United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/BGJSSH397
September 1989
&EPA Superfund
Record of
Decision:
Coast Wood
Preserving, CA
-------
. 50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION .11. REPORT,NO. 1 ~ 3. Reciplenta Acceaaion No.
PAGE . EPA!ROD/R09-89/038 ' .
4. 1ltle and Subtitle 5. Report Date
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION: 09/29/89
Coast Wood Preserving, CA
s.
First Remedial Action - Final
7. AUlhor(8) , 8. Perfonnlng Organization RepC. No.
9. Perfonnlng Orgalnlzatlon Name and Add.... 10. ProjectlTuklWork Unit No.'
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
1~ Sp_orlng Organization Name and Addte.. 13. Type o' Report & Period Covered
U.S. Environmental Protectiqn Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 " '.
, 14.
15. Supplementary Nolea
16. Abatract (Umit: 200 WOrd8)
The 8-acre Coast Wood Preserving, (CWJ;» site is an active " wood, preserving facility in
a rural" agricultural area three miles south of Ukiah, California. Wood preserving
operations began at the sit,e in 1971, and since then near-surface soil contamination
,has 'occurred primarily as a result of drippings. Investigations by CWP beginning in
the early 197 Os revealed elevated chromium and arsenic concentrations in near-surface
soil and elevated.chromium concentrations in ground water particularly near the main
.. treatment and storage areas. In addition, off site migration of ,chromium has occurred
via ground water. A number of measures have been implemented by CWP to improve
overall site conditions in~luding extending the,area covered by surface paving,'
erecting canopies over the wood treatment area, and constructing berms to divert and
control surface runoff from treated wood storage areas. In addition, interim remedial
measures were conducted in 1983 to intercept and limit migration of chromium in ground
water, including co~structing a slurry cutoff wall along the eastern site boundary, a
ground water extraction trench immediately upgradientof the slurry wall to recycle
ground water back into the ,operation, and a ground water extraction well and an
injection well in the area of highest contamination. As a result of ' these interim
measures, health risks via :exposure to contaminated soil orgr6und water has been
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Document An8Jyal8 L Deacrlptors
Record of Decision - Coast ,Wood P reserving, CA "
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: metals (arsenic, chromium)
-
b. IdentifierafOpen-Ended Terms
'"
, "
, .
c. COSA 11 Reid/Group
~ 18. Avsl'8b1Uty Statement 19. Secwity Cia.. (Thla Report) 21. No. o. P8gea
None 324
I 20. Secwity Cl8.. (Thla Page) 22. PrIce
Nonp
-.
(See ANSI Z39.18)
See IfUllrucliofUI on R.1I8-
(Formerty N115-35)
Department o' Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R09-89/038
Coast Wood Preserving, CA
'First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (continued)
significantly reduced. The primary contaminants of concern for soil and ground water are
metalsincludihg arsenic and chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site includes paving expos~d soil; onsite
treatment of, soil after site closure in 10 years using the best available technology at
the time; plume control and aquifer remediation via ground water pumping and reuse in
CWP's operations to the extent possible or electrochemical treatment of excess ground
water which cannot be recycled ,followed by discharge to the Ukiah' Sewage Treatment Plant,
and/or reinjection; ground water monitoring; 'and development of a contingency plan for
offsite ground water remediation if needed. The estimated total cost for the source'
control c0I!lponent of the remedy is $1,000,000. The total cost of "the ground water remedy
was not provided; however the estimated O&M cost for the groundwater remedy was
estimat~d as ,$19,500 ,for a 20"'"year period. '
-'
-,
, ,
I
I .
:......
. --
L'
'.
',-
-------
I .
RECORD OF DECISION
COAST WOOD PRESERVING, INC.
URIAH, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER, 1989
. \
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION;
Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. . '.
Ukiah, California
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE: .
This document serves as EPA selection of the remedial action
for the Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. site. The California Depart-
ment of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Division,
Region 2, (CDHS) has approved this remedial action in conformance
with: Section 13000 and 13304 of the California Water Code, State
of California Health and Safety Code Section 25356.1, the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan.
This EPA selection of remedy is based upon the CDHS Remedial\
Action Plan, the Responsiveness Summary, the Remedial Investiga-
tion, the Feasibility Study, and the Administrative Record for
this site. The attached index lists the items comprising the Ad-
ministrative Record.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTION
The selected remedy provides for final clean-up requirements
related to onsite soils and groundwater and the prevention of
offsite migration of contaminants. In addition, a contingency is
provided for the remediation of offsite groundwater in the event
that chromium levels rise over acceptable levels.
Over the years, a number of remedial measures have been.un-
dertaken by Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. to reduce the migration
of chromium, copper and arsenic contamination and to begin
groundwater remediation. These measures included constructing
surface water run-off berms, paving over exposed soil zones, and
constructing roofs over the retort areas to reduce the potential
for additional soil, storm water and groundwater contamination.
In 1983, without regulatory agency approval, Coast Wood Preserv-
ing constructed a 300-foot slurry cutoff wall along the eastern
boundary of the site. A groundwater extraction trench was in-
stalled on the upgradient side of the slurry wall. Extracted
groundwater is piped to an on-site electrochemical treatment
facility prior to reuse, reinjection or discharge. The slurry
wall and extraction well have been effective in reducing further
off-site migration of heavy metals.
V,'
-------
The major compone~t~ of ~~~tinal'seiec~ed remedy include:
, . .0. Paving of exposed 'soils to prevent. surface. water in
filtration and reducethepoteritial f~r the leaching of
chromium from soils to groundwater; .
o On-site treatment of contaminated soils, after the
closure of site,. using the best available technology to
provide a permanent clean-up remedy. Treatability
studies will be conducted by Coast Wood Preserving,
Inc. prior to the future selection of this remedy by
CDHS and EPA; .
o Plume control of the aquifer using strategically lo-
cated extraction wells to pump contaminated water from
the affected aquifer; .
o Electrochemical treatment of eXtracted groundwater to
permanently remove metal contamination in order to
comply with both state and Federal clean-up standards
(50ppb As, 50 ppb Cr, 1 ppm Cu); .
I
I
o Utilization, recycling, and/or discharging of treated.
water to .the Ukiah Treatment facility for disposal of
treated water; and .
o Groundwater monitoring plan to ensure the effectiveness
of the remedial action plan and to provide data to
identify any additional action needs or potential
problems.
Under agreement with the State of. California, Coast Wood
Preserving will be responsible for the remediation of con- .
taminated soils at the time of clqsure of the facility projected
to be in ten (10) years. A trust fund will be established with.
ann~al payments to. be made by Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. to fund
this portion of th~ site remediation. Treatability studies will
be conducted prior to CDHS and EpA selection of the most effec-
tive and cost efficient technology. .
DECLARATION
EPA under CERCLA, has' selected this'groundwaterremedy for
the Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. site. The remedy is protective
of human health and the environment, attains Federal and state
requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to
the remedial action, and is cost- and time effective. This
remedy satisfies Federal statutory preferences for remedies that
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants as a prin-
cipal element. It also utilizes permanent solutions to the maxi-
mum extent practicable. .
3
.,
,~
-------
As.- this remedy will result in haz~rdous substances reIilain-
ingon-site cbove health'bR~c~ levels, a review will be conducted
by EPA each five (5) years <.:1I-~e1 'cu~L1l'nencement: of remedial action
to ensure the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment. If this selected remedial ac-
tion does not meet the~oals and cleanup objectives'identified in
the remedy, oris not sufficiently protective, of human health and
the environment, then EPA may, under the authorities of CERCLA,
require additional response action from Coast Wood Preserving,
Inc. .
I
Date
9.2'1.8,
~..
, .' W\.&L
. Da' . W. McGovern
~ Regional Administrator
4
-------
)
" .
Coast Wood Preserving Inc.
Analysis of Public Comments
'Received on Draft RAP
June 1989
I "
" "
On May 25, 1989"the California DePart1len~of Health Services
held a public meetinq ,," on the proposed remedial action plan" for
the Coast Wood Preservinq site, located in Ukiah, Mendocino-
County C~lifornia.The purpose of the meeting.was to provide the
pu~lic with information "reqardinq"the remedial action plan (RAP)
and to solicit public comments on the adequacy of the plan. In
addition, from May ~, 1989 to June 8, 1989, the" California
Department of Health Services held a public comment period on the
, draft remedial action pl~n. ' " "
There were no written public comments received by the" Department
on the draft RAP,d'ariY\9 this comment period. Therefore, the"
draft RAP will b~ approved as the final RAP.
A copy of the transcript of
review at:
the pUblic meetinq is available
for"
Depa~tment of. Health Services
Toxic Substances Control Division
" ,5850 Shellmound st. Suite 100
Emeryville, CA 94608
Mendocino Coun~y Library
105 N. Main St. '
Ukiah, CA 95402
-------
& , .
. .
, ." , I
ST'J,i! O~ ~'.::.~~~::J,-H£"'LTH AND WElFA~~ AGENCY
GEORGE OEUKM£!IAN, Go.-.m,,'
"
DEPARTMENT OF, HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVIS:OI'!
2151 BERKELEY WAY, ANNEX 7
BERKELEY, CA 9~704
I.
II.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FOR
COAST WOOD PRESERVING, INC.
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA
, ,
Fact sheet (PropOsed Plan for Remedial Action).
Final Draft Remedial Action Pl,an, dated May 1989.
, ,
III. List of Reports Submitted by Consultants of Coast Wood
Preserving, Inc. (1981 .. 1989). '
. 2...
. '
'...
4.
s.
-
6.
7.
8.
.~
1.
H. Esmaili &. Associates," Inc., AU(Just 1981,
"Investigation' of Groundwater Pollution at Coast Wood
Preserving, Inc., Plant site in Ukiah,' California, I'
, report prepared for Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.
3.
J. H. Kleinfelder& Associates, November 1982, "P~se'
II Groundwater Study, Coast WoodPreservinq , Inc.,
Ukiah, California, II report prepared for Coast Wood
Preserving, Inc. .
D I Appolonia Consul ting Engineers, Inc. lIT Corportion,
January 1984, "Investigation of Chromium in Soil,
Ukiah, California," work plan sUbmitted to Coast Wood
Preserving, Inc. . . .
DIAppolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc./IT Corporation,
May 1984, "Investigation of Chromium in Soil, Ukiah,
California," report submitted to Coast Wood Preserving,
Inc. . , . . ,
, ,
IT Corporation, JUne 1985, "HYdrogeologic and Remedial
Action Feasibiity Studies," repo;t submitted to Coast
Wood. preserving, Inc. . ,
Geosystem conisultants~ Inc., March 1986, "Evaluation of
On-Site Groundwater Extraction, Ukiah, California,"
report submitted to Coast Wood Preserving , Inc.
Geosystem Consultants, Inc.., August 1986, ,"Groundwater
Honitoring Protocol, Ukiah, California," report
submitted to ,Coast W09d Preserving, Inc. '
Geosystem Consultants,' Inc., September 19, 1986,.'
"Defin.1tion' and . Hydraulic Control of Chromium in
, Groundwater, Ukiah, California," draft report submitted
to Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.
-------
. ~
,. .
. . .
.10.
13.
14.
15.
16.
-. C'
9.
Geosystem Consultants, Inc.,. September 15, 1986,
"Predraft Remedial Action Plan, . Coast Wood Preserving,
Inc., Ukiah,. California,", predraft report submitted to
Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.
Geosystem. Consultants, Inc., November 13, 1986,
"Additional Site Characterization, Coast Wood
Preserving,. Inc., t7kiah, California", report submitted
to Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.
. .
11.' Geosystem. Consultants,' , Inc., November 21, 1986, "Soil.
. Leaching, Characteristics and Duration of Aquifer
Cleanup, Coast Wood Preserving,' Inc., Ukiah,
California," letter "report' submitted to... Coast Wood
Preserving, Inc. .' ' ,
Geosystem' Consultants, Inc.,. January 15, 1987,
"Monitoring, Well Installation and Additional Site
Characterization, t7kiah, California," report submitted
to Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. . , \
12.
.,
GeosystemConsultants, Inc., April ~, 1987, "Evaluation' "
of Off-Site Remediation,,' UkiahiCalifornia," report
submitted to Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. '
Geosystem Consultants, Inc., April 29, 1987, "Review of
comments of Regulatory Agencies," report submitted to
. Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. '
Geosyst.e11\ Consultants, Inc., August 1987, "Groundwater
Monitoring Protocol," report submitted, to Coast Wood
Preserving, Inc. .'
Geosystem Consul tants, Inc. , February 29 , 1988,
"Remedial Action Plan, Draft No.2," report submitted
to Coast Wood preserving, Inc.
. .
Geosystem Consultants, Inc., 'February 1989, "Remedial'
Action Plan, Draft No.3," report submitted, to Coast
'Wood Preserving, Inc.
18.' Geosystem Consultants, J:nc.., May 1989, "Final Draft
Reaedial Action Plan," report submi tted to Coast Wood
Preserving, Inc. '
17.
Monthly Progress Reports during interim remedial
activities, sub~itted by, IT corporation and Geosystem
Consultants, Inc.
IV. ,Agencies comments on Draft Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and
other related reports.
19.
-2-
.,'
-------
."
... ".e"
. .
.
Date of
From/To 'Comments Subiect
1.' EPA/RWQCB-NC' 08-09-85 Report #5
2. EPA/RWQCB-NC 11-20-85 Reports #1-5
3. EPA/DHS-TSCD 06-12-86 Report ,6
4. EPA/Geosystem 06-20-86 Report #5
5.' , EPA/DHS-TSCD 01-09-87 Reports '10 , 11
6. EPA/DHS-'l'SCD, 03-24-87 Reports # 9 , 15
. 7. EPA/DHS-'l'SCD 07-01-87 RI/FS study
8. EPA/DHS:"TSCD 09-1.8-87 . Report #9
9. . . EPA/DHS-TSCD 11-04-87 Report #15
10. EPA/DHS-TSCD " 07-25-88 Report '16
11. RWQCB-NC/Coast Wood 11-04-86 Reports '6,7 , 8
12. RWQCB-NC/Coast Wood 05-29-87 Report ... '15
13. RWQCB-NC/Coast Wood 09-10-87 Report '9
14. RWQCB-NC/DHS-TSCD '07-05-88 .Report #16
15. RWQCB-NC/DHS-TSCD: 03-06-89 ~eport #17
16. DHS-TSCD/Coast,Wood 06-19-86 RAP ,requirements
17. DHS-TSCD/Coast Wood 09-24-87 Report '9
18. DHS-TSCD/Coast Wood 02-23-88 Report #9
. 19. DHS-TSCDICoast Wood 08-04-88 Report #16 r
20. DHS-TSCD/Coast Wood 03-23-89 Report '17 "
.
21. DHS-TSCD/Coast Wood 04-21-89 Report '17
22. DHS-TSCD/Coast Wood 05-01-89 Report #17
y.. DHS Hazardous Waste Surveillance and Compliance Reports
dated December 6, 1979, July 26, 1983, and March 22, 1984.
