vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/2-89/054b
October 1989
Superfund
Evaluation of
Ground-Water Extraction
Remedies:
Volume 2.
Case Studies 1-19
Interim Final
-------
-------
EPA/540/2-89/054b
October 1989
Evaluation of Ground-Water
Extraction Remedies
Volume 2, Part 1
Case Studies 1-10
Interim Final
October 1989
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C 20460
-------
Notice
Development of this document was funded by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency in part under contract No. 68-W8-0098 to CH2M HILL
SOUTHEAST. It has been subjected to the Agency's review process and approved for
publication as an EPA document.
The policies and procedures set out in this document are intended solely for the
guidance of response personnel. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon,
to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation
with the United States. The Agency reserves the right to act at variance with these
policies and procedures and to change them at any time without public notice.
-------
VOLUME 2
INTRODUCTION
This volume was prepared as part of an evaluation of ground-
water extraction remedies completed under EPA Contract No.
68-W8-0098. It presents 19 case studies of individual sites
where ground-water extraction systems have been implemented.
These case studies present site characteristics and discuss
factors that have influenced the success of the remedial
activities.
Volume 1 is the summary report presenting the general con-
clusions and observations of the study. It is based on a
review of general information for 112 sites where ground-
water extraction systems are in various stages of planning
or implementation and on the 19 more detailed case studies
presented in this volume. Volume 1 describes the methodol-
ogy of the study, the factors that influence the effective-
ness of ground-water extraction systems, and the data re-
quirements for the design of extraction systems.
Volume 3 presents general information on 112 sites where
ground-water extraction is either planned or already in use.
It includes information on the location, the geologic set-
ting, the contamination, and the administrative status of
each site.
Each of the 18 case studies written as part of this investi-
gation is presented in two sections, the first describing
the general background characteristics of the site, and the
second describing the remediation. The general outline of
the reports is as follows:
A. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
1. Introduction
2. Site History
3. Geology
4. Hydrogeology
5. Waste Characteristics and Potential Sources
B. REMEDIATION
1. Selection and Design of the Remedy
2. Evaluation of Performance
3. Summary of Remediation
-------
The information in the first seven sections of each case
study is presented as it was described by the authors of the
source documents. Conclusions reached as a result of the
review of the source documents in this study are presented
in the final section summarizing the remediation.
The final case study, prepared by the Environmental Ministry
of Quebec, describes the Ville Mercier site in Quebec,
Canada. It does not follow the same format as the first 18
case studies.
WDCR13/036.50
-------
LIST OF CASE STUDIES
1. Amphenol Corporation
2. Black & Decker, Inc.
3. Des Moines TCE
4. DuPont-Mobile Plant
5. Emerson Electric Company
6. Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
7. General Mills, Inc.
8. GenRad Corporation
9. Harris Corporation ;
10. IBM-Dayton
11. IBM-San Jose
12. Nichols Engineering
13. Olin Corporation
14. Ponders Corner
15. Savannah River Plant A/M-Area
16. Site A
17. Utah Power & Light
18. Verona Well Field
19. Ville Mercier
WDCR13/036.50
-------
CASE STUDY 1
Amphenol Corporation
Sidney, New York
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE AMPHENOL CORPORATION SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The Amphenol Corporation (formerly Bendix Corp.) operates an
electrical-connector manufacturing plant in the village of
Sidney, Delaware County, New York (see Figure 1). Between
1971 and 1985, wastewater from Amphenol's electroplating
operations was piped to a pair of surface impoundments near
the Susquahanna River, about half a mile north of the plant,
where metal hydroxides were removed by precipitation. In
1983, the soil and ground water around the lagoons was found
to be contaminated with several volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), of which trichloroethylene was the most prevalent.
After closure of the treatment lagoons;and remediation of
the contaminated soils, a ground-water extraction system was
put into operation in January 1987 to control the migration
of contaminants and restore aquifer quality. Operation and
monitoring of the system, as required by the Resources Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA), is continuing under the
regulatory authority of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
SITE HISTORY
In 1981, Amphenol implemented a ground-water monitoring pro-
gram in the area of the waste treatment lagoons to satisfy
the requirements of RCRA. Figure 2 shows the location of
the lagoons with respect to the river, the current monitor-
ing-well network, and the facilities belonging to the vil-
lage of Sidney. The initial round of ground-water samples,
taken from wells 1 through 4 in January 1982, was analyzed
for inorganics and did not indicate a problem.
In June of 1982, consultants completed a preliminary evalua-
tion of the hydrogeologic conditions around the lagoons.
This included the installation of several additional wells.
A more-extensive ground-water monitoring program initiated
in 1983 revealed the presence of several VOCs of which tri-
chloroethylene was the most common.
In response to the findings of this and other more recent
investigations, Amphenol installed a new electroplating
waste-treatment system at the main plant site and discon-
tinued the use of the lagoons. In 1985, work on lagoon clo-
sure was initiated with removal of the accumulated precipi-
tate sludge. It was sent to the onsite facility for treat-
ment. The sludge was processed through a filter press and
sent to a secure landfill.
-------
In December 1985, a soil boring and sampling program was
begun at the deactivated treatment lagoons to determine the
degree of soil remediation that would be required. The soil
boring program was completed in May 1986. Soil borings were
drilled at 44 locations to an average depth of 5 to 6 feet.
The resulting samples were analyzed for VOCs and metals, but
only the VOCs were found to be a problem.
Soil remediation under the former lagoon areas was begun in
July 1986. Soils in the areas that had been found to be
contaminated with VOCs were excavated and exposed to the air
to release the adsorbed volatiles. When VOC concentrations
were reduced to levels that had been determined to be ac-
ceptable, the soils were returned to the lagoon area for
backfilling. The soil remediation program was completed in
late 1986.
In August 1986, consultants for Amphenol, submitted a cor-
rective action plan (ERM, 1986b) calling for two recovery
wells to control the migration of the contaminant plume and
remove VOC contamination from the ground water. By January
1987, the wells had been installed and the ground-water
remediation began. Since then, the wells have been sampled
quarterly and two annual reports on the progress of the
cleanup have been submitted to the NYSDEC (ERM, 1988 and
ERM, 1989).
GEOLOGY
The area surrounding the Amphenol lagoons is underlain by a
sequence of recent fluvial deposits and Pleistocene-age
glacial and glaciofluvial deposits with a total thickness
between 100 and 200 feet. The geologic logs of the wells
illustrated in Figure 2 were used to create the fence dia-
gram shown in Figure 3, which illustrates the degree of
stratigraphic complexity across the site. The unconsoli-
dated materials include silt, sand, and gravel deposits of
both alluvial and glacial origin. They are generally under-
lain by a glacial till composed of dense silt and gravel,
which lies on shale bedrock.
The thickness of these different deposits varies across the
site but in general, the entire sequence of unconsolidated
sediments thickens towards the river. Although none of the
wells constructed for the study penetrated the entire thick-
ness of sediments, deeper wells outside of the study area
have shown the presence of a relatively flat bedrock surface
at approximately 200 feet below grade.
-------
HYDROGEOLOGY
The principal geologic unit of concern at the site is a 100-
to 200-foot thick sequence of alluvial materials and under-
lying glaciofluvial sands and gravels. These sands and
gravels comprise the aquifer from which the village of Sid-
ney draws its potable water, using production well No. 1,
shown on Figure 2.
Ground water at the site occurs under unconfined conditions
in the overburden flow system. The water table is approxi-
mately 10 to 12 feet below the land surface. Forty monitor-
ing wells, including several groups of multilevel piezome-
ters, were installed as part of the site investigation.
Data gathered from these wells indicate that flow in the
system is principally horizontal»
The direction of ground-water flow is influenced by water
level differences between the aquifer and the Susquehanna
River, by the topography of the river's flood plain, and by
pumping from the village of Sidney's production well. Be-
cause of slight differences in the response of the shallow
and deep monitoring wells to pumping from the Sidney produc-
tion well, a distinction is made between the shallow and
deep flow zones of the aquifer. Wells that monitor the
shallow zone are generally screened at depths between 10 and
20 feet. Deep zone monitor wells are screened at a depth of
more than 65 feet below ground surface.
The most common ground-water flow pattern in the shallow
zone is shown in Figure 4. It occurs when the water levels
in the river are higher than in the aquifer and the Sidney
production well is in operation. Under these conditions.
increased recharge from the river near well No. 16 causes a
ground-water mound to form under the former lagoon area.
South of the lagoon area is a ground-water divide. East of
the divide, water is drawn into the Sidney production well.
West of the divide, ground-water flow follows the natural
gradients to the west and northwest downstream along the
Susquahanna River floodplain. \
A less common flow pattern that has been observed in the
shallow zone occurs when abundant recharge causes the water
table to rise. The water levels in the river and the aqui-
fer are then more nearly equal and production from the Sid-
ney well has less influence. Shallow ground-water flow is
then topographically controlled and is directed to the
northwest parallel to the river. Figure 5 shows an example
of such a flow pattern.
-------
Flow in the deep zone of the aquifer may be less sensitive
to seasonal variations in water level. Water levels measur-
ed during simultaneous test pumping of the Sidney production
well No. 1 and the Sidney test well in January 1986, indi-
cated that the capture zone o£ the production well extends
farther toward the lagoon area in the deep zone than it does
in the shallow zone. Figures 6 and 7 show the flow patterns
generated in the shallow and deep zones, respectively, after
72 hours of pumping. The production well was pumped at
400 gallons per minute (gpm) and the test well at 800 gpm.
Figure 8 shows the natural flow patterns in the deep zone,
which are very similar to the normal flow in the shallow
zone illustrated in Figure 4.
The results of the aquifer test conducted in January 1986
indicated transmissivities varying from 51,800 gallons per
day per foot (gpd/ft) to 252,700 gpd/ft, depending on which
observation well was used. This wide range of transmissi-
vities confirms the heterogeneity of the aquifer illustrated
in the fence diagram of Figure 3.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
The soil and ground-water contamination at the Amphenol site
originated from leaks in the asphalt lining of the two
waste-treatment lagoons. Most of the leakage occurred in
the southern portion of the east lagoon. The soil under the
lagoon in this area had total VOC concentrations ranging
from 25 to over 1,000 parts per million (ppm). VOC concen-
trations beneath the other lagoon areas were generally less
than 25 ppm.
The soil remediation program conducted in 1986 x
-------
deep.) Table 1 shows the concentrations of the individual
volatile organics found in well 17-S in the July 1985
sample.
Table 1
VOC CONCENTRATIONS IN WELL 17-S, JULY 12, 1985
Volatile Organic Compound
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobromomethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Concentration (ppb)
125
3
5
7
192
Figure 10 is an isoconcentration map of the deep zone based
on samples from the deep monitoring wells taken in 1985.
The contaminant plume is a three-dimensional entity whose
different parts migrate in response to the locally varying
flow patterns of the ground water. As shown in Figure 10,
it appears that migration in the lower portion of the plume
has been primarily to the southeast toward the Sidney pro-
duction well. The concentrations in the deeper zone of the
plume are generally lower than in the shallower zone.
Figures 11 and 12 present cross-sectional isoconcentration
maps illustrating the vertical variation of total VOCs. The
locations of the cross sections are shown on Figure 9.
Cross section A-A' in Figure 11 shows that the highest
levels of groundwater contamination are in the shallow zone.
In Figure 12, cross section B-B» shows the elongation of the
plume toward the Village of Sidney's production well in the
deeper part of the aquifer. There is no indication that VOC
contamination has yet reached the production well in measur-
able concentrations.
Because of the variations observed in the sample concentra-
tions, the highest concentration at each sample point was
used to construct the plume maps shown in Figures 9
through 12. They, therefore, represent a worst-case esti-
mate of the plume configuration.
-------
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
Objectives of Remediation
The principal goal of the ground-water remediation system
was to restore water quality in the aquifer to total VOC
concentrations of less than 5 ppb. However, if experience
should prove this to be impossible, Amphenol has reserved
the right to petition the NYSDEC for an alternative concen-
tration limit. A second goal of the ground-water remedia-
tion is to protect the Sidney's production wells from con-
tamination originating at the site. Currently, the village
of Sidney is operating production well No. 1, but another
production well has been installed near the test well shown
in Figure 2. This new well is scheduled to start operating
in late 1989 (Amphenol, 1989).
System Configuration
A ground-water extraction system consisting of two recovery
wells was designed to achieve the goals of the ground-water
remediation. The locations of these wells, and the water
levels observed in the shallow zone of the aquifer on
June 27, 1988, are shown in Figure 13. Well RW-1 has a 20-
foot screen set directly above the glacial till layer, which
is approximately 120 feet below ground surface in that area
(see Figure 12). It is intended to pump primarily from the
deep zone of the aquifer and is operated at a withdrawal
rate of^150 gpm. Well RW-2 is approximately 25 feet deep
and is intended to capture the more highly contaminated
ground water in the shallow zone of the aquifer. Its with-
drawal rate has averaged around 57 gpm.
The locations and pumping rates of the two extraction wells
were selected with the help of analytical computer models of
ground-water flow in the aquifer. Flow models were set up
and calibrated to match the observed potentiometric head
distributions in the aquifer. The results of the January
1986 aquifer test were used to guide the assignment of aqui-
fer properties in the model. Computer simulation of the
aquifer test was also performed as a means of verifying the
model setup. The calibrated model was then used to predict
the capture zones of proposed recovery wells under differing
operating conditions of the village of Sidney production
wells.
The ground-water flow models were also used to estimate the
time required for aquifer remediation. This was done with-
out contaminant transport modeling by calculating the
approximate travel time along streamlines connecting the
-------
recovery wells to the hydraulically most remote edges of the
contaminant plume. The effects of contaminant sorption were
accounted for by assuming that removal of several pore vol-
umes in the outer reaches of the plume, and more than
10 pore volumes in the high-concentration areas, would be
necessary to reduce VOC concentrations to less than 5 ppb.
The estimated duration of the recovery period was 5 to
10 years.
The contaminated water produced by the extraction system is
treated by air stripping before being discharged to the Sus-
quahanna River.
The progress of the ground-water remediation system is
monitored quarterly by sampling selected monitoring wells.
During 1987, the first year of ground-water extraction,
17 monitoring wells were included in the quarterly sampling
program. However, several of these wells consistently
showed concentrations below detection limits, and in 1988
only 12 wells were sampled quarterly.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
Within a few days after the startup of the ground-water
extraction wells in January 1987, ground-water divides had
been established in both the shallow and deep zones of the
aquifer. An essential element of the extraction system
design was to position these flow divides to prevent migra-
tion of the contaminant plume to the Sidney production
wells. Quarterly water-level monitoring conducted since the
system has been in operation has shown that the location of
the ground-water divides moves in response to changes in.
recharge and fluctuation of the river water levels. MOST
monitoring rounds have shown the divides to be located bet-
ween the plume and the production wells, as intended.
Figures 13 and 14 show the water levels measured in the
shallow and deep zones, respectively, on June 27, 1988.
Comparison with the plume maps in Figures 9 and 10 suggests
that the desired control over plume migration was being
achieved at that time. No plume maps have been presented
showing the location of the contaminant plume since 1985.
However, the analytical results for ground-water samples
taken in 1987 and 1988 indicate that the VOC concentrations
in the vicinity of the flow divides are below detection
limits.
Figures 15, 16, and 17 show the history of total VOC concen-
trations in three monitoring wells in the shallow aquifer
zone. Also shown on these figures are the approximate times
when the lagoons were drained, the soil remediation was
completed, and the extraction was begun. For all three of
these wells, the highest VOC concentrations were measured
-------
while the lagoons were still in use. Before the start of
ground-water extraction, the concentrations exhibited strong
fluctuations. The time series data suggest that these fluc-
tuations may be seasonal, but sampling has not been frequent
enough to allow this to be firmly established. After the
start of extraction, the concentrations appear to fluctuate
much less.
In general, there has been a considerable decrease in con-
centrations over the period of record. In wells 1-S and
17-S, the beginning of the decline seem to have coincided
with the closure of the lagoons. In well 2, there seems to
be a systematic decline in the VOC concentrations even be-
fore the lagoon closure, but this may be just a reflection
of the natural changes in ground-water flow directions.
Since the completion of soil remediation and the start of
ground-water extraction, the decline in concentrations has
continued. In all three wells there was a sharp reduction
in concentrations near, or shortly after, the start of
extraction. This sharp reduction was followed by a more
gradual decrease in the concentration in each well.
Well 1, which is located nearest to the origin of the plume
showed the slowest rate of concentration decline. The total
VOC concentration at well 2 was reduced below the remedia-
tion goal of 5 ppb in October 1987, and the well was then
dropped from the monitoring program.
Figure 18 shows the record of total VOC concentrations for
well 1-D, which is screened in the deep zone of the aquifer.
VOC concentrations in the other monitoring wells in the deep
zone have either been reduced below detection limits or are
fluctuating at levels close to the cleanup goal. Since the
closure of the lagoons in late-1985, the concentration
record for well 1-D has been characterized by a general
declining trend punctuated by an occasional slight increase.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
The ground-water extraction system has been in operation at
the Amphenol site since January 1987. The system was
designed to prevent migration of the contaminant plume to
the Sidney wells and to restore aquifer quality by reducing
total VOC concentrations to less than 5 ppb. It was esti-
mated that aquifer restoration would require 5 to 10 years.
Water level monitoring indicates that the two extraction
wells do seem to capture the contaminant plume under most
conditions. However, the flow patterns in the aquifer are
strongly influenced by river levels and seasonal recharge
rates. There may be limited periods during the year when
these influences modify the capture zones of the extraction
wells so that the plume is not hydraulically controlled.
8
-------
These periods are probably short enough so that no appreci-
able amount of contamination migrates away from the long-
term capture zone.
The records of total VOC concentration in the monitoring
wells close to the former contaminant source show a general
decline toward the aquifer restoration goal. Much of this
decline took place before ground-water extraction was start-
ed. The removal of wastewater from the treatment lagoons in
late 1985 seems to have initiated the decline in concentra-
tions. Remediation of the contaminated soils and the start
of ground-water extraction coincided with a temporary accel-
eration of concentration reduction in early 1987. Since
then, the rate of decline has decreased. The concentration
records appear to be consistent with the initial projection
of a 5- to 10-year remediation period.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amphenol. May 22, 1989. Personal communication with
Mr. Wayne Barto, P.E., of Amphenol Corporation.
Environmental Resources Management (ERM). February 19,
1985(a). Letter to Henry Mitchell of Bendix Corp.
ERM. November 1985(b). Preliminary Report: Groundwater
Assessment at Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons for
Amphenol Products—Bendix Connector Operations, Sidney, NY.
ERM. June 1986(a). Addendum Report: Groundwater Assessment
at Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons for Amphenol Pro-
ducts—Bendix Connector Operations, Sidney, NY.
ERM. August 27, 1986(b). Corrective Action Plan for the
Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons, for Amphenol Pro-
ducts--Bendix Connector Operations, Sidney, NY.
ERM. June 13, 1988. Annual Groundwater.Monitoring Report
for 1987, Amphenol Corporation, Bendix Connector Operations,
Sidney, NY.
ERM. March 22, 1989. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report
for 1988, Amphenol Corporation, Bendix Connector Operations,
Sidney, NY.
United States Geological Survey.
7.5 minute topographic series.
1982. Sidney Quadrangle,
WDCR435/013.50
-------
-------
CASE STUDY 2
Black & Decker
Brockport, New York
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE BLACK & DECKER SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The former Black & Decker industrial facility is located in
Brockport, Monroe County, New York. The manufacturing plant
produced appliances, generating as by-products, electroplat-
ing sludges and metal-plating wastewaters. Until 1985,
treated wastewaters were discharged to onsite surface
impoundments for removal of solid materials by settling.
Settled solids were transferred to a sludge drying bed for
further dewatering (see Figure 1). Interim status monitor-
ing wells were installed to meet Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. After volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) were found in several of the monitoring
wells, a ground water quality assessment program was con-
ducted at the facility in 1985 and 1986. As a result of the
assessment, a volatile organic plume was identified within
the bedrock aquifer, which underlies 15 feet of glacial
till. Investigations revealed the source of contamination
to be chlorinated organic solvents used in degreasing activ-
ities. The corrective action involves ground-water recovery
from a single well located in an artificially-produced frac-
ture zone. The first phase of the program, initiated in
March 1987, involved the creation and testing of the frac-
ture zone. Long-term remediation was initiated in May 1988.
However, due to system control problems, contimious opera-
tion of the extraction and treatment system did not begin
until October 1988. It has been operating on a nearly con-
tinuous basis since that time.
SITE HISTORY
The Black and Decker facility is a RCRA treatment, storage,
and disposal facility (TSDF) operating under interim status
regulations. In compliance with RCRA requirements, ground-
water wells were installed under the direction of the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation to moni-
tor for heavy metals contamination. Monitoring data indi-
cated that no heavy metal contamination had occurred. How-
ever, statistical analyses of collected data indicated a
probability of ground-water contamination. In response to
this statistical prediction, additional ground-water moni-
toring was conducted in 1985 and 1986. The new monitoring
data revealed the existence of a volatile organic contamina-
tion plume in the bedrock aquifer. Further investigations
determined that the chlorinated organic compounds used in
degreasing activities were the cause of the contamination.
-------
GEOLOGY
The topography of the site and the surrounding area has
minimal relief. It slopes gently to the north, toward a
barge canal. Unconsolidated deposits in the study area
consist of 5 to 20 feet of Lake Woodfordian sandy glacial
till overlying approximately 50 feet of consolidated Medina
sandstone (Grimsby member) of early Silurian age (see Fig-
ure 2). Underlying the sandstone are several hundred feet
of Upper Ordovician Queenston shale. The regional bedrock
dip is toward the south at approximately 50 feet per mile.
HYDROGEOLOGY
The water table is typically 4 to 8 feet below ground sur-
face. The ground-water flow system consists of two hydrau-
lically interconnected aquifers--an unconsolidated overbur-
den aquifer and a deeper sandstone bedrock aquifer. These
two aquifers are composed of different geologic material and
have different ground-water flow properties.
Ground-water flow is predominantly to the northwest across
the site toward the New York State Barge Canal with an in-
creasing gradient to the north in response to the topogra-
phy. There is generally a downward gradient between the two
aquifers and within the bedrock. Based on in situ perme-
ability tests performed at the site, the average hydraulic
conductivity of each of the aquifers is approximately the
same, 0.8 ft/day (2.8 x 10'4 cm/sec). In this relatively
flat area, localized reversals in the direction of ground-
water flow have been observed as a result of variations in
recharge and evapotranspiration rates. Examples of these
reversals have been observed between Wells GEB-6S and GEB-4S
and between Wells GEB-18S and GEB-9S (see Figure 1).
Ground-water flow within the overburden is assumed to be
predominantly through intergranular pores. Based on hydrau-
lic conductivity values, water-level data, and an estimated
effective porosity of 10 to 20 percent, the average linear
rate of ground-water flow within the overburden aquifer
ranges from 0.04 to 0.26 ft/day. The overburden flow system
is more variable in the southern portion of the site, pri-
marily because of the distribution of recharge, which is
controlled by site features such as building, paved areas,
slopes, and vegetation. Figure 3 shows ground-water eleva-
tion contours for the overburden aquifer.
Ground-water flow within the Medina sandstone occurs predom-
inantly through secondary porosity openings such as frac-
tures, joints, and bedding planes. Intergranular flow is
judged to be minimal. Because of the nature of fracture
flow in the sandstone, the ground-water flow rate varies
-------
considerably between individual fractures, making accurate
calculations of flow velocities and travel times almost
impossible. Definition of the nature of ground-water flow
in the bedrock has required more monitoring wells than in
the overburden, including monitoring well clusters. Based
on hydraulic conductivity values, water-level data, and an
estimated effective porosity of 5 to 15 percent, the average
linear rate of ground-water flow within the bedrock aquifer
is expected to range from 0.043 to 0.31 ft/day. Figure 4
shows the ground-water elevation contours for the bedrock
aquifer.
Several studies were performed to more fully understand the
nature of ground-water flow within the bedrock. These
studies included: fracture trace analysis using historic
aerial photographs, joint orientation and frequency analysis
based on a nearby outcrop, correlation of onsite rock core
data, and the evaluation of geologic data collected from
tunnels located approximately 20 miles from the site. Two
major sets of nearly vertical fractures were found to exist
within the Medina sandstone: a northwest-trending set and a
northeast-trending set. Site-specific data were insuffi-
cient to determine the spacing and hydrogeologic character-
istics of the fractures and bedding planes. In addition, no
major fractures for recovery well installation were identi-
fied through these studies.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURQES
Significant concentrations of two compounds were identified
in the ground water. They include trichloroethylene (TCE)
and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and their degradation by-pro-
ducts, 1,2-dichloroethlyene and vinyl chloride. Contaminant
levels were highest in the bedrock aquifer, with TCE concen-
trations detected at levels far exceeding those of other
contaminants.
Primary consulting engineers have stated that it is not
possible to calculate the actual release of the contaminants
to ground water based on existing site records. However, to
comply with a request from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), an estimate was calcu-
lated based on previously prepared iso-concentration maps.
The primary consulting engineers described the numbers they
generated as "meaningless" for evaluating the ground-water
corrective action measures. Table 1 lists the consulting
engineers' estimates of the dissolved mass of the
contaminants.
-------
Table 1
ESTIMATES OF CONTAMINANT MASS DISSOLVED IN GROUND WATER
Overburden Aquifer Bedrock Aquifer
Total Dissolved
Mass
TCE 66 Ib (5.4 gal)
1,2-DCE 69 Ib (6.5 gal)
Vinyl Chloride 16.5 Ib*
1,1,1-TCA 1.19 Ib(0.105 gal)
1,300 Ib (106 gal) 1,366 Ib (111 gal)
150 Ib (14 gal) 219 Ib (20.5 gal)
0.46 Ib*
19 Ib (1.7 gal)
17 Ib*
20 Ib (1.8 gal)
*VinyI chloride is a gas at room temperature.
Figure 5 shows a contour map of TCE concentrations prior to
the startup of the extraction system. The primary consult-
ing engineers have cautioned that this figure is a general-
ized simplification of average TCE concentrations. It does
not account for variations in concentration within indivi-
dual fractures. Individual fracture data was thought to be
too difficult to obtain.
The ground water was contaminated by releases from the waste
management area, located southeast of the manufacturing
plant. This unit consists of six surface impoundments, for
separating solids from process wastewaters, and one sludge
drying bed for dewatering of the settled solids. Operations
at the waste management area stopped in 1986 and 1987.
Other disposal practices thought to contribute to organic
contamination were terminated by 1987. The contaminant
plume is migrating toward the northwest in accordance with
ground-water flow.
Although supporting documentation is lacking, there may have
been secondary releases to ground water that contributed to
contaminant levels in the bedrock. These secondary releases
include: release of contaminated wastewater through a sump
liner which was excavated into bedrock; seepage of contami-
nants through leaking floor drains and associated piping lo-
cated near the existing and former degreasers; spills during
handling of drums of solvent stored behind the manufacturing
building; and leakage of cooling flxiids used for industrial
air conditioning.
-------
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
Objectives of Remediation
The primary objective of the remediation is to restore water
quality in the overburden and sandstone bedrock aquifers to
health-based standards. Cleanup criteria for the contami-
nants detected in the ground water were developed based on
New York state standards (Title 6, Chapter X, Part 703.5) or
federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Concentration
Limits (MCL), whichever was more stringent. The following
table lists the cleanup levels for the four contaminants of
concern.
Table 2
REMEDIATION TARGET CONCENTRATIONS
Compound
TCE
1,2-DCE
Vinyl chloride
1,1,1-TCA
Limit
5 ug/1
50 ug/1
2 ug/1
200 ug/1
Source
SDWA MCL
NYS guidance value
SDWA MCL
SDWA MCL
In conjunction with this primary objective, an additional
requirement of the extraction system is that it be capable.
of effecting hydraulic capture of the ground water within
the contaminated region.
Testing of the Initial Recovery Well
A recovery well system was initially selected as the remedi-
al alternative. A 72-hour aquifer test was performed in
March 1987 prior to the design of the recovery system. This
test was performed to further investigate the hydrogeologic
characteristics of the bedrock aquifer.
For the test, a recovery well, Well RW-1A was positioned
downgradient of the facility in the centerline of the plume
(see Figure 1 for location). It was installed 25 feet into
bedrock at a total depth of 40 feet. Ground water was pump-
ed at a set rate of 3.4 gpm, treated using an air stripper
and carbon adsorption unit, and discharged to the canal
north of the site.
-------
Test data revealed that delineation of the capture zone
would be extremely difficult, and that the installation of
additional recovery wells would not be a cost-effective
approach to creating a well-designed capture zone. Irregu-
lar responses of individual wells were observed within clus-
ters 31 and 32 (see Figure 1 for location). This irregu-
larity was thought to be a result of the complexity of the
three-dimensional capture zone created by pumping within the
fractured bedrock aquifer. Observations revealed that indi-
vidual bedrock monitoring wells generally were hydraulically
poorly interconnected. No response to pumping was observed
in any monitoring well located upgradient of Recovery
Well RW-1A. The single recovery well that was installed and
tested was found to be inadequate to prevent further migra-
tion of the contaminant plume.
System Configuration
Several options for creating an effective capture zone were
explored. The first approach was to increase the number of
fractures intersected by individual recovery wells either by
angle drilling or by artificial fracturing of the rock. On-
site and regional data indicated that the fracture geometry
necessary to support angle drilling did not exist at the
Black and Decker site. In addition, the shallow overburden
at the site could not support conventional hydraulic or
explosive fracture production techniques.
The second option was to interconnect all the fractures
transporting the contaminants by creating a single, artifi-
cial fracture oriented perpendicular to the direction of
ground-water flow, and then extracting the contaminated
ground water in this artificial fracture using one or more
extraction wells. The primary consulting engineers postu-
lated that this artificial fracture method, produced by the
controlled use of explosives, would prevent further migra-
tion of the plume and draw back contaminated ground water
downgradient of the zone. However, there was concern that a
single fracture might not produce complete interconnection
across the path of ground-water flow. Also, there was doubt
that the fracture aperture would be sufficient to produce
the yield necessary for complete plume capture.
To overcome these concerns, a method was designed to create
a thoroughly fractured zone several feet wide within the
upper 25 feet of rock. There were several advantages to
creating an enhanced fracture zone. First, verification of
contaminant capture would become easier because the recovery
wells would be directly connected to fractures along the
entire cross section of the fracture zone. Verification
would thus be reduced to assessing the extent of the capture
zone downgradient and on either end of the fracture zone.
-------
Second, there would be substantial savings in operation and
maintenance costs because fewer wells would be required to
achieve remedial goals. Last, the method would permit high-
er pumping rates which could result in a faster aquifer
remediation.
The fracture zone was positioned perpendicular to the direc-
tion of ground-water flow and centered near the leading edge
of the contaminant plume. Fracturing was restricted to the
upper 25 feet of rock because contamination was not detected
below that depth. Shot holes for the explosives were spaced
4 to 5 feet apart. In May 1987, the charges were detonated
progressively from the bottom of the holes upwards. Ground
water spouted from the previously blasted holes for several
seconds after each blast. This spouting demonstrated the
high degree of hydraulic interconnection that had been
created between blast holes. Fractures were not expected
below the bottom of the shot holes because of the position-
ing of the explosives and the detonating sequence.
A 72-hour aquifer test was performed in Well RW-1A in June
1987, one month after the blasting program was completed.
For comparative analyses, efforts were made to simulate, as
closely as possible, the conditions of the pre-fracturing
aquifer test.
For the test, ground water was pumped at 18.5 gpm, compared
with 3.4 gpm in the prefracture, 72-hour aquifer test. The
water level in the recovery well dropped a total of
11.2 feet during the 72-hour pumping period. To verify the
continuity of the induced fracture zone, three observation
wells were installed at the ends of the zone. Two of these
wells, OW-1 and OW-2, were installed at the east end of the
fracture, with OW-1 screened in the upper half of the frac-
ture zone and OW-2 screened in the lower half of the frac-
ture zone. The pair of wells was necessary to verify that
the entire vertical section of the rock was thoroughly frac-
tured. Well OW-3, located in the western edge of the frac-
ture zone, was installed to monitor the drawdown at the
opposite end of the fracture.
Nearly identical drawdowns were observed in Wells OW-1,
OW-2, and OW-3. Final drawdown elevations differed by less
than 0.4 feet between the recovery well and the three obser-
vation wells in the fractured zone. The fact that eleva-
tions were similar in all observation wells confirmed the
high degree of interconnection created by the fracturing.
More than 3 feet of drawdown occurred in 12 of the 15 obser-
vation wells. Post-fracturing drawdowns ranged from a mini-
mum of 1.6 feet in Well GEB-28BS to a maximum of 11.2 feet
in Well GEB-31BD. In contrast, during the prefracturing
aquifer test, only three of those same 15 wells exhibited
-------
drawdowns of more than 3 feet. At the conclusion of this
test, the consulting engineers determined that only one
recovery well, Well RW-1A, was required to accomplish
remedial goals using this technique.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
The long-term ground-water extraction and treatment system
operated from May through October 1988 on an irregular basis
as a result of start-up system testing and problems associ-
ated with the recovery well controls. The control problems
were corrected in October 1988 and the system has been oper-
ating on a nearly continuous basis since that time.
Hydraulic Capture
Water levels obtained in March 1988 and November 1988 are
considered representative of pre- and post-pumping condi-
tions, respectively. Potentiometric surface maps for the
overburden and bedrock aquifers have been prepared for these
two dates and are presented in Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9. It
is interesting to note from Figures 6 and 7 that the artifi-
cial fracture zone did not lead to any perturbations in the
contour lines, as might be expected near a highly transmis-
sive zone at an angle to prevailing gradients.
As shown in Figures 8 and 9, the ground-water flow in the
overburden and bedrock aquifers has been distinctly altered
as a result of pumping. By dewatering the upper section of
the bedrock in the area of the fracture zone, downward flow
has been induced from the overlying overburden aquifer.
Figures 7 and 9 show the potentiometric head in the bedrock
aquifer prior to and after testing in March 1988 and Novem-
ber 1988, respectively. In the March 1988 bedrock aquifer
contour map (see Figure 7), a component of flow to the east
was evident in the vicinity of the surface impoundments and
sludge drying bed (waste management area). Primary consult-
ing engineers speculated that the eastern component of flow
may have been caused by higher recharge to the bedrock aqui-
fer in a localized area near the closed waste management
area. This accelerated recharge would create a potentio-
metric head mound in this area and cause ground water to
flow radially outward from this mound. This condition may
be the cause of the contamination observed in GEB-24B and
25B. Black & Decker's engineers anticipated that this
mounding condition would be affected by changes in ground-
water flow in this area due to ground-water extraction.
This eastward component of flow was not observed in the Nov-
ember 1988 contour map (see Figure 9). The shallow depth to
bedrock in this area may be partially responsible for the
increased bedrock recharge. It has not been determined if
long-term pumping at the fracture zone will affect the
8
-------
presence of the eastern component of ground-water flow
observed within the bedrock.
An unusually low overburden water level is depicted in Fig-
ure 8 at Well GEB-20S. This low water level affects the
potentiometric surface contour map. Although unexplained,
this well has displayed similarly low water levels on previ-
ous occasions, including during pre-pumping conditions.
The rate of ground-water flow within the overburden aquifer
increased from a range of 0.047 to 0.093 ft/day during pre-
pumping tests in March 1988, to a range of 0.13 to
0.26 ft/day during post-pumping testing in November 1988.
This increase is caused by higher hydraulic gradients. The
rate of ground-water flow in the bedrock aquifer under pump-
ing conditions was expected to be similar to the rate under
pre-pumping conditions. However, higher velocities were
observed in the vicinity of the fracture zone, which acts as
a discharge zone, because of increased hydraulic gradients.
Contaminant Plume Reduction
The extent of the capture zone that was created in the over-
burden is difficult to assess because only two overburden
wells, GEB-30S and GEB-32S, are located in the immediate
vicinity of the fracture zone (see Figure 8). The capture
zone created by pumping in the bedrock at Recovery Well RW-
1A appears to extend a significant distance on both sides
(northwest and southwest) of the fracture zone (see Fig-
ure 9). Monitoring Well GEB-28BS is the only one of the
15 bedrock wells that is not responding significantly to
pumping (see Figure 9). Well GEB-28BS monitors the lateral
extent of contamination. It is the most contaminated well
within its cluster. As a result of Well, GEB-28BS's poor7"
response, Black & Decker is in the process of confirming if
the well was properly completed or the width of the capture
zone has been defined adequately.
Water-level measurements obtained at the intermediate bed-
rock (BI) and deep bedrock (BD) wells in clusters GEB-28,
GEB-29, GEB-30, GEB-31, and GEB-32 demonstrate a greater
response to pumping than the shallow bedrock wells portrayed
in Figure 9. At these greater depths, the primary consult-
ing engineers concluded that the capture zone is expected to
extend well beyond these wells.
Reductions in Mass and Concentration of Contaminants
Ground water samples were collected four times in 1988 to
analyze for changes in ground-water quality: March 1988,
June 1988, August 1988, and November 1988. The samples were
analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 601. For each sampling
-------
event, a core group of 15 wells was sampled. Five wells
represent the areas of poorest ground-water quality in the
bedrock without regard to depth. These monitoring wells are
located immediately downgradient of,, or lateral to, the
fracture zone. The other ten wells were positioned at a
variety of locations for general site coverage. In all
cases, sampling levels were recorded as the maximum concen-
trations detected in a particular well cluster.
According to the primary consulting engineers, no signifi-
cant changes in VOC concentrations have been observed at the
site, and no further expansion of the plume is believed to
have occurred since implementing remedial measures. The
concentrations of the VOCs of concern at the site were found
to be typical of concentrations observed during pre-pumping
conditions. Results from the wells assessing the lateral
extent of contamination—GEB-12B and GEB-15B--continued to
show low levels of VOCs with no trend toward higher concen-
trations. Wells monitoring the eastern extent of contamina-
tion—GEB-24B and GEB-25B--have demonstrated no increase in
VOC concentrations. The primary consulting engineers repor-
ted that wells monitoring the centerline of the plume—GEB-
18S, GEB-18B, GEB-23S and GEB-23B--have similarly demonstra-
ted no increase in VOC concentrations (see Figure 10). How-
ever, sampling data indicate some decrease in absolute con-
centration levels (see Figures 11 and 12). No VOCs were
detected in Well GEB-26B, the background well for the bed-
rock aquifer. Sporadic low levels of VOCs were observed in
Well GEB-21S (see Figure 8 for location), the background
well for the overburden aquifer.
Wells GEB-28BS, GEB-29BD, GEB-30BI, and GEB-31BI represent
the most contaminated wells of their respective clusters.
As such, these wells are used to evaluate the effectiveness
of the pumping program. VOC concentrations at many of these
wells decreased markedly during 1988 as a result of the
pumping. Several of these wells experienced an increase in
VOC concentrations as a result of the fracture interconnec-
tion achieved by the blasting process. As expected, reduc-
tions in VOC concentrations were noted after a relatively
short period of continuous pumping. A summary of the
effects of pumping on the concentrations of TCE in a well
downgradient of the recovery well is presented in Figure 13.
A change in chemical ratios has been observed at Wells GEB-
32BD, GEB-28BI, and GEB-28BD (see Figure 9). At each of
these wells, decreases in TCE concentrations have been cou-
pled with increases in DCE. A definitive explanation for
this occurrence has not been presented:by Black & Decker's
consulting engineers.
10
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
Preliminary remedial investigations revealed the presence of
a fractured bedrock system contaminated with volatile organ-
ics, primarily TCE and 1,1,1-TCA. Recovery of ground water
in this type of fractured system is difficult because of the
inability to adequately characterize the discrete fractures
through which the contaminants may be migrating. Difficul-
ties also arise in properly positioning wells and verifying
the performance of the system.
An artificial fracture system that increased the intercon-
nection between natural fractures was produced using explo-
sives. The fracture zone was oriented perpendicular to the
direction of ground-water flow. Contaminated ground water
is withdrawn from the fracture zone using one extraction
well. This fracture zone is thought to be preventing fur-
ther migration of the plume and to be drawing back ground
water downgradient of the fracture zone. Problems associ-
ated with verification of the capture zone are minimized
using this technique. The verification method requires that
only the extent of the capture zone downgradient and on
either end of the fracture zone be assessed. Remedial cost
savings were realized based on the primary consulting
engineer's findings that only one recovery well would be
required to attain cleanup criteria for the site.
The long-term ground-water extraction and treatment system,
although initiated in May 1988, did not begin continuous
operations until October 1988. Black & Decker's consulting
engineers concluded in March 1989 that no significant
changes in VOC concentration have been observed, and that no
further expansion of the plume has occurred to date. They
recommended a follow-up report on contaminant reduction in
March 1990.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Begor, K., M. Miller, and R. Sutch. February 1989. Crea-
tion of an Artificially-Produced Fracture Zone to Prevent
Contaminated Ground-Water Migration. Ground Water. Vol-
ume 27, No. 1.
Dunn Geoscience Corporation. Interim Status Period Ground-
Water Monitoring Data.
Dunn Geoscience Corporation. 1988. Remedial System Perfor-
mance Monitoring Plan.
11
-------
Dunn Geoscience Corporation. March 1988,
Ground-Water Monitoring Report.
RCRA Annual
WDCR25/013.50
12
-------
-------
CASE STUDY 3
Des Moines TCE
Des Moines, Iowa
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE DES MOINES TCE SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The Des Moines TCE Superfund Site is located in south cen-
tral Des Moines, Iowa, in an industrial area bordering the
Raccoon River. The site encompasses the Des Moines Water
Works (DMWW) plant, a meander of the Raccoon River, and the
facilities of the DICO Corporation (see Figure 1). The site
is referred to as the Des Moines TCE site in recognition of
its primary contaminant, trichloroethylene (TCE).
The Des Moines Water Works is the major source of municipal
water for the City of Des Moines and surrounding communi-
ties. As such, it serves a population of over 260,000 peo-
ple. The DMWW is surrounded on its east, north, and west
sides by a loop of the meandering Raccoon River. The facil-
ity draws 12 to 15 million gallons per day from a production
system consisting of 3 to 5 miles of horizontal infiltration
galleries running roughly parallel to the Raccoon River both
north and south of the DMWW. The contamination originating
from the DICO plant has forced the shutdown of part of the
north gallery system, but the south gallery remains in oper-
ation. The site is administered by the EPA under the Super-
fund program.
SITE HISTORY
A contamination problem at this site was first detected in
1974 when a sample of ground water at the DMWW was found to
contain TCE. It was later determined that the contaminated
water was entering the system through the north gallery, but
pumping of the north gallery continued pending further
study. In 1978, a sample of ground water taken from a DICO
well contained 2,400 ppb TCE. In response to this, the EPA
installed a system of six well points west of the DICO
buildings in 1978, and continued to sample these well points
through 1980. Because these well points consistently showed
the presence of volatile organic compounds, an EPA Field
Investigation Team study was conducted from 1980 to 1983
during which 11 monitoring wells were installed in the sur-
ficial aquifer. In 1984, the site was listed on the Nation-
al Priority List. The DMWW ceased pumping from the north
gallery in April 1984. A remedial investigation/ feasibil-
ity study took place from 1984 to 1986 to further assess the
areal extent and seriousness of contamination at the site
and to suggest possible remedies. In response to the Oper-
able Unit Feasibility Study finalized in 1986, a system of
seven recovery wells located west and northwest of the DICO
facility was installed in 1987. Full operation of the reme-
diation system began on December 17, 1987.
-------
GEOLOGY
The study area is underlain by 40 to 60 feet of unconsoli-
dated silts, clays, sands, and gravel of glacio-fluvial
origin deposited during the last million years. These sur-
ficial deposits can be divided into two,layers. The upper
layer consists of an average of 10 feet of silt and clay
overbank deposits of river origin. These sediments are
underlain by the second layer consisting of very fine to
fine sands and gravel. The percentage of silts and clays in
the second layer is less than 10 percent (AWARE, Novem-
ber 1988). It is this layer of unconsolidated sands and
gravels that is contaminated with organic solvents, particu-
larly in the lowest 10 feet. Both surficial layers are
laterally extensive throughout the site.
These surficial layers are underlain by the consolidated
shale, siltstone, and sandstone layers of the Cherokee Group
of Pennsylvania age. The Cherokee Group is 380 feet thick
at the site.
Below the Cherokee Group are Mississippian to Cambrian age
consolidated formations of limestone, dolostone, sandstone,
and shale. These formations are over 1,500 feet thick.
HYDROGEOLOGY
There are three main aquifer systems in the consolidated
Mississippian to Cambrian bedrock formations mentioned
above. These systems, in order of decreasing depth, are:
(1) Cambrian to Ordovician formations, including the
St. Peter sandstone, the Prairie du Chien dolostone, and the
Jordan sandstone; (2) Devonian limestone; and (3) Missis-
sippian limestone and dolostone formations. The Cambrian to
Ordovician aquifers are important water producers in this
area. The regional flow direction of these three systems is
south to southeast. Each of these three major aquifer sys-
tems is separated by a shale aquiclude and all contain
ground water under confined conditions. The vertical
hydraulic gradients between the bedrock aquifers are mod-
erate and would tend to induce downward flow. However, the
presence of the thick, low permeability shales (K=5.2 x
10"9cm/sec) of the Cherokee Group make it highly unlikely
that the bedrock aquifers will be contaminated by the
shallow contamination at the Des Moines TCE site.
The water level in the unconfined surficial sand and gravel
aquifer ranges from about 10 to 25 feet below the land sur-
face at the site, depending on location and conditions. In
the absence of pumping, the regional gradients and direc-
tions of flow are south to southeast. The Raccoon River and
-------
the surficial aquifer are hydrologically interconnected.
The relative direction of flow between the river and the
aquifer is variable and depends on river flood stage and
ground-water elevations. The natural ground-water flow
directions are strongly influenced by the pumping of the
DMWW horizontal infiltration galleries and by pumping of the
recovery wells that have been operating since December 1987
as part of the site remediation. The hydraulic conductivity
of the surficial aquifer has been estimated by aquifer tests
to be 3,000 to 5,000 gpd/ft2, which is high enough to allow
for pumping effects to be felt at comparatively large dis-
tances (AWARE, 1986). Vertical gradients in the surficial
aquifer are generally insignificant.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
In addition to TCE, investigations at the site have also
shown the ground water to be contaminated with
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (trans-l,2-DCE), and vinyl
chloride, which are degradation products of TCE, and other
halogenated hydrocarbons. TCE, trans-1,2-DCE, and vinyl
chloride are all volatile organic compounds. No other con-
taminants were consistently found in the ground, water at
concentrations that exceed federal standards. TCE and
trans-1,2-DCE were found in soils between the DICO facility
and the Raccoon River to the west at concentrations up to
3,000 ppb and 3,800 ppb, respectively. The maximum concen-
trations of these compounds in ground-water samples were
also from this same area of the site. The maximum ground-
water concentrations were 8,467 ppb for TCE, 2,000 ppb for
trans-1,2-DCE, and 95 ppb for vinyl chloride. These con-
centrations were measured in the sand and gravel aquifer.
These concentrations are high compared to the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water of 5 ppb for TCE
and 2 ppb for vinyl chloride and the proposed maximum con-
taminant level goal (PMCL) of 70 ppb for trans-1,2-DCE under
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Based on historical data and the results of past site inves-
tigations, the primary source of the volatile organics con-
taminating the ground water at the site is the contaminated
soil west of the DICO plant. Degreasing solvents, including
TCE, are used in the manufacture of steel wheels and rubber
products at the DICO plant. In past years, about 100 to
200 gallons of waste solvent sludge left over from the manu-
facturing process were applied to road and parking surfaces
at the plant each year to control dust. Once this sludge
was applied to the road and parking lot surfaces of the
plant, it was free to migrate by surface runoff into open
soil areas and eventually leach downward to the underlying
aquifer. A sample of the sludge was found to contain
-------
3,000,000 ppb of TCE during a 1982 EPA/FIT study, a concen-
tration 1,000 times greater than the maximum concentration
found in soils.
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
The objectives of the remediation are to clean up the con-
taminated ground water to federal health-based standards on
the Des Moines Water Works property adjacent to the north
gallery and to capture and treat contaminant plumes east and
north of the Raccoon River across from the gallery. These
objectives are to be accomplished through ground-water
pumping.
The recovery well system in place as of December 1987 con-
sists of seven wells oriented roughly north-south between
the Raccoon River and the DICO facility (see Figure 2).
These wells are each pumped at 150 to 225 gpm for a total
system pumpage of about 1300 gpm. The positions and rates
of pumping of the seven wells were determined through field
investigations and computer modeling. Figure 2 also shows
the March 1988 limit of the north plume that has been drawn
south by the recovery system.
The hydrodynamic performance of the recovery system is mon-
itored by a network of about 60 wells and piezometers, in-
cluding the recovery wells and the 40 monitoring wells and
piezometers installed from 1982 to 1984 (see Figure 3). Six
of the piezometers are equipped with continuous water level
meters. The water levels in the remaining wells and piezo-
meters are measured monthly. Water quality is monitored^y
analysis of monthly samples taken from 36 wells and piezo-
meters. These samples are analyzed for 34 volatile organic
compounds.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
The recovery system has had a significant effect on poten-
tiometric head distribution in the surficial aquifer at the
site. Figure 4 shows a June 1988 contour map of the trough
of depression that has developed along the line of recovery
wells. An analogous map from March 1988 is almost identical
indicating that the system was at or near steady state
3 months after startup. The system has created an inward
flow pattern extending beyond the known areal limits of the
targeted contamination. The system appears to be effective
in achieving its objective of inducing a flow pattern that
will capture the targeted solvent plumes over time. Figure
-------
4 shows evidence of discharge from the Raccoon River to the
aquifer in the area west of the recovery well system.
There is evidence that the remediation is improving the
water quality at the site. Figures 5 and 6 show the contour
maps of TCE concentration for December 1987 and June 1988,
respectively. The areas enclosed by the 1000 ppb and
100 ppb contours have decreased significantly over the first
6 months of operation. Note that the position of the
100 ppb contour in June 1988 was roughly equal to the
position of the 1000 contour of December 1987.
This observation of reduced concentrations east of the Rac-
coon River was also supported by concentration data from
individual wells in the southern part of the site. Fig-
ures 7 and 8 show a time series plot of three volatile or-
ganics for recovery well 8 (ERW-8; see Figure 2) and moni-
toring well NW-23, respectively. Well ERW-8 is southeast of
the largest DICO building while well NW-23 is at the north-
west corner of the large DICO building to the south. Both
wells showed considerable concentration decreases over the
first 10 months of pumping. The concentrations in
well NW-23 seem to show a declining trend over the entire
300 days of record. The concentrations in well ERW-8 seem
to have stabilized at about 200 ppb for TCE and 100 ppb for
trans-1,2-DCE after 150 days of pumping. This is not
necessarily an indication of reduced system effectiveness.
At these concentrations and at a pump rate of 175 gpm,
well ERW-8 continues to extract 5.7 kg of TCE and 2.9 kg of
trans-1,2-DCE per month even though it is, not in the area of
greatest contamination.
There is also evidence that concentrations west of the Rac-
coon River have decreased, particularly in the area north-
west of the main DICO building. In well NW-25 in this area,
initial concentrations of 93 and 7 ppb for TCE and
trans-1,2-DCE, respectively, were below detection levels for
the entire period of pumping. Concentrations of TCE in
well NW-21, to the south of well NW25, decreased from their
pre-pumping levels but varied during the period of pumping
and did not show a continuously declining trend (see Fig-
ure 9). The reason for this variability is unclear but may
be due to sampling or laboratory error.
One interesting development during the first 6 months of
operation was a plume of high trans-1,2-DCE concentration
that entered the study area from the north and migrated
south under the influence of pumping. Because flow in the
area of this northern plume was southward to westward in the
past, the source of this contamination must be north of the
DICO facility.
-------
Further evidence of cleanup progress is shown by the decline
in contaminant concentrations in the air stripper influent.
Figure 10 shows that the TCE concentration has declined to
one third of its original concentration over the first
6 months of pumping. A mass balance calculation of the
influent and effluent concentrations and flow rates for the
first 6 months of operation shows that 560 gallons of TCE
and 120 gallons of 1,2-Trans-DCE and vinyl chloride have
been removed from the aquifer during the first 6 months of
remediation.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
o The contamination at this site is in a highly per-
meable (K= 3,000-5,000 gpd/ft2) unconfined aquifer
adjacent to the main water source for the City of
Des Moines, Iowa.
o In the first 6 months of pumping from a system of
seven recovery wells, a hydraulic zone of capture
extending beyond the limits of the targeted con-
tamination was established.
o Concentrations of the volatile organic contami-
nants were reduced to one third or less of initial
concentrations in the area east of the Raccoon
River. The high permeability of the contaminated
zone and the high pump rate of the system both
favor extraction of contaminants at this site.
o The primary source of contaminants is the soil in
the vicinity of the DICO plant. The soil was con-
taminated by sludge applied to the parking lot
surface. Because the source of contaminants in
the vadoze zone may still remain, the recovery
system may have to be operated for many years
before the aquifer area east of the river is
restored.
o There is no evidence of a contaminant source west
of the Raccoon River. The contamination present
to the west of the river was drawn there by pump-
ing from the north gallery of the Des Moines Water
Works system. However, the plume seems to be re-
duced west of the river suggesting that the city
may soon be able to resume pumping portions of the
north gallery.
o The moderate to very high mobility of these vola-
tile organic compounds in water (see Volume 1,
Appendix A) favors their removal with the extrac-
ted groundwater. The low percentage (<10 percent)
-------
of silts and clays in the contaminated aquifer
also favors mobility and disfavors retention.
The recovery wells are close together in a line
that is centrally located with respect to the
plume. Consequently, the recovery wells produce a
groundwater flow pattern that is uniformly inward
throughout most of the plume. Zones of stagnation
are reduced and mobility is enhanced because all
of the wells induce flow in the same general
direction.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. AWARE, Inc. November, 1986. Groundwater Model Cali-
bration and Conceptual Design Report, Des Moines TCE
Site, Des Moines, Iowa.
2. AWARE, Inc. April 1988. Performance Evaluation Report
No. 2 (December 1987 through March 1988) Groundwater
Recovery and Treatment System, Des Moines TCE Site, Des
Moines, Iowa.
4. Dula et al. 1988. Site Investigation Report, Des
Moines TCE-North Plume, Ecology and Environment/FIT,
TOD No. F-07-8807-009.
5. Ecology & Environment. December 1985. Final Remedial
Investigation Report, Vol. 1 of 4, Remedial Investiga-
tion/Feasibility Study, Des Moines TCE Site, Des
Moines, Iowa, WA 99-7L25.0.
6. IGF. 1985. Draft, Superfund Health Assessment Manual,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-
01-6872, Washington, D.C.
WDCR312/041.50
-------
CASE STUDY 4
Du Pont Mobile Plant
Axis, Alabama
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE DU PONT MOBILE SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Mobile plant is
located on approximately 510 acres of land about 25 miles
north of Mobile, in the town of Axis, Alabama. The site, as
.shown in Figure 1, is adjacent to the Mobile River and is
bounded on the north by the property of Courtauld's North-
American Ltd. The plant manufactures agricultural products,
including herbicides and insecticides. A ground-water ex-
traction system has been operating at the site since 1985,
with the primary objective of preventing offsite migration
of contaminated ground water. The system is operated under
the jurisdiction of the RCRA program.
SITE HISTORY
The manufacturing facilities at the site were constructed,
beginning in 1968, by Shell Oil Company on land that was
previously undeveloped. Initially, only two agricultural
insecticides were produced. However, during the 1970s and
1980s the manufacturing processes were modified and expanded
to include other insecticides, soil fumigants, epoxy resins,
resin curing agents, and various catalysts. In 1986, the
facility was purchased by Du Pont, which continues to manu-
facture these products at the site.
Before 1980 three waste management units were in operation
at the site: (1) a landfill in the southern part of the
property, (2) a surface impoundment, called Six Acre-Foot
Pond, and (3) a smaller surface impoundment near the Mobile
River, called Four Acre-Foot Pond (see Figure 2). All three
units were closed as part of a corrective action program
initiated by Shell Oil Company in 1977. The closures were
completed in 1980.
Sludges and drummed liquid wastes were buried in the onsite
landfill from 1969 through 1974. The specific nature, vol-
ume, and location of the wastes were not documented during
disposal operations. However, they are known to have in-
cluded drummed insecticides, liquids containing trichloro-
benzene, and sludges from various sump areas. The total
quantity of wastes and contaminated soils excavated during
the closure of the landfill in 1980 was 4,000 cubic yards.
The amount of contaminated soils excavated was controlled by
the requirement that all soils remaining in place must have
contaminant concentrations below "action levels" based on
the standard RCRA leaching test. Monitoring wells installed
during landfill closure did not indicate ground-water con-
tamination. However, it was later found that they had been
-------
installed on the upgradient side of the landfill because the
direction of ground-water flow had been misinterpreted.
The Six Acre-Foot pond was constructed in 1976 to store
liquids generated during the manufacture of insecticide. It
was composed of four adjacent rectangular impoundments, or
ponds, that were constructed by scraping earth from their
centers to form berms around their edges. Each pond was
approximately 46 feet wide by 230 feet long by 6 feet deep.
The ponds were lined with 1/4 inch of asphalt sprayed over
4 inches of compacted clay, underlain by 3 inches of lime.
Three of the ponds also had synthetic membrane liners. All
four ponds were covered with fiberglass roofing. During the
closure of the Six Acre-Foot Pond the liquid contents and
liner materials were removed and disposed of offsite. Soil
samples were collected from depths of 4 to 7 feet, and con-
taminant concentrations were found to be below action
levels. The area was then regraded.
The Four Acre-Foot Pond was constructed in 1968 near the
bank of the Mobile River to provide temporary storage and
surge protection for the NPDES discharge from the plant.
The discharge permit required daily sampling of pH, sodium
chloride, methylene chloride extractibles, and pesticides.
Closure of this pond consisted of drainage of the pond
liquids, removal of the accumulated sludge for offsite dis-
posal, and regrading. No soil or ground-water samples were
collected as part of the closure program.
In 1983, a Facility Assessment was conducted on the site by
Shell Oil Company, and a plume of ground water contaminated
with insecticides and a variety of organic compounds was
found. Starting in 1985, a system of ground-water extrac-
tion and monitoring wells was installed in the upper part of
the Alluvium Aquifer (Unit B) to deal with this problem. In
1987, Du Pont was issued a RCRA (Part B) permit to operate a
hazardous waste storage facility and a hazardous and a waste
incinerator at the site. In compliance,with this permit,
Du Pont conducted a second/ Facility Assessment in 1988 cov-
ering the three closed waste management units and the asso-
ciated ground-water contamination.
GEOLOGY
The site is located in the Piney Meadows physiographic pro-
vince and borders the Mobile River. The province is devel-
oped on Pleistocene and Holocene age terrace, flood plain,
and beach deposits. It is underlain by unconsolidated sedi-
ments that thicken to the south-southwest at a rate of 10 to
50 feet per mile. The coastal plains sediments range from
pre-Jurassic to Holocene and consist of alternating layers
of sand, shale, clay, and limestones in complex layers.
-------
The three prominent stratigraphic units identified at the
site are: Unit A—surficial clay, Unit B—sand, and
Unit C—blue clay. Unit A is a surficial clay layer that
ranges from 5 to 50 feet thick and is covered, in a few
locations, with several feet of fill material. Unit B is a
sand layer directly underlying Unit A that ranges in thick-
ness from 65 to 90 feet. The sand is apparently hydrauli-
cally continuous across the site despite the existence of
some clay lenses. Unit C is a relatively thick clay layer
that extends vertically from approximately 90 feet to ap-
proximately 600 feet below the ground surface. It is an
effective barrier separating Unit B sand from the lower
aquifers. Figure 3 shows a north-south cross-section that
passes through the landfill area. It should be noted that
the Unit C blue clay was only observed in two borings for
process wells (DW-1 and DW-3) at elevations of -54 and -70,
as well as in soil test borings drilled in 1967.
HYDROGEOLOGY
The unit B sand comprises an aquifer that is known in the
Mobile River Valley as the Alluvium Aquifer. The upper
portion of this aquifer is a fine clayey sand that grades
downward into coarse sand and gravel interbedded with clay
lenses. The capacities of wells completed in the Alluvium
Aquifer range from 50 to 800 gallons per minute. A test run
in the aquifer at the Du Pont site in 1987 indicated a
transmissivity of 250,000 gallons per day per foot. This
corresponds to an average hydraulic conductivity of 484 feet
per day, or 0.17 centimeters per second. The hydraulic
conductivity in the Unit B sand is thought to increase with
depth, because the materials have been observed to be coar-
ser in the deeper portions of the unit. However, no tests
have been done specifically to quantify this observation.
In its natural state, the Unit B Alluvium Aquifer at the
site was confined by the Unit A clay, and the direction of
ground-water flow was eastward toward the Mobile River.
This has been altered by heavy industrial water-supply pump-
ing (8,000 gpm) at the neighboring Courtauld's North-Ameri-
can property to the north. The ground-water levels near
this withdrawal have dropped 20 to 40 feet such that the
Unit B aquifer at the Du Pont site is now unconfined and the
flow is toward the north. The water levels at the Du Pont
site are currently 40 to 50 feet below the ground surface.
Because of this local change in the flow regime, the Mobile
River is now a recharge source to the aquifer (see Fig-
ure 4). An average hydraulic gradient calculated from
monitoring wells on the Du Pont site in December 1986 was
0.007 feet per foot toward the north. This, combined with
the estimated hydraulic conductivity of 484 feet per day and
-------
an assumed effective porosity of 0.2, yields an interstitial
ground-water velocity of 17 feet per day.
The hydraulic conductivity of the Unit A clay was measured
by a constant head permeameter and found to range from
10"6 cm/s to 10"8 cm/s. Assuming a median value of 10"7 cm/s
and an effective porosity of 0.45, the estimated vertical
interstitial velocity in the clays is about 0.15 feet per
year.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
The ground-water contamination found at the site is thought
to be primarily due to leaching of contaminants from the
landfill. The principal contaminants found in the landfill
waste pits during the closure operations in 1980 included:
1. Pentachloroacetophenone (PCAP)
2. Trichlorobenzene (TCB)
3. Trichloroethylene (TCE)
4. Trimethylphosphate (TMPC)
5. Dichloroacetic acid (DCAA)
6. RABON® -2-chloro-l(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)vinyl dimethyl
phosphate
7. VAPONA* -2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate
8. DIBROM* -1,2 dibromo-22,-dichlorodimethyl phosphate
9. Hexane
10. Carbon tetrachloride (CBT)
11. Chloroform (CRF)
During closure of the landfill in 1980, soil samples were
taken from 47 borings ranging in depth from 2 to 20 feet.
The samples were analyzed using the standard RCRA leaching
test and compared to the action levels that had been estab-
lished for the site. Table 1 shows the maximum leaching
test concentrations found from these samples and the cor-
responding action levels for each compound.
-------
Table 1
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS IN LEACHATE FROM
SOIL SAMPLES TAKEN DURING LANDFILL CLOSURE,
WITH CORRESPONDING ACTION LEVELS
(Concentrations in mg/1)
Compound
PCAP
TCB
TCE
TMPE
DCAA
VAPONA*
DIBRON*
CRF
CBT
Hexane
Maximum Soil
Leachate
Concentration
12.6
5.8
0.07
<4.0
<200.0
<0.5
' <1.0
0.3
28.0
6.9
RCRA
Soil Leachate
Action Level
3.0
42.0
280.0
47.0
156.0
24.0
45.0
1.0
Source: Du Pont, 1988. Table 5-9,
It can be seen from Table 1 that the maximum standard leach-
ing concentration for PCAP (12.6 mg/1) was higher than the
accepted action level. A review of the complete list of
soil leaching data reveals that this high concentration was
limited to a single sample taken from a depth of 15 to
16 feet below the waste pits. The other samples showed PCAP
leaching concentrations that were well below the action
level of 3.0 mg/1.
No explanation is given in the Facility Assessment Report of
the rationale behind the action levels listed in Table 1.
The development of the action level values is listed as one
of the initial tasks in the 1980 closure program.
The partition coefficients for adsorption of these organic
constituents to the soils of the Unit A clay and the Unit B
sands can be predicted on the basis of the organic content
of the soils. Measurements of organic carbon content were
not made at the Du Pont Mobile site. However, the Facility
Investigation report states that the soils underlying the
site are not high in organic carbon, so adsorption is not
expected to have a pronounced effect on contaminant
migration in the ground water. This may be true for the
Unit B sands; however, it is likely that the less mobile
constituents, such as TCB, CBT, and, to a lesser extent,
-------
TCE, do sorb to the materials in the overlying Unit A clay.
These sorbed contaminants would represent a potential source
of continued leaching to the underlying aquifer that could
persist for many years.
The ground-water monitoring program was initiated at the
site in 1983, and additional wells were added to the system
in 1984 and 1985. Table 2 lists the maximum concentrations
of the various contaminants that have been found in ground-
water samples from these wells. From this table, CBT, CRF,
TCE, and TCB are notable as contaminants with the highest
ground -water concentrations. Of these, CBT, CRF, and TCE
were used, to a limited extent, as indicator compounds. TCB
was not used as an indicator of contaminant migration
because it has relatively low mobility. Table 2 also lists
the soil-water partition coefficients, Koc, and the health-
based regulatory standards for the ground-water contaminants
found. High values of K^ indicate low aqueous mobility.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of total organic halide
(TOX) concentrations in July 1984. The landfill, the
6 -acre- foot pond, and the area near well 24 all appear to be
source areas or areas of high contaminant concentrations.
The northern extent of contamination was not defined by the
monitoring well system in July 1989.
No multi-level, or nested, wells have been installed to
determine the vertical distribution of contaminants in the
Alluvium Aquifer. However, the two production wells, DW-1
and DW-2, are screened near the bottom of the aquifer, while
the monitoring wells are typically screened near the water
table. The only priority pollutant that has been detected
in the production wells is acrolein, which was found in one
sample taken from Well DW-2 in 1984 at a concentration of
144 ppb. This has been taken as an indication that the
contaminants are limited to the upper portion of the Allu-
vium Aquifer. However, reference to Figure 5 shows that
DW-1 and DW-2 are outside the 100 ppb TOX contour even in
the upper portion of the Alluvium Aquifer so the absence of
contamination in the lower portion of the aquifer is not
anomalous .
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
Objectives of Remediation
The objective of the ground-water remediation program at
this site is to prevent offsite migration of the contami
nated ground water. Removal of contaminants from the
-------
aquifer is acknowledged as a secondary benefit of the
remedial efforts. However, because the contaminated soils
beneath the former landfill remain a continuing source of
ground-water contamination, no projections of the time
required for aquifer restoration have been made.
System Configuration
The ground-water extraction system consists of a line of
four barrier wells, Wells E-l through E-4, along the north-
ern boundary of the Du Pont property (see Figure 6). These
locations were probably chosen to prevent offsite migration
to the north. Two wells (E-l and E-2) were initially con-
structed in May 1985. They were drilled to a depth of
75 feet and screened with 20 feet of 12-inch-diameter PVC
well screen. The screens were set in the upper part of the
Alluvium Aquifer where the aquifer materials are relatively
fine and less permeable than in the lower part. An explana-
tion for this choice of the screened interval is not pro-
vided, but it was probably done in an attempt to minimize
the extraction of clean ground water from the lower portion
of the aquifer.
The first two extraction wells became operational on
December 10, 1985. The pumping rate selected for these two
wells was initially 62.5 gallons per minute (gpm) each.
This selection was made by using the Thiem-Dupuit equation
for steady flow in an unconfined aquifer to predict the
radius of influence, and thereby the hydraulic capture
radius, of the wells. The actual, hydraulic effectiveness of
the wells in capturing the contaminant plume was observed by
measuring the drawdown in neighboring monitoring wells. As
a result of this hydraulic monitoring, a third well (E3) was
added to the system in 1986 to increase the capture
effectiveness of the system. Also in 1986, the casing of
Well E-2 experienced structural failure, and a replacement
well (E-4) was installed.
The extracted ground water is treated in the plant's indus-
trial biotreater and then discharged to the Mobile River
under the existing NPDES permit for the plant.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
The effectiveness of the ground-water recovery program is
assessed in three ways: (1) isopleth map and trend analy-
sis, (2) hydraulic analysis of plume capture, and (3) per-
cent recovery of TOX in the ground-water plume.
The analysis of ground-water contaminant isopleths is con-
ducted under the assumption that the contaminant plume has
-------
reached a quasi-steady state in which continued leaching
from the former landfill area replaces the contaminants
extracted by the recovery system. Figures 6 and 7 show the
distribution of TOX concentrations in June 1986 and June
1988, respectively. These two figures can be compared to
Figure 5 to show the cleanup progress over time. In the
4-year period between July 1984 and June 1988, the
contaminant plume has been reduced both in area and in
maximum concentration.
The concentrations in the central part of the plume, how-
ever, have not shown a consistent decrease with time.
Figure 8 shows the variation of TOX concentration with time
in wells 24 and 32—two monitoring wells located in the
central part of the plume between the former landfill and
the extraction wells. Well 24, which is located slightly
off the centerline of the plume and fairly close to the
extraction wells, shows a strong TOX concentration peak
after more than a year of remediation but an overall decline
from July 1984 to June 1988. By contrast, the TOX
concentration in well 32 began to increase at approximately
the same time as the concentration in well 24 but continued
to show an increasing trend until at least mid-1988.
Figure 9 shows the variations of TOX concentrations with
time in the extraction wells. In general, the TOX concen-
trations are highly variable and do not show a long-term
declining trend. Concentrations rose markedly in the
wells E-l and E-2 shortly after the commencement of
extraction. However, after 400 days they had fallen off
again to approximately the pre-extraction levels. The TOX
concentrations in wells E-3 and E-4 showed a highly variable
increasing trend over the period of pumping. This is not
typical behavior for an "extraction system that is success'-
fully capturing a contaminant plume. Normally, the extrac-
tion well concentrations fall off dramatically after the
system has established hydraulic control of the plume
because clean water from outside the contaminated area is
drawn into the wells.
These data suggest a continuing source of contamination. A
long-term decrease in concentrations is expected, as the
contaminants in the source are exhausted by continuous
leaching. However, the rate of decrease has not been pro-
jected, and it is not thought that any definite rate can be
determined from the monitoring results to date. Instead,
the available record of monitoring-well concentrations has
been averaged over time to generate a long-term plume con-
figuration, as shown in Figure 10. Comparison of the con-
figuration of the time-averaged plume in Figure 10 to the
time-averaged water levels shown in Figure 11 suggests that
8
-------
the current extraction system generally does induce the flow
regime necessary to contain the contaminants.
An attempt has been made to compare the rate of contaminant
removal from the extraction wells to the rate of contaminant
mass flux through the plume, and thereby to estimate the
percent recovery of the system. The results of this compar-
ison contradict the conclusion that the extraction system
captures the TOX plume, however. The long-term average rate
of contaminant removal by the wells was estimated to be
490 grams per day. The mass flux rate through the plume was
estimated by numerically integrating the product of TOX con-
centration and ground-water discharge velocity along the
line A-A1 shown on Figure 10. This resulted in a long-term
estimate of 998 grams per day passing through the plume.
The removal efficiency was then estimated as the quotient of
these two figures, or 49 percent.
No explanation has been given for the fate of the remaining
51 percent of the contaminants that are not removed by the
system. Evidently, either the contamination escapes the
site by passing between, around, or under the extraction
wells or the calculations of mass flux are inaccurate.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
The ground-water extraction system at the Du Pont Mobile
site is intended to provide hydraulic containment of the
plume of contaminated ground water. Aquifer restoration is
not a primary objective.
Four years of extraction has significantly reduced the area
of the contaminant plume as measured by the system of onsite
monitoring wells. The maximum concentrations in the contam-
inant plume have also been reduced. However, the concentra-
tion of the extraction system influent has not decreased
over time, suggesting that a continuing source of contamina-
tion is present at the site.
Comparison of time-averaged distributions of TOX concentra-
tions and water levels suggests that the extraction system
is capturing the contaminant plume. However, mass flux
calculations suggest that only half of the TOX mass flowing
past the extraction system is captured. However, these mass
flux calculations are based on the assumption that porosity,
saturated thickness, and ground-water flow velocity are
rarely uniform and that the measured concentrations are
characteristic of the entire saturated thickness. These
assumptions may lead to an overestimate of mass flux. None-
theless, it is possible that some contamination is escaping
-------
the extraction system at depth or to the north of the
extraction wells, where the limit of the contaminant plume
has not been characterized.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., November 1988.
Status Report, Tas 9.2 of the Solid Waste Management Unit
Investigation Plan, Agricultural Products Department, Mobile
Chemical Plant, Axis, Alabama.
WDCR426/019.50
10
-------
-------
CASE STUDY 5
Emerson Electric Company
Altamonte Springs, Florida
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
This case study summarizes the remediation efforts at the
Emerson Electric Company site in Altamonte Springs, Florida.
The site is in Seminole County in central Florida near the
city of Orlando. The Electronic and Space Division of Emer-
son Electric operated an electrical component manufacturing
and assembly plant at this site from January 25, 1979, to
the mid-1980s. The site is bordered on the south by a
swampy area and on the north and west by a light industrial
park (see Figure 1). Some construction debris was buried
south of the site prior to 1979. From January 1980 to
November 1981, wastewater from metal filming operations was
discharged to a septic tank and tile drain on the southeast
side of the main building. Contained in this discharge were
chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents, xylene, ketones,
and other contaminants.
In response to ground-water contamination discovered during
the site investigation, a remediation system consisting of
five extraction wells was operated from December 1984 to
June 1987. The concentrations of the contaminants in
composite samples taken from the extraction system declined
to below goal concentrations during this period. As a
result, remediation of this site was considered complete and
the site was removed from the State Action Site list. The
Emerson Electric site has been administered by the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER).
SITE HISTORY /"
A possible contamination problem at Emerson Electric was
first discovered during an October 20, 1981, site inspection
by representatives of the FDER. The inspectors found that
wastewater from metal filming operations was being
discharged to a septic tank without pre-treatment. On
October 21, 1981, the FDER directed Emerson Electric to
develop treatment and disposal systems and to study ground-
water conditions at the site. Emerson Electric stopped the
wastewater discharge on November 17, 1981.
In March 1982, Environmental Science and Engineering (ESE),
the consultant hired by Emerson Electric, conducted an elec-
trical conductivity survey to detect possible zones of con-
tamination. Despite interference from buried metal debris,
an area of high conductivity indicative of contamination was
detected southwest of the main building (see Figure 2). In
August 1982, two deep (100 feet) and four shallow (50 feet)
-------
monitoring wells were installed to define the contamination
(see Figure 3). Ground water from these wells was sampled
and analyzed weekly for 4 weeks following well installation.
The two wells north of the plant were grouted and abandoned
between mid-September and mid-November 1982.
In mid-September 1982, 30 soil samples were collected south
of the plant to detect possible chromium contamination
caused by buried paint filters. The paint filters were
encountered during drilling and subsequent analyses using EP
toxicity procedures showed that the soil was contaminated
with up to 2,480 micrograms per liter of dissolved chromium.
On November 2, 1982, the buried paint filters containing
leachable chromium were excavated by ESE. In May 1983,
sludge from the septic tank was also removed.
On February 1, 1984, ESE presented a remedial action plan
for the site to the FDER. This plan was based on the field
investigations conducted by ESE and analyses of the six
monitoring wells. The plan included installation of four
extraction wells in the zone of maximum contamination near
well ES4 and extraction of ground water at a combined rate
of approximately 30 gallons per minute (gpm). The plan
called for the extracted ground water to be discharged
directly to the community sanitary sewer system and then to
be treated by the Altamonte Springs wastewater treatment
plant.
It was projected by ESE that contamination would be reduced
to below health-based levels in less than 9 months (ESE,
1984a). A consent order issued by the State of Florida on
October 21, 1984, required Emerson Electric to deliver the
completed remediation system to the FDER and to pay the FDER
and the Altamonte Springs treatment plant the costs associ-
ated with operating and maintaining the system for 9 months
(ESE, 1984a). After complying with the consent order, Emer-
son Electric was to be released of legal responsibility for
the contamination. Emerson Electric delivered the completed
system to the FDER on December 14, 1984, and made the
required payments, releasing it of further responsibility.
The system began operating in December 1984.
The system was operated by the FDER from December 1984 until
the system was shut off in June 1987. Based on the contami-
nant concentrations found in ground-water samples taken in
September 1987 and May 1988, the site was deleted from the
State Action Site list in January 1989 at the recommendation
of the FDER.
-------
GEOLOGY
The Emerson Electric site is in an area characterized by
sand hills and many lakes. This site was once a swampy area
but was filled in with 2 to 10 feet of sandy fill material
and construction debris prior to the arrival of Emerson
Electric in 1979 (see Figure 4). Underlying this fill are
20 to 50 feet of unconsolidated sand. It is this sand layer
that is contaminated. Underlying the sand, is the Hawthorne
Formation, a layer of interbedded clay and sandy phosphatic
limestone with a thickness of 20 to 60 feet. The top of the
Hawthorne Formation is 20 to 60 feet below land surface.
Underlying the Hawthorne Formation is the Ocala Limestone,
which is the upper unit of the Floridan aquifer, an impor-
tant water producer in this area. The Ocala Limestone is
cavernous regionally but appears to be solid at the two
deep-well locations at this site.
HYDROGEOLOGY
The shallow sand layer is an unconfined water table aquifer.
The depth to water in this shallow aquifer was 0.56 to
2.98 feet below land surface at the four monitoring-well
locations in August and September 1982. Figure 5 shows the
potentiometric surface of the shallow aquifer as measured on
September 2, 1982, from the four fully-screened, shallow,
monitoring wells. The flow in the shallow aquifer is to the
southwest. The hydraulic conductivity of the shallow
aquifer as estimated using slug tests conducted in August
1982, is 2.35 x 10'5 ft/sec. The horizontal ground-water
flow velocity in August 1982 was estimated by ESE to be
5.15 ft/year (ESE, 1982b). However, the horizontal ground-
water velocity appears to the authors of this case study to
be approximately 25 ft/year based on the above conductivity,
an assumed porosity of 30 percent, and a horizontal gradient
of 0.01 ft/ft taken from the potentiometric surface map.
The deep Floridan aquifer is typically confined by the Haw-
thorne Formation in this region. However, according to the
USGS, this site is within an area where the Floridan aquifer
receives over 10 inches of recharge per year. Figure 6
shows the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer on
September 2, 1982. The water level in the aquifer was from
31.0 to 35.4 feet below land surface in August and September
1982. Flow in the Floridan aquifer was to the south-
southwest during this period. No vertical flow rates were
reported but comparison of the two potentiometric surface
maps shows that there is a head difference of approximately
30 feet across the 40- to 50-foot thickness of the confining
layer. ESE concluded that flow in the surficial aquifer is
predominantly downward rather than horizontal (ESE, 1982a),
-------
but comparison of horizontal and vertical flow rates
supports the opposite conclusion.
The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the Floridan
aquifer, as measured by August 1982 slug tests, was 3.25 x
1045 ft/sec. This conductivity value seems very low compared
to regional values for the Upper Floridan, possibly because
the upper 20 feet of the Floridan consists of solid
limestone and some clay and because slug tests provide very
localized measurements. The velocity of ground-water
movement in the Floridan aquifer in August 1982 was
estimated by ESE to be 0.4 ft/year (ESE, 1982b). However,
the ground-water velocity appears to the authors of this
case study to be approximately 3.4 ft/year based on the
above conductivity, an assumed porosity of 30 percent, and a
horizontal gradient of 0.01 ft/ft, as shown in Figure 6.
The vertical hydraulic conductivity of ;the Hawthorne
Formation ranged from 2.0 x 10-8 cm/sec to 7.1 x 10^ cm/sec
based on falling head permeameter tests of cores taken from
wells EDI and ED2.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
Two potential sources of contamination at the site are
buried construction debris and the wastewater discharged
through the plant's septic system. The construction debris
was buried in unknown locations south of the plant prior to
1979. The wastewater was discharged to drain fields in the
southeast part of the plant. The estimated volume of
wastewater released to the septic system from January 25,
1980, to November 17, 1981, was 34,650 gallons (ESE, 1983).
The main contaminants of concern at the Emerson Electric
site are acetone, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl
ketone (MIBK), toluene, 1,1-dichloroethylene (DCE),
1,1-dichloroethane (DCA), 1,1,1-trichloroethylene (TCE),
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), benzene, and chromium. The
concentrations of contaminants observed in early September
1982 in the four shallow monitoring wells are shown in
Figure 7. The highest concentrations of contaminants were
observed in well ES4 rather than in ESI, the well adjacent
to the drain fields.
The consultants hired by Emerson Electric concluded that
Emerson Electric could not have been the cause of the
contamination found in the area of well ES4. The consultant
came to this conclusion because of the lower concentrations
of contaminants in well ESI and because the contaminants
could not have migrated in the sand aquifer from the drain
field to well ES4 in 2-1/2 years (January 1980 to August
1982) at the estimated ground-water velocity of
-------
5.15 ft/year. Even at the higher flow velocity of
25 ft/year estimated by the authors of this case study,
contaminant migration between these two points is not likely
in only 2-1/2 years. Well ES4 is directly downgradient from
the drain field judging from gradients shown in Figure 5,
however. ESE reported that the contamination was probably
the result of a single release of approximately 500 gallons
of mixed solvents between 1975 and 1978, before Emerson
Electric began operations at the site. The buried debris at
the site may also have contributed to contamination. The
true source of the observed contamination is uncertain.
The contamination in the Floridan aquifer is at much lower
concentrations than the contamination in the surficial aqui-
fer. Figure 8 shows the analyses of samples taken from the
two deep wells in early September 1982. Wells EDI and ED2
appear to be contaminated with chromium and toluene at low
concentrations. Well EDI also had low concentrations of DCA
but all other contaminants were below detection limits.
There are no public or private drinking-water wells within
2,000 feet of the site.
The spatial distribution of contamination at the Emerson
Electric site has not been well characterized. The six
monitoring wells installed in August 1982 are the only
measurement points that have been used to assess the extent
and degree of contamination. Because all six wells
exhibited some degree of contamination in September 1982,
the contaminant plume must have extended outward from the
area delineated by the six wells and, therefore, its lateral
extent was unknown.
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
The objective of the remediation was to reduce the
concentration of contaminants at the site to below regulated
levels. Progress towards this objective was judged solely
on the basis of ground water removed by the extraction
system near well ES4. The extraction system consisted of
well ES4 and four new wells, each pumped at 6 gpm for a
total system pumping rate of 30 gpm (see Figure 9). Each
well was installed in the surficial aquifer to approximately
50 feet and was screened over the bottom 40 feet. Water
extracted by the system was pumped directly into the
municipal sanitary sewer network. This water was eventually
treated by the Altamonte Springs water treatment plant using
normal municipal wastewater treatment methods.
-------
The location of the four additional wells was chosen based
on computer modeling of the hydraulic influence of various
options. The configuration with the shortest average travel
time to the well network from a set of 18 test points was
chosen. Figure 10 shows the water levels simulated by
modeling the actual extraction well network at an extraction
rate of 6 gpm per well. ESE estimated that all contaminant
concentrations except those for toluene and ethyl benzene
would be reduced to below detection level by extracting
eight to nine pore volumes of contaminated ground water.
Toluene and ethyl benzene were projected to be reduced to
less than 10 percent of the federal regulated standard after
nine pore volumes were extracted (ESE, 1984a). At 30 gpm,
this volume could be removed in approximately 7 months (ESE,
1984b). This time estimate was the basis for the operation
and maintenance payment by Emerson Electric to the FDER and
the Altamonte Springs wastewater treatment plant.
The extraction system was monitored by taking composite sam-
ples of the water extracted by the five extraction wells
from January 1985 to September 1987. In addition, three of
the five wells were sampled individually in May 1988. All
contaminants in the three wells were found to be below
detection limits. The results of the analyses and the
standards chosen for the site are shown in Table 1.
Concentration data for monitoring wells'ESI, ESS, and EDI
were not reported.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
Little information is available to assess the performance of
the remediation system. The effect of remedial pumping on
the water levels near the extraction system was not
reported. The modeling results shown in Figure 9 are a
steady state simulation of the effect of pumping but no
actual field measurments of water-level results are
available.
Figure 11 is a time series plot of the concentration of the
volatile organic compounds TCA, DCA, and DCE. The plot
shows steady decreases in concentrations of TCA and DCA,
although both compounds were below their respective
standards of 200 parts per billion (ppb) and 810 ppb for the
duration of remediation. The concentration of DCE also
declined but consistently exceeded the standard of 7 ppb
during the first 1-1/2 years of operation.
Figure 12 is a time series plot of xylenes, methyl ethyl ke-
tone (MEK), and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK). The concen-
tration of xylenes increased sharply after the startup of
remediation but then declined sharply from March to April
-------
1985 and declined steadily from April 1985 to June 1987.
The concentration of xylenes exceeded the proposed maximum
contaminant level (MCLG) of 440 ppb once during the sampling
period. The concentration of MEK was above the established
standard of 172 ppb for all but two of the sampling events
during the first year of operation, but declined to below
10 ppb by May 1988. The concentration of MIBK was variable
during most of the period of remediation but declined to
below detection by October 1986. No goal concentration was
established for MIBK. No estimate of the mass of contami-
nants removed by the extraction system was reported. How-
ever, calculations based on a time-averaged pumping rate of
31 gpm show that approximately 4.0 kg of TCA, 3.8 kg of DCE,
and 32 kg of MEK were removed before these contaminants were
reduced to below detection limits by the remediation system.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
The surficial sand aquifer in an area adjacent to the
Emerson Electric plant was contaminated with volatile
organic solvents, ketones, and xylene. The lower Floridan
aquifer also appears to be contaminated, although
contaminant concentrations are low. The source of the
contamination is open to question but Emerson Electric is
known to have discharged wastewater containing many of these
contaminants from January 1980 to November 1981. The
ground-water contamination was first measured directly in
August 1982.
A remediation system consisting of five extraction wells was
operated from December 1984 to June 1987. ESE, the consul-
tant hired by Emerson Electric, projected that this system
would clean up the aquifer to below detection limits for
almost all contaminants within 9 months. The actual time
required to reduce the contaminant concentrations to the
projected levels ranged from 11 months for toluene to
33 months for DCE and DCA. Most contaminants were reduced
to below detection limits after 20 to 22 months of
remediation. Remediation may have taken longer than
projected because of unanticipated retardation effects and
because the mass inventory and persistence of the source
were underestimated. Because the composite concentration of
contaminants extracted by the system declined over the
period of remediation to below established standards for all
contaminants and two rounds of post-termination monitoring
showed no exceedance of the standards, the FDER removed the
site from the State Action Site list in January 1989.
However, it is difficult to judge the completeness of
aquifer restoration because performance monitoring has been
limited to samples taken from the extraction wells.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. May 1982(a).
Emerson E&S Division--Orlando, Hydrogeological Data Review
and Geophysical Survey for Miller Street Facility. ESE No.
82-206-200.
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. November
1982(b). Contamination Assessment at the Miller Street
Facility. ESE No. 82-206-300.
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. May 1983.
Wastewater and Hazardous Waste Audit of the Emerson Miller
Street Facility.
Environmental Science and Engineering,:Inc. February
1984(a). Effectiveness of Proposed Remedial Action. ESE
No. 83-218-0200.
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. July 1984(b).
Engineering Report for Ground Water Cleanup System for
Miller Street Facility. ESE No. 83-218-0700.
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. January 1985.
Miller Street Facility Cleanup System, Altamonte Springs,
Florida.
State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
October 1984. Consent Order vs. Emerson Electric Co., OGC
File No. 83-0241.
WDCR421/073.50
8
-------
-------
CASE STUDY 6
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
San Jose, California
-------
CASE STUDY FOR FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
This case study summarizes the remediation of ground-water
contamination at the Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
Plant (Fairchild) in San Jose, California (Figure 1).
Manufacturing operations were conducted at the Fairchild
facility which required the use, handling, repackaging, and
storage of industrial solvents including xylenes, acetone,
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), isopropyl alcohol (IPA), and
1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon-113).
Fairchild ceased manufacturing activities at this facility
in October 1983. The site is currently owned by
Schlumberger Technology Corporation (Schlumberger) which is
the former parent corporation of Fairchild. Schlumberger
has entered into a contract to sell the property to the Koll
Company which has plans to develop the property as a
shopping center. The objectives of the remediations were
aquifer restoration and plume containment.
SITE HISTORY
On November 25, 1981, Fairchild discovered chemical residues
in the ground water at the plant. On December 4, 1981,
Fairchild determined that an underground waste solvent
storage tank had leaked causing the release of organic
solvents to the soil and ground water. In response to this
discovery, the tank was taken out of service and Fairchild
expanded its investigation to determine the extent and
degree of contamination in the soil and ground water.
On January 16, 1982, Fairchild began pumping ground water
from a water supply well to aid in the offsite hydraulic
control of the contaminated ground water. An onsite ground-
water recovery program was also initiated in 1982. Since
the beginning of the investigation, Fairchild has installed
124 wells in the site area. Of these, 40 were recovery
wells. A slurry wall was constructed in 1986 around the
periphery of the Fairchild property to the bottom of the
second uppermost aquifer to facilitate the remediation (see
Figure 2). All of these activities are considered interim
responses (IRMs) to the problem. A Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) for the final remedial program was prepared in October
1988.
-------
GEOLOGY
The Fairchild facility is located within a hydrologic area
designated as the South Bay Drainage Unit by the California
Department of Water Resources. This unit consists of a
broad, alluvial valley sloping northward into the nearby San
Francisco Bay.
The Fairchild site is in the southern Santa Clara Valley in
a subarea of the South Bay Drainage Unit known as the Santa
Teresa Plain. The Santa Clara Valley was created by
tectonic activity and remains tectonically active. The
valley floor is underlain by Quaternary alluvium consisting
of unconsolidated clays, silts, sands, and gravels. The
alluvium is approximately 400 feet thick near the center of
the basin and 330 to 360 feet in the study area.
The Santa Teresa Plain is bounded by bedrock outcrops in the
surrounding highlands. This bedrock also underlies the
Quaternary alluvium at depth within the valley. The bedrock
is relatively impermeable compared to the Quaternary
alluvium and no significant bedrock aquifers are known to
exist within the study area.
HYDROGEOLOGY
Sand and gravel layers interbedded with silt and silty clay
layers combine to form four distinct aquifer systems in the
alluvial formation. These are referred to as the A, B, C,
and D aquifers, in order of increasing depth. The aquifers
are separated by silt and silty clay aquitards which range
from several feet to approximately 60 feet thick. At some
locations in the study area, the aquifers merge or are
absent (see Figure 3).
The A aquifer consists of alluvial sands and gravels. It
ranges from 15 to 40 feet thick, and is first encountered at
depths of 10 to 20 feet below the ground surface. The A
aquifer is not continuous offsite and is currently generally
dry onsite because of the ongoing remediation. In several
locations across the study area, there is no evidence of the
existence of the A aquifer. The aquitard between the A and
B aquifers is from 5 to 30 feet thick and consists of clay,
silty clay, and clayey silt with occasional interbedded sand
lenses. This aquitard generally separates the shallow
A aquifer from the B aquifer, however, the A and B aquifers
are naturally interconnected onsite in the vicinity of the
former leaking waste solvent tank.
-------
The B aquifer consists of dense to very dense sands and
gravels which are generally located between the depths of
60 and 120 feet below ground surface. The aquitard between
the B and C aquifers is up to 60 feet thick and is contin-
uous across the site. In general, it effectively separates
the two aquifers.
The C aquifer also consists of dense to very dense sands and
gravels. It is areally extensive and is generally found
between 150 to 190 feet below ground surface. The B and
C aquifers are a primary source of ground water for
agricultural and domestic purposes in this area.
The D aquifer is discontinuous, is not areally extensive,
and is not a major source of ground water in the site area.
The D aquifer also consists of very dense sands and gravels,
but generally contains a higher percentage of fine-grained
material than do the other aquifers. The D aquifer is
located between 220 and 270 feet below ground surface.
Seasonal variations in ground-water levels are typical in
the site area, with the low water levels usually occurring
between August and December. Water level data obtained in
April 1982 indicate that ground-water flow in the B aquifer
was in a northwest direction at a gradient of approximately
0.0016 ft/ft onsite and 0.0020 ft/ft offsite. The B aquifer
was confined in early 1982 at the beginning of the remedia-
tion program. Downward gradients between the B and C
aquifers ranged from 0.063 ft/ft to 0.16 ft/ft in 1982.
The ground-water flow in the C aquifer was in a west to
northwest direction in April 1982 with a gradient of
approximately 0.0006 ft/ft. The C and D aquifers were also
confined in early 1982. The net vertical gradient between
the D and C aquifers was approximately zero in early 1982
indicating little or no vertical flow. Vertical gradients
through the C-D aquitard were upward from the D aquifer to
the C aquifer in 1987.
The transmissivities of the B aquifer determined from
aquifer tests ranged from 69,000 gpd/ft to over 800,000
gpd/ft. The average hydraulic conductivity of the B aquifer
was computed to be 0.33 cm/sec. Transmissivities of
approximately 140,000 gpd/ft for the C aquifer, and from
265,000 gpd/ft to 312,000 gpd/ft for the combined C and
D aquifers were also determined from aquifer tests.
-------
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
The initial chemical distribution at the Fairchild facility
was defined as the distribution that existed on October 31,
1982. Seven indicator chemicals were selected to define the
boundaries of the ground-water contamination in order to
formulate interim and final f'emedial measures. The seven
compounds were TCA, 1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE), acetone,
IPA, xylenes, Freon-113, and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). The
cleanup levels for the site have been specified by the EPA
as:
TCA
Xylenes
Acetone
IPA
Freon-113
1,1-DCE
PCE
200 ppb
620 ppb
3,500 ppb
450 ppb
18,000 ppb
6 ppb
2 ppb
The highest concentrations of solvents in onsite ground
water were detected prior to November 1982 in the A aquifer
wells located within 50 feet of the former leaking waste
solvent tank. Maximum concentrations detected were as high
as 1,900,000 ppb for TCA, 76,000,000 ppb for xylenes,
99,000,000 ppb for acetone, 45,000,000 ppb for IPA,
45,000 ppb for Freon-113, and 53,000 ppb for 1,1-DCE.
Because several of these concentrations are higher than the
compounds' solubilities, it can be concluded that the
compounds were present in the non-aqueous phase in
aquifer A. One well drilled offsite to the same depth as
aquifer A in November 1982 was found to;be contaminated wi£h
0.3 ppb of TCA. No other compounds were detected. Because
the A aquifer is not continuous offsite, it is unlikely that
any hydrologic connection exists between this offsite
permeable zone and the onsite A aquifer.
The highest concentrations detected in onsite B aquifer
wells were measured in 1982 and were 670,000 ppb for TCA,
6,400 ppb for 1,1-DCE, and 7,200 for Freon-113. Prior to
October 1982, offsite B aquifer wells contained concentra-
tions of TCA ranging from below detection limits to greater
than 1,000 ppb. The highest initial 1,1-DCE concentrations
offsite ranged from 47 to 83 ppb. Freon-li3 was detected in
offsite B aquifer wells at concentrations up to 15 ppb prior
to October 1982. Aquifer B concentration contours of TCA,
and 1,1-DCE based on the 1982 data are shown by the dashed
lines in Figure 4 and 5, respectively.
-------
TCA was the only contaminant detected in .onsite wells
screened in the C aquifer. The concentrations of TCA in
onsite wells were below 7 ppb. No TCA has been detected in
the onsite C aquifer since October 1982. Prior to October
1982, offsite TCA concentrations in aquifer C exceeded
1,000 ppb locally. The maximum concentrations of 1,1-DCE
and Freon-113 in offsite wells were 3 ppb and 7.1 ppb,
respectively. A contour map of C aquifer TCA concentration
is shown in Figure 6.
There were no wells completed in the D aquifer onsite. Two
wells were completed in the D aquifer offsite. As a result
of cross contamination of the well during drilling, instal-
lation, and development, IPA and acetone were detected in
these wells. The concentrations were reduced to below
detection by February 1983. TCA has been detected
intermittently with concentrations generally below 1 ppb.
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
Following the detection of contamination in the ground water
beneath the facility, Fairchild implemented a series of
interim remedial measures (IRMs). The onsite IRMs included
soil removal, ground-water extraction and treatment, a
flushing program in the A aquifer, a potential conduit well
investigation and well sealing program, installation of a
slurry cutoff wall, and an in-situ soil aeration pilot
study. Offsite IRMs included ground-water extraction and
treatment, and a potential conduit well investigation and
sealing program. In October 1988, Fairchild completed the
Remedial Action Plan for the final remedy at the site.
Objectives of Remediation
The overall objectives of both the ongoing IRMs and the
final remedial actions are to protect the environment and
public health. The specific objectives of the IRMs were to:
o Reduce the volume of chemical residues in onsite
soil
o Prevent additional migration of chemical residues
from the source area
o Prevent further migration of contaminated ground
water
-------
o Reduce the extent of contamination in the ground
water
System Configuration
During the interim remedial program, Fairchild installed a
total of 124 ground-water observation and recovery wells at
the site as shown in Figure 2. The letter "A" through "D"
following the well number indicates the aquifer in which the
well was completed. The letter "M" identifies existing
wells screened in multiple aquifers.
There are 40 recovery wells in the system but 4 of these
were never activated because hydraulic control was achieved
and maintained without pumping these wells. Eight recovery
wells were completed in the A aquifer and 14 wells each were
completed in the B and C aquifers. In addition, one well
was completed in both the A and B aquifers and three
existing water supply wells were completed in multiple
aquifers. Some of the remaining 36 recovery wells were only
pumped for certain periods of time. As of December 30,
1988, there was one active well operating in the onsite
ground-water extraction program and 5 in the offsite
program. The recovery wells are monitored weekly for
pumping rates and sampled biweekly for chemical analysis.
The ground-water extraction and treatment program was
initiated in January 16, 1982 with the pumping of
approximately 1,260 gpm from well GO-13(M). By November
1982, approximately 5,000 gpm were being extracted. The
pumping rate increased steadily until January 1983 when
approximately 9,200 gpm were being extracted. Since January
1983, the total flow rate has been gradually and steadily
reduced; as of December 1987, the rate was approximately
2,100 gpm. The periods of operation of some of the
extraction wells are shown in Table 1.
The pumped ground water was treated either by air stripping
or granular activated carbon before being discharged to
Canoas Creek via the City of San Jose storm sever system.
Design Decisions
The slurry wall was installed through the entire thickness
of the A and B aquifers to contain the areas of extremely
high concentration of contaminants that initially existed at
the Fairchild plant. This allowed the pumps operating
within the slurry wall to dewater this isolated area by
extracting only the water within the boundaries of the
slurry wall rather than drawing from a larger, less
contaminated, area. This isolation caused onsite ground-
-------
water gradients to be steeper and contaminant withdrawal
rates to be quicker than if the slurry wall had not been
installed.
Well Number
Table 1
WELLS PUMPED IN GROUND-WATER EXTRACTION PROGRAM
Location
RW-l(A.B)
RW-2(B)
RW-3(C)
RW-4(C)
RW-5(C)
RW-7(C)
RW-9(C)
RW-12(B)
RW-14(B)
RW-16(A)
RW-19(B)
RW-20(B)
RW-22(B)
RW-23(A)
RW-25(B)
RW-27(B)
WCC-l(B)
WCC-2(B)
WCC-IO(A)
WCC-12(A)
WCC-18(C)
WCC-20(B)
WCC-32(C)
WCC-41(\)
GO-13(M)
17N1(C)
17L4(B)
17N11(M)
18 Jl (M)
* Well
On-Site
Off -Site
Off -Site
Off-Site
Off -Site
Off -Site
Off -Site
Off -Site
Off -Site
On-Site
Off -Site
Off-Site
Off -Site
On-Site
Off -Site
Off -Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
Off -Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
Off -Site
Off -Site
Off -Site
Off -Site
Off -Site
remains active in ground-water
** Private well, not available.
*** Well
pumps
11-04-82
12-10-82
12-10-82
11-29-82
11-30-82
11-18-82
01-05-83
04-14-83
11-10-83
01-24-83
07-19-83
04-12-84
02-10-84
02-22-84
06-27-84
10-30-87
04-25-84
04-30-84
05-11-84
10-21-82
05-04-82
12-83
05-18-82
01-19-82
NA**
NA
NA
NA
NA
extraction program as of 12-30-88
RW-23(A) was modified for the in-situ soil aeration pilot study
intermittently. Well RW-23(A)
was most recently active in the
03-15-86
*
05-02-88
05-02-83
06-27-88
12-01-82
09-06-88
07-22-83
10-23-84
01-13-84
*
10-26-87
*
***
*
*
09-01-87
07-30-87
12-20-84
12-20-84
10-13-84
*
09-12-84
01-13-84
09-29-86
04-22-83
10-03-84
07-10-87
07-03-84
and currently
ground -water
extraction program in November 1984.
