EPA Region 5 Records Ctr. 230846 •^^m^^Mm

»•" "fl

4*1»

EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.

230846

•^^m^^Mm

Final Report

l reek^

ition

Volume 1 of 2

Wisconsin Departmentof Natural Resources

May 1992

L

[

r

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OFNATURAL RESOURCES

CEDAR CREEK PCB INVESTIGATION

FINAL REPORT

VOLUME 1 OF 2REPORT

L

•^ ^\ %MICHAEL D. \ \

it I DORAN \*TE-17369 1 \Madison / •

\%" "'

r

STRAND ASSOCIATES, INC.Consulting Engineers

910 West Wingra DriveMadison. Wl 53715

MAY 1992

STRANDASSOCIATES. INC.

E N G I N E E R S

91O West Wingra DriveMadison, Wisconsin 53715(6O8) 251-4843

Pp May 20, 1992

p DNR Southeast District[ 2300 N. Martin Luther King Drive

Box 12436I Milwaukee, WI 53212

Attention: Ms. Margaret Graefe, Project Manager

| Re: Cedar Creek PCB InvestigationFinal Report

r

1 Dear Ms. Graefe:

| ' We are pleased to submit fifteen copies of the final report for this project.

We have enjoyed working with you on this project. If you have any questions or[ 1 comments on the final report, please feel free to call.

Sincerely,

r.1 STRAND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Jane M. Carlson

L

iael

104-928/JMC:td

CEDAR CREEK PCB INVESTIGATION

Table of Contents

Page Number

I

t

c

VOLUME 1 - REPORT

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.01 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1-11.02 ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS 1-2

SECTION 2 - BACKGROUND

2.01 PHYSICAL SETTING 2-12.02 PROPERTIES AND REGULATIONS OF PCBs 2-32.03 PAST STUDIES 2-52.04 POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES 2-9

SECTION 3 - METHODS

3.01 EMERGENCY SEDIMENT CORE SAMPLING 3-13.02 STORM SEWER AND SITE SAMPLING PROCEDURES 3-43.03 BACKGROUND AND QUARRY POND SAMPLING 3-73.04 SMOKE AND TRACER TESTING 3-103.05 ANALYTICAL METHODS 3-11

SECTION 4 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.01 SEDIMENT SAMPLING RESULTS 4-14.02 SEWER AND SITE SAMPLING RESULTS 4-34.03 SAMPLE QA/QC 4-44.04 SMOKE AND TRACER TESTING RESULTS 4-5

SECTION 5 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.01 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 5-15.02 SOURCES AND MAGNITUDE OF CONTAMINATION 5-2

[.

I

[;

I,LC

CErri:

List of Tables

Page Following

2.04-1 POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES 2-9

3.01-1 SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CORE SAMPLES 3-13.02-1 SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS 3-4

4.01-1 RUCK POND CORES PCB AROCLOR AND DATING RESULTS 4-14.01-2 SUMMARY OF PCB CONGENER RESULTS 4-14.01-3 APPROXIMATE MOLECULAR COMPOSITION OF

SELECTED AROCLORS 4-14.01-4 QUARRY POND CORES PCB AROCLOR RESULTS 4-34.02-1 SEWER AND SITE SAMPLE RESULTS 4-34.03-1 RESULTS OF FIELD DUPLICATES 4-4

List of Figures

Page Following

2.01-1 STUDY AREA LOCATION MAP 2-12.04-1 SITES 1, 2 AND 3 LOCATION MAP 2-92.04-2 SITES 4 AND 5 LOCATION MAP 2-92.04-3 SITES 6, 7 AND 8 LOCATION MAP 2-102.04-4 SITES 9 AND 10 LOCATION MAP 2-102.04-5 SITES 11 AND 12 LOCATION MAP 2-10

3.01-1 RUCK AND CEDARBURG POND CORE LOCATIONS 3-13.01-2 HYDRAULIC SEDIMENT EXTRUDER 3-23.02-1 KIEKHAEFER - MERCURY MARINE PLANT 2 SUMP LOCATIONS 3-43.03-1 QUARRY POND SAMPLE LOCATION AND RESULTS 3-8

4.02-1 SITES 1 THROUGH 5 PCB AROCLOR RESULTS 4-44.02-2 KIEKHAEFER - MERCURY MARINE PLANT 2

PCB AROCLOR RESULTS 4-44.02-3 SITE 6, 7 AND 8 PCB AROCLOR RESULTS 4-44.02-4 SITES 9, 10 AND 11 PCB AROCLOR RESULTS 4-4

REFERENCES

VOLUME 2-APPENDICES

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A - WDNR 1990 REPORT BY TIMOTHY BAKERAPPENDIX B - HISTORICAL DATAAPPENDIX C - PHOTOSAPPENDIX D - RUCK POND CORE DESCRIPTIONSAPPENDIX E - LABORATORY REPORTSAPPENDIX F - DATA ANALYSIS

i:r:

C

f

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

Lf:

EIr

1.01 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This investigation was authorized by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)

and funded through the state Environmental Fund. The purpose of the study was to identify

potential sources of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination in the sediments of Cedar

Creek within the City of Cedarburg, Wisconsin.

Contamination in the Cedar Creek watershed was first documented in 1 984, when the WDNR

analyzed fish tissue from the stream reaches north of and within the City of Cedarburg. Fish

from the upper reaches had no detections of PCBs while the fish taken from lower

impoundments had tissue concentrations ranging from 1.4 to 82 parts per million (ppm) PCBs.

Further studies were conducted on fish tissue and sediments in 1986 to attempt to delineate

the extent and distribution of PCB contamination. In 1987 the WDNR conducted a potentially

responsible party (PRP) search of the Cedarburg area which led to meetings with employees

of two industries which were known users of PCB containing materials. This investigation

was then authorized to further delineate the sources and routes of PCB contamination in

Cedar Creek in the City of Cedarburg, and to further evaluate PRPs.

The scope of the investigation, as identified by the WDNR, was generally to:

1. Collect sediment cores from Ruck Pond to date the sediments and determine

the Aroclor-specific PCB concentrations in order to time differentiate various

PRPs.

! 2. Define geographic PCB source(s) through storm sewer and site testing for

Aroclor-specific PCBs.

iIn addition, a background sediment core was obtained from Cedarburg Pond upstream of Ruck

Pond to verify upstream PCB concentrations. Sediment cores were also collected from the

L. Zuenert Park Quarry Pond in the southeast portion of the city to evaluate potential sources

and the magnitude of contamination in the pond, which is not a Cedar Creek impoundment.

Core samples were collected in four locations in Ruck Pond, and were segmented for dating

analysis, Aroclor analysis, and total organic carbon (TOO analysis. "Aroclor" is a trade name

for PCB mixtures manufactured by Monsanto Corporation, such as Aroclor 1242, 1248,

1254, and 1260. Portions of the core samples were also analyzed for PCB congeners.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 1-1

There are 209 known PCB congeners, each of which have different numbers and locations

of chlorine atoms or a different number or configuration of carbon rings. PCB congener

j analysis was used to identify the specific congeners present in the PCB mixture.

r? The purpose of the Ruck Pond sediment core sampling was to obtain cores to the depth of

{ the original stream bottom, if possible, so that sediment samples could be dated and analyzedfor PCBs. The primary objective of core sampling was to allow the WDNR to time

^. differentiate the source(s) of PCB contamination in the sediments by comparing PCB Aroclors

and concentrations to sediment age and depth.

; Site and storm sewer samples were collected from approximately 50 sampling locations

including building sumps in the former Mercury Marine Plant #2 building. Site samples were

collected primarily from sewers or sites draining into Ruck Pond, Ruck Raceway, Hamilton

Pond, and Quarry Pond. Two building sump samples were split with the State Lab of Hygiene

for PCB congener analysis. Quarry Pond core samples were collected from 4 locations. These

samples were analyzed for PCB Aroclors.

; This report presents a discussion of historical activities and past studies related to the CedarCreek PCB contamination; methods used for sampling and analysis; a discussion of sample

results as they relate to historical findings; and an evaluation of potential sources of the CedarCreek PCB contamination.

II

LCfr

1.02 ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS

The following abbreviations and terms are used in this report:

Aroclor - trade name for PCB mixture commercially available from about 1929 to1977

ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials

cfm - cubic feet per minutechlorobiphenyl - biphenyl compound with one or more (up to ten) chlorine atom

substitutions (polychlorinated biphenyl)CMP - corrugated metal pipe

CGLS - Center for Great Lakes Studies

congener - a molecule having the same empirical formula and molecular weight as

another molecule but differing in geometric configuration and properties

(also "isomer")

DILHR - Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations

dup - duplicate sample

104-928/JMCm3/RPT/052192 1-2

i

Li*I;

ECi....[ •;

rI

-

L[

*•

L

LWM

MCLMCLG

MERLCmg/kg

mg/L

MH

MJV

ng/gng/L

NR 140,157PCB

Ppb

ppm

PRP

QA/QC

sq cm

SCS

SLOH

TCT

TOCTSCA

A/g/kg

USEPAUSDA

usesWDNR

WGNHSWWTP

length weighted mean

maximum contaminant levelmaximum contaminant level goal

Milwaukee Electric Railway and Light Company

milligrams per kilogram (approximately ppm if dry weight basis)

milligrams per liter (approximately equivalent to ppm in dilute solutions)

manhole

Madison Joint Venturesnanograms per gram (approximately ppb if dry weight basis)

nanograms per liter (approximately equivalent to parts per trillion in

dilute solutions)

Wisconsin Administrative Code Natural Resources Chapter

Polychlorinated biphenyl

parts per billion

parts per million

potentially responsible party

quality assurance/quality control

square centimeters

Soil Conservation Service

State Laboratory of Hygiene

Twin City Testing

total organic carbon

Toxic Substance Control Act

micrograms per kilogram (approximately ppb if dry weight basis)

micrograms per liter (approximately equivalent to ppb in dilute solutions)

United States Environmental Protection AgencyUnited States Department of Agriculture

United States Geological SurveyWisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey

wastewater treatment plant

c

rc,

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052192 1-3

If

SECTION 2BACKGROUND

This section provides a discussion of the physical setting and past activities related to PCBsediment contamination in Cedar Creek.

2.01 PHYSICAL SETTING

A. Watershed

Cedar Creek and its watershed are located in the Milwaukee River Basin in SoutheasternWisconsin. Cedar Creek originates in Washington County north of Cedarburg and flows southto southeast through Washington and Ozaukee Counties for approximately 30.6 miles beforeits confluence with the Milwaukee River downstream of the City of Cedarburg. The studyarea is located in Sections 25, 26, 27, 34, and 35 of Township 10 North, Range 21 East(T1 ON, R21E), and Sections 2 and 3 of T9N, R21E. A location map showing the study areais provided in Figure 2.01-1.

Cedar Creek is classified by the WDNR as a full fish and aquatic life stream, capable ofsupporting a diverse aquatic life community. Cedar Creek also affords a variety of recreationaluses including swimming, wading, hunting, trapping, wildlife observation, sight seeing, andother aesthetic uses (Baker, 1990).

Cedar Creek has several dams within the City of Cedarburg, forming the followingimpoundments (from upstream to downstream): Cedarburg Pond, Ruck Pond, Columbia Pond,Wire and Nail Pond, and Hamilton Pond. Ruck Raceway is also located within the city andserves as a spillway from Ruck Pond. A former rock quarry forms a pond within the City ofCedarburg as well. A brief description of these water bodies follows.

Cedarburg Pond: Cedarburg Pond is located in the northern part of the City ofCedarburg. The pond surface area is 14.8 acres and the maximum depth is seven feet(Poff, Gernay, et.al., 1964).

Ruck Pond: Ruck Pond is located south of Cedarburg Pond and Bridge Road, and northof Columbia Road. It is a narrow, shallow impoundment approximately four acres insize with a maximum observed depth of 5.7 feet. Sediments observed during previousstudies included coarse to fine gravel and sand materials with few fine texturedparticles in the upper 1/3 of the impoundment, and thin to moderately thick depositsof fine silt in the lower 2/3. Water from this impoundment spills over a dam which

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 2-1

Lr

E

S • • • ! ! • • ' V,G'gi"g Slalion

EDARBURG POND

RUCK POND

COLUMBIA POND

HAMILTON POND

RUCK RACEWAY

QUARRY POND

rfr~ JJJ »

^ -i •BASE SOURCE: USGS 7.5 WIN QUAD

CEDARBURG, Wl, 1959 ,PHOTOREV. 1971 & 1976 1"= 2000'

FIGURE2.01-1

104-921-1 A

WISCONSIN DNRCEDAR CREEK PCS INVESTIGATION

STUDY A R E A LOCATION MAPSTRANDASSOCIATED i*«c

i:

L

EI

was constructed prior to 1 91 5 to serve a former grist mill. Water may also be sluiced

around the main downstream channel by means of Ruck Raceway. The water level

in the pond has been reduced at least twice in the past by means of the raceway; once

in 1985 to repair the dam's floodgate and again in 1990 to repair the dam itself.

Ruck Pond Raceway: The raceway is a 2,200 foot long diversion around the main

channel of Cedar Creek. A short length of raceway is enclosed in a conduit with the

remainder flowing through an open channel. It has an average width of 1 2 feet and

a maximum depth of 2 feet. The upper half of the raceway is free flowing while the

lower half is impounded somewhat by Columbia Pond. Sediments in the upper half

were observed to be scoured and well sorted deposits of coarse to fine sand and lesser

amounts of silt. The sediments in the lower half consisted primarily of moderately

thick to very thick deposits of silt.

Columbia Pond: A 1,000 foot long reach of Cedar Creek separates Ruck Pond from

Columbia Pond. Columbia Pond is approximately 14.8 acres in size with a maximumobserved water depth of 7.5 feet. Extensive and thick deposits of silt were observed

throughout the impoundment. It appears that water has never been drained from this

pond.

/ Wire and Nail Pond: This impoundment is approximately 3 acres in size and is

comprised of two basins. The maximum observed water depth is 14 feet. Excessive

i to very thick deposits of fine sediments were observed in the lower basin. Little is

known about sediments in the upper basin.

f .L Hamilton Pond: A 1.6 mile long reach of Cedar Creek exists between Wire and Nail

Pond dam and Hamilton Pond. Hamilton Pond is a 5 acre impoundment having a

I , maximum observed depth of 5 feet. Sediments in the upper 1/3 of the impoundment

are generally well scoured, coarse to fine gravel and sand. The lower 2/3 was

observed to consist of thin to moderately thick deposits of fine silt and debris.

Quarry Pond: Quarry Pond consists of a flooded former rock quarry located in the Cityof Cedarburg Zuenert Park, and is not part of Cedar Creek. The pond is about 6.2

acres in size with a maximum reported depth of 10 feet (Poff, Gernay, et.al., 1964),although depths were found to be up to 22 feet during this investigation. The city

filled the east and south sides of the quarry during the 1970s in order to make it safe

for use as a park (Castner, 1991). The southwest portion of the quarry has a rock

face rising approximately 30 feet above the pond surface. The water elevation in

Quarry Pond fluctuates widely, such that the quarry may serve as both a groundwater

104-928/JMCnTD/RPT/052092 2-2

n

LL

rri .

discharge point and a groundwater recharge point (Castner, 1991). Furthermore, the

quarry water level tends to rise during storm events to the point where it apparently

drains by way of city storm sewers into Hamilton Pond, according to City of Cedarburg

personnel (Mr. Charles Frank).

The area of concern for PCB contamination includes the sediments in the four impoundments

starting from Ruck Pond downstream and in Quarry Pond. This study concentrated on Ruck,

Hamilton and Quarry Pond, Ruck Raceway, and the storm sewer systems draining into them.

Additional information on Cedar Creek and the lower four impoundments can be found in the

report prepared by the WDNR in 1986, from which much of the above information was

obtained (Wawrzyn and Wakeman, 1986).

B. Soils and Geology

The soils in the vicinity of the study area are loams, silt loams and clay loams of the Darroch,

Hocheim and Knowles series (Parker, et.al., 1970). Clayey and loamy glacial tills were found

in many locations in Cedarburg during previous subsurface investigations (Strand, 1990).

