July 1988 EPA-700/8-88-042
Hazardous Waste GrouncH/Vater
Task Force
Evaluation of
Dover Air Force Base
Dover, Delaware
AEPA
UNITED STATES ENVRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
JULY 18, 1988
UPDATE OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER TASK FORCE
EVALUATION OF DOVER AIR FORCE BASE
DOVER, DELAWARE
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Hazardous Waste
Ground Water Task Force (Task Force) conducted an evaluation of the
ground water monitoring program at the Dover Air Force Base (DAFB) located
in Dover, Delaware. The field inspection was conducted during the ..
period from December 8 to 12, 1986. DAFB is one of 58 facilities evaluated
by the Task Force. The purpose of the Task Force evaluations was to
determine the adequacy of a facility's ground water monitoring program
in regard to the applicable State and Federal requirements. The Task
Force effort came about in light of recent concerns as to whether operators
of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities were comply-
ing with State and ifederal ground water monitoring regulations.
The evaluation of the DAFB focused on determining (1) if the facility
was in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and policy,
and (2) if hazardous waste constituents were present in the ground water.
The inspection revealed that DAFB was not fully complying with applicable
interim status ground water monitoring requirements and that ground water
samples from on-site wells contained hazardous waste constituents. This
update provides information on ground water related activities conducted
by DAFB, EPA, and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control (DNREC) since the Task Force Inspection.
-------
-2-
Based upon preliminary findings of the Task Foroe, EPA issued a
letter to CNREC on June 23, 1987, outlining major deficiencies in the
ground water monitoring program for the closed surface impoundments
known as the IW Basins. The letter included a detailed listing of areas
of non-compliance with RCRA interim status ground water monitoring require-
ments (40 CFR Sutpart F Section 265).
Using this letter as supporting evidence, DNREC issued a Notice of
Violation/Notice of Deficiency (NOV/NOD) to DAFB on .August 6, 1987. The
NOV cited specific violations of applicable sections of 40 CFR 265 Interim
Status Regulations, sane of which related to ground water monitoring
activities. The NOD was issued based upon the determination that the
Post-Closure Permit Application for the IW basins submitted on August 25,
1986 was incomplete. The application was deficient in that it
failed to meet permit application requirements in Sections 122.14,122.17
and 264 Subparts F and K of the DNREC Hazardous Waste Regulations.
As of November 1987, DAFB had tailed to comply with the MOV/NOD.
According to 7 Delaware Code section 6309(a)(l), the Secretary has the
authority to issue an order requiring compliance with State Hazardous
Waste Regulations within a specified time period if violations extend
beyond the thirtieth day after the Secretary's notification. This
authority was exercised by the issuance of a Secretary's Order (87/HW/03)
on November 19, 1987.
The order requires DAFB to correct deficiencies in the Post Closure
Permit Application, by upgrading the ground water monitoring program
for the IW basins consistant with 40 CFR 264 Subparts F and G and
developing plans for long term care and maintanence of the final cap,
-------
-3-
monitoring wells etc. The conpliancB schedule is spread out over a 20
month period with intervening reporting deadlines. At the end of this
timeframe, submission of a final report is required.
In 1983, DAFB began environmental studies under the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP). The IRP was originally developed by the
Department of Defense (DOD) to identify and evaluate past disposal sites
on DOD property and to eliminate hazards to public heath and the
environment in a responsible manner. The IRP consists of four phases,
Phase I, Initial Assessment/Records Search, Phase II, Confirmation/
quantification (Site Investigations) Phase III, Technology Base Develop-
ment (Development of Technologies for the Assessment of Environmental
Impacts) and Phase IV, Operations/Remedial Actions (Selection and
Implementation of Remedial alternatives).
At present, Phases IV and II of the IRP are being conducted simulta-
neously. Under Phase IV, four (4) Solid Waste Management Units (SWUs)
are being investigated including the IW Basins and under Phase II, thirteen
(13) ShMUs are being evaluated. DNREC is tracking only those parts of
Phase IV which have been incorporated into the Secretary's Order. An
integral component is the installation of numerous monitoring wells
facility wide, a number of which are to be located in the general vicinity
of disposal sites evaluated by the Task -Force.
Agreement was reached between DAFB and DNREC regarding the scope of
work for Phase IV of the IRP prior to issuance of the order. To expedite
resolution of violations, the scope of work was modified to incorporate
as many of the order requirements as possible which were not originally
included. To the greatest extent possible, the reporting requirements
-------
-4-
of the order correspond to that of the IRP study plans. At this time,
CAFB is considered to be in compliance with the terms of the Secretary's
Order and are meeting all reporting requirements.
-------
EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER TASK
INVESTIGATION OF THE DOVER AIR FORCE BASE
tJ.S. Environmental Protection Ag«noy
Regi'itx 3, Library (5PL-16)
230 ,'•', IVarborn Street, Room 1*70
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 6
GROUND-WATER MONITORING DURING INTERIM STATUS 6
Ground-water Sampling and Analysis Plan 6
Sampling and Analysis Procedures 7
Monitoring Well Network 8
Assessment Program Outline and Plan 9
TASK FORCE SAMPLING AND MONITORING DATA EVALUATION 9
TECHNICAL REPORT
INVESTIGATION METHODS 14
RECORD/DOCUMENTS REVIEW 14
PART B PERMIT APPLICATION EVALUATION 14
FACILITY INSPECTION 17
LABORATORY EVALUATION 17
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 18
FACILITY DESCRIPTION 26
DAFB ORGANIZATION AND MISSION 26
HAZARDOUS WASTE ACTIVITIES 26
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS 29
SITE GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY 48
TOPOGRAPHY/SURFACE DRAINAGE 48
SITE GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY 48
Hydrogelogic Units 55
Ground-water Flow at DAFB 57
Ground-water Flow at Individual Sites 57
Site T-l 57
Site D-10 57
Sites D-4, D-5 60
GROUND-WATER MONITORING DURING INTERIM STATUS 63
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 64
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN 65
MONITORING WELLS 66
Well Construction 67
Well Locations 70
DAFB SAMPLING PROCEDURES 70
-------
V CONTENTS (cont.)
Water Level Measurements 70
Purgi ng 71
Sample Collection 72
Shipping and Chain-of-Custody 73
GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM OUTLINE AND PLAN 73
Assessment Outline 73
Assessment Plan 74
EVALUATION OF MONITORING DATA FOR INDICATIONS OF WASTE RELEASE 75
APPENDICES
A BORING LOGS FOR DAFB WELLS
B ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING DATA SHEET
C ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS FOR TASK FORCE SAMPLES
D REFERENCES
FIGURES
1 Site Location Map 2
2 Location of Wells Sampled by Task Force 10
3 IW Basins Composite Sampling Locations 22
4 North Drainage Ditch 28
5-9 Solid Waste Management Units 31
10 Site Topographic Map 49
11 Installation Drainage 50
12 Generalized Geologic Sections 52
13 Boring Log of USGS Test Well 54
14 Site Water Table Elevations 58
15 Site T-l 59
16 Site D-10 61
17 Sites D-4, D-5 62
TABLES
1 Selected Organic Data From Task Force Samples 12
2 Task Force Measurements 19
3 Decontamination Procedures 20
4 Purging and Sampling Data 23
5 Order of Sample Collection, Bottle Type, and Preservation List .. 25
6 State and Federal Counterpart Interim Status Regulations 65
7 Ground-water Monitoring Well Construction Details 69
8 Summary of Waste Components 76
-------
INTRODUCTION
Concerns have been raised about whether hazardous waste treatment, storage
and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are complying with the ground-water monitoring
requirements promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)*.
In question is the ability of existing or proposed ground-water monitoring
systems to detect contaminant releases from waste management units. To evaluate
these systems and determine the current compliance status, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a Hazardous Waste Ground-
Water Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force comprises personnel from the EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Enforcement and Compli-
ance Monitoring. National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), Regional
Offices and State regulatory agencies. The Task Force is conducting indepth,
onsite investigations of TSDFs with the following objectives:
o Determine compliance with interim status ground-water monitoring require-
ments of 40 CFR Part 265, as promulgated under RCRA or the State equivalent
(where the State has received RCRA authorization).
o Evaluate the ground-water monitoring program described in the RCRA Part B
permit application, submitted by the facility, for compliance with 40 CFR
Section 270.14(c), or the State equivalent.
o Determine if the ground-water at the facility contains hazardous waste or
const!tuents.
The Dover Air Force Base (DAFB) is located in Kent County, Delaware approxi-
mately 3.5 miles southeast of the center of the city of Dover, Delaware (Figure
1). The onsite Task Force inspection was conducted from December 8 through 12,
1986 and was coordinated by the EPA Region III personnel.
* Regulations promulgated under RCRA address TSDF operations, including
ground-water monitoring to ensure immediate detection of any hazardous waste
or constituents released to the environment.
-------
I 'Z--y£Zl--~f&x-- • t T>A I V/iV
I wttiil.^'A:^
f^y^M
f"/^^'v>:i^.'-":'.5;-r-."-!tf-'~-~^'.,(<^ -.X -1 c
^g§^|^^;>^/
dYW NOIXVDOT 31IS
T 3W1DL3
-------
-3-
The DAFB treated liquid hazardous wastes resulting from aircraft maintenance
and operation in two adjacent, regulated units (surface impoundments) which are
subject to RCRA ground-water monitoring requirements. Closure of these units was
completed in August 1986 under a State of Delaware approved closure plan. The
approved closure plan called for the removal of all free liquids and sludge from
the surface impoundments and excavation of underlying soil to a depth of six (6)
inches. A post closure permit application has been submitted by the DAFB and
was evaluated by the Task Force for compliance with 40 CFR Part 270.14(c).
During the inspection, members of the Task Force evaluated compliance with
the interim status ground-water requirements of 40 CFR Part 265 and the Delaware
equivalent regulations (Del. Reg. Section 265). The adequacy of the ground-water
sampling and analysis plan, monitoring well construction and location, analysis
of samples taken from the interim status monitoring wells and the Part B Post
Closure permit application were evaluated. Additionally, three Solid Waste
Management units (SWMUs) were investigated. The evaluation involved review of
State, Federal, and facility records; facility and analytical laboratory in-
spections; and collection and analysis of samples from the ground-water monitoring
wells around the two adjacent, regulated units and three SWMUs onsite and an
oil/water separator.
Industrial operations at DAFB consist primarily of aircraft and vehicle
maintenance and repair activities. These and other support operations generate
hazardous material, including waste fuels, oils, solvents, and paints at several
industrial shops on site.
In 1963, a spill containment system was constructed and began accepting
-------
wastewater from the engine build-up shops. The spill containment system con-
sisted of two concrete lined oil/water separators and two unlined, earthen
settling lagoons (also known as the Industrial Waste (IW) basins). Wastes
entered the oil/water separators where lighter than water constituents were
skimmed from the surface and sent to underground tanks. The remaining wastes
would then enter the TW basins. Settling occurred in the IW basins prior to
discharge to the North Ditch. .In 1968, plating shop wastewaters were also
routed to the IW basins.
In 1969, discharge from the IW basins to the North Ditch was terminated.
From 1969 to 1975, IW basins' effluent was routed to a sanitary treatment fa-
cility on base. Since 1975, effluent has been discharged to a regional sani-
tary treatment facility (the Kent County sewer system). In July 1985, the IW
basins were bypassed and closure, under a State approved closure plan, was
completed in August 1986.
Final authorization for the State's hazardous waste program was delegated
to the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
on June 22, 1984. On November 19, 1980, the DAFB submitted a RCRA Part A Permit
Application for a treatment system. This Part A listed two units; a tank (T01)
and a surface impoundment (the IW basins). In 1983, the DNREC deleted the sur-
face impoundment from the Part A stating that this unit was exempt from RCRA
regulation under the definition of a wastewater treatment unit. In February
1984, the DNREC reversed this decision stating that the impoundment (IW basins)
was subject to RCRA regulation and a RCRA closure plan was required. Therefore,
since February 1984, the IW basins have been considered to a surface impoundment
and a regulated unit subject to the DNREC interim status ground-water monitoring
requirements.
-------
-5-
Three ground-water monitoring wells (101,102,103) were installed near the
IW basins in 1982. Samples taken from these wells in 1982 showed elevated
levels of several volatile organic compounds including 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene.
In November 1984, three additional monitoring wells (Olj ,02j ,04j) were
installed in the vicinity of the IW basins. These three wells, in addition to
the wells installed in 1982, comprised the ground-water monitoring system for
regulated unit. Sampling performed in 1984, 1985, and 1986 has shown elevated
levels of organic compounds in the ground-water in several of the wells surround-
ing the IW basins. Specifically in 1986, ground-water samples from these wells
ranged from 0.49 ppb to 1500 ppb for tetrachloroethylene, 0.14 ppb to 240 ppb
for trichloroethylene and non-detectable to 7700 ppb for 1,1,1-trich]oroethane.
-------
-6-
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The findings and conclusions presented reflect conditions existing at the
facility in December 1986. Actions taken by the State, EPA Region III and DAFB
subsequent to December are summarized in the accompanying update.
GROUND-WATER MONITORING DURING INTERIM STATUS
Task Force personnel investigated the interim status ground-water monitoring
program at DAFB for the period between February 1984, when the State made the
determination that the surface impoundment was RCRA regulated, and December 1986.
The Task Force evaluated the ground-water monitoring program implemented in
1984 and determined it to be inadequate. For example, records submitted by DAFB
indicate that, whereas DAFB conducted and continues to conduct a ground-water
sampling and analysis program for the surface impoundment, this program does not
compl y with the requirements of RCRA. These records indicate that initial back-
ground concentrations for the parameters specified in the Delaware Regulations
Governing Hazardous Waste (Del. Regs.) 265.92(b) were never established as re-
quired by Del. Regs. 265.92(c)(1). DAFB has not monitored for all parameters
specified in Del. Regs. 265.92(b). For example, analyses were not available
for Barium, Fluoride, Nitrate, Lindane, Methoxychlor, Toxaphene, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-TP
Silvex, Radium, Gross alpha, Gross beta, Selenium, Endrin, Turbidity, Fecal
coliform, Chloride, Manganese, Sodium, Sulfate, Specific conductance, TOC, and
TOH. Replicate measurements were not obtained for the indicator parameters
during the first year of sampling. An initial background arithematic mean was
never calculated and no statistical comparison has been made to determine
whether a statistically significant increase over initial background has occurred,
-------
-7-
Other program components, including the ground-water sampling and analysis
plan and procedures, monitoring well network and the assessment program outline
and plan did not comply with DNREC requirements.
Ground-Water Sampling and Analysis Plan
A ground-water sampling and analysis plan was developed by DAFB on April 19,
1985. This plan was updated on October 1, 1986. The Task Force evaluated the
October 1986 ground-water sampling and analysis plan.
Although the 1986 plan updates and improves the original plan developed
in April 1985, it is still inadequate and does not completely comply with the
Del. Regs. Part 265.92. The plan does not adequately detail the procedures
followed for sample collection, shipment, analytical procedures or chain-of-
custody. For example, the plan did not specify the order in which samples
should be taken (most volatile to least volatile); adequately describe the
chain of custody program utilized in the field and the lab, or provide an
explanation of the routine collection and analysis of quality assurance/quality
control blanks.
Sampling and Analysis Procedures
DAFB personnel conducting the interim status sampling for the facility
did follow the sampling and analysis procedures submitted in the October 1986
plan. However, since the plan had some deficiencies, some procedures were also
deficient. Conductivity, pH and dissolved oxygen were measured in the onsite
laboratory in accordance with the sampling and analysis plan, however conduc-
tivity and pH measurements should have been taken in the field. Because of
this, the holding time for pH was exceeded. The plan does not include the
-------
collection of equipment, trip or field blanks or duplicate samples. Sampling
personnel did not collect any of these QC samples.
Preservation techniques specified in the plan were not correctly followed.
The plan requires preservation of phenols by cooling the sample to 4° C and
then adding sulfuric acid (H2S04) to the sample until a pH of 2 or less is
attained. In the onsite laboratory, samples to be analyzed for phenols were
preserved with H2S04 without first cooling. (Typical groundwater temperatures
measured in the field ranged from 6°.C to 16° C).
Task Force personnel inspected the USAF Occupational and Environmental
Health Laboratory (OEHL) at Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas, the
laboratory which conducts the analyses on ground-water samples for DAFB.
Several deficiencies were found at the OEHL. The laboratory does not digest
samples prior to analysis. Total metals for flame analysis should be digested
according to method 3010 of "Test Methods For Solid Waste", SW-846. All metals
data generated for the well monitoring should be considered highly questionable,
Additionally, pesticides were analyzed using a method which is an adaptation of
EPA methods without adequate documentation of equivalency. Further, for each
analysis, a specific frequency for spiked samples, duplicate samples and QC
checks was not established, documented or implemented.
Monitoring Well Network
Boring logs and well construction details for the ground-water monitoring
wells installed in 1982 (101,102,103) were inadequate and incomplete. Con-
struction procedures for ground-water monitoring wells installed in 1984
(Olj,02j,04j) were not in conformance with the interim status performance
standards (Del. Regs. Part 265). One well (02j) lacked a gravel pack.
-------
-9-
The length of the screened interval in monitoring wells Olj, 02j and 04j was
the entire thickness of the uppermost aquifer (ranging from 15.5 feet to 34
feet). Excessive screened length dilutes ground-water samples, making sampling
of discrete portions of the aquifer difficult and making the adequacy of the
monitoring system to detect contamination migration questionnable. The casing
material for these wells was polyvinylchloride (PVC). Construction records
indicated that the wells were grouted with portland cement, rather than a mix-
ture of bentonite and cement. Additionally, concrete aprons were not install-
ed around each well to prevent surface runoff from entering the well column.
From the information presently available, the wells appear to be adequately
areally distributed to detect releases from the regulated unit. However, as
previously stated, the excessive length of the screened interval makes the
adequacy of the monitoring system in detecting contamination questionable.
Based on studies conducted by DAFB consultants in June 1986, ground-water
flow direction is apparently influenced by a ground-water divide running the
length of Atlantic Avenue (Figure 2). Ground-water north of this divide appar-
ently flows to the northeast and ground-water south of the divide apparently
flows southeast. The existence of the divide has not extensively been proven
and ground-water elevations taken prior to October 1986 lacked the accuracy to
provide adequate ground-water contours.
Finally, it appears that the upgradient, background monitoring well (Olj)
is being impacted by mounding conditions caused by the regulated unit and is
therefore does not represent true background conditions at the facility.
Assessment Program Outline and Plan
The RCRA regulations (40 CFR Part 265.93) required submittal of an outline
for a ground-water quality assessment program by November 8, 1981. However, the
-------
>-10-
DNREC made the determination February 1984 that the surface impoundments were
subject to the RCRA regulations. Therefore, the regulations became effective
at this date.
During the Task Force inspection, no record of an outline for a ground^water
quality assessment program was found.
TASK FORCE SAMPLING AND MONITORING DATA EVALUATION
During the inspection, Task Force personnel collected samples from 18 ground-
water monitoring wells and an oil/water separator (Figure 2). Of the ground-water
monitoring wells sampled, 6 wells monitored 3 separate Solid Waste Management
Units (SWMUs), Units D-4, D-5, and D-10. All three SWMUs investigated were land-
fills used during the 1950's and 1960's. These SWMUs were chosen by the Task
Force due to historical information that suggested the possibility of releases
from each unit. The well samples were collected to determine whether the ground-
water contained hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. The oil/water
separator was sampled because it may have received and stored RCRA hazardous
wastes and is a potential contaminant source. Monitoring data from the Task
Force samples were evaluated with previous DAFB data.
