June 1988 EPA-700/8-88-052
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water
Task Force
Evaluation of
Wyman-Gordon Company
North Grafton, Massachusetts
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
o
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ENGINEERING
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER
TASK FORCE
Evaluation of Wyman-Gordon Company
(July 1988)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street,.Room 1670
Chicago, IL 60604 -
-------
-------
UPDATE OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER TASK FORCE
EVALUATION OF WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force ("Task Force"), in
conjunction with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering (MDEQE), conducted an evaluation at the
.Wyman-Gordon Company's hazardous waste disposal facility in North
Grafton, Massachusetts. The evaluation consisted of an on-site
field inspection conducted from July 22 through July 24, 1986.
Wyman-Gordon was the 30th of 58 facilities to be evaluated by the
Task Force. This update briefly outlines the current status of
the Wyman-Gordon facility.
In April 1987, Wyman-Gordon submitted a Supplemental Well
Installations and Hydrogeologic Evaluation Report to EPA and
MDEQE. The purpose of the report was to outline the following:
o Installation of additional wells to further define
the eastern extent of the Rinsewater Treatment
Facility (RTF) lagoons influence on ground water,
o Drilling and installation of an additional bedrock
well downgradient of the RTF lagoons to verify the
hydraulic characteristics and vertical hydraulic
gradients of the bedrock zone, and concentrations
of lagoon constituents within the bedrock zone.
MDEQE reviewed the April 1987 Supplemental Report outlined
above and concluded that even if Wyman-Gordon installed the
proposed wells, inadequacies would exist in Wyman-Gordon1s
ground-water quality assessment program. These inadequacies are
as follows:
(1) Wyman-Gordon has failed to adequately characterize and
evaluate the hydrogeology, specifically the vertical
ground-water flow gradients, between the RTF lagoons
and East Brook.
-------
(2) Wyman-Gqrdon has failed to adequately define the extent
and concentration of the contaminant plume between the
RTF lagoons and East Brook.
(3) Wyman-Gordon has failed to obtain samples from an
adequate number of monitoring wells and environmental
receptors, and to determine background concentrations
required pursuant to 40 CFR 265.93 (d)(4) on a
quarterly basis, as required by "40 CFR 265.93 (d) (7);
(4) Wyman-Gordon did not submit an annual report by March
1, 1987, as required by 40 CFR 265.94 (b).
On September 27, 1987, MDEQE issued an administrative
compliance order to Wyman-Gordon (Docket No. HW87-35) for the
ground-water monitoring violations that were discovered as a
result of the facility evaluation, in addition to other
violations. The ground-water monitoring violations cited are as
follows:
o 40 CFR 265.93(b), (c), and (d) -- Prior to instituting
a ground-water quality assessment program pursuant to
265.93(d), Wyman-Gordon neither performed the
statistical analysis required under 265.93(b) and (c) ,
nor specifically confirmed its operative assumption
, that the facility may be affecting ground-water
quality.
o 40 CFR 265.93 (d)(7) -- Wyman-Gordon failed to sample
and analyze a sufficient number of wells to make the
determinations required under 265.93(d)(4), as required
by 265.93(d)(7). The facility sampled and analyzed
only one well during each quarter of 1985 and only two
wells during the first two quarters of 1986.
o 40 CFR 265.94 (b) -- Wyraan-Gordon failed to. submit any
ground-water monitoring reports after July"1986.
The compliance order also cited the Task- Force's general
inspection findings as follows:
Wyman-Gordon's ground-water quality assessment
program is not adequate to assess the rate,
extent and concentration of hazardous waste
constituents in ground water. The Task Force
ii
-------
inspection team specifically determined that
additional wells were required to be installed
in order to better characterize the facility,
particularly the vertical components of flow in
both the surficial unconsolidated sediments and
bedrock portions of the aquifer. In addition,
the Task Force identified other deficiencies in
the program that the order requires to be
addressed. The facility needs to implement:
A) A quarterly monitoring program which
includes the sampling of a number of
surface and ground-water points at
.the boundaries and within the plume
of contamination and at any
environmental receptors sufficient to
define the rate of migration of the
contaminant plume;
B) A sampling program which includes
sampling of a number of parameters
sufficient to define the composition
of the- contaminant plume;
C) Procedures for the collection of
ground-water elevations from all
wells and the stream elevation on a
quarterly basis;
D) A characterization program to
determine the geologic character of
the bedrock underlying the facility
and whether the bedrock is part of
the uppermost aquifer;
E) A characterization program to
determine the direction and
magnitude of vertical ground-water
flow gradients in the bedrock and
unconsolidated deposits between the
RTF Lagoons and East Brook;
F) The assessment of the extent and
vertical distribution of
contamination east of the RTF
Lagoons.
ill
-------
Wyman-Gordon is currently not pursuing an operating permit
for the RTF lagoons. Instead, they have submitted a closure plan
for the RTF lagoons which was approved by the MDEQE. In
addition, U.S. EPA has conducted a RCRA Facility Assessment
(RFA). The RFA is currently in draft form, and is being
reviewed by both EPA and MDEQE.
This completes the Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force
Evaluation of the Wyman-Gordon Company facility.
iv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Concerns have been raised about whether hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities 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 of the TSD facilities, the Administrator of EPA
established a Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force ("Task
Force"). The Task Force is composed of personnel from the EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), National
Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC), EPA regional offices,
and state regulatory agencies. The Task Force is conducting in-
depth investigations of TSD facilities with the following
objectives for on-site facilities:
o Determine compliance with interim status ground-water
monitoring requirements 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 facility's RCRA Part B permit application for
compliance with 40 CFR Part 270.14(c) and potential
compliance with Part 264.
*Regulations promulgated under RCRA address hazardous waste
management facility operations, including ground-water
monitoring, to ensure that hazardous waste constituents
are not released to the environment.
-------
o Determine if the ground water underlying the facility
contains hazardous constituents.
The Task Force has scheduled compliance inspections of
ground-water monitoring systems at 58 TSD facilities. The Wyman-
Gordon Company facility, located in North Grafton, Massachusetts,
was inspected by the Task Force in July 1986 and is the subject
of this inspection report. The inspection was led and
coordinated by EPA Region I.
Massachusetts has received final authorization from EPA to
run the RCRA program. The Massachusetts Hazardous Waste
Regulations, including the ground-water monitoring requirements,
are.found in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 21C and 310CMR
30.000 and are essentially the same as those found in 40 CFR
Parts 260 through 265, and Part 270. For simplicity, this report
will reference Federal regulations.
•
Specific tasks of this investigation were to:
1. Evaluate the Wyman-Gordon ground-water sampling and
analysis plan.
2. Evaluate sample collection, handling, and analytical
procedures for the RCRA wells.
3. Evaluate the RCRA monitoring wells for proper
construction and placement with respect to both interim
status and permit requirements.
4. .Determine whether the ground-water quality assessment
plan is adequate.
To accomplish these tasks, the Task Force reviewed records,
conducted a facility inspection, and collected samples from
selected RCRA ground-water monitoring wells and the waste
management units.
The Wyman-Gordon facility was constructed in 1973 and is
located in North Graftpn, Massachusetts (Figure 1). The North
-------
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION
•
! ,\1 /N A.l ' r •••' North (] rail on
! 'I- i. 'V*'/»: •'•-10.,.- ,
• .'.::/, .v>
-APPROXIMATE SCALE-
FROM USGS 6RAFTON. MA QUADRANGLE MAP
0' 1000* 2000'
4000'
-------
Grafton area is underlain by unconsolidated glacial sediments,
including till, outwash deposits, and ice-contact deposits.
Areas of peat and fill are also common. The unconsolidated
-sediments are underlain by bedrock, identified as the Nashoba
Formation. This formation is comprised of schist and gneiss.
Ground water is the primary source of drinking water in the area.
Public water supply wells are completed within the glacial
deposits, while private wells are thought to be completed in
bedrock (Wyman-Gordo.n, 1985). The Wyman-Gordon facility is
bordered on the east by East Brook, which discharges to Hovey
Pond.
The Wyman-Gordon facility manufactures ferrous and non-
ferrous metal forgings for use in the aerospace and aircraft
industries. The manufacturing processes involve chemical milling
and etching through which metals are removed from the surface of
forgings 'in order to eliminate scales from the surface and
expose surface defects. The chemical milling and etching
processes involve the use of strong acid and alkaline solutions
depending on the metal, involved. The metals removed during the
chemical milling and etching processes consist of three groups:
steel, titanium, and aluminum.
Wyman-Gordon operates a rinsewater treatment facility (RTF).
There are 2 lagoons associated with the RTF which are classified
as RCRA-regulated surface impoundments. The RTF treats the
•rinsewaters generated from the chemical milling and etching
.processes by feeding the rinsewaters through a series of pH
adjustment tanks. There are a total of 42 other solid waste
management units (SWMUs) at the site. These other SWMUs were
visually inspected by the Task Force.
In 1973, Wyman-Gordon constructed two unlined surface
impoundments (the "North" and "South" RTF lagoons) designed to
allow the percolation of wastewaters from the RTF into the
-------
ground. The North RTF lagoon is connected to the South.RTF
lagoon by clay pipes that act as a conduit to channel off
overflow when water levels in the South RTF lagoon exceed an
elevation of 373 feet (ground surface). Between 1975 and August
1986, Wyman-Gordon discharged wastewaters from the RTF to the two.
»
RTF lagoons at the facility.
A byproduct of the wastewater treatment process is a sludge
that forms in the RTF lagoons and is retained 'in the lagoons as
the treated wastewater percol-ates through the lagoon bottoms.
This sludge is classified as a wastewater treatment sludge from
electroplating operations (F006, as found in 40 CFR Part 261.31).
The F006 sludge is held primarily in the South RTF lagoon, which
has a capacity of about 960,000 to 1,200,000 gallons of water and
now holds approximately 827,000 gallons of accumulated sludge.
The facility has -operated the North and South RTF lagoons
under the interim status requirements for the storage of
hazardous wastes since the federal regulations became effective
in November 1980. A Part. B permit application for the RTF
lagoons was submitted to both EPA and the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (MDEQE) on
November 8, 1985. The application indicated that Wyraan-Gordon
intends to close the RTF lagoons some time prior to November
1988, as required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) of 1984.
Wyman-Gordon initiated a ground-water monitoring program for
the RTF lagoons in 1982 with the installation of four monitoring
wells (initially planned as one upgradient and three
downgradient). The wells were constructed of PVC casing and
screened the entire thickness of the saturated zone
(approximately 15 to 25 feet). Ground-water flow was thought to
be to the northeast, discharging to East Brook. Initial
measurements and sampling were conducted rn July 1982. and, as a
-------
result, Wyman-Gordon concluded that the RTF lagoons were
impacting the ground water by:
(1) Causing local mounding in the ground-water flow
(therefore no upgradient well unaffected by the
facility existed)
(2) Releasing hazardous wastes to the ground water, as
evidenced by the presence of elevated levels of arsenic
in one downgradient well (GZA-3) and elevated levels of
nitrate in all four wells.
. Based on these conclusions, Wyman-Gordon initiated an
assessment program to determine the rate and extent of ground-
water contaminant migration in August 1982. No initial
background ground-water quality was established, however, nor was
a statistical analysis conducted. At the time of the Task Force
inspection, 10 additional wells had been installed, including one
upgradient well outside the influence of mounding. Sample
analyses of the additional wells confirmed the presence of
arsenic and nitrate, and also indicated the presence of chromium,
lead, nickel, and 1 ,1 ,1-trichloroethane in downgradient wells.
Figure 2 shows locations of all the wells.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Task Force personnel inspected the interim status ground-
water monitoring program at the Wyman-Gordon Company facility in
North Grafton, Massachusetts, during the period from July 22
through July 24, 1986, to evaluate whether it met the RCRA
requirements. The company initiated an interim status ground-
water monitoring program in June 1982, although applicable
provisions of the RCRA regulations became effective on November
19, 1981. The State of Massachusetts is authorized to administer
and enforce the RCRA program outlined in 40 CFR P.art 260 through
Part 270. The findings and conclusions presented below reflect
conditions existing at the facility from June 1982 to July 1986.
-------
>jaFV'vTT7>-J'**^(15^
mlr ^-^to^-^
' ; .III—I .i»«J^k«-^*i±£i~7v»-«
. • >• i 11
• L_,r| Z 1 H
tJ§. B
•.\lll~ \ . .• /r ^jii ,'il
•\F:;-:-i-'X'-^!5'>,/'
Ijygj ^
^** ^** < •«»»',*••••» * -' i
L- "v- - • • "vil.V—'
H "•••• 7
-------
The Task Force has determined that Wyman-Gordon1s interim
status ground-water monitoring program does not fulfill the
following requirements:
o 40 CFR Part 265.90(a) -- Wyman-Gordon did not have
a ground-water monitoring program until July 1982,
approximately 8 month-s after the ground-water
monitoring requirements became effective (November
19, 1981).
o 40 CFR Part 265.91(a)(1) and (2) -- Wyman-Gordon
initially assumed that ground-water flow direction
was to the northeast. At the time of well
installation (July 1982), Wyman-Gordon designated
three of the four wells as downgradient wells
(GZA-2, -3, -4), and the remaining well (GZA-1) as
upgradient. Water level measurements taken in
July 1982 indicated mounding in the ground-water
surface as a consequence of the RTF lagoons. This
resulted in all four wells being downgradient. No
upgradient well existed until the installation of
GZA-10 well in 1984.
o 40 CFR Part 265.91(c) -- Monitoring wells are not
adequately sealed to prevent contamination from
entering the screened interval from above, thus
affecting the integrity of ground-water samples.
At the time of the Task Force inspection, several
wells were not sealed at the surface (see Table
1). In addition, the bentonite seals are
approximately 1 foot thick (see Table 4).
Industry standards generally call for at least 2-
foot-thick seals. In addition, at the time of the
Task Force inspection, wells GZA-2, GZA-3, GZA-4,
GZA-6, GZA-6A, and GZA-10 did not have concrete
collars and/or PVC caps (see Table 1), adding to
the possibility that contamination may infiltrate
the well from the surface.
o 40 CFR Part 265.92(a) -- Wyman-Gordon1s Sampling
and Analysis Plan (SAP) contains no schedules for.
background sampling, nor has the SAP been updated
to include Phase II and Phase III wells, or
procedures that may have changed since 1982.
o 40 CFR Part 265.93(d)(4): Because the monitoring
wells are inadequately constructed, Wyman-Gordon
has failed to adequately determine the rate and
extent of migration, and the concentrations of
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents
in the ground water as a result of RTF lagoon
8
-------
influence.
*
o . 40 CFR Part 265.93(d)(7)(i) -- Wyman-Gordon has
not established concentrations for hazardous waste
constituents as required by assessment monitoring.
In addition, th.e following deficiencies exist:
o Screen lengths, in all wells are the entire length
of the saturated zone. This does not allow for
sampling discrete portions of the highly variable
unconsolidated sediments.
o Ground-water surface elevations and well casing
heights were measured only to the nearest 0.1
foot. Elevations should be taken to the nearest
0.01 foot to ensure accurate flow evaluations and
to provide a check on the integrity of the well
(e.g., identify siltation problems). The Task
Force did note that well depths have become
shallower, which may indicate that siltation has
occurred (see Table 5).
o Wyman-Gordon has failed to adequately define
bedrock characteristics through borings, and they
have failed to determine whether bedrock is part
of the uppermost aquifer.
o Vertical ground-water ^flow gradients for the
. bedrock and unconsolidated surficial deposits have
not been determined.
o Wyman-Gordon's ground-water flow calculations
appear to be based on average permeability of the
unconsolidated sediments portion of the aquifer;
however, flow may be occurring in discrete
lithologic units of these sediments.
The Task Force has determined that Wyman-Gordon1s ground-
water assessment program is not adequate to assess the rate,
extent, and concentration of hazardous waste constituents in
ground water as required by 40 CFR 265.93(d). The Task Force
specifically determined .that the installation of additional wells
is required to better characterize the hydrogeology.of the
facility area. Specifically, the vertical components of flow in
both the" unconsolidated surficial sediments and bedrock portions
of the aquifer need to be defined. In addition, Wyman-Gordon1s
-------
ground-water flow calculations appear to be based on an average
permeability of the unconsolidated sediments portion of the
aquifer; however, flow may be occurring in discrete lithologic
units of these unconsolidated sediments. Wyman-Gordon must,
therefore, more adequately define permeabilities for zones within
the sediment portion of the aquifer. Furthermore, Wyman-Gordon
must define whether the bedrock portion of the aquifer is
hydraulically connected with the overlying sediments.
In addition, the Task Force recommends that deficiencies in
the facility's ground-water monitoring program be addressed as
follows:
o Implement a quarterly monitoring program that
includes sampling a number of surface and ground-
water points at the boundaries of and within the
contaminant plume and at any environmental
receptors, sufficient to define the migration rate
of the -contaminant plume.
o Implement a sampling program that includes
sampling for a number of parameters sufficient to
define the composition of the contaminant plume.
o Measure ground-water- elevations in all wells and
the surface elevation of East Brook on a quarterly
basis.
o Determine the geologic character of the bedrock
underlying the facility and whether the bedrock is
part of the uppermost aquifer.
o Determine the direction and magnitude of vertical
ground-water flow gradients in the bedrock and
surficial unconsolidated deposits between the RTF
lagoons and East Brook.
o Assess the extent and vertical distribution of
contamination east of the RTF lagoons.
During the review of the Part B permit application, the Task
Force found that the ground-water monitoring system is deficient.
Specifically,
-------
o 40 CFR Part 270.14(c)(2) -- The facility has not
adequately characterized the site hydrogeology and
uppermost aquifer.
o 40 CFR Part 270.14(c)(4)-- The facility has not
adequately defined the extent of ground-water
f "contamination from the RTF lagoons.
b 40 CFR Part 270.14(c)(4)(ii) -- The facility has
not sampled ground-water for all Appendix VIII
hazardous constituents.
o 40 CFR Part 270.14(c)(7) — The facility has not
submitted sufficient data- to establish a
compliance monitoring program or an engineering
feasibility plan for a corrective action program.
o 40 CFR Part 264.95 -- The waste management area
does not include the North RTF lagoon.
o "40 CFR Part 264.97(c) -- Existing monitoring wells
are not properly constructed to ensure the
integrity of ground-water samples (i.e., lack of
concrete seals, excessive screen lengths).
o 40 CFR Part 26'4.94(b) (1 ) -- The alternate
concentration limits demonstration is inadequate
since the site is not properly characterized in
terms of its hydrogeochemistry.
11
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT
INVESTIGATIVE METHODS
The Task Force evaluation of the Wyman-Gordon Company
facility consisted of:
o Reviewing and evaluating records and documents
from EPA Region I, the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (MDEQE), and the
Wyraan-Gordon Company
o Inspecting the facility during the period from
July 22 through July 24, 1986
o Sampling selected ground-water points and lagoon
liquids, analyzing the samples and evaluating the
data.
Records/Documents Review and Evaluation
Records and documents from EPA Region I and MDEQE offices
were reviewed prior to the on^site inspection to evaluate
facility operations, identify location and construction details
of waste management units, and evaluate ground-water monitoring
activities. On-site facility records were reviewed to verify the
information in Government files and to supplement the
information, where necessary. Selected documents requiring in-
depth evaluation were copied by the Task Force during the
inspection.
Specific documents and records reviewed and evaluated
included the ground-water sampling and analysis plan (SAP),
analytical results from past ground-water sampling, monitoring
well construction data and logs, site geologic reports, site
12
-------
operations plans, facility permits, waste management unit design
and operation reports, selected personnel position descriptions
•and qualifications (those related to the required ground-water
mo'nitoring program) , and operating records showing the general
types and quantities of wastes disposed of at the facility.
Facility Inspection
The facility inspection included identifying waste
management units; identifying and assessing waste management
operations, pollution control practices, surface drainage routes,
and local land uses; and verifying the location of the ground-
water monitoring system.
Wyman-Gordon Company representatives were interviewed to
identify records and documents of interest, discuss the contents
of the documents and explain facility operations and design (past
and present), the site hydrogeology, the rationale for the
ground-water monitoring system, and the SAP.
«e ~~
Waste Management Units
'Two RTF lagoons exist at the Wyman-Gordon facility, the
North lagoon and the South lagoon (see Figure 3). The lagoons
were constructed in 1973 as percolation lagoons in a fill area in
the southeast corner of the facility (known as the "East Side"),
adjacent to a wetland and a stream known as East Brook. The
South lagoon has a surface area of approximately 32,000 square
feet and an average depth of 4 to 5 feet; it is capable of
holding 960,000 to 1,200,000 gallons of liquid. The North Lagoon
is connected to the South lagoon via three clay pipes. The
North lagoon receives overflow from the South lagoon when the
water level in the South lagoon exceeds an elevation of +373
feet. A berm surrounds the two lagoons (Wyman-Gordon, 1985).