Soils in the vicinity of the study area are underlain by Silurian and Devonian (Niagara) Dolomite

followed by Maquoketa Shale, Galena Dolomite, and St. Peter Sandstone. The City of

Cedarburg municipal wells draw water from the Niagara Dolomite aquifer and the St. Peter

Sandstone aquifer, while the Maquoketa Shale serves as a confining layer between the two

water bearing units. These bedrock materials are underlain by Cambrian Sandstones and

Precambrian Crystalline Rock (Young and Batten, 1980). Additional information on soils,

geology and hydrogeology may be found in previous reports prepared by the WDNR (Baker,

1990, Appendix A) and Strand Associates, Inc. (Strand, 1990).

2.02 PROPERTIES AND REGULATION OF PCBs

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of man-made chemicals that contain 209 known

individual congeners of differing toxicity. Congeners are compounds having the same

empirical formula but different configurations and properties. The PCB compounds consist

of covalently bonded benzene rings with varying numbers of chlorine atoms attached in

varying locations. PCBs were commercially produced in the United States from 1929 until

late 1977 when production was banned. The trade name Aroclor has been used for PCBs

manufactured in the United States, and the different Aroclors are characterized by four digit

numbers. The first two digits indicate that the mixture contains biphenyls (12), triphenyls

(54) or both (25, 44). The last two digits generally give the weight percent of chlorine in the

mixture (eg. Aroclor 1260 contains biphenyls with approximately 60% chlorine) (Anderson,

et.al., 1990).

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052192 2-3

i:[:

LLE1rr

The commercially attractive properties of PCBs include fire and heat resistance, heat

conduction, and electrical insulation. Common past uses of PCBs include insulation fluids in

electrical transformers and capacitors; heat transfer fluids; manufacture of carbonless copy

paper and printing ink; plasticizers; cutting oils; additives in polystyrene, resins and rubbers;

and additives in high pressure lubricants (Anderson, et.al., 1990; Montgomery and Welkom,

1990; Baker, 1990).

Polychlorinated biphenyls are very resistant to biodegradation and persist in the environmentfor decades. They are relatively insoluble in water, are semi-volatile, and are easily adsorbed

onto organic carbon. PCBs are bioaccumulated in the fatty tissues of aquatic organisms,

water fowl and mammals. They can be transported in the environment through the

atmosphere or as water and sediment contaminants. Certain strains of bacteria have been

found to degrade certain PCB congeners by dechlorination under anaerobic conditions. The

toxicity and persistence in the environment generally increases with the degree of chlorination.

PCBs are considered probable human carcinogens (Anderson, et.al., 1990; Montgomery and

Welkom, 1990).

Aroclors have infrequently been detected in drinking water wells in Wisconsin due to leakage

from well pumps containing PCB-contaminated oil (Anderson, et.al., 1990). PCBs may also

enter the environment through spills, transformer or capacitor leaks, or through use of

contaminated oil for dust suppression, among other means.

In 1976, PCBs were federally regulated by the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), which

regulates the manufacture, processing, distribution and use of PCBs. Materials containing

PCBs fall under the TSCA regulations if they contain greater than 50 ppm PCBs. The USEPA

has proposed a drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.5 micrograms per liter

(/yg/L) and a MCL goal (MCLG) of 0. The concentration in drinking water representing a 1-in-a-million lifetime cancer risk, established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA), is 0.005//g/L. State of Wisconsin regulations include Wisconsin Administrative Code

Chapter NR 1 57, which regulates wastes containing less than 50 ppm PCBs. Wisconsin

Administrative Code Chapter NR 105 provides surface water quality criteria for PCBs. The

human cancer criterion for warm water sport fish communities is 0.49 nanograms per liter

(ng/L), and the wild and domestic animal criterion is 3.0 ng/L PCBs. An NR 140 groundwater

standard preventive action limit of 0.0005 //g/L and an enforcement standard of 0.005 fjg/L

was recently recommended by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services

(Anderson, et.al., 1990), and is under review by a WDNR technical advisory committee.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 2-4

2.03 PAST STUDIES

r

\ A. Fish Tissue Studies

i. Several studies have been undertaken in the Cedarburg area in an attempt to characterize the

{ , nature, extent, and potential sources of PCB contamination in Cedar Creek sediments. The

first studies consisted of fish tissue analysis. In 1 972, fish tissue containing PCBs in excess

i. of the US Food and Drug Administration recommended human consumption maximum level

of 2 /yg/g (ppm) were identified throughout much of the lower Milwaukee River. Fish tissue,

( sediment, and effluent samples were collected from the Milwaukee River basin in 1983 as part

I of a statewide study to identify toxics in the Great Lakes and their tributaries. The results of

this study indicated that the extent of contaminated fish tissue (above 2 ppm) in the

! Milwaukee River was from the Milwaukee River estuary upstream to the City of Grafton Lime

Kiln Park dam. Elevated sediment concentrations corresponded with the levels found in fishtissue. One sample was collected from Cedar Creek sediments during this study, downstream

of the Cedarburg wastewater treatment facility, which contained 0.73 ppm of PCBs

(Wawrzyn and Wakeman, 1986).

i .Additional fish tissue samples were collected from the Milwaukee River and its major

; tributaries in 1984 in an attempt to delineate the extent of contaminated fish tissue and

i potential sources of PCB contamination. Fish collected from Hamilton Pond contained

contaminated tissue ranging from 1.4 to 82 ppm. Tissue from fish in Cedarburg Pond did not

| contain detectable levels of PCBs (detection limit 0.20 ppm).

IT Additional fish tissue samples were collected from locations on Cedar Creek in 1985 and

4 1986 including Cedarburg Pond, Ruck Pond, Columbia Pond, Wire and Nail Pond, andHamilton Pond and the free flowing stream reaches between these ponds. Tissue

j concentrations from fish in Cedarburg Pond were at or below the detection limit of 0.20 ppm,

while fish tissue concentrations downstream ranged from 1.4 to 160 ppm. Fish contaminant

/ results coincided with four known or suspected historical point sources of PCB discharge to

(, Cedar Creek in Cedarburg, including Mercury Marine Plant #1, Mercury Marine Plant #2,

Amcast-Meta Mold, and the Cedarburg Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) (Wawrzyn and

t Wakeman, 1986). These known or suspected historical sources are discussed below.

According to the WDNR, fish samples collected since the 1986 study confirm this earlier fish

r* contaminant data.

I

ri

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052192 2-5

I

0

B. Sediment Sampling Studies

j In response to the detection of PCB contamination in fish tissues, the WDNR undertook an

investigation of Cedar Creek sediments to try to identify the spatial and vertical distribution

of PCBs in the four impacted impoundments in Cedarburg, The study was conducted by Will

Wawrzyn and Robert Wakeman (Wawrzyn and Wakeman, 1986). Sediment core samples

were collected from several locations in Ruck, Columbia, Wire and Nail, and Hamilton Pond

and Ruck Raceway. The samples were generally segmented by depth and analyzed for PCBAroclors and Total Organic Carbon (TOC).

The results of the Wawrzyn and Wakeman study indicated that all five water bodies

downstream of the Cedarburg Pond dam had sediment PCB concentrations ranging from not

detected to 1,180 ppm. All of the shallow sediment samples (0 to 6 inches) contained PCBs,

with concentrations ranging from 2.5 to 1,180 ppm. The highest concentrations were

detected from shallow sediments located along the same shoreline and immediately

downstream of the four identified historical known or suspected point sources of PCB

contamination. Aroclor mixtures detected included 1254/60 (Ruck Pond, Wire and Nail Pond),

1248/60 (Ruck Raceway, Wire and Nail Pond, Hamilton Pond), 1 242/60 (Hamilton Pond), and

1260 (all water bodies). Aroclor 1260 was the dominant PCB mixture detected with the

exception of sediments immediately downstream of Hamilton Pond historical known orsuspected sources, where 1242/60 and 1248/60 were identified. The highest length

weighted mean (LWM) concentration of PCBs was in Ruck Pond (359 ppm) and tended todecrease downstream to a low of 11.4 ppm LWM in Hamilton Pond. The total wet volume

of PCB contaminated sediment was estimated to be roughly 165,000 cubic yards throughout

the study area (Wawrzyn and Wakeman, 1986).

C. Site and Wastewater Sampling

Various sampling efforts conducted by the WDNR and USEPA resulted in PCB detects at

specific sampling locations or in wastewater discharges from the following industries:

Mercury Marine Plant #1: Citizen complaints were filed with the WDNR for the oily

and gasoline-odor wastes discharged by Mercury Marine to the Ruck Raceway

"tailrace" (WDNR, 1968). Two orders were issued by the State of Wisconsin for

Mercury Marine to discontinue this oil and gasoline discharge and a "colored material"

discharge to the storm sewer {WDNR, 1968 and 1970). Aroclor 1248 was detected

(1.3 //g/L) in the storm sewer and tailrace outfall discharges associated with Plant #1

in 1974 (Wawrzyn and Wakeman, 1986). The average storm sewer discharge from

the plant was 31,000 gallons per day in 1979 (Baker, 1990).

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 2-6

ILrLL

e

ri

r

i:

cLEr

Mercury Marine Plant #2: Several citizen complaints were filed with the WDNR against

Mercury Marine for discharging oil into Ruck Pond (Baker, 1990; WDNR, 1968). Two

orders were filed by the State of Wisconsin ordering Mercury Marine to eliminate the

discharge of oil and waste to the storm sewer (WDNR, 1968 and 1970). Aroclor 1 260

was detected (0.1 //g/L) in discharge from the Mercury Marine Plant #2 outfall in 1 974

(Wawrzyn and Wakeman, 1 986). A waste oil tank was removed from the site in 1 987

by E&K Hazardous Waste Services, Inc.; PCB Aroclors 1 242 (130 ppm) and 1 254/60

(49 ppm) were detected in the tank waste oil and PCB Aroclors 1 242, 1 248, 1 254 and

1260 were detected in the soil surrounding the tank (up to 84 ppm; Appendix B).

PCBs were detected (2//g/L) in a groundwater monitoring well adjacent to this site in

September, 1989 (Strand, 1990). In late 1989, the storm sewer leading from Plant

#2 was televised and manhole 331005 east of Plant #2 was sampled by Mercury

Marine's consultant. This activity was observed by City of Cedarburg personnel (Mr.

Charles Frank) and the report from Mr. Frank is contained in Appendix B. The origin

of several sewer lines leading into the manhole could not be determined at that time.

Results from the sampling were not available for inclusion in this report.

Amcast-Meta Mold: Aroclor 1248 was detected (5.6 to 1,540/yg/L) from effluent

samples collected from the Amcast International discharge in 1974 and 1975

(Wawrzyn and Wakeman, 1986). High pressure hydraulic fluids and cutting oils

containing PCBs were apparently used at the site in the past, and a spent cutting fluid

was also used to oil roads around the facility. The USEPA conducted an investigation

of the facility in 1981, resulting in civil actions and forfeitures of several thousand

dollars (Baker, 1990). Oil collected from Amcast's oil/water separator in 1985

contained PCBs (1.6 fjg/g) as Aroclor 1248/54 (Wawrzyn and Wakeman, 1986).

In 1990, long-time employees of Amcast were interviewed by the company andreported that waste oil had been dumped on a dump site located south of the southern

Amcast offices and just west of the adjacent railroad tracks. Soil samples were

subsequently collected from the site and PCBs as Aroclor 1242 were detected at 80

ppm. This investigation led to the collection of sediment samples from Quarry Pond

located approximately 400 feet southeast of the dump site. Results from thesouthwest half of the quarry yielded PCBs as Aroclor 1242 at concentrations of 26

ppm. The northeast half yielded Aroclor 1242 at concentrations of 86 ppm.

Petroleum hydrocarbons were also detected in sediment samples. The report on soil

and Quarry Pond sampling is contained in Appendix B (Castner, 1991; E&K

Environmental, 1991).

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 2-7

r

LP

i:L

1.LCri

A search of Amcast records by their legal counsel (Castner, 1991) revealed several

instances of PCB sampling inside the plant and from soils surrounding the plant. Wipe

samples from the floor of the plant in the former die casting area yielded PCBs in

concentrations of 240//g/100 square centimeters (sq cm). A sump sample yielded

PCBs at 5.2 ppm. A sample from the wastewater storage tank downstream of the

oil/water separator yielded PCBs at 3.5 ppm. This wastewater storage tank

overflowed in late 1 990 causing several thousand gallons of water to flow across the

plant floor and parking lot on the northwest corner of the plant. Samples collected

from the affected areas contained PCBs at concentrations from not detected (< 1.0

ppm) to detections of 1.6 and 4.8 ppm. Amcast is currently investigating storm sewer

connections and collecting additional samples throughout the plant according to their

legal counsel. A letter report summarizing previous sampling information is inAppendix B {Castner, 1991).

Cedarburo WWTP: Effluent samples collected from the Cedarburg wastewater

treatment plant (WWTP) in 1974 and 1976 contained PCBs from 0.1 to 1.1 //g/L as

Aroclor 1248 (Wawrzyn and Wakeman; 1986). A sludge sample collected in 1985

contained Aroclor 1254/60 (Wawrzyn and Wakeman, 1986). The WWTP was

upgraded from trickling filters to activated sludge secondary treatment in 1972. An

oxidation ditch was recently installed (Baker, 1990).

The above sites were identified in the WDNR 1986 study as historic point sources with PCB"hot spots" in sediments downstream of their discharges (Wawrzyn and Wakeman, 1986).

These four sites are considered by the WDNR to be the location of potentially responsibleparties (PRPs) for the Cedar Creek PCB contamination (Baker, 1990).

D. Additional Studies

According to the WDNR, monitoring by the Bureau of Water Resources Management indicates

that the PCB water quality criterion for wild and domestic animals is exceeded in all Cedar

Creek impoundments in the study area except Cedarburg Pond. The criterion established in

NR 105 is 3.0 ng/L.

In 1987, the WDNR began conducting a PRP search of the Cedarburg area. This study

included meetings with PRPs and past employees of industries including Amcast and Mercury

Marine personnel, Cedarburg municipal personnel, and other parties with knowledge of past

activities. Information on the PRP search is summarized in the "Report on the Status of the

WDNR's Investigation Into the PCB Contaminated Sediments Associated with the Cedar

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 2-8

fi Creek, in the Area of Cedarburg, Ozaukee County, Wisconsin", Timothy Baker, January,

1990. This report is included in Appendix A.

L0e

i:I:I:

rr

Three criteria were used to evaluate PRPs in the 1987 study: 1) documented or suspected

past PCB usage; 2) operation during the "PCB years" from 1929 through 1 977; and 3) access

or route for PCB migration from the site to Cedar Creek.

Past employees of Mercury Marine Plant #2 indicated that cutting fluids and hydraulic fluids

were used in the plant, and fluids which leaked were washed into a pit. A holding tank was

later installed for waste oils, from which oil was skimmed. Some of this waste oil was usedby employees for sealing gravel driveways; Mr. Edgar Kasten, a past employee of Mercury

Marine, used 15 barrels of the waste oil to seal his driveway. There may have been one or

more additional storage tanks, either in the plant or buried, in which fluids were stored. There

apparently were two oil/water separation tanks which were replaced by a cooling tower

installed in 1964, according to a past employee. The separation process did not always work

well in cold weather according to a past employee, and water from the process was

discharged to the storm sewer. A past employee stated that a small amount of oil escaped

from the plant into the storm sewers and Cedar Creek, which lead to numerous citizen

complaints (Baker, 1990).

2.04 POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

Ten potentially responsible parties which were identified by the WDNR through previous

investigations are shown in Table 2.04-1 (Baker, 1990). Sites 1 and 2, the Kelch corporation

and the Mercury Marine Plant #2, have storm sewer access to the east of the sites which

drains into Cedar Creek Ruck Pond near the former railroad bridge. The Kelch Corporationbuilding was formerly occupied by Doerr Electric, who manufactured electric motors. Mercury

Marine Plant #2 was formerly the site of the Milwaukee Electric Railway and Light Companyrail car repair barn, and is now owned by Madison Joint Venture. A storm sewer map

showing these sites is presented in Figure 2.04-1.

Site 3, the City of Cedarburg power generation plant (now an electrical substation), is located

on the east bank of Ruck Pond and has storm sewer discharge to Cedar Creek through site

drains and runoff. Transformers were used and stored at the site and may have contained

PCBs. The site location is shown on Figure 2.04-1. Site 4 is now occupied by Colonial

Studios and was formerly also an electrical substation. Transformers at the substation may

have contained PCBs. Surface runoff could have entered the storm sewer which discharges

to Ruck Raceway (Figure 2.04-2).

