Sandusky Coal Tar Supplemental Assessment DRAFT 9-16-10

City of Sandusky

222 Meigs Street Sandusky, Ohio 44870

DRAFT Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report

Water Street Properties Sandusky, Ohio 44870

September 16, 2010

Report Prepared By:

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.

190 Polaris Parkway Suite 200 Columbus, Ohio 43240 (614) 888-4953

3080-031

Table of Contents

City of Sandusky Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3080-031

i

1. Introduction 1-1

1.1. Objective ....................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2. Physical Setting ............................................................................................................ 1-2

1.3. Previous Site Investigations .......................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.1. George Gradel Property ................................................................................ 1-4 1.3.2. Tricor Property ............................................................................................... 1-6 1.3.3. Deep Water Marina ....................................................................................... 1-6 1.3.4. U.S. EPA/Tetra Tech ..................................................................................... 1-7

2. Supplemental Coal Tar Assessment Activities Summary 2-1

2.1. Test Pit Investigation ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2. Soil/Bedrock Investigation ............................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.1. Drilling Methodology ...................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.2. Well Construction .......................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.3. Soil Descriptions ............................................................................................ 2-4

2.3. Soil Screening and Sampling ........................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.1. Soil Screening ............................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.2. Soil Sampling ................................................................................................ 2-5

2.3.2.1. Soil VOC Sampling ................................................................... 2-6 2.3.2.2. Soil PAH Sampling ................................................................... 2-6

2.4. Bedrock Sampling Procedures ..................................................................................... 2-6

2.5. Groundwater Assessment ............................................................................................. 2-7 2.5.1. Groundwater Sampling .................................................................................. 2-7

2.6. QA/QC Samples ........................................................................................................... 2-8

2.7. Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid .......................................................................................... 2-8

2.8. Land Surveying ............................................................................................................. 2-9

2.9. Investigative-Derived Waste ......................................................................................... 2-9

3. Supplemental Assessment Results 3-1

3.1. Study Area Geology and Hydrogeology ....................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1. Geology ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1.1. Unconsolidated Materials ......................................................... 3-1 3.1.1.2. Carbonate Bedrock................................................................... 3-2

3.1.2. Hydrogeology ................................................................................................ 3-3 3.1.2.1. Unconsolidated Groundwater Zone .......................................... 3-3 3.1.2.2. Carbonate Bedrock Groundwater ............................................. 3-3

3.2. Test Pit Results ............................................................................................................. 3-4

3.3. Soil Results vs. Direct Contact Standards .................................................................... 3-5 3.3.1. Volatile Organic Compounds ........................................................................ 3-5 3.3.2. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds ............................................................... 3-6

3.4. Analytical Results of Bedrock Samples ........................................................................ 3-6 3.4.1. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds ............................................................... 3-7

3.5. DNAPL/Product Sample Results .................................................................................. 3-8 3.5.1. MW-D1 DNAPL ............................................................................................. 3-8 3.5.2. MW-4 DNAPL ................................................................................................ 3-8 3.5.3. DNAPL Comparison ...................................................................................... 3-9

Table of Contents


ii

3.6. Analytical Results of the Groundwater Samples........................................................... 3-9 3.6.1. Volatile Organic Compounds ...................................................................... 3-10 3.6.2. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds ............................................................. 3-11 3.6.3. RCRA Metals ............................................................................................... 3-12

3.7. Comparison of Soil and Bedrock Results to Previous Sediment Results ................... 3-12

4. Results Summary 4-1

4.1. Soil Direct Contact ........................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2. Bedrock ......................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3. Groundwater ................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.4. Sediments ..................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.5. Summary of Results ...................................................................................................... 4-2 4.5.1. Bedrock ......................................................................................................... 4-2 4.5.2. Soil ................................................................................................................. 4-3 4.5.3. DNAPL/Free Product ..................................................................................... 4-3 4.5.4. Groundwater .................................................................................................. 4-3 4.5.5. Sediment ....................................................................................................... 4-4

5. Bibliography 5-1

5.1. References .................................................................................................................... 5-1

6. Signature of Environmental Professional 6-1

Tables

1. Analytical Results of Soil Samples 2. Analytical Results of Groundwater Bedrock Samples 3. Analytical Results of Groundwater Samples 4. Analytical Results of Sediment Samples

Table of Contents


iii

Figures

1. Property Location on USGS Quadrangle Map 2. Property Map 3. Cross Section Trends 4. Geologic Cross Section A – A’ 5. Geologic Cross Section B – B’ 6. Geologic Cross Section C – C’ 7. Geologic Cross Section D – D’ 8. Sample Locations with Evidence of Coal Tar 9. Potentiometric Surface Map, June 30, 2010 10. Clay Thickness Map 11. Analytical Results of Soil Samples, June 2010 12. Chromatogram from MW-D1 Product Sample 13. Chromatogram from MW-4 Product Sample 14. Analytical Results of Groundwater Samples, June / July 2010 15. VOCs and SVOCs in Sediment

Appendices

A. Information from Previous Sediment Studies B. Test Pit Logs C. Soil Boring Logs and Well Completion Diagrams D. Photographs of Rock Cores E. Groundwater Sampling Logs F. Laboratory Reports G. Waste Manifests

T:\3080031\Coal Tar\Report\Final Report\Sandusky Coal Tar Supplemental Assessment Report DRAFT Final 9-15-10 .docx


1-1

1. Introduction

This supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report for Water Street Properties

was prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc (Malcolm Pirnie) for the City of Sandusky (City).

The study area, shown on Figure 1, is located at the intersection of Water and Lawrence

Streets in Sandusky, Ohio. This study area is adjacent to and includes the Deep Water

Marina property (Deep Water) and the George Gradel property (Geo. Gradel), and

includes the western portion of the Tricor property as shown on Figure 2. This work was

funded by the U.S. EPA Community-wide Brownfield Assessment Grant awarded to the

City of Sandusky in 2007 (BF-00E43501).

The work performed was based on information provided by the City, including previous

environmental investigations on properties in the area by Environmental Design Group

(EDG) (April 2003 and June 2003), Partners Environmental (Partners) (June 23, 2005)

and Malcolm Pirnie’s work on the Deep Water Marina property in 2006. These and other

reports presented in section 1.3 were used to develop the U.S. EPA-approved Sampling &

Analysis Plan (SAP) for the Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Plume Area Assessment

(Malcolm Pirnie, December 2009, and revised May 2010. These supplemental

assessment activities were completed in general accordance with the SAP and the Quality

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Hazardous & Petroleum Substances Grants, Brownfield

Assessment Project, Sandusky, Ohio (Malcolm Pirnie, February 24, 2006, Revised May

3, 2006, Updated/Addended July 15, 2009).

These properties are currently being used for material storage/shipping, marina

operations, boat storage, or are vacant. The City of Sandusky is working towards

developing these neighboring waterfront properties as part of their Bay Front District

renovation plan.

Section 1 Introduction


1-2

1.1. Objective

Previous investigations in the study area identified coal tar and associated pyrogenic

residual constituents in the soil and fill materials at the Geo. Gradel and Deep Water

properties. The objective of this supplemental assessment was to:

Summarize findings of previous reports.

Evaluate combined sewers as potential pathways.

Determine if these coal tar and associated pyrogenic residual constituents have

migrated into the underlying bedrock and /or towards the Tricor property to the

east.

Further provide an understanding of the coal tar and associated pyrogenic

residual constituents chemical composition and distribution in the study area.

A discussion of the tasks involved in completing this supplemental assessment and the

results are provided herein.

1.2. Physical Setting

The study area is situated in an urban area west of downtown Sandusky and is

immediately adjacent to Sandusky Bay of Lake Erie. The USGS Sandusky Quadrangle

map (1969 Photo revised 1979) indicates that the approximate mean lake elevation is 571

feet above mean sea level (amsl). The Sandusky Bay shoreline in this area has been

modified by filling activities and the construction of piers, marinas, and commercial and

industrial properties.

