2013 PUMP TEST RESULTS

Bennett's DumpBloomington, Indiana

Prepared for:

CBS Corporation20 Stanwix Street

10th FloorPittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Prepared by:

PSARA Technologies, Inc.10925 Reed Hartman Highway

Suite 220Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

May 23, 2013PN 30500.70 FRC

ii

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Section Title Page

1.0 Introduction and Objectives..................................................................................1

2.0 Pump Test Operations...........................................................................................3

3.0 Groundwater Recovery .........................................................................................5

4.0 Drawdown and Middle Spring Flow ....................................................................6

5.0 Stout’s Creek Downstream Sample Results .........................................................7

6.0 Recovery Well PCB Concentration ......................................................................8

7.0 Stout’s Creek Accumulation Data ........................................................................9

8.0 Middle Spring Capture........................................................................................10

9.0 Treatment System Effluent Results ....................................................................11

10.0 Iron and Suspended Solids Removal ..................................................................12

11.0 Conclusions.........................................................................................................13

List of Tables

1 Recovery Well Pumping Rates2 Middle Spring Flow Rates3 Stout's Creek Downstream Sampling Results4 Recovery Wells PCB Sampling Results5 Stout's Creek PCB Accumulation Sampling Results6 Treatment System Influent and Effluent PCB Results7 Recovery Wells - TSS, Iron and Hardness Samples

List of Figures

1 Well and Piezometer Locations2 Pre-Storm Drawdown3 Post-Storm Drawdown4 Stout's Creek Accumulation Rates5 Stout's Creek Downstream PCB Mass vs. Flow

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

This report summarized the activities and results from a groundwater pump test conducted at the

Bennett’s Dump site in Bloomington, Indiana between March 5 and April 19, 2013. The

objective of the test was to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed groundwater recovery system

in the vicinity of Middle Spring. The “Scope of Work to Conduct a Pump and Recovery Test of

the Middle Spring Area, Bennett’s Dump Site”, dated October 2, 2012, presents the test

objectives and approach, including installation of new piezometers and recovery wells.

The test was designed to verify the results of two previous pump tests, evaluate the effect of

additional groundwater collection in areas north and south of Middle Spring, and collect data

during higher stream flows associated with larger rainfall events.

The first of these prior tests, conducted in 2005, demonstrated that Middle Spring receives

contributions of flow and PCBs from shallow groundwater. Middle Spring discharge was

effectively stopped due to pumping during this test. Details of this test can be found in the

report, “Hydrogeologic Characterization of Shallow Groundwater, Bennett’s Dump,

Bloomington, Indiana,” PSARA Technologies, 2006.

The second test was conducted over a 28-day period in the spring of 2012 and evaluated the

effect of recovering groundwater from well MW-BC10 location on the overall PCB loading in

Stout’s Creek. That report was issued to the parties on May 7, 2012. Data from this test suggest

that a recovery well system could have an appreciable effect on Stout’s Creek PCB

concentrations.

2

A Geoprobe boring survey was conducted in October 2012 to better characterize soil, fill and

bedrock relationships, to locate and install piezometers for water level monitoring during the

testing, and to locate potential recovery wells. Three new potential recovery wells were installed

based on this survey. GP-3 was installed to facilitate groundwater recovery in the area near

Rusty Spring. GP-11 was located close to Middle Sp. GP-17 was installed in the northern area

between wells MW-B13 and MW-5. Figure 1 shows well and piezometer locations and Stout’s

Creek.

The pump test was performed at Bennett’s Dump during the period March 5 to April 19,

2013. Groundwater was pumped from all three new wells, as well as existing recovery well

BC10. Four significant rainfall events occurred during that period, and Stout’s Creek flows

exceeded 7500 gpm during the largest event.

3

2.0 PUMP TEST OPERATIONS

2.1 Preparation and Setup

In preparation for the pump test, recovery well BC10 was treated with muriatic acid to remove

iron build-up and improve the potential recovery rate from this well. After treatment, the well

was purged until the pH had returned to within 0.5 s.u. of the pre-test level. This treatment

succeeded in raising the pumping rate from this well from ~ 5 gpm to ~ 7.7 gpm.

Submersible electric well pumps were installed near the bottom of MW-BC10 and new wells

GP-3, GP-11 and GP-17. Discharge lines from each pumping well were equipped with in-line

flow meters and valves for flow rate control.

