United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-92/203
June 1992
Superfund
Record of Decision:
South Andover (Operable Unit
1) (Amendment), MN
-------
NOTICE.
The appendices listed In the index that are not found In this dOcument have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain maI8riaJ which supplement. but adds no further appIaIbIe IIformatiOn to
the content of the document. All supptemental material is, however, c:ontU1ed In the admihatrattw record
for this site.
-------
50272 101
.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. I ~ 3. A8cip18nt'. ACW88Ion No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-92/203
4. 1118........ 5. A8port D818
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 06/09/92
South Andover (Operable Unit 1) (Amendment), MN L
Second Remedial Action - Amendment
7. AuIhor(.) L P8rt0nnlng 0rg8nIza1on A8pI. No.
8. I'WfIInI*Ig Orpllllll8lon ...... ... Add-. 10. Proj8c:tlT8IIIIWoIII UnI1 No.
11. CcnNcI(C) or Gr8nI(O) No.
(C)
(0)
1~ IIpan80rIng 0rpnz8II0n ...... ... AddrM8 13. Type of A8p0rt. P8t1ocI CoWNd
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. V. Sf' .....ary No'"
PB93-964123
18. Ab8nc:t (Un1: 2Il1O _nI8)
The 50-acre South Andover site is composed of several privately owned parcels of land
near Minneapolis in Anoka County, Minnesota. Land use in the area is predominately
commercial and residential, and several auto salvage and repair yards are located at,
and adjacent to, the site. The site contains part of a wetlands area with several
small recreational lakes in the vicinity. The site overlies three shallow aquifers.
A lower bedrock aquifer supplies the surrounding community with drinking water.
Between 1954 and 1981, multiple waste storage and disposal activities occurred on
several properties within the site boundaries. There are several source areas where
former activities included drum storage, waste storage, and waste burning. Solid and
liquid chemical waste dumping and open pit burning of solvents occurred during the
1960's and 1970's. Investigations showed that drum storage and chemical waste
disposal sites were partially obscured by auto salvage operations and more than
3 million waste tires. In 1976, citizen complaints of well contamination prompted the
state to investigate the site and issue violations for improper storage of chemical
waste and, in 1980, for improper disposal of industrial waste. Waste processing was
discontinued in early 1977, and waste acceptance ceased in 1978. In 1981, the
(See Attached Page)
17. ~ An8Iy8I8 L D88cr\pIor8
Record of Decision - South Andover (Operable Unit 1) (Amendment), MN
Second Remedial Action - Amendment
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE, Toluene), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. Id8nUII8r8IOp8n-End8cI T......
c. COSA 11 FIeIdIGroup
18. Avll'.bl8ty 81- 18. SeCt8'i1y CI... (Thi. Report) 21. No. 01 P.gea
None 18
20. SeCl8'ity CI... (Thi. P8ge) n Price
Nnn,:.
2n (4-77)
(See ANSl-Z38.18)
See Instructions on Rew-
(Formeolv NTIS-35)
Depllr1ment 01 Convnerce
"
-------
"
EPA/ROD/R05-92/203
South Andover (Operable Unit 1) (Amendment), MN
Second Remedial Action - Amendment
~
Abstract (Continued)
contents of approximately 700 drums were disposed of by mixing with waste oil and using
the mixture as fuel; in 1988 and 1989, two tire fires occurred onsite. EPA
investigations have determined contamination of soil and ground water resulting from soil
that came into contact with leaking drums, electrical transformers, and/or salvaged
automobiles. A 1988 ROD addressed a ground water remedy that provided extraction of the
ground water from a surficial aquifer; provided municipal water to private well users
onsite; placed restrictions on new wells near the site; and monitored ground water. This
ROD amendment changes the 1988 ROD for ground water based on current data from a 1990
Design Investigation. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are
VOCs, including acetone, ethyl benzene, methylchloride, PCE, TCE, toluene; and metals,
including arsenic, chromium" and lead.