Standard procedure for purging wells includes using an organic vapor ana-
lyzer (OVA) to sample air in the wellhead and the breathing zone to determine
whether organics are present. Three wells at unit D-4, we^lls 11, 12, and 13
showed elevated levels of organics in the wellhead (8-11 ppm, 20-50 ppm and
10-100 ppm, respectively). Background levels were detected in the breathing
zone. In addition, ground-water in well 13 contained a non-aqueous gasoline-like
phase approximately 0.2 inches thick. A sample of this phase was taken. During
the purging and sampling of this well, cartridge respirators were worn by sam-
pling personnel as a safety precaution.
-------
-11-
FIGURE 2
LEGEND
— — —— USAF Proptny Line
*"*" -— Drainage Channel
.——- Unimproved <*oad
•101-103 Monitoring Wells. Aug 1982
•Olj-OSj: 10-77 USAF Monitoring Wellt, Nov. 1984
I 7
I /
drJ *•
h
Appromimat* Sc*(« (Fe«tl
LOCATION OF WELLS SAMPLED BY THE TASK FORCE
-------
-12- -•
Task. Force and DAFB sampling data show the presence of high concentrations
(greater than 1000 micrograms per liter (ug/1)) of trichloroethylene, trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene, and 1,1,1-triehloroethane in two of the eighteen wells sampled
by the Task Force (01j and 103). Nine other wells (06j, 07j, 09j, 101, 102, 10,
11, 13, 21) also detected various organic compounds in the groundwater, but at
lower concentrations. Wells 01j, 101, 102 and 103 are located near the IW
basins. Wells 06j, 07j and 09j are located near unit D-10. Wells 10, 11, 13,
and 21 are located near units D-4 and D-5.
Data from the Task Force samples show low levels of Inorganic contaminants
in the ground-water. For example, the highest concentrations of chromium found
were 258 ug/1 (well 08j) and 187 ug/1"(well 02j).
Table 1 presents selected organic data for several monitoring wells. This
data shows that the supposed background well for the IW basins (01j) is not
yielding ground-water samples representative of background conditions.
TABLE 1
SELECTED ORGANIC DATA FROM TASK FORCE SAMPLES
IW Basins Unit D-4 Unit D-10
Parameter * Olj 103 l_\_ 07j
perchloroethylene 190 ND** 550 ND
trichloroethylene 2400 110 660 71
1, 1-di chl oroethane ND 160 ND 33
1,1-dichloroethylene ND 140 ND ND
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene ND 2300 260 17
1,1,1-tri eh] oroethane ND 2400 ND ND
* Concentrations in ug/1.
** ND - not detected.
-------
-14-
INVESTIGATION METHODS
The Task Force investigation of the DAFB facility comprised:
o Reviewing and evaluating records and documents from EPA Region III, DNREC,
and DAFB.
o Conducting an onsite facility inspection December 8 through December 12,
1986.
o Evaluating the offsite analytical laboratory.
o Sampling and analyzing data from ground-water monitoring wells and the
oil/water separator.
RECORDS/DOCUMENTS REVIEW
Records and documents from EPA Region III and the DNREC office were reviewed
prior to and during the onsite inspection to obtain informati.on on facility op-
erations, construction details of waste management units and the ground-water
monitoring program. Onsite facility records were reviewed to verify information
in Government files and supplement Government information where necessary. Se-
lected documents requiring further evaluation were copied by the Task Force du-
ring the inspection.
Specific documents and records that were reviewed included the ground-water
water sampling and analysis plan; analytical results from past ground-water
sampling; monitoring well construction data and logs; site geologic reports;
site operations plans; facility permits; waste management unit design and op-
eration reports; and operating records showing the general types, quantities,
and locations of process waste sources at the facility.
PART B PERMIT APPLICATION EVALUATION - GROUND-WATER MONITORING
The ground-water monitoring section of the Part B post-closure permit ap-
plication for the IW Basins dated August 25, 1986, has been reviewed for com-
pleteness. The review consists of a comparison of information requirements
-------
-15-
under 40 C.F.R. 270.14(c) and Del. Regs. 122.14(c).
For easy reference, information requirements are listed in the left hand
column of the chart by regulatory citation followed by an indication as to
whether the requirement has been met in the right hand column. Any further
explanation is provided below the response.
Information Request
Is Requirement Satisfied (yes/no)
270.14(c)(l)/Del. Regs. 122.14(c)(l)
A summary of the ground-wa.ter
monitoring data obtained during
the interim status period.
270.14(c)(2)/Del. Regs. 122.14(c)(2)
Identification of the uppermost
aquifer and aquifers hydrauli cally
interconnected beneath the facility
property including ground-water flow
direction and rate and the basis for
such identification.
270.14(c)(3)/Del. Regs. 122.14(c)(3)
On a topographic map... a delineation
of the waste management area, the
property boundary, the proposed point
of compliance, the proposed location
of ground-water monitoring wells and
to the extent possible, information
required under (c)(2).
270.14(c)(4)/Del. Regs. 122.14(c)(4)
A description of any plume of contami-
nation that has entered the ground-
water from a regulated unit at the
time the application was submitted
that:
(i) Delineates the extent of the
plume on the topographic map.
(ii) Identifies the concentration
of each Appendix III constituent
throughout the plume or identifies
the maximum concentration of each
Appendix VIII constituent in the
plume.
Not included in the application,
however, monitoring data is
available in the IRP stuidy reports,
No specific discussion included in
application; however, IRP studies
include hydrogeologic information.
No.
No.
No.
No.
-------
-16-
270.14(c)(5)/Del. Regs. 122.14(c)(5)
Detailed plans and engineering report
describing the proposed ground-water
monitoring program to be implemented
to meet the requirements of 264.97.
270.14(c)(6)/Del. Regs. 122.14(c)(6)
If the presence of hazardous
constituents has not been detected
in the ground-water at the time of
the permit application, the owner/
operator must submit sufficient
information, supporting data and
analysis to establish a detection
monitoring program.
270.14(c)(7)/Del. Regs. 122.14(c)(7)
If the presence of hazardous constituents
has been detected in the ground-water at
the point of compliance at the time of
the permit application, the owner/operator
must submit sufficient information, support-
ing data and analyses to establish a compliance
monitoring program which meets the requirements
of 264.99. The owner/operator must also
submit an engineering feasibility plan for a
corrective action program necessary to meet
the requirements of 264.100.
(i) A description of wastes previously
handled at the facility.
(ii) A characterization of the
contaminated ground-water,
including the concentration of
hazardous constituents.
(iii) A list of hazardous constituents
for which compliance monitoring
will be undertaken...
(iv) Proposed concentration limits for
each hazardous constituent.
(v) Detailed plans and engineering report
decribing the proposed ground-water
monitoring system.
(vi) A description of proposed sampling and
analysis and statistical comparison
procedures to be utilized in evaluating
ground-water monitoring data.
No specific plan submitted
with the permit application.
N/A - Hazardous constituents
have been detected in the
ground-water.
No.
None presented with
permit application.
No.
No
No,
No.
the
-------
-17-
None submitted with
the permit application,
however, the IRP contains
various study initiatives,
and remediation studies.
270.14(c)(8)/Del. Regs. 122.14(c)(8)
If hazardous constituents have been
measured in the ground-water which
exceed the concentration limits
under 264.94 Table 1 or if ground-water
at the time of permit application at
the waste management boundary indicates
the presence of hazardous constituents
fro the facility in ground-water over
background concentrations, the owner/
operator must submit sufficient
information, supporting data and
analyses to establish a corrective
action program which meets the require-
ments of 264.99
FACILITY INSPECTION
An onsite facility inspection was conducted to identify waste sources,
waste transport, waste management units (past and present), pollution control
practices, surface drainage routes and to verify the location of groundwater
monitoring, recovery, and other wells. Base representatives and contractors
provided information"on and explained: (1) facility operations (past and pre-
sent); (2) site hydrogeology; (3) the ground-water monitoring system, and; (4)
the ground-water sampling and analysis plan.
LABORATORY EVALUATION
The USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory (OEHL) at Brooks
Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas analyzes all ground-water samples for DAFB
and was evaluated regarding their ability to produce quality data for the re-
quired analysis. Analytical equipment and methods, quality assurance procedures
and records were examined for adequacy. Laboratory records were inspected for
completeness, accuracy and compliance with State and Federal, requirements. The
sample handling, analysis and document control procedures followed were discussed
with laboratory personnel.
-------
-18-
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The sampling portion of the investigation involved two activities:
(1) measuring water levels in the 18 monitoring wells to be studied and
(2) sampling the wells and one active oil/water separator. Water level
measurements were taken in an attempt to determine the direction of ground-
water flow, as well as calculations of purge volumes (Table 2).
The monitoring wells for the Solid Waste Management units (SWMU's)
investigated by the Task Force were constructed as follows: Unit D-4,
monitoring wells 10 through 13 in October 1984; Unit D-5, monitoring wells
21, 22 and 23, October 1984; Unit D-5, monitoring wells 05j through 09j in
November 1984. The wells were sampled to determine if and to what extent
the ground-water contains hazardous waste or constituents. The oil/water
separator was 'sampled to determine whether hazardous wastes were being
stored in this unit.
Splits of all samples including duplicate volatile organic samples
were provided to DAFB. EPA Region III did not request spHt samples.
Sample Collection Procedures
1. DAFB personnel unlocked the well head.
2. EPA contractor monitored open wellhead for chemical vapor,
using the Photovac Tip®, 'and radiation.
3. EPA contractor measured depth to ground water using an oil/water
sonic Interface Probe® (Oil Recovery Systems, 100 feet model).
4. EPA contractor lowered the Interface Probe through the water
column until total depth was reached.
5. EPA contractor retrieved the Interface Probe from the well bore
and decontaminated the cable and probe using procedures outlined
in Table 3.
-------
-19-
Table 2
December 1986 Task Force
Measurements (feet)
Site
Number
Tl
Tl
Tl
Tl
Tl
Tl
D4
D4
DA
D4
D5
D5
D5
D10
D10
D10
D10
D10
Well
Number
04j
oij
101
02j
102
103
10
11
12
13
21
22
23
05j
06j
07j
08j
09j
Surveyed Elevations (ft)
Top of Well Casing 1
25.40
21.39
25.01
27.56
24.51
24.62
22.38
21.76
21.81
22.97
18.03
20.19
21.39
20.07
17.40
12.57
14.20
16.35
Total Well
Depth (ft)
47.06
40.10
18.97
35.04
18.93
18.94
57.98
57.05
57.15
64.90
62.05
62.06
58.10
60.64
55.12
54.02
53.09
54.23
Depth to
Water 2
15.48
11.97
14.24
17.60
13.90
13.95
13.92
13.42
13.40
14.44
11.80
11.80
12.93
13.85
12.78
8.36
10.39
11.72
Elevation of
Water (MSL)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7.55
*
*
5.64
8
8
5.80
*
3.68
*
3.92
1
2
* _
All measurements are reported from the top of outer casing
All measurements are reported from the top of inner casing
Elevation of water referenced to mean sea level (MSL) not possible
since difference between inner and outer casing elevation not
measured.
-------
-20-
TABLE 3
Decontamination Procedures
Equipment* Decontamination Method
Interface probe Cleaned after each use with
a pesticide grade hexane wipe,
followed by a rinse with distilled
water and wiped dry.
* Teflon bailers were pre-cleaned before the inspections; none were reused
during the inspection, therefore, none had to be decontaminated. Photavac Tip
and Interface Probe are registered trademarks and will appear hereafter without®.
6. Task Force personnel calculated water-column volume using height of
water column and well casing radius.
7. When the Task Force was ready to sample the well, the EPA contractor
purged three water-column volumes using Teflon bailers. Table A indi-
cates the method of purging each well. Purge water was discharged
directly into the oil/water separator and a pump station near the oil/
water separator.** This pump station discharges water to the the fa-
cility's wastewater treatment plant. (NOTE: Sampling of the oil/water
separator described below took place prior to discharge of the purge
water into the oil/water separator).
8. EPA contractor collected an equipment blank for DAFB. Equipment
blanks were collected only for monitoring well samples.
9. EPA contractor collected a sample aliquot and made field measurements
for pH, turbidity and conductivity.
10. EPA contractor filled sample containers using both the methods and
order specified in Tables 4 and 5. Split samples were collected by
filling one-third of each bottle for the Task Force and facility
bottles, respectively. This process was repeated until each bottle
was filled. (The oil/water separator was sampled by immersing the
sample bottles below the water and allowing the bottles to fill to
the required level).
11. Samples were placed on ice in an insulated cooler.
12. EPA contract personnel took the sample to a staging area where total-
metals, TOG, phenols, cyanide and nitrate/ammonia samples were preserved
(Table 5).
-------
-21-
When the oil/water separator was sampled, steps 9,10,11. and 12 were fol-
lowed in their respective order. A 600 ml beaker was used to collect 5-500 ml
samples at each of the locations specified in Figure 4. The 40 total samples
were composited and samples to be-analyzed were collected from this 20 liter
composi te.
** Permission was granted by DAFB for the disposal of purge water in this
manner. This was also approved by the DNREC and the Task Force.
-------
-22-
FJgure 3
APPROXIMATE SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR THE COMPOSITE
SAMPLES TAKEN AT THE OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
122'
Q>
15'
!.5'
0
e
24'
e - Scimple location
-------
23
101
102
103
-23-
Table 4
Purging and Sampling Data
Purging
Unit Date
Sampling
Purge
Time
T-l 12/08/86 1525-1610
D-5 12/08/86 1300-1350
T-l 12/10/86 0845-0910
D-5 12/09/86 0920-1000
Volume Method/
(Gal.) Remarks
15 Well recovered
as soon as i t
was purged .
25
14
26 Well recovered
Date
12/08/86
12/08/86
12/10/86
12/09/86
Method/
Time Remarks
1610-1640
1355-1616
0917-0940
1005-1056
NA
NA
NA
NA
D-5 12/09/86 1250-1329 22
as soon as i t
was purged. Rust
colored water.
Well recovered
as soon as it
was purged .
12/09/86 1250-1329
NA
10
T-l
T-l
D-10
T-l
D-10
T-l
D-10
D-10
D-4
12/09/86
12/09/86
12/09/86
12/09/86
12/10/86
12/10/86
12/10/86
12/10/86
12/10/86
1432-1445
0840-0900
1558-1627
1325-1335
1355-1425
1000-1005
1100-1130
0930-1000
1355-1430
2.5
8.5
21
2.5
22.5
3
22
24
22
12/09/86
12/09/86 .
12/09/86
12/09/86
12/09/86
Well recovered 12/10/86
as soon as i t
was purged .
Well cap missing.
Well recovered 12/10/86
as soon as it
was purged.
12/10/86
12/10/86
1505-1530
0912-0943
1630-1656
1338-1405
1435-1450
1010-1055
1140-1200
1010-1030
1443-1500
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Duplicate
sample
collected
Field bla
prepared .
Matrix
spike
NA
NA
-------
-24-
Table 4 (continued)
Well
Number
12
Purging
Unit
D-4
Date
Time
12/10/86 NA
Purge
Volume
(Gal.)
21
09j
D-10
12/10/86 1545-1610 20.5
13 D-4
12/11/86 1125-1200 24
11 D-4
12/11/86 0845-0915
Oil/water
Separator
NA
NA
NA
Sampling
Method/
Remarks
Ova detected
organics at
20-50 ppm in
wellhead casing;
background levels
in breathing zone.
Well recovered
soon as purged.
Rust colored
water.
Date
Time
12/10/86 1615-1645
Ova detected
organics 10-100ppm
in wellhead casing.
Non-aqueous phase
approximately 0.2
inches thick on top
of water. Oily sheen
on water throughout
purge.
12/11/86 1230-1255
21.5 Ova detected
organics 8-llppm
in wellhead casing.
Background levels
in breathing zone.
12/11/86 0925-1009
NA
12/08/86 1422-?
Method/
Remarks
12/10/86 1605-1630 NA
NA
Cartridge
respirators
worn during
sampling as
a precautic
Sample of
immiscible
layer taken
NA
Compos!te
sample
taken. 8
locations,
5 samples
500 ml per
location
-------
-25-
Ta.ble 5
ORDER OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
BOTTLE TYPE AND PRESERVATIVE LIST
Parameter
Volatile organic analysis (VOA)
Purge and trap
Purgeable organic carbon (POC)
Purgeable organic halogens (POX)
Extractable organics
Pesticide/Herbicide
Di oxin
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total organic halogens (TOX)
Phenols
Cyanide
Ammonia
Sulf ate/chloride/ni trate
Bottle
2
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
40-ml
40- ml
40-ml
1-qt.
1-qt.
1-qt.
1-qt.
1-qt.
4-oz.
1-qt.
1-qt.
1-qt.
1-qt.
1-qt.
Preservative
VOA vials
VOA vials
VOA vials
amber glass
amber glass
amber glass
plastic HN03
plastic HN03
glass H2S04
amber glass
amber glass CuSO^ + E-^PO^
plastic NaOH
plastic H2S04
plastic
*A11 samples were stored on ice after collection and during transport to the
analytical laboratories.
-------
-26-
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Task Force personnel obtained information on past and present industrial
and waste treatment operations to identify potential sources of hazardous waste
releases. The information is identified in this section.
DAFB ORGANIZATION AND MISSION
DAFB is the home of the 436th Military Aircraft Wing equipped with C-5
Galaxies which provide strategic airlift capability. The primary mission of
the Wing is to provide immediate airlift of troops, cargo and military equip-
ment and to participate in airland or airdrop operations.
In December 1941, activities began at Dover Army Airfield and continued
until the airfield was deactivated in September 1946. During this period, the
Base supported patrol and training operations and served <3S a site for the de-
velopment of air-launched rockets. From 1946 to July 1950, the Air National
Guard conducted training exercises at the airfield. In July 1950, the DAFB was
activated and in 1952, the Base mission was changed from air and land defense
to cargo operations.
HAZARDOUS WASTE ACTIVITIES
Hazardous wastes resulting from aircraft maintenance and operation have
been generated, stored and disposed of onsite since 1941. Wastes include fuels,
oils, solvents, paints and paint thinners and are generated from general mainte-
nance, paint stripping, painting and engine parts cleaning and degreasing.
Industrial wastewaters are also generated by engine shops, aircraft wash racks
and engine plating shops.
Prior to 1963, waste oils, fuels, solvents, and paint were disposed of in
-------
-27-
in landfills and pits located onsite or taken to fire training areas and burned
during the fire training exercises. Wastewaters were generated primarily by the
engine build-up shop, aircraft wash racks, and plating shops. Wastewaters con-
tained paint and rust removers, methylene chloride, caustic soda, muriatic acid,
sodium cyanide and nitric acid, and were discharged to a storm drainage ditch,
the North Ditch (Unit DD-1, Figure 4), that drained to a tributary of the
Little River.
In 1963, a spill containment system was constructed to capture spilled
solvents, paints, and other Wastewaters generated primarily by the engine build-
up shop. This system included two (2) concrete lined oil/water separators, two
(2) unlined, earthen Industrial Wastewater (IW) basins approximately 0.5 acres
in size, and a 15,000 gallon underground storage tank. Wastewaters passed
through the oil/water separator, with floatable oil, and solvents removed for
storage in the underground tank and then to the earthen IW basins prior to dis-
charge to the North Ditch. Other industrial wastewaters, however, were still
discharged directly to the North Ditch. In 1968, the IW basins began accepting
plating shop wastewaters.
Discharge from the IW basins to the North Ditch was terminated in 1969.
From 1969 to 1975, effluent from the IW basins was routed to an onsite waste-
water treatment facility. From 1975 to the present, effluent from the IW basins
has been discharged to the Kent County Regional Wastewater Treatment System.
In July 1985, waste discharge was rerouted and the IW basins were bypassed.
Closure of these units was completed in August 1986 under a State of Delaware
approved closure plan (plan approved March 29, 1985). The approved closure plan
-------
-28-
called for Che removal of all free liquids and sludge from the IW basins and
excavation of underlying soil to a depth of six (6) inches. On August 25, 1986,
the DAFB submitted to the State a Part B RCRA permit application for post closure
care of the IW basins. This application is currently under State review.