104-928/JMCn"D/RPT/052092 2-9

TABLE 2.04-1

POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

WISCONSIN DNRCEDAR CREEK PCB INVESTIGATION

rI:

I

i

L

E

f

Site No.1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

LocationW66 N622 Madison Avenue

W65 N595 St. John Avenue

W61 N623 Mequon StreetN57 W6406 Center Street

N49 W6337 Western Avenue

W55 N481 Hilbert Street

W57 N517 Hilbert Street

W53 N550 Highland Drive

N39 W5789 Hamilton Road

W54 N370 Park Lane

Johnson Street

Alyce Street

OccupancyKelch Corporation (1969-present)Doerr Electric (1941-1970)Madison Joint Venture (1983-present)Mercury Marine Plant #2 (1951-1982)Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light(pre-1942)City of Cedarburg (1901 -present)Colonial Studio (1964-present)Marsha Wvesthoff (1956-1964)Junior Stecker (1 950-1 956)Milwaukee Northern Railroad (1943-1950)Milwaukee Northern Railroad (pre-1943)Scot Pump Div. of Ardox (1982-present)Mercury Marine Plant #1 (1939-1981)American Legion (1935-Present)Cedarburg Planing Mill (pre-1935)Apartment Building (?-present)Molded Dimensions (1971-?)Robbins Plastics & Rubber, Inc.

(approximately 1962-1971)Pants Factory (pre-1 960s)Scot Pump Div. of Ardox (1987-present)Emission Control LTD (?-present)Scot Div. of Ardox (1966-1981)Kurz & Root Co. (1950s-1966)Herbert A. Nieman & Co. (1908-1 950s)Amcast International, Meta Mold Div.

(1984-present)Dayton Malleable (1955-1984)Meta-Mold (1939-1955)Wastewater Treatment Plant (1922-present)City of Cedarburg)

City of Cedarburg Public WorksCity of Cedarburg Light & WaterResidential (?-present)Scherer Die Casting (dates unknown)

Commentsabeae

aeeee

b

e

b,cebebb

ee

eeb

ea,c

b,cb,c

c,dc

b,ceb

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/042092

Table 2.04-1 (continued)

Comment Codes:

a. Occupants known to have used PCBs in the past.b. Occupants may have used PCBs in the past based on site activities and dates.c. Sites suspected to have used PCBs based on PCB "hot spots" in sediments at storm sewer outfall

associated with site.d. Likely to have treated industrial wastewater containing PCBs.e. Not presently suspected of having used PCBs.

ICf

r 104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/042092

1,

r

r

L

r

KELCH.CORPORATION

WS.V. QIC..ni

ujoo

CITY OF-CEDARBURG

SUB STATIONMJV / MERCURYMARINE PLANT +2

WESTERN.JK-EI

BASE MAP : CITY OF CEDARBUftQ


FIGURE2.04-1

SITES 1. 2, AND 3 LOCATION MAP104-921-2A

r

L

CI

COLONIALSTUDIOS

FORMEROUTFALL(APPRO*LOCATION

r_TU4

PUMP /MERCURY MARINEPLANT *1

iiau

BASE MAP : CITYOF CEDARBURQ


FIGURE

2.04-2SITES 4 AND 5 LOCATION MAP

104-921-3A

Site 5 is currently occupied by Scot Pump and was formerly occupied by Mercury Marine's

Plant #1. Storm sewer discharge enters Cedar Creek at Ruck Raceway. The storm water

• was formerly routed along an open ditch which generally followed the route of Mills Street.

Storm water is now conveyed about one hundred feet downstream of the former location, as

r shown in Figure 2.04-2.

Site 6 was formerly the Cedarburg Planing Mill and was built on an old landfill (Figure 2.04-3).

C PCBs may have been used at the planing mill to treat wood products. Surface runoff from the

site would enter Ruck Raceway.

r[• Site 7 was formerly occupied by Molded Dimensions and Robbins Plastics and Rubber, Inc.,

during the "PCB years". PCBs may have been used in hydraulic fluids or plastics and rubber

j manufacture. Discharge from the site could have entered Ruck Raceway by means of drains

or surface runoff (Figure 2.04-3).

[ Site 8 was used as an assembly and manufacturing plant by Scot Ardox, as an electric

component manufacturing plant by Kurz & Root, and as a canning factory prior to that. It is

f possible that PCBs could have been used at the plant during the occupation by Kurz & Root

or Scot Ardox. Drainage from the plant site appears to discharge via storm sewers into a

ditch on the railroad right-of-way (Figure 2.04-3). This drainage could eventually enter Cedar

Creek at Hamilton Pond.i

I.

L

Err

Site 9 has been occupied by Amcast, Dayton Malleable, and Meta-Mold for aluminum die

casting operations. Plant cooling water discharge enters Cedar Creek by way of an outfall

located at Hamilton Pond. The historic and present locations for this outfall are shown in

Figure 2.04-4. Storm water or other discharges may also enter the storm sewer which

discharges into Quarry Pond. The location of the pond and associated known storm sewersis shown in Figures 2.04-4 and 2.04-5. The storm sewers in this area are not completely

mapped, but it is thought that Quarry Pond may have a route for entering the storm sewers

leading to Hamilton Pond on Cedar Creek when the Quarry Pond water level is high (Charles

Frank, 1991).

Site 10 is the City of Cedarburg WWTP, which discharges plant effluent and site storm water

to Cedar Creek at Hamilton Pond, downstream of the Site 9 discharge (Figure 2.04-4).

Influent to the WWTP may have contained PCBs in the past due to industrial discharges. This

occurrence is not documented but would have probably occurred prior to the establishment

of a sewer ordinance which limits industrial discharges and discharge of oil and grease.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 2-10

rr

L

0

T-[»fc"l ~f / SCOT PUMP /1.U.-V/ KURZ & ROOT

APARTMENTS /MOLDEDDIMENSIONS / -ROBBINSPLASTICS

siiotuFORMEROUTFALL

CURRENT .OUTFALL JAMERICAN LEGION

CEDARBURGLANING MILL

/BASE MAP : CITY OF CEDARBURG 1"«400f

FIGURE

2.04-3

104-921-4A


SITES 6. 7 AND 8 LOCATION MAPSTRAND

pr

L

I

i

HAMILTONPOND

NEWSEWER

FORMEROUTFALL

AMCASTFACTORY PRESENT

OUTFALL

CITY OFCEDARBURG

WWTP

WWTPOUTFALL

APPROXIMATEOUTFALLLOCATION

QUARRYPOND

BASE MAP : CITY OF CEDARBURQ 1"«400'

FIGURE

2.04-4

104-921-5A


SITES 9 AND 10 LOCATION MAPSTRAND

L

L

E

ifrrriv

CITY OFtCEOARBURG


QUARRYPOND

SCHERERDIE CASTING 161.25«AC.

8°t(V

BASE MAP : CITY OF CEOARBURQ


FIGURE2.04-5

SITES 11 AND 12 LOCATION MAP104-921-6A

e

Of the above mentioned sites, sites 1, 2, and 3 are considered known past users of PCS

Aroclor 1260 and sites 4, 5, and 8 suspected past users of Aroclor 1260, according to the

WDNR (Baker, 1990). Site 9 should be considered a known user of other PCS Aroclors based

on historical sampling results, and may have also used 1 260 to a lesser extent in the past.

Sites which were not included in the WDNR list of PRPs but which were investigated as part

of this study and may have contributed to PCB contamination include the City of Cedarburg

Light and Water Commission storage yard located just west of Quarry Pond (Site 11). Storm

water runoff from this yard may enter Quarry Pond. The former Scherer Die Casting facility,

formerly located on Alyce Street, may also have used PCBs in their operation (Site 1 2). Storm

water from Alyce Street formerly discharged east to the sewer system which enters Quarry

Pond. This sewer was relocated in 1975 and now drains into a swamp south of Cedarburg,according to Mr. Charles Frank of the City of Cedarburg. The locations of these sites are

shown on Figure 2.04-5.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 2-1 1

F[

t

fI

SECTION 3

METHODS

Investigations conducted by Strand Associates, Inc. as part of this study include "emergency"

sediment core sampling from Ruck Pond, collection of storm sewer and site soil or sump

samples, collection of a background core from Cedarburg Pond, sewer smoke and tracer

testing, and collection of sediment samples from Quarry Pond. This section provides a

discussion of the methods used for sampling and analysis for each investigation.

3.01 EMERGENCY SEDIMENT CORE SAMPLING

Sediment core samples were collected from Cedar Creek Ruck Pond on July 27, 1990. The

core samples were collected as an emergency response action for the WDNR, due to the

threatened failure of the Ruck Pond dam. The dam was found to be leaking around July 25,

1990. The City of Cedarburg responded to the leakage by lowering the Ruck Pond water level

by approximately 1 2 inches and routing the creek around the dam by means of the raceway.

While the dam was being inspected, sediment cores were collected in order to obtain the data

prior to potential dam failure and loss of sediments downstream. The dam was later repaired

by grouting.1A. Core Locations

Core sampling approximate locations in Ruck Pond are shown in Figure 3.01-1. Location 1

was approximately 5 feet downstream from the former Mercury Marine Plant #2 storm sewer

outfall, in approximately one and a half feet of water. Location 2 was approximately 200 feet

upstream of the dam and 1 5 feet from the right (west) bank (facing downstream). Location

3 was approximately 200 feet upstream of the dam and midway between banks. Location

4 was approximately midway between locations 1 and 2, near the Turner Street storm sewer

outfall (Outfall No. 283001). Core sampling locations are summarized in Table 3.01-1.

B. Sampling Methods

Sediment cores were collected using 3-inch diameter (2.6-inch inner diameter), 4-foot long,

rigid, clear lexan corers. Core sampling and extrusion equipment was rented from the

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Center for the Great Lakes Studies (CGLS). Dr. David

Edgington of the CGLS was retained by the WDNR to date the sediments, and provided

technical assistance with sediment sample collection and extrusion. Core samples were

obtained by pushing the corer into the soft sediments until corer refusal, which generally

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 3-1

F

L

L

SITE 1 & 2OUTFALL

TURNER ST.OUTFALL

APPROX. SCALE: 1"-310'

FIGURE3.01-1

104-921-7A


RUCK AND CEDARBURG PONDCORE LOCATIONS

STRANO

TABLE 3.01-1

SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CORE SAMPLES


Water Body

Ruck Pond

Location

1

2

3

4

Core

A

B

ABC

A

A

BC

Total Length(cm)

26

24

496052

24

10

2019

Analysis

PCB Aroclors and Congeners1

PCB Aroclors2

Dating3

PCB Aroclors and CongenersPCB Aroclors

PCB Aroclors and Congeners

(None)

DatingPCB Aroclors

Remarks

Hydraulic extruder; a few airbubbles entered sample.Hydraulic extruder.

Mechanical extruder.Mechanical extruder.Mechanical extruder.

Mechanical extruder.

Hydraulic followed bymechanical extruder. Somewater entered sample duringextrusion; probably some mixingin core.Hydraulic Extruder.Hydraulic extruder used at first.Some water entered sampleduring extrusion at the 10-12cm segment; this segment waswatery but other segments didnot appear to be affected.Switched to mechanical extruderfor remainder.

1<M-928/JMC:TD/RPT/052092

r-a en

Table 3.01-1 (Continued)

Water Body

CedarburgPond

Quarry Pond

Location

-

-

-

-

-

Core

-

-

-

-

-

Total Length(cm)

26

17

55

6

9

Analysis

PCS Aroclors

PCB Aroclors

PCB Aroclors

PCB Aroclors

PCB Aroclors

Remarks

Samples CS-1 and CS-2.Mechanical extruder.

Samples CS-3 and CS-4. Threeinch corer used with mechanicalextruder.

Samples CS-5 and CS-6. Twoinch corer used with mechanicalextruder.

Samples CS-7. Two-inch corerused with mechanical extruder.

Samples CS-8 and CS-8 Dup.Scoop used to collect sample.

Notes: 1 PCB Aroclor and congener analysis was performed by the State Laboratory of Hygiene on specific segments from thecores listed (see Section 3.01 B).

2 PCB Aroclors analysis was performed by Twin City Testing.

3 Dating Analysis was conducted by Dr. David Edgington through a separate arrangement with the WDNR.

104-928/JMC:TD/RPT/052092

LEr

LE

E

occurred in granular materials, on gravel, or on rock. Core samples collected in areas where

sediment and water depth exceeded the length of the corer were collected by fastening two

lengths of corer together and pushing the assembly into the sediments. In most cases (except

Location 3), duplicate cores were obtained from each location by pushing two or more corers

into the sediments next to each other and then retrieving the cores.

Core samples were retrieved by capping the top of the corer prior to pulling the corer out of

the sediments, which allowed the suction on the inside of the corer to hold the core in place.

The bottom of the corer was then plugged with a rubber stopper prior to lifting the corer out

of the water. Corers and cores were kept vertical during sample collection, storage and

extrusion to avoid sample disturbance.

! The cores were extruded from the corers by either hydraulic or mechanical pressure methods.

A schematic of the hydraulic method is presented in Figure 3.01-2. The mechanical method

used similar apparatus except steel cylinders were used to push the bottom plug upward.

Segments were obtained by pushing the core upward until it cleared the top of the corer by

two centimeters, cutting each two centimeter section off and placing it in a sample container.

i A summary of extrusion methods and analysis conducted for each core is presented in Tablew .3.01-1. Photographs of the hydraulic extruder are included in Appendix C.

Cores from Location 1 were extruded and segmented in the field. Cores from Locations 2,

3 and 4 were extruded and segmented at the CGLS. Cores and segments were security taped

and stored in a cooler at the CGLS until all of the cores were extruded. Sample segments

were described during extrusion. The descriptions are included in Appendix D.

Samples retained for dating were placed in small plastic containers provided by the CGLS.Samples retained for PCB analysis were placed in mason jars and cooled to approximately

4°C. The dating samples were relinquished to the CGLS. The PCB samples were sealed withsecurity tape and transported to Strand Associates' laboratory. These samples were later

transported to the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene's (SLOH), Jonathon Drive, Madison

laboratory for storage in a walk-in cooler at 4°C. This cooler was padlocked with one key

retained by the lab director and one retained by Strand Associates. The samples were

relinquished to the State Lab of Hygiene on the chain of custody forms for storage; however,

the state lab did not handle the samples or break the security seals. Proper chain-of-custody

procedures were followed during sample transport and storage.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 3-2

L

Cr

L GARDEN HOSE

CONNECTION

EXTRUDED SEDIMENT

LEXAN CORER

SEDIMENT CORE

BOTTOM DOUBLE PLUG

SCREW AND NUT FORTIGHTENING PLUG

SUPPORT AND WATER PIPING

WATER INLET

E

r FIGURE

3.01-2104-921-8A

NO SCALE


HYDRAULIC SEDIMENT EXTRUDERSTRAND

L

I

Li;

L

ELrr

On August 28, 1990 appropriate boxes were retrieved from the SLOH Jonathon Drive lab for

PCB analysis of certain samples. According to WDNR instructions, core segments werecomposited into the following discrete samples:

Core 1A, 0-8 cm (Sample 1A1)


Core 2B, 4-12 cm (Sample 2B1)

Core 2B, 12-24 cm (Sample 2B2)


These samples were delivered to the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, Henry Mall,

Madison lab for analysis of PCB Aroclors and congeners, at the request of WDNR. The

remaining segmented samples in these boxes were again security taped and returned to the

SLOH Jonathon Drive lab for storage.

After congener results for the above mentioned samples were obtained, the remainder of the

Ruck Pond segmented core samples were retrieved from the SLOH Jonathon Drive lab and

shipped to Twin City Testing Corporation's (TCT) laboratory in St. Paul, Minnesota for PCB

Aroclor and TOC analysis. Samples were shipped on October 16, 1991. TOC analysis was

conducted by TCT's subcontract laboratory, Robert E. Lee and Associates, which wasequipped to perform the TOC analytical method required by the WDNR. A summary of the

cores analyzed by TCT for PCB Aroclors is in Table 3.01-1. Core segments which were notanalyzed by TCT, the SLOH, or the CGLS are being held by TCT pending WDNR authorization

for analysis or disposal.