Aquifer testing was conducted to aid in the design and
evaluation of the hydraulic control system and other
remedial actions. These aquifer test results and other data
were used to select recovery well locations. The recovery
well locations appear to have been chosen to be dispersed
throughout the initial contaminant plume in a line running
west northwest of the Fairchild plant. Most wells were
installed in the B and C aquifers. There is also a line of
recovery/observation wells installed parallel to San Ignacio
Avenue between Santa Teresa Boulevard and Via de Oro. This
line of wells may have been installed to prevent further
westward migration of the plume. The pump rates seem to
-------
have been chosen to create a zone of hydraulic capture large
enough to include the entire plume. As the plume size
decreased, wells were removed from service as detailed in
Table 1 and the total pumpage decreased as a result. Three
of the six operating wells shown in Table 1 are within the
December 1988 10 ppb TCA plume.
Observation wells were installed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the IRMs. Water levels in the observation
wells were measured on a monthly basis, and the observation
wells were sampled and analyzed for contaminants biweekly,
monthly, and quarterly.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
Implementation of the IRMs at the Fairchild facility appear
to have changed the ground-water flow patterns. Ground-
water pumping operations lowered the water levels in the A,
B, and C aquifers, and created cones or troughs of depres-
sion around the pumping recovery wells. These cones of
depression appear to be creating flow patterns that will
eventually capture most of the contaminant plume. Although
some stagnation areas are evident, the remediation system
seems to be hydraulically successful. A potentiometric
surface map of the B aquifer based on water level data
collected in December 1987 and December 1988, is shown in
Figure 7. It shows a trough in the potentiometric surface
that plunges to the northwest. Ground-water flow directions
are locally inward towards the trough in the potentiometric
surface. There is also evidence that pumping has affected
the potentiometric surface in aquifer C west of the
Fairchild facility (see Figure 8).
The A aquifer was dewatered in most onsite areas by early
1984. The slurry cutoff wall, constructed by mid-1986,
removed the potential for Coyote Creek and the Santa Clara
Valley Water District percolation ponds to resaturate the
A and B aquifers within the onsite area. The B aquifer
system has changed from a confined condition to an
unconfined condition and water levels have declined 23 to
38 feet below the April 1982 levels. Water levels in the
C aquifer have declined approximately 40 feet below initial
levels, but the aquifer remains confined. Vertical
gradients in December 1988 were upward from the D aquifer to
the C aquifer.
8
-------
Direct evidence of a reduction in contaminant concentrations
in all three aquifers is provided by water quality data.
Maps of contaminant contours, time series plots for
individual wells, and a comparison of maximum concentration
at the site in 1982 and 1987 as shown in Table 2, all
suggest progress in restoration of the aquifer system.
Table 2
MAXIMUM SITE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUND WATER
1982 VERSUS 1987
1982 Maximum Chemical Concentrations
1987 Maximum Chemical Concentrations
Chemical
TCA
Xylene
Acetone
IPA
Freon-113
1,1 -DCE
PCE
Concentration
(ppb)
1,900,000
76,000,000
99,000,000
45,000,000
46,000
53,000
2,700
Well
Number
WCC-4KA)
WCC-4KA)
WCC-4KA)
WCC-4KA)
WCC-4KA)
WCC-4KA)
WCC-4KA)
Date
06/23/82
06/21/82
06/15/8'2
06/10/82
10/12/82
08/02/82
03/10/83*
*Ground water was not tested for PCE in 1982.
Concentration
(ppb)
100,000
16,000
88,000
5,700
12.0
14,000
330
Well
Number
WCC-17(B)
WCC-17CB)
WCC-ll(B)
WCC-17(B)
WCC-20(B)
WCC-17(B)
WCC-17CB)
Date
05/13/87
05/13/87
07/08/87
05/13/87
01/22/87
05/13/87
04/27/87
Because well WCC-41(A) became dewatered and was last sampled
in 1984, a direct comparison of 1982 and 1987 concentrations
in WCC-41(A) is not possible. It should be noted, however,
that the inability to take a ground-water sample because of
aquifer dewatering does not indicate that the aquifer has
been restored in the dewatered zone. Some contamination has
been retained by the solid phase of the aquifer, and this
residual contamination could recontaminate the ground water
once the aquifer is resaturated. However, the application
of in situ aeration to the A aquifer and the A~B aquitard
has substantially decreased the level of chemical residues
remaining in the dewatered zone.
i
Only three wells in the A aquifer have been sampled since
February 1986 because of aquifer dewatering. Two of the
wells, 82(A) and WCC-4(A), are immediately outside of the
slurry cutoff wall near the northeast and southwest corners.
TCA was detected in 82(A) well at a concentration of 0.7 ppb
in September 1987, versus 24.0 ppb in October 1984. The
concentration of TCA in well WCC-4(A) was 4.0 ppb in April
-------
1982. No contaminants were detected when WCC-4(A) was last
sampled in September 1986. The third well, 23(A), located
approximately 100 feet downgradient of the former leaking
waste solvent tank within the slurry wall contained 54 ppb
TCA and 46 ppb 1,1-DCE in September 1987. These concentra-
tions were lower than those found in the same well four
months earlier.
Because well WCC-41(A) became dewatered and was last sampled
in 1984, a direct comparison of 1982 and 1987 concentrations
in WCC-41(A) is not possible.
TCA concentrations at the onsite B aquifer well locations
have decreased from a maximum of 670,000 ppb in 1982 to a
maximum of 220 ppb in 1987, a decrease of about three orders
of magnitude since remediation began. As of December 1987,
TCA concentrations in offsite B aquifer wells were less than
100 ppb, compared to over 1,000 ppb before startup. The
contours of the December 1987 and December 1988 concentra-
tions for TCA at the site are shown in Figure 4 along with
1982 contours. These results show a substantial reduction
in the size and concentration of the contaminant plume in
the B aquifer when compared to the 1982 concentration
contours. :
Time series plots of TCA concentrations in aquifer B are
shown in Figures 9 through 12, in order of decreasing
distance from the Fairchild facility. These individual . ^-
results show substantial decreases iri point concentrations
of TCA that support the general observation of plume
reduction. Well RW-14 (Figure 9) is a 10-inch pumping well
located northwest of the intersection of San Ignacio Ave.
and Santa Teresa Blvd. (see Figure 4). The concentration of
TCA in well RW-14 declined to below detection limits by
early 1985 from an initial concentration of about 9 ppb.
Well RW-2 (Figure 10) is a 16-inch pumping well located
within 100 feet of Via del Oro on the southwest side.
Figure 10 shows that TCA declined from an initial concentra-
tion of over 1,000 ppb in 1982 to a December 1988 concentra-
tion of about 10 ppb. A decline from over 1000 ppb in 1982
to less than 100 ppb in 1988 is shown in Figure 11 for
observation well 78, located about 600 feet southeast of
RW-2 along Via del Oro. Well WCC-02 (Figure 12) is a 6-inch
pumping well located west of the plant just inward of the
slurry wall boundary. The time series plot of well WCC-02
10
-------
shows peaks in TCA concentration exceeding 3000 ppb in 1982
and 1985, each followed by a decline to under 300 ppb. The
reason for the second peak is unclear.
The concentration of 1,1-DCE in onsite B aquifer wells
decreased from a maximum of 6,400 ppb to a maximum of
300 ppb from 1982 to 1987. The concentration of 1,1-DCE
declined to less than 10 ppb for all offsite wells by
December 1987 (see Figure 5). Freon-113 decreased from
7,200 ppb to 7 ppb in onsite wells and is no longer detected
in offsite B aquifer wells.
In aquifer C, concentrations of TCA decreased from over
1000 ppb in 1982 to less than 5 ppb in December 1987 (see
Figure 6). A time series plot of TCA concentration in
observation well 80 completed in the C aquifer west of the
intersection of Via del Oro and Great Oaks Blvd. is shown in
Figure 13. Concentrations of 1,1-DCE decreased from about
3 ppb in 1982 to below detection levels by 1988. Freon-113
decreased from 7.1 ppb to below detection levels from 1982
to 1987.
Further evidence of the progress of aquifer restoration at
the site is shown in Figure 14, a graph of the change in
contaminant inventory from 1982 to mid-1987. The total mass
of TCA, acetone, IPA, and xylene removed from the subsurface
as a result of ground-water extraction from January 1982
through May 1987 for all wells in the system was approxi-
mately 90,000 pounds. The total mass of TCA removed and the
total volume of ground water extracted from all wells is
shown in Figure 15. The initial mass of contaminants
present in the aquifer system was not estimated, so an
assessment of the percent reduction in contaminant inventory
cannot be made.
! !
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
The interim remedial measures implemented at the Fairchild
site are summarized as follows:
o There are four aquifers beneath the Fairchild site
identified as aquifers A, B, C, and D. Aquifers
A, B, and C were contaminated with organic
solvents before remediation began.
11
-------
A slurry wall was constructed in 1986 around the
periphery of the Fairchild property down to the
bottom of the B aquifer to isolate the area of
highest ground-water contamination. This was done
to extract contaminated ground water as
efficiently as possible by preventing the
extraction of clean recharge water originating
from nearby streams. As a result of the high
withdrawal rate, the A aquifer was dewatered
within the slurry wall area and ground-water
samples could no longer be collected from most
wells. It is important to remember that the
inability to take a sample should, not be equated
with cleanup. Once water levels are allowed to
rise back to their natural levels, any contami-
nants that remain sorbed to the solid phase could
recontaminate the ground water. The slurry wall
will probably have to be maintained for many years
to insure the effectiveness of its containment
ability.
Recovery wells were installed in the A, B, and C
aquifers. The first extraction well began pumping
on January 16, 1982.
Seven years of operation have substantially
reduced the concentration of contaminants in the
A, B, and C aquifers. Time series plots show that
chemical concentrations in the A, B, and C
aquifers have decreased by as much as three orders
of magnitude. The areal extent of the contaminant
plumes in all aquifers have been reduced
substantially. Almost 90,000 pounds of solvent
(TCA, IPA, acetone, and xylene) have been removed
from the subsurface.
12
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Canonie Environmental. October 1988. Revised Draft Report,
Remedial Action Plan, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation,
San Jose Facility.
WDCR08/005.50
13
-------
CASE STUDY 7
General Mills, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
-------
CASE STUDY FOR GENERAL MILLS SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The General Mills site is northeast of downtown Minneapolis
on Hennepin Avenue, approximately 1 mile northeast of the
Mississippi River (Figure 1). The disposal of solvents from
a General Mills research laboratory in a soil absorption pit
on the site resulted in the spread of hazardous chemicals,
predominantly volatile organic compounds (VOCs), to ground
water in two underlying aquifers. In accordance with a
Response Order by consent between General Mills and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MNPCA), ground-water
extraction was implemented in both aquifers to prevent
additional contaminant migration and to restore ground-water
quality to acceptable levels. The extraction system has
been in continuous operation since late 1985.
SITE HISTORY
General Mills owned and operated the site between 1930 and
1977 as a food research laboratory. In 1947, General Mills
began conducting chemical research at the facility in
addition to food research. Beginning about 1947 and until
about 1962, laboratory solvents from the research operation
were discharged to a disposal pit in the southeast corner of
the General Mills property. In August 1977, the property
was sold to Henkel Corporation, but under Minnesota law,
General Mills retained the responsibility for environmental
problems arising from its operations at the site.
In 1981, the MNPCA was notified of conditions at the s±teS~
At that time, General Mills was conducting an investigation
of the pit. Since then, General Mills, in consultation with
the MNPCA, has continued to investigate soil and water
contamination in the vicinity of the pit.
A Consent Order, specifying installation of a ground-water
extraction and treatment system, was signed in October 1984.
General Mills retained Barr Engineering as consultants for
the design and operation of the system. In January 1985,
Barr Engineering submitted a plan for the extraction and
treatment system. The system began operating in the fall of
1985 and has been in operation continuously since then,
except for brief shutdowns for maintenance and repair.
Yearly progress reports have been submitted to the MNPCA,
with the latest covering the year 1988.
-------
GEOLOGY
A generalized geologic column for the region is shown in
Figure 2. The subsurface materials at the site comprise 30
to 50 feet of unconsolidated alluvial and glacial deposits,
underlain by a thick sequence of sandstone, shale,
limestone, and dolomite.
A geologic cross-section of the alluvial and glacial
deposits in the site vicinity is shown on Figure 3. (The
location of the cross-section, A-A», is shown on Figure 4.)
The soils near the absorption pit consist of 2 to 8 feet of
fill over peat. The fill is mostly silty sand; however,
gravel, silty clay, ash, cinders, concrete, brick, and
organic soils are also present. The peat thickness ranges
from zero to 10 feet. The peat is underlain by 30 to
40 feet of fine-to-medium alluvial sand. Directly below the
site surface and to the south and west, the alluvial sand is
underlain by up to 10 feet of clay till.
The bedrock beneath the site consists of Cambrian and
Ordovician sedimentary rocks of marine origin. In order of
increasing depth, the formations of interest are the Decorah
Shale, the Platteville Limestone, the Glenwood Shale, and
the St. Peter Sandstone. The units underlying the St. Peter
Sandstone—the Prairie du Chien Group and the deeper
Cambrian sandstones—are not believed to have been
contaminated by the site.
HYDROGEOLOGY
As shown in Figure 2, the site is underlain by numerous
water-bearing formations. Only the upper four aquifers are
of direct concern to the General Mills aquifer remediation.
In order of increasing depth, these aquifers are the shallow
unconsolidated alluvial and glacial deposits, the Carimona
Member of the Plattevile Formation, the Magnolia Member of
the Platteville Formation, and the St. Peter Sandstone.
Ground water in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer, also
called the glacial drift aquifer, is unconfined and flows
southwest toward the Mississippi River. A profile of the
water table parallel to the direction of flow is shown in
Figure 3. Contours of the water table elevation in the
vicinity of the site in March 1984 are shown in Figure 4.
The hydraulic conductivity of the alluvial sand has been
estimated on the basis of grain-size analysis to be between
2 x 10'3 and 5 x 10'* centimeters per second (cm/s). An
aquifer test performed at well 109 resulted in a hydraulic
conductivity estimate of 2.4 x 10"3 cm/s.
-------
The glacial drift aquifer is separated from the underlying
bedrock aquifers by a layer of glacial till and by the
Decorah Shale, where present. These layers serve
hydraulically as aquitards. They impede, but do not
entirely prevent, the downward flow of ground water to the
lower aquifers. The natural piezometric head in the glacial
drift aquifer at the General Mills site is about 10 feet
higher than the head in the underlying Carimona Member,
indicating the potential for downward flow.
The Carimona Member of the Platteville Formation is 3 to
4 feet thick in the vicinity of the site. It is composed of
micrite, an extremely fine-grained limestone. Regionally,
the Carimona Member has been found to be highly fractured
and weathered. Figure 5 shows the locations of monitoring
wells completed in this stratum and the water levels
measured in them during an aquifer test conducted in
well 108 in January 1984. The results of this aquifer test
were difficult to interpret, and no unambiguous estimate of
its transmissivity has been made. The aquifer test was
apparently used primarily to demonstrate the ability of
well 108 to produce drawdown over a considerable area.
The piezometric surface near the site in the Carimona
aquifer is relatively flat, with a possible trend toward
flow to the southeast. The Carimona Member is separated
from the underlying Magnolia Member of the Platteville
Formation by a very thin bentonite layer that retards
downward flow. The piezometric head in the Carimona Member
is generally 4 to 5 feet higher than in the Magnolia Member
in the vicinity of the site, indicating the potential for
downward flow.
j . ;
The Magnolia Member of the Platteville Formation is 8 to
9 feet thick near the General Mills site. Flow is toward
the northwest, driven by a horizontal component of hydraulic
gradient of about 1 foot in 300 feet (0.0033 ft/ft). The
hydraulic conductivity of this layer has not been reported.
Below ,the Magnolia Member lie alternating layers of shale,
limestone, and dolomite, which act as aquitard layers. The
total thickness of these three aquitard layers is 22 to
27 feet. The head difference between the Magnolia Member
and the underlying St. Peter Sandstone is approximately
55 feet in the area of the site, with flow in the downward
direction.
The St. Peter Sandstone is 150 to 170 feet thick. Flow in
this aquifer is to the southwest toward the Mississippi
River, with gradients of approximately 1 foot in 135 feet
(0.0074 ft/ft). The St. Peter Sandstone is used to a
limited extent for water supply, although it is considered a
low-yielding aquifer. The major water supply aquifers in
-------
area are ttie Prairie du Chien. and Jordan Sandstone
aquifers.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
The primary source of the ground-water contamination at the
site was a disposal pit located in the southeast corner of
the property. The pit is believed to have been constructed
from three perforated 55-gallon drums that were stacked on
top of one another and buried in the ground, with the bottom
of the deepest drum 10 to 12 feet below the ground surface.
Laboratory solvents from the chemical research facility were
routinely disposed of in the pit between 1947 and 1962. It
is estimated that about 1,000 gallons of waste per year may
have been poured into the pit.
Soil and ground-water sampling near the disposal pit
indicated that the subsurface was contaminated with a
variety of chlorinated organic solvents, including tri-
chloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (TCA), and various degradation products of
these compounds. Total VOC concentrations of up to 2,000
parts per million were found in the soils near the pits
(NMPCA, 1989). Benzene, toluene, and xylene were also found
but are not the compounds of major concern at the site. The
most prevalent compound in the ground water is TCE.
General Mills proposed to excavate approximately 1,200 cubic
yards of contaminated soil surrounding the disposal pit.
However, this proposal was rejected by the MNPCA, and the
contaminated soils remained in place after closure of the
pit (MNPCA, 1989).
Ground-water contamination has been detected both in the
shallow aquifer and in the Carimona bedrock.aquifer. The
maximum TCE concentrations that have been found in these
aquifers were 1,300 parts per billion (ppb) in the shallow
glacial drift aquifer (well 3) and 2,300 ppb in the Carimona
aquifer (well WW). The distribution of total VOCs in the
shallow aquifer in March 1984 is shown in Figure 4.
TCE has also been found in lower concentrations in the
Magnolia Member and the St. Peter Sandstone. The maximum
concentration found in the Magnolia was 440 ppb. TCE
concentrations of less than 100 ppb have been found in the
St. Peter Sandstone.
Based on the method of waste disposal at the site and the
high concentrations of VOCs found in the soil, the presence
of residual contamination in the form of nonaqueous phase
liquids (NAPLs) could be expected. Because the chlorinated
organic solvents are more dense than water, they would be
-------
expected to sink through the ground water and form pools in
the low areas of the underlying low conductivity layers, if
they were discharged to the pit in sufficient quantity.
However, there has apparently been no effort to detect the
presence of NAPLs at this site.
i
The adsorptive partitioning of contaminants between the soil
and the water in the vicinity of the disposal pit represents
another potentially important source of residual contamina-
tion. TCE has a soil-water distribution coefficient of 152
milliliters per gram and is considered a moderately mobile
compound (Fetter, 1988). In soil with an organic content of
0.3 percent, it would have a retardation coefficient of 4 to
6. The organic carbon content of the soils at the General
Mills site have not been reported. However, a peat layer up
to 10 feet thick has been reported below the surficial fill
materials at the site. Peat is almost totally organic, and
if it was present below the disposal pit it could have
adsorbed a large percentage of the contaminants and could
continue to release them slowly as leachate for a very long
time. No mention of contaminant adsorption appear in any of
the site documents that have been made available for review.
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
The remedial action was designed to minimize further migra-
tion of volatile organic hydrocarbons, particularly TCE, and
to improve the quality of the ground water in the shallow
aquifer and the Platteville Formation. To achieve this,
separate extraction systems were installed for each aquifer
system. '
Extraction in the Shallow Aquifer
The cleanup objective for the shallow aquifer is to reduce
the TCE concentrations of the ground water to less than
270 ppb and to minimize further downward migration of
contaminants. The containment objective of the system is to
prevent migration of ground water containing greater than
270 ppb of TCE.
Five extraction wells were installed to achieve the cleanup
and containment objectives for the shallow aquifers. The
locations and design capture zones are shown in Figure 6.
Wells 109 and 110 are in or near the source area. As such,
their primary purpose is aquifer restoration.
Wells 111, 112, and 113 are located farther dowagradient and
are intended to intercept the central part of the contamin-
-------
ant plume, where concentrations are higher than 270 ppb.
These wells are located just upgradient of a ridge in the
underlying till that partially restricts the southwest flow
in the glacial drift aquifer. This location was chosen
because the natural gradient is relatively low and the
saturated thickness of the glacial drift is great enough to
allow significant drawdowns to be developed in the extrac-
tion wells. The hydraulic conductivity derived from the
aquifer test was used in a two-dimensional analytic element
model to study the capture zones that could be produced by
these wells. It was estimated that pumping each well at
about 50 gallons per minute (gpm) would result in a capture
zone extending about 100 feet to either side of the well.
Extraction in the Carimona Aquifer
The cleanup objective for the Carimona aquifer is to reduce
the concentration of TCE in the ground water to less than
27 ppb.
The extraction system consists of one well (108), which is
open to the full thickness of the Carimona Member of the
Platteville Formation (798.8 to 802.3 feet above MSL). A
pumping test of this well demonstrated that a pumping rate
of 50 gpm would create a capture zone that extended beyond
the monitoring network.
The extraction system in thei Carimona Member is also
expected to induce upward leakage from the Magnolia Member
of the Platteville Formation, thus minimizing solvent
migration through the Magnolia Member.
Treatment System
Ground water removed from the source area extraction wells--
109 and 110 in shallow system and 108 in the bedrock
system—is treated by air stripping before being discharged
to the Minneapolis storm sewer network. Ground water
removed from wells 111, 112, and 113 is discharged directly
to the storm sewer."
EVALUATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Shallow Aquifer
Since the extraction system started operating in late 1985,
the wells have been operated continuously at their maximum
sustainable yield. This yield varies among wells, depending
on either the pump capacity or the local productivity of the
aquifer. The combined average withdrawal rate of wells 109
and 110 in the source area has been about 70 gpm. The
-------
combined average rate for the three downgradient wells, 111,
112, and 113, has been about 300 gpm.
Figure 7 shows the water-level distribution in the shallow
aquifer as measured in April 1988. A fairly distinct
capture zone can be seen in the vicinity of the three
downgradient wells, but the capture zones of the two source-
area wells are not so clearly discernable. The operators of
the system report that this water table configuration is
representative of the flow patterns that were established in
the first year of operation and have been maintained ever
since (Barr, 1988). The operators feel that the high
concentration zones of the plume have been controlled
successfully despite the absence of a distinct capture zone
near the source-area wells.
Figure 8 shows the distribution of total VOC concentrations
measured in the shallow aquifer wells in April 1988.
Sampling rounds conducted later in 1988 included fewer wells
than in April and may have been less representative because
of unusually low water levels caused by a severe drought.
The figure shows that high concentrations persist along the
central axis of the plume after more than 2 years of
extraction. Some of the wells shown in Figure 8 did not
exist or were not sampled before the system started, so a
comparison between Figures 4 and 8 is difficult. A direct
comparison of the 1984 and 1988 total VOC concentrations in
several of the shallow aquifer wells is given in Table 1.
Table 1
COMPARISON OF 1984 AND 1988 TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS
IN SELECTED SHALLOW AQUIFER WELLS
Well
Q
s
T
V
W
Concentrations in ppb
March 1984
56
850
BDL*
100
11
April 1988
6.2
520
BDL*
180
67
*Below detection limit.
Table 1 shows that total VOC concentrations have decreased
in some wells and increased in others since the extraction
system has been in operation. The major contributor to the
total VOC concentrations continues to be TCE. Table 2 lists
iM.ii
-------
the concentrations of individual VOCs measured in the
shallow aquifer during 1988. The TCE concentrations in the
central portion of the contaminant plume were well above the
target level of 270 ppb in April 1988. They appear to have
declined considerably later in the year. The effect that
the drought in 1988 may have had on these declines is not
yet known. ,
Time-series plots of total VOC concentration in some of the
shallow aquifer monitoring wells are shown in Figures 9
and 10. As shown in Figure 9, wells 3 and S appear to show
very similar and nearly simultaneous variations in concen-
tration, even though they are approximately 1,000 feet
apart.. Both wells are located along the centerline of the
plume. Well B, located upgradient of the source zone,
appears to show a fairly steady reduction in concentrations.
Well V, located downgradient of the plume control wells 111,
112, and 113, appears to have relatively steady concentra-
tions. The latest measurement in this well is lower, but a
significant declining trend cannot be inferred from a single
sample.
Contaminant concentrations in the shallow aquifer extraction
wells have not been reported.
Carimona Aquifer
The extraction well in the Carimona aquifer, well 108, has
been operated continuously at rates varying between 20 and
30 gpm since December 1985. Figure 11 shows the water
levels measured in the Carimona monitoring wells in April
1988. Figure 11 appears to indicate that the zone of
capture of well 108 extends to a radius of several
hundred feet in all directions, although the inward radial
gradients are not very strong. The Carimona aquifer
naturally has relatively flat gradients in this area. The
lack of a strong regional gradient makes establishment of a
capture zone easier. However, the Carimona is thought to
behave as a leaky (or semi-confined) aquifer, which can
severely limit the radius of influence of a recovery well.
The leakage characteristics do not seem to have been
quantified, even though an aquifer test was run on well 108
in 1984.
One of the objectives of the Carimona aquifer extraction
well was to minimize further downward flow of contaminants
to the underlying Magnolia Member of the Platteville
Formation by reversing the natural vertical gradients to
induce upward flow. Figure 12 shows the water levels
measured in the Magnolia monitoring wells in April 1988.
With the exception of the water level measured in well 108,
8
-------
all of the Carimona water levels are still higher than the
Magnolia water levels in the vicinity of the site.
Figure 13 shows the distribution of TCE concentrations
measured in the Carimona monitoring wells in April 1988.
The measurements show that the plume of concentrations above
the target level of 27 ppb extended at least 250 feet from
the source area in the north and probably more than 1,000
feet from the source in the east, west, and south. No map
of contaminant distributions in the Carimona before the
start of extraction is available for comparison (MNPCA,
1989). However, Figures 14 and 15 show time-series plots of
TCE concentrations in six of the Carimona wells. Figure 14
shows the concentration variations in three wells located in
the central plume area, including the extraction well (well
108). In general, the concentrations in these wells have
dropped considerably. Concentrations in well BB, to the
north of the source area, and in the extraction well may
show a continuing downward trend. Concentrations in well
WW, to the southeast of the source area, appear to have
leveled off at around 300 ppb. Figure 15 shows TCE
concentration variations in wells 10, 11, and 13 on the
periphery of the plume to the southeast. The concentration
of TCE in well 10 has been reduce from relatively high
initial levels, but appears to have stabilized at around
60 ppb. This is still higher than the target concentration
of 27 ppb. Concentrations in well 11 started lower than in
well 10, but have likewise stabilized at levels above the
cleanup target.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
A multi-aquifer ground-water system below the General Mifls
site has been contaminated with chlorinated organic solvents
that were poured into a disposal pit over a period of 19
years. The pit has been removed, but the contaminated soils
surrounding and below it were left in place. These
materials represent a continuing source of contaminant
leaching to the underlying aquifers that may take a very
long time to exhaust.
In addition, it is likely that chlorinated organics may be
present in one or more of the aquifers in the form of NAPLs.
However, this has apparently not been investigated. The
chlorinated solvents are more dense than water and, if they
are present as NAPLs, they would probably have sunk to the
bottom of any aquifer that they entered. These dense NAPLs
would also represent a potentially long-lasting source of
continued ground-water contamination.
-------
A multi-well extraction system was installed in the shallow
glacial drift aquifer in 1985 with the objectives of
minimizing further downgradient migration of contamination
and eventually restoring water quality. The water quality
goal for both migration control and aquifer cleanup has been
set at 270 ppb in the glacial drift aquifer.
The extraction wells in the shallow aquifer have been
operated continuously since 1985 at their design pumping
rates. The three downgradient wells appear to have
established capture zones that block the migration of TCE at
concentrations greater than 270 ppb. However, the vertical
gradients over the majority of the plume area have not been
reversed, so that contaminants can continue to move downward
into the underlying aquifers.
No schedule for aquifer restoration was projected during the
design of the system. During the first 2 years of opera-
tion, the concentrations along the axis of the shallow
aquifer plume were not reduced dramatically. During early
1988, the concentrations appear to have declined
substantially. However, 1988 was a year of severe drought,
and the declining water levels in the shallow aquifer and
reduced infiltration may have had some effect on these
concentrations.
A single extraction well was installed near the contaminant
source area in the Carimona bedrock aquifer. Its objectives
were to establish a capture zone that would prevent further
migration of contaminants and to restore water quality by
reducing TCE concentrations to less than 27 ppb. It is
clear that the hydraulic effects of this well are limited to
a fairly small radius around the source zone. Except in the
immediate vicinity of the well, the vertical hydraulic
gradients have not been reversed. The contaminant plume in
the Carimona aquifer remains large, and throughout most of
the contaminated area the potential remains for continued
downward migration of contaminants to lower aquifers.
Substantial concentration reductions were achieved initially
in several of the centrally located Carimona monitoring
wells, but the TCE concentrations have generally stabilized
at levels well above the cleanup target of 27 ppb.
It appears unlikely that the aquifer cleanup goals will be
achieved in the near future in either aquifer. This is
because of to the continuing contaminant source that exists
in the soils around the former disposal pit, and perhaps
also because of the presence of NAPLs in one or more of the
aquifers.
10
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, State of Minnesota.
Response Order by Consent In the Matter of General Mills,
Inc., dated October 23, 1984.
Barr Engineering Company. "Groundwater Pump-out System
Plan, General Mills East Hennepin Avenue Site."
January 1985, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Barr Engineering Company. "1988 Annual Report, General
Mills East Hennepin Avenue Site." January 1989,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MNPCA). Personal
communication with Fred Campbell, April 25, 1989.
Fetter, C.W. Applied Hvdrogeology. Merrill Publishing Co.,
Columbus, Ohio. 1988.
WDCR432/042.50
11
-------
CASE STUDY 8
GenRad Corporation
Bolton, Massachusetts
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE GENRAD SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The GenRad Corporation facility is located in Bolton,
Worchester County, Massachusetts (see Figure 1). Operating
as a manufacturer of scientific and medical equipment, the
facility generates metal hydroxide sludge and industrial
solvent wastewater. Prior to 1984, these by-products were
discharged to onsite surface impoundments. In 1984, in
compliance with RCRA standards, a closure plan was developed
which included ground-water investigations. Two distinct
plumes of contamination were discovered: a northern plume
originating from the waste treatment area, and an eastern
plume in the area of the surface impoundments, adjacent to
the eastern property border. Source removal of the
contaminants appears to have stabilized the northern plume,
and no remediation has been planned for it. The eastern
plume was migrating offsite, across town/county lines. A
ground-water remediation program was proposed to capture and
treat the eastern plume, with the treated water being
recharged back to the site. The first phase of the program,
a pilot ground-water treatment system, was initiated in
remediation facility, was completed in 1987. The primary
contaminant of concern in the ground-water is
trichloroethylene (TCE).
SITE HISTORY
The manufacturing process at the GenRad facility includes
metal electroplating, and produces industrial solvent
wastewater and metal hydroxide sludge as by-products. Prior
to 1984, the sludge by-product was pumped to a drying bed^
and allowed to accumulate. Wastewater was treated, combined
with sanitary wastewater effluent, and recharged to the
ground water through surface impoundments that functioned as
rapid sand infiltration beds. These surface impoundments
are located to the east of the plant facility adjacent to
the town/county lines (see Figure 2).
I i
To comply with RCRA standards, GenRad initiated, source
removal remediation measures in 1984. These measures
included removal of contaminated soil and sludge, excavation
of underground storage tanks, and, closure and demolition of
the treatment facility. Initial site investigations
revealed that the ground water beneath the sludge drying
area and the surface impoundments was contaminated with a
variety of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), of which
trichloroethylene (TCE) was the most prevalent. No estimate
was made of the total quantity of VOCs dissolved in the
ground water beneath the site.
-------
Ground-water remediation and containment options were
considered after more detailed studies revealed the presence
of two distinct plumes of VOCs, one of which was beginning
to move offsite across the town/county boundary. A pilot
study was initiated in the summer of 1986 to provide
preliminary information and hydrogeologic data. Operation
of a long-term ground-water extraction and treatment
facility began in 1987.
GEOLOGY
The GenRad facility is located in a geologic setting
composed of unconsolidated glacial deposits overlying
Carboniferous Age metamorphic rocks of the Nshoba Formation.
No bedrock is exposed at the site although numerous outcrops
are visible to the west and, to a lesser extent, to the east
and south of the facility. In low-lying areas, such as
along Great Brook and its tributaries, several feet of
organic sediments overlie the sands and gravels. In
general, approximately 15 to 20 feet of1 sand and gravel
overlies 11 feet of glacial till, which is underlain by
bedrock. The thickness of sediments is quite variable
across the site and only two borings have penetrated the
entire thickness of the till.
Figures 3, 4, and 5 show geologic cross sections of the
site, the locations of which are shown in Figure 2.
Transect A-A* (see Figure 3) is a view across an apparent
glacial-fluvial, paleo-channel. Deposits of sand and gravel
thicken towards the center of the former stream channel.
This channel appears to have an orientation parallel to that
of Great Brook. Section B-B* (see Figure 4) shows a uniform
thickness of sand and gravel, overlain by 2 to 8 feet of
organic deposits. Section C-C» (see Figure 5) shows the
thickness of sand and gravel underneath the sand infiltra-
tion beds.
HYDROGEOLOGY
Hydrogeologic characteristics of subsurface strata,
including transmissivity, porosity, and hydraulic
conductivity were evaluated to help understand the nature of
the underlying aquifer system. Estimates of these hydro-
geologic parameters were obtained through aquifer tests,
empirical correlations, and previously tabulated values.
Transmissivity was estimated to range between 350 ft2/day
and 10,000 ft5/day, depending on the nature and thickness of
permeable sediments. A value of 2,500 ft.21 day was estimated
for the area near the extraction wells.
During the field studies, two boreholes were drilled to
bedrock. Although no faults were mapped in the area, a
-------
4-foot core sample taken at borehole location G-IV-4b was
found to be slightly to moderately fractured. No rock
permeability tests were conducted, but GenRad's engineering
consultants estimated the hydraulic conductivities of the
bedrock to be similar to that of glacial till, which is low
relative to sand and gravel. However, the bedrock is known
to yield water to private water supply wells in the area.
The depth to ground water at the GenRad facility is
generally about 5 feet but varies between 0 and 20 feet.
The sand and gravel aquifer appear to be unconfined within
the site area, with ground-water flow typically following
topographic gradients. Figure 6 shows the distribution of
equipotential lines across the site. The contours shown in
this figure were based on water levels measured at different
times of the year. Therefore, the flow directions inter-
preted by the primary consulting engineers may be mis-
leading. Based on estimates of hydrogeologic parameters,
transport velocities beneath the site were estimated to be
between 0.5 and 0.8 feet/day.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
Two distinct plumes of VOC contamination are present at the
site: a northern plume emanating from the former waste
treatment site, and an eastern plume near the surface
impoundments. Figure 7 shows the plume configurations in
early 1987. TCE is the most prevalent contaminant in both
plumes. Secondary contaminants of concern at the site
include: 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethylene,
methylene chloride, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and vinyl chloride.
In 1986, the maximum concentrations of total VOCs in the
northern and eastern plumes exceeded 5,000 parts per billion
(ppb) and 1,000 ppb, respectively. However, only 10 percent
of the ground-water samples from the site had concentrations
over 500 ppb at that time. The vertical distribution of
VOCs in the ground water is relatively uniform with depth
except in the area of the northern plume near Great Brook,
where complicated flow patterns exist. Only one of the two
wells installed into bedrock has shown contamination, with
concentrations between 10 and 50 ppb.
Migration of the two plumes was examined in 1986 by
comparing concentration distributions over time. Concentra-
tions of total volatile organics in the northern plume
appear to have been reduced naturally since source removal
was completed. Figure 8 shows the variation of TCE
concentrations in one well in this plume over a 4-year
period. The primary consultants at the site suggested that
this plume had been stabilized by discharging into Great
Brook rather than migrating offsite.
-------
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
Objectives of Remediation
As part of the closure plan, the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) required GenRad to
remediate ground water associated with the site to a level
commensurate with primary drinking water standards. Since
contamination in the northern plume did not appear to be a
threat due to dilution factors, no immediate remediation was
planned for this area. Remediation was recommended for the
eastern plume, which continued to move off-site across a
town/county boundary. A ground-water extraction system was
proposed to capture the eastern plume, treat the ground
water, and recharge it back to the site.
System Configuration
A pilot extraction well, well PW-A, was installed in the
first phase of the remediation to gather information that
would help in the design of the final system. Specific
hydrogeologic information gathered during the Phase I pilot
ground-water study was used in the calibration of a computer
model (MODFLOW). This model was used to assess the impact
of a two well extraction system on the ground-water flow
regime. Field surveys and information provided by the model
were used to design and locate two extraction wells, wells
PW-B and PW-C, for Phase II remediation. Field engineers
predicted that these two wells (see Figure 2), each pumping
at 15 gpm or greater, would create a capture zone wide
enough to contain the 10 ppb concentration front of the
eastern plume. The optimum extraction rates were to be
determined in the field after the wells commenced operation.
The Phase II system was designed to operate 75 percent of
the year. Annual shutdown occurs during the coldest
portions of the winter when temperatures drop below freezing
for extended periods of time. All piping and surficial
equipment are drained at the time of system shutdown.
A total of 16 monitoring locations are sampled on a
quarterly basis to provide information on the size of the
contaminant plumes and their relative movement. Inspection
and maintenance of the system occurs on a daily, monthly,
and quarterly basis depending on the type of inspection or
maintenance required.
-------
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
The Phase II extraction system has been in operation since
late 1987. Between late 1987 and early December 1988,
17 million gallons of water were extracted and treated from
the two pumping wells. The zone of influence of the two
extraction wells is thought to be large enough to capture
the bulk of the eastern plume. Figure 9 shows the ground-
water elevation contours shortly after the start of
extraction. Figure 10 shows the ground-water elevation
contours shortly after the system was shut down in November
1988.
Since extraction began, GenRad's consultants estimate there
has been a 40 percent reduction of contaminants in the
plume. This reduction has been attributed to both the
current extraction system and in-situ biodegradation.
Biodegradation is alleged to have occurred in areas where
the contaminants are close to organic deposits and aquatic
habitat. As of November 1988, the highest concentrations in
the eastern plume were 143 ppb, compared to 990 ppb 2 years
earlier. Figure 11 shows the variation of TCE concentra-
tions in well PT-4 since the beginning of 1987., This well
is located in the central portion of the eastern plume,
about 200 feet upgradient of the extraction wells.
Figure 12 shows the configuration of the contaminant plumes
in November 1988, after approximately 1 year of extraction
in the eastern plume.
Figure 13 shows the variation of the TCE concentrations in
the ground water extracted during 1988. The qtiantity of TCE
removed to date has not been reported by GenRad's engineers-
However, analysis of the data shown in Figure 13 indicates
that the extraction system removed a total of about 2.6
pounds of TCE from the aquifer during 1988. GenRad's
consultants estimate that it will take at least 5 years to
flush the two or three contaminant plume volumess they judge
necessary to sufficiently lower contaminant concentrations.
! '
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
The extraction and treatment system has been in operation at
the GenRad facility since late 1987. The effectiveness of
the remediation effort is still under review by the
Massachusetts DEQE.
A remediation system is in operation only in the eastern
plume, where the highest concentrations of total organics
have varied between 200 and 1000 ppb. Although contaminant
levels are higher in the northern plume, the natural
discharge of ground water to Great Brook is thought to
result in significant dilution of concentrations without
-------
significantly degrading surface water quality. Contamina-
tion of the fractured bedrock beneath both plumes is thought
to be insignificant at this time.
Two extraction wells, placed downgradient at the leading
edge of the eastern plume appear to be hydraulically
controlling plume migration. Depending on the duration of
remediation, nearly all of the eastern contaminant plume
should enter the extraction wells' capture zone. Removal
efficiencies of VOCs in the system's stripping tower have
been at or above 99 percent. Concentrations of total
organics in the eastern plume have decreased approximately
40 percent since operations began. This was determined by
quarterly monitoring of observation wells on the site.
Approximately 17 million gallons of water have been treated
since the operation began. The extraction system has
removed a total of about 2.6 pounds of TCE from the aquifer.
It was predicted that two or three aquifer volumes need to
be flushed before concentrations will be low enough to
warrant termination of the treatment operation. A summary
of progress toward this goal is not yet available but is
expected by early spring 1989.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Goldberg, Zoino and Associates. 1984. Preliminary
Environmental/Geohydrology Study, GenRad, Bolton. File No.
G-3863.3.
Goldberg, Zoino and Associates. 1986. Specifications for
Installation of a Groundwater Extraction/Recharge System,
GenRad, Bolton. File No. G-3863.6.
Goldberg, Zoino and Associates. 1986. Groundwater
Remediation Program: Phase II System and Post Closure Plan,
GenRad, Bolton. File No. G-3863.6.
Environmental Applications, Inc. 1986. Pilot Groundwater
Treatment Program, GenRad, Bolton. File No. R-1022.
Goldberg, Zoino and Associates. 1988. RCRA Post Closure
Plan, GenRad, Bolton. Five volumes. File No. G-3863.5.
Goldberg, Zoino and Associates. 1988. December: Quarterly
Groundwater Monitoring Report, GenRad, Bolton.
WDCR05/091.50
-------
-------
CASE STUDY 9
Harris Corporation
Palm Bay, Florida
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
This case study describes remediation efforts at the Harris
Corporation site near the town of Palm Bay, in Brevard
County, Florida. The site includes two separate recovery
and treatment systems—one at the Harris facilities and
another at General Development Utilities (GDU), a water
supplier to the south of the Harris facilities. The Harris
Corporation operates two semi-autonomous facilities
(referred to as campuses) at this site—Harris Semiconductor
(the north campus), to north of Palm Bay Road, and Harris
Government Systems (the south campus), between Palm Bay Road
and the GDU facility to the south (see Figures 1 and 2).
The north and south campuses have been occupied by Harris
since 1967. The south campus was originally occupied by the
Radiation Corporation, starting in the late 1940s.
The main activity in the north campus is the production of
electronic components, especially semiconductors and other
microelectronic components involving silicon wafers. A
variety of solvents are used in the manufacturing processes.
The activities at the south campus have varied during the
years^of operation but have included electroplating,
painting, photoprocessing, and computer hardware assembly.
The solvents used at the two Harris facilities include
trichloroethylene (TCE), trichloroethane (TCA), xylene,
phenols, acetone, and n-butyl acetate. Chemical releases by
Harris have contaminated ground water beneath the Harris
facilities and within the area of the GDU water supply
production wells.
The Harris Corporation ground-water extraction and treatment
system has been operating since May 1985. The entire site
is administered by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation (FDER), but because the Harris Government Systems
campus is on the National Priorities List (NPL) of hazardous
waste sites, it is also administered by EPA under the
Superfund program.
The GDU facility includes a water treatment plant, a
wastewater treatment plant, and several water-supply wells
installed at a depth of 70 to 80 feet below land surface.
The GDU facility supplies water to and processes wastewater
from much of the City of Palm Bay. The contamination of the
wells of the GDU well field was caused by the southward
migration of contaminated ground water from the Harris
facility. The GDU ground-water extraction and treatment
system has been operating since April 1984.
-------
SITE HISTORY
A contamination problem at this site was first reported in
March 1982 after samples of finished water collected from
the GDU water treatment plant in 1981 were found to be
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). As a
result of this discovery, the 18 GDU water-supply wells were
sampled, and 5 (GDU-2B, GDO-3, GDU-5, GDU-8, and GDU-19)
were found to be contaminated with VOCs (Mclntyre et al.,
1987). These five wells were taken out of production in
April"1982. GDU hired CH2M HILL to study the problem and to
develop a system that would allow GDU to put the production
wells back into operation. Several GDU monitoring wells
have been installed since 1982 as part of the GDU study.
The system that CH2M HILL developed to put the GDU produc-
tion wells back into operation called for the contaminated
ground water to be pretreated with an air stripper to remove
VOCs before conventional treatment at the GDU water treat-
ment plant. A prototype GDU air stripper began operating in
November 1982 and a permanent full-scale air stripper began
operating in April 1984. Only four of the five contaminated
production wells that had been taken out of production in
April 1982 were eventually connected, to the air stripper and
put back into production. These wells were GDU-2B, GDU-3,
GDU-5, and GDU-8. The fifth well, GDU-19, was abandoned.
The installation, operation, and maintenance costs of the
GDU pretreatment system were paid for by the Harris
Corporation.
In April 1982, in response to the contamination discovered
at GDU the previous month, the Harris Corporation requested
that its consultant, Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan,
Inc. (PBS&J), expand its existing monitoring program and/-"
study the hydrogeology of the site. The hydrogeologic study
was completed in December 1983 (PBS&J, 1983).
In a December 1983 agreement between the FDER and the Harris
Corporation, the FDER required that Harris submit a detailed
assessment and cleanup plan for the site. In September
1984, Harris submitted this plan, which called for an air
stripper and a system of extraction wells and wellpoints to
be installed and to begin operating at the Harris facility
in three stages. In stage 1, deep aquifer barrier wells GS-
123D, GS-124D, and GS-125D, each with a screened interval of
68 to 78 feet below land surface, were installed at the
south border of the Harris facility. In stage 2, 10 shallow
aquifer wellpoints were installed to depths of 40 feet near
Building 5 and well GS-127D was added to the deep well
system. In stage 3, wells GS-035S, GS-035D, GS-037S, GS-
037D, GS-043S, and GS-043D were installed southeast of
Building 6. The stage-3 wells were installed in pairs with
the suffix S indicating shallow aquifer wells and D
indicating the deep aquifer. The stage-1 and stage-2
extraction systems began operating together in early May
-------
1985, and the stage-3 extraction system began operating in
September 1985. The Harris air stripper, designed to remove
VOCs from the ground water extracted by the Harris wells,
began operating in May 1985. The effluent from the
treatment system was discharged to the ditch east of the
Perimeter Road during the first few months that the system
was in operation.
In^April 1986, a report assessing the effectiveness of the
existing Harris remediation program was completed by GDU's
consultant, CH2M HILL. This report was based on the site
information that was available through November 1985. It
pointed out deficiencies in the capture zone of the Harris
extraction system and in several other aspects of the
remediation program.
In April 1986, Harris hired another consulting firm,
Geraghty & Miller (G&M), to conduct a hydrogeologic
assessment of the Harris/GDU study area. In November 1986,
Geraghty & Miller sampled and analyzed 18 existing wells at
the north campus and 37 existing wells at the south campus.
Prom March 1987 to late June 1987, several wellpoints and 47
new^monitoring wells were installed at the two Harris
facilities. Ground water from new and existing wells was
sampled and analyzed in April and July 1987. Soil borings
from both Harris facilities were also collected and analyzed
during this period.
In October 1987, G&M issued a report evaluating the capture
effectiveness of the Harris ground-water extraction system.
This report concluded that the majority of the VOC plume was
being captured but recommended installation of two
additional shallow aquifer extraction wells in areas where
plume capture appeared to be incomplete.
Since mid-1987, the shallow wellpoint system near Building 5
has been replaced with two conventional extraction wells.
In June 1988, one of the additional shallow aquifer wells
recommended by G&M, well GS-131S, was activated. The
situation in the area of the second additional shallow
aquifer well recommended by G&M is still under study.
Effluent from the Harris ground-water treatment plant is now
being disposed of by deep-well injection instead of
discharge to the ditch east of Perimeter Road. The
injection takes place at a depth of more than 2,000 feet
below the site and has no hydraulic or remedial effect on
the contaminated aquifers at the site.
As extraction continues, quarterly ground-water monitoring
data are reviewed to track the VOC plume and ensure that it
is not migrating offsite.
-------
GEOLOGY
Five main geologic layers underlie the Harris/GDU study
area. The top layer, which extends from the surface to an
average depth of 42 feet, includes beds of sand, silty sand,
and red-brown sandy silt. It has shells in the deepest 5 to
10 feet. Monitoring wells have typically been installed in
the upper layer at depths of 15 and 40 feet, resulting in
the identification of these depths as the 15-foot and 40-
foot monitoring zones. Although the lithology in these
zones is different, the upper layer comprises a single
hydrogeologic unit. Underlying the top layer is a 22-foot-
thick aquitard composed of clay-sized particles. This clay
layer is reported to be regionally discontinuous (G&M,
1989b), but it has been encountered consistently at the
Harris Site. The aquitard is locally sandy and contains
some shells. Underlying this aquitard is a 30-foot thick
unconsolidated sand layer that extends from a depth of
approximately 65 feet to 95 feet below land surface. This
sand layer contains some shells locally. This layer is
underlain by the 100-to-200-foot-thick Hawthorne Formation,
a clay confining layer of regional importance. The fifth
and deepest layer is the Floridan aquifer, a 1,000-foot-
thick sequence of limestone and dolomite (PBS&J, 1983). The
geology of the site has been investigated to a depth of
2,800 feet below land surface as part of a Harris
Corporation deep-well injection program (G&M, 1987c). A
generalized geologic column is shown in Figure 3.
HYDROGEOLOGY
The upper sand aquifer is an unconfined aquifer that is used
locally as a water source. A potentiometric surface map of
the water elevation in the upper sand aquifer in the
southern portion of the site, as measured with all of the
Harris extraction wells turned off on July 26, 1985, is
shown in Figure 4 (CH2M HILL, 1986). The depth to water at
individual monitoring wells ranged from approximately 5 to
22 feet below land surface on that date. Figure 4 shows
that ground-water flow in the upper aquifer is to the south-
southeast toward the GDU well field. The hydraulic
conductivity of the 15-foot zone, the permeable zone just
below the upper red-brown sandy silt layer of the upper
aquifer, has been estimated at 1.5 ft/day (G&M, 1987c).
Estimates of the ground-water flow velocity in the 15-foot
monitoring zone range from 4 ft/year to 16 ft/year (G&M,
1987c; 1989b), being generally higher to the south of the
site where the influence of the GDU well field is stronger.
The hydraulic conductivity of the 40-foot zone, the lower 5
to 10 feet of the upper aquifer has been estimated at
13 ft/day (G&M, 1987c). The estimates of the ground-water
flow velocity in the 40-foot zone ranged from 8 to 77 ft/yr
(G&M, 1987c; 1989b). There is generally very little
difference in potentiometric head between the 15-foot and
40-foot monitoring zones, indicating that they have good
-------
hydraulic interconnection. The water table aquifer receives
an estimated 36 inches of recharge per year (G&M, 1989b).
The retention, or borrow pit,
localized influence on water
Water levels in the pond are
structure. The pond receives
as ground-water seepage from
after rainfall events, it is
pond y.s a source of recharge
1989).
pond on the north campus has a
levels in the shallow aquifer.
regulated by an outfall
water from surface; runoff and
the upper aquifer. Except
not considered likely that the
to the upper aquifer (Harris,
The 22-foot thick sandy clay layer below the upper aquifer
acts as a leaky aquitard that retards ground-water flow
between the two aquifers . Its hydraulic conductivity has
been estimated at 0.4 ft/day (PBS&J, 1983), which is high
for an aquitard. The head in the upper sand aquifer is
greater than the head in the deep sand aquifer, indicating a
potential for downward flow. The downward flow potential is
particularly strong in the vicinity of the GDU well field,
probably because of GDU production well pumping in the deep
aquifer. Because the aquitard is somewhat permeable,
downward flow from the shallow aquifer to the deep aquifer
is probable.
The potentiometric surface map of the deep sand aquifer, as
measured on July 26, 1985, after all of the Harris
extraction wells had been shut off, is shown in Figure 5
(CH2M HILL, 1986). This map shows that ground-water flow in
the deep aquifer is to the southeast. The hydraulic
conductivity of the upper section of the deep aquifer was
estimated to be 28 ft/day. The ground-water flow velocity
estimated on the north campus based on this conductivity was
28 to 44 ft/year (G&M, 1987c). Geraghty & Miller reported
an estimated flow velocity of 273 ft/year for this layer in
the south campus, where the influence of the GDU well field
is stronger (G&M, 1989b) .
The Hawthorne Formation is a true confining layer that acts
as a Lydrologic barrier between the deep sand aquifer and
the Floridan. Its hydraulic conductivity has been estimated
to be from l" ~
to 1.3xlO~J ft/day, four to six orders
of magnitude less than the deep sand aquifer (PBS&J, 1983).
The Floridan aquifer is confined by the Hawthorne Formation
and is brackish in this area.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
VOCs are the main contaminants of concern at the Harris/GDU
study area. Trans-l-2-dichloroethylene (T-1,2-DCE), TCE,
vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, and chlorobenzene occur
in the highest concentrations, but 1, 1-dichloroethane,
ortho-dichlorobenzene, and other volatile and non-volatile
organics are also present. The remediation standards for
some of the organics at the site are shown in Table 1.
-------
Approximately 4/000 gallons of waste solvents per month were
being generated by the Harris facilities in 1982. About
440 gallons of this monthly volume was TCE (Mclntyre, 1982).
Over 4,000 gallons per month of waste acids were also
generated, about half of which was waste sulfuric acid.
Unspecified volumes of other waste by-products, including
electroplating wastes containing metals, were also
generated. Before 1982, waste generation rates were lower
than the rates given above because of lower production
levels.
Before 1980, most of the waste solvent volume was discharged
to the GDU wastewater treatment plant, along with the
domestic wastewater from the plant. The waste acids and
unknown quantities of other wastes were discharged to
several industrial waste ponds in the north and south
campuses. Some effort was made to neutralize the acids
discharged to the waste ponds.
In late 1980, a waste segregation, collection, and disposal
program was begun (Mclntyre, 1982). Halogenated organic
solvents were reportedly put into 55-gallon drums and hauled
to a certified disposal area. Non-halogenated organics were
hauled offsite by a contractor. Waste acids continued to be
discharged to the industrial waste ponds under the new
disposal program, with the exception of concentrated hydro-
fluoric acid, which had been segregated and disposed of
offsite. Some of the potential sources of ground-water
contamination were corroded storm sewer lines, solvent
sumps, industrial pipelines, drum storage areas, drainage
ditches, and several waste ponds and neutralization lagoons
in both the north and south campuses. Two fires occurred in
the northeast corner of Building 6, one in 1967 and another"
in 1974. Waste released in connection with these fires may
also have been a source of ground-water contamination.
Figure 6 shows concentration contours of total VOCs in the
shallow sand aquifer in 1984. The contaminant distribution
illustrated in this figure is considered a worst-case
estimate (PBS&J, 1984) because it is based on the highest
concentrations of VOCs measured in the monitoring wells
between March and August 1984. The highest total VOC
concentration measured in the shallow aquifer during this
period was 14,648 ppb at well GS-35S. An even higher
concentration of 37,120 ppb was measured at this well in
August 1985. Figure 6 appears to indicate that the north
campus was relatively clean during the period represented.
However, total VOC concentrations of up to 100 ppb were
found in several of the shallow aquifer wells in the north
campus, both before and after this period. Additional areas
of VOC and xylene contamination immediately south of the
north campus borrow pit pond were defined by additional
monitoring wells in July 1987 (G&M, 1987c).
-------
Figure 7 shows a contour map of maximum VOC concentrations
in the deep sand aquifer, as observed at the two Harris
facilities between March and August 1984. The areas of
highest VOC concentrations were in the south campus. Maximum
VOC concentrations exceeding 10,000 micrograms per liter
were observed in wells GS-035D and GS-041D, southeast of
Building 6. The contaminant plume was oriented to the
southeast, which is consistent with the regional ground-
water flow direction and GDU production well pumping in the
deep aquifer.
Figures 6 and 7 show that the shallow and deep aquifers
underlying the GDU well field were contaminated in 1984.
Several volatile organic constituents were found in samples
taken from production wells before the startup of full-scale
ground-water treatment at GDU in April 1984. Table 2 shows
the maximum total VOC concentrations and major constituents
observed in the GDU production and monitoring wells before
April 1984. Most of the wells with high concentrations were
in the southeast, near the GDU water treatment plant. The
highest contaminant concentration in the GDU wells before
April 1984 was a concentration of 3,400 ppb of methylene
chloride, which was observed in Well 3 on December 19, 1983.
Methylene chloride was not consistently the contaminant with
the highest concentration in each of the GDU wells, however.
Seven different constituents were present in the highest
concentration in various wells, indicating that the total
VOC plume is a complex mix of different constituents with
different spatial distributions.
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
Objectives of Remediation
The objectives of the Harris remediation system are to pre-
vent additional production wells in the GDU well field from
becoming contaminated and to clean up the aquifers under-
lying the site to below established standards. The
objectives of the GDU remediation system are different from
those of the Harris system. The objectives of the GDU
system are to provide drinkable ground water for public
consumption and to prevent the migration of contaminants
further downgradient to uncontaminated wells. Four of the
five contaminated GDU production wells have been put back
into service. These four wells are used to establish a cone
of depression between the plume and the uncontaminated wells
that is meant to act as a barrier to prevent further
migration to the southeast. The water from the contaminated
wells is pretreated and blended with uncontaminated water
from other wells before being treated using conventional
treatment methods for drinking water. In effect, the
-------
contaminated production wells have become part of a well
head treatment/plume containment system.
System Configuration
Figure 8 shows the current layout of the Harris remediation
system. It consists of 11 extraction wells and an air
stripper. Three of the extraction wells, GS-123D, GS-124D,
and GS-125D, are intended to act as a barrier to prevent
offsite migration of the VOC plume in the deep aquifer.
Well GS-127D, also in the southern part of the site, is
intended to pinch off the portion of the deep VOC plume with
concentrations above 1,000 ppb. The other two deep aquifer
wells, GS-37D and GS-43D, are installed in the central part
of the south campus where the total VOC concentrations are
highest. The extraction system in the shallow aquifer
consists of wells GS-37S and GS-43S in the central high
concentration region, wells GS-18S and GS-44S replacing the
original well point system near Building 5, and well GS-131S
in the southern portion of the site. Well GS-131S was
activated as an extraction well in June 1988 to prevent
offsite migration of the shallow plume:/ which was apparently
not being completely captured by wells GS-37S and GS-43S.
The extraction wells are screened from approximately 33 to
38 feet below land surface in the shallow aquifer and from
68 to 78 feet in the deep aquifer. Wells GS-35S and GS-35D
were originally part of the stage-3 recovery system, but
have not been operated as extraction wells since 1985.
Table 3 shows the pumping rates of the: Harris extraction
wells and the GDU production wells, as measured on March 24,
1987. The production rate from the wellpoint system around
Building 5 is not included in this table because it was
apparently not operating when these measurements were made.
The wellpoint system was in operation on July 25, 1985, and
its production rate was measured as approximately 30 gpm.
The wellpoint system was later replaced by wells GS-18S and
GS-44S, with design pumping rates of 25 gpm each (G&M,
1987b). In June 1988, well GS-131S was added to the shallow
extraction system, and it has reportedly been pumped at
between 12 and 17 gpm ever since (Harris, 1989a). Well GS-
43D was rehabilitated in 1989, and its pumping rate
increased to 50 gpm (Harris, 1989b).
The positions of the extraction wells that existed in 1986
were chosen to be near the center of the contamination or a
downgradient barrier to it. The placement and pumping rates
of the wells that were added since 1986 were chosen on the
basis of withdrawal permits and computer modeling of various
pumping configurations (G&M, 1987b). Harris has a water-use
permit that allows up to 347 gallons per minute, or 0.5
million gallons per day, to be pumped from the subsurface;
therefore, any increased pumping from additional wells had
to be accommodated within this limit. Some of the pumping
-------
rates of the wells in operation in 1986 were modified in
response to the modeling study.
The extracted ground water is treated by air stripping
towers at both the GDU and the Harris facilities. The
design rates of the two systems are 1,000 and 500 gpm,
respectively. The treated effluent from the Harris system
is reused for production activities at the Harris facility
and then injected into permeable zones over 2,000 feet deep.
The treated effluent from the GDU treatment system is
discharged to the GDU water treatment plant.
I
Figures 6 and 7 show the network of monitoring wells
existing in April 1986 in the shallow- and deep-aquifer
zones, respectively. Thirty-two more north campus
monitoring wells and 15 more south campus monitoring wells
had been added as of late 1987 (G&M, 1987a; G&M, 1987c).
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
Hydraulic Control
| r
Figures 9 and 10 show the influence of the Harris extraction
wells on the distribution of potentiometric head in the
shallow and deep aquifers, respectively. These figures are
based on water level measurements made on March 24, 1987,
the same date for which extraction well pumping rates are
given in Table 3. Also shown are the estimated limits of
the capture zones of the different groups of wells.
Comparison of Figure 9 with the 1984 plume map for the
shallow aquifer shown in Figure 6 indicates that, wells GS-
37S and GS-43S were capable of capturing the areas of
highest contamination in the central part of the site,
including most of the areas of the central plume having
concentrations above 100 ppb. However, those areas of the
shallow plume south of Building 15 having concentrations up
to 100 ppb were not being captured. Reference to Figure 11,
which illustrates the shallow VOC plume in 1987, also shows
areas of the central plume south of Building 15 with
concentrations greater than 100 ppb that were outside the
capture zone of the extraction well system. These
observations led to the decision to add well GS-131S to the
shallow extraction system in 1988. No potentiometric
surface maps are available to show the effects of pumping
from well GS-131S, but Harris Corporation believes that its
addition to the system has cut off the southward migration
of the VOC plume (Harris, 1989b).
As shown in Figure 9, the high concentration region around
Building 5 was outside the capture zone of wells GS-37S and
GS-43S. Control and remediation of the plume in this area
was to be accomplished by the system of 10 wellpoints along
the east and south sides of Building 5, but this system was
apparently not in operation on the day these water level
measurements were made. No piezometric surface maps are
-------
available that show the measured hydraulic effects of the
wellpoint system or of the pair of shallow wells, GS-18S and
GS-44S, that later replaced it. However, the numerical
model used to evaluate the ground-water remediation system
indicated that both systems should effectively capture the
shallow plume in the Building 5 area (G&M, 1987b).
Figure 10 shows the capture zones of the Harris extraction
wells in the deep aquifer, as inferred from the water level
measurements made on March 24, 1987. Comparison with the
1984 plume map shown in Figure 7 shows that the extraction
system was capable of capturing nearly,all of the onsite
portions of the worst-case estimate of the deep plume,
except for small areas of VOC concentration less than 100
ppb in the southeast and southwest corners of the site.
Comparison with Figure 13 suggests that by 1987, these low
concentration areas along the edges of the plume may have
been swept into the GDU well system, and the Harris
extraction wells were capturing all of the onsite portions
of the main deep aquifer plume. Contamination that had
already migrated offsite toward the GDU well field was
beyond the reach of the Harris system, but it was being
captured and treated at the affected GDU wells.
Contaminant Plume Reduction
Figures 11 and 12 show the 1987 and 1988 average total VOC
concentration contour maps for the shallow aquifer.
Comparison with Figure 6 shows evidence of a reduction in
the size and concentration of the west-central plume in the
areas east of Building 22 and adjacent to Troutman
Boulevard. The 1,000-ppb plume seems to have increased in
size from 1987 to 1988 by being drawn toward recovery well
GS-43S. On the other hand, the size of the 100-ppb plume/-
decreased during this period, probably because of the
activation of well GS-131S in mid-1988. The northeast part
of the west-central plume appears unchanged. The size of
the east-central plume near Building 5 appears to have been
reduced substantially over the year of pumping.
Figures 13 and 14 show concentration maps of average total
VOC concentrations in the deep aquifer for 1987 and 1988,
respectively. Comparison between these maps and the 1984
plume map shown in Figure 7 shows progressive decreases in
both the size and concentration of the plume. The location
of the peak concentration area, to the south and east of
Building 6, has not changed, but the westward extent of the
plume toward Troutman Boulevard has clearly decreased. The
southward extent of the 1,000-ppb contour has also been
progressively reduced.
Reductions in Concentrations of Contaminants
Figure 15 shows a time-series plot of the total VOC
concentrations in the influent to the GDU treatment system
10
-------
from startup in late April 1984 to February 1989. This
influent consists of the ground water extracted from GDU
wells 2B, 3, 5, and 8. The early data were quite variable,
but concentrations stabilized at approximately 15 to 20 ppb
after the fourth quarter of 1986. The decrease in
concentration fluctuations apparent in mid-1985 coincides
with the startup of the Harris recovery program in May 1985.
Figure 16 shows a time-series plot of the total VOC
concentrations in the influent to the Harris treatment
system from May 1985 to March 1989. These concentrations
ranged from 400 to over 9,000 ppb, generally 10 to 100 times
higher than the concentrations of the influent to the GDU
treatment system. These data show a steadily declining
concentration trend, suggesting that the Harris extraction
system is reducing the concentration and mass of
contaminants in the zone of ground-water capture. No
estimates of the contaminant mass removed or the estimated
time to complete remediation were reported.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
I • i
The multilayered, two-aquifer system beneath the Harris
Corporation and GDU facilities near Palm Bay, Florida, has
been contaminated with various VOCs. Five of the GDU
production wells supplying water to nearby communities were
shut down after they were found to be contaminated by
discharges originating at the Harris facilities.
A well head treatment system with an air stripper was
installed at the GDU facility to remove VOCs from the
contaminated production wells before further treatment for
public consumption. Four of the five contaminated
production wells have been put back into operation to
restore the full production capacity of the GDU water supply
system and to form a hydraulic barrier between the Harris
facilities and the uncontaminated GDU wells.
A system of extraction wells, monitoring wells, and a
separate air stripping treatment unit were installed at the
Harris facilities. The objectives of the Harris remediation
system are to form a barrier to prevent offsite migration to
the south and to clean up the deep and shallow aquifers.
The initial shallow aquifer extraction system in the high
concentration area near Building 6 consisted of two wells,
GS-37S and GS-43S, which appeared to have limited
effectiveness in capturing the plume in the southern portion
of the site. Consequently, a third shallow well, GS-131S,
was added in mid-1988 to address this problem. The
hydraulic effect of this new well has not been demonstrated,
but water quality monitoring data are said to demonstrate
that it is effective (Harris, 1989).
11
-------
The high concentration area in the shallow aquifer near
Building 5 was initially to be remediated by a system of 10
wellpoints installed along the south and east sides of the
building. The wellpoint system was later replaced with two
conventional wells, GS-18S and GS-44S, because of pumping
problems with the wellpoints. Although the hydraulic effect
of these wells on the piezometric surface of the aquifer has
not been shown, they appear to have reduced the size and
concentration of the contaminant plume hear Building 5.
The deep aquifer extraction system appears to be effective
in preventing continued offsite migration of the main
contaminant plume. Initially, there may have been low
concentration areas on the east and west edges of the plume
that were beyond the capture zone of the Harris deep
extraction system. However, the extent of the plume has
subsequently been reduced so that its onsite portions appear
to be hydraulically contained. The portion of the plume
that has already migrated offsite to the south is beyond the
influence of the Harris extraction system, but it is being
captured and treated by the GDU wells. Harris Corporation
continues to pay the treatment expenses incurred by GDU
because of this.
Both the GDU and the Harris treatment systems showed a
decrease in the influent total VOC concentration over the 3
years of remediation. The beneficial effect of the Harris
extraction system was demonstrated by a sharp decrease in
the total VOC concentrations produced from the contaminated
GDU wells that occurred shortly after the Harris system was
started up. No projected time to complete remediation was
reported.
The two objectives of the GDU pump and treat system have
been achieved. A hydraulic barrier to prevent southeastern
migration of the deep and shallow plumes past the GDU
recovery wells has been established. The system also
pretreats the extracted ground water effectively, allowing
the water from the contaminated recovery wells to be used by
the public.
12
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CH2M HILL. April 1986. Assessment of the Harris
Corporation Remediation Program.
CH2M HILL. April 11, 1989.
Greg Mclntyre.
Personal communication with Mr.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. July 1987(a). Building 6 Ground-
Water Assessment Government Systems, Harris Corporation,
Palm Bay, Florida.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. October 1987 (b) . An Evaluation of
the Harris Corporation Ground-Water Recovery System.
i i
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. November 1987(c). Harris
Corporation Semiconductor Complex Ground-Water Assessment.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. February 1988. Harris Corporation
1988 Ground-Water Monitoring Program, Palm Bay, Florida.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. February 1989(a). Harris
Corporation 1989 Ground-Water Monitoring Program, Palm Bay,
Florida.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. May 1989(b). Harris Corporation
National Priority List Compliance Review.
Harris Corporation, December 11, 1989(a)
communication with Mr. Robert Sands.
Personal
Harris Corporation, December 22, 1989(b). Letter from Mr.
Robert Sands to Ms. Jennifer Haley of U.S. EPA.
Mclntyre, G. T., CH2M HILL. July 8, 1982
Site Visit, Harris Corporation.
Memorandum:
Mcintyre, G. T., J. K. Cable, W. D. Byers. July 1987. Cost
and Performance of Air Stripping for VOC Removal. Presented
at 1987 ASCE National Conference on Environmental
Engineering.
Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. December 1983..
Harris Corporation Task B-4 Hydrogeologic Study.
Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. September 1984.
Groundwater Remediation Program Phase II Plan of Action
Report.
WDCR05/083.50
13
-------
CASE STUDY 10
IBM - Dayton
Dayton, New Jersey
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE IBM DAYTON FACILITY
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM)
Dayton facility is located in South Brunswick Township, New
Jersey, just west of the town of Dayton (see Figure 1).
Prior to 1985, the manufacturing activities at this facility
included the production of punch cards for computer input
and inked ribbons for printers. Since 1985, manufacturing
has been discontinued, and the site has been used for
administrative activities and the repair of electronic
equipment.
In December 1977, Well SB-11 of the South Brunswick Township
well field was found to be contaminated with chlorinated
organic solvents, the majority of which were traceable to
the IBM site. The principal organic solvents of concern are
the volatile organics 1,1,1-trichloroethane and tetra-
chloroethylene. In 1978, IBM started operating an onsite
ground-water extraction system to remove the contaminants
from the aquifer. By 1984 the remediation appeared to have
been successful, and the New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection (NJDEP) approved the termination of onsite
extraction. However, post-termination monitoring has shown
a reappearance of the contaminant plume, and IBM has
responded with a plan for long-term extraction to contain
the contaminants near their source. The remedial measures
continue to be under the jurisdiction of the NJDEP.
SITE HISTORY
The discovery of contaminants in production well SB-11 in
December 1977 triggered a ground-water quality investigation
conducted by the NJDEP to locate the contaminant source.
Initially, over 20 businesses were suspected of causing the
ground-water contamination problems, but the investigation
reduced this number to three industries within a 1-mile
radius of well SB-11. These three industries, including the
IBM facility, were then required by the NJDEP to conduct
hydrogeologic investigations of their facilities. As a
result of these studies, it was determined that IBM was the
major contributor to the ground-water contamination problem.
In January 1978, the contaminated production well was shut
down and IBM began a site assessment as required by NJDEP.
During 1978, more than 60 monitoring wells and 10 onsite
recovery wells were installed. Operation of the first
recovery well, well GW-4, began in March 1978, and in June
1978, production well SB-11 was put back into service. The
water pumped from well SB-11 was discharged to the sanitary
-------
sewer system. In August 1978, ground-water investigation
reports on the contamination problem were submitted by two
different consultants, one hired by IBM and the other by
South Brunswick Township. Also, during the summer of 1978,
the chemical storage tanks that were the suspected source of
IBM's ground-water contamination were removed.
In 1979, three reports on the ground-water contamination
were prepared by the consultants for IBM and South Brunswick
Township. Four more onsite extraction wells and ten more
monitoring wells were installed in 1979.
In June 1980, an administrative consent order (AGO) was
issued by NJDEP requiring IBM to continue operating the
ground-water extraction and treatment system until it could
be shown that ground-water extraction would not produce
further reductions in contaminant concentrations.
For the next 4 years, the extraction system was operated
with varying numbers of wells being pumped. An additional
set of seven extraction wells was installed offsite in 1981
to intercept the plume movement toward production well
SB-11. At the same time, an array of nine injection wells
was installed along the northeast boundary of the IBM
property. The locations of the wells that make up the
ground-water remediation system are shown in Figure 2.
In early 1984, both IBM and South Brunswick Township
informed NJDEP that in their opinions continued operation of
the extraction system would not produce further substantial
reductions in ground-water contaminant concentrations. By
this time the offsite concentrations of total volatile
organics (VOCs) in the monitoring wells had been reduced
below 100 parts per billion (ppb) and only one onsite well,
in the suspected source area, had total VOC concentrations
higher than this level. In June 1984, NJDEP issued an
amended administrative consent order (AACO) authorizing
termination of ground-water extraction except at production
well SB-11, which was to continue producing with a well-head
treatment system installed. In response to the AACO, .the
six operating onsite extraction wells and the seven offsite
blocking wells were shut down on September 9, 1984.
Continued monitoring of ground-water quality after the
ground-water extraction was terminated showed a gradual
increase in concentrations and re-emergence of the
contaminant plume. In October 1987, a report was prepared
by IBM's consultant documenting these increases and
predicting that the offsite action levels established by the
AACO would be exceeded within a year. The report recom-
mended that IBM obtain approval from NJDEP to resume limited
operation of the ground-water extraction system. In March
-------
1988, a ground-water remediation plan was submitted to NJDEP
recommending a multiphase resumption of limited ground-water
extraction to prevent off-site migration of contaminants.
This plan was approved by the NJDEP in January 1989, and the
first phase of renewed ground-water extraction is expected
to start late in the summer of 1989.
GEOLOGY
The geologic units underlying the study area are, from
youngest to oldest, the Pensauken Formation (Pleistocene),
the Old Bridge Sand Member of the Magothy Formation
(Cretaceous), the Woodbridge Clay Member of the Raritan
Formation, the Farrington Sand Member of the Raritan
Formation (Cretaceous), and the Brunswick Shale (Triassic).
At the IBM site, the Pensauken Formation and the Old Bridge
Sand are both composed primarily of yellow to orange-brown
to gray, silty sand with occasional clayey or gravelly
horizons. Discrete gravel-rich zones in the Pensauken
Formation may act as channels that affect the hydraulic
characteristics of the aquifer locally.
The Woodbridge Clay is characterized by interbedded clay and
sand layers. In the study area, the individual clay layers
range in thickness from a fraction of a foot to several
feet. In some areas of the IBM property, only one layer is
present, and in at least two areas near the property, the
Woodbridge Clay is absent. Figure 3 shows the elevation of
the top of the Woodbridge Clay in the study area and the
zones north and east of the IBM property where it is absent.
The Farrington Sand is a light-gray to light-yellow, fine-to
medium-grained sand with pebbles and gravel. It is approxi-
mately 60 feet thick in the study area and rests atop the
Brunswick Shale bedrock.
Figure 4 shows a geologic cross section through the north-
eastern corner of the IBM site illustrating the configura-
tion of these geologic units.
HYDROGEOLOGY
Two interconnected aquifers are involved in the ground-water
contamination problem at the IBM Dayton site. The shallow,
unconfined aquifer is comprised of the Pensauken Formation
and the Old Bridge Sand, as shown in Figure 4. The water
table is generally 30-to-45 feet below ground surface,
leaving a saturated thickness of approximately 20 to
30 feet. The lower semi-confined aquifer consists of the
Farrington Sand, which is bounded from below by the
-------
relatively impermeable Brunswick Shale, and from above by
the thin and locally discontinuous Woodbridge Clay.
The direction of ground-water flow in both aquifers is
dominated by the pumping from production well SB-11. This
well is located in an area where the Woodbridge Clay is
absent, so that groundwater production is derived from both
aquifers. During the period of operation of the groundwater
extraction system, well SB-11 was normally pumped at 550 to
600 gallons per minute (gpm). Since 1985, however, its
production rate has been increased to 1,100 gpm, to
intensify its cone of depression. Figures 5 and 6 show
contour maps of the potentiometric surfaces in the shallow
and deep aquifers, respectively. They are based on water
level measurements that, while not simultaneous, represent
conditions in late 1987 for both aquifers. At that time,
the ground-water extraction system at the IBM site was not
operating, and well SB-11 was producing at 1,100 gpm.
The equipotential lines shown in Figure 6 for the Farrington
Sand on the IBM property indicate a region of concentrated
drawdown in the northeast corner of the site and a region of
apparent recharge in the southeast corner. No explanation
is given for these features in the available site data
reports. Examination of these figures shows that the
potentiometric head is generally higher in the shallow
aquifer than in the deep, indicating the potential for
downward flow through the intervening clay layer.
Aquifer tests run in the shallow aquifer on the IBM site
indicated hydraulic conductivities for the shallow aquifer
from 7 x 10'3 to 1.5 x 10'1 centimeters per second (cm/s).
These are depth-averaged estimates of horizontal hydraulic
conductivity. This wide range of values indicates that /""
there is significant areal non-uniformity in the shallow
aquifer. Slug tests performed in nests of piezometers have
indicated that the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow
aquifer also varies widely with depth, but no pattern could
be discerned in the variations.
Average ground-water transport rates in the shallow aquifer
at the IBM site have been calculated from gradients and
hydraulic properties. These rates have been shown to be
approximately 4 feet per day towards well SB-11. Chemical
transport rates have been estimated based on the times of
contaminant appearance in the shallow aquifer monitoring
wells, to be approximately 1.9 feet per!day for
trichloroethane (REWAI, 1987).
No aquifer test results or hydraulic conductivity estimates
for the deep Farrington Sand aquifer are available.
-------
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
The principal contaminants of concern at the IBM Dayton
facility are the volatile organics 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(TCA), and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). The maximum concen-
trations of these compounds that have been found in the
ground water at the site are 9,590 ppb of TCA and 6,132 ppb
of PCE. Considerably lower concentrations of trichloro-
ethylene, 1,1-dichloroethylene, and 1,1-dichloroethane have
also been generally present. The densities of all these
contaminants are greater than the density of water.
The suspected source of the contamination is near well
GW-32, at the southwest corner of Building 001., Chemical
storage tanks located in this area were removed from the
site in 1978, but no records have been obtained indicating
that any soil contamination measurements were made at that
time. In 1985 and 1986, soil samples taken from boreholes
around the main IBM building were analyzed and a maximum
soil concentration of 13,255 ppb of total VOCs was found at
a depth of 22.5 feet near the suspected source area. No
contamination was found in this borehole above this
elevation, and, in general, the shallower soil samples did
not show detectable levels of soil contamination.
The reappearance of elevated concentrations of the
contaminants after the onsite ground-water extraction system
was shut off has led IBM's consultants to suspect the
presence of a residual source of dense nonaqueous liquids
(DNAPLs) in one or both of the aquifers. To date, there is
no record of any physical evidence of DNAPLs being found in
the aquifers. Rather, their presence is suspected because
of the changes that have been observed in ground-water
contamination patterns and the apparent absence of
widespread soil contamination near the ground surface.
The highest levels of contamination have been found in the
shallow aquifer on the IBM property. Figure 7 shows the
distribution of total volatile organics in the shallow
aquifer based on averages of samples taken from January to
June of 1978.
I |
Contamination of the deep aquifer generally involves the
same contaminants as the shallow aquifer, but the maximum
concentrations detected have been lower. Figure 8 shows the
time averaged concentrations of TCA in the lower aquifer for
the period of January to June 1980. The highest concentra-
tion for TCA, as shown on the figure, is 2,461 ppb at the
offsite well BBd.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the remedial action
was in progress at the site, uniform regulatory criteria for
-------
gro-vmd-water concentrations o£ these organic compounds had
not been established. The decision to terminate pumping of
the ground-water extraction system seems to have been based
primarily on the contention that continued pumping would not
significantly reduce the contaminant concentrations in the
ground water. In 1984, the AACO issued by the NJDEP
established a TCA concentration of 1.00 ppb as the action
level below which reactivation of the system would not be
required.
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
Objectives of Remediation
The objective of the ground-water extraction system that was
installed in 1978 was to restore the ground-water quality in
both aquifers to levels that would be suitable for the
municipal drinking water supply. In 1983, after several
years of operating experience with the system, it, was
predicted that the upper aquifer would be fully restored by
the end of 1984, and that the lower aquifer would require at
least another 5 years for complete cleanup (Althoff, 1983).
At that time, it was thought that the contamination problem
involved a total of approximately 400 gallons of solvent,
and the projected cleanup schedule was based on the
estimated time required to remove this quantity of contam-
inants. No precise definition of what constituted complete
aquifer cleanup had then been established. When the ground-
water extraction was stopped in 1984, it was thought that
its goals had been achieved satisfactorily. It was expected
that continued pumping of production well SB-11 alone would
remove the relatively low levels of remaining contamination
in the aquifers.
In response to the observed re-establishment of the
contaminant plumes since the system was shut off in 1984, a
plan, with somewhat modified objectives, has been formulated
for renewed ground-water extraction. This plan calls for
three phases of the extraction system operation designed to
achieve control over the migration of the plume in the upper
aquifer. The progressive phases will require decreased
pumping as the extent of the plume is reduced. In the final
phase it is expected that relatively low rates of pumping
from wells close to the source area will effectively control
the plume, but the duration of this phase is indefinite.
-------
System Configuration
The initial ground-water extraction system installed in 1978
consisted of 13 onsite extraction wells in the shallow
aquifer and one onsite extraction well (Well GW-18E) in the
deep aquifer. These wells were operated in conjunction with
the offsite production well SB-11. The onsite pumping
effort was divided between two areas (see Figure 2): the
suspected source area southwest of IBM Building 001, and the
downgradient area to the north and east of Building 001.
There is some disagreement among the various data sources as
to the pumping rates for these wells. The initial capacity
of the system that treated the ground water extracted onsite
was 70 gpm. This was later increased to 416 gpm. In 1983,
it was reported that the average extraction rate for the
onsite extraction system since the commencement of
remediation had been 300 gpm (Althoff, 1983). The offsite
well, SB-11, was pumped at 500 to 600 gpm during this period
and the water extracted from it was discharged to the
sanitary sewers. Figure 9 is a graphic illustration of the
operating history of the onsite extraction wells.
In 1982, an additional offsite pumping center was added to
the system midway between the IBM site and Well SB-IK The
ground water extracted from the seven wells in this system
was treated and then reinjected to the shallow aquifer
through a line of 9 injection wells along the northeastern
site boundary. The extraction and injection well locations
for this new system are shown in Figures 2 and 5. The
purpose of this extraction/injection well system was
apparently to separate the contaminant plume into an onsite
portion and an offsite portion and to accelerate the
hydraulic flushing of both portions. The injection wells
were used only for a short time because their efficiencies
deteriorated rapidly. When the injection wells were tested
later (GWC, 1988) it was found that their injection
capacities had been reduced by an order of magnitude due to
well deterioration.
nj ''
The water extracted from the onsite wells was treated by air
stripping and then returned to the ground-water system by
means of a spray irrigation field located on the western
portion of the IBM site (see Figure 2).
In addition to the extraction and injection wells, the
remediation system included nearly 100 monitoring wells in
both aquifers. These wells were used to monitor both the
hydraulic performance of the system and the changes in
ground-water quality. Most of the sample analysis was done
in IBM's onsite laboratory. When ground-water extraction
was terminated in 1984, the AACO designated a group of
offsite wells in the shallow aquifer as perimeter monitoring
-------
wells that would be sampled on a monthly basis. These wells
are shown in Figure 2. If the action level (100 ppb of TCA)
was exceeded in any of these wells, IBM was required to
notify NJDEP, and further remedial action might be required.
In 1988, a second ground-water remediation scheme was
proposed by IBM to prevent the contaminant plume in the
shallow aquifer from continuing to migrate off site. This
plan consists of three phases involving migration control at
the site boundary and at the suspected onsite source of
contamination. In Phase I, two of the former injection
wells near the northeast boundary of the site will be pumped
to prevent further offsite plume migration. In Phase II,
two new wells will be added in the suspected source area,
which will be pumped in addition to the boundary control
wells. This phase will begin as soon as the new wells can
be constructed. It is expected that Phase I will last for 1
to 1-1/2 years. When the extent of the plume has been
reduced to the immediate area of the source by Phase II
operations, the boundary control wells will be turned off.
Phase III will consist of continued pumping from one or both
of the source area wells for an indefinite period. The
locations of these wells and their projected pumping rates
were determined with the help of numerical models of ground-
water flow in the shallow aquifer.
IBM has proposed that the contamination in the lower aquifer
be controlled by continued pumping of production well SB-11
with well head treatment. This is recommended as a way to
keep the plume in the lower aquifer from spreading to other
production wells, while permitting South Brunswick Township
to use the water produced for municipal1water supply. The
first phase of the renewed remediation is expected to begin
in late summer 1989.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
IBM's consultants concluded in 1984 that the ground-water
extraction system operated between 1978 and 1984 had been
very successful in diminishing the size of the contaminant
plume in the shallow aquifer. The authorization by NJDEP
for termination of the system in 1984 indicates that the
state authorities agreed with this assessment at that time.
Figure 10 shows the distribution of total volatile organics
in the upper aquifer in August 1984. Comparison with the
corresponding distribution for January-June 1978 (see
Figure 7) shows that both the size of the plume and the
concentrations had been reduced dramatically. At that time
it was expected that pumping from well SB-11 would be
adequate to complete the aquifer cleanup.
8
-------
Continued monitoring showed contamination increases in the
shallow aquifer concentrations after the system was shut
down. Figure 11 shows the distribution of total volatile
organics in April 1987, 2-1/2 years after the termination of
onsite extraction. Comparison of this figure with the
distribution for August 1984 (Figure 10) shows the
re-emergence of the plume in the onsite areas downgradient
of the source. However, the downgradient end of the 1984
plume has disappeared and was probably swept into
well SB-11.
Figures 12 and 13 show the time history of concentration
fluctuations for the two primary contaminants, TCA and PCE,
in two of the onsite extraction wells. Well GW-32 is near
the suspected source area, where the highest contaminant
concentrations have been recorded. This well x
-------
and PCE. This may be due to the increased pumping rate of
the offsite production well SB-11.
Figure 15 shows the time variation of concentrations in
well SB-11. This well is located in an area where the clay
layer separating the upper and lower aquifers is missing.
Therefore, the contaminants produced are derived from both
aquifers. The concentrations of contaminants in well SB-11
seem to have established themselves at relatively low
values, probably because the well continues to pump at about
1,100 gpm and significant dilution may occur as a result.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
Both the shallow and deep aquifers at the IBM Dayton
facility have been contaminated with chlorinated organic
solvents. The ground-water remediation program has been
aimed primarily at the contamination plume in the shallow
aquifer. The extraction well system was successful in
reducing the extent and concentrations of contaminants in
the shallow aquifer during its operating period of 1978 to
1984. However, the concentrations of TCA and PCE in the
immediate source area appeared to stabilize at levels above
100 ppb. This apparent stabilization of concentrations was
interpreted as an indication that the system could be shut
off because continued pumping would not reduce the concen-
trations further. When extraction was terminated, the
concentrations began to rise.
The reappearance of higher concentrations has been-attri-
buted to the presence of DNAPLs in both the upper and lower
aquifers. IBM's consultants have concluded that this
residual source of contaminants cannot effectively be
removed by ground-water extraction. Therefore, they intend
to resume extraction at lower pumping rates with the
objective of plume containmentc The experience gained with
the earlier ground-water extraction system has given them
confidence that the plume can be confined to a relatively
small area around the source zone with a much lower level of
effort than was applied when the goal was total aquifer
restoration.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Althoff, W.F. and C.L. Maack. An Example of a Major
Groundwater Cleanup in New Jersey. February 1983. NJ
Division of Water Resources.
R.E. Wright Associates, Inc. (REWAI). Report on the
Investigation of Chemical Reappearance in Groundwater at the
IBM Dayton Site. October 1987.
10
-------
Groundwater Sciences Corporation (GWC). Groundwater
Remediation Plan IBM Dayton, New Jersey Facility. March
1988.
Groundwater Sciences Corporation, et al. DNAPL Geochemistry
and Remedial Feasibility, Farrington Sand Aquifer. Dayton,
New Jersey. August 1988.
WDR428/040.50
11
-------
Evaluation of Ground-Water
Extraction Remedies
Volume 2, Part 2
Case Studies 11-19
Interim Final
October 1989
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C 20460
-------
Notice
Development of this document was funded by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency in part under contract No. 68-W8-0098 to CH2M HILL
SOUTHEAST. It has been subjected to the Agency's review process and approved for
publication as an EPA document.
The policies and procedures set out in this document are intended solely for the
guidance of response personnel. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon,
to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation
with the United States. The Agency reserves the right to act at variance witn these
policies and procedures and to change them at any time without public notice.
-------
LIST OF CASE STUDIES
1. Amphenol Corporation
2. Black & Decker, Inc.
3. Des Moines TCE
4. DuPont-Mobile Plant
5. Emerson Electric Company
6. Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
7. General Mills, Inc.
8. GenRad Corporation
9. Harris Corporation
10. IBM-Dayton
11. IBM-San Jose
12. Nichols Engineering
13. Olin Corporation
14. Ponders Corner
15. Savannah River Plant A/M-Area
16. Site A
17. Utah Power & Light
18. Verona Well Field
19. Ville Mercier
WDCR13/036.50
-------
-------
CASE STUDY 11
IBM General Products Division
San Jose, California
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
This case study summarizes the remediation of ground-water
contamination from beneath the IBM General Products Division
site, located at 5600 Cottle Road in San Jose, California
(Figure 1). The IBM facility, which includes 39 buildings
containing offices, laboratories, and manufactxiring areas,
first began operation in 1956. Magnetic disks and heads for
computer hardware are manufactured at this site using a
variety of process chemicals and materials. The contamin-
ants of concern are Freon 113, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA),
1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE).
SITE HISTORY
i i
Contamination was first detected at this site in 1978 during
an internal environmental review program conducted by IBM.
As part of this review program, soil and ground water from
both inside and outside the IBM boundaries were sampled.
Halogenated organic compounds were detected in both soil and
ground water onsite and in ground water offsite. The areas
studied are shown in Figure 2.
As a result of the contamination detected, further soil and
ground-water investigations were conducted and interim
remedial actions were implemented onsite and offsite to
clean up contamination and control contaminant movement
through the soil and ground water. Over 23,000 cubic yards
of soil have been excavated from onsite source areas and ^
65 buried storage tanks have been removed or placed above
ground to facilitate monitoring.
Extraction wells have been installed at three onsite source
areas, at the western site boundary, and at two offsite
locations—at mid-plume and Edenvale Gap. The extraction
systems in the onsite source areas were installed in 1982.
The extraction system at the site boundary and in the mid-
plume area were installed in 1983, and the Edenvale Gap
system in March 1984.
In one area onsite, an accidental release of Shell Sol 140
occurred in late November 1985. In December 1985, product
recovery and hydraulic control activities were implemented
at the Shell Sol 140 release area.
In May 1986, the State Water Quality Control Board ordered
IBM to submit an overall long-term plan for remedial action
following a similar order by the Regional Water Control
-------
Board in December 1984. In June 1987, IBM submitted a draft
of its long-term remediation plan (KJC, 1987). Proposed
aspects of the plan included:
o Establishing contaminant concentration goals
o Continuing the boundary-well extraction system
until downgradient monitoring-well concentrations
were below goal concentrations
o Installing a system of approximately five
extraction wells in the A aquifer just offsite
near well 12A
o Adding four more B-aquifer extraction wells along
the centerline of the offsite plume
o Conducting additional vadose zone investigations
onsite
o Treating the extracted water using air stripping
o Discharging the treated effluent to existing Santa
Clara. Valley Water District infiltration basins to
promote recharge.
The decision on whether to install the proposed additional
extraction wells will not be made until August 1989 (HLA,
1989b).
GEOLOGY
The IBM facility is located in the Santa Teresa Plain in the
southern part of the Santa Clara Valley. The Santa Clara
Valley was created by tectonic movement and remains
tectonically active. Bedrock underlies the Santa Teresa
Plain and forms the surrounding mountains. Most of the
bedrock consists of consolidated sandstones, shales, cherts,
serpentinite, and ultrabasic rocks. There are no known
significant bedrock aquifers within the basin.
The valley floor is underlain by Quaternary alluvium,
consisting of unconsolidated clays, silts, sands, and
gravels. The thickness of the alluvium ranges from zero
feet in the surrounding highlands where bedrock is exposed,
to approximately 400 feet near the center of the basin.
Lithologic logs of borings within the study area along the
east side of the basin indicate that the alluvium appears to
be a sequence of alternating sand and gravel zones separated
by zones of silt and clay. Because the alluvium was
-------
apparently deposited by meandering streams and rivers, the
individual zones are extensive lengthwise along the valley
but are locally discontinuous perpendicular to the valley
axis.
HYDROGEOLOGY
The coarser sand and gravel layers in the basin form a
series of aquifers that are generally separated by silt or
clay layers. The monitored aquifer zones are referred to
as the A, B, C, D, and E aquifers, in order of increasing
depth. (Note: The layering of these aquifers is illus-
trated in cross sections on Figures 4 and 5 in the following
Section.) There are deeper aquifers in some areas and at
some locations aquifers merge because of discontinuities in
the aquitards. For example, the B and C aquifers merge to
form the BC aquifer in the vicinity of the Edenvale Gap, and
in other locations in the study area. All of these aquifers
are interconnected to some degree (KJC, 1987). Vertical
flow between aquifers has been estimated but has not been
reported because of high spatial heterogeneity,, Aquifer
properties are shown in Table 1.
Aquifer
A
B
C
BC
D
E
Table 1
AQUIFER PROPERTIES
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/min)
0.12 to 2.2
0.14 to 3.8
0.26 to 1.3
1.4 to 1.7
0.2
NA
Transmissivity
(ft2/min) Storage Coefficient
1.0 to 45
7.5 to 66
7.2 to 29
25 to 100
3.1
NA
0.0059 to 0.22
1.7xlO-; to 7.0X10-4
6.6xlO'5 to 1.8xlO'4
5.8xlO-'5 to 5.2X10"4
3.6xlO'5
NA
Notes:NA = not available
Compiled from HLA, 1987
The A aquifer ranges from 5 to 30 feet thick, and is first
encountered at depths of 20 to 25 feet below the ground
surface. The A aquifer was locally confined in the past,
but is currently a perched aquifer as a result of general
water level decline and remedial pumping. In the southern
portion of the IBM facility, the A aquifer has been
-------
dewatered (HLA, 1987, Plate Bl-19). Ground-water flow in
the A aquifer is generally to the northwest (HLA, 1987).
The B and C aquifers are more laterally extensive and
coarser grained than the A aquifer (KJC, 1987). The B
aquifer ranges from 15 to 45 feet thick and is encountered
at depths of 50 to 60 feet below ground surface. The onsite
B aquifer generally consists of two or three sand and/or
gravel units separated by silts or clays. The B aquifer has
become unconfined in much of the study area except in local
offsite areas.
The C aquifer is confined. It is between 90 and 100 feet
below ground surface and is approximately 15 to 35 feet
thick. The B and C aquifers merge in the area near Edenvale
Gap to form the BC aquifer which is encountered between 50
and 60 feet below ground surface and is approximately 75 to
100 feet thick (HLA, 1987). Ground-water flow in the B and
C aquifers is to the northwest at approximately 6 to 10 feet
per day.
The top of the confined D aquifer is from 140 to 150 feet
below ground surface and the unit is approximately 10 to 20
feet thick onsite. The E aquifer is also confined, located
approximately 170 to 200 feet below ground surface, and is
approximately 10 to 35 feet thick.
Ground-water discharge from the basin occurs by underflow
and through pumping. Total pumping volume has increased
since 1983 due to operation of ground-water restoration
programs at IBM and at the nearby Fairchild Semiconductor
Corporation facility. Estimates of ground-water recharge
and discharge indicate that the Santa Teresa Basin is being
overdrawn (see Table 2). As a result, water levels in the
A, B, C, and D aquifers have declined.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
The primary contaminants of concern at this site are
Freon 113, TCA, 1,1-DCE, and TCE. The release of
contaminants to soil and ground water at the IBM facility
may have been the result of surface spills and leaking
underground piping. The contaminant source areas are near
buildings where organic chemicals have been used and stored.
No inventory of the mass of contaminants released to the
subsurface or present in the aquifers has been reported.
The distribution of contaminants at the IBM site is complex,
involving several contaminants and several geologic layers.
Contamination is found in all five aquifer layers and is
found both onsite and offsite. Figure 3 is a cross section
-------
location map of the site. Figure 4 shows cross section
A-A», and the profile distribution of the average 1985 TCA
concentrations. Cross section A-A' is oriented along the
axis of the main plume and is roughly parallel to the
regional flow direction. It shows that the contamination of
the A aquifer appears to be limited to the boundaries of the
IBM facility. It also shows that offsite contamination
exists in the B, C, and D aquifers and that the B and
C aquifers appear to have the highest concentrations of
contaminants. The D and E aquifers have not been well
characterized in the mid-plume area so it is difficult to
correlate unit D near Edenvale Gap to units D and E under
the IBM facility. The D and E aquifers did not appear to be
contaminated directly under the IBM facility bxit were
contaminated down to the bedrock near Edenvale Gap. This
may suggest that these contaminants migrated downward as
they moved laterally from the IBM site to Edenvale Gap.
The distribution of the average 1985 TCA concentrations in
profile is shown in cross sections B-B» through E-E' in
Figure 5. These cross sections show that the A-aquifer TCA
contamination is limited to areas within or near the IBM
facility boundaries. The cross sections also show that the
width of the 1 ppb plume is about 1,500 feet at: mid-plume
and less than 500 feet at cross section E-E' near Edenvale
Gap. The narrowing of the plume width at Edenvale Gap
appears to be due to a convergence of ground-water flow
lines at Edenvale Gap.
The 1985 Freon 113 plume was slightly more extensive than
the 1985 TCA plume offsite, but otherwise had a similar
distribution of contamination. The 1,1-DCE plume was
considerably less extensive offsite than either the TCA or
Freon 113 plumes. The contamination of the A aquifer by the
three major contaminant plumes was limited to areas within
or near the boundaries of the IBM facility. Other organic
contaminants present at the site are also limited to areas
within or near the IBM boundary.
Although Freon 113 contamination is the most extensive, it
is of least concern from a health protection standpoint
because of the low toxicity of Freon 113. The long-term
target remediation concentrations for contaminants present
in the A aquifer are shown in Table 3. The target
concentrations for contaminants present in the B through
E aquifers are shown in Table 4. The standards for the
deeper aquifers are more conservative because the deeper
aquifers are more extensive and are used for water supply.
-------
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
IBM installed three ground-water extraction systems: an
onsite system centered around known source areas, a boundary
system, and an offsite system. The objective of the three
systems is to reduce the contaminant concentrations in the
aquifers to the target levels listed in Tables 3 and 4. An
additional objective of the boundary extraction wells and
the offsite wells at Edenvale Gap is to control contaminant
migration.
IBM has installed 30 extraction wells to remove contamina-
tion and control ground-water movement (KJC, 1987, p. ES-1).
The onsite ground-water extraction wells centered around the
A-aquifer source areas pump from source areas at Building
001 (Wells A-17 and A-22), Tank Farm 067/Building 006 (Well
A-29), Building 025 TCE Area (Well A-31), and the Shell Sol
140 Release area (RA-16 to RA-21) (KJC, 1987). The
A-aquifer wells are shown in Figure 6.
The boundary extraction system consists of eight A-aquifer
wells, seven B-aquifer wells, and two C-aquifer wells. The
onsite and offsite B-aquifer wells are shown in Figures 7
and 8, respectively. The C-aquifer wells are shown in
Figure 9 and the D-aquifer and E-aquifer wells are shown in
Figure 10. No extraction wells in the D and E aquifers were
required by the Regional Water Control Board, and as a
result, no wells were installed.
Remedial pumping began in the onsite A-aquifer wells in
early 1983 and in the onsite B- and C-aquifer wells in
May 1982. Offsite remedial pumping began from late 1983
(ORC-1) to late 1984 (ORBC-3). Figure 11 shows the period
of operation and average flow rate through early 1987.
Table 5 shows the operational history for all extraction
wells and the April 1988 extraction rate for the wells
operating at that time. Due to basin overdraft, four
B-aquifer wells, both C-aquifer wells in the boundary
system, and wells ORC-1 and ORBC-2 were shut off in April,
1988.
IBM has installed over 350 monitoring wells to evaluate the
distribution and concentration of chemicals in ground water,
and to study the geology at each well location. Monitoring
well locations in each of the aquifers are shown in
Figures 6 through 10. Most of the monitoring wells
installed to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial
pumping are sampled and analyzed monthly or quarterly for
-------
selected parameters. As of June 1987, over 25,000 ground-
water samples had been collected and analyzed (KJC, 1987).