The amended remedial action for this site includes monitoring ground water at the site;
abandoning nonessential wells; and resampling wells, if action levels are exceeded. The
remedial design investigation showed that there is no definable plume at the site;
rather, there are random detections of compounds below background and regulatory
standards. Therefore, EPA and the state are deleting three of four components identified
in the 1988 ROD remedy selection. The present worth cost for this amended remedial
action is $150,000. '
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
SDWA MCLs.
Action levels for ground water at the site are based on
-------
'.
SOUTH ANDOVER SALVAGE YARDS
-'
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION AKENDKENT
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
South Andover Salvage Yards,
Andover, Anoka County, Minnesota.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
-_.... "''''-'
This decision document represents an amendment to a Record of
Decision (ROD) issued March 30, 1988 for groundwater remedial
action at the South Andover Salvage Yard site (the site). This
amendment was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the extent practicable,
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300). This decision is also in
accordance with the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability
Act of 1983 (MERLA).
This decision is based upon the contents of the administrati ve
record for the South Andover salvage Yard site.
The State of Minnesota and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) agree on the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Potential releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this
Amendment, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
pUblic health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDMENT
This operable unit is the first of two operable units for the site.
The remedy for the second operable unit, contaminated soil, was
documented in a December 24, 1991, ROD. The remedy selected for
contaminated soil incorporates excavation and on-site biological
treatment of 2,100 cubic yards of contaminated soil. The remaining
9,300 cubic yards of contaminated soil will be excavated and
disposed of off-site in a solid waste landfill permitted to receive
industrial and/or commercial wastes.
U.S. EPA issued a ROD on March 30, 1988 for the first operable unit
for the remedial action of groundwater. The major components of
this remedy included: extract groundwater from the surf icial
aquifer; provide municipal water to private well users on or near
-------
the Site; monitor groundwater at the Site; and place restrictions
on new wells on or near the Site.
U.S. EPA and MPCA are amending this decision so that three of the
four components would be deleted. These three components are the
.extraction of groundwater from the surficial aquifer; providing
municipal water to private well users on or near the Site; and
placing restrictions on new wells on or near the site.'
The major components of the amended groundwater remedy include:
Short term monitoring of groundwater at the site for
approximately five years. Ten monitoring wells and one
residential well would be sampled semiannually and
analyzed for approximately thirty volatile organic and
inorganic compounds.
Immediate re-sampling of wells if action levels are
exceeded. If upon re-sampling action levels are
exceeded, further activities would be initiated.
Abandonment of those wells no longer being monitored.
Wells would be abandoned in accordance with Minnesota
Department of Health standards.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The amended remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies, to the maximum extent practicable for this Site.
This amended remedy is not required to satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element because treatment
of groundwater was not found to be practicable.
The amended remedy when used in conjunction with the contaminated
soil remedy, addresses the threat posed to groundwater by
eliminating or reducing the risks posed by the site. All
contaminated soil will either be destroyed through biological
treatment or transported off-site where it will be contained in a
secured, permitted landfill. No contaminated soil would be left
on-site to pose a human health or environmental risk.
(h'(-:"t£
D~e
f/ 11"92-
(
:t£i:I/i !~&/
f- Valdas V. Adamkus
, Regional Administrator
.: U.S. EPA, Region V
-------
.'
.f
RECORD OF DECISION
AMENDMENT
SUMMARY
south Andover ~alvage Yards
Andover, Anoka county, Minnesota
INTRODUCTION
The South Andover Salvage Yards Superfund site (the Site) is
located in Anoka County, Minnesota, approximately 16 miles north-
northwest of Minneapolis and 3 miles northeast of the City of Anoka
(Figure 1). The site is comprised of several privately owned
parcels, which jointly encompass more than 50 acres. Bunker Lake
Boulevard defines the northern extent of the site. The eastern
site boundary is roughly 500 feet west of Jay Street (Figure 2).
The lead agency documenting this amended decision is the united
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the support agency. The MPCA
was involved in the review and approval of those documents which
lead to the amendment of the original Record of Decision (ROD)
issued March 30, 1988.
u.S. EPA issued a ROD on March 30, 1988 which documented a decision
for remedial action of groundwater. The major components of the
selected remedy included: extract groundwater from the surficial
aquifer; provide municipal water to private well users on or near
the site; monitor groundwater at the Site; and place restrictions
on new wells on or near the site.