C. Decontamination

j Sediment cores were normally collected using new lexan corers for each core, except that

corers from cores 1C and 1D were decontaminated and re-used. Lexan corers were

decontaminated using a liquinox detergent wash and a scrub brush, along with paper towels

to absorb the detergent and oils from the sediments. Corers were rinsed with distilled water.

Other sampling equipment such as spatulas, spoons, corer plugs and caps were

I decontaminated by wiping with paper towels, scrubbing with detergent and water, and rinsing

with distilled water. After core extrusion, used lexan corers were wiped free of sediment with

paper towels and disposed of.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052192 3-3

• 3.02 STORM SEWER AND SITE SAMPLING PROCEDURES

j Prior to each sampling event, the property owner or representative was contacted by letter,

telephone or both to obtain permission to enter the properties. Permission was obtained from

[ the City of Cedarburg to sample manholes contingent on proper confined space entry

., procedures. The city was notified that our crew was preparing to sample the manholes and

of the general sampling order expected to be followed when the crew arrived in the city.

l«j Permission to enter was not granted by the property owner of the apartment building at W57

N517 Hilbert Street. Therefore, the sampling location was accessed from the creek.

Photographs of the sampling locations are included in Appendix C.

CC

A. Sump Sampling Procedures

Samples were collected from sump pits inside the Madison Joint Ventures building (formerly

j Kiekhaefer-Mercury Marine Plant #2 Die Cast Plant). Five sump pits were known to exist in

1 the building. Four of the five were accessible and were sampled. Sump pit 4 had been filled

with concrete and, therefore, could not be sampled. Sump sample locations are described in

J Table 3.02-1.

Sumps 2, 3 and 5 were sampled on December 20, 1990. Sump 2 was located in the middle

i of the old tool room in the north part of the building. Sump 3 was located in a small room on

the north wall of the building, just west of the old furnace department. Sump 5 was located

I in the southeast part of the building on the east wall. The sump locations within the Madison

Joint Ventures building are shown in Figure 3.02-1.

I, A composite sample, S-1, was taken from Sumps 3 and 5. The sample was collected from

the pits using a PVC extension arm with a large stainless steel spoon bolted to one end.

| Approximately equally sized samples from each sump were composited in a small stainless

steel pan, and then transferred into the sample jars provided by the laboratory with a stainless

, steel tablespoon. A duplicate sample was taken of S-1, S-1 Dup.

A sample was also collected from Sump 2, S-2, which was full of waste oil. The sample was

i collected directly into the sample jar using a stainless steel tablespoon.

E On October 8, 1991, Sump 1 was sampled (Sump 1). Sump 1 was located near the south

wall of the building, just east of the old warehouse part of the building. See Figure 3.02-1.

The sample was collected using a large stainless steel spoon attached to a five foot long

stainless steel extension arm. The sample was collected into a small stainless steel pan and

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 3-4

L'

F

L

L

TABLE 3.02-1

SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS


E

Sample Number Location Sample Type (Matrix)

December 18-20, 1990

S-1; S-1 DupS-2

S-3

S-4S-7S-8

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-1 2; S-1 2 Dup

S-1 3S-1 4S-1 5

S-16NS-16S

S-1 7

S-1 8; S-1 8 Dup

S-1 9

S-20

MJV building, Sumps 3 & 5MJV building. Sump 2

MH 331006, bottom of MH

MH 331005, N-24" concreteMH 331005, SW-6" unknownMH 331005, bottom of MH

No sample was collected

MH 331003, primarily west pipe


CMP outfall on west side ofcreek, by WEPCO bridge (No.333001)

Colonial Studios parking lotColonial Studios parking lotColonial Studios parking lot

MH 531062, bottom of MHMH 531074, bottom of MH



Approximate location of oldditch, next to Super-Value store.South side of CMP outfall, nextto Super-Value store (No.533001).

SludgeOil

Concrete chips

GravelGravel and siltGravel and cone, chips

N/A

Sand and gravel

Sand and gravel

Sand and gravel

Gravel and clay loamGravel and clay loamGravel and clay loam

Sand and sedimentSand and sediment

Concrete chips

Gravel, sand and sediment

Mud, sand and gravel

Mud, sand and gravel

r 104-928/JMC:TD/RPT/042192


i:P

L

ii.~i

LEf

Sample Number

S-21

S-22

S-23

S-24

S-25

S-26

S-27

S-28S-29

S-30S-31

S-32; S-32 DupS-33

S-34S-35

S-36

S-37

Location

East Creek shoreline near fire,transformer and generatorstations.East Creek shoreline near fire,transformer and generatorstations.East Creek shoreline near fire,transformer and generatorstations.East Creek shoreline near fire,transformer and generatorstations.

Clay pipe outfall near railroadnorth of Portland Street.CMP outfall near railroad northof Portland Street.

Waterline below Apt. bldgs.

MH 121008, bottom of MHMH 121005, bottom of MH

Wooded swale near WWTPNew CMP near WWTP (No.123001)

Meta Mold Factory parking lotMeta Mold Factory parking lot

Edgar Kasten's drivewayEdgar Kasten's driveway

Meta Mold Factory parking lotnear loading dock

Kelch Corp. storm inlet

Sample Type (Matrix)

Clay loam, sand and gravel




Sand and gravel

Sand and gravel

Mud/sediment

Sediment and cone, chipsCone, chips

Clay loamSand and gravel

Gravel and clay loamGravel and clay loam

Gravel and clay loamGravel and clay loam

Gravel and clay loam

Sand, gravel and sediment

September 26, 1991

CS-1CS-2

Cedarburg PondCedarburg Pond

SedimentSediment

104-928/JMC:TD/RPT/042192


c0G

i.

L0eLrc

Sample Number

CS-3CS-4CS-5CS-6CS-7CS-8; CS-8 Dup

Location

Quarry PondQuarry PondQuarry PondQuarry PondQuarry PondQuarry Pond

Sample Type (Matrix)

SedimentSedimentSedimentSedimentSedimentSediment

October 8, 1991

S-40

S-41

S-42

S-43; S-43 Dup

S-44

S-45

S-46

S-5AS-6A

Sump 1, Sump1C

MJV sump near east loadingdock



Zuenert Park MH




MH 331005, NW-24" concreteMH 331005, W-36" clay

MJV bldg.. Sump 1

Sand, gravel and sediment

Sand and gravel

Sand and gravel

Sand and gravel

Concrete chips

Gravel and cone, chips

Concrete chips

Concrete chipsHardened sediment

Sludge

October 16, 1991

S-50

Sump 3A

MH inside MJV fence

Overflow structure of sump 3

Sand and gravel

Sludge

April 9, 1992

S-12A

S-32A, S-32ADup.S-33A

CMP outfall on west side ofcreek by WEPCO bridge (No.333001)

Meta Mold Factory parking lot

Meta Mold Factory parking lot

Sand and gravel



104-928/JMC:TD/RPT/042192

I

F

I,

L

C

FLOOR

OVERFLOWSTRUCTURE

36" CLAY

TO KELCHS T O R M INLET( NORTH )

24" CONC.

TRENCH WITH PIPING FOR SUMPMACHINES. COVEREDW/ STEEL PLATES

OLD TANK

STORMMH 331005

FILLED INTRENCH &SUMP

, SUMP TYPE HOLEJ W/ W A T E R & SEDIMENT

SUMP 3

TRENCH

n DOOR

ITWAREHOUSE

LOADINGDOCK

SUMP

SAN/TARY MH

S A N I T A R YMH

DOOR

PIPING TO ROOF

SUMP

NO SCALEBASE SOURCE: KIEHKAEFER MARINE'S

10/15/69 LETTER TO WDNR

FIGURE3.02-1

104-921-9A


MADISON JOINT VENTURES/ FORMERKIEKHAEFER - MERCURY MARINE PLANT 2

SUMP LOCATIONS

STRAND

r.

F

transferred with a stainless steel tablespoon into the sample jar. The sample had a strong

petroleum odor.f

A sump pit near the east loading dock, near St. John's Avenue was also sampled on October

8, 1991, S-40. The sump had a metal cover, and a trench drain in the loading dock area

appeared to empty into it. The material in the sump had a hardened "crust" on the top. Thesample was collected about 1 2 to 18 inches below the crust. The sample consisted of oily

sand and gravel.

On October 16, 1991, the overflow structure of Sump 3 was sampled, S-3A. The sample

was collected using a stainless steel ladle attached to a stainless steel extension arm. The

sump pit was first bailed to remove most of the water before the sample was taken. Thebailed water was deposited into the outer pit of Sump 3 which was previously sampled (S-1).

Sump samples were analyzed for PCB Aroclors. Samples from Sump 1 (Sump 1C) and the

outside sump (sample S-40) were also analyzed for PCB congeners by the SLOH.

All sampling equipment was decontaminated after use, according to the decontamination

procedures described in Section E. All samples were stored in an ice-filled cooler at

approximately 4°C immediately after collection until they could be shipped to the laboratory.

Samples were shipped to TCT's laboratory for PCB Aroclor analysis within one to nine days

of collection.

B. Storm Sewer Sampling Procedures

Samples were collected from storm sewer manholes in various areas throughout Cedarburgon December 18-20, 1990, and October 8 and 16, 1991. Photographs are included in

Appendix C.

Manholes which had sediment or debris in them were not entered. Samples were collected

from these manholes using a large stainless steel spoon attached to PVC or stainless steel

extension arms. The samples were collected into small stainless steel pans and transferredto the sample jars using a stainless steel tablespoon. Sample number, location and type are

shown in Table 3.02-1.

Manholes in which no sediment could be retrieved with the extension arm and spoon or from

which storm sewer laterals were sampled, were entered. Manhole entry was in accordance

with current Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR) requirements

including the use of a safety winch and triple-threat gas detector.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 3-5

I .L

Erri

Samples collected from entered manholes generally consisted of sediments from sewer pipes,

or concrete chips chipped from the bottom of the manhole or sewer pipe using a stainlessj steel chipping hammer.

t.

0c

I:

LIECr

All sampling equipment was decontaminated after use, according to the decontamination



Samples were shipped to TCT's laboratory for PCB Aroclor analysis within one to nine daysof collection.

C. Soil Sampling Procedures

Soil samples were collected from various sites in Cedarburg including sewer outfalls, parking

lots and the creek bank and from a driveway in rural Saukville. These samples were collected

on December 18-20, 1990 and were split with a representative of the Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA). Follow-up sampling was conducted in October 1991 and April

1992 using the procedures described herein. Photographs of the sampling locations are in

Appendix C.

Samples collected from sewer outfalls and the creek bank were gathered using a stainless

steel tablespoon to transfer the sample into a small stainless steel pan. The samples werethen transferred, using the same spoon, into the sample jars. Samples from the creek bank

were collected near the waterline. Samples from sewer outfalls were generally collected from

below or beside the outfall in an area that did not appear to be eroded. See Table 3.02-1 for

sample locations and type.

Samples were collected from parking lots and the driveway using a 2.5-inch diameter stainless

steel soil auger. The bituminous pavement on paved areas was cored through with a power

drill and core attachment. The sample was then retrieved with the hand auger. Core holes

in pavement were patched with bituminous cold mix.

The samples were split with the USEPA representative by first collecting the material in a

stainless steel pan. The material was then mixed and quartered, and the opposite (diagonal)

corners combined and mixed. This procedure was carried out twice before the samples were

transferred to the two separate laboratory jars.

All sampling equipment was decontaminated after use according to the decontamination



104-928/JMCm3/RPT/052092 3-6

r.ir

iE

ri:

Samples were shipped to TCT's laboratory for Aroclor analysis within one to nine days ofcollection.

D. Field Quality Control

A duplicate Aroclor sample was collected at approximately every tenth sample location. Theduplicate samples were collected using the same procedure as that used to split samples

described in Section C. The samples were placed in glass soil jars provided by the laboratory.The same sampling crew collected the samples in December 1990, November 1991, and April

1992 to maintain consistent sampling methods.

E. Decontamination Procedures

Decontamination of sampling equipment was performed prior to beginning work and between

samples. Several sets of sampling equipment were used such that four to five samples couldbe taken, using different sets of equipment, and all the equipment decontaminated at onetime.

The decontamination procedure consisted of the following:

1. Wash with detergent solution,2. Distilled water rinse,3. Hexane rinse, and

4. Distilled water rinse.

Gloves were decontaminated in the same manner between each sampling location. Boots andother sampling or safety equipment were decontaminated using the same method, asnecessary to prevent cross-contamination between sampling locations. Spent hexane wascollected and taken back to Strand Associates laboratory for proper disposal.

3.03 BACKGROUND AND QUARRY POND SAMPLING

Background sediment core samples and core samples from Zuenert Park Quarry Pond werecollected on September 26, 1991.

A. Background Core Sampling Procedures

The background sediment core samples were collected from Cedarburg Pond, above the dam.The location of the core is shown in Figure 3.01-1. Mr. Robert Wakeman of the WDNR, was

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 3-7

t present during sample collection and made the determination as to where the core should be

collected.

LA small boat was used to access the sample location. The sample was collected using a 3-

t inch nominal diameter, 5 foot long, lexan corer. A stainless steel extension arm was attached

to the corer to drive it into the sediment. When the corer was retrieved and brought to the

surface, a stopper was placed in the top and bottom of the corer to hold the sediment sample

I i in place. The sample was extruded from the corer using a piece of PVC pipe with a PVC cap

on the end, machined to fit the corer, to push the sediment core up out of the top of the

| corer. The corer was kept in a vertical position during sample collection and extrusion to

( avoid sample disturbance.

| The core collected was approximately 26 cm long. The top 13 cm of the sample was

segmented as sample CS-1 and the bottom 13 cm of the sample was segmented as sampleCS-2.

j

B. Quarry Pond Sampling Procedures

1

L

[r

Four sediment cores were retrieved from Quarry Pond in Zuenert Park. The locations of the

cores are shown in Figure 3.03-1. Mr. James Schmidt and Mr. Robert Wakeman of the

WDNR were present during most of the sampling event. The division of the cores into

separate samples was determined by the WDNR, who also provided guidance on core

locations.

f The samples were collected from a boat using 1 5 to 19 feet of stainless steel extension arms

L» with a "T" handle on one end and one of four sampling attachments on the other end. The

attachments used were a 1.5-inch diameter, 18-inch long stainless steel soil sampler, a 2-inch

I diameter, 4 foot long lexan corer, a 3-inch nominal diameter, 5-foot long lexan corer and a

3.5-inch by 6-inch by 3.5-inch stainless steel "scoop" attachment. The lexan corer was used

f in the same manner as those used to collect the background samples above. The 1.5-inch

t stainless steel sampler was also used in a similar manner except no plugs were required to be

placed in the sample tube. The stainless steel scoop attachment was used as a last resortL when the other procedures failed. To collect a sample using the scoop, the scoop attachment

was pushed down into the sediment, pulled forward and lifted to the surface with as little

E sample disturbance as possible. The depth of water at each sampling location was

determined using an electronic depth finder provided by the WDNR.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 3-8

i The core sampling locations were recorded using a theodolite survey instrument. A baseline

was established allowing the measurement of an angle to the sample location. The distance

I to the sampling point was determined using stadia methods.

f. Segmented core samples CS-3 and CS-4 were collected in a water depth of about 22 feet.

[ The core was collected using the 3-inch corer. The total core length was about 17 cm.

Sample CS-3 consisted of about the top 8 cm and CS-4 consisted of the remaining 9 cm.

j« There appeared to be a texture change in the sediments at about 11 to 1 2 cm. The samplewas a soft, watery muck at the surface and was firmer with depth.

{ Segmented core samples CS-5 and CS-6 were collected closer to the corrugated metal pipe

(CMP) outfall which was visible on the west shore of the pond. The core was collected using

the 2-inch corer. Sample CS-5 consisted of the top 24 cm of the sample which was a dark

brown to black sticky silt. This sample had a noticeable petroleum odor. Sample CS-6

consisted of the next approximately 26 cm of the core. This material was gray in color, had

a slight petroleum odor and was a firmer silt. The remaining approximately 5 cm of the core

was discarded because it appeared to be a firm clayey sand material rather than the softer

sediments found at the CS-3 and CS-4 location.

Core sample CS-7 was also collected near the CMP outfall on the west shore using the 2-inch

( corer. The core was not split into more than one sample due to the small quantity retrieved.

The core was about 6 cm in length and had a noticeable petroleum odor. The sample was

1 clayey in nature.