Groundwater pumped from the four wells was directed into an influent holding tank. From

there, the water was treated through a mobile water treatment system (trailer) comprising a series

of bag filters and three stages of activated carbon. The treated water was pumped approximately

250 feet north and discharged into Stout’s Creek north of the downstream sampling location.

On March 4, baseline water level observations were made in piezometers and monitoring wells

listed in the Scope of Work (SOW). Baseline PCB samples were collected and flows measured

at Stout’s Creek Upstream and Downstream stations, and at Middle Spring and Rusty Spring.

2.2 Test Start-up

The pump test at Bennett’s Dump began at 08:15 on Tuesday, March 5. Pumping rates were

monitored and adjusted for desired water level drawdown. Stable pumping rates were

established by 08:30. Pumping well rates continued to be monitored and adjusted as needed

throughout the test period.

4

2.3 Monitoring Activities

Groundwater levels were monitored in a list of piezometers and monitor wells daily per the SOW

for the first few days, then three times per week for the duration of the pump test.

Routine, non-storm condition pump test activities included:

Two to three times per day checks and adjustment of recovery well pumping rates.

Daily refueling of the main generator; two times per day changing of the batteries atGP-17, MW-B13 and MW-5.

Two to three times per day check of the treatment system pressures, flow rate andequipment condition.

Daily sampling and flow measurements at Stout’s Creek Downstream station and atother Stout’s Stations added later in the test.

Daily (or more frequent) observations of Middle Spring flow and Rusty Spring flow.

Three times per week groundwater levels observations in piezometers and wells.

Weekly PCB samples at Stout’s Creek Upstream station (and flow measured), allpumping wells, Middle Spring and Rusty Spring or any other flowing onsite springs.

Weekly well sampling for iron and hardness parameters.

Weekly treatment system effluent PCB sampling (daily sampling as described inSection 9.0).

Storm events required more frequent water level monitoring, to observe the storm effect on

groundwater levels and pumping, and additional Stout’s Creek sampling and flow measurements

to collect data at higher flows than previously observed. Storm event activities necessarily were

adapted to meet the goal of collecting quality data in challenging and variable conditions. Four

storm events occurred during the March 5-April 19 pump test period.

5

3.0 GROUNDWATER RECOVERY

Pumping rates from the recovery wells are presented in Table 1. In general, pumping rates

declined through the test period.

In the northern area, two additional pumping wells were added to augment the low yield from

GP-17. MW-B13 was brought on line on March 22. Pumping rates at MW-B13 were 0.7 gpm

initially and declined to 0.2 gpm by the end of the test. Rain storm input bumped up yield very

briefly and modestly on three occasions. MW-5 was added as a pumping well on March 26.

Pumping rates from MW-5 were extremely low, ranging between 0.03 gpm and 0.02 gpm.

Total combined recovery rates from the pumping wells began at 12.6 gpm and declined to

7.6 gpm through the test period.

6

4.0 DRAWDOWN AND MIDDLE SPRING FLOW

Two figures are included to illustrate the drawdown induced by the pump test. Figure 2 presents

the drawdown on March 15, prior to the March 18 rainfall event. This is the greatest drawdown

observed during the test. Figure 3 presents the reduced drawdown near the end of the rain event.

This data is from 7:00 am on March 18.

Piezometer water level observations showed the initial rapid drawdown of shallow groundwater

by the pumping wells, followed by rises in response to storm events. Continuous pumping drew

water levels down slowly after big rain events as well as more generally over the course of the

test. Nonstorm-affected shallow groundwater levels were lowest around April 10, after five

weeks of pumping and just before the first of the three April storm events. The greatest and most

rapid changes in piezometer water levels were observed in piezometers closest to Stout’s Creek,

reflecting the rapid response of Stout’s Creek to storm input.

Middle Spring flows are presented in Table 2. As the table shows, Middle Spring flow was

reduced to a trickle on March 7 and April 9-10, but was never completely stopped. Middle

Spring flow responses to storm events were:

March 18 storm (1.2” rain), Middle Spring flow increased from 0.1 gpm to 4.8 gpm.

April 11 storm (1.2” rain), Middle Spring flow increased from a trickle to 2.3 gpmover about 3 days.

April 16-17 storm (0.9” rain), Middle Spring flow increased from 1.1 gpm to1.9 gpm.

