EPA-600/2-81-186
September 1981
P832-1338SS
EVALUATION OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES:
PICILLO PROPERTY,
COVENTRY, RHODE ISLAND
by
Nancy L. Cichowicz
Robert W. Pease, Jr.
Paul J. Stoller
Harold J. Yaffe
The MITRE Corporation
Metrek Divison
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
Contract No. 68-01-5051
Project Officer
Stephen C, James
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 4526,8
REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT" HAS BEEN HEPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT .IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING A?AILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
-sC-
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-6QO/2-81- Ififi
ORD Report -
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
PB82 1'0?88 ft
4. TITUS AND SUBTITLE
EVALUATION OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES: Picillo
Property, Coventry, Rhode Island
5. REPORT DATE
September 1981
3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOS
7. AUTHOR(S)
Nancy L. Cichowicz, Robert W. Pease, Jr., Paul J,
Stoller, Harold J. Yaffe
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDHSSS
The MITRE Corp.
Metrek Division
Bedford, Mass. 01730
12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO AO8RSSS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory-Cin. OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
BRD1A
11, CONTRACT7GHANTNO.
68-01-5051
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD CO VERSO
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOS
EPA/600/14
15, SUPPUSMiNTAflY NOTES
Project Officer: Stephen C. James
See also EPA-600/2-81-186
(513) 684-7871
18, ABSTRACT
This report describes the second phase of a two-phase investigation
undertaken by the MITRE Corp. to determine the nature and severity of ground -
and surface water contamination at the Picillo properity in Coventry, Rhode
Island and to make recommendations for permanent abatement of the situation.
The following Phase II activities were subsequently carried out to
obtain the necessary additional information and to provide further elaboration
on the problem:
— Bedrock sampling, installation of bedrock wells, and field
permeability testing
— Exploratory excavation of drums
-- Groung-penetratlng radar survey
— Seismic refraction survey
— Collection and chemical analysis of additional soil, ground water,
and surface water samples.
7.
KEY WORQS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
OgSCHSPTORS
Remote sensing
Field procedures
Abatement measures
Drum excavation
3. QISTHI3UT!QN STATEMENT
Release to Public
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN SNO6D T5HMS
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
20.SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
SPA Form 2220*1 (S-73)
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
21
22. PRICE
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solu-
tion and it involves defining the problem, reassuring its impact, and search-
ing for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops
new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and
management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges
from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of
public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social,
health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the
products of that research; a most vital communications link between the
researcher and the user community.
This report describes the second phase of a two phase investigation
undertaken in order to determine the nature and severity of ground and
surface water pollution at the Picillo property in Coventry, Rhode Island
and to raake recommendations for permanent abatement of the situation.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes the second phase of a two-phase investigation under-
taken by The MITKE Corporation to determine the nature and severity of ground
and surface water pollution at the Picillo property in Coventry, Rhode Island
and to make recommendations for permanent abatement of the situation. This
study was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid and Hazard-
ous Waste Research Division, in order to assist the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management.
Recommendations for interim actions, conclusions, results, and field pro-
cedures of the first phase of the study are contained in the project report:
"Hazardous Waste Investigation: Picillo Property, Coventry, Rhode Island,"
MITRE Technical Report 80W00032, April 1980.
iv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project team is appreciative of the support given by the following
MITRE personnel toward the completion of this investigation: Alex Hershaft,
Ronald N. Hoffer, and Irwin Frankel for their critical reviews; Lynne S. Arden,
Donna T. Howarth, and Milton V. Wilson for report preparation and coordina-
tion; Joan S. Garber and Marilyn L. Pyne for assistance in project management;
and Kerri E. Sails and Barbara J. Trinkleln for support in field activities.
The assistance of the following persons is also greatly appreciated:
Stephen C. James, Project Officer, and Donald E. Banning of the U.S. EPA Solid
and Hazardous Waste Research Division; Carleton A. Maine, Larry D. Riggs, and
Thomas E. Wright of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management;
David Mclntyre of the U.S. EPA, Region I; and John R. Davey of Jet Line Serv-
ices , Inc.
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract ....... ... iv
Acknowledgements v
Figures. ...... vii
Tables __.___....,._ viii
1. Introduction. 1
Purpose and Scope 1
Summary of Phase I Study 2
2. Field Procedures. . . 9
Field Procedures: Phase I 9
Field Procedures: Phase II 10
3. Results of Field Tests. 17
Location, Number, and Condition of Buried Drums 17
Hydrogeology 28
Chemical Contamination . 41
References 47
4. Recommendations 49
Summary of Phase II Investigation. . 49
Abatement of Site Pollution 50
Appendices
A. Table of Contents, List of Illustrations, and List of Tables
from Phase I Report 5.7
B. The Location of Buried Drums as Determined by Ground-Penetrating
Radar 63
C. Monthly Variation of Ground Water Levels. . . .69
D. Test Boring Logs 73
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Map of Site with Location of Wells 12
2 Comparison of Northeast and Northwest Trench Locations as Detected
by Ground-Penetrating Radar and Metal Detection 19
3 Location of South and West Trenches as Determined by Ground-
Penetrating Radar and Metal Detection. ..... 20
4 Subsurface Profile of the West Trench as Determined by Seismic
Refraction 22
5 Illustrative Trench Geometry 24
6 Water Table Map for August 12, 1980. 30
7 Location of Seismic Refraction Profiles 31
8 Results of Seismic Refraction Survey: Line 1. 32
9 Results of Seismic Refraction Survey: Line 2 33
10 Results of Seismic Refraction Survey: Line 3 34
11 Results of Seismic Refraction Survey: Line 4 35
12 Topographic Map of Region Around Picillo Property 40
vii
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Summary of Phase I Conclusions ................... 3
2 Recommended Actions: Phase I ...... .... 4
3 Comparison of Abatement Methods at the Conclusion of Phase I .... 7
4 Results of Excavation of Drums from the Northeast Trenches ...» .18
5 Comparison of Assumptions Used for Estimating Total Number of Drums
in Phases I and II .25
6 Estimated Rectangularized Dimensions of Surface of Trenches. ... .26
7 Estimated Number of Buried Drums Based on Extrapolation of Best
Available Data ..... .27
8 Correlations Between Seismic Velocities and Geologic Strata, . . . .36
9 Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Data .;............ .38
10 Comparison of Parameter Estimates and Quantities of Ground Water
Flow in Phases I and II 39
11 Total Volatile Organic Concentrations in Water and Soils ..... ,42
12 Volatile Organic Priority Pollutant Concentrations in Ground and
Surface Waters .............. .43
13 General Inorganic Constituent Concentrations in Ground and Surface
Waters .44
14 Results of the U.S. EPA Surface Water Analysis at Eastern Region of
Swamp and Swamp Outflow .46
15 Summary Evaluation of Long-Term Abatement Options. ........ .51
16 General Recommendations for Drum Excavation. . ..... .53
17 General Recommendations for Monitoring Effectiveness of Preferred
Abatement Alternative .56
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Section 1 covers the purpose and scope of the work documented in this
report and presents a summary of the results of a preliminary study of the
site under investigation.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report describes the second phase of a two-phase investigation
undertaken by The MITRE Corporation to determine the nature and severity of
ground and surface water pollution at the Picillo property in Coventry, Rhode
Island and to make recommendations for permanent abatement of the situation.
This study was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid and
Hazardous Waste Research Division, Municipal Environmental Research Labora-
tory (EPA/SHWRD) in order to assist the Rhode Island Department of Environ-
mental Management (DEM) and to evaluate the use of several remote sensing
techniques in an actual hazardous waste investigation.*
The first phase of the study was conducted by MITRE under contract with
the DEM** and the field procedures, results, conclusions, and recommendations
are contained in the project report: "Hazardous Waste Investigation: Picillo
Property, Coventry, Rhode Island," MITRE Technical Report 80W00032, April
1980. The Table of Contents, List of Illustrations, and List of Tables of
the above report are reproduced in Appendix A and the results and conclusions
are summarized in the following subsection.
An uncontrolled hazardous waste situation was created on the Picillo
property by the deliberate discharge of bulk chemicals into the ground and by
the burial of drums containing chemicals. When MITRE first became involved,
the number and locations of the buried drums were unknown. Leachate from the
dump site had migrated approximately 1200 ft through the soil and into the
surface waters of a swamp. Although the Picillo site is in a rural area, the
contamination of the swamp is of concern because the swamp discharges to a
body of water, Whitford Pond, that is used as a source of irrigation water
for a cranberry bog.
*Detailed analysis and evaluation of the remote sensing techniques are pre-
sented in a separate publication: "Use of Remote Sensing Techniques in a
Systematic Investigation of an Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site," MITRE
Technical Report 80W00244, January 1981.
**The following portions of the Phase I study were funded by EPA/SHWRD:
chemical analysis of soil and water samples, and preliminary engineering
of abatement options.
1
-------
The following tasks were performed under the first phase of the investi-
gation :
« review of DEM data pertinent to the dump site in question
• tnetal detection and electrical resistivity surveys of the dump site
0 installation of ground water monitoring wells
• collection and chemical analysis of soil, ground water, and surface
water samples
e preliminary determination of site hydrology
e preliminary engineering analysis of abatement options.
Cost estimates and conceptual designs were produced for four abatement methods
but a preferred one could not be recommended because additional field data
were needed, specifically the existence of fractures and contaminants within
the bedrock and the condition of the buried drums.
The following Phase II activities were subsequently carried out to obtain
the necessary additional information and to provide further elaboration on the
problem:
® bedrock sampling, installation of bedrock wells, and field
permeability testing
• exploratory excavation of drums*
• ground-penetrating radar survey
9 seismic refraction survey
« collection and chemical analysis of additional soil, ground water
and surface water samples.
The field procedures and results of the above study are presented in Sections
2 and 3, respectively. ~
SUMMARY OF PHASE I STUDY
The salient conclusions and recommendations of the preliminary (Phase I)
study are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Conclusions concerning the estimated num-
ber of drums, the bedrock mound, and the total quantity of contaminated ground
water flowing away from the site have been amended on the basis of the Phase
II results. These changes are presented and discussed in Section 3.
*Conducted and funded by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Manage-
ment.
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PHASE I CONCLUSIONS
Chemical Contamination
Ground water and surface water are contaminated predominantly with
chlorinated and non-chlorinated volatile organic chemicals (total
concentration less than 100 ppm).
Mr quality near the swamp is degraded due to release of chlorinated
and non-chlorinated volatile organic chemicals.
Soil around the site is contaminated with phthalate esters (total
concentration less than 20 ppm).
Health Effects
Although the chemicals detected are potentially hazardous, the
potential route of exposure to the public appears to be limited
to airborne transport in certain sections of the swamp. ,
The low population density of the affected area minimizes the
threat to public healths unless Whitford Pond is contaminated.
® A bedrock mound located off the northwest corner of the site diverts
leachate into two primary plumes ;* however, both plumes discharge to
the swamp ,
« The quantity of contaminated ground water flowing away from the site
is less than 260,000 gal/day.*
o Drums are buried in two major trenches, along the western and
northern boundaries of the site.*
• The estimated range of the total number of drums buried is
3,500 to 9,000.*
• Information available at the present time (April 1980) concerning
condition and number of drums and impermeability and topography of
bedrock is not sufficient for recommendation of permanent abatement
methods.
*0riginal conclusion which was subsequently modified on the basis of additional
information obtained from Phase II study (see Section 3).
-------
Table 2. Recommended Actions: Phase I
I, Post contaminated areas of
dump and swamp
2. Analyze quantity and qual-
ity of influent to Whitford
Pond
3. Analyze residential wells
(within 1 mile radius of
site) for volatile organ-
ics
4, Sample air quality around
swamp
5. Evaluate need to restrict
access to contaminated
area of swamp
6. Excavate and dispose of
drums in northeast trench
(backfilling with aerated
soil)
7. Install absorbent booms
and sheets at several lo-
cations and evaluate their
effectiveness
8, Examine bedrock for pres-
ence of fractures and
con tamina t ion
9= Install additional wells
10. Sample existing wells
11. Analyze condition of
Whitford Pond (aquatic
life, surface water, and
sediment)
12. Determine all uses of
Whitford Pond water in
addition to cranberry ir-
rigation
13. Conduct detailed evalua-
tion of long-term abate-
ment approach and imple-
mentation plan for pre-
ferred approach
Alert trespassers to threat to
public health
Determine potential threat to
public health
Determine potential threat to
public health
Determine nature of hazard
Determine if nature of potential
hazard justifies cost of fencing
contaminated regions of swamp
Confirm continued existence of
source of chemicals
Limit potential of surface
pollutant flow to Whitford Pond
Assist in the design of long*
term abatement measures
Define plume boundaries and
investigate swamp underflow
of contaminants
Monitor changes in water quality
Determine potential threat to
public health
Determine potential threat to
public health
Abate pollutants in a cost-
effective manner
Tine Frame (1980)
April
April
April
Periodically
Periodically
April - August
(including pro-
curement)
April - May (in-
stallation only)
April - June
April - June
Periodically
April - June
April - May
July - September
-------
The Phase I investigation and evaluation identified the following addi-
tional information necessary to define the public health threat presented by
the site and to evaluate methods for abatement of the problem:
• condition and number of buried drums
• topography and imperviousness of bedrock
• effectiveness of the swamp to act as a treatment mechanism for
volatile organic chemical contamination.