13
-------
Wyman-Gordon uses chemical milling and etching processes at
its North Grafton facility. Rinsewater from these processes is
treated in an on-site wastewater treatment unit and is then
discharged to the South lagoon. These treated wastewaters are
classified as F006 wastes (40 GFR 261.31, wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating operations). The metal
concentrations and pH of lagoon water samples taken in November
1983 and June 1985 are given in Appendix A.:
Wyman-Gordon has estimated the sludge volume in the South
lagoon at 827,000 gallons. As part of a delisting petition,
Wyman-Gordon sampled the sludge accumulated after construction of
the South lagoon and the sludge generated from wastewaters
entering the South lagoon in 1983 (known as "old" sludge and
"new" sludge, respectively). Both the "old" and "new" sludges
were analyzed for total- and EP toxicity metal concentrations.
Analytical results for the sludges are listed in Appendix A.
Cadmium, chromium, and nickel, as well as arsenic, and other
metals -were found in the sludge samples. " . -
Other Solid Waste Management Units
Wyman-Gordon provided information on 42 other solid waste
management units (SWMU) in addition to the lagoons (EPA, 1985).
These other SWMUs include a hazardous waste storage area for
tanks and containers and several pre-RCRA SWMUs. The SWMUs that
appear to be of most potential significance during the
inspection were:
o Three areas where oily wastes were placed directly onto
the ground (East Side)
o Two underground waste oil tanks (East Side)
o A landfill area used for disposal of polishing and
plating wastes, acids, bases, and heavy metal wastes
(East and West Side)
14
-------
o A disposal area, located in the southeast portion of
the site, used for spreading 11 cubic yards of
magnesium chips and 16 cubic yards of aluminum sulfate
powder (East Side)
Ground-water data from samples obtained from monitoring
wells located in the East Side study area show organic
contamination.
Task.Force Sample Collection and Handling Procedures
During the inspection, samples were collected by an EPA
contractor to determine if the ground water at Wyman-Gordon
contains hazardous waste constituents or other indicators of
contamination. Water samples were collected from wells GZA-2, 3,
4, 6, 6A, 10, 11, and 12, and a surface water sample was
collected from the South lagoon (see Tables- 1 and 2). Duplicate
samples were taken at wells GZA-11 and GZA-6, trip blanks were
prepared prior to the visit, and field and equipment -blanks were
poured at the site during sampling.
Water level measurements were taken using an electric meter
at RCRA wells during the first day of the on-site investigation
prior to any well sampling. Water levels were measured at all
wells even if they were not sampled. During the sampling of a
well, the wellhead and breathing zone of personnel collecting the
samples were monitored for chemical vapors with a
photoionization/organic vapor detector. An interface probe was
used to measure depth to water and to determine if multiple
phases were present in the wells. No separate liquid phases were
detected.
15
-------
FIGURE 3
SITE PLAN AT LAGOON AREA
\ f * '
V •' k ' -*
1 «&.* T.
SITE PLAN AT LAGOON AREA
*o'
Source: Wyman-Gordon, 1985
16
-------
TABLE 1
HAZARDOUS \VASTE GROl'N D-U ATER TASK FORCE
WELL MEASUREMENTS
Depth to
Water
U -: (ft)
GZA-I 11.38
GZA-2 9.60
GZA-2 10.36
GZA--1 3.28
GZA-5 5.01
GZA-5A 3.55
GZA-6 8.74
GZA-6A 2.68
GZA-7 5.64
GZA-8 . 2.75
GZA-9 3.87
GZA-10 10.16
GZA-11 2.50
GZA-12 3.54
Total Water Tabie
3
Depth Elevation
(ft) (ft)
38.08 364.27
22.18 366.70
22.41 36.1.94
20.17 360.62
24.02 366.09
6.11 365.90
33.46 360.36
8.18 365.62
35.14 357.66
40.86 356.05
8.10 357.18
33.47 (4)
26.68 (4)
1TJ5 (4)
Construction. Comments Temperature
from Field Note' pH °0
NA2 NA NA
Well wai bent; no 7.0 13 8
concrete collar; no
PVC cap
No concrete collar; 8.1 21.4
no PVC cap
Well head below ground, 6.9 14.1
contamination likely;
material preient inside
road box; no concrete
• collar
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
No PVC cap; concrete 9.7 13.3
collar broken up
No concrete collar 10.8 13.4
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
Well head below ground; 6.0 11.2
inner caaing no cap,
no concrete collar
No comment* 7.6 16.6
No comment* 6.0 12.3-
Specific
Conductivit>
umno/ err.
NA
1650
1940
1550
NA
NA
1850
2100
NA
NA
NA
250
1760
250
NA
= ;
j -1C
C.25
NA
NA
0.5
3.5
NA
- NA
NA
2.7
9.0
5.1
Notes:
Source: Task Force field notebooks.
1 NTU « Nephclometric turbidity units.
2 NA: not available; well not sampled.
3 Water table elevations calculated using top
Appendix B
4 No top of casing elevation available
casing elevations in
17
-------
TABLE 2
HAZARDOUS \\ASTE GROUND-U ATER TASK FORCE
SAMPLE COLLECTION DATA
Traffic N'o.
Sample Point
Pate
Time
MQA6I8
Q13J8
MQA621
Q1321
MQA495
Q1295
MQA49-2
Q1292
MQA616
QI316
MQA615
Q1315
MQA497
Q1297
MQA499
Q1299
MQA494
Q1294
MQA496
Q1296
MQA500
Q1300
MQA614
Q1314
MQA619
Q1319
MQA620
Q1320
Field Blank
Field Blank
Trip Blank
Trip Blank
Equipment Blank
Equipment Blank
GZA-11
GZA-11
GZA-11
GZA-11
GZA-6A
GZA-6A
GZA-6
GZA-6
GZA-6
GZA-6
GZA-12
GZA-12
Lagoon
Lagoon
GZA-10
GZA-10
GZA-4
GZA-4
GZA-3
GZA-2
GZA-2
07/23/86 12:35 pm
07/23/86 12:35 pm
07/23/86 2:00 pm
07/23/86 12:11 pm
07/23/86 12:01 pm
07/23/86 10:06 am
07/22/86 1:35 pm x'
07/22/86 10:00 am
07/22/86 11:22 am
07/22/86 1:48 pm
07/23/86 10:05 am
Parameter Sampled F '•:
Inorganics1, Mctals'-'
Organics3
Inorganics. Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Inorganics, Metals
Organics
Notes:
Source: Task Force Field Notebooks.
1 Inorganics include the inorganic indicator parameters.
3 Metals include total metals and dissolved metals.
3 Organics include volatile and semi-volatile organics, pesticides, and PCBs.
18
-------
Prior to sampling, each well was purged of at least three
water column volumes with a peristaltic pump. Purge water
was collected in buckets and discharged to the facility's
wastewater treatment tanks or surface impoundment. Purge
water was monitored for pH, temperature, and specific
conductance during purging.
Wells were sampled using pre-cleaned stainless steel
bailers dedicated for each well. Field measurements were made
on the first sample aliquot for temperature, pH, and specific
conductivity. The remainder of the sample volumes were
collected in accordance with guidelines in Table 3. Following
sampling, turbidity was 'measured; samples for metals, total
organic carbon (TOG), phenols, cyanide, nitrate, and ammonia
were preserved as indicated in Table 3. All equipment that was
to be reused was thoroughly cleaned by the sampling contractor
as detailed in Appendix D.
Wyman-Gordon requested split samples for all parameters. To
assure comparability between sets of samples, the containers for
each set of parameters (except volatile organics) were filled one-
third each in sequence, followed by filling each with the second
third, and finally by the last third. The same procedures were
followed with the sample splits requested by MDEQE, except that
the containers were filled in fourths.
The EPA sampling contractor provided all equipment and
materials necessary to collect, manage, handle, document, and ship
the required samples, including enough sample containers for all
split and replicate samples, preservatives for environmental
19
-------
samples, sealable shipping containers, custody seals and shipping
labels, chain-of-custody forms, sample tags, sample receipt forms
for all samples, decontamination equipment and supplies,
personalsafety gear, and ancillary materials. The sample contacting
surfaces of all sample collection equipment were fabricated of inert
materials such as Teflon or glass.
All samples were shipped to the EPA contractor laboratory in
accordance with the applicable Department of Transportation
(DOT) regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-177) and NEIC Standard
Operating Procedures. Wyman-Gordon was .responsible for shipping
samples to its laboratory, including costs.
GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
Wyman-Gordon has employed a consultant since 1982 to design
the ground-water monitoring system, determine the site geology and
hydrogeology, and conduct the hydrogeologic studies. The
consultant and the monitoring wells/borings installed by the
consultant are referenced by .the letters "GZA." Information
available to the Task Force on site geology and hydrogeology is
found in "Wyman-Gordon" (1985), and "Goldberg-Zoino and
Associates, Inc." (1983, 19840.
Stratigraphy
The bedrock beneath the site has been mapped as the Nashoba
Formation. The Nashoba Formation is composed of schist and
gneiss. Judging by an outcrop near the impoundments, some
bedrock fractures should be present in the subsurface, which is
typical of New England geology. During monitoring well
installation, the depth to apparent bedrock (i.e., refusal of the
rotary bit) varied from 22 to 41.5 feet. Bedrock was not cored.
The surficial geology of the area surrounding the Wyman-Gordon
site is primarily the result of the last glaciation of the New
England region. Several types of sediments were deposited during
the advance and retreat of the ice sheet.
20
-------
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
TABLE 3
PREFERRED SAMPLE BOTTLE TYPE AND PRESERVATIVE LIST
Parameter
Volatile Organic Analysis (VOA)
Purge and Trap
Bottle
2 40-ml VOA %ials
Purgeable Organic Carbon (POC) 1 40-ml VOA vials
Purgcable Organic Halogens (POX) 1 40-ml VOA vials
Extractable Organics
Pesticide/Herbicide
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Organic Halogens (TOX)
10. Phenols
II. Cyanide
12. Sulfate/Chloride
13. Nitrate/Ammonia
4 1-qt amber glass
1 1-qt plastic
1 1-qt plastic
1 4-oz glass
1 1-o/t amber glass
1 1-qt amber glass
1 1-qt plastic
I I-qt plastic
1 1-qt plastic
Preservative
Cool 4° C
Cool. 4° C
Cool 4° C :
Cool 4° C
Cool 4° C
HNO3 - 5ml
HNO3 - 5ml
H2SO4 - 5 ml
Cool 4° C,
No headspace
H2SO< - 5 ml,
Cool 4° C
NaOH - 5 ml,
Cool 4° C
Cool 4° C
H2SO4 - 5 ml,
Cool 4° C
Source: Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force Project Plan, Wyman-Gordon
21
-------
As the ice advanced, glacial till was deposited over bedrock in
most of the area. As the ice retreated, a variety of meltwater-laid
sediments were deposited over the till in valleys and other low-
lying areas. In low-lying, poorly drained areas, swamp deposits
have accumulated over glacial deposits since the retreat of the ice
sheet. In recent years, fill has apparently been placed in some
areas. Profiles of typical conditions from GZA boring data are
depicted in Figure 4.
Glacial till was observed at each of GZA's borings, but.was not
observed at the surface in the vicinity of the lagoons. The till
consists of varying proportions of fine to coarse sand, fine to
coarse gravel, silt, cobbles, and boulders. In general, the till
encountered .at Wyman-Gordon is less silty than is commonly
observed in the region. The thickness of till observed in GZA's'
borings ranged: from Less than 1 foot at boring GZA.-7 to over 16
feet at borings GZA-1, GZA-4, and GZA-10. As shown in
subsurface profiles (Figure 4), the till appears to form a small
buried mound or hill underlying the Phase I RCRA wells; it
decreases in thickness toward GZA-5, GZA-6 and GZA-7. /
Ice-contact materials (sediments deposited near the ice front
during the retreat of the ice sheet) were observed overlying glacial
till in all GZA borings except GZA-3 and GZA-4. These sediments
consist predominantly of sand, with lesser amounts of gravel and
silt. In general, the ice-contact materials are less dense and
contain less silt that the underlying glacial till, although exceptions
were noted by GZA (1983). The gradual transition, between till and
ice-contact deposits in the study area suggests a complex
depositional history in the immediate vicinity of the ice front.
22
-------
A dense granular fill material was encountered in many borings
in the vicinity of the lagoons. The fill consists of sand and gravel,
with lesser amounts of silt, cobbles, and boulders. The fill is
apparently reworked and compacted glacial till and possibly some
ice-contact material from the area. The distinction between fill
and glacial till was based primarily on stratigraphic position.
Peat was encountered at the surface in borings GZA-8, GZA-11,
and GZA-12 and at three hand-installed "wells"- (GZA 5A, 6A, and
9). A 2-foot peat layer was found underlying the fill at GZA-2 and
GZA-10. The peat is a dark brown, fibrous organic material
containing some silt and sand. The maximum observed thickness of
peat was 6 feet at GZA-8.
Surface Water Hydrology
Wyman-Gordon"s North Gcafton plant is located within the
Blackstone River Basin. The area around the lagoons is drained by
a brook, known as East Brook, which flows northward along the
eastern boundary of the site. East Brook joins the Quinsigamond
River at Hovey Pond, approximately 1/2 mile from the study area.
The Quinsigamond River joins the Blackstone River approximately 4
miles to the south of the facility.
Ground-Water Hydrology
The ground-water elevations observed in September 1982 were used
to develop the contours shown on Figure 5. As indicated on Figure
.5, the apparent direction of ground-water flow across the study
area is northeasterly. However, recharge from the South lagoon
apparently resulted in ground-water mounding in the vicinity of the
lagoons. Thus, ground water may flow radially from the lagoons,
not only to the northeast, but toward the northwest and southeast;
a westerly flow component from the lagoons could affect water
23
-------
z
o
u
w
u c/3
es O
3 K
o
J
o
w
o
o
(
e
a
w
o
^
3
O
C/3
-------
however, and distorted flow paths eventually merge into the
regional northeasterly flow pattern. East Brook may represent the
eventual discharge point for ground water moving through the
Wyman-Gordon facility area.
Wyman-Gordon suggests that ground-water flow is
predominantly easterly toward the wetland and East Brook, based
on ground-water elevation data from north of the immediate facility
area (Wyman-Gordon, 1985). Figure 6 depicts ground-water
contours constructed in the area east of the main plant based on
data recorded in July and September 1984. These contours reflect
the regional flow toward East Brook from the Wyman-Gordon
property and the course of the brook prior to its discharge .into
Hovey Pond. It is important to.note that, these flow directions are
indicative only of generalized regional flow. The elevation data
/
were not obtained on the same day; however, it is not known
whether this would have influenced the results.
During interim status, 11 soil borings were made in the region
of the RTF lagoons. Three additional shallow.borings were
completed in hand excavated holes. A total of 14 monitoring wells
were then installed in these boreholes. Locations and designations
of all wells are shown in Figure 2. Appendix C presents the
borings logs for the monitoring wells.
25
-------
Borings within the study area were completed in three major
phases:
o Phase I — Monitoring wells GZA-1 through GZA-4
were installed in an attempt to satisfy the RCRA
requirements of one upgradient (GZA-1) and three
downgradient (GZA-2, GZA-3, GZA-4) wells.
o Phase II -- Wells GZA-5 through GZA-9 were installed
to supplement the initial RCRA wells and address the
issues concerning the extent of migration of RTF
lagoon effluent constituents in ground water.
0 Phase III -- Wells GZA-10, GZA-11, and GZA-12 were
completed to respond to issues on upgradient water
quality and the eastern extent of the RTF lagoon
.influence.
GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM DURING INTERIM
STATUS '
Ground-water monitoring at the Wyman-Gordon facility has
been conducted under the Massachusetts interim status regulations
(Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 21C and 310 CMR 30.000).
The following evaluates the facility's program between November
V981 , when the._grbund-water monitoring provisions of the RCRA
requirements became effective, and July 1986, when the Task Force
investigation was conducted.
Regulatory Requirements
The State of Massachusetts has received final authorization to
administer the RCRA hazardous waste program. At the time of
final authorization, the state regulations became enforceable in lieu
of the federal regulations. Ground-water monitoring at the site is
now regulated by MDEQE regulations, which are equivalent to 40
CFR Part 264, 265, and 270.
Monitoring Well System
The ground-water monitoring system was initiated in June 1982
with the installation of four monitoring wells identified as GZA-1
26
-------
through GZA-4 (also known as Phase I wells). As shown on Figure
2, these wells were installed in the immediate vicinity of the RTF
lagoons. Wyman-Gordon assumed ground-water flow direction to be
northeast toward East Brook. Well GZA-1 was designated the
upgradient well, and wells GZA-2 through GZA-4 were designated
downgradient wells.
Wells were constructed in borings first made by driving a 3- or
4-inch diameter casing to a sampling depth and washing out the
soil using a hydraulically-powered rotary bit. Borings were
terminated at the apparent top of the bedrock. Wells were
completed by installing a 1.5-inch diameter PVC pipe within the
hollow drive casing machine slotted 0.010-inch screened sections
intercept the entire thickness of the saturated zone. Wells were
reportedly sealed with a bentonite slurry, and concrete collars were
installed at the surface (Wyman-Gordon, 1985). A summary of
monitoring well construction is shown in Table 4; Appendix C
contains boring logs and well completion diagrams for the
monitoring wells.
Ground-water elevations were initially measured in GZA-1
through GZA-4 in July 1982. Based on the measurements, Wyman-
Gordon determined that mounding was occurring as a consequence
of the RTF lagoons. The upgradient well (GZA-1)xwas within the
area of mounding and, therefore was, not an upgradient well as
initially designated.
Initial ground-water samples were also collected in July 1982.
Analysis showed elevated levels of arsenic in GZA-3 and elevated
levels of nitrates in all four wells. Wyman-Gordon, therefore,
decided that the RTF lagoons were directly impacting ground-water
quality, and the company initiated a ground-water assessment
program.
Massachusetts regulations (equivalent to 40 CFR Part 265.93)
require facilities to prepare an outline of a ground-water quality
assessment program. This outline must describe a more
27
-------
comprehensive program than the one for routine interim status
monitoring and provide for determining the following:
o Whether hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents have entered the ground water
o The rate and extent that hazardous waste or
hazardous waste constituents migrate in the ground
water
b The concentrations of hazardous waste or
hazardous waste constituents in the ground
water
If analysis conducted under the interim status program
indicates facility may be affecting ground water, additional
samples are to be done immediately to determine if the original
t
analytical results were bias error. If ground-water effects are
still suspected, an assessment prior developed based on the
outline and specifying:
o Number, location, and depth of wells
-i _^
o Sampling and analytical methods £or those
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste
constituents at the facility
o Evaluation procedures, including any use of
previously gathered ground-water quality
information
f
o A schedule of implementation
Upon Wyman-Gordon's July 1982 conclusion that the RTF
lagoons were affecting ground water at the facility, Wyman-Gordon
initiated a ground-water assessment program. Wyman-Gordon
installed wells GZA-5 through GZA-9, including GZA-5A and GZA-
6A, in August 1982. These seven wells are known as the Phase II
wells. The Phase II wells did not include an upgradient well, and
Wyman-Gordon, therefore, installed three additional wells (GZA-10,
28
-------
/-i^-rt •'!
=t"--; ij^
HT;.;:;- i'f • 'j
•I v.;,*, •.,::, '
111 . • !v^ : » • . ,'
29
-------
FIGURE 6
GROUND-WATER CONTOURS NORTH OF THE IMPOUNDMENTS
Source: Wymmn-Gordoa, 1985
-------
GZA-11, and GZA-12, known as the Phase III wells) in June and
August 1984 to define upgradient water quality (GZA-10), and the
eastern extent of lagoon influent (GZA-11, 12).
All but three wells (GZA-5A, GZA-6A, and GZA-9) were
constructed and screened identically to the Phase I wells. GZA-5A,
GZA-6A, and GZA-9 were, hand-driven in a wetland area and
constructed of stainless steel (see Table 5 and Appendix C).