April 18-19 storm (1.2” rain), Middle Spring flow increased from 1.5 gpm to about10 gpm.

See Section 8.0, Middle Spring Capture, for additional discussion of Middle Spring flow

response to the April 19 storm event.

7

5.0 STOUT’S CREEK DOWNSTREAM SAMPLE RESULTS

Water samples were collected daily throughout the test at the Stout’s Creek Downstream

sampling location. Table 3 presents PCB sample results at this location, along with the Stout’s

Creek flow rate at the time the sample was collected. Middle Spring flow rates are also

presented in this table. PCBs at the Stout’s Creek Downstream sample location ranged from

0.023 ppb to 0.075 ppb in flows from 435 gpm to 7900 gpm.

The table includes samples collected during storm flows following rain storms on March 18,

April 11, April 17 and April 19. In each instance, the samples were collected after storm flows

peaked and while flows were receding but still elevated. Stout’s Creek Downstream sampling in

the 2012 pump test were limited to flows of 940 gpm or less. During the 2013 test, 14 samples

were collected at flows greater than 1000 gpm.

8

6.0 RECOVERY WELL PCB CONCENTRATION

The four primary recovery wells were sampled for PCBs 24 hours after pumping began, again

48 and 72 hours after startup, then weekly for the duration of the test. MW-B13 and MW-5 were

added to the weekly sampling schedule after they were brought online. Results of PCB sampling

in recovery wells are presented in Table 4.

Recovery well GP-3, near Rusty Spring, had PCB results in the range 7.1 to 9.2 ppb. Rusty

Spring was never observed to flow during the test. MW-BC10 PCBs were 5.1 to 7.1 ppb.

Recovery well GP-11, close to Middle Spring on the north side, had PCBs in the 30 to 55 ppb

range, with the anomalous exception of the final sample at 190 ppb.

In the northern area, GP-17 had an initial PCB result of 240 ppb, followed by seven samples

between 130 and 170 ppb, and a final sample result of 100 ppb. MW-B13 was sampled four

times, with PCBs in the range 82 to 150 ppb. MW-5 was sampled three times; results were 73 to

92 ppb.

9

7.0 STOUT’S CREEK ACCUMULATION DATA

Results of PCB sampling at the Stout’s Creek Upstream station are consistently below the

detection limit of 0.01 µg/L (ppb). At the Downstream station, PCBs are consistently detectable

in samples analyzed to the 0.01 ppb detection limit. Additional sampling stations along Stout’s

Creek were added to determine whether PCBs enter Stout’s Creek in particular areas or stream

reaches. Three stations were added to the daily Stout’s Creek Downstream sampling routine

beginning April 9. A fourth sampling station was added beginning April 16.

The additional Stout’s Creek sampling stations were:

Upstream of Rusty Spring (SC-A7)

Between Rusty and Middle Springs (SC-A9)

Between Middle Spring and MW-B13 (SC-A1112)

Between MW-B13 and MW-5 (SC-A14)

Results of sampling at the Stout’s Creek midstream stations are presented in Table 5 and in

Figure 4. The figure is labeled with average PCB analytical result for each station and with a

calculated PCB accumulation rate (µg/L per 100 feet) for the stream reach between sampling

stations.

10

8.0 MIDDLE SPRING CAPTURE

As the pump test progressed, the total flow rate from all recovery wells declined to below 10

gpm. Since the test was intended to simulate a 15-gpm treatment system, the decision was made

to capture up to 5 additional gpm from the flowing Middle Spring. This measure was taken to

allow better evaluation of the proposed remedy design and to capture all flow from Middle

Spring to Stout’s Creek other than during very large storm events.

A sump and sump pump were installed below the weir at Middle Spring. Pumping from the

sump began at 16:00 on April 4, and all surface flow from the spring to Stout’s Creek was

captured and sent to the treatment system. The flow from Middle spring to the sump remained

below 5 gpm until the April 19 storm increased flow to about 10 gpm. Another sump pump was

added at 16:00 on April 19, and complete capture was restored for the final few hours of the test.

11

9.0 TREATMENT SYSTEM EFFLUENT RESULTS

Table 6 presents the treatment system influent and effluent samples PCB results.

