EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.

311762

Jacobsville Superfund Site

Technical Memorandum: EPA sampling events December 2004, April 2005, October 2005, and October 2006

Prepared By John Bing-Canar, FIELDS Group, US EPA, Region V

May 2009

. ^ ^ ^ ' ' %

% 0 , ^ '^ -^FIELDS

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. EPA conducted four sampling events at the Jacobsville Neighborhood Soil Contamination (Jacobsville) Superfund Site in Evansville, Indiana. These events helped characterize residential soil for metal levels by using an in-field analytical device, an XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence spectrometer). These sampling events included areas within and extending outward from the Jacobsville Neighborhood. This document describes these sampling events. Much of the content of this document was taken from Technical Memoranda written by Jena Sleboda, the former U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager for the Jacobsville Superfund Site.

SAMPLING EVENTS

In June of 2000 and 2001, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) conducted residential soil sampling in and around the Jacobsville Neighborhood in Evansville, Indiana as a post-removal sampling for the Evansville Plating Works Superfund Site. Due to the high levels of lead found in the residential soils, the Jacobsville Neighborhood was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL).

Following this sampling event, the U.S. EPA conducted four residential sampling events: December 2004, April 2005, October 2005, and October 2006. For each sampling event, access agreements were sent to property owners who owned parcels of land at or near the proposed sampling locations. Many signed access agreements were mailed back to the U.S. EPA's Chicago office before the sampling event occurred. For sample locations that did not have any returned signed access agreements, U.S. EPA persoimel knocked on residents' doors near the sampling location to obtain a signature for access to sample their yard. Whenever possible, the closest lawn with granted access to the proposed sampling location was used for the sampling event.

After each sampling event, linear regression and regression diagnostics were employed to related lead values read from an XRF with their respective laboratory analytical values using the SAS statistical software. The statistical methods employed were drawn froiu SAS literature and three regression texts: Statistical Methods in Water Resources, 1992; and Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods. 1978 and 1988. (See "References" section for a complete list of regression resources.) These analyses were only performed for lead values as the focus of the Superfund Site at the time was lead, and, hence, samples selected for laboratory analysis were selected only for a range of lead values. (Regression analysis for other metals can be difficult as there needs to be a range of concentration values.) An example of the results from linear regression is provided for the October 2006 sampling event.

December 2004 Sampling Event

When IDEM conducted their soil sampling, the purpose was to determine if there were high enough levels in a sufficiently large area to justify listing the site on the NPL. However, the data from these sampling events did not provide enough information to delineate the extent of contamination. Therefore, a systematic grid sampling design was generated using the U.S. EPA Region 5 FIELDS GIS-based software (the FIELDS Tools), and sampling was performed by five U.S. EPA employees and research associates and one IDEM employee. The sampling was conducted November 29-December 3, 2004.

The field sampling activides were conducted in accordance with the procedures described in the Field Sampling Plan (FSP) dated "November 2004." Details on the methods utilized in field and the degree of accomplishment for the field sampling activities are addressed in the following paragraphs.

The sampling design included 73 planned sampling locations: 29 locations in a 500-meter grid centered on the previous IDEM sampling locations (inner grid), and 44 surrounding locations that were spaced 750 meters apart (see Figure 1). All samples were collected as a five-point composite sample using a bulb planter as described in the FSP. Photos were taken of each sample after it had been composited and homogenized. Out of the 73 planned locations, only 49 locations were sampled due to time, weather, terrain and access constraints. The inner grid locations were sampled first, followed by the locations immediately surrounding the inner grid. X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer units were used during the sampling to screen soil concentrations for lead and arsenic as well as other metals. These units were attached to a computer running the Rapid Assessment Tools (RAT) software. Sample locations were collected using Trimble ProXR GPS equipment using the RAT software. The results for lead for the December 2004 sampling event are presented in Figure 2.