The ground surface in the study area is approximately between 578-586 feet amsl, and is

sloped toward Sandusky Bay (toward the north and/or northwest).

The Site geology consists of shallow unconsolidated deposits and fill materials situated

over Devonian-aged carbonate bedrock (ODNR, Geologic Map and Cross Section of

Ohio). According to Smith (1994), Erie County Devonian carbonates consist mainly of

massive to thinly-bedded brown to grey fossiliferous limestone and dolomite.



1-3

Based on Larsen and Pavey (1999), the top of bedrock elevation at the site is

approximately 560 feet amsl. Drilling activities have indicated that carbonate bedrock is

present encountered at approximately 4.75 (SB-D1) to 22 (SB-D3) feet below ground

surface (bgs). Investigations of adjacent properties also identified carbonate bedrock at

shallow depths. Cross section drawings prepared as part of the Phase II investigation

conducted at the Deep Water Marina property (Figures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7), have been

modified based on information obtained from this supplemental assessment.

Site geology and hydrogeology is presented in more detail in section 3.1 of this report.

1.3. Previous Site Investigations

As mentioned above, the following investigations have been conducted in the area of

interest. Previous assessments have shown evidence of coal tar and associated pyrogenic

materials in soil and sediment. This information has been summarized and is presented

on Figure 8.

Sediment Analyses, Sandusky Harbor, Sandusky, Ohio, Technical Report

#G0218-04. Prepared for the US Corps of Engineers, (Aqua-Tech Environmental

Consultants, Inc., August 1990)

Sandusky Bay Sediment Quality Survey, Erie – Ottawa County, Ohio. (Ohio

EPA, 2001)

Phase I Property Assessment (PA) at Geo. Gradel (EDG, 2003)

Phase I PA at Deep Water (EDG, 2003)

Phase I PA at the Tricor property (EDG, 2003)

Phase II PA at the Tricor property (EDG, 2003)

Site Assessment Report, Deep Water Marina, Sandusky, Erie County, Ohio.

(Prepared for U.S. EPA by Tetra Tech EM, Inc., (Tetra Tech) April 30, 2003)

Phase II PA at the Geo. Gradel property (Partners Environmental/Hull, 2005)

Preliminary Risk Evaluation of the Geo. Gradel Property. (Hull and Associates,

Inc., June 2005)

Sediment Sampling Report, Geo. Gradel Property, Sandusky, Ohio (Partners

Environmental Consulting, Inc., June 2005)

VAP Phase I PA of Deep Water Marina (Malcolm Pirnie, 2006)

VAP Phase II PA of Deep Water Marina (Malcolm Pirnie, 2007)



1-4

A summary of the findings at each of the properties is provided below.

1.3.1. George Gradel Property

A Phase I PA for the Geo. Gradel property was completed on December 5, 2003 by EDG

and a Phase II PA was completed by Partners in June 2005. The Phase II PA included a

study of the sediments in the Geo. Gradel boat slips. The sediment study was titled,

“Sampling Report on the Gradel Property” (Partners, 2005). This study indicated that

free coal tar liquid was observed at several locations on dry land, but was not present in

the eastern and western slips of the property. It was however, present in the central slip,

and coal tar related compounds were present at concentrations greater than the applicable

standards. A portion of the “Extent of Coal Tar” section of the report states:

“Four (4) sediment boreholes were installed in the eastern slip to depths ranging

from approximately 5 to 14 feet from the top of sediment, which ranged from 2 to

14 feet below the water level of Sandusky Bay. No evidence of free coal tar

liquid was observed in these sediment boreholes.

Three (3) sediment boreholes were installed in the western slip to depths ranging

from approximately 5 to 8.5 feet from the top of sediment, which ranged from 6

to 12 feet below the water level of Sandusky Bay. No evidence of free coal tar

liquid was observed in these sediment boreholes.

Three (3) sediment boreholes were installed in the central slip to depths ranging

from approximately 5 to 10 feet in depth from the top of sediment, which ranged

from 7 to 12 feet below the water level of Sandusky Bay. No evidence of free

coal tar liquid was observed in these sediment boreholes, with the exception of

GSB-004, located in the southeast portion of the central slip. The interval from

91-103” (submitted for laboratory analysis) was observed in the field to be stained

with a dark brown to black substance similar to the coal tar observed in soil

boreholes installed on the eastern portion of the Site. This material was limited in

vertical extent to the 91-103” interval and was not observed in any other sediment

borehole or in any other interval from GSB -004.”



1-5

The text, figures and tables from the Partners sediment study are included in Appendix A.

The conclusions of the Phase II PA report are summarized below:

Coal tar on the Geo. Gradel property was observed as far north as SB-1 and

GP-25, which are located south of the eastern slip at the Geo. Gradel property and

south of the Deep Water Marina slip, respectively. Based on observations and

results of the sediment sampling, the eastern slip of the Geo. Gradel property does

not appear to contain coal tar.

Coal tar was observed in sediment sample GSB -004 in the Geo. Gradel

property’s central slip. This sediment sample was collected from the southeastern

area of the slip (on Geo. Gradel property). Contamination related to the coal tar

plume was not observed during sediment sampling in the western slip (on Geo.

Gradel property).

Based on the presence of coal tar in MW-6 (on-site) and GP-10 (off-site) and GP-

11 (off-site), the coal tar extends east of the Geo. Gradel property.

The eastern extent of the coal tar is unknown; however no coal tar was observed

in monitoring wells installed on the nearby Tricor site.

Based on the results of testing by the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA in the Deep Water

Marina slip (off-site), coal tar may be emanating into Sandusky Bay at that

location.

Partners stated “As is typical with coal tar, the viscosity was observed to be very

high. The coal tar was observed to be in a liquid state, but appeared very dense

and did not readily flow”.

Research conducted during this Phase II investigation has determined that the

DNAPL present at the Geo. Gradel property is representative of coal tar and

associated pyrogenic residual constituents.

A historic MGP site was identified south of the Geo. Gradel property. The historic

MGP site had pipelines/conduits that appeared to extend onto the Geo. Gradel

property. The MGP site was located topographically and hydrogeologically

upgradient from the Geo. Gradel property. The location of the historic MGP site

is shown on Figures 2 and 3.

Coal tar is located offsite to the east and south of the Geo. Gradel property and

appears to emanate from the former conduits that connected to the MGP site or

from the MGP site itself.

Given the weight of evidence regarding the location of the former MGP site, its

known operations and processes, the chemical composition of the DNAPL located

on the Geo. Gradel property and its aerial (sic) extent, the source of the coal tar

located at the Geo. Gradel property has been determined to be solely the result of

an off-site release.



1-6

1.3.2. Tricor Property

A Phase II PA was completed by EDG on the Tricor Property in June 2003. Fill

materials are present with thicknesses ranging from four to twelve feet across most of the

site and up to sixteen feet in the northern portion of the site near Sandusky Bay. Soil and

groundwater standards were exceeded for detected PAHs. Coal tar materials were not

identified in soil borings or monitoring wells sampled during the EDG investigation.

1.3.3. Deep Water Marina

EDG completed a Phase I ESA in April 2003. Malcolm Pirnie completed Phase I PA

activities at the Deep Water Marina property between July 6, 2006 and October 5, 2006

and completed the Phase I PA report in December 2006. Malcolm Pirnie performed the

Phase II PA field work at Deep Water during September 2006 through November 2006,

and completed the Phase II PA report in March 2007. Coal tar materials were identified

in some soil borings installed in the unconsolidated materials on the Deep Water Marina

property. As discussed in the Partners Phase II PA for the Geo. Gradel site, it appeared

that the coal tar plume from the former manufactured gas plant located to the south of the

Site area had migrated onto the Deep Water property.

Six sediment samples were also collected during the Malcolm Pirnie Phase II PA from

the western and eastern slips of the Deep Water Marina property. Elevated

concentrations of metals, PAHs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were found in

sediment samples SS-1 and SS-2 collected from the western slip. Elevated

concentrations of PAHs were detected in sediment samples SS-5 and SS-6 located in

eastern slip (Figure 2).