The pump test procedure specified collecting a treated water sample at the beginning of the test

and weekly sampling thereafter. However, after the initial sample exhibited elevated PCBs, a

number of measures were implemented, including daily monitoring for several days. A backup

treatment system was mobilized and installed to ensure effective water treatment. Separate

samples were collected from the effluent of each system. All subsequent effluent samples from

the primary system were below the detection limit of 0.1 µg/L (BDL). On March 20, the backup

system was disconnected and winterized, partially in preparation for extremely cold overnight

temperatures.

The treatment system was monitored several times each day throughout the test period. Filters

were changed and carbon vessels were backwashed as needed to maintain adequate flow rates

and effective PCB removal.

A little more than a week into the test, iron precipitation was found to be responsible for

increased treatment system pressures and reduced treatment flow rates. On March 15, aeration

and clarification processes were added to the treatment system. Filters and carbon were changed

out as well. These measures improved treatment flow rates and lowered pressures. Iron issues

continued to require close monitoring and more frequent maintenance of bag filters and carbon

for the remainder of the test.

12

10.0 IRON AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL

Pumping wells were sampled weekly for water quality parameters suspended solids, total iron

and total hardness. Results of those samples are presented in Table 7.

13

11.0 CONCLUSIONS

Figure 5 shows a plot of PCB mass flux at Stout’s Creek Downstream location and compares

four data sets. Individual samples are data points and a linear regression line is plotted for each

set of sample data. Samples from the pre-quarry drain period show the steepest regression line,

i.e. greater PCB mass discharge as flows increase. The data labeled “pre-2012” presents data

collected after construction of the passive quarry drain but before the 2012 pump test. The lesser

slope indicates the reduction in Stout’s Creek PCB mass discharge due to the quarry drain alone.

The 2012 and 2013 pump test data plot well below the pre-2012 regression line, showing further

reduction of PCB mass discharge. Since Middle Spring flow was not completely halted during

the 2012 and 2013 pump tests, Middle Spring PCB mass discharges to Stout’s Creek were

subtracted from the Stout’s Creek Downstream PCB mass flux daily values to simulate the effect

of Middle Spring capture by the proposed remedy. The plotted data are the “corrected” values.

Data acquired during the 2013 pump test extends to much greater Stout’s Creek flows than the

2012 test. Visually, it appears that the reduction of PCB mass discharge in 2013 is not quite as

good as in 2012. However, the single data point at 7900 gpm may be an outlier.

PCB mass and flow relationships during the 2013 extended pumping test are very similar to the

mass-flow relationship found during the 2012 pump test and confirm that the mass vs. flow

relationship holds into higher flows than were previously observed.

The plot illustrates an approximately 50 percent PCB mass reduction effected by the passive

quarry drain and a similar reduction resulting from capture of Middle Spring and shallow

groundwater recovery during the 2012 and 2013 pump tests. Compared to the pre-drain

condition, Stout’s Creek mass flux appears to be reduced by almost 75 percent by the combined

effects of the passive quarry drain and Middle Spring area groundwater and surface water

capture.

14

Rusty Spring contribution to PCBs in Stout’s Creek appears to be minimal. PCB concentrations

in groundwater in the southern area are not very high, and Rusty Spring is observed to flow only

rarely.

Results of Stout’s Creek sampling at multiple stations showed higher rate of PCB accumulation

downstream of Middle Spring than upstream of Middle Spring.

Groundwater recovery from pumping wells does not appear to be as effective an option as a

collection trench. The previous conceptual model of a buried former stream valley with

transmissive granular fill material was not confirmed by this test. Recovery rates were lower

than expected in recovery wells located close to the bedrock low feature.