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
i
Hydraulic Control
i !
The effectiveness of ground-water extraction systems in
controlling the movement of contaminated ground water can be
assessed by examining the aquifer's hydraulic response to
pumping. This hydraulic response has been measured and
modeled.
Figure 12 is a map of water-level elevations in the
A aquifer in June 1986. The general direction of ground-
water flow in the A aquifer at that time was northwest. In
June 1986, only barrier well RA-2 was being pumped because
of dewatering of the A aquifer. Despite a pumping rate of
only 30 gpm in RA-2, there was a significant elongated
depression in the potentiometric surface of the A aquifer
northwest of the IBM facility in June 1986. The sediments
in this area were probably deposited parallel to the valley
axis, which is parallel to this depressed area. The
influence of RA-2 may be extensive to the northwest because
of high hydraulic conductivity along this area. Leakage
down to the B aquifer may also be contributing to this
effect.
The effect of extraction on the potentiometric surface of
the B aquifer in June 1986 was also significant (see
Figure 13). Broad cones of depression are evident at
Edenvale Gap, the mid-plume area, and near the onsite
barrier well system. Judging from Figure 13, the zone of
capture of the onsite barrier well system appears to include
the entire IBM property. An elongated depressed area
northwest of the barrier wells was also present in the
B aquifer in June 1986.
The zone of capture of the mid-plume system in the B aquifer
also seemed to be extensive in a direction normal to the
principal flow direction in June 1986. The dashed line
indicating the estimated limit of the zone of capture of the
mid-plume system extends laterally over 2,000 feet, both
northeast and southwest of the mid-plume extraction well.
This suggests that the mid-plume system was hydraulically
effective in capturing the entire contaminant plume
upgradient of its influence in June 1986. These same
conclusions can be made based on the water level maps of the
C aquifer. The D-aquifer water level maps show flow to the
northwest near the IBM facility.
-------
Reductions in Mass and Concentration of;Contaminants
The effectiveness of contaminant mass removal can be
assessed by reviewing evidence of regional and point
decreases in contaminant concentrations and by calculating
the mass of contaminants removed by the remediation system.
To assess spatial and temporal variations in
distribution, concentration contour maps and
plots of concentration are presented. Three
are compared on the contour maps--the second
1984 and 1986 and the last quarter of 1988.
plots of concentration cover the period, from
through mid-May 1987.
contaminant
time series
time periods
quarters of
The time series
January 1983
A Aquifer. The second quarter, 1984 and second quarter,
1986 contour maps of TCA concentrations in the A aquifer are
shown in Figure 14. These can be compared to the contour
map for the fourth quarter of 1988 (Figure 15) to show the
progress of TCA cleanup after over 4-1/2 years of operation.
Concentrations of TCA in the northeast increased from 1984
to 1986 and then decreased to concentrations below the 1984
levels by the fourth quarter of 1988. In general, however,
the size of the 10-ppb and 100-ppb plumes does not appear to
have changed considerably from 1984 to 1988, suggesting a
continuous source of TCA or ineffective extraction of TCA.
Figures 16 and 17 show contour maps of 1,1-DCE concentration
for the second quarter of 1984, the second quarter of 1986,
and the fourth quarter of 1988. These results show one to
two order reductions in 1,1-DCE concentrations to the south,
and to the east near building 001, but little change in the
northwest part of the plume. 1,1-DCE concentrations remain
above target levels in a few areas onsite but are below
target levels offsite. Contour maps of Freon 113 concentra-
tions over the same period of time show some evidence of
reduction in the size and concentration of the onsite
Freon 113 plume to the northeast and southwest.
A partial explanation of the minimal reductions in
contaminant concentrations to the northwest may be that
several of the eight A-aquifer boundary extraction wells in
that area were shut off because of dewatering. As of the
end of 1988, only RA-2 was pumping--at a rate of about
30 gpm. Nonetheless, about 73 pounds of Freon 113 and
25 pounds of TCA were removed by the A-aquifer boundary
wells from early 1983 to March 1987..
B Aquifer. The second quarter, 1984 and 1986 contour maps
of TCA concentrations in the B-aquifer are shown in
Figure 18. A comparison to Figure 19, the equivalent map
8
-------
from the fourth quarter of 1988, shows that concentrations
of TCA in the mid-plume area near ORB-1 have decreased. The
TCA concentration in ORB-1 was over 100 ppb in the second
quarter of 1984, but was apparently less than 50 ppb in the
fourth quarter of 1988. The contour maps also suggest that
the concentration of TCA in wells 13-B, 2-B, and 5-B
decreased from above 50 ppb in 1984 to between 10 and 50 ppb
in 1988. However, other data sources show that the concen-
tration of TCA in these wells has not declined significantly
over this period. There was almost no change in the
position of the 10-ppb and 1-ppb contours of TCA over the
4-1/2 year period. Freon 113 concentrations in the
B aquifer also show substantial reductions in the mid-plume
area near ORB-1 and virtually no change in the 10-ppb and
1-ppb contours from the second quarter, 1984 to the fourth
quarter, 1988.
The second quarter, 1984 second quarter, 1986; and fourth
quarter, 1988 contour maps of 1,1-DCE concentrations in the
B aquifer are shown in Figures 20 and 21, respectively.
1,1-DCE concentrations were less than 10 ppb throughout the
B aquifer at the site over this entire period. Virtually no
change in the position or concentration of the 1,1-DCE plume
over this 4-1/2 year period was evident, however.
The lack of change in the 1-ppb contour of 1,1-DCE and the
lack of change in the 10-ppb and 1-ppb contours of TCA and
Freon 113 are probably due to the fact that very little
contaminant mass is being extracted at these concentrations.
Well ORB-1 extracted only 6.1 pounds of Freon, 9.4 pounds of
TCA and 0.5 pounds of 1,1-DCE in 1988 (HLA, 1989b).
Furthermore, this mass is removed from a large area.
Progress is expected to be very slow at these concentra-
tions. The extraction continues in all areas despite the
fact that Freon 113 and TCA appear to be well below their
action levels of 4,500 ppb and 50 ppb, respectively. 1,1-
DCE appeared to be at or below its B-aquifer action level of
1.5 ppb in the fourth quarter of 1988.
Evidence of progress in the B-aquifer restoration is demon-
strated by the set of three graphs in Figure 22. These
graphs show the mass of contaminants removed from the
extracted ground water from early 1983 to early 1987. As of
December 1986, 4,800 pounds of Freon 113, 153 pounds of TCA,
and 27 pounds of 1,1-DCE had been removed by the onsite
B-aquifer boundary extraction system. The mid-plume
recovery well ORB-1 had removed about 170 pounds of Freon
113, 205 pounds of TCA, and 6.5 pounds of 1,1-DCE from the
B aquifer by this same date.
-------
An extraction system installed in the unseparated B-C
aquifer at Edenvale Gap has been active; since early 1984.
Combined pump rates of over 2000 gpm in wells ORBC-2 and
ORBC-3 have led to the recovery of about 5 billion gallons
of ground water containing about 385 pounds of TCA and 370
pounds of Freon 113 as of March 1987.
C Aquifer. The second quarter, 1984 second quarter, 1986;
and fourth quarter, 1988 contour maps of TCA concentrations
in the C aquifer are shown in Figures 23 and 24,
respectively. Comparison of these maps shows a slight
decrease in TCA concentrations in the Edenvale Gap and mid-
plume areas, but virtually no change elsewhere. Freon 113
concentrations appear to have increased slightly in some
areas over the same period. Time series plots of the
concentrations of Freon 113 and TCA in wells 9-C and ORC-1
in the mid-plume area from early 1983 to early 1987
(Figure 25) show a stable TCA concentration of about 10 ppb
and a stable or slightly increasing trend in Freon 113
concentrations.
The reduction of contaminant mass in the subsurface is one
indication that remediation is progressing. Table 6
presents a summary of total ground water extracted and
chemical mass removed by the three systems from 1983 through
1987 (KJC, 1988, Appendix SI). From June 1983 through 1987,
approximately 7,679 pounds of Freon 113, TCA, and 1,1-DCE
were removed from the extracted ground water. The initial
contaminant mass inventory has not been reported.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
The interim remedial measures implemented at the IBM-San
Jose site can be summarized as follows:,
o There are four aquifer systems beneath the IBM
facility that are contaminated with organic
solvents. These are referred to as the A, B, C,
and D aquifers. The A-aquifer contamination is
mainly within the boundaries of the IBM facility.
The B, C, and D concentration plumes extend
offsite to beyond Edenvale Gap to the northwest.
o Three extraction systems were installed; a system
of dispersed onsite extraction wells that pump
from the A aquifer; an onsite barrier-well system
that pumps the A, B, and C aquifers from a line of
wells on the western boundary of the facility; and
an offsite extraction system that pumps from the
B, BC, and C aquifers.
10
-------
Six years of operation have reduced the
contaminant concentrations onsite in the A aquifer
in the southeastern half of the plume but have had
only a minor effect on the northwestern half,
possibly because of dewatering. In the B and
C aquifers offsite, the extraction systems have
reduced concentrations near the centerline of the
plume ellipsoid, particularly near the boundary
wells and at mid-plume, but have had little effect
on low-concentration areas of the plume more than
400 to 500 feet perpendicular to the centerline.
This may be because the reduction in contaminant
mass is very small at these concentrations and
pumping rates and as a result, concentrations
decrease very slowly. Steady or slightly
decreasing concentrations are expected in large
areas of low contamination such as this. Some
contamination may also be present in the
unsaturated zone or sorbed to the solid phase in
the saturated zone.
Water level results from June 1986 suggest a
hydraulic zone of capture that includes these
areas of low concentration. The contaminated
water that is not captured by the mid-plume system
may be captured by the extraction system at
Edenvale Gap after several years of migration
driven by natural gradients.
The offsite plume is large and has migrated more
than 2 miles offsite. The concentrations observed
in offsite wells screened in the B and C aquifers
are generally stable or decreasing slightly. The
offsite extraction systems may have to be operated
for many years because of the current slow rate of
decline in contaminant concentrations.
Over 7,600 pounds of contaminants (Freon 113, TCA,
and 1,1-DCE) were removed by the extraction
systems from 1983 through 1987. The initial mass
of solvents contaminating the subsurface is
unknown.
The detrimental dewatering effect of IBM's
remediation pumping deserves attention, especially
considering that the concentrations of
contaminants in most offsite areas are below
action levels. A 1985 ground-water balance
estimate for the Santa Teresa Basin showed that
6,900 to 29,900 acre-feet of overdraft occurred in
1985. Increased regional pumping costs and land
11
-------
subsidence are two anticipated effects of
overdraft. The proposed discharge of the treated
water to the Santa Clara Valley Water District
infiltration basins (KJC, 1987) is expected to
decrease the rate of decline in water levels, but
some irreversible land subsidence effect is still
possible. Some actions to decrease pumping and
increase recharge have been taken during the last
2 years, including reductions in remediation-
related pumping at the IBM facility and the nearby
Fairchild Semiconductor facility (HLA, 1989b; Phil
Mitchell, personal communication, May 23, 1989).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Harding Lawson Associates. June 1987. Appendix B: Summary
of Hydrogeologic Studies, Draft Comprehensive Plan, IBM
Ground Water Restoration Program, IBM General Products
Division, San Jose, California.
Harding Lawson Associates. January 1989(a). Quarterly
Report, September 1988 through December 1988, IBM Ground
Water Restoration Program, IBM General Products Division,
San Jose, California.
Harding Lawson Associates.
Phil Mitchell.
May 15, 1989(b). Letter to Mr,
IBM. April 1988. IBM Draft Comprehensive Plan Supplement,
Ground-water Restoration Program.
Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton. June 1987. Draft Comprehensive
Plan, IBM Ground Water Restoration Program, IBM General
Products Division, San Jose, California.
Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton. April 1988. Draft Supplement
Comprehensive Plan, IBM Ground Water Restoration Program,
IBM General Products Division, San Jose, California.
Mitchell, Phil. May 23, 1989. Personal communication.
WDCR428/016.50
12
-------
-------
CASE STUDY 12
Nichols Engineering and Research Corporation
Hillsborough Township, New Jersey
-------
CASE STUDY FOR
THE NICHOLS ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH CORPORATION SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The Nichols Engineering and Research Corporation (NERC) site
is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of
Willow and Holmstead Roads in Hillsborough Township,
Somerset County, New Jersey. It was operated as a combus-
tion research pilot plant in which f luidized-becl and rotary-
kiln incineration of slag was tested. All of the necessary
chemical analyses, including feed and product stream analy-
sis, exhaust gas analysis, and emissions testing, were done
onsite. The ground water occurs in a fractured rock aquifer
and has elevated levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC).
All operations at the facility were terminated in the spring
of 1983. In accordance with the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection's (NJDEP) Environmental Clean-up
Responsibility Act (ECRA), remedial action was taken consist-
ing of a ground-water recovery system, which has been in
continuous operation since January 22, 1988.
SITE HISTORY
The NERC facility was operated as a combustion research
facility from the early 1970s until the spring of 1983. A
General Information Submission (CIS), a Site Evaluation
Submission (SES), and a sampling plan were filed with the
NJDEP in accordance with the ECRA on February 15, March 14,
and August 6, 1985, respectively.
The GIS and SES were approved on September 2, 1985, and the
sampling plan was approved on November 26, 1985. A revised
sampling plan was submitted on May 14 and approved on
July 29, 1986.
Ground-water sampling beneath the NERC site performed in
1986 and early 1987 revealed VOC contamination centering
around a subsurface wastewater settling basin adjacent to
the west side of the pilot plant (see Figure 1). The basin
is suspected of being the source of the ground-water contami-
nation beneath the site.
A ground-water contaminant recovery system was installed at
the NERC facility during December 1987 and January 1988.
Prior to operation of the recovery system, depth-integrated
ground-water samples were collected from all 12 onsite moni-
toring wells and discrete ground-water samples were col-
lected from monitoring wells MW-3, MW-11,. and MW-12 using
pneumatic packers to isolate the zones to be sampled.
-------
The ground-water contaminant recovery system, consisting of
one extraction well, became operational on January 22, 1988.
It has been in continuous operation since that time at an
average pumping rate of 61 gallons per minute (gpm). The
extracted ground water is discharged to the Hillsborough
Municipal Utility Authority (HMUA) sanitary sewer system.
In January 1989, two more extraction wells were added to the
recovery system. No data have yet been: obtained on the
effects of this modification. :
GEOLOGY
The NERC facility lies within the Newark Basin of the
Piedmont Province and is underlain by the Passaic Formation.
The Passaic Formation is a consolidated sedimentary unit of
Triassic-age rock including shales, siltstones, sandstones,
and conglomerates. The formation is 600 to 19,000 feet
thick. The bedding strikes northeast to southwest, parallel
to the axis of the Newark Basin, and dips to the northwest
at 10 to 25 degrees. The Passaic Formation bedrock is gener-
ally found at a depth of 2 to 6 feet below ground surface.
It is overlain by soil consisting of a yellowish-red shaly
silt. Storch Engineers, the environmental consultants for
Nichols, conducted a fracture trace analysis of the NERC
facility and identified four major sets of linear features,
defined as prominent vertical to near-vertical fracture sets.
Two of the fracture sets strike northeast to southwest, and
the other two strike northwest to southeast.
HYDROGEOLOGY
The water-table depth ranges from 20 to 40 feet below ground
surface across the NERC site. Because saturated flow occurs
only in the bedrock, the major pathway of hydraulic and con-
taminant transport in these deposits is through faults,
fractures, and bedding planes. The orientation of the pre-
pumping and post-pumping water tables at the NERC facility
suggests that the majority of flow occurs from southeast to
northwest (Storch Engineers, 1988a).
A local ground-water divide occurs naturally at the south-
east portion of the site. Figure 1 shows the divide, which
is centered near monitoring well-4 (MW-4). However, this
divide only exists during part of the year. Ground water to
the south and east of this divide flows toward the stream
channel of Royce Brook, which flows north across the eastern
part of the site. The gradient of the water table between
MW-4 and MW-3 is 0.034, approximately 20 times greater than
that between MW-3 and MW-6. The gradient between wells MW-4
and MW-8 is toward the southeast at 0.007 feet per horizon-
tal foot.
An aquifer pumping test was conducted at the NERC^. facility
between September 8 and September 12, 1987. Analysis of the
2
-------
pump test data reveals a complex aquifer exhibiting both
water-table and semi-confined behavior. A conceptual model
based upon analysis of the pump test data comprises a system
of two marginally independent aquifers. The uppermost
water-table aquifer, exhibiting delayed yield behavior, is
separated from a lower "high transmissivity", semi-
unconfined zone by a 10-to 20-foot thick stratum of poorly
fractured sedimentary rocks. This intervening stratum has a
somewhat lower hydraulic conductivity than either the upper
or lower zones. The confining layer is penetrated by a
number of widely distributed vertical to near-vertical
fractures. In areas of high fracture density, the two zones
behave as a single fracture network exhibiting the storage
characteristics of a water-table aquifer. Where fractures
are less well developed, the behavior of the lower zone is
semi-unconfined.
Storch Engineers postulates that the increased transmis-
sivity in the lower zone is caused by enhanced bedding plane
fracturing. The development of the cone of depression
suggests that fracturing and the associated transmissivity
tensor are anisotropic. The major axis of transmissivity is
oriented southeast to northwest, sub-parallel to two of the
four major fracture sets. The minor axis of transmissivity
is oriented southwest to northeast, parallel to the strike
of the Passaic Formation. It should be noted that the major
axis of the contaminant plume is approximately parallel to
the major axis of transmissivity.
Table 1 shows the transmissivity and storage coefficients
the upper and lower zones as well as in the major and minor
axes in the upper zone.
Table 1
AQUIFER TEST RESULTS
Transmissivity
(ft2/min)
3 x ID'2
8 x 10-1
4 x lO-2
1 x 10-2
Storage
Coefficient
6 x lO-2
5 x ID'2
2 x ID'3
2 x 10~3
Upper Zone
Lower Zone
- Boulton (1963)
Upper Zone
Major Axis (N63°W)
- Hantush (1966)
Upper Zone
Minor Axis (N27°E)
-------
Based on the hydraulic properties of the upper zone, the
seepage velocities were estimated by Storch Engineers to be
0.144 ft/day along the major transmissivity axis and
0.0144 ft/day along the minor axis. These estimates are
based on the assumption that the aquifer behaves as a conven-
tional porous medium and as such, would tend to underesti-
mate the velocity of flow along discrete fractures.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
The suspected source of ground-water contamination at the
Nichols Engineering site is a wastewater settling basin that
was located just upgradient of wells MW^l and MW-2 adjacent
to the west side of the pilot plant. The concrete-lined
basin was excavated into the bedrock to a depth of approxi-
mately 8 feet (Storch Engineers, 1989). In 1987, the basin
was removed and the shallow soils surrounding it were
excavated. The area of soil excavation was approximately
30 feet square. Soils surrounding the pit were found to be
contaminated with heavy metals and base-neutral extractable
compounds, but these compounds were not detected in the
ground water. Conversely, the VOCs that are ground-water
contaminants at the site were not found in the soil.
Results of water-quality analyses conducted on samples
collected during the first four rounds of sampling indicate
that a contaminant plume comprising the VOCs chloroform
(CHC13), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4>, and tetrachloro-
ethylene (PCE) is centered around wells MW-1 and MW-2.
The three compounds make up three individual contaminant
plumes that are collectively referred to as the "plume."
The CC14 plume is the most extensive* and has, therefore,
been used as the primary monitor of recovery system
performance. The areal extent of the plumes of the individ-
ual VOC constituents varies, but averages approximately/""
70,000 ft2. The plume boundary is defined as the 5 parts
per billion (ppb) isopleth. The required ECRA clean-up
levels are 5 ppb for each individual compound and 10 ppb for
total VOCs. Figure 2 shows the elliptical configuration of
the contaminant plume, with the major axis of elongation
oriented northwest to southeast.
The three VOCs detected at the site all have limited
solubility in water. In their pure forms, they are denser
and less viscous than water. Consequently, if they are
present in a dense, nonaqueous phase (DNAPL), they would
probably sink rapidly to the bottom of the transmissive zone
of the rock. DNAPLs may be present at the site, but no
direct physical evidence of them has been found. The
bedrock is thought to be fractured to much greater depths
than have been reached by any of the wells at the site.
-------
Of the three ground-water contaminants, chloroform has the
lowest potential for sorption to organic carbon in the
aquifer materials, and is normally quite mobile. PCE and
CC14 are both moderately mobile compounds with respect to
adsorptive retardation. However, in fractured rock
aquifers, solute retardation can also be caused by matrix
diffusion in the rock adjacent to the fractures (Freeze and
Cherry, 1979). This effect would tend to reduce the mobil-
ity of all three compounds.
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF REMEDY
Objectives of Remediation
The primary objective of the recovery system is to remove
the contaminated ground water. This entails extracting con-
taminated ground water by means of one or more recovery
wells and subsequently lowering the concentration in the
ground water to a maximum level of 5 ppb for CHC13, CC14,
and PCE and 10 ppb for total VOC.
The recovery system was implemented in accordance with a
secondary objective of minimizing installation time and cost
while maximizing the rate of contaminant removal. This
resulted in a phased approach for the recovery system
design, including the implementation of an initial, or
pilot, recovery system followed by a final recovery-system
design. Adjustments or modifications to the initial
recovery-system design constitute the final design.
System Configuration
• i |
The initial recovery system includes a single pumping well
located within the contaminant plume at well MW-3. The
recovery well operates at a discharge rate of approximately
60 to 65 gpm. Well MW-3 extends to a depth of 100 feet with
the pump intake set at 90 feet. The well penetrates to the
lower "high transmissivity" zone. The decision to pump from
the lower zone instead of the upper zone was based upon the
increased lateral extent of the associated capture zone as
well as the significant interconnection of the two zones.
Aquifer tests conducted in September 1987 indicate the well
is capable of delivering a sustained yield of 200 gpm.
However, extraction has been maintained at less than 70 gpm
because of disposal limitations.
The initial recovery system consisted of a single recovery
well, mainly because of the associated low initial costs and
time requirements. A single recovery well is less costly to
install and often less expensive to operate tha.n a multiple
recovery well system. The startup time of a single recovery
-------
well is, in most cases, much shorter than that for a multi-
ple recovery well system because the design is simpler and
construction time reduced. The existing monitoring well MW-
3 was used for extraction because of its central location in
the plume and because aquifer test results suggested that it
would provide the necessary capture zone.
The performance of well MW-3, as a recovery well, was
analyzed using the capture zone type-curve technique
(Javandel and Tsang, 1986). Figure 3 presents the analysis
graphically showing that the contaminant plume lies within
the capture zone of the recovery well pumping at 70 gpm.
All ground water removed by the recovery well is discharged
to the HMUA sewer system without pretreatment. This method
of disposal was chosen because it could be implemented
quickly, with limited installation and maintenance costs.
However, the discharge rate was limited to 100,000 gallons
per day (gpd), the maximum withdrawal allowed without a
discharge permit, to avoid the time delay and additional
costs associated with a ground-water diversion permit
application.
In January 1989, pumping was initiated from wells MW-1 and
MW-11 in addition to the continued extraction from well
MW-3, although the total extraction rate was still limited
to 70 gpm. This change was made because experience with
well MW-3 indicated that its capture zone did not extend to
well MW-11. Also, the designers of the system felt that the
rate of VOC reduction per unit of ground water removed could
be increased by distributing the extraction process among
the three wells.
All samples collected are analyzed using U.S. EPA Method 624
(GC/MS) for the priority pollutant VOCs. The original
sampling schedule proposed in the extraction system design
is presented in Table 2. Monthly sampling was done only
with wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, and MW-11. Wells MW-5, MW-7,
MW-8, MW-9, and MW-12 were analyzed initially and yielded
concentrations below the detection limit or had trace concen-
trations below the reporting limit. These wells were not
analyzed again until 7 months after the initial sampling.
Wells MW-4, MW-6, and MW-10 were sampled for the first
4 months, then again 3 months later.
-------
Monthly
*******
1 23456
Initial
Sampling:
Biweekly:
Monthly:
Quarterly:
Closure:
Table 2
ORIGINAL PROPOSED SAMPLING SCHEDULE
Quarterly
* * * * * *
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Closure
* *
25 26 27 28 29 30 Time
(Months)
Sample all monitoring wells and the recovery well for volatile
organic compounds (EPA 624)
Sample those wells showing signs of contamination, above
acceptable levels, in the initial sampling round
Sample those wells showing signs of contamination, above
acceptable levels, in either of the two prior sampling rounds
Initial quarterly round (6 months)--sample all monitoring wells
and recovery wells; remaining rounds—sample those wells showing
signs of contamination, above acceptable levels, in either of
the two prior sampling rounds
i
When a quarterly round indicates compliance with ECRA cleanup
standards, sample all monitoring wells and recovery well for two
consecutive quarters
* - sampling event
The NJDEP has expressed concern that the VOCs may be present
in the ground water downgradient of the disposal basin at
depths below the existing monitoring wells. In response to
this concern, Storch Engineers installed wells MW-11 and
MW-12 to depths of 100 feet and extended well MW-3 to that
depth during November 1987. Another deep well,, MW-10D, was
installed to a depth of 100 feet adjacent to well MW-10.
A discrete sampling program was performed on wells MW-3,
MW-11, and MW-12 to establish the vertical configuration of
the contaminant plume upgradient and perpendicular to the
regional direction of ground-water flow. Discrete sampling
was accomplished by using inflatable packers to isolate the
interval of the well to be sampled. The results of the
discrete sampling are shown in Table 3. These results sug-
gest that most of the VOC contamination is near the water
table.
-------
Table 3
RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES
DISCRETE .GROUND-WATER SAMPLING
Sample ID and Concentration (ppb)
Contaminant
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
A
43-50
ND
3.0
14
BMDL
ND
17
MW-3
B
68-75
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15
C
88-95
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.8
A
43-5
• ND
3.0
120
ND
ND
. 5.0
MM- 11
B C
Depth in Feet
0 68-75
ND •
ND
ND
ND
ND
23. 0
88-95
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.1
A
43-50
BMDL
ND
BMDL
ND
ND
7.6
MW-12
B
68-75
BMDL
BMDL
4.9
ND
ND
2.1
C
88-95
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.3
ND = None detected.
BMDL = Below method detection limit.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
The recovery system has been operating continuously since
January 22, 1988. Figure 4 illustrates the impact the
recovery well has had on the potentiometric surface.
Roughly 21,596,600 gallons of ground water had been recov-
ered as of October 6, 1988. The average flow rate was
approximately 60 gpm or 86,400 gpd.
Table 4 presents the results of the sampling analyses done
throughout the operation of the recovery system. The
results indicate that wells MW-4, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, MW-9,
MW-10, and MW-12 all have concentrations of CC14, CHC13, and
PCE below the 5-ppb cleanup level. However, this was true
before operation of the recovery system began. Varying con-
centrations of these contaminants are still being detected
in wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-5, and MW-11. Figure 5 shows the
relationship between the concentration of CC14 in wells MW-
1, MW-2, MW-10, and MW-11 and the volume of ground water
discharged over the period of operation. Note that the con-
centrations are plotted on a logarithmic scale.
8
-------
Wells MW-1 and MW-2 have yielded the highest concentrations
of VOCs, 980 and 610 ppb, respectively. Based on results of
the October 6, 1988 sampling round, CC14 concentrations in
wells MW-1 and MW-2 have been reduced by roughly 90 and
80 percent, respectively. However, the cleanup level calls
for a reduction to 5 ppb in all wells. The concentration of
CC14 in well MW-11 does not appear to have been affected by
the recovery system.
Figure 6 shows the relationship between CCI^ concentration,
water level, and precipitation for wells MW-1 and MW-2. The
concentration of CC14 in wells MW-1 and MW-2 can be seen to
have stabilized or increased during periods of increased
water levels or shortly thereafter. This suggests that a
contaminant source exists within the unsaturated zone
(Storch Engineers, 1988b).
The July 21-22, 1988, and October 6, 1988, sampling records
indicate the presence of CC14 in well MW-5 at levels above
the cleanup level (7.4 ppb and 7 ppb). CC14 had not been
detected in well MW-5 above the reporting limit before the
July sampling round. These results indicate that horizontal
and/or vertical movement of ground water contaminated with
CC14 may have occurred in the area of well MW-5. This move-
ment suggests that the plume.may not be completely contained
by the recovery system, however, confirmation is limited by
the data. Continued monitoring of this well has been recom-
mended by Storch Engineers and conclusions will be drawn
after more complete data become available.
Analysis of the sampling results indicate two important
trends. First, the rate of decrease in contaminant concen-
tration in wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-11 decreased signifi-
cantly after the first 50 to 80 days of extraction, as shown
in Figure 5. Second, precipitation and the associated uses
in water levels tend to increase the CC14 concentrations
detected in ground water, suggesting the existence of CC14
within the unsaturated zone (see Figure 6).
The first trend may result from a number of factors
including the record trend. The exchange of contaminant
mass between the fractures within the geologic formation and
the rock itself may affect the CC14 removal rate. This
process, known as matrix diffusion, results in retardation
and enhanced logitudinal dispersion in contaminant transport
through fractured rock. Another factor is the presence of
CC14 in the unsaturated zone. CC14 in this zone will not be
removed unless leached out of the soil by infiltration.
This is a slow process and that appears to be a function of
precipitation. Adsorption/desorption processes may also con-
tribute to the reduction in the removal rate.
i i :> l
It is important to note that the concentration of CC14 in
well MW-11 does not appear to have been reduced at all.
-------
This is thought by Storch Engineers to indicate that the
lower zone of well MW-11 may be outside the capture zone of
well MW-3. For this reason well MW-11 was converted to an
extraction well in January 1989, together with well MW-1.
No performance information for.the expanded system has yet
been made available, but Storch Engineers believe that it
has accelerated the remediation substantially (Storch
Engineers, 1989). They currently expect to complete
remediation before the end of the year.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
The NERC site has reported elevated levels of VOCs (mainly
CCl4> in the ground water. A ground-water recovery well has
been in continuous operation since January 22, 1988, and as
a result the CC14 concentration has been reduced by 80 to
90 percent in some wells. The rate of CC14 removal has
decreased significantly during the course of operation.
The addition of two additional extraction wells to the
system in January 1989, is thought to have accelerated the
ground-water cleanup, but no firm indication of this is yet
available.
The presence of CC14 within the unsaturated zone is of
primary concern. The addition of two recovery wells is not
likely to increase the rate of leaching of contaminants out
of the unsaturated zone.
The unsaturated zone at NERC can logically be seen as two
different zones. The first zone is the part of the unsatu-
rated zone that occurs naturally in the absence of pumping.
This natural unsaturated zone is bounded by the ground
surface and water-table surface, which occurs 20 to 40 feet
below the ground surface. The second or induced unsaturaxed
zone is that part of the unsaturated zone created by the
drawdown of the operating recovery well.
A technique that may improve the recovery rate of CC14
within the induced unsaturated zone is intermittent pumping.
By shutting off the recovery wells and allowing the water
table to resume its natural position, the induced unsatu-
rated zone will become inundated and some dissolution of
CC14 into the ground water will occur. Continuation of the
pumping process can then remove the CC14 captured by this
process. Intermittent operation of the recovery well(s)
would increase the removal of CC14 from the induced unsatu-
rated zone to some degree, but CC14 in the natural unsatu-
rated zone would not be affected. The correlation between
water level and CC14 concentration should be investigated
further and the possibility of using intermittant pumping
should be considered if the correlation is favorable.
10
-------
The CC14 in the natural unsaturated zone will not be
affected by ground-water extraction unless other actions are
taken. Although the displacement of ground water by inter-
mittent pumping will create air flow through this zone, the
impact this air flow has on the removal of CC14 is probably
minimal. Implementation of a soil vapor extraction system
does, however, have the potential to significantly affect
the removal of CC14 from this zone. Alternatively, the
treated ground water could be recharged to the surface of
the site to infiltrate through the unsaturated zone and
leach out the 0014. The apparent correlation between pre-
cipitation and elevated levels of CC14 in the ground water
suggests that this would be effective.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater.
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Prentice-
Javandel, I. and C.F. Tsang. 1986. Capture-Zone Type
Curves: A Tool for Aquifer Cleanup. Ground Water
Vol. 24 No. 5. pp. 616-625.
Storch Engineers. June 2, 1987(a). NERC Report on Ground
Water Sampling Analysis, Assessment, and Conceptual
Cleanup Plan.
Storch Engineers. September 28, 1987(b). NERC Ground
Water Contaminant Recovery and Treatment System Design-
Interim Progress Report.
Storch Engineers.
Cleanup Plan.
February 8, 1988(a). NERC Ground Water
Storch Engineers. September 28, 1988(b)
Cleanup Progress Report--July 1988.
NERC Ground Water
Storch Engineers. November 28, 1988(c). Letter to Mr.
Steven Kehayes describing progress of ground-water
recovery activities.
Storch Engineers. April 20, 1989.
with David A. Jermakian.
Personal Communication
WDCR28/005.wp
11
-------
CASE STUDY 13
Olin Corporation
Brandenburg, Kentucky
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE OLIN CHEMICAL DOE RUN PLANT
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
! [
Olin Chemical Corporation's Doe Run facility is located just
south of the Ohio River near Brandenburg, Kentucky (Figure
1). Since 1952, the plant has utilized ground water
obtained from three Ranney wells to meet its demands for
process and cooling water. Initially, all of the plant's
water needs were met using these wells, but as water demands
increased it became necessary to construct Doe Run Lake to
supplement the water supply. Presently, approximately one-
third of the 14,000 gpm of water required is supplied by
ground water and two-thirds by surface water out of the
lake.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, it became evident that
the ground water in the vicinity of Ranney Wells 1 and 2 had
become contaminated from past disposal practices: onsite
thermal destruction in open burning pits and use of settling
basins. The contaminants of concern are chloro-alkyl
ethers, primarily dichloroethyl ether (DCEE) and dichloro-
isopropyl ether (DCIPE). Ground-water extraction via the
three Ranney wells has been used since 1974 to keep the
contaminants from migrating offsite. The Kentucky Division
of Waste Management has regulated remediation activities at
the site since 1984.
SITE HISTORY
DCEE and DCIPE were found in high concentrations in the
early 1970s in Ranney Wells 1 and 2. Both ethers were
produced as waste by-products at the Doe Run plant. DCEfe
waste has not been produced since 1962 and DCIPE waste has
not been produced since 1981.
These two waste by-products were disposed of by open burning
pits and settling basins which, because of the relatively
permeable nature of the surficial soils, led to the contami-
nation of the ground water.
Hydrogeologic studies were conducted in 1974 and 1975, and
in 1980 to determine the extent and sources of the
contamination. These studies included the drilling and
installation of 24 observation and/or chemical sampling
wells.
The Ranney wells have been used to extract process water for
the plant since the early 1950s, and as such have exerted
-------
some control on contaminant migration for many years.
Starting in late 1984, the three Ranney wells were specifi-
cally operated as part of a remediation program designed to
contain and collect all contaminated ground water at the
facility. Olin intends to continue this practice to satisfy
the State of Kentucky's requirement for a corrective action
program for the ground-water contamination at the facility.
GEOLOGY
The Doe Run facility is located within the Ohio River
alluvial valley, which is approximately 1 mile wide at the
site. The valley contains two terraces, a lower and an
upper terrace. The lower terrace, or flood plain, has
surface elevations that generally range between 415 and 430
feet above mean sea level, and is subject to frequent
flooding by the river. The upper terrace, upon which most
of the plant is located, varies in elevation between 450 and
460 feet above mean sea level. Presently, the low water
level of the Ohio River is maintained at an elevation of 383
feet by the Corps of Engineers.
Typically, the upper 20 to 30 feet of material encountered
near the river is fine-grained material with a dominance of
silt and very fine sand with interbedded layers of clay.
The thickness of these deposits thins to the south towards
the higher terrace.
Underlying the finer-grained sediments is a thick sequence
of sands with varying amounts of gravel. This coarser
material represents valley train materials deposited during
the Pleistocene era by glaciers retreating from the land to
the north and east. The glacial meltwater drastically
increased the load and discharge of the Ohio River. The
hydrologic properties of these materials vary both
vertically and horizontally, but they are generally
moderately to highly permeable and capable of storing and
transmitting relatively large volumes of water. Neither
clay lenses nor zones high in silt and clay content, both
sediment types that would restrict the vertical movement of
water, were encountered within the saturated zone.
The bedrock below the unconsolidated materials is a thin to
very thin, bedded, crystalline, fossiliferous limestone.
The limestone reveals few joint patterns and appears to have
very low permeability and porosity characteristics. Figure
2 is a bedrock-surface elevation map constructed using all
available data. The bedrock valley walls are much steeper
on the north side of the valley than along the southern
margin of the valley in the vicinity of the plant.
-------
HYDROGEOLOGY
The alluvial aquifer in the vicinity of the Doe Run plant
consists of unconsolidated deposits of sands and gravel with
varying amounts of silt and minor occurrences of clay.
Ground water generally exists under unconfined conditions,
especially in the vicinity of pumping centers, where signif-
icant dewatering has occurred. The configuration of the
water table while under the influence of the Ranney well
pumping is shown in Figure 3. The pumping rates of Ranney
Wells #1 (PW1), #2 (PW2), and #3 (PW3) at the time that the
potentiometric surface was evaluated were 1425 gpm, 1650
gpm, and 1740 gpm, respectively. The saturated thickness of
the aquifer ranges from nearly 80 feet near the river, to
less than 30 feet near the ethylene oxide and propylene
oxide (EO and PO) off-gas burners (see Figure 4).
Hydrogeologic surveys have provided insight into the
hydraulic properties of the aquifer. The aquifer east of
Ranney Well #1 is comparatively less permeable and exhibits
an average hydraulic conductivity of 134 ft/day. The
aquifer west of Ranney Well #1 has an average hydraulic
conductivity of about 267 ft/day. There is a hydraulic
connection between the aquifer and the adjacent Ohio River.
Since the aquifer is unconfined, the storage coefficient
should approximate the specific yield of the formation and
is estimated by Olin to be approximately 0.2 (Olin, 1986).
The Ohio River Valley is the natural discharge area for the
region. However, the Ranney collector wells are so close to
the river that 80 to 90 percent of the water produced from
them is induced recharge from the river. Normal ground-
water flow gradients range from 0.0007 to 0.002 and are
directed towards the river. Operation of the Ranney wells
has placed stress on the system, increasing the gradients
and creating a discharge point. Recharge to the aquifer is
also received from:
1.
2.
3.
Precipitation which infiltrates through the soil and
percolates downward to the water table
Leakage from the bedrock valley walls
Leakage from unlined ditches and streams which cross
the flood plain
-------
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
Through ground-water monitoring, it has been determined that
contaminants were released from the following sources:
1. The Old Burning Pit southeast of Ranney Well #1
2. The EO/PO Off-Gas Burner Area
3. The Lime Settling Lagoon
Figure 4 shows the locations of these sources. The Old
Burning Pit was an atomizing burner used from 1952 through
1974 to incinerate chlorinated hydrocarbons. It is esti-
mated that 18,000 tons of propylene dichloride, DCEE, and
DCIPE were disposed of in this unit. From 1952 to 1960 the
Lime Settling Lagoon settled out waste and other inert
solids from a chlorohydrin-type ethylene oxide process
wastewater stream. The EO/PO Off-Gas Burner was an
atomizing burner used from 1959 through 1961 to incinerate
off-gas from ethylene and propylene oxide chlorohydrin
processes. It is estimated that 10 tons of off-gas was
disposed of in this unit.
Seven additional solid waste management units are located at
the Doe Run Facility (see Figure 4). These units include:
1. Combined Waste Landfill
2. Olin East Landfill
3. West Landfill
4. West Biological Sludge Landfill
5. East Biologial Sludge Landfill
6. Clinker Disposal Area
7. Wastewater Treatment Facility , ,-
There were no known hazardous constituents disposed of in
these units. The location of each solid waste management
unit is shown in Figure 4.
Because of operational characteristics of the three sources,
DCEE and DCIPE were selected as indicator parameters in
evaluating the conditions of the facility's ground water.
These indicator parameters are chlorinated ether compounds
that are slightly denser than water and only slightly
soluble in water. The aqueous solubilities for DCEE and
DCIPE are 10,200 ppm and 1,700 ppm respectively. DCEE can
be characterized as having very high mobility with a
sediment-water partition coefficient (K^) of 13.9 ml/g;
DCIPE is highly mobile with a K^ of 61 ml/g. The water
quality criteria for human health at 1Q-6 excess cancer risk
are 0.03 ppb for DCEE and 34.7 ppb for DCIPE as defined by
the Clean Water Act.
-------
Figure 5 shows the areal distribution of maximtim concentra-
tions of DCEE in May 1980; Figure 6 shows the configuration
for DCIPE. The area and shape of the contaminated region is
similar for DCIPE and DCEE. Olin concluded that there are
three areas of high DCIPE concentrations: Ranriey Well #1
(RW-1), MW-6 and BH-11, and BH-35.
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
The objective of the ground-water extraction by the Ranney
wells is to prevent the migration of pollutants into areas
which are free of contamination. The system consists of
three Ranney wells spaced about 1,500 feet apart on the
southern bank of the Ohio River. These wells were con-
structed in 1951 and 1952. Two vertical, gravel-packed
wells were installed west of Ranney Well #3 in 1978.
The ground water beneath the Doe Run facility is presently
monitored using 33 monitoring wells, three Ranney wells, and
two conventional production wells (Collector Wells #4 and
#5). An example of a section and plan view of a Ranney well
is shown in Figure 7.
Hydraulic gradients can be determined from piezometric
surface measurements that were collected in the field. This
defines the ground-water flow direction and illustrates the
influence of each collector well on the ground water (see
Figure 3). The natural ground-water flow direction in the
plant area is to the north towards the Ohio River.
Operation of the collector wells bordering the Ohio River
increases both the natural northward gradient and flow rates
towards the Ohio River.
Using computer modeling, Olin evaluated several pumping
modes, and then field-tested those that looked most
promising. The results of these studies are summarized as
follows:
o With Ranney Wells #1 and #3 out of service and
Well # 2 operating, all contaminated ground water
is contained and flows toward Ranney Well #2.
-------
o Contaminated ground-water movement is not
influenced by Ranney Well #3 as long as the
pumping rate from this source does not exceed the
rate of Ranney Well #2 or the combined rates of
Ranney Wells #1 and #2
o During the dry months (June to November), Ranney
Well #1 should be operated to intercept any plume
movement towards the Ohio River.
On the basis of potentiometric data, capture zone calcula-
tions, and the actual monitoring of ether movement in the
ground water, the pumping rates for each well were
determined. In late 1984, the Doe Run facility decided to
operate the three Ranney wells as follows:
o Operate Ranney Well #3 with a pumping rate of
1000-1500 gpm
o Maintain the combined pumping rates of Ranney
Wells #1 and #2 at least 100 gpm higher than the
pumping rate of Ranney Well #3
o Operate Ranney Well #1 from July to October at a
minimum pumping rate of 500 gpm
Continued operation of the Ranney wells using these criteria
should contain and collect all contaminated ground water at
the facility.
It can be observed from the field data that under the above
pumping conditions, ground-water flow from beneath all solid
waste management units is intercepted by the Ranney wells
and the collector wells. The field data are supported by
capture zone calculations performed on each well.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
Ether concentrations have been tracked in the monitoring
wells by semiannual sampling. Several monitoring wells can
be used directly to monitor plume movements. For example,
monitoring well MW-7 is directly downgradient from the EO/PO
Off-Gas Burners, an area of known past release. The
concentrations of DCEE and DCIPE in well MW-7 from June 1984
to October 1988 are shown in Figure 8. The concentration,
are quite variable and show strong peaks, in September 1985
for DCEE and in October 1986 for DCIPE. The concentration
of DCEE has declined from over 500 ppb in June 1984 to less
than 50 ppb after October 1987. The concentration of DCIPE
appears to have decreased slightly from June 1984 to October
6
-------
1988. The peaks in DCEE and DCIPE concentrations suggest
that the centers of maximum concentration of two plumes
reached and then moved past well MW-7. The concentrations
prior to 1984 x*ere not reported.
i
On the east side of the plant, well BH-1 has shown an
overall decrease in ether concentrations (Figure 9) as the
ground water flowed from that area towards Ranney Wells #1
and #2. In monitoring well MW-2 located between Ranney
Wells #2 and #3, the concentration of DCIPE was, above the
startup concentration from September 1985 to October 1987,
and did not decrease to below the startup concentration
until 1988 (see Figure 10). The DCEE concentration remained
low until 1988, when it peaked above 2500 ppb in April
before falling to low levels again by August 1988.
The plume movement can be altered by changing pumping
conditions in the aquifer. By changing pumping schemes the
ground-water divides will shift and plume movement may be
re-directed. However, regardless of the pumping scheme,
flow is still northward towards the line of interception,
defined as the line formed by the three Ranney wells and the
two conventional collector wells.
In the mid-1970s Ranney Well #1 contained the highest level
of contamination, with DCIPE levels ranging from 15 to 30
parts per million. By 1980, the level of contamination had
declined to 10 ppm. On the basis of this information, Olin
claims that all ground-water flow from the Doe Run facility
is intercepted at the north property line. The extracted
water is first used as process water, is then biologically
treated in an onsite activated-sludge wastewater treatment
plant, and is then discharged through a Kentucky Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) permitted outfall.
Olin is presently making improvements to the original
ground-water program by installing five additional water
wells that will provide additional water for plant needs,
help clean up the contamination in the Ranney wells so that
this water can be used as non-contact cooling water, and
provide further assurance that no offsite migration of
ground-water contamination occurs. These new wells will
begin operating in June 1989.
•
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
The alluvial aquifer system at the Olin Chemical plant,
bordering the Ohio River, has been contaminated with chlori-
nated organic compounds, notably the ethers dichloroethyl
ether and dichloroisopropyl ether. An extraction scheme
-------
using three Ranney wells located adjacent to the Ohio River
was implemented in 1974 to control contaminant migration.
The pumping scheme practiced at the Olin Chemical plant
appears to be hydraulically effective in controlling^the
migration of the contaminant plume, in part due to high
pumping rates and favorable aquifer conditions. Although
the goal of contaminant migration control is being achieved,
the presence of contamination at a distance from the extrac-
tion wells may require containment activities to continue
for an extended number of years. Contaminant concentrations
are variable in most recovery wells but a declining trend is
generally evident.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Olin Chemical. September 1986. A Groundwater Assessment of
Olin Chemicals Group Doe Run Plant, Brandenburg, Kentucky.
Olin Chemical. March 7, 1988 Assessment of Need for
Corrective Action at the Olin Chemicals Doe Run Plant,
B randenburg, Kentucky.
WDCR437/047.50
8
-------
-------
CASE STUDY 14
Ponders Corner
Lakewood, Washington
-------
CASE STUDY FOR PONDERS CORNER SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The Ponders Corner site, also known as the Lakewood site on
the U.S. EPA's National Priorities list, is located in
Lakewood, Washington, south of the city of Tacoma. The site
consists of the Plaza Cleaners property and the regional
aquifer within about a 2,000-foot radius of Plaza Cleaners.
Two contaminated municipal water supply wells, wells HI and
H2 of the Lakewood Water District, are located about 800
feet south of Plaza Cleaners (see Figure 1). These wells
serve about 600 of the 13,600 customers of the Lakewood
Water District, and are an essential source of water for
fire control. To the north, east, and west of the site are
residential, commercial, and light industrial areas of the
city of Lakewood. McChord Air Force Base is south of the
site. The main contaminants of concern at the site are
tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and 1,2-
trans-dichloroethylene (1,2-trans-DCE), all of which are by-
products of the dry cleaning operations. The site is admin-
istered under the Superfund program.
SITE HISTORY
Contamination was first detected at the site by the EPA in
July 1981. Water taken from wells HI and H2 was found to
contain PCE, TCE, and 1,2-trans-DCE. As a result, these
production wells were taken out of service in mid-August
1981. Subsequent sampling and inspection showed that the
septic tanks and the surface disposal areas of Plaza Clean-
ers were the probable sources of ground-water contamination.-
i I I
Between October 1981 and March 1983, ten shallow monitoring
wells and 14 deep monitoring wells were installed near wells
El and H2 so that the extent and degree of contamination at
the site could be evaluated. Analysis of ground-water sam-
ples from these wells and the septic tanks at Plaza Cleaners
showed that Plaza Cleaners was the main source of ground-
water contamination. In October 1983, discharges to the
septic tanks ceased, and 104 cubic yards of contaminated
soil were excavated at the Plaza Cleaners property.
In March 1984, the EPA authorized a focused feasibility
study of well head treatment alternatives for wells HI and
H2 that could be implemented by mid-1984. The goals of this
interim remedial measure were to restrict the migration of
contaminants in the aquifer and to bring wells HI and H2
back into service before the summer peak demand period.
Treatment by air stripping was selected and the treatment
-------
system and wells HI and H2 began operating September 26,
1984.
From October 1984 to February 1985, a remedial investigation
was conducted during which nine more deep monitoring wells
and three more shallow monitoring wells were installed, for
a total of 36 monitoring wells. A Record of Decision (ROD)
describing the chosen remediation plan was signed on Septem-
ber 30, 1985. Six more monitoring wells were installed in
February 1987, one in an area of uncaptured contamination
northwest of wells HI and H2 and five at the perimeter of
the McChord Air Force Base. In September 1987, the contents
of the septic tanks were removed and backfilled. A vapor
extraction well system designed to extract organic solvents
from the vadose zone near Plaza Cleaners was installed in
January 1988 and began operating in March 1988.
GEOLOGY
The Ponders Corner site is on an upland glacial drift plain
that slopes gently to the northwest and terminates at the
Puget Sound. The regional geology is characterized by
unconsolidated to semi-consolidated alluvial and glacial
deposits, including silt, clay, sand, gravel, glacial till,
and peat. These sediments overlie the bedrock. The thick-
ness of these sediments in the region varies from 0 to 2000-
feet. The four uppermost geologic units important to this
site study, in order of increasing depth, are: 1) the
Steilacoom gravel, 2) the Vashon till, 3) the Advance Out-
wash deposits, and 4) the Colvos sand. A cross section of
these units at the site is shown in Figure 2.
The Steilacoom gravel unit consist of sands and gravels and
is 1 to 58 feet thick at the site. Although it is generally
unsaturated, perched saturated zones occur locally. The
Vashon till is composed of silts and clays with local sand
and gravel lenses. It is a semi-confining layer at the site
and is generally unsaturated but has discontinuous saturated
zones within the sand and gravel lenses locally. The thick-
ness of the Vashon till varies from 8 to 92 feet.
The top of the Advance Outwash unit underlies the Vashon
till at depths of 25 to 84 feet below land surface. It is
from 20 to over 90 feet thick and consists of highly layered
fine to coarse sand and gravel. The Advance Outwash unit is
saturated and is the primary aquifer in this area. Wells HI
and H2 are both completed in this aquifer at a depth of
approximately 110 feet.
Underlying the Advance Outwash unit is the Colvos sand. The
Colvos sand consists of poorly-graded silt, clay, and silty
-------
fine sand. It is' estimated to be more than 150 feet thick.
The Colvos sand is two to three orders of magnitude less
permeable than the Advance Outwash aquifer and may act as a
partial barrier to downward flow from the Advance Outwash
aquifer to deeper units.
HYDROGEOLOGY
The depth to the water table at the site varies from 20 to
60 feet below land surface, depending on surface topography.
Ground-water levels vary in response to the ground-water
recharge rate which varies, in turn, with the wide, seasonal
fluctuations in rainfall. Annual recharge to the site is
estimated at 10 to 17 inches per year, or 25 to 40 percent
of the average annual rainfall of 40 inches.
The potentiometric surface of the confined to semi-confined
Advance Outwash aquifer is from 20 to 40 feet below ground
surface at the site. The direction of ground-water flow was
west-northwest in the Advance Outwash aquifer, at the time
water level measurements were taken from 1981 to 1983. The
horizontal velocity of ground-water flow across the site in
the Advance Outwash aquifer varied from 2.7 to 100.3 ft/day
during this period, with an average velocity of about
18 ft/day. The downward vertical component of the gradient
in the Advance Outwash aquifer has not been determined.
Ground water in the Advance Outwash aquifer eventually flows
into Gravelly Lake to the northwest of the site.
Before October 1983, the direction and rate of ground-water
flow were affected by the discharge of 15,000 to 20,000 gal-
lons of wastewater per day from the Plaza Cleaners septic
tanks. This maximum discharge rate is about 40 times great-
er over the area of infiltration than the maximum estimated
natural recharge rate of 17 inches per year (EPA, 1985).
Flow directions are also strongly affected by pumping in
wells HI and H2, which have a combined yield of about
2,600 gpm. A ground-water contour map based on measurements
taken on July 23, 1984, when wells HI and H2 had not been
operating for 35 months and discharges to the septic tanks
had been stopped for 9 months, is shown in Figure 3. Fig-
ure 3 shows that ground-water flow in July 1984 was to the
west-northwest. The undisturbed gradients averaged about
0.005 feet per horizontal foot in July 1984.
During an aquifer test of the Advance Outwash aquifer in
February 1983, the water levels in shallow monitoring wells
in the Steilacoom gravel unit decreased, indicating that the
two units are hydraulically interconnected. The horizontal
hydraulic conductivity of the Advance Outwash aquifer was
-------
estimated at 3,000 to 15,000 gpd/ft2 with an average of
8,000 gpd/ft2 (0.38 cm/sec), based on the February 1983
aquifer test.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
PCE, TCE, and 1,2-trans-DCE are the main contaminants of
interest at the Ponders Corner site. The primary sources of
ground-water contamination were the septic tanks and surface
disposal areas at Plaza Cleaners. Dry cleaning wastes from
Plaza Cleaners were discharged to a 4,250-gallon septic tank
system, where they were flushed by 15,000 to 20,000 gallons
of laundry wastewater each day. The supernatant water in
the septic tanks was sampled in March 1983 and found to
contain 550 ppb PCE and 29 ppb TCE. Calculations based on
these concentrations and a 20,000 gpm discharge rate show
that as much as 0.09 Ibs/day of PCE and 0.005 Ibs/day of TCE
were discharged to the drain line of the septic tank system.
The duration of this discharge has not been reported.
In addition to septic tank discharge, solvent-contaminated
wastewater and sludge generated by the dry cleaning opera-
tions were poured onto the ground outside of the Plaza
Cleaners building. Samples of the dry cleaning wastewater
were found to contain 60,000 to 100,000 ppb of chlorinated
organic solvents, while sludge samples contained 3,600 ppb
of TCE and 9,600 ppb of 1,2-trans-DCE. The duration of
surface disposal of these waste was also unreported.
The contaminants introduced by septic tank overflow and
surface disposal migrated downward with the wastewater and
natural recharge to contaminate the aquifer. A potential
subsurface pathway for the contaminant migration is illus-
trated in Figure 4. The contaminants appear to have
migrated downward through the Steilacoom gravel, then later-
ally along the Vashon till. Finding one or more permeable
conduits, the contaminants appear to have then migrated
farther downward to the Advance Outwash aquifer, and then
laterally toward wells HI and H2 under the influence of
pumping.
The lateral extent and magnitude of contamination in the
Steilacoom gravel and Vashon till have not been well charac-
terized. However, the Steilacoom gravel appears to contain
tens of pounds of PCE, while the Vashon till may contain up
to 1300 pounds of PCE (EPA, 1985). The concentration data
for ground-water samples taken from February to May 1985,
along with the estimated inventory of contamination at that
time, are shown in Table 1. These estimates include both
contaminants sorbed to the solid phase and contaminants
dissolved in the liquid phase. It should be noted, however,
-------
that the mass inventory calculations for the Vashon till and
the Steilacoom gravel are based on data from only one or two
wells. For this reason, these estimates may be inaccurate.
A contour map of PCE concentrations in the Advance Outwash
aquifer in February 1985 is shown in Figure 5. Wells HI and
H2 had been pumped for about six months at a total rate of
2,000 gpm at the time these data were collected. This fol-
lowed the mid-August 1981, to September 1984 period during
which wells HI and H2 were not in service. The plume in
Figure 5 shows that flow occurred to the northwest under the
natural northwestward gradient during the 3-year period of
no pumping.
1 I
Three potential source areas within the long-term capture
zone of wells HI and H2 have been identified within McChord
Air Force Base (see Figure 6). In order to detect migration
of contaminants out of these areas towards wells HI and H2,
five wells--37, 38, 39A, 39B, and 40--were installed at the
perimeter of McChord Air Force Base in Februar3r and March
1987. Chlorobenzene, acetone, and TCE were detected inter-
mittently at low concentrations in wells 38, 39A, and 39B in
early 1987. Methylene chloride, potentially associated with
McChord Air Force Base source areas, was detected in wells
MW12 and MW14 in February and March 1983 (EPA, 1985).
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
The objectives of the well head treatment interim remedial
measure (IRM) were to restrict the spread of contamination
in the aquifer and restore the water supply to the Ponders
Corner area by the mid-1984 summer peak period. The focused
feasibility study of treatment alternatives, in March 1984,
showed that air stripping was the most cost-effective treat-
ment alternative. An air stripping well head treatment
system was constructed and began operation in September 1984
at the same time that pumping of wells HI and H2 was
restored.
Wells HI and H2 have generally been operated at a total rate
of about 2,000 gpm since they were put back into service in
September 1984. This pumping rate was chosen based on the
needs of the Lakewood Water District rather than on criteria
related to remediation or aquifer capacity. Nonetheless,
this pumping rate was found to capture the entire plume
except for a small part of the plume which escaped when the
wells were shut down. No other extraction wells have been
added to wells HI and H2 to enhance cleanup effectiveness.
-------
However, a vapor extraction well system designed to address
unsaturated zone contamination began operating in March 1988
on the Plaza Cleaners property.
Although the emphasis of the well head treatment IRM was to
restore the H1/H2 water supply, this emphasis was also con-
sistent with the objective of restricting the migration of
contaminants because wells HI and H2 were near the centroid
of the plume. It is worth noting, however, that the lack of
pumping from August 1981 to September 1984 led to the migra-
tion of the contaminants beyond the zone of capture of wells
HI and H2 once they were placed back into operation.
There were 42 monitoring wells installed at the site. Five
of these wells are used to monitor potential contaminant
migration from McChord Air Force Base. The remaining
37 wells have been or are being used to monitor the main
plume or to assess the initial extent and degree of contami-
nation. As the lateral extent of the contaminant plume has
decreased, sampling of some of these monitoring wells has
been discontinued to save costs.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
The restoration of pumping in wells HI and H2 in September
1984 changed the potentiometric surface of the Advance Out-
wash aquifer by establishing a cone of depression around
wells HI and H2. A water level contour map of the aquifer
in March of 1987 is shown in Figure 7. The approximate
limit of the hydraulic zone of captvire was sufficient to
capture most of the contaminant plume with the exception of
a small section to the northwest that had escaped during the
3-year period when wells HI and H2 were out of operation.
Contour maps of PCE concentrations in December 1986 and
March 1987 are shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively.
These two maps show a reduction in the size and concentra-
tion of the main plume over time. They also show the sec-
tion of the contaminant plume that had migrated beyond the
zone of capture of wells HI and H2 prior to the September
1984 startup. The extent of the uncaptured portion of the
plume has not been well characterized to date, but concentr-
ations of contaminants are low. The maximum concentration
detected in well 32 was 6.9 ppb of PCE in May 1985. The
concentration of PCE in well 32 rose to 6.9 ppb and then
declined, suggesting that the centroid of the uncaptured
portion of the plume may have migrated to the northwest past
well 32. Results of chemical analyses of ground water from
the monitoring wells at the site for PCE and TCE are listed
in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
-------
Time series plots of the concentration of PCE and TCE enter-
ing the well HI and H2 recovery system from the time of
startup in September 1984 to April 1989 are shown in Fig-
ures 10 and 11, respectively. These plots generally show a
steep initial decline in concentrations followed by a grad-
ual decline to levels which are either low or below detec-
tion limits. The PCE concentrations in well H2 are an
exception, however. The PCE concentration data for well H2
show a stable or slightly declining trend from late 1985 to
early 1989. This trend suggests that a source of PCE may be
present that releases PCE into the aquifer gradually. At an
average rate of 1,200 gpm and an average concentration of
45 ppb, approximately 20 Ibs of PCE were being extracted by
well H2 each month from late 1985 to early 1989.
Geologic evidence and limited sampling data suggest that the
Vashon till may be the source of PCE, given its low perme-
ability and significant inventory of PCE (CH2M HILL, 1988).
Because of the low permeability and relatively high retarda-
tion ability of the Vashon till, the PCE contamination in
the Vashon till is likely to be a persistent source of PCE.
Analysis of precipitation data shows that concentrations of
contaminants increase following periods of high recharge and
decrease following periods of low recharge, supporting the
conclusion that the till may be a continuing source of con-
tamination at the site.
1
With continued operation of the wellhead treatment system as
part of the final corrective action for the site, it has
been projected that the system will have to be operated a
minimum of 10 more years before the water quality standards
prescribed for the site are achieved consistently
(CH2M HILL, 1988). The prescribed standard for the effluent
from the air stripping system is 0.8 ppb for PCE, 2.7 ppb
for TCE, and 27 ppb for 1,2-trans-DCE (EPA, 1984), through
these standards may be changed. These standards compare
with the current federal health-based standard of 0.88 ppb
for PCE under the Clean Water Act and an MCL of 5 ppb for
TCE under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Because of the pos-
sibility of a continuing contaminant source at the Ponders
Corner site, the projection of complete aquifer restoration
by as early as 1997 may be too optimistic. The vapor
extraction system that began removing organic solvent vapors
from the unsaturated zone in early 1988 should have a bene-
ficial effect on remediation.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
The contamination by organic solvents originating from a dry
cleaning operation at the Ponders Corner site has affected
three geologic units, including the regional aquifer that is
-------
a source of water for about 600 of the 13,600 customers of
the Lakewood Water District.
The two production wells supplying ground water to the
Lakewood Water District ceased operation in August 1981,
after contamination was discovered. After a focused feasi-
bility study of treatment alternatives and the construction
of an air stripping well head treatment system, the wells
began operating again in September 1984.
Operation of the production wells has reduced the concentra-
tion and size of the main plume of PCE and TCE since start-
up. However, the 3-year absence of production well pumping
allowed a portion of the main plume to migrate beyond the
zone of capture of the production wells, under the influence
of the natural northwestward gradient. This portion of the
plume cannot be remedied by the existing system as it is
currently designed and operated.
One important conclusion that can be drawn from Table 1 is
that the silts and clays of the Vashon till appear to con-
tain almost 90 percent of the total contaminant inventory at
the site. This is problematic for two reasons. The first
is that the low permeability of the Vashon till inhibits
flow of contaminated water out of this unit. Most of the
water extracted by wells HI and H2 will be drawn from the
more permeable Advance Outwash aquifer rather than the low
permeability Vashon till.
The second problem is that adsorption of contaminants on the
solid phase is favored by silts and clays, and that the
contaminants are likely to be retained in the Vashon till as
a result. Estimates of site specific retardation factors
range from 3 to 21, depending on the sediments and the
specific contaminant. These estimated retardation factors
suggest that the contaminants are drawn towards the well at
1/3 to 1/21 of the speed of the water contained in the same
porous medium. For the silts and clays of the Vashon till,
retardation is likely to be toward the high end of the esti-
mated range. As a result, not only will the flow of ground
water out of the Vashon till be limited, the velocity of
contaminant migration out of the Vashon till is likely to be
much slower than the velocity of ground-water flow.
Time series plots also suggest that the Vashon till is act-
ing as a continuing source of PCE. The contamination in the
Vashon till is likely to be released slowly and be quite
persistent because of the low permeability and strong chemi-
cal retention ability of the silts and clays. Even though
the main aquifer is quite permeable, the present system may
8
-------
have to be operated for many years because of the slow
release rate of the overlying Vashon till.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CH2M HILL. April 1987. Predesign Report, Ponders Corner,
Washington. EPA-62-ON22.
! ! I
CH2M HILL and EPA. September 1987. Unpublished Draft Case
Study for RCRA Corrective Actions at the Ponders Corner
Site, Lakewood, Washington.
i I
| |
CH2M HILL. February 1988. Final Aquifer Cleanup Assessment
Report, Ponders Corner, Washington.
EPA. June 1984. Superfund Record of Decision: Ponders
Corner Site, Washington (IRM). EPA/ROD/R10-84/002.
, j
EPA. September 30, 1985. Record of Decision, Remedial
Alternative Selection, Ponders Corner Site, Lakewood,
Washington.
WDCR218/017.50
-------
CASE STUDY 15
Savannah River Plant A/M - Area
Aiken, South Carolina
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
A/M-AREA SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
This study covers the remediation of a contaminated aquifer
system underlying the A- and M-areas of the Savannah River
Plant in Aiken, South Carolina. The Savannah River Plant is
part of a system of weapons plants in the United States that
conduct research and manufacture products necessary for the
production and upkeep of nuclear weapons. The M-area manu-
facturing operations include aluminum forming and metal
finishing. The A-area includes administrative buildings and
the Savannah River Laboratory. The aquifers beneath parts
of the A- and M-areas of the plant have been contaminated
with volatile organic degreasing solvents as a result of
these activities. 1,1,2-trichloroethylene (TCE), tetra-
chloroethylene (PCE), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) have
been the main degreasing solvents used at the plant. The
Savannah River Plant is administered by a private company
under contract to the Department of Energy. The South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
regulates the remediation at the site.
The A- and M-areas of the Savannah River Plant are on a
hilltop about 2,000 to 3,000 feet south of the northwest
boundary of the plant (see Figure 1). The site consists of
administrative (A-area) buildings and manufacturing (M-area)
buildings and other facilities. The M-area is in the
southern part of the A/M-area complex, and the Hazardous
Waste Management Facility (HWMF) is in the south corner of
the M-area itself (see Figure 2). The HWMF includes an '
unlined settling basin, overflow areas, Lost Lake, and a
process sewer line leading from the plant.
SITE HISTORY
Production activities in the M-area began in 1954. At that
time, process wastewater was released directly to Tims
Branch, a nearby stream. From 1954 until 1958, Tims Branch
received all the wastewater from the plant. However,
because the wastewater contained enriched uranium, a
settling basin was constructed in 1958 to settle out and
contain uranium and other heavy metals discharged from the
plant. The settling basin, and other structures of the
HWMF, received wastes from the M-area from 1958 until 1985.
Tims Branch also continued to receive some wastes from the
plant from 1958 until May 1982. The history of these
discharges is shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows that over
-------
2.1 million pounds of solvents were released to the HWMF
settling basin from 1952 to 1982.
Table 1
SOLVENT USE AND RELEASE HISTORY AT THE M-AREA
Solvents
TCE
Years used
Total used (Ib)
Released to settling
basin (Ib)
Released to Tims
Branch/A-014
Outfall* (Ib)
*USDOE, 1986.
(Colven et al., 1985, p. 5-13)
1952-1979
3,700,000
317,000
383,000
PCE
1962-1979
8,700,000
1,800,000
1,000,000
TCA
1979-1982
670,000
19,000
12,000
Following the discovery of contamination underneath the
settling basin at the HWMF in June 1981, a system of mon-
itoring wells was installed to assess the extent of
contamination. This initial monitoring-well network was
later expanded to further delineate the contamination at the
site. Soil and sludge samples were also collected and
analyzed. In response to the contamination encountered
during the site investigations, a pilot remediation system
consisting of one recovery well and a pilot air stripper was
installed and began operating at the HWMF in February 1983.
The final implemented system was later expanded to include a
large production air stripper near the M-area buildings, and
11 recovery wells and 236 monitoring wells over a broad area
(USDOE, 1989). The expansion of the well system was made
necessary by the discovery of several sources of contami-
nation upgradient from the HWMF, primarily in the M-area.
This full-scale extraction and treatment system began
operation in September 1985. The discharges to the HWMF
were stopped in July 1985.
-------
GEOLOGY
The site is in. the Upper Atlantic Coastal Plain province of
South Carolina on the Aiken Plateau in an area dissected by
tributaries of the Savannah and Congaree rivers. The site
is underlain by a wedge of unconsolidated to semicon-
solidated sediments that dip and thicken towards the
southeast. The formations of interest that underlie the
plant, in order of increasing depth, are the Barnwell Group,
the McBean Formation, the Congaree Formation, the Ellenton
Formation, and the Black Creek Formation. These formations
are shown in Figure 3.
'
The Barnwell Group is composed of the Upland unit, the
Tobacco Road Formation, and the Dry Branch Formation. The
Upland unit is a poorly sorted mix of sand, cobbles, silt,
and clay with a thickness of approximately 57 feet. It
contains 50 percent clay and silt. The Tobacco Road
Formation is a moderate to well-sorted, fine-to-medium sand
containing some pebbles and 13 percent silt and clay. The
Tobacco Road Formation is up to 97 feet thick. The Dry
Branch Formation is a moderately to well-sorted medium sand
containing 18 percent silt and clay. It is from 30 to
55 feet thick.
The McBean Formation is typically a moderately to well-
sorted fine sand with some calcareous zones and approxi-
mately 25 percent silt and clay. Clay and silt layers make
up 14 percent of the 16- to 34-foot thickness of the McBean
Formation, There does not appear to be a distinct laterally
extensive clay layer within the McBean Formation in the M-
area (USDOE, 1986).
i ' I
The Congaree Formation is predominantly sandy with a discon-
tinuous clayey zone in the middle of the section. For
hydrogeologic reasons, the Congaree Formation is divided
into the Upper and Lower Congaree. The Upper Congaree is a
well-sorted, fine-to-medium sand containing 16 percent silt
and clay. Silt and clay beds make up 7 percent of the 14-
to 60-foot thickness of the Upper Congaree. The discon-
tinuous clay beds separating the Upper and Lower Congaree
contain 70 percent silt and clay. The Lower Congaree is a
moderately to well-sorted medium sand containing 17 percent
silt and clay. Silt and clay beds compose 6 percent of the
4- to 44-foot thickness of the Lower Congaree.
i' • I
The Ellenton Formation is composed of clay, clayey silt, and
poorly sorted, fine-to-coarse, clayey sand. The Ellenton
Formation contains 62 percent silt and clay. Its thickness
is quite variable, ranging from 32 to 95 feet. The Ellenton
-------
Formation contains two major clay layers separated by a
poorly sorted sand. The bottom clay is from 10 to 56 feet
thick and is the principal confining unit for the underlying
Black Creek Formation.
Most of the Black Creek Formation consists of very poorly to
well-sorted, medium-to-coarse sands. Silt and clay beds
make up 5 percent of a 152- to 180-foot thick section of the
Black Creek Formation. Most of the silt and clay beds are
in the lower part of the section. The upper Black Creek is
an important production zone for water-supply wells in the
M-area.
HYDROGEOLOGY
The flow regime and other hydrogeological features of the
aquifers underlying the site can best be described by
referring to potentiometric surface maps and cross sections.
Figure 4 shows the potentiometric surface of the unconfined
water-table unit in the McBean Formation in the first
quarter of 1985, before remediation pumping began. The
water table was approximately 60 to 120 feet below the land
surface of the A- and M-areas of the plant. The 244-foot
contour delineates the limit of a broad plateau in the
water-table surface surrounding most of the A/M-area in plan
view. The flow in the water-table unit below the A/M-area
is complex, but radial flow is expected outward from the
244-foot contour.
Figure 5 is a potentiometric surface map of the Upper
Congaree aquifer in the first quarter of 1985. Figure 5
shows that flow in this aquifer ranged from southwest to
northeast near the A/M-area. The direction of flow north of
Route 19 was unclear from these data. Flow under the HWMF
was south-southeast.
Flow was mainly to the east and south in the Lower Congaree
Formation and to the southeast in the Ellenton Formation
during 1985 and 1986.
The vertical dimension of flow at the site is shown in the
potentiometric cross sections B-B' and E-E» for the third
quarter of 1985 (Figures 6 and 7; A- and M-areas shown in
inset map). Cross section B-B* runs northwest-southeast to
the west of the M-area, through the seepage basin and
recovery well RMW-4. This cross section shows that there is
a downward vertical gradient beneath the M-area. The hori-
zontal component of the gradient is to the south in the area
south of the seepage basin. The flow in the northern part
of the M-area is strongly downward and slightly to the north
-------
at and near the water table as suggested by Figure 4, but
Figure 6 shows that the flow paths in this area turn to the
south with depth.
Figure 7 shows cross section E-E', running north-south
through Lost Lake and across the northern M-area. This
figure also shows a significant downward component to the
gradient, especially beneath the M-area. Southward and
northward flow also seems to exist in the McBean and
Congaree Formations near the outer limits of this cross
section. The true direction of the horizontal component of
the gradient is best judged from plan view potentiometric
surface maps rather than cross sections, however. Vertical
flow rates have been estimated to be from tens to hundreds
of feet per year (USDOE, 1989, p. 5-6).
Ground water in the water-table unit and the Upper Congaree
aquifer is derived primarily from recharge in the A/M-areas.
The ground water in these units flows radially from the site
at a rate of approximately 50 to 100 ft/year and eventually
discharges into Tims Branch, a tributary of Upper Three
Runs. Ground water in the Lower Congaree and the Ellenton
formations is derived from recharge in the M-area and from
recharge areas upgradient to the north. This water flows
southward at approximately 250 ft/year and eventually dis-
charges into Upper Three Runs. Ground water in the Black
Creek Formation is recharged primarily from areas north of
the Savannah River Plant and flows to the southwest at
approximately 365 ft/year. The rate of downward Darcian
flux to the water table in the unsaturated zone beneath the
settling basin has been estimated to be 5 to 7 feet per year
(USDOE, 1986, Section D.10). /^
Specific capacity, step-drawdown, and constant-rate pumping
tests were performed on the 11 recovery wells to determine
the composite hydrogeologic characteristics of the screened
intervals. Most of the screened intervals are in permeable
zones of the Congaree and lower McBean Formations. The
average transmissivity of the 11 recovery wells was
25,000 gpd/ft, while the median transmissivity was
16,000 gpd/ft. (An aquifer with a transmissivity of
100,000 gpd/ft is considered a good aquifer for water well
exploitation). The observed specific capacity of the
11 recovery wells ranged from 0.6 to 7.78 gallons per minute
(gpm) per foot. The hydraulic properties of some of the
individual layers are shown in Table 2.
-------
Formation
Upper McBean*
Lower McBean*
Congaree*
Lower Ellenton Clay"1"
Black Creek*
Table 2
ESTIMATES OF HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES
Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day)
Non-Directional Horizontal
0.43
0.23
4.9
8.8X10-4
Vertical
5.4x10-*
Transmissivity
(gpd/ft)
82,500
*From specific capacity tests, median values; Table D-17
•••Mean value; Table D-27
^Average of 10 values; Table D-28.
Source: USDOE, July 1986
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
Major products of the M-area of the plant include fuel rods,
control rods, and metal targets. The physical and chemical
characteristics of the wastes produced by this facility are
similar to those of the wastes produced by other aluminum-
forming and metal-finishing industries. These wastes
include metals, metal compounds, and organic degreasing
solvents. The specific problem at this site is contamina-
tion of the aquifer system by TCA, PCE, and TCE, all of
which are volatile organic solvents.
The mass of solvents from degreasing operations that has
contaminated the ground water along with the recharged
wastewater is not known directly. However, as Table 1
showed, 2.1 million pounds of solvents were discharged to
the HWMF from 1952 to 1982. Some fraction of these solvents
volatilized to the atmosphere, but a substantial amount
percolated downward to the saturated zone. The quantity of
solvents in the saturated zone under A/M-areas has been
estimated using concentration information from the moni-
toring well network at the site. The total amount of
dissolved organic solvents was estimated at 260,000 to
450,000 pounds, of which over 75 percent is TCE (Colven et
al., 1987). This amount does not include contaminants
sorbed to solids in the saturated zone, contaminants in
areas with concentrations below 10 parts per billion (ppb),
or contaminants that are still in the unsaturated zone but
will eventually reach the water table. Consequently, the
actual amount of organics that would have to be removed to
achieve aquifer cleanup is greater than these estimates.
-------
Figure 8 shows the distribution of TCE contamination in the
water-table unit in the third quarter of 1985, before
remediation began. This map shows that TCE concentrations
exceeded 100,000 ppb near the settling basin and the A-014
outfall southeast of the M-area in 1985. Both the settling
basin and the A-014 outfall received wastewater from the
plant in the past (see Table 1). These high concentration
areas were part of a large central plume that extended
underneath the entire M-area and the southern part of the A-
area. A separate plume was also present to the north near
the Savannah River Laboratory.
Figure 9 shows the distribution of TCE in the Upper Congaree
in the third quarter of 1985. The TCE plume in the Upper
Congaree appears to extend over a larger area, than in the
water-table unit, especially in the area north of the M-
area. The TCE concentration in the northern M-area exceeds
100,000 ppb near well MSB-24. The concentration highs are
otherwise centered around the same source areas as in the
water-table unit.
Figure 10 shows the vertical concentration distribution of
TCE in cross section B-B' in the third quarter of 1985.
This figure shows that most of the contamination is in the
McBean and Congaree formations and that the thick Ellenton
clay layers form a partial barrier to downward migration of
contaminants. This figure also shows that the 10,000 ppb
and 100,000 ppb TCE plumes have a strong vertical orien-
tation beneath the settling basin. This vertical orien-
tation is caused by the strong vertical hydraulic gradient
in the saturated zone beneath the settling basin, which
drives downward flow. Dense nonaqueous phase liquids
(DNAPLs) have not been reported to be present.
The vertical distribution of TCE along cross section E-E» in
the third quarter of 1985 is shown in Figure 11. Figure 11
shows evidence of a contaminant source at the north end of
the cross section near the Savannah River Laboratory. It
also shows contamination in the Black Creek Formation at
well MSB37.
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
Objectives of Remediation
The objectives of the cleanup of the contamination at the
A/M-areas of the plant are: (1) to minimize or eliminate
-------
migration of contaminated ground water northward toward the
plant boundary and downward into the Black Creek Formation,
where eight A/M-area production wells are currently oper-
ating, and (2) to clean up the aquifer systems beneath the
plant over a period of 30 years. The self-imposed standard
for the 30-year remediation effort is to remove 99 percent
of the solvent mass initially contaminating the aquifer
system. The mass of solvents in the aquifer system is
projected to decrease exponentially over 30 years to one
percent of its initial inventory, as estimated in 1985.
This approach depends on the accuracy of the initial
inventory and the method of measuring the change in
inventory. It was assumed that reducing the contaminant
inventory at this rate would also restore the ground water
to a level that no longer poses a threat to human health or
the environment, but the remediation goal was not based on
concentration standards per se.
System Configuration
The extraction system consists of 11 recovery wells
distributed throughout the contaminated areas of the M-area
(see Figure 12). Wells RWM-3, RWM-5, RWM-9, and RWM-111
were designed to be pumped at 55 gpm, while the remaining
seven wells were designed to be pumped at 25 gpm, for a
total of 395 gpm for the eleven wells. These pumping rates
appear to be limited by the capacity of the air-stripper
discharge pump. The high-capacity wells were placed near
the centroid of the plume to maximize the rate of contami-
nant removal. Recovery wells RWM-1, RWM-8, and RWM-10 are
near the M-area HWMF, recovery wells RWM-6 and RWM-7 are
near the A-014 outfall, and most of the remaining recovery
wells are near the main M-area buildings. The wells were
designed to fully penetrate the McBean and Congaree
Formations and are screened in the more permeable water-
bearing intervals of these formations. There are four 10-
foot screened intervals over the approximately 200-foot
depth of each well.
In December 1988, the average total withdrawal from the
recovery well system was 436 gpm. This,rate was limited by
the capacity of the air-stripper discharge pump. This could
be increased to as much as 725 gpm if the pumps were modi-
fied to operate at full formation capacity (Colven et al.,
1987). Air emission permits allow air emissions of up to
7.9 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) per hour.
M-Area recovery wells are designated with RWM prefixes,
which have been omitted from the figures to reduce clutter.
8
-------
This limit allows influent concentrations of up to
39,900 ppb at the design rate of 395 gpm and 21,740 ppb at
the full formation capacity of 725 gpm. Influent concen-
trations for the second half of 1988 averaged about
21,000 ppb, indicating that pumping could be increased to
full formation capacity without exceeding the air emissions
limit. An increase to 600 gpm was recommended in the 1988
annual report (USDOE, 1989). As of late 1988, however, the
equipment capacity and not the formation capacity or the air
emissions permit was limiting the rate of aquifer
restoration.
Figures 13 and 14 show the projected 30-year zones of
capture of the 11 recovery wells in the water-table unit and
the Upper Congaree Formation, respectively, as calculated
using a particle tracking model (Larson et al., 1987). The
30-year zone of capture is defined as the three-dimensional
volume of aquifer that contains all the ground-water flow
paths that will end at a recovery well with travel times of
30 years or less (Colven et al., 1987, p.8.1). Third
quarter 1986 TCE concentrations are superimposed on
Figures 13 and 14 to indicate how effective the system is
projected to be in capturing the contaminant plume. Both
figures clearly show that the present recovery system is not
projected to capture the contaminated ground water over a
wide area southeast of the A/M-area. Separate uncaptured
plumes are also evident west of Lost Lake and to the north,
near the Savannah River Laboratory.
The zone of capture of the solvents will be smaller than the
30-year zones of capture of the ground water shown in
Figures 13 and 14 because of retardation caused by par-
titioning between the solid and liquid phases. Although
this effect was acknowledged by Colven et al. (1987), it was
not evaluated quantitatively.
Once the ground water is extracted from the aquifer, it is
pumped to and passed through an air stripper, where the
organic solvents volatilize into the atmosphere at concen-
trations designed to be below federal air standards. The
removal of the degreasing solvents from the extracted water
by the air stripper was over 99.99 percent effective during
the first year of operation and continues to be highly
efficient. The air-stripper effluent is discharged to the
A-014 outfall (USDOE, 1985, Section III.J.5).
Two hundred thirty-six monitoring wells have been installed
at this site to assess the extent of contamination and to
monitor the effectiveness of the remediation (USDOE, 1989,
Section 3). These 236 monitoring wells are screened in a
-------
three-dimensional pattern in the McBean, Congaree, Ellenton,
and Black Creek formations in an attempt to track trends in
potentiometric head and contaminant concentrations
throughout the entire aquifer system. Eleven of these wells
are point-of-compliance wells, while the remainder are plume
definition wells. The ongoing sampling schedule for the
wells at the site calls for sampling solvent concentrations
and potentiometric head once every 2 weeks at the
11 recovery wells and quarterly at a select number of
monitoring wells. One hundred and sixty-five monitoring
wells were sampled in 1988 (USDOE, 1989).
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
The objectives of the A/M-area remediation program are to
minimize horizontal and vertical migration of the contam-
inant plume and to remove 99 percent of the contamination in
the aquifer over 30 years. These objectives were developed
internally at the Savannah River Plant and are not based on
reduction of the contaminant concentrations to any health-
based standard. The progress towards reaching these two
objectives can be assessed by examining evidence of (1) the
effect of pumping on regional gradients, and flow directions,
(2) a reduction in the size or migration of the plume, and
(3) a decrease in the concentrations and absolute amounts of
solvents in the ground water.
Hydraulic Influence
Figure 15 shows the water-table elevation in the water-table
unit in the fourth quarter of 1988 after 3 years of full-
scale extraction. The general appearance of the water-table
surface in the fourth quarter of 1988 was similar to the
appearance of the water table in the first quarter of 1985,
although there was a general decline in, water-table
elevations caused by a drought.
The 234-foot contour defined the limits of a broad plateau
in the potentiometric surface in 1988, just as the 244-foot
contour did in 1985 (see Figure 4). The high areas to the
west and east within this plateau were caused by artificial
recharge from runoff basins and discharge points and were
also present in 1985. The depression in the center of the
plateau was more cone shaped in 1988 than in 1985. This was
probably due to the effects of recovery wells RWM-9 and RWM-
11, which are within this depression. There also seems to
be a slight perturbation in the 232-, 234-, and 236-foot
contours near the HWMF. In general, however, the recovery
10
-------
system did not appear to have influenced flow patterns in
the A/M-areas to a significant degree after three years of
operation.
This lack of change is due in part to the low individual and
combined pumping rates and the size of the area covered by
the recovery-well system. The lack of change is also con-
sistent with the zone-of-capture modeling, which showed
small zones of capture in the water-table unit in the first
few years of operation.
i i
Figure 16 is a potentiometric surface map of the Upper
Congaree Formation in the fourth quarter of 1988. The
hydraulic influence of the recovery system is more pro-
nounced in the Upper Congaree Formation than in the water-
table unit, probably because a greater volume of water is
pumped from the Upper Congaree. The influence of well RWM-6
near the A-014 outfall southeast of the M-area is particu-
larly strong. Some influence is also visible in the 220-
foot contour line near the settling basin and in the 226-
foot contour line in the west-central part of the M-area.
Although zone-of-capture modeling showed that the effects of
the recovery system would be felt in the Upper Congaree
faster than in other units, the zones of capture in the
Upper Congaree were projected to be small in the first few
years of operation.
In general, vertical flow patterns do not appear to have
changed significantly since remediation began, based on
comparison of potentiometric cross-sections B-B' and E-E*
for the fourth quarter of 1988 (not shown) to the same cross
sections for the third quarter of 1985 (Figures 6 and 7).
There does appear to be a slight influence in the Congaree
beneath the west-central M-area near recovery wells RWM-2
and RWM-4, consistent with the perturbation in the 226-foot
contour line in Figure 16, however. Calculated vertical and
horizontal flow rates based on head values measured in the
fourth quarter of 1988 do not differ markedly from the flow
rates calculated before remediation began (USDOE, 1989,
Section 5). The exception to this is the estimated flow
rate across the Ellenton from the Congaree to the Black
Creek, which has decreased since remediation began. Flow
rates across the Ellenton have decreased because pumping has
reduced the hydraulic head in the Congaree and decreased the
downward vertical gradient (USDOE, 1989, Table 5-10). The
reduction in the gradient across the Ellenton should reduce
the rate of downward migration of contaminants to the Black
Creek, which is one of the main objectives of the remedia-
tion system.
11
-------
Contaminant Plume Reduction
Figure 17 shows the TCE distribution in the water-table unit
in the fourth quarter of 1988. There does not appear to
have been significant change in the size and concentration
of the TCE plume over the 3 years of remediation, based on
comparison of Figures 8 and 17. There has been some reduc-
tion near the settling basin and recovery wells RWM-1 and
KWM-10, and near recovery well RWM-6 and the A-014 outfall.
Figure 18 shows the TCE distribution in the Upper Congaree
Formation in the fourth quarter of 1988. Reductions in the
TCE concentrations in the south M-area near the settling
basin, in the north M-area, and near the A-104 outfall
southeast of the M-area are evident. The effects of pumping
on TCE concentrations in the Upper Congaree appear to be
greater than in the water-table unit, in part because of
higher extraction rates. The portion of the plume that is
distant from the recovery wells has not been affected by
remediation. The plume to the north near the Savannah River
Laboratory is unchanged because no recovery wells are
installed there.
Figure 19 shows the vertical distribution of TCE along
cross-section B-B» in the fourth quarter of 1988. This
section clearly shows the 10,000-ppb plume being drawn into
recovery well RWM-4. In addition, almost all measurement
points show reduced concentrations compared to 3 years
earlier (see Figure 10). The notable exceptions are the
water-table interval of MSB-26, the interval of MSB-40
directly above the Ellenton clay, and certain wells near
RWM-4 affected by the induced migration of the plume beneath
the settling basin. The increases in MSB-26 and MSB-40 are
consistent with the ground-water flow directions predicted
by the potentiometric contour maps; that is, radially
outward flow in the water-table unit and southeastward flow
in the Congaree. No wells were installed downgradient of
the HWMF to intercept contamination from the southern part
of this facility.
Figure 20 shows the vertical distribution of TCE along
cross-section E-E» in the fourth quarter of 1988. Several
trends can be observed in cross-section E-E* since remedia-
tion began in September 1985 (see Figure 11). One trend
appears to be the increased migration of the plume downward
to the Black Creek Formation near MSB-34. Figure 11 shows a
separate plume at the base of MSB-37, whereas Figure 20
shows the main plume extending below the Ellenton clays.
This difference may be mainly interpretive, but concentra-
tions in the Black Creek clearly increased from 1985 to
12
-------
1988. This migration across the Ellenton clays may have
been facilitated by the pinchout of the upper Ellenton clay
layer in this area. Downward migration across the Ellenton
clay layers also appears to have occurred near well MSB-9,
which is near the settling basin.
! i
The concentration of the contamination along cross-section
E-E' between wells RWM-2 and RWM-11 has clearly decreased
over the 3 years of remediation. Concentrations dropped
approximately tenfold near the lower interval of well MSB-
24, probably because of the proximity of the recovery wells.
There is also evidence that the contamination plume centered
between wells MSB-9 and MSB-11 is being drawn towards
recovery well RWM-4 and that the concentration of TCE at the
upper intervals of this plume is decreasing, possibly
because of contaminant migration downward from the water
table.
Reductions in Mass and Concentrations of Contaminants
An estimate of the mass of contaminants removed by the
extraction system was calculated using a mass balance
equation involving influent and effluent concentrations and
flow rates to the air stripper. These calculations show
that 148,000 pounds of solvents were removed by the air
stripper from the startup of remediation in September 1985
to the end of the fourth quarter of 1988.
During the trial runs and pilot studies that took place
before September 1985, an additional 34,000 pounds of
solvents were removed. This means that by the end of 1988,
181,000 pounds of solvent had been removed from the satu-
rated zone beneath the A/M-area. This result does not mefan
that the liquid phase in the saturated zone contains
181,000 fewer pounds of solvents than it did before the
initial pilot studies, however, because solvents also enter
the liquid phase of the saturated zone from the unsaturated
zone and from the solid phase in the saturated zone.
! ' •
The mass of solvents present in the liquid phase of the
saturated zone beneath the A/M-area in the third quarter of
1985 was estimated by one method to be 266,000 pounds and by
another to be 464,000 pounds. Table 3 shows this second
value and the corresponding mass inventory estimate for the
fourth quarter of 1988. A comparison of the inventory from
the two periods shows that an in situ decrease of only
23,000 pounds occurred from September 1985 to December 1988.
This is in contrast to the 148,000-pound reduction calcu-
lated from the air-stripper mass-balance calculations.
13
-------
Reductions in contaminant mass inventory were originally
projected to follow an exponential decay curve resulting in
Table 3
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN CONTAMINANT MASS INVENTORY
(In Situ Estimates)
Hydrogeologic
Unit
Water Table
Upper Congaree
Lower Congaree
Ellenton Sand
Total
Mass of Trichloroethvlene (Ibs)
3085
87,000
221,000
22,600
1,600
4Q88
90,836
139,006
38,523
2,422
Difference
(3,836)
81,994
(15,923)
(822)
332,200
270,788
61,412
Hydrogeologic
Unit
Water Table
Upper Congaree
Lower Congaree
Ellenton Sand
Total
Mass of Tetrachloroethvlene (Ibs)
3Q85
92,600
38,400
900
200
132,100
117,530
49,848
2,561
588
170,527
Difference
(24,930)
(11,448)
(1,661)
(388)
(38,427)
Hydrogeologic
Unit
Water Table
Upper Congaree
Lower Congaree
Ellenton Sand
Total
Mass of Total Degreaser Solvent (Ibs)
3Q85
179,600
259,400
23,500
1.800
464,300
4Q88
208,366
188,854
41,084
3.010
441,315
Difference
(28,766)
70,546
(17,584)
(1.210)
22,985
Source:USDOE, 1989, Table 7-3.
the removal of 99 percent of the mass after 30 years. The 1-,
2-, and 3-year, mass-inventory reduction totals were projected
to be 64,000 pounds, 119,000 pounds, and 166,000 pounds,
respectively, based on an initial inventory estimate of
450,000 pounds. The actual air-stripper mass-balance
calculations showed that 53,400 pounds were removed after one
year, 99,700 pounds were removed after two years, and
138,840 pounds were removed after three years. These actual air
stripper VOC removal results are somewhat lower than, but are
otherwise close to, projections. The 23,000-pound reduction
calculated using the in situ estimating method was much less
14
-------
than projections. This supports the conclusion that the
original estimate of the in situ mass inventory was low because
it failed to consider other sources of contaminant mass such as
the unsaturated zone and the solid phase in the saturated zone.
Because of the inaccuracies of the in situ methoii of estimating
mass inventory, the absolute quantitative changes shown in
Table 3 may not be accurate. However, Table 3 does show that
the TCE and PCE inventory increased in all layers, with the
exception of the TCE inventory in the Upper Congaree. The
reduction in the Upper Congaree is probably due to the fact that
the highest concentrations and pumping, and therefore, the
greatest rate of solvent mass extraction, occur in the Upper
Congaree. The increases in the Lower Congaree and in the water-
table unit may be due to downward migration from the Upper
Congaree and the unsaturated zone, respectively.
Table 3 also shows that the greatest increases in PCE inventory
occurred in the water-table unit and the Upper Congaree, whereas
the greatest increase in TCE inventory occurred in the Lower
Congaree. This distribution of the contaminant-mass increases
is consistent with the Table 1 release history, which shows that
PCE was used as a solvent from 1962 to 1979, whereas TCE was
used from 1952 to 1979. For this reason, the PCE plume is
expected to be shallower than the TCE plume. Comparison of
cross sections of TCE and PCE distributions (not shown) confirm
this conclusion.
The trend in concentrations in the 11 recovery wells over the
3 years of remediation was variable. The concentrations
increased in five of the recovery wells and decreased in the
remaining six wells. The trend in individual recovery wells is
expected to depend on a complex three-dimensional relationship
between plume and well locations, however. The combined trend
of the 11 recovery wells is given by the time-series plot of the
TCE and PCE concentrations in the air-stripper influent, shown
in Figure 21. Figure 21 indicates a gradual decrease in the
influent concentrations of both TCE and PCE since the startup of
remediation in September 1985.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
The effectiveness of the remediation effort at the A/M-areas of
the Savannah River Plant can be summarized as follows:
o The subsurface is a multilayered system of sands,
silts, and clays with a water table 60 to 120 feet
below the land surface of the A/M-areas. The various
permeable and impermeable layers are contaminated with
an estimated 260,000 to 464,000 pounds of organic
15
-------
degreasing solvents. Solvents contained in the
unsaturated zone, solvents sorbed to solids in the
saturated zone,, and solvents dissolved in water in
areas with concentrations below 10 ppb were not
considered in these estimates of the initial solvent
mass to be cleaned up. Excluding these solvent
components from the initial estimate leads to an
underestimate of the contamination at the site and
makes the evaluation of progress problematic.
The recovery wells are screened over the more permeable
intervals, which increases the yield of the wells but
limits access to silt and clay layers where retention
of contaminants is strongest. This practice of
screening only the permeable intervals may prolong
remediation because undisturbed silt and clay layers
will act as contaminant sources for the permeable
zones.
The hydraulic zones of capture in the various geologic
layers are still comparatively small after 3 years of
remediation and do not include most of the contaminant
plume. Even after 30 years, the present system will
not capture all of the contaminant•plume. This is
particularly true at the Savannah River Laboratory and
to the southeast of the HWMF, where no recovery wells
have been installed and gradients are away from the
A/M-area. The downward gradient across the Ellenton
clays, and consequently the driving force for downward
contaminant migration to the Black Creek Formation, has
been reduced by remediation pumping. The fact that
pump rates are low and the area to be remedied is very
large, limits the rate of remediation at this site.
Some reductions in contaminant plume size and
concentration as a result of remediation are evident,
though the reductions are generally limited to the
areas near recovery wells. The most progress is
evident in the Congaree Formation, where concentrations
and pumping rates are highest. Downward migration to
the Black Creek is evident near the settling basin and
north of the northern M-area. The concentration of TCE
and PCE in the influent to the air stripper decreased
gradually over the period of remediation.
An estimated 148,000 pounds of solvents were removed by
the air stripper from startup in September 1985 to the
end of 1988. However, in situ, contaminant-mass
inventory calculations show that there were only
23,000 fewer pounds of solvents present in the satu-
16
-------
rated zone at the end of 1988 than at the time
remediation began. This difference suggests that some
of the solvent mass removed from the liquid phase in
the saturated zone by the air stripper was replaced by
mass influx from other sources, such as the unsaturated
zone and the solid phase in the saturated zone. This
decrease of only 23,000 pounds in the in situ mass of
contaminants after 3 years suggests that it may take
longer than the projected 30 years to achieve the
established goal of removing 99 percent of the initial
contaminant mass.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Colven, W.P., L.F. Boone, and J.G. Horvath. February 1987.
Draft First Year Report, Effectiveness of the M-Area
Remedial Action Program, September 1985 to
September 1986, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.,
Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina.
1
Colven, W.P., J.B. Pickett, and C.F. Muska. November 1985.
Closure Plan for the M-Area Settling Basin and Vicinity
at the Savannah River Plant. DPSPU 84-11-11, E.I. du
Pont de Nemours and Co.
1 i
Larson, S.P., et al., S.S. Papadopulos & Associates.
February 1987. Three-Dimensional Modeling Analysis of
Ground Water Pumping Schemes for Containment of Shallow
Ground Water Contamination, presented at Conference on
Solving Ground Water Problems with Models, National
Water Well Association, Denver, Colorado.
United States Department of Energy (USDOE). July 1986.
Application for a Post-Closure Permit, M-Area Hazardous
Waste Management Facility, Volume III, Revision No. 1,
Savannah River Plant.
United States Department of Energy (USDOE). March 1988.
M-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility Post-Closure
Care Permit, Ground Water Monitoring and Corrective
Action Program, Savannah River Plant, 1987 Annual
Report.
United States Department of Energy (USDOE). March 1989.
M-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility Post-Closure
Care Permit, Ground Water Monitoring and Corrective
Action Program, Savannah River Plant, 1988 Annual
Report.
WDCR415/065.50
17
-------
CASE STUDY 16
Site'A
South Florida
-------
CASE STUDY FOR SITE A IN SOUTH FLORIDA
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
i i.i
This case study describes the remediation at Site A1 in
south Florida. The potentially responsible party (PRP) at
Site A has manufactured industrial cleaning compounds at
this location since 1958. The compounds are used by NASA,
the Defense Department, and in the airline and aircraft man-
ufacturing industries. A map of the site is shown in
Figure 1. Immediately to the west of the site is an area
formerly occupied by a manufacturer of industrial coatings,
and a manufacturer of processed metals. This area west of
the Site A plant has been excavated and redeveloped and is
no longer used for industrial purposes. However, it has
been mentioned as a possible alternative source of the con-
tamination at Site A. The site is contaminated with chlori-
nated organics and aromatic compounds. It is administered
by the local county government.
SITE HISTORY
Efforts to study the extent of contamination at Site A began
in early 1985 with three individual wells (referred to as BB
wells) and three 2-well clusters (called the DERM wells)
installed at the request of the local county. The con-
centrations of contaminants found in ground-water samples
taken from the monitoring wells lead to the installation of
20 permanent monitoring wells and 20 temporary monitoring
wells by an EPA/FIT team in October 1985. The locations of
the permanent FIT wells, BB wells, and DERM wells are shown
in Figure 2. The study of the site conditions culminated in
a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) report in
August 1987 and a final remedial action plan (RAP) completed
on September 10, 1987. These two documents were prepared
for the local county government but have not been approved
by EPA. As a result of the recommendations made in these
reports, three more monitoring wells were installed in
January 1988 and an extraction well and air stripper were
installed in August 1988. The extraction system began full
operation on August 29, 1988, and operated for 20-1/2 weeks
until it was shut down on January 18, 1989, to assess the
progress of the cleanup effort. The system was put back
into operation following this shut-down period and water
quality monitoring continued.
LBecause of continuing disagreement concerning
responsibility for the contaminants at the site and the
listing of the site on the National Priorities List (NPL),
no further identification of the parties involved will be
made in this case study.
-------
GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
Site A is located in the outcrop area of the Biscayne
aquifer, which is the sole source of potable water in the
county. The surficial soil at the site is a sandy organic
topsoil approximately 1 foot thick, which is directly under-
lain by the Biscayne aquifer. The upper part of the aquifer
is a soft, sandy, oolitic limestone approximately 15 feet
thick, which has high horizontal and vertical hydraulic con-
ductivity due to numerous small solution openings (see
Figure 3).