The Deep Water Phase II PA summarized the sediment results thusly:

With the exception of cores SS-1 and SS-2, VOCs were not detected in the

sediment samples analyzed. Benzene, ethylbenzene and xylenes were detected in

these cores at concentrations that exceed the U.S. EPA Ecological Screening

Levels (ESLs) (2003).



1-7

PAHs were detected at concentrations that exceed the ESLs in sediment samples

analyzed from cores SS-1, SS-2, SS-3, SS-5 and SS-6.

Copper, lead, nickel and mercury were detected at concentrations that exceed the

ESLs in samples analyzed from all of the cores (SS-1, SS-2, SS-3, S-4, SS-5 and

SS-6). Zinc concentrations exceeded the ESL in sediment samples from cores

SS-1, SS-3, SS-4, SS-5 and SS-6.”

Portions of the Deep Water Phase II report regarding sediment sampling and results are

included in Appendix A.

1.3.4. U.S. EPA/Tetra Tech

During the sediment assessment completed on behalf of U.S. EPA by Tetra Tech in 2003,

eight sediment boreholes were advanced in the western Deep Water Marina (DWM) slip

(Figure 2), 17 sediment samples (plus two duplicates) from the eight sediment cores were

sent to the laboratory for analyses. The samples were analyzed for semi-volatile organic

compounds (SVOCs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and two samples for toxic

characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) analyses. Benzene was the only compound

whose TCLP result (2.20 J mg/L) exceeded its regulatory level (0.05 mg/L). SVOCs

greater than the U.S. EPA Region 5 Ecological Data Quality Levels (EDQLs)1 were

detected. Below is an excerpt from the report:

“SVOC concentrations greater than the U.S. EPA Region 5 EDQLs were detected

in all of the sediment samples collected. The highest SVOC concentrations

included phenol at 4 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) [DWM-C6-0405-E], 4-

methylphenol at 27 J mg/kg (DWM-C6-0405-E), naphthalene at 5,600 mg/kg

(DWM-C6-0405-E), 2-methynaphthalene at 2,300 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0405-E),

acenaphthylene at 47 and 64 mg/kg (DWM-C8-0506-E and DWM-C8-0506-D ),

2,6-dinitrotoluene at 27 mg/kg (DWM-C6- 0405-E), acenaphthane at 2,800 mg/kg

(DWM-C6-0405-E), dibenzofuran at 65 and 48 mg/kg (DWM-C8- 0506-E and

DWM-C8-0506-D), 2,4-dinitrotoluene at 30 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0405-E), fluorene

1 EDQLs are initial screening levels that are used to compare site contamination concentrations to those of

which may pose an unacceptable risk to the environment.



1-8

at 1,100 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0405-E), 4-nitrophenol at 20 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0405-

E), phenanthrene at 3,600 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0405-E), anthracene at 2,300 mg/kg

(DWM-C6-0405-E), fluoranthene at 1,800 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0102-E), pyrene at

2,300 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0102-E and DWM-C6-0405-E), chrysene at 920 mg/kg

(DWM-C6-0102-E), benzo(a)anthracene at 860 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0102-E),

benzo(b)fluoranthene at 1,200 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0102-E), benzo(k)fluoranthene

at 97 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0405-E), benzo(a)pyrene at 990 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0102-

E), indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene at 230 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0102-E), dibenzo

(a,h)anthracene at 82 mg/kg (DWM-C6-0405-E), and benzo(g,h,i)perylene at 320

mg/kg (DWM-C6-0102-E and DWM-C6-0405-E).”

A strong odor of creosote and/or oily staining was noted in sediment boring logs DWM-

C2, DWM-C3, DWM-C5, DWM-C6, and DWM-C8. Coal fragments were also noted as

being present in some of the sediment samples.

The summary of the Tetra Tech report states that “Analytical results in combination with

field observations during assessment activities indicate that creosote material has been

discharged into the sediments of the DWM site. Lake Erie is a waterway for commercial

and recreational purposes and is considered a sensitive ecosystem.”


2-1

2. Supplemental Coal Tar Assessment Activities Summary

Assessment activities were completed between June and September 2010, and consisted

of the following:

Backhoe Investigation (June 2010)

Drilling Investigation (June 2010)

Groundwater / NAPL Monitoring and Sampling (June 2010 – August 2010)

Investigation Derived Waste (IDW) removal (August and September 2010)

The following sections present a summary of field activities completed during this

supplemental assessment.

2.1. Test Pit Investigation

The objective of the backhoe investigation was to investigate if the sewer line along

Lawrence Street and the sewer line originating from the former MGP property were

potential conduits for the migration of coal tar (Figure 2). Five test pits were excavated

in the City of Sandusky’s rights-of-way along Lawrence Street and Water Street. The

locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 2. Performance Site Environmental

(Performance) of Columbus, Ohio, was retained by Malcolm Pirnie to complete test pits

using a backhoe.

On June 2, 2010, two test pits (TP-1 and TP-2) were excavated under the supervision of

Malcolm Pirnie personnel. TP-1 was completed near the combined sewer overflow that

discharges into the western Deep Water boat slip. TP-2 was completed to the south of

TP-1 (upgradient) along the combined sewer, on the southeast corner of W. Shoreline

Drive and Lawrence Street.

On June 23, 2010, three test pits (TP-3, TP-3A, and TP-4) were excavated under the

supervision of Malcolm Pirnie personnel. TP-3, TP-3A, and TP-4 were completed on the

Section 2 Supplemental Coal Tar Assessment Activities Summary


2-2

northern side of West Water Street near the sewer line thought to be originating from the

former MGP property.

At each test pit, immediately after excavated material was placed on plastic sheeting, it

was screened with a photoionization detector (PID) (model MiniRAE 2000) equipped

with a 10.6 eV lamp to check for the presence of total volatile organic vapors. The PID

was also used for continuous air monitoring so that site personnel were protected from

airborne contaminants during excavation activities. See Appendix B for test pit logs and

any associated total volatile organic vapor concentrations determined during the field

work.

2.2. Soil/Bedrock Investigation

The objective of the boring and monitoring well investigation was to determine whether

coal tar is present in the underlying shallow bedrock in the study area. Four soil / rock

coring borings were advanced and monitoring wells were installed in each of the borings.

The boring/monitoring well locations were all completed in the city of Sandusky rights-

of-way and are shown on Figure 2.

Between June 8 and June 25, 2010, four soil borings (SB-1D through SB-4D) were

completed under the supervision of Malcolm Pirnie personnel. Frontz Drilling (Frontz)

of Wooster, Ohio, was retained by Malcolm Pirnie to drill and sample soil and rock

borings and to install monitoring wells. The boring/monitoring well locations were

selected to provide the following information:

SB-D1/MW-D1 - Location near the former MGP facility; to confirm presence of

coal tar in unconsolidated materials and determine whether coal tar or associated

pyrogenic residual constituents are present in the underlying bedrock at this

location. SB-1D was completed near the northeast corner of the West Water

Street and the Lawrence Street intersection.

SB-D2/MW-D2 - Location adjacent to the combined sewer near western slip of

Deep Water Marina, where coal tar may have migrated. This location was



2-3

selected to determine whether coal tar or associated pyrogenic residual

constituents are present in the underlying bedrock.

SB-D3/MW-D3 - Location on the Tricor property, east of the eastern slip of Deep

Water Marina; to determine if coal tar has migrated onto the adjacent Tricor

property and, if so, if coal tar or associated pyrogenic residual constituents have

migrated into shallow bedrock.

SB-D4/MW-D4 - Location near the former MGP facility; to determine if coal tar

or associated pyrogenic residual constituents are present west of boring/well SB-

D1 and/or along a sewer line leading from the former MGP property north across

West Water Street towards Sandusky Bay.

2.2.1. Drilling Methodology

Frontz used a rotosonic drill rig to collect soil samples/rock cores and install monitoring

wells. The soil samples and rock cores were examined for visual evidence of coal tar

materials or materials associated with pyrogenic residual constituents and/or other

contamination. Select soil and rock samples were also collected for laboratory analysis.