Condition and Number of Buried Drums
Although metal detection had been used to find the locations of the
buried drums, it was unknown whether the drums were intact and whether they
contained liquid or solids. Drums containing liquids would act as a future
and continuous source of contamination due to rupture and release. This made
it impossible to estimate the future concentration of pollutants in the ground
water or the length of time that the ground water would remain contaminated.
On the other hand, there was speculation by DEM officials that the drums were
crushed at the time of burial and that no future releases would occur. Thus,
it was necessary to determine, by limited excavation, the actual condition of
the drums and whether they contained chemicals, in order to determine an appro-
priate abatement method.
A second area of uncertainty was the depth of the buried drums and there-
fore their number. The estimate of the number of drums buried on the site
was based upon certain unverified assumptions concerning the side slopes of
the trenches, the depth of the trenches, and the packing density of the drums.'
Since metal detection does not supply any of the preceding information, con-
siderable guess work had to be employed for the initial drum number estimates.
Limited excavation of drums would therefore afford the opportunity to directly
observe the condition and number of some of the drums and reduce some of the
uncertainties inherent in the drum number estimates.
Topography and Condition of Bedrock
The effectivess of two of the abatement options being evaluated, encapsu-
lation and interceptor trenches for leachate collection, depended upon an un-
fractured, impermeable bedrock. If the bedrock were found to be fractured, it
could not be relied upon as a barrier to leachate movement, and therefore the
above two abatement options would be rejected. Additionally, it was necessary
to determine the topographic profile of the bedrock in order to provide more
accurate cost estimates for each option, in particular for the interceptor
trenches. If the bedrock profile were highly irregular, the cost of installing
interceptor trenches might become prohibitive because gravity flow would be
impossible and pumping stations would be needed. Rock excavation was not con-
sidered feasible because of the possibility of inducing fractures.
An additional factor to be explored concerned the possibility of vertical
migration of contaminants through the bedrock fractures. Sampling and analy-
sis of ground water from wells in the bedrock was needed to determine the
-------
presence of contaminants in order to better-define the potential threat to
public health.
"•iS
Effectiveness of the Swamp as a Treatment Mechanism
The Phase I study showed that the swamp was the receptor and surface dis-
charge area for contaminated ground water. Because the swamp discharges to a
pond which is used for irrigation, a potential public health problem might
exist if chemicals were released from the swamp. On the basis of a single
downstream surface water sample, it appeared that air-borne dispersion of vol-
atile organic chemicals (the predominant species present in the ground water)
in the swamp was the principal mechanism for dilution to relatively safe levels
and contaminants were not being discharged to Whitford Pond. However, the
above statement was posed only as a hypothesis requiring validation.
Analysis of Abatement Alternatives
The alternative actions selected for investigation were the following:
9 no action
» removal and disposal of the source of contaminants
• encapsulation of the source of contaminants
0 collection and treatment of the contaminated ground water
These activities encompass the principal methods available for response
to the specific problems created by the Picillo site. Conceptual designs and
estimated costs were developed for each, and a comparison of their advantages
and disadvantages is shown in Table 3. In addition, Table 3 presents the in-
formation determined necessary to complete the evaluation and the techniques
used during Phase II to obtain the appropriate data.
In addition to the above four activities, surface preparation (grading
and capping with an impermeable barrier) was evaluated as both a short-term
and a long-term option and was removed from further consideration (except in
conjunction with encapsulation) because of the relatively insignificant ef-
fect of precipitation directly on the dump site (when compared with the large
upgradient recharge area).
-------
TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF ABATEMENT METHODS AT THE CONCLUSION OF PHASE I
• (Cey Disadvantages
Additional Information
Required to Impleiaent
Alternative
Technique to
• radar, exploratory ex-
hauste
of con
Whitfo
fecteJ
a
a svaap t the
a isolated,
r
d Pond
is u
lacn-
swaiup
naf-
• po
St
pu
11 exists
ontrolled release of
lutants may cause
* state of
e ultimate
all poll
near
diep
by
pond
osition
of
utants
additional wells, chem
ical analysis of soils
and water samples
rue Removal and Dia-
osai {excavation,
esting, and proper
ispofial of drums and
octeials, and c out ant-
cat ed boils)
ite Encapsulation
construction of ira-
eraieable barriers
9 stops/controls pal.
ruptured and chemicals
dispersed
r
potential for injury to
workers exists
(drums)
, . .
condition
lease of pollutants
still exists
requires absence of
fractures in bedrock
surface
perpetual monitoring and
(drums)
i condition of bedrock
• exploratory excavatic
chemical analysis of
soil samples
• radar, exploratory e:
cavation
core drilling, deep
wells
nt to site walls)
b. Hose Complete Op-
tion (interceptor
trenches constructed
600 ft downgradient
of site walls)
• working com
than for dri
• controls pollution at
source including addi-
tional downgradient
contaminated soil
• working conditions
bedrock
• treatment system does
not remove all contami-
nants from leachate
• unknown and potentially
large Xife-cycle cost
t same ad above
• condi tioi
(drums)
re drilling, deep
same as above
-------
SECTION 2
FIELD PROCEDURES
Section 2 describes the field procedures employed during Phase I and the
following activities under Phase II: ground-piercing radar; seismic refrac-
tion; bedrock coring and well installation, and field permeability testing;
water and soil sampling and chemical analysis; and limited drum excavation.
FIELD PROCEDURES: PHASE I
This section briefly summarizes the field procedures used during the
Phase I investigation.
Metal Detection Survey
The entire cleared area of the dump site was surveyed with a hand-held
Fisher M-Scope (Model TW-5) metal detector. The average depth of detection
was approximately 4 to 6 feet.
Electrical Resistiyity_ Survey
Electrical resistivity surveys were conducted to locate the presence and
lateral extent of ground water contamination prior to the installation of
monitoring wells. A Bison Instruments, Earth Resistivity Meter (Model 2350B)
was used for all surveys. Approximately 170 measurements were made using
electrode (or A-) spacirigs of 20 and 50 feet.- Information concerning soil
characteristics was obtained by digging test pits with a backhoe in selected
locations.
Monitoring Well Installa.tj.gn
Drilling operations were performed using a wash boring rig, and drillers
were instructed to proceed to bedrock. The wells were constructed of 1-1/2 in
O.D. schedule 40 pressure-fitted PVC pipe. The entire saturated thickness of
the aquifer was screened with factory-slotted pipe. Fifteen wells were in-
stalled, and nine of them were developed by injection and pumping to remove
fine sand.
Water Sampling
Soil samples were collected with a split-spoon sampler every 5 feet
during drilling operations. Stainless steel bailers were used to collect
Preceding page blank
-------
ground water samples from each well. Representative samples were obtained by
withdrawing several casing volumes of water until the temperature had stabi-
lized.
Chemical Analysis
Analysis for priority pollutants by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) was performed on composites of both soil and water samples. Wells
closest to the dump area were chosen for the soil and water priority pollutant
analysis in order to obtain samples which were least affected by attenuation,
dispersion, or dilution. The remaining samples were quantitatively analyzed
for total volatile organics (TVO) using a GC with a flame ionization detector
and reporting the total output peak area in terms of selected standards.
FIELD PROCEDURES: PHASE II
This section details the field procedures used during the Phase II inves-
tigation.
Ground-Penetrating Radar
A ground-penetrating radar survey over the trench areas was performed by
Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. (GSSI) of Hudson, New Hampshire under con-
tract to MITRE; areas of buried drums had been previously located by the
metal detection survey. The general areas of buried drums are identified on
the site map (Figure 1). The radar survey, which was completed in two days,
was conducted to determine the feasibility of using this technique to provide
information on the packing density of buried drums, the depth and geometric
construction of trenches, and the location (trench boundaries near the sur-
face) of the buried drums. This was a relatively new application of ground-
penetrating radar, which had been previously used in avariety of underground
investigations, such as assessing the extent of peat deposits, locating arti-
facts at archaeological sites, and locating soil interfaces at construction
sites.
In a ground-penetrating radar survey, an electromagnetic impulse is repeti-
tively propagated downward into the ground from a broad band width antenna on
the surface. Reflections from subsurface interfaces are received by the an-
tenna, processed electronically, and printed to yield a continuous profile of
subsurface conditions as the antenna is moved across the ground surface. The
depth to an interface, or the surface of a "target" such as a metal drum, is
determined by measuring the time for a radar pulse to travel to the interface
and reflect back to the surface.
The radar equipment used at the site in Coventry was the SIR System 7
ground radar system manufactured by GSSI. Following experimentation with two
alternative antennas and center frequencies, GSSI Model 3105AP operating at a
center frequency of 300 MHz and GSSI Model 3102 operating at 600 MHz, the lat-
ter was chosen for most of the survey due to its improved spatial resolution
at shallower depths. •-
10
-------
The West Trench was surveyed with the 300 MHz antenna set at a nominal
depth of 25 ft, later calibrated at 24.4 ft, based on average soil conditions.
The Northwest, Northeast, and South Trenches were subsequently surveyed using
the 600 MHz antenna set at a nominal depth of 12.5 ft. The survey was con-
ducted according to a rectangular grid. All trenches were surveyed longitu-
dinally by using parallel radar transects at spacings of 10 ft. Transverse
transects, or cross-cuts, were made at intervals of 20 ft for the Northeast
Trench and 40 ft for the West and Northwest Trenches. The antenna was pulled
along the transect manually, and the data recorded by wire connection with
equipment located in a. stationary van on the site, which also served as the
power source.
Seismic Refraction
Seismic refraction profiling of approximately 2850 linear feet was per-
formed at the Coventry site in two days of field work. This technique was
primarily employed to determine the depth to bedrock between deep wells. A
profile was also conducted over the West Trench to determine if seismic re-
fraction could be used to determine the depth of the buried drums.
The seismic refraction method is based on the principle that elastic
waves (mechanical rather than electromagnetic) travel through different sub-
surface strata at different velocities. Elastic waves are introduced to the
ground surface by an enargy source and the refracted waves are detected by
small seismometers (geophones) located on the surface at various distances
from the energy source. A seismograph records the travel time between the
vibration and the arrival of the elastic wave at the geophones. Plotting ar-
rival time versus distance from the energy source to geophone from a series
of readings enables the determination of strata depths and their seismic ve-
locities through the use of simple refraction theory.
Stephen A. Alsup and Associates, Inc. of Newton, Massachusetts performed
the survey using a Geometries/Nimbus Model ES1210F Multichannel Seismograph.
Voltage outputs from 12 Mark Products L-15 vertical geophones spaced at 20-ft
intervals were recorded and collected for each refraction spread. The energy
source used to initiate each record and shock wave was a 30-lb dropped weight
or 10-Ib sledge hammer blow on a steel plate with an attached impact start
switch. Impact points for this survey were at the end of, and quarterly along
the refraction spread, providing a locus for depth calculations at 80-foot
intervals along each spread. Data continuity and repetition were achieved by
repeating end shots where refraction lines were longer than one spread length.
Rock Drillin&,_ Well Jastallailotij and Field Permeability Testing
Installation of six additional ground x^ater monitoring wells began on
June 3, 1980. Drilling was performed by Guild Drilling Co., Inc., of East
Providence, Rhode Island. Geotechnical Engineers Inc. (GEI) of Winchester,
Massachusetts, also under contract to MITRE, acted as geotechnical consultant.
Drilling was performed using a hydraulic rotary rig, which has the capa-
bility to core rock. Initially, hollow-stem augers were to be used to refus-
al, and then steel casing was to be set prior to rock coring. However,
11
-------
ZI ,
-------
UNO S9IFICE COIITOtllS
(FEET MOVE BSD
StOKi FEICE
OUT )0»
i «C«!IOII«»6 HELL
• SHFICE unit
(tmn. locmioi)
tlMBE 1: iiP OF SHE »III lOCITIOI OF WEUS HID SIIIF1CE »
-------
these plans had to be changed due to problems in setting casing, following re-
moval of the hollow-stem auger. As a result, borings were generally advanced
by alternately driving steel casing downward in five foot increments and then
washing out the sediment within. Finally, 2-1/8 in diameter ("N" size) cores
were recovered using a hollow core barrel with a diamond bit.
Each well was constructed of 1-1/2 in O.D. schedule 80 pressure-fitted
PVC pipe. Ten-foot sections of pipe were sealed with water repellent duct
tape. In the five borings from which at least 15 ft of rock were cored, a 10-
ft or less section of factory-slotted pipe was capped and set at the bottom.
A sixth well, which was installed within the unconsolidated deposits on the
north side of the swamp, was slotted between three and 13 ft below the sur-
face. The slotted section of each well was backfilled with Ottawa sand and
sealed with alternate layers of bentonite pellets and Ottawa sand totaling ap-
proximately one foot in length. The boring was then grouted to the surface
with a mixture of cement and bentonite. A five-foot steel riser with locking
cap was placed over each PVC well and sealed in place with the grout. Each
well was pumped or bailed following installation. Water levels were measured
periodically to insure that they had stabilized prior to sampling.