VI.
Enforcement Orders.
1. . NCRWQCB Order No. 81-61, to Cease and Desist from
Discharging Wastes, April 8, 1981.
2.
NCRWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 82-51,
August 2, 1982~ . .
NCRWQCB Cleanup and Abatement Order No." 83-128, October
13, 1983.' '
3~
, 4.
NCRWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 85-101,
July 25, 1985. .
5.
NCRWQCB Revised Cleanup and Abatement Order No.
November 12, 1986.
. .
. . . , .
\, . .'
DHS'Remedial Action Order, December 16,1988
83-128,
6~
VII. A detailed Chronoloqyof this site is listed on Appendix A,
Remedial Action Plan Draft No. ':3, dated' February 1989 and
submitted by Geosystem, Inc. for Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.
-3-
-------
~,i'
Concurrences For Coast Wood' Preserving Superfund Site ROD
I concur with the remedy selected by the State of California and recommend that the Deputy Regional
Administrator sign the Concurrence Record of Decision.
(luW- ~ '72-')./8J.
Robert Bornstein
Rem,edial Project Manager
Enforcement Programs Section
~
Je osenbloom. Chief
Enforcement Programs Section
Office of Regional Counsel
Steven Moores'
Assistant Regional Counsel
Gail Cooper
Acting Regional Counsel
,,j. ..
Hazardous Waste Management' Division
JldJC ~ y/~~-
Alexis Strauss, Chief
Superfund Enforcement Branch
J
,...w.'
...
~~ ~'/h
JefrY C' ord
Assistant Director for Superfund
Air and Toxics Division
David Howekamp, Director
Water Management Division
Harry Seraydarian, Director
. ,. --." -:o--o,-,~~ c
-------
"'
"'::~'I
Concurrences For Coast Wood Preserving Superfund Site ROD
I concur with the remedy. selected by the State of California and recommend that the Deputy Regional
Administrator sign the Concurrence Record of Decisbn. .
Hazardous Waste Management Division
-
- .
Alexis Strauss, Chief
Superfund Enforcement Branch
.--:'" --
Robert Bornstein
Remedial Project Manager
Enforcement Programs Section
Jeff Zelikson,Director
Jeff Rosenbloom,Chief
Enforcement Programs Section
'.
Jerry Ciifford .
Assistant Director for Superfund
Office of Regional Counsel
Air and Toxics Division
Steven Moores
Assistant Regional Counsel
David Howekom p, Director
Gail Cooper.
Acting Regional Counsel
Water Management Division
~
11e/~ -:6tLA
arry Seraydarian, Director
-------
..;.;~
" .
'.
. :
Concurrences For Coast Wood ?reserving Superfund Site ROD
I concur with the remedy selected by the State of California and recommend that the Deputy Regional
Administrator sign the Concurrence Record of Decision. .
Hazardous Waste Management Division
-
-
Alexis Strauss. Chief
Superfund Enforcement Branch.
-'- ._~
Robert Bornstein
Remedial Project Manager
Enforcement Programs Section
Jeff Zelikson, Director
Jeff Rosenbloom, Chief
Enforcement Programs Section
Jerry Clifford.
Assistant Director for Superfund
Office of Regional Counsel
Steven Moores
Assistant Regional Counsel
Waler Management Division
~
Gail Cooper
Acting Regional Counsel
Harry Seraydarian.' Director
".'!'"
.-. .
...
-------
..:
.;;...-~.
Concurrences For Coast Wo(,d Preserving Superfund :;ite ROD
I concur with the remedy selected by the State of (alifornia and ,-ecommend that the Deputy Region.)1
Administrator sign the Concurrence Record of Decisbn.
Hazardous Waste t4anagement Division
. .
-
.. .
Alexis Strauss, Chief
. Superfund Enforcement Branch
-
-
Robert Bornstein
Remedial Project Manager
Enforcement Programs Section
Jeff Zeli kson. Director
.
Jeff Rosenbloom, Chief
Enforcement Programs Section
Jerry Clifford
Assistant Director for Superfund
Office of Regional Counsel
~~.
Air and Toxics Division
Steven Moores
Assistant Regional Counsel
David Howekomp, Director
Water Management Division'
~
Harry Seraydarian, Director
.
1
-------
""',.. .....~ - ..'. ---~ - ..~.. '
. ...... -_. .-.--' .. ....... "---. '-"'-.-..-..>' ..-.... ~--_._...--.~...._._"" ...... - -..., .
- .
- -
. Project No. 86-113
September 1989
REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
Volume I - Text
- .
. Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.
Ukiah, California .
, -
'.~ .
-~,:>-
-------
REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
COAST WOOD PRESERVING, INC.
URIAHi CALIFORNIA
VOLUME I - TEXT
.',
Prepared for
COAST WOOD PRESERVING, INC.
URIAH, CALIFPRNIA
I .
,
Prepared by
, Geosystem Consultants, Inc.
18218 McDur11\ott,East, suite G
Irvine, California 92714
(714) 553-8757
FAX (714) 261-8550
Project No. 86-113
September 1989
\
'" -. "" :::'\\' . " --. -- , .-
\.'- ~~.'.: -:~ \.'-:, '\ ~ \~ f:- -- - ~~',:
-------
, . !-=.-.:; /~.
. (( . _: i L:::.:2 ! (
. I.::! .
".j:. '...: .
i
./
--' -~'.
"..J :.1 L. : ,-'
. ),
September 21, 1989
Project No. 86-113
Mr. Eugene pietila
Manager
FONTANA WOOD PRESERVING, INC.
1550 Valencia Avenue
Fontana., California 92335
Remedial Action Plan
Coast Wood Preservinq. Inc.
Ukiah. California
Dear Mr. Pietila:
Transmitted herewith are two copies of the Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) for the Coast Wood. preserving, Inc. facility in Ukiah,
California. The appropriate number of copies of the RAP have been\
forwarded to the regulatory agencies. We appreciate the
opportunity of providing services to Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
GEOSYSTEM CONSULTANTS, INC.
NLJ~
Mohsen Mehran, Ph.D.
Project Manager
MM:sh
Enclosures
cc:
Mr. Dwight Hoenig - Department of Health Services
Ms. Michelle Rembaum - Department of Health S~rvices
Ms. Susan Warner - RWQCB, North Coast Region
Mr. James Hanson - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Gerald Davis - Mendocino County Department of .
. Environmental Health
18218 McDurmott East. Suite i...': . ir\!fk' ,-~~'iil('II~lu -:'=-''':
fel8phone ( 71J) 553-~ ~5:- . ~.\ \ " . ~.:' .' ::-1.::':-~,'
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
J'-
b
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVE
1.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.3 SCOPE AND REPORT ORGANIZATION
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
2.2 BACKGROUND
2.3 INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES
2.4 REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
2.5 SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE
2.6 ALLOCATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 SITE LOCATION
3.2 SITE HISTORY
3.2.1 Wood Preserving Operations
3.2.2 Chemical Releases
3.2.3 Previous Studies
3.3 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
3.3.1 Topography
3.3.2 site Features
3.3.3 surrounding Land Use
3.3.4 Population Distribution
3.3.5 Climatology
3.3.5.1 Temperature
3.3.5.2 Precipitation
3.3.5.3 Wind
3.3.6 Location of Water Wells
3.3.7 Potential Biological Receptors
i
PAGE
vii
viii
ix -
1-1
1-J
1-3
"1-3"
2-~
2-1
2-2
\
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-8
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-7
3-7 -
J-8
3-9
3-10-
3-11
3-11
3-12
3-12 "
3-1J
3-14
~ ~ " ""\ . ~ "_: .:."':: -
\'':- :," :'...~'.,~ ~ \' ~ . . ~-?
-------
4.0
. .
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(Continued) .
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
4 . 1 GEOLOGY
4~1.1 Regional Geology
4.1.1.1 continental Basin Deposits
4.i.1.2 Continental Terrace Deposits
4.1.1.3 Holocene Alluvium
4.1.2 Study Area stratigraphy
4.1.2.1 Zone 1
4.1.2.2 Zone 2
4.1.2.3 Zone 3
4.1.2.4 Zone 4
4.2 GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY
. .
4.2.1 Regional Ground Water Conditions
4.2.2 Study Area Ground Water
4.3 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
4.4 BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER
4.4.1 Surface Water
4.4.2 Ground Water
4.5
SOIL, STORM WATER, AND GROUND WATER QUALITY
4.5.1 Distribution of Chromium, Arsenic,
and Copper in Soil
4.5.2 Storm Water Quality
4.5.3 Ground Water Quality
INDICATOR PARAMETERS
GEOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES
4.7.1 Soil Sample Analyses
4.7.2 Waste Extraction Tests
4.7.3 Sorption Tests
4.7.4 Desorption Tests
4.6
4.7
ii
PAGE
4-1
4-1
4-1.
4-3
4-)
4-4
4-5
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-9
4-10.
4-10
4-11
4-13
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-17
4-17
4-20
4-22
4-25
4-25
4-25
4-26 .
4-27
4-27
"<'.
:::--.. 0'-: '" ,,\0, . Y -. ::. '.=... - ..
'.: . 0 '~\. ~ --.' .
"--, ,"<. r...,
-------
5.0
6.0
. .
7.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. (Continued)
INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES
5.1 GENERAL FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
5.2 SLURRY WALL AND EXTRACTION TRENCH
5.2.1 Recycling/Treatment of Extracted
Ground Water
5.2.2 Treated Ground Water Disposal
5.2.3 Observation Wells CWP-20 and CWP-21
5.2.4 Performance Evaluation
5.3 RETORT AREA RECOVERY WELL
RISK ASSESSMENT
6.1 MIGRATION PATHWAYS
6~1.1 Migration Through Air
6.1.2 Direct Exposure
6.1.3 Migration Through Surface Water
6.1.4 Migration Through Ground Water
6.2 OCCURRENCE, INTAKE, AND TOXICITY CHARACTERISTICS
OF CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC
6.3 PUBLIC HEALTH AND POPULATION DENSITY
6.3.1 Public Health Protection Standards
6.3.2 Population Potentially at Risk
6.4 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT AND RISK CHARACTERIZATION
6.4.1 Potential Exposure through Air
6.4.2 Potential Exposure through Direct
Contact with Soil
6.4.3 Potential Exposure through Surface Water
6.4.4 Potential Exposure through Ground Water
EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
7.1 ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL ACTIONS
7.1.1 Control of Contaminated Soil
7.1.1.1 Soil Removal and Off-Site
Disposal
iii
PAGE
5-1
5-1
.5-2-
.5-]
5-4
5-4
5-5
5-6
6-1
6~
6-2
6-]
6-4
6-5
6-7
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-11
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-]
'':: ~ .:; \\.~ ~ .:_~ - i --_U ~~ .:<~,
-------
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.1.4
" .:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
7.1.1.2
Soil Removal and On-site
Treatment
In-Situ Treatment
Partial Excavation and Off-site
Disposal . .
containment'
No Action
7.1.1.3
7.1.1.4
7.1.1.5
7 .1. 1 . 6
Plume Control
7.1.2.1 Physical containment
7.1.2.2 In-Situ Treatment
7.1.2.3 Hydraulic Control
7.1.2.4 Electrokinetic Phenomena
. 7.1. 2.5 No Action
Ground Water Treatment Technology
Assessment
7.1.3.1 Electrochemical Process
7.1.3.2 Chemical Reduction and
Precipitation
7.1.3.3 Chemical precipitation with
Sedimentation or Filtration
7.1.3.4 Activated Carbon Adsorption
7.1.3.5 Ion Exchange
7.1.3.6 Reverse Osmosis
7.1.3.7 Electrodialysis
Alternatives for Discharge of Extracted
Water
7.1.4.1
7.1.4.2
Recycling
Discharge into the Sanitary
Sewer'
Discharge into the Surface
Drainage System
Subsurface Injection
7.1.4.3
7.1.4.4
iv
PAGE
7-4
7-5.
7-6
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-~
7-11
7-11 .
7-11
7-13
7-14
7-16
7-17
7-19
7-22
7-23
7-25
7-26
7-27
7-28
7-28
": .:~ "':~ \. . ~~ -. C' .:=: -
\~': '. "--~--------: \ '>::~ <~, .. ..
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(Continued)
RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTION
7.2.1 Surface Runoff Flow Management
7.2.2 Control of Contaminated Soil.
7.2.3 Plume control and Aquifer Remediation
7.2.4 Electrochemical Treatment of Ground Water
7.2.5 Water Reuse/Discharge to the Ukiah Sewage
Treatment Plant or Reinjection
7..2.6 Monitoring
7.2.6.1 Air Quality Monitoring
7.2.6.2 Storm Water Monitoring
7.2.6.3 Ground Water Monitoring
7.2.6.4 Treatment System Monitoring
REASONS FOR SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED
REMEDIAL ACTION .
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE SELECTED REMEDIAL
ACTION
7.4.1 Control of Contaminated Soil
7.4.2 Plum~ Control
7.4.3 Monitoring
7.5 APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
8.0 .IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
9.0 ALLOCATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND
FOR FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
10.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
10.1 GROUND WATER EXTRACTION
10.2 GROUND WATER TREATMENT
10.3 SYSTEM INSPECTION AND MONITORING
10.4 GENERAL SAFETY PROCEDURES
10.5 EVALUATION OF SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
10.6 SITE INSPECTION
10.7 REPORTING
7.2
7.3
7.4
PROVISIONS
v
PAGE
7-29
7-29
7-30.
7-31
7-35
7~37
7-38
7-38
7-38
7 - 319 .
7-39
7-40
7-41
7-41
7-42
7-42
7-43
8-1
9-1
10-1
10-1
10-1
10-2
10-3.
10-4
10-4
10-4
" ..= '" v .\- . ::c -.--.' :'=-:.- :
. --. ~. ~ .. .
~'-, .-".~ ~. .. ~ . .=:..: '.'/
-------
REFERENCES
TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
i. .
.APPENDIX F:
. .
APPENDIX G:
APPENDIX H:
. .
"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
VOLUME II
PAGE
R-l
CHRONOLOGY
GROUND WATER MONITORING DATA.
STORM WATER QUALITY DATA
SOIL CHEMICAL DATA
SIMULATION OF CHROMIUM TRANSPORT IN
OFF-SITE AREAS
OCCURRENCE, INTAKE, AND TOXICITY
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC
DEED OF RESTRICTION ON REAL PROPERTY
THE ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
vi
~ .-= ~\" \ . ,,~, -." ~.:...: : ,'.
'-':'..~.::.~ ~. ~ ~ . .::;..'.
-------
I
I. '"0
I
I -
..-
, TABLE NO.
1
~..