At each soil boring/monitoring well location, soil/rock samples were collected

continuously from the ground surface to the total depth of the boring. Up to two soil

samples from the unsaturated unconsolidated zone of each soil boring location were

submitted for laboratory analysis. The selection of which soil sample that was sent for

laboratory analysis was based on visual evidence of contamination or PID readings.

The target depth of the investigation was to a minimum elevation of approximately 555

feet above mean sea level (amsl) or below. This depth was selected so that the bottom of

each boring was at an elevation that equates to sediment sample boring locations that

were previously installed in the western slip of the Deep Water Marina. (See cross

section in Figure 4.)

2.2.2. Well Construction

When bedrock was encountered, a surface casing was installed to prevent contaminants

present in the unconsolidated deposits from migrating into bedrock during drilling. The

surface casing (5-inch-diameter PVC) was installed into the clay layer or was advanced



2-4

into competent bedrock, whereupon the surface casing was grouted in place with a

cement-bentonite grout. When the grout had cured, the grout and bedrock was cored

using a wire line coring device. The groundwater monitoring wells were completed as

open-hole bedrock wells (no well screen or inner casing was installed). The following is

a summary of the completion information for the monitoring wells installed during this

assessment.

MW-D1 - Competent bedrock was encountered at a depth of approximately 4.75

feet bgs. Surface casing was installed to a depth of 6.4 feet bgs. The total

completion depth is 28 feet bgs (555.4 feet amsl).

MW-D2 - Weathered bedrock was encountered at a depth of approximately 18

feet bgs and competent bedrock was encountered at a depth of approximately 18.5

feet bgs. Surface casing was installed to a depth of 19.5 feet bgs. The total


MW-D3 - Weathered bedrock was encountered at a depth of approximately 22

feet bgs and competent bedrock was encountered at a depth of approximately

24.75 feet bgs. Surface casing was installed to a depth of 27.5 feet bgs. The total


MW-D4 - Competent bedrock was encountered at a depth of 11 feet bgs. Surface

casing was installed to 6.4 feet below grade. Bedrock was encountered at a depth

of approximately 11.5 feet bgs. The total completion depth is 36 feet bgs (548.8

feet amsl).

Boring and well completion diagrams are presented in Appendix C.

2.2.3. Soil Descriptions

Soil was described in the field in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification

System (ASTM 2488). Rock quality designation (RQD) calculations were evaluated for

rock integrity properties. If observed, the presence of dense non-aqueous phase liquid

(DNAPL) or coal tar materials was recorded in the field book.



2-5

Soil materials were screened for the presence of VOCs using a PID equipped with a 10.6-

eV lamp in accordance with the QAPP.

2.3. Soil Screening and Sampling

2.3.1. Soil Screening

Soil materials were screened for the presence of VOCs using a headspace test. The

measurement was performed using a RAE Systems® MiniRAE 2000 photoionization

detector (PID) equipped with a 10.6-eV lamp. The PID was calibrated at the beginning

of each workday, at a minimum, in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.

Calibration data was recorded in the field logbook.

Upon recovery of soil material from the subsurface, a portion of the unbroken (if

possible) soil core was placed into a new zip-lock baggie. To retain soil VOCs for the

field screening measurement, the soil core was kept unbroken (if possible) until the core

was sealed inside the baggie. The sealed baggie was allowed to warm, and the soil was

broken up. Any VOCs in the soil were allowed to volatilize inside the sealed baggie.

The PID probe was carefully pushed through the plastic, and the maximum reading

displayed on the PID was recorded.

2.3.2. Soil Sampling

During this supplemental assessment, one soil analytical sample was collected from each

soil boring location. A second soil sample was also collected from soil boring SB-D2.

The soil sample depth interval selected for laboratory analyses was based on field

screening and field observations. The following soil samples were submitted for

analyses:

SB-D1-3’

SB-D2-11’

SB-D2-13’

SB-D4D-10’

Each of the soil samples were submitted for VOC (U.S. EPA Method SW-846 8260B)

and SVOC (U.S. EPA Method SW-846 8270B) analyses to the EA Group (Ohio VAP

Certificate # CL0015) located in Mentor, Ohio.



2-6

2.3.2.1. Soil VOC Sampling

Soil VOC samples were collected in accordance with U.S. EPA Method 5035 using

EnCore® samplers manufactured by EnNovative Technologies, Inc.

Collection of VOC soil samples was the first operation performed after the soil was

exposed to the atmosphere to minimize sample exposure to the atmosphere. To ensure an

air-tight seal, EnCore® samplers were wiped clean of soil material prior to capping.

Upon collection, the EnCores® were stored on ice in a shipping cooler. Soil material to

be used for sample dry weight determination was collected for each analytical sample.

The text “EnCore” was written on the chain-of-custody/analysis request form to

document the use of this collection method.

2.3.2.2. Soil PAH Sampling

Soil samples analyzed for PAHs were collected in unpreserved glass containers after the

EnCore® samplers were filled. Prior to collecting the analytical sample, soil material was

homogenized using a new, disposable, food-grade mixing bowl and stainless steel spoon.

All soil samples were discrete (grab) samples. All soil samples were collected in

laboratory-provided containers, labeled, and placed on ice in a shipping cooler with

appropriate chain-of-custody documentation, and submitted to the VAP-certified

laboratory for analysis.

2.4. Bedrock Sampling Procedures

The bedrock cores and monitoring wells were installed using rotosonic drilling methods.

In order to seal off any contamination that may be in the unconsolidated deposits, a 5-

inch diameter surface casing was installed into the top of the competent bedrock. The

surface casing was cemented into place. The cement was allowed to cure for more than

eight hours before work was allowed to continue. Once cured, the bedrock was cored

with a 94 mm wireline system with a split inner barrel. The bedrock was cored to a total

depth of 28 feet in SB-D1; 30 feet in SB-D2; 37 feet in SB-D3; and 36 feet in SB-D4.

Rock cores were withdrawn from the split barrel sampler and were placed in core boxes.

The rock cores were described in accordance with procedures in U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation “Engineering Geology Field Manual, Volume 1, Second Edition (1998).



2-7

Any noticeable odors or staining was recorded in the boring log. Analytical samples of

sections of rock from SB-D2 and SB-D4 that were observed to potentially contain coal

tar materials were collected and sent to EA Group Labs for SVOC analyses.

Each boring was completed as an open rock monitoring well. A flush-mount surface

seal/manhole was installed at the surface of each of the monitoring wells. Boring logs

and well completion diagrams are presented in Appendix C. Photographs of the rock

cores are presented in Appendix D.

Soil and rock cuttings generated during drilling were containerized and staged pending

disposal off-site. Downhole reusable equipment was steam cleaned prior to and between

each use. Decontamination fluids were collected and containerized for proper disposal

off-site.

2.5. Groundwater Assessment

Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells MW-D2, MW-D3, and MW-

D4. A groundwater sample was not collected from MW-D1 due to the presence of

DNAPL in this well, A DNAPL sample was collected and analyzed as presented in

section 2.7. The locations of the wells installed in this study are shown on Figure 2. The

groundwater samples were collected and preserved in accordance with the SAP and

QAPP, and were submitted to EA Group laboratory for VOC and SVOC analyses.

Results of the laboratory analyses are discussed in Section 3, below.

2.5.1. Groundwater Sampling

Prior to initiating groundwater sampling activities, a full round of static depth to water

was collected using an electronic water level indicator/interface probe. Measurements

were made from the top of the PVC well casing. A potentiometric surface map

constructed from the water level data is included as Figure 9.

Groundwater purging and sampling was completed using a peristaltic pump. New

disposable tubing was used for each well. During purging, depth to water, purge flow

rate, pH, temperature, specific conductance, and turbidity were monitored in five to ten

minute increments and recorded on a field sampling log.