Drilling was completed on July 10. Figure 1 shows the locations of the
new wells (numbers W21 through W26) in addition to the wells previously in-
stalled. Well locations and elevations were surveyed by Caputo and Wick, Inc.
of Rumford, Rhode Island.
Field permeability measurements were taken at two well locations, W24 and
W21, using either the borehole permeability or rising head methods. Three
tests were conducted at different depths in Well 24.
Soil and Water Sampling and Chemical Analysis
Soil samples, collected every five feet using a split-spoon, were used by
MITRE and GEI personnel to determine the geology.
Sixteen soil samples were put in 40 ml sampling vials for total volatile
organic (TVO) analysis by Energy Resources Co. (ERCO) of Cambridge, Massachu-
setts. The sample depths were selected to be representative of each entire
well. The vials had teflon and rubber seals with Bakelite tops and were spe-
cially designed for GC/MS analytical work with volatile organic compounds.
The samples were taken from the following borings at the indicated depth (ap-
proximate) in feet below ground surface:
W21 - 10, 20, 30, 40
W22 - 10, 15, 20
W23 - 10, 15, 20, 23
W24 - 10, 15, 20
W25 - 8, 13
Samples were delivered to ERCO on the same day they were collected.
Due to seasonal low-flow conditions in July, it was possible to sample
the surface water at only one location. The swamp waters had receded to a
14
-------
relatively narrow channel in its center with no surface discharge to Whitford
Pond occurring. The western-most extent of the swamp water was within 40 ft
of its normal outflow channel and it was at this point that the sample was
taken. The surface water sample was placed into four 40 ml septum vials for
TVO and volatile priority pollutant analysis and into a quart container for
inorganic constituent analysis. Ground water samples were collected from wells
14, 21, 23, and 26 using a stainless steel bailer. To insure that a represen-
tative sample of the aquifer being taken, each well was pumped and/or bailed
until two similar measurements of temperature and specific conductivity had
been recorded. These measurements were taken using a Yellow Springs Inc. Model
33 Salinity-Conductivity-Temperature Meter.
The seven samples were delivered to ERGO on the morning of July 29, where
they were to be analyzed for TVO, volatile priority pollutants, and five gen-
eral water quality parameters (pHs COD, TDS, Fe, and Cl). Results of the anal-
ysis were given to MITRE on September 12.
Limited Excavation
Exploratory excavation of the Northeast Trench commenced on June 10, 1980
and was completed on August 27, 1980. The excavation was carried out by Jet
Line Services, Inc. under supervision of the DEM. By the time of the start of
work, the ground-penetrating radar survey had been completed and these results
were given to the contractor. The radar survey was quite timely because the
data it supplied showed that the Northeast Trench was in fact two discrete and
separate trenches whose surface areas were larger than measured previously
with the metal detector. Earth was removed by front end loader (Caterpillar
966) and the predominant method of drum location and exposure was scraping of
the excavated earth face with the bottom of a backhoe bucke.t. The backhoe was
used to allow the exposed drums to be lifted by chains attached to the bucket
or in the bucket itself.
Bobcats (small front-end loaders) were used as well to expose drums, to
extract drums with chains, and to carry them out to the sampling areas. Me-
chanical equipment was initially used for finding, exposing, and removing
drums, and later on hand probing and shoveling were employed to a greater ex-
tent. An undetermined number of drums ruptured during the course of the proj-
ect, and liquid chemicals were released to the ground. The contractor added
earth and absorbent to the collected pools of liquid and placed this material
on plastic-lined staging areas which were bermed on all sides. Crushed, empty
drums were separated from whole drums. Drums containing materials were sub-
sequently analyzed by general chemical classifications (solid, liquid, acid,
base, incinerable) for disposal.
The information, obtained from the excavation and revised estimates of
drum numbers are presented in Section 3,
15
-------
SECTION 3
RESULTS OF FIELD TESTS
Section 3 discusses the location, number, and condition of buried drums;
local hydrogeology and bedrock topography; and the extent of chemical contamina-
tion based on the additional information obtained during the Phase II investigation.
LOCATION, NUMBER, AND CONDITION OF BURIED DRUMS
This section describes the results of the exploratory excavation of the
Northeast Trenches, the results of the radar and seismic surveys, and esti-
mates for the number of drums remaining buried.
Results of Excavation of Northeast Trenches
Table 4 presents information received from the DEM Site-Representative,
Larry D, Riggs, concerning the results of the excavation of the Northeast
Trenches/ It is clear that the number of drums found in the trenches exceeded,
by a considerable amounts the preliminary estimates produced at the conclusion
of Phase I.
Approximately 70 percent of the chemical-containing drums were leaking or
corroded and maay burst open as a result of the activities of excavation, gen-
erating approximately 10,000 cu yd of contaminated earth.* It was the opin-
ion of the Site-Representative that the deteriorated condition of the drums
was caused by bulk discharge of acid into the trenches and the resulting re-
lease of additional acid from deteriorated drums. The drums appeared to have
"been pushed into the trenches and covered periodically with earth, thereby
producing clusters similar to cells in a landfill. Some sections had been run
over by bulldozers to crush and compact the drums, and many drums were buried
with their bongs removed in order to allow their contents to drain out. Pock-
ets of nested liquids were found in the areas identified as "plumes" by the
.radar survey (see Appendix B). These subsurface pockets of liquid were due to
isolated blockage of void spaces by sludge and semi-solid materials. The
depths of the two trenches varied from 8 ft to 35 ft and 8 ft to 25 ft re-
spectively, with the greater distance found at the longitudinal middle.
Results of-Radar and Seismic Surveys
The locations of the buried drums, as determined by both metal detection
and ground-penetrating radar, are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Trench locations are
*A11 earth contaminated by the excavation activities had been stockpiled over
an impermeable liner awaiting final disposition.
17
-------
TABLE 4. RESULTS OF EXCAVATION OF DRUMS FROM THE NORTHEAST TRENCHES
Item
Number
Drums Removed
Drums Which Were Found Crushed
Drums Which Contained Chemicals
(liquid or solid)
Percent Solid and Sludge
Percent Liquid
Percent Incinerable
Percent Aqueous Liquids
(predominantly acids or
caustics)
Percent Leaking
Depth of Trenches
2314a
750b
1800
60
40
30
70
70
to 35 ft and 8 to 25 ft
a. Total number, including crushed drums.
b. This refers to the drums that were crushed during the dumping operation
and not to the crushing of empty drums conducted by the DEM during the
excavation activities.
Source: Rhode Island DEM.
18
-------
RADAR
GRID
320E 360E 400E
NORTHWEST
TRENCH
NORTHEAST
TRENCHES
LEGEND:
csocs STONE FENCE
-f MONITORING WELL
_-^-"-~ TRENCH BOUNDARY BY RADAR
^ TRENCH BOUNDARY BY
-"*" METAL DETECTION
SCALE
C '
0 20 40 60 80 100
FEET
Figure 2. Comparison of Northeast and Northwest Trench Locations as Detected by Ground-
• Penetrating Radar and Metal Detection
(Grid based on locations of W5 and Wl)
-------
ro
o
11SM
3S5
WE
SOUTH TRENCH ^ WEST TBENCH
LEQEMD:
-f- MONITORING WELL
TRENCH BOUNDARY BY
— ***"^ RADAH
^ TBENCH BOUNDARY BY '
— •""* METAL DETECTION
40 60
FEET
Figure 3. Location of South and West Trenches asDetemined by Ground-Penetrating Radar and Metal Detection
(Grid based on locations of south'and west stone fences)
-------
presented as reported by the subcontractors who conducted the field surveys.
Although there is not complete overlap between the outlines determined by the
two methods, it is suspected that the deviation is due mainly to inaccuracies
in the reporting of the metal detection results. However, it is recommended
that the trench boundaries as determined by metal detection be accepted until
their validity is either proven or disproven by actual excavation. Since the
radar probed to a depth of 12 ft in contrast to the four to six feet for metal
detection, the radar would be expected to present a somewhat more accurate in-
dication of trench boundaries. Trench boundaries from the two techniques were
compared for all trenches. The radar found two trenches in the "Northeast
Trench", versus the single trench identified earlier with metal detection. On
the other hand, the radar data for the West Trench proved to give incomplete
areal coverage and therefore were supplemented by data from the metal detec-
tion.
The radar provided, in addition, some useful qualitative information on
the way drums were placed and on the trench construction. For example, al-
though there were isolated instances where several drums appeared to be neatly
stacked, this was the exception rather than the rule; the drums for the most
part were randomly stacked, and, at least in the top eight feet below the sur-
face (where individual drums most clearly could be identified), the drums ap-
peared to be present in clusters as opposed to being uniformly dense through-
out a trench. The radar also indicated that the top surface of the drums dis-
played an "angle of repose" from the center of the trench cross-section to the
sides.
The radar was not able to detect the bottom of the trenches, principally
because the upper drums masked what was beneath. Even in the West Trench,
where a 25-ft nominal depth was probed, the trench bottom could not be located
from the data,,
The radar was able to detect five areas of liquid plumes within trenches.
This was possible because of the higher dielectric constant of the fluid rela-
tive to the ground water. As described in the preceding subsection, the plumes
were actually nested pockets of chemicals. The location of the trenches as
determined by ground-penetrating radar are shown in Appendix B.
The seismic refraction survey conducted over the West Trench indicated
that drums were buried to a maximum depth of 14 feet, but since this was an
experimental application of the process, the results may not be used without
qualification until the method has been field verified. Figure 4 presents the
subsurface profile of the West Trench based upon the results of the seismic
work. The tentative drum burial area appears on the figure as a region with
seismic velocities between 600 and 1100 feet per second (fps); such velocities
are typical of loose or unconsolidated soil or fill. There is a sharp dis-
tinction between this zone and the one directly underneath having velocities
between 3200 and 3600 fps. The velocities of the second zone are typical of
non-saturated sands and gravels or compacted fills. Because this zone extends
below che water table, it is interpreted that the buried drums end at 14 ft,
the interface between, the two zones. The lowest zone with a velocity of
15,400 fps represents the underlying bedrock.
21
-------
iy
490
---'-1^
^"=eat-T.[sssBHS™^'c:
>-n®-=r
sso
5 IS
_J_J
LEGEND:
PO8N fS
VELOCITY BOUNDARIES
i VERTICAL
SCALE
10-
20-
30 J
i
5200 SEISMIC WAVE VELOCITiES j
IN FT/SEC 1
!
FT 1
Figure 4. Subsurface Profile of the West Trench as Determined by
Seismic Refraction (Ground surface represented by top line of figure)
-------
Estimate of Number of Buried Drums
In order to produce estimates for the number of drums remaining buried,
a theoretical trench geometry shown by Figure 5 was employed. The angle of
the vertical side walls was assumed to be 60°, the angle of the declining sur-
face of drums 45°, and the angle of descent at the trench ends 45°. The angle
of repose for disturbed site soil is approximately 45°, but the excavated side
walls can maintain a much steeper slope. Table 5 compares the geometrical as-
sumptions used for the drum number estimates produced from the Phase I and
Phase II investigations.
It is also assumed for the purpose of the drum estimates that a two-foot
layer of soil covered the top of the burial area and two nominal trench depths
of 14 and 22 ft were used in order to bracket the range determined from remote
sensing and direct excavation.* The bottom of the trenches are assumed to be
level with no irregularities. Straight sides for the horizontal widths and
lengths have also been assumed; the dimensions used for determining the vol-
umes of each trench are shown in Table 6.
Two densities of drums (percent of volume of drums within trench volume
below the cover layer of soil) were used for the drum number estimates: 90
percent and 50 percent. A drum density of 90 percent represents the closest
packing arrangement possible for cylinders without regard to interferences im-
posed by the actual geometry of the trench boundaries. An actual drum density
of 54 percent was calculated for the Northeast Trenches using the results** ob-
tained from the DEM Site-Representative combined with the theoretical geometry
shown by Figure 5. The calculated 54 percent density was rounded off to 50
percent for the lower limit calculations of the drum number estimates.
The estimated range of the number of drums remaining buried at the Picillo
site is found in Table 7, The drum estimate was performed by calculating the
volume of each trench and multiplying the volume by the assumed drum density
to yield the total volume of drums. The estimate for the number of whole drums
is provided by dividing the total volume by the volume of a single drum
(7.35 cu ft). As Table 1 shows, the overall range varies by a factor of 2-1/2,
from 16,700 to 44,700, while the more likely range based upon the observed
depth of the Northeast Trenches is less than a factor of 2, from 25,000 to
44~S700,
The above estimates are for whole, uncrushed 55-gallon drums. The num-
bers will necessarily increase if some are crushed, enabling closer packing.
The drum number estimates can be. corrected for the presence of crushed drums
by multiplying by g/(f + g - gf), In which f represents the fraction of
crushed drums and g is equal to the ratio of the volume of a whole drum to the
volume of a crushed drum. If g = 2 and f = 0.3, for example, as indicated by
*14 ft - seismic survey of West Trench
22 ft - average depth of deeper Northeast Trench.