TABLES

Date GP-3 BC-10 GP-11 GP-17 B13 Sum

3/5/2013 3.0 7.1 1.8 0.7 -- 12.6

3/6/2013 2.4 6.8 1.5 0.7 -- 11.4

3/7/2013 2.4 6.7 1.7 0.6 -- 11.4

3/8/2013 2.2 6.1 1.3 0.7 -- 10.3

3/11/2013 2.1 5.7 1.2 0.7 -- 9.7

3/12/2013 2.0 5.6 1.1 0.7 -- 9.4

3/13/2013 2.0 5.4 1.1 0.5 -- 9.0

3/14/2013 2.0 5.4 1.0 0.4 -- 8.8

3/15/2013 2.0 5.3 1.1 0.2 -- 8.6

3/18/2013 2.1 5.3 1.1 0.2 -- 8.7

3/19/2013 2.0 5.3 1.1 0.2 -- 8.6

3/20/2013 2.0 5.2 1.1 0.2 -- 8.5

3/21/2013 2.0 5.3 1.1 off -- 8.4

3/22/2013 2.0 5.4 1.1 0.8 0.7 10.0

3/23/2013 1.9 5.4 1.2 0.5 0.4 9.4

3/24/2013 2.0 5.5 1.1 0.4 0.4 9.4

3/25/2013 1.9 5.4 1.0 0.4 0.4 9.1

3/26/2013 1.9 5.2 1.0 0.5 0.4 9.0

3/27/2013 1.9 5.2 1.0 0.6 0.2 8.9

3/28/2013 1.9 5.2 1.0 0.5 0.2 8.8

3/29/2013 1.9 5.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 8.8

4/1/2013 1.9 5.1 1.0 0.4 0.4 8.8

4/2/2013 1.7 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.3 8.5

4/3/2013 1.7 4.9 1.0 0.5 0.3 8.4

4/4/2013 1.7 4.9 1.0 0.4 0.3 8.3

4/5/2013 1.7 4.9 1.0 0.4 0.3 8.3

4/6/2013 1.6 4.8 1.0 0.4 0.3 8.1

4/7/2013 1.6 4.8 1.0 0.4 0.3 8.1

4/8/2013 1.6 4.8 1.0 0.4 0.3 8.1

4/9/2013 1.4 4.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 7.8

4/10/2013 1.5 4.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 7.9

4/11/2013 1.5 4.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 8.2

4/12/2013 1.4 4.7 1.0 0.8 0.3 8.2

4/13/2013 1.4 4.7 1.0 0.8 0.3 8.2

4/14/2013 1.4 4.7 1.0 0.8 0.3 8.2

4/15/2013 1.4 4.8 1.0 0.7 0.2 8.1

4/16/2013 1.4 4.7 1.0 0.5 0.2 7.8

4/17/2013 1.4 4.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 7.8

4/18/2013 1.4 4.7 0.8 0.5 0.2 7.6

4/19/2013 1.4 4.9 0.8 0.7 0.3 8.1

Pumping Rate, gpm

Table 1. Recovery Well Pumping Rates2013 Bennett's Dump Pump Test

Bloomington, Indiana

DateMiddle Spring

Flow, gpmPCB Result,

µg/L

3/4/2013 5 4.6

3/5/2013 5 --

3/6/2013 0.4 --

3/7/2013 Trickle --

3/8/2013 0.4 --

3/9/2013 0.4 --

3/10/2013 0.8 --

3/11/2013 0.6 --

3/12/2013 0.8 4.5

3/13/2013 0.8 --

3/14/2013 0.3 --

3/15/2013 0.3 --

3/16/2013 0.5 --

3/17/2013 0.1 --

3/18/2013 1.5 to 4.8 5.4

3/19/2013 4 4.9

3/20/2013 3.4 --

3/21/2013 2.8 --

3/22/2013 2.3 --

3/23/2013 2.1 --

3/24/2013 2.3 --

3/25/2013 1.9 --

3/26/2013 1.9 3.5

3/27/2013 1.5 --

3/28/2013 1.5 --

3/29/2013 1.9 --

4/1/2013 1.5 --

4/2/2013 1.1 4.8

4/3/2013 0.8 --

4/4/2013 0.8 --

4/5/2013 0.6 --

4/8/2013 0.3 --

4/9/2013 Trickle 3.0

4/10/2013 Trickle --

4/11/2013 0.8 --

4/12/2013 1.5 --

4/13/2013 2.3 --

4/14/2013 1.9 --

4/15/2013 1.5 --

4/16/2013 1.1 4.6

4/17/2013 1.9 --

4/18/2013 1.5 --

4/19/2013 9.4 --

4/22/2013 9.4 4.3

4/23/2013 8.3 4.6

Bloomington, Indiana

Table 2. Middle Spring Flow and PCB Sampling Results2013 Bennett's Dump Pump Test