-------
-29-
FIGURE 4
NORTH DRAINAGE DITCH (UNIT DD-1)
r
LEGEND
___ USAF Property Lin«
_ " _ Drainage Channel
Con«m«ww»
Ph..« II Sit.
-------
-30-
** ~
Studies conducted by EPA's FIT contractor in August 1982 indicated contami-
nation of ground-water and soil onsite. Subsequently, in October 1982, Roy F.
Weston Designers and Engineers were tasked by DAFB to investigate ground-water
contamination at the IW basins. Under this investigation, three ground-water
monitoring wells (101,102,103) were installed. Samples taken from these wells
showed elevated levels of several volatile organic carbons (VOCs) including
1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene.
As a result of these findings, the DAFB began a Base wide investigation
under the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The IRP is the framework
whereby Department of Defense (DOD) facilities conduct CERCLA-mandated activites,
The IRP was designed to identify and evaluate hazardous waste disposal sites at
DOD facilities, to control the migration of hazardous substances and to limit
the hazards to human health and the environment. The IRP consists of four
phases: Phase I, Initial Assessment/Records Search; Phase II, Confirmation/
Quantification; Phase III, Technology Base Development; Phase IV, Operations/
Remedial Actions. Phase I was completed in October 1983 and included record
searches, personnel interviews, and site inspections. Phase II, Stage 1 of the
IRP was completed in June 1986. This phase included further site study and
sampling. Results of sampling and analysis showed elevated levels of VOCs and
metals in the ground-water. Further study is being undertaken under Phase II,
Stage 2 and Phase IV, including hydrogeologi c studies.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS (SWMUs)
DAFB identified fifty-five (55) solid waste management units (SWMUs) and
eight (8) areas onsite which were not necessarily SWMUs, but from which
releases had occurred, in a September 1986 Phase II IRP study (Figures 5-9).
-------
These units are listed below.
-31-
Unit Name/Number
DAFB Classification
1).
2).
3).
4-15).
16).
17).
18).
19).
20).
21).
22).
23).
24).
25).
26).
27).
28).
29).
30).
31).
32).
33).
34).
35).
36).
37).
Fire Training Area No. 1
Fire Training Area No. 2
Fire Training Area No. 3
Landfills No. 1-12
IW Basi ns
Hospital Incinerator
Fleet Services Incinerator
Old Waste Treatment Plant
Hazardous Waste Storage Yard
Underground Waste Liquid Storage Tank
Whiskey Tank
Entomology Shop (Building 921)
Heavy Maintenance Waste Oil Tank
Auto Hobby Shop Waste Oil Tank
North Ditch
Sludge Spreading Area
Acid Neutralization (Building 711)
Acid Neutralization (Building 615)
Acid Neutralization (Building 635)
Drum Accumulation (Building 719)
Drum Accumulation (Building 721)
•Drum Accumulation (Building 615)
Defense Reutilizati on Materials Office
Base Gas Station Waste Oil Tank
(Building 517)
Collection Pit for Wash Racks
(Building 583)
Industrial Waste Collection System Drain
a. Open Wash Rack
b. Corrosion Control Wash Rack
FT-1
FT -2
FT-3
D-l to D-12
T-l
T-2
T-3
T-4
S-l
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
DD-1
DRMO
Facility 66223
(Building 582)
c. Aircraft Wash Rack
(Building 706)
d. Engine Shop (Building 725)
e. Engine Shop (Building 719)
f. Paint and Fiberglas Shop
(Building 721)
g. Aircraft Maintenance Shop
(Building 724)
h. Battery Shop (Building 635)
i. Refueling Vehicle Maintenance
(Building 636)
j. Lift Stations (Buildings 583,719,724,635)
-------
-32-
FIGURE 5
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
syv.
DOVER AFB
TREATMENT
FACILITIES
HOSPITAL INCINERATOR
\
SOURCE: DOVER AFB IHSTAILATIOM DOCUMENTS
-------
11 ****^~}
-------
-34-
FIGURE 7
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
^HAZARDOUS WASTE
STORAGE YARD
BLDQ. 1306
BLDG. 1305
X
AUTO HOBBY TANK'
8-3 V
! WHISKEY
JP-4 TANK
DOVER AFB
STORAGE SITES
ENTOMOLOGY
SHOP ^
/
SOURCE: DOVER AFB INSTALLATION DOCUMENTS
-------
-35-
FIGURE 8
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
SD-1
SLUDGE DISPOSAL AREA
V' N/\^
/ X. ""V ,D-4
X ;'^N. LIQUID WASTED ~
N (7 XX DISPOSAL SITE _J f
X./^X ^xx /^ fr^fjh ^
)-5 /// \
-.SANITARY LANDFILL
DOVER AFB
DISPOSAL SITES
D-7
LANDFILL
D-8
DISPOSAL SITE
D-12
CONSTRUCTION RUBBLE DUMP
" SANITARY LANDFILL
«>
,„..«,.
N\ \ 0-10
SANITARY LANDFILL
SANITARY LANDFILL
SOURCE: DOVER AFB INSTALLATION DOCUMENTS
-------
-36-
FIGURE 9
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
'~~~
JP-4 PIPELINE LEAK
METERING PIT SPILL
SP-3v.
PIPELINE LEAK*
SP-5 & 8P-8 \
JP-4 TANK SPILLS
DOVER AFB
SPILL SITES
TANK OVERFLOW
•ounce: DOVER Art INSTALLATION DOCUMENTS
-------
-37-
38-55) Oil/Water Separators
38). Building 583 Collection Pit for Wash Racks
39). Building 635 Battery Shop
40). Building 636 Regueling Vehicle Maintenance
41). Building 725 Jet Engine Inspection
42). Primary Separators at IW Basins (could be a regulated unit)
43). Building 613 Jet Engine Test Cell
44). Building 711 Battery Shop
45). Building 945 C-5 Fuel Cell Dock
46). Building 715 Nose Dock
47). Building 794 High Reach Truck Storage, etc.
48). North Storage Tank Farm (4 Separators)
49). South Storage Tank Farm (3 Separators)
50). Fuel Oil Storage Tank Farm (4 Separators)
51). Building 124 Auto Hobby Shop
52). FT-3
53). Building 914 Storage of pesticides, fertililizers,
salts, snow removal equipment
54). Whiskey Tank
55). Building 918
Other Releases:
1). JP-4 tank valve spill SP-1
2). Diesel fuel tank spill SP-2
3). JP-4 pipeline leak SP-3
4). JP-4 pipeline leak SP-4
5). JP-4 spills (North Storage Tank Form) SP-5,6,8
6). Metering Pit spill
7). XYZ Site fuel spill SP-7
8). Motor Pool Gas Station spill XYZ
(Building 637) SP-9
Below is a more complete description of these units. All conclusions
presented in these descriptions were those reached by the DAFB as a result of
the IRP studies.
1. Fire Training Area No.l (FT-1)
This unit covered an area of approximately 50 feet by 900 feet located on
the golf course, east of the drainage ditch which bisects the course NE-SW.
Operations at the site began in 1951 and consisted of spreading at least 1000
gallons of waste fuels and liquids on a water saturated area, igniting the
material, and using protein foams to extinguish the flames as a training
-------
-38-
exercise. Exercises were reportedly conducted twice a week through the area's
period of operation, at several areas within the 50 foot by 900 foot area (exact
location undertermined). These operations terminated in either 1959 or 1962.
FT-1 was addressed in the IRP Phase II, Stage 1 study and conclusions stated
that the unit has not affected environmental quality, however ground-water
samples showed anomalous TOC and TOX valves.
2. Fire Training Area No.2 (FT-2)
This unit was small pit (60 feet by 40 feet) near Building 702. The IRP
Phase II Stage 1 report stated that fire training activities probably did not
take place at this location. This conclusion was based on interviews conducted
with DAFB personnel prior to the start of IRP field activities. The site was,
therefore, excluded from an IRP monitoring program.
3. Fire Training Area No. (FT-3)
This unit is located in the northeast section of the DAFB, east of the
N/S runway and west of Sites D-A and D-5. It has served as the Base fire
training area since 1962. The original site was located slightly northeast of
the existing site and has been described as a pit used to dispose of oils,
paints, and other liquid industrial wastes. In the 1960's and early 1970's
training exercise using at least 1000 gallons of contaminated waste oi] and
fuel were conducted at the site twice per week. Drums of waste oil and fuel
were reportedly delivered to the site and stored until used. Current training
exercises at the existing area are conducted four times per year and use approxi-
mately 200 to 700 gallons of JP-4 jet fuel. Unconsumed fuel, foam and water
are drained to an oil/water separator. It is a DAFB conclusion, based on IRP
studies, that FT-3 may have caused an increase in TOC levels in the ground-water.
-------
-39-
4. Landfill No. 1 (D-l)
This unit was a three acre fill approximately 6 feet deep used during the
early 1950's through the late 1960's, and now overlain by several feet of soil
and grass cover. D-l was located in the eastern portion of the Base. It is
DAFB's opinion that there has not been any evidence of a release from this unit
to date.
5. Landfill No.2 (D-2)
This unit is a 3 to A acre fill approximately 8 feet deep, used since the
early 1960's, located near the eastern boundary of the Base. The landfill is
currently used for the disposal of construction debris and rubble. The eastern
edge of unit is a level area which consists of concrete and debris. It is DAFB's
opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from this unit to date.
6. Landfill No.3 (D-3)
This unit was a trench approximately 35 feet wide, 100 foot long and 6
feet deep. It is located in the eastern portion of the facility, southeast of
unit D-2 and is now covered with grass. The unit was reportedly used for only
about 6 weeks during the 1960's. It is DAFB's opinion that there has not been
any evidence of a release from this unit to date.
7. Landfill No.4 (D-4)
This unit was a liquid waste disposal site operated in the late 1950's in
the northeast portion of the base, east of unit FT-3. The landfill was a single
trench, approximately 15 feet wide, 100 feet long and 10 feet deep. The IRP
Phase II, Stage 1 study stated that the entire area of sites D-4, D-5. and' SD-1
demonstrated evidence of waste disposal activity (disturbed ground, subsidence,
dead vegetation). Releases to have been detected by the IRP by elevated levels
of VOC and oil and grease in the ground^water.
-------
-40-
8. Landfill No. 5 (D-5)
This unit was an area fill operated during the 1960's of reportedly less
than 0.5 acres and 8 feet deep, located east of unit D-5. Releases to the
ground-water may have occurred from this unit or nearby D-A. Elevated levels of
VOC's and metals have been detected in the ground-water according to the IRP.
9. Landfill No. 6 (D-6)
This unit was reportedly a 1 acre trench fill approximately 6 feet deep,
operated during the 1960's located in the southern portion of the facility,
along the eastern boundary. It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence
of a release from this unit a date.
10. Landfill No.7 (D-7)
This unit is a 7 acre trench fill operated during the 1960's excavated to
a depth of approximately 32 feet. It is located in the southern portion of the
of the facility, along the eastern boundary. It is DAFB's opinion that there has
been no evidence of a release from this unit to date.
11. Landfill No.8(D-8)
This unit was a trench fill 35 feet by 300 feet and 10 feet deep operated
in the early 1970's and located in the northwest portion of the facility. It
is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from this unit
to date.
12. Landfill No.9 (D-9)
This unit was a 7 to 8 acre area fill operated during the early 1950's
excavated to a depth of approximately 8 feet. It is located along the western
portion of the golf course along the drainage ditch. It is DAFB's opinion that
there has been no evidence of a release from this unit to date.
-------
-41-
13. Landfill No. 10 (D-10)
This unit included four trench fills that occupied a total area of 3 acres
(40 feet by 600 feet each), excavated to a depth of approximately 15 feet. The
landfill is located on the eastern edge of the golf course and was operated
during the 1950's. Releases to the ground-water have been detected, primarily
trichloroethylene, TOC, TOX, and metals.
14. Landfill No. 11 (D-ll)
This unit was a 2 acre area fill, excavated to a depth of approximately 8
feet. It was located in the western portion of the facility, near base housing
and -just outside the 100 year flood limit. It is DAFB's opinion that there has
been no evidence of a release from this unit to date.
15. Landfill No. 12 (D-12)
This unit was reportedly a 4 acre area fill used in the 1960's located in
the southern portion of the facility. It is DAFB's opinion that there has been
no evidence of a release from this unit to date.
16. IW Basins (T-l)
This unit covers approximately 19,200 square feet and historically received
waste liquids (after passage through an oil/water separator) from the Industrial
Waste Collection System. The unit began operation in 1963 and was closed under
a RCRA closure plan in 1986. Releases to groundwater have been detected.
17. Hospital Incinerator (T-2)
This unit is an oil-fired incinerator used for burning of pathogenic wastes
and hospital trash. It is located in the central portion of the facility. The
incinerator began operation in 1921, was replaced in 1983 and is presently active
It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from this unit
to date.
-------
-42-
18. Fleet Services Incinerator (T-3)
This unit is an oil-fired incinerator, located in the center of the facility.
This unit became active in 1972, and remains active. It-is DAFB's opinion that
there has been no evidence of a release from this unit to date.
19. Old Waste Treatment Plant (T-4)
This unit was a plant operational from 1943 to 1975, used for treatment of
sanitary wastes and a located along the southwest boundary of the facility. It
is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from this unit
to date.
20. Hazardous/Waste Storage Yard (S-l)
This active unit is located at Building 1305 and 1306 in the southeastern
section of the base and consists of the two buildings separated by an outdoor
storage/yard. Releases, primarily VOC's and metals, have been detected the
ground-water.
21 . Underground Waste Liquid Storage Tank (S-2)
This unit was a 15,000 gallon underground waste liquid storage tank which,
prior to its removal in 1986, received the oils from the IW basins oil/water
separator. When full, the liquids were removed from the tank by a contractor.
The unit has been replaced by an above-ground tank adjacent to the old unit.
It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from this
unit to date.
22. Whiskey Tank (S-3)
This active unit is an underground storage tank located in the northwestern
portion of the facility. The tank holds oils collected by an oil/water separator.
It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from this unit.
-------
-43-
23. Entomology Shop, Building 921 (S-4)
The active unit is a building used for storage of pesticides. Empty drums
are also cleaned in this building. It is located at the western boundary of the
base. It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from
this unit.
24. Heavy Maintenance Waste Oil Tank, Building 780/781 (S-5)
This active unit is an 1000 gallon underground waste oil tank for small
quantities of waste oil generated by heavy maintenance in Building 780 and 781.
It is located between the two buildings. The oil is disposed of by contractor.
It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from this
unit to date.
25. Auto Hobby Shop Waste Oil Tank, Building 124 (S-6)
This active unit is an underground waste oil storage tank outside of the
Auto Hobby Shop. The oil is disposed of by a contractor. It is DAFB's opinion
that there has been no evidence of a release from this unit to date.
26. North Drainage Ditch (DD-1)
This unit was located in the northern portion of the base and extends for
approximately 3000 feet. The ditch was approximately 40 feet wide and 15 feet
deep. Weeds, tall grasses, and small trees grow along the bottom of the ditch.
The unit was operational during the 1950's and 1960's and ceased use in 1969.
There is a high potential for a release from this unit due to the nature of
«
activities conducted.
27. Sludge Spreading Area (SD-1)
A rectangular area, located in the northeast portion of the base, where
-------
-44-
sludge from the Old Waste Treatment Plant (unit T-4) was land applied. The
area was operated from 1943-1975. It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no
evidence of a release, but the unit has a high release potential due to activi-
ties conducted.
28. Acid Neutralization, Building 711
This active unit is a battery shop in which batteries are recharged. For
old batteries, the acid is neutralized and sent to the sanitary sewage system
the battery is discarded. It is DAFB's opinion that there has not been any
evidence of a release from this unit to date.
29. Acid Neutralization, Building 615
This active unit is a battery shop in which batteries are recharged. For
old batteries, the acid is neutralized and sent to the sanitary sewage system
and the battery is discarded. It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no
evidence of a release from this unit to date.
30. Acid Neutralization, Building 635
This active unit is a battery shop in which batteries are recharged. For
old batteries, the acid is neutralized and sent to the sanitary sewage system
and the battery is discarded. It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no
evidence of a release from this unit to date.
31. Drum Accumulation, Building 719
This unit is a drum accumulation site for waste liquids generated in
Building 719. Th drums are labeled for proper usage and, when full, removed to
the Defense Reutilization Materials Office (DRMO). It is DAFB's opinion that
there has been no evidence of a release from this unit to date.
-------
-45-
32. Drum Accumulation, Building 721
This active unit is a drum accumlation site for methylethyl ketone, toluene
and PD-680 product used in Building 721. Spent fluids are also located in the
same area for accumulation prior to removal to DRMO. It is DAFB's opinion that
there has been no evidence of a release from this unit to date.
33. Drum Accumulation, Building 615
This active unit is a drum accumulation site for waste oils generated in
the Power Production Shop (Building 615) prior to their removal to DRMO. It
is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from this unit
to date.
34. Defense Reutilization Materials Office (DRMO)
This active unit is a collection point for waste liquid drums and any
saleable refuse. It is located near the center of the base. It is DAFB's
opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from this unit to date.
35. Base Gas Station Waste Oil Tank, Building 517
This active unit is a small above-ground waste oil storage tank locatd at
the Base Gas Station. It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence of
a release from this unit to date.
36. Collection Pit for Wash Racks, Building 583
This active unit is a building containing an oil/water separator which
receives drainage from the aircraft wash racks. It includes a screen to retain
paint chips which the influent passes through prior to treatment in to treatment
in the oil/water separator. The paint chips are drummed in the building. When
the drums are full, they are removed to the DRMO. The building is located in
-------
-46-
the central portion of the facility* near the wash racks. It is DAFB's opinion
that there has been no evidence of a release from this unit to date.
37. Industrial Waste Collection System Drain
This active unit, in operation since 1963, is a concrete drain system
which collects industrial waste runoff from operations in many of the industrial
shops. (The oil/water separators which are a part of the system are discussed
separately). The system leads eventually to the IW Basins oil/water separator.
Components of the system are listed as follows:
a). Open Wash Racks (Facility 66223)
b). Corrosion Control Wash Rack (Building 582)
c). Aircraft Wash Rack (Building 706)
d). Engine Shop (Building 725)
e). Engine Shop (Building 719)
f). Paint and Fiberglass Shop (Building 721)
g). Battery Shop (Building 635).
h). Refueling Vehicle Maintenance (Building 636).
i). Lift Stations (Building 583, 719, 724, 635).
It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from
these units to date.
38-55 Oil/Water Separators
These active units are oil/water separators which drain to one of three
drainage systems: industrial waste collecltion, storm drainage, or sanitary
sewage. Due to their similarity, they will be listed together. Date in paren-
thesis are dates units began operations. Their locations are listed as follows:
38. Building 583, Collection Pit for Wash Racks (1959)
39. Building 635, Battery Shop (1956)
40. Building 636, Refueling Vehicle Maintenance (1964)
41. Building 725, Jet Engine Inspection (1971)
42. Primary Separators at IW Basins (1963)
43. Building 613, Jet Engine Test Cell (1971)
44. Building 711, Battery Shop (2971)
45. Building 945, C-5 Fuel Cell Dock (1970)
46. Building 715, Nose Dock (1975)
-------
-47-
47. Building 794, High Reach Truck Storage, etc (1975)
48. North Storage Tank Farm (4 Separators) (1956,1957,1960,1960)
49. South Storage Tank Farm (3 Separators) (1953,1955,1955).
50. Fuel Oil Storage Tank Farm (4 Separators) (1955,1955,1955,1975).
51. Building 124, Auto Hobby Shop (1962)
52. FT-3 (1978)
53. Building 914, Storage of Pesticides, Fertilizers. Salts, Snow Removal
Equipment (1959).
54. Whiskey Tank (approximately 6-10 years old)
55. Building 918 (1959)
It is DAFB's opinion that there has been no evidence of a release from
any of these units to date.