**2300 drums removed from two trenches with the following dimensions:
Trench A: 120 ft longs 20 ft wide, and 22 ft deep (average)
Trench B: 60 ft long, 15 ft wide, and 17 ft deep (average)
23
-------
BOUNDARY SEEN
BY RADAR AND
METAL
DETECTION
GROUND
SURFACE
TREWCH DEPTH
a. TRENCH CROSS-SECTION
BOUNDARY SEEN BY RADAR AND METAL DETECTION —-*H
• I
i GROUND SURFACE
TRENCH DEPTH
b. TRENCH LONGITUDINAL VIEW
Figure 5. Illustrative Trench Geometry
24
-------
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR ESTIMATING
TOTAL NUMBER OF DRUMS IN PHASES I AND II
Item
Phase I
Phase II
Reason for Change
Total surface area 19,600 sq ft 23,800 sq ft Radar combined with
of buried drums metal detection more
accurate than metal
detection alone.
Slope of side walls
Maximum depth
Cross-sectional
geometry
7 to 25 fte
60"
22 ft
Triangular Trapezoidal
Results of excavation.
Phase I assumption
based on observed
trench geometry of un-
filled trench on site;
Phase II assumption
based on results of
excavation.
Results of excavation;
deeper penetration of
radar.
a. Depth depended upon convergence of side walls with 45 slope.
25
-------
TABLE 6. ESTIMATED RECTANGULARIZED DIMENSIONS OF SURFACE OF TRENCHES
Trench Location Width (feet) Length (feet)
Northwest 50 235
West 45 240
South 30 60
Source: Ground-penetrating radar and metal detection survey.
26
-------
TABLE 7. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF BURIED DRUMS
BASED ON EXTRAPOLATION OF BEST AVAILABLE DATA
Trench
Location
Northwest
West
South
Total
Maximum
Drum Density
d - 14
14,800
13,500
_LIOO
30,000
ft d =
22
20
_2
44
22 ft
,400
,200
,100
,700
Drums Randomly
Stacked
d = 14
8,200
7,500
1,000
16,700
ft d =
12,
11,
1,
25,
22 ft
400
200
200
000
Notes: d - nominal trench depth
Random stacking indicated by results of excavation of __
Northeast Trenches, approximated by 50 percent drums,
50 percent earth by volume in trench below 2-foot cover
" and assumed trench geometry, as shown by Figure 5.
Drums are assumed to be uncrushed, 55-gallon drums.
27
-------
the exploratory excavation of the Northeast Trenches, there would be 18 percent
more drums (whole plus crushed); however, there would be 17 percent fewer
whole drums.
As mentioned above, prior to the radar survey an estimated range of drums
was made which was substantially lower than the estimates presented here. The
earlier analysis plausibly assumed that the trenches with buried drums were of
similar construction to that of an unfilled trench on the site: nine feet in
depth and with sides of slope 45°. As a lesson for other similar sites, it is
wise to keep in mind that without the benefit of more accurate information,
the "worst case" corresponds to a steep-sided trench (depending on local soils)
with depth approximately equal to the water table, to bedrock, or to the maxi-
mum feasible excavation depth.
The finding with the most significance toward the evaluation of abatement
methods is that there is a large number of whole drums containing liquid and
semi-solid chemicals, rather than piles of ruptured or crushed drums. Although
many of the drums' in the Northeast Trenches were found to be deteriorated
by the results of chemical corrosion, it was possible to minimize the release
of their contents to the environment by careful handling, pumping of spilled
liquids, use of absorbents, and removal of contaminated soil. It is important
to emphasize that there is no guarantee that the remaining trenches are simi-
lar in construction, depth, or contents to the Northeast Trenches. Thus, due
caution is still advised in interpreting and using even the revised drum esti-
mates, despite their being based on the best available data.
HYDROGEOLOCT , .
The objective of the Phase. I hydrogeologic study was to obtain a prelimi-
nary interpretation of subsurface conditions. In order to achieve this, the
following tentative assumptions were used for calculations regarding aquifer
thickness, ground water flow rates, and abatement method evaluation;
« Refusal depths in borings W6-W20 are due to bedrock,
a The bedrock surface is tight and impermeable.
• Literature values for hydraulic conductivity of till in Rhode Island
vary from approximately 10~^ to 10" * cm/sec; therefore, site condi-
tions exhibit these extremes.
A key purpose of the Phase II investigation was to determine the depth,
topography, and relative fracturing of the bedrock and the hydraulic conduc-
tivity of the unconsolidated deposits by field measurements. The techniques
used to obtain the above information were: bedrock sampling, seismic refrac-
tion surveys, and field permeability tests. In summary, the following points
were learned as a result of these activities at the Picillo site:
-------
• The bedrock is highly fractured throughout the upper 10 to 15 ft and in
hydraulic connection with the overlying glacial deposits. A permeabil-
ity test within the fractured granite gneiss indicates a hydraulic con-
ductivity of 10~6 cm/sec.
• Additional field permeability tests performed during and following drill-
ing activities indicate that the hydraulic conductivity of the unconsol-
idated deposits at the Picillo site range from 10"^ to 10"-* cm/sec.
• Ground water flows from the dump site to the swamp in a general southeast
to northwest direction with no discontinuity at the northwest corner, as
was concluded in Phase I. The unconsolidated zone in the region of the
northwest corner is relatively thin and most of the saturated zone is
within the bedrock.
Measurements of the water level in all the wells were taken on August 12,
1980 and used to prepare Figure 6. (Appendix C contains a monthly plot of the
water level below ground surface since January for several wells at the site.)
Horizontal ground water flow is perpendicular to the equipotentials (lines of
equal water level elevation) shown on the figure. Missing from the map is the
area of no ground water flow, which had been part of the January 14, 1980 water
level map presented in the Phase I report.
It was determined by the installation of well W23 during the Phase II in-
vestigation that ground water does exist in this region, but it is deeper than
the refusal depths of borings drilled previously (G, 10, 11, and 12). The Phase
I borings were driven by the wash boring method and the Phase II borings were
driven by power augering and coring of boulders and rocks. Phase II boring logs
are presented in Appendix D,
The Phase I resistivity values obtained for the northwest corner were
higher than other regions of the site, indicating little conductive ground water
contamination. It was thought that a mound in the bedrock caused a diversion of
contaminated ground water away from this area. The high resistivity values now
seem to have been the result of the depth of the saturated zone, since the ground
water sample from W23 showed a relatively high concentration of contaminants (see
following subsection for results of chemical analysis). The depth to the water
table off the northwest corner is approximately 24 ft, while it varies from less
than 5 ft to almost 17 ft In other regions surrounding the site.
Figure b additionally shows that the direction of ground water flow on the
north side of the swamp is toward the swamp. Consequently, the existence of
swamp underflow of contaminants is unlikely.
The locations of the seismic profiles in relation to the site are shown on
Figure 7. It should be noted that these profiles were not surveyed and their lo-
cations are only approximated in Figure 7. Figures 8 to 11 present the results
of the seismic refraction survey, and Table 8 provides correlations between seis-
mic velocities and various geologic strata. Although the seismic profiles cross-
ing "the northwest region (lines 1 and 2) do not show the presence of a mound in
the bedrock, the depression that exists at the 400 ft location of line 1 (in the
region of well WD) and subsequent rise toward the northwest corner may account
for the thin saturated zone and contamination of the bedrock (as described in
the following subsection).
-------
LAND SURFACE CONTOURS
(FEET ABOVE BSD
EQIHPOTEHTIAL LINE
(FEET ABOVE MSU
WSTER LEVEL ELEVATION
(FEET ABOVE MSI)
STONE FENCE
UNIMPROVED DIRT ROAD
MONITORING WELL
• US! 1. illi IIP HllitllLI PIEPIIEt II CIPtTt t Blil lit., IIIFItl, I.I.
2. 15S8 SBIIliE ililllll BI1II 19 III« Illltl PIITMIIPII
Figure 6. Water Table Map for August 12, 1980
30
-------
LAND SURFACE CONTOURS
(FEET ABOVE USD
STOKE FENCE
UNIMPROVED DIRT ROAD
A MONITORIONG HELL
• SURFACE WATER STATION
(APPRO*. LOCATION)
111: i. iiu ntf omtiimi riiriifi ii csfuro t inc.; inc., sa«icit, R.I.
1. UKg SlJRfliCE COMfiSUaS atUES OK 1S?4 URtH
Figure 7, Location of Seismic Refraction Profiles
(Note: Profile locations are approximate only
and are not based on survey results.)
31
-------
SE
W21
i
Ul
fr-
ill
580
§40
520
§08
FRACTURED
DIABASE (?)
INTRUSIVE
W23
HORIZONTAL
28 60 100 FT
VERTICAL 10
SCALE
20
FRACTURED
GRANITE
GNEISS
LEGEND:
® WOT POINTS
INFERRED SUBSURFACE
VELOCITY BOUNDARIES
SEISMIC WAVE VELOCITIES
IH FT/SEC
-A- TEST 8OHING LOCATION
16000
SOURCE: S.A. ALSUf AND ASSOCIATES, IMC.
Figure 8. Results of Seismic Refraction Survey: Line I
(Ground surface represented by top line of figure)
-------
GJ
CO
HORIZONTAL SCALE
20 80 100 FT
I I a i I
VERTICAL 10 -1
SCALE 20 J
30 J
FT
LEGEND:
5200
SHOT POINTS
INFERRED SUBSURFACE
VELOCITY BOUNDARIES
SEISMIC WAVE VELOCITIES
IN FT/SEC
TEST BORING LOCATION
SOURCE: S.A. ALSUP AND ASSOCIATES. INC.
Figure 9. Results of Seismic Refraction Survey: Line 2
(Ground surface represented by top line of figure)
-------
w
FRACTURED
-GRANITE 15000-18500
GNEISS
LEGEND:
HORIZONTAL SCALE
20 60 100 FT
VERTICAL 10 -
SCALE 20 -
SO-
FT
5200
SHOT POINTS
INFERRED SURSURFACE
VELOCITY BOUNDARIES
SEISMIC WAVE VELOCITIES
IN FT/SEC
TEST BORING LOCATION
SOURCE: S.A. ALSUP AND ASSOCIATES, JNC.
Figure 10. Results of Seismic Refraction Survey: Line 3
(Ground surface represented by top line of figure)
-------
N
100
200
I
300
t
400
I
W23
520
su
LEGEND:
HORIZONTAL SCALE
20 60 100 FT
VERTICAL
SCALE
10-
20-
30-
FT
5200
SHOT POINTS
INFERRED SURSURFACE
VELOCITY BOUNDARIES
SEISMIC WAVE VELOCITIES
IN FT/SEC
TEST BORING LOCATION
FINE-MEDIUM
SAND
GRAVELLY SAND
FRACTURED GRANITE
GNEISS
440
SOURCE: S.A. ALSUP AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Figure 11. Results of Seismic Refraction Survey: Line 4
(Ground surface represented by top line of figure)
-------
TABLE 8. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SEISMIC VELOCITIES AND GEOLOGIC STRATA
Compressions! Wave Velocity (fps)
Inferred Subsurface Conditions
600 - 2200
2400 - 3600
4000 - 5600
6000 - 8600
9000 - 11000
above 11000
Very loose and unconsolidated
soil or fill, not saturated with
ground water or other fluid, may
include ablation tills, very re-
cent sand/gravel deposits.
More compact deposits than above,
but of intermediate density.
Often includes non-saturated
coarse sands and gravels, some
ablation tills, and some com-
pacted fill materials.
Materials of either type above,
with ground water saturation.
Degree of saturation and perme-
ability generally increases with
increasing velocity to the mid-
range values, then may decrease
because of finer grain sizes in
the deposits.
Typically dense glacial tills,
either with or without ground
water saturation. May include
deeply weathered or fractured
bedrock, with possible marine
clays in the lower part of the
velocity range.
Moderately to weakly weathered
or fractured bedrock, may in-
clude very dense lodgement tills.
Typically very dense to dense
sound and competent bedrock
units.
Note: There is overlap among the ranges above with regard to the
particular type of deposit represented by the compressional
wave velocities. Geological interpretation is commonly re-
quired for identification and deposit type.
Source: S. A. Alsup and Associates, Inc.
36
-------
Three well clusters now exist at the Picillo site (W6 and W21, W8 and
W24, W25 and W26). One well at each location is screened in the glacial de-
posits (W6, W8, W25) and the others (W21, W24, W26) are isolated in the frac-
tured bedrock. Each cluster indicates that the fractured bedrock is hydrau-
lically connected to the overlying glacial deposits and that there is a slight
downward component of flow (differences in head of one foot or less) from the
unconsolidated material into the bedrock. Visual examination of the uncon-
solidated material during test drilling showed deeper sediments to be very
dense and contain less coarse-grained material, while field permeability tests
conducted during and following the drilling activities indicated a decrease in
the hydraulic conductivity with depth. Table 9 presents a summary of hydrau-
lic conductivity values calculated from borehole permeability tests and water
level recovery rates.