The Task Force determined that the following violations existed
in Wyman-Gordon1s ground-water monitoring program:
o 40 CFR Part 265.90(a) -- Wyman-Gordon did not have
a ground-water monitoring program until July 1982,
approximately 8 months after the ground-water
monitoring requirements became effective (November
' 19, 1.981).
o 40 CFR Part 265.91(a)(1) and (2) -- Wyman-Gordon
initially assumed that ground-water flow direction was
to th-e northeast. At the time of well installation
(July 1982), Wyman-Gordon designated three of the .
four wells as downgradient wells (GZA-2, -3r -4), and
the remaining well (GZA-1) as upgradient. Water
level measurements taken in July 1982 indicated
mounding in the ground-water surface as a /
consequence of the RTF lagoons. This resulted in all
four wells being downgradient. No upgradient well
existed until the installation of GZA-10 well in 1984.
o 40 CFR Part 265.91(c) -- Monitoring wells are not
adequately sealed to prevent contamination from
entering the screened interval from above, thus
affecting the integrity of ground-water samples. At
the time of the Task Force inspection, several wells
were not sealed at the surface (see Table 1). In
addition, the bentonite seals are approximately 1 foot
thick (see Table 4). At least two foot thick seals
are preferable. In addition, at the time of
the Task Force inspection, Wells G, GZA-3,
GZA-4, GZA-6, GZA-6A, and GZA-10 did not
31
-------
have concrete collars and/or PVC caps (see
Table 1), adding to the possibility that
contamination may infiltrate the well from the
surface.
o 40 CFR Part 265.93(d)(4): Because the monitoring
wells are inadequately constructed, Wyman-Gordon
has failed to adequately determine the rate and
extent of. migration, and the concentrations of
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents in
the ground water as a result of RTF lagoon
influence.
o 40 CFR Part 265.93(d)(7)(i) -- Wyman-Gordon has not
established concentrations for hazardous waste
constituents as required by assessment monitoring.
In addition, the following deficiencies exist:
o Screen lengths in all wells are the entire length of
the saturated zone. This does not allow for sampling
discrete portions of the highly variable
unconsolidated sediments.
o Ground-water surface elevations and well casing
heights were measured only to the nearest 0.1 foot.
The Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (EPA,
1986) states that elevations should be taken to the
•nearest 0.01 foot to ensure accurate flow evaluations
: and to provide a check on the integrity of the well
(e.g., identify siltation problems). The Task Force
did note that well depths have become shallower,
which may indicate that siltation has occurred (see
Table 5).
o Wyman-Gordon has failed to adequately define bedrock
characteristics through borings, and they have failed to
determine whether bedrock is part of the uppermost aquifer.
o Vertical ground-water flow gradients for the bedrock and
unconsolidated surf iciaL-deposits have not been determined.
o Wyman-Gordon1s ground-water flow calculations appear to be
based on average permeability of the unconsolidated sediments
portion of the aquifer; however, flow may be occurring in
discrete lithologic units of these sediments.
Ground-Water Sampling and Analysis Plan
Wyman-Gordon developed a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) in
1982 for the Phase I RCRA wells. The SAP has not been updated
32
-------
to reflect procedures the company may have followed since 1982,
or what changes, if any, have been made in its analysis.
Furthermore, the SAP does not address the Phase II or Phase III
wells. The SAP should be revised to include these wells that are
now used for background" moni toring.
The SAP contains no sampling schedules for the background
monitoring required by 40 CFR Part 265.92(c) and (d). At the time
of th,e Task Force inspection, Wyman-Gordon had not established
background concentrations quarterly for one year, or conducted
semi-annual sampling following the initial year because they were
conducting assessments.
The SAP is deficient in several other areas. No reference to
field measurements such as pH, specific conductivity, temperature,
and turbidity is made in the SAP. There is also no reference to a
Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program, nor
a reference to field,"trip, or equipment blanks taken for QA/QC
purposes. No sample analyses request forms have b,een included.
*
The'Task Force did not observe sampling by Wyman-Gordon;..
therefore, the Task Force could not determine whether company
follows the SAP (as written).
A revision of the SAP should define the point of compliance,
which should include both the North and South lagoons. The Part
B permit application incorrectly defines the hazardous waste
management area to include only the South lagoon.
Not all the quarterly sample parameters (as required by 40 CFR
Part 215.93 (d)(7) are included in the SAP.
33
-------
Sampling Analysis and- Data Quality Evaluation
Interim status ground-water monitoring data collected by
Wyman-Gordon between July 1982 and July 1986 (the time of the
inspection) has been very limited (See Appendix E). Ground-water
assessment was initiated upon the completion of one sampling round
in July 1982, and no quarterly background concentrations have been
established for one year. Wyman-Gordon also did not specifically
confirm its operative assumption that the lagoons were affecting
ground-water quality.
34
-------
TABLE 4
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DATA1
Well
Number
GZA-1
GZA-2
GZA-3
GZA-4
GZA-5
GZA-5A
GZA-6
GZA-6A
GZA-7
GZA-8
GZA-9
GZA-1 0
GZA-11
GZA-1 2
Notes :
Total Depth
From
Date GSE2 GSE
Completed (ft.) (msl)2
6/18/82
6/21/82
6/22/82
6/22/82
8/23/82
8/27/82
8/19/82
8/27/82
8/23/82
8/17/82
8/27/82
6/18/84
8/1/84
8/3/84
36.5
22.3
23.2
23.6
26.3
3.4
35.7
5.4
33.7
- 42.6
5.2
40.0
25.5
23.5
372.8.
373.6
369.6
363.9
369.7
366.0.
367.6
364.8
360.7
357.3
357.4
374.6
5,
5
TOC3
(msl)
375.65
376.3
372.1
363.9
371 .1
369.45
369.1
368.3
;363.3
358.8
361.05
5
5
5
Casing
Type*
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
SS
PVC
SS
PVC
PVC
SS
PVC
PVC
PVC
Screen
Type
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
SS
PVC
SS
PVC
PVC
SS
PVC
PVC
PVC
Seal
Screen Thicknes
(ft.) (ft.)
24.8 -1.1
14.9
14.9
19.1
19.8
2.9
29.7
4.9
29.7
39.6 :*
4.7
24. 56
25.36
15.0
.9
1 .1
.7
1 .7
NONE
1.87
NONE
.6
1 .2
NONE
.58
.59
.59
Source: Wyman-Gordon well construction logs.
GSE: ground surface elevation; msl: mean sea level.
Top of casing.
SS: stainless steel; PVC: polyvinylchloride.
Unknown; no information on well log.
Approximate length; unclear from logs.
Bentonite and "miscellaneous backfill."-
Concrete surface seal only.
Bentonite surface seal.
35
-------
TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF WELL DEPTHS
Well:
GZA-1
GZA-2
GZA-3
GZA-4
GZA-5
GZA-5A
GZA-6
GZA-6A
G'ZA-7
GZA:-S
GZA-9
GZA-10
GZA-1 1
GZA-12
Task Force
Total Well Depth*
(ft)
38.08
22.18
22.41
20.17
24.02
6.11
33.46
8.18
35.14
40.86
8.10
33.47
26.68
17.35
Initial Total
Well Depth*
(ft)
39.35
23.3
23.0
20.6
25.7
6.85
33.9
8.9
36.3
44.0
8.85
34.0
25.3
17.6
Note:
* Measured from top of casing.
36
-------
Sampling conducted by Wyman-Gordon has been limited to the
following:
o July 1982 and September 1982 for wells GZA-1
through GZA-4. Analysis included drinking water
parameters, ground-water quality parameters, ground-
water contamination parameters, and other
parameters (nickel, turbidity) (see Appendix E).
o GZA-10, 11, 12, were sampled once in 1984.
o One additional well (GZA-6) was sampled quarterly in
1985.
o Two wells (GZA-6 and GZA-11) were sampled during
the first two quarters of 1986.
t
The Task Force has, therefore, determined that Wyman-Gordon
has failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 265.93. (d)(4), as
required by 265.93 (d)(7).
GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM PROPOSED FOR RCRA
PART B PERMIT 1 . "
On June 3, 1985, Wyman-Gordon notified MDEQE that the
facility intended to discontinue using the RTF Lagoons, and to
close them in compliance with RCRA closure standards. Wyman-
Gordon also; indicated that since such closure would not occur prior
to November 8, 1985 (the date by which Section 3005(e) of RCRA
required the submission of a permit application for a final
determination regarding land disposal facilities), Wyman-Gordon —
would submit a Part B permit application focusing primarily on
closure of the RTF Lagoons. The company submitted the
application on November 8, 1985.
Because the RCRA application was submitted after assessment
was initiated, a ground-water monitoring program was outlined for
compliance monitoring. However, the following deficiencies existed
in the Part B permit application:
37
-------
o 40 CFR Part 270.14(c)(2) -- The facility has not
adequately characterized the site hydrogeology and
uppermost aquifer.
o 40 CFR Part 270.14(c)(4) -- The facility has not
adequately defined the extent of ground-water
contamination from the RTF lagoons.
o 40 CFR Part 270.14(c)(4)(ii) -- The facility has not
sampled ground water for all Appendix VIII
hazardous constituents.
o 40 CFR Part 270.14(c)(7) -- The facility has not -
submitted sufficient data to establish a compliance
monitoring program or an engineering feasibility plan
for a corrective action program.
o 40 CFR Part 264.95 -- The waste management area
does not include the North RTF lagoon.
o 40 CFR Part 264.97 -- Existing monitoring wells are
not properly constructed to ensure the integrity of
ground-water samples (i.e., lack of concrete seals,
excessive screen lengths).
o 40 CFR Part 264.94(b)(l) -- The alternate
concentration limits demonstration is inadequate since
the site is not properly characterized in terras of its
hydrogeochemistry.
EVALUATION OF MONITORING DATA FOR INDICATIONS OF WASTE RELEASE
Analytical results for the samples collected by Task Force
personnel are presented in Appendix A. In general, the data (Table
12) indicates that hazardous waste constituents from the RTF
lagoons have leaked into the ground water.
Total and Dissolved Metals
Total and dissolved metals analysis on Task Force samples show
levels of arsenic, chromium, and lead above Interim Primary
Drinking Water Standards (IPDWS) in well GZA-11. Arsenic
exceeded the IPDWS in GZA-6, -6A, -4, and -12. .Nickel was found
to be above the ambient water quality criteria in GZA-11, -6A, -6,
and -4. All of these contaminants have been used as indicators of
38
-------
lagoon effluent by Wyman-Gordon, and all of the above listed
wells are downgradient of the RTF lagoons.
Task Force sample results generally agree with previous
Wyman-Gordon sampling results; data shows the presence of lagoon
effluent contaminants in downgradient monitoring wells.
Nitrate Nitrogen
High levels of nitrate nitrogen were found in three
downgradient monitoring wells (GZA-6, -6A, -2) and the South
lagoon .water sample. This generally agrees with previous Wyman-
Gordon results. In addition, the high level of nitrate nitrogen
found in( South lagoon water and downgradient further indicates
that the RTF lagoons are impacting ground water.
39
-------
TABLE 12
HAZARDOUS \\ASTE CROLND-U ATER
TASK FORCE SAMPLE RESULTS
Conititutnt
Total Arienie (.05)
Dissolved An«nic
Chromium (.05)
Lead ( OS)2
Nickel (.01)
Nitrate (10)
GZA-11 GZA-11 GZA-6A GZA-6A GZA-J
Dup Oup
Sample Location (mg/L)
GZA-12 GZA-2
GZA-C
1.0
.64
.100
.020
1.1
.64
.054
0.78
.028
.021
.55
.19
.07
.077
.68
.033
.023
17.0
20.0
21.0
.030
17.30
Note*:
1
Dup = Duplicate sample
IPDWS: Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard, mg/L
— Indicate* constituent 'below standard*.
Ambient Water Quality Criteria, mg/L.
40
-------
REFERENCES
Goldberg - Zoino and Associates, 1983, Phase II Hydrogeologic.
Study, prepared for Wyman-Gordon Company. February
1983.
Goldberg - Zoino and Associates, 1984, Report on Hydrogeologic
Studies, Rinsewater Treatment Facility Lagoons, prepared
for Wyman-Gordon Company, November 1984.
Goldberg - Zoino and Associates, 1987, Supplemental Well
Installations and Hydrogeologic Evaluations, prepared for
Wyman-Gordon Company, 14 pages. April 1987.
MDEQE, 1981, Memorandum to File from Dodie Hunnewell
(DHW). August 24, 1981.
MDEQE, 1987, Order, issued to Wyman-Gordon.Company.
September 29, 1987.
;U.S. EPA, 1985, -Memorandum to 3007 files from Stephen
Mangibn, Region 1. December 10, 1985.
U.S. EPA, 1986, RCRA Ground-Water Technical Enforcement
Guidance Document, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response Directive Number 9950.1
Wyman-Gordon Company, 1983, Petition for .Delisting Rinsewater
Treatment Facility Sludge. August 1983.
Wyman-Gordon Company, 1984, Supplemental Report to the Part
A and Part B Del ist ing Petition Reports. May 1984.
Wyman-Gordon Company, 1985, Part B permit application.
November 1985.
43
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
LAGOON WATER AND SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
-------
-------
TABLE A-l
LAGOON WATER CHARACTERISTICS
Constituent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
pH (pH units)
Notes:
Source: Wyman-Gordon, 1985
Indicates not analyzed for.
< Means "less than."
Concentration (mg/L)
Nov. 1983 June 1985
11
0.06
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.093
0.093
< 0.23
1.6
< 0,1
0.40
0.00047
0.067
0.4
< 0.01
< 0.05
< 1
<_0.89
< 0.07
1.1
< .010
.008
.68
7.4
A-l
-------
TABLE A-2
TOTAL AND EP EXTRACT CONCENTRATIONS OF
EP METALS FOR "NEW" SLUDGE, 1983
Sampling Period
Total Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
EP Toxicitv
Arsenic
Barium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Concentration in Sludge (me/kg)1
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
3/4-3/11 3/11-3/18 3/18-3/25 6/3-6/10
<5.02
55
193
13.9
<5.0
<8.0
<4.3
97
325
23.6
<4.3
37.03
<5.7
98
756
39.0
<5.7
38.6
<0.4
14
343
44
<0.4
2.8
Week 1
Concentrations in Extract (mg/L)3
Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
<0.005
<4.0
<0.10
<0.0005
<0.005
<0.02
<0.005
<0.10
<0.10
<0.0005
<0.005
<0.02
<0.005
<0.10
<0.10
<0.0005
<0.005
<0.02
<0.005
<0.10.
<0.10
<0.0005
<0.005
<0.02
Notes:
Source: Wyman-Gordon, 1983, 1984.
1 mg constituent/kg total solids (parts per million).
2 < means "less than."
3 mg/L equals parts per million.
A-2
-------
TABLE A-3
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF NEW SLUDGE. 1983
Sampling Period
Item
PH
Total Suspended
Solids (%)
TotaJ solids (%)
Total Metals (mg/kg)1-2
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Nickel
EP Toxicity (mg/L)
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Total Cyanide (mg/kg)1
EP Cyanide (mg/L)
Notes:
Week I
3/4-3/Tl
6.8
1.49
1.7
<0.01
Week 2
3/11-3/18
9.5
0.99
1.3
Week 3
3/18-3/25
8.1
1.04
1.1
Week 4
6/3/-6/10
8.6
1.06:
1.3
8.9
1,274
71
2,175
<0.01
0.52
. 2.79
<8.5
382
46
879
<0.01
<0.05
0.35
<11.5
1,127
73
1,641
<0.01
<0.05
0.45
6.:
2,160
45
2,611
0.08
0.63
2.49
Source: Wyman-Gordon, 1983, 1984.
1 mg constituent/kg total solids.
2 Detection limits for metals analyses of sludge samples are a function of
the weight of the sample aliquot used in the sample digestion procedure
and the solids concentration of the sample; for this reason, the detection
limit may vary from sample to sample for any given metal.
3 — Indicates not analyzed for.
A-3
-------
Total Metals
TABLE A-4
TOTAL AND EP EXTRACT CONCENTRATIONS OF
EP METALS FOR "OLD" SLUDGE
Quadrant I
Concentration in Sludge (me/kg)1
Quadrant II Quadrant III Quadrant TV
Arsenic
Barium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
<0.62
29
\
-------
TABLE A-5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SOUTH LAGOON SLUDGE
"OLD" SLUDGE
(SAMPLES COLLECTED 3/18/83)
Parameter
PH
Total Solids (%)
Total Metals (mg/kg)1
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Nickel
EP Toxicity (mg/L)
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Total Cyanide (mg/kg)1
EP Cyanide (mg/L)
Quadrant I
10.2
20.5
4.0
467
3.4
1,616
<0.01
0.10
6.72
Quadrant II
10.8
22.1
3.8
441
10.0
1,032
<0.01
<0.05
4.16
Quadrant III
11.7
16.8
3.1
'373
8.9
1,618
<0.01
<0.05
2.52
Quadrant IV
11.7
17.1
4.8
420
10.5
1,158
<0.01
0.06
2.31
<0.01
Notes:
Source: Wyman-Gordon, 1983.
1 mg constituent/kg total solids.
2 Detection limits for metals analyses of sludge samples are a function of
the weight of the sample aliquot used in the sample digestion procedure
and the solids concentration of the sample; for this reason, the detection
limit may vary from sample to sample for any given metals.
3 -- Indicates not analyzed for.
A-5
-------
-------
.APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR HWGWTF SAMPLING
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY
-------
CAS£
SAMPLE
SAf*** *
C£MDf r
vw
EEMI-
VOA
PEST/
- PCB
TIC-
TIC-
SEMI-
VOA
TOTAL
OALS
LOCATION: . WELL EZA-II
TT^E: i>u°
ACETONI 1 HO
CKLOmrORf 1 4.2 J
KTTHYLEXE CHLORIDE !
TETRACHLOfiOETHANE I 8
lilil-TRIDLMOSE 1 18
TOLUENE 1
PENQL 1
BISC2-ETHYLHEXYDPHTHALATE 1
v * "i^Cw I T L*n 1 irfttH 1 i I 4» • 0 J
*1— M^Tl/y| UAPWTUAI PU^ 1
NO HITS [
1
NO HITS 1
1
2,4-DIKETHYLHCAN£ 1
DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE 1
2-?RtPANQLJ!-C2-C2-METHJXY-!- 1
KETHYLTTHOXY)-' -METHYL 1
UNKNOWN I 25 JB
UNKNOWN |
UNKNOWN I *•-
UNKNOWN . '1
UNKNOWN - |
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN , I
UNKNOWN " I
UNKNOWN !
UNKNOWN I
UNKNOWN I
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
ALUMINUM I 14300
ANTIMONY 1 68
ARSENIC 1 . 1030.00
BARIUM 1 H9
BERYLLIUM !
CADMIUM | |
CALCIlfll 1 80300
DffiOMIUM 1 41
COBALT 1
COPPER 1 4X5
IRON 1 53000
LIAJ) I 109
MASHESIUM - . 1 8160
HANSANzSE 1 402
KHCURY I
Q1316/MM616
HELL 52/t-il
DUP
130
I 4 J
3.2 J
I E.4
17
2 J
3.6 J
'
12000
80
1130
75900
• 54
428
34500
78
7620
434
0.4
Q12*9/M8A4»9 Q1315/WW615
WELL GZA-6A WELL GZfr-«A
PUP ' DUP
130 \ 9.4 J
1 1 1.9 J
3.7 J 1 1.9 J
2.8 J 1 7.8
17 1 29
1
1
1
3 J 1
2.2 J 1 10 J
!
1
1
I
(PUR 850) 12 J 1
1 (PUR 937) -5 J
1
1
34 J 1 10 J -
1
1
1
1
1
- 1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1350 1 14400
10 ! 13
22.1 1 557
! 55
'
1
4990 1 1960
23
55
443 7280
• 39
282 578 ^
19 228
a.2?5'Wa40f
1
1
I
1
7.6 J
4 J 1
1
1
"
1
13 J
10 J
"22 J
64 J
90 J
22 'J
27 J
110 J
120 J 1
26 J
23 J !
16 J
15 J 1
127 1
1
1
6 1
1
296
43
1
ALL CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN uS/L.
-------
CASE «: £22E
NO:
s*ni LOCATION:
SAMPLE TTPJ::
Q12?2/»»M?2 B131£/K*616 Q12??/MOM?9 C1315/WM615 C12?5/«WM95
WELL G2A-11 WELL GZA-11 HELL 5Z*-6* WEL: S2>-66 .
IV D(P DL* DUP EG. ELK
DISS,
METALS
INORG,
INDIC.