2
~L
l
3
4
5
.6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
LIST OF TABLES
TITLE
Well Construction Details
Monthly and Annual Mean Climatological Data~
Ukiah, California
On-site Monthly Precipitation Records
water-Producing Well Inventory and Construction
Details
Summary of Aquifer Parameters, Zone 1
Summary of Permeability Test Results
Summary of January 1988 Monitoring Results
. \
..
Total Chromium in Ambient Air at Selected
Locations in the united States
Chromium Content of Soil at Selected Locations
in the united States
Water Quality criteria Summary
Public Health Protection Standards
Estimated Cost of Various Remedial Action
Alternatives ,"
Ground. Water Treatment Technologies
Removal of Chromium by Electrochemical Process
City of Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant, -
Monitoring Program for Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.,
December 1987 .
Summary of Soil Remedial Action Alternatives
Summary of Ground Water Remedial Action
Alternatives
vii
- -. - .
.~ . -:. '" ~ ":.- . ~ ...
,-' " .' .. ~ ~ ..~"
-------
" '
FIGURE NO.
1
2
3
I '
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
/'
12
13
14
15
16
17
I, .
18
19
.....
LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE
site Location Map
Site and Vicinity
Surrounding Land Use
water-Producing Wells and Regional Ground
Water Contours
Regional Geology
Schematic Section Through Ukiah Valley
Regional Geological Section I-I'
Subsurface Profile A-A'
, \
Subsurface Profile B-B'
Ground Water Contours, Zone 1 - January 1987
Soil'Sampling Locations and Approximate 'Extent
of Chromium and Arsenic in Near~Surface Soil
Dissolved Total Chromium Isoconcentrations,
January/February 1986
Dissolved Total Chromium Isoconcentrations,
April 1987
Dissolved Total Chromium Isoconcentrations,
January 1988
Dissolved Total Chromium Versus Time, CWP-6
Dissolved Total Chromium Versus Time, FPT-3
Dissolved Total Chromium Versus Time, AT-2
Dissolved Total Chromium Versus Time, well C~vP-8
Ground Water Extraction/Treatment System
Flow Diagram
viii
',~ ~ ,:-:: ,,:.~f ";, 'i- ,'-:--',' ,
-------
i .
!
,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
I
I
Several people have ~ade invaluable contributions during
, characterization studies. and the preparation of this
. .
. Action Plan. Mr. Eugene Pietila and Mr. Harold Logsdon of Coast
~!. .
.-,. Wood Preserving,' Inc. provided support, guidance, and assistance
It; throughout the project~ Ms. Susan Warner and Ms. Bonnie Rolandelli
. of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast
Region: Mr. Jerry Marcotte, Mr. Howard Hatayama, Mr. Dwight Hoenig,
Mr. Ted Park, Ms. Michelle Rembaum, and Mr. Richard Jones of the
Depart:tent of Health Services: Mr. -James Hanson and Mr. Harvin
Young of the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency:' Ms. Mary
. Hackenbracht of the state of California Department of Justice: Mr..
", Robert Pedroncholi of the City of Ukiah: Ms. Betty Swatsenberg of \
. the State Departm~nt of Water Resources; and Mr. Dave Redding of
the Willow County Water District, all provided information
essential to the completion of this work. The contributions of all
these individuals are gratefully acknowledged.
the site
Remedial
..'
..
ix
-0 ~.~ '" .::'". .
,,'-'..'.:.'.~ ~.
.....'"::,-
. 1/.
. ,
-------
1.0
INTRODUCTION
since June 1980, a number of studies have been conducted to
investigate the presence of chromium, copper, and arsenic in the
subsurface environment ,at the Coast Wood preserving, Inc. (CWP)
facility (the site) in Ukiah, California. The investigations were
designed to characterize surface and subsurface conditions and
delineate the areal and vertical extent of chromium, copper, and
arsenic in soil and ground water at the site. Concurrent with the
investigations, a number of interim remedial measures have been
implemented to contain the chromium plume in ground water and
remediate subsurface conditions.
The state and federal agencies responsible for overseeing the CWP
, ,
investigations include the California Regional Water 'Quality'
Control Board, North Coast Region (RWQCB), Department of Health
Services' .(DHS), an~ u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Throughout this report, the RWQCB, DHS, and EPA are referred to
collectively as "the regulatory agencies."
'Incompliance with Section 25356.1 of the California Health and
Safety Code (1986), the regulatory agen~ies have requested that cwp
submit a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to address soil and ground
water contamination which may have originated from CWP's operation.
On behalf of CWP and in response to this request, Geosystem
.Consultants, Inc. (Geosystem) submitted a predraft RAP (Geosystem,
September 15, 1986) to the regulatory agencies for review.
Subsequent to the submittal of the predraft RAP, a number of
additional investigations were performed at the site. Also, in
February 1987, the DHS issued a draft guidance document for RAP
preparation. The draft, guidance document provided the format,
, ,
content, and procedures for preparation, approval, and
implementation of the RAP. '
1-1
, ~ . .-: ~ ~~ \, . -;::: - =. ~ : ,-
.. <'.
-------
. .1
utilizing the results of additional investigations and considering
the regulatory agencies' review comments,a draft RAP was prepared
by Geosystem in accordance. with the February 1987 draft RAP
guidelines. The draft RAP was submitted for review in July19~7.
In September 1987, the DHS issued a' detailed outline for the
~preparation of RAPs entitled "DHS, Policy and Procedure for
, .
~emedia1 Action Plan Development and Approved Process.es" (DHS, -
jSeptember1987). Also, in September 1987, the regulatory agencies
. .
provided review comments on the draft RAP submitted in July 1987.
The agencies' comments and the. content and format of the most
recent RAP guidelines (DHS, September 1987) were considered in the
preparation of Draft No.2 of the RAP, which was issued in Febraary
1988 (Geosystem, February 29, 1988). Subsequently, on August 4,
1988, agency comments on Draft No.2 of the RAP were received.,
. . ,
'Also,on December 16, 1988, the DHS issued a Remedial Action Order
providing the framework for future site activities, includinq the
preparation of the third draft of the RAP. On February 3, 1989,
Geosystem issued the ,third draft of the RAP for agency review.
Agency comments were considered in the preparation of the final
draft RAP, which was issued on May 3, 1989. On August i, 1989, the
DHS issued a number of comments and changes to be addressed in the
final RAP (DHS, August 1, 1989).
I
I
..:
It is noted that the RAP guidelines prepared by the DHS are
consistent with Section 25350, Subpart F of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (U.S. EPA, July
1985), Section 25356.1 of the California Health and Safety Code
(1986),' and the California Site Mitigation Decision Tree (DHS, June
1985) .
. .
1-2
'" ~ -Y\ "\". . ~ -=::. ..= .~..'" .
, . "-' ~"...:::::;.. -=-: , /
~ "'. ...='~ ~ - ':: .=_.: - /-/
-------
-
1.1 OBJECTIVE . .
According to the September 1987 DHS guidelines for RAP preparation,
"the purpose of a RAP is to compile. and. summarize site data
gathered fro~ the remedial investigation (RI) and the feasibility
study (FS), in order to identify, and subsequently design, plan and
implement a final remedial action for a hazardous substance release
site." The specific objective of this RAP is to. present the
findings of the investigations. performed at the CWP site, th~ .
rationale for selection or r~jection of the remedial alternatives
. .
. considered, and the timeframe for remedial action implementation.
The RAP is intended to provide an opportunity for the public and
other interested parties to participate in the remedial action
decision-making process. According to the DHS, if the remedial
action plan i~ fully implemented and completed, "the site will be
certified and transferred to a list of sites which require long,
term operation and maintenance."
1.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION
The site is known as the Coast. Wood Preserving, Inc. (CWP) facility
and' is located three miles south of Ukiah, California, at the
intersection of Highway 101 and Taylor Drive. The site location
is shown in Figure 1. CWP has conducted wood preserving operations
at the site since 1971 and the facility is currently active.
Additional details of CWP I S wood preserving operation are presented
in Section 3.2.1.
1.3 SCOPE AND REPORT ORGANIZATION
The RAP includes relevant background information, a summary and
interpretation of the hydrogeologic data, a summary of soil and
ground water quality data, a'description of the interim remedial
measures implemented, a. risk assessment, and an evaluation of
, .
1-3
'-
" = '" ~.\. - ~.
.-- ,:.:- ~. ~
,,:: . ., . \':, ~"o- .:-:
..--. . - -." ~
. .
- .
. .'" .
-------
remedial
selection
others is
act.ion alternatives. In addition, ,the rationale, for,
of the proposed remedial a~tions and rejection of th~
presented.
,The format and organization of this document are consistent with
,'the RAP guidelines (DHS, September 1987). An executive summary,
'including a brief description of significant findings, conciusions,
.~ .
and recommendations, is provided in Section 2.0. section:3 .0 ,
~ ' , '
presents a site description, including the history of wood
..
"'preserving operations and the physical characteristics of the site.
Section 4.0 contains a summary of the geologic, hydrologic, and
chemical characteristics of soil, surface water, and ground water
at the site and immediate vicinity, based on the remedial
, ,
investigations performed. Section 5.0 describes the interim
, ,
-remedial measures implemented during the course of, the
investigations at the site. Section 6.0 summarizes potential \
. .. .
migration pathways and chromium toxicity, and evaluates the
~ossible exposure of the contaminants"to potential receptors.
Section 7.0 presents the remedial action alternatives ,considered
to address soil and ground water contamination, including
alternative methods of ground water treatment and discharge. In
addi tion, the recommended remedial, action to address soil and
ground water contamination is presented in ': Section 7.0. The
rationale for the selection of the proposed remedial plan and the
applicable regulations are also presented in this section.
The schedule
Section 8.0.
provisions for
The operation
Section 10.0.
for implementation of the, RAP is presented in
The allocation of financial responsibility and
financial assurance are presented in section 9.0.
and maintenance requirements are described in
1-4
'~ ~ '" ~ \' - ".-:-: .-.-,. -: -
,"," '~\' ~ "-.
~ '.. .':-:-: ~ ~. - ~ . .:=-=.:.. c , --...
-------
2.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Remedial Action Plan (RAP). presents the rationale, approach,
. ,
and framework for the proposed :r'emediation program at the Coast
Wood Preserving, Inc. (CWP) facility in Ukiah, California.
2.1 APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The RAP has been prepared in accordance with the guidance document
. ,
entitled "Remedial Action Plan Development and Approval Process,"
issued by the DHS (September 1987). The RAP is also consistent
with the following state and'. federal requirements and guidelines:
o
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986.
o
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. .
\
o
Safe Drinking Water Act.
. California. Code of Regulations,. . Title 22,
Division 4: Environmental Health (Chapter 1,
Article 1; Chapter 2, Article 1; Chapter 30), July
1986. , . ,
o
o
California Health and Safety Code.
No.rth Coastal Basin Water Quality Control Plan
adopted by the RWQCB.
o
o
All orders, including specifications, provisions,
prohibi tions, and requirements issued by the RWQCB.
. ,
o
Court order by the State of California, Office of
the Attorney General.
2-1
y,:-" ~ "'\' , ",-,
,"C' '~' ~
\~ " : ':.' \~ <'c', ~. "C:, '
. ~. - ,
, .,
"" ..
-------
o
i\j;::..,.:.';:,I..,: .<:".1. Contingency Plan, pertinent hazardous,
waste regulations under 40 CFR, Parts 260 to 265;
Part 300-68, July 1985.
o
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, 1969.
. 2.2
BACKGROUND
'i,;"Since 1980, a number of investigations have, been, performed to
i'delineate the areal 'and vertical extent of chromium in soil and'
~ ground water at the CWP site and to characterize hydrogeologic
conditions. Soil quality investigations have shown that elevated
chromium and arsenic concentrations exist in the upper 1 t02, feet
of the soil profile near and around the retort area. Most soil
. ,
'samples analyzed for total chromium and hexavalent chromium have
indicated that trivalent, chromium compounds are prevalent in the
, near-surface soils.
, Hydrogeologic studies have demonstrated that the site is underlain '
by four hydrostratigraphic zones. ' The upper zone (Zone 1) consists
of silty clay and clayey silt, with more permeable stringers and
lenses of sand and gravel, to a depth of about 20 feet. This zone
is separated from a more permeable sand and gravel layer (Zone 2)
, ,
by a blue clay. Zone 3, is a clayey silt stratum, and Zone 4
consists of clayey sand and gravel. Zone 1 is the primary zone of
concern because of the presence of chromium in ground water. The
depth to ground w'ater varies from 5 to 10 feet and ground water
generally flows to the southeast.
Ground water quaiity data show that chromium concentrations are
higher near the retort area and decrease in the downgradient
direction. In the last three years, most off-site wells have not
exhibited chromium concentrations in excess of the drinking water
2-2
~? ,~i ~ =v, '1 \,~ . ~ ~~ ,~~:~~, ;,
-------
standard. (0.05 mg/l).
indicate that chromium
detection limits.
Most storm water quality monitorin.g dat.a.
concentrations are generally near or below
Geochemical tests have been performed to evaluate the sorption and
desorption characteristics of chromium and arsenic in soil and
ground w(iter. Sorption test.s have shown that. Zone 1 material is
capable of adsorbing hexavalent chromium to the extent that
chromium migration is at least 5 times ,slower than ground water
flow. Desorption tests have indicated that a reduction in. chromiuni
concentration can be achieved by ground water extraction. The
geochemical data have been.used to estimate the time of aquifer
cleanup.' The absence. of dissolved arsenic in ground water
moni toring wells indicates high adsorption capacity for arsenic
compounds.
Potential migration pathways through air, direct exposure to soil,
surface water, and .ground water have been assessed. It is
concluded that the most probable migration pathway is via ground
water flow. Because of the overall site improvements and the
interim remedial measures implemented, however, off-site migration
. .
is unlikely;' A transport model has been utilized to assess the
areal distribution of chromium in case of off~si te migration.
~onsidering the low population density downgradient of the facility
and the absence of water-producing. wells in the immediate site
vicinity, there is no present potential exposure through ground
water. Therefore, there is no health risk associated with this
pathway if off-site migration is prevented.
2.3 INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES
Since the initiation of investigations at the CWP site, a number
of. . remedial measures have been implemented by CWP.. General
facility improvements have included grading and construction .of
2-3
~ .;.: '" ,,\.' ",:'---' -~' 7' ~
.,':' ~ \' ~ '-.:'
~'-" .: _:- ~ ~ - ~ . -=-= -. .' .
-------
berms to prevent sUl:facs runoff from the reto~ al1dtreated. wood
storage areas,surface paving,and construct~on of roofs .over the
retort. area. These improvements have substantially reduced the
potential for soil, storm water, and ground water contamination..
In October 1983, without regulatory agency approval and/or
'.
oversight, CWP constructed a 300-foot long, slurry cutoff wall
.~., .