2-8

During the initial sampling of monitoring well MW-D3 on June 30, 2010 the pH of purge

water produced from the well was between 12.5 to 12.7 standard units (S.U.). To further

evaluate groundwater quality at this location a confirmatory round of groundwater

sampling was conducted on July 8, 2010. During this sampling event the well was

purged dry and the well was allowed to recover prior to sampling. After the well

recovered, the pH was measured to be 9.83 S.U., which is within an acceptable range of

groundwater pH.

Groundwater samples were collected at a stable flow rate that was equal to or less than

the purge flow rate. Groundwater samples were collected taking care to not agitate or

aerate the groundwater, and VOC sample vials were checked to be free of air bubbles.

EA Group laboratory provided all sample containers and preservatives in the appropriate

sizes and numbers to conform to analytical method requirements. At the time of sample

collection, analytical samples were labeled, placed on ice in a shipping cooler with

appropriate chain-of-custody documentation, and submitted to the laboratory to meet

sample holding times. All groundwater samples were grab samples. Groundwater

sampling logs are presented in Appendix E.

2.6. QA/QC Samples

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) samples were collected in accordance with

the U.S. EPA-approved QAPP. Duplicate samples were collected at a rate of one per 20

samples per matrix. One VOC trip blank sample was submitted for each cooler

containing aqueous phase VOC analyses samples. One temperature blank was included in

each container shipped to the laboratory.

2.7. Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

Monitoring well MW-D1 contained what appeared to be coal tar free product, so a

sample was collected on June 30, 2010 for analyses. This DNAPL sample was sent to

Zymax Forensic Laboratory in Escondido, California for fingerprinting analysis and PCB

analysis. Results of the analyses are discussed in Section 3 below.



2-9

2.8. Land Surveying

Land surveying services were provided by John Hancock & Associates of Sandusky,

Ohio. The survey data was established to North American Vertical Datum of 1988

(NAVD88) with an overall vertical precision of ± 0.02 feet and site-specific vertical

precision of ± 0.01 feet. Horizontal coordinates were North American Datum of 1983

(NAD83) State Plane Coordinate System, Ohio north zone; tolerance = ± 0.04 feet.

2.9. Investigative-Derived Waste

Investigation derived waste were stored in 55-gallon drums and retained in a designated

location pending disposal arrangements. These wastes consist of soil cuttings,

groundwater, decontamination water, and soiled materials. The City of Sandusky is the

generator of these wastes. Waste manifests are presented in Appendix H.


3-1

3. Supplemental Assessment Results

3.1. Study Area Geology and Hydrogeology

3.1.1. Geology

The study area includes developed land and a small portion of the southern edge of

Sandusky Bay near downtown Sandusky. The ground surface elevation in the area is

between approximately 578 to 586 feet amsl and is sloped toward Sandusky Bay of Lake

Erie (toward the north and/or northwest).

The land surface is covered by grass and thin layer of soil, gravel, asphalt, or concrete.

The shoreline near the bay in the immediate vicinity of the study area has been modified

by filling activities and the construction of piers and marinas (Figure 1). Subsurface

conditions are illustrated on geologic cross sections presented as Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 and

with trend lines shown on Figure 3. Boring and monitoring well logs for this assessment

are presented in Appendix C.

3.1.1.1. Unconsolidated Materials

As presented on the geologic cross sections (Figures 3 through Figure 7), fill materials

are present over much of the study area that are underlain by native sand, clay, or silty

clay and carbonate bedrock. There is a general increasing trend in the thickness of fill

materials near the bay where historic filling activities occurred. The constructed Deep

Water Marina pier is comprised of railroad ties and limestone/dolomite bedrock fill

(Geologic cross sections A-A’ (Figure 4) and B-B’ (Figure 5).

The native materials were generally encountered at shallower depths in the southern

study area away from the bay where bedrock is also present at a shallower depth. Less

permeable clay/silt materials that vary in extent and thickness are present in the study

area. A clay thickness map presented as Figure 10, was prepared based on

interpretations of boring log information from this assessment, previous investigations

completed by Environmental Design Group, Inc., (EDG) (2003), Partners Environmental

Section 3 Supplemental Assessment Results


3-2

(2005) and Malcolm Pirnie (2006) and information provided by the City of Sandusky

from the interceptor sewer installed along Shoreline Drive. The map depicts borings

locations where clay/silt materials were observed. Where present, the fine-grained

materials range from 0.5 to 12.5 feet in thickness. The clay/silt materials appear to be

thicker and more laterally consistent in the southern portion of the study area away from

the bay where there is less fill material.

3.1.1.2. Carbonate Bedrock

During this study, competent carbonate bedrock was encountered in all four

borings/monitoring wells at depths ranging from 4.75 feet bgs (MW-D1) to 24.75 feet

bgs (MW-D3). It is noted that weathered bedrock was encountered at borings MW-D2

(18 feet bgs) and MW-D3 (22 feet bgs), which are located adjacent to Sandusky Bay.

The top of the bedrock surface (weathered/competent) is considerably shallower in the

southern portion of the study area away from Sandusky where it is present at an elevation

of approximately 578.7 feet amsl (MW-D1). Near Sandusky Bay, bedrock is present at

an elevation of 552.4 feet amsl, which equates to an elevation difference of 26 feet. The

bedrock topography is illustrated in geologic cross sections A-A’ (Figure 4) and B-B’

(Figure 5).

With the exception of the noted weathering, generally the upper bedrock sequence was

observed to be massive and competent with horizontal fractures present at depth.

Vertical fractures were also observed in the rock cores.

A summary of each rock core log is presented below:

SB-D1 Bedrock Core (21.2 foot length from 576.6 to 555.4 feet amsl)

o 6.8 to 10 feet bgs - massive and un-fractured

o 10 to 20 feet bgs – massive and very slight horizontally fractured

o 20 to 23 feet bgs – massive with near vertical fracturing

o 23 to 28 feet bgs – massive with near vertical fracturing

o Drilling fluids exhibited dark color and odor although no staining was

noted



3-3

SB-D2 Bedrock Core (9 foot length from 556.4 to 547.4 feet amsl)

o 21 to 30 feet bgs – hard and moderately fractured

o Staining and petroleum-like odor noted from approximately 26.5 to 27 feet

bgs

SB-D3 Bedrock Core (9.5 foot length from 547.7 to 538.2 feet amsl)

o 27.5 to 37 feet bgs – hard and moderately fractured

o No non-native staining or odors noted

SB-D4 Bedrock Core (24 foot length from 572.8 to 548.8 feet amsl)

o 12 to 22 feet bgs – massive, moderately hard and slightly fractured

o 22 to 31 feet bgs – massive and moderately fractured and at 28 to 29.5 feet

a sheen and odor were noted in the drilling fluids

o 31 to 36 feet bgs – massive and moderately fractured with a sheen and

odor noted in the drilling fluids

Boring logs are presented in Appendix C with photographic logs of the bedrock cores

presented in Appendix D.

3.1.2. Hydrogeology

3.1.2.1. Unconsolidated Groundwater Zone

Groundwater conditions in the study area are significantly influenced by the presence of

Sandusky Bay of Lake Erie. Unconsolidated zone groundwater was previously measured

at depths ranging from approximately 6 and 10 feet bgs (Malcolm Pirnie, 2006). Shallow

groundwater appears to be in direct contact with Sandusky Bay. Previously prepared

unconsolidated groundwater surface maps indicate that groundwater flow in the study

area is generally toward the north-northwest, perpendicular to Water Street (Malcolm

Pirnie, 2006). The water table is relatively flat near the Sandusky Bay.

3.1.2.2. Carbonate Bedrock Groundwater

The study area is located within the regional Devonian-aged carbonate bedrock aquifer

system often referred as the Bass Island aquifer. The Bass Island Aquifer is an

unconfined to semi-confined aquifer that transmits water along joints and solution

cavities (Ohio EPA, 2004). The regional discharge for the aquifer system in the vicinity

of the study area is Sandusky Bay and Lake Erie.



3-4

Groundwater level data collected from study area monitoring wells MW-D1, MW-D2,

MW-D3 and MW-D4 on June 30, 2010, were used to develop a potentiometric surface

map (Figure 9), which shows groundwater flow to the north towards Sandusky Bay. As

shown on the geologic cross sections (Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7), the aquifer is under

unconfined to semi-confined conditions in the study area.