Two XRF units were used during the sampling to screen soil concentrations for lead and other metals. The specific units used were a Niton Model XLp-712 and a Niton Model XL-700. Twenty percent (12) of the samples taken were sent to U.S. EPA's Central Regional Laboratory (CRL) for Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP) metals analysis to verify and/or correlate the XRF screening results. Quality assurance/quality control samples (QA/QC) samples were also taken for both the XRF and laboratory samples.

The laboratory samples were taken from the composited sample and stored in 8-ounce glass sampling jars. The stored samples were refrigerated during the sampling event and following weekend, and personally delivered to the CRL on Monday December 6, 2004. Chain-of-custody forms were found acceptable by the laboratory.

All addresses were documented in the field log and in the RAT software-generated electronic database to link samples to addresses for future reference. The time of sample, sample number, and any observations about the locations, such as if the residents were

home or if the yard being sampled was possibly re-graded, were also noted in the field log books.

The XRF screening data, before any correlation to laboratory results, indicated that the highest lead concentrafion reading was outside the Jacobsville Neighborhood and outside the inner grid area, and the second highest lead concentration reading was in the Jacobsville Neighborhood. There were two sample locations outside the inner grid that had lead concentration readings greater than 400 parts per million (ppm). There was one additional sample location outside the inner grid that had a lead concentration reading greater than 200 ppm.

April 2005 Sampling Event

The December 2004 sampling event was inconclusive in determining the areal extent of contamination in the soils. Therefore, a second sampling design was created to extend the sampling grid beyond the December 2004 sampling extent (see Figure 3). This sampling was conducted April 11-15, 2005. Sampling continued until two samples in a row (outward from the Jacobsville Neighborhood) had XRF readings less than 200 ppm for lead. In such an instance, sampling was not continued in that direction. This sampling effectively determined the boundaries of the lead concentrations greater than 400 ppm.

The field sampling activities were conducted in accordance with the procedures described in the FSP dated November 2004 and the Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum A dated March 24, 2005. Details on the methods utilized in field and the degree of accomplishment for the field sampling activities are addressed in the following paragraphs.

The sampling plan included 193 planned sampling locations: 91 sample locafions in the inner grid spaced 750 meters apart and 102 sample locafions in the outer grid spaced 750 meters apart. The southernmost sample locations directly east of the Ohio River were never intended to be sampled due to the fact that there were no residences in or around the area. Out of the 193 sample locations, 55 locations were sampled. Samples were taken starting with the inner samples and working out from the center of contamination (i.e., the Jacobsville Neighborhood). If two samples in a row outward from the Jacobsville Neighborhood had XRF lead readings less than 200 ppm, sampling was not continued in that direction. As in the previous sampling event, XRF units were used during the sampling to screen soil concentrations for lead and arsenic as well as other metals. These units were attached to a computer running the RAT software. Sample locations were collected using Trimble ProXR GPS equipment using the RAT software. The results for the April 2005 sampling event for lead are presented in Figure 4.

Two XRF units were used during the sampling to screen soil concentrations for lead and other metals. The specific units used were a Niton Model XLp-712 and a Niton Model XL-700. Twenty percent (15) of the samples taken were sent to U.S. EPA's Central

Regional Laboratory (CRL) for ICP metals analysis to verify and/or correlate the XRF screening results. QA/QC samples were also taken for both the XRF and laboratory samples.

The laboratory samples were taken from the composited sample and stored in 8-ounce glass sampling jars. The stored samples were refrigerated during the sampling event and following weekend, and personally delivered to the CRL on Friday April 15, 2005. Chain-of-custody forms were found acceptable by the laboratory.

All addresses were documented in the field log and in the RAT software- generated electronic database to link samples to addresses for future reference. The time of sample, sample number, and any observations about the locations, such as if the residents were home or if the yard being sampled was possibly re-graded, were also noted in the field log books.