The lower portion of the oolitic limestone has larger
openings formed by the dissolution of fossil bryozoans
(branching corals). Below the oolite is a 20-foot layer of
quartz sand of which the upper 10 feet is fine- to medium-
grained and the lower 10 feet is finer and has lower
hydraulic conductivity. Below the sand is a solution-
riddled limestone approximately 45 feet thick known as the
Fort Thompson Formation. This is the lowest and most pro-
ductive layer of the Biscayne aquifer. Because of its high
horizontal hydraulic conductivity, which averages 10,000
ft/day, all of the high capacity wells in the area are
placed in the Fort Thompson limestone.
At the base of the Biscayne aquifer is a greenish marl of
fine sand, silt, clay, and shell called the Tamiami Forma-
tion, which forms a regional aquiclude to a depth of about
700 feet. Below the Tamiami Formation is the Floridan
aquifer, which contains brackish water in this area.
The horizontal and vertical conductivities of the various
layers that make up the Biscayne aquifer are shown in
Figure 3. These values are based on regional aquifer tests,
ranges of values reported by the USGS for the Biscayne
aquifer, previous modeling results, and typical values for
these types of sediments.
The water table is 2 to 3 feet below the land surface at the
site, as shown in Figure 3. The water-table gradients that
have been observed at the site are very shallow with verti-
cal drops of 0.0002 to 0.0005 feet per horizontal foot.
Assuming a porosity of 30 percent and a hydraulic con-
ductivity of 100 ft/day, these gradients correspond to flow
velocities of 24 and 61 ft/year, respectively. Because
gradients are so shallow the direction of flow is difficult
to determine. However, site data collected by an EPA field-
investigation team (EPA/FIT) in 1985 suggest that the direc-
tion of flow is eastward during the dry season and southward
to southwestward during the rainy season.
-------
Fluctuations in the water table and changes in the flow
direction are affected by the numerous drainage canals and
borrow pits in the area. Flow in the lower portion of the
Biscayne aquifer is undoubtedly influenced by the pumping of
three municipal well fields within a radius of 2 miles from
the site. However, these effects have not been explicitly
studied at Site A.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
', i:; ,i ,
The shallow ground water in certain portions of the site
have been found to be contaminated with organic compounds.
The compounds that have been detected in concentrations
exceeding the applicable health-based standards are:
benzene, chlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-DCE), and vinyl chloride (VC).
The actual source of these contaminants was not identified
in the available reports. A list of health-based standards
for the site are shown in Table 1.
The contamination is concentrated in the south central part
of the site, as suggested by the shaded area shown in
Figure 4. This shaded area represents the extent of the
contaminant plume as it was acknowledged by the designers of
the ground-water recovery system. The limits of the con-
taminant plume were estimated on the basis of samples taken
from the three, 6.4-foot deep temporary wells, which had
organic concentrations less than the health-based standards.
The low concentrations found in these shallow wells were
taken as proof that the extent of the plume was limited on
the north, east, and west sides as indicated by the shaded
area. The southern edge of the plume was unknown, because
there were no uncontaminated monitoring wells south of the
site that would indicate the southern limits of the plumeC
It should be noted that samples with concentrations greater
than the health-based standards have been reported for wells
MWT-32 and MWS-09, which are 7 feet and 20 feet deep,
respectively (see Figure 2). Hence, it appears that a more
likely outline for the pre-remediation plume of contaminated
ground water is as shown by the dashed line in Figure 2.
It was concluded by the PRP that ground-water contamination
was limited to the upper portion of the Biscayne Aquifer in
and above the fine-to-medium sand layer that lies from 15 to
25 feet below ground surface. Five monitoring wells have
been drilled below this layer to depths ranging from 50 to
75 feet below ground. A sample taken from one of these
wells, well CDM-03 (55 feet deep), showed a VC concentration
of 2.1 ppb. Even though this is higher than the health-
based standard for the site of 1 ppb for VC, the conclusion
-------
that contaminants were limited to the shallow geologic
layers was apparently not altered.
The. source of the ground-water contamination at the site is
the subject of ongoing dispute. If the source is offsite,
as the PRP and its consultant maintain, then it could repre-
sent a continuing discharge of contaminants to the aquifer.
However, this has not been proven, and remedial activities
at the site have proceeded under the assumption that there
is no continuing source of contaminants.
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
The objective of the remedial action at Site A is to clean
up ground water contaminated by volatile organic compounds
in the south central part of the site to concentrations
below applicable health-based levels,.
The remedial action is based on an extraction system con-
sisting of one well centered in the contaminated area (shown
in Figure 4). The position of the extraction well was
chosen so that the areas of known contamination would be
within a 100-foot radius of the well. The possibility of
contamination south of the plant boundary or north of well
MWS-11 was not investigated and was not considered when
designing the extraction system. The extraction well was
screened over the 10-foot interval of the medium quartz sand
layer at a depth of 15 to 25 feet (see Figure 3) based on
the conclusion that there was no contamination in deeper
units. A pumping rate of 30 gpm was selected initially but
was later increased to 50 gpm. The decision to increase
pumping was made in part because of results from three-
dimensional modeling of the aquifer system, which was con-
ducted to determine the most cost-effective pumping rates
and the estimated time of cleanup. The modeling indicated
that 60 days would be necessary to extract all the con-
taminated water within 100 feet of the well if the pumping
rate was 30 gpm, while only 25 days would be necessary if
the rate was raised to 75 gpm.
Once the ground water is extracted, it is passed through an
air stripper to remove VOCs and then pumped into the city
sewer system.
Before the ground-water extraction was started, a per-
formance monitoring plan was developed. The plan called for
initial sampling of 16 wells, one of which was used as a
background well. This was to be followed by intermittent
sampling from a total of 20 wells.
-------
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
The performance report produced by the PRP states that the
operation of the extraction well has produced "no measurable
differences of water levels" in the monitoring wells. The
actual water levels are not reported with reference to a
uniform elevation datum so it is not possible to verify this
claim. This statement was apparently intended to indicate
that the system is not causing substantial dewatering of the
shallow aquifer rather than to show that it is not capturing
the plume of contaminated ground water. However, it is pos-
sible that upward leakage of ground water from the lower
Biscayne Aquifer could substantially reduce the effective
capture radius of the extraction well.
Tables 2 and 3 show the results of the water quality
sampling for the Group A and Group B monitoring wells,
respectively. (Only the Group A monitoring wells have been
sampled since January 1989.) The concentrations of the five
compounds of concern are listed together with their cor-
responding cleanup target concentrations. Analytical
results for methylene chloride are also listed in Table 3
because this compound consistently appeared in the samples.
However, the PRP's consultant concluded that methylene
chloride was being leached from the PVC well materials and
was not an aquifer contaminant.
The concentrations in the monitoring wells that: had high
levels of contamination before the cleanup began decreased
during the period of extraction. This decrease is shown in
Figures 5 and 6 for wells CDM-02 and DERM-05, respectively.
Although the decrease in concentrations since the beginning
of operation is significant, the concentrations of benzene,
chlorobenzene, and VC were still above health-based
standards in several monitoring wells in mid-March 1989.
Wells CDM-02 and MWS-11 contained constituents above health-
based levels in mid-March 1989 despite the initial projec-
tion of complete remediation in less than 60 days.
The concentration of contaminants in well MWS-11 is shown in
Figure 7. It is of interest to note that, while the con-
centration of VC in well MWS-11 decreased from 74 ppb in
January 1988 to 0.5 ppb in September 1988, the concentra-
tions of the less mobile compounds, benzene and chloroben-
zene, actually increased during the remediation period. As
of mid-March 1989, chlorobenzene and benzene concentrations
in well MWS-11 were above or near the cleanup goal. 1,4-
dichlorobenzene also rose during remediation but decreased
to below the goal of 5 ppb by mid-March 1989. This may
-------
indicate that a high concentration region that was initially
north of well MWS-11 was drawn southward past well MWS-11 by
the extraction system.
Time series data describing total VOC concentrations in the
treatment system influent and effluent also suggest that the
aquifer concentrations are decreasing (see Figure 8).
Because the extraction well is in the center of the known
contaminated area and because the limits of the cone of
depression are not thought to extend far beyond the deline-
ated zone of initial contamination, the extraction well
probably draws water primarily from the contaminated area.
The decrease in the influent concentration of total VOCs
from 24,000 ppb on the startup date to less than 500 ppb 234
days after startup shows that contaminant concentrations in
the aquifer decreased in response to remediation. This con-
clusion is supported by the general decline in monitoring
well concentrations. However, it is also possible that the
total VOC concentrations in the extracted ground water have
been reduced partially by dilution with clean ground water
flowing upward through the fine sand layers from the lower
Biscayne Aquifer.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
One conclusion that can be drawn from the performance data
for Site A is that the extraction system has not achieved
aquifer remediation in the 25- to 60-day time frame
predicted by its designers. The most likely reasons for the
over-optimistic performance predictions are: (1) incomplete
characterization of the initial contaminant distribution,
(2) failure to account for retarded contaminant migration
due to adsorption, and,(3) inaccurate assessment of the
hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer materials.
In order to generate accurate predictions of cleanup time,
it is necessary to have an accurate description of the ini-
tial contaminant distribution. The predictions of a 25- to
60-day cleanup period seem to have been based on the assump-
tion that the initial contaminant plume extended no farther
than 100 feet from the extraction well in any direction.
Analytical data from the monitoring wells does not seem to
support this assumption. The southern extent of contamina-
tion has not been characterized, for example. The dif-
ference between the assumed contaminant plume shape and the
shape that might have been deduced from the monitoring well
data is illustrated by comparison of Figures 2 and 4. The
plume that is based on monitoring well data is significantly
larger and would take longer to remediate using the current
extract system.
-------
The cleanup predictions were based on the time required to
draw ground water to the extraction well from a radius of
100 feet. This does not account for the potentially slower
movement of the contaminants due to adsorptive retardation.
The organic constituents in the contaminant plume range in
mobility from vinyl chloride, which may travel nearly as
fast as clean water, to 1,4-dichlorobenzene, which is listed
as a low mobility compound (Fetter, 1988). If the organic
carbon content of the Biscayne Aquifer is conservatively
estimated at 0.1%, the retardation factor for 1,4-dichloro-
benzene could be as high as 6. This would mean that the
projected cleanup time should have been six times longer
even if the extent of the plume assumed by the PRP's con-
sultant were accurate.
The estimated time required for ground water to travel to
the extraction well from a radius of 100 feet was based on a
hydraulic cone of depression around the well that was pre-
dicted by a numerical model. There is no indication that
this model was calibrated to the actual conditions at the
site. Indeed, an accurate model calibration would have
required hydraulic performance data from an aquifer test.
No such test was done at the site. This may explain why the
drawdowns observed in the monitoring wells as a result of
extraction well operation were reported to be negligible.
The hydraulic gradients generated by the extraction well
would be very sensitive to the leakage properties of the
fine sand layer that lies immediately below the screened
interval of the extraction well. The vertical component of
hydraulic conductivity used in modeling this layer was not
accurately determined on the basis of site-specific
hydraulic testing. Thus, the hydrodynamic effects of the
extraction well could not be predicted accurately. Further-
more, the performance report for the site did not include
piezometric measurements that would permit accurate assess-
ment of the well's hydrodynamic effects.
In spite of the system's failure to achieve remediation in
the predicted time, it does appear to have significantly
reduced the contaminant concentrations in most of the moni-
toring wells. This effect is particularly noticeable with
respect to vinyl chloride, which is probably the most mobile
contaminant of concern. Two of the monitoring wells at the
northern extent of the plume seem to show aquifer remedia-
tion to concentrations below health-based levels. It can be
expected that other areas of the site, and perhaps even the
entire plume will be remediated eventually if extraction is
continued. However, since the existence of a continued
source of contamination has not.been ruled out, a complete
cleanup cannot be predicted with certainty.
WDCR321/045.50
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Private Contractor A. September 1987. Provisional Remedial
Action Plan, Site A.
Private Contractor A. February 1989. Provisional Status
Report, Site A.
Fetter, C.W. 1988. Applied Hydrogeology, Merrill Publishing
Company.
WDCR321/045.50
8
-------
-------
CASE STUDY 17
Utah Power & Light Pole Treatment Yard
Idaho Fall, Idaho
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE UTAH POWER & LIGHT SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The Utah Power & Light Company (UP&L) pole treatment yard is
located in a commercial and industrial area in the southern
part of Idaho Falls, Idaho, near the east bank of the Snake
River (see Figure 1). Electrical power poles were treated
by soaking them in a vat of heated creosote and then allow-
ing the excess creosote to drip off into a receiving tank
before the poles were stockpiled on the site. In July 1983,
creosote was found to be leaking from underground piping
connecting the treatment vat to a storage tank. In response
to this finding, a corrective action under the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was initiated, which
involved removal of the pole treatment process equipment,
excavation of contaminated soils, and installation and test-
ing of recovery wells in the bedrock aquifer. Operation of
the recovery wells is continuing under the provisions of a
RCRA Part B permit issued in November 1987.
SITE HISTORY
In July 1983, when creosote leakage was detected at the
site, the pole treatment facility had been in operation for
approximately 60 years. Upon discovery of the underground
creosote leak, the pole treatment process equipment was
removed and a major effort was begun to remove all creosote-
contaminated soil and rock materials. Between July and
September 1983, approximately 37,000 tons of soil and rock
were excavated. As a result, a pit was formed approximately
110 by 180 feet in area and 25 feet deep, bottoming out at
the top the native basalt bedrock. Soil sampling indicated
that all the contaminated soils in the vicinity of the leak
had been removed. However, borings extended into the bed-
rock showed the presence of creosote as a nonaqueous phase
liquid. Further excavation into the bedrock to recover non-
aqueous creosote was thought to be impractical. Therefore,
to reduce infiltration into the contaminated portion of the
bedrock aquifer, the bottom of the pit was lined with a 12-
foot layer of compacted clay in February 1984. Between June
and September 1985, the rest of the excavation was back-
filled with clean gravel, capped with a second compacted
clay layer, and topped with an asphalt cover. Since then,
the backfilled pit has been classified as a hazardous waste
management facility (HWMF) under RCRA.
In December 1984, UP&L submitted an application for a RCRA
Part B Permit to operate an HWMF at the pole treatment yard
(Dames & Moore, 1984a). In support of this application,
UP&L's engineering consultants, Dames & Moore, Inc., con-
-------
ducted field investigations to characterize the subsurface
contamination at the site. These investigations included 23
soil and rock borings around and under the excavated area,
and the installation of 15 ground-water monitoring wells on
the UP&L property. An aquifer test was run in one of the
monitoring wells, and four rounds of ground-water samples
were collected in 1984. In addition, 21 offsite water-
supply wells were sampled.
In response to requests from the U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA), an addendum to the Part B Permit applica-
tion was submitted by UP&L in June 1985 (Dames & Moore,
1984b). (The addendum, Volume 4 of the Part B application,
was backdated to December 1984 to correspond to the date of
the original application.) The addendum contained support-
ing data and clarification of some of the information in the
original application, as well as results of additional
ground-water sampling conducted in early 1985.
In October 1985, UP&L submitted a ground-water quality
assessment report to EPA (Dames & Moore, 1985) to supplement
the information contained in the original Part B permit
application. This report covered additional background
information on regional and site hydrogeology, reported the
results of an additional aquifer test, gave analytical
results from new ground-water sampling rounds, and described
simulations performed with a numerical ground-water flow
model that had been developed for the site.
Between October 1985 and April 1986, a 6-month pilot study
of ground-water extraction and treatment was conducted.
Contaminated ground water was pumped from six bedrock moni-
toring wells and treated before being discharged to the ^
Idaho Falls sanitary sewer system. The pilot study showed
that more nonaqueous, or free-phase, creosote was produced
from the wells than had been expected. The production of
free-phase creosote slugs caused various operational
problems, requiring corrective measures in the design of the
treatment system. As a result of this test, a second 6-
month pilot study was recommended before beginning full-
scale extraction (CH2M HILL, 1986).
In April 1986, Dames & Moore submitted a report to EPA on
the hydrologic investigations that had been conducted during
the first phase of the pilot extraction program and the
general design recommendations for the full-scale extraction
system (Dames & Moore, 1986). This report documented the
results of four additional aquifer tests in the onsite mon-
itoring wells, gave the results of additional rounds of
ground-water quality sampling, and described numerical simu-
lations of alternative ground-water extraction systems. The
recommended full-scale extraction system was to consist of
-------
14 extraction wells operating at a combined capacity of
approximately 200 gallons per minute (gpm).
The second pilot study for the extraction system was begun
in February 1987. By this time, the treatment plant had
been expanded and the treatment processes modified in
response to experience gained from the first pilot study.
Most of the ground water in the second phase was produced
from wells designed for contaminant recovery rather than
from monitoring wells, as had been the case in the first
pilot phase. The plan for this phase was to expand the num-
ber of recovery wells incrementally as experience was gained
concerning the behavior of the bedrock aquifers and the
treatment system. Figure 2 shows the locations of the moni-
toring and recovery wells in place as of January 1988. An
interim report was submitted in October 1987 covering the
first 6 months of the second pilot study (CH2M HILL, 1987).
The ground-water extraction and treatment system has con-
tinued operating since the beginning of the second pilot
study in February 1987. A RCRA Part B permit was issued for
the site in November 1987.
In 1988, UP&L merged with PacifiCorp, and operating
responsibility for the Idaho Falls site was transferred to
Pacific Power & Light, a Division of PacifiCorp.
GEOLOGY
The UP&L site lies near the eastern edge of the Snake River
Plain, which cuts a 50- to 100-mile swath through the Rocky
Mountains across the State of Idaho. In contrast to the
altitudes in excess of 12,000 feet in the adjacent moun-
tains, the plain slopes gently and has an elevation of
4,600 to 4,700 feet in the vicinity of the UP&L site. The
eastern part of the plain is a structural downwarp filled
mostly with a series of basaltic lava flows of Quaternary
age. The total thickness of the basalt flows is unknown,
but it is known to exceed 1,600 feet near Idaho Falls. The
individual lava flows are commonly 20 to 30 feet thick and
are separated by interflow zones of clay, sand, gravel, cin-
ders, and volcanic ash. Figure 3 shows a geologic cross
section of the upper 200 to 400 feet of the interlayered
basalt beneath the UP&L site. The location of this cross
section is shown in Figure 2.
The surface soils at the site consist of 3 to 5 feet of
wind-blown clayey silt (loess), underlain by sand and gravel
deposits to depths of 20 to 30 feet. A veneer of silt and
clay is commonly found between the sand and gravel deposits
and the underlying basalt.
-------
HYDROGEOLOGY
The interlayered basalt flows form the Snake River Plain
Aquifer, which is a regional source of water supply. The
interflow zones between the basalt flows are generally very "
permeable and are the major avenues for the horizontal move-
ment of ground water. Fractures and broken zones within the
basalt flows tend to be concentrated along the upper and
lower surfaces of the flow.
Vertical movement of water between the interflow zones is
through fractures in the basalt. Excavation of the creo-
sote-contaminated gravel at the site in 1983 exposed the top
of a basalt flow, which was found to have vertical fractures
spaced 2 to 4 feet apart. The fractures were filled with
sand and silt.
As shown in Figure 3, the consultants for UP&L have
classified the basalt layers beneath the site into groups,
labeled Basalt A through Basalt E. Each group may include
several individual basalt flows. Basalt A and the upper
layers of Basalt B are located above the water table. The
fracture zones and interflow zones in the lower part of
Basalt B, below the water table, have been designated as the
uppermost aquifer, or Aquifer #1. This zone of relatively
high permeability generally occurs between the water table
and a depth of approximately 160 feet. Aquifer #1 is most
densely fractured and permeable along the western edge of
the site near Monitoring Wells MW-3 and MW-4 (see Figure 2).
In the south-central part of the site, near Wells MW-7, MW-
8, and MW-13, Aquifer #1 is much less permeable.
Table 1 lists the specific capacities and aquifer parameters
that have been measured in the onsite wells. Transmissivity
estimates based on aquifer tests are available for three of
the wells screened in Aquifer #1. They show a wide range of
variation from one well to the next. Even for a single
well, there is a considerable variation in the transmis-
sivity estimate, depending on which observation well is used
for the analysis. This combination of spatial non-
uniformity and directional dependence of hydraulic
properties is a common feature of fractured rock aquifers.
Aquifer #1 is separated from the next lower aquifer by a
very dense basalt flow, which generally extends from about
160 to 240 feet below the ground surface. However, this
aquitard is not identifiable in all of the boring logs. In
the northern part of the site, for instance, the log for
Well MW-11 shows numerous interflow zones consisting of cin-
ders, sand, fractures, and soft basalt in this depth range.
-------
Aquifer #2 corresponds to the interflow zone and weathered
basalt between the bottom of Basalt B and the top of
Basalt C. As shown in Table 1, Aquifer #2 has a much more
uniform distribution of hydraulic properties than
Aquifer #1. This interflow zone is shown in only one well
(MW-15) in the cross section of Figure 3. However,
reference to the boring logs for other deep wells indicates
that Aquifer #2 is continuous across the site, generally
between 240 and 260 feet below the ground surface.
i
A series of interflow and fracture zones occurring between
360 and 400 feet deep has been designated as Aquifer #3. No
aquifer tests have been run in Aquifer #3, but the specific
capacities of the wells completed in it indicate that it is
probably highly transmissive. Aquifer #3 is the deepest
transmissiye layer that has been investigated on the UP&L
site. However, drillers' logs for deep wells located about
1-1/2 miles north of the site show that basalt layers with
interflow zones extend to depths of 400 to 450 feet. Below
this, a stratum of mainly sedimentary deposits, consisting
of clay, sand, and gravel, extends to about 1,100 feet deep.
Below this, basalt again predominates (Dames & Moore, 1984).
Three municipal water supply wells operated by the City of
Idaho Falls are located less than 1 mile from the UP&L site.
The wells, City Wells #1, #2, and #3, are shown in Figure 1.
They produce from depths corresponding to the interflow
zones identified as Aquifers #2 and #3. These wells are
able to produce at rates of between 3,400 and 6,080 gpm.
Transmissiyity estimates made on the basis of specific
capacity tests at these wells range from 2.5 to 4.9 million
gallons per day per foot. These transmissivity estimates
are typical of values reported in the regional hydrogeologic
literature for the Snake River Plain Aquifer.
As shown in Figure 3, the water table is more than 100 feet
below the ground surface at the UP&L site. The water table
elevation fluctuates seasonally with an amplitude of
approximately 25 feet, as shown in Figure 4. Despite the
fluctuations, the head in Aquifer #1 is consistently 2 to
3 feet higher than the head in Aquifer #2. Similarly, the
head in Aquifer #2 is generally about 2 feet higher than the
head in Aquifer #3. The rate of vertical flow from
Aquifer #1 to Aquifer #2 over the 1.5-acre area of the site
has been estimated at 1.8 gpm (Dames & Moore, 1986a). This
corresponds to an average vertical discharge velocity of
approximately 2 feet per year. The mean velocity of verti-
cal ground-water migration, with an effective porosity of
0.1, would be 20 feet per year. Similarly, a vertical flow
rate of 8 gpm over the area of the site has been estimated
between Aquifer #2 and Aquifer #3.
5
-------
Regionally, the horizontal hydraulic gradients in the Snake
River Plain Aquifer near Idaho Falls range between 0.001 and
0.004, with flow toward the southwest. Locally, the hori-
zontal hydraulic gradients measured in the onsite monitoring
wells seem to follow the regional trend, with flow toward
the southwest. Figure 5 shows potentiometric head measure-
ments in aquifer #2, as measured on February 13, 1985. It
should be noted that the equipotentials shown on the figure
are based on interpolation among only three measuring
points. The limited number of measurements is probably
responsible for the apparent uniformity of the gradient. If
the reading from the southernmost well had been included in
the countouring, the pattern would have been more complex
and more typical of flow in fractured-rock aquifers.
Figure 6 shows the potentiometric heads measured in
Aquifer #1, also measured on February 13, 1985. Here, more
measurements were used, and the flow pattern is correspond-
ingly more complicated. The flow is generally toward the
southwest, but the magnitude of the gradient is quite vari-
able, reflecting the heterogeneity of the upper aquifer as
observed in the aquifer tests.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
Creosote appears to be the only contaminant of concern at
the UP&L site. Creosote is an oily, translucent distillate
of coal tar whose properties vary depending on the source of
the tar. Coal tar is produced as a by-product of the high-
temperature carbonization, or coking, of bituminous coal.
Creosote, derived from coal tar by fractional distillation,
has a typical boiling range of 175 to 450 degrees Celcius.
It is denser than water, having a specific gravity of
1.05 to 1.09 (at 15 degrees Celcius). Generally, its ^
viscosity is in the range of 50 to 70 centipoise, or 50 to
70 times greater than the viscosity of water (Sale &
Piontek, 1988).
More than 400 individual compounds have been identified in
creosote, but most of them are present only in small
amounts. Table 2 shows the results of a chemical analysis
of a sample of creosote taken from a borehole drilled into
the bedrock under the excavated leak area at the UP&L site.
Many of the highest organic concentrations are in the
category of compounds classified as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). For this reason, most of the ground-
water contamination analyses at the site have been expressed
in terms of total PAHs. Table 3 lists the compounds
included in the category of PAHs. Most of them have very
low solubility in water and correspondingly low mobility in
aqueous solution.
6
-------
Federal water quality criteria for human health have been
established by the Clean Water Act for those PAH compounds
designated with a star (*) in Table 3. The 10"6 excess
cancer-risk criterion for the sum of the concentrations of
the starred compounds is 0.0031 parts per billion (ppb), or
3.1 nanograms per liter.
Several phenolic compounds are also components of creosote.
In general, they are more mobile than the PAHs and have
higher regulatory cleanup levels. Pentachlorophenol, the
only phenolic compound with an established maximum con-
centration limit (MCL), has not been found at the UP&L site
and was apparently not used in the pole-treating operation.
Phenol, which is listed in Table 2 as a component of the
creosote at UP&L, has a 10"6 excess cancer-risk concentration
of 3,500 ppb.
The creosote contamination at the UP&L site originated from
a break in the underground pipeline connecting the pole-
dipping vat with a creosote storage tank. As soon as the
creosote leak was detected, a major effort was initiated to
remove creosote-contaminated soil and rock. Approximately
37,000 tons of soil, much of it gravel, were excavated to
form the pit shown in Figure 7. Uncontaminated gravel was
stockpiled just north of the pit, as shown in the figure.
Contaminated materials were sent to offsite disposal areas.
The determination as to which materials were clean and which
were contaminated was based on appearance and odor.
Soil samples were taken from 15 locations in the bottom and
wall of the pit to monitor the adequacy of the contaminated
soil removal (see Figure 7). Evaluation of the samples
indicated no remaining creosote-contaminated soils. In
addition, 15 borings were drilled into the soil surrounding
the pit and the bedrock beneath it, as shown in Figure 7. A
total of 21 soil -and rock samples were taken and analyzed
for creosote compounds. Borings 3 through 15 were drilled
into the surficial gravel around the pit, and no creosote
contamination was found in th,em. Borings 1 and 2 were
drilled into the bedrock in the bottom of the pit to depths
of 55 and 82 feet below the pit bottom, respectively. In
both of these borings, contamination was apparent in the
form of creosote odors and creosote coating of the drill
rods.
Later, in May 1984, eight additional bedrock borings were
drilled in the bottom of the excavation to verify the bed-
rock contamination. These borings ranged in depth from
55 to 140 feet. Only the deepest boring met the water table
at a depth of 122 feet. Evidence of creosote was found in
all eight borings. In most cases, the evidence was limited
to odor and creosote coating of the drill rods. However,
-------
creosote accumulations were found in the bottom of one of
the borings. A sample of the creosote was taken from this
hole for analysis, yielding the data presented in Table 2.
In 1984 and 1985, the excavation was backfilled to reduce
the amount of ground-water recharge through the contaminated
bedrock. The bottom of the pit was lined with a 12-foot
layer of compacted clay. Uncontamiriated gravel from the
onsite stockpile was then used to backfill the pit nearly to
the ground surface. A cap was then constructed consisting
of a 30-inch compacted clay layer, overlain by a gravel
drainage layer and a 4- to 14-inch asphalt cover.
Recognizing that creosote was present in the unsaturated
bedrock above the water table as a dense nonaqueous phase
liquid (DNAPL), it was suspected that lateral migration of
the creosote might be controlled by the slope of the inter-
flow zones between the basalt flows. The tops of the upper
basalt flows, Al, A2, and A3 (see Figure 3) slope to the
northwest at 175, 75, and 200 feet per mile, respectively.
However, outside the immediate leak area, creosote was only
found above the water table in monitoring and recovery wells
located to the south and southwest of the HWMF. It was con-
cluded that the basalt flows are so densely fractured and
have enough vertical permeability that creosote would sink
to the water table, rather than migrating laterally away
from the immediate vicinity of the HWMF (Dames & Moore,
1985). It should be noted from Figure 2, however, that no
wells have been drilled into the bedrock to the northwest of
the HWMF.
It was concluded in the Part B Permit application (Dames &
Moore, 1984a) that the total mass of contaminant discharged
to the bedrock aquifer could not be estimated.
No contour maps of ground-water contaminant concentrations
have been presented in any of the reports on the UP&L site
that have been made available for review. Before the begin-
ning of the first pilot study, 15 monitoring wells had been
installed (Wells MW-1 through MW-15). Of these, only Wells
MW-7, MW-8, and MW-13 in Aquifer #1 and Well MW-9 in
Aquifer #2 were considered to be within the plume of con-
taminated ground water (CH2M HILL, 1985). Well MW-13, how-
ever, was the farthest downgradient well in Aquifer #1, so
the extent of the plume in that layer was undetermined. In
1985, five offsite monitoring wells were installed in
Aquifer #1 to the south and southwest of the site. The
closest four offsite wells are between 300 and 500 feet from
the south boundary of the site. The remaining offsite well
is about 2,000 feet south-southwest of the site. Two of
these offsite wells showed low levels (between 1 and 10 ppb)
of PAHs when they were initially sampled before the wells
8
-------
had been developed. In subsequent sampling after well
development, all the offsite wells were free of phenols and
PAH compounds. Table 4 presents a summary of the analytical
results for initial rounds of sampling in the four con-
taminated onsite monitoring wells.
During July and August 1986, five new recovery wells were
installed within the suspected plume area in Aquifers #1
and #2. Wells R-3, R-4, R-5, and R-6 were screened in
Aquifer #1. Initial tests indicated that Wells R-5 and R-6
were in the central area of the plume in Aquifer #1. It was
concluded that Well R-4 was near the edge of the plume in
Aquifer #1 because it produced small concentrations of
phenol but no PAHs. Well R-3 was judged to be outside the
plume. Well R-7 produced small concentrations of phenol but
no detectable PAHs, and therefore was concluded to be near
the edge of the contaminant plume in Aquifer #2.
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
Objectives of Remediation
The overall goal of the recovery system is to contain and
recover ground water that has been contaminated with
creosote. Containment of the contaminated ground water is
to be achieved by creating inward hydraulic gradients in the
contaminated aquifers to prevent offsite migration. The
system is intended to produce local reversal of the natural
downward flow of ground water from Aquifer #2 to Aquifer #3
in the area of the contaminant plume (Dames & Moore, 1986).
Another goal is to remove creosote in the nonaqueous phase
to the extent found to be practical.
The recovery system has been implemented in stages, starting
with the first phase of pilot recovery and treatment. The
short-term goals of the first phase pilot study were:
1. To determine the hydraulic response of the aquifers to
pumping and investigate any resulting change in ground-
water quality
2. To improve ground-water quality by removing phenols and
PAH compounds during the 6-month period of pilot
operation
3. To develop a final plan of action for removal of
creosote contaminants from the aquifers
-------
4. To define the design criteria for treatment of the
extracted ground water and determine the appropriate
capacity of the full-scale treatment plant
At the end of the first pilot phase, it was determined that
a second pilot phase would be required to work out some of
the practical problems that had been encountered. However,
aside from certain experiments with modifications to the
treatment process, the second pilot phase can be interpreted
as the beginning of the full-scale recovery operation.
System Configuration
An extraction system designed to attain the overall
objectives listed above was developed with the aid of numer-
ical ground-water flow models (Dames & Moore, 1986). The
design called for seven wells in Aquifer #1 with a combined
extraction rate of 46 gpm, and seven wells in Aquifer #2
with a combined rate of 145 gpm. The water extracted from
these wells was to be treated and released to the Idaho
Falls sewer system or to the Snake River. An alternative
design, including reinjection of the treated ground water,
was studied but was rejected because it would not produce
the desired reversal of vertical head gradients.
The actual system that has been constructed has been
implemented in stages. It is loosely based on the original
design, but changes in the number and placement of wells
have been made based on operating experience. The extrac-
tion and monitoring wells in place as of March 1989 are
shown in Figure 8.
The first pilot phase of ground-water extraction began at
the end of October 1985, with pumping from Wells MW-7, MW-
13, and R-l in Aquifer #1, and Wells MW-9 and R-2 in
Aquifer #2. Well MW-8 was also to have been pumped, but it
was found to be an unproductive well. it was initially
intended that the pilot system would extract and treat a
combined flow of up to 100 gpm, but practical difficulties
limited the pumping to much lower rates. The average com-
bined pumping rate for the first 6-month pilot study was
only 25 gpm. After the first 3 months of pilot operations,
it was necessary to suspend pumping from Wells MW-7 and R-l
because of seasonal low water levels in Aquifer #1. Other
reasons for the low rates of extraction were:
o Treatment plant shutdowns to repair pipe breaks
and perform other maintenance
o Plant shutdowns for holidays
10
-------
o Reduced flow rates during monitoring well pump
tests
o Limited operations while emergency safety systems
were out of operation
o Plant shutdown for conversion from PVC to steel
piping
Some of the problems listed above were caused by the
unexpectedly large amount of nonaqueous creosote produced
from the wells. Creosote was found to be incompatible with
PVC, causing the piping to become brittle and crack. Non-
aqueous creosote in the waste stream also caused clogging of
some of the treatment processes, requiring more frequent
maintenance than expected. In response to these problems,
numerous changes to the treatment plant were made during the
period between the end of the first pilot phase on April 29,
1986, and the start of the second pilot phase in February
1987.
The recovery wells used in the second pilot phase of extrac-
tion were MW-7, MW-13, R-4, R-5, and R-6 in Aquifer #1 and
MW-9, R-2, and R-7 in Aquifer #2. During the early months
of the second pilot phase, the extraction rates in
Aquifer #1 were again limited by seasonal low-water levels.
However, in June, July, and August the rates of extraction
increased. The average combined extraction rate for the
first 6 months of the second pilot test was 44 gpm. The
lowest extraction rates occurred in May, with an average
combined rate of 28 gpm. The month of maximum extraction
was August, with an average combined rate of 103 gpm. The
treatment plant is designed to accommodate a maximum flow of
200 gpm.
Since the interim report on the second pilot study was sub-
mitted in October 1987, extraction and treatment has con-
tinued with several new wells being added to the system in
Aquifers #1 and #2 to fill out the system shown in Figure 8.
The present system has more recovery wells than envisioned
by the original design, but they are not all operated at
once. The selection of which wells are to be used at any
given time is based on constraints imposed by the
productivity of the aquifers (Cowley, 1989). Aquifer #1 can
produce a maximum of about 45 gpm when the water table is
high in late summer and fall. This is a hydrologic limita-
tion of the formation and cannot be increased by pumping
more wells. The pumping rate of Aquifer #2 is limited to
about 160 gpm because of the need to reduce downward flow of
ground water in areas of high contamination. In the winter
and spring, when the water table is low, the production
rates are even lower. Figure 9 gives a summary of the wells
11
-------
that have been in operation since the beginning of the first
pilot study. It shows a gap in the historical record
between August 1987 and January 1989 for which no data are
available.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
The primary objective of the ground-water remediation is to
hydraulically contain the contaminants and prevent them from
moving offsite. Figures 10, 11, and 12 show the
potentiometric surfaces in Aquifers #1, #2, and #3 in
January 1989. Without a plume definition map, it is not
immediately clear whether the flow patterns illustrated in
these figures indicate that containment has been achieved.
However, the head maps for Aquifers #1 and #2 do appear to
show that at least the areas of demonstrated high contamina-
tion are within the capture zones with respect to horizontal
flow. There are no extraction wells in Aquifer #3 because
no contamination has been found there. The apparent con-
vergence of flow toward the recovery area in Aquifer #3 is
interpreted as resulting from upward leakage to the over-
lying aquifers caused by the extraction wells.
According to these figures, the vertical gradients have been
reversed over only part of the contaminated region. How-
ever, the natural downward flow has at least been reduced
over the area of concern. Currently, the EPA is studying
the data to determine whether the containment objectives are
being attained. It should be mentioned that the offsite
flow patterns shown on these figures are not based on
measurements and should probably be disregarded.
No timetable has been set for the goal of eventual aquifer
restoration. It appears that the recovery system will have
to continue in operation for the foreseeable future. The
recovery system still produces creosote as a nonaqueous
phase at irregular intervals. The production of creosote
slugs results in attendant fluctuations in the concentra-
tions of dissolved contaminants. No records have been kept
of the total quantity of free-phase creosote removed.
During the first 6 months of the second pilot study, it was
estimated that approximately 1,020 pounds of total PAH com-
pounds were removed as dissolved contaminants. In general,
the contaminant concentrations in the extracted ground water
have been declining, but the pattern is very irregular.
Figures 13, 14, and 15 show the records of total PAH com-
pound concentrations in the treatment plant influent during
Phase 1, Phase 2, and subsequent system operating periods,
respectively. The variations of the total ground-water
extraction rates are also shown.
12
-------
During Phase 1, total PAH concentrations of more than
50,000 ppb were recorded on two occasions. However, the
majority of measurements were less than 5,000 ppb (see
Figure 13). In Phase 2, the highest PAH concentrations were
less than 10,000 ppb, and most measurements were below
3,000 ppb (see Figure 14). The highest influent PAH con-
centration, measured from January 1988 to March 1989, was
1,760 ppb, and most measurements were less than 1,000 ppb
(see Figure 15). Yet, with such large concentration fluc-
tuations and relatively low sampling frequency, it is
difficult to develop any quantitative description of the
recovery performance. The task is made even more compli-
cated by the fluctuations in recovery rates and the frequent
switching of recovery between wells.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
The combination of a dense nonaqueous contaminant and multi-
ple fractured-rock aquifers makes the performance of the
ground-water remediation program at the UP&L site difficult
to assess. When the aquifers are regarded as conventional
porous media, it appears that hydraulic control of dissolved
contaminants can be accomplished by a system of extraction
wells. The fracture density of the basalt flows is thought
to be quite high, indicating that the porous media analogy
may be fairly accurate. However, it is always possible that
the flow in individual fractures may not be well represented
by the potentiometric head maps developed by interpolation
between monitoring points. Furthermore, the movement of
creosote 4s 3 PNAPL may not be entirely controlled by the
hydraulic gradients in the aquifers. In spite of these
difficulties, it can be argued that the recovery system
appears to be controlling, and perhaps preventing, the
offsite movement of contaminants.
Because of the existence of creosote in the aquifers as a
nonaqueous phase, it is unlikely that aquifer restoration to
health-based levels will be attained within the foreseeable
future. Contaminant concentrations appear to have declined,
on the average, during the three and one half years of
recovery system operation. However, the fluctuation of con-
centrations associated with the irregular withdrawal of cre-
osote slugs makes the quantitative projection of trends
difficult.
WDCR436/070.50
13
-------
REFERENCES
CH2M HILL. June 1986. Ground-water Treatment Pilot Plant
Report at the Utah Power & Light Company Pole Treatment
Yard, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
CH2M HILL. October 1987. Groundwater Treatment Phase 2
Interim Report, UP&L Pole Treatment Yard, Idaho Falls,
Idaho.
Cowley, J. May 25, 1989. Personal Communication with
Mr. John Cowley, treatment plant operator.
Dames & Moore. December 1984(a). Part B Permit Application
for Hazardous Waste Management Facility, Utah Power & Light
Pole Treatment Facility, Idaho Falls, Idaho, Volumes 1, 2,
and 3.
Dames & Moore. December 1984(b).. Part B Permit Application
for Hazardous Waste Management Facility, Utah Power & Light
Pole Treatment Facility, Idaho Falls, Idaho, Volume 4.
Dames & Moore. October 1985. Groundwater Quality
Assessment Report for Hazardous Waste Management Facility,
Utah Power & Light Pole Treatment Yard, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Dames & Moore. April 1986. Hydrologic Investigations and
Design Recommendations, Well Field for Creosote Recovery,
Pole Treatment Yard, Idaho Falls, Idaho, for Utah Power &
Light Company.
Dames & Moore. January 1988. Installation of Aquifer #3
Monitor Wells, Pole Treatment Yard, Idaho Falls, Idaho, for
Utah Power & Light Company.
Mabey, et al. December 1982. Aquatic Fate Data for Organic
Priority Pollutants, SRI International, EPA Report
No. 440/4-81-014.
Pacific Power. May 1, 1989. Utah Power & Light/Pacific
Power & Light Idaho Falls Pole Yard, RCRA Post Closure Semi-
Annual Report for October 88 thru March 89.
Sale, T., and K Piontek. 1989. In Situ Removal of Waste
Wood-Treating Oils from Subsurface Materials. Presented at
the U.S. EPA Forum on Remediation of Wood Preserving Sites.
San Francisco.
WDCR436/070.50
14
-------
-------
CASE STUDY 18
Verona Well Field
Battle Creek, Michigan
-------
CASE STUDY FOR THE VERONA WELL FIELD SITE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The Verona well field is an EPA Superfund site located in
the northeast corner of the city of Battle Creek, Michigan.
The Verona well field supplies potable water to approximate-
ly 50,000 residents, three major food-processing industries,
and a variety of other commercial and industrial establish-
ments. The site is contaminated with a number of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).
The Verona well field consists of three wells on the west
side of the Battle Creek River and 27 wells and a major
pumping and water treatment station on the east side of the
river. A pipeline under the river connects the wells on the
west side of the river to the pumping and water treatment
station on the east side. The city's maximum daily demand
for potable water is 19 million gallons per day (mgd), with
a monthly, average daily demand fluctuating between 7.8 and
13.2 mgd.
SITE HISTORY
In August 1981, the Calhoun County Health Department per-
formed a routine collection of water samples from private
wells and residences. One water sample was foixnd to contain
VOCs. The source of this water was the Verona well field,
the municipal water supply for the city of Battle Creek.
Subsequently, the Calhoun County Health Department and Mich-
igan Department of Public Health collected samples from mun-
icipal wells in the Verona well field in September of 1981.
Several of the wells on the west side of the river were
found to contain VOCs, principally chlorinated solvents.
An investigation revealed two plumes of contamination at the
Verona well field. The Thomas Solvent Company"s Raymond
Road facility and the Thomas Solvent Company's Annex at
Emmett Street were found to be the major sources of contam-
ination for the southern plume, and the Grand Trunk Western
Railroad (GTWRR) marshalling yard was the major source of
the eastern plume contamination (Figure 1).
In October 1981, the city of Battle Creek discontinued the
municipal water supply usage of any well that had con-
taminant levels approaching 100 micrograms per liter (ppb).
Two of the most heavily contaminated wells were pumped con-
tinuously and discharged directly into the Battle Creek
River in an attempt to prevent the spread of contaminated
ground water into the rest of the municipal wells. This
-------
practice was discontinued in September 1982, when a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application
for the well discharges was withdrawn.
The strategy developed to remedy the contamination at Verona
well field included one initial remedial measure (IRM) and
four corrective-action operable units. The objectives of
the four operable units are (1) to control the sources of
contamination at the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road (TSRR) fac-
ility, the Thomas Solvent Emmett Street Annex, and the Grand
Trunk Western Railroad marshalling yard; and (2) to insti-
tute final corrective action including management of plume
migration and any remaining site closure action required by
the National Contingency Plan. As of this writing, only the
IRM and the source control at the TSRR facility have been
instituted.
In May 1984, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed initiat-
ing the IRM. The IRM was deemed necessary to provide the
city of Battle Creek with potable water before the summer-
time increase in demand for water. A focused feasibility
study was conducted. As a result of this study, three new
wells designed to supply 6 mgd were constructed north of the
Verona well field (July 1984) and a program in which five
existing wells within the well field were used to block
northward contaminant migration was begun (May 1984).
In 1985, the EPA signed another ROD that addressed the TSRR
facility, the most severely contaminated of the three
sources. The Thomas Solvent Company operated a solvent dis-
tribution business and handled a variety of liquid industri-
al wastes. The facility was used for storage, transfer, and
packaging of chlorinated and nonchlorinated solvents.
The 1985 ROD described two distinct environmental problems
at the TSRR site:
o The contaminated ground-water plume in the satur-
ated zone
o Soil contamination in the unsaturated zone beneath
the site
The remediation alternative selected for the plume problem
was to extract and treat the ground water. It was estimated
that this would remove 68 percent of the contamination after
3 years of operation. The extraction well system began op-
eration in March 1987.
The remediation alternative selected for soil treatment was
a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system. The SVE involved
-------
leaving the soil in place and promoting movement of the in-
terstitial air for enhanced volatilization. Cleanup time
for the SVE system was estimated at 6 months to a year.
GEOLOGY
The oldest formation of interest underlying the Verona well
field is the Marshall Formation. The Marshall Formation
(Mississippian Age) is a very fine-to-medium, blue-gray
sandstone containing layers of siltstone, sandstone, and
shale (see Figure 2). The formation has a maximum thickness
of 200 feet. The Marshall Formation aquifer system has an
average thickness of 150 feet in the well field area.
The dark shale that underlies the Marshall Sandstone appears
to form the bottom of the aquifer used by the Verona well
field. The sandstone strata of the Marshall Formation are
important water-bearing units in the Battle Creek area. The
shale layers may divide the sandstone formation into several
distinct aquifers. However, most bedrock wells are screened
over more than one sandstone layer.
Rubble zones indicate extensive horizontal and vertical
fracturing in the sandstone. The sandstone appears to con-
tain many horizontal fractures to a depth of about 80 feet.
Below 80 feet, the frequency of horizontal fractures appears
to decrease substantially. Evidence of vertical fractures
exists within the upper 60 feet of the sandstone. These
sandstone bedrock fractures are an important feature because
water wells that intersect fractures are known to produce
more water than wells that do not intersect fractures. The
upper surface of the Marshall Formation sandstone is very
irregular. The USGS has mapped several buried bedrock val-
leys, some of which have been partially filled with clay
material.
Glacial till, outwash and channel deposits overlie the Mar-
shall Formation (see Figure 3). They range in thickness
from a few feet to about 100 feet. The Verona well field
and the identified contaminant sources are within an area of
glacial outwash deposits derived from the Kalamazoo Moraine,
which lies to the northwest. These deposits consist pri-
marily of stratified and interlayered sands and gravel, with
clay lenses or clay-rich layers occurring locally. Because
of complex layering in the glacial deposits, it could not be
determined if the clay layers are laterally continuous and
to what degree the clay layers act as a barrier to downward
flow to the underlying aquifer.
-------
HYDROGEOLOGY
The aquifers in the area of the Verona well field consist of
the shallow sand and gravel deposits and the underlying
sandstone bedrock of the Marshall Formation. The well field
itself is developed in the sandstones of the Marshall Forma-
tion, particularly in the lower sandstone aquifer. Hydrau-
lic conductivity tests suggest that there is no significant
low-conductivity layer between the surficial sand aquifer
and the bedrock sandstone aquifers. The two zones appear to
be hydraulically connected, allowing contaminants to pass
freely from one zone to the other.
Wells in the Verona well field produce as much as 12,000
gallons per minute (gpm) during peak demand periods. Pump-
ing tests and model simulations indicate the lower sandstone
aquifer in the Marshall Formation has a horizontal hydraulic
conductivity of 500 feet per day (ft/day) based on an aqui-
fer thickness of 5 to 50 feet. The transmissivity of the
lower sandstone is greatly increased by openings or frac-
tures and ranges from 3,000 to 27,000 square feet per day
(ft2/day). Specific-capacity tests and model simulations
indicate that the upper sandstone aquifer has a hydraulic
conductivitiy of 150 ft/day based on an aquifer thickness of
0 to 100 feet. Its transmissivity ranges from 0 to
15,000 ft2/d.
Values of horizontal hydraulic conductivities for unconsoli-
dated materials in the surficial glacial deposits range from
14 to 110 ft/day. The specific yield of the outwash and
channel deposits is estimated to be 0.15.
The flow velocities of the ground water;in the lower sand-
stone aquifer in the vicinity of the Verona well field range
from 1 to 4 ft/day. Pumping of the Verona production wells
causes water to flow to the well field from several thousand
feet away. Heavy pumping during the summer months causes
ground water to flow directly northward from the contaminant
source areas near the Emmett Street/Raymond Road intersec-
tion.
Figure 4 shows a generalized average potentiometric surface
of the study area in both the water-table aquifer and the
sandstone aquifer. The ground water in the upper water-
table aquifer flows towards and feeds the surface water
bodies in the region surrounding the study area. Within the
study area itself, the pumping at the Verona well field is
superimposed on these natural flow patterns causing two dis-
tinct areas of radially inward flow.
-------
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL WASTE SOURCES
The results of the monitoring data from the Verona well
field from 1983 to 1984 showed increasing levels of con-
tamination in a majority of the 27 wells east of the Battle
Creek Iliver. The three wells west of the river remained un-
contaminated. There were seven compounds detected regularly
during monitoring. These included:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA)
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA)
1,2-Dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE) (Cis and Trans)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Concentrations of these contaminants ranged from 1 to
100 micrograms per liter of VOCs during the sampling from
1983 to 1984. Ten other VOCs have been detected but do not
appear regularly in individual wells or in the finished
water supply.
Two contaminated plumes, a southern plume and an eastern
plume, were identified at the Verona well field. Figure 5
illustrates the extent of total VOCs in these plumes in
August, 1984. The contamination was steadily moving north
and northwest from the more contaminanted wells toward the
less contaminated wells in the well field.
The southern plume consists primarily of 1,2-DCE, PCE, 1,1-
DCA, and 1,2-DCA. The mass of total chlorinated volatile
organics dissolved in the southern plume was estimated at
5,700 pounds. In the vicinity of the TSRR facility, the
total mass was estimated to be about 3,900 pounds (or
68 percent of the entire southern plume). This plume, lim-
ited to approximately 20 to 25 feet below the water-table
surface in the vicinity of this facility, deepens progres-
sively downgradient of the facility. Contaminants were es-
timated at levels exceeding 100,000 parts per billion (ppb)
VOCs. This level is about 100 times more concentrated than
contaminant levels in the majority of the plume, which are
present only in the lower and middle levels in the aquifer
within the well field.
The eastern plume consists of PCE; 1,1,1-TCA; 1,1-DCA; and
1,1-DCE. This plume appears to be concentrated at the water
table in the source area (the GTWRR marshalling yard) and to
deepen downgradient to about 40 feet below the water-table
surface because of well field pumping. The total mass of
-------
total chlorinated VOCs present in the aquifer in the eastern
plume has not yet been estimated.
Past investigations have shown that the contaminants were
introduced into the unsaturated zone and the ground water
below from leaking underground storage tanks, above ground
spills and other occurrences related to the solvent handling
operations. There were 21 underground storage tanks at the
TSRR facility. In March 1984, they were tested for leaks
and 19 were found to have a measurable loss rate. A total
of 21 chemicals were stored in these underground storage
tanks. The use of the tanks was discontinued after the leak
testing was performed.
Beneath the TSRR, facility, the highest ground-water contami-
nant concentrations were observed in the shallow sand and
gravel deposits. However, downgradient of the facility, the
centerline of the plume appears to drop into the bedrock,
and the concentration in the sand and gravel decreases.
Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of one contaminant
(1,2-DCE), beneath the TSRR facility.
Discontinuing use of municipal wells V-31 through V-35 in
October 1981 required shifting extraction to wells farther
north in the well field. Water quality data from the muni-
cipal wells indicated that this shift in extraction resulted
in migration of contaminants to the north. Figure 7 shows
the increase in total VOCs in well V-29iafter wells V-31
through V-35 were shut down and extraction shifted to the
north. In November 1983, well V-29 was shut down and
well V-38 started to indicate an increase in VOC concentra-
tion. A similar scenario occurred in the western portion of
the well field, as shown by the change in VOC concentration
of well V-13 (Figure 8). The locations of 4 wells (V-29, V-
32, V-38, and V-13) are circled on Figure 5.
The city was able to maintain a supply of water by shifting
pumping away from the advancing plume, and blending waters
from slightly contaminated wells with water from clean
wells. However, the municipal water supply did contain de-
tectable concentrations of VOCs during certain time periods.
There are non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) present in the
source zone of the aquifer. A toluene-based mixture of or-
ganic solvents is floating in a small area under the TSRR
facility. This floating layer is up to 6 inches thick.
-------
REMEDIATION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF THE REMEDY
Three systems have been implemented at the Verona well
field. These systems include the barrier-well system at the
well field; and a ground-water extraction system and a soil-
vapor extraction system at the TSRR facility.
The IRM—Barrier Well System
The performance objective of the barrier-well system is to
protect the production wells from contamination. Two reme-
dies were identified by the focused feasibility study (FFS).
The first was to develop three new wells north of the Verona
well field that would supply approximately 6 mgd. The new
production wells began pumping in July 1984 producing be-
tween 5.3 and 5.7 mgd.
The second component of the IRM identified in the FFS was a
barrier well system. It was implemented in May 1984 using
selected wells within the field (wells V-20, V-22, V-25,
V-27 and V-28) to block continued migration of contaminants
to the north. These wells were located at the north edge of
the southern plume.
A treatment system consisting of air stripping with vapor-
phase carbon adsorption for the air emissions was selected
to clean up the extracted water from the barrier well sys-
tem. The wells were operated at the lowest practical pump-
ing rate to minimize treatment costs.
1 ' , . 'i i
Thomas Solvent Raymond Road—Ground-Water Extraction System
The 1985 ROD specified a corrective action that included a
network of nine ground-water extraction wells screened in
the water-table aquifer to remove contaminated ground water.
This ground-water pump and treatment remedy was selected
because the site geology precluded the use of passive phy-
sical vertical barriers. The only natural confining unit
for barrier completion is a shale formation at a depth of
140 feet. This depth is considered too deep for the trench
excavations and backfilling necessary for installation of a
physical barrier.
The performance objective of the ground-water extraction
well system is to get the VOC levels in the ground water at
the source below EPA's maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
Table 1 shows a comparison between the MCLs and VOC levels
in extraction well 3 on July 7, 1988.
-------
Table 1
SUMMARY OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION AT THE THOMAS SOLVENT
RAYMOND ROAD FACILITY AND EPA DRINKING WATER CRITERIA
Verona Well Field, Battle Creek, Michigan
July 7, 1988
Identified
Ground-Water Contaminants
Extraction
Well 3
(ppb)
EPA
MCLs
(ppb)
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
o-Xylene
33
26
270
170
310
330
370
44
730
46
5.0
200
5.0
The ground-water extraction wells and other equipment began
operation in March 1987. Figure 9 shows the TSRR facility
and the extraction system. This extraction well configura-
tion was selected to create a cone of depression in the area
to prevent contaminants from escaping. As shown in Figure
6, the contaminants directly under the facility are in the
water-table aquifer. The carbon pretreatment system will be
removed if the total VOC concentration becomes low enough
for the air stripper alone to meet National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System permit requirements for discharge
to the Battle Creek River.
Computer modeling was used to determine,that a pumping rate
of 400 gpm would produce the radius of influence necessary
to contain and collect the highly contaminated ground water.
A greater rate of pumping would cause upward flow of uncon-
taminated water from the lower sandstone aquifer, which
would dilute the contaminated ground water and increase the
volume of water to be pumped and treated. The 400-gpm pump-
ing rate was also chosen to be within the capacity of the
existing air stripper and emission control system.
8
-------
Thomas Solvent Raymond Road--Soil-Vapor Extraction
I
The performance objective of the soil-vapor extraction sys-
tem at the TSRR facility is to get the total VOCs below
1 mg/kg in the soil.
A soil-vapor extraction system was installed to remove VOCs
from the vadose zone in the vicinity of the most contami-
nated source area. The system consists of a network of 23,
4-inch-diameter, PVC wells. The network of wells is con-
nected to a surface collection manifold which directs the
VOC contaminated air through a 2-part carbon absorption sys-
tem and a filter unit. The air is then discharged to the
atmosphere.
A pilot SVE system was started up in November 1987. Due to
the high loading rates of some wells, the system could only
be operated for 69 hours before reaching capacity in the
1,000 pound carbon canisters.
The SVE system began full-scale operation in March 1988.
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
The IRM—Barrier Well System
The barrier well system was activated in May of 1984. This
row of barrier wells was successful in blocking continued
contaminant migration to the north, which resulted in a sub-
stantial decrease in total VOC concentration in wells north
of the barrier wells. This reduction can be seen for wells
V-13 and V-38 in Figure 8.
Thomas Solvent Raymond Road—-Extraction Well System
The TSRR ground-water extraction-well system has shown a
Steady decrease in total VOC concentrations. Figures 10
through 13 show the rate of change of the total VOCs in
extraction wells from March 1987 through July 1988. Con-
centrations in all the extraction wells decreased sharply
during the first two months of operation from high initial
concentrations. In several cases, the concentrations in-
creased after this initial decline in concentrations; in
wells 2 and 7, concentrations rose above initial concen-
trations. Operation of the soil vapor extraction system
appears to have decreased concentration in several wells.
i
Ground-water extraction well number 8 is a product recovery
well, combining ground-water extraction with intermittent
removal of the NAPL product as it accumulates. The NAPL
layer was greater than a foot thick in March 1988 and has
-------
decreased to less than an inch following the start-up of the
soil-vapor extraction system. The soil-vapor extraction
system may have caused the compounds in the NAPL layer to
volatilize.
As of March 1989, the extraction well system has removed
VOC-contaminated ground water containing more than
10,000 pounds of total VOCs (CH2M HILL, 1989). Figure 14
shows the change in concentration of total VOCs for the
combined flow from the extraction wells. The combined
extraction-well concentration has decreased from an initial
concentration of about 19,000 ug/I total VOCs to a January
1989 combined concentration of approximately 2,500 ug/1.
The concentrations were generally high during the first
120 days of sampling, but showed a decreasing trend. The
concentrations then levelled off and even increased slightly
in the winter of 1987-88. The spring of 1988 saw a drop in
the combined concentrations corresponding to the initiation
of soil vapor extraction.
Thomas Solvent Raymond Road--Soil-Vapor Extraction
From March 1988 through January 1989, 26,750 pounds of total
VOCs were removed by the soil-vapor extraction system. The
loading rate of total VOCs has dropped from an initial high
of approximately 45 pounds per hour (pph) to less than
10 pph.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
Two contaminant plumes from three sources have been identi-
fied at the Verona well field. In response, a barrier well
system has been installed in the southern portion of the
well field. In addition, a ground-water extraction system
and a soil-vapor extraction system have been installed at
the TSRR contaminant source. Source remediation is planned
for the two other contaminant source areas.
The barrier well system used existing wells within the well
field. The system has been successful in blocking continued
contaminant migration to the north. A substantial decrease
in total VOC concentration was evidenced in wells north of
the system shortly after the barrier wells began operation
in May 1984.
The ground-water extraction well system at the TSRR facility
has been in operation since March 1987. It was designed to
extract water only in the upper aquifer because that is the
area of highest VOC concentrations. As the contaminants move
toward the well field, they drop into the bedrock layer
where they are picked up by the barrier well system.
10
-------
The TSRR extraction well system has removed approximately
11,000 pounds of total VOCs as of January 1989 (CH2M HILL,
1989). The contaminant concentrations in the wells that had
the highest initial concentrations have been reduced sub-
stantially over the period of extraction. In wells that had
lower initial concentrations, the concentrations have not
declined so distinctly, and in some cases there have been
increases. Consequently, the concentrations have become
more similar among all of the extraction wells as a result
of the remedial action. The continued existence of a resi-
dual source in the floating NAPL layer makes it unlikely
that the remedial objectives will be met soon. However,
the vapor extraction system has removed approximately
27,000 pounds of contaminants from the vadose zone during
the 10 months of initial operation. If the residual source
can be removed in this way the progress of the ground-water
remediation should be accelerated.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and CH2M HILL.
January, 1988. RCRA Handbook on Groundwater
Remediation Technologies—Case Studies.
Unpublished Draft.
CH2M HILL. May 1988,
Work Plan.
Verona Well Field Final RI/FS
CH2M HILL. June 1988. Thomas Solvent Raymond Road
Groundwater Extraction Well Treatment System
Monitoring Report.
CH2M HILL. April 6, 1989. Personal communication
with Joseph Danko, site manager for Verona well
field remediation.
WDR428/039.50
11
-------
CASE STUDY 19
Ville Mercier
Ville Mercier, Quebec, Canada
-------
NATO / CCMS
Second Internationa! Conference
Demonstration of Remedial Action Technologies
for Contaminated Land and Groundwater
Bilthoven, the Netherlands
7-11 November 1988
-------
ABSTRACT
In November 1986, the NATO Committee on Challenges of Modern Society
(CCMS) formally adopted a United States proposal for a new five year pilot
study to demonstrate technologies for cleaning up contaminated land and
groundwater. The participating NATO countries are Canada, Denmark, Federal
Republic of Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the United States. Japan
1s also participating. Norway and the United Kingdom are observer
countries. The Pilot Study Director 1s from the United States; the co-
directors are from the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands.
The Second International Conference was held 1n BUthoven, the
Netherlands on 7-11 November 1988. Seventeen projects (final and Interim)
were prepared Including the following types of treatment: solidification/
stabilization (2 projects), mlcroblal degradation (3 projects), pump and
treat (3 projects), soil extraction (4 projects), volatilization (1
project), thermal (3 projects), and chemical (1 pro ect). The discussions
at this meeting also Included recent developments 1n the regulations and
remedial technology research and development In the attending countries.
The next meeting will be a workshop held 1n Copenhagen, Denmark on 8-10,
May 1989.
-------
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
BY ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN VILLE MERCIER: NEW DEVELOPMENTS
BY
i | i '
i . .|
RICHARD MARTEL
MINISTERE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT DU QUEBEC
PRESENTED TO
NATO/CCMS PILOT STUDY OF REMEDIAL ACTION AND
TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER
BILTHOVEN, THE NETHERLANDS, NOVEMBER 7-11, 1988
-------
ABSTRACT
In the early 1980s, it was estimated that a draw-off of 5 times the water
volume contained in a highly contaminated zone was necessary to restore the
aquifer and recover it for use. At the first meeting of the NATO/CCMS pilot
study in Washington, Simard and Lanctot stated: "The purpose of remedial action
is not to remove all contaminants, but to remove enough for Nature to be able to
complete the process of final cleaning". Today, we know that the method used at
Ville Mercier is a control measure used to prevent contamination from spreading
rather than a restoration measure since only minimal amounts of the contaminant
have been extracted to date (20 tonnes).
-------
1. SITE DESCRIPTION
1.1 Site Location
The Ville Hercier site, where groundwater has been polluted by the dumping of
organic wastes, is located in the municipality of Ville Mercier situated in
southern Quebec on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River 20 km from the
city of Montreal (Figure 1).
1.2 Site History
From 1968 to 1972, a waste-oil carrier dumped 40 000 m3 of liquid waste into
lagoons in an abandoned gravel pit near Ville Mercier (Poulin 1977).
Sections of piping were installed in 1971 and 1976 to rectify the groundwater
contamination situation.
Some of the liquid waste was burned, but it was only in 1980 that the remaining
liquid and sludge were removed from the lagoons, treated and buried in a clay
landfill site 500 m east of the former site (Hydroge"o Canada Inc.).
It was not until 1983 that work aimed at controlling contamination and restoring
the aquifer was undertaken.
1.3 Extent of Groundwater Contamination
The dumping of organic wastes in a site unsuited to that purpose resulted in the
contamination of the groundwater in the gravel formation and in the fractured
bedrock linked hydraulically to the sand/gravel aquifer.
In 1981, the groundwater contamination plume extended over an area of 30 km2
(Hydroge"o Canada Inc. 1981). This enclave is defined by four zones (Figure 2).
Zones 1 and 2 constitute the core of the high pollution levels while zones 3
and 4 present a very low degree of contamination.
-------
Zone 1 is contaminated by more than 80 organic substances (SNC, 1982), with
concentrations of phenols averaging 1000 ug/L.
Within Zone 2, this concentration averages 50 ug/L and the presence of organic
substances is generalized.
Zone 3 extends southwest to Riviere de VEsturgeon, where the groundwater flows
naturally. The concentration of phenols ranges from 5 to 15 ug/L and less
mobile organic substances are not found.
Zone 4 is a low contamination-zone where the phenolic concentration of the
samples taken was close to the range of detection covered by the method of
analysis used (5 ug/L).
1.4 Hydrogeologlcal Environment
The lagoons are formed in a gravel ridge consisting of a very permeable
sand/gravel complex of glaciofluvial origin 30 m deep (Figure 3a). The gravel
ridge stretches NNE-SSW over a distance of 11 km.
Under the sand/gravel deposit is a thin layer of glacial till, 3 m thick,
resting erratically on the bedrock. The latter consists of dolomitic sandstone
or sandstone dolomite of the Chateauguay formation.
Marine clay is encrusted on the gravel ridge and makes the region an alluvial
clay plain.
The hydraulic conductivity of the sand/gravel formation ranges from 10'2 to
10'3 cm/s and from 10-4 to 10-6 cm/s in the basal till (Keysers 1962). The
bedrock has a fracture permeability and the most fractured level is within the
first 3 m. Under the lagoons, the average permeability coefficient in the rock
is 10'5 cm/s and 10-8 to 10-^ cm/s in its matrix. From the lagoons to Riviere
Chateauguay, the fractured rock permeability coefficient increases, sometimes to
ID'l cm/s.
-------
The groundwater flow velocity, as assessed by Poulin (1977) is 110 m/yr in the
sand/gravel complex, and 525 m/yr in the fractured rock. The sand/gravel and
fractured rock formations have been contaminated by the liquid-waste-fined
lagoons.
i, , . ;
2. REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY
The treatment system includes water extraction facilities and a treatment plant
housing all treatment equipment.
2.1 Purge Wells
Water extraction works consist of three wells (Figure 3b), approximately 40 m
apart, each equipped with a submersible pump. They were drilled through the
sand/gravel formation and 4 m into the bedrock 35 m below the surface in the
roost highly contaminated area (Zone 1). They pumped for four years at an
average rate of 47 1/s.
2.2 Treatment Plant
In the first treatment stage, hydrogen peroxide and chlorine are injected into
the raw water before air stripping occurs. Once the water has been directed
into the aerator, alum and polymers are injected into it on its way into a
i
mixing chamber, where chlorine dioxide is added at a dosage of 2.5 mg/L.
Then, the water is channelled into a dynamic sludge bed clarifier (Pulsator).
From there, the liquid flows towards two gravity filters, each equipped with a
42" sand bed.
After treatment, the water is discharged into an intermediate basin and pumped
into the activated carbon filtration system, which consists of three pressure
units. The first unit, called the "sacrifice" pressure filter, contains 200 cu.
ft. of activated carbon.
-------
Two units measuring 400 cu. ft. and called "buffers" operate in parallel and
complete the treatment initiated in the "sacrifice" filter. The treated water
is discharged into a stream approximately 500 m east of the plant.
The sludge remaining in the settling tank is periodically pumped into the
sludge storage tank and a de-watering chamber. It is later loaded into a
container and buried in a sanitary landfill site.
3. RAH WATER CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 Composition and toxicity
The following tables show the results of the chemical analysis of a sample of
raw water taken from the Ville Mercier treatment plant in May 1988. Organic
screening for volatile organic compounds (£PA625 method) and non-volatile
organic compounds (EPA624 method) was carried out by HENVIQ's Laboratory
Division in Quebec City. The concentration of the 61 organic compounds
detected totals 2500 ug/1 and breaks down as: 97% volatile compounds and 3%
non-volatile ones. Forty-three of these compounds are on the USEPA list of
129 priority pollutants (13 PAHs, 15 MAHs, 14 HHs and PCBs).
The 26 volatile organic compounds in tables la and Ib belong to two main
categories: halogenated hydrocarbons (HHs), constituting 86% by weight of the
site's total organic compounds, and monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (MAHs),
representing 11% by weight. The 1,2 dichloroethane alone accounts for 42% by
weight of the organic compounds present. The presence of vinyl chloride may
indicate that chlorinated hydrocarbons are degraded in groundwaters (Wolf et
al., 1987).
Six of these compounds exceed limits considered safe for drinking water using
11 available criteria. They are benzene and 5 of the most concentrated
halogenated hydrocarbons. You will recall that vinyl chloride is more toxic
than most original halogenated hydrocarbons.
-------
In tables 2a, 2b and 2c, the 35 non-volatile organic compounds are represented
mainly by phenolic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
proportions equivalent to IJi by weight of the total organic compounds.
Of these non-volatile compounds, 7 are subject to drinking water guidelines.
Dibenzofuran and benzo (a) pyrene, however, exceed allowable levels. In Quebec,
a standard of 2 ug/1 is .applicable to total phenolic compounds. This level is
exceeded for phenol, 2,4 dimethyl phenol and 4- nitrophenol.
'!' ' ' ',',''' "'i . : :':' ' '''
Many of these pure substances (primarily halogenated hydrocarbons) can be
categorized as dense-non-aqueous-phase-liquid (DNAPL) chemicals. These
chemicals resemble petroleum hydrocarbons in that they are immiscible in water.
However, their densities exceed that of water and their viscosities are less.
Their relatively low solubility in water (typically 100 to 5000 mg/1) can often
be many orders of magnitude higher than the drinking water standard. Mixtures
of chemicals that are not individually recognized as DNAPLs can present similar
characteristics. This is probably true for many of the PAHs and phenolic
compounds in Tables 2a and 2b. The presence of two PAHs (dibenzo (a, h)
anthracene and benzo (g, h, i) perylene) in concentrations greater than their
aqueous solubility can be explained by their presence in a mixture of
chemicals which can enhance solubilization.
,;• • , 'II • , •»"
Due to their low densities, other pure substances (mainly benzene, toluene,
xylene, and ethyl benzene) can be categorized as NAPL chemicals.
The composition of this sample shows that after four years of pumping it remains
hazardous to drink this well water. Moreover, the raw water must be treated to
be discharged into surface waters without causing significant pollution. The
plant's wells are currently recovering, at concentration far lower than the
solubility limit, the organic compounds dissolved in the water and the by-
products of the chemical or microbial decomposition of the original
hydrocarbons.
-------
3.2 Variation In composition ;
Figures 4 and 5 indicate that the concentration of 1,2 dichloroethane and
phenolic compounds dropped considerably from the onset of in-plant operations
to the point when 1.5 million m3 of water had been pumped. This volume, which
was obtained after 2 years, corresponds to the renewal of once the volume of
water contained in the very contaminated zone. Concentrations later stabilized
around 1000 ug/L for 1,2 dichloroethane and 35 ug/L for phenolic compounds. The
area below the dichloroethane curve leads us to estimate that approximately 20
tonnes of organic contaminants have been extracted since operations began. This
represents a very small percentage of the organic contaminants that might be
present.
The drop in concentrations over the first two years can be explained by the
greater dilution created by broadening the well's intake zone and progressively
drawing off the pores containing mobile contaminants. The concentrations'
stabilization may be due to a state of equilibrium between the uncontaniinated
water upstream from the highly contaminated zone and the organic non-aqueous-
phase-liquid agglutinate between the particles and in the aquifer's fractures.
Water is a very weak solvent for agglutinated compounds.
These two compounds are good indicators of the change in the quality of the
aquifer's groundwater since they are the first to be affected, given their high
aqueous solubility, weak adsorbability and high stability in groundwater (low
biodegradability). High concentrations of these compounds were detected from
the beginning of operations on.
The concentration curves of most organic compounds present should be comparable
to figures 4 and 5. However, given retardation factor values, the decrease in
concentrations is expected to extend over a relatively long time before
stabilizing.
The 1,1,2 trichloroethylene acted differently (Figure 6). Concentrations
declined as anticipated over the first two years but never stabilized. Values
fluctuated cyclically between 40 and 110 ug/L.
-------
Other parameters such as aroclor 1254 and 1260 behaved erratically due to their
high molecular weight and adsorption affinities (figures 7 and 8). PCBs did
not behave in the same manner as the majority of contaminants in the aquifer.
.''"!!'
4. CONTAMINANT BEHAVIOR
4.1 In the very high pollution zone
Figure 9 is based on the DNAPL groundwater development concept shown in
Feenstra and Cherry (1988) and on the visual appearance and odor of the water
and soil samples collected in the field during the drilling campaign.
When liquid waste was dumped into the lagoons, the volume of release was
sufficient to overcome the retention capacity of the vadose zone. The DNAPL
chemicals* high densities cause them to penetrate downward through the
groundwater zone of the sand/gravel formation.
Some of the DNAPLs settle out as a pool of free liquid on the low-permeability
basal till. In some places, the basal till forms a barrier and prevents the
movement of DNAPLs |hrough the fractured porous rock formation. Because the
basal till 1s sloped and rests erratically on the rock formation, the DNAPLs
continue to move down the slope and penetrate into the fractures of the porous
,; •' , |l. ' ' ',,"!' I ",|
rock formation. On the till, the pattern of DNAPL movement need not be
controlled by the direction of groundwater flow. In the rock formation, it is
controlled primarily by fracture orientation and interconnection.
Because of the high vapor pressure and molecular weight of many DNAPLs, the
soil and air in contact with these chemicals may acquire vapor concentrations
high enough to result in density-induced sinking of chemical vapors downward to
the saturated zone. Diffusion results in lateral migration of vapor through
the vadose zone. These mechanisms may result in significant groundwater
contamination.
Due to their low densities, the NAPLs (primarily MAHs) (figure 10), tend to form
pools and spread laterally when they encounter the capillarity fringe and the
water table. Zones contaminated by liquids that are lighter than water extend
-------
over the entire range of water fluctuation. These liquids follow the declining
water table but can be partially trapped under it when it rises again since only
some of the liquid can be remobilized (Hunt et al., 1988a).
As described by Hunt et al. (1988a), during their migration, NAPLs and DNAPLs
leave behind ganglia trapped in pores and fractures. The amount of organic
liquid left behind is referred to as residual saturation and differs according
to the medium and of the liquid's properties.
Schwille found that for sandy soil the residual content of NAPL or DNAPL
chemicals could be 3 to 30 JL/m3 (1-10% of the pore space) in the unsaturated
zone and 5 to 50 L/m3 (2-15% of the pore space) in the saturated zone. Based on
laboratory experiments by Schwille in 1988, less than 0.05 L/m2 of NAPL or DNAPL
is retained on the fracture surface.
In the saturated and unsaturated zones, ganglion measurements could range from
pore size to many tens of meters in length and a few meters in width.
For very small trapped droplets, a few pore volumes of water are required to
remove the contaminants. For the large ganglia, an effluent concentration far
lower than the solubility limit is predicted (as observed at Ville Mercier) and
considerable pumping is required to remove the contaminant.
The only way to reduce the residual saturation and ganglion sizes in the
saturated zone is to increase the water velocity or decrease the NAPL or
DNAPL/water interfacial tension.
The lifetime of a large ganglion is estimated at several decades or centuries.
To decrease the lifetime by an order of magnitude, a three-order-of-magnitude
increase in the flow velocity is required and the volume of water removed and
requiring treatment is increase a hundredfold.
Based on the concept of ganglion and pool dissolution, it would appear that
groundwater withdrawal from an aquifer is not a suitable solution. This concept
leads us to believe that the "restoration" method currently being used in Ville
-------
I "!
Mercier is actually a confinement measure preventing the propagation of
contaminants rather than a restoration measure.
Groundwater contamination cannot be eliminated in the long term without removing
the NAPt and DNAPL sources (possibly >99%). Because of their low solubility and
sxisting low drinking water standards if they are not removed, NAPL and DNAPL
chemicals can persist in subsurface waters and cause groundwater contamination
problems for many decades and even centuries (Feenstra and Cherry, 1988).
At Ville Mercier, most NAPLs and DNAPLs can probably be removed by excavation in
the unsaturated zone. However the same is not true for the saturated zone below
5 to 10 m. Recovery of these products trapped in the aquifer's pores and
fractures may be possible by the in situ removal methods described by Feenstra
and Cherry (1988), including:
- In situ biodegradation;
" • j i
• Chemically-enhanced displacement;
- Steam displacement;
- Chemically-enhanced dissolution.
Unfortunately, there are currently no effective remedial methods available in
field situations for removing NAPL and DNAPL sources from the subsurface.
Research is needed to develop methods to provide long-term solutions to problems
of groundwater contamination by these chemicals (Feenstra and Cherry, 1988).
A study sponsored by Environment Canada is currently Identifying the presence
and distribution of this organic liquid phase and will use laboratory tests and
mathematical models to simulate the behavior of these liquids. It will also
propose alternative methods for restoring the very high pollution zone.
-------
4.2 Beyond the high pollution zone
In May 1988, organic screening for volatile and non-volatile compounds method
was carried out on water samples from various piezometers outside the high
pollution zone (Table 3). These points were selected in function of their
position compared to the preferred path of contaminants in groundwater
(Figure 2).
This sampling campaign shows that organic compounds are present beyond the
perimeter created by the hydraulic, trap. By activating this trap, pollutant
discharge from the lagoon was cut off, but the contaminated groundwater located
outside the trap's action perimeter continued to move southwest.
Based on the calculation of water flow velocities in the various formations,
the contaminated water tail should be located at less than 3.3 km southwest of
the former lagoons in the fractured rock and at less than 1 650 m from the
source in the sand and gravel (Figure 11).
Piezome.ter P-51 located in zone 3 indicates that contamination does not persist
in the sand 400 meters downstream of the trap.
Piezometer P-27 located 1n zone 3 shows that the water flowing from the first 2
m of fractured rock to 1.7 km upstream of the contaminated water tail dislodges
a low concentration of contaminants adsorbed by the fractures.
Piezometer P-98, located in zone 4, 18 m down in the rock and 4.8 km southwest
of the lagoons, contains organic contaminants in identical proportions but at
concentrations much lower than in the plant's raw water. The two volatile and
non-volatile organic compounds identified represent 2.4% by weight of the total
organic compounds measured in the raw water of the well in May 1988. Since it
is located in a layer presenting artesian conditions, piezometer P-98 is
positioned 1n a preferred flowing zone.
Piezometers P-62 and P-162 are located in zone 3 and 4 in the first 4 m of
fractured rock on either side of piezometer P-98 (Figure 12). No contamination
was detected at piezometer P-62 and only very low concentrations of chloroform,
-------
benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene and 1.2 dicloroethane were detected at
piezometer P-62. These piezometers are outside the main area of contaminant
circulation.
Sampling was repeated in October to identify the contaminant's status downstream
of the well in the high pollution zone (Zone 2) and to accurately describe the
status of the groundwater quality outside this zone.
CONCLUSION
- Many of the puresubstances present in the raw water of the treatment plant's
purge wells can be classified as DNAPL chemicals; other are NAPL chemicals.
- The concentration of organic chemicals present in the water of the purge
wells dropped significantly after two years of operations and seems to have
stabilized since this time.
- The amounts of organic contaminants extracted by the wells to date represent
a small proportion of the organic contaminants that may have infiltrated this
area. The "restoration" method used to date does not appear to provide an
adequate solution for restoring aquifer formations.
- At present, aside from excavation operations, the only means of recovering
DNAPLs and NAPLs is by increasing water velocity or decreasing interfacial
tension in the water containing DNAPLs or NAPLs. There are no effective
remedial methods available in field situations for removing these chemicals
from the subsurface.
The May 1988 samplings showed that significant contamination did not persist
in the sand/gravel formation between the hydraulic trap and the contamination
tail. Nevertheless, it may be considerable In the rock formation downstream
of the contamination tail's farthest reachings.
-------
References
CNRC 1983
Les hydrocarbures aromatiques polyeycliques dans le milieu aquatique. For-
mation, sources, devenir et les effets sur le biote aquatique. CNRC No
18982 Ottawa Canada, 218 pages.
FORATEK INTERNATIONAL INC. 1982
£tude hydrogeologique de faisabilite du captage des eaux contaminees ex-
traites de la nappe aquifere de Ville Mtrcier. For the ministere de VEn-
vironnement du Quebec, by M. Poulin, Report No. 514.
Feenstra, S. and S. A. Cherry 1988. Subsurface contamination by dense non-
aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) Chemicals. In Proceedings of the Internatio-
nal Groundwater Symposium on Hydrogeology of Cold Climates and Hydrogeology
of Mineralized Zones. International Association of Hydrogeologist. Cana-
dian National Chapter, Halifax, Nova Scotia,, May 1-5. 1988. p. 61-69
Hunt, J.R., N. Sitar and K. S. Udell 1988a. Nonaqueous phase liquid trans-
port and cleanup 1. Analysis of mechanisms. Water Resources Research.
Vol. 24, Bi. 8, August 1988 p. 1247-1258.
Hunt, J. R., N. Sitar and K. S. Udell 1988b. Nonaqueous phase liquid
transport ans deanup II. Experimental studies. Water Resources Research.
Vol. 24, No. 8, August 1988, p. 1259-1269.
HYDREGEO-CANADA INC. 1981.
Hydrogeologie et contamination des eaux souterraines, Ville Mercier. For
the ministere de 1'Environnement du Quebec, by G. Nielson.
Keyser, J.H. 1965. Aperqu de la geologic historique, economique et appli-
quee. Geologic de Montreal. Soc. International de mecanique des Sols et
des Travaux de Fondations. Slxieme congres Int.
-------
The Merck index 1976, 9th edition published by Merck and co. inc. Rahway,
N.J, USA, 1822 pages.
Poulin, M., G. Simani et M. S.ylvestre 1985. Pollution des eaux souterrai-
nes par les composes organiques a Mercier, Quebec. Sciences et techniques
de 1'eau, Vol. 18, NO 2, May 1985.
Poulin, M. 1977. Groundwater Contamination near a /Liquid Waste Lagoon,
Ville Mercier, Quebec. Master's thesis, University of Waterloo* Wateloo,
Ontario. 158 pages.
Sax, N.I. 1984. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials 6th edition
published by Van Nostrand Reinhold Company New York, U.S.A. 3124 pages.
Schwille, F. 1984. Migration of Organic Fluids Immiscible with water in
the unsaturated zone. In: Pollutants in Porous Media - The Unsaturated
Zone Between Soil Surface and Groundwater. Editted by B. Yaron. G. Dagan,
and J. Gpldshmid, Springer-Verlag. New-York, p. 27-48.
Schwille, F. 1988. Dense Chlorinated Solvents in Porous and Fractured Me-
dia - Model Experiments Translated by J.F. Pankow, Lewis Publishers Inc.,
Chelsea, Michigan.
Simard, G. and J.P. Lanctot 1987. Decontamination of Y111e Mercier Aquifer
for toxic prganics. In proceedings of the First International Meeting of
the NATO/CCMS pilot study demonstration of remedial action technologies for
contaminated land and groundwater. Washington, D.C., U.S.A. novembrer
11-13 p.135-164.
: . . .: |j
'
;:, - - ; '!
Wolf, K., R. Holland and G. Rajarothon 1987. Vinyl Chloride Contamination:
the Hidden threat. Journal of Hazardous Materials 15 (1987) p. 163-184
-------
WDC81S2tM.02
1000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET :
Source: USGS. 1982. Sidney Quadrangle, 7.5
Minute Topographic Series.
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
AMPHENOL SITE
SIDNEY, NEW YORK
-------
WOCaiS2t.AO.02
,13!
i
H4~
-Sidney Sewage
Treatment Plant
Village Of Sidney -D
Test Well
Village Of Sidney
Well No. 1
LEGEND
Piezometer Nest (Deeo. Intermediate
And Shallow Piezometers)
Piezometer Nest (Deep And Shallow Piezometers)
Shallow Piezometers
Village of Sidney Observation Weli
N
200
400
Scale In Feet
Source: Environmental Resources Management. 1985.
Preliminary Report: Groundwater Assessment at
Ampheno) Wastewater Treatment Lagoons for
Amphenol Products-Bendix Connector Operations,
Sidney, New York.
Figure 2
SITE PLAN WITH MONITORING WELL NETWORK
AMPHENOL SITE
•i,,:'. ...if'' |i;,"!.'.,.' :,„•:!;,',n!ii!,;,' , dill ,,:,„:
-------
WDC61621.A0.02
Screened
Interval Of
fesl W.-ll
Former
-
-------
WOCStS2l.AO.02
r
1»-
969.60
Amphenol RCRA Piezometer
•O- Village of Sidney Piezometer
969.40 Water Table Elevation (In Feel)
Ground Water Table Contour
(In Feet) (Dashed Where Inferred)
Scale in Feel
^- Village Of Sidney-
Well No. 1
969.60 969.40
Source: Environmental Resources Management. 1986. Addendum Report: Ground-water
Assessment at Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons for Amphenol Products-Bendix
Connector Operations, Sidney, New York.
Figure 4
WATER LEVEL IN THE SHALLOW-AQUIFER ZONE,
MAY 21,1986
AMPHENOL SITE
-------
WDC61621.A0.02
969.80
970.00
970.20
970.40
969.99 \
2 \
Q970.05 \
970.60 ———' '
9 Shallow Piezometer Location
971.20 Water Table Elevation (In Feet)
Ground Water Table Contour
(In Feet) (Dashed Where Inferred)
Direction of Ground Water Flow
970.80
,.00'
0 200
Scale in Feet
400
Source: Environmental Resources Management. 1986.
Addendum Report: Groundwater Assessment at Amphenol
Wastewater Treatment Lagoons for Amphenol Products
-Bendix Connector Operations, Sidney, New York.
Fjgure 5
WATER LEVELS IN THE SHALLOW-AQUIFER ZONE,
APRIL 21,1986
AMPHENOL SITE
-------
WDCCVK1JW.03-.
Amphenol RCRA Piezometer
Village ol Sidney Piezometer
969.28 Water Table Elevation (In Feet)
Ground Water Table Contour
(In Feet) (Dashed Where Inferred)
Direction ol Ground Water Flow
D Staff Gauge
Source: Environmental Resources Management. 1986.
Corrective Action Plan for the Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons,
for Amphenol Products-Bendix Connector Operations, Sidney, New York.
Figure 6
WATER LEVELS IN THE SHALLOW-AQUIFER ZONE
AFTER 72 HOURS OF PUMPING,
JANUARY 17,1986
AMPHENOL SITE :
-------
WDC61621.AO.Oa
Former
Treatment
Lagoons
\\River
Sidney Sewage
Treatment Plant
Village 01 Sidney
• Well No. 1
LEGEND
Amphenol HCHA Piezometer
•O- Village ol Sidney Piezometer
Water Table fciovatio" iln Feel'
Ground Water Tahio Contour
(In Feet) (Dashed Where Interred)
Direction ol Ground WatP' Flc>\
JANUARY IV, I'.lHi; 8AM
(72 IIOL'US AI'Tl.K
; ol' i i.sr wi.i.i..
IIOUKS Al"l I.K START Ol
IN(i \II.I.At.l. Ul.l.l. NO 1;
Scale in Feel
Source: Environmental Resources Management. 1986. Corrective Action
Plan for the Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons
for Amphenol Products-Bendix Connector Operations, Sidney, New York.
Figure 7
WATER LEVELS IN THE DEEP-AQUIFER ZONE
AFTER 72 HOURS OF PUMPING,
JANUARY 17,1986
AMPHENOL SITE
-------
-!-=-
969.61
970 00 970.20
°
Amphenol RCRA Piezometer
•O- Village of Sidney Piezometer
969.56 Water Table Elevation (In Feet)
Ground Water Table Contour
(In Feet) (Dashed Where Inferred]
Direction of Ground Water Flow
977.53
970.00
Test Well
969.60
Village Of Sidney
Well No. 1
969
S-1
969.13
Scale in Feet
Source: Environmental Resources Management. 1986. Addendum Report: Ground-water Assessment
at Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons for Amphenol Products-Bendix Connector Operations,
Sidney, New York.
Figure 8
WATER LEVELS IN THE DEEP-AQUIFER ZONE,
MAY 21,1986
AMPHENOL SITE
-------
WDC61621.A0.02
Former
Treatment
Lagoons
LEGEND
Piezometer Location
NO
—Sidney Sewage
Treatment Plant
Concentration Of Total Volatile Organics
(In ppb)
Isoconcentration Line
(Dashed Where Inferred)
Lines Of Isoconcentration Cross Section
0 200
i
Scale in Feet
400
Source: Environmental Resources Manager/ient. 1986. Addendum Report: Groundwater
Assessment at Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons for Amphenol Products-Bendix
Connector Operations, Sidney, NewYork.
Figure 9
ISOCONCENTRATION MAP OF TOTAL VOCS
IN THE SHALLOW-AQUIFER ZONE, 1985
AMPHENOL SITE
-------
Former
Treatmenl
Lagoons
Sidney Sewage
Treatment Plant
200
400
10-
Scale in Feet
Village Of Sidney
Well No. 1
LEGEND
Deep Piezometer Location
Concentration Of Total Volatile Organics
(In ppb)
, Isoconcentration Line
(Dashed Where Inferred)
Source: Environmental Resources Management. 1986. Addendum Report: Groundwater
Assessment at Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons for Amphenol Product-Bendix
Connector Operations, Sidney, New York.
Figure 10
ISOCONCENTRATION MAP OF TOTAL VOCS
IN THE DEEP-AQUIFER ZONE, 1985 ;
AMPHENOL SITE £
-------
WDC61621.A0.02
A'
990
i960
-------
B
B'
090
960
~ 930
%
I 900
870
B-10
17
Waste
Treatment
Lagoons
- 300'
- ND
-,-o ^r-^-^scsr-
ND " ' ° A *' " A A *•
•* . A A A ^ * A
_.,• ., , f ----.— — i ; •""•'<> .'. '.I.
»f->~£2ZZ!^ '"""'' ;""-^-- — -
0 D
-•— ,__ o o
--£——__ „ o ^X
*'-M»_ A A ^" ^ ~~^j
•™~" ~^*^ *^" **^ T,^ "^ ***"»W. ""^"r--^^
. •, • • •
. ••-• • •
~J **-.
"\^
^^
o
^^
- \
} 95ppb \
" - 1
o i
1 A /
- A S
•*._
LEGEND
Lighl Brown Sill And Fine Sand -
Overbank Deposits
Loosely Consolidated Sands And
Gravels-River Alluvium
Less Donse Silty Snnd And
Gravol-Mell-Ou! Till
0 50 100
Scale in Feel
Slralilied Fine To Coarse Sands And
n | Fine Gravel • Glaciolluvial Deposits
Brown Silt. Little Clay •
Glaciolacustnne -
Silty Facies
Red Brown Dense Silt And Gravel
Basal Till ,<
18 Well Location
h 30ppb Total VOC Concentration
Waler Table Conlour
Isoconcentralion Line
(Dashed Where Inferred)
Source: Environmental Resources Management. 1986. Addendum Report: Groundwater
Assessment at Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons for Amphenol Products-Bendix
Connector Operations, Sidney, New York.
Figure 12
TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATION ALONG
CROSS SECTION B - B1,1985
AMPHENOL SITE
-------
WDC61621.Ao.02
967.91
•Q-22, 967.90
967.80
967.70
Former Waslewaler
realmenl Lagoons
Village ol Sidney
Well No. 1
-"X
S 5
A Amphenol Recovery Well
Shallow Piezometers
Piezomeler Nesl (Deep. Intermediate
and Shallow Piezometers)
Piezomeler Nest (Deep and
Shallow Piezometers)
Deop Piezometer
967.7 Ground Water Table Elevation (in leel)
Ground Water Table Contour
(Dashed Where Interred)
Direction of Ground Water Flow
0 WO ?(«)
Scale in Feel
Source: Environmental Resources Management. 1986. Addendum Report: Groundwater
Assessment at Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons for Amphenol Products-Bendix
Connector Operations, Sidney, New York.
Figure 13
WATER LEVELS IN THE SHALLOW-AQUIFER ZONE,
JUNE 27,1988
AMPHENOL SITE
-------
Vrt)C6IS2rA0.02
967.8
968.0
967-75
Former Waslewaler
Treatment Lagoons
• 14
• 9
Village ol Sidney
Well No. 1
-5
A Amphenol Recovery Well
Shallow Piezometers
Piezometer Nest (Deep. Intermediate
and Shallow Piezometers)
• Piezometer Nest (Deep and
Shallow Piezometers)
-•• Deep Piezometer
967.7 Ground Water Table Elevation (in fuel)
Ground Water Table Contour
(Dashed Where Inferred)
Direclion ol Ground Water Flow
100 200
101)
Scale in Feet
Source: Environmental Resources Management. 1986. Addendum Report: Groundwater
Assessment at Amphenol Wastewater Treatment Lagoons for Amphenol Products-Bendix
Connector Operations, Sidney, New York.
Figure 14
WATER LEVELS IN THE DEEP-AQUIFER ZONE,
JUNE 27,1988
AMPHENOL SITE \
-------
3 -I -
003
S 30 _L
-1 -* 01
w O n
32°
m ZH
O O
!>
m i-
*S
co o
X Z
J» O
r- m
51
II
•n
m
m
CD
oo
CO
CD
oo
CD
00
Ul
CD
00
CD
00
CD
00
oo
Tota
en
o
VOC Concentration (ppb)
o
o
Ol
o
ro
o
o
-H-
ro
en
o
CO
o
o
>. Lagoons Drained
\
\
,» Soils Remediated
Extraction Starts
o
-------
WDCStiSai.AO.02
220
200-•
_> 180-
.a
a
3 160 +
c
I 140-
§ 120-
u
o
"(5
100-
80--
60-
40-
20-
0
T3
1
s
Q
v>
o
I
'•§
o
I
5
\
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Figure 16
HISTORY OF TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATION
IN MONITORING WELL 2, SHALLOW-AQUIFER ZONE
AMPHENOL SITE
-------
2 3 =
_
° H •< -J
cn O o
oo
"
T1
m
O
m
CO
oo
CD
00
on
CD
00
CD
CD
oo
CD
00
oo
Total VOC Concentration (ppb)
en
o
o
o
en
o
o
o
en
o
CO
o
o
CO
en
o
Lagoons Drained
Soils Remediated
\
Extraction Starts
8
i
-------
mOdS
0 =3«
r- H -v «
w O o
-H 3J Tl
m 2 H
00
!>
i
*s
si
m o
T3 m
II
m
Total VOC Concentration (ppb)
CO
CD
CD
CO
cn
CO
CO
CD
00
•vl
CO
oo
oo
-------
WDC61621.AO.02
WDC 61621. AO.D2
GEB
Surface
Impoundments
Sludge
-.:»' Drying
Bed
ln-.cli-in|. I . itt'ES Oullull
I I RCRA Want UonajvTKnl *(«o (MIA)
(CloMtf 1887)
( State Barge
j /Canal
• ./ i
\
NOTES:
BOM mop horn plot plan by Ctiwol ClKUIc M< 8-11 lolM
J/16/70. r«v4»d ky Dunn CMicknc* C«p.
ConloiH Inlormollon ablokixi kom TOPOCHAPHIC UAP. UONOOC CO./ •
N V fOAHO) »hkh -o. compilid Irom I'-IOOO' controlltd o««H
pnologrophy IKurid Uay A. 1961
Pip«lln« localloni «• approximate
Source: Dunn GeoSclence Corporation, February 1987.
Figure 1
SITE PLAN
BLACK & DECKER SITE
BROCKPORT, NEW YORK
-------
\YOC6t«1.A.O.Ce
EAST
im
in
Turn in Ser.lion
WEST NOOTTI
HOflllONTAi XHI
Source: Begor, Miller, and Sutch, January • February 1989
Figure 2
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
BLACK & DECKER SITE
-------
-------
,!' ,'!>'"'• ' „ ''" 1
WOC 61621JKX02
\ V
I -\.
I ' \
Source: Dunn Geasdenco Corporation, January 1987.
»?'ft i! Ij'i'ii'il'
-------
Topographic Surfoc* Contour
Fraetura Zon« (Point of Compliance}
B-21S
Illf. SJO.H'
- / 528.19
§
1
03
O Recovery W«N Location
• Monitoring VMI Location
© Abandoned Monitoring W«H Location
S3 Telephone Pol*
Q Catcn 8a«tn
$sl^
V) JjJ FV. HvdroM
E-.-3 RCfU WaiU Uonoo«m«« *r«o (tMJA)
"•^ (a»oo cloiur. H87)
52O n water Levil Elevation ( feet above M.S.L.)
NOTES: !
9an mop Irom pl^l plan »t C«e«l B«:irte «•
R«v*Md by Ounn C«o«cl«nc« Corporation
Contour Informotlon ootoln^l trom 10POCR*PMIC UAP. UOHROE COU^
NEW VORK /O59.0J phlcn «ot compi.a from I -1000 controll«
-------
-------
-------
WpC6f62t.AO.02
X
D
trehouaa
\
Ncutrolizin^-
Bu tiding
\
• *E
CEB-188
Uf. lU.it
52S.SO
\ \- \ \
\ \ Afi'^S Manufacturing Biding
\ \ \\ \
\
\ I I \ I \
_
CSB-2JS \ V
S20.48\
V-22S CEB-22B \
'.Tjj.so' uf.sa.n- >
\
Source: Dunn Geosdence Corporation, January 1987
-------
OGEB-4S ^V""*^^
HA S31.lt' ^^
•TV
Abandoned RR Siding
I 1 1 1 1
Recovery Wrt! Location
Monitoring W*n Location
Abondon«d Monitoring VWI Locotlon
ff r«Uption« Pol*
D Catch Ba*ln
- Tooogrophic Surface Contour
Froctur* Zone (Point of CompUoncv)
rir« Hydrant
RCRA Wo«l« UonoqvruM */«a
(O«an dotur* 1987) . .
Water Level Elevation (f«« ODOV« M.S.L. )
NOTES:
Ba«« map from plot plan by Gwiwol 6*ctric f&« 8-11 doted J/16/70 •
Rtvtatd by Dunn CvoicUnco Corporation
Contour Information ootom«d from' IOPOCRAPHIC UAP. UONROE COUNTY.
• NEW YORK /OA9.0J *hicn BO* compiled from |"-1000' eonuoltcd oarlot
pnotooropny •acured Mpy ^, 1961.
Shallow bedrock well eltvofion used or Dodrack
clulfen GEB - 28, 29,30, 31 8-32. ,
Scale in Feet
0 50 100
Figure 4
GROUND-WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP PRIOR TO CREATION
OF FRACTURE ZONE (BEDROCK AQUIFER), JANUARY 1987
BLACK & DECKER SITE
-------
"i ,\w
.,'•!'»,. V ,„:„!, i,
•ti ,1: i Ii,.
-------
WDC61621.AO.02
WDC61621.AO.02
JiS I
Source: Begot, Miller, and Sutch, January-February 1989
Figure 5
TRICHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION (IN PPB)
IN THE BEDROCK AQUIFIER PRIOR TO STARTUP
BLACK & DECKER SITE
-------
WQC 81821 .AO.C2
» \ Cmtng ViAur^t
\\.\ \
--r
GEB-21S
Overburden
Background
Well
- ILKMB
O R*cov«iy WMI Location
Well localioo
Abandoned Uunilorio W«ll locat
0 Telephone Pole
D Catch Baiin
ftfe H^orant
I 1 RCRA Wane Management A(eo («4A)
-- (Cloeed
GEB-28BS ''
•me mop (torn (Hot plan by General Clecbk lile B-ll loled
3/16/70. rerfutf ky Dunn Geotctanct C«p
Canloyr information obtained Iran TOPOGRAPHIC UAP UONROC CO
NV (0990} .hlch .ae compiled from T-IOOO' controlled oeriol
photography tetored Uay S. 1961
locottane or* approiiimQle
Source: Dunn Geoscience Corporation. March, 1988
Figure 6
GROUND-WATER ELEVATION CONTOURS PRIOR TO
STARTUP OF LONG-TERM EXTRACTION SYSTEM
(OVERBURDEN AQUIFER), MARCH 1988
BLACK & DECKER SITE
-------
WDC61621.A0.02
WDC61631.A0.02
GEB-15B
Surface I o. Sludge
GEB-24B Impoundments ^"-^p ^ Drying ,
~""Vr Bed \
524 ffS \ \
GEB-26B
Bedrock Background
Welk
32778^
!•£• hjnj._ !_„ jPOf-S ^kiljoll
\eu-tn CU-IM V
° \
\ 0\ V«""t' — \ \
URE /Oh4£ Q * \ \
v,vv. \ \ \ x
^L «» tn
\9Z5.00
il/iA
IIMND
O R«Cov«iy Well locollon
Monitoring Well Location
Abandoned Monitoring W«» tnculi
0 l«l«phon« Pol*
D Coteh
firu Hydranl
RCRA Wail* Uonagem.nl Aieo (*UA)
(Uoied 1987)
O
00
NOTES"
BOM mop from plot plan by Cental Cl*clnc M« B-ll laUIOOO* conlrolied aerial j
photography ••curtd UOf b. 1961
ine location! ai« appro'imalt
* W«ll GEB-BB no ltd tor poor rtlponlr.