3.2. Test Pit Results

As stated in Section 2.1, the objective of the backhoe investigation was to evaluate if the

sewer line along Lawrence Street, the sewer line originating from the former MGP

property and other conduits has contributed to the migration of the documented coal tar in

the study area. As part of the supplemental assessment, five test pits were excavated

along and in close proximity to the sewer lines (Figure 2). The test pit logs are included

as Appendix B.

During this test pit investigation, free-product coal tar and/or coal tar materials were not

observed in the backfill along the sewer pipes. The findings from each test pit are shown

below:

TP-1 Approximately 5.0 feet deep, in coarse fill (brick, concrete and limestone,

some fine to medium sand). The maximum PID reading was 0.0 ppm. Coal tar

product or associated pyrogenic compounds were not observed at this location.

TP-2 Approximate depth of 9 feet, in grey limestone and clay, with some wood

debris (up to 3’long). Hard rock was encountered at 7.5 feet. The clay appeared

to be lacustrine in character, and included black peat or coal. The water in the pit

appeared to have a slight sheen. The maximum PID reading was 1.4 ppm. Coal

tar product or associated pyrogenic compounds were not observed at this location.

TP-3 Approximate depth of 10 feet, in light grey clay above limestone bedrock.

The maximum PID reading was 45.8 ppm, taken of a piece of wood (possibly a

railroad tie) removed from approximately 1.0 feet. The PID readings from 2 feet

through 10 feet equaled 0.0 ppm. Coal tar product or associated pyrogenic

compounds were not observed at this location.



3-5

TP-3A Approximate depth of 6.0 feet, in orange-brown mottled clay. The

maximum PID reading was 0.0 ppm. Coal tar product or associated pyrogenic

compounds were not observed at this location.

TP-4 The total depth was approximately 9.5 feet, in orange brown mottled clay

above limestone. The maximum PID reading was 0.5 ppm, which occurred at

4.5’, 6.5’, 8’, and 9.5’. A slight petroleum/hydrogen sulfide odor was noted

coming out of the test pit when it was open to 9.5 feet, but the PID did not

confirm the presence of any contamination in soil or limestone bedrock. A

notation was made that the odor may have come from the backhoe bucket hitting

the limestone bedrock. Coal tar product or associated pyrogenic compounds were

not observed at this location.

In summary, the test pit investigation free-product coal tar or associated pyrogenic

compounds were not observed at this location in materials in the vicinity of the

documented sewer pipes. A slight petroleum/hydrogen sulfide odor was noted which is

likely from limestone bedrock in the area, which is known to produce petroliferous

(petroleum containing) odors.

3.3. Soil Results vs. Direct Contact Standards

Soil samples from borings SB-D1, SB-D2, SB-D3, and SB-D4 were analyzed by the EA

Group Laboratory (VAP certified laboratory #CL0015) in Mentor, Ohio for VOC and

SVOC analyses. A summary of the detected compounds were compared to the Ohio

VAP generic direct contact standards (GDCS) for commercial/industrial and construction

use and excavation worker exposure is shown on Table 1. A map that shows the

analytical results that exceed the generic direct contact standards is shown on Figure 11.

The complete analytical laboratory reports for these samples are presented in Appendix

F. Results are discussed in more detail below.

3.3.1. Volatile Organic Compounds

1, 2, 4-trimethylbenzene was detected at a concentration of 64,000 µg/kg in soil

sample SB-D2-11.0, which exceeds its construction/excavation standard of

35,000 µg/kg. This compound is often found in coal tar and petroleum.



3-6

3.3.2. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in soil sample SB-D2-11.0 at a concentration of

70,000 µg/kg, which exceeds both its commercial/industrial GDCSs of 7,700

µg/kg and its construction and excavation GDCS of 69,000 µg/kg.

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene was detected in soil sample SB-D2-11.0 at a concentration

of 11,000 µg/kg, which is greater than its commercial/industrial GDCS of 7,700

µg/kg.

Naphthalene was detected in soil sample SB-D2-11.0 at a concentration of

450,000 µg/kg, which exceeds both its commercial/industrial GDCS of 150,000

and its construction/excavation standard of 84,000 µg/kg. Naphthalene is a

common coal tar constituent.

It is noted that the SB-D2-11.0 soil sample consisted of wet gravel. The underlying SB-

D2-13.0 soil sample, which consisted of fine-grained silt, did not exhibit elevated levels

of these compounds.

No other VOCs or SVOCs were detected in the soil samples at concentrations greater

than their respective commercial/industrial or construction and excavation GDCS.

3.4. Analytical Results of Bedrock Samples

Crushed bedrock samples from the rock cores collected from boring SB-D2 and SB-D4

were sent to the EA Group laboratory in Mentor, Ohio for analysis of SVOCs. These

samples were selected based on visual observations of staining made during the coring

operations by trained geologists. A summary of the detected compounds is shown on

Table 2. Complete laboratory reports are in Appendix F.

The bedrock sample numbers indicate the boring number and how far above or below a

fracture face or the top of the rock core the sample was taken. For example, SBD2,

66.5FF-4.0” indicates that the rock sample was collected from the core collected at SB-

D2, four inches above a fracture face that was 66.5 inches below the top of the core.

Sample SBD4, R3 Top+30.5” indicates that the sample was collected from the third core

run (R3) at boring SB-D4, and that the sample sent to the laboratory was collected from

30.5 inches from the top (deeper) of that core run.



3-7


SVOCs were detected at concentrations greater than their method detection limits in three

of the six rock core samples. None of the SVOCs were detected at a concentration

greater than its respective commercial/industrial or construction and excavation GDCS.

The compounds detected in each of the three samples are listed below:

SBD2, 66.5FF-4.0”

o Naphthalene at 1,200 µg/kg

SBD2, 66.5FF-1.5”

o Acenaphthene at 130 J µg/kg

o Acenaphthylene at 180 J µg/kg

o 2-Methylnaphthalene at 2,300 µg/kg


SBD4, R3 Top-0.0”

o Acenaphthene at 230 J µg/kg

o Acenaphthylene at 360 µg/kg

o Anthracene at 500 µg/kg

o Benzo(b)fluoranthene at 330 µg/kg

o Benzo(g,h,i)perylene at 160 J µg/kg

o Chrysene at 410 µg/kg

o Fluoranthene at 900 µg/kg

o Fluorene at 480 µg/kg

o Ideno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene at 150 J µg/kg

o 2-Methylnaphthalene at 250 µg/kg




3-8

o Phenanthrene at 2,200 µg/kg

o Pyrene at 1,400 µg/kg

3.5. DNAPL/Product Sample Results

3.5.1. MW-D1 DNAPL

A free phase dense non-aqueous phase liquid that was obtained from monitoring well

MW-D1 was submitted and analyzed by Zymax Forensics of Escondido, CA on July 9,

2010 for a full scan GC/MS (Total Ion Chromatogram) to provide a "fingerprint" of all

the organic compounds. Additionally, PCB analyses (U.S. EPA SW-846 Method 8082)

was also performed. The Zymax data report and summary is provided in Appendix F.

Zymax provided a summary report that indicated that the chromatogram is dominated by

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons with a distribution characteristic of products

produced by high temperature pyrolysis (e.g., MGP processes). The distribution of the

aromatic compounds based on the chromatogram from MW-D1 is presented in Figure 12,

. The PAHs are mainly constituents related to creosote/coal tar residues and contain

specific chemical compounds of pyrenes/fluoranthenes, phenanthrenes, naphthalenes,

fluorenes, alkylbenzenes, and chrysenes. The chromatogram also indicates that the

DNAPL contains some relatively light aromatic compounds such as toluene and xylene,

as well as a small proportion of a suite of n-alkanes that are typical of petroleum

products. Overall, Zymax indicated that the composition of the sample from MW-D1 to

be consistent with pyrogenic fluid tars and creosote with no significant weathering.