NICKIL
POTASS I If
SELDULT,
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
2IHC
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM j
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAP
MASHESIUM
HANSAKESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER - -
SODIUM
THALLIL'M
VANADIUM
UN:
AMMONIA NITROGEN
BROMIDE
CHLORIDE
CYANIDE
NITRATE NITROGEN
NITRITE NITROGEN
POC
POX
SULFATE
TCC
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOX
CARBONATE
BICARBONATE
27
11100
5.00
576000
254
145
2240
54
643.00
86
'
89200
209
2560
6690
275
..20
10400
304000
148
27
1600
134000
50
6000
9
355000
21000
26
23
1
10600 1
c
J
306000
236
143
2730 1
94 1
646 1
75 -1
1
1
81100 1
24 1
17 1
253 I
3920 1
48 1
6420 1
270 1
1
28 1
8860 1
1
I
318000 1
1
173 1
25 !
1600 1
1
138000 1
35 1
7500 1
1
I
1
335000 1
26000 1
15 1
38 1
1
1
1
1560C .
1
500000 1
1
23 !
25 1
1160 1
1
20.9 1
1
1
4060 1
1
1
1
1
!
136 1
1
1
21 -
1BOOO
472000
33
1
126000
22
17000
26
425000
3900
18
46
1
1
1 !
7560 !
1 1
1
548000 1 880 1
! ,
222 1 I
40 1 15
9220 1
4.6 "I 1
19? 1 1
13 1 5 ' 1
1 1
1 1
1060 1 348 1
1 1
t 1
23 1 1
617 1 10 1
4.5 1 1
1. 1
- ? 1
1 1
33 1 ' 1
6890 1 1
1 1
1
564000 1 926
1
222 1
1
620 1
1
159000 1
162 1
20000 1
1
1
15 1
445000 1
11000 !
10 1 -
61 1
1 1
- 1 1
ALL CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN uS/L,
-------
CAMW r
C^JJpl t*
VOA
SEMI-
VQA
PEST/
PCB
TIC-
VOft-PT
TIC-
SEMI-
VOA
TOTAL
METALS
NO: Q1318/HQA618
LOCATION:
TYPE: FIELD BLK
ACETONE • 1 . 18
CH.DROFOM 1
MTTHYLENE CHLORIDE 1
TETR/OLORO£TH*E 1
1»1»1-TRICHLDR(ETHEN£ 1
TOLUENE 1
PHENOL 1
BIS(2~THYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 1
Dl-*-BUTYLPHTHALATE 1
2-M£7HYLNA?HTHALEHE 1
NO HITS 1
1
NO HITS 1
1
2r4-DIMETHYLDECANE 1
DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE 1
2-PROPANOL»l-C2-(2-METHOXY-l- 1
METHYLETHOXYM-METHYL 1
UNKNOWN " 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
, UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
ALUMINUM 1 316
ANTIMONY 1
ARSENIC 1
BARIUM 1 9
BERYLLIUM 1
CADMIUM ' 1
CALCIUM 1 351
CHROMIUM I
COBALT 1
COPPER 1
IRON 1 41
LEAD 13
MAGNESIUM 1
MANGANESE 1
MERCURY 1
Q1321/MQA421 Q1294/NGM^
E2*-i:
TTIP BLK
1 24
1
1,6 J 1
1
1
1
2,4 J 1
1
1 2,8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 S240
1
1 168.5
4 1 84
1
1
160 1 30400
1
1 16
1 23
22 1 7BOOO
I 12
1 11500
1 440
1
LAGQOK »1 SZA-6
1 1 38
1 1
1 1 1.7 J
1 1 2,9 J
1 1 18
1 1
1 1
1 1
J 1 3 JBI
1 1 2 J
1 - 1
"1 '1
1 |
1 1
1 1
1 - 1
I (PUR 920) 45 J 1
1 1
JBI l" 90 J
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 -1
1 1
1 1
1 ' 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2280 1 1380
1 1 7
1 1 H.5
I 61 4
1 1
1 1
1 7470 1 4290
1 1
' 1 1
1 1
1 225 1 365
1 1
31 672 1 282
1 11 1 25
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ALL CONCENTRATIONS API IN
-------
CASE m: <>:2S
w:
SAMPLE- LOCATION:
SAMPLE TYPE:
01318/JWAilB 01321/HM421 Q1294/IWM94
GZA-12 ' LASOOK tl
FIELD PLK TRIP MLK
Q12?7/«QA497
DISS,
"METALS
INORG,
INDIC,
*
NICKEL
«*)TAS3Il«
S-LENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM 830
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC 15
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM . 7
BERYLLIUM
CAIttlUM '
CALCIUM 280
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM I
MANSANESE - 1
ERCURY 1
NICKEL " •
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM 86?
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
AMMONIA NITROGEN
BROMIDE
CHLORIDE
CYANIDE
NITRATE NITROGEN
NITRITE NITROGEN 1
POC I
POX 1
SULFATE
TO:
TOTAL PENOLS
TOX
CARBONATE
BICARBONATE
1
1
603
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 187
1
I
1
1
1
1
?97
1
5250
20200
143
28
32700
18
268
10400
325
-
5170
22000
30000
6000
25000
7200 .
B.6
1 19200
1
I 484000
1
146
1 24
2350
- •
8600
"*
'14
855
10
21200
528000
170
128000
31000
470000
4000
14
44
15100
500000
13
1210
16.5
4150
12
12
368
30
1SBOO
432000.
35
125000
17000
6
425000
4000
56"
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
" 1
1
.1
1
1
I
1
1
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I-
1
1
ALL CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN «s/L.
A2-5
-------
SAffLE «:
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAJPLE TYPE:
Q1300/fHM500 Q1314/WA614 C1319/WM619 Q1320/HQA620
GZA-10 G2A-* SZA-3 S2*-2
VOA
SEMI-
WA
PEST/
-PCB
TIC-
t tf\ /. »PT
^Vn i 1
TIC-
SEMJ-
VOA
TOTAL
METALS
ACETONE 1 25
CHLOROFORM 1
MTTHYLENE CHLORIDE 1
TFTRACHLDROETHANE 1
lilfl-TRICHLORDETHENE 1 .
TOLUENE 1
PHENOL 1
BIS(2-£THYLH£XYL)PHTHALATE 1
DI-^BUTYLPHTHALATE 1
2-METHYLNAPHTHALEKE 1
NO HITS 1
1
NO HITS 1
2»«-D!METHTLDECAfE 1
DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE 1
2-PROPANOLrl-£2-(2-*ETHOXY-<- 1
METHYLETHOXY'-l-MTrHYL 1
UNKNOWN 1 16 J
UNKNOWN 1 '
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN I
UNKNOWN I
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN " 1
UNKNOWN I .
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN 1
ALUMINUM 1 1270
ANTIMONY 1
ARSENIC 1 22.1
BARIUM 1 25
BERYLLIUM 1
CAWIUM 1
CALCIUM I 22500
CHROMIUM 1
COBALT 1
COPPER 1
IRON 1 6970
LEAP 1
KAGNEEIUM I ^ 2000
MA#SA«ESE 1 1440
OCURY 1
18 1 18 1
f I
1 1
1 3.7 1 1,7 J
I 7.6 1 9.5
1 1 2.3 J
1 1
1 1
1 1 2.4 J
1 1
t r
i r
- 1 -1
1 1
1 !
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
I I
! 1
1 1
1 1
3840 1 3860 I 2220
1 1 15
70 1 11.8 1
16 1 28 1 15
1 1
1 1
4350 1 14700 1 5390
25 1 15 1
1 • 1
15 1 1
2370 1 2250 1 ' 284
1 !
1540 1 3220 I 2160
314 1 70 1 91
1 1 0.2
ALL CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN u3/L.
-------
CASE «: 6228
w:
SAMPLE LOCATIW:
TTPE:
Q1300/WA500 Q1314/WJA414
6ZA-3
DISS,
KETALS
INORG,
IHDIC.
NICKEL
POTASSIU* 210
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIU- 11500
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC 68
ALUMINUM " 1
ANTIMWT 1
ARSENIC 1
BARIUM 1 20
BERYLLIUM 1
CADMIUM • 1
CALCIUM 1 25800
CHROMIUM I
COBALT 1 20
COPPER !
IRON 1 5390
LEAH 1
HA6NESIUM | 2120
MANGANESE 1 '1550
HERCURr - 1
"NICKEL . i
POTASSIUM ' I 4040
SEIEHIUB I
SILVER ' 1
SODIUM 1 12500
THALLIUM 1
VANADIUM • 1
ZINC T 55
AMWIA NITROGEN 1 140
BROMIDE 1
CHLORIDE . 1
CYANIDE 1
NITRATE NITR06EN 1
NITRITE NITROGEN I
POC 1
POX 1 ?
SULFATE I
TOC • I 4100
TOTAL POOLS 1
TOX I 15
CARIONATT |
BICARBONATE I
i
4940 25400 i ""^ i
I
!
3B9000 4?200C 1 "2000 1
1 1
85 85 1 i
27 25 1 14 !
1290 1 15o 1 1950- 1
1 ! 1
77 1 16.1 1 1
41 51 13 !
1 1 - 1
! 1 1
4970 1 15500 1 6230 1
1 I.I
1 - 1 1
16 1 1 1
Hi" 1 23 . 1
1 1 1
1360 1 3180 1 2640 - i
326 1 15 1- 101 1
II 1
23 1 1 1
7770 1 27200 1 16700 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
404000 1 400000 1 ^4000 1
1 1 1
98 1 50 1 29 1
12 1 12 1 1
130 1 200 ! 1000 1
1 1
300 1 600 11800 I
1 20 1
1 140 21000 1
I 1
1 1
1 10 10 1
360000 1 . 460000 1
5800 1 3500 6800 1
14 1 33 !
60 1 30 - 67 1
- 1 1
1 1
ALL CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN us/L,
-------
-------
pro
PRC-Engineering
EVALUATION OF QUALITY CONTROL ATTENDANT
TO THE ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM THE
WYMAN-GORDON FACILITY, MASSACHUSETTS
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
November 7, 1986
68-01-7037
15-5480-03
PRC Environmental
Management, Inc.
Ken Partymiller
(713) 292-7568
Anthony Montrone/
Barbara Elkus
(202) 382-7912
-------
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 5, 1986
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples
from the Wyman-Gordon, Massachusetts 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*
Ed Berg (EPA 8214)*
Wayne Wirtanen, Region I
Steve Mangion, Region I
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 Wyman-Gordon, Massachusetts 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 (2-3) which contain raw data, statistically transformed
data, and graphically transformed data.
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
HWGWTF Data Evaluation Committee Member
-------
laboratory was also generated. Step two was an independ-ent 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 (2-3). Questions generated in the interpretation of these
data relative to sampling and analysis should be referred to Rich Steimie of
the Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
I. Site Overview
No site background information was available to the HWGWTF Data Evaluation
Committee teleconference concerning the Wyman-Gordon facility.
Fourteen field samples including one field blank (MQA618/Q1318), one trip
blank (MQA621/Q1321), one equipment blank (MQA495/Q1295), and two pairs of
duplicate samples (well GZA-11, MQA492/Q1292 and MQA616/QA1316 and well GZA-6A,
MQA499/Q1299 and MQA615/Q1315) were collected at this facility. All samples
were low concentration ground water samples. Traffic reports indicated which
samples were blanks and duplicates.
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 PC Evaluation
Metal spike recoveries were calculated for the twenty-three total metals
and seventeen dissolved metals spiked into one field sample. Eighteen total
metal and fifteen dissolved metal spike recoveries were within the data quality
objectives (DQO) for this Program. The total aluminum and iron and dissolved
calcium and sodium spike recoveries were not required to be calculated because
the concentrations of these metals in the field sample were greater than four
times the concentration of the spike added. Recoveries of the six dissolved
metal spikes analyzed by graphite furnace atomic absorption analysis were not
required to be reported and were not reported. The total selenium and thallium
spike recoveries were below DQO with recoveries of 55 and 70 percent,
respectively. The total cadmium spike recovery was above DQO with a recovery
of 166 percent. All reported laboratory control sample (LCS) recoveries except
arsenic and all calibration verification standard (CVS) recoveries were within
Program DQOs.
-------
The average relative percent differences (RPDs) for all metallic analytes
were within the DQOs.
Required analyses were performed on all metals samples submitted to the
laboratory.
No contamination was reported in the laboratory blanks. Equipment, field.
and trip blanks show total metal contamination including aluminum
(concentrations as high as 316 ug/L in the field blank), barium (as high as 9
ug/L in the field blank), calcium (as high as 351 ug/L in the field blank),
iron (as high as 43 ug/L in the equipment blank), lead (3 ug/L in the field
blank), sodium (as high as 880 ug/L in the equipment blank), and zinc (15 ug/L
in the equipment and field blanks). Blanks also contained dissolved metal
contamination including barium (as high as 7 ug/L in the field blank), calcium
(as high as 348 ug/L in the equipment blank), iron (10 ug/L in the equipment
blank), and sodium (as high as 997 ug/L in the trip blank). Only the total
aluminum contamination was pre'scnt at above the CRDL.
1.3 Furnace Metals
The differences between the results for the pairs of field duplicate were
large for total arsenic, dissolved arsenic, and total lead in duplicate pair
MQA499/615 and for total and dissolved lead in duplicate pair MQA492/616. The
comparative precision of the field duplicate results is not used in the
evaluation of sample data as it is not possible to determine the source of this
imprecision. Field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes
only.
The total cadmium (166 percent recovery), selenium-(55 percent), and
thallium (70 percent) spike recoveries, as mentioned above, were outside DQO.
Method of standard addition (MSA), correlation coefficients for total
antimony in sample MQA615, dissolved antimony in samples MQA492, 615, and 616
(duplicate analysis), and total arsenic in samples MQA494 and 614 were less
than 0.995. The specified antimony and arsenic results for the above samples,
except for antimony in samples MQA615 (total) and 616 (dissolved duplicate),
should be considered qualitative. Results for total antimony in sample MQA615
and dissolved antimony in sample MQA616 (duplicate only) should be considered
unreliable.
The duplicate injection precision for total antimony in samples MQA497 and
620 and in spiked samples MQA495 and 497 had relative standard deviations
(RSDs) which were outside DQO. The duplicate injection readings for total
arsenic in spiked sample MQA620 had an RSD which was outside DQO. The
duplicate injection readings for dissolved lead in both sample and in spiked
sample MQA492 had RSDs which were outside DQO. Specified results for all of
these samples should be considered unreliable.
Traffic reports for samples MQA500 and 618 were not included in the data
package.
Lead, antimony, and arsenic results, all with exceptions listed below,
should be considered quantitative. Total lead results for samples MQA492 and
-------
616 and all cadmium, thallium, and selenium results should be considered semi-
quantitative. All (total and dissolved) arsenic results for sample MQA494
should be considered qualitative. Total antimony results for sample MQA615.
dissolved antimony results for samples MQA492 and 615, all antimony results for
samples MQA495. 497. and 620, dissolved lead results for sample MQA492. and
total and dissolved arsenic results for sample MQA614 should be considered
unreliable.
1.4 ICP Metals
The differences between field duplicate results were large for total and
dissolved aluminum, iron, potassium, and vanadium and total chromium and copper
in duplicate pair MQA499/615 and . r total and dissolved chromium and iron and
total sodium in duplicate pair MQA492/616. The comparative precision of the
field duplicate results is not used in the evaluation of sample data as it is
not possible to determine the source of this imprecision. Field duplicate
precision is reported for informational purposes only. Background ion
(aluminum, iron, potassium, etc.) results are measured and reported mainly to
describe general ground water conditions.
Aluminum was found in the field blank (MQA618) at a concentration of 316
ug/L. This is above the aluminum CRDL of 200 ug/L. All other field blank
contamination was at levels below CRDL.
High sulfate concentrations were reported for samples MQA492, 496, 497,
499, 614, 615, 616, and 620. High sulfate concentrations could suppress the
barium results in these samples, although the quality control information
supplied with this and past cases does not indicate such interference.
The low level (-twice CRDL) linear range checks for chromium, manganese,
nickel, and silver had low recoveries. The low level linear range ch-eck for
zinc had a high recovery. All total and dissolved chromium, manganese, nickel,
and silver results should be considered to be biased low. All zinc results
should be considered to be biased high.
All total and dissolved barium, beryllium, calcium, cobalt, copper, iron
(with exceptions), magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, vanadium results,
all dissolved aluminum results, and total aluminum results for samples MQA492,
494, 614, 615, 616, and 619 should be considered quantitative. All chromium,
nickel, silver, and zinc results, iron results for samples MQA492, 494, and
616, and all total aluminum results not mentioned above should be considered
semi-quantitative.
1.5 Mercury
Mercury results for duplicate sample pair MQA492/616 had a greater
absolute difference than expected (one sample had none detected and the other
0.4 ug/L). The comparative precision of the field duplicate results is not
used in the evaluation of sample data as it is not possible to determine the
source of this imprecision. Field duplicate precision is reported for
informational purposes only.
All total and dissolved mercury results should be considered quantitative.
-------
2.0 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
2.1 Performance Evaluation Standard
Inorganic and indicator analyte 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 were within the accuracy DQOs for all analytes (accuracy DQOs have not
been established for bromide and nitrite nitrogen matrix spikes but their
average recoveries were 100 and 98 percent, respectively). This indicates
acceptable recoveries for all these analytes. All LCS and CVS recoveries
reported in the raw data for inorganic and indicator analytes were within
Program DQOs except for two continuing calibration verifications (CCVs) for the
ammonia nitrogen analysis.
Average RPDs for all inorganic and indicator analytes were within Program
DQOs. Precision DQOs have not been established for bromide 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. POX was'detected in the field blank (MQA618) at a
concentration of 7 ug/L.
2.3 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte Data
The quality control results for sulfate, chloride, total phenols, and TOC
data are acceptable. The results for these analytes should be considered
quantitative.
The cyanide calibration curve was improperly derived from the calibration
data. The results of the initial calibration verification (ICV), the
laboratory control standard (LCS), and sample MQA615 were read from the
rejected, non-linear portion of this calibration curve. All analyses,
including blanks and calibration verifications, should fall within the linear
range of the calibration curve. An EPA verification standard was not available
for cyanide and, thus, the laboratory prepared and used their own. A CCV and
CCB were not run at the end of the cyanide analytical batch affecting samples
MQA492DUP, 499DUP, and 620DUP. The absolute difference between the results for
one of the two pairs of field duplicates (22 ug/L for sample MQA499, 162 ug/L
for sample MQA615) was greater than expected. The comparative precision of the
field duplicate results is not used in the evaluation of sample data as it is
not possible to determine the source of this imprecision. Field duplicate
precision is reported for informational purposes only. The cyanide results
should be considered semi-quantitative except for samples MQA492 and 616 which
should be considered quantitative.
The holding times for the nitrate nitrogen analyses ranged from 22 to 23
days from receipt of samples which is significantly longer than the recommended
-------
48 hour holding time for unpreserved samples The nitrate nitrogen results
should be considered semi-quantitative.
An initial calibration verification was not analyzed at the beginning of
the bromide analysis. Analysis of a calibration verification standard, using
an EPA or independent standard, should be performed before sample analysis.
Bromide data for all samples were acceptable and the results should be
considered semi-quantitative.
An initial calibration verification was not analyzed at the beginning of
the nitrite nitrogen analysis. Analysis of a calibration verification
standard, using an EPA or independent standard, should be performed before
sample analysis. The holding times for the nitrite nitrogen analyses were 22
to 23 days from receipt of samples which is significantly longer than the
recommended 48 hour holding time for unpreserved samples. Nitrite nitrogen
data for all samples was acceptable and the results should be considered semi-
quantitative.
Two ammonia nitrogen CCVs were above DQO. The absolute difference between
the ammonia nitrogen results for one of the two duplicate pairs was large (none
reported for sample MQA499 and 620 ug/L was reported for sample MQA615). The
comparative precision of the field duplicate results is not used in the_
evaluation of sample data as it is not possible to determine the source of this
imprecision. Field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes
only. Ammonia nitrogen results should be considered semi-quantitative.
The daily TOC instrument calibration data encompassing the expected
concentration ranges of the samples were not supplied with the raw data by the
laboratory. The TOC RPD results for both pairs of field duplicate samples were
greater than expected (21 mg/L for sample.MQA492 and 26 mg/L for sample MQA616,
3.9 mg/L for sample MQA499 and 11 mg/L for sample MQA615). The comparative
precision of the field duplicate results is not used in the evaluation of
sample data as it is not possible to determine the source of this imprecision.
Field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes only. The TOC
results, as mentioned above, should be considered quantitative.
No initial calibration verifications (ICVs) or continuing calibration
verifications (CCVs) were analyzed for POC. A spike solution was analyzed
after 13 samples but the "true" concentration of this solution was not reported
and thus instrument calibrations could not be assessed. Calibration curve
information was not provided by the laboratory with the raw data. The POC
results should be considered qualitative.