As part of the design of the above remedy, further investigations
were conducted in the summer of 1990 to determine groundwater
conditions at the site and to provide additional data on the
groundwater. Results of the Design Investigation (DI) indicate
that a discrete groundwater plume does not exist at the site.
Rather, the current situation is best characterized by random
detections of compounds below background and regulatory standards.
As a result, u.s. EPA and MPCA are amending their March 1988
decision concerning groundwater at the site. Three of the four
components identified in the March 1988 ROD would be deleted from
the remedy. These three components are the extraction of
groundwater from the surficial aquifer; providing municipal water
to private well users on or near the Site; and placing restrictions
on new wells on or near the Site. U. S. EPA and MPCA would,
however, retain continued monitoring of groundwater at the site and
include the abandonment of non-essential wells. An additional
component of the amendment is the re-sampling of wells if the
"
-------
action levels are exceeded.
Section 117 of . the Comprehensi ve Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund,
and Section 300.435 (c) (2) (ii) of the National contingency Plan
(NCP), requires publication of a notice and brief description of
the proposed amendment to the ROD.- The notice of availability for
the D1 Report and the Proposed Amendment was published in the March
26, 1992 edition of the Anoka Countv Shopper, the local newspaper.
This notice also included a news release which provided the dates
of the public comment period as well as the date of the public
meeting. .
The public comment period began on March 26th and ended on April
24, 1992. A response to the comments received during this period
as well as during the public meeting, is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of the ROD Amendment. A
public meeting was held on April 8, 1992 at the Andover Elementary
School.
The Administrative Record for the Site has been placed at the
following information repositories:
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Andover, Minnesota 55303
Hours: Mon-Fri 8:00 AM - 4:30
PM ..'
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
st. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Hours: Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM
u.S. EPA Docket Room
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Hours: Mon-Fri 8:30 AM -
4:30 PM
The Administrative Record includes all documents such as work
plans, data analyses, public comments, transcripts, and other
relevant material used in developing the remedial alternatives for
the South Andover Superfund Site. As per section 300.825(a) (2) of
the NCP, this ROD Amendment will become part of the Administrative
Record.
REASONS FOR ISSUING THE ROD AMENDMENT
The ROD issued on March 30, 1988 required that a Design
Investigation be performed in order to design a groundwater pumping
system. The work performed under the Design Investigation
2
-------
included: the completion of soil borings used for the collection
of chemical and geotechnical samples;-monitoring well installation
and abandonment; and the sampling and analysis of groundwater from
monitoring and residential wells.
The Design Investigation determined that three unconsolidated units
exist beneath the Site. They are:- an upper sand unit (Upper Sand
Aquifer); intermediate lacustrine silt and till unit (Lacustrine
Aquitard); and a lower sand unit (Lower Sand Aquifer). These units
are illustrated in Figure 3.
Horizontal groundwater flow in the Upper Sand Aquifer is from the
northeast to the west-southwest (Figure 4). Substantial vertical
downward hydraulic gradients were observed indicating that
groundwater flow within the Upper Sand Aquifer is predominately
vertical, not horizontal. Horizontal groundwater flow in the Lower
Sand Aquifer is from the northeast towards the west-southwest
(Figure 5).
Groundwater from both the Upper Sand and Lower Sand Aquifer systems
contain low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOC). However, the VOCs and SVOCs
detected did not exceed any regulato!y levels.
Secondary Maximum contaminant Levels (SMCL) 'which.are based on the
aesthetic quality of water and not health risks, were exceeded for
manganese and iron in several groundwater samples taken primarily
from the Upper Sand Aquifer. The majority of these exceedances can
be attributed to either regional groundwater characteristics or
galvanized well construction materials.
The Maximum contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic was exceeded in one
groundwater sample taken from a monitoring well which was screened
in the Upper Sand Aquifer. However, no on-site arsenic source was
identified during the Design Investigation or soil Remedial
Investigation. -
In conclusion, the results of the Design Investigation indicate
that a discrete groundwater plume does not exist at the site.
Rather, the groundwater situation is best characterized by random
detections of compounds below background and regulatory standards.