As a result of the additional information obtained about the hydrogeo-
logic system, revised estimates can be made regarding the quantity of contam-
inated ground water flowing away from the site. Table 10 presents the values
used for the hydraulic conductivity and the saturated thickness of the aquifer
in Phases I and II, in addition to the previous and revised estimates of
ground water flow. The values used for saturated thickness for the Phase II
estimates were obtained from results of the seismic refraction survey, as well
as the. test boring logs. The thicknesses given approximate the distance be-
tween the water table and competent bedrock. Variations in the saturated
thickness due to seasonal fluctuations in the water table (approximately 4 ft)
do not significantly affect this analysis because of the inaccuracies involved
with interpretation of seismic refraction data. The values used for hydraulic
conductivity are taken from Table 9.
The revised estimate for the quantity of ground water flowing away from
the site and into the swamp is 10,000 gpd (with K = 10"^ cm/sec). This amount
is less than the prior estimate, but closer to the average daily recharge of
precipitation to the. aquifer beneath the site (Phase I calculation of 12,000 gpd).
The water table map shown by Figure 6 indicates that the swamp is the sole
discharge area for contamination leaving the dump site. Although the downward
gradient in the cluster well near the swamp is slight, the possibility for down-
ward migration of some of the contaminants (and subsequent transport beyond the
swamp) cannot be discounted. For this reason it is recommended that a monitoring
well screened in the bedrock be installed between the swamp and Whitford Pond.
Examination of a surface topographic map for the region (Figure 12) shows
that the dump is located on a three-sided knoll and that hydraulic connection
potentially exists with two other surface water bodies: Great Cedar Swamp and
Quidnick Reservoir. Great Cedar Swamp flows into Great Grass Pond, which is an
additional water source for the cranberry bog fed by Whitford Pond. Quidnick
Reservoir is not an active water supply reservoir, but serves as a recreational
lake. Although the migration of contamination to either of these two water
bodies is considered unlikely because it is counter to the water flow direction
indicated by the monitoring wells on the site, monitoring recommendations are
included in Section 4 to guard against this possibility.
37
-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DATA
Location
W24
W24
W24
W21
Field Test
Borehole Permeability
Borehole Permeability
Rising Head
Rising Head
Unit
fine-medium sand,
some silt and gravel
(glacial till)
fine sand and silt
(glacial till)
fractured granite
gneiss
fractured diabase (?)
Depth Below
Surface (ft)
10 - 11.5
20 - 21.75
31.6 - 41.6
68 - 78
Value
(cm/sec)
5.1 x
1.7 x
4.1 x
1.8 x
io-4
io-5
io-6
IO"5
intrusive
-------
TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF PARAMETER ESTIMATES AND
QUANTITIES OF GROUND WATER FLOW IN PHASES I AND II
Phase I Phase II
Estimate Estimate
Elevation Contour 520: Through Dump Area
Ka (cm/sec) 10~5 to 10~2 10~5 to 10~4
bb (ft) 9.2 50
QC (gpd) 167 - 167,000 900 - 9,000
Elevation Contour 495: Downgradient from Dump Area (West)
K (cm/sec) 10~5 to 10~2 10~5 to 10~4
b (ft) 9.1 30
Q (gpd) 68 - 68,000 400 - 4,000
Elevation Contour 490: Downgradient from Dump Area (North)
K (cm/sec) 10~5 to 10~2 10"5 to 10~4
b (ft) 18.3 40
Q (gpd) 91 - 91,000 300 - 3,000
Elevation Contour 490: Downgradient from Dump Area (Northwest)
K (cm/sec) - 10~5 to 10~4
b (ft) - 35
Q (gpd) - 300 - 3,000
Total Downgradient Flow (gpd)
159 - 159,000 1,000 - 10,000
a. K » hydraulic conductivity
b. b =* saturated thickness of aquifer
c. Q » quantity of flow
39
-------
Reproduced from
best available copy.
Figure 12. Topographic Map of Region Around Picillo Property
-------
CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION
The results of organic chemical analysis performed on soils and surface
and ground waters are presented in Tables 11, 12, and 13. The locations of
all sampling stations are shown on Figure 1.
The organic analyses are consistent with what may be expected from a
heterogeneous non-point source of pollutants: varying levels of contamination
and few discernable trends. The ground water is indeed contaminated with vol-
atile organic chemicals, but the general level of contamination is equivalent
to the Phase I results, indicating that the situation has not significantly
worsened. The diversity of priority pollutant species likewise is similar to
that found in Phase I. An increase in TVO concentrations at wells W18, WA,
and WB did occur over the two-week period from June 1 to June 15, 1980, per-
haps as a result of the drum excavation activities at the Northeast Trenches.
The following specific conclusions are drawn from the results obtained
during Phase II:
® The bedrock zones of the aquifer, with the exception of the vicinity
of W23, are either not contaminated or only slightly contaminated
with volatile organic compounds, as evidenced by the TVO and priority
pollutant results for W21 and W24. This may be due to the relatively
low downward gradients of the ground water and lower permeability of
the weathered portion of the bedrock in relation to the overlying
soil.
® The bedrock zone northwest of the site is contaminated with a diverse
assortment of volatile organic pollutants, as evidenced by the ana-
lytical results for W23. As discussed in the preceding subsection,
the seismic refraction survey shows the presence of a bedrock depres-
sion directly upgradient from this region. The effect of the depres-
sion may cause contaminated ground water to enter the bedrock zone
laterally instead of vertically. This region was believed to be
underlain by a diversionary mound in the bedrock, but the Phase II
boring program showed that it is instead an area of deep (relative to
other areas of the site) ground water flow. Current evidence suggests
that the contaminants in the bedrock zone are not likely to travel
beyond the swamp. Although the bedrock is fractured, its measured
hydraulic conductivity is low, indicating that extensive rock channels
in the rock are not present or not connected. Additionally, the bed-
rock zone is not confined and therefore will discharge to the same
region as the water in the unconsolidated deposits (the swamp). The
lack of contamination in the shallow and deep wells across the swamp
from the dump site (W25 and W26) provide additional data to support
the conclusion that ground water flow bypassing the swamp does not
occur.
« The results of the Phase I and Phase II organic and inorganic analyses
further substantiate the conclusion that the contamination of the
ground water is predominantly caused by the presence of volatile or-
ganic compounds. The iron levels in all samples except W25 are above
41
-------
TABLE 11. TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER AND SOILS
TVO Concentration (parts per billion)
Station
SI
W14
W18
W21
¥22
W23
W24
W25
W26
WA
WB
Water
<100
3,000°
540a/l,200b
<100°
16,000C
<100C
315/450C'd
-------
w s:
P>
« '
(-• OQ
fD l-i
CD O
rt 0
QJ C^
1 §
rt
'**«• H
to
VO 01
oo 3
• H4
fD
W
1
CO
(2
Mi
P>
0
ft
Pi
ff
re
H
CD
§
*T3
|«i
ft
W
1
spaces
H-
§.
O
fu
rt
ft
2J
O
0
fD
O
fD
rf
fD
0
ft
8.
fD rt < rt rt rt B
rf M H- t-i O fD fl>
ff H. 0 H- H> rt rt
*< 0 v$ 0 C H ff
1— ' ff 1— ' ff ft CD vs
ff M M 3 O H
ft O O O ft ff fB
0 h! ff H r" 0
N O K- ' O O fB
fD Ml O fB fD
0 H i-( rt rt o
ft C H- ff ff ff
0 QL, >
jj*
Co
0
fD
NONE
CO H-*
VO tO
NONE
f_i t_j O^ -4^"
t# t* w w
t— ' G^ Ln VO H- * U5 4>
O O N5 L/i O U3 O
O O O O O O O
NONE
(—*
rt
O
VD
a ,wi_o (-• i-* i— o*
ft«W J3*9«V^ ft
rt t\3 !-• M i— i™' N» H
ff 1 I O i «• IN
V) O. (a. H CL t-i CL fB
l_J H- H' O H" I H- S
O O Mi O rt O fD
O ff ff O ff M ff
Sf H I-1 M |-> H- I-1
H1 o o s o n o
O I-I n H ff H
HOC O M O
H- xi re ro o fD
CL H ft ft H ft
(BOW ET O H"
*o ^ ps re &5
§(-> S rt 3
fB fD ff fO
fD S B)
fB S
re
DETECTED
ON W
' NJ *J O
•v! O O A
O O OH*
DETECTED
t~i tO J>
V V W
*^j w -P* ON U)
O Ul O 00 O -t> C»
O O O OS O «J O
,_
ff t»4 ^Mdl
O !-• O
VS
DETECTED
H-
O
O
t_j
C
ft
s
ft
w
P»*I
4>
S3
co
in
rt
P5
rt
0
0
n
o
o
S
rt
H
p3
S rt
K) H-
w
S
*•
to
Ln
to
ON
o
s
en
H-
0
"O
to
rt
CO
•o
fD
ff
M*
[— i
O
0
5
H
E»^
PI
O
pa
w
O
&
M
H
O
i
s
§
en
I
s
M
-------
TABLE 13. GENERAL INORGANIC CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUND AND SURFACE WATERS
Station
SI
W14
W21
¥23
W24
W25
W26
Specific
Conductivity8
(ymho/cm)
ND
800 @ 12°C
140 @ 13°C
315 @ 12°C
190 @ 13°C
80 @ 25°C
55 @ 19°C
pHb
5.9
6.9
7.7
7.3
10.0
7.3
6.9
Total Dissol
120
640
130
290
140
28
73
Inorganic
sb Chloride (ppm)
15
5.5
4.0
27
37
5.5
4.5
Parameters
Iron (ppm)"
1.2
0.4
3.0
3.0
1.0
0.2
1.8
Chemical Oxygen
Demand (ppm) "
64
28
73
91
26
13
83
S - surface water sample
¥ - ground water sample
KD - not determined
a. field determined
b. laboratory determined
Samples taken 7/29/80.
-------
the drinking water standard of 0.3 mg/1, but the presence of iron in
the background wells W21 and W26 indicates that this is a general trend
not related to the dump. The only evidence of inorganic pollution is
the high pH at well W24, most likely caused by a localized source of
caustic substances. An unusually high COD value was found for well W26,
but it is concluded that this is due to the presence of natural organic
materials, as evidenced by the low TVO results and near absence of
volatile priority pollutants (a trace of toluene was found which may
have been introduced by drilling or pumping activities).
e Since no water was flowing out of the swamp into Whitford Pond when the
samples were taken, it is not possible at the present time to determine
conclusively whether or not the swamp acts as a treatment mechanism for
the volatile organic contamination of the ground water. A water sample
from the swamp (Si) was taken at a location close to the outlet point
and this was found to be free of organic contamination. Sampling of
surface waters in the proximity of the dump site was done by the U.S.
EPA Oil and Hazardous Materials Section on May 5, 1980.* At this time,
water was flowing from the swamp into Whitford Pond. A sample taken in
the contaminated region of the swamp (station PF02a) shows the presence
of assorted chemical contaminants, while a second sample taken at the
swamp outlet (station PF03) is free of all contaminants. The two sam-
pling locations are shown on Figure 1. The analytical results from
these samples are presented in Table 14. To date, three sampling pro-
grams (MITRE Phase I, MITKE Phase II, and EPA) have not indicated that
the chemical contamination existing at the eastern edge of the swamp is
being carried to Whitford Pond and these data also suggest that vola-
tilization to the atmosphere is responsible for the elimination of pol-
lutants from the hydrologic system. However, due to the low flow con-
ditions which occurred during the July 1980 sampling period, a compre-
hensive investigation was not possible and the hypothesis that the swamp
serves as & treatment mechanism remains not completely validated. It
must be emphasized that, although treatment of the swamp outflow is not
presently warranted, the swamp waters should be monitored regularly in
case future discharge of chemicals to Whitford Pond occurs.
The EPA additionally sampled a stream which would be the potential route
of pollutants from the dump site to Quidnick Reservoir. The sampling station
is located on Victory Highway, approximately 2000 ft south of the Perry Hill
Road Intersection (see Figure 12). None of the organic constituents shown in
Table 14 (the sample was not analyzed for inorganic constituents) were found to
be present. As in the case, of the inlet to Whitford Pond, this stream should
be periodically monitored to protect against the possibility that the pollutant
migration may be more extensive than the ground water map indicates.
*The other sampling locations were: (1) ponded leachate seep north of site,
(2) stream on Perry Hill Road which discharges to swamp, (3) two inlets to
Quidnick Reservoir, (4) the cranberry bog downstream from Whitford Pond,
(5) the stream outflow (Roaring Brook) from the cranberry bog, and (6) the
stream outflow from Arnold Pond, downstream from Roaring Brook. All samples
were uncontaminated except the leachate seep which contained measurable
amounts of volatile organics.