October 2005 Sampling Event

A third sampling design was created in order to find hotspots within the delineated boundaries. Samples were taken at half the distance of previous sampling grids, and in areas surrounding previous samples with the highest lead concentrations (see Figure 5). This sampling further defined the contamination within the boundaries delineated in the second sampling event. The sampling took place October 18-27, 2005 and was conducted by the U.S. EPA. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate soils in and around previous sampling event sample locations that had adjusted lead concentrations of greater than 400 ppm, so as to locate hotspots within the delineated contamination plume (USEPA, December 2005).

The field sampling activities were conducted in accordance with the procedures described in the FSP dated November 2004 and the Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum B dated September 20, 2005. Details on the methods utilized in field and the degree of accomplishment for the field sampling activities are addressed in the following paragraphs.

The sampling design included 182 plarmed sampling locations: 98 locations within the delineated contamination boundaries north of the Lloyd Expressway, and 84 locations within the delineated contamination boundaries south of the Lloyd Expressway (see Figure 5). The spacing used was a 250 meter grid. Several samples were taken in locations that were not in the sampling plan but chosen based on the XRF results in the field. Some sample locations were not sampled because access could not be obtained for any properties in the area. All samples were collected as a five-point composite sample using a bulb planter as described in the FSP. In addhion, ten drip zone samples were taken to determine if lead paint is possibly contribufing to the elevated levels of lead in the soils. These samples were collected as four point composite samples (one from each side of the house, when possible). Photos were taken of each sample after it had been composited and homogenized. Out of the 182 planned locations, 147 locations were

sampled due to access constraints and data needs as determined by the data collected by the XRF. As in the previous sampling event, XRF units were used during the sampling to screen soil concentrations for lead and arsenic as well as other metals. These units were attached to a computer running the RAT software. Sample locations were collected using Trimble ProXR GPS equipment using the RAT software. The results for the October 2005 sampling event for lead are presented in Figure 6.

Two XRF units were used during the sampling to screen soil concentrations for lead and other metals. The specific units used were a Niton Model XLp-712 and a Niton Model XL-700. Twenty percent (29) of the samples taken were sent to U.S. EPA's Central Regional Laboratory (CRL) for ICP metals analysis to verify and/or correlate the XRF screening results. QA/QC samples were also taken for both the XRF and laboratory samples.

The laboratory samples were taken from the composited sample and stored in 8-ounce glass sampling jars. The stored samples were refrigerated during the sampling event and following weekend, and personally delivered to the CRL on Friday October 28, 2005. Chain-of-custody forms were found acceptable by the laboratory.

All addresses were documented in the field log and in the RAT software-generated electronic database to link samples to addresses for future reference. The time of sample, sample number, and any observations about the locations, such as if the residents were home or if the yard being sampled looked like it may have been re-graded, were also noted in the field log books.

This October 2005 sampling event verified the boundaries of the areal extent of lead contamination for the Jacobsville Neighborhood Soil Contamination Site, and the denser sampling design better described the lead contamination within the boundaries. In addition, ten drip zone samples were taken to determine if lead paint is possibly contributing to the elevated levels of lead in the soils. These samples were collected as four point composite samples (one from each side of the house, when possible). The drip zone samples indicated that there were homes in the area that had lead paint on the exterior, which is possibly adding to the high concentrations of lead found in the area. The estimated extent of contamination based on the results from the December 2004, April 2005, and October 2005 sampling events is presented in Figure 7. These areas are referred to as the northern and southern Operable Unit 2 (0U2) areas.

October 2006 SamplinR Event

The fourth, and final, sampling event was designed to determine if the size of the area of contamination could be refined and if the confidence interval about the expected number of properties at or above the Preliminary Remediafion Goal (PRG) values for lead could be narrowed. An adaptive fill sampling design was created within the northern and southern areas of 0U2. Adaptive fill sampling places new sampling locations in the most poorly sampled areas, i.e., in areas farthest from other existing sampling locations. As

such, the design "fills in" pooriy sampled areas with new sample locations. The sampling took place October 17-27, 2006 and was conducted by the U.S. EPA. Thirty-five samples were sent for laboratory analysis.