Given this information it was necessary for both U.S. EPA and MPCA
to reconsider the groundwater remedy selected for the Site.
DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW ALTERNATIVE
U.S. EPA and MPCA are amending the original groundwater remedy by
deleting three of the four components which were part of the remedy
described in the March 1988 ROD. Additionally, U.S. EPA and MPCA
are including the abandonment of wells not being monitored as part
3
-------
of this amendment. The original groundwater remedy required that
the following. actions be taken: extract groundwater from the
surficial aquifer; provide municipal water to private well users on
or near the Site; place restrictions on new wells on or near the
site; and monitor groundwater at the site.
u.s. EPA and MPCA are amending the groundwater remedy to
monitoring. Specifically, the ten monitoring wells listed in Table
1 and one residential well will be sampled on a semi-annual basis
for five years. Wells will be sampled in May and October. After
the fifth year of monitoring, a review of data will be conducted by
U.S. EPA and MPCA to determine if further monitoring is necessary
at the site. Figure 6 identifies where the various wells are
located. The constituents to be analyzed are listed in Table 2.
An additional component of this amendment is the immediate re-
sampling of wells in which exceed action levels are exceeded. If
upon re-sampling action levels are exceeded, further activities
will be initiated to fully determine the nature of the
contamination.
The action levels for groundwater at the site are the Maximum
contaminant Levels (MCLs) as defined and promulgated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA), as amended in 1986. The
Minnesota Department of Health has also established health based
criteria for contaminants in drinking water referred to as
Recommended Allowable Limits (RALs). In the case of public water
systems, RALs are used as guidelines with MCLs being the regulatory
standard. It should be noted that those consti tuents detected
during the Design Investigation that did not have an MCL standard,
did not exceed any RAL standard. The MCL action levels for the
various constituertts are identified in Table 2.
The last component of the amendment is to abandon those wells no
longer being monitored. Monitoring wells shall be abandoned in
accordance with Minnesota Department of Health standards. A
determination of which monitoring wells are to be abandoned will be
made by u.s. EPA and MPCA.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The nine evaluation criteria u.s. EPA considers when selecting a
remedy and a comparative analysis between the previously selected
groundwater component and the new groundwater remedy are listed
below:
o
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment.
The previous remedy would have implemented a groundwater
pumping system. This would have afforded protection of
human health and the environment provided that a plume
4
'"
-------
o
was present. A single sampling event from a shallow on-
site monitoring well does not confirm the presence of a
three dimensional groundwater plume. Several sampling
events from several wells would confirm or deny the
existence of a plume . Additional sampling is protective
of human health and the environment in that a mechanism
would be in place to detect a plume and to determine the
effectiveness of the on-site soil remedial action. Also,
the amendment provides that additional work be performed
in the event a plume is detected.
ComDliance with ARARs. Since the new remedy will not
include groundwater treatment, there are no groundwater
ARARs. However, as mentioned above, the Federal Maximum
contaminant Levels (MCLs) will be used as the action
level to determine whether future activities will be
required.
o
Lona-term Effectiveness and Permanence. A December 24,
1991 ROD documented a soil remedy that provided all
contaminated soil be destroyed through biological
treatment or transported off-site to a permitted
landfill. The anticipated timeframe for this soil remedy
is approximately two years. No soil residuals will
remain on-site to cause an impact to groundwater. Short
term monitoring of groundwater will provide information
on the effectiveness and permanence of the final remedy
as well as. confirm the continued quality of groundwater
at the Site. It should be noted that both the original
and amended remedy contain the same component of
groundwater monitoring.
o
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility or Volume. The previous
groundwater remedy would haye provided the greatest
reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume of
contaminants, provided there was a groundwater plume. As
. discussed, no plume could be identified which was related
to the Site. Short term monitoring would ensure
continued protection of groundwater resources.
o
Short Term Effectiveness. Short term impacts on worker
health and safety are possible under the previous remedy.
On site workers may be exposed to hazards via
installation of the groundwater extraction system.