,. along the eastern site boundary to a depth of about 20 feet.:
,t, Chromium"'containing ground water is pumped from an extraction
trench locat~d hydraulically upgradient of the slurry wall. The
trench appears to be capable of intercepting and hydraulically
controlling ground water in Zone 1. Extracted water is recycled
.. back into CWP operations when possible. The presence of the slurry
cutoff wall and extraction from the trench have been effective in
reducing the off-site migration of chromium..
2.4 REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
. A feasibility study has been. conducted to screen and evaluate
viable remedial action alternatives. In conducting the feasibility
study, contaminated soil was considered the primary potential
source of ground water contamination. contaminated ground water
was considered the principal potential hazard to human health and
the environment. In evaluating the alternatives, soil and ground
water elements were addressed separately.
Remediation of contaminated soils will occur at the time of closure
of the facility, projected to be 10 years. A trust fund will be
established (Section 9.0) to fund future remediation of soils. The
potential remedial options considered for control of the
contaminated soil. included soil removal/off-site disposal, soil
removal/on-site treatment, containment, in-situ treatment, and no
action. Treatability studies will be conducted prior to selecting
the final soils remedy at the time of closure of the facility. It
2-4
" -: '" ,,\' . ~...:.-= -= :- :-
.: .., ~ \, -::::- ~
~._" ..'..='~. '::. - -:::. --= - ~ . .
-------
is anticipated that 'on-site soil treatment options will increase
as this technology develops over,the next 5 to 10 years.
The alternatives considered for control of the chromium plume
included physical containment, in-situ treatment, hydraulic
, control, and no action. Based on proven technological
considerations and cost, hydraulic control was selected as the most
cost-effective remedial measure. This option was evaluated for'
plume control near the retort area, near the site boundary, and off
site.
As hydraulic control requires proper handling of contaminated
ground water, various discharge options were considered. The most
cost-effective options include recycling the ground water into CWP
operations or discharge of treated water into the sanitary sewer~
Viable ground water treatment options include electrochemical
pro~esses, chemical reduction/precipitation, activa~ed carbon
adsorption, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and electrodialysis.
Based on availability, proven technological considerations, and
cost-effectiveness, the electrochemical process was selected for'
ground water treatment.
2.5 SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The selected remedial action alternative included the following
elements:
o
Surface runoff management.
Control and remediation of contaminated soil.
o
o
Plume control and aquifer remediation.
Electrochemical treatment of ground water.
o
o
Water recycling/discharge to Ukiah Sewage Treatment
Plant or reinjection.
Monitoring.
o
;,
2-5
. .
'-': ~ ,:~':~ ~ ~ \. f-~'<'. .'
-------
1-
.'0'
, '
Surface runoff will be controlled to prevent potentially
contaminated water entering surface water drainage features. The
site will be inspected periodically and surface paving repaired as
appropriate. Storm water monitoring shall be performed and the
data evaluated according to RWQCB Order No. 85-101.
Contaminated soils will be controlled by preventing surface water,
, ,
infiltration and by exercising hydraulic control of the plume.
Surface paving will prevent the surface soils from acting as a
source of ground water contamination. Chromium leached from the
soil as a result of ground water level fluctuations will be
controlled hydraulically in the retort area and near the site
'boundary. Hydraulic containment will be achieved by a ground water
extraction and treatment system utilizing existing Extraction Wells
'HL-7 and CWP-18. These provisions will prevent direct human
~
exposure to contaminated soil, eliminate the contribution of"
.. infiltrating surface water to ground water contamination, and
prevent off-site migration. After site closure, the contaminated
, soils will be remediatedby on-site treatment, as discussed in the
previous section.
Plume control and aquifer remediation will be performed by ground
water extraction near the retort area and at the site boundary.
Well CWP-18, located in the retort area, will be pumped to extract
ground water containing elevated chromium concentrations. Although
the yield of this well is small and continuous' pumping may not be.
,possible, the potential impact on aquifer restoration is believed
, .
to be significant.
..
At the site boundary, Well HL-7 (installed
trench) will be pumped at flow rates ranging
Extraction from the trench will produce a zone
in the extraction'
from 5 to 20 gpm.
of influence which
2-6
. -
,~') .~~~~' i\~ - i- -.~ .~ .:::",
-------
. .
. .
. .
will contain the chromium plume, prevent off-site migration, and
gradually restore the aquifer. Considering the total estimated
. . .
volume of contaminated fluid, pore volume reduction requirements,
and expected flow rates, the projected minimum duration of aquifer
cleanup is about seven years. However, considering the nature of
the. assumptions and uncertainties associated with this estimated
time of aquifer cleanup, a conservative duration of 20 years is.
proj ected for proj ect management and budgetary purposes. provision
is also made to extract water from Well CWP-8, located on the
downgradient side of the slurry cutoff wall. Extraction from this
well will contain any residual chromium that may pass the barrier.
Containment of chromium in this location will prevent contamination
of downgradient areas.
A contingency plan has also been developed for the extraction of
ground water in the off-site area located near Monitoring Well.
AT-2. Depending on future concentrations detected in the off-site
wells, addi tional extraction wells may be necessary to ensure
hydraulic control of the contaminated plume.
The extracted water will be recycled into CWP operations, to the
extent possible, or treated electrochemically and discharged into
the sanitary sewer. Implementation of this discharge option will
provide maximum flexibility in selecting extraction rates from Well
HL-7, and will increase the effectiyeness of cleanup operations.
The treatment system effluent concentrations will meet the
requirements of the UkiahSewage Treatment Plant.
.. .
Air, storm water, and ground water quality monitoring shall be
performed according to general and site-specific protocols. Storm
water monitoring shall be performed at the locations and
frequencies specified by RWQCB Order No. 85-101. Storm water
samples will be analyzed for dissolved total chromium and arsenic.
,.
..
2-7
, .
.~ ~~:.;~~ i!- \. . ,!.c~':~ ".-
-------
Ground water ,s11e,11 b('j
morLi',::,uJ.:
-------
3.0
SITE DESCRIPTION
I,
This section provides a summary of background information pertinent
to the RAP, including the location, history, and a physical
description of the site. The content and format of this section
are generally consistent with the RAP guidelines provided by the
DHS (September 1987).
3.1 SITE LOCATION
The CWP facility is located at the intersection of Plant Road and
Taylor Drive in an unincorporated area of Mendocino County, about
.3 miles south of Ukiah, California. The site location is shown ~n
Figure 1. The site covers an area of approximately 8 acres and is
located in Section 22 of Township lS North, Range 12 West, relative
. '
to the Mount Diablo baseline and meridian. For the purpose of this
.' " \
RAP, ,the "site" refers to the area bounded by U.S. Highway 101 to
the west, Plant Road to the north, Taylor Drive to the east, and
an unpaved track to the south. The" study area'" refers to the area.
bounded by Plant Roa? and the Uki,ah Sewage Disposal facility to the
north, the Russian River to the east, Robinson Creek to the south,
and u.S. Highway 101 to the west. The study area is delineated in
Figure 1. The site and vicinity is shown in Figure 2.
3.2 SITE HISTORY
This section includes a brief description of wood preserving
operations at the site; the type of chemicals handled: and a
chronology of. site contamination, investigation, and interim
remedial measures.
3.2.1 Wood Preservina Ooerations
CWP began wood preserving operations at the site in
facility has operated continuously up to the present
believed that prior to 1971, the land was used for
1971 and the
date 0' It is
agricultural
3-1
~ -." ""." \" ' ,,- .:' -' ~ .-
," ~" ~ 'c
~"...':'\::: ~ '- --:::: . '~'. :..
-------
~. .
. ,
. .
, .
... "
'..
. -
purposes. The wood prE:,s~rll':; j(..:' u.t'Cj~c to }.C"'.i ~.. . ,,:.1! ~:,:.:; .; have been.
periodically upgraded since 1971 by implelllt:;!l'-:',Ht~ surface' runoff'
control measures, surface paving, construction of canopies over
wood treatment areas, and the development of treated wood storage
,and handling procedures. '
The wood preserving operation at the site involves the use of a
:chemical mix' consisting of 65.5 percent sodium dichromate, 18.1
ipercent copper sulfate, and 16.4 percent arsenic acid. A dilute'
~', solution of. the chemical mix, containing the equivalent of 1.5
percent by weight of CrO], CuO, and AszOs' is used to bathe the
iumber in pressurized retort chambers. After each treatment, the
retort chambers are drained and the preserving solution is recycled
'into the working solution tank. Residual solution draining from
the retort chambers and drippings from the freshly treated wood are
collected in concrete-lined sumps and are also recycled into th~
chemical mix tank via temporary holding tanks. The solution
, ,
transfer takes place through above-ground PVC pipes. A plan of the
site, including the facilities mentioned above, is shown in
Figure 2.
3.2.2 Chemical Releases
Concerns regarding the possible release of wood preserving
chemicals from the CWP site were raised by the County of Mendocino,
the Department of Fish and Game, and the RWQCB in early 1972. A
chronology of . the subsequent interaction between the regulatory
agencies and CWP is presented in Appendix A. The cumulative
drippings from treated wood over the years are believed to have
resulted in near-surface ,soil contamination at the site,
particularly during the early years of: operation when the treatment
and treated wood storage areas were not all paved. CUrrently, all
but the south and southeast portions of the site (as shown in
Figure 2) are paved with asphalt or concrete.
3-2
~ "~< "~\~\.' ~ . "-" :_~
~ ',' p' ~ -::: - ~
-------
3~2.3 Previous'Studies
As indicated in Section 3..2.2, the RWQCB first became involved in
the environmental aspects of CWP's wood preserving operations in
early 1972.. The RWQCB' s specific concerns were re~ated to
potential surface water and ground water contamination. Appendix A
provides a chronology of events related to environmental activities
at the site.'
.< .
On June 13, 1980, RWQCB staff collected samples of surface water
. runoff which were found to contain wood preserving chemicals. In
. .
September 1980, the RWQCB requested that CWP assess and report the
possible impact of wood preserving operations on soil and ground
'. water quality beneath the site. This assessment, performed by
H. Esmaili & Associates, Inc. (August 1981) and referred to as the.
, \
Phase I study, included the installation of six shallow ground
water monitoring wells (Wells CWP-1 through CWP-6). The locations
of these monitoring wells are shown in Figure 2 and the
construction details are summarized in Table 1. The investigation
indicated elevated chromium concentrations in near-surface soil
samples and ground water samples collected from Wells CWP-1 through
CWP-6. No abnormal concentrations of arsenic or copper were found
in any of the ground water samples.
I
I
In October 1981, CWP installed Wells CWP-7, CWP-8, and CWP-9 along
the eastern site boundary to evaluate possible off-site migration.
In December 1981, the RWQCB installed Off-site monitoring Wells
FPT-1A, FPT-1B,' FPT-2A, and FPT-3 to the east of the site. The
analysis of ground water samples from 'these wells confirmed, that
off-site migration of chromium had occurred.'
"
. '-..
Additional. studies were subsequently initiated to determine the
extent of ground water contamination and evaluate the feasibility
3-3
i ,
" _: " ".... . ;::-...
:," ~ \. ~
'~"~"~. ~ .. ~
-------
of. containing contaminated grouncl. wat""..~ on 5~.tf'~ ~q'j f- p~':'!.:",":. II
. . '. .
study, conducted by J. H. Kleinfelder & Associates (November 1982),'
included the installation of seven additional on-site ground water
. .
monitoring wells (CWP-10 through CWP-16) and showed that the'
vertical extent of chromium, copper, and arsenic in soil and ground
water was limited. The locations of the ground water monitoring
'. wells installed during the Phase I and Phase II studies are shown
.~ in Figure 2. Additional off-site ground water monitoring wells.
"'. (Wells AT-1, AT-2, AT-3, tPT-4, and FPT-5) were subsequently
: installed by Kleinfelder and CWP to further delineate off-site
contamination.
In October 1983, acting on its own initiative but without
. .
. regulatory agency approval or oversight, CWP constructed a
. '
bentonite slurry cutoff wall, near the eastern site boundary, to
., intercept and limit the migration of chromium in- ground water. CWP-
~ .
\a1so constructed a. ground water extraction trench immediately to
. the west and hydraulically upgradient of the slurry cutoff wall.
The approximate locations of the slurry cutoff wall and the
'extraction trench are shown in Figure 2. As an interim remedial
measure, CWP began extracting groundwater from the trench via a
central sump, known as Well HL-7, equipped with an electric
submersible pump. The extracted ground water was recycled back
. .
into the wood preserving operation. Also, as part of the overall
effort to improve site conditions, CWP erected canopies over the
retort area. These covers limit the exposure of freshly treated
wood to precipitation and reduce surface water runoff from this
area. These interim remedial measures. are described in more detail
. .
in Section 5.0.
After reviewing the findings of Phases I and II ,of the
investigation, the regulatory agencies requested that CWP further'
define the distribution of chromium, arsenic, and copper in soil
3-4
,
'" _:::-- .
. "....-..:::.'
. ,,:, .:::
. .... -.
..
?"
-------
;. ..
.,; .,;
. - .. - . t' .
. '-.
I
I
and g:t;'t.lUJld water.- .; 1).'-j;~r'<..'ltnia . Consulting Engineers, Inc.
(D'Appolonia) was retained by CWP to perform this investigation
and address the agencies' concerns. The investigation included a
. series of soil sampling borings, Borings 5-1 through S-26
(D' Appolonia/IT corporation, May 1984) (1), the locations of which
are shown ~n Figure 2~ The investigation showed that the top 1 to
2 feet of the soil profile around the retort and rail line areas
contained elevated concentrations of chromium and arsenic. It is .
noted, however, that.no soil samples were collected from beneath
the actual retorts. The ground water quality data. indicated
elevated concentrations of chromium in monitoring wells located
near the retort areas. Chromium concentrations in groundwater
generally decreased with distance from the retort area in the
downgradient direction.
Subsequent to regulatory agency review of the findings of the
D,' Appolonia investigation, another' study. was initiated to further
define the extent and migration behavior of chromium in ground
water and evaluate viable remedial action alternatives to address
contaminated soil and ground. water. This investigation (IT
Corporation, June 1985) led to the following conclusions:
o
Containment of contaminated soil and remediation
of the contaminated water-bearing zone by hydraulic
control measures, such as ground water extraction,
was feasible.
o
The majority of the extracted ground water could
be reused in CWP's wood preserving operations and
the excess could be treated cost-effectively by
the existing electrochemical unit at the site. .
Subsequent to this investigation " a large-diameter extra~tion well,
Well CWP-18, was installed near the retort area to contain
(1) In March 1984, D'Appo10nia was acquired by IT Corporation.
3-5
'" -' '" ,,\ '
..::' '::",,' 2' \.
. 0.-:: .-
~:... '
-------
. contaminated ground water to the exti:.!~;~ 'pi'~~'sible~ Als~, ai...
inj ection well, Well CWP-19, was installed hydraulically upgradient
of the retort area and the existing chromium plume ~o that excess
treated water could be injected back into the water-bearing zone.
The retort area extraction well and the upgradient injection well
are described further in section 5.0.