Source: Dunn Geosclence Corporation. March, 1988.
Figure 7
GROUND-WATER EVALUATION CONTOURS PRIOR
TO STARTUP OF LONG-TERM EXTRACTION SYSTEM
(BEDROCK AQUIFIER), MARCH 1988.
BLACK & DECKER SITE
-------
WDC61KUWX02
\ GEB-21S
\ ' Overburden
I) j Background
ICCENO
O Racovtry VWl Location
• MoniloriH9 Well Locolkxi
Abandon*) Uonlloring Will Locolion
a f«*«phon« Pol*
Q Catch Boitn
r»« Hyaont
I I RCRA Wosl« Uonogvment Ar»o (MJA)
1 ' (Cloi.d 1987)
NOTES
Bai« mop from plot plan by C«n«fOl ClKlrlc M* S-ll lolvd
3/16/70. r«vl««J by Dunn Ceotciencc Corp.
Contour Information oblalntd horn TOPOCRAPHIC MAP. UONROC CO.
NY |00903 whkh *o« compiled bom I***IOOO' controlled oeriol
photoarophy «»cur«d May 5, 1961
Pipeline locations O'* opproaimole
Source: Dunn Geoscience Corporation. March, 1988.
Figure 8
GROUND-WATER ELEVATION CONTOURS AFTER ;
SIX MONTHS OF DISCONTINIOUS EXTRACTION
(OVERBURDEN AQUIFER), NOVEMBER 1988
BLACK & DECKER SITE
-------
WDC61621.A0.02
WDC 61621 .AO.02
„ . GEB-25B kludge
". / Surface ^rsrl;-—Drying-
*"•'" impoundments *«"« Red
GEB-26B
Bedrock Background
Well ;
«*«
l\N
^
GEB-32
\\f XJ! X
A"! -1 C&M^N*
^ \ \ %GEB-23B \° \
\ \ X V \ ' v \
\* F \ '•"""" \ \
SfRAMURE ZONE V A \ V
JFS(nl ^ Comphuifc.) I \ \ \
X\\ 111 \ 4
\
o»
TO
O>
ta
\
-------
GEB-29BD
GEB-30BI
GEB-31BD
GEB-32BI
GEB-32BD
Source: Compiled from Various Sources
Concentration
Prior to Blasting
Early 1987
TCE DCE
1
290
230
23
4
3
110
26
15
12
Concentration
After Blasting
Late 1987
TCE DCE
Concentration
After Approx. One
Month of Continual
Pumping
Late 1988
TCE DCE
780
280
4700
5000
1400
270
530
1500
1300
220
42
18
1000
110
190
100
40
430
90
1200
Figure 10
VARIATIONS IN TCE AND DCE CONCENTRATIONS IN
FIVE MONITORING WELLS
BLACK & DECKER SITE
-------
WDC 61631.AO.02
WDC61621.AO.02
LLJ
P
O)
^ 10000
o
1
0)
o
c
o
O
2000 +
0
MAR
APR 88 MAY 88 JUN 88 JUL 88 AUG 88 SEP 88 OCT 88 NOV 88
Time
Source: Compiled from Various Sources
Figure 11
VARIATION IN TCE CONCENTRATION IN WELL 18S
IN THE CENTERLINE OF THE PLUME (BEDROCK AQUIFER)
BLACK & DECKER SITE
-------
O>
c
o
0)
o
• c
o
o
LLI
o
100000 T
80000 -•
60000 •
40000 -
20000 -
0
MAR 88 APR 88 MAY 88 JUN 88 JUL 88 AUG 88 SEP 88 OCT 88 NOV 88
Time
Source: Compiled from Various Sources
Figure 12
VARIATION IN TCE CONCENTRATION IN WELL GEB-23S
IN THE CENTERLINE OF THE PLUME (BEDROCK AQUIFER)
BLACK & DECKER SITE
-------
o
o.
o
H
3
CD
DO D < Tl
^ Z > CD
s° o zi -i
O DO O w
m ^ 2
m m 2
Co H O
HO"]
m -n o
2§
JU *•
> o
o m
00 <
S
TCE Concentration (ug/l)
m
3}
1
§
S
-------
,: ' 1
-------
-------
WOC 61621^0,02
Source: Ecology and Environment. December,!
Investigation Report, Remedial Investigation/Fea
Des Moines TCE Site, Vol. 1 of 4.
-------
MAP LOCATION
Final Remedial
y Study,
300 • 500
Figure 1
MAP OF DES MOINES TCE SITE
DES MOINES, IOWA
-------
-------
Meredith
BIdg.
Source: CH2M Hill. September 23,1988. Computer Evaluations of
Recovery Well System, Des Moines TCE Site, Memorandum from Jim
Kennedy to Glen Curtis.
Legend
—————— Approximate boundary of North Plume, March 1988
• Existing recovery wells
O Simulated recovery wells
A Reference location for particle tracking
========= Gallery
> Ftowpath from North Plume
-^- Groundwater flow to gallery
——••^- Flow along gallery and backfill
400 Feet
Figure 2
RECOVERY WELL LOCATION MAP
DES MOINES TCE SITE
-------
«<„
I
-------
-------
WOC61621.AO.02
Source: CH2MH1II. September 23,1988. Computer Evaluations of
Recovery Well System, Des Molnes TCE Site, Memorandum from Jim
Kennedy to Glen Curtis.
-------
rums ST.
LANDFILL
ARCA
Figure 3
MONITORING WELL AND PIEZOMETER LOCATION MAP
DES MOINES TCE SITE
-------
ii'ij '|| ""fill, :i; ,»,''' ":,' f li1''1'1'!8!1!!!! •,
'CM!,'!
i mail'!: i; t a k iifci •• iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaKjjLaii,, ;i n i, '11111:1 mi • i ••[ ,,i .rii an; inmiii"!; ; >,\ . :Mti, .1 ;• ii'iuii Jj';i JBIM ir „ i;, ja 1111.1 .h M ' „•' j.;i,: ..i. •; ii.1 |:!,, ,„ iniii f 111 j JIK ,, vfc i""i, j :v\,
illllli: ji|, il!||||||!!!li|l| filllilj'! illilliihi - Bll! "Ufliilifciliii illiln |, Bfllli i" | , r, •, l.i , i '111 j, j., Illiailllil''!1 ij I litillliO illl J, J III1
-------
-------
WOC61621.AO,02
Source: AWARE. August.1988. Performance Evaluation Report No. 2
March 1988 through June 1988) Groundwater Recovery and Treatment System, Oes Molnes TCE Site.
n n i in • n ii n i in 11 ii if
-------
• '•"• ' '• '
-• • '• ••//
.. ^ %•;. J
' ' "
HECWIHY »tLL
UONITOKINCi WELL
PIEZOUCTCK
CLEV1TION OF GROUNOWATCK
!*•!.£ (FT.,MSLI
ELEVATION CONTOUR (CASHED
WHERE APPRO>IUATE1
CONTOUR INTERVAL ' 1.0 FEET
LOWER ELEVATIONS NOT CONTOURED
GENERALIZED DIRECTION OF
GROUNOWATER FLOW
300 800
Figure 4
GROUND-WATER TABLE CONTOURS
JUNE 20, 1988 ,SIX MONTHS AFTER STARTUP
DES MOINES TCE SITE
-------
-------
-------
,
f. ,-:-.f. -rr^~'—^ *£""w, -iSjtV//rT1^"
' .-TV
Source: AWARE August, 1988. Performance Evaluation Report No. 2
(March 1988 through June 1988) Groundwater Recovery and Treatment •
System, De* Molnos TCE Site.
-------
--,- -:;'•• I V--L-
LtOCMBl
"••® RECOVEdT WELL
l-.~» MONITCMING WCLL
•- • flEZOUETER
»• TRICNUROeTHTLENC CONCCHTUTOH VH>
INDICATES UUPIE COLLCCTtO FRflH
ACTIVE MCOVEHT WCLL
CONCENTRATION CONTOUH (OAtHED WHCRC
10 INFIRREDI
CONTOUR INTERVAL*l,»,IOO,IOOO(ml
* 3A«n.[ COLLECTED 4ULT I. I»M
V . S -•
\'\
V S--\
Figure 6
DISTRIBUTION OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE,
JUNE 21-24, 1988, SIX MONTHS AFTER STARTUP
DES MOINES TCE SITE
-------
III, nil 'I1'
-------
-------
Ill IIP
.'/ fw]'.^'-**
fflS^fg
•
*&•
*•;•&
( Mi*INUIt ••.*
*-. toumm' •
*•*<•«•»
';•;;
1 //f^r'^>
\ ffy.T^!t •:'*• /O
,.. • • . I //•; .<•••' •,'•'', *"v ''•.-.-•.. / s?
I '.•• \ I • i - "' •!* '•}''•; ( /I" ,
fit $&*!$$//•(--•
4-' - // )^= •• -•'''-> :'•/ J" 1....
7 •...' A \ •«•
/ -\
-.'" •/'/'/ K
.. • /•< i i ».....»..•• ^*»,-
< ;-•- ' •'"'' V \ j
. '' !.« . \ "*
-
Source: AWARE. April, 1988. Performance Evaluation Report No. 1
(December 1987 through March 1988) Groundwater Recovery and Treatment
System, Dos Molnes TCE Site.
-------
ni"* \ x
y • \ :
.. . v
ftf / V \
/ •••-•' \
f. J I
• 1 '/ 1
1 s
\ / ' J
0y -•;-/;
oico x ' /
3/ /
/ ' •' ..:" / ".-.-
- / . / •c n^r-
I •'- -. '•->< \ ^x #
/ .. ,* .• • •- ••• • •
TDICHUMOCTHTUNt COHCIMTIIATUi (mt
* IMHH.fl miW UHL)
INMCArU UUKI COLLCCTCO >RO«
1 ACTIVC UCOVIIIT wtu.
TRICHLOMICTNTUK COM»IITIuno
-------
-------
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
S O H
r-
oo Co
O
O
ro
0
> 0
...- .i—
o
o
— 1 —
0
0
— 1 —
00
o
o
— uo
o
o
0
— 1 —
ro
0
o
1— -A
o
0
> — 1
33
rn
C/5
O
m
33
CD
00
CD
00
00
-------
! I
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
•1^ /"I • I i I'll! "I!"1
""ii I' "'i'l'j'4 !;li:
ill' .
-------
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
ffl 33
-------
, • i * •
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
£ 3
.j <0
§s
13
m
3)
g
§
H
1
1 ..
s
a \
o
OJ
ii i i
0
^
CO
CO
z
o
m
o
m
o
m
CD
m
33
1*.
to
CO
CO
J>
33
— 1
-D
»• •• < i
,i ,
1
'-*• -^ ro ro co
en o en o en o
o o o o o o
o° o o o o o o
b •
o
en
0
o
o
.
o
o .
b
0
«
en
o .
b
o
ro
o
o .
b
I i '. ^ . «. '' 'i1 • « ' ,i "
1 ' £p° — i 1 •r==*"~i
of0' *3f~" : • ;:;: ., ::;;
O _^& ' " :' V '"'i
rff —.^--fmT^^v ' „ ' •' ". •! '';vi
o • "r""**' ' ' ' '
Q-J ^^a' " • " " ; :' ' :::
ff^ *V- • " ! " •• " ill- '-
oo •—•""' , " ' '. ",,:,1 " '.i"''1!,,,'1" ** "j
6 _^— ^**
•— • ' ' '" 'i!* ' : ' ' " " • !-< "''i"11' "'"
5 *v" • . ' : ' .;;; :;
P • • » • '^ 'T
J ** • 55 . ',•..,; ;,;i,,i;::::;;
P ^* :—\
P ' *^* —j ;
/" • ^Zi
8 **• §
.p -.**x —5
O w ZC :
^ ^ , co,,,,;,
^. ^ Q
§> 5» 1 ', :
r9 ^/* m i , ', , ""
t> •-• "2J i ,.
o o' wzzr ' 'o"
|V 9 2» .
o •• - -
& & co
ro 6 •«£ 23
en
p j
b
0
CO
o
o .
b
o
CO
en
0 _
01
D ^-» J.
O »^^ •'• ;• ' , " ,. • '" '* ft..! .W < ' "i", -V, '" ' ••,
O ;,„;. '
•' „ ' , ' ' ' ,"', "', „
II I
-------
Courtauld's North America
Plant Site
Source: DuPont. November, 1988.
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
DU PONT MOBILE PLANT
AXIS, ALABAMA
-------
i ,,!.!
-------
A
SOUTH
MONITORING tCLLS
_
in
LJ
LU
o:
u
_j
u
-ta
-i*
•«• *-
1-CWnOI
(UWIU-. CLOSED IN 1MB)
- -/>7xVxxxxxxxxxxx/|'x/yxxx/xxxx
xxxx
'TXX/'XXXXXXXXXXXXX/XXX
'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/XXXXX/
'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/
'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/
'/^/XXXX^XXXXXXXXXXXXX/
'x^xxxx^rxxxxx/xxxxxx/
'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/XXXX/
_ .-TxVXXXXXXXXXXXX/
'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-
'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/
4/4'/W+f
•xyxxxxxiyxxxx/
////////////////////////S////1
xxxrx^xxxxxxxxxxxx/
'xxxxxxxxxxxx//xxxxx/x/
xxxxxxxxxxxx/xxxxx-v
xxxxxxx/xxxxxxx-
XXXXXXXXXX.
SCH-E
in
u
u
L_
z
o
cr
>
u
_J
UNIT C
CLflY
Source: DuPont. November, 1988.
Figure 3
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A
DU PONT MOBILE PLANT
-------
4 ., , • :,
GROUNDWATER SINK DUE TO
COURTAULD'S PROCESS WELLS
GRpyNDWATEH SINK DUE TO MOBILE
CHEMICAL PLANT EXTRACTION WELLS
SOUTH
i| ' ,1 , ' "I1 'I
« I mi
Source: DuPont. November, 1988.
Figure 4
GROUND-WATER SOURCES AND SINKS ATTHE
DU PONT MOBILE SITE
I «
-------
Table 2 .
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OBSERVED IN
GROUND-WATER MONITORING WELLS
Ground-Water
Chemical Constituent
Volatile Organics
Regulatory
Standard _
(ug/D*
Soil-Water
Partition
Coefficient**
Acrolein 540
9-84
.Benzene 5
Carbon Tetrachloride (CBT) 5
Chloroform (CRF) 100
Chlorobenzene 488
Dibromochloropropane
Dichlorobromomethane --
1,1-Dichloroethylene 7
Ethylbenzene 2,400
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene 0.88
Toluene 15,000
1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 5
1,2-Dichloroethane 5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.17
1,1-Dichloroethane
Base Neutrals
Isophorone 5,200
11-84
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (TCB)
Pesticides
Atrazine
6-87
Bladex
Rabon
Pydrin
0.49
65
232
34
318
61
65
1,100
9
364
300
59
' 152
126
14
118
30
87
9,200
Maximum
Concentration
(ppb)
144
5
5,815
2,200
42
3.2
260
10
11.2
63
48.8
12.8
42
42
3,940
3.24
73
13.9
19
6,270
179
193
2
4.4
Monitoring
Wells
DW-2
23,
32
32
25
25
18, R-l
32
Dates
51
52
24
22
27
27
51, 52, 53
51
27
32
51
24
27
24
E-2
32
23
7-85
6-87
7-84
12-87
11-84
11-84
3-87
7-85
11-84
11-84
7-85
8-86
11-84
9-84
9-86
6-87
9-86
11-84
6-86
7-84
12-87
*Safe Drinking Water Act MCL, if applicable. Otherwise^, excess 10"6 cancer risk concentration.
**KOC in ml/g compiled from a variety of sources.
WDR426/020.50
-------
I If!
'•A
if
I
300
LEGEND
-, I
33
Q Solid Waste Management Unit
• Monitoring well
o Extraction we!!
O Production well
• »67 ••«—Well number
163-*—Concentration. PPB
CBT - Carbon Tetrachloride
CRf - Chloroform
TCE - Trichloroethylene
Plume
Figure 5
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL ORGANIC HALIDES
IN JULY, 1984 (TOX IN ppb)
DU PONT MOBILE PLANT
Source: DuPont. November, 1988.
-------
• •7
•17
•ae
•34
feet 300
X
%-
<6A
O
DWO
LEGEND
Q Solid Waste Management Unit
• Monitoring well
a Extraction well
O Production well
•> *67 -^—Well number
163 •*—Concentration. PPB
CBT - Carbon Tetrachloride
CRF - Chloroform
TCE - Trichloroelnylene
Plume
|5l Slpeel
•30
•32
:•:•:•:•:
La
n
df'iil
:::*47
Source: DuPont. November, 1988.
Figure 6
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL ORGANIC HALIDES
IN JUNE, 1986(TOXINppb)
DU PONT MOBILE PLANT
-------
<1 1
-
«* fftB 18
12
»14
20
*
feet 300
LEGEND
D Solid Waste Management Unit
* Monitoring well
D Extraclion W8"
O Production well
• *67 -*—Well number
163-*— Concentration. PPB
CBT - Carbon Tetrachlorld*
CRf - Chloroform
TCE - Trichloroethylene
Plume
Source: DuPont. November, 1988.
Figure 7
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL ORGANIC HALIDES
IN JUNE, 1988 (TOX IN ppb)
DU PONT MOBILE PLANT
i fi
-------
EXTRACTION BEGINS
12/10/84
200
' Well # 24
" Well # 32
400
600 800 1000
DAYS SINCE JULY 1,1984
1200
1400
1600
Figure 8
TOX CONCENTRATIONS IN TWO
WELLS INSIDE THE PLUME
DU PONT MOBILE PLANT
-------
CONCENTRATION (ug/l)
Q md 3
^qi40
o
:; ii
-------
Ort .
22nd Street* S3
«40
Six AcnMoot Pond
»20
90
feet 180
LEGEND
O Solid Waste Management Unit
• Monitoring well
Q Extraction well
o Deep well
• *67 ^ Well number
163 ^H-Concentration, PPB
/ Average TOX contours
Source: DuPont. November, 1988.
Figure 10
TIME-AVERAGED TOTAL ORGANIC
HALIDE PLUME
DU PONT MOBILE PLANT
-------
ill 111
126
••27
«45
feet 180
LEGEND
n Solid Waste Management Unit
• Monitoring well
D Extraction well
o Deep well
• *67 ^— Well number
163-^— Elevation Ft
/ Average Water Table contours
_ Street
*«" * jmm mm
T
«32
'„ Landfill
*47
Source: DuPont. November, 1988.
Figure 11
TIME-AVERAGED WATER ELEVATION MAP
DU PONT MOBILE PLANT
-------
WDC 61621. AO.02
£ ., <.£*• -Jg^ 22 \-ZZi
MM ..^tSP"^ : '
"TFt/^ ' ""-' =
^
- • l^fegga s "*SP &
CUfliCLttlL l1^£^£SS^
^ 5^..,||:; -'^
X.J/ •SK??'.*'1' -W c.» ><»•"»>
VX. r ir-^--"***-0? - . ••
" ^ '''•
Source: ESE. January, 1985.
Figure 1
LOCATION MAP
ATLANTIC SPRINGS, FLORIDA
EMERSON ELECTRIC SITE
-------
GRAVEL PARKING AREA
EMERSON
MILLER STREET
FACILITY
AREA OF
HIGH CONDUCTIVITY
AREA OF
ELECTROMAGNETIC
INTERFERENCE
NO EM DATA) '
- _ — „•«- --.- — - „ - -~ >• •*-- - .. - - — --Z-— - .-.._- -;*.^.-. - .—i- - T
-„ •»•'-<•". V" *- n* "*•• *• "" -' ^-* -•»•»• *'-> * -*-. 7-;-*r '*• - ' •-': * - -•-•-- r'-"
*1".--•*•• *^- r~ -*-"; i"±-t"* -*~:-»-"- ^-t^--'--^'"--.-':.-.*:^-*-.-
-i 'Source: ESE. May, 1982.
Figure 2
CONDUCTIVITY SURVEY
EMERSON ELECTRIC SITE
'I, Iff,
-------
WDC61621.AO.02
•*-.""
* —
-i
MILLER STREET
.^
-Sr-
- * '-.
•4- •
.... -A-
Sj"
GRAVEL PARKING AREA I
v ES2 • • ED2 I
ASPHALT AREA
Q -
< -
O .
cc
_l -
< -
cc -
< UJ -
5 EMERSON 1 -
* MILLER STREET £ "
z FACILITY < .
v"? ^^
c • ° -
< Q -
o.
r- ' •• - ' "=• * . • j ™
"^. " .. SWAMPY. . — - "'."..'*"- ~~, - ' ' ' . ' ^ +• "* ' *••
\ .' - '. — .AREA—,; V; -'r '^l'. - .4. • . "'. :^'l -• ~ ' ~*~~71
-*.j/ ••"*"- _ •• . -I " . •--'."* •"•=-.' -".-"" -*-"• "*• !"./'"-' -*-«* DRAINAGE I
1 •/ ^~. - '-"^_' • -- ."' -. ' I.t *- -I- ." ' f- " ' '• -^-i '• ~\ ':.' 1- '^^ CULVERT cS^
s- ". _ • . /* ^ . - "-." .^ T"' " 1 '." -^ * ~ " ' * . ' . " .i. \ " i-» ' " ^ •*"" * - *"^~_ ,. • „ ~
•-"''-*•"-' : '•" '• * ' -V^r- •-***^'-r,' •: r. '.•-- ^;- KEY:
APPROXIMATE
5°,^ <3^ 50 100 200 FEET - "• • 50' MONITOR WELL
'^ S "..-• • 100' MONIIOH WhLL
^
Source: ESE. November, 1982.
Figure 3
DETAILED SITE MAP SHOWING
LOCATIONS OF WELLS INSTALLED
IN AUGUST 1982
EMERSON ELECTRIC SITE
-------
WOC61S2I.AO.02
SWAMPY AREA
EMEHSON
Mitten
FACILITY
ID
m
U.
s
6 SANDY SEDIMENTS
Ol:
—T*—"n*^j*-»c:^cv;=j=3cSST* \*——«—1^=3*==^^—-gg/M-i«^^t ii if iC~iy'7?r rrs^l i^gj-gt f==a i ^-i•*.•,..TTH——-J—^^J*!_UL.'^-IJI.. -i. • • M
FLORIDAN AQUIFER (LIMESTON
OO
JCZJC3.
JfSPSi
3o
-------
WDC 61621.AO.02
GRAVEL PRKING AREA
ES2 (81.54 ft-msi)
ASPHALT ARE
ERSON
STREET
CILITY
DRAIN FIELDS
ES1 (80.61 ft-msl)
(78.84 ft-msl)
- 1 -^ ' . - SWAMPY'.
" " " ' ' ' .AREA
DRAINAGE
CULVERT
KEY:
• SHALLOW WELLS
Source: ESE. November, 1982.
Figure 5
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP
OF SHALLOW AQUIFER
SEPTEMBER 2,1982
EMERSON ELECTRIC SITE
-------
WOC81621.A0.02
GRAVEL PARKING AREA
ED2(51.63 ft-msl)
UJ
UJ
en
w
oc
UJ
UJ
en
cc
<
Q_
EMERSON
MILLER STREET
FACILITY
RECORDS
WAREHOUSE
v '
DRAIN FIELDS'
•
ED1 (48.55 ft-msl)
SWAMPY',
-".AREA—'
DRAINAGE
CULVERT
" „-*- • * - .
,*.,.- * * •*- T"'
APPROXIMATE
50 0
50
100
200 FEET
KEY:
• DEEP WELLS
Source: ESE. November, 1982.
Figure 6
POJENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP
OF FLORIDAN AQUIFER
SEPTEMBER 2,1982
EMERSON ELECTRIC SITE
-------
WOC 61621.AO.02
GRAVEL PARKING AREA
tu
DC
CO
IT
UJ
UJ
cr
5
cc
PARAMETER
SP. COND fumhwcm)
NO, + NO, (mg/U
Cr (ug/U
Pbfug/U
CHLOHOETHANE (ug/U
CHLOROFORM (ug/U
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE (ug/U
1.1-OICHLOROETHVLENE (uglL)
1 J-OICHLOROETHENE (ug/U
ETHYLBENZENE (ug/U
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (ug/L)
1.1.1.THICHLOROETHANE (ug/U
1.1.2.TRICHLOROETHANE fug/U
TRICHLOROETHENE (ug/U
TOLUENE (ug/U
ACETONE (ug/U
METHYL ETHYL KETONE (ug/U
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (ug/L
TETOACHLOKOETHENE SWAMPYl
'~'-':-»•*•"- i~-'
ri;~ -rrrr!"»"
o "^" "^""- ~
^•*-~-^:-^;
PARAMETER
SP. CONO (umtxittm)
NOj » NO, Imo/L)
Ci (ug(ug/U
CHLOROETHANE fug/U
CHLOROFORM fug/U
1.1-OICHLOHOETHANE (ugflj
1.1-OICHLOROETHYLENE (ug/U
1 JOICHLOROETHENE (ug/U
ETHYLBENZENE (ug/U
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (ug.U
1.1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE (ug«J
1,1 j.TfliCHLORomiA;j; iuy.y
TRICHLOROETHENE tug/U
TOLUENE (ug/U
ACETONE (ug/U
METHYL ETHYL KETONE (ug/U
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (ug/U
TETRACHLOROETHENE (ug/U
9/2
110
0.01!
64
. 1Z1
<2
<0.5
19
16
<1
<0.7
<0.1
21
<07
<0.6
1
<10
<10
, <10
<1
9/9
104
•=0.004
32
50
<2
<0.5
8
7
<1
<0.7
-------
WOC6!621,AO.C2
MILLER STREET
if X •••[
irWr-i
I
GRAVEL PARKING AREA I
^ ED2 • I
I
PARAMETER 9/2
ASPHALT AREA SP.CONDMmno/cm| 2100
NO3 + NOjfmg/L) 0005
Pt>(ug/LI ) ^.^_
/ DRAIN FIELDS "~"v
ED1 •
RECORDS PARAMETER tn
SP, COND (umlxycm) 1250
NOj » NO, (mg/L> 0.007
POIug/LI . . ^_ _ .^•s- _ -=^ •• -i- "* ., * " -JL.^-^. »•• -^ :_'. METHYL ETHYL KETONE (ug/LI 10
•i*?.." -— -S- - ". * "~ "- " ~ f~ ' " '~- ~* '-S- *. r ". - METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (ug/LI 10
/
m
820
O.OC2
14
<2
<05
45
4
<07
2
<07
11
.
NE RAILROAD
t i i i i i t i i
SEABOARD COASTL
-L-i i i r i i i i i i i i
•:V-~- *. ^-.-AREA-r-/".^-; -'r -TL'. -"^ ' .. '- . •' .-^' 1. -X " ^T^
*-±l'.V- -*---* • *-• "'-^ "-"'" * • ^- :"' "^ -*-''-^-*:" •*• *:-*--* DRAINAGE I
--%•••:•-•:*:..*.!-'.•*---: -.•"I.7--1-; '-^* - - • .:^v V :v •••'•I- .-*,-" .- CULVERT c^
?35^-Tf:;:>---.:^V''^^:"-*--~,-^;i''77 *~. ^"-^•-•V.'-^t- " " ' -\.T.Vi'.- ^_
r/-t^;^^^t;-^^^^^r-'.> ^^-•i--'^-'//-;Xl'\'*~^^:l''-*-*-':4S. • -
^"~A * '••'i™ *"**• i". ' T*, •••. • "^ • .'*, %.• ™ , ', ""1. * _, ... " -^ .«. rf" • -. . •* A~ ^^ ,.• i "*' -~^lt- , _ _ . _
* " • i» * — <*— "".*" * at. ~" ^» ' .' j ^"~ j, « ' •* _j^ ^,_ •••• ^** , _,_ . ^^ j* —^ *••**—" ,-t ' - *^- . * * -
i '!* 'x. " APPROXIMATE — • — I - .,- - .^ - „!. - ' T .--*•"--
1 . _._ • 100' MONITOR WELL
*•
if
Source: ESE. November, 1982.
Figure 8
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
OBSERVED IN FLORIDAN AQUIFER,
SEPTEMBER 1982
EMERSON ELECTRIC SITE
-------
WDC61621.AO.02
LLJ
LU
CE
! I
i
GRAVEL PARKING AREA
ASPHALT AREA
<
UJ
(E
O
cc
a.
MILLER STREET
FACILITY
PROPERTY LINE
v.
DRAIN FIELDS"
RECORDS
WAREHOUSE
ES4
PUMP AND
HOLDING
TANK
SWAMPY' ~
- AREA— •_-
Q
O
CE
oc --
CO
O
O
Q
CE
O
m
<
LU
C/3
I --
I -
I "
I ..
APBBQXIMATE
50 0
50
2OO FEET
DRAINAGE
CULVERT
KEY:
A SHALLOW CLEANUP WELL
Source: ESE. July, 1984.
Figure 9
EXTRACTION WELL SYSTEM
EMERSON ELECTRIC SITE
-------
WDC 81GJ1.AO.02
Source: ESE. July, 1984.
Figure 10
WATER LEVELS AND STREAMLINES PRODUCED BY
COMPUTER MODELING OF EXISTING EXTRACTION SYSTEM
EMERSON ELECTRIC SITE
-------
Table 1
COMPOSITE CONCENTRATION DATA FOR
EMERSON ELECTRIC TREATMENT SYSTEM
Compounds (ug/1)
Xylenes
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Acetone
Benzene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethylene
T-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroet.hane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluorome thane
Toluene
Chloroform
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Standards
440@
172+
NL
1
810+
7
70
680
5
3
200
3
2400+
2000
100
6*
1/85
70
240
140
130
0.5
47
110
1.5
10
5
2.3
97
4.7
4
350
BDL
BDL
2/85
308
115
320
137
BDL
51
92
BDL
18
6
1.7
84
4.3
9
260
BDL
BDL
3/85
560
454
200
135
BDL
56
85
BDL
27
17
2.5
91
5.3
BDL
270
8.9
4
4/85
52
360
160
64
BDL
46
58
BDL
22
BDL
BDL
60
4.6
BDL
180
BDL
BDL
5/85
49
430
110
140
BDL
36
47
BDL
13
BDL
BDL
50
3
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
6/85
38
280
120
78
BDL
38
43
BDL
13
BDL
BDL
50
4
BDL
120
BDL
BDL
9/85
91
1010
710
257
BDL
39
31
1.9
18
11
BDL
48
2.7
2
89
BDL
2.2
11/85
44
310
380
43
BDL
28
21
BDL
11
BDL
BDL
28
BDL
BDL
45.4
BDL
BDL
12/85
30
170
200
70
BDL
25.1
16.9
BDL
9.30
BDL
BDL
19.2
BDL
BDL
30.2
BDL
BDL
1/86
40
250
300
BDL
BDL
26.7
16.2
BDL
9.85
BDL
BDL
19.6
1.57
BDL
31.7
1.9
BDL
2/86
40
94
160
40
BDL
23
14
BDL
8.8
BDL
BDL
17
BDL
BDL
26
BDL
BDL
3/86
40
140
460
40
BDL
20
16
BDL
9.5
BDL
BDL
; 15
BDL
BDL
18
BDL
BDL
4/86
40
150
230
70
BDL
21
12
BDL
9.2
BDL
BDL
13
BDL
BDL
18
BDL
BDL
5/86
28
93
180
15
BDL
18
12
1.5
7.2
BDL
BDL
11
BDL
BDL
20
BDL
BDL
6/86
28.7
47
140
9.1
BDL
17
11
1.4
6.3
BDL
BDL
9.5
1.6
BDL
17
BDL
BDL
Source: Internal FDER table
July, August, and October 1985--No data, recovery system down
All samples are composite samples except for May 1988 sample
NL - No established level
+ - UIC Guidance concentration (10/86)
* - 10 cancer risk
@ - Proposed MCL, Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended as of 9/87
BDL - Below Detection Limit; Personal communication with Mr. James Breck Dalton/FDER, May 1, 1989
WDCR425/059.50/1
-------
Compounds (ug/1)
Xylenes
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Acetone
Benzene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
T-1 , 2-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichlo roethy lene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Toluene
Chloroform
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Standards 8/86
440@
172+
NL
1
810+
1
70
680
5
3
200
3
2400+
2000
100
6*
Source: Internal FDER table
.July, August, and October 1985--No
27.1
24
58
<22
<1.0
15
10
BDL
6.4
<2.8
<3.0
7.9
<3.0
<3.2
5.8
BDL
<5.0
data, recove
9/86
19.6
BDL
26
BDL
BDL
10
6.2
BDL
4.4
BDL
BDL
5.5
BDL
BDL
6.3
BDL
BDL
iiv svsten
Table 1
(Continued)
10/86 11/86 1,2/86
17
BDL
<12
BDL
BDL
15
9.1
BDL
<7.2
BDL
BDL
6.5
BDL
BDL
<6.0
BDL
BDL
i down
16
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
13
11
2.3
BDL
BDL
BDL
8.1
BDL
BDL
BDL
7.1
BDL
13
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
11
7.5
<1.6
BDL
BDL
BDL
5.9
BDL
BDL
BDL
<1.6
BDL
2/87
13
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
10
8.0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
8.8
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
. 3/87
<12
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
9.2
5.2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
<3.8
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
4/87
12
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
5.9
5.3
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
6.4
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
5/87
<12
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
8.0
6.0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
4.0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
6/87
12
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
6.0
4.0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
<3.0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
9/87
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1.5
<4.7
<2.8
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
<3.8
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
5/88#
BDL
<10
<10 : :
BDL •
<5
(Peak
Absent)
<5
<5
<5
<5
BDL
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5 -
<5
All samples are composite samples except for May 1988 sample
NL - No established level
+ - UIC: Guidance concentration (10/86)
* - 10"5 cancer risk
@ - Proposed MCL, Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended as of 9/87
# - Three of five individual wells sampled
BDL - Below Detection Limit; Personal communication with Mr. James Breck Dalton/FDER, May 1, 1989
WDCR425/059.50/2
-------
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
O H 3
21
D
O
m
>
z
a
o
o
O>
O
CO
o
o
o
So -
en
01
CO
55 *
en
01
en
?s "
8
§ -
en
I
^ 1 "
2 S -
o s
>^ 9J —
H §
m ,»
s -
en
1 '
en
o -
!
8
00
CO
1 '
cS -
CO
1 — ^""^ ' ' ~s ^*
: \ X
: X/"*^
\ /
• JO M
^\ 1
S^' *
"" s ^ ^^^
^r ^^^^^^
' fA
OM •
II \
O M •
/ / /
OM •
v/
Ml •
/ 1
(M •
M> e
/I 1
MJ 9
/I /
MO •
11 /
T\\
- MO •
\\/
- MO»
'M
~A\
<• o»
"A r ? f
/// > M >
S -M-0»
\y
-------
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
CP > O H T]
o >w
i ^§
— f^ ^^
i O
m
m m
m
w
m
I:::".!!!" ..: .: -• .1- i^. .
-------
-------
LEGEND=
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP WELL
A 4* DIA. OBSERVATION / PUMPING WELL
A 6" DIA. OBSERVATION / PUMPING WELL
A 8' DIA. OBSERVATION / PUMPING WELL
A 10* DIA. OBSERVATION / PUMPING WELL
B IZ' DIA. OBSERVATION / PUMPING WELL
A IE' DIA. PUMPING WELL
OTHER WELLS
O GREAT OAKS WELL
B PRIVATE WELL
•$•,• IBM WELL
FAIRCHILD
PLANT SITE
Figure!
SITE LOCATION MAP
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
DATE' 10-21-68
SCALE =AS SHOWN
DRAWING NUMBER
82-OI2-EIOI9
-------
IBM - SAN JOSE SITE
Jl ^ I
Based on Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report, Remedial Action Plan, Oct. 1988. .
-------
-------
-------
TERESA
• ABANDONED AND SEA
O LARGE DIAMETER WATE
D PRIVATE WATER SUPPLf
£. 2" DiA OBSERVATION
A S" DIA. OBSERVATION
& 8" OIA. OBSERVATION
10" O'A. OBSERVATION
4" DIA. OBSERVATION
16" OIA. PUMPINO V/EH
>2" DIA PUMPING WEL.I
WELL NU.MBE
8
-------
SLURRY W4LL
'UMPING WEw
•UMPING W£j
'UMPING WJi
Figure 2
SITE MAP WITH SLURRY WALL AND
WELL LOCATIONS .
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
DATE-5-27-87
SCALE 'AS SHOWNI
DRAWING NUMBER
82-Ota-E468
-------
I'M! I1: iililRl ,il
lull ,""1 li|!' "i1!'!"'1!!! T"'
'• : 'M'1:" : , ..'I1.11
ill', «(•! '•' A j|,
-------
-------
00
CO
UJ
I
r\j
O
i
81
OQ-
|S
is
S
rr
220i— i
RW-I3(B)--
^-RW-IOIC) RW-I4(B)—i r— WCC-27(B)
! RW-20(B)-| !
! RW-2HO—• !
RW-27(B)-
—WCC-321C)
WCC-I8(C
--WCC.
o
2OO -
ISO -
I6O -
MO -
I2O -
lOO -
8O -
60
•o
CO
^x^
— ——_-" —
y- - ~ - >:
C _ A1'
SAN.
I
SAN:' AND SHAVE.
J
to
1-
LU
UJ
LL.
O
' LU
_J
LU
LEGEND
LU
-no
I SAND
^| GRAVEL
CLAY
SILT
GRAVEL PACK
INERVAL
SLURRY WALL
ABANDONED AND SEALED
NOTES
1) LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION T-T SHOWN IN FIGURE 2
D
f*«. y
r:5
111
cr
Based on Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report, Remedial Action Plan, Pel 1988.
-------
' 8O(C>—
•CC-34(D)
_ — :"•'
__,-•- '.'SAND
*;» . * . • •
• .7" "7"— •
SAND AND GRAVEL.
^ ... —. -""""""
- • ••' "" "
-
AQUi'ER "C"
^'
~""~ •— - »_ - ' •
' * — ~ — .
*
IT
_j
? 1
^ t
2aj
71
.*. I
S^
• "•'I
»"*
'•"1
'"
-, Ji
™
./:
;j
".'
*(.
i'
*J
,'(
/'
~~
__
_l
-™<« r751B> wcc-eTc^n H^-nce, "?* 1
,— I7N-IKM)' i | i i i WCC-161B, [ WCG-t£(BI ^
GO-I3(M)'-. ! 8" ! ^^
^nii — ~~~
j I-V
O rjS ^-'•r
'"% /. -
i3?# ^~7
^ ^"'
^. -
•'i
' *
j
• .;
.
..
•v
h=
';.-!
.''•:'
.^
*,
f'.' • ' -^
i^."^
''%
f /•
,r ^
;'j
TT "
*;
'?.
.-
* * •
~~
*'_.•
* .*
• ,
•',
['
• ']
1 •
. •
,' !
V
J '
f':
*
j
t
;]
[i
i
%
'•!
k
1 B
!•
'**
irf
*•
;V
if-:
' ~^ T7^ ~ ' 'A] ^
^--i^ ?-~ «4 '!
-•-•" rt -, ~ -. • • : . '-iv,,'
r" . ' -SAND AND GRAVEL • |rj .'.
;• AQUIFER "A" i,'j •; -
j-'""~~~~ S ~ — ""••-'— ' '• H^^~:
a ~ pi ••<
/ i J V'
\ CLAY H ;i /
? -'Fpl''
•J SAND AND GRAVEL ;, '{
'a .... -i si '
p- • AQUIFER B" .- ; _-' rrv. -. ..
ul _ :• :^j •-"—"*'" VjplL
. • . . • . • ^-'"" "— '
CLAV
'.!• _,,---"""" ' ~ ~ •'
P ^-~~~-"~~'' ' ' '
• _—.-:~T:~~' ' ' '
iANO AND GRAVE.
"
N • • .
r • _ __—'-•"
2
^
;';
'
i*
jj
s
/
•'
.
/
/
L
i
! •
;•
,.
'4
k
, ^ i .
!
' i ; it \f~iff \f\Ktt p~^ >
— ^/1~^:; •'• w - • - -
•• Ji 'Jl'' J '. ^\ " / WSAN0 •["
. ^ ;, °t j,t .\ i • / r.i AND . ^
•• •'/' x \-i". f!-->\ {"• (;. ' j-*3R*'E;L «• _
••/^ — •> v'i>' -~.i --li" — -^ '' ~
r 1 ''• "> i 'H "" *""••*•- >^. ~J}77 «— ^.' [77
' ' r^' ,^ ' j ^4.'.1." ' . |*\i
* ' h* '• tS \ , j i' '•' : /
v ' tti» «v -* • * * !•*• •***" '"
j, ,_„-
Y<
','•
_j *~
C.AV
—
_
'— '
V) -
_: ' —
U-i —
UJ
Lu
r J
• i ' i-j 2_,
;• . ' S
^.- •- —.~'^~"."T"r: ^
s >•''•- :
i'-' .X- N-
il-'i 1 -^_' AQUIFER "D" j.'
!»•; . ;7SAND AND GMVEu ; ,
:'••! ! O ' '!.
r;l . \^ ; , - • • . ! •
'."1 t -^ ' • •-' ' ' -—"""' ^*"
tJ 1
* 1
*
r f
t.
*
to
tr
'a! *
.!*; P u
•^1 o:
UJ
• J fc
!• o -
! J "3
-
1
,:
i.
>.
^
* '
?*
uJ _
H
LU
—
_ -
—
—
—
• j ' . ! ^ • —
__ , ,. 1
z
HORIZONTAL FIniire T
SCALE . rigure d
^oT^r-^o GEOLOGIC
200
iac
ISO
140
I2C
B:
6C
-;- .
2'^
f
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-ieo
CROSS SECTION T-P ACROSS
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
VERTICAL
->^*ALt nA^.r. _io_r-.-3 rNnAiifiki^ ^tiitjnpTi
2°" bj 201. SCALE • AS SHOWN 82-OI2-EB<
L.IA
3
-------
I IP'!'Pi 'S'illlllllFiR "l!i lli'illlE'!; IilE'iJ J '
-fi
'!5"1" '1,1 • "Mt HI
-------
-------
WCC-16(8)
WCC-17(B)
WCC-10(A)
130(B)
WCC-5(B)
V .^
9(A)
RW-15(A)
RW-16(A)
r WAI S *WCC-14(B) \
!~5.(.?4^W-!(A.B)i
1. CONCENTRATION VALUES USED TO
CONSTRUCT THIS DRAWING WERE TAKEN
FROM THE LATEST DATE AVAILABLE FOR
THE INDICATED YEAR.
V
NO
(2,7)
f~
}O
\
NOW'DETECTED
(DETECTION UUIT 0.5 PPB)
1.1.1 TRICHLOROETHANE CONCENTRATION
XT OBSERVATION WELL (PPB) WEEK
ENDING 12-31-1987
1.1.1 TmCHUJROETHANE CONCENTRATION
CONTOUR (PPB) WEEK ENDING 12-31-19S/
1.1.1 TRICHCOfiOETHANE CONCENTRATION
AT OBSERVATION WELL (PP8) WEEK
ENDING 12-31-19B8
'l.l.I TRtCHLOROETHANE CONCENTRATK3N
Figure 4
B AQUIFER TCA CONCENTRATIONS THROUGH
DECEMBER 31,1988
.FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
_/^>_-^ 1.1.1 TSICHLOROeTHANE CONCENTRATION
canajK ((*S) OCTOflW^rt.^^ j^ „.„,'.,;„„
DATE:
SCALE:
1-16-89
AS SHOVW.
DRAWNG NUMBER
82-01 2-E1 064
-------
WCC-27(B)
RW-14(B)
ND '
ABANDONED A»
LARGE DIAUET!
PRIVATE WATEF
2" DIA OBSERV
6" DIA
8* DIA 06SERV
10' DIA OBSER
4" DIA 08SERV
16" DIA PUUPII
12" DIA PUUPtl
Based on Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report, Remedial Action Plan, Oct 1988
-------
1
•. •';'!. 4:
.. iiiiiiiiiii
-------
-------
Based on Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report, Remedial Action Plan, Oct. 1988
-------
SAN IGNACIO A VE.
(500)
WCC-16(B)
WCC-17(B)
t WCC-IO(A)
• .117(B)f fro)
XWCC-KB)-^ fe.. RW-A3C*)
N°/»rcc^38(B) ^55
(4.0) , s 72(B)g
RW-22(B)
SANTA TEKESA BLVD.
\
1ANDONED AND SEALED
iRGE DIAMETER WATER SUPPLY WELL
1IVATC WATER SUPPLY WELL
DIA OBSERVATION W£U
DIA OBSERVATION WELL/PUMPING WEU.
DIA OBSERVATION WELL/PUMPING «U
r OIA OBSERVATION WELL/PUMPINC WEU
DIA OBSERVATION WELL
' DIA PUMPING WELL
' DIA PUMPING WELL
ND NONE DETECTED
(DETECTION LIMIT 1.0 PPB)
(50) 1.1-OICHLOROETHENE CONCENTRATION
AT OBSERVATION WELL (PPB) WEEK
ENDING 12-31-1987
— 10 —'U-DICHLOROETHENE CONCENTRATION
'( CONTOUR (PPB) WEEK ENDING 10-31-198V
^,
-------
LI S !!!;!'.'t "*;
-------
-------
Ill 1
o
r^
o
a
CM
oo
o
1
IS *
Pi
111
111 I'll
Based on Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report, Remedial Action Plan, Oct. 1988,
V^- ^ f ~
' lApv»-ia(c) —
LEGEND :
• ABANDONED AN
O LARGE WAMETEI
D PRIVATE WATER
2' OTA OBSERVi
6' OIA OBSERW
8' OIA OBSERV/
10' DIA OBSERV
4" DIA OBSERV)
16' OIA PUMPIN
12" DIA PUMPIN
WLL NUMBER
AQUIFER
_ SLURRY WALL
-------
,WCC-16(B)
WCC-17(B)
WCC-10(A)
130(B)
CONCENTRATION VALUES USED TO
CONSTRUCT THIS DRAWING WERE
TAKEN FROM THE LATEST DATE
AVAILABLE FOR THE INDICATED YEAR.
NONE DETECTED
(DETECTION LIMIT 0.5 PPS)
1.1.1 TRICHLOROETHANE CONCENTRATION
AT OBSERVATION WELL (PPB) WEEK
ENDING DECEMBER 31, 19S7
ED
R SUPPLY «U
Y WELL
(ELL
tLL/PUMPING WELL
(ELL/PUMPING WLL
WEU/PUMPING WELL
(ELL
Figure 6
C AQUIFER TCA CONCENTRATIONS
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1988
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
TRICHLOROETHANE CONCENTRATION
CONTOUR (PPB) WEEK ENDING OCTOBER 31.S982
1.1.1 TRICHLOROETHANE CONCENTRATION
AT OBSERVATION WELL (PPB) WEEK
ENDING DECEMBER 31. 1988
DATE: 1-26-89
SCALE: AS SHOWN
-------
ill I1!: « .IIJIi
Ml!"1! l!'"l!
!; .Hit ,?,!"
ill I
"t; ',!!!
-------
-------
$* &.*& \
11 j ^ • " \
CO
R SWW.Y «U
nr
123.B
\
KU.
AOWFOt 'C1 CROONO WATER ELEVATION
AT OBSERVATION 'HELL (FEET. MSL) WEEK
ENOtNC DECEUBER 15. 1987
AOUtFER 'C1 CROW4D WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
(FEET. USL) *EEK ENDING DECEMBER 15. 19S7
AOUFER 'C* CSOUND WATER ELEVATION
AT OBSERVATION ¥£LL (FEET. USL) *EEK
ENOtNC DECEUeeR 1S.19M
'C1 GROUND WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
(FEET. USL) *EEK ENOMC DECEMBER 15. 1SBB
Figure 8
C AQUIFER GROUND-WATER CONTOURS,
DECEMBER 1987 AND DECEMBER 1988
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
DATE: 1-25-89
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DRAWING NUMBER
82-012-E1069
-------
jVWCC-18(C)
EWCC-24(B)
AWCC-27(B)
ARW-14/B)
LEGEND .x
••*• ABANDONED AHt
O LARGE DIAUETEF
PRIVATE WATER
* DIA O6SERW
6- DIA OBSERW
8- DIA
10" DIA OBSERV
4* DIA OBSERVE
16' DIA PUUPIN'
12' DIA PUMPINi
VtEU. NUI4BER
AQUIFTCR
"""a SLURRY WAU
Based on Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report, Remedial Action Plan, Oct. 1988
-------
" I; '' iff
li'l
-------
-------
(O
O
UJ
CNJ
O
1
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
> II
CM \ II
00 \
C9 J \ II N
£ m
\ II \
'I V
Based on
Canonie Environmental. Revised Draft Report. Ftemedial Action Plan, Oct. 1988.
-------
: (MV) WCC-16(8)
.5v»CC-17(B
WCC-10(A)
I <\ \ \ i v-
I III \ \ "^
1. WELLS PUMPING IS THE 3 AQUIFER AT THE
TIME WATER LEVELS WERE MEASURED :
RW-2(B)
RW-19(B)
RW-22(B)
RW-25
RW-27(S)
2 WELL GO-4(M) WAS PUMPING AT THE TIME
WAFER LEVELS WERE MEASURED.
SANTA TERESA
' X f ,'
SX BLVKj SI
~^r
\
IANDONED AND SEALED
ROE DIAMETER WATER SUPPLY WELL
ilVATE WATER SUPPLY WELL
DIA OBSERVATION WELL
DIA OBSERVATION WELL/PUMPING WELL
DIA OBSERVATION WELL/PUMPING WEU
' DIA OBSERVATION WELL/PUMPING WELL
OIA OBSERVATION WELL
" DIA PUMPING WELL
• Dl'A PUMPING WELL
(137 0) AQUIFER 'B' GROUND WATER ELEVATION
AT OBSERVATION WELL (FEET, MSL) WEEK
ENDING 12-15-1987
—A75—'AQUIFER "B" GROUND WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
( (FEET. MSL) WEEK ENDING 12-15-1987
M75 AQUIFER "B- GROUND WATER ELEVATION
AT OBSERVATION WELL (FEET. MSL) WEEK
ENDING 12-15-19B8
s-150-J AQUIFER 'B' GROUND WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
' (FEET, MSL) WEEK ENDING 12-15-1988
Figure 7
B AQUIFER GROUND-WATER CONTOURS,
DECEMBER 1987 AND DECEMBER 1988
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
IUIFER
URRY WALL r. .• ni nmi c« a-4»-no47
DATE:
SCALE:
1-15-89
AS SHO«»i
DRAWNG NUMBER
82-01 2-E1O62
-------
";", , i? :.<(. Vfi" . 4»C.
>f\i- ' .!•'. .i ','' "."fi'f'
1,1 • I . •£.'.:*
Up " ,' illlhlfl
i,.i'! " ,'? j" H'.'!
Ill III 11 I iiiliiiiidilil,,:, Inli'i'dii,: !h " 'llliiiil'l hit' '"II, I. L'jllu:! , I'WilljjlL;1 illllin I,;!;,,,! " £ A ..L'!1 .ii.liMlii,;!'. .Sllii : '';•.. I i"ii ,11'i^ldJW <, i, ,i'<<; ':le~: > '!v,
ilB-ii!.,1 i! IlliK!: .i!i:
-------
RW-HiB)
10
QQ
Q_
0.
O
or
or
LJ
O
Z:
O
CJ
CE
O
8-
6-
4-
2-
0
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Based on Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report,
Remedial Action Plan, Oct. 1988.
Figure 9
AQUIFER B CONCENTRATION OF TCA IN PUMPING
WELL RW-14 FROM 1982 THROUGH 1988
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
-------
RW-02IB)
CD
Q_
Q_
CD
cc
QJ
CJ
Z
o
CJ
cc
o
1,200
1,000-
800-
600-
400-
0
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
; ,: ; Based Ion Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report,
, , Remedial Action Plan, Oct. 1988.
Figure 10
AQUIFER B CONCENTRATION OFTCA IN PUMPING
WELL RW-02 FROM 1982 THROUGH 1988
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
-------
75 (B)
1,500
GO
Q_
CL
O
01
QJ
O
IZ
o
o
or
o
0
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Based on Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report,
Remedial Action Plan, Oct. 1988.
Figure 11
AQUIFER B CONCENTRATION OF TCA IN PUMPING
WELL 75 FROM 1982 THROUGH 1988
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
-------
4,000,
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
; , i Based on Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report,
I,. , ,. Remedial Action Plan, Oct. 1988.
Figure 12
AQUIFER B CONCENTRATION OF TCA IN PUMPING
WELL WCC-02 FROM 1982 THROUGH 1988 ;_-'
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE . :ttf
-------
80(C)
1,000
DQ
Q_
Q_
800-
O
I-H
oz
LJ
O
IZ
O
CJ
01
O
600-
400-
200-
0
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Based on Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report,
Remedial Action Plan, Oct. 1988.
Figure 13
AQUIFER C CONCENTRATIONS OF TCA IN
OBSERVATION WELL 80 FROM 1982 THROUGH 1988.
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
-------
GROUNDWATER And CHEMICALS EXTRACTED
CUMULATIVE For ALL WELLS
100000-
w
•o
§ 80000
o
Q.
Q
60000-
< 40000
UJ
X
O
< 20000
s
r40000
-30000
o
C£
o
Chemical Weight Removed
TCA
IPA
Acetone
Xylene
TOTAL
29
25
31
,090
,340
,350
Ibs.
4.180
89,960 Ibs.
Based on Canonie Environmental, Revised Draft Report,
Remedial Action Plan, Oct. 1988.
Figure 14
CUMULATIVE TOTALS OF CHEMICAL MASS AND GROUND-
WATER VOLUME EXTRACTED, 1982 TO MID-1987.
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR SITE
-------
CO
3>
1C §
> O
O o
II
a> m
(O CD
CUMULATIVE TCA EXTRACTED (POUNDS)
DO
o
•g
> O
oo =
I
OmH
33 JJ 2
w m o
m
*^ nn
oo
H m
m H
O X
co 2
D
to
CD
TOTAL GROUND WATER EXTRACTED (Acre-Feet)
-------
IN fiiiVIII! 'i CTSi'i',, Hl'i'llii11' , '<«! '„;: IIM1 Jf'!' < li11!:1'!1"11!;;1!,!! !;j, "IViiill;']!' II
i'.i, MP "",. .pi's1!1,!,, , •|'l!i|i; •"', '!., ,i 'I'-1 I 14" ''il'!: I1
Former General
Disposal Pit
1000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
GENERAL MILLS SITE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
-------
900
850
800
750
700
C
o
600
Alluvium
Glacial Till
Decorah Shale
Platteville/
Glenwood
Formations
St. Peter Sandstone
Prairie Du Chien Group
Jordan Sandstone
Source: Bar, 1988
Sand, gravelly sand and silty sand, sometiaes overlain bv bozs
and marshes which have been drained and filled. Overlving
soil is variable in composition often clayey or siitv
Deposits are terrace deposits from Glacial River Warren'
Thickness ranges from 23 to 57 feet.
Gray and red cilia associated with Des Moines and Superior
lobes. Unsorced material with variable texture containing
clay sizes and boulders. Sometimes underlain by thin layer of
alluvium. Contains sand lenses. Absent in many places, up to
20' thick.
Greenish-gray to olive-gray claystone, fissile, fossili-
ferous, contains several limestone layers. Patchy in this
area. Thicknesses range up to 50'.
Cariaiona member - micrite, fossiliferous, often r -tured and
weathered,.3.5-4.5' thick.
Magnolia member - fossiliferous micrite, calcitic shale, wich
rippied bedding, corroded zones, some fractures. 3.5-9'
thick.
Hidden Falls - micrite, shaly, fossiliferous, 6-7' thick.
Mifflin -aemoer. thin beds of limestone, interbeddad shale
12-13' thick.
Peeatoniea member - dolomite, hard, 1-1.5' thick.
Glenvood snaie - green shale, sandy at the base, 3-5' thick.
Light yellow or white, medium grained, massive appearing
sandstone composed of rounded and subrounded grains. Thin
b«ds of green shale are present. Ranges in -thickness from
150-170',
Thickness of entire formation is 120'-150'.
Willow River Dolomite - thin to thick bedded dolomite, sandv
dolomite with some incerbedded quartzose sandstone.
New Richmond Sandstone - fine- to medium-grained quartzose
sandstone and quartzitic dolomite, minor amounts of shale and
pure dolomite.
Oneota Dolomite - thin to thick bedded, light brownish gray or
ouK, fine- to medium-grained dolomite, silt sized dolomite
matrix.
Argillaceous and dolomitic quartz sandstone with pebble-size
clasts of dolomitic sandstone and thin beds of dolomite, white
or yellow, coarse to medium-grain.d orthoquartzites to yellow,
silty, fine grained quartzosa sandstone. 85-100' thick
Underlain by the St. Lawrence Formation which is I20'-200'
thick and contain* a ^variety ^of^ti.ltjr^or sandy dolomitic
rocks. •..»-*
Figure 2
GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC COLUMN
GENERAL MILLS SITE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
-------
850
8<<0
830
820
810
800
790
A'
Platteville Formation
J I
850
81.0
830
820
810
800
200
600
800
1000
1200
Feel
lliOO
1600
1800
970 Trichloroethylene. ug/L Oec-Feb 1984
740 Sum of Volatile Organic Concentrations. tig/I Dec-Feb 19B1!
SoiI Bor ing
Well Scieen
2000
2200
2 "tOO
Source: Barr, 1985
Figure 3
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A1
GENERAL MILLS SITE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
-------
----. L.___ .__„_. '•.---_.-—--..:. L-j.-----_DlSfQSAL SITE; __
x^'/" ?,
'^.. >< '*/"/**#
Groundwater Level Contour
Glacial Drift Well
Storm Sewer
ClSth Ave & &U RR)
Soil Boring
Sum ol Volatile Organic
Concentrations Contour (ug/U
SCALE W FEET
1000
I
Source: Barr, 1985
Figure 4
WELL LOCATIONS, WATER LEVELS, AND TOTAL VOC
DISTRIBUTION IN THE SHALLOW AQUIFER, MARCH 1984
GENERAL MILLS SITE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
-------
(Hi • 'i iiiiiiiiiiH 'T1,1,.Li' "11.1!"" 'iiiiiiiiiiiliit1, iniiiii ,'•( -'"'I1" ii I1";1" i (••.!.•:•' •. •'• ! "'!l:i- *'i 11. ;: m: -,::;,' i.*^, . .; ;• .;:iv;- . • jisini/1!,;• w nt -I'M11:,
V
lij
w
o
£
in <
o? I
o
9 I
jj \
^ 1
1 |
iVli
-------
FORMER"DISPOS'AL ~
SITE
i
// ^Or'>N\ x<^
• Glacial Drift Well
O109 Pump-Out Well
°(110) Optional Location Of no
Groundwater Level Contour
Pump-Out Capture Zone
1000
Scale in Feet
Source: Barr, 1985
Figure 6
DESIGN CAPTURE ZONES OF THE SHALLOW
AQUIFER EXTRACTION WELLS
GENERAL MILLS SITE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
-------
FORMER DISPOSAL-
SITE
• GLACIAL DRIFT MONITORING WELL OR SITE AND
DOWNGRADIENT PUMP-OUT WELL
WATER TABLE CONTOUR (MSL)
1000
Scale in Feet
Source: Banr, 1989
Figure 7
WATER LEVELS IN THE SHALLOW
AQUIFER, APRIL 1988
GENERAL MILLS SITE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
-------
FORMER DISPOSAL-—
SITE
1 -=«>.,' • ,„„ :. • o;;
•3
GLACIAL DRIFT MONITORING WELL
SUM OF VOLAT.LE ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS (ug/L) (VOC)
JBDLJ BELOW DETECTION LIMIT :
LNA| NOT ANALYZED
0
i
1000
Scala in
Source: Bare, 1989
Figure 8
TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS IN THE
SHALLOW AQUIFER, APRIL 1988
GENERAL MILLS SITE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
-------
1,1-Oichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethylene, cis
1,2-Oichloroethylene, trans
1,1,2,2-Tetradiloroethane
Tetracftloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylere
1,1-Dfchloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloro6thyUr>6, cis
1,2-Dichloroethylene, trans
1,1,2,2-Tetrach loroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Table 2
1988 WATER QUALITY DATA
GLACIAL DRIFT WELLS
(concentrations in ug/L)
a
3.7
0.10
3.0
0.10
0.20
12
10
330
T
04/05/88
O.10
O.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.50
0.50
1
04/06/88
O.10
O.10
0.10
O.10
15 s
O.20
0.50
0.50
0.68
0.10
0.10
O.10
1.6
0.20
3.1
0.86
V
04/06/88
0.10
O.10
10
0.10
1.9 *
O.20
4.6 s
160
07/13/88
.„
"
--
0.5
;*». mm
*. *-
-•
*— ™
.-
. • ••
DRY DRY
07/13/88 10/27/88
-
* •"
33 37
3
10/27/88 04/08/88
9c
.5
O.10
13
O.10
O.20
11
6.6
O.5 440
WO.
--
DRY
W
04/06/88
O.10
0.10
24
O.10
0.20
0.20
0.50
43
07/13/88
-•
..
140
0.41
0.10
54
O.10
O.20
7.1
1.5
460 160 110
X
"(J7/13/88 10/27/88 04/06/88
..
.• " "*
8*.1 26 DRY
4
10/27/88 04/08/88
0.50
O.10
1 1
• • 1.1
0.10
O.20
1.6
12
98 55
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Oichloroethylene, cis
1,2-Dichloroethylene, trans
1,1,2,2-Tetrach loroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
"potential false positive value besed on statistical analysis of blank sanple data.
Not analyzed.
-------
Concentrations in ug/L
ta
o
o
m
o
o
CO
o
o
o
o
ut
o
o
C.
if
.
ui -
>
•
to
o^
z"
o"
C.
•u"
-I
rn
OI —
>
en"
•
a
z"
o"
•••MM
C.
-i c
03
1 ' ^^
^
w < "TI
en > H
H O O
m ci rn
S Tl O
z rn O
Z 33 Z
IF!
-w CO 5
sco>;
in t*. ta
w
o
••••^
C.
if
00 1.
03 -
tn
o"
-------
o
"§!-=*
?^|S
2 i- -< o
F Q o
w > H
H OO
m c rn
i^R
z m u
I 3 Z
p < O
? m
w co 5
CD O
if
O
CO
a
>
-H
m
c.
•n"
3C~
)»"
3U~
•^r "
8^
Ul -J
o
c,
•n"
-•,
st-
0)
>
U)"
o
z*
a"
c.
tn
o
< CD M-
CD
r
Concentrations in ug/L
to
o
o
en
o
o
to
o
o
ru
o
o
-------
,f-FORMER DISPOSAL
SITE II
Elm St SEj f
A CARIMONA MEMBER WELL
826.2 CAR,MONd POTENT I OMETR, C SURFACE ELEV-AT.ON (MSL)
200 400
Source: Barr, 1989
Scale in Feet
Figure 11
WATER LEVELS IN THE
CARIMONA AQUIFER, APRIL 1988
GENERAL MILLS SITE, MINNEAPOLIS. MN
-------
FORMER DISPOS
SITE
MAGNOLIA MEMBER WELL
820.9 MAGNOLIA POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL)
MAGNOLIA POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE CONTOUR (MSL)
200
400
1
Scale in feet
Source: Barr, 1989
Figure 12
WATER LEVELS IN THE
MAGNOLIA AQUIFER, APRIL 1988
GENERAL MILLS SITE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
-------
I
.. !
A9
E!
— FORMER DISPOSAL
'-[BUL
CO
1
1
Elm S( SEf!
A CARIMONA MEMBER WELL
L!!3 TRICHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION (ug/L) (TCE)
H°3 BEl-OW DETECTION LIMIT
1
fNj
\\
XX
NX
«, ^
w ^
a
>
<
£
^
CM
1
200
400
Scale in
Source: Barr. 1985
Figure 13
CONCENTRATIONS IN CARIMONA WELLS
APRIL 1988
GENERAL MILLS SITE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
-------
Concentrations in ug/L
m
o
o
o
o
o
Ul
o
o
o
o
o
o
c_
•tf
3C~
o 2 I 3
z o ^"c
3 > o <3
2 s< £
E OO
S>Z1
q SO
m rn m
s [=0
z co Q
l!l
S w 3
s S ~i
!i
z
St.:
S6--
>
ut~
ts
•zT_
o
c_
•n~"
s~
>"~
x~
tS^-I
CDr
cn^--
>
in""
a
a <
J> a
H t.
m IT
CD r
Nj ••
tn
o
z_
a
^^O ^
I5S x-
ffl >I
z~
trjc_
03c.~
O)1--.
in""
0~
z~
o
O
CO
-------
Concentrations in ug/L
c_
•n"
z
a
>
H
rn
10 c-
03 c'
in
o"
2
o'
U
in
o
z"
_ S -< 01
F00
o>H
m m m
|=o
s£
0 *^ 3D
s!l
co Z
UJ !->• O
*.
CD
O
z
i-». -
10 K
tn
o
2"
o~
o
U1
o
o
o
o
o
ui
o
o
tu
o
o
o
ru
ui
o
o
-------
Sowca; USG& 1966. Hudson, Massachusetts Quadrangle Map.
- ' \ l,\' ' ' :; "»!;i ' ' ' "": .' . •• •• ;, •"'..' :;' '!!'.,,,; 'hi' |:j-
'iOQO' " 0 ' 1000 2000 3000 4000 ',5000 6QQC! 70QQ. F,EET .
Figure 1
S TE LOCATION MAP
GEN RAD SITE
, MASSACHUSETTS
in 111
-------
-------
imC61821.AO.02
DOMESTIC WELL-7
(IN USE) ^f
*A »***
^> - DOMESTIC VTCLL - v
•s*** (NOT IN USE) .>£•
\ f *> c-
*~ V f^ -
+ ,\ *- ^x^* ^.v ..... /
SLUDGE -^^ * / .^ f; ^ /
DRYING BEDS^--*. •, i S..,^. — -V / / ^ /
jk. ,«.« -0- \A— !•••• ^kl I / 4
^"•M1 ^t- 4~?
T x j!"-« a«-s8n^ >v ' / •*'V-x^ \
* -'/^te- rV*"»f^.»
—i V yank-A1""-1 "" -^ i*1B:*—fl ^
I 'N P^ / •&"" i '""^- » -• -W*"-"-1" -£' '
J ^-" 1I\3MJ>/ *-• X'^'Tj^X-^^ :
a.nr.* . j^" ... ^ . *» -»..^Stbl.- . ^sJ« EC-*•(
^-'
GEN RAD
BUILDING
.1... / N*'^M.i^WM,.,
SURFACE **^% .,>,^"'
o too zoo'
Source: Goldberg, Zoino & Associates. August, 1986. File No. G-3S63.6.
-------
NOTES:
•I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY JOHN E. O'DONNELL AND ASSOC
ENTITLED "PROPERTY MAP, STOWE, MASSACHUSETTS". C4TED 1971. AND FROM A
PLAN psoviorn BY AVIS AIR MAP, INC. ENTITLED"TOWK OF BOLTON,MASSACHUSETTS
ASSESSOR'S MAP" DATED 1988.
2) THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF THE BOH1NSS AND SAUPLINB LOCATIONS
#ERE DETERMINED BV OPTICAL SURVEY. THIS DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEOREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD
LEGEND:
A A'
4 i LOCATION OF PROFILE LINE '
,GR-I
t 8*S
INITIAL PHASE BORINGS (OR SERIES), PERFORMED iY OZA DRILL!N8,INC.(MAIICH,»84)
SECOND PHASE BORINOS
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINT BY 8ZA PERSONNEL
ANDERSON-NICHOLS (ANCO) TEST PIT
BORINGS PERFORMED BY OZA DRILLING, INC.FOR ANCOIOCT, 1983)
IORIN8S AND TEST PITS PERFORMED FOR PREVIOUS 8EOHYOROLO8IC
'STUDIES REFER TOQZA REPORTS DATED APRIL,1980 AND NOVEMBER, 1983
EXISTING MONITORING WELLS
PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY
BORINGS PERFORMED BY GZA DRI LLIN8. INC.IMAY 1989)
(80RIN8S GZA.-BOI, 502,803)
SURFACE WATER (ELEVATION MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
LOCATED BYGZA PERSONNEL
BORINGS PERFORMED BY GZA DRILLING, INC.( JAN.— FEB., 1988)
EXTRACTION WELL INSTALLED BY OZA DRILLING,INC.! APR., 1088, AUG..I9BT)
BORINGS PERFORMED BY GZA DRILLING, INC. (JULY 198S, JUNE, I98TI
INDICATES WEU. HAS BEEN ABANDONED AND/OR DESTROYED
HAND-DRIVEN PIEZOMETERS INSTALLED BY GZA fP* •":«*! (JULY. I98T)
Figure 2
EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN
GEN RAD SITE
-------
' II1 i Ir1:, Jj
15 !•'
ii'"'W V " Pl'i
'lust I'tiitir
1
,1. Kir
I' :i|u
* l:"!v
III ll III
II II
'$'•' ''IllF (:;'! '''
/•'* .'iW 'Uffl!!/'!:
.MJIlii!1!!1 : '''Fll
It 111.1 I" Illlllli
i in
,:!' iiiri i| 'I I' ii'
«;' I, if i.';,
"•SI
a
"'llC'lll
' i
-------
WDC61621.A0.02
APPROXIMATE IOCATIOM OF
TREATMENT PLANT
fTHIlTIFICO
"*HO:
S4ftD 4HDSRAVfL
EXPLORATION
LOCATION AND No
IO.-M.—OFFSET FROM PROFILE LINE
GROUNDWATER LEVEL
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ,
BOTTOM OF SAND AND
GRAVEL AQUIFER
NOTES:
" c^ CSII)ATIFICATION L'NES ARE BASED UPON INTERPOLATIONS BETWEEN WIDELY
SPACED EXPLORATIONS AND THUS REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDAmf
BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. ACTUAL TRANSITIONS MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN
2) WATER LEVEL READINGS HAVE REEN MADE IN THE DRILLHOLES AT THE TIMES
AND UNDER CONDITIONS STATED ON THE LOGS. THIS DATA HAS BEEN REV.EWEO
BEDSTAT£ERDP''Em'ONS MA"E '" ™E TE>
-------
250 T
240
230
^220
(O
Z 210
g
zoo
!9O
18
I'<.-,*.-., .'y*VH->i?- V7*1
fe^firtS?^
NOTE:
LEGEND:
I) SEE FIGURE No. FOB NOTES. LEGEND AND SOIL DESCRIPTIONS.
-.NDICATES CONDITIONS AVERAGED BETWEEN TWO INDIVIDUAL BOR.NGS
OFFSET FROM PROFILE LINE
17 L
Source: Goldberg. Zolno & Associates. File No. G-3863.4.
Figure 4
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION - TRANSECT B-B'
GEN RAD SITE
-------
WDC61621.AO.02
"E^zsy/s's1^"s>- I
'.••.'•.'.•''".'.•'•''•'.'•'''"' ' ' '••'•'••••.''.';','.:-';'Jj .'•"•?'•."•'•• '.'•'.••'.
'••''•'' '•••-•; CTDjlTlc-ie-n f •..»«'.••'.*•'.•"•:.•'.
40' 80'
-HORIZONTAL-
Flgure 5
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION - TRANSECT C-C
GEN RAD SITE
Sourca: Goldbarg, Zolno & Associates. File No. 4-3
-------
11
I I
ill p
II ill III
(Ill
(Ill lit
111 I 111
(• l( III II
-------
-------
Ill III 111 III II II
III I1!
(1 ll 1 )
P IP || I
•i n i
nil
II
F|
In
^
111 III Mill 1 Illlllllll 1 111 1 1111 1 1 1 111 111 II 111 III 1 1 II III II) 1 Mill 1 Illllllllllllll
t
i ii 11 inn i iii1 i i
nt" i|'i i i i 1
361621.AO.02
I
1 III 1 II |ll 111 II 1 II
i n
ill Ill
INN i ii i ml
if ilia •(. •:." '"''a ' ' i
ili-i at,, ..... ' i1!?','
iii' ililllv ' '! ': .",4: ......
f I, liiil,,"1; 1 I,]'1 ' lii'iii;,,!
I'll i'lltiK > vr1 :. V, i: >
Wh it.;%: -, 'i!
: iiiii:iijiiii!i'ii'iii! i r hit, " '' 'iii
ulilf'i' Klilii;* ' !! ;:: '' ,"l
"II .IIK,, I,, : '-i I', ' "III SI
DOMESTIC WELL -r
(NOT IN USE) f
SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS
Source: Goldberg, Zoino & Associates. August, 1986. File No. G-3863.6.
i i in
^ ...... i:;.i,l;!L ......... 'illili;.^^
iiiiili lllll|ll| i iii
ill i 111 i Hill fill
I lllllli
-------
NOTES:
I) OROUNWA7ER CONTOURS ARE BASED ON DATA FROM WIDELY
SPACED EXPLORATIONS AND MAY NOT REFLECT ACTUAL
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.
Z) REFER TO FIGURE NO.Z 'FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LE8EBD.
3) REFER TO "IGURE No.2 FOR MARKINGS INDICATING ABANDONED AND/OR DESTROYED
WELLS.
LEGEND:
CONTOURS OF SROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON DATA
COLLECTED ON B/ M /B8 AND 9/25/86 ( BASE OATUMi MSL).
I~PRIVATE WATER SUPPLIES
CONTOURS OF OROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON DATA
COLLECTED OM 7/10/64.1 BASE DATUM .MSL ).
GROUNDWATER FLOWLINES
400'
Figure 6
CONTOURS OF GROUND-WATER ELEVATIONS,
VARIOUS DATES PRIOR TO EXTRACTION
GEN RAD SITE
-------
fji? ^'','1^" 'J^.|
I'll I"
l< ' I I l| llfUIII1 M,
ill I III 11 111 1
'I , I'l:,,!!'!1! Jl'ijl 'i : ,1 illiWIiilie HI
-------
-------
v^,. (NOT IN USE)
EXTRA
/(LOCK
SLUDGE
DRYING BED
GEN RAD
BUILDING
Source: Goldberg, Zolno& Associates. March 1987. File No. G-3863.6
-------
NOTES:
I) REFER TO FIGURE No.2 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND.
2) LIMITS MO LOCATIONS OF SHADED AREAS DEPICT APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF TOTAL
VOLATILE ORGAN 1C CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS OBSERVED IN GROUNDWATER
SAMPLES FROM SELECTED LOCATIONS USING EPA METHOD 624 AND/OR 601. THIS
PLAN is DEVELOPED FROM LIMITED DATA. ACTUAL CONDITIONS MAY BE MORE
COMPLEX AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH TIME.
3) PLUME CONTOURS ARE BASED ON DATA COLLECTED DURING FEBRUARY ^NO MARCH, 1987.
4) 601 ANALYSES PERFORMED BY GZA WERE CONDUCTED WITHIN AN OPTIMUM DETECTION
RANGE DPI TO 100 ppb. REPORTED CONCENTRATIONS GREATER THAN 100 Bpb SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED IN RELATIVE TERMS.
5) CHEMICAL CONCENT RATIONS VARY WITH DEPTH.
6) REFER TO FIGURE No. 2 FOR MARKINGS INDICATING ABANDONED AND /OR DESTROYED WELLS.
LEGEND:
TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS >soo PPB
TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC CONCENTHATIONS_>IOO PPB < 500 PPB
TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS >IO PPB < 100 PPB
0 PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL LOCATION (PHA SE JX 1
-PARENTHESES INDICATE TOTAL VOC LEVELS FROM SAMPLES COLLECTED
ON 2/3/87 (ANALYZED BY CAA USING 601 ANALYSIS)
-TOTAL voc LEVELS FROM SAMPLES COLLECTED 2/3 THROUGH s/6/87
'ANALYZED BY GZA USING 601 ANALYSIS)
Figure 7
PLUME CONTOURS OF TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANICS,
FEBRUARY-MARCH 1987
GEN RAD SITE
-------
II I I III II I I IIIII II III
I I
'!!,!, • |l ,' Tl • i'iili "-Jill i:,l,,
i isiiiiiii, s .......... ,; ,,.n« ;)•: i vis
±ma .. .,• an, ............. •, *«•
•« ..... si: ..... FH ....... ..t
^iiiiii( ...... limit sam at ....... iiUiii^^ ..... Mil ...... ii ..... 'J.
-------
TCE
CONCENTRATIONS
(ug/l)
oo -±
•t^ CO
d
m
CO -A
(Jl CO
03 -J.
O) CO
00
CO
00 -x
00 CO
goooooSo
oooooooo
^
\
o
-------
Ill 111 III
k III I 111
II 111 (I
111
111 111
III II
111 I ill
-------
-------
WDC6tB21.AO.02
iirlf; I
n I ii
SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS
Source: Goldberg, Zoino & Associates. November 1987. File No. 6.
I
-------
NOTES:
I) QROUNDWATER CONTOURS ARE BASED ON DATA FROM WIDELY SPACED EXPLORATIONS AND MAY
NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.
2) WATER LEVEL READINGS HAVE BEEN MADE VIA AN ELECTRIC WATER INDICATOR ON THE DATE
OR DATES SPECIFIED BELOW. THIS DATA HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND INTERPRETATIONS MADE
IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORT. HOWEVER, IT MUST BE STATED THAT FLUCTUATIONS IN THE
LEVEL OF THE GROUNDWATER MAY OCCUR DUE TO VARIATIONS IN RAINFALL, TEMPERATURE AND
OTHER FACTORS PRESENT AT THE TIME MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE.
3) REFER TO FIGURE No.2 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND
LEGEND:
* GROUNOWATER LEVEL MEASURED IN BOREHOLE
CONTOURS OF GROUNDWOTER ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON DATA COLLECTED 10/28 AND 10/29/87
(BASE DATUM i MSL)
PRIVATE WATER SUPPLIES
APMOXIUATE LOCATION OF CAPTURE BOUNDARY
100' no'
400'
Figure 9
CONTOURS OF GROUND-WATER ELEVATIONS,
OCTOBER 1987
GEN RAD SITE
-------
•ill
111
i 111 I
Ili'IiCr" 1 '•( If, •'• IS
ftfiS I'1 i1 I!'" til .;
|!! Til:-1!1' i.V! It:i,'"I'-
ll, illif'!!' i «>i »i ' ',
iff V; '.It
,'.'fH ' ilii/lll! ' '.' S ' * ." ,;.'!' ,!'"'»Fi ' •' . • ;i| V;,,,i I ';' ""
ll^li'lMl'lI'Vir MltNii, , i, „ fill , ' ,', "|"',,' • ' 'ft 'T, '!, 'll'LiM* '" ,!'• v !' •!' 'i™11
-------
-------
WOC6t62!,AC;02
•*•+
DOMESTIC WELL r
(NOT IN USE)
SLUDGE
DRYING BED
EXTRAt
WELL
EXTR
' WELL
SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS
Source: Goldberg, Zolno& Associates. December 1988. File No. G-3863.6
\
(Hi l IK
-------
X1.
DELANEY
V POND .
NOTES:
I) SEE FIGURE No. t POB ADDITIONAL NOTES AND, LEOENO.
i\ GROUNDWATER C-WTOURS ARE BASED ON DATA . FROM WlOELr SPACED EXPLORATIONS
AND MAr NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3) *ATER LEVEL READINGS HAVE 3EEN MADE VIA AN ELECTRIC WATER INDICATOR ON
THE DAY OR DATES SPECIFIED BELOW r«IS DATA MAS BEEN REVIEWED AND
INTERPRETATIONS MADE
-------
Ill 111 III III
111 111 ill
111 111
ill
I
111
I III
!,, ii si
, :,f t , , •!' " JM "i;,,-'1 ": ii, I |:
.', »•':•.&'11-:'!!:!!1 •!,,( :• .flWIill
I ' ,, •.. "i :«s iriiii • 'iiiiiiiiin ,"''it!i ii
• !' ,1 i '<*'' I iirlllllli"' Hi:""1 J, "r'TIVill
;i,.; * 1111** i, i- ',- r'i
-------
TCE
CONCENTRATIONS
(ug/i)
-•• o
CO
00
=; CO
§ °°
m c»
^ ^3DC
5 p > 3
^o^
m
o
*~. Tl
S-"
§S
m o
33 O
z z
T3 O
£3
CD
00
CO
en
o
-h-
o
o
-4-
-------
liiqln I | P
in n 11 in
i
n 11 11II
ill i II
Ill
11 111 n III i 111
J L
-------
-------
III 111
WDC61621.AO,02
I I l"": ' ' I'" I1 I'
El Itiii i :! I'.11 til
Iv!!!? i '',"•:> :!!"!'i
|H IB Hi:' ' i| '„ " I1 Mil
111 "P
•H
DOMESTIC WELL -r
(NOT IN USE) Jf
V
SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS
Source: Goldberg, Zolno & Associates. August, 1986. File No. G-3863.6.
•', ''•;., ""S iiillb, ,1: 1111 HI, I1 ' " •'' •"! '"''' " .i i1" ,,,''i" I-,, '!,;"!' i.1!,, . r:: I1'* "",„ ' j ; . ,M"', ' i • » .fl'i . , ' ipiiiiii'i' "• 'iii'rai'!'1 „ •',„ i i'i,:;."
,'•: .'«":""":«!: »*.:..• .•••»'» :*.•:» '..;^":: \^':: ^J.."^':.;;:, '^"..i «•;?': '•^i*
."::v'vi ';'::, ":i';^ ' "' -' '"::'*•'.•:.
ill1;;1!' '!\t • ' t'llti i,..i ' ;,. " ij T,,'1,,!:''!;?11
- ;• ; :::;;;::„:
1 ll!!!;11! 'Bv '. ,!'
•i T1 ; -i.H i1
1 , i'.: iii.i ' ini;!i»i!i4ii<:>• 'i'! a.!! ia.*::'I r ii'is.4<>'s hi iSiiiSiiti1:
-------
MOTES
AND u::iT!CNS CF SHADED AREAS DEPICT APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF TOTAL VOLA
ZHEVICAL C;-ICESTRATIONS OBSERVED IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES FROM SELECT'S
_;CATICNS USIMT, ESAVETuco 624 ANO/OR SOI. THIS PLAN IS DEVELOPED FROM LIMITED DAT.
^"JAL CONDUCES MAT 8E MORE COMPLEX AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH TIME.
EASTERN PLUME CCNTCURS iSE BASED ON DATA COLLECTED ON 11/8 AND 11/9/88
NORTHERN PLUME CONTOURS A«!E BASED ON DATA COLLECTED ON 11/8 AND II / 9 /8i.
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS VARY WITH OE°TH
"E^E1? TT ccniJBENo a COR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND.
LEGEND'
•«fc,_
VOLATILE :PGANIC CONCENTRATION LEVEL DETECTED AT THIS LOCATION
"A U£TWC3 601
'"HI. VOLATILE ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS ^SOO PPB
•"Tii. VCLATILE :-R"3ANic CINCENTRATIONS ^OOPPB
-------
Ill 111 II
• ill 111 II I III
K ir.
III II
'TIB :"
......... SI!11,:1!!
III I'll
iii i 11
-------
TCE
CONCENTRATIONS
(ug/l)
s***
°3
Co 31
Z3 m
CO
m m
38
m
co
mz
en
g
Is
-------
-:;
;' '-' ./ •. . •
' - ' ;\ *^ 1 '^ N-"
- V-. •; -/i^lte*T-~l ^
N PALM BAY ROAD
. SYSTEMS r:
••' L..;
I AAiT?
Source: Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernlgan, Inc. December 1983.
Harris Corporation Task B-4 Hydrogeologic Study.
Figure 1
GENERAL SITE LOCATION MAP
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
PALtvf BAY, FLORIDA
-------
-------
Turkey Creek
Ditch East
/Perimeter F
Apollo II Boulevard
Harris C
Groundv
Treatm
Syste
HARRIS SEMICONDUCTOR
11 HARRIS GOVERNMENT
SC
Borrow
Pit
Pond
| Ltpscomo sireai
Scale: 1" = 600'
Souro»: CH2M HILL, April 1986. As«4»«ment of
th» Harris Corporation Remediation Program.
-------
' GDU-Port Malabar
I Water Treatment Plant
Malabar
Wastewater
Treatment
Florida Power & Light Co. Easement
Harris Corporation
Property Boundary
Harris Corporation
i Building Number (Only
Major Buildings Shown)
General Development
«„„ Utilities, inc. Water
and Wastewater
.Treatment Facilities
Figure 2
DETAILED SITE MAP
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
'IK i,,"l, :.!"" L iilr
I'lilil II"! il'I""'" *'<• ' .'•' iii1""!"" .'•>',•,V ilil' i'lll "i
'fiVFi i; ft;
f; in "i
I !ff 1' ',!
fill't'
,, ftl'!': i;,
'i'1'' HI',!',,,
'IlllSli'.l'i
.' "Milt ' 91
i it nisi! • ! ri
'', !'ii':::i"ii "i! mill'" l"
,1,1,1!' .ni',,.1'! ,.'l . iili'lll'l"!':, 'i|l||i,i'i Iflii'"! i i V, hi"!
trot in if-1' /lit1 ' ii";,;!"i ,i
l .......
'tl!!'
1"; ittllll !!,„!„ :, 1,,'B,,
::i"t liiKii'i, i ,< ,(1111,1,,,, 'iiiii'it'
iB'Bii a",!1"'!1," 'tr'
,:'„, i iii', ii i,
Iiiii:! ill!,! ,1! 'llil,,! i-iii : ' ' '
"i !: i
il (if !!
IS,,'!!'!.!
Hi f !"
IliiH'l f !'
II 1 1!1!,' 1, 1'
i'ilP'i'' iliiiSI1'!"'
i :, i'ljlll, ,i"
i,i,', IS !"i""
'..I ..... lil'l f" :
lira; ,
", H'l" ,1 "'..nil1 ",'' ' " ill, '':"',(,ill .' '' llil"', J:,i; ,, '' iii,
'i'1:1'1'' %•&&".<'$'%.'Viiii'i!'1 '• (':',st''i'i!!i!'
," « ".,""1 ! ic ' , ',i"'"'iii :| ii'r''",ii(',! '•-.'•• f'fl.K'.,'. jiiiii!! ", ,„ ".,li,:|ll:i,|'!,i!ili[1"'11
ii1! :,'-,;MS: i-',,,'"!!:, :V'- ' '*•',.","•.' '•i.\:.-t w,'" »ii,:'1!,:"• uu1-:
'"'lit,: .1 "Jil'iiiliiSiilli,'
'I, ' ,!' "II, ...... liilrl ...... !',|
'i'iiiiii " ...... ij i"'1!!
,, !'!!"' iltiil'l",1' I! VII
II I 11(1
-------
WDCS1G2t.AO.02
r^S^Sg - Red-brown sandy silt
Elevation
(Mean
Sea
Level)
Depth Below
Land
Surface
— 10
— -10 —
— -20
•-30 —
— -40 —
— - 50 —
60 —
— -70 —
— -80 —
— - 305 -
— 20
— 30 —
— 40 —
— 50 —
— 60 —
— 70
— SO-
I
I
Monitoring
Zones
15-Foot Monitoring
Zone
40-Foot Monitoring
Zone
80-Foot Monitoring
Zone
— 100 —
— 330 —
- Dense clay
- Clay, with sand and shells locally
- Limestone
- Clay, with sand and
shells locally
Hydrogeologic
Layer
Upper Sand
Aquifer
Leaky
Aquitard
Lower Sand
Aquifer
Hawthorne
Formation
(aquitard)
Upper
Floridan
Aquifer
Source: Compiled from Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan Inc.,
December 1983. Geraghty & Miller, Inc., November 1987; and
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., July 1987.
Figure 3
GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC COLUMN |
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
W ,„ . il"! I1 i:,,
Turkey Creek
GDU84-6S
Flor da Power & Light Co
V
LEGEND
J Water Level Contour
in Feet
NOTES:
Minimum Contour. 6 ft
Maximum Contour 14ft
Contour Interval: 2 ft
Water Levels
Measured on 7-26-85
22 hours after wells
were shut off
Well and Water Level
Elevation in Feet
Above NVGD
Well and Water Level
Elevation in Feet
Below NVGD
GDU Production Well, Deep Zone
Sourca: CH2M HILL, April 1986. Assessment of
th« Harrlc Corporation Remediation Program. Figure 4
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP OF SHALLOW-AQUIFER ZONE
iitt;; r
"Sim
WITH ALL HARRIS EXTRACTION WELLS SHUT OFF
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
WDC 61621 .AO.02
^g Harris Corp.
Grounowater
larounowaiBr ~
\Treatment System 0
\ < ^\
Turkey Creek
GDU-7
GDU-11 •
GDU-14 .
Scale in Feet
0 250 500
NOTES:
*No Measurement
Minimum Contour -5 ft
Maximum Contour 10 ft
Contour Interval: 5 ft
Water Levels Measures
on 7-26-85 22 hours after
wells were shut off
GDU-16 GDLJ-18 ^
i -
Florida Power & Light Co. Easement
5 -/ Water Level Contour
in Feet
Source: CH2M HILL, April 1986. Assessment of
the Harris Corporation Remediation Program.
81.9
-8.19
Well and Water Level
Elevation in Feet
Above NVGD
Well and Water Level
Elevation in Feet
Below NVGD
GDU Production Well
Figure 5
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP OF DEEP-AQUIFER ZONE
WITH ALL HARRIS EXTRACTION WELLS SHUT OFF
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
Ill I III (I)III
Table 1
APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL GROUND-WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
"Constituent
Harris
Seimconductor/GDU
Standard (ug/D*
Harris Government
Systems Ground-
Water Standard
(u'g/l) " #
';";:S •:;;£ •'•• :, : -:•
Fluoride
Lead
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ortho-)
1,3-Dicfalorpbenzene (meta-)
1,1-bichioroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
trans-l/2-Dichloroethyiene
cis-1 , 2-Dichloroethylene
Ethyl Benzene
fetracEloroethylene
Toluene
1 , 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichioroethyiene
Vinyl Chloride
Xyienes (total)
blsli'-ethyihexyBphtnalate
,";, .•':,' HI'ISHC "'i* ',,."'.-'" ' ,t "„; il ;i
1 - ; a
1,400 - 2,400
c
4,000
0.05a
''' ' ..11,,!',,.'^
1.0
c
60
620C
620°
810°
7.0b
'•' ' ,"'',• C
70
-
680°
3.0a
c
2,000
200a
'"• '3.0a
i.oa
440°
4,200d
'" ' '
•r. i t •:•; >: r !,'.,• . . i •>
<25
<25
_
<5
<5
<5
<5
<25
-
<25
<5
<5
<5
i i i
Harris Government
Systems Surface
Water Discharge
Standard (ug/1) #
<50
<50
<25
<25
<25
<25
<50
<50
<25
<25
<25
NOTJSS:
State of Florida Drinking Standard
EPA Proposed MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level)
"EPA Proposed RMCL (Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level)
EPA PPCL (Preliminary Protective Concentration Limit)
Sources:
* Ger,aghty S Miller. November 1987. Harris Corporation Semiconductor Complex
Ground-Water Assessment.
ft Geraghty S Miller. May 1989. Harris Corporation National Priority List Compliance
Review.
WDR2i8/02S
-------
-------
WOC61621.AO02
o
APOLLO II JOULEVABO
SPECIAL NOTE: THE INDIVIDUAL voc
CONCENTRATIONS FOUND IN THIS
AREA DO NOT EXCEED HARRIS/DER
AGREEMENT LIMITS
, Source: Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., September 1984
" Groundwater Remediation Program Phase II Plan of Action Report
( 1 (((III 1 111 1 1 ( III 111 Illllllll ( IN 1 III" 1 MH 1 1 II 111 1 1 111
, >
1 1 III III 1 1 II 111 1 1
"
-------
•00 1000
LEGEND
HARRIS UONITORINt WELLS
SHALLOW • DEEP
«OU HONITOHINC WELLS
*DU PRODUCTION WELLS
CONTOUR OF TOTAL VOC'S. IN PPB
Figure 6
CONTOUR MAP OF WORST-CASE TOTAL VOC
CONCENTRATIONS IN THE SHALLOW-AQUIFER
ZONE FOR THE PERIOD MARCH-AUGUST, 1984
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
I'M !'
<:!«
Mi
-------
-------
WOC6162i.AO.02
APOLLO n 80ULEVAHO
i- 0 C±3Fj-
Source: Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernlgan, Inc., September 1984
Groundwater Remediation Program Phase II Plan of Action Report
-------
460 600 *OO
(000
/
WELL
LEGEND
B
O
-10
HARRIS MONirORIN* WELLS
MALLOW • DEEP
• OU MONITORIN* WELLS
• OU PRODUCTION WELLS
CONTOUR OF TOTAL VOC'8. IN PPB
Figure?
CONTOUR MAP OF WORST-CASE TOTAL VOC
CONCENTRATIONS IN THE DEEP-AQUIFER
ZONE FOR THE PERIOD MARCH-AUGUST, 1984
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
I 111 I I
1 Hill I (
III
!ll|i.I iJIf'ff1 Ii""1:,!,,! 'I'!" fr Jf"!!1:, ' iiriliiill1!1!;,;!!'!111"'•' ', Vlfi'ifjii' „, 'iiilX'Ill Iiii HI1 ,
,!,:;!!' I ,!!:•" :i ,-1'"?°; i" i ' lu'il, '
II I
li!' M11|IT " ' : i"1',;! '*l' '''
i'iiiiii Hilr ''!" , ' °' i! i!i",,i
n! JKi'!M,:i!
it'll'i|!i;,'!;' if'!'' i ,i|,i
ill:!!" I
Ib, I ' '!'
iiS'ii
I"",];;""11
Pi 11
n n
I! "l
i i
'.jXfiliiit!"1' 'I 'lit"Hr i '
llffij' "lij '''I1!' "''
niii ...... ; -I," ft>vi .
•ii, !„
ll'iv
iiilll' ' '
ii'
'S'iiM il.il'iiiil!
'[it ' ii:i''i!,lill|
!i' j •' 'L illi"
."»
, , ,:,'i,i!l:!ll' I'ii'i'itll,
»,; ','1' 1111
•' '"S;"'''" ',..! ''
I'!; '"Wii'i >mfm'«': »
'' !!'' ' „'' ' .' iiill!'"i'"r' "ihlii '!' I"
•:,%''' jj'iii ..... X ........ 1 !' i'S'l" • • :. '.; l ' 'I'l
laiiiiK t " i-tiii1 ' .
I!:i i,1!, «,:„,'' I;, „: > 'iiiijiii," asiiii
Si!!! 'i! , I'!!- "":"
"Mi i ' in". ' ;
'':: i!'1, '
'"'I'-''! ' " "
i "i ; vm ¥1 " • . I!1' ' '!" ,: « II IK1 i,, " ..... ilW ....... 1' » : ,'" ', , -1 ' } " :! », li
• ;,::» -\ '-fit ..... '( ..... '-" v.jfJC,;1
l'j. '...f ""*>ii!'
..li'i".". , ''J '! „ " liS'i,;:!!:1
l,i' i ,1 i,,,|i!,|i,' ,, "',i,, ;„! 1 " i i i, ,,1 !',i i'I'in i ,ii,,,'Ml'1' lilijl'i'llilli1'.
fiiilli,; ' illl
.i i1 iiinllll!!!!!!,!, NlililiU'lilil
IlliiJ Il LiiiU'ii Illill'ili ',i\
In, Ji,,,, li:'" N, >'" i .i III j,iii, „ i!, i' j11'l'iiiiiiiililinlll,!!. i,' iiiDilliii!iiiili ,,.' ,111'iii!' "ii1.,, ' LiLS'l,:,;, l '"ilill'Jlj, III,, i iliill I/ li1!:;'', Hi- , ' Silil'i II, i1" iPi! !,: 'ii;,! ,1 , il'.,; i1,'' . ,;„ i, , KHil'l il!",, (,1 hi!'!!!:,! ,11 "1", ,;.' U1 iJlil iliiiiliJiUi.vlliill •, 'Ulllli,,"!! • U'
-------
Table 2
MAXIMUM TOTAL VOC'S IN GDU WELLS
FULL TREATMENT SYSTEM S?AR?Sp^N
GDU
Production Depth/
• Wells- m Interval
2B*
3*
5*
7
8*
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Maximum
Total
Date VOC (pb)
5-14-82
5-14-82
7-06-83
77.0
12-19-83 3786.0
14.6
5-14-82 106.1
5.0
5-14-82 1.3
11-07-83 130.0
5-14-82
5-14-82
5-14-82
5-14-82
5-14-82
5-14-82
5-14-82
5-14-82
5-14-82
5-14-82
5-05-82
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,7
0.0
0,9
0.0
109.0
Major
Components fppb)
TCE (27.0),
T-1.2-DCE (24.0),
DCE (14.0),
DCA (12.0)
MC (3400),
VC (220),
T-1,2-DCE (80),
DCE (40)
o-DCB (12.9),
C-1,2-DCE (1.1),
TGE (0.6)
MC (90.3),
DCA (11.6),
C-1,2-DCE (3.2),
TCE (1.0)
T-1,2-DCE (3.0),
DCA (2.0)
o-DCB (1.3)
CB (11-*.0),
VC (9.1.:),
T-l,2-Dr;E (6.0),
DCA (2.0)
C-1,2DCE (0.7)
o-DCB (0.9)
VC (38.0),
TCE (37.0),
T-1.2-DCE (30.0)
-------
II III
II I" III "111 111 I II
111 III III III
(0'£)
'(0'8) OH
III II III 1
1
(o' D ao
i
(o's) aoi
'(o-z.) 3oa-z^-i
' ( 0 * 8 T ) auatvfox
' (o'6Z) ao
(o'ez) aoa
'(0*96) VOX
' (O'OOZ.) 301
i i In in
O'O
111 1 1
0'6<
0*0
O'O
'(O'OZS) OA
(0'8£),300
'(0'08T),VOI
'(0'OZ9),301
L) aoa-z*T-i.
'(O'OOTT) OA
(O'Z.)
(0'£) 301
'(0*5)
VOQ
•80£Z
"0
O'O
'(o'g) ao
'(0'8) OA
'(o'TT) aoa-z'T-x
V8-Z.T-Z
'(qdd) s^uauuduiu-j
0.0
O'O £8-Z.O-TT
O'O £8-Z.O-TT
O'O
(qaa; DOA
£8-£0-TT
i i ii i i
£8
£9
3E-V8
33 0*7
II "I i i IIllllliIII 111
ill ii i i nil
33 59
33 T8
33 ZS
33 OL
33 £8
ai-w
S6T
S8
in in
aaj-pnby
zz
oz
II II II 111
nao
17861 HUaV HI dlLLWIS R3XSJ.S IKaWIV3^LL llfli
aiolaa s™ nao HI S.OOA iviox WOWIXVR
III IIIIII
-------
GDU
Production
Wells
84-6D
84-6S
Table 2 (Continued)
imETAL V°C'S IN GDU WELL3 BEFORE
FULL TREATMENT SYSTEM STARTUP IN APRIL 1984
Depth/
Interval
Deep Aquifer
51 ft
Date
1-06-84
1-05-84
Chemical•Acronyms
TCE
DCE
VC
TCA
DCA
MC
o-DCB
CB
EB
= trichloroethylene
= Trans-l,2-dichloroethylene
= vinyl chloride
= 1, l>l-trichloroethane
= l»l-dichloroethane
= methylene chloride
= ortho-dichlorobenzene
= chlorobenzene
= ethyl benzene
Maximum
Total
VOC (ppb)
0.0
0.0
Major
Components (ppb)
*Contaminated GDU
connected to air stripper pre-treatment system
WDCR05/089.50
-------
• • i~;i.
iS:;*
it I!! r
-MHl |!i!S Ml ill
illH: -3- ,i II , 111 1 s.-j m , , I ,,,:,m s» ,B,
I " i « s ! 1, i ,- f - , -- s: I !j ; , , :!tj k, .!
ill
: -°S
VroC6tKIJO052
AJH.HO II Boulevard
GDU—Port Malabar I
Water Treatment Plant
HARRIS SEMICONDUCTOR
Government Systems
I Parking Lot
|
Raw Water
GS-043S TrarwmlMlorJ IGS-127D
Malabar
Wastewater
Treatment
GS-043D. /Header
sc
Borrow
Pit
FJ0(Kl
Troutman Boulevard
Lipscomb Street
S = Shallow aquifer well
D = Deep aquifer well
1,000 Scale I" - 600'
Source: CH2M HILL, April 1986. Assessment of
the Harris Corporation Remediation Program
Figure 8
HARRIS CORPORATION
REMEDIATION SYSTEM, EARLY 1989
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
Table 3
WELL PUMPING RATES MEASURED ON MARCH 24, 1987
Well Pumping Rate
Harris Corporation on March 24, 1987
Well Pumping Rate
Wel1 (Gallons Per Minu
GS-37S 9
GS-43S 14
GS-37D 45
GS-43D 25
GS-123D ' 33
GS-124D 5!