45
-------
TABLE 14. RESULTS OF THE U.S. EPA SURFACE WATER ANALYSIS
AT EASTERN REGION OF SWAMP AND SWAMP OUTFLOW
Concentration in parts per billion
Constituent —
Station PF02a Station PF03
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
benzene
toluene
methylene chloride
chloroform
acetone
tetrahydrofuran
methyl ethyl ketone
methyl isobutyl ketone
tetrachloroethylene
ethyl benzene
xylene isomers
phenol
cresol isomers
dimethyl phenol isomers
o-dichlorobenzene
cyanide (in parts per million)
phenol
silver
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chrome
copper
mercury
nickel
lead
antimony
selenium
thallium
zinc
1,600
840
510
1,400
3,700
1,000
NQ
-
NQ
NQ
250
700
1,700
5,625
375
86
420
0.02
270
2.00
0.00
25.0
7-5.0
38.0
55.0
1.00
738
280
0.00
52.0
0.00
70.0
ND
ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
„
-
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
„
-
—
_
_
-
NQ - Not Quantitative
ND - Not Detected
- - not analyzed
46
-------
REFERENCES
1. Hvorslev, M. J., "Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Ground Water Observa-
tions." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Exp. Sta. Bull. 36,
Vicksburg, MS, (1951).
47
-------
SECTION 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 4 presents recommendations for actions leading to long-term
abatement of contamination at the site and for procedures to monitor the ef-
fectiveness of the techniques employed.
SUMMARY OF PHASE II INVESTIGATION
It was necessary during the Phase II investigation to resolve the follow-
ing questions in order to provide a basis for evaluating long-term abatement
methods:
• condition arid number of buried drums
e condition and topography of bedrock
@ effectiveness of the swamp as a treatment mechanism.
Each of the above three items has been addressed in Section 3, and the princi-
pal conclusions are summarized below.
Condition, and Number of Buried Drums
The excavation of the Northeast Trenches showed that some of the assump-
tions used for the previous estimates were incorrect. The revised estimate
for the remaining buried drums is between 16,700 and 44,700 on a whole (un-
crushed) drum basis, the range reflecting different assumed nominal trench
depths and densities of drums in place. This range can be narrowed if one
were willing to assume the Northeast Trenches are fully representative of the
other tranches. Even though approximately 30 percent of the drums in the
Northeast Trenches were crushed, this was not taken into account in the above
analysis. There is, of course, a danger in extrapolating the mix of percent-
ages of drums containing various chemicals from the Northeast Trenches to the
other trenches because the remaining trenches may differ in construction,
depth, and contents. It appears from the excavation, nonetheless, that a sig-
nificant number of the drums contain liquid chemicals which would continue to
be released over time if not removed from the ground.
Condition and Topography of Bedrock
As was discussed in Section 3, the bedrock sampling and seismic refraction
survey showed that the bedrock is much deeper beneath the site than was previ-
ously assumed and that the bedrock surface is very irregular. The bedrock is
------ 49
page tonic
-------
also highly fractured within the upper 10 to 15 feet, hydraulically connected
to the glacial deposits, and cannot be considered an impermeable barrier.
Effectiveness of the Swamp as a Treatment Mechanism
Because of the seasonal low flow conditions9 it was not possible to de-
termine whether the ground water pollutants (predominently volatile organic
chemicals) completely volatilize in the swamp. However, none of the analyti-
cal testing to date has shown the presence of contaminants discharging into
Whitford Pond. Continued monitoring of the swamp outflow and the bedrock will
be necessary to guard against the possibility that pollutants may discharge
during higher seasonal flows.
ABATEMENT OF SITE POLLUTION
The conceptual designs, advantages, disadvantages, and estimated costs of
several long-term alternatives were presented in the Phase I report (see Sec-
tion 1 for reference). The following options were presenteds
• no action
• source encapsulation
* leachate collection and treatment (via interceptor trenches)
0 removal and disposal of drums and chemicals.
The key advantages and disadvantages of each option are summarized in
Table 3 and described in more detail in the Phase I report. In addition, the
Phase I report takes into account the following considerations:
• short-term and long-term consequences and impacts of each option
• time-phased implementation of a combination of options
s major assumptions concerning selection and design of each option.
None of the above abatement options was recommended at the conclusion of
Phase I because of a lack of certain significant information about the site.
Short-term abatement measures were recommended instead, in order to protect
the public health while the Phase II study was underway.
Evaluation of Major Alternatives
With the additional knowledge gained from the Phase II investigation, it
is possible to evaluate long-term alternatives and make a recommendation on
the preferred course of action. Table 15 summarizes this evaluation, Since
the recommended course of action became apparent without the necessity of re-
vising cost estimates for each of the alternatives, such estimates are not
included in Table 15. However, the cost of each option will now be different
from that presented in the Phase I report. Realistically, the potential costs
of both the source encapsulation walls and leachate collection trenches would
50
-------
TABLE 15. SUMMARY EVALUATION OF LONG-TERM ABATEMENT OPTIONS
Long-Tenn Option
Summary Evaluation
Option 1: Encapsulation
Not Recommended
significant source of chemicals
in liquid state (perpetual threat
for environmental release)
deep bedrock (high cost)
fractured bedrock (too permeable
for secure base)
Option 2: Interceptor Trenches
Not Recommended
* deep bedrock (high cost)
a irregular bedrock surface (high
cost)
a fractured bedrock (too permeable
for secure base)
Option 3: Drum and Chemical Removal
- with continued monitoring of
plume arid swamp
No Action Alternative
Recommended
e source of contaminants removed
0 dispersion of contaminants in
ground water monitored
Not Recommended
® significant source of contamina-
tion (potential for long-term
continuous release)
» swamp not proved to be treatment
mechanism (potential for spread
of contaminants resulting in
human contact)
51
-------
be much larger due to the increased excavation required to reach bedrock.
Similarly, the cost of complete drum removal would also be higher due to the
revised drum count, greater depth of trenches, and large amount of generated
contaminated earth (if the Northeast Trenches are considered representative of
the other trenches).
Because a significant source of chemicals remains within the drums buried
on the site, the recommended course of action is a carefully conducted program
of excavation of drums; disposal of the drums, chemicals, and contaminated
soils; and continuous and periodic monitoring of the plume and swamp. This
combined approach will remove the source of the chemicals and monitor the dis-
persion of the contaminants presently in the ground water. If at. a later date
it is discovered that the swamp does not serve as an effective treatment mecha-
nism for the contaminants in the plume, procedures can be instituted to appro-
priately treat the swamp effluent. This would be feasible because the swamp
outflow to Uhitford Pond occurs in a well-defined stream. Access to the stream
is provided by a dirt road adjacent to the east edge of the pond (see Figure 1).
Any treatment system designed for this outflow stream would have to be sized
for maximum seasonal flow rates.
The no-action alternative.is not recommended because of the potential for
continuous, long-term release of contaminants with the inherent risk of exposure
to the public. This exposure may develop from.contamination of water supplies
and food stocks or may result from an increase in population density within the
now-rural contaminated area.
Encapsulation is not a recommended option because of the condition of the
source of chemicals and condition of the bedrock. .First, since the source of
the contamination is now expected to contain a significant amount of liquids,
there would be a potential for future release, requiring perpetual vigilance
and maintenance. Additionally, the bedrock surface appears to be too frac-
tured to provide an impermeable base and too deep for economic justification
of containment walls.
Interceptor trenches are not recommended because of the extreme irregu-
larity of the bedrock surface requiring the use of numerous pumping stations,
and also because the rock is too permeable to function as an effective base.
Using pumping wells instead of interceptor trenches to collect contaminated
ground water may be possible if the swamp does not act as an adequate treat-
ment mechanism, but this is not recommended because of the low hydraulic con-
ductivities of the till and bedrock (lO""4 to 1Q~6 cm/sec) and the low total
flow of contaminated ground water (1000 to 10,000 gpd). A more simple and
cost-effective method of collection would involve pumping directly from the
stream between the swamp and Whitford Pond as was described above,
Implementation of Preferred Alternative
Table 16 presents general recommendations regarding contractor procure-
ment, safety procedures, working conditions, and field procedures with refer-
ence to the preferred long-term abatement alternative, removal, and disposal
of drums and chemicals.
52
-------
Table 16. General Recommendations for Drum Excavation
Procurement of Contractor
• Procure disposal services simultaneously with excavation services
* Obtain written technical approach front excavation contractor including:
— drum probing and removal procedures
- logistics of excavation (personnel required, equipment
movement, removed soil, and drum placement)
- procedures for drum sampling and logistics of disposal
operations
- procedures and logistics for treatment or removal of
contaminated soil (and establishment of borrow areas
if necessary)
- procedures for protection of drum staging area to avoid
generation of contaminated water
- safety procedures
- contingency and emergency plans
s Contract on a time-and-materials basis
Safety Procedures and Work Conditions
a Monitor contractor activities by a full-time DEM Site Representative
a Determine "work area" according to air quality where smoking is pro-
hibited and respirators are required; delineate work area with rope
fence and signs
» Control access to site of non-contractor personnel (24. hours per day,
seven days per week security), escort all visitors, require proper
safety equipment within work area
» Establish crew rest area and guard station outside of work area
» Install communications equipment to summon emergency aid and organize
fire fighting procedures in advance with fire department personnel
• Require self-contained breathing equipment in trench area
* Requxre first-aid capability of contractor, particularly the ability to
wash off splashed chemicals
» Require periodic monitoring of trench-area air with explosivity meter
Figj.d_ Procedures
9 Use metal detector as a guide to locate drums in the field after pre-
liminary outline of trench has been determined from metal detection and
ground-piercing radar surveys
9 Address drums individually and with a minimum of physical shock
• Contain and remove all spilled liquids where possible
9 Note and record, to the extent feasible, trench depth and construction,
and locations of high drum or contaminated soil concentrations in an
attempt to validate remote sensing data
• Measure, leachability of excavated soil to determine whether it should
be classified as a hazardous waste requiring disposal in licensed secure
landfill
53
-------
Disposal services should be procured simultaneously with excavation serv-
ices so the entire cost of the project can be estimated before initiation and
cost estimates can be revised periodically while the project is in progress.
The latter action should be taken frequently enough to prevent budget overruns
and to guide field decisions concerning contractor scope-of-work. A time-and-
materials type of contract is recommended for the excavation in order to better
meet unforeseen difficulties and to reduce the incentives for contractor short-
cuts in performance of work or safety measures. Technical approach, including
safety procedures, disposal methods, and emergency plans, should be a part of
all prospective contractors' proposals and serve as the principal criterion
for proposal evaluation, in addition to cost.
The safety procedures employed by the contractor should be reviewed and
approved prior to project initiation. It is recommended that a "work area" be
determined around the excavation area, in which all personnel be required to
wear appropriate safety gear. Air quality sampling devices should be used to
determine the extent of the work area. The boundaries of the work area should
be revised periodically as the project proceeds. It is recommended also that
organic vapor respirators be worn within the work area and self-contained
breathing devices be worn in the excavation areas. All first-aid equipment
should be readily accessible to all crew work areas.
Site access should be restricted and all visitors escorted while within
the work area. The site should be guarded (24 hrs/day, 7 days/wk) and the
sponsoring agency should have a Site Representative in attendance while the
contractor is working. It is recommended that the Site Representative have
the following responsibilities:
a monitor progress of contractor
e make field decisions concerning contractor scope-of-work, procedures,
and project priorities
e produce project cost projections on a periodic basis and evaluate
cleanup progress
w interact (coordinate) with all site visitors and concerned parties
and agencies.
By comparison with the situation on a typical construction project, the
Site Representative on a major cleanup project plays an unusually broad and
critical role. Hazardous waste cleanups are atypical for at least two impor-
tant reasons: (1) the project is rarely well-defined, the problems are not
completely known at the outset, and therefore someone representing the spon-
soring agency must be in attendance to make the necessary field decisions or
recommendations and to continuously monitor project costs in relation to clean-
up priorities and available funds; and (2) cleanup projects have high public
visibility, both locally and nationally, with concomitant potential for the
spread of misinformation and in some cases undue alarm. Additionally, there
is a great deal of interagency involvement (e.g., EPA, state agencies, local
fire and police departments) which is most effectively coordinated through a
central individual, with appropriate authority or ready access to such.
54
-------
During the excavation, it is preferred that drums be addressed individ-
ually where possible and that the probing, exposing, removing, and transport-
ing activities be conducted with a minimum of physical shock. If rupture of
drums does occur, attempts should be made to contain and pump out the spilled
liquids to prevent either the mixing of liquids (which may cause potentially
dangerous chemical reactions) or the release of liquids to the ground and air.
In addition to impermeable clothing and self-contained breathing apparatus, it
is recommended that the workers in the trenches wear light-weight body armor
to protect against explosions.
An important consideration concerning the excavation of the remaining
trenches is the proper decontamination of the soil that is removed along with
the drums. Although generally accepted or mandated procedures for treatment
and/or disposal of soil contaminated at a site such as Coventry have not been
established, periodic analysis of the soil or extracted leachate is recommended
to insure that any soil left on-site will not continue to be a significant
source of contamination once the drums have been removed. Additionally, the
presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) further complicates the problem
of contaminated soil, since disposal of any liquid or solid substance varies
with the concentration of this pollutant. Therefore, periodic chemical analy-
sis of the contaminated soil is recommended to determine whether it can be
aerated to remove volatile components and whether there will be significant
amounts of leachable components remaining. If the latter is true, the soil
will require disposal in a secure landfill.