Minimal risk to workers and the public will result from
the monitoring activities associated with the amended
remedy.
o
ImDlementabilitv. Both the previous and amended remedy
are technically implementable. A groundwater extraction
system wou.ld take longer to install and require
additional testing to determine the location of
5
-------
extraction wells. The amended remedy will utilize
existing monitoring wells.
o
Cost. The present worth costs of the amended remedy and
the previously selected groundwater remedy are listed
below:
o
state AcceDtance.
amended remedy.
$150,000
$920,000 to $2,460,000
The state of Minnesota supports the
Amended Remedy
Previous Remedy
o
Communitv AcceDtance. community acceptance is assessed
in the attached Responsiveness Summary. The
Responsiveness Summary provides a thorough review of the
public comments received on the Design Investigation, the
Proposed Plan for the Record of Decision Amendment and
U.S. EPA's and MPCA's responses to the comments received.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The amended remedy satisfies the requirements of section 121 of
CERCLA in that it is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. The amended remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource
recovery) technologies, to the maximum extent practicable for this
site. This amended remedy does not satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element because treatment
of groundwater was not found to be practicable.
It should be noted that the amended remedy when used in conjunction
with the contaminated soil remedy, addresses the threat posed to
groundwater by eliminating or reducing the risks posed by the site.
All contaminated soil will either be destroyed through biological
treatment or transported off-site where it will be contained in a
secured, permitted landfill. No contaminated soil would be left
on-site to pose a human health or environmental risk.
6
-------
, .
MONITORING WELL
Wl6A
Wl7A
Wl9A
W2lA
W2lB
W23AR
W23B
WlCR
W2lC
W23C
Residential Well
TABLE 1
HOHITORIHG WELLS
FORMATION SCREENED IN
Upper Sand Aquifer
Upper Sand Aquifer
Upper Sand Aquifer
Upper Sand Aquifer
Upper Sand Aquifer
Upper Sand Aquifer
Upper Sand. Aquifer
Lower Sand Aquifer
Lower Sand Aquifer
Lower Sand Aquifer
Upper Sand Aquifer
"
-------
TABLE. 2
CONSTXTUENTS TO BE KONXTORED
Units: ppb
Minnesota
Maximum Recommended
Volatile organic contaminant Allowable
ComDounds Level Limit
Methylene Chloride NE 50
Acetone NE 700
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 4
2-Butanone NE 300
Trichloroethane 5 30
4-Methyl-2-pentanone NE NE
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 200 600
Tetrachloroethene NE 7
Ethyl Benzene NE 700
styrene NE 10
Total Xylenes NE 10,000
Inorqanic ComDounds
Aluminum NE NE
Arsenic 50 0.2
Barium 1,000 2,000
Beryllium NE 0.08
Calcium NE NE
-------
Table 2 continued.
Units: ppb Minnesota
Maximum Recommended
Contaminant Allowable
Inorqanic ComDounds Level- Limit
Copper 1,000* 1,000
Iron 300* NE
Lead 50 20
Magnesium NE NE
Manganese 50* 300
Nickel NE 70
Potassium NE NE
Selenium 50 10
Sodium NE NE
strontium NE NE
Thallium NE 0.3
Vanadium NE 20
zinc 5,000 700
*
Secondary Maximum
contaminant Level.
NE
No level
established.
-------
...~.....~........-
-
1.,.-
:..' "-/
,.r --.
.. : .
....-
-, .
~ --" ~".- I
--
-:.\ ~'-.: . I
.-. '-"
. ;/""1 .
- ~'"
.~I
..
.
.
.
- (7-'
-,;......,- .
- \,
..........."..., : '-' ~ I
-
'-.. - .
/'-~.
: :-\ .
-. . ,
j
./ ~-=
-
-
,
':'" .
.
-
J
'-........-...-~'
"
, . 'rt .
~ .~! --t
....
- "" "
o
:
2000
,
SCALE IN FEET
4000
.
..-
-
FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAP
SOUTH ANDOVER SECOND OPERABLE UNIT
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION / FEASIBILITY STUDY
.20021 ANDOVER. MINNESOTA
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
"
-------
j
,
j
,
,
1 I
I I
I I
I I
: LlUINGiH I I
'\ I I
\ I II. HUDU8iHGUI !