GS-125D 49
GS-127D 50
•
te) GDU Well
GDU-2B*
GDU-3*
GDU- 4
GDU- 5*
GDU- 6
GDU- 7
GDU- 8*
GDU- 9
. GDU- 11
GDU;- 12
GDU- 13
GDU- 14
GDU-15
GDU- 16
GDU- 17
GDU- 18
GDU- 20
GDU- 21
GDU- 2 2
^" AMtiO. WJ.J. £. <-± , _L I7O /
(Gallons Per Minute)
20
45
95
75
125
130
150
150
105
190
230
110
210
170
315
100
210
100
150
* = Contaminated GDU wells connected to air stripper pre-treatment
system.
Source: Geraghty & Miller. October 1987. An Evaluation of the Harris
Corporation Ground-Water Recovery System.
WDR218/026
-------
i*fl! Si.5 !::• :^:i
Ml liiS Illiiill
SM «i!E II , i mm
illii r IE: ^H:n :»«
1!
HARRIS CORPORATION VOC
RECOVERY WELL
+9 WATER-LEVEL ELEVATION
IN FEET FROM MSL
ESTIMATED ZONE OF
CAPTURE OF SHALLOW
RECOVERY WELLS NEAR
BUILDING 6
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., October 1987. An Evaluation
of the Harris Corporation Ground-water Recovery System.
Figure 9
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE OF SHALLOW-AQUIFER
ZONE, MARCH 24,1987
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
WDC 61621.AO.O2
1
c^
£ \i * $ x* n
& W * / x Jit c\
M / // > >'
—I
1
N
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., October 1987. An Evaluation
of the Harris Corporation Ground-water Recovery System.
• HARRIS CORPORATION VOC
RECOVERY WELL
* GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
UTILITIES, INC. WELL
6 WATER-LEVEL ELEVATION
IN FEET FROM MSL
ESTIMATED ZONE OF
CAPTURE OF SHALLOW
RECOVERY WELLS NEAR
BUILDING 6
ESTIMATED ZONE OF CAPTURE
OF DEEP BARRIER WELLS
Figure 10
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE OF DEEP-
AQUIFER ZONE MARCH 24,1987
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
-------
-------
v i !
LEGEND
•
*
4-
—--
73
EXISTING HARRIS MONITORING WELLS
EXISTING GDU PRODUCTION WELLS
EXISTING GDU MONITORING WELLS
ISOPLETH OF TOTAL VOCS (PARTS PER BILLION)
TOTAL VOCS (PARTS PER BILLION)
Source: Geraghty & Millw, Inc., February 1988. Harris Corporation
1988 Ground-Water Monitoring Program, Palm Bay, Florida
;'f'i:-. ', "• 111! r. W' SSifiS:: Hi*
-------
Figure 11
CONTOUR MAP OF AVERAGE 1987 TOTAL
VOC CONCENTRATIONS IN THE
SHALLOW-AQUIFER ZONE
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
Ill III IIII
111 III 1
lilt 11111
Illl III III 111
illiii nil
i ill i >ii i
"iBIIM'i",
•DiiS I'fipl"
ijir'S ! I!!1! V ' ii':
\KV . ''"i!!MB"' '» , .
Sill''- ffl "'!'
i!:i'! ii'S'" ,;"'
ni fil I '' 'JBIi'
,ii > ; |».[:; 1(8 is
,1 lliiMIS,: " jlnMill1': iillli: I UN:": ' Ii ' I: ': , ? I'll1
III'1:1 Mr- 'in 'Hi;it if;!1'i v.J in,' i • • ,, Mi,
j;v ;i-%"-l i;;, |F: K$W>;i .hi, "
Mft"\ 3 'IKlM'it •'" 1 ?":
ll:V( II1, lillllllllll:!::,!*!!!!:!, /I IPO < L
KJIliil '-Wlllv. illiil'l'l' £":"!!:\ : ii,
iinl,I'1!I1:";':;;" r'Linllii'' >liiiil>iL If iln , Tig
!!h: ......... ill!'1
iijii1 ' :
'"''ill x1 'i v • '"iii1:;;;'":!' /,f
i I1
i illiii
>!t ,'.! ll'l'tlht
:f!ii'Jil!h':'i ^i',,".^,,,'^1!*1'*!^
111'!!;I'llj , .I"!!::!!!
^iiiu '"im1"-
'W i!" ' I; 'iiHIll
,'iiimi :ii,i>ii','" iiiiiii
M, ; -:i'« d S ll'llll1.1)
,
If Ill-i' .ki J illlllf; III
111 I I 111
llllllllHIll
-------
-------
LEGEND
ANNUALLY
BI-ANNUALLY
QUARTERLY
ISOPLETH OF AVERAGE 1988 TOTAL VOC'S (PARTS PER BILLION)
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., February 1989. Harris Corporation
1989 Ground-Water Monitoring Program, Palm Bay, Florida
-------
Figure 12
CONTOUR MAP OF AVERAGE 1988
TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS IN
THE SHALLOW-AQUIFER ZONE
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
Ill II
II ltd"
(II
I'jifei!'I If' ,,h>,h:i,:, ' •'!
-------
-------
WOCS162t.AO.02
LEGEND
'00
27
EXISTING HARRIS MONITORING WELLS
EXISTING GDU PRODUCTION WELLS
EXISTING GDU MONITORING WELLS
ISOPLETH OF TOTAL VOCS (PARTS PER BILLION)
TOTAL VOCS (PARTS PER BILLION)
Source: Geraghty&Miller, Inc., February 1988. Harris Corporation
1989 Groundwater Monitoring Program, Palm Bay, Florida.
-------
Figure 13
CONTOUR MAP OF AVERAGE 1987 TOTAL
VOC CONCENTRATIONS IN THE
DEEP-AQUIFER ZONE
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
Ill
II Illl
V" iillfil ll'i
in i I'll
,l,i' .JEIKK'IE,"'' ""'Al'l-lt < 'Mi, f " I"!1'!!1' I1
111 I Illl III
III II I ill
iiil ln'li , 'i ,i
|.ill
1,1 ii , .' !', || us, l< I i
"«' i,, * ","!
'!,t" »"•"»' ' , i
' ,1 • ii hMiiiil <„, IS, ',i
" i'1,'!'",!'1 i '"'''I'" • ' if'iiil'if'VhC1!1" ,' Jrll, '! 'I
II illl I I III I 1
III II I III I II
111 III I
ill i ' Ii .111. lllill
iliiiii'iiiii " i i in liiiini in
' I llfll
III 11
siiit1'!1 miiiiii- • 'iiiw;,:,,,;" ii
lull I ill M il1
-------
-------
I; El ii
B'fW'i'f
llllflS': 11
iiiiiii** 'i
IiilllK
LEGEND
ANNUALLY
8I-ANNUALLY
QUARTERLY
ISOPLETH OF AVERAGE 1988 TOTAL VOC'S (PARTS PER BILLION)
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., February 1989. Harris Corporation
1989 Ground-Water Monitoring Program, Palm Bay, Florida
-------
Figure 14
CONTOUR MAP OF AVERAGE 1988
TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS IN
THE DEEP-AQUIFER ZONE
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
Ill
111
II 111 I'll
llt'i, i "T; - ':>'" ,1 filMI Illiiii!!:! ' i:,
E"";" ' 'I'",?, 'iflif jfSE ,'
-------
3
•o
I
5
to <
-< O
^ rn
m
O
m
§
o
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
DAYS SINCE APR
28
984 STARTUP
Startup Harris
Stages 1 and 2
Startup Harris
Stage 3
1/1/88
7/1/88
1/1/89
WDC
O.fl2
-------
:L . iliii '
•i 'a ~=*
i «S it i i i
- ~- - - ~=- - _ -- - = ST.- --3= -"--;_ -~:i " -3 ±
10000-
9000-
8000-
g. 7000
z
o
BOOO •
z
o
u
5000-
4000-
3000-
2000-
1000-
0-
I ' I ' I ' I '
D 10 20 30
OS
i ' i ' i ' i ' i ' i ' i ' i ' i ' r ' i ' i ' i ' i * i : i ' i
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
WEEKS SINCE EARLY-MAY, 1985,
STARTUP OF HARRIS STAGES 1 & 2
Figure 16 5
INFLUENT TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS)
HARRIS TREATMENT SYSTEM
HARRIS CORPORATION SITE
-------
IBM DAYTON
,,_ SITE LOCATION
WOCei621.AO.05
BASE MAP FROM: Monmouth Junction, NJ
New Brunswick, NJ, Might stown, NJ '
•nd Jameiburg, NJ USGS 71/2 Mln
Topognphlc Quadrangles
2000'
SCALE IN FEET
NEW
JERSEY,
2000'
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
IBM-DAYTON SITE
DAYTON, NEW JERSEY
-------
II
WOC«*K1.K>.02
ON-SITE
INJECTION WELL
LEGEND
© ON-SITE PUMPING WELL
-^ TOWNSHIP WELL SB11
• AGO PERIMETER WELL
SPRAY IRRIGATION FIELD
Source: REWAI, 1987.
800*
800*
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 2
SITE PLAN AND EXTRACTION WELL LOCATIONS
IBM-DAYTON SITE
IB; i
iir •;
-------
MONITORING WELL
TOWNSHIP WELL SB11
^— STRUCTURE CONTOUR ON
50* TOP OF CONFINING CLAY
ABSENCE OF CONFINING
CLAY
Source: REWAI. 1987.
NOTE: All Structure Contour
LlnȤ art Approximate
• 00* 0
BOO'
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3
STRUCTURE AND EXTENT MAP OF THE
WOODBRIDGE CLAY i
IBM-DAYTON SITE
-------
•„,„,, iJi; | ;;;; ^ , ;; ;;;; iin; ilM i! ,,, fS^ •.,, i.. •,««
i'lY'" ifiiiii' N.M riSi ,,•""' ^--'S1 \, Iff""* :V;::
'If It:!; "I?- 3|||i,;;!|: '::„, - '\ 'MTiMff1 ;"I|!Y"
.'Vii. •'.'.'•! '-/I." "> ; l|l:
.'.tf, ,: ">.•'!••' M:
!i," ,' if; Si :ii;: tiv:
'! '"IS:: Hi ..... I
'";i"t;I
,.
• I;1!1 1'1 ..... Mi;, i''1 Hi J" !lnlr
M to" ;.•;:'•)<• fiil! ..... ........ /IBS
Hi.! ,',, .ilti" " » '' .,'„; l:ililll'l',il ..... , ...... ..... .
'ili;1 ...... tSSti ...... iii: t1,''"^71 !
..-"i -i:*:1 *-"!'• ,;;; ...... 1
!":::::*rit"ii; :"";; ..... •' ..... •".i
i- ........ il'M , ' ..f;1',1
;.";: i1,1 on, "•",;) jfiiH ii ii!;!"1, .jiff!1 'iii1,: ' • : v'>i Hi;
wis1'1 '.!.'' iVf "' 'S.M I '• ii'-i i j'i i"i| U* "it f .:'':•/'IW
'* ;!,;i:iiJI ..... >•', ji ..... fVli!
li? I1;,!'1'!1, «; '.v^ -kfl
iiiini!" iii,,!•" iiEii'iiiiiiii'iiii'ir•; i,,,i,
',1 lllliv' Jlii'iJlir'Ullllllliiiiliiliiil1!1!"" 'ill ill I" : i'J"'« 'SB1 '"' ,iiliii i ;,-";• ,i riiigiiiiii in MI'Hi1:,,.nil ' K. ii'i1'"1!"" fLffi»' I'- T iii'" t 'LI' , .'"""'I "Ji.:1" ', ''„ If I'lilll'liiKi,'1!' ''Ill'1'', '">',' i| . lu1 In; (III'|M' ill i.i.llllillL1 < 'iin,," , i G , ' I'M 'i'
?", ? n!i»i;; J"!"1 • •••!H|ii:ii i1,, i i1 • •, i, tlK'Si'»lit' '';.'!,: ', „ J' 4lri"' ".niK'ihi.'' il "ilniiilli' ,'!!! ii!1!1 • ,' •;: "'W: !'•' »!•
.iliil,:1":!!;1'1',;!:!!"1,"!'!' .fiyTdl, ftf :. + •tfkCL '""i|»v'!i"" S* 1 113B ^,11 •. ^>A^
i. ...... ii; ..... ,: 1 "; !
*r fct " ' • •• : ir >
; 3 s;- ' • ; '
111 i
:iii:#!,;ili ^M^:'\ 5, 'V'l' M^:'-1.:;,'':,: I:"' 'fa iiliitliiliiL ',18 "!l" MmM
11 'W^riWtfl^-.^.^.^-lKil
in I IP
"i ' '; IL '"•''«ll'"",ili,l,!" 1 'Illinilllliilli1". illJllllhlli"" i ,"Ii'Will
•" , ' .r,,,.!':/!',;:':',:!"' ,ii In;,,,,',, ,. •„„, mi,!,,,^,!
1 , .'"'idhilP >' .'. • ,;, • ii< II'VIIIHI"' illllllli: < ,v|l|i|": 111
I,,,!:,!,;!'1"',, /"ii,.!;; <• i11"',1!:!!* i*1!'!11!1" :,<„ i< ."it ir < i'r'jliiiiiiilliiii^'iiiiiiiiiiillr 'I'Vii; ,:jV'i'i
":•* ,,ii,i!':!
-,f1!' • tt• L ,' !,,I " C'!'
-------
-------
ill iiiiin
•i 111 in
l Id !"
o
I
13
t2O
XO
90
BO
70
BO
30
IO
00
-------
WDC 61621.AO.02
a
—
i 1
o a
_
O
O
KEY
gay^r-s; 9
SCALE
DAYTON, NEW JERSEY
CROSS SECTION
Ot/22/83
IZO
no
100
90
80
70
60
til
Ul
U.
30'
2O
KD
Figure 4
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'
(WATER LEVELS FOR JANUARY 22,1988)
. IBM-DAYTON SITE
-------
Ill (III
II' 111 ill1
II,!; 11',,:|,".''.,'!'' .Ml!,,' IIIIIIH ; uir 's: ,1,1,1 'I n!!!l" ; ' •, ! "iaiiW:"1: F ,,i|1|ii!il"il; i,,'11!! i,,
IE 1 81 >" ' 'i lilt!!: if, i i* Mil"' i* ( ."'IBR - .fit;-*,
'
Ill 111 11II
III
ill ill
Illllilill1!
Ill "
Hi! 1 1, I id 111
i||n,i I1":,!!''1'1 -,i iii'lililiifll11,,,, iiWiiiiVii, ,!,"«; a\i>« Hi
i aifri«i3"3,; i'H lit' ii • i ri ',
"»'"'".'ii'"1!!:1'?! !*»""
, IfliiiJillllllll ,'" Ill lull II HIT ,,i,;",il,.|.i in11'' '""1,1 IHIJillllllllll
• mi' "*Hi "IS'!,'!'" IK jlit
'! < nii J. ' ' ' „ -,i: '. !l,i,,ii
'
\i'H(
I iiii
!,1 , "I!' Wflislli l!l!::l:l!:i,J .Hi ',
„ I! Ji, I ! 'l'| ' H ;r;,i|ii!ll!!
1 „,!«. I!.,"»:,', !'i-a nail1 : i 1:1:11:
iliigni gigiiqii i
II I III III IP II II IIII I
ill lull1!
iliEI1
-------
WDC81621.A0.02
-N-
LEGEND
— TOWNSHIP WELL 880
• SHALLOW MONITORING WELL
A — SHALLOW INJECTION WELL
O — AACO PERIMETER WELL
o — GWP PUMPING WELLS
SCALE
800' 400'
O1
800'
Source: REWAI, 1987.
Figure 5
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE OF THE
SHALLOW WATER TABLE AQUIFER,,
DECEMBER 1,1987
IBM-DAYTON SITE
-------
I i
ill !!!! I ;; -i^si «!N ii
LEGEND
•f — TOWNSHP WELL SBII
• — DEEP MONTTORWO WELL
O — AACO PEWMETER WELL
0 — AACO SHALLOW MONrTOfUNO WELL
Sourca: GSC «L al. August, 1988.
CONTOURS IN FEET
SCALE
40ff
800'
8O01 4OO* 0'
Figure 6
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE IN THE DEEP
FARRINGTON SAND AQUIFER,
SEPTEMBER, 1987
IBM-DAYTON SITE
-------
WDC 61621 A0.02
x ® ^--^ /
/GW8 *} ^*>/
78 GW2/P $ r
21 GWf2a' I (f
33 GW2:
108
oo,9
\o°
S> cCafl)
,AOO« *
eas^
^3/^^
VWW/&W25
mm* «
^ V X i
QSB1B
SB11
50;
LEGEND
NS NOT SAMPLED
» TOTAL VOC ISOCON
IN (ppb)
NOTE: ONLY GW SERIES WELLS WERE
CONSTRUCTED BY JUNE, 1978
600'
BOO*
SCALE IN FEET
Source: REWAI, 1987.
Figure 7
MEAN TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS,
IN THE SHALLOW AQUIFER, JANUARY-JUNE, 1978
IBM-DAYTON SITE
-------
!" ->• 'i;
'• i ilt i
i; -_:: ;y. ;,;t;,- - {,: : !
1 1 1 "5 s '- -S^izs -s. = b 53? rg s •= s^--"^ 5 ill s s^r] - _^~ "---—-=- I
I !. •«- : ••
! !i|!l!
• * = *i « s ^r.
-N-
LEGEND
-f — TOWN8HP WELL 3HI
• — DEEP MONTTORINO WELL
O — AACO PERMETER WELL
O ~ AACO SHALLOW MOMTORMO WELL
NO — NOT DETECTED
NA — NOT ANALYZED
Source: Groundwater Sciences Corp., et al., 1988
SCALE
BOO? 4
0*
800'
Figure 8
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF TCA IN THE DEEP AQUIFER,
JANUARY-JUNE, 1980
IBM-DAYTON SITE
-------
WDC61621.AO.02
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
GW 04
GW 10
GW 11
GW 15
GW 16B
GW 17
GW 18E
GW 19
GW 20
GW 30
GW 31
GW 32
GW 33
GW 34
GWP Wells
Note: GWP veils are off-site groundvater production veils.
Source: REWAI, 1987.
Figure 9
PUMPING HISTORY OF THE ONSITE
EXTRACTION WELLS
IBM-DAYTON SITE
-------
it: ' ':IK= • t ".*. v -. '«"•"•«'-• ': ri-er-Uf- / :'-<". "l !1 ; •>:« • ' ::i y Sii • -• • ; -•« -;l .- « ? i--? ---"" ' 5?
{ y- i ; Sit j|J i 2;J if « l>sJ;Mi;:; 5j - |y • ; :;« i ;^'Et™( *\ .Tji-jilPl ' j JE? ;| I ! ! H li ii?i !i [ =r LT 5: ifi n' !;=! E * ::S;1s:i'r
;, j; ' " ! si =^* f. -J ~r " »i W! , K • 1; ;VE-.' __ , ^^E f ^ / Crl® ^Cfs
uo ^lV?ft^^ v» ^^^w. > ^^- *^" *^ v-^cts
-._ GW30 >^^ x " ^^ NO
-N3 /^ .^^n /38s® •**» \
/^""^ / / ^f \ X ND *•*.
/ -H* ^U_^«;;Jr/ -,^
4f Wv^^^r -*"'
^^^v. GIVSS®5'*--^^ / ®NOf'?
^ NS ^^/^^ 1
\GWf4® NS 1
^U23
^"••v. ®GW22 s
^^ya>s
^^V^x^
LEGEND
ND NOT DETECTED
NS NOT SAMPLED
Figure 10
j.^ | - ]|
, -': f -•* i. s , "'"— • V" '- :,!!,: "11 'iiWOC'H621JWX02
$58/5
^J»S!? N°
®Sk2J «SB8
-------
WOC61621.A0.02
-N-
NO
^ SB/5
QSB23
NS
sarr
NS
•s?
QSB14
NO
LEGEND
NO NOT DEtECTED
NS NOT SAMPLED
TOTAL VOC ISOCON
IN (ppb)
600*
000
SCALE IN FEET
Source: REWAI, 1987.
Figure 11
TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS
IN THE SHALLOW AQUIFER, APRIL 1987
IBM-DAYTON SITE
-------
-^ IH==^r, = =• = m
-:' If
^ nCS.: I :
• ! •!= fc = &
1 !i
3 !f
— ? - » 1
' »*= ;; .. .
•* 'iiV^n n
1 ;4iU!U U ~
i -= i
^issbo-
5500-
5000-
4500 -
4000-
3500-
3000-
2500-
2000-
1500-
1000-
500-
.
0,
-•<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Ea^ «»- !._—,, n i
3---H ; i|: ?:•« :: j ;
:' M?C:-°! Hf^r ? -r;::^;:::;,: jH i -i&^z^j i'
=ii t Mtriii"! i ! » ;
•'< ;I!J;MK;, , i ;•; J:;:'^™;:::::- ~«r : s
'"i-i , . . ,-iu - . _il - * •
- - - - - - ^= 1 1= - = - - - ~ l - - - -7 I_i. -
;: i
_ = = « = ^^^_. . = =.= = ..J. =- . = Si .-. . .. 3U . _ _, _ =_ ._ - _; J . J^.^.. -_^ __-_-_ =, = li S
- - .. -. P - - =_.-'==_-
_ , " =|i ._ ^ --" | _ _ ij _>. * ;u ;j v : _° ; €_ jj^ ^ = f-ii^s — r' "--g ! .! T
:. S ' *". < A : «! l- i '^ ' " 'i , -1 :: .-.-.-:-! : '
:i , 1 • > ;s B , rt fe ! ,"?.-- s:;*: V'-' " N "
TJ
tD
tn
*JJ
L -•- TCA g
o ' 3
-°-PCE o,
1 c
Q.
E
13
CL
' R ®
/\ —
• /VA s
•A\
/ \ \
/vvA /
I o^ \. J/ Vo /
/ \0 §n:5/ ^-^^o /
f °^»:=s"0-^-»-
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
SBM1 i|^
ir:J J^j
1- •! ' l sX.m -
U; M ,«i'
- _j=
:3li' !(«!
i u= air-:-
»- = - s^ =--= =
- ti" = : ^
! E
CL
: D)
o
o
11
0
•I—1
0
1 (/)
i oj
0
b
^
V
A c0
/\ CO
O-
^
V .
' '
I
T il •: '- •-- ill •'- , = ;;
s; :. :s i ; - -v; ^ M^ iii:
g!i j •; s,- : i /iiic^'ii. » ,„
/^ ij S|L =| tf ---. -- J1 - _' ^ ( --;=- E=:
5 = . : ^ J ^_ = =i
_^ is _ . P . . * i ^E; ° i ^ = = ;- s=» ' --
«l 1 !
- : - :L .^- - ! ^_ :" - -« : ^> "-
U ^- - s ik. . =- . -~ -:== --.
r . - - --s - -\ iSC . -•" - - -7 -- - - ;i?T5
V: : i: % ; ; t ;-,--.,. , -' ;;
r* " " - =""" ^" ~ ---------
jj
y
/
/*
/•
/
/
/
A
A
/ \
A v
— o
A
/ \
^-•^* *^^
^••*
i i i — i — i — i —
;
•- N .
.=• =. _3
S,,'.
5,1 , WOC 81
M
- , ;
h 5 1= -' -- .
e
i Pi"! i » r i
: : :==M ! = la ! l
";;;n
13,55^ ;;
1 : i I 11
1
1 1 III
: - I
; : !
• :
" ; : :
i j - ' -- ! i
l - -,
! ii
Iii I ; i
! • i ! :;
> 1 i - : ,
= i
- „ _T
JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD
78 78 79 79 80 80 81 81 82 82 83 83 84 84 85 85 86 86 87 87 88 88
Compiled from various sources.
Figure 12
HISTORY OF TCA AND PCE VARIATIONS IN
EXTRACTION WELL GW32
6-MONTH AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS IN PPBI
IBM-DAYTON SITE I
- =1 - f '--- ~^s --t
----•. ytf' n
-'_ i^rri ii
;- ^:i
' m
H!
AW, It
«a;:i
«i Mil
Sr -k--*- !*
:»«
L .^ li
= «' i|
i i its m ii-
•r. «TWi ;.
: : :t
1 i J^'
; ;'i S; if
:- i :r
J i iji ij
*%-
i if! tfMt
-------
W DC 61621.A0.02
6000
03
JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD
78 78 79 79 80 80 81 81 82 82 83 83 84 84 85 85 86 86 87 87 88 88
Compiled from various sources.
Figure 13
HISTORY OF TCA AND PCE VARIATIONS IN
EXTRACTION WELL GW-16B
6-MONTH AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS IN PPB
IBM-DAYTON SITE
-------
Iff-
i
JJ
78
JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD JJ JD
78 79 79 80 80 81 81 82 82 83 83 84 84 85 85 86 86 87 87 88 88
K
Compiled from various sources.
Figure 14 :
HISTORY OF TCA AND PCE VARIATIONS IN
EXTRACTION WELL GW-25
6-MONTH AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS IN PPB
IBM-DAYTON SITE
-------
WDC61621.A0.02
500
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Legend:
TCA .-
PCE —
1988
DATE
Compiled from various sources.
Figure 15
HISTORY OF TCA AND PCE VARIATIONS AT
PRODUCTION WELL SB-11
IBM-DAYTON SITE
-------
3un«,"l987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogaologic Studies,
Plan,IBM Grouridwator RestoratkMi Program.
Figure 1
REGIONAL MAP
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
SAN JOSE, CALFORNIA
-------
WDC 61621 .AO.02
Diablo Range
SANTA TERESA
BASIN
._y Coyote
farrows
Santa Teresa Hills
EXPLANATION
Bedrock
Investigated Area (Region I)
Study Area in San Jose Plain
(Region II)
SCVWD recharge ponds
Source: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogaologlc Studies,
Draft Comprehensive Plan, IBM Groundwater Restoration Program.
Figure 2
SITE LOCATION MAP
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
Table 2
SANTA TERESA BASIN GROUND-WATER BALANCE (1985)
1 I I i1 i 111 ill illilll i i
INFLOWS (RECHARGE)
Ground-Water Underflow. Coyote Narrows
^Surface-Water Recharge
if '"*•* "I•.:•''* !LGaSed recharge from Coyote Creek and ponds
•fci ; ,U ;',";»'' '•" IJJngaged (estimated) Coyote Creek recharge
„, .,;.,;: ;....., ; . . .;,,§u,adiailupe Creek and ponds
'* " "Mountain runoff
.;,,),, :;t j „ ,i ; ifrecipitation and applied water
!, :,il| 1'"1"""1 I : lull I i N "\'|il'"' "'" ' III' I :' I , ' /''I Ink ,,"!|I|S^^^^^ «;! V" ' „ 'I !:,L,' "' ": ' ' ll1' ' ' ',"„ ."11111 ...' ' 'I,
OUTFLOWS (DISCHARGE)
Ggound-Water Pumpage
V1'
Average Annual Amount*
'I I "Acre-feet
7,900
16,000-20,000
3,700
9,100
...1,000
6,000
"*: I1' 'I'"'"*,'i.111 iliiiltt'i".!1 '"i."'.
i"!"!!!! "«
."i1-! i-i
;., • ' ''Fairchiid ' ' ' ' "
Great Oaks Water Company
San Jose Water Company
Others
j.' Ground-Water''Underflow'.'' Edenvale Gap
TOTAL INFLOWS (RECHARGE)
TOTAL OUTFLOWS (DISCHARGE)
mgd**
7.1
14.3-17.9
3.3
8.1
0.9
5.4
10,400
6,600
11,800
3,100
1,700
21,000-40,000
: li
43,700-47,000
54,600-73,600
(6,900)-(29,900) (6.2)-(26.7)
9.3
5.9
10.5
2.8
1.5
18.7-35.7
39.0-42.6
48.7-65.7
iiiiil: a
":,;,ij lilliil'if .,/
NET CHANGE INSTORAGE
' i|li!illl, , ' Hi..!''!;'"-!'! ,;' i "I.:,')!!,', lull..Illllil" '• I'lUllllil;, ' ' !'" .:„ . '-'U , "> ,'•', ,:"' [( .,!• /I* "'-.
^All values except surface-water inflows based on 1985 data. Surface-water
inflows based on historical data. Amounts estimated using methods described
..it "li!'iii HLA Reference 1.
**pgd-M!Ilion gallons per day.
"'' .1 WIWFi "I!!1!!!..;,,:!.. '
.*'. ,iiiflill!1; '.ft1 L..I
WDCR428/064.50
I"!!"!, /" , i'"' '.111'" "'.Illfliil'll "!>;:'|!,B
'•I I* ,;, , ,"" '. iillliy1, illiil*!
-------
-------
fmm;.l N'Pf m • • • lilt i!I'" !• "Sil'T! Fit ' ! III1!11"!1! aillltr i '!'. ' ""' '>, I": • f".'- "'"""I" , Hi 1' •'• I I'"!!!1! f» IS
ii!T:l " i "1 11"!!!1!1 *'; 1IFI'I11'1" ''WE' fill"* •1]l:BHH['ViiHI "' •' • i'lKii'!"11'1
EXPLANATION
Selected well used to define
cross section (s)
Selected extraction vyell used
to define cross section (s)
Cross section location; cross sections are
shown on Plates B1-4, B1-5, and B1-6
(36-BCD) Proposed well identification number
2000
4000 feet
Diablo Range
DRAFT 1
\
Source: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogaotoglc Studies,
Draft Comprehensive Plan, IBM Groundwater Restoration Program.
Figure 3
CROSS SECTION LOCATION MAP
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
W^v.. Oak Hill
HILLSDALEV<%,. Jg
SENTER ROAD Jj
CAPtTOL EXPRESSWAY
Santa Teresa Hills
-------
11!1:1:!!1 t iil¥! ,'!:'n IBSi'illlallllflfrJi.''^!:*!!!!!!'!!!"11 '"'''If'lllliSIEiPTI'ailliliiillllHi;: Ilirwi ','!!'i,!'!! .A 14 '•: 'i;;!!!!!'1,!"1!'1 'i"!I "I I1' '' '•" '!'!i
-------
-------
WOC4tSZ1.AO.02
-
g
Northwest S
200-
ISO-
100-
o-
H>
u* ..«
tu —SO-
ii.
-100-
Ul
tu
-150-
-200-J
38D 39-D
(UO'W).(130*EJ
ill
lit **
O "
£3 c
2 i
co 5
36-BC T
(36-BCD)ORBC-3i
(160'E)(180
30-BC
(130'NE)
c
o
Q «
— *
LU £
to"
29-C
§ i
O ^^
ui -."'
^ 200-,
Ul
« 150-
Ul
m
100-
50-
Ul
ul
u.
Z
O
I
3-50-1
0-
5 O c
I g|
I i C-4 0-11
* D-1 (70'W) (225'NE)
C-16
(695'SW)
(I
2^]S2s
Source: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of
Hydrogaologto Studte*, Draft Comprahenslve Plan,
IBM Groundwatar Restoration Program.
NOTES: This cross section represents one interpretation of the
geologic data from the wells and borings shown.
Distribution of chemicals based on Plates B2-3, B2-12, B2-15, B2-1
and B2-20 and more recent chemical data for some areas of the D-
and E-aquifer zones.
Cross 'section location shown on Plate B1-3.
-------
—50
UJ
co
LU
ill
5
CO
HI
LU
100
g
HI
_l
01
150
I 200
EXPLANATION
A"
Southeast
r-200 3
LU
-150
-100
-50
-0
LU
<
UI
03
1 z
UI MI
I-
LU
LU
36-BC -<- Well number
(36-BCD)-*- Proposed well number
(120'NE)-<- Distance and direction from
— section line to well
Predominantly silts and clays
.;g--;.
'
Predominantly sands and gravels;
letter indicates aquifer zone
Bedrock (see HLA Ref. 8 for
Edenvale Gap details)
•Bottom of boring
MEAN 1985 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CONCENTRATIONS IN AQUIFER ZONES:
* No chemical data for this zone
1985 chemical data not available for zones
below the D-aquifer zone
<1.0 ppb
•1.0-10 ppb
10-100 ppb
1000
I
SCALE
Vertical exaggeration = 10x
2000 feet
I
Figure 4
GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION OF MEAN 1985 TCA
CONCENTRATIONS IN CROSS SECTION A-A"
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
"11
''(I
'II
|l '. "Tllll
-------
-------
:i Jill
I ',' i I
1'! il-IIMi,
'i1, li'iii
Z
o
>- B*
BO D
LLI
South •? North
200—
3
% 150-
LU
_l
§ W 10o-
rr z
t <
5 u
LU S
lu i" 50~
O
m
H- 0 —
in
LU
LU
LL
-50-
C-7 D-2 C-3 C-1 D-1 C-2 B-16
(160'W) /en- R»
-.*i*.'
-•/j'^i
™
."•" '* !
".**."•
* '*• !*•
^
'*ft"» *•»**•
g^
=.•2
* "•* .•"•'. '
•'jC»'"»'"*
V: "/
'^ .<:'
-r.'
•**:
__.
•"~
•-.* * *'.,*^T^r"* T
""" *^' -M^ J^ ** ," I
^^^ "* "flT^**'
~T""*T- "*"*--^
*****",£••. .•••'*»••
^''.Vv
:-v^->:>^
togg
• " .' -T^
ii^iiii-^
^ ^.
"*-*• —
'Tt T" ^~ ^
;••:":"•"•' •'*'•
ii^iyi
i*r.
**rtl
i-
• r1;
:J*
i*^
i-
r— T--*. ~*~f— *— •• " ••
•:*v*.*;:">''~*">*7^- — «• -__ ___
-^^— ^.
""" — - — "- L'-ii
W5S5f
T7f^^^jrii^
i:^^^
^ ^
— — *TT'*^.\?
'.*; ••";•' :.'.;.*
.v/.';C!::'i.:ig
BSSspS
rswjs*'-
^^xg:J
^li
IS
!7;-!5xr
•Hi:
•"v.-TT™
'.*••".*•'**•'•
Ci'ii"^*' -
*"
lj_- , u
~~r
.•-£• 1;
r200
-150
-100
-50
-0
--50
Southwest
LU
LU
200-n
< 150-
Z *"
o z
E r3!
< ^ 100-
ui 5
_i iu
LU
LU
LL
0-
14-C
D'
Northeast
200
-150
-so
-0
EXPLANATION
(36-BCK- Well number
(36-BCD)"*- Proposed well number
(120'NEf*- Distance and direction from
— section line to well
.
•«?':
Predominantly silts and clays
Predominantly sands and gravels;
letter indicates aquifer zone
Bedrock (see HLA Ref. 8 for
Edenvale Gap details)
Bottom of boring
MEAN 1985 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CONCENTRATIONS IN AQUIFER ZONES:
* No chemical data for this zone
1985 chemical data not available for zones
below the D-aquifer zone
<1.0 ppb
1.0-10 ppb
10-100 ppb
So
Dr
-------
LU
z
o
C £ C'
Southwest S Northeast
1
_i 200-
LU
LU
< 150-
III
z
5|! 100-
LU
Q
CD
< 50-
^
LU
LU
LL
"" o-l
4-C 13-D 10-D e-
26_c (65'SE) (70'NW) (640-NW) ^
5
-**33?S
iHs*
= c
'i'-
_L_ . ^
^v^:^^"
;^^
^^ — - *"r "
.^rr.'r-v?^:^
>i:^:^.C;:;;;;-^;
-—•-•:*•
— •—
^^ ;,
"T'-T^v^^
55sTJS5fs
i'a-'ig^;
JjIT-^r-. -
•*».•• •. .'•.'{.'•;•
• V •' . '•.•"•'
i_i --^-- '— *•
•••tf °*f-'^.;
lii—.*-*— ' — •"
^-5^
«?tstsrr7"T".."TT r
^i&£J2
. _ _ ^— — • T^-'-'v.-!
•':':' •.'.' •'•'•.•':i--"^
\ • V.* -i, "•» •* " — •"-
•••*- • ••
-C
r-rrr
— — —
"™""^
^•P
-200
-150
-100
-50
— o
West
z
g
o
LU
36-BC
E'
East
i£UU —
150 —
Ul
> 100-
LU
§w 50-
2 Z
- <
52
J LU g
. 0
m
ui -50-
LU
u.
-100-
-150-
(36-
37-BC
_
?
^
8C
^-::
BCD) 40-BC
35-BC(95>N)
*;:>. •...
;,%?'•>:;'.•.••.
""»*•
y. •
'. J-^ •
-200
-150
-100
— 50
— 0
50
100
1SO
HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogeotoglc Studies
nprohenslve Plan, IBM Groundwater Restoration Program. '
NOTES: This cross section represents one interpretation
of the geologic data from the wells and borings shown.
Distribution of chemicals based on Plates B2-3, B2-12,
B2-15, and B2-18and more recent chemical data for
some areas of the D-aquifer zone.
Cross-section location shown on Plate B1-3.
0
1000
2000 feet
SCALE
Vertical exaggeration = lOx
K"& A F°"
if
Figure 5
GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION OF MEAN TCA
CONCENTRATIONS IN CROSS SECTIONS B-B',
C-C', D-D', AND E-E1
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
IF" „,' j, pi1 1
-------
Table 3
TARGET REMEDIATION GOALS FOR THE A-AQUIFER ZONE
Chemical
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Freon 11
Freon 12
Freon 113
N-Methyl Pyrrolidone
Isopropanol
Acetone
Ethyl Amyl Ketone
Shell Sol 140
Xylene
Toluene
Benzene
Concentration
(ppb)
40
6.0
20
200
6
16
5
4
3,400
750
18,000
700
450
700
123
1,000
440
100
0.07
Source of Goal
DHS Action Level1
DHS Action Level
DHS Action Level
DHS Action Level
DHS Action Level
DHS Action Level
DHS Action Level
DHS Action Level
20% of EPA RfD3
DHS Action Level
DHS Site Criteria4
DHS Site Criteria
20% of EPA Rfd
DHS Site Criteria
DHS Site Criteria
EPA Lifetime Health
Advisory5
DHS Action Level
DHS Action Level
^Department of Health Services 1987a.
^Department of Health Services 1986c.
Environmental Protection Agency 1987.
Department of Health Services 1987b.
Environmental Protection Agency 1985b.
RfD denotes Reference Dose.
Source:
KJC, Comprehensive Plan, IBM Ground-water Restoration Program,
June 1987.
WDCR428/058.50
-------
""iif In1' 3 '' '"I11 I
.. , '",., ', , , : , Table 4
TARGET REMEDIATION GOALS FOR THE B-, C-, D-, AND E-AQUIFER ZONES
Chemical
irFreon 113
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
"™': 1,1-pichlprpethylene
1,1-Dichlproethane
Freon 11
Trichloroethylene .
Chloroform
Methylene Chlororide
Concentrat ion
(pt>b)
45003
50
1,5
5
850^
3.1
6.0
4.8
Source
0.25 DHS Action Level1
0.25 DHS Action Level
0.25 DHS Action Level
•;., ;,;. !;",.;,.: "•'. ',!" , : .:..
0.25 DHS Action Level
I II ]!.»', , ,, '< . ,»!,
0.25 DHS Action Level
':,- \ ''"" ' ;":":"; '": "
ID"6 Risk Level2
Risk Level
'Department of Health Services 1987a.
^Environmental Protection Agency 1987.
3Current concentrations found in the B- and deeper-aquifer zones
I are substantially below the target goals shown here.
Source: KJC, Comprehensive Plan, IBM Groundwater Restoration Program, June
1987.
WDCR428/057I50
>' ', n i! il "I'1'1!!1 II:! '!!& "
•• s
-------
-------
23-A
CHYNOWETH AVENUE
>5-A
.4-A
BLOSSOM HILL ROAD
A-35
__PROPOSEp_WEST VALLEY FREEWAY
»A-
SANTA
TERESA
BOULEVARD
So
Dr
-------
EXPLANATION
• A;28 Monitoring well with identification number
ARA-2 Extraction well with identification number
XA-B Abandoned well
(19-BU) Proposed identification number
* Background water quality well
NOTE: Wells installed as of 6/1/87.
RA-2 only active well as of April 1988
DRAFT
HLA. Juna, 1987. AppandlxB: Summary of Hydrogaologlc Studlas,
imprehansiva Plan, IBM Groundwatar Restoration Program.
Figure 6
WELL LOCATION MAP
MONITORING AND EXTRACTION WELLS
IN THE A-AQUIFER ZONE.
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
I j
-------
WDC61621.AO.Ce
EXPLANATION
Monitoring well with identification number
A Extraction well with identification number
X Abandoned monitoring well
* Background water quality well
NOTE: Wells installed as of 6/1/87
Source: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogeologle Studies
Draft Comprehensive Plan, IBM Groundwater Restoration Program. '
Figure 7
WELL LOCATION MAP
MONITORING AND EXTRACTION WELLS
IN THE ON-SITE B-AQUIFER ZONE.
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
I', V,M i "-,•, ,; i.",' . ,. , •,"'Hllli'ii j If II ill, m
i;1',-. • :(: :,). ' -.if" ,., i;:t MIS i f *'l
I:'J' in:!'.' LI! i"
i:;"i;,, „ I, i,, rilliiUaiN, • '• ," ;„»[,:,! >, . >,< ,
i,,n,, ,,„;;, iii 1111 ii, .jiiiii, i iiiiii, ,„ L , iii,: jiijiSh aiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 'ii i jiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii, iliiiiiiiiBi iiiiiiiS idiiiS^^^^^^^
, „ ,, , , j ,
1 mi! "'i,,.ill1'!!' ':,., , ' (" ! i,l • , ||' i, I,1 Jill' ":!»:"
-------
-------
HAPITOL EXPRESSWAY
Santa Teresa Hilts
-------
EXPLANATION
7-BU Monitoring well with identification number
Extraction well with identification number
«•*
(36-BCD) Proposed well with identification number
NOTE: Wells installed as of 6/1/87.
NUE
HAYES AVENUE
See Plate B1-24foronsite
B-Aquifer wells.
.
Figure 8
WELL LOCATION MAP
MONITORING AND EXTRACTION WELLS
Source: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogeotofllc Studies, «N THE OFF-SITE B-AQUIFER ZONE
Draft Comprehensive Plan, IBM Groundwater Restoration Program. IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
"ilV » . ' „>!!}' III'"!
:'. IP
I 1 1
" ..1
-------
-------
E%^^^0e
CAPiTOL EXPRESSWAY
Santa Teresa Hills
-------
EXPLANATION
38-Rf*
• Monitoring well with identification number
AORBC-3 Extraction well with identification number
(36-BCD) Proposed well identification number
* Background water quality well
NOTE: Wells installed as of 6/1/87
2000
SCALE
4000 feet
Diablo Range
Figure 9
WELL LOCATION MAP
MONITORING AND EXTRACTION WELLS
•iLA. Juna, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogaologic Studies, IN THE C-AQUIFER ZONE.
iprehanslva Plan, IBM Groundwatar Restoration Program. , IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
I!!!!'1
c; (i-:
-------
-------
CAPITOL EXPRESSWAY
Santa Teresa Hilts
-------
EXPLANATION
Monitoring well with identification number
NOTE: Wells installed as of 6/1/87
'ENUE
HAYES AVENUE
Figure 10
WELL LOCATION MAP
MONITORING AND EXTRACTION WELLS
Sourca: HLA. Juna, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogaologlc Studiac, IN THE D- AND E-AQUIFER ZONES
Draft Comprahansiva Plan, IBM Groundwatar Rastoration Program. IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
fill: , !i I .'I1!!!', i ' "lit
,'!'' . ' 'i ! { 1
ill pf1 jiff ,i PI
"Mif F1/ ' •" I
-------
-------
WCC«1S21JW3.CC
—
WELL
A-17
A— 99
C.C.
A-29
RA-2
RA-3
RA-4
DA e
RA""5
RA-6
RA-7
RA-9
RA-10
RA-13
B-3
RB-1
RB-2
RB-3
RB-4
RB-5
RB-6
C-1
RC--
ORB-1
ORC-1
ORBC-2
ORBC-3
AVERAGE
|
r~
1
— ^ ^ O
....y-y^ ^
£%L .......... - '
lii ii
1983 1984
-i
— 4 UV/PI 1 DMT OF SFRV
WELL OUT
F SERVICE
1 - ,..._,.
__ „„...„._
»S|?7KSiSS;'-*:''
i/i-X^ x*s -v- '•OS^J'v.^.l:
1
EXPLANATION
Average monthly flow rate in gallons per minute (gpm) based on weekly meter readings:
^r-r\ ji-n nnn BS-«*f»»»»iffK»«:->:-:si:S5ft«I r* n n nnn }"-V.* \' ' ^C^v^iJ ^*J >150C
'' tf.&'t/ ff/J^. "f'{.?'.\
<
«
I
•I I
lit IK
-------
W RATE (gpm)
1986
—i r
1987
DRAFT
Figure 11
AVERAGE MONTHLY GROUND-WATER
: HLA. Juna, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogeologlc Studte*, EXTRACTION RATES
Dmprehensiva Plan, IBM Groundwator Restoration Program. IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
i I!,,,! ;,.'•; a/T IS ,11 .|'»i,i \s J '
-------
Table 5
INSTALLATION AND APRIL 1988 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF GROUND-WATER EXTRACTION WELLS
Well
Ons ite Areas
Building 001
A-22
A-17
Aquifer Zone
Dates of
Installation/Operation
A
A
Tank Farm 067/Bti-n.dine QQ6
A-291 A
Boundary Well«
A-31
RA-2
RA-3
RA-4
RA-5
RA-6
RA-7
RA-9
RA-10
RA-13
RB-1
RB-2
RB-3
RB-4
RB-5
RB-6
B-3
C-l
RC-1
Offsite
ORB-1
ORC-1
ORBC-2
ORBC-3
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
C
B
B
May 1982 to November 1984
August 1983 to August 1984
December 1982 to August 1983
June 1983 to August 1983
June 1983 to present
June 1983 to August 1983
June 1983 to August 1983
June 1983 to October 1983
June 1983 to August 1983
June 1983 to September 1983
June 1983 to October 1983
June 1983 to February 1984
August 1983 to December 1983
June 1983 to April 1988
June 1983 to present
June 1983 to present
June 1983 to April 1988
June 1985 to April 1988
May 1987 to April 1988
October 1983 to May 1987
June 1983 to April 1988
June 1985 to April 1988
November 1983 to present
November 1983 to April 1988
March 1984 to April 1988
December 1984 to present
April 1988
Extraction
Rate (gpm)
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
400
250
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
800
because o£ building construction
Source: KJC, Draft Supplement, Comprehensive Plan, 1988.
WDCR428/059.50
-------
II 1111
3 ! Hi =1 I!',*'11 1'
-------
-------
WDC8182I.AO.02
Oak HU!
H!LLSDALE:';v;'/ ..Jii^b:
SENTER ROAD
CAPITOL EXPRESSWAY
BRANHAM LANE
Scale: 1"=1000'
Contour Interval: 2.0 feet
Scale: 1"=1000'
Interval : 2.0 feet
-------
o
EXPLANATION
Water level elevation contours in feet
above Mean Sea Level (MSL)
Contour Interval : 1.0 foot
Location of monitoring well and measured
water level elevation.
Location of extraction well and approxi-
mate water level elevation corrected for
well loss.
Contours in this area are based partially
on BC-aquifer zone data.
General area in which B-aquifer water
levels have declined below screened
interval of well.
Estimated limit of the zone of capture
of the extracted wells.
2000 4000 feet
SCALE
Diablo Range
DRAFT
Figure 13
WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS IN THE
ourca: HLA. Juna,1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogaotoglc Studies, B-AQUIFER ZONE, JUNE 1986
raft Comprahonsive Plan, IBU Groundwatar Raatoratlon Program. . IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
i-;
I
"it
JK
(.!.!",; , ,' j
-------
-------
^PROPOSED WEST VAUEY FREEWAY
^^^^^^^^^
-------
,171.58
i7.7S_
—144-
A
K8.28
EXPLANATfON
Water level elevation contours in feet
above Mean Sea Level (MSL)
Contour Interval : 1.0 foot
Location of monitoring well and measured
water level elevation.
Location of extraction well and approxi-
mate water level elevation. Operating
extraction well indicated with * ; all
other wells inoperable.
General area in which A-Aquifer water
levels have declined below bottom of well.
Isolated dewatered areas not shown.
1000
2000 feet
SCALE
.SEE INSET
DRAFT
Source: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogeologic Studies,
Draft Comprehensive Plan, IBM Groundwater Restoration Program.
Figure 12
WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS IN THE
A-AQUiFER ZONE, JUNE 1986
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
,j " Jill;; - ', lliiif-.!
II
i' ' ,! •«.'
IliiJIJinliil !,i: liIiLmJeiiininJmiiiih ii iiiiiiiiiiiiliilil!iil!i,ii|:Jiii!iii;iiiiii;|;i .nLJiiill'Ikili iJJIII
-------
-------
-0
-4-
2000
SCALE IN FEET
4000
N
1984
Source: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogeotogle Studlee,
Draft Comprehensive Plan, IBM Groundwater Restoration Program.
-------
EXPLANATION
Chemical concentration contours in ppb, based
on mean concentrations in samples collected
from monitoring and extraction wells during the
period specified in the title.
Location of monitoring well from which samples
were collected.
Location of extraction well from which samples
were collected.
Location of monitoring well from which no
samples were collected or well installed
subsequent tc the period specified in the title.
Location of extraction well from which no
samples were collected or well installed
subsequent to the period specified in the title.
1986
DRAFT
Figure 14
TCA IN THE A-AQUIFER ZONE, SECOND
QUARTER 1984 AND SECOND QUARTER 1986
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
"It 'i,
t',
'.$ f'li ''i
'iS'"1". h..,i'' " 1
I
-------
-------
WOCSI821.AO.Ui
!!!!!" g ijtii i
iili
B tilt
iiiiiiiiiiiifi
'^CHYN'OWET H AVENUE
BLOSSOM HILL ROAD
J
i!
/!
PROPOSED WEST VALLEY FREEWAY L
_SANTA
TERESA
BOULEVARD
1000
2000
Source: HLA. January, 1989. Quarterly Raport, September 1988
through Dacamber 1988, IBM Groundwator Restoration Program.
SCALE IN FEET
-------
. 10
EXPLANATION
Chemical concentration contour in ppb.
based on mean concentraiions m samples
collected (com monitoring and extraction
wafts during ihe period specified in the title.
Monitoring wel
Location of A-Aquifer Zone monitoring well
in which samples were not collected
because of low water levels.
Figure 15
TCA IN THE A-AQUIFER ZONE
DURING THE PERIOD 9/26/88 - 12/30/88
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
.-:.! ."I ..... I "IIH ..... 'i 'i1'!
in*1 • «"i,:' i i-s
, III ; I " - I i'
ITU;:: .'
til! i
I' "II '"l! , Ji II |
IIJiliY , Hi :!' !H
...... ...... in ..... |ia'< ,:.'i: ...... .
!!!: ........ • ^ ..iii ..... [• liUJliiiHIi .I ..... miliiiiin'iieiiMiidii..!! ...... i ..... iiiiiaijliiiiintil ......... ijiiiiliLiJiJu, ..... n :£ •:,:: t.
i ........... >M^:M ...... a ........ il ..... ,'
I'liillihii;;:,!!:! „,'! iJlllil i, tlr
-------
-------
Ill 111111 II II II 111 111 III I II 111
\VTX81S21AOX2
I* Ik'"
2000
4000
SCALE IN FEET
N
1984
Source: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of HydrogeotogEc Studies,
Draft Comprehensive Plan, IBM Groundwater Restoration Program.
-------
-EXPLANATION
Chemical concentration contours in ppb, based
on mean concentrations in samples collected
from monitoring and extraction wells during the
period specified in the title.
Location of monitoring well from which samples
were collected.
Location of extraction well from which samples
were collected.
Location of monitoring well from which no
samples were collected or well installed
.subsequent to the period specified in the title.
Location of extraction well from which no
samples were collected or well installed
subsequent.to the period specified in the title.
1986
DRAFT
Figure 16
1,1-DCE IN THE A-AQUIFIER ZONE, SECOND
QUARTER 1984 AND SECOND QUARTER 1986
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
-------
-------
•€>"CHYN'OVVcTH AVENUE
BLOSSOM HILL ROAD
PROPOSED WEST VALLEY FREEWA
Sourc«: HLA. January, 1888. Quarterly Raport, S«ptomb«r 1988
through D«c«mb«f 1888, IBM GroundwaUr Rastoratton Program.
SCALE IN FEET
Illllll III Hill I III I III III' llllllllilli|i|i||||llllH
11 mil in in ni 111 MI i ill I H i ii ii 1111 ii in I ill
-------
EXPLANATION
Chemical concentration contour-in ppb,
• 10 based on mean concentrations in samples
collected from monitoring and extraction
weBs during the period specified in the title.
O Mentoring we*
A Extraction wefl
j. Location of A-AquHer Zone monitoring weU
in which samples were not collected
because of low water levels.
Figure 17
1,1 -DCE IN THE A-AQUIFER ZONE,
DURING THE PERIOD 9/26/88 -12/30/88
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
-------
-------
4000
8000
— SCALE IN FEET
N
1984
Source: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogeologlc Studies,
Draft Comprehensive Plan, IBM Groundvrater Restoration Program.
mi 11 mi 11i|ii IIHIII
-------
EXPLANATION
Chemical concentration contours in ppb, based
on mean concentrations in samples collected
from monitoring and extraction wells during the
period specified in the title.
Location of monitoring well from which samples
were collected.
Location of extraction well from which samples
were collected.
Location of monitoring well from which no
samples were collected or well installed
subsequent to the period specified in the title.
Location of extraction well from which no
samples were collected or well installed
subsequent to the period specified in the'title.
1986
DRAFT
Figure 18
TCA IN THE B-AQUIFIER ZONE, SECOND
QUARTER 1984 AND SECOND QUARTER 1986
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
I! H'lV IIIH S"i i'Si "I"''Hi':;!!,''!Jilli! , •Ill1 1 fa!!';; •W'tI H B",l' '•"'.H|,'.' il' lit! ''C"fTmif,™' il'!•"•i'BM" : •* WHiTJ.'i1:1'! "''ilEll! 'MTKaMvi KTOnWR ' ' ""iii t" ••' fi "t; !! ' ; EH I HI"1' >m H i'
«""'II >"i fil
-------
-------
-------
RFdge
o
A
EXPLANATION
Chemical concentration contour in ppb.
based on mean concentrations in samples
collected from monitoring and extraction
wefis during the period specified in the title.
Monitoring wefl
Extraction wefi
Location of B-Aquifer Zone monitoring wel
in which samples were not coflected
because of low water levels.
*!8ivi GENERAL
PRODUCTS DIVISION
: HLA. January, 1989. Quarterly Ftoport, Septembar 1988
i Dflcamber 1988, IBM Groundwator Rastoratkm Program.
Figure 19
TCA IN THE B-AQUIFIER ZONE, DURING
THE PERIOD 9/26/88 -12/30/88
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
in llll in 11111111(1 i in i i in in in in iiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiii ii i ••ill mi iiii
nil inn i i nni nil 11'it in inn • in iii'i'i'inniiiiiiriiiiiiiiiii
-------
-------
EXPLANATION
Chemical concentration contours in ppb, based
on mean .concentrations in samples collected
from monitoring and extraction wells during the
period specified in the title.
Location of monitoring well from which samples
were collected.
Location of extraction well from which samples
were collected.
Location of monitoring well from which'no
samples were collected or well installed
subsequent to the period specified in the title.
I .
Location of extraction well from which no
samples were collected or well installed •
subsequent to the period specified in the title.
'"'''"1 ™"' "'"'" ' " " "'''~~
1986
Figure 20
1,1-DCE IN THE B-AQUIFIER ZONE, SECOND
QUARTER 1984 AND SECOND QUARTER 1986
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
WDC 61621 .AO.02
4000
8000
SCALE IN FEET
N
1984
Sourc*: HUL Jurw, 1M7. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogeotogic Stydls»,
Draft Comprahonaive Plan, IBM Groundwator Raatoratlon Program.
-------
1siill'li, "HIM
j:11,"' mi! Jim i "mi lli' 'AH""
-------
-------
illllii ill nil 1 I 111 II llllilill ill nip I Illllllll llllliill ill l| ill III I |ll
111 Ill 1111 111 111 III III 111 111 111 I III illllllll Illlllllll Illllll 111 I 111
Wfy,,,. OakHiii '.
-------
EXPLANATION
Chemical concentration contour In ppb,
based on mean concentrations in samples
collected from monitoring and extraction
wells during the period specified in the title
Monitoring well
Extraction wefl
Location of B-Aquifer Zone monitoring well
in which samples were not coOected
because- of low water levels.
IBM GENERAL
PRODUCTS DIVISION
roe: HLA. January, 1989. Quarterly Report, September 1988
ugh December 1988, IBM Groundwater Restoration Program.
Figure 21
1,1-DCE IN THE B-AQUIFER ZONE,
DURING THE PERIOD 9/26/88 - 12/30/88
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
Ill II
111 111
ll II1
;,,|. II Villij!"' >'•(' iill!
II ' ilhilff L
111 '
-------
WDC 61621 .AO.02
Source: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix 8: Summary of Hydrogeotogic Studlea,
Draft Comprehensive Plan, OBM Qroundwater Restoration Program.
Figure 22
CHEMICAL MASS EXTRACTED B-AQUIFER ZONE
BOUNDARY EXTRACTION SYSTEM
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
I
Ill
il"'," li'SIl i! ....... i!" ;,", ,'i;"
lull; I I1"' till,"
,,iH;;,|,,,;|i'!j|ii "ill!,;;,1 iv • "; i;,; ,„,'" ;•;•' "4 ; ;.,. "*£» *$ "[t ".|:i ;lf'' i • .;' ^'fl
j I, ,,ri •!," t 'P1! T I1 i1 "'!'•''''',, ii,: i i" , !.', ; " ,.,(„:, ,,:"ii.ii':, :,"iiiii|i,,,i,,, ,!•'„! • 'ly ,ri!r i IK,
;III,, : ,i"'i"li,,, ll'i,'IIPI'i':
nil lii s;]1 -v , . liiK UK :fi
I'i'llif ,V II,' ,:,"'- , , , ! • "' i'I "', ,„ ' Ji'1 ;
'ill'1 ,;,;, iii; ' ::n< .."•$ LI.*"^,*/ t
i 'Ii'"!!''.:! »' I" ' ' "J j,!'1 I,,i,1!1
n: I'vy, "in 1:1,' n iiii'iini,'!", iimin , •• i , "I'lr , ' ,,i " hii1 |lia
Ii , ,1,1:11,, iC'i i i, , iii' , I,,,', „„ (ii,';,:,I!< HP nillllililT m, ,, j »«|M' '" M1 ,'Hi'iii, ,. • •) isiv.
SillV
,| I''11"1!!!!!'; 'Ii,, 'ff' "•' ,, Ifiji'ii "
'i1 iii'1'"18'!'i "I'1'' ' ,ii',," ,„", 'Vi'll'llMi,,. I'liii '
'' l|"1'1 '.imiiuR '"i!!!1111!1!'1'1,,1!!! 1 I
1: i 'f^f i >:l|iii>:i 'niiiiiii'U
„!/' • I
.fi'i',I"-'.,*, iS'TIEK,; IT' n , . SMt i''"'i!l iVf
!;,„ 1 !"vi, I,';, I,""" Til!"' "I IiK'liiiTilb, ' I lit1,* <¥ IWIIBIIIIIIi,,,, RBH" ,, i,":l">i" J! IP1! !:i All1'"!'!, in. "11 •
!„'•' ,.'"I'liiiJ !' iiliii'ir,:! „„ 1l"'1 ' J ',',:' Hi, !
H ' " 'Mil .iifE'i,1 ,'' , ''I ' i -I '.'/"'U.'.ili'iiiiiiniT"1 if1': iiii, "/ii "i
;„' 14,t „; , M, | ,'H ft,,.
j I!"I' I,!1!1'1''"I Til11 I11'1!1: I '
Hlfti,:'!11' im?1!' !"
,,
^ : i i"
"I i 1,1,1, ;„',;,:;:!",in" ""ii' mi,,"' » 'j .LIP'n,t IU» ^»>,
1 ,f „ ', Hi1,:1 ,,,,,,, W;!'!':1, ' i i1;!!, iis,;,-!!1, ,Piijiji/i
i• •
'I; ."Ea'lf I •'IF ;,;»«!! •I".".'
"Will! „', JII!1,Hi!!1:i.
:!•'. IS'"! "ll'viii:1 , I!'!" t ;"l'l' , i,1,!, >i DtH>" dill- • IliW' • H11
I h i •, I- ; ii, : ; ..... is
! •? Jif lii:"1
• ..... !-» '
Pjjji,; .;«., I ,2 ,!';;;
H,''' ",;'J h !!;
'n I,,,,'1!'!,' "|.i' ' "I'l1
,• 't /a s» f 1
, iv.' ...... , ...... ' , ,,,"!!!,„ ...... - ........... I .......... „•!! ..... I
'. ..... Mill, it .' ,, » ,,, „,!"«„„ If ff. S1 /IB1 «: '!
' ,,ii iii, 'sil '' ^
,1,; i.'
IIII 111
II I II II
II III 111
'ii:!'1 .i"1,; "'••] ,«",.} zx
w,,! 'i1',!!,- i,,-,, ,jt (, ,, isi1",;, raini ,i|,i,!i, , i we
t?"iis$•<.-,•!•' ,,i;i;i,!ii, «s i-ilii1:,:,, :« <;
-------
-------
1, 1 "1 1 1 I 1 1 ll 1 ,1
1
1 II 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 II ' 1 1
, , 1
, • ' • ;!; ••:•'•!
WPG e teat
I, i1 riJiKtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiilii i,1; INI
H
• liiEillllll IIISIIII Hill'1"
pin !:li HIM, III jni!"1'! IK ,11'"
hii iiii:iininniiiiii:iW'b u ''ii'iiii,!,!
s
^^^ ..... "•
(T
4000
8000
SCALE IN FEET
N
198
Sourca: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogaologic Studios,
Draft Comprehensive Plan, IBM Groundwatar Rastoratlon Program.
ii
ill1 u i,, 11 i i I a I 11
-------
EXPLANATION
Chemical concentration contours in ppb, based
on mean concentrations in samples collected
from monitoring and extraction wells during the
period specified in the title.
Location of monitoring well from which samples
were collected.
Location of extraction well from which samples
were collected.
Location of monitoring well from which no
samples were collected or well installed
subsequent to the period specified in the title.
Location of extraction well from which no
samples were collected or well installed
subsequent to the period specified in the title.
1986
Figure 23
TCA IN THE C-AQUIFIER ZONE, SECOND
QUARTER 1984 AND SECOND QUARTER 1986
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
l,i IT ' J!,i. ' ' ' |||! '• '"I ' . . 7 '•' ' " „ . i'.| •'' ' ,, ' , , • ",||,li' ,'!' ' | '•'
m^mi lii IWIUililli lit,, "t. IIIIIIK -Kit !) : <„ • i i-1"" :' '• lii!!!!!!!!.!1. iiiiBIl i1,,,.:,,!! • :i" i, ' ' > „ „ ""', ••ill1'!1:11 I1!";, ,'i11:! :! ' '• "" ':,(" , IWIU iSti'ifii'.ili.i.iiil !:l "iinii't, •"'> , li,!'!"',,:1 ffjft, p' ill, i'i Mltflt.unml ->!!£' i
jiSg f'lin^ i; j jfflpifi i 'iifP'11!1' ''lif1'11' ill ' ' ''' "i'i iF1 * '"'"I '' !< ;l ••ii|i"t"<;i|iiiil> !ll"J I! •• •'• l!> i , liri'ii" ' ilHi!ri':i,f!'ir' >fii'-l'l T: -f^ • r ^ ; ": ;: ™fr, ?•'•;• , !;ir^ ••! y ™ !: ^ f ?»f t* *
»•;;;— -;• ; ;;-;;;; ; ; — ;• ; ;•;• : - i ;•; •; | -;_;;;; ; - • :_ .•_;.•••;••• ;; ;;;•;; | •; _;•;•; _
1 1 II 111 IIIIIII 111 III I III 1 IIIIIII 1 III II II
I'll (1 i)1 lii kill!/ I'lllliiill ''ill! i "I i "i i ' ' If
Illilll Ii Jfl ^M- In1'!1! in " ' i< ' < n 1 1!1!'"'"
, • p '. i ,',', , :,'(. , ' p,
It,,!,,. !' , ,!l;,,!,|!i,|.>, ;,_ , , | i- j,-., ,:.:t ,,,,, ' , m v,;!,,,,:, ,,, ,ejjlti , :|i|||||||:,|||,,i; KI-VK
'f :'<:;!;jfi' ';:iif!ii|i' .Jin 'viiiiiiiiii'ii,;;^^^^^^^^^^^^
_•;;-• ;--;; -••;•; ••••;, •••;;; :; ;— ; — ; ;;;; ;;;;-
II 1 III II 1 Illl'l II 111 111 IIIIIII II 1 II III
11 'i 1 1 N lilill IN "1 1
I! " ^hlt! Mi'lllil1111! 1, i lllllll ,11 1 ill
111 II III II II II IIIIIII I II 111
iilllli 1 III l ll mill 111"! Ill
I , f
',11 i ill
..... :it';r.iHK.
iiiiiii ...... it ; i j ....... ii.ii.; uv +' li.;:*«i ..... is • ! ........... i ..... M
<
^ s; •;.•:•: ...... -I
> : ........ '^. "*:W ..... s-
12,'! 1'^
I'::!!! I."!':'!!,;,!'' || '., \:'„•'!;'„•, »ti' \ltff.' •SW'.'.'WM,
rl!8«lil ....... 3 .............. • !• ...... !" •illllll1' ,/ ..... 'iUV - J ..... v ;,, -IMiW. ..... • " , , "'i ' •.: -i ..... Jl1
'III!-; lyilllJII ..... S, • itilCliil ..... : , Jliilliliilli; Jl" , ' • . '.',:" ;"il»Hi r' 1"| t : ' i" >-, •' , ' It, *• ,S * *;
• ..... , "|:;«!:IIS' ...... 'Wliiel^ IK. ........ "
-i „: < I ....... ..... ' :t :, ..... i'lElLi ..... „ 'I'll 'Bj*, is!"1 ..... til11 I '.WTVId. ...... ..... I,- '•• i B - " .
'ifi',;1 i1'iiii™,,,,: I.jgillfn," ,
;• ..... i ,» "-sf"-: :.«is', IKIM '
iiili ft'1,-.'' • S:,""S,l"!il mi
'•I'lOlll!1!,,," ,"!':" ''it"!,,,!"!,!1!' MllHllli",IIIIIII ''JiK^^ I1!Ill
! m•'•r<'<; •• - ;<;*' '!,,
I,'!,-! iil!!.'-!,: 1!lW^^^^ III!':'-!:,:1,:1,,,.,!!,,!,-!!,:
* , „ !.:,„» 11 '"., •; , i •
,:;t;:l;l;i!,,t.,|i:i:i
M- ..... m ...... ;>Jiii!i|!Ji .....
'i^ ..... ; : . ..... a '-
..... liistiJii
I...., .............. ............ ii
' ..... ilia: ..... ',„;, ...... i ...... (l
i ..... :':::i
-------
-------
I lljll I II I ll
-------
EXPLANATION
Chemical concentration contour in ppb,
bas«d on mean concentrations in samples
collected from monitoring and extraction
waits during the parted specified in trw titie.
Monitoring well
Extraction wsil
iM GENERAL
PRODUCTS DIVISION
ILA. January, 1989. Quarterly Report, September 1988
ecember 1988, IBM Ground water Restoration Program.
Figure 24
1,1-DCE IN THE C-AQUIFER ZONE,
DURING THE PERIOD 9/26/88 - 12/30/88
IBM-SAN JOSE SITE
-------
..5 :••
ii'iiiiii", iii'w1 ,"i,iriiiiP'", i'iii|i»ii!i:i'
riL iii'jliiiiiinir s»iiiHiiuii!!1;mv ,n;' ,,,"i v,<
i w / IWCIEV •' '^njiBiM: "::i . yft
'1' iff '\M'4f 'HUH' I :,•„', (I, ,|i!
o'ssf •>.,:,;\;i iwn* .;>••»'j' nil ii ii ' "ii'*• aisfiiiiE't;: n, • iiiiiBi'
III! II ,',!, ,, " "II1, ill" "Prl'lill l|i|l|i,i, ,'IN', hi1",, , "111 ,', „ ''I! i'l":i I1 JIHl"l|':i Ill, 'nil, I mil1 III!,
,'ijliri ""|i ">',! "IHilJllPjiTilii I, l,l!ll
l!1!!" iWlni'iH •EiiBfi1',! !"'i ,,1 it'!!:'!""' ' . • ' Jl'lS;:1!1! i I,,,,' ilJI1 "|,
illl"":llilii;,,i'" :;,liill:lllliJ'iJ|iNtill!l;li|i 'in HllliN i,,|i lliR ;
' , ',1,111 ........ iri ::s : • ..... '"t*ii"' ;i ' ii ,,;;: , r1" i <" /; ;,;' "i !' " j t~ i ; J iiLnrii"' ..... 'till I! lilH'i'llJ] „' "J',i'.,!,ni,!! ...... I'UPLi'J'S'ifll'lllll ...... " lUlr'IIIIPI'lll'JIiti Bll 'il
........ i warn1, imi ........ i ...... r ;K ...... , • fff ; > ' • ;,;,i :• m ......... '.;* :; £ ' ••' MH 1. a ..... \ *«'• , i ii:«^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ...... t ..... ,:SK ji : ••'.. • ::;, ,r,;;« <$?& ..... : ........ ' ....... ;^ ........ ;, i
llii'ii'ii!! : ..... - >' !;;iiiilll ..... • Silllf!, il ..... ;, ........ '!•, i ' , ifc '• ....... •> , Sli^S • ..... • ", •! ,,K' it - , : i'u \ f i; 1 1,1 . : ii il "lliiK flitm .......... *SS'"ff .-'I . ..... : ...... " ; ' iff ':•<. "J: ,1 ..... K; ..... "' ,,'D i!" : 'i'i\ "! .
. .< ..... ii! , "i; ;; ! ^ •
: ' : i ,, Hi ...... » ,'Hi:.:*; ....... * ' »- ..... I 'lilllllli'' fillM, •: ll"'il: ',« P'Sl:1: ....... I m " :, • ' ,,«l! ,,i ' I ,«!!" , I ..... ' ..... Illil'Ili:,
•" ivriiUiii rir i: i;i'» ~ n: " M < mihii, "''n!,1,!!,;',,1"'!,™, rHJi
r 'ii'ij'Jv ,I,IIPI<,I ..... 'H1;:! ...... inn
",m n,1!, i" ' ....... ' 'iiii
;• .'; *,•• ,
'",,r T:ii'..iii'»ii
IIIH'nyi, '; I'" ni'l'Illlll:1 Tll^ SI! ,,H ' I jir,1''11:,!1!!;!!!,;!,!"1 ,, l!lijli;, ",,'linr" | >,>l,,ii;W' Illiilfll1" !'!l!l!!llillRl:::!llll I! i, i vl- '*• t. W • M* Wt j-W'V,, • 1:1, U': f,' t i:,"'1 i:«i •:- skB i! • ^l*JH. titf'* : > :' '. ' -''' ,ffl+J -;• • •* W W' j ;",i I '*!|;.,
,i, iii;::1'1!: iiU1!1 ' *\\ti&- •; il'K "HIii:!!,'':"»".' ,i
; 'ini ;,„": i"!, ..... ]!" j'l'inn ..... r
? 'i" ...... g1 ...... t Niitiifir !!
:.! ........ a,,,,!" ...... !!"i','ii,-i i, ,"*", •! -s :,;" «
«^^^ ;„"-' i , W.Vi ;,:.;"&•,:;•. " - '.
ll i I
i III 'illllii
:" ml!',!;1!!!!1,], '',,, "llli!l!l1 ,:| ,(' 'Sji,, liiW
, ;f'V. /I,'!,1 1'1,',: '«" f iii'1 I'llllEI' ' IliHIBI IB1'"1,,,.''!','!,,1!!1 Hi,,," LfM^ffflV ' , "'iJffl !,
f- \iiifc .K BSiTiiKW
', ijt'i' ,,,< I,;: "I"',,,'-!!! i, •' '['i'! [,;„ ^iiji," i||||iiii:i iiiu,::;! .i'"'^':1 isLi'iHi "iiv"'!'!.!!!! jj:1: s1, Hi K \. rnhfiMi'ii
• in
Ii I (11111,! 'Hi III ,1 liiiliililllll1 i I1111 II II1 1111
-------
Table 6
SUMMARY OF GROUND-WATER EXTRACTION AND CHEMICAL MASS REMOVED
Freon 113
1983**
1984
1985
1986
1987
Millions
of Gallons*
735
2,150
2,865
3,154
3,243
Pounds
Removed
2,121
2,038
1,000
914
564
Total Mass
Removal Rate
(Pounds/
Million Gals.)
2.885
0.948
0.349
0.290
0.174
1
Pounds
Removed
75
284
215
219
165
, 1 , 1-TCA
Total Mass
Removal Rate
(Pounds/
Million Gals.)
0.102
0.132
0.075
0.070
0.051
Pounds
Removed
17
32
9
15
11
1,1 -DCE
Total Mass
'-Removal Rate
(Pounds/
Million Gals.)
0.023
0.015
0.003
0.005
0.003
6,637
1983**
1984
1985
1986
1987
958
Total
Pounds
Removed***
2,213
2,354
1,224
1,148
740
84
1,1,1-TCA
+ 1,1-DCE
Pounds Removed
92
316
224
234
176
7,679
1,043
*Ground water extracted by all operating extraction wells
**For the period June through December 1983
***Chemical mass removed by extraction wells (Freon 113, 1,1,1-TCA, and 1,1-DCE)
WDR428/045
-------
HELLS: Oaa-1. OBC-!. 9-8. 9-C
RATION
i
Freon 113
Detection Limit = 0.1 ppb
/rVv/. fr.W--;?.-'-
^ -
A.^J V/^\ /;-.r-./ \,-rvi\ -V/^' .
:
1983
1985
NTRATION tpp
I
TCA
Detection Limit = 0.1 ppb
MfiAil
'.TLU*
v' ^ ^
1983
19BS
1987
RATION tpp
1,1-DCE
Detection Limit = 1.0 ppb (before 1 1/84);
0.1 or 0.2 ppb (after 11/84)
i i . i . i i
(VrtofcNAft K^^^^A-v-
A^-fl^.-JL-^:i-.-.\^:.A-w. ---^^ ^. ^-
1983
1984
1986
1987
Source: HLA. June, 1987. Appendix B: Summary of Hydrogeotoglc Studies,
' Draft Comprehensive Plan, IBM Groundwater Restoration Program.
> , ~ il • >,
iiii if s''iniiiin f:jiiiiiir v: HW ''«jninnniiniij1'wviif: ILJIIM ::!i p.''iui u1"«iiiiiiU'ipihinnVi 'Miwr' i''i!:; Hi111! "' IMIK"i: 11J PIIIM i;:-i '%,:u .MIHII ,;iin
! wcm f i* m'ti '',?«riis sm^wa , R ifA' i.dRffic"'M' -„• L'V;V^; li w-'^^j
in!1 aiii'iin"" i1 nut
..:[ S 1, l! jp. "UJIII ml
JW^.'Jt^ ili!111,'.."!',
Figure 25
|lihlliiBiMrtiiiiii-iiiiijiiiiiiiiiniiii 151.1',,HJIIIIIIIBMI; MM
I'lr1:;! , .lii1!,;:!.;"!' j:"!!1!
, ORC-1,9-B AND9-C
E \ ;
-------
WDceieai.AO.o2
APPROXIMATE LIMIT
(DESIGN)
LEGEND:
MONITORING WELL
RECOVERY WELL
Source: Storch Engineers. September, 1988.
Figure 1
MONITORING WELL LOCATION MAP
SHOWING GROUND-WATER DIVIDE
NICHOLS ENGINEERING SITE
-------
1 iiniiiviiii1 ! • ""ill
> Bi!il!!!'i'!!lllli tl'i'di
iiU'iUllia
IIIIIIK '•iil'lll
llMii'i'iii
iiiii'4. ,'iui
VM
iiiiiii
II
I
APPROXIMATE LIMIT(DESIGM).
OF PLUME (< Ippb)
5 74°46 14 £
LEGEND:
MONITORING WELL
RECOVERY WELL
Source: Storch Engineers. September, 1988.
Figure 2
MONITORING WELL LOCATION MAP
SHOWING MAJOR AXIS OF TRANSMISSIVITY
NICHOLS ENGINEERING SITE - .
' J! • • ' ""
lllllllllllliiBlllBIFur'ilimi I'!: ,,i "i , , • lIlllllilHIiii" .IIIPli1." i. : Jlj iliiiilliujjliii "
I IWi IK Site
'I'1.! i,Jl. , 1'lf. . i',,r, i1 Ill'i,,!!,*,,, iJiV1
;, "i" ..... I!!;, :;.i";i ......... !I ; till ....... , '' ?
I llW'lllliiillllJ'hl'I'liillllllliliilliiilllL.illllI1! lllil.,;,
!:!• liil!.i I! W '«iM, « I'lrLfliM1!!1",;:!!!*11'!!':111!,!!:!. I'!! Ill «l J, „' ' , i lilllllljllllllllllll1 !,.!i'li " , ..... »' Hv it, '.IE ft1 1 ,' t H a)!1 . ..... Will! ..... III!?.,", .IKlilpll1 Jill11;1
'• , miiK;i m, ...... >:r>msis ...... iii^^^^^^^^^^ ....... VISA ...... mm ..... > ,
P< I"' iWIII1",; ; ..... Ill • 'I'llljilli"! IIPIIIOl', I1 1 :,i "ii ......... H I
-------
WDC 61621 .AO.02
LIMIT OF CAPTURE ZONE
WHERE: \
Q/BU = MAXIMUM DIMENSION OF CAPTURE ZONE PERPENDICULAR TO GROUND WATER FLOW( ft)
Q
B
U
K
i
RECOVERY WELL PUMPING RATE (ft3/min.) = 9.35(70gpm)
ESTIMATED AQUIFER THICKNESS (fl) = 260
Ki * DARCl AN VELOCITY (ft/min.) = 2.5 x I0~5
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY ( f»/min.) = 3 x IO'3
HYDRAULIC GRADIENT Ift/fl) = O.OO8
LEGEND :
-f MONITORING WELL
-^•RECOVERY WELL
Source: Storch Engineers. September, 1988.
Figure 3
CAPTURE ZONE TYPE CURVE ANALYSIS
FOR MW-3 AS RECOVERY WELL
NICHOLS ENGINEERING SITE
-------
POTENTIOMEIRIC SURFACE 01/22/88
0 100 JOO 300 400 SOO «00 100 Wt
SCALE 1:1
1 '.'"t'"! : ' '"'
POTENTIOMErRIC SURFACE 07/21/88
100 300 300 400 SOO (00 '00 «OO
1
Ill III ill If f I
111 I II
•111 I 1 I I I 111 III Illllll
i in n i
II I Ill
I III ill
IK
0 100 JOO 300,
Source: Storch Engineers. September, 1988.
Figure 4
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
(JANUARY VS. JULY 1988)
NICHOLS ENGINEERING SITE
-------
Table 4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
(concentration in ppb)
Parameter
Qtlorofoni
Toluene
Nethylene Chloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
IiI,l-Trichloroethane
Vinyl flcetate |
KH
1 1 2 .1 3 I 4 |5 16 17 IB
1 1 1 1 , , (
» 1 17.8 1 19.1 | 6.B MI.I I 12.8 'I 9.3 1 I2.B
""'NDINDINDINDINDINDIND
ND 1 NO 1 1.8 zl 1.4 zl 37.1 tl ND I 3.8 «l 32.8
988.8 1428.8 14)8.8 1158.9 1268.8 1868.0 1238.8 I27B 8
NO 1 1.7*1 1.6H 1.5 i| ND I ND 1 NO 1 NO
ND 1 U.8 1.13.8 1 5.1 1 9.8 «l 7.7 1 7.3 | 7.2.
™ IKU I™ 1 NO IND 1 NO IND IND
ND ' W ' ND 1 ND. 1 ND 1 ND 1 ND 1 NO
1
1
9.11
• I--
5.6 1 21.8
ND 1 ND
2.9 zl ND
SB.e 1618.8
NO 1 ND
3.8 H ND
ND 1 ND
ND 1 ND
MJ-2
2 1 3 1 4
17.8 1 15.8 1 9.8
ND 1 ND 1 ND
ND 1 3.9 zl ND
318.8 1318.9 1188.8
1.7 »l 1.9 «l ND
ll.B 1 9.4 1 4.7
ND 1 ND 1 ND
ND 1 ND 1 ND
IS 16
1 1
9.3 1 14.8
NO 1 ND
1.7 zl ND
190 1218.8
1.1 »l ND
ND 1 ND
ND 1 NO
71819
13.8 1 7.3« 1 7.7
ND 1 ND 1 ND
3.2 >l 32.8 1 KD
29M 1128.8 I128.e
1.4 «l ND 1 ND
9.4 1 ND 1 4. 5 »l
NO 1 ND 1 ND 1
ND 1 ND 1 ND 1
Paraieter
Chloroforn
Toluene
Nethylene Chloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
l|l,l-Trichloroethane
Vinyl flcetate
Parameter
Chloroform
Toluene
Nethylene Chloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Tricfiloroethane
Vinyl flcetate
NA* Not Analyzed
1 IP 11
1.6 NO 1 ND
1.7 KD I ND
2.4 1;59I 12.8
1.8 ND 1 ND
NO ND 1 ND
KD ND 1 ND
1 ND ND I KD
NO ND 1 ND
1
NO
8.2
1.4 <
1.6 <
ND
KD
ND
NO
1 2
NA
NA
NA
Nfl
NA
Nfl
m
NA
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
HM-3 ' .
1 HH-4 j
4 15 16
1 NO 1 ND 1 NO
1 KD I ND 1 NO
1 NO 1 1.3 zl ND
1 ND 1 KD 1 ND
1 ND I ND 1 NO
1 KD 1 NO 1 KO
1 NO 1 NO NO
1 KD 1 ND 1 ND
7 1 8
NO 1 ND
ND 1 ND
3.6 *l 5.8
KD 1 ND
NO 1 ND
KD 1 ND
NO 1 KD
ND I NO
911 2 ' * 1 4 I 5 1 6 1 7 , 8 , , 1
ND
ND
4.6
KD
ND
ND
ND
KD
W-5
4
NA
Nfl
NA
NA
NA
Hfl
NA
HA
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
61718
' 1 " I
9
NA 1 NA I KD 1 KD
NA Nfl 1 ND 1 ND
NA 1 HA 1 1.1 Z| 7.2 z
NA 1 Nfl 1 7.4 1 7.8
NA 1 NA 1 ND I ND
NA 1 Nfl I KD 1 ND
NA 1 NA 1 KD 1 ND
NA 1 NA I KD 1 ND
-I
1 ND
1 9.1
:l -KD
1 2.6
1 NO
ND
ND
ND
ND 1 KD 1 ND 1 NA I NA 1 W | KD 1 NA I
2/981 9.4 1 1.4.1 1.3 zl NA 1 NA 1 18.8*1 W 1
1.8 «l ND 1 1.9.1 1.3.1 NA 1 Nfl 1 ND Nfl 1
HDINDINDINDINAINAIND Nfl I
ND 1 ND 1 ND 1 HD 1 Nfl I NA 1 ND Nfl' I
MW-6
1
ND
NO
3.5 »
ND
2.4
ND
ND
ND
i
2 '3 14 15 16 17 18 19 |
1 1 .| 1 , , .
NDINOINDINDlNflimiNDIHA
NDINDINDINDINA Nfl 1 NO 1 Nfl I
8.8 tl 1.2 zl ND 1 1.5 zl Nfl NA I 18.8 zl UQ I
ND NDINDINDINA NfllNDINAI
» NDINDINDINA NA I NO 1 W) |
» NDINDINDINA Nfl I ND 1 W |
» NDINDINDINA WIM)|W,
ND ND 1 ND 1 8.5 j| Nfl NA 1 NO 1 HA |
ND= Not Detected
*= Trace concentrations below the reporting lilit
*= Analyte also detected in EDO). Procedural Blank
z= Both trace concentrations detected below the reporting
and analyte detected in ERCO Procedural Blank
Ki 1395WRV
Sampling Dates:
1= January 6, 1988 (MM-6,hV-7,«W-B,MW-9)
January?, 1988
8« February 8, 1988
3> February 22,1988
4= March 21, 1988
5= April 19, 1988
6= Nay 19, 1988
7= June 21, 1988
8= July 21, 1988
July 22, 1988
9=0ctober 6, 1988
-------
iiij, i1:,| .;H f iiiLiiiiiiiHEjiiiggiiin
"Ljiiiipi'i.'ii'.'iiiiiiiiiiiiiii: ii' iiiiiiini!1"'!' jiiiiiiiiiiiiiPin
.jij"!! i;j|]i!!!'r, i jiii'"i:ii
till "I , II HPlii . ' ..... ",:IM 1 1 ...... Illlii'i ,,il Jmifiilll '„: n ' !n , l!i Hi: • ::M., "HP ....... liililllli ..... r'illililiil
lll'ii'" ,,,11111111 ....... :„!• i1 :,",i||pin", ...... i "''i ..... I,, i I ''IIP, ..... in',,, '"'/P" ,1,, iiirijilill'iiul, Jjill ....... l,,,«
"i; 'iV.nl'ilHI nil ....... JBIIlii ...... ,|
™ "i,,,r:,,ii! li'lnl'llllllllillli'V" "
I,* ,'i'' ll.ll'. ,,,''! ,„ I;||,"
Hi .IN i,,, ./i i:, ',.,.„ ,,'pi;,,' ,"",'! iniiin'"I'li'i'iin : 'i1,1'1:.,*!. iimr'nn i1..:
""lOWIv u ....... i» ..... •• I'i, I 'Jir'JI'li'iii . " : ' \' , ' ,: 'II, .......... lllp.il,, ,' ' ."i
W'1. " ' "i'-F i:, I" ,;,,:, i* '. , ' ....... •IIIPii<:i ill! ....... i il' inill a'1,!; ..... .„ Jiilft ' "liilSiiiliiiiilli'iiL;:. ,••' ikJIIIIll! n i, i ,i" ,!"!',i.iiil ...... n Lii'ini/iu I^I^NiT^,,, jinPliiiiftO j^:"1 ji^/'ftnji, Vj
: p. .'"TP1;,, ,i, i, 'li'Hini;,,, p,,,,!!!)1' >\K •! « O O --" O* ^-*
j— n f b *-"• ••-* ^" I C *» O ** S
• *• ^5 S "" *t SjMtJiu*-™ S£
iiiiii^"!!!1 I
g;i£,3£2_-5:iai&R. «
I,! i Wtl I 'iiit'll I, > i ,i", 3 111'•iliiiiiiiliF i'' ' nil i«l!!:i • lliiilHISi;1"1 iiii i "n •. A i. ••" i' .t !• i: '•* -i,,. iif lii; ; 'S'Siiil''"' ill c:' if" •': • , , iSit.;, V ii •. i: Mr f I'liliii Jt ::i!il" I:1 K&
|i in i; i i ii«^^^. •. f:, iiii i "it i c1 ::!„ • i i;i" itijiiiiifi: ;wf L n , ,•: •' *'K ":|!" Ki*'1'' Ji! < .:• f ' : *r,' iSi:1-!1; •; s, «• '..:, • :?• •; i in w »;,f K -j; i a ;• n >; •M-I. T'K
[IF,. i'/'.i ; •«;; .: ,., •i;,!
i i! ."'>: i : ..•my",,.-.i.:-.; it
i il
-------
Table 4 (continued)
(concentration in pob)
Toluene
Nethylene Chloride
Chloronethane
1, 1, l-Trichloroethane
Chloroform
Carbon Tetrsehlcride
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
U
16.8
7.4
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
Ib
19. B
8.8
5.5
ND
NO
ND
ND
KD
a
1.3 »
2.8 z
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
FIELD
3
ND
27. e
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
BUNKS
4
ND
5.6
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
S
ND
11. 8 t
ND
3.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
ND
HO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
7
ND
6.3
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ba
NO
9.1 Q
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
Ob
ND
2.7-e
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
ND
12. e z
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
U
ND
2.3 «
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
Ib
ND
1.9 t
ND
HD
ND
NO
NO
NO
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO-
TRIP HJWS
3 1 4
ND 1 ND
4.4 «l 19.8
ND 1 ND
NO 1 ND
ND 1 ND
ND 1 ND
ND 1 NO
ND 1 NO
S
ND
11. «
ND
NO
ND
ND
3.9
ND
6
NO
ND
KD
2.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
ND
4.2 I
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ba
ND
1.6 «
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
Bb
ND
2.9 t
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
NO
6.8 z
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NA= Not Pnalyzed
ND= Not Detected
»= Trace concentrations below the reporting lilit
8= finalyte also detected in ERCO Procedural Blank
z- Doth trace concentrations detected beloa the reporting Unit
and analyte detected in ERCO Procedural Blank
NOTE: Acetone, used to decontaminate field saipling equipment,
Mas detected in the field blank collected on October 6, 1988,
at a concentration of 38 opb. Field and trip bjjnks had not
previously been analyzed for acetone.
Sampling Dates:
la= January 6, 1988
Ib=January 7, 1988
2= February 8, 1988
3= February 22, 1988
4= March 21, 1988
5= (tpril 19, 1988
6= Hay 19, 1988
7- June 21, 1988
Ba= July 21, 1988
Bb= July 22, 19B8
9= October 6, 1988
-------
WOC 6IK1.ACX02
r25.0
:20.0
: :, :„"': --.„..« ;,„ - • JAN 6/7
CLEAN UP LEVEL (3 J*FB)
"Z 0 5
liT'llM i" i«~ \* « ^^
GALLONS PUMPED
M
c
O
-15.0 i==
Q
LJ
GL
2
D
0.'
(/)
1
5
g
.-I; ,' ,i" , , i:i
flip i^m lip:* .• •'!" ,'
flilpiliiiiliiil'ii, ij,,, TSI.ii'piHi!! 'i!i|||l;;|'i|;if ' ' 'n,, ,,, l||||jiliu ;|PP!"!'?ii||.|;, £ K^"^' '>!''"IIS1''*'» I11'1!!1!1!!!!1' '' '"•" : !' •'*• i'!i l!l I1 jPfKt'fl'.illli "!' 'I'llliill.'Tf'l.Ti "ililill''!''!!!!!'!^.!.*!!!!!! ::,lil",' :' ,,,' ii1^' .« ni'>i>wi.'
~'^ ;,;;;-';;•;:•;' ""^ :~-1^ ^, ^ ;: ; ~ ^^W^L^^J,
iiiwis uwti :sm •<"'":„ ," 1^ T; ''~ywi • vsiiiir ' t-m>t> • J/i", ii i'.', *»ii,i"i,™"ii,. ii1 ii-is1' •:*!• i jfciisi• PV 'i1,; «i; «iiii'iiii"i'^^'MapwHTiwjs' 'i w iJriijHfr.B'ia t*i.'i<
li,H^^^^^^^
lillllB^^^^^^^^^^ I 'i::!!if|.|: I 'IIIRIillj't I'!".!,:1 ••I111!1:. ''i|||||!'. i",, .lli.| ill";;;,1'. :|i
^;i:iiii('^,i^^ifei!CSl,^S!rl7/Ai!flili;fflS
i,,:1:1!'1" i i8,:"',,,;i"j:"i,,i,, 'linia1; i: i '>i, iwi;
i, ':,!•; ..... vit ',"!•"" . ;."w:t "ftis- 'iiis'tt iM»:::K::s:tfi ..... lei..!.'!
SJHfiH I(S1S«^^^?
. . .. . .. i.... .., ..
,,s 'flfifts ,: ?! ..... 'IBS,,, llf, , S'B'alii, if.l(I
ilSk
ili1' ..... it
K : .,;,i>
ILM \$;,b'$ii
n|lil:(.PIIl;lM;.. ll, <'.;, 'Mlllll'i'lP1'1,!1
ill:11' IlilllllHIIIIi I ''.'Hill' III1'!'"'.' li: .I'll1:
.rliHIliI^ II.' ..'
Wi^iffi''^'.^!!' .-S" >•"'";
j" cm fm ",i'"; .MT'ii.'-!!-'*!!, ,;i^' ',| ,!" ' ,'""
•:s^ir< !:i«
iii'iiii ii:1! Ilirjilll.: t-,-:- I! ll,. IK. 'I'.': Kiil'S ,i .liiillilii IMP-VH*:*
' '.ill' "i1 "' ij! ' ii I; iiilit1;;.
it if'! ' i,,;),1!"'" 'iiiiiRi'1- ii,,""!:'1*''",;;,,"!";;
^..T^ifiW TS iisifc,,:1, i li'i'i's
">! '',|li!;,',il;l|,|i,||!"::, ',;",I|I|IK':,;II,I,,;,'.:;",',' i.''.ir«li! ,,i ,i;l i/'iiiiLlill'Iii,, llfl
Source:
I:,,, l|!'i "ll'lfi,:!, ", II 'i
nlll.
1988.
Figure 5
CCL4 CONCENTRATION VS. DISCHARGE VOLUME
NICHOLS
-------
WDC6ieai.AO.o2
IQOO i
800
Q
o
Q. soo
o
4OO
Q
O
700
0 J
-1.3
M.O -
~ i 'I—i I 1 T i | i 1 ' ]— iprr -V
70 40 W 90 100 I7O 140 HO 190 200 220
TIME («loy«)
APW| MAT I JUM I AH I
1999
IOOO
too
80°
700
a
a. flOQ •
O SOO
2
z 4°°
LI
o
§ 300
O
300
too
o
68.0 -
SBO
70 40 «9
FE9
80 IOO i;0 HO I6'J
1IMF (days)
19B6
200 220
a
o
o
a:
a.
Source: Storch Engineers. September, 1988.
Figure 6
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CCL4 CONCENTRATION,
WATER LEVEL, AND PRECIPITATION FOR MW-1, MW-2
NICHOLS ENGINEERING SITE
-------
Ill I III II I III
ill
fji HI: • , • ; ii! •! .....
ii ........ iifci't:,!;; i !::"nm: « . r ;• is. i1
: "i <•>. ..... *,!lii', ..... ;; ,; ; ..... A ..... : ^ -a ...... n ..... i"' ;;: ..... i m
:u-;' •' j: > <>' ...... " ft ..... • ..... Wp*f «'** :»'.,"i III |,,|,::< lH'llli|N i, H ,,i,
I, I.,;, "J"" I!1!,1!,!!!" ' ' •' UUP1 !,,i,',! ,' 'I1,,,1' ''ii,;i"liilH !
I, I no iiii,, :,"• 'iiii >,<;,. ji'iiiiiiinii'ii' ',» ,', 1 >,
iiS'l, ,!!:» ' Illll'i -i:-' ...... ? ;i": 'IK' i>::{i(!!: , III • III ...... R!;': , • ...... ....lE'SlH ...... f 'j ....... if = : , :;' • i ; >": '""! ..... ! Sui , , ;v,fi ; c:^mi ......... K ill ..... ii Jill ..... -i;'^ HI ........ ; I:!!.:-;'' ,iv.*:ilT .Mil ......... <,'« ••:.>'!"«:*!¥ iiilllt i:iiilia
"11 ' • ' ' • 1 111 ..... " ..... '' ' ' ' ' ' - ' in ii'ii>«.... ,< ' « 1 ' .'"
.
iiwinnnii1 i1!;11 nr ..... ," ..... ihiin
W'lli ' '*! ..... .I;,,!!" ' ..... ll'l,1
„ i"1 Ii1/ i1'",;,!!" , :' *!
: , ii: i" !v ' " -
! T '"!' " IW.T.TiP
. v* ii ,r ....... I'1,,* '^^l- »; , ..... ll!",1' 4;l"!l g •' M! >•*' fN, ii'',' ' *im iBHjtJi ik./'111!!!'1!!'1''!*!1, , m S'i:, ..... W*fi:*'»1 •( ' 'i>f 'i'" ''W-f1.1
\:M-. » * i "^ i •' ...... L v i ;. f i,,, ..... ; i , ^ " i-^ ;; ;!ti »' ,; ! : !,"•:.. "':.• ..... i';. i ..... «;•:.«' s», ;,,:"! vs :*i!iv;;,ii: M^1 •• /4:M i IIAI ........ •? ....... ih? .« ...... s,/ , >* vjiiy
; ...ihiiiiiji , , liiJiiw" 'Hi , ...... : v <"ni ..... i'i:,,iii,,i:i'«i, 'IM«|I,,I ....... v«\ • ...... :i, i,;,"1, HI "i!"1!1 ii " i<< "•< . • ..... „% »' ...... ,"i,,; 'in1" ....... iiiikiiiitiJiiiin;1";!!' '"-''ti'iM ...... ,, ~, n ..... nw/ii ii.iiiu ..... +1 "":; ...... i1 'i ...... i H'Hiir ,,,''71, .m'', iflS'i "" in1:111*1 * ioAiii
iii^iF^ ...... ',f;;,;!,,ii - ,/;;' /iii",1
..If'';!!^!!!!!!'!:'^''.;!!!:!::!!!! r,,, i"^ '; • liii'iiiil'iiijF l!'^i,' i,i!i ^ "it, " ii:1!'' ;•'; ',;:,, '< ;,;:'„ ",|"',ii!!i"j;, ,',„: ^ fj,^ i,>;itt I" :!^M I'liiiiilii^i'tfiiiii:!!',; '.f^iiil •' ,iv '':>|i",1 ^'iilW^^^^^^^^^^^^ I|liii:i!:i:i4!l |
'' lii,,ii will"1,1'!, itaiiir
;';**'•!• \ si !••:<•; /''i^ i i^ f
i'i:r, /v'l"! • ri.iii;, n; „«:,;.' r, '.<'i"i •' I'ii'ia1^^ 'ij
iiiii1: ifi 'P;,i in, iiiii""'
: linn,, EiiJiiiiiiiirii i'1:
'",\ "fl!!1!!"1'i":,lill,ll!l!!i",,," 'I11 ,r i'ii,"»'i'iiili,l "Ijji
"'i,1,!1!!!1'111.,!!!,!]11!1!*,, JIT ' n'AIIIIIF if, , , ', J'1 I,"! iii,,
, 11 ,>llll , r,':'!!"".' .I'M'.!.!1 i1', "!«„,! '!*,• "!, iinli"1,1.1 J
" , •
si i iiiii1''iiiiiiiiiu, "'"'„'"ii[,1
' 'I ; ..... |V ' i|i|»."i| ..... ||,:i,'n ..... llhil'."^!!!!'
"(I ....... i",1 'l!!1 ..... •, ;': ii IJIi/i" !:, fit
jllllli'NIHl: h '" f,' : , *'" ' »/';"' i-'W "ilf, ..u1,!! ••„ 'iIlM r
liGiiifl ' v ' ' . Jii,,,!! '" ' -VW^ ..... t 'Si !'« , lilliilll ...... t: ! „" l!,, '"!•: ;
i HIIII,'i ":' ,,ii!,',i?
-------
-------
l.j^ I.,*,,.,,Ill 1,1,11 IIIIM^
:^^Cri=: .joiin Chemical Plant | - > " -
Tobacco
Landing:
rV:^€^b>/:^<
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
OLIN CHEMICALS GROUP
DOE RUN PLANT
BRANDENBURG, KENTUCKY
SCALE 1 24000
o
3600 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
-------
Source: Olin Chemical. September, 1986. A Ground-water
Assessment of Olin Chemicals Group Doe Run Plant,
Brandenburg, Kentucky
-------
I III II IIIIIIH III III III III IIIII
WM I! ll'lllilliiilp I IIIIIIIH l« 'i "T II 111 i I'liill
illihlllli i If i IP II IIH^ i fllil "mil Ill 111 il'iiiilii Ilillll
111 11 III 111 III I ill I III I 111 Illl II 111 III II III I 111 I HUH I III III III Ilillll Illlllllllllllllllll
HIM iiiiiiiii in in in i ill
IJIFiJiil; (til.! ill ' ill li''1!!'"! !l "I!!"1 Ill1 "<
111 111 Ilillll I 111 111 III 11 INI
I
111 III
Ilillll1 Ilillll 111 II II I Ilillll III II Ilillll
Illl (l
!„!"'