Table 17 presents general recommendations for procedures to monitor the
effectiveness of the alternative chosen to abate site pollution. Although no
requirements currently exist for the establishment of a monitoring program at
a site such as Coventry, it is essential that both up and downgradient ground
water samples and downstraam surface water samples be regularly collected and
analyzed to insure that the impact of the site upon the environment is lessen-
ing and that the public health is unaffected. The recommended monitoring pro-
gram includes site wells, household wells, the inlets to Whitford Pond, Quid-
nick Reservoir, Great Cedar Swamp, and the cranberry bog as sampling stations.
Volatile priority pollutant and TVO analyses are recommended for the more fre-
quently collected samples, while full priority pollutant scans should be per-
formed on the pond inlet and the cranberry bog at least once a year. It is
important that the monitoring program be maintained until the DEM is certain
that all of the contaminants have dispersed to safe levels and that no public
health threat exists. Until this condition is reached, it is recommended that
all public or private use of the dump site, leachate plume area, and swamp be
prohibited. It will be necessary to analyze the soil at the dump and the
sediment in the swamp in order to determine that the concentration of contami-
nants has been reduced to safe levels. This sampling program may be performed
at the conclusion of the monitoring period.
55
-------
TABE.E 17. GENER&L RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS
OF PREFERRED ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Sampling Location
Analysis
Frequency
Comments
Surface Water
inlet to Whitford Pond (on
dirt road connecting with
Perry Hill Road)
volatile priority pollutants
all priority pollutants
inlets to cranberry bog (from all priority pollutants
Whitford and Great Grass
Pond)
inlet to Quidnick Reservoir
(at Victory Highway, approxi-
mately 1000 ft south of Perry
Hill Road)
inlet to Great Cedar Swamp
(approximately 1500 ft west
of cemetery at end of West
Log Bridge Road)
Ground Water
wells W6, W8, W14, W15, W19,
U'23, W24, and Picillo house-
hold well
household wells (within one
mile radius of site)
volatile priority pollutants
volatile priority pollutants
each season (every 3 months)
once each year
once each year (before
growing season
twice each year (spring and
fail ntonths)
twice each year (spring and
fall months)
twice each year (spring and
fall months)
volatile priority pollutants once each year
monitoring well between swamp TVO
and Whitford Pond (on dirt
road connecting with Perry
Hill Road)
Air Quality
air quality of swamp and dump volatile organic compounds
site (portable gas chromatograph)
each season (every 3 months)
each season (every 3 months)
frequent sampling suggested
because swamp is surface
discharge point for contami-
nated ground &ater
full priority pollutant scan
reco&atwmded because of agri-
cultural use
extensive sampling and analy-
sis not recommended unless
shown to be discharge area
extensive sampling and analy-
sis not recommended unless
shown to be discharge area
W6: upgradient; WU, W15,
W8: doungradient s in uncon-
solicated deposits; W!9,
Picillo household: downgra-
dient toward Quidnick Reser-
voir; W23, W24: downgradient,
in bedrock, water level ele-
vations should be recorded
at tin* of sampling
satnpling of local household
wells addresses primary con-
cerns of nearby residents
well not presently installed;
should be screened in soil and
bedrock to laoaitor for sub-
surface migration of contami-
nants from swamp to pond
determine potential hanaful
effects of air quality with
each season and evaluate need
to physically restrict access
to site or swamp
Subject to promulgation of Federal post-closure monitoring regulations concerning uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
See Figure 7 for locations.
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE OF CONTENTS, LIST OF ILLUSTEATIONS,
AND LIST OF TABLES FROM PHASE I REPORT
57
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE INVESTIGATION:
PICILLO PROPERTY, COVENTRY, RHODE ISLAND
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
LIST OF TABLES
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
1.2 History of the Site
1.3 Review of DEM Data
SECTION 2 FIELD PROCEDURES
2.1 Metal Detection
2.2 Electrical Resistivity Survey
2.3 Verification Excavations
2.4 Well Installation
2.5 Soil and Water Sampling
2.6 Chemical Analysis
SECTION 3 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF FIELD TESTS
3.1 Location and Number of Buried Drums
3.2 Hydrogeology
3.2.1 Aquifer Characteristics
3.2.2 Flow Calculations
3.2.3 Summary - - . • • • -.
3.3 Chemical Contamination
3,3,1 Analysis of Resistivity Data
3,3.2 Water and Soil Sample Analysis: Total Volatile.Organics (TVO)
3.3.3 Water and Soil Sample Analysis: Priority Pollutants
3,4 Existing Health Effects
SECTION 4 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Long-Term Abatement Alternatives
4.1.1 No Action
4.1.2 Drum Removal
4.1.3 Source Encapsulation
4.1.4 Leachate Collection and Treatment
4.2 Near-Term Abatement Alternatives
4,2,1 No Action/Deferred Action
4.2.2 Removal of a Limited Number of Drums
4.2.3 Surface Preparation
4.2.4 Leachate Control with Absorbent Material
SECTION 5 RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A RESISTIVITY DATA
APPENDIX B TEST PIT LOGS
APPENDIX C BORING LOGS
APPENDIX D EPA PRIORITY POLLUTANT LIST; RESULTS OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS AND
TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSES BY ERGO
APPENDIX E COST ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION
59
Preceding page blank
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FigureJNumber
1-1 Location of the Picillo Chemical Waste Dump in Rhode Island
1-2 MITRE Project Schedule
2-1 Results of Metal Detection Survey
2-2 Ground and Surface Water Sampling Locations
3-1 Water Table Map for January 14, 1980
3-2 Results of Electrical Resistivity Survey
4-1 Location of Side Walls for Source Encapsulation
4-2 Inner Leachate Collection and Treatment System
4-3 Outer Leachate Collection and Treatment System
A-l Plot of Resistivity Data Points
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
1-1 Summary of DEM Analytical Data
2-1 Typical Electrical Resistivity Values of Subsurface Materials
2-II Ground and Surface Water Sampling Results
3-1 Estimation of the Number of Buried Drums
3-II Water Level Data
3-III Ground Water Flow at the Picillo Site
3-IV Total Volatile Organic Concentrations in Water and Soils
3™? Summary of Constituents Identified by the Priority Pollutant
Analysis
4-1 Cost of Excavation and Disposal of Buried Drums
4~II Cost of Site Encapsulation with Concrete Walls and Bituminous
Cover
4-III Cost of Leachate Collection and Treatment System
4-IV Summary of Removal of a Limited Number of Drums at Various
Funding Levels for Scenarios a-d
4-V Estimated Cost of Leachate Control by Absorbent Material
5-1 Comparison of Long-Term Abatement Alternatives
5-II Comparison of Near-Term Abatement Alternatives
5-III Evaluation of Near-Term Abatement Options
5-IV Recommended Actions
5-V Estimated Cost of Recommended Actions
60
-------
LIST OF TABLES (concluded)
Table Number
E-I Unit Costs for Drum Excavation and Disposal
E-II Unit Costs for Site Encapsulation
E-III Itemized Cost Sheet for Site Encapsulation
E-IV Unit Costs for Leachate Collection and Treatment
E-V Leachate Collection and Conveyance — Inner System
E-VI Leachate Collection and Conveyance — Outer System
61
-------
APPENDIX B
THE LOCATION OF BURIED DRUMS AS
DETERMINED BY GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR
Preceding page blank 63
-------
^
ce
o
CD
&
-10S 0
430E
260E 280E
300E
320E 340E 330 E 380E 400E
420E
SCALE: 1"«20'
NORTHEAST TRENCHES
-------
IMS
OE
(Baf.)
SCALE: V-20'
NORTHWEST TRENCH
-------
SCALE. V-20'
WEST TRENCH
-------
+15E
+170E
S+45N
e +35N
+25M
+15N
ON I
OE
STONE WALL
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SOUTH TRENCH
-------
APPENDIX C
MONTHLY VARIATION OF GROUND WATER LEVELS
69
-------
T.L
WATER LEVEL IN FEET BELOW GROUND SURFACE
8
ISJ
IS)
O
I
00
W
_|_
&>
_i_
»J
«*
m
«
CO
•A
o
> d
31
>
•a
IV)
OB
en
k'
(0
i
> ^
c i
5 55 5
(o m'i* o>
-------
APPENDIX D
TEST BORING LOGS
Preceding page blank 73
-------
PROJE
DATE
DATE
CT
STARTS
COMPLE
D 6/5/80
:TED 6/12/80
LOCATION _ DRILLED BY FR BORING NO. 21
INCLINATION LOGGED BY ^ » NC GROUND EL.
BEARING CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH 78 ' 3"
EL
ft.
UJ
*j
c
OEPTW
ft.
- 5
- 10
-15
.
-20
!
-25
-30
SAMPLE
Tvi«e-
HO.
SI
12__
...
S3
L§i_
S5
S8
£!.,»
S8
...
BLOWS
PER «"
3
5
5
23
29
38
14~
15
26
79
24*
18
77
133
4b
,™,™™»««_
100/2'
37*/4'
48
100/4'
32*/2'
PSM
ill
18
13
18
18
Lo~*_™»J
18
6
12
~"~~T~
REC
M.
6
10
10
12
16-
5
6
REMARKS ON
ADVANCE OF
SORING
6 in OD
cont.
flight
hollow
stem auger
0-39.5
(40 cc
sample)
(40 cc
•y sample)
v-wet
(40 cc
sample)
GRAPHIC
[ LOG
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS
Silty sand - fine to v. fine grained,
some med-coarse grained sand with
fine gravel
Gravelly silty sand - widely graded,
pred. fine-grained. 10-15% non-
plastic fine, occ. fine gravel to
1-3/8 in (gray brown) occ. olive
gray silt pockets
Sand - very fine grained, uniform,
approx. 5% nonplastic fines j
stratification not apparent, It. 1
gray -j
1
1
J
!
3-12 in Sand - widely .graded, clean ,4
40% nonplastic fines occ. angular }
fine gravel. ^t
0-8 in Silty sand - fine grained, ; "
10-15% med-coarse sand, occ. gray -
brown fine gravel _
8-14 in Fragmented gravel , clean
14-16 in Sandy silt - v. fine grained, -
occ. med-coarse sand, brown
Gravelly silty sand - widely graded ~~1
approx. 10-20% nonplastic fines. "j
Locally clean till structure
Same as S6 - locally v. fine grained —
dense till structure} gray brown
i
j
>
1
8U3WS PER 6 • 14018, homm«f falling 30'' !e arlM
a ipkt town ssmpfef
PEN • P«i«frotton tyaqtti st •emaw
REG* LOTqth of sample neovweti
^ • SrowuMtir
S - Setif wan santfe
Pr
^ CBOTIX«NICAta 01-*
seeding page !
ii^r,r.tv> |t**t.
NOTts*Blows of
hammer falling
effect 6 in o:
tion
blank
a,?0
-------
PTOJE
DATE
DATE
CT
STARTE
COMPLE
D
TED
UOCAl
INCU^
BEAR!
ION DRILLED!?!' BORING NO. Lil 21 ^
UmON LOGGED BY GROUND EL
NG CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH
EL
ff.
DEPTH
ft.
- 40
- 45
_50
-55
\
-60
-65
r
SAMPLE
Tvpe-
NO.
S8
S9
S10
NX-1
Sll
S12
a tow 3
?ea «"
72
- 73*
65
50/1"
K/L.5
SI*/ 3.
75/4
58*/0
34
L30/3
30*/3
22
•JO
68
J3*/0
pen
In
12
~6~
6
it
60
i •
4
12
18
DEC
!«.
12
"IT
6
17
0
5
18
0
SUMS PER 5"- 14016. Itgmnor tQlllru) 30' la *h«
4 oQjtl tooan samptaf
PEN- Ptuwialion Kmxn of «om»«f
O RE6° Lenqtft
-------
PROJFCT LOCATION DRILLED BY BORING NO. _ 21
DATE STARTED INCLINATION LOGGED BY GROUND EL
DATE COMPLETED BEARING CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH
EL
ft.
DEPTH
ft.
-
-
-
- 75
_ 80
-
.
I
_
"
L
r
-
—
-
SAMPLE
TYPE-
NO.
NX2
NX3
SLOWS
PER*"
PEN
in
15
51
REC
Id.
13
49
BLOWS PER 6' - 14016. Iwmmw falllnq 3O " 10 «tv«
4 *0ltf ipoon sampler
PEN* Ptnvtroiion Jtrt^th of tgmptvr
a REC' teftoth of iompl« ricovcrtd
OS* SWII ieoo» lamplt
REMARKS ON
ADVANCE OF
SORING
69'6"-70'7'
(roller
bit)
74'6"-78'3'
RQD*=57%
o
x a
a. o
< -i
X
o
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS
Similar to S12 - blue gray decomposed
dense rock, clayey (core barrel
sticks)
-
Weathered diabasic rock (sill or dike) -
with few hornblende(?) phenocrysts ;
clayey fillings in fractures
_
"
i
i
J
— i
-
—
I
1
NOTES
*RQD = rock quality
designation - % of '
total Ipngt-h nf rnrp .
recovered greater than DATE - - ?"ojecT Na...