DatePCB Result,µg/L Flow, gpm

Middle Spring Flowto Stout's Creek,

gpm

3/5/2013 0.054 700 Declines from 5 to 1

3/6/2013 0.038 700 0.1

3/7/2013 0.04 780 Trickle

3/9/2013 0.053 980 0.4

3/11/2013 0.048 775 0.6

3/12/2013 0.05 680 0.8

3/13/2013 0.043 715 0.8

3/14/2013 0.048 650 0.8

3/15/2013 0.04 650 0.3

3/18/2013 0.035 3300 4.0

3/19/2013 0.04 2700 4.0

3/19/13 (dup) 0.036 2700 4.0

3/20/2013 0.032 1400 3.4

3/21/2013 0.057 1275 2.8

3/22/2013 0.054 1050 2.6

3/25/2013 0.039 825 1.9

3/26/2013 0.034 750 1.9

3/26/13 (dup) 0.034 750 1.9

3/27/2013 0.049 780 1.5

3/28/2013 0.055 775 1.5

3/29/2013 0.069 640 1.5

4/1/2013 0.063 600 1.1

4/2/2013 0.041 530 0.8

4/2/13 (dup) 0.047 530 0.8

4/3/2013 0.050 570 0.8

4/4/2013 0.045 520 0.8

4/5/2013 0.048 495 0

4/8/2013 0.052 515 0

4/9/2013 0.047 500 0

4/9/13 (dup) 0.047 500 0

4/10/2013 0.075 435 0

4/11/2013 0.023 1400 0

4/12/2013 0.042 1950 0

4/15/2013 0.032 900 0

4/16/2013 0.047 840 0

4/16/13 (dup) 0.041 840 0

4/17/2013 0.039 1875 0

4/18/13 13:05 0.035 1375 0

4/19/13 5:45 0.063 7900 1 to 3 (est.)

4/19/13 9:10 0.031 6475 1 to 3 (est.)

4/19/13 12:45 0.043 5200 1 to 3 (est.)

4/19/13 19:15 0.031 4150 0

4/22/13 13:45 0.14 1475 9.4

4/23/2013 0.067 1200 8.3

4/23/2013 (dup) 0.092 1200 8.3

Table 3. Stout's Creek Downstream Sampling Results2013 Bennett's Dump Pump Test

Bloomington, Indiana

Date GP-3 MW-BC10 GP-11 GP-17 MW-B13 MW-05Combined or Influent

3/6/2013 7.9 6.2 38 240 -- -- --

3/7/2013 7.7 6.0 53 160 -- -- 15

3/8/2013 7.1 5.1 51 130 -- -- 15

3/12/2013 8.5 7.0 54 170 -- -- 17

3/19/2013 9.2 5.9 44 160 -- -- 13

3/26/2013 8.8 5.7 52 140 95 -- 15

4/2/2013 8.5 6.3 30 130 92 92 21

4/9/2013 9.2 6.5 55 170 150 73 21

4/16/2013 8.5 6.9 190 100 82 75 23

PCB Result, µg/L

Table 4. Recovery Well PCB Sampling Results2013 Bennett's Dump Pump Test

Bloomington, Indiana

Date SCD SC-A14 SC-A1112 SC-A9 SC-A7

3/4/13 9:35 0.062/0.073 2 620

3/5/13 12:10 0.054 1 700

3/6/13 13:20 0.038 3 700

3/7/13 12:50 0.040 3 780

3/9/13 10:30 0.053 2 980

3/11/13 13:15 0.048 3 775

3/12/13 11:05 0.050 2 680

3/13/13 13:00 0.043 2 715

3/14/13 10:30 0.048 < 1 650

3/15/13 13:05 0.040 < 1 650

3/18/13 15:10 0.035 14 3300

3/19/13 9:40 0.04/0.036 6 2700

3/20/13 13:00 0.032 5 1400

3/21/13 14:10 0.057 4 1275

3/22/13 12:40 0.054 2 1050

3/25/13 12:30 0.039 < 1 825

3/26/13 11:30 0.034/0.034 1 750

3/27/13 14:00 0.049 2 780

3/28/13 13:20 0.055 1 775

3/29/13 12:15 0.069 2 640

4/1/13 13:40 0.063 2 600

4/2/13 10:50 0.041/0.047 1 530

4/3/13 13:20 0.050 1 570

4/4/13 13:10 0.045 2 520

4/5/13 13:10 0.048 1 495

4/8/13 10:40 0.052 2 515

4/9/13 9:50 0.047/0.047 0.043 0.018 -- < 0.01 2 500

4/10/13 9:00 0.075 0.048 < 0.01 -- < 0.01 1 435

4/11/13 13:10a 0.023 0.026 0.017 -- 0.012 15 1400

4/12/13 9:50 0.042 0.023 0.019 -- < 0.01 8 1950

4/15/13 13:20 0.032 0.018 < 0.01 -- < 0.01 3 900

4/16/13 10:40 0.047/0.041 0.020 0.015 0.011 < 0.01 3 840

4/17/13 9:40 0.039 0.017 0.016 0.015 < 0.01 21 1875

4/18/13 13:05 0.035 0.026 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.011 4 1375