Instrument calibration data for TOX were not found for any of the
analytical batches. Instrument calibration, with standards that embrace the
expected range of concentrations of the samples, is required to be performed
daily. Calibration verification standards and blanks should also be analyzed
every 10 samples and at the beginning and end of each day's, analyses. These
standards were not analyzed at the end of analysis batches affecting samples
MQA494 and 495, the spikes for samples MQA616 and 620, and the duplicate for
sample MQA500. A final calibration standard was not run. The differences in
the TOX results for both pairs of field duplicate samples were greater than
expected (23 ug/L for sample MQA492 and 38 ug/L for sample MQA616, 46 ug/L for
sample MQA499 and 61 ug/L for sample MQA615). The comparative precision of the
-------
field duplicate results is not used in the evaluation of sample data as it is -
not possible to determine the source of this imprecision. Field duplicate
precision is reported for informational purposes only. The TOX results should
be considered to be Quantitative except for samples MQA494 and 495 which should
be considered semi-quantitative.
A three point calibration curve for POX was not included in the raw data.
POX was found in the field blank at 7 ug/L which is above the CRDL of 5 ug/L.
The absolute differences between the POX results for both of the duplicate
pairs was larger than expected (9 ug/L for sample MQA492 and none reported for
sample MQA616, 26 ug/L for sample MQA499 and 15 ug/L for sample MQA615). The
comparative precision of the field duplicate results is not used in the
evaluation of sample data as it is not possible to determine the source of this
imprecision. The field duplicate precision is reported for informational
purposes only. The POX results should be considered unreliable except for
samples MQA492 and 616 which should be considered qualitative.
3.0 Organics
3.1 Performance Evaluation Standard
Organic performance evaluation standards were not evaluated irt 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 Section below. All surrogate
spike average recoveries were also within DQOs for accuracy. Individual
surrogate spike recoveries which were outside the accuracy DQO will be
discussed in the appropriate Section below.
All matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate average RPDs were within Program
DQOs for precision. Individual matrix spike RPDs which were outside the
precision DQO will be discussed in the appropriate Section below. All average
surrogate spike RPDs were also within DQOs for precision.
All organic analyses were performed as requested. Direct injection
volatile, herbicide, and dioxin analyses were neither requested nor performed
for any samples.
Laboratory blank contamination was reported for organics and is discussed
in the appropriate Sections below.
Detection limits for the organic fractions are summarized in 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, blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates, and
surrogate spikes were acceptable.
-------
A minor mix-up was the only identified problem with the volatiles data.
The traffic report submitted by the organic analytical laboratory indicated
sample Q1318 was a trip blank and sample Q132I v.as a field blank. According to
the sampling contractor, the identification of these two samples was confused
and Q1318 was the field blank and Q1321 was the trip blank. Data usability was
not affected.
The volatiles data are acceptable. The probability of false negative
results for the volatiles is acceptable. The estimated detection limits for
the volatiles is the CRDL. The volatile compound results should be considered
to be quantitative.
3.4 Semivolatiles
Calibrations, tunings, blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates,
surrogate spikes, and chromatbgrams were acceptable for the semivolatiles.
The surrogate recovery for 2-fluorophenol (DQO range, 21 to 100 percent)
in sample Q1300 (16 percent) and 2,4,6-tribromophenol (DQO range, 10 to 123
percent) in samples Q1297 (126 percent), Q1299 (137 percent), and Q1315 (128
percent) were outside DQO.
A minor mix-up was identified with the scmivolatires data. The traffic
report submitted by the organic analytical laboratory indicated sample Q1318
was a trip blank and sample Q1321 was a field blank. According to the sampling
contractor, the identification of these two samples was confused and Q1318 was
the field blank and Q1321 was the trip blank. Data usability was not affected.
The semivolatile data are acceptable and the results should be considered
semi-quantitative. This is the expected capability and performance for this
method. The probability of false negative results is acceptable. Estimated
detection limits were twice CRDL for all samples.
3.5 Pesticides
The initial and continuing calibrations, blanks, and chromatographic
quality for pesticides were acceptable. The matrix spike, matrix spike
duplicate, and surrogate data were within acceptable limits.
Table 1 of Reference 3 (for organic analyses) lists samples containing
methoxychlor peaks in their chromatograms. These peaks were within the
retention time windows of methoxychlor and the organic laboratory should have,
but did not, run confirmation analysis.
A minor mix-up was identified with the pesticides data. The traffic
report submitted by the organic analytical laboratory indicated sample Q1318
was a trip blank and sample Q1321 was a field blank. According to the sampling
contractor, the identification of these two samples was confused and Q1318 was
the field blank and Q1321 was the trip blank. Data usability was not affected.
The estimated method detection limits for the pesticides fraction were
CRDL for all samples. The pesticides data should be considered to be usable
with the considerations noted with the possible exception of methoxychlor
-------
results. There is an enhanced probability of false negatives for pesticides
due to the failure of the organic laboratory to identify some peaks within the
pesticides retention time window.
-------
III. Data Usability Summary
4.0 Graphite Furnace Metals, total
Quantitative: antimony, arsenic, and lead results, all with exceptions
Semi-quantitative: lead results for samples MQA492 and 616, all cadmium,
thallium, and selenium results
Qualitative: arsenic results for samples MQA494 and 614
Unreliable: antimony results for samples MQA495, 497, 615 and 620
4.1 Graphite Furnace Metals^ dissolved
Quantitative: antimony, arsenic, and lead results, all with exceptions
Semi-quantitative: all cadmium, thallium, and selenium results
Qualitative: arsenic results for samples MQA494 and 614
Unreliable: lead results for sample MQA492 and antimony results for sample
QA615 . •
4.2 ICP Metals, total
Quantitative: all barium, beryllium, calcium, cobalt, copper, magnesium,
manganese, sodium, potassium, and vanadium results, aluminum results
for samples MQA492, 494, 614, 615, 616, and 619, iron results with
exceptions
. Semi-quantitative: all chromium, nickel, silver, and zinc results, aluminum
results with the above exceptions, iron results for samples MQA492,
494, and 616
4.3 IGP Metals, dissolved
Quantitative: all aluminum, barium, beryllium, calcium, cobalt, copper,
magnesium, manganese, sodium, potassium, and vana'dium results, iron
results with exceptions
Semi-quantitative: all chromium, nickel, silver, and zinc results, iron
results for samples MQA492, 494, and 616
4.4 Mercurv. total and dissolved
Quantitative: all mercury data
4.5 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
Quantitative: all sulfate, chloride, total phenol, and TOC results, all TOX
results except samples MQA494 and 495
Semi-quantitative: cyanide, nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, bromide,
ajnmonia nitrogen, and TOX results for samples MQA494 and 495
Qualitative: all POC results and POX results for samples MQA492 and 616
Unreliable: POX results with the above exceptions
4.6 Oreanics
Quantitative: all volatiles and semivolatiles results
Pesticides: see Section 3.5
-------
IV. References
1. Organic Analyses: CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.
P.O. Box 12652
3308 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919) 549-8263
Inorganic and Indicator Analyses:
Centec Laboratories
P.O. Box 956
2160 Industrial Drive
Salem, VA 24.153
(703) 387-3995
2. Draft Quality Control Data Evaluation Report for Wyman-Gordon,
Massachusetts, 10/7/1986 and revised 10/20/86, 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 and Draft Organic Data Usability
Report, for the Wyman-Gordon, Massachusetts site, Prepared by Laboratory
Performance Monitoring Group, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Co.,
Las Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA, EMSL/Las Vegas, 10/7/1986, Draft Inorganic Data
Usability Report revised, 10/20/86.
-------
V. Addressees
Ed Berg
Chief, Project Management Section, Qualit> Assurance Branch, EMSL/CI
US Environmental Protection Agency
26 West St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
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
Steve Mangion, Region I
US Environmental Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Room 02203
Boston, MA 02203
Wayne Wirtancn
US Environmental Protection Agency
New England Regional Laboratory
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
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
-------
APPENDIX C
BORING LOGS FOR MONITORING WELLS
-------
GOLDBERG • ZOI NO 8 ASSOC., INC
GEOTECHMCAL/GEDHYDROLDGICAL
CONSULTANTS
CORING
FORE MA
G-Z-A ENC
SIZE
KAMI
FALL
DEPTH
10 .
15'
on .
25 .
PROJECT REPORT OF BORING NO r.— .
WVA^_'-,~T>:Y^; SHEET 1 OF 2
NC. GRAFTON, MASSACHUSETTS DATE" 6/1S/S2 FlLfA-2298
CO- fi.,,-1.* T^nmr* BORING LOCATION
M C. Koehler G
ilNEE
CASING
3" (NW).
D F. Clark O
SAMPLER
TYPF Split Srocn OTH
^0 300 ib HAMMFB 140 Ib
: -7 A" FALL: 3^"
CAS.
BL
/FT.
10
41
75
210
170
45
52
102
71
46
15
17
22
52
38
6
10
17
45
65
15
8
9
e
36
11
16
6
4
30
SAMPLE
NO
S-l
S-2
S-3
3-3A
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
PEN./REC.
24-/10
»
24/15
24/1
30/8
24/6
24/14
24/20
24/16
DEPTH
0-2
*-7
10-12
10-12-. 5
16-18
20-22
25-27
3D-1??
BLOWS /6"
4-14-14-30
28-30-7S-25
'"
16-11-9-6
6
e;_6_8-n
31-33-37-33
26-35-43-38
73-1 t;_T^_fin
ROUND EL
ttTE STAR
ER
?o«zg
S3'*S
SAND
(FILL)
8.5'
FINE
SAND
LITTLE
'SILT
18 '±
FINE
SAND
LITTLE
GRAVEL
(GLACIAL
TILL)
FV 372.8
T 6/15/92 "DATE END 6/1 =./=:?
GROUND*ATER READINGS
DATr Df'TM CASINC AT STABILIZATION
6/18 9.3' 35' 4 hour
6/22 6.4' OW 4 days
•
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Burroister n A.*CTO«» 1NAM TMOJl mtlCHT »T TNC Tint DCASUKfHCNTS W(«C MAOC
-------
6OLD6£RG ZDINO a ASSOC..INC.
QEOTEO**CA^/3COHYDRDLDaCAL
CONSULTANTS
;
DATE 6/18/82 P|| (r A-^S
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Rock fragments
Bottom
••r
of Hole
[REMARKS-' 4) Refusal to split spoon sampler encountered at 35.4'; drilled-ahead using
I . roller bit to 36.5 ft. Very slow progress observed, terminated boring at this
I depth 1.5'± into apparent-bedrock.
kef
CC- t)TI
>*<'°()^
• * TMC APVWQinuTl KXMMI" K'VCfli •On. TTVCS **C
•
-------
DATE INSTALLED.
TR.
WELL No- ""*-!
BORING No "2A-1
FILE No -A-32SS
BA^% ICTCT W»w» a r» — *~^f*A ^r>
PROJECT —n -.. .].......n
LOCATION
GZA FXT.IMFFR F. Clark
WEATHER
REMARKS
CONTRACTOR ~\r.\?. T.T;]
nP»l_(_FP C. Kophlsr
tached bodin 1 nr-
OO DEPTH j2.85'
SAND
-
tr
(GLACIAL TILL)
Ottawa
Sand
35'
rock
36.5'
sfi.
-^
7
•cm • mot TO
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM Of
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM OF
GROUND SURFACE
SURFACE SEAL
(TYPICALLY Oi' TMCK)
1-"
TYPE
(5.3' long)
•1-1/2" SCHD. 80 PVC
RISER PIPE
TOP OF WELL SCREEN
BACKFILL
• i-i/2'soc 80 SLOTTED PVC
WELL SCREEN (O.Ol" SUTTS)
(24.8' screen)
BOTTOM OF WELL SCREEN
•BOTTOM OF BORING
, '
/
336.3
PTHKT 36.5' / 336.
OOLDKR&-ZO1MO A ASftOCUTEt, MC.
-------
(
(
GOLDBERG • ZOINO 8 ASSOC., INC -
GEOTECWSIK^L/GEOHYOROLOGICAL
CONSULTANTS
CORING
PROJECT
NC. GRAF73N, MASSACHUSETTS
CO. ~*l-> rr-. ' ••— - ' BORING LOCATION
FOREMAN C. Koehler GROUND El. EV
G-2-A ENGINES
SIZE
HAMt
FALL
DEPTH
J> 0 .
t
15
>
tc.
CASING
3" (NW)
P T. Clark" • p
SAMPL'ER
TYPf Split Spoon n-rw
m
JPB. 300 - It) HAMUfR - 140 Ib
54" FALL 1""
CAS.
BL
/FT
27
59
72
61
150 -
4
16
58
P5
137
1 1
25
37
50
90-
SAMPLE
NO
S-l
PEN./REC
24/8
-
S-2 124/0
-
S-2A24/16
S-3
DEPTH
0-2
5-7
7-9
24/10 10-12
Is/o
<;-4
'V<3
15-15.4
20-22
"
BLOWS /6"
6-36-14-60
1-1-2-2
7-35-55-71
52-48-->7-24.
•~-
2B5/5"
II_S-R-?O
ATE STAR
ER
^— O^ 2E ,/s
or x c *j *
CO °
SAND
(FILL)
5.0'
SANDY
PEAT
7.5'
FINE
SAND
11.0'
GRAVEL
AND
SAND
(GLACIAL
TILL)
22.0'
1
REPORT OF BORING NC "ZA-
SHEET 1 OF
DATE
6/21/3:
Southeast of sou
373.6
T 6/21/32 r
OAT I
6/21
GROL
Dr»t«
5.3'
)ATE END
jNOwiT£» «E
CAS 'Hi AT
20'
FILE A-32?~
th la coon
6/21/82
ADiNGS
STAB _'ZA->o*
irnmed.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Dark brown loamy fine SAND, some
Silt, trace coarse Sand and fine
Gravel; Gravel predominant in
bottom of sample, roots in upper
4"±
No rec
4" of
to coa
3" of
fine t
overy
loose medium dense bro^vn fine
rse SAND, trace Silt
dark brown muck with some
o coarse SAND
9" of mottled grey brown SILT,
some fine Sand, grading to fine
SAND, sorae^Silt, some -medium .to
coarse Gravel , then to dense fine
to coarse GRAVEL, little fine Sand,
little Silt
Very dense brown grey fine to
coarse GRAVEL and fine(-*-)to medium
SAND, little Silt; gravel pieces
are angular, with some red brown
(oxidized) zones noted
No recovery; refusal to split spoon
Iat 15. 4 •
Drill cobbles,, boulders 15. 4 '-18, 5'
Gravel fragments, some Sand
Rock
Refusal to sampler and
at 22.3'
Bottom of Hole
roller bit
+•
(REMARKS-' i. 2" Gravel piece in tip of. sampler; apparent cobbles at depth of 1.5 ft, so
moved . hole 2 ft± east prior to continuing.
2. Nuoerous cobbles encountered .in upper 5 ft especially between 4.3 ft and 5.0
spun 4" casing through boulders to depth of 5 ft in order to advance.
V 3. Drilled ahead from 10 ft to BOH to advance casing.
4. Used .over 300 gal. drill water from 5 ft to 20 ft.
MTfTPC- IJ1"*
^Vl b^'|)«rt
or T>«
occu* DM TO OTI«# »»CTWH TMUI
WlL Tt»»» WC T»«t THAMrTIOli B>T If
»io IMOC* CCXO-OKI ruric » TWI HH
mocn- A" TMC n« wiAnnncvrt VIM
-------
DATE IW^TAl I FO Tone 21. 1932
PROJECT flysar-'Virr'.rir.
C7A FNRINPTR fr £lark
WEATHER CnnniTIOlS intermittent rain
REMARKS See attached borinp log
LOCATI»
CONTRAC
DRILLER
\
T(
DF
WELL No_.-2--2
BORING No "A-;
PILF No --323-
No. Graf ton, Massachusetts
1 Guild Drillir.s
C. Koehler
'
r
2 7'
QO DEPTH 4
///Y\ \ /^/\\ "^ ELECTION
SAND
(FILL) ' Peastone_
Backfill
4.21
5 i Bentonite — _^_
5.1'
tn
2 ' Sandy PEAT 5.7'
O
5 7.5'
5
o
« FINE
£ SAND
cr
(O
£ 11 . o '
to
£5 Ottawa
^ Sand "" "~ ""
^ GRAVEL &
< SAND
2 (GLACIAL
§ TILL)
(0
. 22.3' 22. v
^
•
1 '
<\
•
•9
?
•y
a
&
3,
«r
<
^
^
^
3
07JRrm DEPTH/ ELEVATION BOTTOM
\J?f % DEPTH/ ELEWION BOTTOM
^^ScT fcft ^L
,.,. •
^ ' 6 S ' ^ GROUND SURFACE
^!^^ ^CDNC«rrr SURFACE SEAL
^ CTYPICALLY Oi' THCK)
TYPF 21;"
(5. 2' long)
RISER PIPE
„ n*-i-fltjfl 3ANC BACKFILL
WELL SCREEN (O.Ol" SLOTS)
(14.9' screen)
»— — — BOTTO»* OT BORING
pT POPING 22-3' X 351.3
OP WELL PONT ^.P / 353.0
OOCDMMC-ZOIMO A A**OCUT«, MC.
-------
I GOLDBERG • ZOINO 8 ASSOC., INC
GEOTEWNK^OL/GEOHYDROLJOGICAL
XDNSULTANTS ^
PROJECT
REPORT OF BORING NO GZA-
SHEET I OF i
DATE E/22/S2 FlLFA-3295
V BORING CO.
FOREMAN _
C. Koehler
BORING LOCATION
GROUND ELEV
369.6
G-Z-A ENGINEER F- Clark
DATE START 6/:2/S2
DATE END 6^2/S2.
SIZE
HAM)
FALL
a
LU
a
.
r
15
25 .
CASING
3" (NW)
-
SAMPLER
TYPF Split Spoon DTHFR
JfB. 300 It) HAMUFB 140 Ib
. 7A " FALL: 70"
CAS.
BL
/FT.
4
16
63
140
165
5
21
47
56
49
62
35
"48
125
66
*
SAMPLE
NO
S-l
PEN /REC.
24/14
S-2 124/8
3-3
S-4
S-5
24/11
24/12
24/14
"
DEPTH
0-2
5-7
10-12
15-17
20-22
BLOWS /6"
?_?_fr_:>n
34-49-70-38
21--»n-?-J-2f.
._.
80-45-38-32
15-11-10-11
100/0 "(300*
||l£|
TOPSOIL
_SUBSGIL
V1-5'
SAND
GRAVEL
(FILL)
12.01
'VERY
DENSE
GRAVEL
&
SAND
(GLACIAL
TILL)
22.9'
~~~\23.2'
GROUNC**£TE* READING^
D*Tf OfH CASlNS AT S74B..I2A-ION T
6/22 6.9' out 15 minutes
6/22 6.1' aw l hour
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
6" of brown loamy- fine -SAKD, some
Silt, roots (TOPSOIL)
•4" of yellow brown fine SA.:JD, some
\ (-) Silt, trace coarse Sar.d, trace
roots
4" medium dense dry brown f me nO
to medium SAND, some fine to coarse
Gravel, little (-) Silt.
Very dense wet grey brown medium
to coarse GRAVEL, some(+) fine to
coarse Sand, little Silt, some red
brown zones noted; Gravel portion
is ancular to subanoular
Wet very dense fine(-t-) to medium
SAND, some (+) medium to coarse
Gravel, little Silt
3" similar to above, little Gravel,
grading to medium dense grey brown
fine SAND, little to some(-) Silt,
trace fine Gravel & coarse Sand
Kock
Refusal to roller bit and A-rod at
23.2'
Bottom of Hole
KCMAKKd* 1 r>T i 1 1 *»fl ah«a^ frnn ^av,+-K «* C *+• *« -anil •*•« =/l,, = «.-.^ ,-.,.-;„_
2. Cobbles/boulders drilled from 12.5'± to 14.5'.
3. Apparent top of rock at 22'-10" (by driller): cannot penetrate with roller bit
more then 4": confirmed refusal with A-rod.
- HT>« mu
't)«»rDI
O* THC
•T0 ••' OCCtIM OK TO OTMB*
n Muok't vrwrtii mx
u. m.0 *T TM« 410 i«oc»
TW •nuiwroa »' it •UOUUL
•^ rt«TtC OB THI HMiH* LIMB ^LUCTUKTlOWl •
CCVT4.