[ The scoop attachment was used to collect the final sample, CS-8. The material collected was

very soft and had organic material on the top. A duplicate, CS-8 Dup, was collected bysplitting the sample as described in Section 3.02 C.

rThe core segment samples were security sealed and placed in an ice-filled cooler at less than

j 4°C immediately after collection, until they could be transferred to the laboratory. TheL samples were shipped to TCT's laboratory for PCB Aroclor and TOC analysis within four days

of sample collection.

LfC.

C. Decontamination Procedures

The lexan corers and soil corer were decontaminated and re-used. All equipment was initially

rinsed with pond water to remove most of the material before being decontaminated. The

lexan corers, rubber plugs and extrusion plugs were decontaminated by scrubbing with a

detergent solution, then rinsing with distilled water. Sampling equipment such as the soil

104-928/JMCn"D/RPT/052092 3-9

I.

rLDC

L[

L

C

r

BUILDING

Z U E N E R T P A R K

SAND/GRAVEL

BOULDERS/RIPRAPSTONE/SEDIMENT/ROCK

MUCK/SEDIMENTCS-3 (18.000)

CS-4 (37,000)

CS-8 (8.400 9.500)

•CS-7 (6.600)

* A MUCK/SEDIMENTA*CS-5 (320.000)CS-6 (67.000)

TELEPHONE

BURIED STORM SEWE(APPROX. LOCATIONj

A CORE SAMPLE RETAINED

CORE SAMPLE ATTEMPTED

ACTUAL SHORELINE

ESTIMATED SHORELINE

( ) PCB CONCENTRATION. PPB ( A R O C L O R 1242 )

WISCONSIN DNR

CEDAR CREEKPCS INVESTIGATION

FIGURE 3.03-1

QUARRY PONDSAMPLE LOCATION

& RESULTS

104-921-10 B

L

r

corer, scoop attachment, spoons, plug caps and other stainless steel items weredecontaminated according to the procedures in Section 3.02 E., Decontamination Procedures.

3.04 SMOKE AND TRACER TESTING

On October 1 6,1991, several storm and sanitary sewer lines near the Madison Joint Ventures(MJV) building were smoke tested in an attempt to determine if and how the building sumps

were connected to the storm or sanitary sewer systems. As a follow-up to this testing,several sewer lines were "snaked" on November 6, 1991, again to determine if and how the

sumps and storm laterals in manhole (MH) 331005 were connected. Margaret Graefe andJames Schmidt of the Southeast District WDNR were present for most of both testing events.

Photographs from the smoke testing are included in Appendix C.

A. Smoke Testing

The Dial-Smoke™ Sewer Smoke Test System by United Survey, Inc. was used to test thesewers. The unit is powered by a 2-cycle gasoline engine and uses liquid smoke. The liquidsmoke is vaporized by the engine exhaust and blown into the manhole/inlet by a fan with acapacity of up to about 1,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm). A foam-lined adaptor was used

to seal the manhole or sump from the outside atmosphere and to direct the smoke into themanholes being tested.

Several smoke tests were run at different locations in and around the MJV building. In all

cases, the building sumps, roof drains, and vents and nearby manholes, inlets and catchbasins were checked for any sign of smoke. The locations at which the smoke test system

was set up are as follows:

1. Sanitary sewer manhole on St. John Avenue, south of MH 331005.

2. Manhole just inside chain-link fence, on northeast corner of MJV building;

plugged 36-inch clay lateral.

3. Manhole 331005; plugged 36-inch clay lateral and discharge pipe to the east.

4. Catch basin on east side of Kelch building, near sidewalk.

5. Sump 5 in MJV building.

6. Sump 3 pit, plugged overflow structure.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052192 3-10

i 7. Sump 3, overflow structure.

f See Figure 3.02-1 for the locations of the manholes and building sumps.

( . B. Tracer Testing

As a follow-up to the smoke testing, several sewer laterals were "snaked" on November 6,

F: 1 991, using a 100 foot sewer tape with a Schonstedt magnetic locator.

r

I

In general, the tape was pushed up the lateral as far as physically possible. The locator was

then used to trace the path of the tape.

The tape was used to trace the 12-inch south lateral from the manhole just inside the fence,near the northeast corner of the MJV building and the 6-inch southwest lateral from manhole

331005. An initial attempt was made to use the tape to trace the lateral in Sump 5. It was

considered unlikely, however, that the tape could have been effectively decontaminated dueto the oily and sticky nature of the materials in the sump and lateral. Therefore, this attempt

was abandoned.

3.05 ANALYTICAL METHODS

A. Sediment Core PCB Samples

Sediment core PCB congener samples were analyzed by the State Laboratory of Hygiene,r Wisconsin Certified Lab No. 113133790. USEPA Method 1510, for Pesticide Residues in

I, Soil, was used to first determine the PCB Aroclor type and concentration and then identifyPCB congeners and their concentrations in the sample. Aroclor standards were selected basedon the analyst's interpretation of the PCB "fingerprint" after gas chromatography. Standards

were injected either as mixtures of more than one Aroclor type or as a single Aroclor type and

the sample was quantified based on the standard which most closely matched the sample

L fingerprint.

(

I Sediment PCB Aroclor analysis was conducted by Twin City Testing Corporation of St. Paul,

Minnesota, using USEPA Solid Waste Method 8080, EPA Test Methods for Evaluating Solidgi Waste. SW-846, November 1986, 3rd Edition. The Wisconsin Certified Lab No. for TCT is

I. 999446910. A portion of each sample was weighed and extracted with methylene chloride.The extracts were dehydrated with anhydrous sodium sulfate, solvent switched to hexane,

| and concentrated to less than five milliliters in a Kuderna-Danish Concentrator on a steam

bath. The concentrates were then analyzed using a Hewlett-Packard Model HP5890A Gas

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 3-1 1

C

rr

Chromatograph equipped with dual electron capture detectors. PCB Aroclors were identifiedby column retention time and quantified by peak area comparisons to those known standardsusing a VG Laboratory Data System. Interferences were removed using USEPA Method 3620,"Florisil Column Cleanup". After extraction of each sediment sample, portions of the samplewere forwarded to Robert E. Lee and Associates laboratory in Green Bay, Wisconsin(Wisconsin Certified Lab No. 405043870) for total organic carbon analysis by the slurrymethod in conjunction with a carbon analyzer. Results for PCB and TOC were reported on a

dry weight basis. Percent moisture (or percent solids) was determined using methodsdescribed in the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work (SOW), Section 2,1986. The sample was weighed and then dried in an oven at 105°C until a constant weightwas reached. According to the laboratory, percent moisture was reported as the ratio of theweight of water to the total sample weight.

Additional information on specific analytical methods can be found on the laboratory reports(Appendix E).

B. Sewer and Site Samples

Soil and concrete or clay sewer chip samples were analyzed for PCB Aroclors by TCT usingUSEPA Method 8080, as described above. Site sump samples which consisted primarily ofoil were prepared and analyzed by methods based on American Society for Testing andMaterials (ASTM) D 4059. A portion of the sample was weighed, diluted with hexane, andmixed with florisil. The extract was then analyzed by gas chromatography with dual electroncapture detectors. Results were reported on a dry weight basis. Percent moisture in sampleswas determined by weighing each sample and drying in an oven at 105°C until a constantweight was reached (USEPA SOW Section 2, 1986). Results were reported as the ratio ofthe weight of water to the total sample weight. Additional information on specific laboratorymethods can be found on the laboratory reports (Appendix E).

i C. Sediment Core DatingL

Sediment core segment dating was performed by Dr. David Edgington of the University ofLi Wisconsin - Center for Great Lakes Studies under a separate arrangement with the WDNR.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 3-12

i:iFf

L

SECTION 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.01 SEDIMENT SAMPLING RESULTS

This section provides a discussion of results obtained during Ruck Pond "emergency"

sediment sampling and Quarry Pond sampling in July 1990 and September 1991, respectively.

A. Ruck Pond Samples

Laboratory reports for the PCB Aroclor and congener analysis performed by the State

Laboratory of Hygiene and Twin City Testing may be found in Appendix E. Sample segments

from Cores 1B, 2C, and 3A were analyzed for PCB Aroclors by TCT and are summarized in

Table 4.01-1. Polychlorinated biphenyl Aroclors 1248 and 1260 were the only Aroclors

detected in Ruck Pond sediments for these samples. Concentrations ranged from 1 5 to150,000 ppm in Core 1, from not detected to 5,800 in Core 2, 360 ppm in Core 3 (one

sample only), and from not detected to 110 ppm in Core 4.

PCB congener and Aroclor results from the SLOH for samples from cores 1 A, 2B, and 3A are

summarized in Table 4.01-2. Aroclor mixture 1242/1260 was detected in Core 1A in the

composited segments from depths of 0 to 8 cm. Aroclor 1260 was detected in the segments

from depths of 8 to 18 cm in Core 1 A. Concentrations of these Aroclors were 18,000 ppm

in the upper section of the core and 41,000 ppm in the lower section.

Aroclor results from the SLOH for Core location 2 (Core 2B) indicated lower levels of Aroclor1 242/60, as shown in Table 4.01-2. In this case, concentrations in the upper sediments {470

ppm) were higher than those in lower sediments (280 ppm). Core location 3, Core A hadconcentrations of 11 ppm Aroclor 1242/60 in the section that was analyzed from 12 to 24

cm.

The congeners detected in each sample are summarized in Table 4.01-2 as the percentage of

each chlorobiphenyl detected in the sample. These were evaluated by grouping the detected

congeners according to their empirical formula. For instance, congener numbers 5, 6, 7, and8 all have the empirical formula C12 H8 CI2, and congener numbers 206 and 208 have the

empirical formula C12 HCI9. Chlorobiphenyls, or PCBs, may have from one to ten chlorineatoms. For comparison with sample results, Table 4.01-3 presents the percentage of each

chlorobiphenyl typically found in Aroclor 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260. The results tend to

104-928/JMCrTD/RPT/052092 4-1

TABLE 4.01-1

RUCK POND CORESPCB AROCLOR RESULTS1

(Aroclor results in ppm)


L

Lf

Core 1B

Depth, cm

0-2

2-4

4-6

6-8

8-10

10-12

12-14

14-16

16-18

18-20

20-22

22-24

PCB Aroclor 1248

500

900

3,900

1 1 ,000

7,000

12,000

5,200

5,000

830

580

910

15

PCB Aroclor 1260

1,900

3,300

12,000

45,000

28,000

15,000

150,000

89,000

25,000

8,100

20,000

86

Core 2C

Depth, cm

0-2

2-4

4-6

6-8

8-10

10-12

PCB Aroclor 1 248 PCB Aroclor 1 260

5.3 31

150 5,800

44 150

130 140

28 35

22 76

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092


L

i:

Core 2C

Depth, cm

12-14

14-16

16-18

18-20

20-22

22-24

24-26

26-28

28-30

30-32

32-34

34-36

36-38

38-40

40-42

42-44

44-46

46-48

48-50

50-52

PCB Aroclor 1248

3.2

3.7

2.9

0.88

ND2

2.8

0.24

ND

ND

0.89

0.21

0.29

0.38

0.36

0.15

0.13

ND

ND

ND

ND

PCB Aroclor 1260

19

31

5.7

7.9

34

5.4

1.9

2.4

0.98

3.8

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.83

0.86

0.52

1.2

0.85

6.0

0.71

Core 3A

Deoth. cm

0-12

PCB Aroclor 1 248

ND

PCB Aroclor 1260

360

104-928/JMCm3/RPT/052092


L

t

LI

Core 4C

Depth, cm

0-2

2-4

4-6

6-8

8-10

10-123

12-14

14-16

16-18

18-19

Background Core

Deptrv. cm

0-14

14-27

PCB Aroclor 1248

6.0

11

6.9

12

24

1 5 fjg/L

3.6

1.8

ND

0.32^ === =:= =====!

PCB Aroclor 1 248

ND

ND

PCB Aroclor 1260

48

67

110

110

200

1 60 /yg/L

19

8.8

0.077

3.9= s: ^=s=^==^ ==

PCB Aroclor 1260

ND

ND

Notes:

1. PCB Aroclors 1248 and 1260 were the only Aroclors detected. See laboratory reportsfor method detection limits and data qualifiers. Results shown are on a dry weightbasis.

2. ND = Not Detected. Detection Limits = 0.02 ppm wet weight for most samples (seelaboratory reports).

3. The sample segment from 10-12 cm extruded poorly and is considered unreliable (Table3.01-1).

r 104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092

TABLE 4.01-2

SUMMARY OF PCB CONGENER RESULTSRUCK POND CORES AND SUMP SAMPLES


Sample:

Depth:

Chlorobiphenyl

C12H9CI

C12H8CI2

C12H7CI3

Ci2H8CI4

C)2H5CI5

C12H4CI6

C12H3CI7

C12H2CI8

C12HCI9

C12CI10

Aroclor identified:

Cone.3, ppm:

1A11

0-8 cm

1A2

8-18 cm

2B1

4-12 cm

2B2

1 2-24 cm

3A1

12-24 cm

1C

N/A

S-40

N/A

Percent of Biphenyl2

0

1

6

11

10

32

27

11

2

0

1 242/60

18,000

0

0

2

7

12

40

27

11

2

0

1260

41,000

0

3

17

13

5

24

26

10

2

0

1242/60

470

0

3

16

14

5

25

25

10

2

0

1 242/60

280

0

4

14

16

9

24

23

8

2

0

1242/60

11

0

1

9

12

8

28

31

11

2

0

1 248/60

350

0

0

9

35

16

14

18

7

1

0

1248/54/60

25

Samples 1A1 and 1A2 are from Core location 1, Core A; Samples 2B1 and 2B2 are from Core location 2, Core B; Sample3A1 is from Core location 3, Core A (see text).Percentages shown are for the percent of the particular chlorobiphenyl in the sample (with one to nine chlorine atoms, asindicated).Aroclor results are reported on a dry weight basis.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092

LTABLE 4.01-3

APPROXIMATE MOLECULAR COMPOSITIONOF SELECTED AROCLORS


Chlorobiphenyl

C,2H9CI

Ci2H8CI2

C12H7CI3

Ci2H6CI4

C12H5CI5

C12H4CI6

C12H3CI7

C12H2CI8

C,2HCI9

C12CI10

Aroclor Type or Grade (percent composition)

1242

1

16

49

25

8

1

<0.1

ND

ND

ND

1248

2

18

40

36

4

1254

<0.1

0.5

1

21

48

23

6

ND

ND

ND

1260

12

38

41

8

1

r.L

E

Source: USEPA, 1976Note: ND = not detected; < = less than

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092

i:F

r

i

confirm that more than one Aroclor is present in most of the samples, as reported by theSLOH.

Graphs showing the percentages of detected congeners can be found in Appendix F. Theresults generally show the presence of similar congeners from one core location to another,

except that higher percentages of more lightly chlorinated congeners were present in corelocations 2 and 3 compared with location 1. Sample "Sump 1C", collected from sump 1 in

the former Mercury Marine Plant #2 building, tended to match the congener pattern found at

Core 1. The congener pattern for sample S-40, from the sump located near the east loadingdock of the MJV building, did not appear to match the patterns found in the Ruck Pond coresamples. This is not surprising since this sump discharged to the sanitary sewer and not the

storm sewer (see Section 4.04). Sample S-40 had a higher percentage of C12 H6 CI4congeners and lower percentages of CI6 and CI7 congeners compared with the other samples.

This may indicate the presence of Aroclor 1254, which was also identified by the SLOH. Alisting of the detected congeners and their relative percentage in each sample is presented in

Appendix F, Tables F-1 and F-2.

It should also be noted that although the congener results from Cores 2 and 3 were somewhatdifferent than those for Sample 1A1, the Aroclor results for all of these samples were reportedas 1242/60. Therefore, the difference in the congener results do not necessarily mean thatdifferent Aroclor mixtures are represented. The differences in congener results could be theresult of environmental "weathering" breaking down or transporting certain congenerspreferentially over others, or could indicate the presence of more than one Aroclor mixture.The presence of more than one Aroclor mixture at each sample location is confirmed through

f the laboratory data (Aroclors 1242 and 1260). The predominant congeners were generally

I very similar for all of the core locations, so weathering and transport of more lightlychlorinated congeners from location 1 downstream to locations 2 and 3 may explain the slight

! differences.»