':In response to concerns expressed by. the regulatory agencies,
~regarding the effectiveness of the extraction trench and the slurry
"cutoff wall in remediating and containing the chromium plume near
the eastern site boundary, Geosystem performed a number of
investigations to evaluate aquifer parameters, assess the leaching
. ,behavior of soils, and estimate the' d~ration of aquifer cleanup
(Geosystem, March 1986; November 1986). A number of additional on-
site and off-site mo~itoring wells (Wells CWP~22, AT-4, and AT-5)
were also installed to investigate ground water' quality'
hydraulically downgradient of the slurry cutoff wall. The
locations of the on-site and off-site ground water monitoring wells
are shown in Figure 2, and the well construction details are
summarized' in Table 1.
In addition to the studies performed by their consultants, CWP
conducted regular' ground water monitoring using their own
resources. The ground water monitoring program was. originally,
specified by the RWQCB in Order No. 83-93, which was adopted in
June 1983. Order No. 83-93 has been revised and/or superseded
several times as additional monitoring wells have been installed
and existing wells abandoned or deleted from the monitoring
program. The current monitoring'program is in accordance with the
requirements of the most recent revision of the RWQCB, order (May
1987). Monitoring includes the collection and analysis of storm
water samples for chromium and arsenic. The monitoring program
also includes ground water level measurement and the collection and
3-6
~~ .:~:.~~ ~\ . i '-," ,:: :~:'
-------
analysis c;:: ' S:<',.,'),1 tH' ?O:r.' (1j sf~olved ,total chromium.
Ground' water In"":'.i: ,.,:,'ing is pe:i':Lv)\ui..;;:' "c.;;;!;;;ording to the Grou'nd Water'
Monitoring Protocol (Geosystem, August 1987) prepared specifically
for the CWP project.
The water level measurement and ground water quality data obtained
by CWP, consultants acting on behalf of CWP, and regulatory agency
personnel have been compiled by Geosystem on a computer-based data
management system. A summary of these data is presented in
Appendix B. A summary of the storm water quality data is presented
in Appendix C, and a summary of the soil quality analyses performed
is presented in Appendix D.
Because of the large volume of previously reported investigations,
this summary is intended to provide only a brief introduction to
the characterization studies performed at the site. Add~tionali
details and interpretation of the findings of these investigations
, ' ,
are presented in Section 4.0 and in the subject-specific technical
reports referenced.
3.3 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
This section includes descriptions of topography, physical setting,
demography, climatology, sensitive structures, 'and potential
receptors.
3.3.1 TODoaraDhy
The CWP site is located in the Ukiah Valley. In the vicinity of
the site, the valley floor is about 2.5 miles wide. The valley
tapers to an unnamed, narrow gorge, several hundred feet wide, 'at
a point about 4.5 miles south of the site. The Russian River flows
south through this gorge from the Ukiah Valley into Hopland Valley.
The valley floor at the site is at an elevation of about 565 to 585
3-7
~ ~ .:1: ~ ~ 'f- \,~ . f -.-= ,:~ -~: '.-
-------
feet above mean sea leve'l (MSL) and slopes gC~'.:..~..'1 ';'.:' ~-::',1.tL',,,
along the axis of the valley, at a gradient of about'0.2. percent
. .
(1 in 5(0).
The Ukiah Valley is bounded by steep mountains to the east and
. west. Those to the east of the site are known as the Mayacmas
. .
. .,:Mountains and rise to over 3,600 feet above MSL. The mountains to
:..the west include Cleland Mountain and Elledge Peak which rise. to .
~~',over 2,500 feet above MSL. The slopes of the mountains bounding
the Ukiah Valley range from about 12 to 67 percent.
[
Steep-sided valleys, approximately perpendicular to the axis of
the Ukiah Valley, are also prominent topographic features. These
valleys typically contain tributaries to the Russian River~ The
most significant of these with respect to the CWP site is the
-.valley occupied by Robinson Creek, which enters the Ukiah Valley
from the west, approximately 4,500 feet south of the CWP site, as
shown in Figure 1.
The topography of the CWP site itself has been locally altered by
grading for drainage and foundation purposes. In general, however,
the land surface slopes gently to the east, towards Taylor brive.
3.3.2 Site Features .
In terms of surface structures, the site features a general office
in the northwest corner and a garage or service-type structure near
the center of the site. . The two retorts in which lumber is
pressure treated are orientated east-west near the western site
boundary. Each retort chamber is approximately 70 feet long. The
rail lines associated with each retort extend about 140 feet to the
east. The sump to which the retorts drain' is located at the
3-8
. .
~.-'::: ~~\..'~'-'-:'_:::::~'
\.':- . ',' ~ ~ -'~ . ......
-------
[--------------
,- ,
'l'ne \\::C,;;J~ &/4 '- '.... ,;:Lng solut:lon is
. .
recycled to, and stored in,four large, above-grqund tanks along
the western site boundary.
eastern end of' the vesse:ls.
other significant site features include a walled work tanK area in
which, wood preserving solution is mixed. This work tank area
. - -
includes a large concrete sump containing "make-up" water. Ground
water extracted from Wells HL-7and CWP-18 is discharged to this
sump to be recycled in the .wood preserving operation. A large,
330,000 gallon, above-ground tank is used to store treated ground
. water.
The majority of the site is paved with asphalt concrete an~ is used
for wood storage. Treated woo~ is stored in the northeast corner
of . the site. Surface runoff from this area is controlled by\
asphalt berms and collected in a sump on the eastern site boundary,
- ,
from, which it is returned. to the make-up water sump. The unpaved
. areas of the site are located along the southeastern and southern
site boundaries and are generally vacant or used ,for untreated wood
storage.
The CWP facility is fenced for security
sliding gates which'are locked outside of
used for untreated wood storage.
and is accessed via two
normal business hours or
3.3.3 Surroundina Land Use
The large maj ori ty of the land surface in Mendocino. County' is -
occupied by native vegetation and non-irrigated agriculture. A
study performed by the Department of Water Resources (May' 1980)
projected land use in several ground water basins along the Russian -
River. In 1974, native vegetation and non-irrigated agriculture
occupied over 185,000 acres in the Upper Russian ground water.
basin, in which the CWP site is located. Urban, irrigated
3-9
~ ,.:.~. ~,~ \:.. . ~-~ -~: .=-~ ~, ...
" - "
-------
agriculture; 'and recreational land use accounted for ,approximately.
3,400,9,900, and 250 acres, respectively. Projectiorts up to the
year 2000 suggest that urban and irrigated agricultural land use
. .
will increase at the expense of native vegetation and non-irrigated
agriculture. Projected recreational land use remains constant.
~The principal land use in Mendocino county is for timber
~production,'which provides two-thirds of the county's agricultural.
. ,
~revenues. Pasture and range land occupies 672,000 acres, while
fruit production, mostly grapes and pears, accounts. for 15,000
acres (County of Mendocino, 1985). Major land uses in the general
vicinity of the CWP site include vineyards, fruit and nut trees,
forested land, single family residences, and transportation. Land
use in the immediate vicinity of the CWP site includes timber-
related facilities, sewage' treatment, fruit trees (pears),
transportation (U.S.' Highway 101), business and commercia!
"
facilities, and vacant lots. 'Land use within a 1.5 mile radius of
.,the CWP site is shown in Fiqure 3.
3.3.4 Poculation Distribution
In 1986, the population of Mendocino. County was 74,267, about
50 percent of which resided in the Ukiah area. The population of
the city of Ukiah in 1986 was 13,331 (Greater Ukiah Chamber of
Commerce, June 1987). Other, smaller communities in the vicinity
of the CWP site include Talmage, located approximately 2 miles to
the northeast, and Hopland, located approximately 10 miles south
along U.S. Highway 101.
The main population center of Ukiah is approximately 3' mil~s to
the north of the CWP site. In the vicinity of the site., there are.
very few residences. Aerial photographs taken in April 1984
indicate only five residential structures within a quarter-mile
radius of the site boundaries. According to Greater Ukiah Chamber
3-10
~~ ..~~~~ ~ '\ . 'f -.- .Z ,~~ ~
-------
of Commerce records (JunelS~n;" ,'~~lE:::'....; <::.rt:, a,::,~"'/" '"'~;".'~', of 2.45
, "
residents per dwelling in the city of Ukiah. Using this statistic,
it appears that, t;here are less than 15 people living within a
quarter-mile of the CWP site.
Interviews conducted by Geosystem personnel indicate that there
are four houses, two duplexes, two bunk houses, and six motel units
in the study area within one-half mile of the CWPsite. It is '
noted that the motel units are used to house seasonal workers
associated with the Alex Thomas pear packing facility. During the
winter months, about 20 people may occupy these residences. In the
peak fruit harvesting season, however, this number may increase to
about 100.
3.3.5 Climatoloav'
This section characterizes the climate in the vicinity of the CWP'
site in terms of temperature"precipitation, and wind speed, and
direction. The data have been obtained from various locations in
and around Ukiah; however, it is believed that the variations in
climate over the relatively small distances from the CWP site are
not significant.
3.3.5.1 TemDerature
Ukiah has a relatively mild climate, characterized by dry, hot
summers and cool, wet winters. Based on records available, from
1877 to 1980, the average air temperature reportedly varies from
, .
46.0 degrees Fahrenheit in January to 73.7 deqrees Fahrenheit in
July, wi th an average annual air temperature, of 59.2 degrees
Fahrenheit. The maximum and minimum temperatures recorded in Ukiah
since records have been maintained were 114 and 12 degrees
Fahrenheit, respectively (Farrar, July 1986). Mean monthly air
temperature data for Ukiah are presented ,in Table 2.
3-11
~ - ~ ~ '\ - ~ -- ._- . '.
~ - "\, ''W '.. - - '-. '
,.= ~'-:::::;-. =
~--'. ,= \::::: ~ - ~ ,=.:.
-------
3.3.5.2 Precipitation .. .
Based on records available from 1877 to 1980, the. mean annual
precipitation in Ukiah is 36.27 inches. The records indicate,
however, that considerable variation in annual precipitation is
common in the Ukiah area with. variations of up to 30 inches
occurring in consecutive years. The maximum and minimum
. .
precipitation recorded during the period of record was 60.97 and
13~09 inches in 1890 and 1924, respectively (Farrar, July 1986).
Additional precipitation data, reportedly compiled from u.s.
Weather Bureau reports and Ukiah Fire Department records, indicate
that total precipitation was 70.19 inches in the 1982-1983 season
(Savings Bank of Mendocino County, ~987).
I .
The maj ori ty of the precipi tat ion falls as rain between the
beginning of October and. the end of April, with more than 50
percent of the annual rainfall occurring in December, January, and
February. Mean monthly precipitation. data, based on records
maintained from 1877 to 1980, are summarized in Table 2. . On-site
precipitation measurements have also been recorded by CWP personnel
since Qecember 1981. These data, summarized in Table 3, indicate
that the total annual precipitation has ranged from a low.of 17.05
inches in 1985 to a high of 51.34 inches in 1983. These data are
consistent with measurements recorded elsewhere. in the Ukiah area
and illustrate the large variations in annual precipitation
mentioned above.
3.3.5.3 ~ .
Wind data, recorded from 1950 to 1964 at two locations at the Ukiah
Municipal Airport, indicate that the mean annual wind speed was 3.7
to 3. 9 miles per hour (mph). Wind speeds are generally higher from
April to July and are lowest in November and December. 'The highest
mean monthly wind speed recorded was 6.5 mph in June 1959. The
lowest was 0.4 mph in December 1963 (California Energy Commission,
3-12
.. .
'" -= ~ ~ \' ., ~..:; =..' --= -:- ..
.:;- = ~ \. -::::- --.
~ ...:=~ ~ - ~ h .=.--
..
-------
,April 1985). The prevailing wind d.L...,,:; "",,~, u~:~ report,p.dly Dor'L;AV,~€st
to west (Greater Ukiah' Chamber of Commerce, June 1987) . The mean
monthly and annual wind speeds for the period of record are
summarized in Table 2.
3.3.6 Location of Water Wells
A well inventory was performed to locate water wells in the
vicinity of the CWP site and to determine their status. Sources,
of information included primarily records made available by the
DWR (June 1956; October 1986) and Willow County Water District
(WCWD). In addition, well logs available at DWR in Sacramento,
California were reviewed and the locations of wells in the
immediate vicinity of the CWP site were verified by field
inspection. The well inventory' focused on well locations, well
construction details, stratigraphy, and the beneficial uses of the
" \
extracted water.
The well inventory indicated the presence of several dozen wells
in the vicinity of the site. The locations of these wells are
shown in Figure 4. It shquld be noted that, with the exception of
the records maintained by WCWD, the information available on well
locations and construction details is often vague and incomplete.
Few of the wells have been identified according to the state well-
numbering system and the information regarding well locations is
typically imprecise and insufficient to locate the .wells
accurately. Geosystem has attempted to locate wells as accurately
as possible, based on the available information, and identify the
wells according to the state well-numbering system. The well
locations shown in Figure 4 must, however, be 'considered
approximate. The available well construction details and
beneficial uses of ground water are summarized in Table 4. It is
noted that the nearest water-producing well to the CWP site is Well
14N/12W-4D1, which is located about 1,000 feet to the south.'
3-13
~~ ,;%~~~\' -f .~=-- -~~:::.
-------
.'
/~Gcording to information obtained by Geosystem personnel, this well
is capped. and not currently active. Well, 14N/ 12W-4E1, however,
appears to be the nearest water-producing well. AC90rdingto the
owners of the property, the water is used for domestic and
irrigation purposes. This well is located about 1,500 feet to the
south of the CWP site.
.'
. .
~3.3.7 Potential Bioloaical ReceDtors
;ij Potential' biological receptors of contaminants originating from'
the CWP site are considered to include native vegetation, fruit
t~eesr. aquatic life in the Russian River and its tributaries, and
wild animals and birds.
. '
Vegetation types found in the upper portion of the Russian River
watershed include hardwood and mixed forest, chaparral, grassland,
.:. orchards and vineyards, and riparian woodland species. Th~
riparian woodland species include mule fact, sandbar willow, red
willow, and Fremont cottonwood (McBride and Strahan, 1981; JARA,
1974) . It is noted that most of the land located immediately
downgradient of the CWP site is occupied by pear orchards. The
. surface drains and creeks located downstream of the CWP facility
a~e seasonally vegetated with tulleys, sour dock, anise, wild rOSe,
peppermint, and cattails.
,.
L
The Russian River is important as a spawning ground for anadromous
fish, of which the principal varieties are steelhead trout and
silver (or coho) salmon. Other fish inhabiting the basin include
king (or chinook) salmon, small-mouth bass, American shad, striped
bass; and white catfish.
,
. '
. .
The Russian River basin supports a wide range of wildlife species,
including a substantial population of blacktailed deer, bandtailed
pigeons, .and pheasants. Several species of small mammals
1
~ .