-------
rviTC IWCTAJ I m June 22, 19B2
PROJECT Wvman -Gordon ify
G7A ENG'NFER T- clark cm
WE^TMER CONDITIONS s-nny< 7°'s r»
REMARKS See attached borine loa
CAT^
^^^R^c
ILLER
J
TC
DF
WELL No G2A-5
BOFQNG NoCZA-3
FILE No A-2238
-, r,^a«*^_ Massachusetts
,*..<,* -.^ ,• -. > ; „ _
r Koehler
Y
QO DEPTH 4 3-1
///\\\ Topsoil/'^ ELEVATION ^>
Subsoil • peastone /
1-5' backfill
2.8' ..
a en t on 1 1 e -^^^__^
375^"
J
5.0'
to
z -
o
25
g SAND
o &
w GRAT/EL
g (FILL)
^ Ottawa
V5 j
§ 12'+ . ,
U.
O
DC
5 GRAVEL
5 AND
V> SAND
(GLACIAL
TILL)
19.9' ^
22.9'
Rock 23.2* geastOQg
>. »
/
1
^
f
1
••
'
^
^
••
^.
MV
^
^
^
V*
f
i
••
••
=
••
*
>7
•OTI; MTT TO KJU T
/P&*f\ DEPTH/ ELEVATION BOTTOM
^^^^% DEPTH/ ELEVKTION BOTTOM
2.8' r GROUND SURFACE
^4.* '/^
'*-^V
/^ NaDNCRTTE SU^ACE SEAL
' CTtPiCA'tLY o^' TMCK)
TYPF 21-"
(5'± long)
^ . ..„_ ... 1 1 S~>" Tim nn mrr nTr—
^ TOP OF WELL SCREEN
WELL SCREEN (O.Of SLOTS)
(14. 9' screen)
"
U— BOTTOM OF BONING
OF BORING 23-2' / ,.34^.4
OP WF1| PTMMT 19.9' / "349.7
OOU>MMC-ZOIMO 4 AUOCIATES. MC.
OCOTECHNICAL-OCOHTDMOLCXtlCAL COMtULTAWT*
-------
^ ^^"^r^^jkji^ /* : /^C^^^l^^^^Df^t '*H^* \^_A.
st.LJ i C. ^•i^ii^^1^^^/ OLtB/ri T 4»""* v iA i* *^^^^*
r 1SDNSULTANTS
.CORING
|f "^.MA
LG-Z^ ENC
£n
AM
"PALI
X
r^-
UJ
c
!-.
^
c
75 .
i
•---- ~.t.vV?~ Of BORING NC, --- -f
.-,,,... -->.- c «J CT"^ 1 ^r
KkV'-^.j- _,-_-^.. SHtC. i 1 O^
NC . GHAJ*TCN , MASSACHVrrTT' DATE" 6/21 /BZ pi> p £.--i---,i
CO ~...ii ->_--•-__ BORING LOCATION Ncrtneast cf Nc-rtr. La soar.
N ^. Koehler G
5INEFR ?• Clar>- D
CASING SAMPLER
ROUND EL
ATE STAR
3" (NW) TYPF Split Spoor. DTMFR
M£=t 3,pO It HAMMTP "itr. Ib
T/ 44 '^^ I "^ *
CAS.
BL.
/FT
37
30
42
75
140
SAMPLE
NO PEN./REC
DEPTH
5-1 b4/ 0-2
1
S-2 24/12 ?-7
1
BLOWS /6"
2-4-17-10
.
[29-23-14-13
I
S-3 24/10 10-12
L I
•
*"^
19— 65— £>0— 313
- •
S-4 24/8 '15-17 Cl-19-24-20
'
.
S-5 £4 /
20-22
15-17-32-38
|§1§|
TOPSOIL
1.0'
SAND,
SAND &
GRAVEL
6.0'
DENSE
SAND &
G.RAVEL
(GLACIAL
TILL) '
22.7'
23.6'
FV 352.°
T ^ '— /E: DATE END6-'-:/Er
GWOUNO^i^E.*- READINGS
OATf orpT» i CASI«« A- ; STABILIZATION TII
f -•*-, 2 ~" c> 1C hc"-*
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Bumister CL ASSIFf^ATON
Loose brown loamy fine SAND, littl
Silt, roots
Medium dense brown fine to coarse
SAND, trace fine to coarse Gravel,
little Silt .
Dense brown fine to coarse GRAVEL
, and medium to coarse SAND, trace
\ Silt (6") changing to
medium dense arown line SAKD,
little to some Silt, trace coarse
Sand and fine Gravel; Gravel
pieces are angular and brittle in
upper 6 "
Medium dense brown fine(-t-) to
medium -SAND, little Silt,~trace
fine Gravel , grading to very
dense fine(-t-) to coarse SAND,
little fine to medium Gravel ,
trace (+) Silt
Dense brown fine SAND, some fine
to coarse GRAVEL with zones of
fine to coarse SAND, some fine to
coarse GRAVEL, little Silt; Gravel
y is angular to subangular in shape
A Dense to very dense brown fine to
\\raedium SAND, little to some fine
\V° coarse Gravel, little (-) Silt
\Rnrk
Refusal to roller bit and A-rod at
23. 51
Bottom, of -Hole
unrr 1
T
•- 1. Numerous cobales & boulders encountered in upper 4 ft; rpun 4" casing to 5 ft
to 'penentrate fill & advance hole.
2. Apparent top of rock encountered at 22 '-8"; drilled 10" into rock, very slow
progress; confirmed refusal with A-rod.
• TOCO tOtl TT«C>
•XO n Tun AIC IMOC
THA* TMO« ftaix- A- tttt
«T
-------
WELL
G2A-4
DATE INSTALLED June 23» 1982
PROJECT Wvman- Gordon
BORING No G2~-4
FILE NO A-32S;
LOCATION Nort* lr*fi?r..
6ZA ENGINEER.
F. Clark
CONTRACTOR —-1- Drilling C:
WEATHER RnuntTinMS ptlv sunnv. 7Q's DRILLER C. Koehier
REMARKS See attached boring log
SAND,
SAND &
GRAVEL
6.0'
tf)
O
Q DENSE SAND &
Z GRAVEL
<•> (GLACIAL
TILL)
£T
cn
CD
(O
U.
O
CO
22.7'
23.6' RocJc
•or TO
f
0' (f
QO DCPTH i
Sahd/Cement
0.7'
' 0.8' -- ^
/
Bentomte x^
1.5 N
t
Ottawa
Sand
20.6'
23.6' caved
lush)
\
^
/•
\
t
r-
1
^
?
- ;
" =
''•. i
'•:\
• \
•^
%$
• | -0.3' ^ GROUND SU
- j^^ ^^ONCWETT SL/R1
• ( „ , 1.1/"1 " r~~\TTi
•: PIPE
• ^ „ ^_^ PwnTFPTrwT <~K
•^ " TVPF J1:" i.
* (2.0' long)
•' TOP OF WELL
»•
^ .._^___ i i /? * T v^i nn •
WEUL SCREEN (0
(19 '-9" sere*
^M
SURPACT SEAL
THCK1
. 80 P.VC RISE
80 SLOTTED PVC
23.6'
DCPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM Of BORING
DCPTH/ ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WELL POJNT2£ill_/
OOLDKMG-ZCXNO A AMOCUTCS.
-------
GO-DSERG-ZOINO 5 AC3CC.-TES. INC.
320 N£ED«AM ST, N£*""DN JBPfR FAU..S, MA
GEOTECHNICAL/G£0"VDPCXJOG;CAL CONSULTANTS
PROJECT
WY1AN GORDON
3RAT7CS MASSACHUSE
REPORT OP BORING No :z*-5
SHEET : OF ;_
FILE NO A-3239
CMKD BY.
c
BCWiNG Co.
K7 A ENGINEER
F. c^
BORING
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION '
DATE START 8/23/92 nArr END
MkOfe HAMMED F*^>.ING JC»i
«rrnr * ?" <» rr «eoniy r««n. ,,^-r. » ^C^:<*-~ : = =E-:N3^
DATE TIME -V -f."' S7ABLI2ATIOH Tl
CASNG UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTE2.CASMG DMIVCM uSlNC SOOIb HAMMd FAU.M6 24 w. ti/2J 0930 3.2' 14' 1/2 hour
CASING SIZE' 4" (HW> tc «• OTHEf
z
«Lp
s-
s
10'
15'
20.
i 25'
M
30
77
17
11
—
105
—
40
29
20
17
21
—
—
27
34
44
24
24
23
24
US,
SAMPLE
«»
S-l
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
3"
S-6
"%
18/3
24/6
24/6
24/8
24/3
GRANULAR SOLS
BLOwS/rt DENSITY
0-4 * LOOSE
O LOOSE
JO M DENSE
30-90 DENSE i
>SO V DENSE
(ft)
0-1. S
5-7
9-11
14.5-16.5
19.5-21.5
24.3
•LOWW"
3-5-9
36-19-34-65
69-48-25-14
23-16-17-1:
"22-21-lB-i:
100/0"
10/0-
COHESIVE SOILS REMAI
SLDws/rr teem cmsill
<2 V. SOFT a€ A*»W>l»**Tt BOUNDARY BETWEEN SOS. TYPIS.TIUNSTTCNS «*«Y BE GRADUAL.
LEVEL RCAOMCS HAVE BEEN MADE M THE DftlU. HOLES AT TlfcCS AND UNOCM CONDITIONS STATED ON
THE SWING LOGS FUCTUAITONS IN TWC LEVEL Of GHOUNOwMT* MAY OOCUM Out TO OTHE*. MCTORS THAN I
T>C5E PBESEi^T AT TXC TINT fcCASUBEMENTS wfHE MAQf
Nn
no.
GZA-5
-------
rtATF IWCTAI > rn August 23, 1992
PPOJFTT Wvmar. Gordon
G7A FNR1NFFP F- -lark
WFATHFR CONDITIONS P3r~lv -Isudv 70'
*FMARK«; See attached borina lo
LOC
- COf
5 DRI
a
^TIOI
rTRAC
LLER
«J
T(
DF
BORING Mo ^^-5
FILE No ^-::3r
Nortn Graf ton, Massachusetts
, " Guild Drillina
K. Allen
- .
T1.7' . •
QO DEPTH ' J
A v /* ELEVATION
Topsail, Loam Cement
Miscellaneous Fill • 1.1 ' ^
Bentonite /
2.8' v
4.2' /
,„ 7-°'-
2j Fine to coarse
p SAND, little
S Gravel, Silt
g
O
UJ
§
cr
n
(/)
§ - Ottawa
f> Sand
U.
O
>-
IT
<
Z
5
CO
19'
Fine SAND, little
Silt arjd Gravel
fragments
(GLACIAL TILL).
24.3' 24.0 .
,.^
^
/
v
*
r
RttCK. " - J -
26.3' 26 3' Peastone
r
\
I
*
t '
^
-
|
il
^
.
•on: »0r TO KJILC ^
•
^3MEFm DEPTH /ELEVATION BOTTOM
t ^y % DEPTH/ ELEVATION BOTTOM
-
1 • 3 ' f GROUND SURFACE
*fc'r/r
.x^"^ ^ccNCRrrr SURFACE SEAL
II TrltAm.T D.5 IHCKJ
c. i-i" =;rHn_jn pvr 7?r^rp
PIPE
TYPf. 2i" .
^
WELL SCREEN (O.Ol" SLOTS)
» BOTTOM OF BORING
Of BORING 26-3,.',/ 343.4
OF WPlf POJMT 24.0' /34S.7
GOLDBEftG-ZOlNO A ASSOCIATES. INC.
OCOTECHMtCALXSCOHYOMOCOOICAL CONSULTANT!
-------
DATE
August 2
WELL No
BORING No
FILE No
. Gordon
GZA PK1METR Prank Clark
WEATHER cr>MnmnM«; warr. cloudy
REMARKS
LOCATION North ^rafiorij
CONTRACTOR —in
Pfftl ^fff (driver well).
V)
Z
o
Z5
/ 362-6
OOLDBEftG-ZOINO A A«SOCUTEft, INC.
OCOTECHNICAi-OCOHYDMOLOOlCAL CONSULTANTS
-------
ST, NEWTON 'JPPER FA;^_S, MA
GE^ECHNICAL/GEOHYDROLOGiCAL CONSULTANTS
GORDON
NC
3KATrON , lASSACHVSr
REPORT 3? BORiNG No
SHEE^
FILE NO
CHKC BY
BORING
F. Clarx
ELEVATION
'E START 8/19'82 PATE END
.DATUM
3/2: '=:
SAW'l_ER UNLESS OTHERWISE NCTE. SAMPLER CO«
KOfc HAMMER 'AUJNG JO*.
sm "• » ?" w " s«»v>«' o^vf N usuri « — ,. .,„ ^ -I-)S-"A- •• ~---'<~z
DATE i TIME "yr1 -^-- STABILIZATION TU
CJLSJNT, u«*.fSS OTMfRwKF «7TCD,£AS»30 V DfNSE >30 HARD
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Medium dense, brown, loamy SILT,
v some fine Sand, trace Roots, trace/
\coarse Sand /
Cobbles 3' - 5't
Very dense, gray-brown, fine to
coarse SAND and GRAVEL, little-
Silt
Similar to above
Medium dense, gray, fine to medium
SAND, little coarse Gravel,
trace Silt
Medium dense, gray, fine to
coarse GRAVEL and SAND (poor
recovery)
Medium dense, gray, fine4' to
coarse SAND, some fine to coarse
Gravel, trace* to little- Silt
Very dense grey fine SAND, some
(-) Silt, little fine to coarse
Gravel .
Boulders 29.6 - 31*1
Drill apparent ROCK
!
-
STRATUM DESCRIPTION
1 '± LOAM
Fine to coarse SAND and GRAVEL.
little Silt; occasional cobbles
(TILL)
12.0'
Medium dense, fine to coarse
SAND, GRAVEL
28'
Very dense fine SAND, sane
Silt, trace QraTcl
(CLACXAZ. TILL)
33. 71
ROCK
go. . 35.7* Bottom .of Boring
1. Drill cobbles and boulders 29.6'-31'±j drill apparent rock froa
33.7' - 35.7'.
•indicates driven using 300 Ib. hammer.
NOTES "DTK STRATKCATON LINES BEPWESCXT TK AWOXMKATt BOuNOAKY BETWEEN SOU. TYPES,TRANSITIONS MAY K GRADUAL
2WA7T* LfVft RTAOMGS HAVE BEEN MADC * TXC DRILL MOLES AT TIMES AND UNDER CONDITIONS ST4TCD ON
THE aO»'NG LOGS FLUCTUATIONS IN THE LEVEL Of (WOuNDwATER MAT OCCUR DUE TO OTHER «CTORS THAN
THQSE pf>rs£H" if T>«C TIM{ MEASUREMENTS »»ERE >tAO£
Nn
-------
DATE IN«?T,AI i rn Auoust 20, 1982
PROJECT Wyraan Gordon | f)TATI
GZA ENGINEER F. Clark rO*fT»/
WFATHPR CnwniTir^S Cloudy, si. rain ppiu £
WELL No SZA-6
BORJNG No"2A-6
FILE No A-32B8 '
Q(g North Grafton. Massarh-'so*-*-^;
CTOF
R
f Guild Drilling
K. Allen
R£MARK5 See attached borinq loq
T
QO DEPTH _4
3.1
l'± LOAM ELEVATION 4> \>;.V
Bentonite &\T.
Dense miscellaneous >
Fine to Coarse 1.1 'backfill
SAND S GRAVEL
(FILL) 2*2—
CO
O
S
o
Q Medium dense
U.- fine to coarse
Sj SAND & GRAVEL ,_ ,. .
j^ Ottawa Sand
a
CO
u_
0
or
5
r>
CO
28'
Very dense fine
SAND, some Silt j
(GLACIAL TILL) A
35.7' ROCK 35.7' CAVED
J,
/^
,
*-
m
»•
= **
•ort: MOT TO (ONJC
^BTJRFm DEPTH/ ELEVATION BOTTOM
tfl^T % DEPTH/ ELEVATION BOTTOM
1-5' ^C»OUND SUHWCE
.X^^CONOCTE SURFACE SEAL
' (TYPICALLY 0.5' THCX)
* f ^ - , - "~ "~~"' "s.
" >v^J°P °^ ^e^-^ ScreeT^
• •/ PROTECTIVE CASING-
/TY«*r. -2V
/
y?.
-•
Ottawa Sand
._^____ i . i /7- nr^*^ /in ^i mrrn P\^P
WELL SCREEN (O.Ol" SLOTS)
Qf flOPIN'r 35. 71 / 331.9
r*r WF1| PniPfT 30.8' /336.S
OOU)KNCV-ZOINO A ASSOCIATES, IMC.
-------
DATE iM«tTmrn August 27, 1982
•man Gordon
WELL Mo._
BORING Mo
FILE Mo _J
LOCATION
North Grafton, Massachusetts
G2A ENGINEER' Frank Clark COKTRATTOf?
WEATHER CrmPtTKlM*; War-, cloudy f»»[ [fP Driver
CO
O
tr.
to
03
3
u.
O
2
CO
7^
PEAT
1.9'
30-
SAND
Dense SAND &
GRAVEL
5.4'
•on. MT TO
I
3.5'
GRourro SURFACE
•I
OTTAWA SAf.T3
•2" I.D. Stainless Steel
Well point (0.006" slots,
screens 0' to 4.9'}
V
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM OF BORING
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WELL POINT
359.4
OOLOBEAC-ZOINO * AMOCIATES. INC.
OCOTtCHN*CAL-OCOHYOMCM.OOICAl COMSULTAMTS
-------
GOLDBERG -ZOtNO a ASSOCIATES. INC.
320 NEEDHAW ST. NEWON UPPER FALLS, MA
GEOTECHNICAL/GEOHYDROLDGICA^ CONSULTANTS
PROJECT
WYMAN 3OFCON
NC. GRATTCN. •Wl£5AC:-r.;rTT:
REPORT OF BORING No sz*-7
SHEET i or i "
CMKD BY
ROBING r~n 3uild Drillir.c SOBiuT. i DC-ATlON
TOBFUAJJ ^ K. A^ien f.RCHINn SURFACE ELEVATION O^TUM
J?A FNGINEFR F- ClarK OflTr STAflT s,..,ox nATf- FwD 8 13 Ji
c
I
I
SAMPLER UNLESS OTM€R*tSE NOTO. SAMPLER CO*
MVOie HAMUCR FALLING jo »
neVS f» A j* s*\.rr ^•CO'" O">^ * uf*«5 A oSOuNr/Ai"; - s£AL,f.G3
DATE , TIME "^7" -"^* STAftLIZATlO* Til
CASING' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.CASNC DRIVEN USING JOOIb HAMMtR fALL»<« ?4 m 9/13 1400 2.9 51 1/2 hour
CASING SIZE: <" '»" to 10' OTHEI
z
a. ~
8-
5
10 .
20 •
25 .
30.
o cr
M
— —
10
25
31
21
10
12
10
9
7
5
7
19
21
28/
20
12
27
28
IB
28
34
32
33
21
—
—
61
65/
~
SAMPLE
N*.
S-l
S-2
S-3
8"
S-4
S-5
S-6
6A
3"
S-7
S7A
FtN/
24/5
24/2
24/4
30 V DENSE >30 HARD
i/19 1230 3.1 OW 6 davs
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
&f mMT i "i'u u
0UnTHdlC.j\ CLASS! WAT^M
^ 2* dark Brown Root Mat
3' Loose, brown, loamy, fine to
Medium dense, gray-brown, fine*
to coarse SAND, little fine Gravel,
little" Silt (poor recovery)
^Sir.ilar t= above
Cobble 14 '-.4" to 14 '-•)"
14'-10" to .IS'-O'
Dense, gray, medium to coarse
GRAVEL, some fine* to medium Sand,
little* Silt
Ve.ry dense, gray, fine to -coarse
SAND, some fine to coarse Gravel,
little* Silt
8* medium dense, gray, fine SAND,
little* Silt
12* medium dense, brown-gray, fine
SAND, little Silt, trace fine to
medium Gravel
Cobbles 27--10- to 30'-4'
/'Very dense, gray SILT, little fme\
Sand, slight bedding noted
1
2
3
4
STRATUM DESCRIPTION
.5 Root Mat, TOPSwIl
2 ' Loamv SAND
Medium dense SAND', little Gravel
1 f «; •
Dense SAND, GRAVEL, few Cobbles
24'
Medium dense, fine SAND, little
Silt, trace Gravel
•tn ^ »
Very dense SILT, little fine Sand
32.0'i.