; The highest concentrations of PCBs in Core 1 were from a depth of about 6 to 18 cmi-» according to TCT and SLOH results. The highest concentrations in Core 2 were from a depth

of about 2 to 8 cm. For Core 3, the highest concentrations appeared to be in the shallower|; segment (360 ppm Aroclor 1260 in the top 12 cm and 11 ppm Aroclor 1242/60 in the

bottom 12 cm). Core 4 showed the highest concentrations from a depth of about 2 to 1 2fj cm. Graphs of PCS Aroclor concentrations versus depth are presented in Appendix F.

The results for Aroclors reported by TCTs laboratory generally compare well with the results

from the SLOH, except that TCT reported an Aroclor in the core samples as 1248, while theSLOH reported it as 1242. However, the discrepancy between reporting a compound as

r

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052192 4-2

(

< 1 242 or 1 248 was consistent throughout the analysis of core, sewer and site samples. The

identification of PCB Aroclors is subjective, and the laboratories both reported that thej. differentiation between Aroclor 1 242 and 1 248 becomes even more subjective when anotherL .

Aroclor (in this case Aroclor 1260) is present (Laudenbach, Degenhardt, 1992). The

; . identification of these two Aroclors throughout this study depended on interpretation by the

t analyst. For example, the congener results from Sump 1C compare very well with those of

Sample 1A1, yet the Aroclors for these samples were reported as 1248/60 and 1242/60,

[•• respectively. This data interpretation issue is discussed further in Section 4.02.

f B. Quarry Pond Samplest

L

Laboratory reports for PCB Aroclor and TOC analysis of the samples collected from Quarry

Pond are included in Appendix E. The results are shown on Figure 3.03-1 and in Table 4.01-

4. Aroclor 1242 was the only PCB Aroclor detected in the quarry samples, at concentrations

ranging from 6.6 to 320 ppm. The results for core 1 indicated that PCB concentrations were

somewhat higher in the bottom half of the core, from 8 to 17 cm. However, the results from

core 2 indicate that PCBs were much higher in the upper sediments than in the lower.

Sediment samples collected from Quarry Pond generally ranged from 10 to 57 cm in length.

In most cases, the sediments were too unconsolidated and too thin to collect a sample. Thetypes of materials encountered during the sampling are shown in Figure 3.03-1.

The Aroclor results from Quarry Pond samples generally agree with composite samples

collected by Amcast's consultant in February, 1991. These results show PCB 1242 at

j concentrations from 26 to 86 ppm. Cores obtained by Amcast's consultant were reported

1 to be an average of about 15 cm long. Aroclor 1242 has been detected historically atAmcast's site from samples collected in the plant and from test pit soil samples collected in

the former dump area on site (See Appendix B and Section 2.03C).

4.02 SEWER AND SITE SAMPLING RESULTS*. 7

This section presents the results of samples collected from sewers, sites and the Madison

i Joint Venture building sumps. A discussion of how these results relate to identified PRPs is

provided in Section 5.02.

L Sewer and site sample laboratory reports are included in Appendix E. The results are

summarized in Table 4.02-1. The results are reported on a dry weight basis.

104-928/JMCm)/RPT/052192 4-3

P

TABLE 4.01-4

QUARRY POND CORESPCB AROCLOR RESULTS (ppm)


Core No.

1

1

Sample No.

CS-3

CS-4

Depth (cm)

0-8

8-17

PCB (ppm)Aroclor 1242

18

37

2

2

CS-5

CS-6

0-24

24-55

320

67

3 CS-7 0-6 6.6

4

4

CS-8

CS-8 (Dup)

0-9

0-9

8.4

9.5

I

L

Note: Results are reported on a dry weight basis.Dup. = Duplicate

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092

£

TABLE 4.02-1

SEWER AND SITE SAMPLE RESULTS (ppb)


Sample No.

S-1S-1 Dup.S-2

S-3

S-4S-5AS-6AS-7S-8

S-10

S-11

S-1 2S-1 2 Dup.S-12A

S-13S-14S-1 5

Location

MJV Sumps 3 &5Duplicate of S-1MJV Sump 2

MH 331006

MH 331005, N-24" concreteMH 331005, NW-24" concreteMH 331005, W-36" clayMH 331005, SW-6"MH 331005, bottom

MH 331003, West Pipe

MH 331002

CMP Outfall by WEPCOBridge (No. 333001)(Sample from same location)

Colonial Studios LotColonial Studios LotColonial Studies Lot

Aroclor1242

42,00079,000

ND

ND

NDNDND

38,0006,200

ND

ND

370NDND

NDNDND

Aroclor1248

NDNDND

ND

NDND

4,400,000NDND

ND

ND

NDND

39,000

NDNDND

Aroclor1254

NDNDND

ND

980NDNDNDND

ND

ND

NDNDND

NDNDND

Aroclor1260

38,00064,000

ND

160

ND4,800

29,000,000170,00062,000

320

880

1,7001,1003,100

NDNDND

104-928/JMCn"D/RPT/052192

i—


Sample No.

S-16NS-16S

S-17

S-18S-18 Dup.

S-19S-20

S-21S-22S-23S-24

S-25S-26

S-27

S-28S-29

S-30S-31

Location

MH 531062MH 531074

MH 531009

MH 531050

Old Outfall to RacewayOutfall to Raceway (No. 533001)

Creek Bank near Fire StationCreek Bank near Electric StationCreek Bank near Electric StationCreek Bank near Electric Station

Railroad Clay OutfallRailroad CMP Outfall

Creek Bank below Apts.

MH 121008MH 121005

Old Outfall near WWTPCMP Outfall No. 123001

Aroclor1242

NDND

ND

NDND

NDND

NDNDNDND

NDND

ND

1,70096

4257

Aroclor1248

NDND

ND

NDND

NDND

NDNDNDND

NDND

ND

NDND

NDND

Aroclor1254

NDND

260

NDND

NDND

NDNDNDND

NDND

720

ND60

45ND

Aroclor1260

NDND

ND

NDND

10,000330

500500480

3,500

NDND

ND

NDND

ND22

104-928/JMCfTD/RPT/052192

m


Sample No.

S-32S-32 Dup.S-32AS-32A Dup.S-33S-33A

S-34S-35

S-36

S-37

S-40

S-41

S-42

S-43S-43 Dup.

S-44

S-45

S-46

S-50

Location

Meta Mold Factory Parking Lot

(Sample from same location)

(Sample from same location)

Edgar Kasten DrivewayEdgar Kasten Driveway

Meta Mold Factory Parking LotNear Dock

Kelch Corp. Storm Inlet

MJV Sump Near East Loading Dock

MH 521002

MH 521004

Zuernert ParkManhole

MH 531015

MH 531012

MH 531003

MH Inside MJV Fence

Aroclor1242

17,00017,000

NDNDNDND

ND53

270

ND

ND

ND

ND

NDND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Aroclor1248

NDND

1 1 ,00044,000

ND13,000

NDND

ND

ND

ND

3,900

ND

53,00029,000

ND

ND

ND

6,500,000

Aroclor1254

18,00032,000

NDND

4,200ND

NDND

1,000

ND

12,000

ND

ND

NDND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Aroclor1260

NDND

5,6003,100

ND3,900

350160

ND

120

1 1 ,000

ND

ND

NDND

110

240

280

6,100,000

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052192

nn


Sample No.

Sump 1Sump 3A

Location

MJV Sump 1MJV Sump 3 Overflow

Aroclor1242

NDND

Aroclor1248

48,000820,000

Aroclor1254

NDND

Aroclor1260

150,0003,800,000

Notes:ND = not detected (see laboratory reports for detection limit.)PCS results are reported on a dry weight basis.Dup. = duplicate

104-9 28/JMC/TD/RPT/052192

[

r

il

LL

fI

During the first sampling event in December of 1990, samples S-1 through S-37 were

collected. Aroclors 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260 were detected. The highest results werein samples collected from manhole MH 331005 and MJV building sumps, in which Aroclors

1 242 and 1260 were the primary PCB mixtures detected. High levels of PCB 1 242 and 1 254

were detected in samples collected from the Amcast site. Samples were collected again in

October 1991 to either confirm previous sample results or to better identify potential sourcesof PCB contamination, and are labelled S-40 though S-50, Sump 1 and Sump 3A. The highest

results were again obtained from samples collected from the MJV building sumps and related

sewers, with PCB Aroclors 1248 and 1260 being detected.

During the second sampling event in October 1991, samples were collected from locations

S-5A and S-6A (see laboratory report, Appendix E). These and other samples analyzed from

the October 1991 set were reported as Aroclor 1248 and not 1242. It appears that the

analyst of the December 1 990 samples consistently identified Aroclor 1 242 while the analyst

of the October 1991 samples consistently identified Aroclor 1248. A similar situation was

noted with samples sent to the SLOH for sediment sample analysis (see Section 4.01-1).

These results are not unreasonable since Aroclors 1242 and 1248 are similar mixtures. The

standards for the two Aroclors are similar enough in chlorine content that the detected

compound would be quantified almost the same with either standard (Laudenbach, 1992).

For the purposes of this study, Aroclors 1242 and 1 248 are considered essentially the same

PCB mixture.

Results from the site and sewer sampling are shown in Figures 4.02-1 through 4.02-4. A

discussion of the results as they relate to each previously identified PRP is provided in Section

5.02.

4.03 SAMPLE QA/QC

Sample quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) included the analysis of field duplicates,

laboratory method blanks, matrix spikes, and matrix spike duplicates. Field duplicate

percentage differences for samples analyzed by TCT are shown in Table 4.03-1. These

percentage differences were calculated using the following formula:

High Result- Low Result x 100

Average of High & Low Result

Since, with this formula, the difference in the two sample results is divided by the average

of the two sample results, the maximum percent difference that can be obtained by this

method is 200%, which would represent a positive detection in one sample and no detection

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052192 4-4

v-S-3 ( 160 )

XAND. /-S-37 ( 120 ), , S-11( 880 )

KELCH. S-12 ( 2.070 ) -

S-21 ( 500 ),,t- CORPORATION

S-22 ( 500 )

S-8 ( 68.200 )

CITY OFLCEDARBURG

SUB STATIONMJV / MERCURY ^MARINE PLANT *2 ^\ S-23 ( 480 )

S-24 ( 3.500 )\- " v\ - S-13 THRU

S-15 ( ND ) ^

SEE FIGURE 4.02-2FOR RESULTSAT SITE 2

S-44( 110 >

S-19( 10.000 )WM

3 S-16N { ND

LEGENDS-44( 110 ) -SAMPLENO. AND TOTAL PCBAROCLORCONCENTRATION IN ppb.

BASE MAP : CUV OF CEOARMJftO

WISCONSIN ONRCEOAR CREEK PCB INVESTIGATION

SITES 1 THROUGH 5PCB AROCLOR RESULTS

FIGURE4.02-1

104-921-1 1 A

FLOOR

OVERFLOWSTRUCTURE

S-1 ( SUMPS 3 & 5 )

42.000 ( 1242 )

38.000 ( 1260 )

SUMP 3A

820.000 ( 1248 )

3.800.000( 1260 )

TRENCH WITH PIPING FORMACHINES. COVEREDW/ STEEL PLATES

S-37 ( KELCH INLET )120( 1260 )

S-6 A4,400.000 ( 1248 )29.000.000 ( 1260

36" CLAY

S-SO6.500,000 ( 1248 )6,100,000 ( 1260 )

S-5 A

SECTION A-A

OLD TANK

STORMMH 331005

S-86,200 ( 1242 X62,000 ( 1260 )S-7

\Li ••H

3

-, \ « » ,b \

SUMP TYPE HOLEW/ W A T E R & SEDIMENT

SUMP *4 3

TRENCH

38.000 ( 1242170.000 ( 1260 )|

DRY SUMP

WASH PIT

.GATE

LEGENDS-1 -SAMPLE NUMBER

820.000 ( 1248 )INDICATES PCBCONCENTRATION IN ppb &AROCLOR NUMBER IN ( )

n

KREHOUSE

FRAMP

S-40

DOOR

1 "

^ -"

' r*

.4-12.000( 1254 )11.000( 1260 ) ^_g

6" PIPE -f f

SUMP *5 -JS-1 ( SUMPS * 3 4 5 )

SUMP 1 42.000(

48.000 ( 1248 ) ^o.UUUl150,000 ( 1260 )

•QSUMP *1

1242 )1260 )

LOADINGDOCK

SUMP

SANITARY MH

SANITARYMH

DOOR

PIPING TO ROOF

NO SCALEBASE SOURCE: KIEHKAEFER MARINE'S

10/15/69 LETTER TO WDNR

FIGURE4.02-2

104-921-12A


KIEKHAEFER - MERCURY MARINE PLANT 2PCB AROCLOR RESULTS

STttAND

L

APARTMENTS /MOLDEDDIMENSIONS /ROBBINSPLASTICS

firmLEGEND f~L:

( 110 )= SAMPLE ?//S-44NO. AND TOTAL PCB //AROCLORCONCENTRATION IN ppb.

BASE MAP : CITY OF CEDARBURG t".400f

FIGURE4.02-3

104-921-13A

WISCONSIN DNR

CEDAR CREEK PCB INVESTIGATIONSITES 6. 7, AND 8

PCB AROCLOR RESULTSIANO

L

HAMILTONPOND

FORMEROUTFALL

no* \ — S-30 ( 87 )

PRESENTOUTFALL

AMCASTFACTORY

AMCAST'V VOFFICES

S-32 ( 35.000 ) 0) S-31 ( 79 )

CEDARBURGWWTP

S-43 ( 53.000 )

WWTPOUTFALL


VJIOO4 //

S-42 ( NO )

QUARRYPOND

LEGENDS-44 ( 110 ) = SAMPLENO. AND TOTAL PCBAROCLORCONCENTRATION IN ppb.

BASE MAP : CITY OF CEDARBURO 1"-400'

FIGURE4.02-4

104-921-14A


SITES 9. 10, AND 11PCB AROCLOR RESULTS

•THAND

1 Not Detected

TABLE 4.03-1

RESULTS OF FIELD DUPLICATES


Sample No. PCB Aroclor Percent Difference

TCT Results:

S-1/S-1 Dup

S-12/S-12 Dup

S-18/S-18 Dup

S-32/S-32 Dup

S-32A/S-32A Dup.

S-43/S-43 Dup

12421260

12421260

—

12421254

12481260

1248

61%51%

200%43%

i

0%56%

120%57%

59%

CS-8/CS-8 Dup 1242 12%

Average 66%

L

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092

i

in the other. No detection was considered to be equal to zero. The percentage differences

in the TCT-analyzed samples are reasonable for soil and sludge matrix samples, since soil

samples tend to differ in consistency, solids content, and organic carbon content even if they

are split using appropriate methods.

A discussion of laboratory blanks, spikes and duplicates is contained on the laboratory report

for each sample set in Appendix E. A method blank analyzed with the first (December 1990)

set of sewer and site samples contained a trace of Aroclor 1 260, but the concentrations waslow enough to be considered negligible (1.3 fJQ/L). One matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate

for this sample set contained several interfering peaks near PCS 1 260 and, therefore, was notused. Matrix spike recoveries which were used for this set of samples ranged from 120 to

130 percent, and percentage differences for matrix spike duplicates were 0 to 9 percent. The

130 percent is somewhat high for matrix spike recoveries; normal ranges are from 80 to 1 20

percent.

Matrix spikes and spike duplicates for the October 1991 site samples showed 99 percent

matrix spike recovery and 13 percent difference between the spike and spike duplicate. The

! matrix spike and spike duplicates from Quarry Pond sediments showed 100 percent recoveryiand three percent difference. The matrix spike and duplicate for Ruck Pond sediments

showed an average of 101 percent recovery and percentage differences between the spike

and spike duplicate ranging from 1 to 4 percent. These are all within normal ranges.

i Overall, the laboratory QA/QC results for the samples analyzed by TCT indicate that the data

are acceptable for use, with the minor qualifications discussed above.

I 4.04 SMOKE AND TRACER TESTING RESULTS

• A. Smoke Testing of Sewersi

On October 16, 1991, seven locations in the vicinity of the former Mercury Marine Plant

I #2/Madison Joint Ventures (MJV) building were smoke tested in an attempt to determine if

and how the building sump pits were connected into the City of Cedarburg storm and/or

[ sanitary sewer systems. All the building sumps were opened and observed before testing

began. Access was also obtained to the roof of the building to observe roof drains, adjacent

F building roofs, etc. during testing. Refer to Figure 3.02-1 for sump and manhole locations,

and Appendix C for photographs.