L
! .
....
3-14
~.= '" ~ \. . ,,-.':-=: .
~.": .~~ ~ .~ 2' . <:..:-
-------
t.
i .
..
( .
\ .
associated with agricultural land use, i.b;:~"~, ~l.c;..E, a:.(
rabbits, are also found. in the area. The Russian' River basin
supports a variety of resident and non-resident waterfowl which
utilize the river habitat for nesting and refuge (u.s. Army Corps
of Engineers, March 1982).
3-15
~ = ~ ~ \, . '=0':::-= -= :- ~.
.- = ~ \. ~ =
~:-.~ -= ~ ~ - ~ ..' = - : .
-------
oUMMARY OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FINDINGS,
I
This section summarizes the geologic, hydr.0logic, and soil/ground
water quality data generated during the remedial investigations-.
Details of the remedial investigations have been submitted in a
"number' of previous technical reports, which are referenced as
:'appropriate. The content and format of the summary of remedial,
;~1investigation findings is in general conformance with the RAP
guidelines (DHS, September 1987).
4.1
GEOLOGY
. '
The discussion of regional geology and study area stratigraphy is'
'based primarily on published water supply papers/geologic reports
by government agencies, site-specific reports prepared by CWP's
consultants, and discussions with regulatory agency project
, \
.:"personnel. The discussion is intended to help interpret the
-stratigraphy encountered at the site in the context of the overall,
, -
. regional. geology and to identify and characterize the geologic
- ,
,uni ts pertinent to the CWP proj ect. The primary reference for
regional geology is a u.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report entitled
nGround Water Resources in Mendocino County, Californian (Farrar,
July 1986). Other sources of information are referenced as
appropriate~
..
.
4.1.1 Reaional Geoloav
Mendocino County is located largely within that part of the Coast
Ranges geomorphic province known as the Mendocino Range. The.
Mendocino Range is characterized by rocks of the Franciscan
Complex. The geologic units exposed at the surface in the Ukiah
Valley may be categorized as basement rocks or valley fill.
I
I,
i
I.....
Basement rocks are considered to include all pre-Pliocene
formations. About 95 percent of the surface exposures consist of
4-1
~~,E~~~\'~ .i-~;:- :~-- -
-------
basement rocks of the Franciscan Complex. In the vic;L:A.~.t~y. oft.he
site, the Franci~can Complex has been divided into the Coastal Beit
and the Central Belt based on lithologic and structural
differences. The division between the two is located along the
axis of the Ukiah Valley, wi th the Coastal Belt forming the
mountains that bound the valley to the west, and the Central Belt
forming the MayacmasMountains to the east. Valley fill refers to
. .
geologic units of Quaternary age or those that span late Tertiary.
and Quaternary age. Valley fill deposits are confined to several.
small basins along m~jor ~urface drainage features and the thin
alluvium in stream channels.
.'
Physiographically, the site. is located in the Ukiah Valley, a
north-south trending alluvial basin formed by the Russian River
and its tributaries. The valley fill within the Ukiah Valley has
been subdivided by Farrar (July 1986) into three distinct units:'
continental. basin deposits; . continental terrace deposits; and
Holocene. alluvium. The distinction is made according to the age
and origin' of the materials, although several investigators
(Cardwell, 1965; Farrar, July 1986) have reported difficulty in
differentiating between these units on the basis of the
descriptions usually available from well drillers logs. The areal
distribution of the valley fill units (Cardwell, 1965; Farrar, July
1986) is shown in Figure 5. A schematic section through the Ukiah
Valley, illustrating the stratigraphic. relationship between the
valley fill units, is shown in Figure 6.
. .
Based on stratigraphic information obtained from available water
well logs, a regional geologic cross-section along the axis of the
Ukiah Valley, parallel to the direction of ground water flow, has
been prepared. The approximate locations of the water-producing
wells, ground water contours, and the .section line are shown in
Figure 4. The regional' geologic cross-section is shown in
. .
4-2
Y. ~ ~ ~ ':. . .:::.....;::
.' -." ~ \ ~ ..
~ ...':''=~ ~ - -:::: .
-------
Figure 7. T.::.:!" h':.If the ~hree valley fill units referenced Cibove is
described below~ as they are believed to be the geologic units most
. .
relevant to the CWP project.
4.1.1.1 contin~ntal Basin Deposits
The continental basin deposits are of Pliocene and Pleistocene age
and represent the oldest of the valley fill units. The continental
~. basin deposits were deposited unconformably over the basement rocks -
~ of the Franciscan Complex by landslides and debris flow from the
adjacent highlands. Subsequent to deposition, the materials were
. .
reworked by gravity and stream processes.
. .
The complex depositional process resulted in a heterogeneous
mixture of loosely cemented gravel, sand, silt, and .clay. The
predominant material is clay which occurs in beds and as
. . \
intersti tial. material' between coarser grains of sand and gravel.'
. .
.The'high clay content and poor sorting result in generally low
permeabilities. .
The thickness of the continental basin deposits ranges from zero
along the margins of the Ukiah Valley to at least 500 feet near
its axis. No outcrops have been recorded along the western margin
of the Ukiah Valley near the site; however, extensive outcrops do
occur along the eastern side. Reportedly, the continental basin
deposits are likely to. occur at depth, beneath younger valley fill
deposits, over most of the Ukiah Valley (Farrar, July 1986).
4.1~1.2 Continental Terrace Deposits
. .
The continental terrace deposits have been subdivided (Cardwell,
1965) into older and younger terrace deposits. Younger terrace
deposits have been mapped along the western margin of the Ukiah
Valley in the vicinity of the site. Most of the city of Ukiah,
notably the downtown area along State Street, has been developed
4-3
~~ - ~1 ~ ~ ~ \ . -f- ~h =- . ~ -.- ~ .-
-------
I -
!
on younger terrace deposits... The occurrence of the younger terraCE! .
deposits at the surface along the western margin of the Ukiah
Valley is discontinuous where Robinson Creek emerges from the
adjacent highlands. Although lithologically very similar to the
.. .
continental basin deposits, the clay and . silt content of the
younger terraces is generally less. As in the continental basin
deposits, vertical and lateral discontinuity of individual beds
and lenses is common. The unit is generally considered to have
. low permeability.
The maximum thickness of the younger continental terrace deposits
is not accurately known, as they are very difficult to
differentiate from the underlying continental basin deposits.
4.1.1.3 Holocene Alluvium
\ .
The Holocene alluvium is composed of uncemented gravel, sand, silt,
and clay. The alluvium reportedly covers broad areas of the Ukiah
. .
Valley in the vicinity of the site (Cardwell, 1965; Farrar, July
1986) . The alluvium also extends into several. smaller valleys
. associated with tributaries to the Russian River, most notably the
valley associated with Robinson Creek. Within the central strip
of. the valley,' along 'the Russian River, highly permeable, loose
gravel and coarse sand deposits have been developed. These
deposits are in direct hydraulic communication with the surface
water in the Russian River.
"
The thickness of the Holocene alluvium is not accurately known,
again because differentiation between the Holocene alluvium and
the underlyinqcontinental basin deposits is very difficult. Areas
of high ,porosity and permeability occur due to the uncemented,
co~rse-grained nature of localized sediments. These areas of high
permeability are typically close to the present course of the
Russian River.
4-4
",:..:: '" ,v': . ",. . ..':.::::: .- "
~'-::.:;:,~ ~ \~ ~ ,_:~ :.,
-------
:. . ,. "'.. '.j .~:;
4.1.2 Study AreaStratiqraphv
Previous investigations by consultants to CWP(H. Esmaili &
Associates, August 1981; J.H.Kleinfelder and Associates, November
1982; D'Appolonia, May 1984; IT Corporation, June 1~85; Geosystem,
.January 1987) and by the RWQCB have included the installation of
,over 30 ground water monitoring wells and the drilling of numerous
.soil borings in the study ar,ea. Based on the information obtained,
] .
.from the above referenced investigations, attempts have been made
to assess the stratigraphy encountered at the site in the context
. . ,
of the. regional geology. Cardwell (1965) has mapped the contact
between the younger continental terrace deposits and the Holocene
alluvium as bisecting the CWP site as shown in Figure 5. Basedon
the, stratigra~hic information available from .the majority of the
borings in the study area, however, it has not been possible to
differentiate between, these units. As the terrace deposits are\
typically slightly elevated~ it is, possible that Cardwell
originally mapped the contact based on topographic relief. If so,
the const~ction of U.S. Highway 101 and the overall development
of the area appears to have obliterated any such evidence ot this
contact.
"
. .
Based upon a review of the stratigraphic logs recorded during the
, ,
site characterization studies, it appears that the materials
encountered in the study area generally correspond with the
continental basin and terrace deposits. ' The presence of elevated
terraces and the incised nature of the Russian River are indicative
of changes in stream level, probably as a result of recent
continued uplift of the region. Consequently, erosional processes
predominate over depositional processes and,' the more coarse-
grained, highly permeable sedi~ents. characterized as Holocene
alluvium may be limited to a narrow strip adjacent to ~he Russian
4-5
~.~ ~~\., '~_:: ,~:--
\:::' ". . '':0' ~ ~ - ~ . -. , ' ,
-------
-
, " : River channel. The relatively large. number' of' shaliow, . high
production wells immediately adjacent to the Russian River supports
this geologic conceptualization.
The stratigraphic information recorded on the available'drilling
logs has been used to construct subsurface. profiles A-A' and B-B',
which are shown in Figures 8 and 9 , respectively. As shown in the
subsurface profiles, the stratigraphy in the site area is
characterized by numerous and abrupt lateral facies changes. These.
conditions reflect a fluvial environment in which the depositional
condi tions w~re ,constantly changing, ranging from a very low
hydraulic energy (deposition of silt and clay) to high energy
(deposition of sand and gravel). The stratigraphy is, therefore,
complex and correlation of the various units is not self-evident.
. -
There are, howev~r, general lithologic trends which are functionaL
in terms of the hydrologic behavior of the sediments and the
migration of chromium. Based on these trends, four zones, Zones 1
through 4, have been defined under the site.
Zone. 1 is the uppermost of the four zones. The stratigraphic
information indicates that Zone 1 is continuous throughout the site
and immediate downgradient vicinity. Zone 1 has been r~worked and
graded during the development of the CWP site and the construction
of ,Taylor Drive and several surface drainage features. The lower
boundary of Zone 1 is defined by a blue, clayey silt/silty clay,
gleyed horizon. Zone 1 is underlain in sequence by Zones 2,3,
and 4.
As the majority of the borings drilled for soil sampling and
. .
monitoring well installation pUrposes were relatively shallow, the
areal extent of Zone 2 is less. well defined. The available
information, however, indicates that Zone, 2 may be continuous from
Well CWP-17 on site to Well AT-4 off site (Figures 2 and 8).
4-6
I '
, ' .... '\. , ..
"'\'. ... "'\'""\' '. . .
. ,,-- .~. ~ .
\~ " . . \.:;:: -.:,: . '>.:.
-------
Little inf,:,:.:,.£:t:i.on is av~ilabl';". J:I?,S'cT.d.i.ng the continuity and areal.
extent of Zones 3 and 4; however, it is noted that they are not of
prime importance relative to the possible migration of chromium in
ground water. Each of Zones 1 through 4 is described below. .
4.1.2.1 Zone 1
'zone 1 is considered to extend vertically from the ground surface
"'to a depth of approximately 20 feet. Zone 1 consists primarily of '
. , '
, .
silty clay, clayey silt, and' clayey sand, with more permeable
. .
stringers and lenses of silty sand and gravel. The ,silty clays
and clayey silts are generally stiff to very stiff, l'ow to
moderately plastic, and locally contain carbon granules and healed
root holes. The colors of the soils ,in Zone 1 have been recorded
as yellow-brown to mottled gray and brown. Varying amounts of very
soft, deeply weathered fragments of sedimentary rocks
. . \
(predom1nantly mudstone) are present 1n the clay. Based on the
~ .
generally variegated appearance, and embedded rock fragment? in a
clay matrix, it is believed that the clay has been developed in
situ from the younger terrace deposits. . stringers of gravel and
fine sand are' present in the clay which yield varying, but
generally limited, quantities of water. As shown in Figures 8
and 9, the lateral continuity of these stringers is thought to be
limited as correlation for significant distances does not appear
to be possible.
Zone 1 is considered to be' the zone most impacted by chromium
compounds. The lateral migration through this zone appears to be
limited to the irregular, more permeable sand and gravel lenses.
The off-site migration of chromium in these more permeable strata
has been retarded by the installation of the slurry ~utoff wall
and ground water ~xtraction from Well HL-7. The slurry cutoff wall
reportedly extends throughout the full depth of Zone 1. The
i
I
I
4-7
.., - - " ~ '\ . ~ ,-.'- . -
,,-- " .....:~' ...... - - -'. .
. -. '~' ~ --
~',~.~;~~ ~ . ~ ..;;"~_.'-
-------
,. ';",~.cai::.ion through' the soils within Zone 1, is believed .to
be very slow because of the apparent heterogeneity and
discontinuity of permeable lenses.
The lower boundary of Zone 1 is considered to be the very stiff,
blue, gleyed, clayey silt/silty clay layer which is typically 4 to.
5 feet thick. The gleyed and relatively ~niform quality of this
. .
stratum indicates a well-weathered (older) development and low
. .
hydraulic conductivity. As shown in Figures 8 and 9, this blue
clay/silt layer has been intercepted by numerous borings at the
site and correlates reasonably well from the center of the site as
far south as Boring AT-5. This stratum is less well defined near
the retorts; however, it is noted that the topography in this area
is elevated and the borings are generally shallower. The blue
clay/silt layer appears to limit downward migration of chromiumi
from Zone 1 to Zone 2.
The correlation of this stratum depends primarily on its
distinctive blue coloration. The apparent absence of this blue
clay/silt layer in some borings (CWP-1J and CWP-17) may be
attributable to geologic conditions and/or to sampling and
descriptive procedures. For example,' as shown' in Profile A-A'
(Figure 8), the blue clay/silt layer was encountered in Well
CWP-22; further to the north, however, in Well CWP-1J, the fine-
. .
grained, sediments have been replaced by a sandy facies. Itis
possible that the blue clay/silt layer was deposited' and later
eroded and replaced by a channel-fill, representing a higher energy
facies. On the other hand, the omission may be due to the sampling
interval, as compared with the thickness of the layer. .
4.1.2.2 Zone 2
Zone 2 consists of a sand and
approximately 5 to 10 feet thick.
gravel layer which varies from
The sands and gravels in Zone 2
\
4-8
1--
", .--' '" "\' . ",- -' _c..: : "
,,',-, ~" ~ "
~,,'-'~ ~ - ~ ,',',:.
-------
generally contain appreciable am(.;'".'" t" ;' <. I,'~~ and ' clay, "and are
dense and slightly cemented in some areas. 'Most of the gravel is
subangular and less than one-half inch in size. stringers of
pooriy graded fine sand and medium coarse sand are'also present.