The field sampling acfivities were conducted in accordance with the procedures described in the FSP dated November 2004 and the Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum B dated September 20, 2005. Details on the methods utilized in field and the degree of accomplishment for the field sampling acfivities are addressed in the following paragraphs.

The sampling design included 177 plarmed sampling locations: 66 locations within the delineated contamination boundaries north of the Lloyd Expressway, and 111 locations within the delineated contamination boundaries south of the Lloyd Expressway (see Figure 8). All samples were collected as a five-point composite sample using a bulb planter as described in the FSP. Photos were taken of each sample after it had been composited and homogenized. Out of the 177 planned locafions, 171 locations were sampled. Eight locations were not sampled due to access constraints. The results for the October 2006 sampling event for lead are presented in Figure 9.

Two XRF units were used during the sampling to screen soil concentrations for lead and other metals. The specific units used were Innov-X Model a4000s. Twenty percent (35) of the samples taken were sent to U.S. EPA's Central Regional Laboratory (CRL) for ICP metals analysis to verify and/or correlate the XRF screening results. QA/QC samples were also taken for both the XRF and laboratory samples.

The laboratory samples were taken from the composited sample and stored in 8-ounce glass sampling jars. The stored samples were refrigerated during the sampling event and following weekend, and personally delivered to the CRL on Friday October 27, 2006. Chain-of-custody forms were found acceptable by the laboratory.

The laboratory results were used to determine any error or bias in the XRF readings. Precision of the Niton XRF units (for lead) was found to be within the acceptable limits except for the two samples with the lowest lead concentrations. Output from linear regression, using the SAS software, is presented in Figures 10 and 11.

All addresses were documented in the field log and in the RAT software-generated electronic database to link samples to addresses for future reference. The time of sample, sample number, and any observations about the locations, such as if the residents were home or if the yard being sampled looked like it may have been re-graded, were also noted in the field log books.

The October 2006 sampling event verified the boundaries of the areal extent of lead contaminafion for the Jacobsville Neighborhood Soil Contamination Site, and the denser sampling design better described the lead contamination within the boundaries. The estimated extent of contamination is presented in Figure 12. The figure shows a slight

decrease in the extent of contamination compared to the results of the October 2005 sampling event (see Figure 7).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The resuhs for lead from each of the four U.S. EPA sampling events as well as the IDEM 2001 sampling event are presented in Figure 13.

As noted above, the fourth and final sampling event (October 2006) slightly decreased the size of 0U2's northern and southern areas. This event also narrowed the confidence interval about the expected number of properties at or above the PRG value for lead (see next paragraph). Hence, this final sampling event demonstrated that additional sampling would not significantly change the expected number of properties at or above the PRG value for lead.

To demonstrate the level of conclusiveness of the four U.S. EPA-conducted sampling events in determining the percentage of properties to be remediated, the effect that the final sampling event (October 2006) had on the proportion of properties in 0U2 that would likely require remediation was compared to that of the previous three U.S. EPA and one IDEM sampling events. The proportion of properties above the PRG for lead based on the sampling events in 2001, December 2004, April 2005, and October 2005 was 0.36. A confidence interval (Agresti and Coull corrected confidence interval) for this proportion was 0.29 to 0.43. The proportion of properties above the PRG for lead after the October 2006 sampling event (including the previous sampling events in 2001, 2004, April 2005, and October 2005) was 0.39, a change of 0.03. This represents a small change especially considering that the number of sampled properties almost doubled (from 180 to 355) after the October 2006 sampling was completed. A confidence interval (Agresti and Coull corrected confidence interval) for this proportion (0.39) is 0.34 to 0.45. Although the interval decreased slightly (from 0.14 to 0.11), the upper confidence interval, which is the more conservative estimate of the proportion, did not change significantly (0.43 to 0.45). Hence, it was concluded that further sampling was unlikely to significantly change the expected proportion of properties potentially requiring remedial action.