Other Releases
1. JP-4 Tank Valve Failure (SP-1)
On October 21, 1982, approximately 3,800 gallon of JP-4 jet fuel was
spilled. JP-4 flowed into a drainage ditch. JP-4 was pumped out of the ditch
and the ditch and ramp were cleaned up with absorbent pads. These pads were
drummed and disposed.
2. Diesel Fuel Tank Spill (SP-2)
On January 11, 1980, between 350 and 400 gallons of diesel fuels spilled
from an outside tank near Building 615. A valve split allowing fuel to leak
onto the ground and flow into a drainage ditch. The oil was contained and
pumped out of the ditch. The ditch was then cleaned with absorbent pads.
3. JP-4 Pipeline Leak (SP-3)
In 1978, a leak was found in the JP-4 fuel pipeline near facility 534.
An unknown amount of JP-4 leaked into the surrounding soil. The line was
repaired and the spilled JP-4 was contained and removed using absorbent pads.
4. JP-4 Pipeline Leak (SP-4)
In 1975, near Building 1310, a leak in a JP-4 fuel pipeline was found.
-------
-48-
Th e duration and amount of the leakage was unkown. The leak was repaired;
however, the extent of cleanup practices is not known. The site was monitored
as a part of the IRP Phase II Stage 1 study. Three well points around the area
were sampled for TOC and oil and grease (pol,po2,po3). Oil and grease levels
were below background in the three samples; TOC levels detected in well points
p02 (4.9 ppm) and po3 (32 ppm) exceeded background for the Columbia aquifer
(3.2 ppm).
5. JP-4 Tank Spills (SP-5, SP-6, SP-8)
In 1975, a valve failed on JP-4 fuel tank 733 (North Storage Tank Farm).
The quantity of fuel spilled was not known; however, the soil was contained by
the bermed area surrounding the tank. The fuel was pumped out of the bermed
area and reclaimed by filtration.
In 1970, Tank 733 was overfilled with JP-4 jet fuel. Approximately 30,000
gallons spilled into the bermed area. The fuel was recovered and reclaimed.
In 1979, an 18,000 gallon spill occurred at Tank 733. The JP-4 fuel was
confined by the bermed area and was recovered.
6. Metering Pit Spill (SP-7)
In March of 1978, approximately 700 gallons of JP-4 fuel pumped from a
metering pit near Building 534. The fuel was accidentally pumped over a paved
area. The fuel was cleaned up with absorbents.
7. XYZ Site Fuel Spill (SP-8)
DAFB personnel reported that rainwater in manholes in the area of Build-
ing 950 contained what appeared to be a layer of fuel. Ground-water samples
-------
-49-
were collected in 1986 from four well points and two sediment samples were
collected from two manholes. It was determined that the ground-water and sedi
ments contained levels of oil and grease and TOC above background levels.
8. Motor Pool Gas Station Spill (SP-9)
In October 1984, a fuel leak at the DAFB motor pool was discovered. The
leak was repaired. Ground-water samples from several DNREC wells located
downgradient of the spill showed elevated levels of TOC.
-------
v •;. -50-
SITE GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY
TOPOGRAPHY/SURFACE DRAINAGE
The Dover Air Force Base (DAFB) is located on a broad level plain approxi-
mately 1 mile west of the Delaware Bay and 3.5 miles southeast of the city of
Dover, Kent County, Delaware. The base is situated within the Atlantic Coastal
Plain Physiographic Province known regionally as the Delraarva Peninsula distin-
guished by broad sandy plains of low relief dissected by meandering streams and
rivers. Surface elevations vary from approximately + 10 feet MSL along the
Saint Jones River southeast of the base to about +30 feet MSL along the bases
western border (Figure 10).
The higher elevations along the southeast-northwest trending runway parallel
what is considered a drainage divide. Surface waters flow away from the divide
to the northeast and southwest. Storm water and nonprocess waters are discharged
to several surface water diversion ditches (Figure 11) North of the divide, sur-
face waters flow northeast through Pipe Elm Branch and Morgan Branch to the
Little River and south of the divide, to the Saint Jones River. Both the Little
and Saint Jones Rivers discharge in the Delaware Bay.
SITE GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY
Published reports from a number of sources including the Delaware Geologic
Survey and United States Geologic Survey are readily available which address
geologic/hydrogeologic conditions particular to the Atlantic Coastal Plain in
Delaware. With respect to the base, however, hydrogeologic information is some-
what limited. Specific information has been developed by various DAFB consultants
as part of the Installation Restoration Program (IRP).
-------
-------
-52-
FIGURE
INSTALLATION DRAINAGE
r
LEGEND
USAF Property Lin«
Drainage Direction
J
To Moroan Branch
/s
To PIP«
El.n Branch
-------
-53-
The information to follow was derived primarily from the Phase I and II
IRP reports, selected references and discussions with Base personnel unless
otherwise indicated.
DAFB is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Province. The coastal
plain is described as a wide expanse of sedimentary deposits consisting
of sand, gravel, clay, shale, limestone, chalk and marl dipping to the
southeast. The western boundry of the province is termed the Fall Line
which denotes the contact between areas underlain by crystalline rocks
(Piedmont Province) and unconsolidated deposits. Crystalline rocks are
at or near the surface at the Fall Line but are found at increasing depths
progressing in a south easterly direction. Successively younger formations
outcrop closer to the coast due to the slight southeasterly dip
(Figure 12).
The underlying geology exhibits a layer cake stratigraphic sequence
common to the Coastal Plain. The base is underlain by alternating
deposits of Pleistocene and Miocene sands and clays of the Columbia and
Chesapeake groups, respectively. The sands serve as aquifers and the clays
confining units. The generalized stratigraphic sequence from the surface
downward includes the Columbia Formation (Pleistocene), the Kirkwood (Miocene)
Formation followed by the Frederica, Cheswold and Piney Point aquifers (with
intervening confining units) at successively greater depths. The Columbia
Formation consists of medium to coarse sand with thin discontinuous lenses of
of silty clay and gravel. The sand exhibits a color range from reddish brown
through shades of yellow and grey depending upon the amount of iron present.
-------
-54-
FIGURE 12
GENERALIZED GEOLOGICAL SECTION
GEOLOGIC
COLUMN
*Mi*** ' CKSKC1.0 OOVtH •OOOJiOt ft'.'OW
• SO'
TOO-
710.
•00-
MO-
XX3
-omiDnrM. VUut
0 I 5 • i MlLtS
I 1 I I I I
0 2 « « *
vCKTICAL OMOCHITIOM <
\V - i-Xx^
v%\ \x-1"'
^>ix\ N
%^
v«x
'<
T0 'W4
•1NCT |-^«0
•01 NT !
•01
FOWWAnON
>
4*4 «.>•• or MCTIO*
.XPU4NATION
--- — 4PMOIIMATC OOWXO* LIMIT
rmCT ro
-------
-55-
Below the Columbia and depths ranging from 33 feet to 63 feet below ground
surface is the Kirkwood Formation (Miocene) described as a silty clay with
stringers of fine grained sand. This formation is considered the uppermost con-
fining unit. During the initial Phase II drilling program, the formation was
found to consist of firm, dense, dark grey, silty clay with traces of fine sand
and silt laminations. Information regarding the thickness of the Kirkwood For-
mation or the lithology of Frederica aquifer is unavailable since monitoring
wells did not fully penetrate these units. However, drilling records for U.S.G.S.
test well No. JE 32-4 located on DAFB property indicates the thickness of both
the Kirkwood Formation and Frederica aquifer is approximately 20 feet (Figure 13).
Underlying the Kirkwood and Frederica, in descending order, are the Cheswold
and Piney Point aquifers each separated by confining units ranging in composition
from clay clayey sand or sandy silt. The Cheswold consists of fine to coarse
sand and shells. Aquifer thickness ranges from zero to more than 150 feet and is
approximately 50 to 75 feet thick in the Dover area. The dip of the aquifer is
reported to be about 11 feet/per mile (.21%) between Symrna and Dover. Separating
the Cheswold and Piney Point aquifers is a thick silty sand layer which serves as
a confining unit. The Piney Point consists of green fine to medium glauconitic
sands. The aquifer achieves a maximum thickness of 251 feet. Thickness decrease
to zero both updip and downdip and to the northeast and southwest along strike
giving the aquifer a lenticular shape.
-------
-56-
FIGURE 13
GROUND
SURFACE
ELEVATION.
23.7 FEET.
MSL
LOG OF USGS TEST WELL
DEPTH BELOW
QROUNO SURFACE
COLUMBIA AQUIFER
~~ 4* KIRKWOOO FORMATION
IZ2Z SB FREDERICA AQUIFER
CONFININO UNIT
— 175
CHESWOLO AQUIFER
— 247
CONFINING UNIT
— 334
P1NCY POINT AQUIFER
— 569
RANCOCA4 GROUP
I— 737
MONMONTH GROUP
1—942
MATAWAN GROUP
I— 1275
MAQOTHY FORMATION
I— 1375
RARITAN FORMATION
•o
m
m
m
£
5
o
m
z
m
m
O
m
m
O
O
m
LEGEND
•a
•«
m
a
o
a
m
•H
>
O
m
O
(•
SAND OR SAND AND GRAVEL
SB.TCV5CLAY
SILTY. CLAYEY SANO,
SANOY SIUT OR SANOY CUAY
I— 1422
-------
-57-
HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS
A complete hydrogeologic assessment of DAFB is currently being conducted
under Phase II (Stage IV) of the IRP. The following describes hydrogeologic
conditions at the base as interpreted from site characterization work performed
by DAFB contractors under the IRP to date.
Two sets of monitoring wells have been constructed at the base. The 100
series wells in 1982 and the initial set of Phase II IRP wells in 1984. Both
sets of wells, were installed in the Columbia aquifer with one distinct dif-
ference: the 100 series wells terminate at depth of 20 feet below ground surface
while the IRP wells terminate at the contact between the Columbia aquifer and the
Kirkwood Formations at depths ranging from 33 to 64 feet below ground surface.
Since existing monitoring wells penetrate only the upper few feet of the Kirk-
wood Formation, hydraulic/lithologic characteristics of deeper aquifers, are
unclear, other than what information was attained from the literature search.
The major water bearing zone encountered during monitoring well installa-
tion was within the surficial Columbia Formation identified and monitored as the
uppermost aquifer. Depth to water ranges from 6 to 15 feet below ground surface
under water table (unconfined conditions). The saturated thickness of the Co-
lumbia, based upon depth to water measurements taken from fully penetrating
wells (IRP series) ranges from 17.50 feet near site T-l (IW basins) to 50.50
feet near sites D-4 and D-5. On average, the saturated thickness under the
four sites investigated is 40.17 feet. All reports indicate the Columbia For-
mation is laterally continuous underneath the base, although its variability in
thickness suggests an undulating contact between it and the Kirkwood Formation.
-------
-58-
Although no direct testing of aquifer characteristics has been performed at
the base, a definitive study of the Columbia aquifer conducted by Johnston (1973)
indicates the aquifer, if generally, a medium to coarse sand and that local changes
in its lithology and saturated thickness greatly effect aquifer transmissivity.
Average transrai ssivity and hydraulic conductivity values of 7,000 feet 2/
-------
-59-
GROUND-WATER FLOW AT DAFB
A potentiometric surface map for the Columbia aquifer (Figure 14) based on
measurements taken on January 9, 1985 from monitoring wells, was developed by IRP
consultants. The map exhibits, a ground-water divide oriented NW-SE paralleling
Atlantic Avenue, from which ground-water flows to the northeast towards Morgan or
Pipe Elm Branch and southwest towards the Saint Jones River. To confirm the
existence of this flow divide, further site evaluation is required.
GROUND-WATER FLOW AT INDIVIDUAL SITES
Potentiometric surface maps for each site under investigation have been de-
veloped based upon water levels measured in monitoring wells. One map was con-
structed for sites D-4 and D-5 given their close proximity. Each site is ad-
dressed separately and maps are presented on Figures 15, 16, and 17. (In devel-
oping contour maps, water table elevations were converted to MSL based upon sur-
veyed top of outer casing elevations and average values for the distance between
Inner and outer casing for the five wells from which such measurements were
taken).
Site T-l
The configuration of the water table in the vicinity of the IW basins sug-
gests possible mounding conditions due to enhanced recharge. This effect re-
sults in a reversal in the hydraulic gradient evidenced by a secondary component
of flow to the northeast. This deviates from the predicted flow path to the
southeast towards the Saint Jones River (Figure 15). The hydraulic gradient is
estimated at .20% and a ground-water flow velocity of .90 feet/day was calculated
(SAIC 1986).
-------
-60-
FIGURE 14
WATER TABLE ELEVATION
LEGEND
r
7
USAF Property Line
Drainage Channel
Phase II Site
Monitoring Well
8 —
Groundwater Contour Line
Estimated Groundwater
Contour Line
Estimated Groundwater
Divide
•
j
n
Approximate Scale (Feet)
-------
-61-
FIGURE 15
IW BASINS (UNIT T-l)
LEGEND
O
CD
USAF Property Line
Phase II Site
Groundwatar Monitoring Well. Nov. 1984
Groundwatar Monitoring Well. Aug. 1982
Surface Water Monitoring Site
Sediment Monitoring Site
DNREC Monitoring Well
Off -Bate Contaminated Well
Approximate Scale (Feet)
-------
-62-
FIGURE 16
UNIT D-10
— -•— USAF Property Line
Drainage Channel
phase II Site
Groundwater Monitoring Well
Surface Water Monitoring Site
O Off Base Contaminated Well
Green House
Well
Approximate Scale (Feet)
iP
400
-------
-63-
FIGURE 17
UNITS D-4 AND D-5
Horeeppnd Jtoa
•"—
Approximate Scale (Feet)
400
LEGEND
USAF Property Line
——...—/- Drainage Channel
~ — —~ Unimproved Road
Wg| Phase II Site
• Groundwatar Monitoring Well
A Surface Water Monitoring Site
• Soil/Sediment Monitoring Site
-------
-64-
Site D-10
Ground-Water flow across the site is in a south-westerly direction towards
the Saint Jones River. This agrees with similar maps developed by the IRP con-
tractors. The hydraulic gradient is .18% indicative of an essentially flat
water table. Ground-Water flow beneach this site is estimated to be on the
order of 1.0 feet/day. (SAIC 1986)
Sites D-4 and D-5
Ground-Water flow underneath the sites is in a west-northwesterly di-
rection towards a wetlands area along Pipe Elm Branch. This is in general
agreement with the configuration projected by the IRP contractors. The
hydraulic gradient is approximately .32% with a calculated ground-water flow
rate of approximately 1.4 feet/day. (SAIC 1986)
-------
-65-
GROUND-WATER MONITORING DURING INTERIM STATUS
Ground-Water monitoring at the DAFB facility has been conducted entirely
under State regulations. The State of Delaware was authorized by the U.S. EPA
to carry out a hazardous waste program equivalent to the RCRA Federal program
of regulation codified in 40 C.F.R. 124, Part 260-270. Delaware obtained
Final Authorization on June 22, 1984. RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal
(TSD) facilities in Delaware are thus subject to the Delaware Regulations
Governing Hazardous Waste (Del. Regs.) in lieu of the Federal regulations,
excepting statutory authorities of the RCRA amendments.
In February 1984, the State made the determination that the IW basins
were RCRA regulated units. In November 1984, three ground-water monitoring
wells (Olj ,02j,04j) were installed. These three wells, together with the
wells installed near the IW Basins in 1982 (101,102,103) were used to study the
ground-water in the vicinity of the IW Basins.
Records submitted by DAFB indicate that, whereas DAFB conducts a ground-
-water sampling and analysis program for the IW Basins, this program does not
comply with the requirements of RCRA. For example, available sampling records
indicate that initial background concentrations for the parameters specified
in Del. Regs. 265.92(b) were never established as required by Del. Regs.
265.92(c)( 1). DAFB has not monitored for all parameters specified in Del.
Regs. 265.92(b). For example, analyses were not available for Barium, Fluoride,
Nitrate, Lindane, Methoxychlor, Toxaphene, 2,4-D, 2,4,5,-TP Silvex, Radium,
Gross alpha, Gross beta. Selenium, Endrin, Turbidity, Fecal coliform, Chloride,
Manganese, Sodium, Sulfate, Specific conductance, TOG and TOH. Replicate
-------
-66-
measurements were not obtained for the indicator parameters during the first
year of sampling. An initial background arithmetic mean was never calculated,
and no statistical comparison has been made to determine whether a statistically
significant increase over initial background has occurred.
The upgradient, background well also appears to have been impacted by the
unit. Analytical results from the Task Force show levels of VOC's in the up-
gradient well higher than those found in several of the downgradient wells.
Ground-water flow patterns (Figure 10) also indicated that mounding from the unit
is occurring near the upgradient well. Because of this, no actual background
well for the unit exists. Therefore the present ground-water monitoring system
is incapable of determining the impact on the quality of the ground-water in the
uppermost aquifer underlying the facility as required under Del. Regs. 265.90.
The following is an evaluation of the monitoring program between February
1984 and December 1986, when the Task Force investigation was conducted. This
section addresses:
o Regulatory requirements
o Ground-water sampling and analysis plan
o Monitoring wells
o Sample collection and handling procedures
o Ground-Water Quality Assessment Program Outline and Plan
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The Delaware requirements for ground-water monitoring during interim
status are contained in Section 265 of Delaware Regulations Governing Hazardous
Waste (Del. Regs). Table 6 shows the Del. Regs, and the corresponding Federal
regulations for ground-water monitoring under interim status.
-------
-67-
TABLE 6
STATE AND FEDERAL COUNTERPART INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS
Delaware Regulations RCRA Regulation
Section 40 C.F.R Part
Subpart Title
Applicability 265.90 265.90
Ground-water Monitoring 265.91 265.91
System
Sampling and Analysis 265.92 265.92
Preparation, Evaluation 265.93 265.93
and Response
Reporting and Recordkeeping 265.94 265.94
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
The regulations require an owner/operator to develop and follow a sampling
analysis plan which includes procedures and techniques for: (1) sample collec-
tion, (2) sample preservation and shipment, (3) analytical procedures and (4)
chain-of-custody control. The Task Force evaluated the ground-water sampling
and analysis plan developed by DAFB in October 1986 and found it to be inadequate,
(DAFB had developed a sampling and analysis plan in April 1985, however the
October 1986 superceded this plan).
In general, the plan discusses basic equipment and procedures that should
be used during sampling and analysis, however more detailed information is
needed. The plan does not indicate whether the sampling equipment is dedicated
to individual wells. Although the plan addresses making field measurements for
temperature, specific conductivity and pH, procedures for making these field
measurements or for calibrating instruments are not are not included. The plan
also does not address a method for verifying that samples have been preserved
to the appropriate pH.
-------
-68-
The plan does not address the locations (units,wells) to be sampled, the
frequency of sampling, the order of sampling (most volatile to least volatile)
or the analyses to be performed. Most importantly, the plan fails to include
the collection of quality assurance and quality control samples (trip and
equipment blanks), nor does the plan discuss such QA/QC procedures to be followed
by the lab (matrix spikes, duplicates). These types of samples must be taken
to be able to determine whether (1) samples are being cross contaminated in the
field through improper sampling techniques, (2) samples are being cross contami-
nated by the lab, (3) the laboratory analysis is accurate and precise and (4)
the results are representative of existing conditions onsite.
In summary, the plan needs to be revised to address the deficiencies cited
above. Revisions are needed to ensure consistent sampling methods and collection
of representiye samples.
MONITORING WELLS
It is unclear, from the information available to the Task Force, whether
DAFB ever initiated a RCRA ground-water monitoring program in accordance with
Del. Regs. 265. A monitoring network consisting of three wells (101,102,103)
was constructed around the IW basins in March 1982. At that time, the IW basins
were not considered by the State to be RCRA regulated units. Monitoring con-
ducted as part of the study showed elevated levels of several volatile organic
compounds in the ground-water. Prior to construction and sampling, Well 101
was considered the hydraulically upgradient, background well, but the 1982
sampling results showed elevated levels of organic compounds in the ground-water
at this location.