I I
I I I I'll
Ilillll I Ilillll 11 111 Ilillll
I |l I ll I |||ll|l |l|Ilillll l|| III ||U
HI V
a"""!
fin i it1
III Illl
«
nil Vil I Ill III lllll llllill 'I I
Ill I nil1 In ill ill 111 I il|lliliillll|i (ll
liii in i i 11 ill iiin i
I1! ll|l i ill 11 11
'iM ..... lit ...... i
111 I 1 1 Ml iiliill Ilillll 111 11 Illllllllllllll
III III In III Illl IIIIIIIII I II
111 Ilillll Ill
111 Ilillll
nil
1111"!'ii; i "i ill lllll i lllil ,| f fl
it; " mi i i in "I i liii
"II !
-------
-------
) N 0
r. • :-_RanneyWell#3-^-,--
Source: Olln Chemical. September, 1986. A Ground-water
Assessment of Olln Chemicals Group Doe Run Plant,
Brandenburg, Kentucky
In'
-------
t.,—c—^-^-< r ts&ti i i"0 ~-
^*^T^~^/^J 9;Mj -"%•*:
j%ZZ^l-^2/:.-"i . 1 co Ji; -"^~ ' :"
r
frcgS^f^V' < #lb
Figure 2
BEDROCK SURFACE ELEVATION MAP
OLIN CHEMICALS GROUP
DOE RUN PLANT
-------
:•:',:, , :• " , »• , '• ;•'
aaaiiiiiiii,:,,!!!:1!'"!! ,"an , ' aiiilia1 ,!' a "an1 aaai • a11'" ' >: .'wtiriiii]"1:/..!!',,.!' 'naaniiai; ,r an i
:';:': -•••:•—••" .:--t: :: i"::;:,,,:',',:""::,:: „,::,:::::'::::,:;;,': ,;:,' ,,: ,',„'":
in;,,,;!!!! .ft mm: tiiiiiiiiiiiKji..'!!!!!'!,!!!!:'! x lEinpin; •»'" t iv ";ii.ii iiini'iiii1' ii ii:i,i o i;,,,,:::.ii, ,.i' i"1,
!l"!! if '::1'1!'" ' •" "'! •
.;, ai'i1'! .aaa'taaiiiii, ,• aiiiniaiii ,iiiiiiiiiaiit'iiii!ii'ai' iiiNiir', ;'". .. , iiiiiri'tiiHa"!!1 *.'' M, •:. ,*?. aisii .!•
i»^ ii..! lik t^
' . i; I T.,
mi1 1:,,", I! !.! ', il 'O!"1'.! ill!!!,; :'"'., ,1111,1 i:|l M,, M! ;,,|l null!, '.ill!! i,,1'!" ' .."'.I ,i' '.I1 l"":, "" i!' II ,|, r i.l! 1! , ji.l I!"1 . ULl'l '" .III,!!!!! ii"T» illllll HlL'W .!ii|lll],!'Hli|llL F1 IIIIIII !9!iil!hii!h I,!1 1!' .""'ill, 'I. ''liiil,1!:! 111!!"!!!!
1 -"• ~ : --••'• : ' : " - " '• ••'"•' "" :""" • : -•- • : : • -; • •' • - '•' : " '• : ' - ' ; •' •; - • • -• '••- '""• •••* - •""•--: : • : ,=, - '• "" • '" "- • " " : : ' -" : " '
"'" ;,ll|li|,iiy||!iiK:i,i JiifW^^ , ilil'IB! Ill, ISI : , 1 I'llli! , I , .iM-iii1 "l,i liilK II , '1 IF > Ml 1 '• ;l "'< III.!1 i. ill ' -if Pill., '!:, .: . ill1! I'l "'Hi III'IIK !'.!mim l ' 'I'liil "IIBTji Ill 1' 'iUlllll
-' '' i" ' i--:i: "i - ' , > "i. ' ,-v •;„!:: • - ,,' , r • i •, •" • ft- •< '. '• • •. „ "i i • i- ..'•; • , « „ ",T: i il • , iiii .ii .1,,,,,, ,i •, i
"l""""1 "' ' 1" •" 1 ' '"" '• '• ""' " " ' • '
liiiilni, LI,./!.,, ,.|i iii.ni I'liilliiiiiii, ' pfpHiji,1,111 IP I,.1,,,!,., '.ij.iiii .in,1 ',", ,,' jr.i,,, iii.i in . ''".in,,1 . .,. ,,,. . ,,,:.r , , , ,i iir.i „ in , i.ii«,iliiiiiilii liiiniliii. '.1,1,1. niiilji .!. , I,1 "", ",i,riiiiiiiiii
'i'ii'Si',1! Sfei'!K(»'l!S»TilR '" "i!1"- A.'fifi 1 "'I.I, • firs ir ,' , ':„' IF „ „ lf':"i I «! i '.'"Tx ,l'i'"}>M lliii' illllii! .Ui 'S.!1J1I :», illlll
.•• ;,;; ;>
Iii!.. ' .' I'llillihlPli,, '11.' LI
' :' :":: "'
F''!.' n.., "ill" 'Pllil1- !,'fl
' ' ''' ' ' '
Illn" ,, .lliii1 Jill,, i|| '"
,' ':U llir'W!
III! illllllir'iiill|l|l|l|llllililillliriilil
"1"' '
Ill .fl 'I'ili'l,,';!,!,!),'1!,' ".['iiii' nmii'i,"' '„ illHli;' 'iiiilllii: liilil!)!1! II"! !!, 'Ii, liU'IIT,.!! "I I'1 "„ i!,1 it II!1 > ,i. i.1" 'I!"1:11!!"1 " „ 111 ', ,"! ."Ill 'J1,, I!!!"" M. ! ITIllii,!!
'iiiii'i '.'siiiii'1, "i! 'iiFtii,,:,;naiiii' i::,: iiia.siii • ,,i.,,:si ii,!'' s!i:,"! ; yiHT:. "\ • •* '&. "fci ftifi.w'i^i^!;,'";..,
ir MS \\\\a\:iir^ ^f • ' M :r I'liiiimi: "i<
(IE! iiii :!.i\ VilSt'l1 lailH^^^ PI1:.* (i',,'1 ixd/ir''!!')'!!!1 il'i^lUliGim '"iKlliiii :'T'!!il Mj/l1 T: illllli:" .Kill. ' .iini "JuFMUil '• ! - " ,::: /Ii '111'.: vlC.il >:".;: ," '', ' Mi ' Jlllil/Ii'l .litiKI;' " ,',ll IX'i'll"!'!.!..^.!;!,:,.'']
':, " v'.,!,"«.; '- ):-\»;;, ji i';1 "ii,f'M'ii,'
,; iiBii! i:'::ii!l.,i,i!
,." iii'
:.:ll:il>l|:i|,ll I!,:,!11: , /lull!!I'•Till!, ,i,l*/. 'inlfuin II Ir ailllll,illlll
p^'W;^1fliH''ifMJl'ii!l^SisF^,'!;> l'^lll'i[lli:iiii?:;-:^;^
K si ^^^^^^^^^^
iiniaaueii'ii'iii'iiiiiii1 ifliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiT |iiiA " "liiiii1;:™ d...?".^!!;'!!!!!!!!!)'!.!!1"'! ; liiiii'/'aiif''''!'!!;:!!.'!!"!'],!,''! i '.jiiiji!,:1 j, iji;,':.;!1 |ii||:l;iiii:iii|iiiiiiiBii';il!iiii,i:i|ii'!,i,iii!iiiiiia' • w ::. in;>l!l si,'. •",!", 1,1 ••• •" "i, " "i» :,:
. ;,;:!!'• ' iliilii'iF'il' ," """"III li!'""ilii .:!".4 » iiii ' ' I1* i|l!J'1', V'11 ", '"iii!!1,"'!!"
iii i,1! nil •
™™,,™,,™™™™ ,,,
iiiiiii 'iiiiiiiii'iiiiiiii'l) ijiii 'j'iiiiiiiiiiiiilp, 'iiT
' II, !.".... 1 I! ..... !!"!!"! ','!, II ',"„,,'!',!!!! "I! ",!!!"„ ',„
'iiTiiiiiiiiiiifJi.!' "< iii. iiiiiii ! ! i • ; , , • ; mi, ' ' : ........ : i > iii i , iiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiigiit , ': : " JiiiiiiiiHiiiin ; jiiiiiiiiiiii'iiniif "5i iiii. ii „ i::iii.:! i >' j; '^nii' iniii , < m !' l|:i" ' & !,* \v «P i *A i ri" \ ..... in. > , "* : " : i . . ; ;;i • , J" : jiijii ' iiii: '!, , 1 1'" ' ,««!! i,nii , ii!|i'\i!:: ;;,; » , ; ,"• SL - JiJ i1' i ....... ': i " i: ,, , '; ,, "' :- .»%,. , ,«. , , "i ,ii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiniii" ' 'i : iiiriiiiiiii ....... ii T ;: "" i ° :! .1 :°" ' , ' :" " „ • " ? i iii iii i L ' iiiii • i a
"K ipi':"'1!?'1 ''": IIN ..... • i ;" • : "fiS^ "?**$$ '11111'!' I 'If11!' '??: " '$ I1*!!'!' '^Siitl -*S ' * '" W i 'f?\» •!' '. l-l : 'i :! ^ i;'l1!"!' :' " • T '; H i1 P V..\ Jlll'll W> :;!i ........ ^.-. *'$ :] ..... P'!11 ^MEf .Illi1!11 ' ' :i !' fl ....... " • ! „, "1 'Tl . ll"ilt: &• * '
' i!,.. !..''!'! iniiiini^iiiiu
!" 'I ['
'I'l1'"' I' ".iiii I ..... I... ' .' .Ill ' ...... lllll'JilLT'llllllll1"!'! ..... i ..... 1 1 III ...... .1'. ...... I. n!!! ........ IIP ..... Il ..... HIP1 ,1 '.Illn, '
' ' '
, i, n:,"1 .'l!1 ' !l ..... .!n7:;;i. ft ' lift1" !
.IllPlfll'Illl,!; ili'llill1'"1 li'ill'lllllllllllll'",,, "lilllllliil'"!!!!.'!!!!!!!. H'l'1
I'l iiiiip1 ..... K ..... ...... r'tl'linib '•ifUiilf 1 ...... iir-iliflLlil'! • , :' , :"' • ;i ''••i'i<..if',r :•:., !;i' .1 ....... ''ili'll*'!':'! ........ I! ...... ;!; ...... i:!! "n ..... Id.
I'.iiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiii'ii, iiiiiii."'":1 .iiiiiiiJi.;!^' limii1:;;::!;^'';; ::i!'!ii:ii!iiii!iiii,',j' :^ iiiiii::,, ^ ^\.m\
if'^L^'-iV' '''jlix^&Ktfti'1^ 'vii' 'I••'LT)';' '.*K k'!?!'',fen ''i^-"'?!' 'I - 'ife'iy' s£l ^Mffi^w '„' •
IHIIIK 'lilililliliiiai'iilir''''''!'!!!!!!!:.!!!^!!!!11!!!!!1"'' :" 'fliPi.iiiiiiiiaF'l-iaiii
HI i!il|i|illll|i"lliiiiilllllli 'I'liilliryi'i.''!!!'''^!^'''!'!;.!!!:'''!! !l 'il'llllili, I 'til, , I'1!
iiiii'iiii " 7 ",i:,i!iiiii, ,,i,iii!'iiiiiiii t i,:iii' '"L".inii.'.',nEi '
''"liridllililiirlliliililiiPITHillllililil!, 'I'TII'.,!1!"!.!""1
iii'ii'i'i,:"1,:;1!!!!!"! j^Giiiiiiiiiiiin!,, ''iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaiiaaiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiii'iiiiiiii1:'!! n ,'iiiiii.ip. »i r,, v iiim [a'jaiir'" aaii1 aamaiiii,,"!'1! imi
Pili. 11*",In" '!"' mill i, i 'iilll|i!||ll!!iiilili'iriiii!lll,lllilllllll|l!h!!1ni,i,",i',iii 'HIIMil I'',,III'III.1 l/'IWilllllilllllllill'ili:, v «» ,,! i,,.' ¥U,, 'i
T:I'.,III i: ,111 ,,'",,,.. nni: 1111. "inn,'.i. , i,1 ..iiir, iii ins1,'ii'iiiii, '.I "ijipi'iii:-! iiiniiiiiiii u, : ,. liiiiiiiiniiiniMi.. ".iiiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiLiiiiiiiiilii
'' 1 iti:";:,; .,ilEBJui. ..<"• >"'«,'it.')"-.-11 i":j::iiEi!!i
£immsm m\.:;•?'[i mm^: it!',-;t ^^f^^' ^i• •, ii t\m*,,i,;•,, $, i \mr'm^t F? i^^^^^^:f" miis
!.^^ '!,K lll:ii|l!i :, i" irf:::!!! ..... IliiiH
mi- 'ill WH i m.
" "'iilllii'S..;;!.'!*!!'!11! '!M - ," ". ,,ief. la.*,']1
' iiiiiaiiiiiiit'iifiiiiiiiii'iiii' fiiiiSNiiHiiini'i1'.' ,,;,ii ii; i'lii f iii,' ii'tii i1''»''!] i'hiMi iii i': i'i' tiiliii':' iiiil''" ;'i' liiiiiii'... :i:.' .„.' i la' .'i ',i "l"1' • hi ii,'" :i" >hi lilili' ™ '• ,,iiii» i' i liii'^i: T1," iJ1!- i.J"i»:' i':""»:' '• ••iilii', 'Sllliii'illili1' i,',:;'' i .iniiii' ''i. i "i' «'i t' v IS ::!iiin .' ih'.,, ' PL iiiii, " iii, i' i.
I'll f,111 i!F!i',,'""".' Hi i I'd; 111
ILB i!ii,,,;y:l!!li'liiill,:';^'l:iii^^^^^^^^^^ <
t jftK ^MHiW!i iSill BCisJ iSBii i-lffi/iit" iis^; S "ii^:J(B 'i'i .1 : i'. !•
s;1 1:, :•• ..... ;i ^si: ...... SB ..... i: ..... i
........ >.; ....... i;ii,n^
S^^^ i ....... !> !r: ••IIH^^^^
-------
-------
WCCS162t.AO.C2
Illlllllllllll III
lllllllllllllllllH
111 llllllllH I III II 111 II
^^^7.;:^;- &;£^;:/. =f: ....
-^'t »• • ,- • •- -, .^-'«-«-:y- • --..-_-••, c ^-~ . • ~ • J
?^^. " * -. __Ztr"i-pL-.'".-••-«- - "" — -^ " — " ' • '
*? - -.'•'.--•' . — ' • • . *-•
• .. -• t -• '
•:-~T:~ «- -
1 - \I74O gpm\
• • _*f .
r. Ranney Well #3
Collector ^ Collector =
Well #4
^^
H^^^^
U / C . K Y
- \--•-••:
Source: Olln Chemical. September, 1986. A Ground-water
Assessment of OHn Chemicals Group Doe Run Plant,
Brandenburg, Kentucky
„
ill n nil
i 'i! ' i i
-------
II". I
: Ranney Well #2
Ranney Well #1 i—:./•
Figure 3
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP
MAY 1980
OLIN CHEMICALS GROUP
DOE RUN PLANT
-------
Ill (111 III I lllllll
lllllll I 1 II I 111 I II II I lllllll 111 I III I II 111 I II I I II I 111 lllllll 1 lllllll 1111 I II lllllll lllllll
II lllllll
111 lllllll
II lllllll (I III
lllllll lllllll III lllllll
1 11 III
Illl II
in!!!!!"! ii, „ iitii'fiiilii iii gin ,ii|iiiili:i>i>il:lill|iiiii|illii': .I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! in,! '',,M
'ii.Si • I*
"'': niHr'i i' i ir I'liiiiiiiiiiiiii ' 1,, oft M. :,PP< ; iniii,;,:!!!!, niii;,! mt i-mi1 •i-tiiiii!': liisiH ' ":.! w» JG ..... wait aiiii "jiihi, i ' i * ii' „• " ........ ,-st : ^M ..... it" ?!« .......... «' ;ii ..... tafssHfr: iMtamli m'1 ..... a \ "i, i'-feiife • " : « •; K •&>,' . • m '^fi, xt-tatt, vt- 1< > ; ....... i;< ii
; mm mm iftf["9t psyijf^ ..... ^if "^^f- '" i > ..... ; ....... ''ff ^ «; wr ii,.;- ..... .• . 'li'i ........ iii ......... v •fiiiiii:11;1!!' "i ...... ' i-j ii; :*B: >!''; ...... ;> iit:in j m nin ..... * 'i S;!:i|t r ..... ; ' ..... i!M{Fii iiii'i"' ^ • ^ 'i!";:11!): v > vt IJIK ^f'S
ifi r rnmSi™ r ''-'i »' 'Sf' pSmwHin mSfii* *i3S;. • , i: *, K . ..... w' • ;"iSS\ , ..... i- "*, '• •,. ,-i ..... ' "rW/w' JT.I.: '• i!:,11 ..... >5>JfsMi:i JIM "IS 'fi^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ..... S wa'f lii" f^jfiits. '*•• irJi;*!;,':-!, -; i1" ' • ".?i " '"•«s ti £i3^ wliMJim till
ilSiii!' 'li it ...... ''iPi,,, i "'
mmiaam ^m so mm <^^^
l"llh'1111! I , ! l11"
!|r|:, , |h ^
iiiliiiW
'iii'ii'iiiiiiini^i 'iliiiiiiiiuji'isiiiiiiiiiii
:|i Idlllli!';
, Hi,,, y l1™ If? il1"1';:'!!*,, T illllllllllllli'liRIIB i,ll'ii"i| VLiHli:
,!'1, ' I'^Jini'iiniii' iiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiii: ii?1 " m ,„ ; i'liiiii • iii ; ii
1
llllli;1 iilllljllllillllllliiii',11; ,11 liiil'l • 1 illli|.i1IIIIEl ' irinilli! IH11"1!.; „, i IJIIIilllUiM linliilt niiii IliliiiJIIiiiiiliPl "l! ,ifS Jiiillll ;:!n < 11919111111 „,, i • jnijii!1 , .i "Ii;"""ni"3' ^l', iii'1,,1 ;i!''! ^ :i<1!i '< ;i
, " ; * ;n , ' IIP mil ; , i1 : i „; 1|;"i
' '
" lilij: ifll'i",'1 'hli I'^mkllir '
.''jj'^'!!!^!!!.:'!.'!!!!!!'!.!;!!'""!!!''', liiiiii'iii,,
I"11!1" iiiiji iiPir nil
ilrI'll",,!:' "iTiTili;"" -£Jfc(i
-------
-------
^-s
OLIM MArMlfSOM GMCMtCJO. CQ*P3**T>
•ttt •*«/«
mt Sand* MOO" ISte Ltvttl Datum mot «o» -I*a
QI ex OIMJJI lar IRI 1896-1906 C»-o r*>«c P'^o»»
Lt«*tH«q Circuit, er, «hat it no* eommonif rtltrxd
Sondf HQO* to mi Mtan S«a L**«I Datum o' if 29
it *atn aeproiimalt
-------
Figure 4
LOCATION OF SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT UNITS
OLIN CHEMICALS GROUP
DOE RUN PLANT
-------
'! :'i •" i'""i; "Jl ''''' .• ""' '' T •''ll." '
lliiii ii i'"^ I'iS^'si u [' T. liiiii'iiliiG..!!.!'!1!' •; ;•, 'iiiiF jili,! iiiiiiiiiii, s .ir r aiiiiniiiiii'V nijii miail»»• iii i i:' 4 • .•, ;i:i" „ 'iii iiiHBiiiSa ;:•,,, i»•i'jjijiji ;n ji;».»;.; |, ,„;,( ijij;;;;;;,, jjji ,:
WSIP'i'i,!,',;"!'1"!:!1'::'',,,!'!" "IIP' PIPilPBi1 r"lFilSS»P'»,i; li'ilfi PllllllllW,, i .'hlli'lPf ii'.iii'iiiP1:-PiVPh'PiP" ,Fll F '
,,< ^linim i y "i '„ ij1 n >,, iiiiiipiii;<;' \(Si <.j;% :tf,;;,, ;. ijijjjjjjjjg ,i i, u .jiiiiiiJjjiiJjjjiiiiJriiiiiiE i: 'i <: K w fas "sstf m; iliiiiiii IT : • »*il:,."«, 'Pfiiii'li: iiiiiii iiiii
a ;",,il|i:,|,N' i!l',|:,i, BIBB p BP ,,i99i|ii'Jl;'in9!:il,lll,! ''BBilliFiiili ...ilHIIIIWll ' iriLFiliinill'''!!'!''1 • "'iillViUPi 'ii.P.'llMllO! 'liiih "V .jra",' i, ii,, ill , ' « "i >,'il! '•,!!• „ .U!
;„:; iiHUp'ii'iin^'iiiir BIFBBIBIIBIB a 'iiipiini, i/a,1!1 t :>!'"^.' ^i ::v •.•' \ ,ni! IM i-*1 •i"-1 <;,:",
ii'siN'1' a, filial:11vl 'W'jjit i ", Kiiir iiiiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiL':iiiiiiiiFl'iiiiaiii'1111 iinii 'ii mi "liiiF '.isii'1; Iliuii!1 li yiiiiihijiJ'j! »\
isi, <«»!'" *,":»''ii,! •,,'! l/mn'IP tl",l: "I'ttW,,,1 illilHIl JinilllW^^ IW '!', t •: JI lillllll '' fill IHIJf •%rn,ii,l"P< f"
F1 nl ,11,1,1,1,1 ' ' ii ', ,,;""„„ mi 1,1 ',, ', Ill" '"i" f::,,' " ', 'i',,-"™,, , ' nil"'! ji,',,,,|i"ni| r ' I " ,,, • in , 'i » ' , ,'i , ,i, ,' "• T, K, 11 , :|,' '• 'H,,P,I, T " ', „, f i," '
•ihiiiiiin,,:"'!!,, iiTiiiiBiiiiirpiiB'iiiiiiiiiiiipiBBiaii iPi:,,1!1"!1':!! i,,, ifMii"', 'i1 p,'ay:1! HP i ii .til i."'i mii/ia , a1 BIB a a F'BBliBB BisBTBiBi!i|ii,p!Bi»iliiBii'!BiBaBi, "aa '"i1!,,* iwii a'a A, ">i:, |ni, ,,",',",,": i ami1,, , aiaa" >» aaaiia,"!"' ",,:,,, a ,,"!," II:PI: „ ,ri' Jiii" PB ,
" »k :„'<, I,"" T»;il' >: S1"',,,!1 N?11!!1'!!, !,:,!!|F! ..i'::111'!!:!,,!'1!!"' T11" 'i, "S '•i!!'"'11"1"1 i!!,!,!!' ' /'liiSS!^ 'il,!'!!1!1!,"11!",:/: ™!:!"! Jl!ii !'""!' i "i™ ..""'iiliU!!''^11111!,^!!1
' J'IQ,, J1 ipiiin iMi BBipiBaBCBiii aiiiaiBai'a^'iiiaa ; ii ppanaa a'p m iiiinnii/jiP1:,,:, "'iiniiiiiiiiiiiii I,B,,FBBIF" a BB ,' ::,, ; ,,,i, p,,a BJ:,,: r';,,, IP piB'pi,nr ,:,; ippp1 Biaappp in, "»a ,r,' P,M, vpiniiiimii' t ..IIIIIBIIIBFIIB MBBI" BB BFIBIBF piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiaaB1 ," aiiaF'a aiaaiH
liana in ai a'aapiB iiiiiiiaiBiia ai1^ '„;:• aaa"ai;' ."fMiiiiiLnr BiiB,|li:BBBii|,BB iiiaiiBiaaaai FBiiaaaaaa'aaai m B"",'1^! ' ai ",. ,'f , , p,, BTB-B jraniia* n " aa, ,,s, aaaini aaaa.jiii i,,,i'ta '",a , '„:• aiiiiiiaiiina .aiiBiiiiaiFa1 aiiiaaa an ana'afaiiiiiiBiir; a 991 a an ana11 a
aiiijaaai ,a' JBi aaaa1 aaiiiiiiiiiiBB, aiaitBy''!'!!'';, "i|i|l| i; ;:;„*: ,.; BIB' aai1 IIIPII 'ia la, aa, aiaaaaai! an 11:1, i,i;iiii, 'Bia, anii aiiaaaF ,,,'Ji;", a i,: p JB ;;;;: a f:'' r • •, Bi'"'»'a'' ;;,„•" i ,,,, "" : i n , • r i, BP ipa,'' i,,,, u ,,„ i, , , / , - '*«'»« i,,, \ jy •: »PI i ,p i M ,,„ an,' 11.,,,,, : •< mm", , aiiaaaa A, ,,; 1111,1, iwi; JL .y .a,,«' a i anil i, ; ,,,,"»• ar, 11| • aa •,,
iiigi,:! iR'ii; ...... ''ini'iiM^^ || ..... ..... IN, I;!1
1
,'!1" ' ll«IE:il!il;:i :ii:*;KM id'/ J -if wmi '*: «/';;•<;:. -: -; ^%i • -, ^ -:;:;,;; ,i: • „ t# «, ^^ •:*,,;,,; ">"" • w • i
niBHPPpgpipPPi, kdpP1 iPPiPliPPPi I!, I'II||IIIII|||||"II'
;i jippppppi' ,i', iiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiip,,, in: r, BlrFpnpiFFhip.FFPPFinnnFFPiJphnijii PP^PPPP" .ppplinniFh, iiiiiii|i|iniii ',1,1' pfi'iiiiipiiiiiiiiuiHi'iiiiiiiiii,»*! TP ,i i
' ' IIIIIIIIIPI"iiiill'i'l"'lilP" ' IIP'iil!1' 1 P dill < P1 iil""^"!!!:!!!!)!!!'''* PPP'1!!! PPPPFPii/: : : PB;('»'''
i^ i|;i;]yj|i^
iiilijii;;;;; alba niaaaii1 laisliv: i iinniiiiiiniiiiaaiiiiaiaa iiiliaiiiaaiiiaia inM"' u:'«., 11 nil uaia a' gun;1 • n aa« i< i^aaaiiii ia
iginiii^iiKainipi .Hiinn aaiinii 'ar"i '"" j'li'aiiiiaaa'ia "PIIIH: Tiiiamai1,, i1 aaaaa
fifji i[ ill i11!!1 |llll||t||l:|l^ll||lli:'lI!.. ;"!i ",,,111 "nip1 iiii.riiiiiinj
(•^
'i1 n,i L ii' w i "Vi- ..... i " ' : '" „ ...... i,, m' Ha ' ' ' inn: pp"' T" :•! " i<"',ii , an \\\ a la TH " » i , », ' , • • w a ..... ::"• • : ........ 1 1 ' ,IP :: ...... :: : \ , • ' ". ..... : i '" i.a: <"i < ,,»: aa 411 ...... a1 ,,ii" ' ' i1-1 » n" i ......... a, T™ isaji •", lanaia: „ i| 11111111:
' "1
Illllim^^^^^^^^^^ Ullllllir"! Si!:!) ...... I! lllli ,1:1 ........ . „• Kt'S'' ..... , ii'i - aaihai'iiaaiia < '« g iiiaiaiiaia 'I'laiiiiaaa ,' a
' "
iV
BliPlnai Fi«'',,' " iBP.iillBF! ', IJIIIiilllilL "IIII ilFIIJ Jil'lU,:1;,,'IL'' OIIP'U'' H,'"' f ' IF" , HJIPIIPJIPBP I,' 'PP, , IB!, 'dllllli,''" IIB''", IP"! ipllllPI,, I
pp.xB1, .'Fi'iLjiiEujgngniiir; iigigijgiii,' jiniianniBaniinn'i1 PP.a Pipaniiaaa n , •iiiiFiiBaiiiLinniinapii:: ifaaiiiLiii" rijiiiii,"1'''W
P'jilS': ,
Biiiiiiiriipi"p|:tll!piiniliiiipp|p:»iilaini|p,iii11 paaiuiniPiai MIII 'iiiii'iii/iiMn PL pp innip'ppip ,iia»:,, PhniiniiappniiiFFvai th,,i, FniBJiiiriiFP1 aiFlaiiai:
m% ,m*!£¥ii mK m, $.M t ;• -ifv M.
'V
, i: ii:!;iiiii!: i:i!'4 >:i i!""' fiw iiir 7:ri i f ',,.1 iiiiiiii i1:,
[,, !if airu1 „ IP ma g,,i':, "iiAi,,, aninaa»!'L ,i,' „,Ji nan1 ', ;i nnniiinnn«n; <" ai nnnnnnnnip ua: nn ,,,;g inni BI imp11: PC i ainni BUB nnnninnni: i. 1,1,1 am i map, aininnninanii' gin
11, j'liin;,!!1!,;. Mir1 R, v , IP < :i i JP ...... iii
i l|T|ii, I'lni'i lip 1 1 Nn'iiLiiLjiii '• |ii|!,"!i::.:i|[>ii|i ii":A ^i"1^"'1!,1^ : t i/'iii: :lii.i:i ,, ' ivnu 'nc1:::
ii/ /Pi •liiiiJ .riST".«(!'fe J ••! :i Mt. ", , ^f:!' I " «:: f if i:t il; ' 'iii a l
!'; jlailiiiii- jfiiiliii!' .; IW ffiitJPI Ti' . 3 '-, Pil ''!• „ ' ~. j ''Ti "'AM' * ....... !'"!i ?'!""• '"'Jri "
p'!1!1!1 ".f't ';'«]•§ ' :
'l'li '.' ...... :i '""' ..... Ill
'- ' :! < "ll!!- <:''M
'
i , "i1 n' si! ggiii:!..;;'"',;, m D 'lift.: a.«'tf vi1 ,i";11 '$ * ^ • • ;|! •• y i ' ,
^ !•' „ ,;. i :"!',T* iii:; "!'"' ,>•<'• Hi'!!
,iii iii'ii < 'if ..... I" .11:' ...... *":!•-. : •; i- II IIIIIIII1' ''illlliiiii! ..... i" /.illlbil ' ..... '•li ...... illiili'iHillil :. ,11 .' 'lll'ili'"]';:iW ...... •lilliiJii:
';' :ii!i s >'>"" • ..... .i-iri'i ...... K " "";, "f ...... , : LI* riiem^ , •iiti'ii, HI ..... „, i MM S'liai ;• " • ' ...... 11 ...... -* :'i i lii
^^^^
!fL &'. «til iWri i;
ii;!!;jl!!!!i^i;:^^ '" Ji lii/i^^'A''^''''!:^1::!''..
ajiii'ii'iJiiiaiiialiiBPiBiniiiiniBi • 1,11 IPWI ai'iiaaiaipi'i" n ii< » a1 a a11 ,„ aaaaa'n1 ,1111,1 ,: „ 91111111'mni, 'niiiiii'iiiiiiiniiaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'ijiiiiiiiiiiii1111;!!!'
ui'PI !!!i,'H .Jiiiililii,!, I'! , ipFIJIIIIII'l'llNililirH ,11
lilt ..... i ..... isli'i,lM^^^^^^^ ..... ,;'" ..... I't:''!':!!! ..... '1^^^ ..... EiJiiLiP ..... !li,iiia'!i:!:r;i'::i< ...... 'ana ........ [liiEiii
" ' ' ' !1! ...... IM ..... !^ ...... I!'::!!;! ........ TI ..... irK^^^^ ....... la1'1:*'!:^'::1:'11;]"1:'' ..... mMiiii ..... R ..... in ....... IIK^^^ ..... li'li ...... !::illllillli ..... I'llliB
' i'aaiiiPiF: a aiiiiia,p'" njiiinii,] ..... i ,, 'LiaiSin'n'11! na , " i,,i,'iifp|,'i,,iipi;ininiiiii|iii"" ........ ni:i;,i,, : ..... u - ,,"'111111:',,' "„„ riv viiiiijPiii,. hir HIP '"a -n JPIP:' ''"'iiiiniiMP,, PI,;: ...... ilniiiiinninn ..... f rpaii' " '
IIP ',iiiP' ainiip11, jp !,h • a;p;iip , ,' >: „ iiiiajiiip ,1;:!" PHI, 'pai1 P; pipp'pa, , , jrin, i ,,,111999:: "Ji IP »i ,,i p ' pi'iPPipi, ' • ...... , ..... ' ....... s1 , >;> • .'innii IIP" • :• , « mi,:, i "'inn "iipaa r I'liPEnin ...... ' , '"in:,,,,: puiiai" ; iiaiia'niii ....... iiiBii , ,
..... Ilillp ........... I1?! ...... »',!i,nniiliii niliiiaaaan, BSIBBFB,': Msii'ii, i
'H^ i:]!": !l»^
IIM^ :« si'i! .<&• ";i ::!7iii !&:' : i:>i:i;i; :•.,,: 111 isia ,;: ':>:i f" "• m*., IIB^^^^^^^^^^^^^ im iiiiii • * ',„-, •O^IIK fimm: m
lllliiiiiiiiiiii,ni""'ipiiiiiiiip|ii,iiiiii,i"iiiiliiiiiii 'in
-------
-------
WOC6i6JI.AO.C2
IjlH
iiK^^^^^^
hiiiiiinili^iiiii'iiiiiiii
I!, 1 'rllAIJIIBHSIiil
9«^^^^^^^^^^^
''.HI
i|"" II iJllft1!" Pinii
— • •:" Ranney r
-'"r:.. Well #3 r
^^^-^r---
01 e 5D
*~~i. * rtrr
•«•.
'.-5
Note: Shaded areas
show locations
of highest
concentration.
Source: Olln Chemical. September, 1986. A Ground-water
'Assessment of Olln Chemicals Group Doe Run Plant,
Brandenburg, Kentucky
Biiill! I
-------
v- *.*.- i ;•? ;••--
: ''• ' '"
——l^-clr^i^Scf*;"-
• -^'^^•-^iS'^r
"^^ w *»i-i_^Ji—*-^_ _ ^^— _ ^_»'
Figure 5
DISTRIBUTION OF DCEE IN GROUND
WATER, MAY-JUNE 1980.
OLIN CHEMICALS GROUP
DOE RUN PLANT
-------
11^™ ;—|. L S,i_.ii:L: _:_ ii,,,,,,:, ,,:; -f-~ J^ _:: L.J-Jrrr'-r.v^i-f,*
I "mill"1'11"]],]]1""'
i|?u.i)jw jjjjiS^^^ ills
' " "" '
llljiillllllj!lil|i||||«|h|ig. Ii, 'Ui':«i||l|i||||||||' "1|||||i||j||||||||lii'ill llJ'iHi,I'l'i'ipllPI1 li.lPpp "llpil! i 'ill ' "II'T' i 111 IfjIIIIPiJUIII'i', Ill illplllllii'i.1 li'i'T'lP'Pit MHI'il 'III' lillillllllllli, il'IIIIP1 SI.il
.liiiiiiiiiiiii''1,,::u ipiipiii^ciijir''!!* 'liiitt^^ My.: .iLjiaiiiiiiaiiiii!:.!1;)!!!*^^^^^^^^^^ i).iin^^^^^ ifoi !li« Wji ;:ii
iiiw^^^ 'ii
!!!!!! I!;:!!! ilir
:!'!iil|ii:!iiill|ii,!l!!i|Jlinilillpni!ill£ UiRHI"" '•r'llljllllll!" ii,t lilNliiilllllill!
! KSt 1 \Vf, IillMjJnilllll!1 iniilllli!""' „„ 'HIH1 ilUli ..... I,!,,]!! Illlllllliliiil Jlinill ...... jp'flllhPPia1!!"1 ill ..... •rJllL/llllliin.
ilijiiiii PI r 111 ii.niu '^ iiJiiiuiiiiiiiiHii1, iiniPiiiiiiiiiiii:;!! ir: '<,,< iK'ni
!lllll!l!!!l|li!i!i!IIIIIW!llilli;i!li!!!li!!!!lllllll!l!
l||lH^^^^
iiiiisiiii
llgllllllluiuliii
;i
i!
Hi! i , i i p..
lilininn ip: iic;1 ii Pfliiiii iiiiiiiniiiiiiiniir iiiiiiiii|||i|i||ii""ji!iiiii;aiPP9nnnipnpniiiiiliiinnin::i P iiiiiiiiaiiPinniJi: ippni..;:' iiiiiiBiiiPiiiiii! HIP' i IPUPIPIIIIPI niiinnniP P .iBiiiiiBBiii
illliiniPiniiPi jiniHii pitKiinnniiiniinpipnip, ' TIP,'Bl|>ijlililBh:ii:;i" I iljlHi,':, PUP "'',»,:IPIIinilPt "LUBP'. "jijlllBiiijjji.li.ij.jilPiljPlj. <;i|, P1IIIIP"'vi'Iff«I;:U|{IIIIIIPIIII{IIPPP"P] ' llfllllBIPT1;i "!'I",!•'!' \"I; I'P I"k 1!
I'liilUB I'hlFPi1 'ippl'il !p|' ;p|1' 'PplnPI'PPIIpPnilllPII1 llllBIIIIIIIIKI'lllFjiiL,', i,'" n|JIIPIIPI JllPllllPI' llli.HI:"',: '"IlIPP' .IB n IJIIIIIIBIIIIInllPnii',: || PIIIUPIBli;, .,!' 'iBllPil'lliiiiiilllllilii JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP ...llllBlliilillP. I'lilii " I'dlBBIIPIPlPBl'i'" HP1
n.iiniiin.11'liinin mi'1 mil' "a ii i ..in mi" "iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii»i»iiihiii""iiii":' iiiiii.nliiiiil'nniiiiiiiiip'i.iii i '"w. mr .IIPIP .ini'iniin.iii in"1 JiiPii'iiiniiniii' iriiin.i'Kiiiiiiiniiniiii inp Jiinii.Ma'iii'iiilhiiiiiiiiiiiiiin ii'iiilhiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.iiiii ,.,,'iniiiii"i'iiii.iiiiiiiiiiiPii it.
i ,i'." 'f ii, II.BI: ,„., !ii'"i BIB!, ».i, M ;:,«iiniihiiiiinnnnnnnnninni"111 ipiniai I'litntiiniii u "PI
ii^pW'!!''''^'!!!!!!,,! Jilii^^^^^^^
III ;. PNI. iH|L i"1"'"' M i i;i||||ip||[:"llllll'i|ipi''l|i,il:i'li|pp| iillliu,; llmijlBllw iiHllin
:iilfi«iii»pi«p'niiRinnnnpisnnnnipnp«nnp
I It H' llpllllllllllll il!lllll|lll Iii 'I'llllillllllllllllll'llilllllJlllllllhli'l'IIIIIIIIIH'll''!!!!'.!!!!'!"!!!' .|IBlllilil|i|i' ,i! Li'lli' i,,,JP!.''"
.:«.,i ilE.'iniiiiiiii1" I'liiiiiini iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiirniiiii .in mi «"i , , i fii i ill'. .:'"i i'" I i I PPP'illlPi' llnl „ ', ,!' i', . 11 '"'IB"" < ,;;li|11 E IF' P P i II» i PIT ; .1 • nil11
iji'I'ffulJIjjBjjIljjjiu !!!i!!ii!!!!!!!i!'!j!!!!!!
iillllj i|ii;" It Till IIIIIPP LfP i!, il'ViPi'illl'JlPllll1 !i illiillfalP1' i;1';! '.ill fllllllllJ"./" iSi-iii'lliilPPEHIPPlii' ,* illlii1 III i' >', >,i illllill!:!!;,1!!1 Pilllll!"11 Illli llllnBI ill'ij liliiiliilllillllli'lllLi Jlllllll.!' Illil!!", I
! Wf HUHM HH 'ii ililii!? 'Siiil!!!!!!:!!!!!!*!!!!!!!! I'l!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;!!!:!!!!^!^!!!!!:!!!!!!!!!!!!111''!
ii II'"il"IP'iiiUlllli iniiiiii1 IPIIPI , illliiilliiillillIPliiilPPPLrpllililllliiilFiPiit''!!!!.!!!!!!!!I:'Piilllililjllilllilll1
-------
-------
I Ill Ili Ill Ill
lllllllllllllll II1II1IP llllllllllll'lllllllIB
in in I lull I inn in I lllllllllllllll lllllllllllllll 11 i|n
WOCS1621.AOC2
I liliii In Ill i Ill | i i i I
•II liliii iiiiiiH illillllllllil
i^ a s^1
•-.«•—i-«.---i.— *_r^.i _.»«
I -- I "Tl ^.jXZJr^^J
S"- ^ i • *"
Ranney Well #3 ^U.:
V^xSVs^
• V-JTV ' • *r'm ^
. * ••...•-^••f VvJlo-U;
•.^•:. .cV jf,
Note: Shaded areas
show location*
of highest
Source: OUn Chemical. September, 1986. A Ground-water
Assessment of Oltn Chemicals Group Doe Run Plant,
Brandenburg, Kentucky
iii
iiiiiii
-------
anney Welf#2 .'-•'' •'?"'': "">". I.
—=-=— As_RanneyWen#l
~> r ^ IK. ~ V
Figure 6
DISTRIBUTION OF DCIPE IN GROUND
WATER, MAY 1980.
OLIN CHEMICALS GROUP
DOE RUN PLANT
-------
-------
WDC61621.AO.02
Pumping Halt I3OO 9pm. 4-14-79
300 fpm, 4-lS-n
Wottr Tfmptralilft - SO" F
Ohio frtnr
ClH39IO'!(4.g4-r9)
l- (4K-79)
jvyuit In*, f/ta jgg.94
(4-&-T9)
Source: Olln Chemical. March 7,1988. Assessment of Need
for Corrective Action at the Olin Chemicals Doe Run Plant
Brandenburg, Kentucky . '
Figure 7
SECTION AND PLAN VIEW OF A
RANNEY WELL
OLIN CHEMICALS GROUP
DOE RUN PLANT
-------
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
° ° 3 —
a o 3J 3
imo00
? ^9
i££
^o3
3J H
O 30
C >
•°3
O
z
i
o
o
j-p— >
o
o
o
.
en
0
o
1
ro
o
0
o
i
ro
en
0
o
1
00
o
o
0
\
-------
8832
m z n: c
C i 33
;a 1 o
I^S
H co z
O H
33 3J
§1
Z
00
X
00
O
O
i-t-
I
oo
-vl
oo
oo
O
o
I
00
00
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
oiocnocnooiooiooiooi
r. OOOOOOOOOOOOO
r-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
00
o
00
C/5
CD
00
01
CO
O)
o
o
I— H
I
00
o:
o x
o o
o o
m
O
m
m
m
i2 O
T3
m
§
i
-------
m ..if- •
Q.
Q.
O
UJ
o
z
o
o
7000 T
6000 -
5000--
1000^
0-x
LEGEND
-X- DCIPE
-O- DCEE
Jun-84 Nov-84 Sep-85 Apr-86 Oct-86 Apr-87 Oct-87 Apr-88 Oct-88
Figure 10
ETHER CONCENTRATIONS IN MW-2
OLIN CHEMICALS GROUP
DOE RUN PLANT
-------
W DC 61621 JV0.02
LAKEWOOD
WATER DISTRICT
WELLS
Based on CH2M HILL, Predesign Report, April 1987. EPA-62-ON22.
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
TEST OR PRODUCTION WELL
600 1000
SCALE IN FEET
WASHINGTON
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
PONDERS CORNER SITE
LAKEWOOD, WASHINGTON
-------
WDCt»K>1.«),<52
NORTH
PLAZA CLEANERS
2tO-i
1200
TYPICAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
UNDER PUMPING CONDITIONS
DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER MOVEMENT
UNDER PUMPING CONDITIONS
Based on EPA, Record of Decision, Remedial Alternative Selection,
September 1985.
Figure 2
NORTH-SOUTH GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION BETWEEN
PLAZA CLEANERS AND WELLS H1 AND H2
PONDERS CORNER SITE
-------
WDC61621.A0.02
PLAZA ••>„.
CLEANERS ,C*|f . ,,
f // /7k
Based on EPA, Record of Decision, Remedial Alternative Selection, September 1985.
LEGEND
• MONITORING WELL
• TEST OR PRODUCTION WELL
_ WATER LEVEL-CONTOUR. SOLID
" "" WHERE APPROXIMATE. DASHED
WHERE INFERRED. ELEVATION
IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL.
—»• GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
Figure 3
WATER LEVEL CONTOUR MAP OF THE
ADVANCE OUTWASH AQUIFER, JULY 23,1984.
PONDERS CORNER SITE
-------
„ ' ''I" ' ! , !|! , • ' IE,: '"!' I'll'"1 ,„!,"" ."llrtlil!
_;. WOC6t62llAO]o2
»' : ::
r1 ; « '!:" i • i '" ' . '
III":: ' '!' !' „ !, ' , "' 1 !'
'•' " "" " ' 280, •
" '• ; . \
; '"'i; , • 'ir 240,-
; ' u.
,: ' ! ; ' ' ''ft """"
.! ,-•••' ::„ , 220 •
,'<•'• i. '• • > ' C
'' -Wi i, ' ' " 5
" ' •>
Ul
ri 200 •
.[ ;;! ' ' i( "'
...
180 -
] ?:£' • • 160 •
si
SMtoSM-ML
'•''•' 0 '' 20 " ' ":
: Ft«i
PLAZA CLEANERS
SEPTIC TANKS
DRAIN
FIELD SE
J'7 MW35 SB-1 SB-6
GW-GM
. — — • "
-^ GM
GM
^^ SM
40 60
"V • -*-. "~ ~^~ ~GP"GW,
f v f_ L^—* ~
f F^
f *
\ \
SP
FILL
STEILACOOM GRAVEL
VASHON TILL
ADVANCE OUTWASH
(PRODUCTION AQUIFER)
APPROX. 600 FEET
TO HI •»• H2
• .•
COLVOS SAND
• " ••' ' ' - ' i • ' ' V -;.
DIRECTION OF CONTAMINANT
MIGRATION
GW GRAVEL. WELL GRADED
GP GRAVEJ., POORLY GRADED
• GM' SILfY GRAVEL
" ' 9<' Gt CLAYEy GRAVEL
SW SAND. WELL GRADED
SP SAND. POORLY GRADED
;..' „'' 'SM , sitrVsAND "'
ML SILT, LOW LIQUID LIMIT
Based on CH2M HILL, Rnal Aquifer Cleanup Assessment Report,
February 1988.
Figure 4
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION
PONDERS CORNER SITE
'*' j
ii
-------
Average
Concentration (ug/L)
Number of Observations
Minimum/Maximum
Concentration (ug/L)
Total Volume of
Contaminated
Media (cu ft)
Approximate Mass
of Contamination
Table 1
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF CONTAMINATION IN EACH ZONE
OF THE GROUNDWATER UNIT, FEBRUARY TO MAY 1985
(SOLID AND LIQUID PHASE)
Steilacoom Gravel
(MW34 and MW36 only)
Vashon Till (MW 20B only)
Advance Outwash
1.2-DCE TCE
ND 42 •
1
PCE 1,2-DCE TCE
111 ND 58
2 — 2
PCE
2,500
3
1 . 2-DCE
ND
__
TCE PCE
3 16
5 28
83/139
12/103 570/4,866
1.5/6.3 0.5/110
7.5xl05 7.5xl05 7.5xlOS 2.0xl06 2.0xl06 2.0xl06 4.5xl07 4.5xl07 4.5xl07
20
14
1,300
16
180
ND = not detected.
1,2-DCE = 1,2-dichloroethylene.
TCE = trichloroethylene.
PCE = tetrachloroethylene.
ug/L = micrograms per liter.
Source: EPA, ROD, Remedial Alternative Selection, 1985.
Wells MW20B, MW34, and MW36 are within 150 feet of Plaza Cleaners.
Well MW20B was the only well in Vashon till with contamination.
Wells MW34 and MW36 were screened in both Vashon till and Steilacoom gravel.
WDCR218/018.50
-------
L I 1= mz-ittr.tiL--. - !1S,
!i»:v
" "woasmijiOJK =f
rr^GuNb*-^
\ \ w
»*^_>^*^."'- -
^t"^-
3ased on CH2M HILL, Final Aquifer Cleanup Assessment Report, February 1988.
LEGEND
240 2 • 24 Monitoring Well Number and
PCE Concentration in ug/1
• Test or Production Well
— — — — Approximate Concentration
Contour
ND Below Detection Limit
NM Not Measured
W
*^~s
500
3i
SCALE IN FEET
1000
Figure 5
CONTOUR MAP OF PCE
CONCENTRATION, FEBRUARY, 1985.
PONDERS CORNER SITE
-------
WC 65621^0.02
I
I
McChord
Air Force Base
Based on CH2M HILL, Final Aquifer Cleanup Assessment Report, February 1988.
I.
____ 1
mmtmaf
SCALE in MILES
1 Groundwater Flow Direction
Note: Monitoring Well Locations
Not Included
Figure 6
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
AT McCHORD AIR FORCE BASE
PONDERS CORNER SITE
-------
>\ 2422 16A(5.243\>, \ \ \
'' ^?-"»^'<\ \ N * I
XT >r2W, I ) -1
XV^. n-/^/ ' / /
>XX.^*y/ / / /
2^9< ^<<<,> / /
" 3V^r^l/'
a^ X249.9/' y
aN% ^ ^
12
Based on CH2M HILL, Rnal Aquifer Cleanup Assessment Report, February 1988.
Monitoring Well Number
and Water Level Elevation
Test or Production Well
Approximate Water Level
Elevation Contour
Approximate Limit of Zone
of Capture of Production Wells
500
SCALE IN FEET
1000
Figure 7
WATER LEVEL CONTOUR MAP OF THE
ADVANCE OUTWASH AQUIFER, MARCH 1987.
PONDERS CORNER SITE
-------
WDC616Z1.A0.02
Based on CH2M HILL, Final Aquifer Cleanup Assessment Report, February 1988.
LEGEND
240 2 • 24 Monitoring Well Number and
PCE Concentration in ug/l
• Test or Production Well
Approximate Concentration
Contour
ND Below Detection Limit
NM Not Measured
M
*^~s
500
Si
SCAtE IN FEET
Figure 8
CONTOUR MAP OF PCE CONCENTRATION,
DECEMBER 1986.
PONDERS CORNER SITE
1000
-------
*= = - t
.:,. X,;>>T*
.^••v// •*«-••-'"
x<:
<*&& V --,-' - I
*' ^^
Based on CH2M HILL, Final Aquifer Cleanup Assessment Report, February 1988.
LEGEND
240.2 • 24 Monitoring Well Number and
PCE Concentration in ug/l
• Test or Production Well
— — — — Approximate Concentration
Contour
ND Below Detection Limit
NM Not Measured
500
SCALE IN FEET
1000
Figure 9
CONTOUR MAP OF PCE CONCENTRATION,
MARCH 1987.
PONDERS CORNER SITE
-------
Table 2
PERC CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN MONITORING WELLS
Ponders Corner, Washington
Well
No.
11A
11B
12
13A
13B
14
ISA
15B
16A
16B
17A
17B
18
19A
19B
20A
20B
21
22
24A
24B
25
26
27
28A
29
30
31
32
33
34 -
35
36,
37*
d
39A*
39Bd
d
41d
02/12/85
Through
02/14/85
6.2
NM
ND
ND
NM
NM
NM
NM
110
NM
ND
NM
ND
ND
NM
NM
NM
27
NM
8.5
NM
ND
ND
ND .
ND
5.8
38
ND
ND
ND
83
ND
139
03/18/85
Through
03/22/85
5.6
NM
ND
ND
NM
NM
0.5
NM
70
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.1
4,866
2.2
NM
4.5
9.5
ND
ND
NM
0.7
0.9
24.1
ND
4.3
ND
NM
ND
NM
04/25/85
NM
NM
ND
ND
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
2,200
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5
NM
NM
NM
NM
05/16/85
Through
05/20/85
6.1
NM
ND
ND
NM
NM
ND
NM
46
13
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NM
570
13
NM
7.2
0.9
ND
NM
NM
ND
5.4
17.2
ND
6.9
ND
NM
ND
NM
6/17/85
Through
6/21/85
2.7
NM
ND
ND
NM
NM
ND
NM
33
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.8
1,220
11
NM
4.4
4.0
ND
ND
ND .
ND
1.1
13
ND
3.3
ND
NM
ND
NM
8/20/85
Through
8/23/85a
4.3
2.4
ND
NM
ND
NM
ND
NM
20/11
NM
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
4.0
1,060
10
NM
16
4 . 9
ND
ND
ND
NM
3.4
NM
ND
3.7
ND
1.2
ND
NM
] 1/5/85
Through
11/7/853
2
NM
ND
NM
ND
NM
ND
NM
19
4°
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
350
ND
NM
NM
ND
13
9
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
NM
ND
NM
8/25/86
Through
8/28/86
1.4
NM
ND
NM
ND
NM
ND
NM
16
4.5
NM
NM
ND
ND
ND
2.1
745
ND
NM
NM
2.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
5.3
ND
2
ND
NM
ND
NM
12/16/86
Through
12/17/87
DM
NM
ND
NM
ND
NM
NM
NM
17
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
1.5
NM
4.6
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
2.8
2.2
NM
1.5
NM
NM
NM
NM
3/17/87
Through
3/20/87
NM
NM
ND
NM
ND
NM
NM
NM
49
NM
NM
NM
NM
ND
NM
ND
NM
4
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
ND
ND
NM
2
NM
NM
NM
NM
ND
ND
MD
ND
ND
ND
7/7/87
NM
NM
ND
NM
ND
NM
NM
. NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
ND
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND = not detected.
D = detected, not quantified.
NM = not measured.
Note: Units in pg/1.
Exceeded acceptable holding time.
Duplicate analysis.
CEstimated value. Compound present but at less than the specified detection limit.
Well constructed 2/87 through 3/87
Based on CH2M HILL, Final Aquifer Cleanup Assessment Report, February 1988.
-------
Well
No.
=f r
11B
12
13A
13B
,14
-ISA
15B
16D
17A
17B
18
19A
19B
20A
20B
21
22
24A
24B
25
26
27
28A
29
•30
31
32
,33
34
35
36
37e
39A6
39BS
40e
j4ie ._
02/12/85 ,
Through
02/14/85
:!" no
BH
NO
HH
NH
NH
NO ';•
NH
f 6.3 ,
NM
ND
NM
ND
ND
NM
NM
NH
1.5
NM
ND
NM
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
42
——
: 03/ie/eS:
Through
03/22/85
HO
HH
ND
ND
NM
NM
ND
NM
3.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
103
ND
NM
ND
ND
ND
ND
NM
ND
ND
ND
ND
: ND
ND
NM
ND
NM
; :
—
, NM = not measured.
ND = not detected.
, D = detected, not quantified.
04/25/85
HH
KM
NI)
HO
NM
NH
NH
NH
NM
NH
NM
NH
NH
NM
NM
NM
32
NM
NH
NH
NH
NH
NM
NM
NH
NM
NM
NM
ND
NM
NM
NM
NM
05/16/B5
Through
05/20/85
NO
HH
NO
NO
NM
NM
NO
NM
3.4 I
ND
ND
N»
ND
ND
ND
NM
12
ND
NM
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NM
ND
NM
6/17/85
Through
6/21/85
NO
HH
NO
ND
NH
NM
ND
NM
2.0
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NM
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
NM
ND
NM
=- -T?
^ IP- ~ 7 Is -= :
-/ ---- — - =
-= = '- HI = =
-=^»fcl f-: *'-"= - -, " -
i: M : , :j!!i
KIN MONITORING WELLS - v
rtashinqton v .._--'- :. , :
8/20/8S
Through
8/23/85
D
HD
ND
NH
D
NM
ND
NH .
D/Db
NM
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
D
DC
D
NM
1.2
D
ND
ND
ND
NM
ND
NM
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
NM
11/5/85
Through
.11/7/85*
HD
NM
ND
NH
ND
NH
ND
NMd
NM
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
29
6
NM
NM
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NM
ND
NM
8/25/86^ .-;
Through
8/28/87
NO
NH
I3
NM
ld
NH r.
ND V:"
? i-
ND
NM
NM
NH
ND
ND
ND
igo ,
NH
NM
ND ,,
ND :
ND
ND
ND
Ni
1
NO
1
ND
NM
ND
NM
rf
J2JA6/86
Through
12/17/86
NH
NM
ND
NH i
1
NH i
NM '
. ? i:
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
ND
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NH
NM
1°
ND
NM
ND
NM
NM
NM
NM
4/1 7/87 ;
Through
3/20/87
* -. * -
NM
t«
NO
i'i NM
2
NH
- .- -= =
NM
NH
' NO
NH
NH
NH
NH
ND
NH
ND
1
NH
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
ND
ND
NM
ND
NM
NM
, NM
NM
ND
- 15 ,'
1
, ND :
ND ;
__ ND
' •' -, :
7/7/87
---'--'
HD % , .
HH
ND
NM
NM
NH
NM "
NH
NM
NM
NM '
ND
NM F «i ---••"
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM 'V
NM '
NM " ' --_-'.
NM - "' ••''•---•-
NM
NM ."•- ; ;• "
NM ! ~,f--\
NM * «• -,", ,
NM - • "
NM ' ; '
NM "";. :-
NM : , ,
NM . _ ; ' ^ !
NM ™ , -- '" '-,
ND ; , ;,!_,,„
' ND "*";!' '"*-. T
ND -"- _, :-*-- - ' -' '
ND : .-: " /-.';'«'• --
ND ;; ::r.-~-;: :
Note: Units in parts per billion:.
Based on CH2M HILL, Final Aquifer Cleanup Assessment Report, February 1988.
Exceeded acceptable holding time.
Duplicate analysis.
Detection limit = 100 ug/1.
Estimated value. Compound present but at less than the specified detection limit.
Wells constructed 2/87 through 3/87
-------
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
il^f
Sow™
o
CO
z
o
m
co
m
m
CD
m
3D
CO
at
(O
co
s
3D
•o
S5
^ TJ
mQ
p
II
^o
m
O
Ol
O
o—H
-------
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
01
ro
o
en
CO
o
5
CO
CO
z
o
m
o>
o
o
•o
• 6
•0
4
co
to
T3
O
O
m
ow®
1
§
•o
UK
m "^ TJ
m ^» —n,
> m
§8
X Z
m
5
I
pt
:«O-
<*
§'
6
_^ 6
14
O q
«o
o YQ
o
CD
(/>
m
3
m
2
w
m
yj
ro
at
_!.
oo i
0 -<
o
4
. '
»
3
\
lO
/
%
o I/" S
O Q CO
0 tq ^
•p
CO
CO
CO
1
o
1
-J-
ro
t
^
i
z:
— *•
-------
WDC61621.AO.02
RIVER PLANT
SITE MAP
Figure 1
MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF THE A/M-AREA
AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT A/M-AREA SITE
AIKEN. SOUTH CAROLINA
-------
Savannah
River Laboratory
M-Area Hazardous
Waste Management
Facility^
Settling
Lost Basin
.\ Tributary of
Tims Branch
A-014
Outfall
Sourc«: USDOE. July 1986. Application for a Post-
Ctoiure Permit, A/M-Area Hazardous Waste Management
Facility, Volume III, Revision No. 1, Savannah River Plant.
Figure 2
MAP OF A/M-AREA
SRP A/M-AREA SITE
-------
VJOC 61621 AO.02
MODIFIED FROM
SIPi-S, 19i7
LITHOLOQY SURFACE
LITHO-
STRATIGRAPHY
DCS, 1S»1
HYDROSTRATIGHAPHY
Q4U 19ta
8ARNWELL
RED CLAYEY
SAND
-200
TAN SILTY
SAND
TAN CLFT
CALCAREOUS
ZONE
GREEN
YELLOW SAND
WITH CLAY
CONQAREE LENSES. LIMY
SAND DOWNDIP
DARK GRAY
f 11 ewrnw LIQNITIC CLAY
ELLENTON WITH MARCASITE.
QYPSUM. AND MICA
UPPER CLAY
UPPER AQUIFER
MIDDLE CLAY
VARIEGATED
CLAY
BUFF AND
QRAY SAND
LOWER AQUIFER
BUFF AND
OHAY SAND
8ASAL CLAY
SAPROLITE
CRYSTALLINE
ROCK
VARIEGATED
DENSE CLAY
UPLAND
UNIT
TOBACCO^
ROAD
FORMATION
DRY BRANCH
FORMATION
MeBEAN
FORMATION
CONQAREE
FORMATION
ELLENTON
FORMATION
(LACK CREEK
FORMATION
MIOOENOORF
FORMATION
UMATU RATED
ZONE
UPPER ZONE
UPPERMOST
AQUIFER
LOWER ZONE
PRINCIPAL
CONFINING
CONFINED
AQUIFER
Source: US DOE. July 1986. Application for a Post-
Closure Permit, A/M-Area Hazardous Waste Management
Facility, Volume III, Revision No. 1, Savannah River Plant.
Figure 3
GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC COLUMN OF THE A/M-AREA
SRP ATM-AREA SITE
-------
NIIO.OOO
N 106,000
NIOO.OOO
N 95.OOO
• NOTE; ALL UNDESION ATEO WELLS
HAVE MSB PHEFIX
Souro«: Colvan et «l. February 1987. Draft First Year
Report, Effectiveness of the A/M-Area Remedial Action
Program, September 1985 to'September 1986.
Figure 4
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP OF THE
WATER-TABLE UNIT, FIRST QUARTER 1985
SRP ATM-AREA SITE
-------
WOC 61621.AO.02
NOTE: ALL UNOESIONATEO WELLS
HAVE MSB PREFIX
IO.OOO
N 103,000
NIOO.OOO
N 93,000
Source: Colven et al. February 1987. Draft First Year
Report Effectiveness of the A/M-area Remedial Action
Program, September 1985 to September 1986.
Figure 5
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP OF THE UPPER
CONGAREE FORMATION, FOURTH QUARTER 1986
SRP A/M-AREA SITE
-------
l :
-------
-------
:»,„ ,| 'Hlf • '! n ,,l " .I1'1
ill;) H|f>> ., I i'I "if;
;n I'T : !"i Wi,:
400
300
CO
I
200
100
0 I-
SOUTH
M-AREA
SEEPAGE BASIN
SOLVENT
Source: USDOE. July 1986. Application for a Post-
Closure Permit, A/M-Area Hazardous Waste Management
Facility, Volume III, Revision No. 1, Savannah River Plant
-------
WGE AREA
B1
NORTH
338.92
: : 238.63
BLACK CREEK : E NM
2000 FT.
EXPLANATION
THIRD QUARTER 1985
I MONITOR WELL SCREEN ZONE
240.51 Eg WITH POTENTIOMETERIC
i ELEVATION (FT, MSL)
U RECOVERY WELL SCREEN ZONE
td
245—^ POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR
-2 -WATER TABLE
^| ELLENTON CLAY
— • McBEAN/CONGAREE CONTACT
NM NOT MEASURED
NOTE: VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
= 40 TIMES.
Figure 6
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
B-B1, THIRD QUARTER 1985
SRP A/M-AREA SITE
-------
"'" • in "' k
Hi!!'I;
'*•'
11 III I I III III III JJU IIIIIJILJIII I
-------
-------
WCC«tM1,AO02
, I ifli
f;: •!!!•
SOUTH
M-AREA BASIN
SOLVENT STORAGE ARE;
300
in
5
u-
O
I
200
100 -
Source: US DOE. July 1986. Application for a Post-
Closure Permit, A/M-Area Hazardous Waste Management
Facility, Volume III, Revision No. 1, Savannah River Plant
i ::
-------
NORTH
E'
240.51
EXPLANATION
THIRD QUARTER 1985
MONITOR WELL SCREEN ZONE
WITH POTENTIOMETERIC
ELEVATION (FT, MSL)
RECOVERY WELL SCREEN ZONE
POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR
._2 -WATER TABLE
|H ELLENTON CLAY
• McBEAN/CONGAREE CONTACT
NM NOT MEASURED
NOTE: VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
= 20 TIMES.
1000 FEET
Figure 7
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION E-E',
THIRD QUARTER 1985
SRP A/M-AREA SITE
-------
Ill1 I II
I
iiii'ii i
• .k""!" IN .Ill "f
"I II'1! i ' :!,,I :l I"
I'f
IB1 i"!'
illlliniilii ,'iililr
,: 1"!
,:'ii fl'
"lllllHIl1 1,,
'Ilil'il" ""I'll,',,11"1,'' '
?-r it'«t;:c
'iigiiiin'H^ i.
T ' ' "",„!" ' I ' ' .'
"" "' '.i'lHS!:
' -t '1,''
.! ,"T;;:
, .V'JL '!"!'::,!" '. :ii,;":
,' '!'' iJilllliiiliil'i.ihliiiilliliriillilllLiiill'1!
;' • ! r :;|* i.
i'»l!;i .,*".: la iiltii!1
* I.1 ; .I ,
'r?!;"'!'!,; :""'!'; "_,,,:
' !'«!" ' IIK''',,;!': "•'',.'
lillliiilllllll!,, ,,|i I:1!'1 III,!1 H ,li!|! I'l',
, , ' ! '., ,11 i ,
''lii,",1'1 !"ii"ll|l:' '""'I'1 :"i ^"'n!1 , i' r" » "
,,i! 1" ml 1, "I,,,, ,||, ill! I'V,;!!,1:.!,!!!:!.!!!!!!..!!! Jill1!,, HI ,,!n!l „ ,,!illi! „
III!!"'
.,
I'l:
' ' ,,i ,,'Ll' 112," II,
";,„ 't ;, "'i!"1' , ', , at.
.I'!!,!,:!,!!!!!! !!,!i! iiuir.'!!!!:'! 1 ill I,'!, Jill!' " HlllllllllllliiMii
•a '• f
Ilii"1 'i,'
iiiiiiniii,i,iiiin ' '',i
i".| : ;, i , I"! II'III'IJ "ill
:: ""Ilii , il'Til 'i I1; , lilllli, il
-------
WDC 61621.AO.02
Savannah River
Laboratory
NKW.OOO
NIOO.OOO
MSS.OC3
NOTES:
1) ALL UNDESIGNATED WELLS
HAVE MSB PREFIX
2) CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN PPB
Source: Colven et al. February 1987. Draft First Year
Report, Effectiveness of the A/M-Area Remedial Action
Program, September 1985 to September 1986.
Figure 8
CONTOUR MAP OF TCE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE
WATER-TABLE UNIT, THIRD QUARTER 1985
SRP ATM-AREA SITE
-------
NW3.OOO
NIOO.OOO
NM.OCO
5
u
NOTES:
1) ALL UNDESIGNATED WELLS
HAVE MSB PREFIX
2) CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN PPB
woo'
4000*
11111 nHb jlil'ILKIililn IHI
Source: Colven etal. February 1987. Draft First Year
Rtport, Effeetlvene*» of the A/M-Area Remedial Action
Program, Septernbcf 1985 to September 1986.
"''.''' ii >?1|!n.."'';i .'I'l1:,: • 1'ii'T '" i ',! I,!:;.,'1' , f yrf^. ' iii!*1 ! ^ \ in, |,-ii,;'1; '•<> ,» " ' Ai, „ :: ,„ '"i:
Figure 9
CONTOUR MAP OF TCE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE UPPER
CONGAREE FORMATION, THIRD QUARTER 1985
SRP"AyM-AREASITE ' " "" """"" '" ' '
I":!!!!1 iii." .;'"n"ili!!
-------
-------
WDCete2t.AO02
I'.l Ji
I':
40
30
3
to
s
o
I
200
100
SOUTH
M-AREA
SEEPAGE BASIN
Source: USDOE. July 1986. Application for a Post-
Closure Permit, A/M-Area Hazardous Waste Management
Facility, Volume III, Revision No. 1, Savannah River Plant.
-------
NT STORAGE AREA
NORTH
: :<100.0
263.0
EXPLANATION
THIRD QUARTER 1985
I MONITOR WELL SCREEN ZONE
± WITH TRICHLOROETHYLENE
± CONCENTRATION (ug/l)
§ RECOVERY WELL SCREEN ZONE
'-* ISOCONCENTRATIONAL CONTOUR
2. _ WATER TABLE
H ELLENTON CLAY
: McBEAN/CONGAREE CONTACT
NM NOT MEASURED
If concentration for third quarter not available,
last available concentration is shown in paren-
theses.
2000 FT
Figure 10
TCE CONTAMINATION ALONG CROSS SECTION
B-B', THIRD QUARTER, 1985
SRP A/M-AREA SITE
-------
Ml » Illllllll 111
"II II
ill • > :< .(,ii ! , ),;;;'' '".it 3
I1 ' I,'' I "' Ul II'HI
IM III II III I III II III
•II 111 11111(1 I I II I II
-------
-------
WQC«t821.AO.<&
SOUTH
E
M-AREA BASIN
SOLVENT STORAGE AREA
300
3
to
2
u.
O
I
UJ
200
100 -
Source: US DOE. July 1986. Application for a Post-
Closure Permit, A/M-Area Hazardous Waste Management
Facility, Volume III, Revision No. 1, Savannah River Plant.
, il!ll,,lilliilrir|M.:i V 111! Hi llJin, ' m'.'iL, UK llnllllll 1
', hi ML . I h,'flu, 11 .'I'k'lh'liilll11 i,' III!1'f111'111 ^
-------
NORTH
EXPLANATION
THIRD QUARTER 1985
I MONITOR WELL SCREEN ZONE
i WITH'TRICHLOROETHYLENE
263.10 JE CONCENTRATION fug/I)
|=j RECOVERY WELL SCREEN ZONE
• 10
ISOCONCENTHATIONAL CONTOUR
Z— WATER TABLE
|B| ELLENTON CLAY
McBEAN/CONGAHEE CONTACT
NM NOT MEASURED
If concentration for third quarter not available,
last available concentration is shown in paren-
theses.
Figure 11
TCE CONCENTRATION ALONG CROSS
SECTION E-E' THIRD QUARTER, 1985
SRPA/M-AREASITE
-------
'' ii" "S,.
V ..... J
i?1',"'!1* 'Ill I,
11 ',;,
-------
"fa
.
a- S
ff .«
E « 5,000
i
I-S8
§§
a -n
B°
3
S*
«2 m
5
O
>
T)
II
fO
en
(Q
TJ
3
3)
ID
n
0
m
3
2.
n
01
tn
(Q
TJ
3)
-------
EXPLANATION
-10C
Calculated extent of 30-year capture zone
Estimated extent of ground water containing trichloroethylene
concentrations greater than 100 ppb, third quarter, 1986
Source: Colven *t al. February 1987. Draft First Year
Report, Effectiveness of the A/M-Area Remedial Action
Program, September 1985 to September 1986.
Figure 13
30-YEAR ZONE OF CAPTURE IN THE WATER-TABLE UNIT
SRP ATM-AREA SITE
-------
WDC61621.A0.02
0
c
*o*i*
sooo'
4OOO*
EXPLANATION
-10C
Calculated extent of 30-year capture zone
Estimated extent of ground water containing trichloroethylene
concentrations greater than 100 ppb, third quarter, 1986
- N110.000
- MJ06.000
- M10O.OOO
Kt-c.ooo
Source: Colven et al. February 1987. Draft First Year
Report, Effectiveness of the A/M-Area Remedial Action
Program, September 1985 to September 1986.
Figure 14
30-YEAR ZONE OF CAPTURE IN THE UPPER
CONGAREE FORMATION ;
SRP ATM-AREA SITE
-------
if ,111!'"" '£."'
<• I
I
P'l'li . ;|li I
! S'
til A :
"'
i i"("
"••••: v^i i'V- ••••
•,11 !•••:« ••-ill1: ''ll
i":<-i" iiiiil Ji
il ;;rf
''ij'" f'1''1!
ll" 'II I ! I;
I-
'(•Ml
HI
:' :•:: iiii.a
f'l. mill!',,! !i «'j 'Jlii,!!;, ft!;.!«! 1, '' . H'W!'<
-------
-------
WOC8162t.AO.02
Mtn utvkTieN '
K«U I- • »»•
Source: USDOE. March 1989. A/M-Area Hazardous Waste
Management Facility Post-Closure Cars Permit, Groundwater
Monitoring and Corrective Action Program, Savannah River
Plant, 1988 Annual Report.
-------
Figure 15
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP OF f HE
WATER-TABLE UNIT, FOURTH QUARTER 1988
SRP A/M-AREA SITE
-------
11111 III 11 II II
II 11 llllllllll II ill 111 III 111 III III 1111 111 1111
./.iff!i1 •, ,.*».; r .UN! .""'ill I , •• s flu in '.ill J"» -
''(!,< hi I,!1: Ill !!' M 'I'll •ill!1! IK, "Ilii'lT
"nit it iff i [Em!
-------
-------
II 111 II I II II 1 111
WOCet621.AO.Oa
ll 111
Ill
111!'!!!!<•: 'li!1!'" illlllllLi i,I ai'iMM i T T ClilH "l.itii?
xnt i* • (it
Source: USDOE.March 1989. A/M-Area Hazardous Waste __^ _\
Management Facility Post-Closure Care Permit, Groundwater ^
Monitoring and Corrective Action Program, Savannah River
Plant, 1988 Annual Report. \
„ L
-------
p\ ( Figure 16
I ^^ POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP OF THE UPPER
( / CONGAREE FORMATION, FOURTH QUARTER 1988
\^/ SRP A/M-AREA SITE
-------
|||lf|i,;"J,i' ..•:, ,.,';,!,, i'lif!, ' if "/I"'1 ,
'! ,1" n Wi"
iS'" ,.I? :.'.£,' 'iilvii-i-" '
"'i ,-IH ' 1 ? ',•!" '" .MT,:!,
H"'. .1 , 11"" Nilllli'!: ''illllli":!1 !i ' ..I \
-------
-------
Kf: ft'" mm'JAFir»;? a;;5:;,*T i' e •• ^ • ;,t:n;?"";:;-^ t-:-iw:,'':' \mmw&MW: i1
WDC81621.AO.C2
Ill
ii *—— VtlV
u i«——wotnocTHtioc
A • RECOVERY WHLL
Sources: USDOE. March 1989. A/M-Area Hazardous Waste
Management Facility Post-Closure Cars Permit, Groundwater
Monitoring and Corrective Action Program, Savannah River
Plant, 1988 Annual Report.
-------
Figure 17
CONTOUR MAP OF TCE CONCENTRATIONS IN
THE WATER-TABLE UNIT, FOURTH QUARTER 1988
SRPA/M-AREASITE
-------
I
Ri&'^.'fvLW, ;:>,.,;'*:.!&',',: (.-;..,!$
L;*:.1,1:, iiSt! iilli,, 'i, "I: '''"' I" , ••' • ,'• «
-------
-------
I Hill ||iil I IN
mi iiiin 111 in 11'i11'l iiiiiipiiii1 " iiiiiniiiiii'iii iiiiililiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiPiiiNiii iiiiiiiihliiiiiiiiii i
i iipii Niiinii An1 n nun11! '
nil ii ""I" Iliiiiillllllll 'n
11 ii" iiiii liii'ni ii i™ nil iiiii' iiiijip" T iSiipi" liiiiii 'liiiii i iiiniii if "i in iiii'iiiiiiii!iiiiSiiii'I iiiin i»" II 'S'!'i iiiii' iiiiiiiiiiii PI!'
A - RECOVERYWELL
Source: USDOE. March 1989. A/M-Area Hazardous Waste
Management Facility Post-Closure Care Permit, Groundwater
Monitoring and Corrective Action Program, Savannah River
Plant, 1988 Annual Report.
-------
Figure 18
CONTOUR MAP OF TCE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE UPPER
CONGAREE FORMATION, FOURTH QUARTER 1988
SRPA/M-AREASITE
-------
111 111 III
»!' II
1 i III
'l\";,n II''! iiln :': I T
II I II ill 111
ill, , { „ 'i,!,, nil,,, !
''Kip i 11I':|I>1!:'" J
-------
-------
WOC81SS1.AO.02
T
400
300
CO
Z
O
I
200
100
B
SOUTH
Source: USDOE. March 1989. A/M-Area Hazardous Waste
Management Facility Post-Closure Care Permit, Groundwater
Monitoring and Corrective Action Program, Savannah River
Plant, 1988 Annual Report.
M-AREA
SEEPAGE BASIN
II II ill111 ill,!* II I'll I
-------
.VENT STORAGE AREA
B'
NORTH
EXPLANATION
Fourth Quarter 1988
I MONITOR WELL SCREEN ZONE
58.500.0* WITH TRICHLOROETHYLENE-
± CONCENTRATION tug/I)
y RECOVERY WELL SCREEN ZONE
X"~10^ ISOCONCENTRATIONAL CONTOUR
2._ WATER TABLE
jjj ELLENTON CLAY
McBEAN/CONGAREE CONTACT
NM NOT MEASURED
If concentration for fourth quarter not available,
last available concentration is shown in parentheses.
2000 FT
Figure 19
TCE CONCENTRATIONS ALONG CROSS SECTION B-B',
FOURTH QUARTER 1988
SRP MA-AREA SITE
-------
II 11 1111
mi i in in ii
ill lull ' ' III
up; •• :ti!" i.; .;,''# I'Fi; r'iw .'CK*;! ii ss; , -"i ;'i'/'.i,?,;i w%*;•:& i
: i!i,,;', ''I1*,!11! ? mi,! • ii1, if IP1:!:: ,.> <•• ,,F .M' .fi iidiinii^ , >i " i/. i,;,|i;" ivt^ i:"i ,. • :i
II'I'Mlll-1 i/";', I ll.'lli
'MiillFi; -.,'j .1. 'Kit, "'iri'1,11:111,,,;':! i '"•;,; f ill ,1 tf-i llli Wj 'JIJOIIIIEl'IIII
..... 1 ..... K$i ...... .'':,
~ ....... * ...... ,•: .....
; ..... s !•! iR: ..... ' '• .; • IM ..... . : : i • 'r
. ; " " • ' • ' '
.Lii'iiii:;1!"111'I ;,i||i ,,'i ifr'1
•I JlllllllllllllllllljIllllUii ,„ •I1 i|iiillll;:ui, lllliiill'iJiJiLi' Jim1 ii ii !1' iJ "I 'iiiiuliiil iili,!,iillii: 11,1 „ ill; ;"'"0hliliil, 'ilh, ijllllliillllllllllliz:, ,< .llillijlllllllllllllllllligi m, In nn;1:«III ililli]:. i< JlilUiiln j: ill ullnl *': ,iiii!!i«; i, tit,!, Jill »; •. Ji l>, i "' 1 ,' •'! UliP JilJIiii i Ji i i' 11.; ,,i,i;it'' Illil* "i j|li ,i >,!, ,ln< „ !',,< 'Si'iiH!,'1 illlj liKiliilPI, i ilii'1 illlil! i, T1';!,' IllllnlPliii'll "'! 1,1,1''" i>, , :,lllll,, nil! i lll'l i' ii P 'i IlilPvup ,!ini'< iiHii Jllflli,; I:, ,f M\K'', <;lii:' 'i '.: r 'i " f'l: '' "Ii ''Hi. 'i'lih'''!!!:!!!!!!1,! ill in nilllllr ill Glilii! :>'' llii ' ll Hi, IHlll,
-------
-------
WOCBtf21.AO.02
fell1'.
i!-1' Si!*"
I'iiii
SOUTH
E
400 r
M-AREA BASIN
SOLVENT STORAGE
AREA
300
o
p
I
100
Ql-
-------
NORTH
£'
: ? 2.52 &
*l-0
1000 FEET
EXPLANATION
Fourth Quartar 1988
I MONITOR WELL SCREEN ZONE
58,500.0 * WITH TRICHLOROETHYLENE
± CONCENTRATION (ug/l)
g RECOVERY WELL SCREEN ZONE
^"^Q"^ ISOCONCENTRATIONAL CONTOUR
2_ WATER TABLE
|j ELLENTON CLAY
McBEAN/CONGAREE CONTACT
NW NOT MEASURED
If concentration for fourth quarter not available,
last available concentration is shown in parentheses:
Figure 20
TCE CONCENTRATIONS ALONG CROSS
SECTION E-E', FOURTH QUARTER 1988
SRP A/M-AREA SITE
-------
i, null T ' ,j,i iiin'i! '"
L ' ,„ " n jil Illlllllixnipdi " ' Pi1 ' 'iil"IIP"'l! ' '{'ill'
71"' I I' lllli ' , ' I oil I."I'll'l,r
iilllll1 ' am ,l!'"'i: :i III!"'1 II1 i-iilli"!!, " f' I"1 illiiii'll "I ' 'Ml' I .;' ' llrlllti tll'l'! ::;
-------
i '
T3 H
00
m m
S
m
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
CO
U)
m w
3C 5= Z CO
O m H TJ
§?£§
> H
33
m
m
co
|!3 m
c o
mO
H O
m
CO
en
0
0
o
«—I
o —
p
fe
-------
WOC«t'fi?1
STORAGE
_ARE£
TANK FARMJ
BUILDING No. 1
n ,
1 TANK FA
BLOC.
J No. 3
BUILDING
No. 2
n, |
cr
a * —
II
u
a
Duiminu no. -r—a
1
s- BARE GROUND -^
h i
I
-ti-
I
WEST 20TH STREET
LEGEND
FENCE
V
TYPICAL
METRORAIL
COLUMN
Figure 1
MAP OF SITE A
SOUTH FLORIDA
-------
WDC 61621. A0.02
BACKGROUND AT
WALKER PARK
•=3000'
EAST COAST RAILROAD
MWT-35 •
MWD-02 •
MWS-01 •
Tl ' •
r / '
f — rntjrnc
/.EXTRACTION WELL
' i- BARE GROUND
/— DERU-02
/^•PERM-01
TYPICAL
METRORAIL
COLUMN
-*- FENCE
• MONITOR WELL
POSSIBLE EXTENT OF
CONTAINMENT PLUME
Figure 2
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
SITE A
-------
AOCC
PUMPAGE OUT
r
WATER TABLE
-.
1 * f )
-10
III
rrrr
SSE
V *>'£t/'"*->^1' •."""' "•."'. ' .„" •'.'•; •".''••*"' ""••.**":•" ^ --'•'• i'l' '
a -:
20
' . '
i ' _ i
I . I
i.i.i
1 ' . *
JKH - 1000 FT/DAYj;
JL-. t.,
i Kv - 10 FT/DAY ] i ' i
•"i-L*- •'-"'. ';*"'•'•* -KH -
'••;-"• ;.''.'.":''-". ' KV " 10 FT/DAY
FT/DAY S-J,{ 5;^
T/DAY >'.:-> '•'•
KH - 10 FT/DAY
Kv - 1.0 FT/DAYi:::;r a,fe'll
-75
LEGEND
SANDY UUESTONE GRAVEL
FINE QUARTZ SAND
HEttUU QUARTZ SAND
SANDY UUESTONE
KH HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
Kw VERTICAL HYORAUUC CONDUCTIVITY
Figured
IDEALIZED HYDROGEOLOGIC
CROSS SECTION OF SITE A
-------
TABLE 1
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)
FOR INDICATOR CHEMICALS
SITE A
Chemical
Drinking Water Limits,
USEPA's USEPA's
MCLG(a) MCL^
ue/1
Florida
MCL
Benzene
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Phenol
Vinyl chloride
60
0
7
70
5(c)
100
5(0
7(c)
jf* MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal.
Jb) MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level.
(c) Proposed value.
(d) Dade County Department of Environmental Management DERM) MCL.
WDCR321/051.50
-------
•I ^ 1 -• ! 1«^ 1
r i a i » • r»e »
• : I : t : r !;rr --^-~r:L '.
OOKI0A EAST COAST
CONCRETE S.AB
TEMPORARY WELL
METRO
RAIL
PARKING
GARAGE
TEMPORARY WELL
TMW-08
-TYPICAL
METRORA1L
COLUMN
ESTIMATED EXTENT
OF CONTAMINATION
i
Figure 4
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
ESTIMATED BY CONTRACTOR
SITE A
-------
M°S±LWe11 D!?th Sample
Number
20
CDM-03
55
MWS-06
20
MWS-11
20
ANALmCAL RESULTS FROM SAM^OF GROUP A MONITORING WELLS
Days After Benzene Chlorobenzene ' '• ^-^ — -
uate
1/19/88
9/1.4/88
10/12/88
H/02/88
11/09/88
12/07/88
1/11/89
1/25/89
2/17/89
3/02/89
3/15/89
1/19/88
' 9/14/88
10/12/88
11/09/88
12/07/88
1/11/89
1/25/89
3/02/89
3/15/89
1/19/88
9/14/88
10/12/88
11/09/88
12/07/88
1/11/89
1/25/89
3/02/89
3/15/89
1/19/88"
9/14/88
10/12/88
11/02/88
11/09/88
12/07/88
1/11/89
1/25/89
2/17/89
3/02/89
3/15/89
Startup
0
17
45
66
73
101
136
150
171
186
199
0
17
45
73
101
136
150
186
199
0
17
45
73
101
136
150
186
199
0
17
45
66
73
101
136
150
171
186
199
Goal=l
8.2
4.5
7.6
6.5
7 f.
1 . o
14
11
5.6
3.1
2.8
OC
• 3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
3.2
OC
• 3
0.5
0.5
57
• /
2.3
0.5
1C
• 3
1.8
1.8
OC
t 3
0.5
0.5
2C
• 3
3
70
• y
3.3
3/,
• tf
3.3
3
3.4
6.2
6.6
4.2
— —.fcwfcvf isdl^CilC
Goal=60
200
49
52
38
41
38
44
45
31
23
22
5.2
4.2
3.4
2.3
2.3
14
2
2.4
0.5
140
180
56
20
13
37
29
18
12
23
21
34
36
49
56
63
67
63
78
58
= i.f-aiciuorob
_ Goals'!
88
5.7
21
13
0.5
0.5
10
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
110
160
10
42
3.6
0.5
2.8
2.5
2.4
0.5
0.5
6.2
20
25
4.6
14
1.1
1.4
0.5
0.5
>enzene trans-l,2-DCE
360
8.6
21
i a
JLO
22
8/.
• *f
4.8
2
3.3
1.8
10
. 6
3.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
OC
• 3
0.5
0.5
OC
.3
33
14
1 <
1*0
0.5
1.3
OC
• 3
0.5
0.5 .
OC
• 3
20
Oc
• 3
0.5
31
* 4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Vinyl Chloride
Goal=l
14
6.7
13
12
19
6
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.5
2.1
0.5
1.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
23
2.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
74
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Total
JOCs
893
118
147
103
110
71
78
62
46
30
29
15
4
5
4
2
17
13
2
1
324
498
90
70
20
41
37
23
14
160
28
48
64
96
75
86
77
76 .
89
63
-------
•' Jil i
--, - =i=TW m - i -=, ;* m i M = _- - = u 5 = . = . =^11 I j - = ==
: ::^ :'-'"'-" ' ' " TaMe 2 - - = i -1
: , ; .;-:; : § -^ (Continued) f f
: - • " rn,T«™1>enzane 1,4-diohlorobenzene trans -1,2 -DOB,
. •,,, n _. Afrpr n^Mrnc chlorobenzene i,» «* ROB1«70
Monitor Hell Depth Sa«ple uayoju.i.<=,«. Goal-l (?oal»60 - tf°afr*a —
MWT-31
DERM-05
DERM-06
rt • == » =
" 8 !E 1/19/8811
91 14/88 /
h 10/12/88-
11/09/88
12/07/88;
I l/ll/89i
« 1/25/89,
' 3/02/89'
< 3/15/89J;
*- 19 1/19/88,
9/14/88,
10/12/88,
t ', 11/02/88,
- -- 11/09/881
'. 12/07/88,
1/11/89
1/25/89'
2/17/89'
3/02/89
3/15/89
: 10 " 1/19/88
W 9/14/88
- 10/12/88
.'- -' 11/02/88
11/09/88
* 12/07/88
1/11/89
1/25/89
* : 2/17/89
- , 3/02/89
^ , 3/15/89^
s :
0
17
45
73
101
136
150
186
199
0
17
45
66
73
101
136
150
171
186
199
0
17
45
66
73
101
136
150
171
186
199
sxpress
S ! 7
3.8
2.2
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.4
1.8
1.5
0.5
0.5
t , 0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
; o.s
OC
»->
- 6.4
0.5
0.5
r o.s
n c
0.->
', . 0.5
' 0.5
0.5
0.5
j ; 0.5
Oc
.^>
i
S -
ed in ug/1.
0.5
180
66
27
12
33
27
11
8.1
32
34
28
10
16
13
19
18
13
9.4
11
25
9.9
18
13
8
8.4
12
15
12
7.6
9.5
a _ j A 1 C\
'
4.9 i
120
17
5.5
2.6
7.3
2.6
2.8 »
0.5
0 5 ::
\J • J
64
360
86
0.5 L
0.5 s
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
15
29
140
130
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5 :
0.5
0.5
- -
i iicr/1 . i.
40
11
3.9
0.5
1.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
210
69
66
2.4
10
6.6
26 :
22
21
33
20
21
4.4
17 :
2.8
4.2
1 «3
e!s :
5.9
13
13
12
Vinyl Chloride
36
56
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.
0.
0.5
0.5
.5
.5
240
100
94
8.7
14
5
10
27
6
18
0.5
48
19
7.5
5
0.5
3.6
11
8.7
6.2
6.4
0.5
Total"
VOCa
195
733
140
43
20 .
42 i
36
15
9 ,
520 i
288
615
116
63
40
102!
116
91-
100
67
127
66;
204 !
171'
37
24
47
601
53;
54
44
ese compounds xs i.u «&»••» M
l!o ug/1 are shown here as 0.5 ug/1.
WDCR321/052.50
-------
5
MONITORING
pa
o
fa
CO
OS
fa
1
1
M
|
i-H 03
cd C
5s"
Is
rH I
5lc
•1°
01
|ir
rH U
X
51
1 O
CM r—
i o
|»
u
S
0)
N
01
•81?
rli-H
O CO
3«
•O
i
*H
§
01
N O
01 II
.Q rH
O CU
0 O
€
01 — <
d u
SrH
N CO
d o
>> CO
cd h 01
• O K
d ctj x
0) M H
o o o
d ^3 *J
O cd nj
o
0,0
o
in
CO
m
o
CO
txi
-------
: ,:•: Mil!!: :l!lf 3
Mill! !
.a
Q.
Q.
O
cc
LLJ
O
z
O
O
60 j
50--
40-
30--
20 -•
10 ••
0
0
20
Legend
-•- Benzene
-o- Chlorobenzene
-•- 1,4-dichlorobenzene
-n- Trans-1,2-DCE
-AT- Vinyl Chloride
40
60
80
100 120 140 160 180 200
DAYS SINCE AUGUST 29,1988 START UP
Figure 5
GROUND-WATER QUALITY IN WELL
CDM-02, CONCENTRATION VS. TIME
SITE A
-------
8
0>
s
I
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
D
O1
O
1
O
O
— 1 —
_J>
en
o
— i —
ro
o
o
— i
ro
en
o
CO
0
o
CO
en
o
J5k
o
o
• i 1 1 1
o in
,1
f
o
zr •
O
Q.'
CD
D
i
i1
=3
ro
6
O
m
•
-
Q.
o'
o"
S
CT
CD
ZJ
N
CD
CD
i
'
g
6"
S
cr
9U9ZU9
ro
CD
ZJ
N
CD
zj*
CD
(Q
-------
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
i
^
«?
3
O
5"
S
CD
P
H
JB
CO
V
O
0
m
•
i
_k
*
i
Q.
o"
o"
S
CT
CD
3
N
CD
CD
i
O
0
3-
o
3
D"
CD
N
CD
CD
i
DO
CD
N
CD
3
CD
r-
(D
ua
(D
3
Q.
-------
EFFLUENT CO
SITE A
•^
(CENTRA
H
0
H
O
H
O
o
C/J
Figure 8
AIR STRIPPER
^^
NFLUENI
—i
z
o
0
I<
CO
CO
"5*
o
m
^
c.
0
c
CO
H
ro
-
CD
00
00
CO
~~j
DO
C
"O
o
en
o
_L
O
o
en
o
ro
o
o
ro
en
o
CONCENTRATION (ppb)
-»• -•• ro ro
en o en o en
o o o o o
00000
o o o o o o
9 o^*° ' ' Ji ==,=— — «H
0 ^~~~~~'*
\\ /
p v
i i
5* *
0 >•
•o •
i i
o •
i i
o •
o •
6 e*
| /
O 9
-Q0
O ^
6«
i i
o«
II
11
u
A;
n
1 1
o»
oi
II ,
0> n •
M ii
0» ' '
6i
n
O)
# • o |
1 Sa
O) ^*
11
o>
1
{;
(Q
(D
O.
-------
Tracer •/ . ,•
Park „" .",«
SCALE IN FEET
as
1000 0 1000 2000
Soufot: CH2M HILL, October 1987, Groundwaler Treatment
""t, UP& L Pole'frealment'Yard, Idaho
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
"' '- UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE
-------
W DC 61621 .AO.02
KEY
o
CD
AQUIFER NO. 1 MONITOR
OR RECOVERY WELL.
AQUIFER NO. 2 MONITOR
OR RECOVERY WEL.L,
AQUIFER NO 3 MONITOR
WEL.L,
SO
FENCE
13 MW-20
O MW-5
A MW-1
., ~.O BOILER
r3 BUILDING
m MW-I9
V
OMW-13 MW"12
A o nui-16
Source: Dames & Moore, January 1988, Installation of
Aquifer #3 Monitoring Wells, Pole Treatment Yard, Idaho
Falls, Idaho
Figure 2
SITE PLAN WITH WELL LOCATIONS,
JANUARY 1988
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE
-------
I Ill Ill Ill"
Ill II III 111 I
III I Ill I
HIM i "Hi IP
! itiJi'i • " IK*'*' i' "''"""i Sill! •' iFIIIIH '"I " >il f ' (L i
:".--1, 'in, • . .iiiiii',
~T
l IHIWif .""lii! , Ill" il
111 l ill
II I 111
111 hill
II |i II
'!' iiliM j
-------
-------
' n.,;,! 'dllE'lliiliiiiiiili'iikJJi'l.ii'iiil'i, ii I.' '
4J»-
Water Table on May 20,1985.
NOTES'
© comiELAttoNS ARE «ASED UPON GROSS LITHOLOSY.
© sueswiHcc CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN GENERALIZED FROM AVAILABLE DATA.
(5 oerAiLCO LOC or soflmis ARE PRESENTED w APPENDIX c,
© ctois seericn LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLATE 4-3.
VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
K) 5 0 to 2O 30 40 SO
Source: Dames & Moore, December 1984, Part B Permit
Application for Hazardous Waste Management Facility, Utah
Power & Light Pole Treatment Facility, Idaho Falls, Idaho,
Volume 4.
'RACTURE •
-------
HARD BASALT
WITH FEW FRACTURES
BROKEN BASALT
Figure 3
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE
-------
( .' II I
1|iiriR|!'" 'V'.i' T1';"?1 |H
i'li " '" Ii"
4 ,«' 'i,' ill.'", ,,l,:'|lll' 'V II1' Till,'f
HIM,:,,,,:'nil'1'!1' I,'I ii ""Jl1 till
jiiiiiiiiii'liiiiimiiiliiiiiii'1. iiiiii'iii'Ii'ji,' 'iilliiiiiiiiiiiiiii, "liiSi'ii'piiilli!!,!!!,!1!!'*!,1 >, "•:"' i V'j » , "I'l'l'iiiiiiimiiiiijii'i ' '' i! lii'i. "•
i ..... n* ....... i ...... s, ':•!• ii ..... ,, ' ai ..... i! • •: ,> :
r1 i.Liii iiiiiii'Ajriiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiini" iMiii',!?1 Mir aini'i!;: 1 "inin 'ii
•« ,/» ;tr ,i in ..... it «:;;,» &• ..... t ...... n ..... » :i
i ...... i iiii1!1 a sui" i
MWv••«*!«»," ? ' i f, 1 "!"• iiiia
"R.:1 J!lii(iii;;|<|iii t; I1!.: ^ :;, i'-li WjHM <•!( *t Jill! %,,'fif,"i ;9gm, mM i")fZiiiii,' .11 [. ,'UP;,KM^ifMl
ij f-fljurf .;f J""1!-- -'I'"1''"'':.•' i;l£iK!f ''li'iiii'.^•'tiit'i"!IflH •iliS -SliKf'iSfSli •"'''" '1!H!Vl«i!ii?' •IfM
IS11ftlK'fR !''.•} i £.*!&#.' ji:' i!';, :', "Hi 'ii^iifti Hi'!;,' (»« ' \ "ill k<"' iiiiiiii, Jmf9, ''fm ibl'l!iiiiiliiiilM^^ ,.; ,i!!:"U • iiiiiiii il i tilli if!llilllli>lllll
• "il 1 ( 9159 ,!, W 1* "^M.' ••it :., "in!"!111' f yiiSTiit B;! • ,,raiH( •••" eilB "Bii i:;"» iM^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i"" i nil Jiff,, f". 'J i I1 ill
IRIt'TJlM^^^ lllis:illt;l:'.t!i 11 :',"! , VS* i3il[ It
|ll|l|illu i'ii i ' I III", liii'lllll, JlillliillLii i]il!ii 'Hi '.'.I- ii.! :' i.i ""' i , I ii'' iJiHliilb ,»*",. L fil'li!"" i'iiilli' i'l"! ii!'
b!' liifii;; , ..... ifiiiiji .iHirii!!!;' ii
.,11 " ........ ...... lar i ' liiiiijiiiT', iiii'i" i in 'iii:111 i ':ri":v i« i
i'1'! ..... i;. iii-^iiii'ii/.rM^^^^^^^^^^ ' ......... i ..... '>T< ' : ;
........ j . r;ii ...... in , JR ' iii,ii, - i H/ii: ...... i
' in1 r
Kll I iu'Sliilllllltl l!";,)!",. "ill '" IlllU1
I. "Uliiiilllll'"1,11111"!11.!!1'1!!1 i, T" "W^:i1IIII»
" ! ill
!''ii!P>i^ ii
•lliil;: i .i i<;i< il; : •• Ill illH!,, nil, iiii :'"! i : •fAWiift,', 'ftmf K,
I'lii* I Bill "I Hi '.ill Hili'lll! , 'SSfK?,, ill! II
:-. ii:; ;,:<* 'ir:'' r 'i,iii<>.>ii: ;•:• n IIII>H :n :",. '.ju i: ;iv.:: "u <: i :iiii • ''i-Mini1 |:!-ii • :i i,,, ii'iii!'' •? ; :<.;,, "'i1.1 ••iiiii! iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- i: ,i; • '. , it' 4111111 laifiiiiiA^^^^^^^^
: "liillHi IKMiai" "'i !'i;l, iilil'i'i'iill hJIE'llllillCi.-!!!'''!''.!!!1.:' I1"';""!!!'1: I1 I IIIMi1! f, ';,•• a, "Tir iflllll i 'illliill -!' ! "1M1:-: '1 "ii lilllll " , )'<<\J:]lillllilllK
< i'i iR;! "'•
IOT
'':;tiiw •«
l;1)" "" '^ifl^^iii^|^1L>*i1*-i!^iJ''!ini'"°rilil3i W'l
JiifiiiSii' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;iiiliiii:iiiiiijiiii'i:i; ,r "'iiiuL' '<"i:i' '>liliii'i: i:i "miiiJii'i i kiiinii i:::,,i':i:i, f'Si :n 'Tit i":
ilMAlE It^K Sill!!11
iPiiiVrninuiii,!,,,:;:,:;", '"< «>' ,,r ,T ;!iui!i ;„ l:l,,<<,< „'•''iMLMiiTmJi,^^
h
Ii;:;;,, jinn viiii"" ii ^iiiiiiii'"' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiN • :':i uiiii''''!':!.! i:,i, •!; 111»:, Kig;«:' i :>, I'liii'iiiji:,;"1 r :•,<, i^ii n iit 'jiint": i juiif ii!iii,,»aiii
|! |1""1 ''"' ' ' "' Jl i"1' " ' ' "''" ' '
"ii ''!'
!'<' .'411'' i ,L', IL .,!! . ;•" "i:, ¥> i rJ'U'i W "'•! "1 ; I' "t !>' Illliliil tli] ,, .liUlllil'l::, . Ii J llli
lililliillllllllliiillillllllilijii'''^'!^!'!!!''!!'^!!^!!!!!!!!!''!!'!;:!:'!'!!'''!'