I Observation of Sump 1 before testing indicated that the piping from the sump pump discharge

which was still in place ran up the wall of the building to the roof. The apparent discharger •

104-928/JMCn~D/RPT/052192 4-5

F

location on the roof of the building appeared to have been tarred over. Observation of the

area around Sump 5 also indicated that piping had run to the roof in the past. Controls and

an electrical outlet, possibly for a sump pump, were also observed.

The first location smoke tested was the sanitary manhole on St. John's Avenue near the east

loading dock of the MJV building. It appeared from visual inspection that Sump 3 may havebeen connected into the sanitary system within the building. Upon injecting smoke into this

manhole, smoke was observed in the restroom near Sump 3 and from the sump pit locatedoutside the building in the east loading dock area, indicating that the outside sump was

connected to the sanitary sewer system.

The next location tested was the storm sewer manhole next to the northeast corner of the

MJV building, inside the chain link fence. The 36-inch clay lateral to the east and a section

of the manhole that had collapsed were plugged to direct the smoke up the 12-inch lateral

that ran to the south. Smoke was not observed anywhere inside or outside the building.

Manhole MH 331005 was then tested. The 36-inch clay lateral to the west and the discharge

pipe to the east were plugged directing the smoke to the north and northwest 24-inch

concrete laterals. The Kelch Corporation was contacted before this test was conducted in the

event that they had interior connections to the storm sewer. Smoke was observed coming

from the east and north roof drains of the Kelch building, the catch basin outside the Kelch

building, and a catch basin on the east side of St. John's Avenue. Mo connections were

observed to the MJV building.

The next location smoke tested was the catch basin outside the Kelch building, to determine

if it was connected to the north or northwest lateral of MH 331005. Smoke was againobserved from the roof drains of the Kelch building and from the northwest 24-inch concrete

lateral in MH 331005. This indicated that the catch basin and roof drains were connected toMH 331005 through the northwest 24-inch lateral, not the north 24-inch lateral.

Sump pits in the MJV building were tested next. The first sump tested was Sump 5. One

pipe from the west was observed in the sump pit. No smoke was observed inside or outside

the building. It appeared that the piping to the west may have lead to the floor trenches that

had been filled with concrete in the area of the sump.

Sump 3 was tested next. A trench led from the sump pit to the south. A smaller pipe (about

6 to 8-inch diameter) was observed at the end of the trench. This pipe also led south. The

overflow structure was capped when the sump was tested to direct the smoke down thetrench and piping to the south. Smoke was observed coming from the floor trenches along

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052192 4-6

L

the east and south walls of the room south of the old tool room near Sump 4. These results

indicate that Sump 4, which has been filled with concrete, may have been connected via the

floor trenches to Sump 3. Smoke was not observed in any other locations.

The overflow structure of Sump 3 was tested last. It appeared that the pipe from the

overflow structure going east may have been connected to the 6-inch lateral in MH 331005.

However, no smoke was observed inside or outside the building. A drain trap filled with water

or sediment may have been present in the pipe which prevented the smoke from passing.

Sump 2 could not be tested because it was filled with oil and there was concern relative to

disposal of the oil.

B. Sewer Locating

On November 11, 1991, several sewer laterals in the vicinity of the MJV building were

"snaked", again to determine if and how the sumps in the MJV building were connected tothe City of Cedarburg sewer system. The traced locations of piping and the apparent

connections are shown on Figure 3.02-1.

The sewer tape "snake" was used to test the 12-inch south lateral from the manhole near the

northeast corner of the MJV building. The full 100 feet of the tape was pushed up the pipe

and traced using the magnetic locator. The pipe ran parallel to the east building wall for the

length traced. The pipe apparently continued to the south but could not be traced any further

due to the length of the tape. This pipe may be connected to the trenches near Sump 5 that

have been filled with concrete, or may have been connected to a former underground tank

used to collect oils.

The 6-inch lateral in MH 331005 was traced next. Three attempts were made, each attempt

getting the tape further up the pipe. The tape was pushed to the building wall in the first

attempt where it encountered a blockage, probably a building trap, that echoed back throughthe pipe when hit. In the second attempt the tape got through the apparent trap and about

50 to 55 feet of tape was pushed up the pipe. The tape was traced straight into the building.

On the third attempt, about 20 more feet of tape was pushed up the pipe (total of about 75

feet). Pushing of the tape was very difficult, possibly indicating a bend in the piping. The

tape was traced to just before the doorway leading to Sump 3. It appeared to bend to the

south in this area, toward an apparent sump pit and floor trench that had been filled with

concrete. The pipe from the overflow structure in Sump 3 ran toward the piping being traced

and was probably connected to this piping.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052192 4-7

An attempt was made to trace the pipe in Sump 5. However, due to the sticky nature of the

oily material in the pipe, it appeared that the tape could not have been adequately

decontaminated. Therefore, no further effort was made to trace this pipe.

While locating sumps and sewers at the MJV site, a large concrete structure with a manway

was noted on the west side of the building, which could have been a storage tank. The

possible presence of a 30,000 gallon buried storage tank on the site was reported by a past

employee.

LIft

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052192 4-8

LL

SECTION 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.01 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

The following general conclusions are made with respect to the sample results and laboratory

analyses:

1. Polychlorinated biphenyl Aroclor results for Ruck Pond sediment cores from Twin CityTesting Corporation indicated that Aroclors 1248 and 1260 are present in the

sediments, with 1260 being the predominant PCB. Results for these samples from the

State Laboratory of Hygiene identified Aroclor mixtures 1242/1260 and 1260.

2. The identification of Aroclor 1242 versus 1 248 appeared to depend on the analyst for

certain samples. In general, Aroclor 1242 was identified by Twin City Testing in the

December 1990 sample set, whereas Aroclor 1248 was identified in the October 1991

sample set. This also appeared to be true of the analysis of samples by the SLOH

(Sample 1A1 compared with Sump 1C, for example). The identification of the

different Aroclors is not unusual between reputable labs since 1 242 and 1248 are so

similar.

3. PCB concentrations exceeding the TSCA limit of 50 ppm were found in Ruck Pond

Cores 1, 2, and 3.

4. Results of PCB congener analysis show a strong correlation between the congeners insample Sump 1C from the former Mercury Marine Plant #2 building and the congeners

in Ruck Pond Core 1. This correlation is not as evident for Ruck Pond Cores 2 and 3,

which may indicate mixing of sediments and differential transport of certain congeners

as the PCBs migrated further downstream from the former Mercury Marine Plant #2

outfall. Samples from cores 2 and 3 had higher percentages of more lightly chlorinated

congeners, which tend to be transported more easily than heavily chlorinated

congeners. The difference in congener patterns at Cores 2 and 3 could also indicate

another source of contamination in addition to Mercury Marine Plant #2.

5. Results from the SLOH for core samples indicated the presence of the same Aroclor

mixtures (1242/1260) in Cores 1, 2, and 3 despite the slight differences in congener

patterns. The slight differences in congener patterns appears to be related to the

varying proportion of Aroclor 1242 to 1260.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 5-1

6. Results from Quarry Pond sediments indicated the presence of PCS Aroclor 1242

exceeding TSCA limits of 50 ppm in the northwest corner of the pond, where two

storm sewer outfalls are located. These results correlate well with previous studies.< .

i 7. Results from samples associated with Sites 1 (Kelch), 3 (City of Cedarburg), 4

i (Milwaukee Northern Railroad), 7 (Molded Dimensions), 8 (Kurz & Root), and 12

(Scherer) had no detectable or low levels (less than 5 ppm) of Aroclor 1 254 and 1 260

j ' (Sites 6 [Planning Mill] and 10 [Wastewater Treatment Plant] were not sampled as partof this investigation).

I^ 8. Results from samples associated with Sites 5 (Mercury Marine Plant #1) and 11 (City

of Cedarburg) had levels of PCBs lower than the TSCA limit of 50 ppm but higher than

5 ppm. These locations included the former Mercury Marine Plant #1 outfall and the

manhole located east of the Cedarburg Light and Water Commission, which may also

be associated with site 9 (Amcast/Meta Mold).

9. Results from samples associated with Sites 2 (Mercury Marine Plant #2) and 9

; (Amcast/Meta Mold) had PCS levels exceeding the TSCA limit of 50 ppm. Theconcentrations at Site 2 were as high as 6,500 ppm Aroclor 1242 or 1 248 and up to

[ 29,000 ppm Aroclor 1260. The concentrations at Site 9 were as high as 53 ppm

i Aroclor 1248 in the sample from the manhole in Zuenert Park, which is believed to be

associated with Site 9. Samples collected from Site 9 itself had concentrations up to17 ppm Aroclor 1242 and 32 ppm Aroclor 1254.L

I

f.rf

10. PCB Aroclors associated with Site 2 and the Ruck Pond sediments and drainage area

were predominantly Aroclor 1260, with Aroclor 1242 or 1248 also detected in mostsamples at approximately 10 to 20% of the 1 260 concentration. Samples associated

with Site 9 and the Quarry Pond/Hamilton Pond sediments and drainage area werepredominantly Aroclor 1242, 1248, or 1254.

11. Sample Quality Assurance/Quality Control results were within normal ranges with the

exception that one of the matrix spike recoveries was 130 percent in the December

1990 set of sewer and site samples. A range of 80 to 120 percent is considered

normal. Field duplicates for this data set were acceptable.

5.02 SOURCES AND MAGNITUDE OF CONTAMINATION

The results of the field sampling and analysis conducted during this investigation werepresented in Sections 4.01 through 4.04, and are summarized on Figures 3.03-1 and 4.02-1

104-928/JMCnD/RPT/052192 5-2

through 4.01-4. A discussion of these results as they relate to PRPs identified in Section 2

is provided below.

A. Site 1- Kelch Corporation

[ Storm sewers leading from the Kelch Corporation building and site appear to enter manhole

MH 331005 by way of two 24 inch concrete sewers, one entering the manhole from the

|. north and one from the northwest. A connection between a site catch basin and the 24 inch

northwest sewer was confirmed by smoke testing. The connection between the site and the

r. north 24 inch sewer was indicated through previously sewer televising by Mercury Marine's

i consultant (Section 2.03 and Appendix B), although this connection could have been a stub.

No other storm sewer connections were indicated during this study or a review of past

! studies.

Samples which are apparently associated with Site 1 include S-3, S-4, S-5A, and S-37 (see

[ Figure 4.02-1). Relatively low levels of PCBs were detected in all four of these samples,

ranging from 120 to 4,800 parts per billion (ppb) Aroclor 1 254 or 1260 (Table 4.02-1). The

PCBs in sample locations S-4 and S-5 could be caused by backflow or surcharging of storm

water in MH 331005, since these samples were collected from the 24 inch concrete sewers

| at the point where they enter the manhole. The PCBs detected in sample S-37 (120 ppb)

I could be the result of a PCB leak or spill from the transformers located near this catch basin.

The PCBs in sample S-3 (160 ppb) could be the result of backflow or up-gradient sources of

i PCBs. None of the results from this site exceeded the 50 ppm (50,000 ppb) limit established

by TSCA for PCB containing materials.

i Samples S-44, S-45, S-17, S-46, S-19 and S-20 may also be related to Sites 1 or 2 if these

buildings have connections to the storm sewer system to the west on Madison Avenue. Such

i a connection appears unlikely based on the elevations of the street, sewer, and buildings,

according to the WDNR. These samples had relatively low levels of PCBs (110 to 330 ppb)

; with the exception of sample S-19, which was located in Ruck Raceway and may be related

U to the former outfall from Site 5 (Mercury Marine Plant #1).

t. Based on the relatively low levels of PCBs found at the site, the Kelch Corporation or the

previous site occupant, Doerr Electric, is considered to be a potential minor contributor to the

PS PCB contamination in Ruck Pond.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 5-3

B. Site 2- MJV Building/Mercury Marine Plant #2

Storm sewers and building sumps and drains related to the former Mercury Marine Plant #2

building are shown in Figures 4.02-1 and 4.02-2. Two building sumps (1 and 5) appeared to

have discharged to the roof of the building. This discharge may have been allowed to run off

I the roof by way of roof drains or could have been routed to a former "cooling tower" which

is reported to have been installed at the site around 1964 (Section 2.03 D). However, the

I location of this former cooling tower is unknown and evidence of it being located on the roof

was not observed during this study. Sewer tracing indicated that Sump 3 discharged to the

f six inch clay sewer which discharged to MH 331005. Sump 4 has been filled with concrete

: and, based on smoke testing, is believed to have been connected to Sump 3 via floor

trenches. Connections to Sump 2 could not be determined.i

A sump located outside of the building near the east loading dock was found to be connected

to the building sanitary sewer system and to a sanitary sewer manhole located east of the

building, based on smoke testing. Sample S-40, which contained PCBs, was collected from

this sump. A storm sewer manhole located at the northeast corner of the MJV property was

smoke tested and a 12 inch lateral leading directly south from this manhole was observed.

This manhole is connected to MH 331005 via a 36 inch clay sewer. Smoke and tracer testing

f of the south 1 2 inch lateral did not confirm the origin of the lateral; however, based on the

i location of this pipe it is apparent that the origin is on the property or within the building

(Figure 4.02-2). It is possible that this sewer was once connected to the waste oil tankI formerly located on the east side of the building and removed in 1987 (Section 2.03 C and

Appendix B), or to one of the building sumps.

I PCB results which are related to the site include Sump 1, Sump 3A, S-1, S-2, S-6, S-7, S-8,S-40, S-50 and Ruck Pond Core 1. Other samples which are likely to be associated with the

' site include down-stream sewer samples S-10, S-11, and S-12, and down-stream Ruck Pond

cores 2, 3, and 4. Results from these samples indicate that there are elevated levels of PCB

Aroclors 1242/1 248 and 1260 in the MJV building, including Sumps 1, 3, and 5. PCBs were

not identified in Sump 2, and Sump 4 could not be sampled because it was filled with

concrete. The levels and types of Aroclors detected in the Sump 3 overflow were similar to

| those detected in the six inch sewer entering MH 331005 (S-7), confirming the observed

connection between Sump 3 and this sewer. The levels and types of Aroclors in the on-site

storm manhole (S-50) tend to agree with those detected in the 36 inch clay sewer entering

MH 331005 (S-6) and in MH 331005 itself (S-8), except the concentration of Aroclor 1248

was higher in the on-site manhole in relation to Aroclor 1 260 than it was in the other two

samples. Sample Sump 1 also had similar levels of 1248 and 1260.

104-928/JMCrTD/RPT/052092 5-4

P.

r

Sample S-40, collected from the outside sump near the east loading dock, was unique in that

Aroclor 1 254 was detected. The congeners detected tended to be lightly chlorinated relative

to Sump 1 and Ruck Pond sediment samples. Aroclor 1 254 was also detected in sample S-4

which was considered to be possibly related to the Kelch site. Aroclor 1254 was detected

previously in the waste oil and the soils surrounding the underground tank which was

removed from the east side of Site 2 (Section 2.03 C and Appendix B).

Samples S-10, S-1 1 and S-12 (12A) had relatively low levels of PCB 1260, and PCB 1242

was also detected in S-1 2(1 2A). These samples were comprised of sand and gravel and had

a low organic carbon content. It appears that PCBs that were washed down the sewer from

MH 331005 did not tend to adhere to the sediments in the bottom of the downstream

manholes, possibly due to the low carbon content of the sediments. However, samples from

j Core 1 , located immediately downstream of the outfall for this sewer, showed very high levels

of PCBs Aroclors 1 248 and 1 260. These core samples consisted of very organic-appearing,

and oily sediments to which PCBs are likely to adsorb. The oily sediments were observed on

the creek bank below the outfall, and appeared to have been covered over with gravel on thecreek bank.

Samples S-44 through S-46, S-1 7, S-1 9 and S-20 may also be related to this site if it is

( connected to the Madison Avenue sewers, as discussed under Site 1 above. Aroclor 1 260

I was detected at fairly low levels in these samples.

J The results of the Aroclor samples associated with the former Mercury Marine Plant #2 show

a strong relationship between PCBs detected in the building and those detected in the creek

j sediments. Aroclor 1 260 was the primary detected compound while Aroclor 1 242 or 1 248

L was detected at somewhat lower levels, generally at 1 0 to 20 percent of Aroclor 1 260 levels.This relationship tended to hold true for Cores 1 , 2 and 4. Core 3 did not have detects of

! 1 242/1 248; however, these Aroclors may have been present below the detection limit.