-------
-69-
In November 1984, three additional wells (Olj ,02j ,04j), were installed near
the IW basins.
Upgradient Olj
Downgradient 02j
04 j
101 (Original upgradient)
102
103
Ground-water monitoring was conducted in 1984, 1985, and 1986. Results
continued to show elevated levels of several volatile organic compounds. In
addition, studies conducted by SAIC Consultants for DAFB in June 1986 indicated
that ground-water from well Olj contained elevated levels of VOC's. SAIC con-
cluded that the well was being impacted by either the IW basins or a possible
nearby SWMU.
Well construction
Wells 101, 102 and 103 were constructed on March 9,1982 with a mud rotary
rig. Records of well installation were maintained by Delmarva Drilling; copies
of these records are in Appendix A. Well Olj was constructed on October 31, 1984
using a water rotary rig; well 02j was constructed on November 14, 1984 using a
a hollow stem auger and well 04j was constructed on November 9, 1984 using a
water rotary rig. Records of well installation were maintained by JRB Associates
(now SAIC) and are also included in Appendix A.
Well borings for well 101, 102 and 103 were drilled through a clay to
fine sandy clay to the top of a fine to coarse brown sand. Complete well con-
struction details were not available for wells 101, 102 and 103. Borings for wells
Olj, 02j and 04j were drilled to the top of a dark clay zone, directly beneath
the brown, medium to fine sands. These borings were advanced one to four feet
into the clay and stopped.
-------
-70-
Wells 101, 102, and 103 were completed using a 2 inch diameter PVC casing
and PVC well screens approximately 6 feet in length. All wells were gravel
packed from 10 to 18 feet and grouted using bentonite clay from 2 to 10 feet.
Additional construction details for these wells were not available to the Task.
Force.
Wells 01j, 02j, and 04j were completed using a 2 inch diameter PVC casing
and PVC screens ranging in length from 15 1/2 feet to 34 feet. The annular
space around the screened interval was filled using 4Q sand as a filter material
for wells Olj and 04j, but for well 02j the formation was allowed to cave in
around the well casing. The regulations (40 CFR Part 265.91(c), Del. Regs. Part
265.91(c)) require that the annular space be sealed with a suitable material
(e.g., cement grout or bentonite slurry) to prevent contamination of samples and
the ground-water. Additionally, no filter material was used. Bentonite was
used as a sealing material for all three wells and a mixture of #1 Portland ce-
ment and bentonite was used for grouting. A protective steel casing with a
locking cap was cemented to the surface for the three wells. Following construc-
tion, these wells were developed using compressed air. A summary of well con-
struction details are contained in Figure 7.
Complete construction details were not available for wells 101, 102, and
103. State regulation (Del. Regs. 265.91(c)) requires all monitoring wells to
be cased in a manner that maintains the integrity of the monitoring well bore-
hole. The PVC casing at several monitoring wells was very loose. Concrete
aprons around the base of the wells, which are supposed to drain surface water
away, were not in place at the wells surrounding the IW Basins. Erosion of
surface soils was observed around several of the steel well casings. Screen
lengths for wells Olj, 02j, and 04j were excessively long and do not allow for
sampling of discrete parts of the aquifer.
-------
-71-
Table 7
Well
Number
01J
02J
04J
05J
06 J
07J
08J
09J
10
11
12
13
21
22
23
101
102
103
Estimated
Location
200
500
400
800
20
20
40
20
20
30
40
30
20
20
20
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
NE
W
S
NE
SE
SW
SW
NW
WSW
N
NE
E
N
NE
SE
T-l
T-l
D-10
D-10
D-10
D-10
D-10
D-10
D-4
D-4
D-4
D-4
D-5
D-5
D-5
10 ft NE T-l
10 ft SE T-l
10 ft SW T-l
Date (1984)
Constructed
10/31
11/14
11/9
11/13
11/2
11/1
11/7
11/2
10/25
10/26
10/29
10/26
10/29
10/30
10/30
(1982)
3/9
3/9
3/9
MONITORING
Drilling
Method 1,2
Rotary
Auger
Rotary
Auger
Rotary
Auger
Rotary
Auger
Auger
Rotary
Auger
Auger
Rotary
Rotary
Auger
Rotary
Rotary
Rotary
WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMAR'
Depth of
Well Casing
38.0
33.5
44.8
58.5
53.0
52.0
51.0
52.0
56.0
55.0
55.0
61.5
60.0
60.0
57.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
Screened
Interval
9-38
18-33.5
10.8-44.8
13-58.5
8-53
8-52
10-51
10-52
10-56
11-55
11-55
11.5-61.
10-60
10-60
10-57
11-17
11-17
11-17
Casing Lithology Screened
Diameter Interval
2 brown fine-medium sand
2 brown medium-course sand
2 brown fine-medium sand
2 grey/brown fine-coarse sand
2 grey/brown fine-coarse sand
2 brown/yellow fine-coarse sand
2 brown/yellow fine-coarse sand
2 brown/yellow fine-coarse sand
2 grey/brown sand gravel sand
2 brown/yellow fine-coarse sand
2 brown/yellow fine-coarse sand
2 brown/grey sand
2 grey medium-coarse sand
2 grey fine-coarse sand
2 brown fine-medium sand
2 brown fine coarse sand
2 fine-coarse sand
2 fine-coarse sand
1. Wells were constructed in 1984 using either hollow stem auger or rotary (water) methods,
2. Wells were constructed in 1982 using mud rotary methods.
-------
- -72-
The PVC casing meterial was not tested for inertness to the constituents
found in the ground-water. PVC degrades and may adsorb or leach materials
into the ground-water in the presence of ketones, esters and aromatic hydrocar-
bons. Ground-water samples may not be representative of the true conditions
in the aquifer if the well casing degrades.
Well locations
Information available to the Task Force indicates that all hydraulically
downgradient wells appear to be adequately areal]y distributed to detect a
release in the horizontal direction. Releases have been detected in wells
Olj, 02j, and 04j; however, the excessive screen lengths of these wells causes
dilution of samples so that an accurate measure of the concentration and direc-
tion of contaminants in the ground-water is not possible.
Well 101 had originally been designated as the upgradient well; however,
it was located to close to the waste management boundary and appears to have
been impacted by the unit. Well Olj was designed to be the new upgradient
well; however, this too has been impacted and cannot provide samples representa-
tive of background ground-water quality.
DAFB SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Personnel from DAFB collect samples for periodic ground^water monitoring.
DAFB demonstrated their sampling procedures on December 8, 1986, at well Olj.
Water Level Measurements
To determine the volume of water in the well casing for calculating purge
volumes, water level measurements are taken at each well. A weighted measuring
tape, that sounds the water surface, is used to make water level measurements
and to measure total depth of the well. The tape is lowered into the well and
creates a sound when the weight hits the water surface.
-------
-73-
At this point, the measurement on the tape at the top of the inner PVC casing
is recorded. The tape is marked in foot increments. The total depth of the
well is then measured by allowing the weighted end of the tape to rest on the
bottom of the well. The depth to water is subtracted from the total depth of
the well to determine the length of the water column and volume of water in the
well. As the tape is retrieved from the well, it is decontaminated with a
phosphate-free lab soap/tap water mixture and rinsed with distilled water. The
tape is then dried using paper towels.
Using this method for water level measurement is not acceptable as the use
of a sound measuring tape requires some interpretation of where the water level
is located. The tape must be lowered in a manner that causes an impact on the
water surface sufficient enough to make a sound. This can be influenced by the
ability of the sampling personnel to stop lowering the tape at this moment. The
precision and accuracy of the water level measurements is questionable.
Purging
The sampling and analysis plan requires that the wells are purged of three
water column volumes prior to sampling. The water column height in the casing
is determined by first calculating the height of the standing water in the
casing by subtracting the depth-to-water measurement from the total well depth.
The volume of water in the casing is then calculated by multliplying the water
column height by a gallon-per-foot-of-casing conversion factor. This volume is
then multiplied by 3 (for 3 water column volumes) to give the total purge
volume required.
A bottom-loading, teflon bailer with a capacity of approximately 1 liter
is used to purge each well. This bailer is decontaminated prior to purging
-------
-74-
using a phospate-free detergent, diluted to 10% concentration with tap water,
and then is rinsed using distilled water. All rinse water is collected in 5
gallon buckets and hand carried to the industrial sewer or oil/water separator
where it is discharged. The bailer is lowered into the well using a cotton
rope. This cotton rope is discarded after purging is completed.
DAFB personnel wait approximately 15 minutes, as required by the sampling
and analysis plan, after purging before sampling occurred. This 15 minute time
period allows the wells to fully recovery. During the demonstration, none of
the wells could be purged to dryness and all wells completely recovered
instantaneously.
Sample Collection
After well recovery, each well is sampled using a 1 liter bailer. For the
demonstration, separate bailers were used to purge and sample; however, normal
procedure is to sample with the same bailer that was used to purge the wells.
The bailer is lowered into the well using a cotton rope. This rope is discarded
after sampling for the well was completed.
DAFB sample wells in order of the least contaminated well to the most con-
taminated well. Samples are collected in order of most volatile to least vola-
tile. For example, the order of sampling was observed to be volatile organics,
phenols, and metals.
All samples are taken to the onsite laboratory where dissolved oxygen, pH,
and specific conductance analyses are performed. All instruments are calibrated
prior to use. Samples to be analyzed for metals are preserved using HN03 an(*
then are placed in a refrigerator to cool. Samples to be analyzed for phenols
-------
-75-
were preserved by adding 2 ml of I^SO^. The pH of the sample is then tested to
determine whether the pH is less than 2.0. If not, more i^SO^ is added and the
sample is cooled in a refrigerator.
Upon completion of sampling of a well, the bailer was cleaned with the
detergent mixture and rinsed twice with distilled water.
The Environmental Sampling Data sheet (Appendix B) was filled out by DAFB
personnel. All samples are shipped to Brooks AFB for analysis.
The sample collection methods appear to be adequate, however no quality
assurance/quality control samples were taken. These include duplicate well
samples, trip blanks and field equipment blanks. These types of samples must
be taken to ensure that samples are not cross contaminated in the field and
that laboratory analyses are accurate and precise.
Some recommendations to improve sampling methods include:
1) Using dedicated bailers for each well.
2) Using teflon located steel wire rather than cotton rope to lower bailers.
3) Ensuring that bailers are lowered into the well columns in a manner that
doesn't cause agitation.
4) Using on Interface probe to detect water levels elevations.
Shipping and Chain of Custody
Chain-of-custody forms are filled out prior to submission of samples to
the offsite laboratory. Samples are packed in coolers with frozen gel blocks
and shipped within 48 hours to Brooks AFB, San Antonio, Texas. Samples are
logged in at the OEHL at Brooks AFB and custody forms are signed over at that
ti me.
-------
-76-
GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM OUTLINE AND PLAN
Ground-water Quality Assessment Program Outline
State regulations (Del. Regs. 265.93) require a facility to prepare an out-
line of a ground-water quality assessment program effective November 18, 1981.
Since the IW Basins became RCRA regulated units in February 1984, this section
of the regulations became effective at that time. The outline must describe a
more comprehensive ground-water program than the one for detection monitoring
under interim status and be capable of determining:
1. Whether hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents have entered
the ground-water.
2. The rate and extent of migration of hazardous waste or hazardous
waste constituents in the ground-water.
3. The concentrations of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents
in the ground-water.
During the Task Force investigation, no record of the assessment outline
was found .
Ground-Water Quality Assessment Program Plan
State regulations (Del. Regs. 265.93(d)) require an assessment plan to be
submitted, based on the assessment outline, which specifies: (1) the number,
location, size, and depth of wells; (2) sampling and analytical methods for those
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents in the facility; (3) evaluation
procedures, including any use of previously gathered ground-water quality infor-
mation; and (4) a schedule of implementation.
During the Task Force investigation, no records of an assessment program
plan were found.
-------
-77-
EVALUATION OF MONITORING DATA FOR INDICATIONS OF WASTE RELEASE
This section presents an analysis of the Task Force monitoring data regard-
ing indications of apparent leakage from waste management units. Analytical
results from and methods used on samples collected by Task Force personnel are
presented in Appendix C.
Analytical data evaluated in the usability and evaluation reports were
evaluated as being quantitative, semi-quantitative. qualitative, suspect, or
unusable. Only quantitative and semi-quantitative data were used to determine
releases. Volatile organic analysis (VOA) data are quantitative; all other
organic data, except phenol, naphthalene, and BHC are deficient to some degree.
Quantitative inorganic data include Chloride, Aluminum, Arsenic, Barium, Beryl-
lium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Magnesium, Manganese, Mercury,
Potassium, Sodium, Vanadium, and Zinc.
Task Force data indicate the presence of volatile organic compounds at
high concentrations (greater than 1000 ug/1) in two of the eighteen wells
sampled (Olj and 103). Nine other wells (06,07,09,101,102,10,11,13,21) also
detected various organic compounds, but at lower concentrations. Well 103
had the highest concentrations of organic compounds followed by wells Olj,
11, 13, 7, and 101. Table 8 shows all wells sampled by the Task Force and the
levels of organic compounds found.
Unit T-l
Monitoring well Olj is the upgradient, background well for the closed IW
basins. Concentrations of perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene were detected
in well Olj at higher levels than any other well for unit T-l, with the exception
-------
-78-
of well 103. This suggests that well Olj is being impacted by the unit and is
not capable of yielding sample representative of background conditions. The
inorganic data from the Task Force samples indicates a release from the closed
IW basins. This release appears to be directed toward the southwest from unit
T-l; however, it does not appear to have migrated as far as wells 02j and OAj .
Unit D-A
The results of chemical analyses indicate that a release from unit D-4
has occurred. Monitoring well 11, located at the west corner of the unit,
contained elevated levels of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene. The release appears to be directed toward the
southwest (from unit D-4).
Unit D-5
Sample results from the wells in the vicinity of unit D-5 did not
detect the presence of volatile organics in the ground-water. Inorganic data
was inconclusive.
Unit D-10
Wells in the vicinity of unit D-10 showed elevated levels of VOAs in
the ground-water. The highest concentrations were found in well 7. The
pattern of contaminants indicates that waste migration is primarily to the
southwest, towards the St. Jones River.
Oil/Water Separator
Although requested by the Task Force, organic constituents (volatile
organics, base/neutral acid extractable organics, pesticides, and herbicides)
were not analyzed by the laboratory, so conclusions regarding the concentrations
-------
-79-
of these types of constituents in the liquid in the oil/water separator cannot
be made.
Inorganic analyses showed that the liquids in the oil/water separator
were not EP Toxic. These results are summarized below:
Oil/Water Separator
Sampling Results EP Toxicity Level
(Concentration in (Concentration in
Constituent mi Hi grams/liter) milligrams/liter)
Arsenic (Ar) Not detected 5.0
Barium (Ba) 0.031 100.0
Cadmium (Cd) 0.066 1.0
Chromium (Cr) 0.072 5.0
Lead (Pb) 0. 167 5.0
Mercury (Hg) 0.115 0.2
Dioxins and dibenzofurans were not detected in the liquids in the
oil/water separator.
-------
D) ASSOCIATES
A Company at Sci*nc» Appticitioris. /ne.
3400 WestparK Drive. McLean. Virginia 22102
WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
Project: Dover AFB
Owner: U.S. Air Force
Well
J '
-1
j
J
0 ""
f
_, /
-
-!•!•.
10 "
?n -
30 '
40 -
50 -
.••."T '••
$. '-''
V.'.V.
,v.*.v.
• * • • •
<%2
V/WI
• I •• I
^v^
•„:•;.•
•* • •
••• ••
• • •• •
• •• ••
•• • •
••• ••
• • •• «
• •• ••
•• ! •
••• ••
• • •• '
• •«•
• • j .
':••••:
•••.••
.. ; .,
•':•••*:
>•».••
.. ; .,
••• ••
• I •• I
• • • *
.. j .,
••• ••
• I •• 5
• • * «4
••" ••
• ** I
• • J >l
*•• *«
I •• I
.*. .«
• • * • •
••*..••
•:.•:•:,
*:••••;
• •« ••
• • T • «
&:>
•• ™ • •
:•*..*•
.*.".•.
• • * ••
*•*.„••
•
•
••1
^•^""^^
•
•
•••
•
$%
• • • • •
•.v.v.
V.V.*.
•.v.v.
^
;.•;..'
•V;.:.
•• i ••
tt.*:
«• • •»
«• •.»
'••:•••
•• • ••
•..*.•.
*• * ••
:/;.:.
• • T • •
* • •
:*.. ••.
•«-•"«
•*.J.4*.
:••:•
••• •
•• * ••
:>;:••:
>• ; ..
:*••*:'•
••• •
»• ; ..
s>:s:-
••*•••
I •• J •
••• •
sy*
.•*•.•
J, •• I •
• « • • ,
• ; ••
•• •••
j •• j •
••• •
:•••:•'
••':•••'
m
•
••i
Drilling Sunmary:
local Depch: 38' Drillers: Calvin Wallace
Borehole Diamecer(s): 6" Delmarva Drilling
Failing 1250
RiB Type: Hydraulic Rotarv
Elevacion: Land Surface: 19.44' Bic(s): Drag
Top of Casing: 21.39' Drilling Fluid Type: Water
Supervisory Geologist: Richard Eades Amount Use:
Log Book No. 4 pp. 93-105 Water Level: 10.9' 11/14/84
Well Design:
Casing: Material: pvc Screen: Material: PVC
Diameter: 2" ID 2 3/8"OD Diameter: 2"
Length: 11' ~"~ Slot: 0.010; S/i.nch
Filter: Material: 4Q Sand Setting: 9'-38'
Setting: 7'-38' Seals: Type: Bentonite
Grouc: Type:yH Portland Cement /BenSett ing: 5'-7'
Setting: LS-5.0' Surface Casing: steel/PVC
Other: Protective steel casing cemented in to land surface
Tiae Log: Started Completed
Drilling: 10/31/84 1020 hrs 10/31/84 1200 hrs
Installation: 10/31/84 1300 hrs 10/31/84 1500 hrs
Water Level Reading: 11/14/84 1510 hrs
Development •'
Well Development:
Method/Equipment: Air Blown Minimum 4 hours, pumped at
10 gpm minimum 4 hours and until clear.
1
-------
ASSOCIATES
A Company of Scifnct Applications. Ine
8400 Westoark Drive. McLean. Virginia 22102
Project: Dover AFB
DRILLING LOG
Owner: U.S. Air Force Well No.
MW-01i
Location: Industrial
Waste Basins
Reference
Poinc: Land Surface
Reference
Poinc
Elevacion: 19.44
Field Book No. :
By: Rick Eades
Driller: Calvin Wallace
Rig Type:_
local
Depch:
Failing 1205
Hydraulic Rnf-arv
38'
Sice Sketch
Dace Tine
Drilling Scarced;10/31/84 1020hr
Drilling Compleced:10/31/84 1200
Wacer Level: 10-9' 11/14/84 1510
0
*l
5 -
10
***.
1
NM»
1
•
-
-
S
u
!
.*.?••?.••'.'•
:•'••.••>'.'*;.•.
*J
30%
Gray 3ilt, very dense, well compacted.
Light brown fine sand, trace clav
SI: 5-7' BLS RE. i 2'
1.2' - Light gray (SYR 7/1) fine to medium sand
some silt, some clay, trace pebbles, thin
orange laminations near bottom of sample.
•
Page 1 of 4
-------
ASSOCIATES
A Company of Scitnct Applications. Inc.
3400 Wastpark Onv«. McLean. Virginia 22102
DRILLING LOG
MU-01i
J
i n
15 -
-U
?s
I
•
'
-
.
.
.
,
.
,
a
fvffi?