32.5' Verv dense, fine SAND (TILL
33.7* Bottom of Boring
KS: 1- Driller suspects more .gravel in stratum and poor recovery due to
g of gravel - pieces . 2. Cobbles encountered between 14'-15'. 3. Sand ran
into casing after washing out to 15'. 4. Cobbles drilled from 27 '-10* to
5. Drilled into apparent rock from 32 '-6" to 33 '-S* rock is extremely
nd advance rate is slow, despite new bit ( 30 Bin per foot) .
C
OI\
NOTES- DTK STRATIFCATO4 UMES REPRESENT TK AWWOXIMATt BOUNOAKt BETWEEN SO«. TYPCS.TRANSfTONS »»AY « GRADUAL.
3WATER LEVEL REAWNGS **»*£ KEN MADE M TMC DRILL MOLES AT TIMES AND UNDER CONDITIONS STATED ON , __
!.Mf J9P*!N5J=P
-------
GOLDBERG-2CHNO a ASSOCIATES, INC.
320 NEEDHAM ST., NEWTON UPPER FALLS, MA
GEOTECHNICAL/GEOHYDROLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
PROJECT
WYKAK GORDON
NC. GRATTON, MASSACHUSETTS
REPORT OF BORING No <
SHEET 1 nc
FILC No .
CMKC BY.
BORING Co..
Guild Drilling
X. Aller.
:?A ENGINEER
F. Clarx
BORING LOCATION
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION
DATE START 8/12/8: nATF END
»/i;/
SAMPLER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, SAMPLER COt
I4OIB HAMMER FALLING 3Om
CBTS CF A ?" VTfT f«TWN [WlVf" Uf»^ •» ._ — , uROUNjvv-i F" RtiOiNGS
DATE TIME -^7" -^" STA8ILIZAT10«* Tl»
CASING: ui»t ess QTMTRWISE M3Td,CAS»*; BRIVEN USING aOOIb MAMMtR FAU.PW 24 to 3/1 3_ _ 1400 2.9 5- I/: .-.our
CASING SIZE- 4" (HW) to 10< OTHE
I
o.~
8-
s
10
15
20.
30.
o c
P
_.
10
25
31
21
10
.12
10
9
7
5
7
19
21
28
20
12
-27
28
18
28
34
32
33
21
—
~
61
65/
~
~
SAMPLE
No.
S-l
S-2
S-3
8"
S-4
S-5
S-6
6A
3'
S-7
S7A
ff"/^
24/5
24/2
24/4
24/4
24/5
[24/20
.8/18
&/3
' (ft)
0-2
4.5-6.5
9-11
14. 5-16. 5
19.5-21.5
4.5-26.5
0.5-32.0
32-32.5
•LOWW*
1-2-5-7
9-6-7-8
6-6-6-15
15-25
_
24-28-26-15
23-18-11-14
10-25-35
65
GRANULAR SOLS COHESIVE SOILS R£MAF
BLOWS/FT DENSITY BLOWS/FT. DEXSml pu«hin
0-4 V. LOOSE <2 v- aorr 2' up
0 LOOSE 2"* S0n' 30'"«'
*•• a JTrF hard a.
• -,-30 M. DENSE e.0 j,.,^
30-» DENSE ,s.3o v. STW
>90 V DENSE >30 HARD
3/19 1230 3.1 Ow 6 days
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
BURMISTEF CLASSinCATON
3* Loose, brown, loamy, fine to
x. medium' SAND
Medium dense , gray-brown , " fine*
to coarse SAND, little fine Gravel,
little" Silt (poor recovery)
^Siailar to above
Cofeble 14 '-4" to 14 '-9"
14--10" to 15'-0"
Dense, gray, medium to coarse
GRAVEL, some fine* to medium Sand,
little* Silt
Very dense, gray, fine to coarse
SAND, sone fine to coarse Gravel,
little* Silt
8" medium dense, gray, fine SAND,
little* Silt
12" medium dense, brown-gray, fine
SAND, little Silt, trace fine to
medium Gravel
Cobbles 27 '-10" to 30 '-4"
/Very dense, gray SILT, little fine\
Sand, slight bedding noted
1
£
i
2
3
4
STRATUM DESCRIPTION •
. :. ' Root. Mai, TOP£CI_
2 ' Loamv SAND
. Medium dense SAND, little Gravel
10.5-
Dense SAND, GRAVEL, few Cobbles
24-
Medium dense, fine SAND, little
Silt, trace Gravel
30.5'
Very dense SZLT, little fine Sand
32.0'±
32.5' Very dense, fine SAND (TILL
ROCK
3-3.7' Bottom of Boring
KS: 1. Driller suspects more .gravel in stratum and poor recovery due to
g of gravel pieces. 2. Cobbles encountered between 14 '-IS'. 3. Sand ran
into casing after washing out to 15'. 4. Cobbles drilled from 27 '-10" to
. 5. Drilled into apparent rock from 32 '-6" to 33 '-8" rock is extremely
nd advance rate is slow, despite new bit ( 30 min per. foot) .
I
OI\
NOTES-
STRATIFCATION UNES ftEMtCSEMT T»C APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY BETWEEN SOL TYPCS.THANSmONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
LEVEL READMGS HAVE BEEN MADE * TMC DRILL MOLES AT TIMES AMD UNDER CONDITIONS STATED ON
THE BORING LOGS FLUCTUATIONS w TK LEVEL or GROUNOWATER MAY occu* DUE TO OTHER MCTORS THAN I D/vaiur
THOSE PBCSENT AT THE TIME tgASXlHEMENTS WERE MADE ' BORING
-------
WELL No . G2A-7
DATE-INSTALLED August 23, 1982
PROJECT Wyman Gordon
BORING Mo *•""*- '
FILE No. A-32S3
LOCATION North Grafton, Massachusetts
Guild Drilling
GZA PCIMETR F. Clark
WEATHER Cf>MPlT»f>MS Partly Cloudv 70's DRILLER K. Allen
REMARKS . See attached boring log
Loamy
SAND
Medium dense SAND,
little Gravel
vf vfELL
OTTAWA SAND
• BOREHOLE
•" •• "—TOP OF WELL s
__^___ i . i ft" *nr\ A n t
WELL SCREEN (0.
•OTI: MOT TO
SURFACE SEAL
CK)
VC RISE!
PIPE
SCREEN
40 SLOTTED PVC
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM Of BORING 33-7' / -222J)
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WELL POINT 33-5' / 327-2
-------
I
1
GOLDBERG -ZOINO 6 ASSOC!
320 NEEOHAM ST., NEWTON UPf
ATES.iNC.
>E« FA • S M^
GEOTECHNICAL/GEOHYDROLDGICAL CONSU
BORING
TOREM
r "°
r«
AM
4GINEE
•R
PROJECT
k WYMAN GORDON
LTANT^ NC . GRAFTON , MASSACHUSETTS
REPORT OF BORING No ^-d
SHEET J_ np
PILE NO A-^SS
CHKD BY
Cuilr1 r>r-.:i--- . ,. _ BORING y-iraTlpH) Downgradien- 41' s. of drain d:-~u
K. AU'er r.nmjwn 5ijoc^r£ p_L
^ T. Clark OATF STAHT B/
.EVA
1VE
2 HATF FUR 8/1B/S-
1C?? hours
X SAMPLER UNLESS OTHERWISE MOTEO. S**WI_ER CO»
MOlb HAMMER FALLING 3O*<
•f"rT5 P* »?'•»! T uoo^ t-IVf" U***i t , , o30UNj«V6 •- READINGS
DATE TIME -;?* ^™s STABILIZATION TIME
CASING: v*t.fys oTwf»wKr Mrnra,CASNGDRrvn" (NW) to HUH " " "" "
h
8-
5
10
15.
'-
25.
35
o c
X •
20
51
44
27
7
12
16
23
20
7
18
25
30
26
20
44
51
32
44
48
54
54
110
40
11
9
45,
24
45
55
M*.
S-l
S-2
2A
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
6"
SAMPLE
*"&K
24/4
12/12
12/8
24/5
24/3
(ft)
0-2
5-6
6-7
9-11
' 14-16
24/12 19-21
24/18
24/18
GRANULAR SOLS
BLOWS/FT DENSITY
0-4 v. LOOSE
0 M. DENSE
90-90 DENSE
>» V DENSE
24-26
29-31
BLOWVS'
PUSH
1-2
15-28
9-4-5-12
9-11-12-15
8^-22-25-41
32-55-100/:
32/4---15*
29-42-32
85
COHESIVE SOLS BFMAfi
Buows/rr. DENsm
3O HARD
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
BUWUSTER CLASSinCATCN
Very soft, dark brown, fibrous
PEAT, trace Roots
Soft, dark brown, fibrous PEAT
• Dense, gray, fine* to medium SAND
little" Silt, trace Gravel
Loose, fine to coarse GRAVEL,
some fine* to coarse Sand,
trace Silt
Medium dense, fine* to coarse
SAND, some* fine to coarse
Gravel, little Silt
^ Dens«, fine* to medium SAND, "**s««.
little fine to medium Gravel,
little Silt and Clayey Silt
Similar to above, very dense,
less Gravel in upper 8*, fine to
coarse Gravel in lower portion
Similar to above, trace Gravel
in upper 6", little- some in lowei
portion of sasiple
Cobbles 3lTT' to 33 '± ™"~" ™""~
£
•IBM
STRATUM DESCRIPTION
SOFT PEAT -
6'
Dense, fine to medium SAND
7.5';
Loose to medium dense, fine to
coarse GRAVEL and SAND
19.51
Dense to very dense, fine to
medium SAND, little Gravel and
'Silt
(GLACIAL TILL)
Very dense, fine SAND, some Gravel,
• Cobbles and Rock fragments
KS:
1. Apparent refusal to casing at 31.5 feet; drill ahead through cobbles
(5* - 6' diaaeter) and dense gravel frost 31.5' to 34'.
•indicates driven using 300 Ib. haoeaar
GZV
NOTES- OTHE STR.ATFCATCN LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNOART BETWEEN SOL TYPCS.TRANSITCNS MAY BE GRADUAL.
READMGS HAVE BEEN MADE (/THE DRILL HOLES AT TIMES AND UNDER CONDITIONS STATED ON
THOSE POESENT a
THE LEVEL o*
TIMF KASUHEM&T! WE
oca* DUE TO OTHER MCTWS THAN
BORING No.
-------
GOLDBERG-ZO»NO & ASSOCIATES', INC
320 NEEDHAW ST.. NEWTQ. UPPER FALLS, MA.
GEOTECHNICAL/GEOHYDROLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
PROJECT
WYMAN GORDON
NC. 3RATTON, MAS 5ACHV SETTS
REPORT OP BORING No _. CZA-S
SHEET 2 "or ; '
FILE No ^A-3298
CMKO BY
f
1
BORING Co
FOREMAN
GZA ENGINEER.
K.
BORING LOCATION
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION DATUM
DATE START DATE END
SAMPLER UMLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SAMPLE* CONSSTS Of A Z" SPLfT SPOON DRIVEN USMG A
MO ft HAMMER CALLING 3O«l.
CAS1NG: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTtn,CASNG OKfVCN USING JOOlk MUSIC* FALL** 24 m.
CASING SEE:
:v
8s
f C
P
27
39
—
87
55
OTHER:
SAMPLE
M*.
S-8
S-9
|(;>ifiu
18/18
L8/12
GRANULAR SOLS
eUJwi/TT OCNSITT
0-4 V LOOSE
' •-» UX8E
30 M. DENSE
30-90 DENSE
>90 V OENSC
oerrM
(fU
•UIWVC*
34-35.5 J90-55«-52«
39.5-41
,
jS~
30.25-41-
401--20/0*
COHESIVE SOILS REMAf
aiowvrr. ocxsm
< 2 V. SOFT1
2-4 SOFT
4.§ n srr?
8-B STVF
13-30 V. ST^F
>30 NAKO
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
BURMISTEJt ' CLASSinCATOtl
GROUNDwi't0 BEADif-dS
DATE TIKE T?" ^» rr48IL:2*Tlo»l TIM
Very den«« , gray, fine SAND, some
fine to coarse Gravel and angular
rock fragn>«nt», little* silt
Cobble 36'-4- to 36'-ll"
Similar to above
'
\
3
STRATUM DESCRIPTION
41.5'
ROCK
42.5' Bottom of Boring
-i
f
)KS: 2. Drill ahead of ca«ing to advanc* hole froa 34' to bottom of hole.
3. Casing taXe« up .hard at 41.5 'i drill apparent rock from 41.5' to
to 42.5'; very slow advance (12* in approximately 25 minutes).
* indicates driven using 300 lb. banner.
GZA
NOTES. DTME STRATIHCATON UNES MEMESENT THE APIWOXMATE BOUNOAKY BCTWCEH sot TTPCSJUANSITONS MAY K GRADUAL.
a*«TER LEVEL "EAOS4GS KAVE BEEN MADE M THE MILL MOLES AT TIICS AND UNDER CONDITIONS STATCD ON
THE BORING LOGS FLUCTUATOKS IN THE LEVEL V WOUNOvnATE" »U» OCO* DUE TO OTHER «CTOB THAN
THOSE PRESENT JTT THE TlMt >g*^"»»FMfNT^ w«T«r M«nr
BORING No.
GZA-6
-------
rvATP IWCTAI i PT) Auaust 16-19, 1932
PROJECT Wyman Gordon
GZA FNGINFFR F. Clark
WFATHfR CONDITIONS Partly Cloudy, 70 's
REMARK? See attached bonncr loa
LOCATIO
CONTRAC
DRILLER
4
T(
WFLL NO -z*-e
BDR1NG No -~i- =
FILE No A- 3 23?
North Graf ton, Massachusetts
3F
j Guild Drilling
K. Allen
v
OO DEPTH 4 2 ' 4
X^Y' ^ \ ELECTION
Benton
PEAT 2 . 0 ' _
3.6' v
/
6'
7.5' Fine to medium SAND
CO
Z Fine to coarse GRAVEL & SAND
B
g
o
SI
a:
little Gravel & Silt
o:
< (GLACIAL TILL)
2
5
en
Very dense, fine SAND, some
Gravel, Cobbles and Rock
fragments
41.5' 41.6'
42.6 ' 42.6'
X
ite \
/
/
\
I
<
I '
i
I _
.•".*
j-
*t
-.''•
^
•*
:
|
!
•
*tf
i c> r GROUND SURFACE
-fc!>C
^/^^CQNcnrrE SURFACE SEAL
^ (TYPICALLY 0.5' THCK)
^ , :, „ TOP or WFT.-L srRF^N
TVPT. 2i"
.____.___ i i/f»M •v*Hn nr> PVY* Bt^FT? ffpr
OTTAWA SAIJD
V \/*>mfr\r\ A'n ct MT MM p\/r
WELL SCREEN (0.0 1" SLOTS)
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM OF BORING 42-6 / 314-7
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WELL POtNT 41-6 X 315'7
OOLOBERG-ZOINO A ASSOCIATES. INC
OCOTECHNtCAL-CEOHYDROLOaiCAl COMSULTAMTf
-------
WELL *a
BOBNG No
DATE IM«?TA1 I TP August 27, 1982
PROJECT wyman Gordon
LOCATION-^
FILE No. - A-323S
Graf tor:, Vassachusetts
GZA FMRtMETR *ranV rlarV
^
WEATHER CQMPmOMS warr, cloudy
REMARKS
CONTRACTOR.
DRILLER
(LTiven Well)
en
O
25
or
tn
CD
IL.
O
PEAT: fibrous fi fine-grained
PEAT & peaty fine SAND
3.91
Dense SANIiS
GRAVEL
3.65'
GROUND SURFACE
•OTTAWA SAND'
-2" I.D. Stainless Steel Well
point. (0.006"( slots, screened
O1 to 4.7')
5.2'
•OTE: •Of TO
OEPTH/ ELEVATION BOTTOM OF BORING
DCPTH/ ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WELL POINT
/
/ 352.. 2
OOtOKRO-ZOIHO « A8K)CUTEr IKC.
CO«»ULTAWT»
-------
32O NEEDH
GEOTECHN
BO«iNG Cc
FOREMAN
IOINC & ASSOCIATES. INC
AM ST., NEWTON UPPER FALLS, MA
ICA^/GECXYDROLOGCAL CONSULTANTS
PROJECT
WVM.N r^PDON
NHPTii GPATOr.. MASSACH'JSETT-
REPORT Qr BORING No :^-:.' __,_
FILE NO --^:~'~
CMKC B»
^u^ii -Ti-.ino Company BOOIwr, ; n^ATtn^ s«.f ;,.",- j-,~- - ...r
- »-:ta"?' . GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION r^TtlM
—,ZA ENGINEER Jam»* Scnitf
«!TART
SAMPL.EP UNLESS ^IMFOW-SE NOTEC. SAMPLE" CONSISTS o* * 2 SPI'- «SPOON DRIVEN USING *
i«Oit MAMMfo FALLING JO*
CASING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED CASING rxiivT N USING KXDib NAMMfP FALL**G ?4 »
CASING SIZE: •>•• • - OTHER-
X
a ~
5
10
i e.
— '
20 -
30.
35
r —
4
SAMPLE
„, '"^/"i DEPTH
'"V^E'I "11
5-1
10 | S-1A
70
52
24/e
/12
0-1
1-2
12 1 ?-: 24/10J 4-6
14
9
45
54
86
54
48
S-J
-
54 |
13
t i
S-4
:: j
24
8
27
25
20
23
31
in
16
47
102
28
IP
1 1
1 1
46
51
S-5 .
S-6
S-7
S-B
24/10
-
9-11
BLOWS/6"
'2-9
20-45
l24-o-n-5
-
65-5-6-8
\
24/12) 14-16 U7-19-P-10
24/4
24/8
6/5
24/12
19-21
-
24-26
29-29.5
3J-36
R-6-10-17
20-17-7-9
103/6
4B-55-35-V,
GRANULAR SOLS TOHESlVt SOILS REMAP
BLOWS/FT DENSITY BLOWS/FT DENSm
0-« v LOOSE <2 v SOFT
4-« LOOSE 2'4 ^
4-B M STIFF
10-30 M DENSE 8.rJ y,,^
3O-90 DENSE is-X) v STirr
VD v DENSE >30 HARD
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
',«0'JN <+.-'•; ~i~bin*i
DATE j TIME. "^T" ^A.l"' . _ STAHlL'ZATION 1
fc'lH'BJ ",^r : ~ 1
1
-fcutai-irfM . ... ... TLASSiFirATION
M»dium dense, hrown Silty TOPSOIL,
roots, trace fine Sand, chanainq t
•fino-to medium Sand, trace (-1 Sil
Medium dfnsr. hrown coarse to fine
little
o a
some
t ••
SAND.
little medium to coarse Gravel, trace
( * } Silt
Medium dense, hrown SILT, and Peat
, little
fine to medium Sand, trace (-) Gravel
Medium dpn«i«> , brown coarse to fine
some medium to coarse Gravel, trac
Silt
Mcdiur dens*, l-rown -coarse to fine
littfc n«r".iui- to coarse Gravel, tr
(-1 Sil '
Medium dense, brown fjne to coarse
some Silt, trace (-) Gravel
SAND,
e (-)
SAND,
ace
SAND,
Vory d»nso, qroy medium to fine SAND,.
little Silt, trace Gravel, trace cobbles
Very drnse. gray medium to fine SA
Silt, trace Gravel, trace cobbles
if
STRATUM DESCRIPTION
1.0 TOPSOIL
GRANULAP TIL:.
o e
SILT AND
11.5 - PEAT
SAND
X
24.0 -
GLACIAL TILL
IKS'
1. Washed ahead with roller bit from 29 to 34 teet prior to driving
easing.
fOZV
NOTES I>T*< STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPWOKIMATT BOUNDARY BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.TRANSITIONS MAY BE
2)waTTP LEVEL READWCS HAVE BEEN MADC * THE D»'LL "O.ES «T TIMES AND UNDER CONDITIONS STflTED ON
£ BORING LOGS FLUCTUATIONS IN THE LEVEL OF GPOUNDWATER MAY OCCUR DUE TO OTHER TACTtWS THAN RDRIWC; Mo CZ*-
OSf BPJSENT flT TMf TIMF MEASUREMENTS wf»r UAD£ Oivmnm IXO.
TMQSC
-------
320 NEEDHAM SI,
SHEET
i GEOTECHNIC^/^EOHYDROLOGCAL CONSULTANTS
HQPT" r.B>rTor. HAS5A--
CMKD
No
2-
•^
50
v -
* ;
: SAMPLE ; - SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
;j Me h Dr^™ BLOVS/C* BuT'T>l«t**r - .— . ...