: The results of PCB congener analysis also show a strong relationship between PCBs detected

! from within the building (Sump 1 , Aroclor 1 248/1 260) and those found in sediment samples

from Core 1, as discussed in Section 4.01. The congener relationship between the sump

i sample and Cores 2 and 3 is not as clear, although the Aroclors detected were similar

(1242/1260). The slightly different congener results could indicate that the PCBs in CoresPR 2 and 3 were deposited later, as a result of migration from outfall 333001 and from the

r: sediments in the vicinity of Core 1 . The PCB mixtures could have weathered or changed

somewhat during this downstream migration, resulting in slightly different congener patterns.

J It has been shown, for example, that more lightly chlorinated congeners are more likely to

migrate than heavily chlorinated congeners, which tend to adsorb more strongly onto

104-928/JMCm)/RPT/052092 5-5

sediments. This would explain why Cores 2 and 3 had higher percentages of lightly

chlorinated congeners than Core 1.

LAnother sampling location associated with Site 2 is Edgar Kasten's driveway (samples S-34

j and S-35). During previous interviews Mr. Kasten reported that he took barrels of waste oil

I. from Mercury Marine Plant #2, where he was employed, and used the oil to seal his driveway.

Results of samples collected from the driveway showed levels from not detected to 53 ppb

J Aroclor 1 242 and from 1 60 to 350 ppb Aroclor 1 260. The ratio of Aroclor 1 242 to 1 260 is

similar to those found in Mercury Marine Plant #2 building samples, about 0 to 33 percent.

( The levels detected in the driveway are fairly low, indicating possible weathering and

i migration of the PCBs and oils.

! Based on the above information, the former Mercury Marine Plant #2 Site is considered to be

a significant source of PCB contamination in Ruck Pond. Information from this study and past

studies, combined with evidence of the same PCB Aroclors in a past employee's driveway,

indicates that Mercury Marine was the responsible party for this contamination rather than

previous site occupants. The Milwaukee Electric Railway and Light Company (MERLC)

occupied the site prior to 1942 and performed railroad car repair activities. The MERLC wasnot known to use PCBs. Dating of PCB containing sediments from the period prior to 1942

| or other evidence would be needed to trace the Ruck Pond contamination to MERLC activities.

C. Site 3- City of Cedarburg Electrical Substation

LResults from soil samples collected on the creek bank below the electrical substation show

f PCB concentrations ranging from 480 to 3,500 ppb Aroclor 1260 (samples S-21 through S-

l 24, Figure 4.02-1). These PCB concentrations could be caused by leaks or spills in electricaltransformers or capacitors at the substation. Since the samples were collected at the water

| line on the creek bank, the PCBs in these samples could also be caused by transport offloating oil from another source. Oil floating on Ruck Pond was reported to be a fairly

; frequent occurrence when Mercury Marine Plant #2 discharged to the pond (Section 2.03C).' The levels detected at Site 3 were well below the TSCA regulatory level of 50 ppm. The low

levels at the site combined with the relatively low levels of PCBs in Cores 2 and 3 and in cores

L collected near the site during previous studies, indicate that this site is not a significant

contributor to PCB contamination in Cedar Creek.

Fi D. Site 4- Colonial Studios/Former Substation

Samples associated with this site were S-13 through S-15. Polychlorinated biphenyls were

not detected at this site in the vicinity of former transformers, nor were they detected at

f104-928/JMCm>/RPT/052092 5-6

levels much above background in storm sewer manholes located downstream of the site. Thisindicates that the former electrical substation at this site was not a significant source of PCB

i contamination in Cedar Creek.I.

j- E. Site 5- Scot Pump/Mercury Marine Plant #1

Samples associated with this site include sewer samples S-1 6 north (N) and south (S), S-18,j* S-19, S-20, and S-46 (Figure 4.02-1). PCBs were not detected in samples S-16N and S,

indicating that any storm sewer discharges to the northwest of the Site 5 facility did notf contain high levels of PCBs. Sample S-18 also had no detects, indicating that the discharges1' to this sewer did not contain high levels of PCBs. The historical outfall for this site at Ruck

Raceway (sample S-19) had a fairly high concentration of Aroclor 1260 (10,000 ppb). Also,i there is a historical PCB "hot spot" located in Ruck Raceway near this former outfall, and

Aroclor 1248 had been detected in the discharge from this site (Section 2). Samples S-44; though S-46 were performed to determine if the high PCBs in the raceway could be coming

from another source in the sewer system. Levels from 110 to 280 ppb Aroclor 1260 weredetected in these samples, which generally lead northwest away from the outfall, toward the

: southwest side of Sites 1 and 2. However, these levels are quite low and a relationshipbetween Sites 1 and 2 and this sewer system was determined to be unlikely, by the WDNR.

I

I.

LE

Another possible explanation for the low levels of PCBs close to Site 5 compared withconcentrations in the former outfall and in the raceway, is the nature of the sampled materialsfrom these locations, which was primarily concrete chips, sand, gravel, and sediments. Thesesamples tended to have fairly low organic carbon contents, such that PCBs would not havea strong affinity for adsorption onto the solids in the samples.

Based on the above information, the former Mercury Marine Plant #1 (Site 5), now owned byScot Pump Division of Ardox, is considered to be a potential contributor to the PCBcontamination in Ruck Raceway. PCBs were detected in historical wastewater samples fromthis site as well as at the former outfall to Ruck Raceway.

F. Site 6- Cedarburq Planing Mill

Samples were not collected from this site as part of this investigation. However, based oncore samples collected along Ruck Raceway during previous investigations (Wawrzyn andWakeman, Raceway Cores 2 and 4, 1986), this site is not likely to be a significant contributorto PCBs in Cedar Creek.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 5-7

G. Site 7- Apartments/Molded Dimensions

Sample S-27 may be associated with this site, in which 720 ppb Aroclor 1 254 was detected(Figure 4.02-3). Since the sample was collected at the water line on the creek bank, thesource of the detected PCBs could be past events of floating PCB-containing oils. Previous

i studies did not indicate a PCB "hot spot" associated with this site, although previous coresamples may have been collected too far upstream to measure the full effects, if any, from

I this site. It appears unlikely, however, that this site is a significant source of PCBcontamination in Cedar Creek based on this and previous studies.

H. Site 8- Scot Pump/Kurz and Root

'• Samples associated with this site included S-25 and S-26, in which no PCBs were detected.Previous studies indicated that PCB concentrations were fairly low in Hamilton Pond wherestorm water from this site would be likely to discharge (Wawrzyn and Wakeman, HamiltonPond Core 1 Results, 1986). Based on this and previous studies, it is unlikely that this siteis a source of PCB contamination in Cedar Creek.

I. Site 9- Amcast International

i Samples associated with this site include site samples S-32 (32A), S-33 (33A), and S-36, andstorm sewer samples S-28, S-29, S-30, and S-31. Samples potentially associated with the

I site include S-43 and Quarry Pond core samples CS-3 through CS-8 (Figures 3.03-1 and 4.02-4).

I The results of site sampling indicate the presence of Aroclor 1242 and 1254 at totalconcentrations from 1,270 to 35,000 ppb in the parking lots associated with the Amcastoffices and factory (S-32, S-33 and S-36). It has been reported that waste oil may have beenspread on the parking lots in the past, which could have contained PCBs. The area of theformer outfall from the facilities (S-30) also had Aroclor 1242 and 1254 in the sample, butat fairly low levels. Aroclors 1242 and 1260 were detected at low concentrations in thepresent outfall (S-31). Aroclor 1242 was detected at 1,700 ppb in MH 121008, which at

i first appeared to be an up-gradient manhole from the site. However, as reported in early1991, the storm sewer in the vicinity of this site tended to back up, (Section 2.03 C and

p Appendix B). The relatively high PCB levels are probably due to an event such as a sewerI backup or site spills, since no other PRPs appear to be located up-gradient from the site.

Sample S-29 is located down-gradient of historical sewer connections from the facility, and

had low levels of Aroclor 1242 and 1254, generally agreeing with Aroclors detected at the

site.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 5-8

Results from site and sewer sampling at this location also tend to agree with past studies in

which Aroclors 1242/1260 and 1248/1260 were detected in sediments immediatelydownstream of the facility outfall (Wawrzyn and Wakeman, Hamilton Pond Core 7, 1986).

The results from this past study are of particular note since this location was the only one atwhich Aroclor 1 242 was identified. During this study, a core taken on the same side of the

creek downstream of the outfall (Core 5) showed a relatively high concentrations of Aroclor

1248/1260 compared with other core locations. Past studies also identified Aroclors 1242,

1 248 and 1248/54 at this site (Section 2.03C).

The results from sample S-43, collected from the manhole in Zuenert Park, showed high levels

of Aroclor 1248, which was consistently identified by the laboratory instead of Aroclor 1242

in that sample set (October 1991). Connections to this manhole were observed by the WDNR

and Strand field personnel, including sewers from the north, east and west, and a sewer

which appeared to be flowing to the north and sloping downward, possibly toward HamiltonPond. The direction of flow between the manhole and Quarry Pond apparently fluctuates

depending on the water level in Quarry Pond. Therefore, it is not clear whether the PCBs in

the manhole are from the quarry or from a source to the west; however, it appears more

likely that they are from a source other than the quarry since the concentrations were

generally higher in the manhole than in Quarry Pond sediments. A storm sewer catch basin

was observed in the vicinity of Amcast's offices south of the quonset huts, which may be

connected to this manhole. Further investigation should be conducted to verify the

connections to the manhole in Zuenert park.

Results from the Quarry Pond sediments are included in Table 4.01-1 and are discussed inSection 4.01 B. Aroclor 1242 was the only PCB detected, which agrees with Aroclors

detected at the Amcast site during this study and in the past. It appears likely that Amcastis a source of contamination in Quarry Pond based on the location of storm sewers and

Aroclors detected. Quarry Pond sources could, in turn, be contributing to contamination inCedar Creek if there is a connection between the Zuenert Park manhole and Hamilton Pond.

Based on the above information, Amcast International, Inc., formerly Dayton Malleable and

Meta Mold, is considered to be a significant source of PCB contamination in Hamilton Pond

and Quarry Pond. The specific contaminants found at the site match those found in the pond

sediments. Sewer or drainage routes between this site and Hamilton Pond have been

established, and routes between the site and Quarry Pond are suspected. The routes between

the site and Quarry Pond should be confirmed, as should drainage routes between Quarry and

Hamilton Pond.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 5-9

J. Site 10- Wastewater Treatment Plant

Sediments and sewers associated with site 10 were not sampled as part of this investigation.

The City of Cedarburg municipal wastewater treatment plant may be a source of PCB

contamination in Hamilton Pond due to treatment of industrial wastewaters which potentially

contained PCBs. A connection between the Mercury Marine Plant #2 Site (Site 2) and the

sanitary sewer system was established during this study, and a sample from this sump (S-40)

was found to contain PCBs (Aroclors 1248, 1 254, and 1260). Aroclors 1 248 and 1 254/60

have been detected historically in wastewater treatment plant samples (Section 2). It is

possible that other facilities, such as those at Site 5 and Site 9, may have discharged PCBs

to the sanitary sewer system as well. However, it is unlikely that the WWTP knowingly

accepted PCB contaminated wastewaters.

K. Site 11- City of Cedarburq

The sewers associated with the City Light and Water Commission yard (S-41) and the

Department of Public Works Maintenance garage (S-42) had results of 3,900 ppb Aroclor1248 and not detected, respectively. The detects in MH 521002 (S-41) could be from a

source located either due west of the manhole (i.e. the Light and Water Commission yard, in

which PCB-containing transformers may have been stored) or a source to the northwest

entering around MH 521018 or further up-gradient (see Figure 4.02-4). Connections to MH52101 8 have not been investigated; however, this manhole is located close to the Amcast

offices and should be investigated further, particularly since the Aroclor identified in the

manhole was also identified at the Amcast site. For example, the storm sewer catch basin

observed south of the quonset huts on Amcast's site could be connected to this system. Thestorm sewer system associated with S-41 discharges into Quarry Pond. Therefore, the results

indicate that runoff from the Light and Water Commission yard, Amcast, or another up-

gradient source contributed to the contamination in Quarry Pond. This source could indirectly

be impacting Hamilton Pond if connections exist between the two ponds.

L. Site 12- Scherer Die Casting

Based on limited historical information, it appears that the outfall from the former Scherer die

casting facility was routed along Lincoln Boulevard and would, therefore, have passed through

manhole MH 521004, which was sampled as part of this investigation (sample S-42). Results

from this sample showed no detects of PCBs; therefore, the former Scherer Die Casting

facility is not a likely source of PCB contamination in Cedar Creek or Quarry Pond.

104-928/JMC/TD/RPT/052092 5-10

L

CM. Summary

Information collected during this and previous studies confirms that the Mercury Marine Plant

#2 Site (Site 2) and the Amcast Site (Site 9) are major contributors to the PCB contamination

in Cedar Creek. The following sites may have made a minor contribution to the

contamination, although such a contribution could not be confirmed: Kelch Corporation (Site

1), Mercury Marine Plant 1 (Site 5), City of Cedarburg Light and Water Commission (Sites 3

and 11), and the former Molded Dimensions (Site 7). Discharge from the city wastewater

treatment plant (Site 10) may have contained PCBs due to discharges from the industries to

the sanitary sewer.

i:I:

L

PIII

104-928/JMCm3/RPT/052092 5-11

REFERENCES

Anderson, H.A., M.D., Chief, et.al, "Draft Public Health Related Groundwater Standards -Cycle 4, Summary of Scientific Support Documentation for NR 140.10," WisconsinDepartment of Health and Social Services, November 1990.

Baker, Timothy R., "Report on the Status of the WDNR's Investigation Into the PCBContaminated Sediments Associated with the Cedar Creek...," WDNR, January, 1990.

Castner, Stephen L, Law Offices, letter to Mr. Franklin C. Schultz of the WDNR SoutheastDistrict regarding Amcast Industrial Corporation, March 26, 1991.

Degenhardt, David, Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, personal communications, April1992.

E & K Hazardous Waste Services, Inc. Report on the Sediment Sampling of the Quarry eastof the Amcast Offices, transmitted to Stephen L. Castner Law Offices, February 18,1991.

Frank, Charles, Personal Communication with WDNR, 1990-1991.

Laudenbach, Cathi, Twin City Testing Corporation, personal communication. March, 1992.

Montgomery, J.H. and Welkom, L.M., Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference. LewisPublishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, 1990.

Poff, R.J., Gernay, R. and Threinen, C.W., "Surface Water Resources of Ozaukee County,"Wisconsin Conservation Department, Madison, Wisconsin, 1964.

Parker, D.E., Kurer, D.C., et.al., "Soil Survey of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin," USDA SCS,WGNHS, September, 1970.

Strand Associates, Inc., "Cedarburg Groundwater Investigation Existing Conditions Report,"prepared for the WDNR, Madison, Wisconsin, February, 1990.

USEPA, "PCBs in the United States - Industrial Use and Environmental Distribution" Task 1,Final Report. EPA 560/6-76-005, February, 1976.

Wawrzyn, W., and Wakeman, R., "Distribution of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Cedar CreekSediments at Cedarburg, Ozaukee County, Wisconsin," WDNR, 1986.

WDNR, "Kiekhaefer Corporation - Cedarburg, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, andOrder," No. 4B-68-5-15, regarding Alleged Pollution of Milwaukee River Basin Outsideof Milwaukee County, Division of Resource Development, Madison, Wisconsin, 1968.

WDNR, "Kiekhaefer Mercury-Cedarburg, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Odor," No.4B-68-5-15 A, regarding Upper Milwaukee River Drainage Area, Division of EnvironmentalProtection, February 27, 1970.

r[

WDNR, "Report on an Investigation of the Pollution in the Milwaukee River Basin Made During1966 and 1967," Division of Resource Development, Madison, Wisconsin, January 23,1968A.

Young, H.L., and Batten, W.G., "Groundwater Resources and Geology of Washington andOzaukee Counties, Wisconsin," USGS, WGNHS, February, 1980.

I

L

f

I

Documents

EPA Region 5 Records Ctr. 230846 •^^m^^Mm