REFERENCES

Technical Memoranda:

USEPA, Technical Memorandum #1, Field Summary Report for Sampling Event Dates: November 29-December 3, 2004. January 13, 2005, Revision: 0

USEPA, Technical Memorandum #2, Preliminary Site Characterization Summary for Sampling Event Dates: November 29-December 3, 2004. April 4, 2005, Revision: 0

USEPA, Technical Memorandum #3, Field Summary for Sampling Event Dates: April 11-15, 2005. June 13, 2005, Revision: 0

USEPA, Technical Memorandum #4, Preliminary Site Characterization Summary for Sampling Event Dates: April 11-15, 2005. July 11, 2005, Revision: 0

USEPA, Technical Memorandum #5, Field Summary Report for Sampling Event Dates: October 17-26, 2005. December 28, 2005, Revision: 0

USEPA, Technical Memorandum #6, Preliminary Site Characterization Summary for Sampling Event Dates: October 17-27, 2005. January 23, 2006, Revision: 0

Regression and Regression diagnostics:

Chen, X., Ender, P., Mitchell, M. and Wells, C. (2003). Regression with SAS, from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/webbooks/reg/default.htm

Helsel, D.R. and Hirsch R.M., Statistical Methods in Water Resources, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992.

Kleinbaum, D.G. and Kupper, L.L., Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods, Duxbury Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1978.

Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L., and Muller, K.E., Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods, Second Edition. PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1988.

SAS Help, version 9.1.3. Search for "influence statisfics", then select "REG procedure"

SAS Insfitute Inc., SAS/STAT® User's Guide. Version 8. Gary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1999. (Chapter 55, The REG Procedure)

SAS Insfitute Inc., SAS ® System for Regression. Second Edition. Gary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1991.210pp.

2 9 l oca t i ons , t r i angu l a r g r id (every 500 meters)

4 4 l oca t i ons , s q u a r e g r id (every 750 meters)

Figure I: Proposed sample locations for December 2004 EPA sampling event

Lead values (ppm) • 0 - 400

400-1,200 • 1,200-9,100

( ^ E57answille City boundary

f^ Phase 1 polygan

December 2004 Residential Soil Lead Results

Jacobsville Superfund Site (Evansville, Indiana)

0 250 500 1,0D0 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4.000

a»'«'"»><^

UrM16N NAD 83 Meters ""•«'»'*'"'

>FELDS FIELDS Team - .•,.. November 2008

Created by: John Bing-Canar

Figure 2: Soil lead levels for December 2004 EPA sampling event

So o o 01

9 high priority locations, 750 meter grid Q low priority locations, 750 meter grid

o o o . o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . a

fo O O O O 9 o

o o o a ® ®

9 0 ^ 0 9

@ @ 0

0 3

• # © o

lo o o © © 9 @ @ @

o o o O O O O o'l

o o 0 B # 9 Q O

Figure 3: Proposed sample locations for April 2005 EPA sampling event

o • * «

• * •

Lead values (ppm)

• 0-400 400-1,200

• 1,200-9,100

( ^ Evansville City boundary

^ Phase 1 polygon

April 2005 Residential Soil Lead Results

Jacobsville Superfund Site (Evansville, Indiana)

0 312.5625 1,250 1,875 2,500 3,125 3,750 4,375 5,000

Un-M15N i K f t ^ l ^ B ^ E L D S FIElDSTeam NAD 83 S ^ ^ ^ i - J ^ ¥ " ' - ••"— November 2008 Meters "ft~ofl^ Created by: John Bing-Canar

V

Figure 4: Soil lead levels for April 2005 EPA sampling event

4h 84 locations, triangular grid, -250 meters (some locations removed)