I I I
~L______~-, !
I I I
GALLUS' , :
I I I
I ,I I
~-------'~I~---------------_!
I " I
I i I
I", I
RAYGAN I e I
+--------1:1
: I I
I I
R. "iIDHIlIiRGiRI, I
. I
, I I
I I .
---~=~--t-------T-----------
I \ CD I
I lIiV:R !
I )1101'" iif . I
I / .,-.1.....1 I
I I
C. HilDtllltHutR
IS'O'88..nd dilpo.8I 01 doumm8cI ......1
j
j
,
I
l"INi
I
I
I
,
l-------
. .
,
..---------------- \
. I
.,. l/UINGiR
.
,
/"'0
08
~;u
Qo
t~
r-!::
-=-f
-<
FICI/HE 2
I GOOD VALUi IIOIIU
'--
I
(!)
IIlAR
IS'o,,,, .. *u.......
.-pt'MI '"!I!I!..--at
I
I
I I I
I I I
I~I A I
1a!1 t! I IIA UUN
IJI J' I "10..... 8180""'"
I I I.... .11
II I
LU
~.
IIUII~ AIlIU !'AN 1$
Wit UR
d .
1111/
.,,,.
MI~IU )I\,t
I
I
BUUIA IIIJ
--. .-.---.--.
SI II eOIlNIIAH Y
------------------------- -~- .
..IUUSU
IS'u",. u',,,,,,,,. IIIII..h.. .nd ".....,
---------_8h_--- -~---.
e8P INVU'''I:N' INC
IUIHil
N
50URCE. CU,U"II. ,..,
MIIiIUUL
- _.. - . ~ _. . _. ".".
-.--------- ---- - --- - - --- -- - - .- -- _.~-
U lllO
~N-'llr
- -- m. - .- .-. .
Ilut',.)
""..tun, 111111,11.11 I
--- :.01" b(,U,c.AIIV
'1' f ("UAU':" DAV'" AW. e.IW" L Y
\:.J lit 11111 IllIGfH
f2\ . IIIt"'I"1 Y t '81111 1.,'11
\:,.J ..."auUN '..11 tlo U"'"'~"I
:"lJtJlUI.
leo'"",,, e....I."......"...". IlIdill.,h..1
IN f"'el "...,.1 Uta I" I...... .,.
CoIllaml".'''.' 1111. SI,"lh A"......
1..8. Andll".. "'nA8"'.
-------
.G
,e s i
'0 Y I
L S I GEO- HYDRO-
o Tt
Gel LOGIC GRAPHIC STRA TtGRAPHIC"
b M! UNIT LOG PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ORIGIN UNIT I
~ 0-3.5' SIL TV FINE SAND,
I SOIL OR
FILL MATERIAL. OR FILL
ORGANIC SOIL UPPER
SAND SAND
AEOLIAN AQUIFER
23-40.5" BROWN TO GRAY, OR
FINE SAND OUTWASH
SANDS
SILT 0-10.5' GRAY LAMINATED SILT GLACIO- SUBUNIT
LACUSTRINE 1
I SIL TV 0.;.13.5' GRAY LAMINATED GLACIO- SUBUNIT
SAND
& SAND SIL TV SAND & SAND LACUSTRINE 2
=
g I
=
a.
-=
SLT 33-45" LAMINATED SILTS GLACIO- SUBUNIT
AND
CLAY AND CLAY LACUSTRINE 3
SIL TV
SAND
7' + GRAY SIL TV SAND
OUTWASH
SANDS
LOWER SAND \
AQUIFER
NOTE: Stratigrapny reflects informatIOn collected during tne Design InvestIgation
. 20022
.
FIGURE 3
SITE HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN
SOUTH ANDOVER SUPERFUND SITE
DESIGN INVESTIGATION
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA
. Julv 1991
1 C.%II sm; H'tOM)
-------
/'1 i
p
~1
. ~
'" -
,I ' --
,/
..'
~....."
! '.
I . i', .
.
.,'"
\t-..
.... ~ \ i ~ .
. f'l: ...
\
~.
. .
. \
. .
. '
..
