TagEthylene Gycol(12)

Fax cover sheet and analytical lab reports sent by Rick Poulin of Smith & Lowney, P.L.L.C. (Seattle, WA) to Peter Eglick and Kevin Stock at Helsell Fetterman LLP on February 14, 2002, transmitting water sample lab results for Case 2, Site Visit Day 2. Enclosed letter from Analytical Resources, Incorporated (ARI), dated February 11, 2002,

A February 2002 letter from Analytical Resources, Inc. to attorney Richard Poulin of Smith & Lowney, P.L.L.C. transmits laboratory analytical results for nine water samples accepted on January 28, 2002, under Case 1. The samples were received intact with no discrepancies noted on the chain of custody record, and analysis for requested parameters including glycols, TSS, copper, zinc, and hardness proceeded without incident. Quality control results, including a method blank showing no detected ethylene or propylene glycol above 5.0 mg/L, are included in the report.

A February 2002 laboratory report from Analytical Resources, Inc. documents the analysis of four water samples submitted by the law firm Smith & Lowney, P.L.L.C. for a project identified as Case 2. The samples were tested for metals, conventional parameters, and glycols, with results showing no ethylene or propylene glycol detected above the 5.0 mg/L detection limit. A calibration issue with the glycol analysis required re-testing outside the standard holding time, though re-analysis confirmed the original findings.

Analytical Resources, Inc. submitted water sample analysis results to attorney Richard Poulin of Smith & Lowney law firm in February 2002 for a matter identified as Case 1. Nine water samples were collected on January 28, 2002 and tested for ethylene glycol and propylene glycol, with neither compound detected above the 5.0 mg/L detection limit. The chain of custody record shows samples were collected by Greg Wingard of CASE and received by ARI laboratory staff for quality-controlled analysis.

A February 2002 analytical laboratory report from Analytical Resources, Inc. to Seattle law firm Smith & Lowney, documenting water sample testing results for a project referenced as Case 2. Four water samples were collected on January 31, 2002, and analyzed for metals, conventional parameters, and glycols, with the glycol analysis requiring re-testing due to calibration issues outside acceptable control limits. The results showed no detectable levels of ethylene glycol or propylene glycol above the 5.0 mg/L detection limit.

This 2000 hydrogeologic study, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. for the Port of Seattle, examines groundwater conditions beneath the Industrial Waste System (IWS) plant and lagoons at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The report assesses soil geology, groundwater flow direction, and water quality — including levels of volatile organic compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons, and ethylene glycol — near three wastewater lagoons on airport property. It concludes with findings and recommendations related to potential contaminant releases and ongoing groundwater monitoring needs.

Academic journal article published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (Vol. 14, No. 6, 1995) by Fisher, Knott, Turley, Turley, Yonkos, and Ziegler from the University of Maryland and Maryland Department of the Environment. Study characterizes acute whole effluent toxicity (WET) of storm water from Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) on fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) and daphnid

Peer-reviewed article by S. Ian Hartwell, David M. Jordahl, Joyce E. Evans, and Eric B. May (Maryland Department of Natural Resources) published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 14, No. 8, 1995. Study assesses toxicity of ethylene glycol-based de-icer and propylene glycol-based anti-icer solutions from Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) to aquatic organisms including fathead minnow

A 1993 letter from the Port of Seattle to a Des Moines resident explains that airline deicing at Sea-Tac Airport uses only FAA-approved ethylene or propylene glycol, and that wastewater from deicing drains to the airport's treatment system before being discharged to Puget Sound — not to Miller or Des Moines Creeks. The Port acknowledged its treatment plant was not designed to handle glycols and was evaluating upgrades. A follow-up 1996 letter challenges a contradictory statement in the airport's Final Environmental Impact Statement, which claimed most deicing fluids were contained and treated by the Port's Industrial Wastewater System.