•fcVS*/:
&££
SfcV*
*••••*•
c.-.v.'/vy;."
i&'&T
91
.2 I
I?
SS#2
C
SS*3
SS#4
C
8
7
8
10
13
8
15
16
20
11
14
10
15
DESCRIPTION
SI: 10-12' BLS RE: 1.3'
1.3" - Light gray (SYR 7/1) coarse to medium sand.
some fine sand, trace silt, trace clav, trace
pebbles.
Brown, coarse sand and pebbles, some medium sand, trace silt.
SI: 15-17' BLS RE: 1.1'
1.1' - Dark orange brown (10YR 5/6) fine to medium
sand, some silt, trace clay, trace pebbles.
SI: 20-22' BLS RE: 1.1'
1.1* - Dark orange brown (10YR 5/6) medium sand,
some fine sand, trace clay, trace pebbles.
sand, some pebbles.
Page 2 of 4
-------
ASSOCIATES
A Company of Sciunct Applications. Inc.
3400 Westoark Drive. McLean. Virginia 22102
DRILLING LOG
MW-Olj
25
30 -
35
40 .
9
.C
*
£
•
•
»
1
'.. *_J *,*
.•:••;•• .•;..-.
—
:'. :••':.'.•:•.'
-•S-.'-Vf-'rf1
*-.— 1VY7
•°i'°/-''x«.'
•*£•»£•'
*•*;»*:*
J!UK="-4;-
- 5
u J
u 3
1?
SS#5
—
c
SS#6
C
SS#7
C
c
^^,
^^
j
2
13
14
8
13
11
17
91
26
28
24
23
24
DESCRIPTION
SI: 25-27' BLS RE: 1.1'
1.1' - Medium orange brown (10YR 6/8) fine to medium
sand, some silt, trace clay, thin black laminations
in interval.
*
Brown, coarse to medium sand, trace silt.
SI: 30-32' BLS RE: 1.7'
,.,...
trace silt, trace clay.
Light brown medium to fine sand, some silt, trace clay.
SI: 35-37' BLS RE: 1.3'
1.3' - Medium to dark reddish brown (10YR 5/6) coarse to
medium sand, some fine sand, some pebbles, trace
silt.
Reddish brown, coarse to medium sand.
•
Reddish brown sand with some dark gray clay.
Driller indicated that top of the clay layer was contacted at
approximately 38' BLS.
Page 3 of 4
-------
^ASSOCIATES
A Company at Seimnct Application*. Inc.
3400 Wttstoark Drtve, McLean. Virginia 22102
DRILLING LOG
DRILLING LOG
1 LlfV ™" \J L J
40
45 --
DESCRIPTION
SI: 40-42' BLS
BF . 7 n '
2.0' - Dark gray (5Y 4/1) CJAV, allty,
fin«»lv
Page 4 of 4
-------
A S S 0 CI ATE S
A Company of Sc:»nc» Applications. Inc.
3400 WestoarK Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102
WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
Project: Dover AF3
Owner: U.S. Air Force
Well
o1-
10'-
20' -
30' -
An' '
-
i « i ^~
:W«
•»- x V.
•:•:•:•:•:
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• * • » i
• • • • •
.v.*.v
.V.'.V
• • • • «
• * • • 1
• • • • •
^
••:':.'•;':'
•'.'•'.'• i'.'1'
•'•.'•'Z'"**'
•.:.•:•••••:•
•: •!.••.'• \
•'.vX*\v!
.••••'••.'•
•.•.;•>:•.
•••.•.-.•?••
11
ipl
•
>' -r.
l-,^>
• • • • •
*•*•*•*•%'
'.V.'.V
• * • • •
• • • • • i
• • • • • i
.V.V.',
.V.'.V.
• * * • • 1
• • • • •
m
i^i^
8P
"" * !^V.«".
••":::».*{:>•
.•;• v .•:•-
•V '•",*«**•*"•*
.*•*.".*••• ••
'.•"*. •.*«;-*•"
"• ^"*- *'i '••
•'.''.'. - •' '••'
'•'''*•'.<' \'S.
:'iv:*>>%B':
•
Drilling Sunrnary:
local Depch: 33.5' Drillers: Gary Truver
Borehole Diamecer(s): 6" Walton Corporation
RiR Type: CME Auger
Elevation: Land Surface: 25.56' Bit(s): Hollow Stem auger
Top of Casing: 27.56' Drilling Fluid Tvpe : None
Supervisory Geologise: Richard Eades Amount Use:
Log Book No. 5 pp. 61-67 Water Level: 18' 11/14/84
Well Design:
Casing: Material: Schedule 40 PVC Screen: Material: Schedule 40 PVC
Diameter: 2" JD 2 3/8"OD Diameter: 2"
Length: 10' Slot: 0.010; 5 slots/inch
Filter: Material: None Setting: 18-33.5'
]
Setting: Seals: Type: Rentoiice
Grout: Type:^l Portland Cement /BenSett ing: 9.5'-11.5'
Setting: LS-9.5' Surface Casing: Steel/PVC
Other: Formation cavprf info 11 S,1 providing natural sand oack from
11-5 - 3J.5 Protective steel casino rpmpnfpH inrn
1 an<4 Qtirfacc
Time Log: Started Completed
Drilling: 11/14/84 0900 hrs 11/14/84 1030 hrs
Installation: 11/14/84 1030 hrs 11/14/84 1139 hrs
Water Level Reading: 11/14/84 1030 hrs
Development •' '
Well Development:
Method/Equipment: Air Blown for 8 hours, bailed
because of slow recovery.
-------
8) ASSOCIATES
A Company of Scwtc* Applications. Inc.
8400 Westpark Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102
Project: Dover AFB
DRILLING LOG
Owner: U.S. Air Force Well No.;
MW-02j
J
Sice Sketch
Locacion: Industrial
Waste Basins
Site T-l
Reference
Point; Land Surface
Reference
Point
Elevation:
Field Book No.: 5 pp 61-67
Log By: R-irU Farfoc
Driller: Gary Truver
Rig Type:_
Total
Depth:
CME Aueer
33.5'
Date Tine
Drilling Started:11/14/84 Q900hi
Drilling Completed:ll/14/84 103(
Water Level: 18' 11/14/84 103(
Legend
SI: Sampling Interval
RE: Recovery
SS: Solit Spoon
C: Cuttings
DESCRIPTION
Gradat ion
Trace 1-127.
Little 12-207.
Some 20-307.
Add "Y" >307.
SS#1
5 --
SS#2
10
10
Medium to light brovm, silt, some clay, trace sand, trace
pebbles.
SI: 4-6' BLS
RE: 1.5'
0.7' - Brown (10YR 5/6) clay, some silt.
0.4' - Yellowish brown (10YR 6/6) sand, some silt, trace clay.
0.4' - Yellowish brovm (10YR 6/8) clay, trace silt.
Silt, some clay, some sand.
SI: 9-11' BLS
RE: 2.0'
0.6' - Yellowish brown (10YR 6/8) clay, some silt.
1.4' - Clay, trace silt grading downward in color from
Page 1 of 3
-------
ASSOCIATES
A Company of 5ci»nc» Applications. Inc.
8400 Westoark Drive. McLean, Virginia 22102
DRILLING LOG
MW-02j cont.
^
I
1
•
'
:
.
»
-
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
3
jfi£19
HUffil
m^i
IHHDH
.•.*,••'• •.'•"•
&£&
iiiiijiiil
::;'•• :'.•'>•':
u^-iW
*%%#£
«^
#$#
1 |
— j
V J
ll
|SS#2
C
SS#3
C
C
SS#4
C
C
SS#5
"^
j
2
12
15
3
6
9
11
1
1
3
5
6
DESCRIPTION
light gray (SYR 7/1) to brown (10YR 5/6).
Clay, trace silt, brown to grayish brown.
SI: 14-16' BLS RE: 2.0'
0.2' - Brown (10YR 5/6) sand, some clay.
1.8' - Clay, color variable from gray (SYR 7/1) to
yellowish brown ( 10YR 6/8) with black streaks.
Hit gravel layer, approximately 0.5' thick.
Sand, some clay, wet.
SI: 19-21' BLS RE: 2.0'
2.0' - Light yellowish brown ( 10YR 7/8) fine sand,
some silt, trace clay, wet.
Gravel, approximately 0.5' thick.
Gravel, approximately 0.5' thick.
SI: 24-26' BLS RE : 1 . 5 '
1.5' - Medium to dark yellowish brown (10YR 5/8)
coarse to medium sand, some pebbles, trace
10
15
20 --
25
Page 2 of 3
-------
ASSOCIATES
A Company of Scitftc* Applications. Inc.
3400 Wastpark Drive. McLean, Virginia 22102
DRILLING LOG
MW-02-J cont,
4^
1
•»*
•
•
-
•
'
.
'
• j
•
•
3
»%?«
"^
<>»#::$
£&!£?
£•*?&•
•*
m
•
•
•
is
:«i
I*
SS#5
SS*6
SS#7
SS#8
1
j
5
5
7
6
6
7
11
3
3
4
4
2
3
DESCRIPTION
fine sand.
SI: 29-31' BLS RE: 1.3'
1.3' - Dark yellowish brown (7. SYR 5/8) coarse to
medium sand, trace fine sand, trace pebbles.
Driller indicated top of clay layer contacted at 33' BLS.
SI: 34-36' BLS RE: 2.0'
2.0' - Medium to dark gray (5Y 4/1) clay,
silty, dense, finely laminated.
SI: 37.5-38.5' BLS RE: 1.0'
1.0' - Dark gray (5Y 4/1) «H^y rlay.
25
30 -.
35 --
40
Page 3 of 3 '
-------
ASSOCIATES
A Company of Scitnca Applications. Inc.
WOO WestparK Drive. McLean. Virginia 22102
WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
Project:
Dover AFB
Owner: U.S. Air Force
Well No.:
MV.' -04j
0-
10'-
20
30 -
50'-
I
_L
m
V.'.vl
•.v.v.
.•.v.v
-'•Y-'TL
s x /" >
Y//
/ S S
-•":'•»":
•* '*••*'
•*».•'
•* • •
•* **••*'
• • * •
*.*.*.*«•
• •
* . *• t
• * • • *
• •
*.«.**.•
f*".:/1
.**.•/
. • . . •
..«*..
. ...
.* •*..*•
•* •*..*•
•
1
^M^BHM^
H^^HM«M^HI
Ifligi
»^ra
Ig^gPf
i1
^ &
£v$
^
///t
''•'':'••'
••**•• .
'*.•.* *.
•«**.*.
'* *.**.
.*.•••.*.*
**•"•" *•
* • B • * i
• * « * •
.vr-
• • * * •
' * * • *
'. • • ..
*"*•*.*
":"••*:
1 • * * *
• * •• *
m
Drilling Suamary:
Tocal Oepch: 44-8' BLS Drillers: Calvin Wallace
Borehole Diamecer(s) : 6V Delmarva Drilling
Failing 125U Hydraulic
Rig Type: notary
Elevacion: Land Surface: 23-2' Bic(s): Dra8
Top of Casing:. "• 4' Drilling Fluid Type :Water/Bentonite
Supervisory Geologist: A"dris Lapins Amount Use:
Log BOOK riO. J pp. lo ^° water Level: 12.76 BLS l/"/o5
Well Design: ,
Casing: Macerial: PVC Screen: Macerial: PVC
Diameter: 2" ID 2 1/4"OD Diameter: 2"
Length: 13' Slot: 0.010; 5/inch
n i r *f H*r **••* •* \ • 40 sand ?•>• i- v «r, • 10.8 - 44 . 8 ' BLS
Setting: 8.8-44.8' BLS Seals: Type: Bentonite Pellets
Grout: Type:#l Portland Cement/BenSetcing: 5.25-8.8' BLS
,,, *»cy^'^l /ntr^t
Setting: 3-5.25 BLS Surface Casing: Steel/Pvc
Other: Protective steel casing cemented in to land surface.
Tiae Log: Started Completed
Drilling- 11/9/84 0845 hrs. 11/9/84 1250 hrs.
Installation: 11/9/84 1300 hrs. 11/9/84 1442 hrs.
Water Level Reading: 1/9/85 12.76' BLS
i Development •
Well Development:
Method/Equipment: Air blown for 8 hours, pumped at
10 gpm for minimum 2 hours and
until clear.
-------
_B) ASSOCIATES
A CompfitY of Scwnc* AppHcttJon*. Inc.
8400 Wntpark Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102
Project: Dover AFB
DRILLING LOG
Ovner: U.S. Air Force Hell No.
MW -04j
Location:
Field Book No.: 3 pp 16-28
IW Basins . Site T-l Log By; Andris Lanins _
Driller; Calvin Wallace
Reference
Point; Land Surface
Reference
Point
Elevation; 23.2'
Site Sketch
Failing 1250 Hydraul
Rig Type; Rotary
Total
Depth: 44.8' BLS
Date Time
Drilling Started:ll/9/84 0845H
Drilling Completed:ll/9/84 125
Water Level: 12.76' BLS 1/9/J
in
*•»
1
'W
1
•
>-
•
•
-
•
-
-
•
-
•
s
3
I
• •• i •
•••••<
••!••!
••••••
$«&&
&££&
gfe
im
wsS'nri
H
V J
ll
C
C
SS*1
^^
8
•
12
21
22
35
Legend Gradation
SI: Sampling Interval Trace 1-127.
RE: Recovery Little 12-207.
SS: Split Spoon DESCRIPTION Some 20-307.
C, Cuttings Add "Y" >307.
Heavy gravel (crushed stone) from large crushed stone
pile located @ 15' away.
Grayish brown medium sand, some silt and gravel.
SI: 5-7' BLS RE: l.l1
1.1" - Light gray to white (5Y 8/2 - 7/2) clayey very fine
sand, some silt; dense; firm, dry; brown to yellow
mottling at top. ,
Page 1 of *•
-------
_Q) ASSOCIATES
A CompfflY of Science Application*. Inc.
3400 Wvstparfc Oriv«, McLean, Virgin^ 22102
DRILLING LOG
MW- OAj cent.
i n
20 -
^
i
•^
*•
.
,
.
,
,
,
:
$
*£?*&
iiwSi;
'r££»&
\£ttf>&.
feW-A:
&S3&
._
•'•' • ''£' ': ':.
£N*
•;&&
''•&Z&.'
• •'.;•.*• ..• '
M
w ^
H
SS#2
—
SS#3
SS#4
>^
i
i
2
14
11
14
20
13
15
40
44
5
7
8
10
DESCRIPTION
SI: 10-12' BLS RE: 1.5'
0.4' - Brownish yellow ( 10YR 6/6) coarse sand, some silt,
trace light gravel; poorly sorted; moist.
1.1' - White (5Y 8/2) silty very fine sand, trace clay and
light gravel; loose; wet.
SI: 15-17' BLS RE: 1.15'
0.75' - White (2.5Y 8/2) medium to coarse sand, trace clay
and light gravel; poorly sorted; firm; wet.
0.4' - Yellow (2.5Y 8/6) fine to coarse sand, some silt,
trace clay and light gravel; w«t.
SI: 20-22' BLS RE: 1.1'
1.1' - Brownish yellow ( 10YR 6/8) fine to medium sand,
some silt, trace clay and light gravel; light gravel
laminations every several inches; loose; wet.
-------
^ASSOCIATES
A Company of SCMne* AppMctttoa*. lac.
8400 W««p*rtc Oriv«. McLwn. Virginia 22102
DRILLING LOG
MW-
cent.
25
n
1
-
1
ll
SS#5
SS#6
SS*7
1
13
43
18
43
11 12
12 22
14 23
20 25
21
18
21
26
DESCRIPTION
SI: 25-27' BLS RE: 0.8'
0.35" - Pale yellow (2.5Y 8/4) fine to medium sand some
silt, trace light gravel; poorly sorted; loose; wet.
0.45' - Strong brown (7. SYR 5/8) fine to medium sand, some
silt, trace light gravel; few rounded quartz pebbles
at bottom; poorly sorted; wet.
SI: 30-32 BLS' RE: None
Two attempts for sample yielded no recovery. Much
heavy gravel accumulated in bottom of bore hole. Drilling
mud thickened and hole flushed to bring up gravel.
SI: 35-37' BLS RE: 0.7'
0.7' - Strong brown (7. SYR 5/8) fine sand, some silt; wet.
•
Page of
-------
SU ASSOCIATES
A Company at Scttncu Applicmaons. Inc.
8400 Wntpark Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102
DRILLING LOG
MW-041 cont
1
.
•
•
•
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
;
*
$
•-rv:iv'
- —
mi
I&9
aBH
391
^S^B
H
|iOi|
aflBEa
9HH
H
S^^^^al
J!
SS#8
-
SS#9
SS#10
£
22
20
26
36
17
17
20
25
16
21
50
54
DESCRIPTION
SI: 40-42' BLS RE: 0.4'
0.4' - Same as above
SI: 45-47' BLS RE: 1.3'
0.5' - Same as above
0.8' - Yellowish red (SYR 5/8) silty clay, .trace very fine
sand and silt laminations throughout; few black to
dark brown laminations; firm; dense. Ironed stained
Kirkwood Fra.
SI: 48-50' BLS RE: 2.0'
2.0' - Very dark gray (2.5* 3/0) silty, clay, trace very
fine sand; light gray very fine sand and silt
laminations throughout; firm; dense.
40
45 -•
50 --
-------
Press Hard - Write Clearly - Use Ball-Point Pen er Typewriter - Press Hard
Mail To:
Water Supply Section
Division of Environmental Control
Tatnall Building P.O. Box 1401
Dover. Delaware 19901
PLEASE PRINT
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO DRILL A WELL
To be completed by a licensed water well driller)
APPLICATION MUST BE
SUBMITTED AND PERMIT
RECEIVED BEFORE ORILLIN
IS STARTED.
Humor- .CfoV^V Ar* PV)KC_€_ P»T}C,<»
Talaphon* Niirnhju- 47$ "£^5^ Plf, ^/.'"tyMPJ-
Uailing ArMriM.- Bl t^O Ciflfl Hlfl C £ *J /fl^EY
xWir Dovev j"W. 1^901
County > Zip
WELL INFORMATION (circle one)
Purpose: Test Weil e^
DMcrlh* Ott^e- JMfljfl i;fc-«ir
Is this a replacement well? yet ^&)
«•**«« tee r*puu*nMnt: _
Date ahandoMd MM!! It, to t* f+fU^ „„.,.„ „
Ma*
Mat AM AnnllfAtlan ha^n m^f^ ffM- >n Aiw-nw^rl a^MBna
disposal system? yea r>
ApproximAt* lat^l d^ith et *^U-': J.fa,._^. .....ff,
MJIKI* al ^uil^r- P | ft 1 ft t CJC^* nP
Citing MitariAl: , _ , , PVC
r-ll / r~
&frMn M^lcri*!: rY^
Tentative Screen Sening: between _LSL and Jja.H.
E»llmAtMi length af &frMn __ _.<£l.. _ M
Will the well be gravel packed? (JSy no
TVp*al grout: Ci.S.^ FP*"i; ^O ff ffl ^» ««
CWtirvd rap^<-l»Y al »K^ u^ll- — • _ gpm
Maximum daily UM- — and
1 hereby affirm the Information 1 have furnished
is accurate and correct
jA Q| /W^Wi" ^Appiican^( circle )
Oat* af Application: 1 Man "2. 8 ruy 8 2.
E«tlm«tad Qato af Cjjn0ri>^*lo«; 1 "" —> O — ^2,
rviii«*-De.)yr)-av^xa Hvi 1 («Ma
LUCATIOM MAP)
VVL-'V'
A\ ^
/^ ^^
'O-olOS
Vv>c*.^ ^
•
X - s^ «. -•
1 y .