7?
77
R4
131 c-°
'
r-i
\
3/10 3°-39.3 100"
6/0 30. '-40 1° min/"1 f •
f
1
No B-c-v-ry
1
-
{
-t ^
f
ir
STRATUM DESCRIPTION
GLACIAL TILL
4
*
REMARKS:
r
OI\
BORING
-------
f •
DATE IMCTAI i m June 18. 1984
PROJECT wvTnan Gordon
WELL
BORJNG
RLE No.
G2A ENGINEER James Schiff
WEATHER CONDITIONS _Sonnv_80°_
REMARKS
LOCATION N°^-
CONTRACTOR
r>PH I FP Al w*—axer
en
2
g
»—
s
5
o
LU
en
CD
U.
O
Ground
1.0 "Topsoil
QO DEPTH
ELEVATION
Lrown coarse to fine
SAND, littl^e Gravel (Granular Fill!
'9.5'
Silt and Peat
5 '
Coarse to fine SAND, some Gravel,
trace Silt
24.0' -
Medium to fine SAND, little
to some Silt, trace Gravel
(Glacial Till)
34.0 feet
NOTE: NOT TO XMS
GZ\
r- GROUND SURFACE
send. 40 PVC Riser
CONCRETE SURFACE SEAL
(TYPICALLY- 0.5' THCK)
Top of wellscreen
pipe
•PROTECTIVE CASING
TYPE: 2.5
• 1-1/2" SCHD. 80 PVC RISER PIPE
Ottawa Sand
•FINE to COARSE SAND BACKFILL
•BOREHOLE
•I-I/2"SOC 80 SLOTTED PVC
WELL SCREEN <0.0l" SLOTS)
BOTTOM OF WELL SCREEN
JTTOM OF BORING
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM OF BORING 40 —• / 334-6
DEPTH/ ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WELL POINT 34 ft. s 340.6
COLOBERC-ZOINO A ASSOCIATES. INC.
QEOTECMNICAL-GEOHYOROLOCICAL CONSULTANTS
-------
^
£
V
1
M
*fcl
lj
MM
-^
j
V
-
•
GOLDBERG-ZOINO & ASSOCIATES. INC
320 NEEDMAM SI, NEWTON UP°£B PA|_; MA
GECTECHNtCA^ /GEOHYDROLOGXCA^
3CWING
«*• EC
0.
AK "°*
-i- LT
nn naiaOJL
ni _^
JGINEER -am«s Sc.-.lff
CO^JSU
| »OGj£CT i sir
!
j wvman & C*oraor,
TAK-^;! -ra- -or.-.' ""^~
=>OF
"" Or BORING Nc -""•• •
SHEET - OF -
CHK-- By
BORiiur, ni4Tinni ""' - -«---. --J' ;
GROONO SURFACE E._£«TI», PATUM
OATr STAR' - - -- ^t-rr ENC| •' . -rii
SAMPLER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEI. SA**t-_F" ccw
I«OID HAMMEB FALLING JO IT.
i^frr^ iv c. f «>i ~ ^DTXII- r»"F». n<;»K-, A , "•'- JN~>v.-"=- OLiDlNG1"- '•
J^T! TIME "VT* ul;'~* STABILI2ATIO. TiMfc
CASING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. CASING 0«IVfN USIHC JOOIt KAMMER FAuL«6 ?« in - ""- '--- '^r._ nemovfcc. .orn^i et . c.i !
CASING SIZE 7 lncr- I-D. CTME
|i
a —
2s
5
10
20 H
25 .
10 —
-e. ,'^X
SAMPLE
SI 24/101 0-2'
BLD
1/1:-
WS/6"
-3.4
I
S2
S3
24/181 5-7
24-50-<)t'-4c.
24/201 10-12
20-15-15-70
. 1
S4 24/101 15-17
45-36-25-4ft
j
"
S5 1U /D
I
^0 -^U-1L -j-iM;/.!"
- i
1
S6 )6"/«"
•
GRANULAR SOLS
BLOWS/FT DENSITY
0-4 V LOOSE
>-IO LOOSE
4
10-30 M. DENSE
•3 DENSE i
— _ V DENSE
^•rjBT^NOTES
25^-25 -6"
230/6"
COHESIVE SOILS
BLOWS/FT DENSTPf
C2 V
2-4
»-e M.
9-15
5-» V.
>V)
SOFT
SOFT
STIFF
STIFF
STIFT
HARD
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 5
I , STRATUM DESCRIPTION
Burmister .CLASSIFICATION ^ i
Very loose brown fine SAND t SILT, trace
roots, trace Peat-
Very dense gray coarse to fine SAND, some
coarse to fine Gravel, trace (-) Silt-
Medium dense gray coarse to fine SAND,
little Silt, trace Gravel, pusned Cobble
at 11.5 ft.
Very dense gray coarsp to find SAND. Gime
Silt, trace (-1 Gravel, Cobble and bomaers.
Very dense coarse to fine SAND, some Silt,
little (*) medium to coarse Gravel, Cccble
lodged in nose of spoon.
iVery dense gray coarse to fine SAND, some /
ISilt, little coarse Gravel, Cobble or /
IWeather Rock in split spoon. /
Bottom of Boring at 25.5 ft.
Fine_ SAND & SILT
Swamp Marsh
^_
Coarse to Fine SAND,
some Gravel with Cobble
t Boulders, trace Silt
23*
Glacial Till
25.5
REMARKS:
1. Very difficult drivina casing - encountered Cobbles arid Boulder
from 11.5 to 25 ft. Bottom 5. ft. of casing (20 to 25 ft.) slightly
bent do- to driving casing
2. Installed observation well at 25.3 ft.
- See installation log-
I1THE STRATIFCATCN LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXWIATE BOUNOARY BETWEEN SOL TYRES.TRANSm
2)WATER LEVEL READINGS HAVE BEEN MADE w THE DRILL HOLES AT TIMES AND UNDER CONDITIONS S
THE BORING LOGS FLUCTUATIONS IN THE LEVEL C* GROUNDwATER UAY OCCUR DuE TO OTHER FAC"1
THOSf OBrsfM- 4- T>.r TlMf -ME A5UREMENTT wfREMiOC
ONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
mm r*i
T3RS THAN ppRi^r, NO .czA.-n .„
-------
<
DATE INSTALLED.
WELL No
BORING No
FILE No
r. & Gordon
Gra
V a s =; a c r. VJ s ° -1 ?
GZA FMT.IMFFP -:arres Ser.iff'psr
WEATHER fT>Mn»TinM«; Sunny 7CC-SO°
REMARKS
CONTRACTOR _^^^L,
DPII I FR JQ-H^ Halanura
See bonne loa for soil description
c
CO
Z
o
B
o
"•I
(X
D-
cn
m
o
>
cc
Fine SA.'.'D & SILT
Swamp Marsh
3 feet
Coarse to fine SAND,
some Gravel with Cobbles
& Boulders, trace Silt
23 feet
Glacial Till
n NCTT TO KMJC
oz\
Bottom of boring at 25.5 feet.
3 inch "steel protective
casing with a vented
i ojr r. i_aci c a p.
BENTONITE SURFACE SEAL
(TYPICALLY C.5' THCK)
1-1/2" SCHD.40 PVC RISER PIPE
-1-1/2 SCMD SLOTTED PVC PIPE
(WELL SCREEN-O.OI" SLOTS?
Fror, ground surface, to
25.3 feet.
SAND OR PEASTONE BACKFILL
-BOREHOLE
•BOTTOM Of WELL SCREEN
at 25.3 feet..
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM OF BORING
25.5ft..
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WELL PCHNT 25'3f';/
GOLDBEMC-ZOIMO & ASSOCIATES.
-------
GOLDBERG-ZOINO & ASSOCIATES. INC.
32O NEEDHAM ST. NEWTON \J(*>£r> FALLS. MA
GEOTECHNICAL/GEDHYDROLDGCAL CONSULTANTS
PRGJEC'
REPORT 0^ BORING Nc
SHEET . -
FILE
No .
CMKC BY.
SORING Co..
ENGINEER .
BORING LOCA
G«OUNO SURFACE ELEVATION
DATE START - : S4
DATUM
END
n
SAMPLER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTET. SAMPLER CONSISTS Of a Z S*>L'* SPOON CKWVEN
I40ID HAMMER FAILING JO in
CASING' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.CASiNG D»IVF.N USING 3OOI6 HAMMER FALLINS ?« m
CASING SIZE
3 inch I.D.
OTHER'
DATE
TIME
STABILIZATION TIME
I4CO I Gnc |hemovao Comp.iet.iot.
SAMPLE
BLOWS/6
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Burmister
.LASSIFICATIOM
STRATUM DESCRIPTION
si
24/6"
0-2
I Pusnea
I noas
! Very soft tine SAND <. SILT, trace hoot,
H trace Peat
P--
••y
S2
10
c
15
S3
Cl
S4
24/10? 5'-7' B6-29-13S-4S
10-11
60-150
12V8tl2.5-13.5|
9"/6"|l3.5-14.3i 31--43/3-*
C2
20
25
30
3V- 15-15.21 . 200/r
5'/15"i 15.3-20.31 6 nun/ft
Very dense gray medium to fine SAND, some
Silt, little coarse to fine Gravel with
Cobbles
Very dense brown medium to fine SAND, some
Silt, little coarse to fine Gravel, Cobbles
and Boulders
Cored BOULDER
Same soil description as Sample S3
Refusal with o*>en End A-ROD
(Cored BOULDERS AMD COBBLE, very dense unable
•; mm/ft | to drive Casing tnrouqh bouloers
1 nun/ft
i min/Jt
S5
. ?-J2 . 3 P 5-15-65-<»6
ry den^^ brown m*diu^ tr fine SAND, some
lt, Cocsles and B3uioer?
FINE SAND <. S1L7
SWAMF MARSH
MEDIUM TO FINE SAND,
SOME SILT
1.
MEDIUM TO FINE SAND,
SOME SILT, COBBLES
AND BOULOERS
Bottom of boring at 22.3 ft.
GRANULAR SOLS
BLOWS/FT DENSITY
D-4
IO-30
V. LOOSE
LOOSE
M. DENSE
DENSE
V DENSE
COHESIVE SOILS
BLDws/rr
5O HARD
REMARKS:
3.
4.
5.
Drove Casing to 12.5 ft. Refusal with Casing and Wash Bit
Indicates 300 lb. Hammer to Drive Spilt Spoon
Drove Casing to 15 ft.. Encountered Boulders and Cobbles
Refusal at 1-5 ft. with Open-End A Rod
Cored from 15.3 to 20.3 ft.. Very Dense Cobbles and Boulders
Hole Collapse to 15 ft.. Bottom of Casing
Installed observation well at 15 ft. - sect installation loa.
^•"W1
QZ\
NOTES' DT>C STRATFCSTCN LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY BETWEEN SOU.TYPES,TRAWSrTONS MAT BE GRADUAL,.
2)«ATER LEVEL READMGS HAVE BEEN MADE W THE DRILL MOLES AT TIMES AND UNOE» CONDITIONS STATED ON
THE Bj3«iNG LOGS FLUCTUATIONS w THE LCVE. o^ CTOUNDWATF* MAY occu« out TO OTHER WCTORS THAN BORING No
OP£5£K" AT Twr
MEASUREMENT? wfRF MADE
-------
S/3/84
DATE INSTALLED_
^PROJECT ^'yma'r. s Gordon
WELL Nc._
BORING No.
FILE No. _
LOCATION
GZA ENGINEER.
James Schiff/psr
WEATHER CnMDITIOJS Sunny 7Q°-3QO DRILLER.
REMARKS See boring log for soil description
Guild On 1 line Cc-rnanv
John Halabuta
CO
2
O
i_>
<-,
CO
ffi
co
u.
O
CO
!± feet
Fine SAND & SILT
Swamp Marsh
Medium to fine SAND,
some Silt
8± feet
Medium to fine SAND,
some Silt-with Coijbies
& Boulders
Bottom of boirng at 23.5 feet.
._.rr. nor TO SGMJC
GZ\
3 inch steel protective
casing with a vented
locxincr can.
BENTONITE SURFACE SEAL
(TYPICALLY C.5' THCK)
•I-I^"SCHO. 40 PVC RISER PIIJE
-1-1/2 SCHD SLOTTED PVC PIPE
(WELL S CREEN- O.OI " SLOTS )
from ground surface to
15 feet.
• SAND OR PEASTONE BACKFILL
-BOREHOLE
-Bottom of wellscreen
at 15 feet.
D€PTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM OF BORING 22 • 5ft- / —
DEPTH/ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WELL POINT 15ft" /
STICK UP OF WELL
2.6 ft.
-------
APPENDIX D
DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES
USED BY HWGWTF CONTRACTOR
-------
Decontami nation Procedures
0 Submersible pump and associated tubing, ropes and wire -
cleaned after each use with a non-phosphate soap and rinsed
with tap .water
0 Bladder pumps - pre-cleaned pumps will be used on each
well; none will be cleaned or reused during the inspection
0 interface probe - cleaned after each use with a pesticide
grade hexane wipe, followed by a rinse with distilled
water and wiped dry t
0 Filtering apparatus - cleaned with 1:1 nitric acid diluted
with distilled water, then rinsed with distilled water
-------
APPENDIX E
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING RESULTS
TAKEN BY WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY
-------
• o
00
\
Q.
a>
•o
ie
c
a
u
la
UJ
H
O
Z
ui
u
u.
on
CO
w
u.
O
CM
ob
CM
-^
O\
«N
00
U)
O
c
0)
c
a)
.c
U
X
ti
C
o
GU
B X
06
U
in
g
CO
u w
u
BC
•» CM C*>
I I I
O O' U
ee
o w
*o «j
« B
M •
o «o
u w
•O 0)
X •)
X <
3 S 5 J5 S S 3 S
U U O O O O O O
o.
(A
O •* CM U
•"" •" —» n
III *4
O CJ
o a u
•D 3 • -o
^ J< X O
O O O fl
0 O O «
ki k, ki o«'
«a n BQ .*
« « • 3
w w ui cr
—• fx i i
ii£!S!
U) W CO CO
Ol 01
c c
s s
.c j:
« IS
c c
o o
O Q
•» CM
3 2
J -J CO
O Q U)
•>» CM O
—« CM Z
u
at
a.
a.
s
TJ
01
c
Ol
Ol
kl
Cl
C
o
n
u
O
c
CD
•D
O>
a.
B
o
c
o
c
ai
c
O)
3
a
c
o
a
c
o
e
o
a.
o.
3
w
kl
a.
V u «u
•» • u n
-C 01
N 01
U £
41
3
CO
Ol
o
«M n
-------
3
TABLE 2
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS INDICATIVE OF
LAGOON INFLUENCE
Arsenic
~" • Fluoride
j Nitrate
Sodium
-, Sulfate
Nickel
Specific conductance
NOTE
j
Above perameters were considered to be indicative of
influence from the Rinsewater Facility Lagoons based upon
analytical data provided by Wyman Gordon Company and from
initial sampling of GZA monitoring wells.
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL. ANALYSES - RCRA WELLS
JULY 13> 1982
Rr*^*
w -•J
1. Drinkinc Water
Supply Parameters
Arsenac (Ug/1)
Barium (Ug/1)
Cadmium (ug/1)
Chromium (Ug/1)
Fluoride (mg/1)
Lead (Ug/1)
Mercury (u^'/l)
Nitrate (as N) (mg/1)
Selenium (Ug/1)
Silver (Ug/1)
2,4-0 (Ug/1)(3)
Combined Radiuai (pCi/1)
Radium-226 ,
Gross Alpha (pCi/1)
Gross Beta.(pCi/l)
Coliform Bacteria
(colonies/100 ml)
2. Groundwater Quality
Parameters
Chloride (mg/1)
Iron (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Phenol (mg/1)
Sodium (mg/1)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Groundwa/ter Contami-
nation Paramerers
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Halogen (mg/1)
PH
Specific Conductance
(Umhos/on at 25°C)
<5
<200
<5
3.6
6
<0.2
9.5
<5
ND
1.0*0.2
4*2
1013
<2
105
<0.05
0.07
<0.01
R3
19
ll;9;R;8
<0.02;<0.02;
<0.02;<0.02
5.9;5.8
e.i;e.2
500; 390;
470;490
<5
<200
<5
37 .
<5
<0.2
23
<5
ND
1.710.2
1417
39111
- 16
105
£.29
0.17
0.03
500
390
'51
0.15
6.8
1470
100
<200
' 15
62
<5
<0.2
24
<5
ND
2.3*0.2
516
23110
Sample
broken
io9.
0.21
<0.05
0.02
520
330
18
0.1D
9.6
1860
<5
<200
<5
6
<5
<0
26
<5
ND
3.910
4*5
6 19
16
B8
0
0
<0
380
320
20
0
6
1400
. 2
.2
.3
.36
.72
.01
.05
.5
-------
• i
J
T\BLE 3 a SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES icont'd>
. JULY 13, 1962 (cont'd)
GZA—1 GHA—2 GUr.—2 G—.rt—*
II. OTHER INORGANICS
Nickel (Ug/1) — — —
Turbidity (NTJ) 1 60 29 49
III. PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES' (3)
Endrin (Ug/1) -. -ro ™ " IJD - - :TD
Lindane (Ug/1) ' ^ t;D — ' ra
Methoxvchlor (Ug/1) ND ND ND ND
Toxaphene (Ug/1) ND !^ ND ND
Silvex (Ug/D " ND ND ND ND
Page 2 of 4
-------
TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES GZA-5 through C2A-9
SEPTEMBER 27-2B, 1962
V-
jf.. RCP.A PARAMETERS
1. Drinkinc Water
GZA-5A
GZA-i
GZA—3
GZA—4
Succ "* v Pcir'cir?.0 u° *"S
Arsenic (Ug/1)
Barium (ug/1)
Cadmium (ug/D
Chromium (Ug/1)
Fluoride (mg/1)
Lead (ug/1)
Mercury (Ug/1)
Nitrate (as M) (mg/1)
Selenium (ug/1)
Silver (Ug/1)
2,4-D (Ug/D (3)
Combined Radium (pCi/1)
Radium 226
Gross klpha (pCi/1)
Gross Beta (pCi/1)
Colifora Bacteria
(colonies/100 ml)
Groundwater Oualitv
Parameters
Chloride ~(mg/l) .
Iron (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Phenol (mg/1)
Sodium (mg/1)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Groundwater Contami-
nation Parameters
- -
<5 <5 11
<200
— <1
<5 <5 " <5
• 0.12 <0.10 18
— - — . <5
— . — <0.2
7.2-
1970;
1980
34
0.11
7.0
2820
34 35
0.052 0.02
9.8 7.1
2470 1810
II. OTHER INORGANICS
Nickel (ug/1)
Turbidity
32
57
17
70
40
330
60
-------
TABLE 4 a SUMMARY OF CKr>iICAL ANALYSES GZA-5 THROUGH G2A-9 icor.fd)
I"' SEPTEMBER >7-28, 1982 (confd)
. *9 -.,- - _„. ,. „„, , SURFACE WATER
-, II RCRA PARAMETERS " GZA~8 G=A-9 ='1 HE-2
1. Drinking '..'ater
Supply Parameters
Arsenic (ug/l) 2100 770 8 «
Barium (Ug/l) — _ J *5 <5 140 <5
Cadmium (ug/l)
Chromium (ug/l) <50(1) <50(1) <* - ^ ^
Fluoride Jmg/D 24 ^ ~ c D
-------
TABLE 6
'J
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES
GZA-6 QUARTERLY MONITORING
PARAMETER
(mg/1)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel .
Cyanide
PH
Conductivity
( mhos/cm)
3/23/84
.200
— '
.028
.011
.012
10.6
1856
6/29/84
.210
.00069
.072
.015 '
.030
9.2
2400
8/28/84
.700
.00091
- .022
<.005
. <.010
10.9
3500
NOTE:
1. Samples recovered by GZA on the dates indicated and
analyzed by ERCO except pH and conductivity (GZA- measured
in field) and 8/28 cyanide data (analyzed by Metcalf &
Eddy of Boston, Massachusetts).
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
WELLS GZA-10, GZA-11, GZA-12
•Jk
WELL
DATE SAMPLED
Water Elevation
PH
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
GZA-10
7/24/84
364.9
6.7
266
GZA-11
8/23/84 10/10/84
361.0 360.6
8.35 6.6
2150 3345
GZA-12
8/2B/84 10/10/84
357.7 357.3
7.4 6.25
'307 475
(remaining data in mg/1 except where noted)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Fluoride
------- |