4 in. in length. • PASE . 3 OF 3 ao««s «a 21
QHKOTFCMrVICAL ENCINKf HH INC
77
-------
PROJECT
DATE
DATE
STARTED 6/13/80
COMPLETED 6/17/80
LOCATION DRIU£D BY
INCLINATION , LOGGED BY
BEARING CHECKED BY
FR BORING NO. 22
NC GROUND EL.
TOTAL DEPTH 41 '8"
EL
ft.
LEGEND
c
DEPTH
ft.
- 5
-10
-15
-20
»
-25
-30
SAMPLE
TYPE-
NO.
SI
S2
S3
S4
S5
NX1
S6
SX2
BLOWS
PSH S"
2
8
20
45
•37
13
18
24
13
L12
'13
17
f—1 Q
lo
28
16
51/4"j
L6*/2'
_43*
P€M
in
18
18
18
18
18
60
18
48
RCC
In.
6
12"
16
18
3
17
13
39
REMARKS ON
ADVANCE OF
80RINS
6 in OD
cont flight
hollow stem
auger 0-15'
Z-wet
(40 cc
sample)
(40 cc
sample)
(40 cc
sample)
RQD = 0
32'8"-36'8"
RQD = 0
1 GRAPHIC
LOG
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS
Sand - fine-medium grained, occ. coarse, '
some angular gravel
Gravelly sand - fine-medium grained —
subangular gravel to 3/8", little
silt
1
Silty sand
freque
appare
Sand - fine
gravel
brown
- fine-medium grained —
nt biotite, no stratification j
nt
:
i
grained, V subangular _J
, upper 12"-gray, lower 6"- •;
(running sand) 1
H
Sand - fine grained, 10-20% silt brown "~
Boulders -
Silty sand
i
granite gneiss —
- fiae-grained, granite —
fragments to 1"
.
BLOWS PER «"- 140 IB. Xammx falling SO" lo «!»•
a <94it ipoon samoMr
PCM* Pt«»f ration I«nq1h of >omp4w
REC' Ufflgtri of tampl* racovarva
^ -(jraoMnltr
5 • Split tpoon samp!*
MOTES
*Blows of a 300 Ib ham-
mer falling 24 in to
effect 6 in of penetra-
tion
"^ GEOTFCHNICAL ENCINKHW INC _
' 78
Depth to water tablets'.
DATE ?SOJECT Nd
PACE 1 OF 2 BORING MO. 22
-------
PROJECT
DATE
DATE
STARTED
COMPLETED
LOCATION DRILLED 8V ROBING MO. 22
INCLINATION LOGGED BY GROUND EL.
SEARING CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH
EL
ft.
DEPTH
ft.
-
-40
—
-
-
„
1
SAMPLE
NO.
NX3
BLOWS
In
60
RCC
In.
60
a iptit sooon wiKpw
PCN* Pfnvfreftan i«flqfft of iem#«r
§C*EC" UtflQth q* tamptt r«eov«f«o
yj ^ "Sroun4«ofif
O 3 * Spilt loom iwnpt*
-J
REMARKS ON
ADVANCE OF
SORING
36'8"-41'8'
RQD = 23%
1 GRAPHIC
LOG
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS
Boulders - granite gneiss
;
Bighly fractured granite gneiss
moderately weathered, some breaks -
rusty
-
i
i
_J
,',,..; .,- - - ^
\
"1
—
-
1
)
i
DATE _ PROJECT **Q. !
PAGE ,2, OF 2 aORlHO NO. 22 '
( ) OTOTKCHN1CAL ENr>!NKf>,n.S !Nr __
^ 79
-------
PROJE
DATE
DATE
CT
STARTE
COMitf
D 6/18/80
TED 6/23/80
LOCA1
INCUf
BEARI
EL
ft.
DEPTH
ft.
- 5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
SAMPLE
Ttff
HO,
SI
_S2_
S3
SA
S5
S5A
NX2
NX3
NX4
BLOWS
rent"
3
3
4
10
. 18
22
24
27
35
12
. 13
16
42/3"
- A 1 * / 1 !
29/3
10*/Q
PEN
m
18
18
18
18
, 4
3
60
48
60
REC
Id.
2
12
18
Ifi
4
3
34
48
60
BLOWS PER «"• 1*0111 nemmtr falling 30' t« artw
a spflit leooA tompMr
PEN- PxiMration IsnfltK il Mmrtw
O REC • Uwtfh of lampM r*eov*r«d
g £ -Sra»M«).f
o s • SMH uoon iaimt
u
^
f "\ r.BOTFCHNICAL ENntNKF.nM ir^C
nON DPI! I Pn 9Y FR BORING NO.
JATION , LOGGED BY NC GROUND EL.
NG CHECKED SY TOTAL DEPTH 37 '11"
REMARKS ON
ADVANCE Of
BORING
5 in OD
cont flight
lollow sten
auger 0-25'
(40 cc
sample)
(40 cc -
sample)
(40 cc
sample)
wet
23'11"-28'1
RQD - 15%'
28'11"-32'1
RQD = 85%
32'll"-37f
RQD = 77%
ICRAPHIC
LOS
1"-
1"
1"
SOIL AND SOCK DESCRIPTIONS
Silty sand - fine-medium grained 20%
coarse sand (rock stuck in sampler) •
Sand - fine-medium grained %-l" granite
fragments 10% silt, 20% med-coarse
sand, 70% fine sand
Gravelly sand - fine-medium grained, ~
%-l" gravel fragments 10% silt
]
i
1
Gravelly sand - similar to S3 granite •—
1 • • 'fragments ' ^
~i
>
' ' ' ' ' 1
Sand ~ similar to S3 —
;
Unable to spin casing through augered
hole - move over 2' - spin casing
\to 20 '9" core to 22 "7" - boulders
(granite gneiss)
S5A - silty fine sand - stratified -
with fine laminations of silty sand.
and silt
Fractured granite gneiss - average joint -
spacing 5" - Fe oxide staining on _
breaks - some green chlorite (?)
filling in breaks. Pegmatite seam
(2V) , some healed fractures open
during coring
NOTES
*Blows of 300
falling 24 it
6 in of penel
Ib hammer Depth to water table ss23'
i to effect
:ration
DATE PROJECT Ma
PASS 1 Of 2 30HIM8 10. £3
80
-------
PROJECT
DATE STARTED.
DATE COMPLETED
LOCATION
INCLINATION,
BEARING
DRILLED BY_
LOGGED BY_
CHECKED BY
BORING NO..
GROUND EL
^3
TOTAL DEPTH
EU
DEPTH
ft.
SAMPLE
TYPC-
NO.
BLOWS
PIR6"
REC
In.
REMARKS ON
ADVANCE OF
SORING
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS
-40
h
i-
I"
.
Fractured granite gneiss
1
SLOWS PER S' - I40IU. hommw falling 30" »e drtv«
a «ptir spoon tampter
^ - GrouAdvattr
5 - Spiif Joeon tampia
PAGE 2 OF 2
23
^" ^ OBOTFCHNICAL ENRlNKPFtS INC
81
-------
PROJE
DATE
DATE
.CT ... ...
STARTED 6/24/80
COMPLETED 7/2/80
LOCATION DRILLED Sf FR BORING NO. .. 24
INCLINATION LOGGED BY NC, RT GROUND £L
BEARING CHECKED SY TOTAL DEPTH 42 '4"
EL
ft.
QSPTH
ft.
- 5
10
u_15
:
F20
-
- 25
-30
.
SAMPLE
TYPE-
W.
SI
S?
S3
CA
S5
cfi
-S7-
NX1
NX2
BLOWS
PSS «"
4
6
12
7
11
10
7
15
14
22
23—
38
51
, 65
168
18
177
50/1"-
i2*/2'
pen
in
18
18
18
4.8
18
12
_3_
60
60
REC
In.
8
2
s
-10
12
6
-3-
40
26
REMARKS ON
ADVANCE OF
BORING
Spin 4^
casing
0-25'
(40 cc
sample)
(40 cc
sample)
(40 cc
sample)
25' 3" _
30 '3"
RDQ » 20%
30'3"-35'
RQD * 15%
GRAPHIC
LOG
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS
Sand - find- medium, widely graded, 20%
coarse, <10% fines granite fragments
to 1" (stuck in sampler)
Sand - silty fine, olive, 40% fine, 30% ~
medium-coarse 9 30% pebbles (1/4-1")-
widely graded
Olive fine sand - 10%, 30% medium-coarse"
sand, 15% fine gravel (1 3/4" qtz -
pebble in sampler nose)
i
i
1
Olive fine sand - .10% fines, 20% medium-^
coarse sand, 10% fine gravel and ->
granite fragments (1/4-3/4") _j
Olive-brown fine sand - 10% fines, —
similar to S4, weathered qtz
pebbles to 1"
dense, less gravel
Weathered granite fragments
Highly weathered granite gneiss, joints
spaced every 3", qtz seams, filled -
seams
-i
-
BlOta 1H S" • 140 IS. nommir falling 30" to *•!««
a ivtit spoon tamptor
PEN- PwatnxtioR Itnqth of samMar
a REC" Ltnath of tampM rtcovved
2 7 " G™»a«of«r
OS' Split ipoon iomo«
u
u
NOTES
*Blows of 300
falling 24 i
6 in of pane
Ib hammer Depth to water table 3*5'
a to effect
tration , ^ , , .
DATE PROJECT NO.
PASE 1 Of 2 BORING NO. 24
r,ROTFO»NlCAL,
82
-------
l\
PROJi
DATE
DATE
ECT
STARTED
COMPLETED
LOCATION DRILLED Bt BORING NO. 24
INCLINATION LOGGED BY GROUND EL
BEARING CHECKED BY ' TOTAL OEPTH
EL
ft.
DEPTH
ft.
-
-
- 40
-
_
:
f-
L.
SAMPLE
TTPS-
NO.
NX3
NX4
SLOWS
PSR «"
PSM
in
60
60
REG
19.
27
60
-------
PROJECT
Q&TE STARTED 7/3/80
DATE CQMPLETE3_2£32SO___
LOCATION,
INCLINATION .
BEARING
DRILLED BY ,, FR
LOGGED BY NC
CHECKED BY
BORING MO. 25
GROUND Q_
TOTAL DEPTH 14 '
EL
ft
DEPTH
ft.
— — .
- 5
-10
— 15
-
_
r
,
r
-
-
SAMPUE
YYPg-
m.
SI
S2
S3
BLOWS
«»*•
13
16
16 |
29
27
42
63
54
100*/4
31*/2'
I>€N
In
18
18
18
"—
nee
Id.
10s
10s
18
BLOW! res s" • 140 16 hummer lulling 30" 19 4rtn
t RJiit ttxm xmgw
Q REG" UanglR 9? samela raccworstf
Ul
f" ") CKQTFCMNICAl. ENCINKKRH INC
REMARKS ON
ADVANCE OF
BORING
6 in OD
cont flight
auger 0-14"
moist
(40 cc
sample)
wet
(40 cc
sample)
u
Xa
0.0
i""
SOIL AMD ROCK DESCRIPTIONS
-
•
Sand - fine-medium grained, tan, 5% silt,-
25% coarse sand and gravel, 1"
granite fragment, orange mottling
Sand - upper 5" similar to SI lower 5"
gray fine-medium grained sand, 15% '
silt, 10% coarse sand and gravel, —
2-1" granite fragments
~~ ' J
Sand - similar to S2, gray fine-medium,
less silt, 20% coarse sand and -j
gravel several 1" granite fragmentsU
1
' -
t
1
_
1
1
NOTES
Depth to water table ar7 *
DATE PROJECT NO. , ,,, '
PASE 1 0? 1 30RIN6 MO. 25
84
-------
PROJE
DATE
DATE
•CT
STARTED 7/7/80
COMPLETED 7/10/80
LOCATION DRILLED Sf FR BORING WO. 26
INCLINATION LOGGED BY NC GROUND EL.
BEARING CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH 34 ' 8"
EL
fs.
DEPTH
ff.
- 5
~- 10
— IS
_
- 20
- 25
— 30
-
SAMPLE
TYPS-
NO.
NX1
NX2
NX3
NX4
NX5
SLOWS
PER S"
PEN
15
60
60
60
60
26
REC
In.
19
46
60
39
42
REMARKS ON
ADVANCE OF
BORING
spin casing
to 8'
8'7"-13I7"
RQD = 0
(Roller
bit)
18'5"-23'5'
ROB =91%
22'6"-27'6'
RQD =77%
27'6"-32'6'
RQD = 85%
32'6"-34'8l
RQD = 88%
{GRAPHIC
LOG
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS
Sand - tan fine-medium grained (location"
4' from B25)
Boulders-granite gneiss , 8 2-3" fragment!
]
1
1
Gray fine - medium sand — j
1
-i
Granite gneiss - bluish gray, 4 rusty —
core breaks, 45% fracture
Granite gneiss - fractured, rusty —
breaks, some chlorite(?) fillings !
i
Granite gneiss - less fractured, cleaner.
breaks
i
-f
I
1
0U3W3 P£S 6 - I40lt hommtf falling SO'^TdrtCiT'"'
a split loaoft jampisr
PEN- Pentmrticfl isngtft of tamp4«r
Q SEC" Length of *am
------- |