* T
i
L^O'3^13 Ertstns y-— y
y .... C *^
y jf /I
' ^ >< i -^d "' i i ^f i^_^^B_"-^r.AO |^ *
i
Site Plan (Include suitable olot oian if available)
0
?
s
f
^
{ [M
•f
£
_
For Official Use Only. ~ Oe Net Write »e»ew Tfcto UM.
s governing
/ /
itio 83
' '
Pursuant to provisions of 7 Delaware Code, Chapter 40. permission Is hereby granted to construct and use a well as des-
cribed above. All current regulations governing well construction and water resource use must be followed. The following
conditions must be observed: ( 1^1 )
This permit expires:___^__
A completion report must be filed with the Division of Environmental
Control within twenty-one (21) days after completion of this well.
Failure to do so may result In license suspension.
DOCUMCNTMO.
Permit Number:
Report filed
-------
RITURN TO:
U'AUR SUPPLY BRANCH
Blue Hen Hall Office
Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901
WELL COMPLETION REPORT
DOCUMENT 4G-08/78/C
ITT-i I I »
1. Pemlt Number;
Owner of well:
\ 3 \
11. Gravel pack: Type
feet
r^r3)2*
12. Static Water Level: Date ,
I a Ft.(Below, Above) Ground Surface
2. Use of water: Domes tlcQpubllcQ
IndustrUlQ AgMcultunlQ IrHgatlonQ
Comnerclalrj Other
3. Method of Drilling: JetQ DugQ
DrivenQRotary : MudQfRev.Q AlrQ
Other
4. Test WellQObservatlonQ'ProductlonQ
5. Total Well Depth: O feet
Dite Completed
Month Day Year
6. If this 1s a replacement well, how wai
previous well abandoned?
7. Casing Material: SteelQ PVCQ^oncreteQ
0 1 ame te r
1 n . F row
to ) ( feet
Screen Material: SteelQ PVCQ^oncreteQ
OliiBettr Q Inches
Setting fro» (| to
). Grout Type: CementQBentonHe
Other
F row
feet
13.
Puraplng Water Level: \'l_Ft. below grade
after i hourt) at 9P»
14.
Well Head Completion:
Type: Pitless Adapter (J Other
Inches above grade
IS. Type of Permanent Pump Installed:
Pump Manuf. Ala
Rated capacity _^
Punp Intake setting
"FtTbeTow -jrad'e
16. The completed well 1s
«. at least 5' fro« any overhang
b. at least 50' from any septic tank
c. at least 10' from town srjer line.
d. at least 100' from the ntirest
edge of any tllefleld
(1f well 1s cased less than SO')
e. at least 50* from the edg« of any
tilefteld if casing (not Including
screen) is more than bO1 in depth
W
17.
18.
The nearest neighbors (circle one)
septic tank tile field, cesspool. or
privy Is \*ro* completed we 11.
Is completed *ell located as shown on
application form? •
if no, describe location ci«aru;.«.
0. Nun-grout Backfill of Well Annul us
T>pe 11/A from to feet
Company Name
Signature of Water Well Contractor
O.te
4
-------
DRILLERS LOG
Too soil
Fine sand day
Finp fo pnarsp "sanrt
t
* -- *•*
-
THICKNESS OF
STRATUN '
0
1
8
v
-
DEPTH TO BOTTOM
OF STRATUH
1
8
1^
i
•
-------
Prtst Hard • Write Clearly - UM Ball-Point Pen or Typewriter • Press Hard
Mail To:
Water Supply Section
Division of Environmental Control
Tatnall Building P.O. Box 1401
Dover. Delaware 19901
PLEASE PRINT
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO DRILL A WELL
To be completed by a licensed water well driller)
APPLICATION MUST BE
SUBMITTED AND PERMIT
RECEIVED BEFORE DRILL!
IS STARTED.
JAN 2 8
Owner
ar <.£,
Telephone Number L7X-LABt
C,OO
Mailing Address:
Kent Dover- -D
County
Zip
Date of Application:.
Mon
Estimated Date of Construction:.
Dey.
- 3o~<92
as.
Pump Installer:
K\rt Llr««iM NO.
—.License No.
Lifl
WELL INFORMATION (circle one)
Purpose: Test Well (Permanent WeljjOptlon to convert
Use: Domestic • Public • commercial
Industrial • Agriculture
Describe Other:
is this a replacement well?
Reason for replacement: _
LOCATION MAPS
Date abandoned well is to be sealed:
How
Has an application been made for an approved sewage
disposal system? yes ^^
Permit Number: ____^___«______________
Road Map
PROPOSED WELL CONSTRUCTION
Method of drilling:
Approximate total depth of
Name of aquifer: pl^'| «CtL/-ifM*
.n.
Casing diameter (s) I 1 j
inner to outer (In.) I *"" I—"" I
PVCL
(In.)
Casing Material:
Screen Material:
Tentative Screen Setting: between
Estimated length of screen:
Will the well be gravel packed? (yes> no
Type of grout: C)^ From: jSLtt. to J&— ft.
~ .gpm
.gpd
Desirtd capacity of the well:
Maximum daily use:
I hereby affirm the information I have furnished
is accurate and correct
esentatlve
Site Plan (Include suitable plot plan If available)
Far Official Use Only. - Do Net Write Below Tteis Urn.
Pursuant to provisions of 7 Deleware Code. Chapter eO. permission Is hereby granted to construct and use a well as des
crlbed above. All current regulations governing well construction and water resource use must be followed. The foilowin
conditions must be observed: ( I i )
This permit expires: //^^/flS?
SIGNED:
A completion report must be filed with the Division of Environmental
Control within twenty-one (21) days after completion of this well.
Failure to do so mey result In license suspension.
Permit Number:
Report
OOCUMCNT NO 4
-------
PLfASE RITURN TO:
UATCR SUPPLY BRANCH
Blue Hen Hall Office
Box 1401
Dover. Delaware 1990}
V
HELL COMPLETION REPORT
DOCUMENT 40-OS/78/0
1. Permit Number:
Owner of well:
11. Grtvel pack: Typ«
Fro« to
feet
12. Static *«ttr Level: Date 5 -.-lrJ3 2.
) ^ Ft. (Below. Above) Ground Surface
2. Use of water: DomestlcQpubllcQ
IndustrlalQAflHculturalQ Irrigation Q
Commercial Either
13.
Puling Water Level: I/\ Ft. below grade
»r**» i/. twiuntv«t ^ • am
3. Method of Drilling: JetQ DugQ
OrlvenQRotary : HudQ^Rev.Q A1rQ
Other
14. Well Head Completion:
Typt: P1tle$$ AdapUrQ^ Other _
04. Inches abovt grade —
4. Test UellDObservatlonQ^roductlonn
S. Total Well Depth:
Data Completed
f e«t
Month Day Year
IS. Type of Permanent Pump Installed:
Pvmp Manuf Qj£i '- - -
Rated capacity - T .
Pump Intake setting - >t. belo»< -jrade
16. The completed well 1s
6. If this Is a replacement well, how was
previous well
7. Casing Material: SteelQ PVCQConcreteQ
Diameter 3 1n. Froa Q to || feet
«. at least 5' from «n> overhang
b. at least 50' from any septic tank
c. at least 10' from town srjer line.
d. at least 100' from the neirest
edge of any tllefleld. .. .
(1f well Is cased less ihan SO1)
e at least 50' from the edg« of any
tilefleld If casing- (not Including
screen) is more than 50' in depth
U
17.
The nearest neighbors (circle one)
septic tank tile field, cesspool, or
privy is fro* completed well.
!. Screen Material:
Diameter ^ Inches
Setting fro» | | to |Q feet
9. Grout Type: Cement Q Ben tonlte ClayQ
Other
feet
on
if no, describe location
10. Nun-grout Backfill of Well Annul us
T>pe n Id f rom ~ to — •
Company
Signature of Hater Well Contractor
.te
-------
-X
DRILLERS LOG
Top soil
Fine sand clay
Fine to coarse brown sand
.
•
,
M
-
THICKNESS OF
STRATUM
0
1
9
s
•
DEPTH TO BOTTO*
OF STRATUM
1
9
18
•
-------
Press Hard • Write Clearly - Use Ball-Point Pen or Typewriter. Press Hard JAN 2 8
Mail To:
Water Supply Section
Division of Environmental Control
Tatnall Building P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901
PLEASE PRINT
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO DRILL A WELL
To be completed by a licensed water well driller)
APPLICATION MUST BE
SUBMITTED AND PERMIT
RECEIVED BEFORE DRILLII
IS STARTED.
Owner
Air E"ov18-(/2)5/
Mailing Address:
D
County
Zip
Date of Application: _ L _ Mon._2L§_ Day
Estimated Date of Construction;
° "
Pump Installer:
LIM«>«*
WELL INFORMATION (Circle one)
Purpose: Test Well (permanent Weft) Option to convert
Use: Domestic • Public -Commercial
industrial • Agriculture
Describe Other:
Is this a replacement well?
Reason for replacement: _
LOCATION MAPS
Date abandoned well is to be sealed:
Has an application been made for an approved sewage
disposal system? yes -(no)
Permit Number: _
Road Map
PROPOSED WELL CONSTRUCTION
vj
Method of drilling:
Approximate total depth pf well:
Name of aquifer: P| e.i&t±Qf.e.vi».
-ft.
\
•» d, rr loo -
Casing diameter (s) t~^—j—37T
inner to outer (in.) 1. .1 1
PVC
(in.)
Casing Material:
Screen Material:
Tentative Screen Setting: between JLQ_ and JLSLtt.
Estimated length of screen: fa ft.
Will the well be gravel packed?
Type of grout: C|^.«f From
no
Desired capacity of
Maximum daily use:
ft.
gpm
gpd
i hereby affirm the Information I have furnished
is accurate and correct
•i "v *•• 'i
r^u-Ho,
epresentative
Site Plan (Include sultaM* ptot plan If available)
Per Official Use Only. - Oe Nat Write talaw TMs UM.
Pursuant to provisions of 7 Delaware Code. Chapter 40. permission Is hereby granted to construct and use a well as des-
cribed above. All current regulations governing well construction and water resource use must be followed. The following
conditions must be observed: ( / / )
' This permit expires: y^fl/fl ^
SIGNED:
A completion report must be filed with the Division of Environmental
Control within twenty-one (21 ) days after completion of this well.
Failure to do so may result In license suspension.
Permit Number:
Report filed
*
DOCUMENT MO
-------
PITA5E RirURN TO:
U'AT[R SUPPLY BRANCH
Blue Hen Hall Office
Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901
HELL COMPLETION REPORT
DOCUMENT 4G-08/78/<
mcro:
1. Permit Number: S
Owner of well:
11. Gravel pack: Typt
from to
feet
12. Static Hater Level:
Ft. (Be low. Above) Ground Surface
2. Use of water: DomestlcQpubllcQ
Jndustrlain Agriculture 1Q IrrlgatlonQ
Coninerd airj Other
3. Method of Drilling: JetQ DugQ
OrlvenQ Rotary: MudQUev.Q AlrQ
Other
4. Test WellQObservatlonQ^roductlonQ
5. Total Well Depth:
Completed
| <") feet
?£)
Month Day Year
6. If this Is a replacement well, how was
previous well abandoned?
til*
/ , •
7. Casing Material: SteelQ P VC0 Cone ret eQ
Diameter c3_Jn. Frooi fo to ( / feet
8. Screen Material: SteelQ PVCQConcreteQ
DUmeUr Inches
Setting froa \ | to \ r\ feet
9. f»rout Type: CementQ Bentonlte
Other .
feet
13. Pumping Water Level:
after fa hou Other ^
Inches above grade Tj~tT~
15. Type of Permanent Pump Installed:
Pump Manuf.
Rated capacity..
Pump Intake setting
7t.
-jrade
16. The completed well 1s
«. at least 5' from an> overhang
b. at least 50' from any septic tank
c. at least 10* from town $i-.pe MA* From to f*«»t
Signature of Water Well Contractor
D,te
-------
J
DRILLERS LOG
Top soil
Clay
Fine to coarse sand |
^ _. A
t
.
4
»
THICKNESS OF
STRATUM
0
1
3
/ *
\
•
DEPTH TO BOTTOM
OF STRATUM
1
3
18
•
'... , .
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL S/ /•LING DATA
(TRACE ORGANICS)
rwm n»i» /
OEHCUSEOH./
' L sr thtsspjce for mechanical iitiprtnti
SAMPLING SITE
IDENTIFIER
IAFR 19- 7
BASE WHERE SAMPLE COLLECTED
SAMPLING SITE DESCRIPTION
DATE COLLECTION BEGAN
n')\ntUDl
TIME COLLECTION BEGAN
124 hour clock/
COLLECTION METHOD
Q GRAB Q COMPOSITE
MAIL
REPORTS
TO
u in le II
( itan^cdi
ORIGINAL
COPY 2
SAMPLE COLLECTED BY f\jnir. < ,rade Af-'SC,
SIGNATURE
AUTOVON
REASON FOR
SUBMISSION
A-ACCIDENT/INCIDENT
R-RO UTI NE, 'PERIODIC
C-COMPLAINT
N-NPDES
F-FOLLOWUP/CLEANUP
O-OTHBR_/JpfclM /
BASE SAMPLE NUMBER
1
O€HL PIO
ANALYSES REQUESTED 'check appropriate blocks/
\OL-\riLl HALO( ARHOVS t\OHi IOH60)
rnchlorotluoromettuni:
3448H
MISf LL \M 01 S
n
PRI •> GROl P 1
\ m\ f blonde
39T5
t.le Haio.arron S.r^en
|ool46Ul'H
PRI s (,ROIP ri
H rom od K bin ronie thane
\\lene
HI "10
Hronv TT.I. tlun.'
Kiii \l o\ll 1 li \M s i HM,
< |i)H6D)
' arbon I etrai.nlorHje
'RI S (,ROl 1' I 1
i2 1 UMiH
?4 3'
r'u omcthane Potential 1 Il'il465\l I
( hloroetlune
343 1
Total I nhalomethan
S2')>)(t
1-t hloroetln vm\l ether
345"6
hloruii.r
VOUriLJ AKONI \ IK S (VOAi ilOH50i
( hloromethane
'4418
n
I'Rl S f.RfJl P Tl
UihromoLhloromethane
32 05
Volatile Uomatic Vreen 1001461P-X
1 2 ilk hlorohen/ene
'45^
llen/ene
34ll3i
MIM' I L \M 01 S
1 4 ,iKh!ori>hen/ene
345' 1
PKI S (iROL P T4
l)khlor(i>i:tluoronie thane
P( 1) ^
1 1 ili.hloroethane
34496
4-d:.nMro'"enz'.-n-.'
Phtlulatc 1 ^crs Screen
1000069PH
343"!
1 1 •Jkhi'jroethene
345 il
34H10
3-1292
lrans-1, 2 Jichloroethene
34546
lJi-n-iuit\ i phthalate
39110
, 2-dii.hloropropane
34541
1 phthalate
34336
tis-1 3-cikhloropropene
34"04
Dinv i>l phthalate
343-i
trans- 1 3-dichlornpropene
34M9
tyl ih'Malati:
\1eth\lene C blonde
. 1 2 2-tetrachloroethane
etra^hloroethvlene
1 1 1 -trkhloroethane
'4^ 16
1 1 2-mchloroethane
'45 1
Trii.hloroelhxlene
39 I Hi)
REMARKS
AF «Tjy.1 2752B AF FORMS 2752A AND AF 2752B. FEB 85. REPLACE AF FORM 2752. JAN 31, WHICH WILL BE USED
-------
prc
Planning Research Corporation 303 East Wacner Dr>\e
Su.te 500
C"C3qc IL 50601
3' 2-928-0300
April 10, 1987
Mr. Anthony Montrone
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force (WH-562A)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W., Room S-6301
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Montrone:
PRC Environmental Management, Inc., is pleased to submit for your review the
final memorandum for QA/QC support of the Work Assignment No. 548, entitled
"Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples from the Dover
Air Force Base, Delaware."
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to contact
us.
Sincerely,
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Daniel T. Chow
Enclosure
cc: Nancy Deck (letter only)
Bruce Bakaysa (letter only)
Barbara Elkus (w/1 copy of report)
Rich Steimle (w/1 copy of report)
Paul Friedman (w/1 copy of report)
KenPartymiller (w/1 copy of report)
« ^—ii • j — -1
Pat Krantz (w/1 copy of report)
Gareth Person (w/1 copy of report)
Chuck Hoover (w/1 copy of report)
-------
pro
Planning Research Corporation
303 East 'A/acker C
Sole 5CQ
C'.cago i|_ 60601
3-2-938-0300
ve
EVALUATION OF QUALITY CONTROL ATTENDANT
TO THE ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM THE
DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, DELAWARE
FINAL MEMORANDUM
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Washington, D.C. 20460
Work Assignment No.
EPA Region
Site No.
Date Prepared
Contract No.
PRC No.
Prepared By
Telephone No.
EPA Primary Contact
Telephone No.
548
Headquarters
N/A
April 10, 1987
68-01-7037
015-54824-03
PRC Environmental
Management, Inc.
(Ken Partymiller)
(713) 292-7568
Anthony Montrone/
Barbara Elkus
(202) 382-7912
yFiw$$f! ;\:» •:-.
f*{*»-*''• *' '"*
ENFORCEMENT
CONFIDENTIAL
-------
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 16, 1987
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples
from the Dover Air Force Base, Delaware Facility
FROM: Ken Partymiller, Chemist
PRC Environmental Management
THRU: Paul H. Friedman, Chemist*
Studies and Methods Branch (WH-562B)
TO: HWGWTF: Tony Montrone*
Gareth Pearson (EPA 8231)*
Richard Steimle, HWGWTF*
Pat Krantz, Region HI
Joe Kotlinski, Region III
This memo summarizes the evaluation of the quality control data generated by
the Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force (HWGWTF) contract analytical
laboratories (1). This evaluation and subsequent conclusions pertain to the data
from the Dover Air Force Base, Delaware sampling effort by the Hazardous Waste
Ground-Water Task Force.
The objective of this evaluation is to give users of the analytical data a more
precise understanding of the limitations of the data as well as their appropriate use.
A second objective is to identify weaknesses in the data generation process for
correction. This correction may act on future analyses at this or other sites.
The evaluation was carried out on information provided in the accompanying
quality control reports (2-5) which contain raw data, statistically transformed data,
and graphically transformed data.
* HWGWTF Data Evaluation Committee Member
-------
The evaluation process consisted of three steps. Step one consisted of
generation of a package which presents the results of quality control
procedures, including the generation of data quality indicators, synopses of
statistical indicators, and the results of technical qualifier inspections. A report on
the results of the performance evaluation standards analyzed by the laboratory was
also generated. Step two was an independent examination of the quality control
package and the performance evaluation sample results by members of the Data
Evaluation Committee. This was followed by a meeting (teleconference) of the Data
Evaluation Committee to discuss the foregoing data and data presentations. These
discussions were to come to a consensus, if possible, concerning the appropriate use
of the data within the context of the HWGWTF objectives. The discussions were
also to detect and discuss specific or general inadequacies of the data and to
determine if these are correctable or inherent in the analytical process.
Preface
The data user should review the pertinent materials contained in the
accompanying reports (2-5). Questions generated in the interpretation of these data
relative to sampling and analysis should be referred to Rich Steimle of the
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
I. Site Overview
The Dover Air Force Base is located near Dover, Delaware. It has been in
existence for over 30 years. The hazardous waste disposal units at the facility are
now closed. Their previous locations are surrounded by monitoring wells. The units
were primarily for the disposal of organic solvents used for the dcgreasing of
aircraft engine parts. From the previous history of the site, the presence of
volatile organics in the ground water is a possibility.
The geology of the site is mainly sandy material containing some clay.
Migration of contaminants would, therefore, be expected to be rapid. The water
table in the area is near the ground surface. One of the wells yielded a sample
with a distinct organic layer. Results for this sample were not available.
