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
3080-031 (614) 888-4953
 Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 1-1
3080-031
 Section 1
Introduction

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 1-2
3080-031
 Section 1
Introduction

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)

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 1-3
3080-031
 Section 1
Introduction

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.”

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 1-4
3080-031
 Section 1
Introduction

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 1-5
3080-031
 Section 1
Introduction

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).

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 1-6
3080-031
 Section 1
Introduction

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.
City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 1-7
3080-031
 Section 1
Introduction

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.”

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 1-8
3080-031
 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

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 2-1
3080-031
 Section 2
Supplemental Coal Tar Assessment Activities Summary

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

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 2-2
3080-031
 Section 2
Supplemental Coal Tar Assessment Activities Summary

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
City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 2-3
3080-031
 Section 2
Supplemental Coal Tar Assessment Activities Summary

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
completion depth is 30 feet bgs (547.4 feet amsl).

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
completion depth is 37 feet bgs (538.17 feet amsl).

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 2-4
3080-031
 Section 2
Supplemental Coal Tar Assessment Activities Summary

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 2-5
3080-031
 Section 2
Supplemental Coal Tar Assessment Activities Summary

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).
City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 2-6
3080-031
 Section 2
Supplemental Coal Tar Assessment Activities Summary

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 2-7
3080-031
 Section 2
Supplemental Coal Tar Assessment Activities Summary

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 2-8
3080-031
 Section 2
Supplemental Coal Tar Assessment Activities Summary

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 2-9
3080-031
 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

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-1
3080-031
 Section 3
Supplemental Assessment Results

(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

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-2
3080-031
 Section 3
Supplemental Assessment Results

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-3
3080-031
 Section 3
Supplemental Assessment Results

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-4
3080-031
 Section 3
Supplemental Assessment Results

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.
City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-5
3080-031
 Section 3
Supplemental Assessment Results

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-6
3080-031
 Section 3
Supplemental Assessment Results

3.4.1. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

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

o Naphthalene at 40,000 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

o Naphthalene at 1,300 µg/kg

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-7
3080-031
 Section 3
Supplemental Assessment Results

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).
City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-8
3080-031
 Section 3
Supplemental Assessment Results

(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

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-9
3080-031
 Section 3
Supplemental Assessment Results

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-10
3080-031
 Section 3
Supplemental Assessment Results

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.

3.6.2. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

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.
City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-11
3080-031
 Section 3
Supplemental Assessment Results

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 3-12
3080-031
 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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 4-1
3080-031
 Section 4
Results Summary

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 4-2
3080-031
 Section 4
Results Summary

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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 4-3
3080-031
 Section 4
Results Summary

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;

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 4-4
3080-031
 Section 4
Results Summary

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).

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 4-5
3080-031
 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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 5-1
3080-031
 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.

City of Sandusky
Supplemental Bay Front Coal Tar Assessment Report 6-1
3080-031