PCBs were not detected in the free phase of the MW-D1 sample.

3.5.2. MW-4 DNAPL

During the Partners/Hull VAP Phase II Property Assessment (June 2005), a free-phase

sample was obtained from MW-42. This sample was also analyzed by Zymax Forensics

(Appendix F). The chromatogram from MW-4 indicates that it is dominated by PAHs.

The distribution of the aromatic compounds from the product collected from MW-4

2 The Gradel MW-4 is located approximately 200 feet north of boring SB-D4 installed during this

investigation. MW-4 is a 2-inch inside diameter PVC well that is screened from 5 to 20 feet, in fill material

that consists of silty clay (0 to 3 feet), fine brown sand (3 to 6.5 feet), black to gray silty clay (6.5 to 8.5

feet) limestone rubble and sand (~8.5 to 11 feet), and stiff gray clay (11 to 20 feet).



3-9

(Figure 13) is dominated by creosote/coal tar residues (naphthalene, phenanthrenes, and

pyrenes with some alkylbenzenes, flourenes, chrysenes, and fluoranthenes). The

chromatogram for the n-alkanes indicated a suite of petroleum products that Zymax

attributed to No. 2 diesel fuel oil. Overall, Zymax judged the composition of MW-4 to be

primarily composed of mildly degraded creosote/coal tar with a small amount of No. 2

diesel fuel oil.

3.5.3. DNAPL Comparison

The results from the MW-D1 fingerprinting were compared to the forensic analysis of the

free product obtained from MW-4 to determine if there were any significant differences.

Because the forensic analysis was also performed by Zymax Forensics, the variability in

the fingerprinting analysis and interpretation of the chromatograms was judged to be

minimal, thereby allowing for a direct comparison of the results. Further comparison of

the MW-D1 (current data) and MW-4 (historic data) aromatic hydrocarbon distributions

indicate that both exhibit the coal tar fingerprint of high relative amounts of naphthalene,

phenanthrenes, and pyrenes as compared to the other constituents detected; as well as a

distribution of constituents characteristic of products produced by high temperature

pyrolysis. The larger aromatic compounds are more prevalent in the MW-D1 sample

compared to the MW-4 sample, which may likely be related to the closer proximity to the

former MGP because these compounds degrade very slowly as well as being less mobile

in the soil matrix. The free phase product from MW-D1 yielded xylene and toluene with

a small suite of n-alkanes, while the historic free phase product yielded a suite of n-

alkanes often associated with No. 2 fuel oil. Both the current and historic free phase

product contained light aromatics and n-alkanes, indicating that there may also be a

potential petroleum source or sources in addition to the former MGP coal tar

contamination.

3.6. Analytical Results of the Groundwater Samples

Groundwater samples from three of the four wells were collected and submitted to the

EA Group laboratory for VOC, SVOC, and metals analyses. Groundwater samples were



3-10

collected from MW-D3 on June 30, 2010 and MW-D2, MW-D3, and MW-D4 on July 8,

2010.

Groundwater analytical results were compared with Ohio VAP unrestricted potable use

standards (UPUS). A comparison of groundwater results and potable use standards is

presented on Table 3. The geographic distribution and concentration of COCs identified

in groundwater is presented on Figure 14. The complete analytical laboratory reports for

the groundwater samples are presented in Appendix F.

3.6.1. Volatile Organic Compounds

Several VOCs were detected in the groundwater samples collected at the site, most in

small concentrations and well below their respective UPUS. Only benzene, ethylbenzene

and toluene were detected at concentrations that exceed their UPUSs; those exceedances

were all in the sample from MW-D4 that was collected on July 8, 2010.

A discussion regarding the VOCs detected in the six samples (4 samples and two

duplicates) are listed below:

MW-D2

o Ethylbenzene, toluene, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene were detected at

estimated concentrations (J-flagged), which are between the practical

quantitation limits and the method detection limits for these compounds.

These estimated values are well below their respective UPUSs. Similar

concentrations of these VOCs were estimated to be present in the

duplicate sample collected at the same time.

o Xylenes were detected at a concentration of 7.1 µg/liter (µg/L) in the

sample collected on July 8, 2010. This concentration is well below the

VAP UPUS for xylene of 10,000 µg/L. A similar concentration (7.6

µg/L) was detected in the duplicate sample collected at the same time.



3-11

MW-D3

o Carbon disulfide was detected at a concentration of 5.7 µg/L in the sample

collected on June 30, 2010. Carbon disulfide was not detected in the

duplicate sample collected at the same time.

o No VOCs were detected in the sample collected from MW-D3 on July 8,

2010.

MW-D4

o Benzene was detected at a concentration of 720 µg/L, which is greater

than its UPUS of 5 µg/L.

o Ethylbenzene was detected at a concentration of 1,500 µg/L, which is

greater than its UPUS of 700 µg/L.

o Toluene was detected at a concentration of 1,500 µg/L, which is greater

than its UPUS of 1000 µg/L.

o Isopropybenzene, n-propylbenzene, p-isopropyltoluene, and 1, 2, 4-

trimethylbenzene, were all detected at concentrations that are below their

respective UPUSs.

o 1, 2-dichloroethane was detected at a concentration of 2.8 J µg/L.

o 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene was detected at a concentration of 99 E µg/L,

which indicates that this analytical result is above the high end limit of the

lab equipment calibration curve, so should be considered to be an

estimated value.


MW-D2

o Acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorine,

phenanthrene and pyrene were detected concentrations that are well below

their respective UPUSs. Similar concentrations of these SVOCs were

present in the duplicate sample collected at the same time.



3-12

MW-D3

o Naphthalene was detected at a concentration of 0.13 µg/L in the sample

collected on June 30, 2010. This concentration is well below the UPUS of

67 µg/L for naphthalene.

MW-D4

o Benzo(a)pyrene was detected at a concentration of 0.44 µg/L, which is

greater than its UPUS of 0.2 µg/L.

o Naphthalene was detected at a concentration of 4,300 µg/L, which is

greater than its UPUS of 67 µg/L.

o 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene,

benzo(a)anathracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene,

benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluorine, ideno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene,

phenanthrene and pyrene were detected at concentrations below their

respective UPUSs.

3.6.3. RCRA Metals

RCRA metals were not detected at concentrations that exceed their respective UPUS.

Only barium and chromium were detected at concentrations above their detection limits.

3.7. Comparison of Soil and Bedrock Results to Previous

Sediment Results

As shown on Table 4 and Figure 15, VOCs and SVOCs detected in shallow soil,

groundwater, and bedrock were also detected in the previously reported sediment sample

results. Many of the sediments samples contained concentrations of these compounds

that exceed their respective U.S. EPA Region V Ecological Screening Levels.


4-1

4. Results Summary

The City of Sandusky engaged Malcolm Pirnie to perform this supplemental coal tar

assessment work to determine if coal tar constituents and/or associated pyrogenic residual

constituents had migrated into the shallow bedrock in this area of the City. This work

builds on previous property assessments that were performed on the Tricor, Geo. Gradel

and Deep Water properties.

This work included the excavation of test pits along sewer/wastewater pipes; the

installation of soil borings; coring shallow bedrock; the collection and analysis of soil and

rock samples; the installation of four groundwater monitoring wells into shallow bedrock;

the collection and analysis of groundwater samples; and the collection and analysis of a

sample of free product/DNAPL/coal tar.

4.1. Soil Direct Contact

With the exception of the soil sample collected a depth of 11 feet bgs in boring SB-D2,

VOCs or SVOCs were not detected in the soil samples that were submitted to the

laboratory at concentrations greater than their respective commercial/industrial or

construction and excavation GDCS during this assessment. 1, 2, 4-trimethylbenzene,

benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and naphthalene were detected at concentrations

that exceed either the commercial/industrial or construction and excavation GDCS in soil

sample SB-D2-11.

4.2. Bedrock

No semi-volatile organic compounds were detected at concentrations greater than their

respective commercial/industrial or construction and excavation GDCS. Many SVOCs

that are constituents of coal tar were detected in the bedrock samples that were submitted

for SVOC analysis. These compounds are acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene,

benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorine,

ideno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene.