Twenty-five field samples including a field blank (MQA914/Q1514), an
equipment blank (MQO888/QO888), a trip blank (MQO887/QO887), and two pairs of
duplicate samples (well 11, samples MQA920/Q1520 and MQA921/Q1521 and well 103,
samples MQA910/Q1510 and MQA911/Q1511) were collected at this facility. Sample
MQA903/Q1503 was specified by the sampling team as a medium concentration matrix
ground-water sample and was analyzed only for inorganics and
dioxins/dibenzofurans. Sample Q1S22 was an organic liquid which was not analyzed
in time to be included in this report. Samples were not split with Region III.
-------
II. Evaluation of Quality Control Data and Analytical Data
1.0 Metals
1.1 Performance Evaluation Standards
Metal analyte performance evaluation standards were not evaluated in
conjunction with the samples collected from this facility.
1.2 Metals QC Evaluation
Total metal spike recoveries were analyzed for twenty-three metals spiked into
two (of three possible) low concentration matrix samples (MQA900, 912, and 913)
and one medium concentration matrix sample (MQA903). Twenty-one metal average
spike recoveries from the low concentration matrix samples were within the data
quality objectives (DQOs) for this Program. The tin average spike recovery was
outside DQO with a value of 130 percent. The aluminum spike recovery was not
calculated because the sample concentration of this metal was greater than four
times the concentration of the spike. Various individual metal spike recoveries from
the low concentration matrix samples were also outside DQO. These are listed in
Tables 3-la and 3-2a of Reference 2 as well as in the following Sections. A listing
of which samples were spiked for each analyte is also available in Table 3-2a of
Reference 2.
Twenty of twenty-three metal spike recoveries from the medium concentration
spiked samples were within Program DQOs. Only one medium concentration matrix
sample was spiked for each metal. The aluminum and cadmium spike recoveries
were outside DQO with recoveries of 182 and 28 percent, respectively. The lead
spike recovery was not calculated because the sample concentration of this metal
was greater than four times the concentration of the spike. A listing of which
samples were spiked for each analyte is available in Table 3-2b of Reference 2.
The calculable average relative percent differences (RPDs) for all metallic
analytes in the low concentration matrix samples were within Program DQOs. The
calculable RPDs for all metallic analytes in the medium concentration matrix samples
were within the DQOs with the exceptions of chromium and aluminum. RPDs were
not calculated for about one-half of the metal analytes because the concentrations
of many of the metals in the field samples used for the RPD determination were
less than the CRDL and thus were not required, or in some cases, not possible to
be calculated.
Required analyses were performed on all metals samples submitted to the
laboratory.
No metals contamination was reported in the laboratory blanks. Tin
contamination was found in field and trip blanks at concentrations of 80 and 54
ug/L (the tin CRDL equals 50 ug/L).
-------
1.3 Furnace Metals
The quality control for the graphite furnace metals (antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, lead, selenium, and thallium) was generally acceptable.
One of two cadmium (sample MQA913) and both lead (samples MQA900 and 913)
spike recoveries from the low concentration matrix samples were outside DQO with
values of 130, 56, and 134 percent. The cadmium spike recovery from the medium
concentration matrix spike sample was also outside DQO with, a recovery of 28
percent.
The correlation coefficient for the method of standard addition (MSA) analysis
of lead in samples MQA903, 920, and 921 was below DQO. All positive lead results
should be considered qualitative.
All antimony, arsenic, selenium, and thallium, and cadmium (with an exception)
results should be considered quantitative. All negative lead results (samples
MQ0887, MQO888, MQA900, and MQA914) should also be considered quantitative.
All positive lead results should be considered qualitative. Due to poor recovery, the
cadmium result for sample MQA920 should not be used. The usability of all graphite
furnace analytes is summarized in Section 4.0 at the end of this Report.
1.4 ICP Metals
Tin contamination was found in the field blank (MQA914) and trip blank
(MQO887) at concentrations of 80 and 54 ug/L, respectively. The CRDL for tin is
50 ug/L. Due to this contamination, tin results for samples MQA904 through 909,
911 through 913, and 915 through 921 should be considered unusable. The remaining
tin results should be considered quantitative.
The low level (twice CRDL) linear range check for chromium, cobalt, nickel,
silver, tin, vanadium, and zinc exhibited poor recoveries on various analysis dates
(see Section B3 of Reference 3 for a detailed listing). The low level linear range
check is an analysis of a solution with elemental concentrations near the detection
limit. The range check analysis shows the accuracy which can be expected by the
method for results near the detection limits. The accuracy reported for these
metals is not unexpected. Low level linear range check results for chromium and
silver for all samples except MQA903 had variable recoveries and thus a bias, if
any, was impossible to determine. Cobalt, nickel, tin, vanadium, and zinc low level
results for all samples except MQA903 should be considered to be biased low by
approximately 20 to 30 percent. Nickel, vanadium, and zinc low level results for
sample MQA903 should be considered to be biased high by approximately 20 percent.
Results for sample MQA903 showed no recovery of chromium and thus the negative
chromium results for this sample are not reliable and should not be used.
Individual matrix spike recoveries were outside DQO for tin in low
concentration matrix sample MQA900 with 142 percent recovery and for aluminum in
medium concentration matrix sample MQA903 with 183 percent recovery. The tin
results were judged to have no impact on the data quality as it represented only
one of two matrix spikes. The aluminum results for sample MQA903 should be
considered to be qualitative due to the high aluminum recovery from the matrix
spike.
-------
Laboratory duplicate results for aluminum and chromium in medium
concentration matrix sample MQA903 were outside DQO with RPDs of 71 and 34
percent. These results caused the medium concentration matrix aluminum results to
be considered qualitative and the chromium results to be considered semi-
quantitative.
All barium, beryllium, calcium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese,
nickel, potassium, silver, sodium, vanadium, and zinc results should be considered
quantitative. Aluminum, chromium, and tin results, all with exceptions, should also
be considered quantitative. Chromium results for sample MQA903 should be
considered semi-quantitative. Aluminum results for sample MQA903 should be
considered qualitative. Tin results for samples MQA904 through 909, MQA911
through 913, and MQA915 through 921 should not be used due to the above
mentioned blank contamination. The usability of all total and dissolved ICP metal
analytes is summarized in Section 4.1 at the end of this Report.
1.5 Mercury
All mercury results should be considered quantitative.
2.0 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
2.1 Performance Evaluation Standard
Inorganic and indicator analytc performance evaluation standards were not
evaluated in conjunction with the samples collected from this facility.
2.2 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte OC Evaluation
The average spike recoveries of all of the inorganic and indicator analytes,
except for chloride in the low concentration matrix were within the accuracy DQOs
(accuracy DQOs have not been established for bromide, fluoride*, and nitrite nitrogen
matrix spikes). The chloride average spike recovery was 110.5 percent in the low
concentration matrix sample. The bromide, fluoride, and nitrite nitrogen average
spike recoveries were 112.5, 107, and 107 percent in the low concentration matrix
samples and 100, 110, and 100 percent in the medium concentration matrix sample.
Average RPDs for all inorganic and indicator analytes were within Program
DQOs. The RPDs were not calculated if either one or both of the duplicate values
were less than the CRDL. Precision DQOs have not been established for bromide,
fluoride, and nitrite nitrogen.
Requested analyses were performed on all samples for the inorganic and
indicator analytes.
No laboratory blank contamination was reported for any inorganic or indicator
analyte. The field blank contained 40 ug/L of TOX contamination (CRDL equals 5
ug/L).
-------
2.3 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte Data
All results for cyanide, bromide, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, total phenols, TOC,
and POX should be considered quantitative with an acceptable probability of false
negatives.
The holding times for the nitrate and nitrite nitrogen analyses ranged from 9
to 10 days from receipt of samples which is longer than the recommended 48 hour
holding time for unpreserved samples. All nitrate and nitrite nitrogen results should
be considered semi-quantitative.
The matrix spike recovery for chloride from one of two low concentration
matrix spike samples was above the DQO recovery range 90 to 110 percent with a
value of 114 percent. This was not judged to have a significant impact on the
quality of the data and all chloride results should be considered quantitative.
Calibration verification standards for POC were not analyzed. A high and a
low concentration POC spike solution was run during the analytical batch but the
"true" value of the spike was not provided by the laboratory. EPA needs to supply
the inorganic laboratory with a POC calibration verification solution. Until then,
the instrument calibration can not be assessed. Also, although these spike solutions
were used as calibration verification standards, they were not run at the beginning,
at the end, and at an interval of every ten samples analyzed during the analytical
batch, as required. POC holding times ranged from 28 to 30 days. Although the
EMSL/Las Vegas data reviewers recommend a seven day holding time, the laboratory
has been instructed by the EPA Sample Management Office that a 14 day holding
time is acceptable. The POC results should be considered qualitative.
The field blank contained TOX contamination at a level of 40 ug/L which is
greater than the TOX CRDL of 5 ug/L. As a HWGWTF convention, all TOX results
greater that ten times the highest field blank concentration or less than the
detection limit should be considered quantitative. All TOX results greater than five
but less than ten times the highest concentration of sampling blank contamination
are considered qualitative and all other TOX results arc considered unusable. The
TOX results for samples MQA900 through 902, 904 through 908, 912, and 915
through 919 should not be used. All other TOX results should be considered
qualitative.
The POX holding times ranged from 6 to 12 days. Although the EMSL/Las
Vegas data reviewers recommend a seven day holding time, the laboratory has been
instructed by the EPA Sample Management Office that a 14 day holding time is
acceptable. The POX results should be considered quantitative.
-------
3.0 Organics and Pesticides
3.1 Performance Evaluation Standard
Organic performance evaluation standards were not evaluated in conjunction
with the samples collected from this facility.
3.2 Organic OC Evaluation
All matrix spike average recoveries were within established Program DQOs for
accuracy. Individual matrix spike recoveries which were outside the accuracy DQO
will be discussed in the appropriate Sections below. All surrogate spike average
recoveries were within DQOs for accuracy. Individual surrogate spike recoveries
which were outside the accuracy DQO will be discussed in the appropriate Sections
below.
All matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate average RPDs, with the exceptions of
those for chlorobenzene and lindane (gamma-BHC), were within Program DQOs for
precision. Individual matrix spike RPDs which were outside the precision DQO will
be discussed in the appropriate Sections below. All average surrogate spike RPDs,
with the exception of that for 2,4,6-tribromophcnol, were within DQOs for precision. -
No surrogate standard was used for the herbicide analysis.
All organic analyses were performed as requested.
Laboratory blank contamination was reported for organics and is discussed in
Reference 4 as well as the appropriate Sections below.
Detection limits for the organic fractions are summarized in Reference 4 as
well as the appropriate Sections below.
3.3 Volatiles
Quality control data indicate that volatile organics were determined acceptably.
The chromatograms appear acceptable. Initial and continuing calibrations, tunings
and mass calibrations, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, surrogate spikes,
and holding times were acceptable. Laboratory blank contamination was reported.
Laboratory (method) blanks MB1, MB2, MB3, and MB4 contained methylene
chloride contamination. This common laboratory contaminant was present at levels
(4 to 5 ug/L) in the vicinity of the methylene chloride CRDL (5 ug/L). All positive
methylene chloride results (samples Q1500, 1501, 1502, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508,
1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, and 1521) should
not be used due to this laboratory blank contamination.
The organic analytical laboratory is not using the contract specified primary
ions to quantitate results for many of the HSL compounds. This has no affect on
the results. The laboratory has been made aware of this discrepancy and is
correcting it for future analyses.
The volatiles data are acceptable. Estimated method detection limits were
CRDL for all samples except Q1509 (100 times CRDL), Q1510 (20 times CRDL), Q1511
(20 times CRDL), Q1520 (10 times CRDL), and Q1521 (10 times CRDL). Dilution of
these samples was required due to high concentrations of organics. The volatile
-------
compound results should be considered quantitative with the above mentioned
exceptions for methylcnc chloride. False negatives for the samples (Q1509, 1510,
and 1511) should be considered a possibility due to large sample dilutions. The
probability of false negative results for all other compounds is acceptable.
3.4 Semivolatiles
Initial and continuing calibrations, tuning and mass calibrations, holding times,
and chromatograms were acceptable for the semivolatiles. Some problems were
encountered with blanks, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, and surrogate
spike recoveries.
Due to a dilution factor of 2.0, the estimated detection limits for the
semivolatiles were approximately twice the CRDL.
The matrix spike recovery of 4-nitrophcnol from sample Q1512MS and 2,4-
dinitrotoluene from sample Q1506MSD were above DQO ranges of 10 to 80 percent
and 24 to 96 percent with values of 87 and 99 percent, respectively. The RPD for
pentachlorophenol in the matrix spike duplicate analyses for sample Q1512 was above
the DQO limit.
The phenol-D5, 2-fluorophenol, and 2,4,6-tribromophenol surrogate spike
recoveries from samples Q1504 and 1504RE (rccxtraction and-reanalysis) and the 2-
fluorophcnol recoveries from samples Q1512, and 1519 were below their respective
DQO ranges. The tcrphcnyl-D14 surrogate spike recovery from sample Q1506MSD
(matrix spike duplicate) and the phenol-D5 recoveries from samples QO888, Q1500,
1505, and 1507 were above their respective DQO ranges. The acid fraction results
for samples Q1504 and 1504RE should be considered suspect due to this poor acid
surrogate recovery. There was no impact on the rest of the data.
Two of the semivolatile method (instrument) blanks, MB1 and MB2, contained
bis(2-ethylhcxyl)phthalate contamination at concentrations of 7 and 3 ug/L. This
caused no impact on the data.
The organic analytical laboratory is not using the contract specified primary
ions to quantitate results for many of the HSL compounds. This has no affect on
the results. The laboratory has been made aware of this discrepancy and is
correcting it for future analyses.
The semivolatile data are acceptable and the results should be considered
quantitative for all samples with the exception of the acid fraction (phenols) results
for sample Q1504 and the reextraction and reanalysis of this sample. The
probability of false negatives for all samples, with the exception of the acid
fraction results for sample Q1504, is acceptable. Acid fraction results for sample
Q1504 should be considered unreliable.
3.5 Pesticides
The initial calibrations, blanks, surrogate spikes, holding times, and
chromatography for pesticides were acceptable. Continuing calibration and matrix
spike and matrix spike duplicate problems were encountered.
-------
The matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate RPDs for lindane (gamma-BHC) and
4,4'-DDT in sample Q1512 were above DQO limits. Lindane was detected in samples
Q1504, 1509, and 1517 but due to this poor matrix spike, these results should be
considered semi-quantitative. There were also precision problems with the kepone
calibration factor but no kepone was found in any samples and the laboratory has
agreed to correct the problem so this is considered inconsequential.
The organic analytical laboratory did not follow the proper sequence of
pesticide calibrations. This was not judged to affect data quality.
The pesticides results should be considered quantitative with the exception of
the lindane (gamma-BHC) results for samples Q1504, 1509, and 1517 which should be
considered semi-quantitative.
3.6 Herbicides
Initial and continuing calibrations, blanks, and matrix spike/matrix spike
duplicates were acceptable for the herbicide analyses. Several shortcomings with
the herbicide chromatography were noted. No surrogate standard was used for the
herbicides.
The herbicides for which the laboratory analyzed include only 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T,
2,4,5-TP, chlorobcnzilatc, phorate, disulfoton, parathion, and famphur.
It was felt by the EMSL/Las Vegas data reviewers that the laboratory used an
inappropriate pair of columns to quantify and confirm the chloro-herbicides analysis.
The laboratory should have used a two column confirmation method to analyze
the organophosphorus herbicides.
The herbicide results should be considered suspect due to the lack of herbicide
surrogates and confirmation column analyses.
3.7 Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
Dioxin and dibenzofuran spike recovery from the blank spiked sample ranged
from 91 to 97 percent which is considered to be acceptable accuracy. No precision
(RPD) information was available as no dioxins were detected in the duplicate
samples. No contamination was found in the laboratory (method) blanks. Octa-
chlorodibenzodioxin was found at low concentration in samples Q1503 and 1506 but
was not reported by the laboratory.
The laboratory was not able to meet the DQO resolution criteria for two
initial and three routine calibrations for the two carbon-13 labeled TCDD isomers on
several dates. Also, the recovery of the internal standards were outside DQO for
the carbon-13 labeled TCDD isomer for sample Q1500 and for the carbon-13 labeled
isomer of OCDD for the method blank and for sample Q1500DUP (duplicate).
Dioxin/dibenzofuran negative results for sample Q1500 should, therefore, be
considered qualitative.
-------
The dioxin and dibenzofuran results should be considered to be quantitative
with exceptions. The internal standard recovery for samples Q1500 and Q1500DUP
was low, therefore, results for this sample should be considered qualitative.
Octachlorodibenzodioxin and octachlorodibenzofuran results for all samples should be
considered qualitative due to lack of calibration linearity and sensitivity verification.
III. Data Usability Summary
4.0 Graphite Furnace Metals
Quantitative:
results
Qualitative:
Unusable:
4.1 1CP Metals
Quantitative:
Semi-quantitative:
Qualitative:
Unusable:
4.2 Mercury
Quantitative:
all antimony, arsenic, selenium, and thallium results;
cadmium results with an exception; all negative lead
all positive lead results
cadmium results for sample MQA920
all barium, beryllium, calcium, cobalt, copper, iron,
magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, silver, sodium,
vanadium, and zinc results; aluminum, chromium, and tin
results with exceptions;
chromium results for sample MQA903
aluminum results for sample MQA903
tin results for samples MQA904 through 909, 911 through
913, and 915 through 921
all mercury results
4.3 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
Quantitative:
Semi-quantitative:
Qualitative:
Unusable:
4.4 Oreanics
Quantitative:
Semi-quantitative:
Unreliable:
Unusable:
all cyanide, bromide, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, total
phenols, TOC,and POX results
all nitrate and nitrite nitrogen results
all POC results; TOX results with exceptions
TOX results for samples MQA900 through 902, 904 through
908, 912, and 915 through 919
volatile, semivolatile, and pesticide results, all with
exceptions
lindane (a pesticide) results for samples Q1504, 1509, and
1517
semivolatile acid fraction results for sample Q1504; all
herbicide results
all positive methylene chloride (a volatile) results
10
-------
4.5 Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
Quantitative: all dioxin and dibenzofuran results with exceptions
Qualitative: all results for sample Q1500/1500DUP; all octa-CDD and
octa-CDF results
IV. References
1. Organic Analyses: EMSI
2421 West Hillcrest Drive
Newbury Park, CA 91320
(805) 388-5700
Inorganic and Indicator Analyses:
Centec Laboratories
P.O. Box 956
2160 Industrial Drive
Salem, VA 24153
(703) 387-3995
Dioxin/Dibenzofuran Analyses:
CompuChcm Laboratories, Inc.
P.O. Box 12652
3308 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919) 549-8263
2. Draft Quality Control Data Evaluation Report (Assessment of the Usability of
the Data Generated) for site 47, Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, 3/18/1987,
Prepared by Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., for the
US EPA Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
3. Draft Inorganic Data Usability Audit Report, for the Dover Air Force Base,
Delaware facility, Prepared by Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group, Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Co., Las Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA,
EMSL/Las Vegas, 3/18/1987.
4. Draft Organic Data Usability Audit Report, for the Dover Air Force Base,
Delaware facility, Prepared by Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group, Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Co., Las Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA,
EMSL/Las Vegas, 3/18/1987.
5. Draft Dioxin/Dibenzofuran Usability Audit Report, for the Dover Air Force Base,
Delaware facility, Prepared by Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group, Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Co., Las Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA,
EMSL/Las Vegas, 3/17/1987.
11
-------
V. Addressees
Anthony Montrone
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force, OSWER (WH-562A)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Gareth Pearson
Quality Assurance Division
US EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas
P.O. Box 1198
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
Richard Steimle
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force, OSWER (WH-562A)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Joe Kotlinski
US Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Pat Krantz
US Environmental Protection Agency
839 Bestgate Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
Paul Friedman
Characterization and Assessment Division, OSW (WH-562B)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Chuck Hoover
Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
12
------- |