receive a significant proportion of the contaminant does via the proposed route.

o =Complete and significance unknown - A complete and significant pathway means there is a potential for a contaminant to reach a receptor via the proposed route, and that it is unknown if the receptor will rceive a significant proportion of the contaminant dose via the proposed route alone. However, the receptor could receive a significant proportion of the contaminant dose when combined with other pathways or other contaminants.

i =Complete and insignificant pathway - A complete and significant pathway means there is a potential for a contaminant to reach a receptor via the proposed route, and there is a low potentia l that the receptor will receive a significant proportion of the contaminant dose

via the proposed route.

x = Incomplete pathway - An incomplete pathway means there is no potential for a contaminant to reach a receptor via the proposed route.

*Dietary= Uptake from food items and trophic transfer.

Figure 7-1

Ecological Conceptual Site Model Former Unison Transformer Service, Inc. Site

Kansas City, Kansas

Appendix A Trend Graphs

!'JO

Oil E JO c: 0 :: "' c ~ ..., c: 0

:::: "' r;, ~ 0

JI

OJ 11 }'I 20

0 )1

0 11 l 00

NG0629170709CHC MWO& v1

11 ] ]00

11 11 l 7

MW-06

cis-1,2-DCE

~ UJ 11 29 •

Od le

TCE

11 11 I

1e

11 29 201~

l l l 14

APPENDIX A MW-06

-- I/ DCF

- 1<;,v1ue( 7

-- TlE

- R~f V.1 w (0 0 " I

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-07

CIS-1,2 DCE

~-~---· ---·;:::;;"' --

I I I

-- l ~......,'\ ' '' ' ' ';r"'\.,_ _______ .... _ .......... , __ _ - ·

V1nvl Cl loride

NG0629170709CH( MW07 v2

APPENDIX A

MW-07

. --

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

t F

11 2' 2 II

MW-08

CIS-1,2-DCE

d 1• .._ l

TCE

--R(,~1, l ., np, L

1, 2 I II

··~-~ V\J

-- .

1 l .! ' II

I. II ; II

NG0629 I 70709CHC MW08 v]

1 I II ,

Vinyl Chloride

I '

d ]I 11

APPENDIX A

MW-08

-

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-09

CIS-1,2 DCF

TG:

Vinyl Chloride

~ ...

NG0629! 7070q(ll( MW09 v2

APPENDIX A

MW-09

--_ ,

-

-- ·

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-10

m-1,2-DCE

0 c

c "~ ~-------v ~ •....•......•••••

- I DH

-- R't

12 12 I I

E

11

•'

NG0619170709CHC MWIO_v1

I J I

TCE

Ii I

I •

APPENDIX A MW-10

-- E

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-11

Cl 1.2-DCE

~.- ----· --- ~C\ .. ,.........._...

v

N(,0629110/0'l(H( MW l 1 vl

CE

~~-·--·--v

Vinyl Chloride

APPENDIX A MW-11

--

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

NG0679110709CHC MW30 v2

MW-30

cis-1,2-DCE

~--____ :;;;7 --- R

I I

TCE

•e S I I

" I e

APPENDIX A

MW-30

--_ ,

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-86S

m 1,2 DCE

--- ··

TCE

...... a I

~ .. ~ _ , --

NG0629170709CHC MW865_v2

APPENDIX A

MW-865

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

c

Nf,067917071l'l(H( MW87D_ v7

MW-870

CIS- 1,2 DCE

-- I/[ E

-- Rt

1. II

TCE

-- . ~\ ..... 1.1 ..... 1 .... 1 .... 141 .... 141 .... 1 .... 14141 .... 1 ..... 1------· - ·

l '

Vinyl Chloride

) t

APPENDIX A MW-870

--_ ,

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-885

C•S 1,7 DCE

A~------·· .. - --e:r.. - .

~CE

APPENDIX A

MW-885

--

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-890

CIS-1,2-DCE

. ~--·--:~·I·( { .! ' .1 I< • I II< •I

TCE

\bJJLA .... • .;> \l .......... ~ ..... -4 ............................... ~ ............ 4.~• .... ••~~_,.. - R>

• l ' 1. l 11 i 12 II

Vinyl Chloride

-- r• \ ................ _, ~ ............. - .................... _, y>"

11 if. 1

NG0629170709CHC MW89D. v2

APPENDIX A MW-890

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-905

rn-1 2-DCE.