4/19/13 5:45 0.063 -- -- -- -- 61 7900

4/19/13 9:10 0.031 0.051 0.021 0.018 -- 25 6475

4/19/13 12:45 0.043 -- -- -- -- 14 5200

4/19/13 19:15 0.031 0.023 0.020 0.014 < 0.01 11 4150

4/22/13 13:45 0.14 0.053 0.10 0.043 0.019 4 1475

4/23/13 13:10 0.067/0.092 0.086 0.15 0.052 < 0.01 2 1200

PCB Result, µg/LTotal

Suspended Solids, µg/L

SCD Flow, gpm

a Lab analysts had difficulty with quantitation of AR1232 due to interferences and very low levels.

Table 5. Stout's Creek PCB Accumulation Sampling Results2013 Bennett's Dump Pump Test

Bloomington, Indiana

Date InfluentPrimary System

EffluentBack-up System

Effluent

3/5/2013 -- 6.1 BDLa

3/7/2013 15 BDL BDL3/8/2013 15 BDL BDL3/9/2013 10 BDL 0.313/10/2013 13 BDL BDL3/11/2013 15 BDL BDL3/12/2013 17 BDL BDL3/13/2013 17 BDL BDL3/14/2013 17 BDL 0.573/19/2013 13 BDL BDL3/26/2013 15 BDL Not in use4/2/2013 21 BDL Not in use4/9/2013 21 BDL Not in use4/16/2013 23 BDL Not in use

PCB Result, µg/L

a BDL = below detection limit of 0.1 µg/L.

Table 6. Treatment System Influent and Effluent PCB Results2013 Bennett's Dump Pump Test

Bloomington, Indiana

Date Well

Total Suspended Solids, mg/L

Iron (Total),mg/L

Hardness (Total), mg CaCO3/L

3/12/2013 GP-3 5 1.5 370

3/19/2013 GP-3 42 9.7 420

3/26/2013 GP-3 100 6.0 440

4/2/2013 GP-3 99 13 480

4/9/2013 GP-3 82 4.5 410

4/16/2013 GP-3 19 5.8 370

3/12/2013 BC10 6 4.8 330

3/19/2013 BC10 9 4.9 350

3/26/2013 BC10 9 5.2 350

4/2/2013 BC10 8 7.6 360

4/9/2013 BC10 10 6.6 320

4/16/2013 BC10 10 4.4 330

3/12/2013 GP-11 2 0.072 320

3/19/2013 GP-11 < 1 0.10 330

3/26/2013 GP-11 3 0.14 320

4/2/2013 GP-11 9 0.51 400

4/9/2013 GP-11 < 1 0.17 320

4/16/2013 GP-11 6 0.47 350

3/12/2013 GP-17 2 2.0 330

3/19/2013 GP-17 2 1.6 320

3/26/2013 GP-17 3 2.1 330

4/2/2013 GP-17 3 2.0 360

4/9/2013 GP-17 4 2.2 350

4/16/2013 GP-17 3 2.0 330

3/26/2013 B13 2 3.6 270

4/2/2013 B13 5 3.8 330

4/9/2013 B13 3 2.3 330

4/16/2013 B13 3 1.7 330

Bloomington, Indiana

Table 7. Recovery Wells--TSS, Iron, and Hardness Sample Results2013 Bennett's Dump Pump Test

FIGURES

S

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

S

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

S

S

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

S

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

SC

D M

ass

Dis

cha

rge

in

µg

/min

SCD Flow in gpm

Stout's Creek Downstream PCB Mass (1232) vs FlowAll Data with Middle Spring Mass Subtracted in 2012 & 2013 Tests

pre-drain

pre-2012 test

2012 test minus Middle Sp

2013 test minus Middle Sp

Linear (pre-drain)

Linear (pre-2012 test)

Linear (2012 test minus Middle Sp)

Linear (2013 test minus Middle Sp)

Figure 5