In Boring AT-4, a thin layer of silt is present within Zone 2.
~ Zone 2 is believed to be the most significant water producer of
the four zones in the site area. As shown in Figure 8, Zone 2 can'
~ '
!, be correlated between the deep borings from south of the retort
area to off-site areas. Zone 2 appears to decrease in thickness
to the southeast and was not encountered at all in Boring AT-5.
This may suggest that Zone, 2 is discontinuous to the southeast or
is confined to channels which were not intercepted by Boring AT-5.
4.1.2 . 3 Zone 3
. \
Zone 3 is considered to be the stiff, olive-brown, clayey s~lt
'. . .
stratum that forms the lower boundary of Zone 2 . Zone 3 ,has been'
encountered in several borings, as shown in Figure 8, and can be
correlated from off-site areas around Well AT-4 to Well CWP-13 at
the site. The thickness of Zone 3 appears to vary from 4 to 6
feet. The low permeability of the soils in Zone 3 are expected to
, , ,
significantly restrict the vertical movement of ground water.
4.1.2.4 Zone 4
Zone 4 is considered to be the clayey sand and gravel stratum which
underlies Zone 3. As shown in ,Figure 8, this stratum appears to
be continuous from the pear orchard to ,at least the eastern
boundary of the site. The sparsity of deep borings in the northern
and western portions of the site does not permit further
correlation. It is noted, however, that the permeability of Zone 4
appears to increase to the southeast. In BOr1.ng CWP-13, Zone 4 is,
characterized as a medium to coarse sand with some silt and gravel;
4-9
~ ~ , :~ ~~ -} \~ ' i '-, :C' ..~. . ~.~ ~
-------
and in BOi.'ing' A~-5 as a clean sand and sandy gravel.
producing characteristics of Zone 4 vary accordingly.
The.water~.
An alternative scenario for the varying permeability is that to
the northwest, Zone 4 represents the terrace deposits described in
section 4. 1. 1.2. To the southeast, Zone 4 may represent the
Holocene alluvium associated with the Russian River or Robinson
Creek.
4.2 GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY
The following sections provide a summary of general ground water
conditions in the. valley fill deposits of the Ukiah Valley and a
description of ground water occurrence in the strata encountered
beneath the CWP site.
4.2.1 Reaional Ground Water Conditions
Ground water occurs primarily in the valley fill deposits in the
Ukiah Valley. In the continental basin deposits, ground water.
occurs under confined conditions and wells completed in this unit
generally produce water "slowly" because of the fine-grained nature
of sediments. The' spec~fic capacities of 30 wells completed in the
continental basin deposits range from 0.004 to 1.33 gallons/minute/
foot and "dry holes" are not uncommon (Farrar, July 1986).
Because they. are relatively thin and impermeable, the younger
terrace deposits are not considered a major source of ground water.
Wells completed in the terrace deposits may yield sufficient water
for low-capacity domestic or stock-watering wells. Specific
capacities of wells completed in the terrace deposits range from
0.02 to 7.1 gallons/minute/foot and fluctuations in the 'water table
can "drastically" affect well performance (Farrar, July 1986).
4-10
~ ~ . :'~1, \~~ ~ \ '~:". '~":;f .: ,: .,'
-------
'.
The Holocene alluvium is, c6nsidered the mus'~
bearing unit in th~ Ukiah Valley and provides
, ,
for sustained pumpage for municipal and irrigation wells." The
, .
,more permeable, coarser-grained sediments appear to be located
along the present course of the Russian River, as evidenced by
several high-production wells. These include community water
.~ supply wells operated by the Willow County Water District (WCWD),
,~j>' including Wells 14N/12W-9A1 and -9A2 and Wells lSN/12W-33E3, -33E4,
">' -33ES, and -33E6. The locations of these wells are shown in
Figure 4. Also, a series of wells,has been installed along the
western bank of the Russian River from south of the Ukiah Sewage
Disposal facility to the EI Robles Ranch. This series of wells,
shown in Figure 4, includes Wells 14N/12W-4B, -4G, -4J,-4R1, and
-4R2. These wells supply water for irrigation and are believed to
derive a portion of their production from surface water in the
\
Russian River, induced to flow through permeable alluvial deposits
as 'the ground water level is lowered by. pumping. It has been'
reported (Farrar, July 1986) that under most flow conditions,
ground water moves from the alluvium into the Russian River.
During periods of high water levels'in the Russian River, however,
the reverse situation occurs.
p~~ducti~e' ~atei-
"sufficient water
On a regional basis, ground water in the valley fill deposits flows
approximately north to south along the axis 'of the Ukiah Vall'ey.
Near the west margin of the valley, however, ground water generally
flows to the east, following the topography. Regional ground water
contours are shown in Figure 4.
4.2.2 studv Area Ground Water
In the study area, ground water occurs primarily in stratigraphic
. Zones 1 and.2. The following discussion focuses on these strata,
as they are of primary concern regarding the migration of chromium.
4-11
..... "-\"..... ..---.'.-
'" ...', " -..,' " '.. '
.," ~'~ '.
'-.' . " ,,~ ~ ,. ~ '
-------
"l'he ground wate1':.fl~: direction and hydraulic gradient havebee.n
established from water level. data accW!\ulated throughout. the
investigations performed at the site. These data are summarized
in Table B.1 of Appendix B. Based on water level measurements in
moni toring wells completed in Zone' 1, made by CWP personnel in
January 1987, Zone 1 ground water contours have been generated.
These Zone 1 contours are shown in Figure 10. The Zone 1 ground
water contours indicate an overall southeasterly direction of flow'
with a hydraulic gradient of about 0.005. This is consistent with
the direction of regional ground water flow shown in Figure 4. In
off-site areas to the southeast of the site, the contours indicate
a flow direction to the south with approximately the same hydraulic
. gradient.
I
As shown in Table 1, there are only three ground water monitorin~
wells ,Wells CWP-15 , CWP-22 , and AT-4, completed exclusively in
Zone 2. These three data points. are not sufficient to generate
ground water contours in Zone 2. Comparison of the ground water
levels in Wells CWP-15 , CWP-22 , and AT-4 with those in adjacent
Zone 1 monitoring wells, however, indicates that the Zone 2 water
levels are approximately 1 foot below those in Zone 1. Several
other wells (Wells CWP-7, CWP-8, CWP-9, CWP-14 , and CWP-19) are
. .
completed in Zones 1 and 2. The water levels in these wells
generally appear to reflect Zone 1 ground water levels.
The hydraulic properties of the water-bearing zones have been
investigated by previous consultants and Geosystem by means of
several pumping and slug tests (Geosystem, March 1986). The data
collected throughout these investigations have been summarized by
Geosystem (September 19, 1986). These data suggest that hydraulic
conductivities of Zones 1 and 2 are generally on the order of 10'3
to 10'2 em/sec. Zones 3 and 4 were considered to have lower
permeability; however, more recent stratigraphic data (Geosystem,
. .
.t.
4-12
" .:..:~ ~,...' , ~...:. .-. -.:.:.: ~ .-
.' " '.'::::::-- \. '.'::::::-- -"
~...--:.;~~. ~,~ . .--=n.:.
-------
January 1987) suggest that Zone 4 il'r-ybe. highly. pe:rIu€'3.hleto the
southeast of the site. Zones 3 and 4 are of less importance to the
remediation of chromium in off-site areas. A summary of the
hydraulic properties of Zone 1 is. presented in. Table 5 and a
.summary of the hydraulic conductivity data obtained by field tests
throughout the course of the site characterization studies is
presented in Table 6.
I
I.
I
I
~r.
4.3 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
The Russian River, which originates in central Mendocino County
and flows south to Sonoma Coast State Beach, is the most important
surface drainage system in the Ukiah Valley. At its closest point,
the Russian River flows approximately 2,000 feet to the east of the
CWP site. Flow in the Russian River is regulated by controlling
the contributions from several of its major tributaries. Minimum
flows are required t9 be ma~ntained, however, at variouslocation~
on the Russian River. One of these locations is at the junction.
of the East and West Forks of the Russian River, just north of
Ukiah. At this point, a minimum flow of approximately 150 cfs is
required (DWR, May 1980). The Russian River has numerous
beneficial uses, as described in Section 4.4.1.
Tributaries to the Russian River include numerous small streams
issuing from the mountains that border the Ukiah Valley to the east
and west. The most significant of these tributaries in the
vicinity of the CWP site is Robinson Creek, which merges with the
Russian River at a point about 4,500 feet to the southeast. The .
locati~ns of the Russian River and Robinson Creek, relative to the
CWP site, are shown in Figure 1.
i .
Flow in Robinson Creek occurs essentially year round and follows
the natural drainage course. Other, smaller surface drainage
features flow only when precipitation occurs in the Ukiah Valley
4-13
'-' ~ . :~:. ~ ~ ~ \.. . f' ~. :~::: "
-------
or the "'1~j~':'!':::'-1\.. ~',l:i':..J."".';;"", 'r,' ;::;:';1. vQ.tions by CWP personnel indicate
that, depending on the intensity and duration of the rainfall, flow
in these smaller surface drainage features may reach the Russian
River or percolate into the valley fill prior to reaching the
river. During the winter months, when the water table rises to
within 2 or 3 feet of the land surface, ground water may flow into
the low-lying surface drainage ditches. Under these circumstances,
water would be present in the ditches even when, no precipitation'
is occurring. Such water ,would not, however, be representative' of
storm water runoff originating from the CWP site.
Flow in the majority of these smaller surface drainage features is
intermittent and is controlled and diverted by culverts and
ditches. Several small ditches and culverts divert surface water
runoff around and' beneath the CWPsite. 'The locations of th~
ditches and culverts in the immediate vicinity of the site are
shown in Figure 2. The ditches that flow beneath and around the
CWP'site report to a common ditch that flows south, parallel to
and east of ,Taylor Drive. This common ditch flows east along the
northern boundary of the Alex Thomas pear orchard and bends south
along the railroad tracks. Flow in the ditch, by now augmented by
runoff from the pear orchard and the railroad corridor, enters an
east-west lateral drain which discharges to the Russian River. It
was observed in October 1987, that the lateral ditch contained
small amounts of water; however, the other tributary ditches' were
dry.
Surface water quality in the Russian River is considered to be of
"excellent to good quality" in terms of mineral content (DWR, May
1980) . Using electrical conductivity (EC) as an indicator of
, ,
mineral content, water quality standards recommend anEC of less
than 450 micromhos. The average ECof Russian River water, between
Potter Valley to' the north of Ukiah and Hopland to the, south,
4-14
I '
" -' '" v\" . ;,.._0'_'":'-.
,"', ~\, ~ '"
\..' " .' . '\.~ ,~. c ,>.. .
-------
,.
!
,.
l..
, .
. ~.
I .
, ;
. .
I'
" "
ranges from 140 to 190 micromhos. The aveI.d.9~ ):, J.-i~1E:~~.; i::>' l'1~h:9il'
(as CaC03)' which is . considered to be moderately. hard' and not
likely to adversely affect most beneficial uses (DWR, May 1980).
High, non-organic turbidity is an occasional problem in the Russian
River and its tributaries during periods of prolonged rainfall and
. .
release of water from Lake Mendocino. This turbidity may also be
,aggravated by the removal of gravel for use in construction, . as
~~the disturbed river channel can contribute significant turbidity
~to water in the Russian River.
4.4
BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER
This section summarizes the known beneficial uses of surface and
. .
ground water in the Ukiah Valley in the vicinity of the CWP site.
The beneficial uses of surface and ground water have been
summarized primarily from available reports published by various
" \
state government agencies. The sources of information are
,referenced as appropriate. An inventory of water-producing wells
. .
in the vicinity of the site has also been"performed. In addition
to aiding assessment of the beneficial uses of ground water, the
purpose of the well inventory was to identify and locate wells in
the vicinity of the site and document well construction details.
For the purpose of this discussion, and to maintain consistency
with DWR water supply assessment procedures, surface water is
considered to be "water flowing in the various stream courses plus
underflow. Underflow may be defined as subsurface water contained
in the channel deposits, which if extracted, would affect stream
flow within a short period of time" (DWR, May 1980). It is not
uncommon to install wells in the coarse,' stream channel deposits
immediately adjacent to the Russian River and extract'underflow.
As the underflow. and surface waters are in direct hydraulic
communication, extracted underflow is considered to be surface
water.
4-15
\"- ~ .~.-~\~~ ~ \. . f .:..~.~ .~'::
--i .:...
-------
--- ------ ------------;----
4.4.1 Surface Water
The Russian River is a major municipal water supply for Mendocino,
Sonoma, and Marin Counties . Inaddi tion to municipal supply, water
from the Russian River is used for agricultural, . industrial; and
recreational purposes..
According to the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coastal
Basin, the specific beneficial uses of the Russian River include:
o
.0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Municipal and domestic supply
Agricultural supply
Industrial service supply
Industrial process supply
Ground water recharge .
Navigation .
Potential hydropower generation
Contact water recreation
Non-contact water. recreation
Warm freshwater habitat
wildlife habitat
Fish migration
Fish spawning.
\.
other than contributing to the Russian River, little information
is available regarding'direct beneficial uses of the numerous small
tributary streams. The beneficial uses of water in the tributary
. ditches flowing around the CWP site, however, include wildlife
habitat and, during portions of the year, freshwater habitat. In
addition, ground water. recharge is a beneficial use of the water
in these tributaries.
;
f.
, .
The approximate volume of surface water for agricultural and urban
use in 1975 was estimated to be 10,600 and 6,000. acre-feet,
respectively. The demand on surface water resources is projected
to increase to about 14,200 and 6,800 acre-feet for agricultural
and urban use, respectively, by the year 2000 (DWR, May 1980).
i.
4-16
. ,':~. .:~.: \.\.y, ~ \ . i -- .c' .:~ '-. -
-------
4.4.2 Ground Water .. .
Beneficial uses of the ground water resources in the vicinity of
the CWP site include primarily community water supply, domestic
water supply, and irrigated agriculture.
In general, well location and the particular unit of the valley
fill in which a well is completed influence yield and the
beneficial use of the extracted water. Wells completed in the -
~ . . . "
continental basin and terrace deposits generally yield ground water
K~ .
in amounts suitable only for low-capacity domestic wells, stock-
watering wells, or limited irrigation wells (Farrar, July 1986).
, .
Wells completed in the Holocene alluvium can yield sufficient water
under sustained pumping for municipal and irrigation supply. WCWD
, .
, .
extracts'ground water from wells located in the Norgard Lane well
field, approximately 2,200 feet north of the CWP site, and from two,
. .. \
:~ells near the Russian River, approximately 8,000 feet south of the
CWPsite.
-.
I .