-- I l

TCE

A /\ "' n. • . ,,,.~-----~ .... ___ .... __ _ , Iv V v W~ ~ - --~v

NC,()6]9J 10709(H( MW90S_ vi

APPENDIX A

MW-905

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-910

CIS-1,2-DCE

~----_., . ._.... ________ _. -- · Ii[ [ _ ,,

, I

NG0629170709CHC MW910 v2

APPENDIX A MW-910

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-925

CIS-1,2 DCE

-~· I I I I I I v

TCE

I I I I I

NC.0619170709(H( MW92~ v}

~'7';_, __

APPENDIX A

MW-925

-- If

--_ ,

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

E

11

c

:.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

NG0629170709CHC MW93D_v2

MW-930

cis-1,2-DCE

-_......__.,. ....... . _ ........... ...-----.. ~

- ............ r

TCE

APPENDIX A

MW-930

-- I - ··

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-96

m 1 2-0CE

Vinv C hloridE

N(,()629170709( HC MW96 vi

APPENDIX A

MW-96

--_ ,

--

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-97

CIS-1,2-DCE

1.

Vinyl Chloride

1(:)11 ,_.

v v a /\ h

I <

NG0629170709CHC MW97 v2

.A

APPENDIX A MW-97

•

- l l CXl

- r"

-

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-99

CIS-1.2-DCE

Vinyl Chlor 1de

··~·~· ... ·--·~ ...... 47' ~

NG0619110709tHC MW99 v)

APPENDIX A

MW-99

- --

--- ·

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-100

CIS-1,2-DCE

l I

Vinyl Chloride

::

...... _A Ar---\ .... - ................ ,_.,T'Q 'I

NG0629170709CHC MWIOO v2

APPENDIX CA MW-100

-

-- l t

- fr.\1

--- >•

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

._..->-

NG0629170709CHC MW101S_v2

MW-1015

m 1,2 DCE

·--... ~ • _ .. ,

TCE

APPENDIX A

MW-1015

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

r ~.

::

NG0629! 70709CHC MWI020 v2

MW-1020

CIS-1.2-DCE

TCE

- I

- "' • '=:;~,__4 ........ --.................... ~ .................... __ .... ________ __

Vinyl Chloride

.~----:=R>

APPENDIX A MW-1020

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-1035

c1s 1,2-DCE

~A.~------~ - r•

TCE

Vinyl Chloride

=

NC,Q619 170709CHC MWI03S_ v2

APPENDIX A

MW-1035

-- I

- r•

--- '~

' l

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

:::

NG0629J 70709CHC MWJ04D v2

MW-1040

CIS-1,2-DCE

'V' • ..........

TCE

v \ I I I I I I I I I

Vinyl Chloride

~ vv ...........

APPENDIX A

MW-1040

--- ft.

-- l

- •>

--- R•

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

.-

MW-1055

m-1,2-DCE

-- J.[ - ,,

I. I . l

· ~-----.~~-·----~--­~ -- l _ ,

. I

Vinyl Chloride

. ~ r-------__, •

APPENDIX A

MW-1055

--_ ,

-

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

NG0629170709CHC MW JOSS_ v2

MW-1060

CIS·l,2-DCE

- 12[[ -'\/ . v ----~ --.....,.,, ______ .. _______ I - P\• v

11 2 II 'l ,,

Vinyl Chloride

,__ /\ -• •

I ' ' I , J!l I , l

NG0629170709CHC MWl06D v2

'11 I,.

• ;;> l I

APPENDIX A

MW-1060

-•

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-107

cis-1,2-DCE

........... "'-...... .... ________ • e I

-~ I - >

--· ~-.. -·~ ... ~ - If

~ '---·-·-------

NG0629J70709CHC MW 107 v2

APPENDIX A

MW-107

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-108

CIS-1 ,2-DCE

~---·-·--...___-/.,.____ .. _ .. ,_ .. ,_, _,.......... .. ------... -- 11Cf

-- R~>, (I

11 l I

TCE

~--1-4& __ .... __ _.,/'... I .... a a I I ·--............. • ....,_........._. .. 1-----•

I L .I I , I

NG0619170709CHC MWI08 vi

APPENDIX A MW-108

_ ,,

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

MW-109

CIS-1,2-DCE

Vinyl Chloride

..---=I •

NC,0679170709CHC MWI09_v l

APPENDIX A

MW-109

-

-- l. _ ,,

--- ··

Trend Graphs - Offsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

PZ-01

CIS-1,2-DCE

"':::::: ... ______ _--_ ~\~

TCE

~·~-·------

NG0629170709CHC PZOI v2

APPENDIX A

PZ-01

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

PZ-02

CIS 1,2 DCt

Yvv-·~-------~ --

TCE

I V

NG0629170709CHC PZ02_v2

APPENDIX A

PZ-02

-- I

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

PZ-03

CIS-1,2-DCE

\

~~· \/\ ... / y y v 'wr

II I 1. .! L 1. 2

TCE

NG0629170709CHC PZ03 v2

•I

II 2 I

l i.J'

APPENDIX A

PZ-03

--- ·

-- I

- '

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

PZ-04

CIS-1.2-DCE

---- --- · I.