-,
-.
"-
....
+~~.~f
. '",",.
'I) .
,/ :- /'
l~-- ~ .
.. ,..,...-'-~.
-""-
'-h')
,I .", I
\ . "
. I '- ""\---..",
I ./ \
, I /
I I, " I
I ,~~ I
,.,,~ //-~
:/ '<," . ~ /';' . I ,...... '*" J
. ' "j / .
'- .. -, . /. !';'~
_~.l ......_-~'~" '~:~"'_:'
I ..
. (
,.
.
: ..
j, 1"1,,1 '
. " ~ I I
.,.... ( ~.
II) I
... I
" I
!""I
, .
"
FIGlIHE 4:
, I
Gn)\ 111<1 \~a l er [1 ' . '-.
Upper S...I ,0\1 111
anu AqlJl fer
, I
...."
'. .!
,. ".
" .
l,
." '"""...,
'I 1" I....
,....
I
'.: .';:...
"
I'
~ .
I~
.,
i
, . /.~
...e8
Z2 ,0,
G)iO'
:~C
:~~
I
i
, .
I.:. .1,
. ....',' .
I'
I .
I,: ,'"
. ;!
1
. I'
; .
t...
.
.......' I
~II
-------
;
.I
\ I \ .
. .,' IJIIU,,' \
, /..... ~
o '1 _.',
, !.' ~ ' ~'
.. 14::'
"'!. .
""C
o
'00
i2~
(;)0
-c
~ :p:"
? t:.:,
~~
i
, -
. '4'0&
" .
" ..
0'
'-.....r-
, .
"
. 'J
..
. ,.,.-
r
+--,'&.
, .
\.
'..
.:'{ I
'nr
, ::'f ::...)
i III /
( j' ~I
.'
-'" I,'
i (''''
j
. .,,.
o I I j
I
j .~:
, .
I :. "
.... .: It
, .
"
'1" ~. '
. "
r ..' ,~... I,.
,....., .
, ~ I ,
I,
,
~ :.
.-
."."'1
. to'... . J
..
..
.
I,.
)
",,ij':' .
.".1 ~...;.;...:.:.::..!- .-
-. :
, "
" : ,
it':., ,
1;,' I
J
I !
"': (.1 ',"!,,-
M I'll
I ,I ''''', i'\
, I I
j . -
- ,
I I. .....a.c
1-
, ,
,
,V
.L...; ,
...J
I, I,'
, ~... I
.'
, )
-- ~!
8'''.
" 2. . ..
,
. . '
, .
" '. ,
. .
.\ ..
.'
.,1 r
:\. ~ ./ /1'
, .
. ~ '... ,.
.. ,.". t. ..... .
-:.- ., "
. - . to,..
I 1
FIGURE 5
Grollnd \Ii:! le r t I DIy j II
Lower Sand Aqld fee
,
I I, " I
I
."1
I
.-.
....,j '-',
II
. j
I .
~
"
."'''-'' ,.
...
.I.~:"i ~
I..
(
; ,
M'
. ,..1. .
l,
-------
.:
"
,
~. ' t
I '. ..
'.. !\f
l. D
'II
I' ,
,
1.-
-.-
(
I. .
,
~ \
0 ,I
)0 '(;
" !.
. '/.J \'
,
.-
" ()
J
-, '
'J' (:\ r \
"
',::\ ~ \
....(
~ I
.4' .'
FIGURE 6
, r
'..J,
E
" '
CPo
, 'r~:
!, .
" .
! ;
I I .
"
,\ ,
1\
,'! f4.
, i,'
. I ~ I r
,
I .
" .
\1.
I '
@,,~~,
, ,llj
',~.O"I ',;', :
. I i, ',: I
,
,', \
i I
B
.,
Nonitoring \,/d I I IJLiJLjons
- I .
F
1"\
.. ,
ii"
I,
1
r:' ..
. .
I ~
! .
. "
, .
. "
I
. '
: I
.1 I
r
. ,
I
I
i
, l.
I o~,
!. ..~.
I '
1 ,
. .1 .:
. I 0',-
i . f " ..~ '?
!.
I, .
:,\'r'.
------- |