Section 4 Results Summary


4-2

4.3. Groundwater

Several VOCs were detected in the groundwater samples collected at the site, most in

small concentrations and well below their respective UPUS. Only benzene, ethylbenzene

and toluene were detected at concentrations that exceed their UPUSs; those exceedances

were all in the sample from MW-D4 that was collected on July 8, 2010.

Two SVOCs, benzo(a)pyrene and naphthalene, were detected in groundwater from MW-

D4 at concentrations greater than their respective UPUSs. Other semi-volatile

compounds detected in groundwater are 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene,

acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anathracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,

benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluorine, ideno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene,

phenanthrene and pyrene. These SVOCs were detected at concentrations below their

respective UPUSs.

4.4. Sediments

Sediment samples were not collected during this investigation, but results of prior

sediment sampling were reviewed. Some of the same compounds detected in the

groundwater, soil, and bedrock samples were detected in the previously reported

sediment sample results. The suites of the samples suggest potential multiple sources of

sediment contamination. Some of the chemicals in the sediments exceed the ecological

screening levels, and, therefore, pose a potential risk to the aquatic organisms and

ecology of the Sandusky Bay.

4.5. Summary of Results

4.5.1. Bedrock

Based on observations and measurements made during the current drilling and sampling

program, it was apparent that the suspected coal tar and/or associated pyrogenic residual

constituents were present in bedrock in borings D1, D2, and D4. When these DNAPL

materials were observed during drilling, they were present within fracture zones in the

bedrock. The presence of staining in the rock cores was also observed within fracture

zones rather than in more massive un-fractured portions of the bedrock column.



4-3

4.5.2. Soil

Laboratory results confirmed the presence of coal tar constituents and associated

pyrogenic residual constituents in the unconsolidated materials. The laboratory results

also indicated that there are some light, aromatic hydrocarbons and short-chained alkanes

that may be potentially from another source not related to former manufactured gas plant

activities.

4.5.3. DNAPL/Free Product

The results from the free product (suspected coal tar) fingerprinting from the Partners

Phase II of the Geo. Gradel site indicated that the material was likely a slightly degraded

coal tar mixed with some components of No. 2 fuel oil. The aromatics and lighter

hydrocarbons in the product sample from the current investigation boring D1 tend to

indicate that either the coal tar has not weathered or degraded, or that there is another

potential source of the aromatics and light hydrocarbons.

Coal tar materials have been observed during this supplemental study and during

previous property assessments. A composite map (Figure 8) that shows soil and bedrock

borings/monitoring wells that have exhibited evidence of coal tar materials and

associated pyrogenic residual constituents was prepared based on a review of these

reports. As shown on the composite map, these materials appear to be present in the

central portion of the study area and extend into Sandusky Bay.

4.5.4. Groundwater

A comparison of the groundwater results from MW-D4 and MW-4 (Gradel) indicates that

1, 2-dibromomethane, hexachlorobutadiene, naphthalene, 1, 2, 4-trimethylbenzene, and

total xylenes were detected in groundwater from MW-4. The groundwater results from

MW-D4 indicate that benzene, ethylbenzene, isopropylbenzene, n-propylbenzene, p-

isopropyltoluene, toluene, 1, 2, 4-trimethylbenzene, and total xylenes were detected in

groundwater. The concentrations of the VOCs found in both wells are higher in MW-D4

than Geo. Gradel monitoring well MW-4. Similarly, the SVOCs detected in MW-D4 are

more numerous and are higher in concentration in the groundwater collected from MW-

D4.



4-4

Only barium and selenium were detected in the sample from MW-4. Only barium and

chromium were detected in the sample collected from MW-D4. The barium

concentration of 0.1 mg/L in MW-4 is slightly greater than the barium concentration

detected in MW-D4 (0.0767 mg/L).

4.5.5. Sediment

A review of the historical sediment data (Deep Water and Gradel) indicates that the

nearer shore sediment samples have volatile and semi-volatile constituents in larger

concentrations than those samples further distant from shore. There is no consistency

regarding the contrast between the deeper sediments and shallower sediments. In

sediment boring SS-01, for example, the shallower sediment sample had higher

concentrations of the chemicals of concern than the deeper; however, in sediment boring

SS-02, the opposite was true.

The results of the Geo. Gradel investigation show similar variation. For example, in

GSB-008, the deeper sediment sample (46-59 inches) had higher concentrations of

Contaminants of Concern (COCs) than the shallower sample from that boring (8-24

inches). In contrast, the shallower sample collected from GSB-001 (16-35 inches) had

more detections and higher concentrations than that of the deeper sample that was

collected from 35-58 inches, the very next interval. It should be noted that the sample

from GSB-004, which showed probable coal tar being present, as discussed above, is the

deepest sediment sample that was sent to the laboratory during the Gradel Phase II. One

other boring installed in the central slip was deeper than GSB-004, but there was no

indication of coal tar in that boring.

The results of the three sediment studies indicate that SVOCs are present in sediments

sampled at the Deep Water and Geo. Gradel properties. There are similarities between

the soil, groundwater, and product sample results when compared to the sediment results.

The similarities are strongest in the sediment samples that are nearer to shore, but it

appears that there are multiple potential sources of the contamination.

Sources of contamination near shore may include:

A release(s) of coal tar constituents from the former manufactured gas plant;



4-5

The combined sewer overflows that discharge into the western Deep Water and

Central Geo. Gradel slips;

Contaminated fill materials that make up the near-shore land and piers in the area;

Materials (such as creosote treated lumber) that were used to construct and crib

the piers;

Releases of fuel oil and/or gasoline from an as yet unknown, unidentified source;

Marine operations along the shore (e.g. fueling and operation of power boats –

there were gasoline and/or diesel tanks at both Deep Water and Geo. Gradel),

power boat operations, discharging of bilges, etc.); and

Contamination from former operations (e.g. coal unloading, operation of

railroads, railroad maintenance yards, coal storage yards).


5-1

5. Bibliography

5.1. References

Environmental Design Group, Inc., 2003. Phase I Environmental Assessment, Deep

Water Marina.

Environmental Design Group, Inc., 2003. Phase II Environmental Assessment, Tricor

Building, Keller Building and Chesapeake Building.

Malcolm Pirnie, February 24, 2006, revised May 3, 2006, Updated/Addended July 15,

2009. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Hazardous & Petroleum Substances Grants,

Brownfield Assessment Project, Sandusky, Ohio.

Malcolm Pirnie, December 2006. Voluntary Action Program Phase I Property

Assessment Report; Deep Water Marina.

Malcolm Pirnie, March 2007. Voluntary Action Program Phase II Property Assessment

Report; Deep Water Marina.

Ohio Administrative Code rule 3745-300-01 through 3745-300-14. Division of

Emergency and Remedial Response, Voluntary Action Program. 256 p.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, November, 2004. Guidance Document #0693,

Siting Criteria. 17 p.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2001. Sandusky Bay Sediment Quality Survey,

Erie-Ottawa County, Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, March 1, 2009.

Voluntary Action Program Rules 1 through 14.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, August 2008. Support Document for the

Development of Generic Numerical Standards and Risk Assessment Procedures. Division

of Emergency and Remedial Response, Voluntary Action Program. 90 pp.

Partners Environmental, 2005. Ohio Voluntary Action Program Phase II Property

Assessment, Geo. Gradel Facility.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Site Assessment Report, Deep Water

Marina, Sandusky, Erie County, Ohio, Prepared by Tetra Tech EM, Inc.


6-1

6. Signature of Environmental Professional

Malcolm Pirnie appreciates the opportunity to serve the City of Sandusky in providing

this supplemental assessment of the Sandusky Coal Tar study area.

________________________________________________________

Daniel M. Bremer, CPG, Ohio VAP Certified Professional No. CP311

Associate

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.

Documents

Sandusky Coal Tar Supplemental Assessment DRAFT 9-16-10