~CE

~-A -- t

~ '<::;.,._, ___ .. ;::;:::-,_ t'

I I

NG062q 170709CHC PZ04 v2

APPENDIX A

PZ-04

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

NG0629170709CH[ SV90 v2

SV-90

CIS-1,2-DCE

• ->1•

TCE

\ .......... -·-·-r \;J cc:::::_ .. , __ .,.,,...;;;;::>"

.! ' 11 11. 1 l 1 11

APPENDIX A SV-90 Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

SV-93

CIS- 1,2-DCE

-- !.

- .•

TCE

~. --~ ...... _,_, ... ,_,_,_, ... , ...... ,_, .. ,_., "'·---

NG06l9J70709CHC SV93 v2

APPENDIX A

SV-93

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

E

NG0679110709CHC 5V96_v2

SV-96

cis-1,2 DCE

- ft \/'~----~- -- l l

't.

TCE

APPENDIX A SV-96

, l

--- ··

Trend Graphs - Onsite Monitoring Wells

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

Appendix B

Well Construction Table

Appendix B-1. Summary of Well Construction Data

Former Unison Transformer Services, Inc. Site

Well Location

On site

5TW-2

5V-90

5V-93

5V-96

PZ-01

PZ-02

PZ-03

PZ-04

MW-G

MW-06

MW-07

MW-08

MW-09

MW-10 MW-11

MW-30

Offsite

MW-865

MW-870

MW-885

MW-890

MW-905

MW-910

MW-925

MW-930

MW-945 MW-950

MW-96

MW-97

MW-99

MW-100 MW-1015

MW-1020

MW-1035

MW-1040 MW-1055

MW-1060

MW-107

MW-108

MW-109

Notes:

Ground Top of

Surface

Elevation

(ft)

744.79

747.44

744.32

744.46 744.24

745.51

748.40

744.54

747.73

747.58

747.38

744.85 745.07

745.32

744.48

744.38

743.30

744.74

743.30

743.30 743.17

743.16

744.79

744.81

745.01 744.93

743.02

743.56

742.62

742.70 744.11

744.18

743.50

743.48 743.43

743.35

744.05

744.80

743.31

Casing

Elevation

(ft)

745.40

749.58

746.37

746.79 743.94

748.01

748.01

744.06 747.86

747.69

747.56

744.57

744.68

744.77

743.91

744.01

744.20

744.15

742.94

742.94

742.75

742.66

744.53

744.46

744.56 744.53

742 .70

743.23

742 .27

742.32 743.62

743.48

743.03

742.77

743.01 742.96

743.62

744.17

742.91

Screened Interval

(btoc)

NA

22.14

19.05

19.33

11.80

14.50

21.54

21.93

NA

20.12

39.08

19.83

38.93 19.77

43.75

29 .52

28.41

56.41

39.14

69.29

39.58 69 .50

29.74

44.65

29.55 44.60

69.68

69.67

74.65

87.62 50.81

59.86

60.15

70.28

65.50 75.73

10.28

10.14

75.00

NA 37.14

34.05

34.33

31.80

34.50

31.54

31.93 NA

30.12

49.08

29.83

48.93 29.77

53.75

39.52

48.41

76.41

59.14

89.29

59.58 89.50

39.74

54.65

39.55 54.60 79.68

79.67

84.65

97.62 60.81

69.86

70.15

80.28

75.50 85.73

30.28

30.14

85.00

Screen Interval

NA 727.44

727.32

727.46

732.11

733.51

726.48

722.56

NA 727.65

708.49

724.84

705 .93 725.34

700.52

714.50

715 .79

687 .74

703 .23

673.10

703.17 673.16

714.79

699.81

715.01 699.93 673.02

673.56

(ft)

NA 712.44

712.32

712.46

712.11 713.51

716.48

712.56

NA 717.65

698.49

714.84

695.93 715.34

690.52

704.50

695.79 667.74

683.23

653.10

683.17 653.16

704.79

689.81

705.01

689.93 663.02

663.56

667.62 - 657.62

654.70 644.70 693.30 - 683.30

684.32 - 674.32

683.35 - 673.35

673.20 - 663.20

677.93 - 667 .93

667.62

733.77

734.66

668.31

657.62

713.77

714.66

658.31

Elevations based on North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVO 88).

ft= feet ft btoc =feet below top of casing

NA= not available

Measured Total

Well Depth

(June 2016)

(ft btoc)

29.72 35.68

34.00

32.70

31.68 35.37

32.21

31.10

37.20 33.50

51.53

29 .56

48.50

29.90

36.93

48.75 76.00

57.20

89.52

58.30 89.53 39.90

54.50

38.31

94.10

78.40

82.20

95.44

59.50

69.80

69.72

79.70

74.43 85.00

29.70

29.75

84.38

-- = Not measured, the monitoring well was not installed, not scheduled for sampling, or not accessible

EN0718161115MKE 1of1