Figure 5: Proposed sample locations for October 2005 EPA sampling event

Lead values (ppm) • 0-400

400-1.200 • 1,200-9,100

l ^ Evansville City boundary

C S Phase 1 polygon

October 2005 Residential Soil Lead Results

Jacobsville Superfund Site (Evansville. Indiana)

0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,600 3.000 3.500 4.000

UrM16N NAD 83 \ ® * 8 » y Meters '"'•**'

(A) ^IMt 5, ELDS Team November 2008 Created by: John Bing-Canar

Figure 6: Soil lead levels for October 2005 EPA sampling event

Jacobsville Superfund Site

Legend

OU2 (north)

OU2 (south)

Extent of sampling

Evansville City boundary

0 05 1 iCreated; 19 March 2009

Figure 7: 0U2 boundaries after October 2005 EPA sampling event

Figure 8: Proposed sample locations for October 2006 EPA sampling event

Lead values (ppm)

• 0 - 400 400 -1,200

• 1,200-9,100

^ Evansville City boundary

^ Phase 1 polygpn

Oct 2006 Residential Soil Lead Results

Jacobsville Superfund Site (Evansville, Indiana)

0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

UTM16N l M y \ H ^ F E L D S FIELDS Team

Meters '^mf^ Created by: John Bing-Canar

Figure 9: Soil lead levels for October 2006 EPA sampling event

XRF Leacf values vs Lab Lead values Natural Log, LN, of both XRF and Lab Lead values

The REG Procedure Model: MODEU

Dependent Variable: LNJab Lab, ppm

Analysis of Variance

Source

Model

Error

Corrected Total

^ ^ Sum of WIean DF Squares Square

1 21.60676 21.60676

33 1.61258 0.04887

34 23.21935

F Value

442.16

P r>F

<.0001

RootySE 0.22106

Dependent Mean 5.97106

CoeffVar 3.70214

R-Square

Adj R-Sq

0.9305

0.9284

Variable

Intercept

LN_XRF

Label

Intercept

Parameter Estimates

1

DF

1

1

Parameter Estimate

0.37445

1.00110

Standard Error

0.26876

0.04761

t Value

1.39

21.03

Pr > |t|

0.1729

<.0001

Figure 10: Linear regression output from the SAS software for the October 2006 EPA sampling event |:

tM_Uib (ppiti

TS

7.4

7 2

7 J O

6 S

ee e.4 62 6X) 6 S 6B 6.4-82

4B 4.6 4.4 42 4J0-I

X I V Lead vQluea vs Lab Lead vnlues NabJnil Log, LN, of bolh XRF and Lab Lend vnbco

Recfeeaicn equation (y—inlereepi} nnd 9 C ^ CLM

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 S 5 S 5 5 S S 5 5 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 G 6

O i 2 3 4 5 S 7 8 d 0 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 S d 0 1 2 3 4 S e 7

LNJCRF (jspm)

6 6 7 7 7

8 9 0 1 2

7 7 7 7

3 4 6 S

Figure 11: Linear regression line from SAS software for the October 2006 EPA sampling event

Jacobsville Superfund Site

•i'f

Legend

i I OU2 proposed (north) OU2 proposed (south)

13,,^! Extent of sampling \ \ Evansville City bovindary

0 0.5 1 3 4

Figure 12: 0U2 boundaries after October 2006 EPA sampling event

Lead values (ppm) • 0 - 400

400-1,200 • 1,200-9,100

Q ^ Evansville City boundary

All Residential Soil Lead Results Jacobsville Superfund Site

(Evansville, Indiana)

0 635 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000

LTTMIBN MftD83 Meters

f ^ \ ^ ^ E L D S FIELDS Team November 2008 Created by; John Bing-Canar

Figure 13: Soil lead levels for all sampling events: IDEM 2001, EPA December 2004, April 2005, October 2005, and October 2006 sampling event