,: if ii 'i 'i," 'jir
'"gilllllllillllll'i .fllillliillllKP MilIU H 'JlHlll ilHlllll Irll'IIIIIL ' '' i',!1!1!!'1 '''UltK,, 'mill iil
iiiii« iiiii •'!'!'F' ' iRjiilii";:,,; 'liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiii'iiiiii, Li"!, iluii ;mi'' uii < ri" iiimiiiniiiiiiiiiiir swiii!' i.inviiniKi'i'jiHiiiii' »,< •: , <'i"'<',; ,::< i •' ,:•, ;i • n ,,;i< >' ^: v ft i,
I •. -:
iiiiEii:;)!:!1!!;:
iiiiiiiiiiurini;;11,, "
'• « ' '"• ' .»• •„,
I:,:!.:K i«f^
i,1;;;;;;, 'ihn;;;;;;;;;1.11:;;:1,,, ::':;,,;; ':,;::, ;;,,h,;;,,", ;:;, ;:
" ii • '!4\ lil'inii'lF!' ''It'liy'iii.'..:.!.''''!.'!:!!!'! "'I'1:!;,!, "3"1'.
'"<• i * ' '"«•' * '" W '»•
|! ,!
.-:« .'«
loiiiiiiiki
uii n1,,;:,1 "ii.iiiiiii, v
•'iipiin t1, nw^hn-1 iiiii. i|i;iii.i|i,i. :>!„: .1 \?A i1. • HI <"f ;:,'i':<,' KI""
•ilWiffi1! illili t. V'tf il T t M^ i'l! ":i,:",f!!,
,""!!!'!, I!,,, "", "mi, -jiii, ,I!!"°!P°!!IPN', - . i '« • ,, ™"ii in ,',1.*,,, ," ,i 'i
I 111 III II
llf»;iii'iriJIlS'i
'Ii" iiii 'in'' .) ''' 'I1'!1"1!'!' ''W'' '
;|Mi Sib" ,l!h .I'MililnrJJli:!"
•!^B*M:ifi?^''M5^?^^ i^'^i^iifsisiisi^
i'^Mi'1^ JiL'1!1 iiiiii! up,' '• ,"!ii ii'iiipSiiHt"" Sliiini,::,'i!|1 : vii; I
', ''[''illBlill'lll].1"11,;!""11",!::!!!!"!*' .I'1 ,i" i"1 ,.ill"illlili
,";/'
IIRii'liiililllillliii.l'i.ililip
II III
i iii'1! 11 MI! ,,i'
i i
111 11
-------
Table 1
SPECIFIC CAPACITY AND AQUIFER TEST RESULTS
FOR ONSITE WELLS
Well
NW-1
MW-2a
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
MW-13
MW-16
R-l
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
MW-9
MW-10
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14
MW-17
R-2
R-7
MW-15
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Specific Capacity
(gpm/ft)
610 - 1,100
190 - 610
22 - 1,200
110 - 550
90 - 550
<0.2 - 1.9
0.015
3.3 - 4.4
610
<180
6.3
0.56 „
4.3
1.2 - 1.5
55 - 65
150 - 370
16 - 17
2.9
0.4
8.9
3.5
100
100
110
Transmissivity
(gpd/ft)
260,000 - 950,000
2,250 - 14,300
1,100 - 6,400
20,400 - 30,400
28,400 - 29,800
25,500 - 29,800
Leakance
(day'1)
NR
0.0029 - 0.013
0.0072 - 0.018
0.015 - 0.029
NR
0.0068 - 0.012
WDCR436/071.50
-------
MW-1
UPPER AQUIFER (NO.1)
— MW-14
LOWER AQUIFER (NO. 2)
1234 1234
JUL AUG
1234 1234 123
FEB MAR APR
4 1234 1234 1 23 4 1 23
1234 1234 123
MAY JUN JUL
Source: CH2M HILL, October 1987, Groundwater Treatment
Phase 2 Interim Report, UP & L Pole Treatment Yard, Idaho
Falls, Idaho.
Figure 4
WATER TABLE FLUCTUATIONS, IN AQUIFERS
#1 AND #2,1986 AND 1987
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE
IP
law
-------
-------
in;. \I\IM\VK : HH ,, 'I'linUH atat> n~a:\ „„ mr;;,,, 'f,;111111, ranin, sunn;' i,! i i" i^ .t < «i jiip • •;, 'iii;1 -, i, k ii,, nni,!:!1 'ih,;!!!1*:;: <: i iiniii11 i ;[, K mmn ^ \ -,, tan "inn j, in, fiiii! n: ir 'iiui1 >,;t: 10 ,:'"ii i: imi!!!111', :siBiiii'' v t. ;n,,,',«f' <, "iiiiiiiiiin: •' t!1!* 11 w IP iiiinninniiiiiriiiiiiini/iiH'''*!!!!' "miw '"yftiili
• :, ..... : „, ' ' •, ".va
j'ViJir1"1 ' ..... :i ,i!;i"!!, ii+ipin'jiiiiii1 '• ill
-------
/456S.42
/A
Figure 5
POTENTIOMETRIC HEAD IN AQUIFER #2,
FEBRUARY 13,1985
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE
-------
IIII lillil II 11 111 III 111 IP I lillil
(PI ill i llllllil ll|l
•• ..... stsaii ....... i ..... \;,iimu
lillil IIII nv IIIII I 111 1
ii i ' J ! ffih !!!': t TV 11V I li: •! ": „ ''
UOWIVTOI ?'i>'f>i 'I:,;!:,:' i
f if! ft. \sfftU , Wl !: : i , d !"' : • t :i !Wf ' » " i!l!ii< JtfJ ff ' *S:i ? '{, itf , • l|;: ' ..... , , I - "i : : "" IIV!1:, !l ...... ,' '"il HiiRiil ......... * .ilUEl!' , «f : ! ......... !!!l , < * .HER m
Jlilnl ii i Hi,!1 ,•
"::!!!!1 il •: '• ipri 'ii H,;. "aK'f1' "" V" ^i; ,, am fiiiiijiilijii^iyii'i'111 ;;.i ir ,,,, liii nlil,, ; > 'i . , ,-' ;- •• : ": u ii ,„; f " i : >, liiLii'jpt'l,, lwi: Jii
ttAIH ..... ,fT .*,£C ..... tfiW'i': i ii'tWIIi. '" ,.."? ''' ,«: . 'ill: I', : , li ii-" .Jll111!'11!!:'111/!!"'11:1''!'!'11111!'1'"1' -'WlL,'1 ...... "Ii : i ' lilliiiiil: ' 'illlHii:':;!!!,, < s^¥' C :"" : iitJlll ::!' •'< ' 'i'lniiillEi1!11'" JiiEVIr,, I 'Illllllilllilill1 liilllii
llBn'j!!!!!1 ill',1,,:1 ''1! £ 'T ,;.!' .'WiJli !l t UM/'-I k'UDI «:|jl H1, i iliBi1;! I1.:1111:!!" < :,«ii|ii'! ;,
JUiilllHrlVliil"' , ": " V'Li,,*' "!!!' :H"',i<,< "J i! i'"il,,i ; :i 1:3 !>'';„ , ! 'Hill Hi! ii i j HI I ....... lig, ;;|, I , '„«?!„, ' 'J| " :i"f, «;
j|i , ,i!lll|i|l f i*1:;;;; >,|i i! lifftHLliili,,:11;!11; rWii;, Tyi
..... llllll'iillill'lllo 111; M i ........ ill!', < ! " lllhlNi:,,': , ...... dlJilll' , In" !ii! '
i,!1!1 °,:J*;-':i IVfjj"';!1'1!' ;:':' "" *:, '''"liliMHIii'viiij;! ..... Mil1 I'm. 'ij;1!! ..... !n| Iflli IE ij .hjlllijihABlllfl'li11:1'11 11
lill'l!!l"nii''1IE P I.I^HIIIIIIIli: lillil
'iii'iniipi SSL : < JIIBIIII iiin
fti*' f :i ::r'''^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i i^
iniiiT , />•• ..... ,/ ' » '"i, ii"i::M(t,' ni ib ::,:i! |: .teuiic v (iiiiniii' i Hii' 'in»i-»..«r i is i:i >" aniii i w
' , ', . i
i : '
niiaiiniiiiinniiniin'Vi, I'ljiiiiiiu jiiiiiiiiniiini'i njii, iiMiii'n, i,„IIIHMI i i ....ri'iiii'ifw^^ i" ,,: ir" jwihiiJMEniii r'iiriii1:1 iijiiinvi niiii.jiqiiiiniiq'.iiiiihiiL'iiiiriiiiiiiiqri "ii" '.niiiiL,:,.'IIHIIIJ'IIH',,! 1,1,,' ini'i ini l1 w;' i"ii,,,;,,,;i,,n in1 ,, j „ ',,r,i ' 'in ii rnnL i in1:!1" i, nnyi mi ' 'IEI:I,I,IIIIII|I, "'ijpiiiiiiiiiw „< 'iiiiEiiiinnrTi'iiii':"," ''idi'iiiiiini'ihiuiini "ii 'iHii i, .'iiirruidiriTm^^^ Hi"
'.MU'HilMJCftlW1' ' ':!„I!',:,!'!!! , '''i;'!:!!!!!1'!1''!)'''']'
'::; in w,-- iiinsi;'" : i
..... iiitt
„„,;,';", ,;!""(.,!,:£" li|i'! I'!:;'"', ji'1],", ",':''il '::, ,, rF,:! 'ill!'""! •' mac.i,kli.'f "Mitt ' .lillllll,: "'WI'liillElli!; ILIHIlili:!!i!ll"'!!lia^^^^
. i r: i' r a,-": ji'S!" iii;; tw)w, • i, • • ii!,,, 11 miiiw: &* i t:
''''*::! ...... iiiiiiii'ii
i..lt,{;*»'•T.KW'::' „ I'*"",,,""!''!, ,"!1'!:i":.: ";„: &•'•*.'• ,$•'*
lii,,1'!' ,,i i iii!,"''!,': V,:!"1 "i,,,!11,,,: HI,,,, ,ii,; 'ii","' " ,: 111::
I,, • ,,'i!, iS'l: t'l'iil, •.ri.'Jrii.aJNj1 !f>i\. i •, i:,,!!":,
•t,':"'i':: .it* ,!'."' -i'5'";S iii*1!"
I' if ,/iifi i':,':]'1':'!!! 1'1,'fe lit;,! !!'•*,, ,:•:::" „ .*,'r ijiis i?: tut iii "i :„ M *w.
Km:mi~'"Mmit'ir«ir;mt,!mifsl\i'S
illlili: S
';; i (ii v1 i:ii!i|:1iil
iii''1: '"I'll"!1,!!"*:,i"; , <:i!i ,,:;<"i!iiit iFiiiiji'ii', Mr:::!, :",' ,'>•''.iiii i-iiiiii'''!^^^^^^^^^^^^^ z:', i' "iiia; .iiiii: lilB^^^^^^^^^^
:>:'^ Ill ill
i i' ' , liiiiii iii, iHiiiij' -I' 'iJiiiiiiiLii
-------
-------
""i'Hm I II™ IIII I Ill II ! II Ill" I" ! "I '""! " II I ! ! I " !ZZ '!"! It
,
KEY
.4566-
A
O
X
IDEALIZED GROUND WATER FLOW PATH
IN THE UPPERMOST AQUIFER
ELEVATION CONTOUR OF POTENTIOM ETRIC
SURFACE ASSOCIATED WITH THE UPPERMOST
AQUIFER
MONITOR WELL IN THE UPPERMOST AQUIFER
WITH MEASURED ELEVATION .OF POTENT1O -
METRIC SURFACE
MONITOR WELL. IN A DEEPER AQUIFER WITH
MEASURED ELEVATION OF POTENTIOM ETRIC
SURFACE
PRESENTLY ABANDONED MONITOR WELL IN
UPPER AQUIFER WITH MEASURED ELEVATION
OF THE POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
SCALE IN FEET
o 40
80
Source: Damea & Moore, April 1986, Hydrologic Investiga-
tion* and Design Recommendations, Well Field for Creo-
sote Recovery, Pole Treatment Yard, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
-------
f ..
WA604566.60
Figure 6
POTENTIOMETRIC HEAD IN AQUIFER # 1,
FEBRUARY 13,1985
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE
-------
lilllllllllUCIlfllUJH' illl|lllllli:;:illllHlir ''' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPIIHllllllllllllllllllllllllKllll!!'
1 'iiniiiiiii'liiiiiniff''-'!'^^''^^^!!!!!!" iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiifif
I!1 'lia'SllllllllljlJIIini'll'Slllll''!!!!!*:!;*!!!'^ •Flllllllllllll :|l,T :!'" i™!!1;,;'1'!?1!1!' i it!!,11; .I'l'liii!!!:!'"!!!1,,!!!!:!!!1!1!!!,1!! I! 'I'T'lilH'iil i ''i' ."i.i :!', .I"!1 "lllllll|l|||li|n>ill|l 'I'llillllirililllllllll'rlO'iiirililllllllDIPI'l ii'illlllR'l JilllllillilH1 tllllllllllllllllllllll" lllll'lllllll
11s'nilii!|il:iii'M-fi'"ii,:iiii:"liii'iiii'^iiiii'iTiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiii,J,.ai!iiiwi tSsf;".wl,,iifi» '"i, T||I;"ii1 "f' i fk• "• i ' '''i!|1""»i iiii'-"'• > x? •.;,i • '"i"?,,i , f%^"!''IP c"~$,• i1 ili::">ii;iii" \|[~jiif';'j „ iijjljjjjjj:!:».
ill JHft. .':!i!lii»i1!',il' "'i!;1 ;v'', 'i,i'!:, (i:'": , i J!" ' i1! i •: -'' i !"'!' '"; 1 \ "" ' •. ' i,,'•. / '„„ i, i '< "i '• "I i., V•' tj i' iilllllliili:!!! • •
llll'l'Illllllllllllllllllllll!1'Jll
IIP li,,,1 , ,i,i ,|i,I! i1!*/
L'llJr, 'HI:*1' -If ...... Ih11*!*!! '!• "".,!' Ii(«i1!ij" ' i "i
''•! J; ' 3:1 i /I ""I'l,
ilMJfniJ1'!: "li'1' "''i ii !,rlB'.!,:,i:H,!:'!M< I '„ III1! ', i,,|!lf',
', ii!1 '.! ' ."''i ' in* I
ill1 i Kill1;,! V 'Hill; „!, Hi
ii1';" • ,i,, s; if!!!,:: •; in +'*"' 'iniiiiiiii;;;! 'jiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;,, ^ A:^ :""'„' ;• • ',IFI> J H1"1,! • ' • wa • Jitf 'i, ;ain:ui u
'..': .,,.iri'iij,jij ii111!. IK ir, ..' '"'i ': iiKiTiii,1" i: iiii ly,'""! i!:. !ijjiai;ii,i.:|''|' "JR.
™,' s « ,i",,! riii • *;B in HI, ! I:>;K'
IIJ! !' ;'':»' '"liiKI,!!,,; 1 ill Til1 ''"' ' 'Cil'" Illn "• i .,'11 " J" ''Illlkll1 ' nil l"'
|-i' Mid'1*
w \: I *: * f *|: ,.".•„ ii:!-»., :i
" j,111:1'!1 ".:;„,,Ji ..null i <",• >.>> iiv'i
s^'-ii: ..... ii ...... 1 ........ 'i •dttrtifefci:: • i ...... "i '••' r:'v.i •; ......... : ..... ' 'i- iTJ
...... jiii ..... •iiN'ixi'i.iiu, ........ i ...... !' "wi ..... :;ti ; ..... "iiiun ...... t '>>l,;liil:'>i:i'".i:
ij,or>i'ii. ' '.BUM1', I'fM
a:1*] a ..... t ....... niKH^11 '• ...... f .:' '*;•• i if "ft
;iiii f.! *>>j .i,'""'";"'"!' iriri",;:"''!! i r,...ii'' G;'> tfi.m -m!t^,:m9. • jw i;?, r '
ii!,;;;,i«! . -* ,•: •,'.-.: ; ".li'un. d1 ."i!,,,,"1 , ".m1;1, ;,; w iL1",-!*!1^ ."ii l!?:'ii + "ii'iiif »» ,11^^^^^ ^ LL i.i» iiiiiHLiiiii rw , '^
i", ,'" 'i li'f;:''11!!,,1""' :»i;' .,,.'51'"'!', ,,:>l'i,ini|i li'i;,, '!" „ '« " t- ' '", 'ipf.i„!''"„, "":":'iii'.'' „/"i,;,111" 'i' '''i' It l»iii iliK &""',1 '„!,„»' i!"' Bill.' iliijlliliiili1!"!;!!!,LiHiiiiliillllfllllliiiiii'll nBIIfirJil^V ll 'hi" 'liiulliiliW^^^^^ »il, illfI! "Iiii1
'"!' I ,'' • " " '
'';i;'''" '
HiJi. '"„'' Jn.iJIiiiJi'iK' 111 li, 1(1 'iiiliiv,",1
P a i'i '"i1, ;,, i nil'1 .'U'"1':"', i, • /"ii: "<;/;iii• ;, i,!,!",,v "i1 nn mi ininiiii in inininn inn IN i innnngi i MM n n n n n
>:; .svi"",•;,, ""iniMi i:,,'.;1":;,,"!:, ^ «;:'<'.. i;,i "ni: i.,"",,1 ij; ;,; 'in .igiji,: Mini •: •• t. > a,1 i ll im i l ill l ill i il i IIP Nil inn lllilli
!'!1 i |, ,i,. II!],:'1! !i 'tlf''" .;;; "! l ,,i Bii:!11"!!' ',,;,«! iil'lIU, "E11 i' ''''Ift! I1"!, il|||,:., : £':>lJ. ill!' !',,'
|;:;^:
;, .'/'I'llifinii1 !' '" ll'li'illlT'TI I", iJ111*]!!]!,!' ijil, '"ili,, I1" ll|i! ' \li''i|', 'UinUlllin1 ' LlilA Jrti l«
-------
-------
Ill • I Pi"
•ill i iiinnln i in in n 11ill
111 ill Ill ii'lnil ill
i! ".„! lii' III!!,!
!- ""!("l':it • IB!1
iilJUllilllil Wi, .M II ' :!'!' IIL
iiiil IIHW if1! !• IMII
EUEVATIOMS SHOWN ARE BASED ON AN ARBtTARY DATUM-
4914 09 SHOULD BE ADDED TO ALL. ELEVATIONS TO OBTAIN
ACTUAL ELEVATIONS BASED ON THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS
DATUM.
— BORING LOCATIONS (UP8.L)
T80UP — SURFACE SAMPLE (UPftL urn EPA)
Source: Dames & Moore, December 1984, Part B Permit
Application (or Hazardous Waste Management Facility, Utah
Power & Light Pole Treatment Facility, Idaho Falls, Idaho,
Volumes 1,2, and 3.
•I II i
ni i i n l"i'i "i i i nil i i
-------
CONTAMI1WTED
MATERIAL
STOCKPILES
>
Figure 7
EXCAVATION AND SAMPLING OF
CONTAMINATED SURFACE SOILS
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE
-------
1
IIIIIIIII I III I lllll III I III
Illllllll
nmnk iiiii iiiiiiiii
'•I1 i||. jlllllllllllPIPPi/PIIIIPlPIIPIIIn ll'iii'i'llli,'! '., illlllllllllllll'PpiuPIIFPP " PIPPPPP''*!!''';!.!!!!?!!
iiiiiii.""! ........ 'i1"; 'Him i: in11 1 n , T '" ii " ' " iii
i'1 ; i;1!: !N| jipppipi i* ,'i »» «,< 'Hi iiPnii ' • i,, i::. ' nil1 14; iiiniii:1!1 , <: sB1 " i1 " i . it; am m11" ,:,i. jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiivii'jHiJP1!1:" i; 'iTiiiift iiuiiir w
Jl" ]|ii.,'"if I/'I < I '"liilf!'11!1!', ];''] p1, Hi'1 P| III .'"'iiI'M'i "Iiiii P"|P i'ill1 "lit, '' 1|| .ill li'lli 'it. *
tt v tif:iM^to;}rII iti I Jii/ii :i!l>
WffiMKS
i rm ,:! mm «
ifiii |p|i|iiiiiipip"ii"ipppp: n, '«ppf(f:p inn. pijippp PIMP'IIP,'„ "H.PIP iPii'PiiiiiP'PPiiPiiip ppiHPi PP ': "jpiPPP; PUP P^IPPPII ipupp1
» n illijjjljijjl'igiilli iii: li MTU' ill^ "' "W H^'ilM' jjfll iii-'1 "V'L iih'lipiil ' i"'> iiihi'1:: lit ''lit ii«; R'i i'lir"" . ', -rttfi J
."» "ij! Jiiiggiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiinbii^ :5iiiii'Hiilliii^iiiiii i ^a?ff£iivii!
lipFiiippfiiPif iii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin: •iNiihiFF iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'.inni; iiiiiiiini i, ''iiiiiiiiipiiiiiipipipp'Pim1 ihiiiiillliniiiFP1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiniL'ii, i" "iii ,i ivNiiiiiiLiiiiiiin
iijKi i
mi: pupppiPiiipiiif p,;i Fiiniiii'i'i IP l ii'i1 illilipHPlllPlll: PHlpiplP1 ,,,i, v1 .: »P f'Pnl Pilliirrpip piii,,,:;;,,,, ppj, piiPipjiiPijitiPipppi ipiPhipn PlPiPiPlllllH: PI ,. "ii'Ml!, 'PPiiC nil""!" PliPPiPPIIIPlPiiP , • iiFiPIPii:iilliiliiilllllii!ilj,i,,iiil||l!l,iliili'l'illllii;iiilii iFIFPFFFIPIilllPFFPFiFi' PPPP'PiPI'P , jn-'i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii; ii* liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii1 mifliiiiiilliiiiii!''i iiii1" "iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
• ii ?: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiini g': Piii'iiiiiiiiipiiiiii < P,B iiiniip !ii»,- Piips • \ niir: in n ni., *'. !: 1,1,,,.,. i,' IIP ""Piiiii iipp IIP ji1 JIIIPE in. :ni' iippiliiip iiic'iii p., PiiiLiiiiiiiiii; PIP i PIPIPI "ppiiii i
•up"" ippii iiiiiiiiiiiiiPi'iiiii.riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniipp';!.1"11" ni hihiiiiiiiiiNinini
::<'% IB^^^^^^^^ igiii:!;|N:>i''iii
iiii; ...... HM niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilrn: IMPI » ..... ippiinipiiiiiiiji'y'i'iiih'iii1!1']!!!!1,;,,;!!1 MPI: ,- I'T1 IPIPPP us1 n , in"
iiiiiiillli! ...... ,4P'tW;; ..... ' "fifl! tf «,„:, i/i^Cllr^liiiii^TlifiKliiiiiV f^
iiii iiip j"iiiipiii'iiii' 'i j i" ':iiiriiif ijiiinijnii i:'»"' s i'11 pifiiiiiiii: <•" "ilniiiii 'giiiiiiiJiiiiiiiiiliiiiii: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigiii,
IP Jim::'' i ifi'' iiii'ipiiiiiip jjppt iin,.,' i Jiipipif jpiiiigiii piiipiiii liipiiiiiiiiiiiiii' iiiiiiini p" i;: i :ipiii!piiiii|
'itpiiiipipipip jiipiliiiiiiiilipip|iiiiiiiii"piiniji:lpipippp ,i itpiippiiippiiippippii P jintipippji i iinpiiippiiiiiiipii IIP .pp, ' iiiippiiiniPiLiPiP 'i'"1"!'!!', nit iiniinip ,"• piiiiilppfpiiiiiiPi'Piii11 ^iiiiiiiiiiiiKprpPiniipHpiiFPPiPlPiiF IIIP«IPIIPPIIPP
'iiiiiiiiitijliii.firiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiii
Pipppppi pi1 ippiiippi i| .IP ii'" i ii 'a . P"! nniiiiii,. "PiPli."!' i PPlllllllllir P" Jlli"' lllllPllllllllllllPP, jiPlllPPpnp in IIP ' iPillPlilPrlihlllll
ii! :-
,iiiii:!i giiH iri]: gg
iiiilllllljllllllllliiiilli,,i1i'gliillli:::,l.iil|i:!!!|,,lll:i:ili Illil'^nJi"':.; llllIIA.'i'a ^iliiiliiiiiliiiiRliiiilllllllil!!':!;.
IIP JIIPPP'PIPPPHPilllPI , |,i.n ' IIIIIIPIIPipPPPP PPIIP, , 111 lllillh. llllllltllLiP'iplliiPitlPlPrlPIIIIIIIIIIIPIIIIIp:.-! PFiFilHIIIIIIIPl lllll, "I1 ' , '-PIP "i IP PIP i PIPI inilllilll'h '!inl P,PPIIII PFPiP,: piipPIP1;, I',. P.P'PIIIIIIP PPhilllPPIIIilfp .nlPIIPII "HIP, P!|IP'"I 1 P IIP1 "llll"l,,IIIIIIP|."«i|||||||l PIIPIIIP/ illPPIIPPIIPPiifp "ip Jill, i PP'pp" P II I pip||l!l"IJii!/i|i |l, ppip pl™iiill"|l.PPPPIIPilll"i«iFPP»|i|IIIIIPIIIIIIIIIIPippilPIFPIiPl!ll ", illlifiPiPlPi, Illnn PPIP PiPPIInJPI .I111 PPiillpiPP'r'i P"1 PPUPVpPIIPii -PiilIPP'
JPIP p ijpi ppnpi - , " i. pi IJFIP'111'!1 J1"1 JIP "PPP "PPP PI n|p'ipipppjiipppp fii"'!'!!!!!"1'11 *'"""!"''"'»ppppfnppp!1 ° 'PP ''"fl1"™!!!"' '!"!!liii!!!P*"""ii'' i|T f!1! i1 • ILi!'!;l«"!|||l; ill!l:"i|li!!i;!ll!!!ii|lli!11 "l|l|l|li "ili!|lll|i!!l!ll'is*""l!l"!l' ""f"1*' '*fyf !!*!ini* PIP PPPP P;P ''"'iiii pippppiiPPtiujppi111 PIPIP "j" ippjipippsip'piPi P-PP.III'^'PPPJPPPPPII '"...i iippiijli1 P-I .fpipppp ;n PPPPPP 'I'liinnninifii1' << PIP'^PP
111 iilllil "IIIPPP'I1 "'lllKhlillllllPilUiillll .."|i'"!l III. ,1, .'ilPip'PIPPI 'I, .II"': iliF'i HI. IPIP" '.in ill! P PI lllltll.'i'li PIPIIIIIIIIIII! JPPIP' I III1. liJJ ilpiilllllPP, , :P iiii.' F iFIIFpp PPif '"ip 'I'V P, "1l|l|l|ii|l"' ' illllllp . li'P i'P IPIP, | < l|||||
ii: i:>«'r!>!'iiigini|:!i:il:i!iiiiigii'i,iiiiii«jiwiiiiiiin111 ;,i"iiii:;;"it, „ U' ,1.1 iiah'f !:!if,,,::iMii;,,:,i!iiin :::' .„»:< nii'."i::iiiii .'jEiiiiiiiiiigiHin; i^iiiiiJiiiiii^iigiiNiiii'iiii \^ ->,"n: ii/iJiinnitP! iii'iiiftifiiiiuifT.^'!!!!!!!'^!!!''!!/'!;. 'iii'iiiiR iii'iim, f"1 "'"li/ii "iViTgi'",,!''ini'riiF'nigiiii'< miiiiii iin::!!1!,! vvfiiii'i/i-iiiigjiiii
•II1 I .IP "" wiiliiiiliriiliUbli1 liliui"1'! '::• l1!! Jl1' „'"; UJII. I: ''11 '.i
III1 PPiippiplPuP P"i Pp F'PIP'PlilPIIIIIIPIIIPP'pipiililpllppplllljjiiihHIIIIIIilppPllliiii1!"" ,;." 'Hit'
-------
WDC 61621 .AO.02
Mean Concentration yq/L
Naphthalene*
Acenaphthylene*
Acenapthene*
Fluorene*
Phenanthrene*
Anthracene*
Fluoranthene*
Pyrene*
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene*
Benzo(a)anthracene*
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo(k)fluoranthene*
Benzo(a)pyrene*
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene*
Benzo(g, h, i)perylene*
2-Nitrophenol
Phenol
2,4-DimethyIpheno1
Dibenzofuran
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-MethyIpheno1
Total Base, Neutral &
Extractables, Sum
(Above Parameters)
Acid
Total Phenols
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halide (as Cl)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)
MH-7a
2,480
7
692
326
568
67
212
188
4
33
41
3
19
2
1
1
<1
3
43
257
594
16
12
5,570
87
24,400
31
403
MW-8"
8,600
32
3,550
1,886
4,522
811
2,019
1,776
4
334
409
2
198
181
38
41
3
63
186
1,438
2,104
258
286
28,741
790
47,550
47
433
MW-9""
2,804
15
1,035
421
818
58
248
180
4
28
34
1
18
8
• 4
2
12
31
116
373
622
81
121
7,034
8
16,925
34
355
MW-13U
750
5
395
120
74
21
5
5
C-Alkalinity
B-Alkalinity
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
250
691
7.3
285
706
7.2
235
539
7.4
3
130
175
1,695
39
12,275
9
390
2
260
566
7.4
Composite
1,923
10
726
288
487
48
150
116
3
19
23
1
12
5
2
2
6
14
58
259
438
38
54
4,681
37
16,312
23
378
1
248
617
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
pH (units)
aBased on five sampling events; 8/15/84, 9/14/84, 10/17/84, 11/15/84, and 2/13/85.
Standard Deviation 2,449 yg/L.
bBased on five sampling events; 8/27/84, 9/14/84, 10/17/84, 11/15/84, and 2/13/85.
Standard deviation, 7,326 Ug/L.
cBased on four sampling events; 8/16/84, 9/14/84, 10/17/84, and 11/15/84." Standard
Deviation, 4,008 yg/L.
dBased on two sampling events; 11/15/84 and 2/13/85. Standard Deviation, 1,060 yg/L.
eComposite computed assuming that all four wells were in operation; MW-7, MW-8, MW-9, and
MH-13, pumping at capacity, i.e., 30, 1, 80, and 80 gpm, respectively.
*Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
Note: In calculating mean concentrations, values below the detection limit were con-
sidered to be equal to half that limit. Only mean values below 1 yg/L were
recorded as <1 yg/L.
Source: CH2M HILL, June 1986, Groundwater Treatment
Pilot Plant Report at the Utah Power and Light Pole
Treatment Yard, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Table 4
INITIAL GROUND-WATER TEST RESULTS
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE
-------
WOC6162f.AO.Oa
AWWOKIMM* LOCATION Of MNFACX rKATUftIS
mcovcNv wcu. ceMnxrce
• OftCNOJt LOCATION
AiN^sBBnAT* LOCATION or OATM
SWMUHO CATC •HOWma »f LATIVC SIZC
•UIOM* OATC •MOWMa HCLATIVC Ittl
or wmoows ANO ooo»»
*moa* LOCATION
\ Q-DOOR LOCATKM
OVtMMKAO OOON LOCATION
ArmoXIMATC LOCATION OT CN«HaXNCV CQUIPMf NT
'lilt MTCKANT
'me MO** STATION WITM WATCN
INVtNTOHV 8V BUK.3IHG
L3AOINO ANO UNLOADING ANCA
OLO IOII.f M
IUIL01M*
MW-17A R.6
MW-130
OATt NO.
itraf
: Pacific Power, May 1989, Utah Power & Ught/
Pacific Powar & Light Idaho Falls Pole Yard, RCRA Post
Closure SwiI-Annual Report for October 1988 thru March
1989.
Figure 8
EXTRACTION AMD MONITORING
WELL SYSTEM, MARCH 1989
III I III Illlllllllllllllllllll 11 III I III III III III I
i n n in nun ii i n in i lip i
-------
Aquifer No.2 Wells
Aquifer No. 1 Wells
~
OS
-D 3 »
O g 33
3D
O
•a
m
3J
5
O
W
D
§
o"
Q.
I
I
3
If
'
CD O,
3 5T
£-3
0)
og
•§ I
S 5
0>
8
E? 3"
fi> O
a c
o
a>
§
-------
\ \ B /»"•«
\ \ V,. "
AQUIFER *1 WEU. UCKATION
ELEVATION CONTOUR OF POTEN -
TIOMETR1C SURFACE ASSOCI -
ATEO WITH AQUIFER *1
IDEAUIZED GROUND WATER
FLOW PATH
Souroi: Pacific Power, May 1989, Utah Power & Light/
I * I "paelc1 PowcrZ DaRKo Pilli Pole"Yard, RCRA Post
ClosuJ* Seml-Annual Report for October 1988 thru March
'
Figure 10
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE IN AQUIFER #1,
JANUARY 26,1989
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE
-------
WDC61621.AO.02
KEY
A AQUIFER*2 WELL LOCATION
~~— ELEVATION CONTOUR OF POTEN -
TIOMETRIC SURFACE ASSOCI -
ATED WITH AQUIFER*?
—» IDEALIZED GROUND WATER
FLOW PATH
!?0 0 100
200
Source: Pacific Power, May 1989, Utah Power & Light/
Pacific Power & Light Idaho Falls Pole Yard, RCRA Post
Closure Semi-Annual Report for October 1988 thru March
1989.
Figure 11
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE IN AQLHFER #2
JANUARY 26,1989
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE
-------
Wl'ty ii iiiiiiil list i^^^^^ •! I
!; ii" I
. \ \ v
KEY
Q AQUIFER * 3 WELL LOCATION
___—. ELEVATION CONTOUR OF POTEN -
TIOMETRIC SURFACE ASSCCI -
ATED WITH AQUIFER*3
—* IDEALIZED GROUND WATER
FLOW PATH
TOO 0 100 200
FEET
i ......... P«cPowj||M«|198j,|Utah|Power& Light/
.....
-------
WDC 61621. AO.02
60,000
50.000
40,000 •
1
X
a. 30.000 -
_j
H-
0
1-
20,000-
10,000-
*
0-*
*
s' X %
'"
'-'"'' U;-
/ -.':
"• .;:"::
v :fi.j
l . % , -, >;|
| 1 , , ' :
| I U IL „'** ,
1 II 1 1 - "•• ' ^
IliL' I ' < '"< v »
1 M I I " ' "" ' % '^
1' ; ^ Irl
i . ' A (M
Hi
jiy
i
i
1
1 NOVEMBER 1985 DECEMBER 1985 1 JANUARY
• PAH
I
I
|
1
1B86
-
s
:
%_
1
'
1
•
1
f
1
'
f
1
\
- -
'
' .
! "•
:•• "~ "•
«•
% \
- '••
-
••
*
•f
"• . "*
I
'
1 FEBRUARY 1086 1
II
- ^
\.
)
**
"*• ""
^"! '" "-"-
-/^ :V
' .. « •• %
s (
'; " !
%
f
''
> ;
^ -
- ^ - v '
^
A ^
f, ' **
-, \ "' ;
s % • % •• s
PI
\
1
h
• 1
1
MARCH 1986 1 APRIL 1986
- 350,000
• 300,000
- 250,000
-200,000 5
J
I
j
u.
- 100,000
60,000
0
DATE
• Flow
Period (5 tl
-------
IPIlii! •« I * !l ! I
10.000
9,000-
8.000-
7.000-
6.000-
-3 5.000 -
X
4.000 -
3.000-
2.000 -
1.000
>
MARCH 1987
\n
APRIL 1987
-A-
MAY 1987
JUNE 1987
DATE
LEGEND
A PAH
FLOW
Source: CH2M HILL, October 1987, Groundwater Treatment
Phase 2 Interim Report, UP & L Pole Treatment Yard, Idaho
Falls, Idaho.
n
JULY 1987
A
j-
t
^_
-220,000
-200,000
—180,000
—100.000
-140.000
-120.000
-100.000
- 80,000
— 60,000
— 40.000
- 20.000
0
>
i
CO
•S
3
o
-J
u.
UGUST 1987
Figure 14 ! ^^
RECORD OF COMPOSITE INFLUENT FLOW RATE AND* m
TOTAL PAH CONCENTRATION AT THE TREATMENT -a ;: j,
PLANT, PHASE 2 PILOT STUDY ||*|
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE ;|| JIJ
-------
W DC 61621.A0.02
2,000 -
200,000
1,500
£2
£
0)
u
o
O
ra
1,000-
JAN-FEB MARCH-APRIL MAY-JUNE JULY-AUG SEP-OCT
1988
NOV-DEC JAN-FEB MAR
1989
Flow
Total PAH Cone.
Figure 15
RECORD OF COMPOSITE INFLUENT FLOW RATE AND
TOTAL PAH CONCENTRATION AT THE TREATMENT
PLANT, 1988 and 1989 OPERATING PERIOD
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT SITE
-------
II Illill
••::. VERONA :*:-'
•& WELL FIELD::
GRAND
TRUNK WESTERN
RAILROAD
MARSHALLING
YARD
THOMAS
SOLVENT
RAYMOND
ROAD
FACILITY
/ ' "-THOMAS
/ / SOLVENT
MICHIGAN
• BATTLE CREEK
4000 ft.
Sourc*: V*ron« wM fWd final RI/FS work plan. May, 1988.
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
VERONA WELL FIELD SITE
BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN
• 11 in in i ill ill HI
111 I 111 Hill III IIII
-------
WDC 61621 .AO.02
Formation
1
i
Gtologic SB13
unit ( feet
Glacial
deposits
•
20-
•i
30-
40-
Upper
sandstone 50 -
•
6O-
70-
80-
Upper i
siltstone "°n
loo-
••
no-
Lower
sandstone
120 —
ISO-]
Unit 1 1
Lower • ,40 _[
Silt- unit 2 J
stone I
150-4
Shale A -]
Shale I6°-J
Shale B I70 J
liO-*
IOW
ace
"* •
• • '•
• '•*«",*•
.*•** •*•.'••
5S
m
n£ff*
* *•"*•:"
DtfMT •
§1
£i
"=?^
m
m
m
m
Lithologic characteristics
Sand and gravel
-*——,--_. . „ mm^. ^—Bedrock surface
Sandstone , very fine to medium
Sandstone , very fine to fine , silty
Sandstone, very fine te medium, some lones
of very fine to fine sandstone and siltstono-
Sandstone, very fine to fine; some thin zones
of tinstone and shale
Siltstone
Sandstone.very fine to fine, shaly :„!
•M
Sandstone.very fine to fine •*
-------
DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNIT
Kalomazoo moraine
Till, Battle Creek moraine
Outwash
| | Channel deposits
•n
•vna
WELL LOCATION AND NUMBER
(DS denotes deep and shallow)
»oo rat
Source: RCRA handbook on ground-water
liil! ;i;rsn8dlatlon technologies. January, 1988.
ii ill I'l Ill lllllli ! "C Ml '<
Figure 3
UNCONSOLIDATED SURFACE DEPOSITS
IN THE BATTLE CREEK MICHIGAN AREA.
VERONA WELL FIELD SITE
m
-------
WDC 61621 .AO.02
85*orjo-
»tt*=_u *<••*»«••*•••
POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows
general altitude of ground water level
Interval 2O feet. Datum is sea level '
DEPRESSION COWTOUR—Topmost
contour of depressed surface
GROUND-WATER FLOW —Arrow
indicates direction of flow
iKUMCTEItS
Source: RCRA h«dbooK on Bround-wa,er remediation technologies, Jan.
1988.
Figure 4
GROUND-WATER LEVEL CONTOUR MAP
OF BATTLE CREEK AREA.
VERONA WELL FIELD SITE
-------
IIP iimfijiiib"! '! nr.ni! inn in ,. ' nil,".!' i pim1 iipyiiii^x^ji'M TIUFIIIII P" iLiinnii
"""'I,',,i, i''ill i iiii'iiyn:1 :iii! ii: ii,i nr < '•'it, n pi'upi" JIOL; ii;;,,,' ''{inniiiii''';:!!!:!!:'!^''';!!!!!,' j',, „!,,«! iW'i"i": 'iiiL'ii"' ^ ii-fu'wiIP . ''in
ii'ii'ii'ii: ' liiiii'iiiiiiiiii'iKiii,1:
'''• .||.''.'i' „ ifiiiii1
i1!1!!' "iii'ii'111!, I'll!'; i1 '!'"!•'•iiiii'1 ' "in , i ininiii! '"i!"i li niiiiiixii''!*! ,i< iKiiiiiiiii '"iiiniiii: sii'ii,,'1 ii ^ii1'!:1!1''':'1'",! i Wi •" • i » 'in ''i'.,,,"/in. •,,'!' > < :- ijn r; |. f™,:,''"' , rtilrsiiii,, jiiK^iiiiikJ' iiKJiniiiiiir1!: x^vVniP'r'^^!..;^!]!:::;,!;' "M!1"":",'. ' "iirii,, ijuNi' 'ini ;'JPII• li/'i'iiiiHiiiiifc
i in .1.1 ,,i, ," * i,:;; • * w^ i f f f cir ,,,:i,, • iiii,, i >,: • \ * DW HBP:' */: • r j. t ': .';" 11 ,:„:; •* i. i1" > °v», ;IIL i i ,i!! y iiinui11;:,! f' <,; > i. % s ° 'Simllui1!! r t ," i ^ '• in,' * : j IMG w i, •: !• \"' H* •. •'": \. WHW 'iiinniliii. 11 iii, I
i*1 f il'. if ".'iiiiiii,,':::nii! f1*!;,,' "i!;'"ii"!''";„ IF;i1 ins'* • "";'IMJ":HI -.ii •!";•?Iji"'!,;,;" 'h ',n,i"MiijiRt'ii.7ti4Madi jViiij^iwpriiit,j'jijts^ riii^>!1' H: S «, !,,iiiiiSiiiii;;jiiiiiiiiiIiiiiiii>i<'iiiiiiijjjiii
i!"1" iiiiiii: PIIII i'i "w iii'iiiiii . iiiinii|'!'< ' iiiin :, , ,i , \ iiir,,,ii,i i,,,iiii", IIIIIIL , IIIIHIII i "",;,;:'' niiiir1 in , 1,1; <., 'jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'''^^.!'''''''.!!!!!1!": if.lL1' ii i"1 iiiiiuwi»^ >! iii; lAiili !n'"ii:f!!:" fiiii'iiiiiii'liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
ll" •IllllllI'LII B" I ;,!"i: dl'llii'ii Si,!1 ""'i ,1 lllllil 'I!: •'!"" I'l'Ili'SMili illllll •'
Km*"1 iii"'': iiSiii"1 SI!' ;:": ".' iiii'i'r'iii'i' I' «"; 5
irillilL 1 .''IK J ..... it: 'Illllll " ',1 it illlM ..... fi*f . ' :i ........ ;l • liilll
i
jiijiij'iiii i;iiiiiiiii:!','""!, iiiiifS ;!;"%:'i;iii'"'iiiii'''"'• liiiiii[' •.'iiiEi,:' \'!• i ;i'»p>L*.i.!*rf2 ii: •
"1 "i'l! i, '"ii!!1,!;!"!;,;;'!," iiliili;
"!|,' I!!!!',,,'! "' !,!!!„, I'':!1™
Li li; ; "I'llli1""" ','!,"! 'Pi,!"
:'
Ji'liiili" i; >WJOl[? I'MHWilf- i "lii'T" ',';'
f! ii, I'1 :.nt I,,:""', /i'lH"!'-,.!,"''!:'!, l> '!! fA
lilili .Li!' ' ,,,'"1"' i;1" :, I';,,!!"1!!';*" - iiiiiii,;,',; '; - -
... ."..t::: '!"::":':":'1":::"::: : ::.: : :"
'ii,ii'iii,ii! ,a III!1";::1! HI!!1
I'liili'i'Ti iiii ''"i!;!!""1''!!
"1' Tiibi'ii'"''!!;!!::":!1
1 "": ".
''Hi;,; II';
ii'p'i'lIK
',: nil, mi
.. - :'.'
"ii iiiiii'iii,''!;'; p lii'KiiiifMPppii'p'ii,
'dli!'! |i"i'!:':i>;^
' Iliii'Siilli""''!'.''''''''.!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
'"':-" i" : : .:.:.:
;.
; ,
""I'l'iii"11 ."'li'i'':'"'!"''" "v1 5 III III" ;f ":''': '"j ' jiiiiiili1
i'i'i!''11''i'ii''>''i,iii!!!i3 yiiiiii ii"' 'iii," "i""!.; 'ii'i'i*
L:; , , ';ni '";; "";' "^ M ""
:' "" '"":'!' ' ! """ "'" '"'
:
"ll":">"IF!l
'iiii, ::'!i'":;'!i
iii'""!:ii!'ll';iii
1 , , ";;; i
' !"
IS
iir>'lll*
: •.-.
iiii:
«
~!!!
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
}:i":';; i ,"sljst> i:" 'i1''x:: i KfiK iii-isf".':iiifcif."'ifiii?fj:t,t!J~'' a&., OKf^ : Ii, i'a..:j iwitH1 li'iii|
ii, |,,| , ', !"
mim wi'iiii' i ' iii : , if '-. iii:i^ • : • i . -i ,IK;.; ' 'mite ....... iiii'' • ^ ir ;":i" *w. iwiir'.1 ,,iir ni : : ,»• ; 'ii! ........ i , ..... • i U', & ...... • ...... iii) :.t • j i = ........ ' .?.»• " •
!•' ', ,Pi ..' I*1 y, i». V1 H'Mii',; f .' i'^,
h ''I'llllli lii'n
in;"!'1,!11'1 i,,,
II. , i, ,:',„; ii. ii;,;ii|iiiiiii iiiii'iiniiiii1 iiiiiiii I
Ill" l»f 'Ilili',,! i:;11lllll I
I,,, 41!'ii IIP1,!,! ili'iilllllllllil1," "iliJiiiiillllliill'iililliii
[ idllifl I'l'1!,! "il!!1 i" I 'i,: pi l,: , i,, ' Ililiif];,!""'!!1'11,",!!;,!" , iillif"
.iii ll i,' I'liiJiiiiiii ,,,i illllPiiiilll''],! i , ,11 "iiii' i ,1':' "l 'I ! «iii, illlllllllli'i 'jj: lift!, IM ">!", "i" iii "illUii1 iJiii:' j:t|i i'iillllllli:! r f!:!!'illi „ i T. i' •
II iiii iiii, iiiiiii ijijiiiiif''*11!'"'!' h ,i, 'i iiiiiliiiiTiiiiS'iii'iii'iiii1; :Tfip,,T'iff ' 'Tiiis'iiFti,"!! F>:iS
'«• i liiilllm, i i* ' i" i' '""' , ' Hi;"!'1 J" I n iillll'1 ':' n' ";;,,,„ yi, r ,ii - „; | i ^a J;''; ,„: f~ ,11- iiiiiii I»' ': illllillii' |ii,,jllili', K i" H III 1 ii,L, V \ ., • "'i"!!;1 ^ it,'; • • | i, ,ii!"!i""i' ,„ ii Piiiiiiiiiiiipr '"| ikiijiniiiin im""1 r"' UN ipii. "; «"4in' >„vl ?: "if . •. i • iiSui'T1"11"'"' l>>:><«..iiiii,i n ii1',:1'1; ,ii! i" jii* ""ii!!:, fiiii1"!:,, din in 'ii'iii 'ii in, •• iiiii*,!; ¥, • ,n,ii . ns:,,1!' ''lii'i^iiiiiiirf1! iiiigii; 'iniifiiiiTiii
•Hi \ i liii'iiihi'i, "i 'Mil iiu 11 i '"''jiiiii illllll
• ', jji i • '"' iiii'+'i , ' i, "iiiii''ii»'.i| y iii', .'i»';, /""IT ,ii"i||i"::,,i'i " iniBiii ""laliiLiiiiiiiiii' i 1111111x1111 /^ \. I'HH, M;;! '",,11 '
'Pi'" '" V! ..... 'ill ..... ...... iK'i'app" i'"'P'iilin:i|P|l' "IliipnpliiiilinpPjilpinpj I
.1,;" i ;i id ""'i' IWl 4
i« ^liiiiii'i''1'1 ,"'„!!: ': iliii/ii;'1^^^ ii,1 n'^iiS"!1!^^^^^^^^^ I iiii "Vi» .ft, • i. • l^'iiiLiiiiiiir, •• ,, ij "'"'iijj11
• Pii.i li'ii''"'.."'^'!:*.'^''/'!^^^^!'!!!1;!'! •iniiillliiiPli, ,.i i^r^iilill'lL'''!1'!! "•' '•" "Mill" |: "In! H.I I|M"J 'i • 1 .
I I KT, L 'iii1::'!!!" '"h£ :' lIBiii:^!1 'in"' Viii^r '^yM^ •lili'ii'ii'li;:itl|'l|ii ': >,,' ' ^ "^
I:;; rjQiiiwji ,§:; ,i!i;::;" :<'; • • jjii f. * "''lii: 1;« iii«i,;' \m - i'"lli!"" * ; £ iri'r* i; j :"i
':- • •!"'::. I, ,'" •"«! iiiiii,;!!'' ^ l'*'!!i W , * \.> W i!! Iii! • f:,::-1 ' i*i, 1W f p^ & % ft ;„ y&.W W;,!!, •„> i'-i'" ;;/! .„. Ji *; \ m. \ JM'. !'* J
iiiii" JSiii I
iiiii'']ipiiiiip iiii' ii""'pi'""' .i in I*" ''i'
P!'"''!" '! lip'.'''' »!i!'!!'i!!i'"ii"iii"
, t ,1'", i'li'iiijihiiiirai!
!!!:!,! 111:iii' jiiiiijiiint!!"'!, iiiiii
iniiiiii'ijii;1 iiiiiiiiii'ii |j«i«iiiiiiiiiii',:i'!;ii
-------
-------
Sourc«: RCRA handbook on ground-water
remediation technologies. January, 1988.
-------
-10-
ISOCONCENTRATIOH CONTOUR (CONTOUR INTERVAL IS
WELt LOCATIOH AND NUMBER WITH CONCENTRATION IN ug/1
NOTES
1 REFER TO FIGORE 2 (DRAWING NO.C11185-B26) FOR ADDITIONAL
NOTES AND LEGEND.
200
SCALE
1600
i
800
liooo
Figure 5
TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
ISOCONCENTRATION MAP, AUGUST 1984
VERONA WELL FIELD SITE ____''_
-------
iiihiiniinnnni ii 1111 inni'iiiiii iip
IP'ill I ii'l "I «P BIBB I llml III1 I'll lllliililllilllllllPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBBBII
II | lii i\i | ng ilii11 ii I Ii11 lull i, 1 iiiiiii iiiiiii' n in i| || i iii|i|iniiii I11! 111 i" pi |i 11 ii 111 ||, |iii|i|||iiiili ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii illllil I ill1 ll nwinnii ililllill
II
)""l";:ltil iilii'llillllilliijaill
!'i 'ilit I, - '•>' >!'!,: U'1 1 'illllllillET'il il'lilil:1 'illl'lli ;(
itiiiiiiiiiiii nijiiii'1 "''"• LI.; v '/: jn«i.iii;ii:iii inn, i*; '„, :• r ', ,1.111 r. • • i n flip i" vt; i iinniKi ^"iimott1 '"v
It
l Ililll!111*!1:,!!1!!1!, HI, lllilil'liE' '.riiilnl'iiiiiirt IB'S;1'!'1
; „,.. i j • .•. ,;
1 "illilllll!, ,11:11111!: Jill rilJ'l iliBfi'! 'lll"l< W •iilillBBEllJIinhlBil1«3, ''! IBB' ,11,,' "S 'U •' < IPS mlll'mB' iliisfiii' -! IliM III 11':! v1'''' iSllinilllllBliiiElilIB ''JlplltB'!';!!]1!; "JIBIII;::! ill IIJIBB,!,; Ill; 'mi'!!!1! ,,,,', |||" III1:, III1! I'll1'1 , J. |,, ' «': i'lfl, i: iii, iu •, S ahi!" ...... iiiiiiid., • 1:1,1, "•> BIBI :i i * I! I' MWiii •"yippiikiiiPi ' : ' inllri ', ,i iii; •» "" , ' : • :%. • 1:1,1, "•> BIBI :i i * I! I' MWiii •"yi
i,|i;;|||HPii|,iM
'• 1 1!!!!!!1!1 '"'l*1!1 i : /ILilliilil'" "''Tllli ..... I", '1111? "!":: ''!,!'iil '<• l!ii
11 ,i niSiiiiiil^iii'i:ii'iiiiiiiiiiiiii9i»iiiii::iisiiSSi:sjiPiiiiiiii|piiiiiii:iii:Mil9iiiiiiiiiiiisi|ii siniiHiiiiiiiiiiiiinnni'S1 ''iiip'iiiiiiiP^ii'Nni ' "ii KiuNi'i, i is , :iiii!? ;'in^
'"ii'iiii' '''iijiiiiiiffi^^^^^^^ •.
! n> ...... DI:' ;i'i[" i ,..;.<<: it: i .......... net, "LiKit,' • i ..... if!",]]: • ?: ...... I'lii
ixiii'''!!!:.!!)!''!1;!''''':'1 ...... iiiiifiiiiryiiii,
mme, im^^^^^
i < iiii'iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiK,!',! !;:,H:PIIII,PIII|II<> iilip'nin: iiv
1!l''2,^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I IIIIIIIH IIIIW^^^ •IIIIHEK^^^^^^ ,;il!lll'IIK^^^^^^^ :il.lPi::i'JII'L'!liili,:iiiil "I tfiiil If, If.*! li'il >;i,ll^l>l;;'<''IHI;|illH "II '!KiM^^^ rllllllH^
Ui'-.iE it if j iiii'iMi'-ii"!:!,:;; i "tia; ; :i jiiii
•imifL if? 'I'lfliill !!" :!.!•! "4 1'i;
•
• I • -if
i:.!;!!;,;.: is iiiiiM^^^ „' 'ii i'li' i> rill inm , ni.-y'ii'ii K *,,, :i
l^!^!:!^ I ''liliiAS ..1 1 1,;':*
iiii:(li:ii:i:i I'ii
^^^^^^^^^ V
": .s at1:*'1!, 'iiwii* <
|gK "^ !'iiii::;l:::;\iH
ii r i«u11 Niiiili, ''ill ^ i1 11 n ii 4i ...... I'lil'ibiii ..... . illLii ...... si1, ' ' i, , ' if' iiipiii;1 'iiK, iiMiii ....... ii ....... h1 iiiiliiir iiiiiiiiuiii ' i' »^^^^^ « i • d ..... • h ii , 1:111 ii; ' : n iwiik ^
i'"j:nji ....... i'''^/^^^^'^^^ u ''QK ..... in: iii ''» 'i< '"'' "r ..... nniiiin''^^^'!"1 T >' iiuiiif 'tui in ' ' ' iiii^^ jiivifiiiiiiK ir'i'ii'iflir ^f^y ' '•' ^"' ...... 'i1^1' -'^ ;i"!l|l"i:l||l|| 1 '
'' ..... im ..... iu
r'i::''j:'A»
.l;:il "ll!11:;, miiitt, 1"! ill;' iiiiK^^^^^^^^^ ."; •illilllllT: IH IIIWI''!^'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IS'i" lli'i !!' (1 Ill1'' !!JT:~. ::li:; HI II " I" If'1; Hi:11!! 'Hillla'' ii: IllillB Illlilil IIIIIIU ::l::ii'li::iilllll , \ I11< li'iiK11: i m:XllliHimf'?, X mil1 "1111, MIII'K^^^
IIM^^^^^^^^^ i i/i'\llB^
: is >
;: !'•: tii {,;:.,: mms, n :,i .itiiiri'iiin
Nillill^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
'j f '"nini'1 ...... .tiiiiiiiii!::: ' ...... ' iiaiM^^ i
..... r'1 ' ; JM ,'hi I'll1, n f ;«» L^xiiniiiiiiiiiniiiciiiiii viiinii' I'n'i ..... iijn1 ii
iiififiifioE^v^ ^m im H
..... li'rf'ilillK
,i,i:ii ....... Ills, 'ill": mill.' Jlir'UlillliPPIIillliiJ'1"1,,!,!:!,,,:! ' I'lilnlAll 1 ...... 1,!:1:,!"1 ..... lii'liiluir.'illlnliElilii! PlliilS'SiilK'
, , ,,, , .
..... ii:!'? ..... iii ..... ^ ...... w^^^
J"1;'11'':li>1' 'f'1' '*y:!!!!,' "'I:!11111!'!"1: "l!ii::!!i|JI!!i> i!"!!;:;!!!;!!!!! •' "i!:!!!!;!!!'!!!1!;; >:!!i:;ii:i>>ill!l!!!!!ll!|!!;!!!!f
^^^^^^^ "i! iiiiiiiicini ..... 1111 ,i ...... <: «• inii:;!'", jiiiiiiuiii ................ • . > jiiiiiii: "\:iiiiiii: i iLiiaiiM^^^^^^^^^^ > '>i!iii!ii::!if •
iii ....... niHiiiiiiiiiiinii'i1": iTH'iii''!'!!!! .......... riiiijiii'i1;!!^^^^^^^^^^^^ ...... " : ii ' ii1 ii^ii, ' ": "iw t":1. iiiiinnniii'iii n "iiiiiiiiii'ii>" "ii:1 1'liiii'n'iiiiin
B1 In li'lIIIHll"1, IB'l' S '''IIII'IPPIBIIB"1"1; il'i'l",
''''11''1'''
,,[ in ,,ii in uiiih, i!, ', i,,/limn,,; ii,,, ,i i , , 'ii r iijiniiiiiiini', niiiiiiiii'i i I'S'iii'" ji ii,.. ii, inin, '"yiiPiFi", IPS, • TPI .1, "iiuiiiiHiiii'iiiiii
lUjiill'ililllll'ii' i|||i|||lll|'I" I.linil}IliU|hull, ',,,' |'i,,,, pliliJi :,!|i,i;i|, "J ,||i|i (in,; i'l'iilHIHIlin, ;; illlllkl„li1 •'ill I1'• ll'lll!!' I lll|l|ll||||||
i
;i'| Hi BIBII |||| JBIBi I«
III IlllllH
lll'lliiiilllji^ljjjjjli f»l!ll|;!ilif!!!;iiiii^
"" ' I1
iiii,; ,F^^
in in:;i.iH
-------
-------
in gggggiiiiii giiigigiiiiiggiiiii i iiii 1111 llggggiiiiiiiggggi i iiiiiii in iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 111 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii in i iPiiiliiiiiih i in iili i iiPiiiiii1 !iiniiiigiiiiiiii mi in in ill 111 i iiiiiiliiii1 iliiiiiiiiiiii iiviiiiiiiiiiiiiii iimii ! 111111 idiniii iiiiiiiiii1! n n Mi11! n ^iilii^^^ u iiiiiiiiii
•in iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii 1 iiiiiiniii i i i iiiiiii 1 1111111 ii HIM i ii iiiii iiiiiiiiii 111 iiiiiiiiii i i 1111 iiii i iiii iiiiiii 11111 iiiiiiiiii n 111 i nun inn n inn n mini in ill in in i mini nil i inn mi in mini in mum mini Minimum n mini minimi mi in mm n i iiiiiniiiini mi mi nun in i i in in mini minium mum in minimi n in mini i mini nun
700
MO
NOTES
X. THE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO
HOT PURPORT TO BE AN EXACT REPRESENTATION OF SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS BETWEEN BORINGS.
2- ?lf f^flKJ**5 BETM£EN GEOLOGIC UNITS INDICATES THE CONTACT
3. AT EACH GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL OR GEOLOGIC BORING LOG
LOCATION THE BORING LOG IS ACCURATELY LOCATED WITH RESPECT
TO HORIZONTAL LOCATION AND VERTICAL DEPTHS OF GEOLOGIC UNITS.
THE GEOLOGIC UNITS HAVE BEEN GENERALIZED. DETAILED DESCRIP-
TIONS ARE PRESENTED IN THE BORING LOGS IN THE ACCOMPANYING
TEXT MANUSCRIPT.
4. ALL GEOLOGIC UNIT CONTACTS AND THE WATER TABLE SURFACE ARE
fS^IS, KE SfHTERr0|r TH£ BORING LOG- ALL "OmiNTAL DISTANCES
ARE MEASURED WITH RESPECT TO THE CENTER OF EACH BORING LOG.
5. WELL DEPTHS AND SCREENED OR OPEN INTERVALS ARE SHOWN FOR
ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES. REFERENCE REPORT APPENDICES FOR WELL
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND BORING LOGS FOR RECENT W S B
SERIES WELLS AND BORINGS. MUNICIPAL WELL LOGS OBTAINED FROM
THE CITY OF BATTLE CREEK.
6. GROUNDWATER LEVELS (•&-} DETERMINED FROM WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS OBTAINED'ON AUGUST 11.1984.
7. THESE CROSS SECTIONS ARE EXAGERRATED VERTICALY 10 TIMES.
LEGEND
—10O— CONCENTRATION CONTOUR (DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
Souroa: RCRA handbook on ground-water
romadlatlon technologies. January, 1988.
MONITORING
WELL
vtu
SEW
MUNICIPAL
WELL
V2» — WLl XAW
SOLID CASHB
«MH«
LEGEND
IX UCK
TYF'ICAL WELL DETAIL
Q
S
TOMOR
flU.
IMMX HUE TO H
Fltt TO COAUC i
MOM Fl« SM9
MOM, own. TO
WEATHERED SMOST
GUT riW TO ICO
DMX CUT TO IL«
-------
VEBOHA HELL FIELD
ELEVATION
860
SAND/SAND A
GRAVE
HORIZONTAL
IOO
SCALE
400
800
1000
VERTICAL
SCALE
10
1
6
4'0
80
i
IOO
SIUT> ™tt TO linit
urus (». «., a)
t FINE TO MtOItM SAMD. SOMt SILT.
'•Sn/B
row.
nn SAwosiwa AW siasnw
Figure 6
VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 1, 2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
CONCENTRATION (ppb) IN GROUND-WATER AT THE
THOMAS SOLVENT RAYMOND ROAD SITE, AUGUST 1984
VERONA WELL FIELD SITE
-------
«, III till!Ill '" 'lI'Hllli11' IWIillPl1
iiM
"J 'ini'iii':"1" I iitii' i,f i'iii' ii :i ;iiii', Iiii" i: ii1'!!'' iiiiwiii:*
I
I
llH'ii:!, IK !
ijiiiiittiiiiiiKiitii 1 in1 JYI, ii iiiiiii I'liiiiiir-siiiiiie,11, /fiH ,"''ill""* ii iiii'"1:;*!! fiiviTita'i'ii 'f • i,:.>>T t,1; j'*,", i."^:'i^.'iiiTfii if:'•<"!!: i'''t*'si imf'-'-fLK',-\ ii'.iiiii'1"'.tniM»' m'i" in"ni!:;.!.1*!:" i,1 :: sini ii'ii"1.!.!!
iiiliiliiliiZ W>,iiM ' S lllllilit'lPE: WtfKFiSW.4 IHItiiil:: If"! "T '":"!!.! ili:^^^^ •" :" :i:; '"I; I!!1 ii'i i»'ii I!1 ii i:|r:!' • < •." •<' i f'if: : •"!':* iilllf";' ililfft' "Hi « 'i tii W&JttJ ilR "•:>,' ;!:" 11, iiii .ilil I1' iV^^
iiiiii'iMin i „ in', in; iiiiiiiiiiiiii:ii'iiii.iiii' iii i H1 ii"! jj'fiiiiiiiiB iiiiiiim i miiiiiiLi: a, i' 'iiiiiiniiiiiii .diiiii'i! ii i1 jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniB iii :iiiLiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiii.i iiniiii iiifcn! / ii, viihip'iiiiiiniiiiiii 'inn ,1:1:1, miij i, ,i Hi /1' ""•" f , ri *"!,,, m, i'" *• n,,; ii Jinii11" n r ui inn 11 ,* i i,: « v'; „ ::,. ''XL :: i! uiu iiiiLiin'ii'..:;!^!!!!!! M ii: "iiNtni' + in'iiii «i iiiini,. ii • hun, iJBi iiiiiBWriiimyiii11 >• "muni, ^Fm ::,<; 'i« mi •''" M, { ' ^iiimi,';,' '«i>niji1"' iiini'i ""'v", :n:; iiiniiiLiiiii1 "iiihiiiiiii".,;:!1 nn ".iiHiniiaiiii
''iill'i'iiilllliyillii'll''!!'''!!!!!!^!!!!!!!!!!!^!^^!^!!:^!!!.,!!1;!;!!! illU, Tl ll!ll!i..li|ll|l|lilllllllilll|lllllllllli!|!iiii Itiillllllllllllllllllllil111!!1 liHI II Jilii11 1; ''IH llllllllu'llllll'lt / In1,ill i'l'llj '"IIII']1 V., fl '" 'i1 ""! 'iihiiiiiim::',«»!" ;'ii 111 i,„',":jnn IILI,:ii 1,11 ,'n "iiiniil:.,ii''n ilii!1' "'linn;,iiiti'" ':"i; /i1 ili'in
•• <•' »•• ?"!'!!! ' ' !!! '•="- •»• '' '"!'"
';, .'f, i'1,
. • - ..' '. J', -
II Illll I Illll 111 11 1
Illll1 111(11
II 111 IIII III II
HI i iiiiiii'i
|ii in 11 in 11 n 11 i in iiii i i in iii
iiiiii i| i iiiiii mill HI i in iiii in
iiiiiii iiii in i niiiiiiiiiiiiii
lIllll
iiii ill ii iiiiiii in
•ii in ill ii mi i i in
•III I III II I I 111! I II IIIIIII II
Illll II ! Ill 111 III Illllllllllll
•111 II Illllllllllll
11 I 111 I II
IIIIII
• Illllllllllll Illllllllllll
111
111 III II
II I I IIIIII II 111 I
I Illll Illllllllllll Illll I
IIIIIII I 111
nil iiiiiiili
!"""" l!!":","!"",,:,""""1 ~ ,„"! ™T"
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH^^^^ 1I""L iPllllH 11,111," I1 ''jaLlUiIITIIni1' Jillliillllllllllllllillll • „ Jililiill , 'r1'"!' Ill!,«;'"' "l||||||i mill '.iiliTilllii'llii'i"*!!! ,,IB ,,i';,» ' > II, f I, , 'h" iiiiiill'ii ,* " ,"•', Iii: ,,.JI li iTi1 Silis1!" i1 millhillii'1: ;, 'i""'!!! lii.'liilliiii'.illllilil ji'llillllllljllS'lliil"''"n , • MillllilllMWIiilI'li'lIlt liiLill'I'iillll'.i'iiiil'i1 'Ji "tflillrTllllfl'i'lil'l1' , I ilfftiiiiilllli,'1 ',i\:,,lpi||iili^ilVllllB ! illil'liin1;!1 "IIP •MJinilllj
| | n , in, : n , ;,,,, Ml;| ;,„, iin|| , || ; i , I; j|||
|n Ii. I !;: jjjlH till •;"!!' HI iili1' Xg»i '" 'im., >,: J; ' ly '• ff'Xfm, ]!";! fit Ii 'I1*?! ffiiii I1' "'f! t iit it!! i!1 j 'If •' <•' i"!' ii i" i fr jf ^ft* Wj:^ W^ffiatKjAfl ;ii K 'IJti -i:;;!^^^^^^^^^^^ • llUi'
•ill" iiiiiiiiRBi1! i1' qi'iini: ji'iiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiini ,'ii '>vi i • •' iiiiiii i, diiiiiiiw'* -ilJ-; "l|;1"1', w" i1' '!!•!:, Ji'itiip1'!" < liiii iiiiiii111, '""fii'' iiii,,, i!!!":"1 „»' ii"11' I"1:"'!'"'' 'i i JiSi "iiU'i'iiiiiiLt jvinniiii n" m'" *,,,! 'iiinniii y* 'i 'ni!.: "fv i, iniiiuiiiii u,1 iiii'i;iiiii'h' "U ' < n«s, «\\\w imi t iiiiiiiiiiiii!'1 ,,i , juiiiiiiiii'1
;!!;:;'' r' I Jilllll 'fi' K\ T.Wi .liiiii,' Illll '"• :!-i !<', il'IB t III ViTV Jvliii,' a it! ^<:' i1',! ">!) "V -bl4 Ei::.!* :!:": Sill i ' , i:'!* iiriil'iiiliiiiili • WWJNUiZ, VJiiiilSi ^iai'mfS'^ &S>^', It'''III' KS9: Wlf'SiBl I: liii^iiiii!iiiC•'«^iinii'mi!!\
: : ..-..-:, , ,;;;" :;",„:;:;;;; ',;;,:;:;;:1;;;! ;;.r: "',",:,,,;,"::;;;;;:;i!i!
": ^>hi itidiii mrn '
imm .I,:!1 < >; IK ...... 'ir A
..... !; iiiiliiiiilil; ......
, ' ..... f! /":! : • * ; • '£ „
mms
..... ira^Mr'f
iiiii>c< i1 •, ^iiiriHtit '«" YIIIIVI:' " iiiii.ff "ii l
:;»^^^^^^^
-------
WDC61621.AO.02
f
in
UJ
_j
160
ISO -
140 -
13O -
12O -
110 -
1OO -
9O -
80 -
7O -
60 -
50 -
-*O -
30 -
2O -
1O -
O
May 1984 Barrier
Well Startup
81
LEGEND
+ HELL V-29
D WELL V-32
82
83
FRACTIONAL. YEAR
84
in
LJ
16O
150 -
14-O -
13O -
120 -
1 1O -
1OO -
9O -
8O -
7O -
6O -
SO -
4O -
3O -
2O -
1O -
O
81
May 1984 Barrier
Well System Activated
83
FRACTIONAL YEAR
UEQENO
+ WELL V-38
D WELL V-13
Source: Verona well field final RI/FS work plan. May, 1988.
85
Figure 7
HISTORIC TOTAL
VOLATILE ORGANICS
WELL V-29 AND V-32
VERONA WELL FIELD
BATTLE CREEK. MICHIGAN
87
Figure 8
HISTORIC TOTAL
VOLATILE ORGANICS
WELL V-13 AND V-38
VERONA WELL FIELD
BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN
-------
Ill
EXTRACTION FORCE
MAIN PIPE TO
TREATMENT SYSTEM
AT VERONA WELL FIELD
I
N
LEGEND
EXTRACTION WELL LOCATION
EXTRACTION WELL
LOCATION, TYPICAL
OF 9
. GROUNDWATER
\EXTRACTION WELL
NWPE, TYPICAL
MONITORING
BUILDING
FENCEUNE
MCC
BUILDING
STORAGE
BUILDING
OFFICE
BUILDING
EXTRACTION FORCE MAIN
Sourc*: Thonuw Solvent Raymond Road Groundwater Extraction Well
Treatment Syatem Monitoring Report June, 1988.
Figures
THOMAS SOLVENT RAYMOND ROAD
EXTRACTION SYSTEM
VERONA WELL FIELD SITE. BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN
I
-------
WDC61621.AO.02
CONCENTRATION
(PPb)
/uuuu -•
60000 H
50000 <
1
[
40000 •=
30000 -
20000-
10000 -
Full Scale Soil
Vapor Extraction
Began
March 15, 1988
Pilot SVE Study Began
November 8. 1987
o
J ^
•
ft?
^K^o
\'(|X« \
JKj g \ \
^^^^ ^
^•*~*~~\
^^>^
\
" " ^ -X^" — T 'o"-— o^\O- "~V»
^V^. x UT \ "**o
J 1 II > 1 1 >— > 1 • X- -W.V»— -V>
-•- WELL 1
•0- WELL 3
-X- WELL 8
-X 1 1 1 f 1 r— ~ — ~ — r— -. «-*» — *»
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
DAYS SINCE MARCH 1987 STARTUP
Figure 10
TOTAL VOCS IN TSRR
EXTRACTION
WELLS 1,3, AND 8
VERONA WELL FIELD
BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN
-------
• 61 III lit I
I
sf-j-Di-^zt
; ;j w = a; 'I, iJi i-
! » !« • ft- « • -3 •
ih ••>" !• ' '!; i
:,« !
1-:. ,
J! !•« ««1 ,.H!lf
|i 1=^ i; =;
;!5i i:
1 Bl «! !l'i
:;r i-? • i- '•-- • •-
S ,^-=?:^a >- ! =<
=a =i - = : - T= j r ^= _P -
? - „, , : ;'» i; ' ,
=i « * at i, _ . .-
i •"•B-F ;' : •?
i i i .1-.. M
« i i ii
; in!1 ,j»r ; • "f :"-_"- r" ' ; i
ii i;IS ^i!i 1 25000= j
"':•• "^ ' ir r- I"!'-'
IBh ii;i ;5 i J :!l : :j ! ' i
*-.;•' " J-.-"- . -• •.""-: •-:--.- <
LJTJ -• jWa;^, ,,[i; ,-,(";;.
- . ; ;i, *; i ]j
= ^^^^^^^ooo^
S =i* 5000-
-z\ ."
' : Full Sea
: : Vapor Ex
(3 i : Beg£
, March 15
)
I Pilot SVE Study Began
o November 8, 1987
\
I O !
I 1 Q
WJ\>i^^*^. . ;
e Soil
traction
in
, 1988
"^?~^ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5C
F »-- : DAYS SINCF MARCH 1QR7 RTARTI IP
!«i s !•••
• ••?.""*
:1— J
f ' -Jt »,!"
• "
l!i- i: .to ,%
,,!,:;:, I
-
I lie rl -
--
! ,! * : ' IS*"- ,
_
• !*rt
II 1*3 «1K
i ':-« --•¥
•i tij; {?•*
!;
i
Figure
TOTAL VOCS IN TSRR
EXTRACTION
WELLS 4 AND 6
i VERONA WELL FIELD
i RATTl F HRFFK MICHIGAN
=k~- Lm?
»:;
-Or i-rf
•
iK 1-ii -
-I; - .- -=T^
ffijii
-------
WDC61621.A0.02
4000
CONCENTRATION
(ppb)
Pilot SVE Study Began
November 8, 1987
Full Scale Soil
Vapor Extraction
Began
March 15, 1988
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
DAYS SINCE MARCH 1987 STARTUP
-•- WELL 2
•O- WELL 9
Figure 12
TOTAL VOCS IN TSRR
EXTRACTION
WELLS 2 AND 9
VERONA WELL FIELD
BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN
-------
= s= ? •
1 =^1 B
«H
IS!
•
'
-*-r-: :
I
1 •• -.- > „ ,11! «
i', t f i i1 :»! s
i ;,! "j: : *
; III jiffli i
I -I -i'vlf I 111 S-fJll 1J
! ill Illii i
: i ,1::
i Si'
( i iii!
*" " '
ill!
,-,,„ HI ; 1 I
' ' i
-
--- -----
r = :wa. s ir=. fc>:_r--=s-/ i i i i;- ^i 2 M «ki i fc ":===;: = t m= -- r=HB»_:=« *- = i =-= n ;i«i: ==
:;:{
B Si
I h
!lil 1MB
ii ;i !^
i - v^:-'« ;« :-^- -v ^i - =»^;l
• f "k • i'J1 si •I'L'
-•? s ':i,, , ;,«!„! -5 lEil'iiF
J ,-| • «:« I r*«3 i ,;;-,ri, <;:,
iiiii
Ii 1! !
i illlii
•Hi i i
Jiii i I
i:
:::-:5: ! rs: i
= ;.-. »5,^
,„«
«=u »
./.S ;T| S-¥V
I Ji ilJ,
(ppb)
IM
ifc
'
i:
Pilot SVE Study Began
November 8, 1987
Full Scale Soil
Vapor Extraction "\
Began °
March 15, 1988
I ^
4-WELL 5
•O-WELL 7
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
DAYS SINCE MARCH 1987 STARTUP
I f:
ill i
Hi
: i , ii j ^ ^ i
Figure 13
i TOTAL VOCS IN TSRR «
EXTRACTION =H:
SWELLS s AND 7
I VERONA WELL FIELD 13 I !
' BATTLE CREEK. MICHIGAN
i-I
-------
WDC 61621. A0.02
CXDNCENTRATTON
(ppb)
zuuuu -
1 8000 -
16000-
14000-
12000-
10000 -
8000-
6000 -
4000 -
2000 -
0 -
>
t
|
;
\
\m
*\
I
0
Full Scale Soil
Vapor Extraction
Began
March 15, 1988
Pilot SVE Study Began
November 8, 1987
A
*^.
\
^^•--.s
w
""~"*
-------
-
UJ
UJ
U
DC
UJ
UJ
5 ! f--?^---I; ta^^MT**1- "--: i -s»=:;
mU !1.S!
^ ™*-I 4" =
^ -fR TllS ~ Si lit -==-== 1 ;sr * ii - I * S- '
-,ar. --.---- f v a -=f = :. r; ; ^py : rtaiyv | i ^ «j
UJ
(0
CC
UJ
O
DC
UJ
UJ
UJ
I
H
U.
O
Z
O
O
O
-I
t—
• •
0)
3
O)
IE
i
i
-------
LEGEND
GRONDWATER FLOW
FORMER LAGOON
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
PIEZOMETER
CROSS SECTION
ZONE OF CONTAMINATION
0 1
3 Km
FIGURE : 2 EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AND
LOCALISATION OF CROSS SECTIONS
-------
UNDIFFERENTIED
SANDY TILL
GROUNDWATER FLOW
BASAL TILL
FIGURE : 3a CROSS SECTION A
1,0 Km
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION : 50 X
-------
.Hazardous waatadump atta
Sand and graval eemplaz
Marina clay
Saeura landfill
Oreimdwatar traatmant facility
lncln«fallen plant of organic waalaa
Purga wall
Greundwatar flow
Creundwatar dlvldn
Traatmant facility dlecharga plpa
e oo no joe wo too*
FIGURE : 3b HYDROGEOLOGICAL SETTING OF THE VILLE
MERCIER RESTORATION SITE
( From Simard et Lanctot, 1987 )
-------
sips
i SB"
- 3
in
--,
-- «i"
: ,-V-
7 :V*
| i»i ±Ji--
=
I !; s !
•i-
*ter::j.
pi
IS I
iiHS
EHHI -86% of root
N.A. no datd available
|S» * WHO - World Health Organization
** US EPA - United State Environmental Protection Agency
*** HWC - Health and Welfare Canada
^ Data from the Merck index (1976) and Sax (1984)
V , M 1 i! i;r;:
M = ;:;;M
!: - "H
":-;:^: ^./^^i! • , *J^;!: : :i :: L^U;:* rf: ; s!;B:: r " , ? ,^-S »' : , ;,., " ? ; •;.:
! = !!
i !i M i ii n : jj* i-
» *•• * M 4 :^f* 5* *— M - *- ^rr^i*.^ ! T. ;. -
! mfttRfi ORG/WilC CDHPOMDS^ > ^s
5 ,!C;U ti:£Mc^CENTRATION OFIHftLOCENA'TED HYDROCARBONS IN TOE RAWiiRATER MlttLEjkRCiKRjIilO j " '.-_
7" " ^ 't.:i :T ~ . . s TziT'.VlfFili " :i = ii : 3 : i : j " " 1 ;J "a "JI _L^ I ^ _:_ :
-.. == -=..-= r- -= - . - ^rariE—W" — i II =r -' , M 1 P ^ =i-.i- di Afe - i M i
.._.*--*--. - ~ :, ^*-=. :.-_,!-••._—,--•,..-,
»=_i
11
«
11
!1L
SI
t;
f:
|!
~-
-~° ""
"w =
.it
?E
as
fis
MS
|^|
-^
5?
ii
Si
gg
|t
=-= - = - : = ~ "~ - = ^^"^ —
HALOGANATED HYDROCARBONS
1,2 dichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Trans 1,2 dichloroethylene
,1 dichloroethylene
,2 dichloroethylene
,1 dichloroethane
,4 dichlorobutene
Chloroform
,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane
,2 dichlorobutane
2,3 dichlorobutane
Dichloromethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,2 dichloropropane
Trans 1,3 dichloropropene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
CONCENTRATION
(iig/U
1 050
450
160
160
58,8
55
53
50
49
30
8,3
8,1
6,0
3,0
3,0
2,3
1.4
1,03
0,87
0,3
0,06
!i - i=
SOLUBILITY
(••g/l)
8 690
4 500
1 100
N.A.
150
600
400
N.A.
5 500
N.A.
8 200
2 900
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
720
2 700
N.A.
4 500
3 010
785
i - = =i i I i
DENSITY
(g/cm3)
1,23
1,44
1,49
0,92
1,63
1,28
1,22
1,27
1,17
1,14
1,50
1,60
1,11
1.11
1,33
1,34
1,16
1,22
1,98
2,89
1,59
= „, ._ it urt = i : =
DRINKING
WATER GDI.
(ug/1)
5 ***
50 ***
2 **
10 *
7 **
30 *
50 ***
200 **
5 ***
:
**- .
-r ' -'
H '•
f ,
; :
-------
TABLE lb
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
CONCENTRATION OF MONOCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN THE HATER OF VILLE MERCIER
MONOCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
Toluene
Xylene
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
CONCENTRATION
(ug/1)
114
65
47
23,4
, 17,6
\ )
SOLUBILITY
(mg/1 )
470
N.A.
1 780
500
140
DENSITY
(9/cm3)
0,87
0,86
N.A
1,11
0,87
DRINKING
WATER GDL.
(ug/1)
5 ***
80 ***
N.A. no data available
*** HWC - Health and Welfare Canada
Data from the Merck Index (1976) and Sax (1984)
-------
!!l«! in
:.** : , 11!
'!
—
i>
hi liili i Hi;
il! Hi
; i:, :~mr •"?" :»: :;;
- - ^=r =--=--: : - =1^5,™— = ;=, = r a" i! ? ~ Jai
;„:,,!£ :: i:s;i«ia. iJit ..;
ii; ii J : r ! t!- «' - ,,i
;..: itni i, .i^rsi.,; Bj'" jit
1 II!:! M 111 !!!
« '• ;i ;. = »-: ;i«F i: i'tiiii
-- - ---' ' :- 2S,at j fl- -.--*,:' i? ,
i -i;
al>fc
r- "?_ - a
i|i::
rb,
! « ill 1
• - -i ! -. IB1" , 1 ---,;,-.,
:: i
HOH VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
Jail HI
Bf POIYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS INJTHE RAH HATER !OF VILLE MERCIER
li
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS '
2-Methylnaphtalene
Napthtalene
Phenanthene
Benzo (b+k) anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,1) perylene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno (1,2.3,- cd) pyrene
Acenaphtene
Anthracene
Acenaphtylene
CONCENTRATION
(ug/1)
7,3
4,1
2,2
1,6
1,1
1,1
1.1
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,8
0,6
0,6
0,6
0,2
SOLUBILITY
(ug/1)
N.A.
34 400
1 290
N.A.
140
14
0,26
0,5
3,8
260
1 980
620
3 400
73
3 920
DENSITY
(g/cmJ)
1,01
1,16
1,79
N.A.
1,27
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1,35
1,25
1,20
N.A.
N.A.
1,25
N.A.
DRINKING
HATER GDL.
(ug/1)
0,01 ***
" 9 ** *
PAHi - 1% of TOCt
N.A. no data available
*** HWC - Health and Helfare Canada
Data from CNRC (1983), the Merck Index (1976) and Sax (1984)
i-t - '
111! I
i
-------
TABLE 2b
NON VOLATILE ORGANICS COMPOUNDS
CONCENTRATION OF PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS IN THE RAW WATER OF VILLE KERCIER
PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS
2,4 dimethyl phenol
Phenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
2- chlorophenol
2- nitrophenol
4- chloro 3- methyl phenol
2- methyl phenol
2,4- dinitrophenol
4,6- dinitrophenol
2,4- dinitrophenol
CONCENTRATION
(ug/1)
13,0
6,2
2,1
0,8
0,4
0,4
0,4
0,3
0,3
0,3
0,1
SOLUBILITY
(mg/1)
N.A.
82 000
N.A.
N.A.
28 500
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
DENSITY
(9/cn3)
N.A.
1,07
1,27
N.A.
1,26
1,49
N.A.
1,5
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
DRINKING
WATER 6DL.
(ug/1)
60 ***
70 ***
£ PCi - 1* of TOCi
*** HWC - Health and Welfare Canada
N.B. In Quebec the Drinking Water Standard for Phenolic Compounds is 2 ug/1.
Data from the Merck index (1976) and Sax (1984)
-------
j Mi |j 11
!;,
;,i« •
IIMI isr: IE ii i!
=fe ll
1 l:
; f.
• ' "
* =r ii li fc: i= »ii^
Nj II
I'!
i i? 5 i= P* == ^2
h:;! -P'-^
S !l ;i iairfpU
'!
Sii «fl« i; !ii! ;«; ! | i if; U
S S lih 'ii illi s i H -E i
^!3I;F1;
- =
i
•!
: B i =H Mf^s i
-; 14= ==*i5 -j™- 1= 1- fc i=5 :sii^:Jr^==
'-f >;'!PJ1» "—
~~~
3; ;TABLEj 2c>j; ;3 •;: ; pr! E • : * " ----- * - '-> ---— - -
VOLATilfe ORGAHIC;!COMPOUiDS
;
i|i;: JlfiyiCOiCENTRATlbN Of^MOiOCYCLIC AROHATIC HYDROCARBONS, HALOGENAT^D||H1?DRdCAlBBN!s11
I i I AND OTHERS IN THE RAH WATER OF VILLE HtRCIER B ill
5 3 i ^
p f =rilt3==;l; = = i r
! ef',,fi1i f -i
n J»= i
W*|
Ut
-
i«:.
--•-=-, , -" -!* !!-'
1- I" ': - ^
f , ^^ i= -5V<
= «i * j n *• i f =
-:-.. _v _^ _ " «
^-i ^ ^^J "^ 2^=^
1 r- s-
--- .:? -" ^ _"r
" ' " "lii.
-. -_ .-- rife = -.--- -=;ii
^. . _ -i--- f i f
r^ ^} f^-. ,_t£ f -,-:
** >--! *^i- ir> -•=,*
/ t. : - -: = .-. - - .. /.
)s s;; i:l|
* : r_=" " :" " ^3 ? "
-. -"^ ^ - ~ - . If . .- I ~
~ --^ - t - -"" - Z- ~ 1
MONOCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
2 nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,4 dichlorobenzene
HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
nTuroc
UIHLKb
Isophrone
N- nitroso- DIN-propylamine
Dibenzofuran
CONCENTRATION
(ug/1)
14,0
3,1
0,6
0,4
7,2
1,4
4,1
0,7
0,5
SOLUBILITY
(mg/1)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
DENSITY
(g/cm3)
N.A.
1,20
1,30
1,25
2,09
N.A.
0,92
N.A.
N.A.
DRINKING
HATER STD.
(ug/1)
200 ***
5 ***
\
15X10-6***
£(MAHi * HHi * OTHERS)- 1% of TOCi
Data from the Merck index (1976) and Sax (1984)
ill MI jiti
Mjl 1
m- li in
II si ;H
* -.-=•- : .
5 : *
-
i; ft
prtic-
BSBI
m
WM!
™
Hua
SB
-iri
Sff«
;/§%:: in
!
-
BJII
i;5!
. -
! «!l 1
i
-------
.11
O
a
m
CONCENTRATION ( mg/l ) •
o>
< o
m o
-0 Z
w o
§
m z
O o
M *n
2 **
C M
i o
s §
§ °
i§
o
t
10
IS)
O
r-
§
o
I
m
-------
• ilium1''iiiii'iiiii!"we''" • ni! -1;'"ii'; •„ rr'",t:;•;i jrtv'"ji. :•., n;; i.* m in iliiiiiiiiiiiiin'IF jliif "iiinii:iniKi"tsi:' vm,'ill i::;1 jpmi:w' i;.:Lif* "!T9:<\ s^:in iJK'ueff j.i: '!'"!: 'OfL v r4WSLPB? ''''iiiiaaniiiiK;! : i1 :nnu •'iniiiiniiiiiiiiiannniiinininnn! rwimFre >i:nni""'
illBin '|j|i '"A '•' . "':, 'i'",;1!1!1 , I'M, \lldl''1!:! 'Tii::11!,,,1,,, ! ** "i;,!iail1'i I!1"1'., ' i1"!.' #'",! II,:"1.,"1...,.!!!1!! •:' i I, • :S<\f\' „«' .i" " li „; ^r'lllW " 'i"1?"'"I,, ''I ' fill I CM! ^IIP , h,*!";!.,,!"!!:1 ! ,„;»•, .1", iy'nill I
ml:::!:* '•::•, 4* ',;;,;;i;.;iijjti;&*i» wtll.'ri;'i: VI'•;::>M,,:!":£1'
iiiiiii ill 111 iiiiiii
I !J,;
'•*' ; * ' ' '"''''.
'» •• " ' ' ' ;;
.r*-::^!",'1'^
1, a ii,!"»i , ,, '„ •! ."• T
|:il*l,: ,•'" ' li''"!:.!'. •' ,:
<
m
3
(A
C
w
o
r-
m
O
Tl
T3
•O
m
a
3
5
H
ni
a
"'!' " •'
... ..in.;.:*
.;•/;! :|F;:';.|
'I .HP I..,1, iiiiii
, 1 'i,,!!,,. '" ' 'I!1'1'
T|
5
a'
III ,
••
01
o
0
z
o
m
z
,.J
a
§
o
z
o
•n
£
m
z
O
n
O
O
o
•o
o
z
a
(A
;•• '" ; :':i|1: • E1 ; • ' ' " *»• "-'i?t. : *"' • ! ')< • ; V ' • :. ! ,:" '•• ;; 1 '* • : ••' ' <• : • * '""*.;> 1 -, • ' ° !ii " P* *i''' '' • • :,i- ' Jl II '
r"11 i','i", IN ii,, 'ijvi . : ,., a N«!!lllili!ill^, %:,,,!,, 'i11'1! ^ ., ?i ";».. :» : „::'!. •. ^ , ^ i»|J*!!l',T •:'• . i, •, " '" n ; mi;, ir""1!!:11!,!/!:!!.. .i,1?!?'1'1',,!,,,, '".i .inn,,, iiiUi1,:' 'liiiiffl1'1'"1. '"in"!" in,!, ,+ ITI ,.
1 ;,,;?!,(!:! j f.:]i Pd • ' ^Jjf,- ,» f»:;;t ••.£. „ f ^.^' ; • ij, \ if i. _ <> ",; ';; 'lp i,:| I; -i W "' > '„;*; , {ti |;|i ' f^Wv !ill!""!ll il<
"i; '''Ci : |"ii"'i '" JiL.'i'iii!. ' ' »'::,, : jiiiiu1" i»ii fi'i!: r ,i!!,, .iji ;• »s :,,.i|ii!» jr , • " i ,,1,:?: • *, '.n: i,|., v|", „. a " •» i,111 •"",i!i;i» „'"'," ,'*,'." ,,
3 o>-
u
^M.
•III'liLl1! HIM " HIT, I'I 1C1 .ill!,!1,.!1' J 1111", III!, 'I1!!1 II! '",,11 || <»'l, " 'Ml'.". If „ "» , " "!, ,"'11111 „, ,!!,;, 1 IIWIIHIII „ | |||l||||l||||il||||. . Illllllllllfillllilil ' <;' '!;if,. , " i;,,, l( ^
^^*>***^~ ;"";r::: : ::" ": , : ;
^ * *
/fT „::":*'"' ":" "•.'"•• . ', ':'"•" ' :'.' ':'''•. * "'" „:: :,',:, ;:, ,
* X.* ^li !:
j* * • _ 33 '*''""' '"' ••
•jp ' ffl'.i.iZI '
••^ ' '"& Flfl ' ' ,1
:: §•»•••;
( ; • g»""
• : : 0 if;,
i ,,. - ., Q;: „,
•31
^ ^J
ciJi'1^'11
i& "' '
QSS ..,
,„,„,„,„,,„ ,. , , ,, , „ ^p 1'fi '"'
i'i1. 1 I' * "'!„,' liri1'1'!!!!!1!111'" ! "'''i,,' ', \ „ i ''',i Itl'i'li, ' ii"1 ,'"''' ' ' n"'1'1' II,!!;''.1 ."lull,, '" H '"'111 ! « Mill1' IT "''l''l ^ ii,,, •• ifliia •• j "'•ki.if'jiitii^iiiir iiiiiii . JIH siiiTi 'tiiiii i,*,
'Ill 1 1111 1 1
1 1 III III 11 IIIIIII III
1 III Ill
Illll 11 III 1 1 IIIIII
1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 II 11
Illll 1 III 1
..'^:iLftfi
••» • •:•> i •'"
"" ";;;;;",,; ; ;;",
., _ i „„ ,,
"sBKS™
;:,,;,!,!, i ''I'lf;;!!! jjj ii
::: i' i :.-;! •
:•:.: ;.;:,;.:: ::::,:
„" „; ™ ,',„,„' ! in, ' i!
i, "I ; 111 'jiii' frillPI1" iiilllliljli
" f '" ' Ll1"' '"'"
Jill" I" I'm ,:»' 1, "111
,,,, ' " •' ; [j.^l'l.^
, uiiiiiili J,? min«l
.>! 6-M i jiiii'liii; it if
• i '
Ill III III II I II II
-------
1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
160
VOLUME OF PUMPED WATER ( x 106 m3 )
FIGURE : 6 CONCENTRATION OF 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VERSUS VOLUME OF PUMPED WATER
-------
"« ;«r: -. J«
|
in pi
i!iir!iB*:-
= l!
P : '•-
|S; "!|
II Si;
Hi!
%, •>:
S':: ' "4^-r .?-
^-_j3F.-.
11 -, -
!*£-! :Mfci
:* - p/*s-
.i-
.,.
^^
«1
W
!*S|- J- .—= ^- ^-1
•*•
; SpS ;
:--:: '"•'-
f f-- ill Pi;p^^fr« :=r' 5- s
I «!i
11 ES ji i spi »i
;i! :i:
B !«
— ^» •Kr<^"'i«J1li •
....^_ K Sii
bW
i Ki !
= IP - - _— ^^n rp^= - &^i'id=isi:j: = = 5
i *^*= - PAI - f*s ? 'p^.pPJii ~ p
I!
a=li
».is
Si,'
,li
in i! m
! M!,, n iiili ;»•:, ,;
I |» i == 5 - ^^ —=a = _ ^^.^ t a «as* i - =_-_ « SB ?; ^^^i
i HUB ,, islll! !,JS
1 ,!t:(i!.
i 'H i;l - « = I iW * ' : - . i ir HIi «ai
. 'i f" *:« -i»; :-;„ = , "; "-" ":- ^*
I- - f ; I s , ----.!----_ - '
I ffitjl I
! "lil; . -i--r=.i i • I -*-rr! i,
jpcti WteSW^'H'W?:
i I J 1 = li = -" °s =: --i ^i^ -i
"i!
—
ii'i
;--»•• «-=- •'•
^^=^ ^= IB- IlM-
"-.:-
ijii
.-!
!| —^ ;*
^iiliipaf! i!,!
(;:!.M.5; ! ;: s;
i 4 6
VOLUME OF PUMPED WATER ( x 10° m3 )
,
i!i:
7 CONCENTRATION OF A1254
VERSUS VOLUME OF PUMPED WATER
=i
-------
PCB A1260
- 0,6 -
n
Z
M
z
UJ
o
z
o
o
02-
f
<0,1
n^
2
T
0 2 4 6
VOLUME OF PUMPED WATER ( x 106 m3 )
FIGURE ! 8 CONCENTRATION OF A1260
VERSUS VOLUME OF PUMPED WATER
-------
ri
'
PURGE WELlSjS!
' «i. P
;::ii
.J *aBi-™i
»i
i WATER-
xix /~yj F|LLED PORE SPACE
RESIDUAL DNAPL
-^ , . .^feESs^&^.-H JZ TOP OF
^^M^m^S^ 2. WATPR
FLOW
PLUME :-
SINKING VAPOURS
TOP
WATER TABLE
DNAPL LAYERS
Mil
'BASAL TILL
FRACTURED POROUS ROCK
«i DISSOLVED CHEMICAL
• IN FRACTURE
, DNAPL
WATER-FILLED Jdli]
" PORE SPACE
DNAPL-FILLED FRACTURE
)NAPL
DIFFUSION
INTO
MATRIX
M
I ••
!li|l II
f.= i:4 :d
si • »
i; i! : fi i
FIGURE : 9 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION FROM
RESIDUAL DNAPL AND DNAPL POOLS
( MODIFIED FROM FEENSTRA AND CHERRY, 1988 )
-------
NAPL RELEASE
n m i m
RESIDUAL NAPL
QROUNDWATER FLOW
,NAPL ( DISCRETE GANGLIA I
AIR OR WATER -
FILLED PORE SPACE
PRESENT WATER TABLE
V
•$ DISSOLVED "v
CHEMICAL PLUMED
RANGE OF WATER
TABLE FLUCTUATIONS
WATER-FILLED PORE SPACE
< MODIFIED FROM HUNT ET AL, 1988 )
FIGURE : 10 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION FROM RESIDUAL NAPL
AND NAPL POOLS IN THE WATER TABLE FLUCTUATION
ZONE
-------
Ill III
"ill in
TABLE 3
Concentration of organic compounds in piezometer
of the sanip'lThg campaign of ""May 1988.
I IILIJlllll Hill 1 VI >•,;„ i Bill
I '•?' I'1'!1'!-1!11 ' •''''!'•!!!!'
I ", Till
I ! ii'iiz 4 ,! • iii
I ,'1JV ' ! IE
I iiii?1! ii a,, ,„in
1 V , (IE
I HiffilT11111!11'1!;'! IH ,! '". , "i lilll Pill1"
I f !l' IB, •.('.„ ."111!1:
I lltillllljlr,;1, I,!,:!!",1!",' I!'.; :,l
I i;h: M li ...... lliT/i'i '!
I :;,jiMi«ii':i[: ........... 'ii
: |1K>
I 1" I'l vftl in JUiin Jl!1!! 'T
I ..... I''':'
Ill
Concentrations (ug/1 )
Organic coapounds
HHs
1,2 dichloretane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
Dichloromethane
1,1,2 tri chl oroethyl ene
1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
1,1 dichloroethane
Chloroform
1,1 dichlorethylene
MAHs
Chlorobenzene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
PCs
Phenol
4-methyl phenol
PAHs
Benzo (a; anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (b+k) fluoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
P-S3
34,0
15,3
4,2
0,65
0,23
0,20
0,15
0,08
1,60
1,20
0,60
0,10
1,0
0,1
0,6
0,3
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,1
P-162
0,92
0,11
0,25
0,20 '
0,17
P-62
P-27
0.13
0,21
0,35
0,12
P-51
-------
ESTURGEON RIVER
P-98
CONTAMINATION TML
IN BEDROCK
m
a
H
O
>
m
x
o
m
so
in
O
IP^^^Wp0.*
I
m
m
w
CONTAMINATION TAIL
IN SAND/ GRAVEL
•WATER DIVIDE
N
O
m
PURGE WELL
LAGOON
M
O
m
ELEVATION < m )
-------
II •». i« Li, Till!!,1 ,„::!!! '',,PI, '"If "tf I I1".'I!, 'I'1!". ,! "!!i,"l! .'ilh .' .'I'"1! MI!'
'""ii"' «rl(iA >.']»!.l &••'*-) ':» !"!" A ill
ZONE 4 '• ' """
«,. •»'v:«na^ 'KLfcAL'?;:."••
"" I ZONE
—H-—*
1.2 DiCHLOROETHANE
!, I! .['"".iFiPhJin,,!' Jllli 1C! I!"'1'""* lllllllllllHI'll M,!!!" , il'liil'''!
" : " BENZENE
:; ;;, iPa ,
"
; • -TOLUENE,
- 08 «j
22 ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
III,1!]]!'it [Jill ,»;*!, ll",:i! l!liit:t '.i,;' I:
liiliL"
LEGEND
111 Iilllll
I mi) siu ...... ' ....... Hi' ..... i
|ii»r,*iiii.. "iJH "" * a. ii™"*, ii
]i Llpripllll' ...... I1:,!!"'!!! lUlllil ...... ' 1 liiiinU1 llKiiLi
1
PIEZOMETER
^ ii'iiw ......... -:,i<| ...... '"" ...... !<:>,: iif an" ....... ' ...... iii-'iiii'- <\':\ff ...... 'mi '-, ! ,: I ""-i'; i'LiiitiL inMtt*" . ' ia1' : i'r
0,5
J.
..... ..... „! ...... iiiRii ..... !i?
1!!] ...... s;ii,iiSi^^ 'ii,, it ..... > , ir /'
cpss SECTION B ' - B
MARINE CLAY
1,0 Km
II ,1 tf i ,!,:i"|i|i|,!ii,ili,,,"ITi|i! III!!1 ,;;!! |i;""i;i| g|H!ii|i!, Hi:',,,, i||p .i;";;,,, IIIN, uijin
"US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFI,CE:1990-74,8,-1 69/3041 1
--'•- "-., : :,—- -" '• — "- .-' ~—:,': ' " ::, ::„":, '„: ::;::,tr ::„:„
-------
-------
I " Environmental Protection
Agency
I f-
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Please make all necessary changes on the above label,
detach or copy,-and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE a;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
EPA/540/2-89/054b
-------
|