4.5 SOIL. STORM WATER. AND GROUND WATER OUALITY
This section presents the distribution and occurrence of chromium
and other indicator parameters in soil, storm water,and ground
water in the study area. ,Throughout the remainder of this report,
hexavalent chromium is referred to as Cr(VI) and trivalent chromium
is referred to as Cr(III). Unless specified.otherwise, chromium
refers to total chromium. Water and soil quality data have been
generated over several years of site characterization studies and
monitoring. Ground water, storm water, and soil quality data are
contained in Appendices B, C, and D, respectively, and are
summarized in the following sections.
4.5.1 Distribution of Chromium. Arsenic. and Co~~er in Soil
A total of 26 soil borings (Borings S~l through S-26) were drilled
(D'Appolonia/IT Corporation, May 1984) 'in the study area to assess
4-17
'" '. _: '" ,,', . . :::--. - :. - -'.~ -
, ' . ..::::::-- \...::::::-- . C'
~'.."\~ ~ ,~ ,.'
-------
the areal extent of chromium, arsenic, an<.4 cCJlJperin soil to a
. . .
depth of about 20 feet. 50il samples were collected at depths of
1, 3, 6, 10, 15, and 20 feet. Near-surface soil samples from
depths of1 and 2 feet were also collected from 17 other locations
(G-1 through G-17) to further delineate the areal distribution of
chemicals in near-surface soils. The locations of the soil
sampling stations are shown in Fi~re 11. All soil samples were
analyzed for total or hexavalent chromium, arsenic, and copper.
A summary of the data is presented in Tables D.l through D.4 of
. Appendix D. Plots of chromium concentrations with depth f.or
. .
selected borings are also included in Appendix D. All
concentrations reflect the totai quantity of the metals present in
the samples. The sample ID provides a designation for either a
boring (5) or a surface sample (G), followed by a number
identifying the location. The last. number in the designation,
iden~ifies the depth at. which the sample was collected. From a
general review of the data, the following observations can be made:
o
Elevated chromium concentrations exist in the upper
3 feet of soil and especially in the top 1 foot
(G-l0, 1'; 5-4,1'; 5-8,0'; 5-5,0").
o
Chromium concentrations in samples collected from
more than 3 feet below the surface are generally
. lower than 50 mg/kg in all borings, except in 5-8
at the 10-foot depth and 5-10 at the 15-foot depth.
o
Chromium concentrations are higher in borings near
the retort and sump areas. . .
o
The maximum detected concentrations of chromium,
copper, and arsenic in surficial soils are 540,
230, and 220 mg/kg, respectively (Appendix D) .
Generally, there appears to be. good correlation
between chromium, arsenic, and copper
concentrations. . .
o
In order to compare background chromium concentrations in areas
not affected by CWP operations, with areas that are possibly
, .
4-18
" --" " ~ ",: .
,> . ",,' : ". \>. ~ \,' ~-:..'
-------
impacted by wood preserving, operations, the data for' Bori:ngsS-1
(upgradient), 5-26 (background), 5':'5, 5-8,5-10 (retort and sump
area), 5-15, 5-22, and 5-25 (downgradient) have been .summarized in
Table D.4 (Appendix D). Boring 5-8 is located at the eastern end
of the rail lines and Boring 5-10 is the closest boring
topographically downgradient of the retorts. It should be noted
,that no samples have been collected from under the retort/process
:area. . 5ampling, in these areas is not' possible during normal
'facility operation. The salient features of the data include'the
, following:
o
Higher chromium concentrations are observed in the.
surface samples near the retort and sump areas.
Chromium concentrations in Boring 5-1 (upgradient)
samples collected below the 3-foot depth are
generally in the same range as those observed in
other borings.
o
o
~
The background and upgradient concentrations of
chromium, arsenic,. and copper in Borings. 5-26
and 5-1 samples are generally less than 50 mg/kg,
less that 14 mg/kg, and less than 20 mg/kg,
respectively. '
. .'
50il samples containing chromium concentrations greater than
100mg/kg were selected to represent surface soils with definite
chromium contamination. The approximate area of such contamination
is shown in Figure 11. The majority of the. surface soils
containing elevated chromium concentrations are in the area around
the retort and sump units where freshly treated wood has been
stored. A narrow band of surface soils with approximately
100 mg/kg of chromium is present to the south of the retort
chambers. The areal extent of elevated arsenic concentrations in
the near-surface soi15 is similar to chromium distribution except
, .
in isolated areas with near background concentrations (G-3, G-7,
G-8). The approximate areas encompassing greater than 14 mg/kg
arsenic concentration are shown in Figure 11.
4-19
.~ -.: '" "\" - ...:. .,-_w ''::'': ~- ..
~-,',:~~ ~'\~ ~--~_:./
-------
4.5.2 storm Water Oualitv ,
This section sUmmarizes the available water quality data obtained
, ,
from storm water samples collected at theCWP site. Flow in the
ditches and culverts around and beneath the CWP site occurs as a
result of precipitation in the Ukiah Valley or the adjacent
highlands. As noted in section 4.3, ground water may be present
in low-lying drainage ditches on a continuous basis during the
winter months. A differentiation is made, however, between this
, ,
water and storm water runoff.
A surface or storm water monitoring program is in effect at the
site and several storm water monitoring locations have been
established. Currently, the storm water monitoring program
includes collection of samples from stations NE, NW, and C-100. i
Up until December 1984, Stations SE and SW were also monitored.
The locations of these ,stations are shown in Figure'2. Prior to
instituting surface water flow control at theCWP site, storm water
samples were periodically collected and analyzed. RWQCB staff have
indicated that the measured concentrations of metals in 1980 and
1981 were much higher than in subsequent years.
Monitoring Station NW is located at the entrance to the culvert
that conducts storm water under the CWP site from the west side of
U.S. Highway 101. The water quality data collected at ,this
location is considered to represent upgradient or background
conditions.
Monitoring Station NE is located on Taylor Drive at the confluence
of ,the above-mentioned culvert and the ditch around the
northeastern portion of the perimeter of the, CWP site. Data
collected at this location provide an indication of the quality of
surface runoff from the northern portion of the CWP site. It is
4-20
'" ,..: ~ ,,\' , ",.., ',' -': '
,"", ~\" ~ '~',
~ "':':~ ~, - ~ ' ,'.'.', , ,
-------
noted, however, that asphalt berms have been constructed to divert
surfac~ runoff from treated. wood storage areas to a collection
. .
sump. From this sump, the water is recycled into CWP' s wood
preserving operations.
I
I,
Monitoring station C-100 is located approximately 100 feet
aownstream of the confluence of flow passing from station NE and
that flowing beneath the CWP site through a second culvert near'
," . .'
'the southern site boundary. Comparison of data collected from this
location with that from Monitoring Station NW provides an
indication of the overall impact of surface runoff from the CWP
site on storm water quality.
It is noted that areas other than the CWP site also contribute to
flow at all three storm water monitoring stations.. The possible.
impact of these contributions must be considered when evaluating'
storm water quality.
storm water samples are currently analyzed ,for dissolved total
chromium and arsenic; however, in thg past, analyses for dissolved
Cr(VI) and copper have also been performed. The most recent and
comprehensive data, representing January 1988, are presented in
Table 7. The historical storm water quality data are summarized
in Appendix C. The data indicate that chromium, arsenic, and
copper are occasionally present at detectable concentrations in
storm water flow sampled at Stations NE and C-100. It is noted,
however, that the measured concentrations are typically close to
the detection limits and the concentration of Cr(VI) has
occasionally exceeded the drinking water standard of 0.05 mg/l
withiri the last five years. Chromium, arsenic, and copper
concentrations in samples collected from Monitoring Station NW have
been at or below detection limits since 1983, with the exception
of arsenic which was measured at 0.006 mg/l in January 1986 at
4-21
'" -' "" ,,',' . ,'.... ---' .~. : -
." -.:::....' \. ~ . - .
~ "'. . ,-,~. . ~ - -:.' ' '. .
-------
Station NW. The most recent data, represel.ting April.. 1988, show
. .
non-detectable concentrations of chromium and arsenic in Monitoring
Stations C-100, NE, and NW.
In addition to CWP's monitoring,the RWQCB staff have obtained
storm water samples since 1984. which have been analyzed for
Cr(III), Cr(VI), arsenic, and copper. The potential impact from
past and current discharges are discussed in section 6.0.
4.5.3 Ground Water Oualitv.
. .
Ground water quality monitoring has been performed at the CWP site
since 1981. The chemical analyses have generally included total
dissolved chromium, arsenic, and copper with occasional
measurements of dissolved Cr(VI). The comprehensive ground water
quality data, representing January 1988 conditions, are presented \
in Table 7. All historical ground water quality data have been
summarized in Table B.2 of Appendix B. The water quality data
indicate that:
o
The wells completed in Zone 1 near the. retort area.
generally exhibit ~igher chromium concentrations.
and the concentrations decrease hydraulically
downgradient. <
o
The maximum detected concentrations of
chromium and hexavalent chromium in ground
occurred in Well CWP-6 at 125 and 78
respectively.
Chromium concentrations have generally decreased
with time. Wells CWP-2A, CWP-2B, CWP-6. (near
retort area), CWP-8, CWP~ll (near site boundary),
and FPT-3, FPT-4, FPT-5, AT-2 (off site) support
this observat~on. .
total
water
mg/l,
o
o
The concentrations of chromium inon-si te wells
completed in Zone 2 are not significant and may
result from limited communication with Zone 1.
o
Zone 2 does not contain elevated
concentrations in off-site areas.
chromium
4-22
,;.
d. " ~.
. ~..... \-
f"
-------
o
Zones 3 and 4 do not appear to be impacted by the
presence of chromium.
Selected ground water quality data have been used to generate
chromium is~concentrations to provide an areal representation of
. .
,the chromium plume in ground water. Data from January/February
:.i1986, April 1987, and January 1988 are. used to plot isoconcentra-
'''.tions, as. shown in Figures' 12, 13, and 14, respectively. These
~figures indicate that elevated chromium concentrations are present
in ground water primarily in on-site areas to the west of the
siurri wall. Comparison between the three sets of isoconcentra-
tions indicates the apparent trend of decreasing chromium
concentrations wlth time in monitoring wells located hydraulically
downgradient of the slurry cutoff wall. It should be noted that
"these isoconcentrations have been developed based on data obtained',
'from all wells and do ~ot differentiate between the' various
stratigraphic zones. However, the data represent primarily the '
water quality of Zone 1. .
Of the ground water monitoring wells located hydraulically
downgradient of the slurry cutoff wall, only Wells CWP-8 and AT-2
have occasionally indicated the presence of chromiUm in excess of
the drinking wa ter standard. (0. 05 mg/l). In 1988 , chromium
~oncentrations in Well CWP-8 exceeded the drinking water standard
twice. other observations showed chromium concentrations at or
below the detection limit of 0.02 mg/l. The most recent data, for
June and July 1989, show less than 0.02 mg/l chromium concentration
in Well ewp-8. In 1988, chromium concentrations in Well AT-2
ranged from less than 0.02 to 0.05 mg/l. Eight observations showed
less than 0.02 mg/l chromium concentrations. Except 'in January
1989, where 0.04 mg/l chromium was detected, all other data for
1989 show less than 0.02 mg/l chromium concentration in Well AT-2.
Well AT-2 is completed entirely wi thin Zone ~; however, other
4-23,
o .: "" ,,\" . ~ ~
." ~ \' ,-.....
'~"..." .'~.. ~ - ,..'
. .
-------
'. .'
Zone 1 monitoring wells downgradient of Well. AT-2 have not shown
the presenc~ of chromium.. Also, Zone 2 in the vicinity of Well
AT-2 does not contain detectable levels of chromium (Geosystem,
January 1987).
To demonstrate the trend of decreasing chromiu~ concentrations with
time, water quality data obtained from Wells CWP-6, FPT-3, andAT~2
have been plotted in Figures 15 ~ 16, and 17, respectively. The.
reduction in concentration is more evident in off-site Wells FPT-3
. and AT-2 as compared wi thon-si te Well CWP-6. The decline in
chromium concentration with time in Well CWP-8, on a semi-
logarithmic basis, is shown in, Figure 18. The area near Well CWP-8
is assumed to be the potential source of chromium tooff-si te
areas, since it is to the east of the slurry wall and not contained
by on-site remediation efforts. The water quality data for Well'
CWP-6 (Figure 15) show a considerable' reduction in chromium
concentrations from over 120 mg/l in 1981 to about 50 mg/l in June
1985. Since 1985, chromium concentrations have varied somewhat:
however, the overall concentrations have not c~anged significantly.
Similar reductions in chromium concentrations can be observed in
Figures 16 and 17 for Wells FPT-3 and AT-2, respectively. The
chromium concentrations in Wells FPT-3 and AT-2 generally
demonstrate a steady decline in chromium concentrations. The
chromium concentration in Well FPT-3 has been below the drinking
water standard of 0.05 mq/l since February 1986. Also, the most
recent water quality data for Well AT-2 (Table B.2 of Appendix B)
indicate the concentration of chromium is generally below the
detection limit of 0.02 mg/l'. The trends in, chromium
concentrations in off-site areas are discussed further in
Section 6.0, which addresses migration pathways and risk
assessment.
4-24
,,-= '" "':: ' :;:-,,: '_':.
" '" ~ \' -.:::::--
,,\, , . \ <::-. '<~:' '.
-------
I
4.6 -IN::>:LcAT0R PARAMETERS
site characterization studies have shown the presence of chromium,
copper, and arsenic in soil'and the presence of chromium in ground
water. These compounds, therefore, are considered to be indicator
parameters for use in further site characterization studies and
,possible soil remediation activities. For monitoring and ground
water remediation, however, dissolved total chromium and Cr(VI) are
considered, to b~ the most relevant indicator parameters. , The'
, '
rationale for this selection is that chromium, compounds,
'particularly Cr'(VI), are more soluble and more mobile in the
subsurface environment than arsenic and, copper compounds. In
addition, previous monitoring efforts have not detected copper or
arsenic in ground water.
4.7 GEOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES \
To evaluate the migration rate and leaching characteristics of
chromium, 'a number of geochemical tests were performed. These
tests included chemical analyses for total' chromium, Cr(VI),
organic matter, Waste Extraction Tests (WET), batch sorption tests,
and column desorption tests. Detailed descriptions of ,these tests
, '
,and test results have been submitted previously (IT Corporation,
June 1985): however, the findings of these studies, pertinent to
, ,
the RAP, are summarized below.
4.7.1 Soil SamDle Analvses
Nine soil samples were selected for analyses to determine the
relative concentrations of total chromium and Cr(VI). The results'
are presented in Table D.5 of Appendix D. The data show that the
concentrations of Cr(VI) in the samples analyzed are generally less
than 10 percent of the total chromium content. From the data it
can be concluded that most of the chromium present in the soil is
not in hexavalent form. Previous, studies have shoWn that the
4-25
I .
~ -' '", ,,',' . -;- . - ::
,," ~\,~
"', ..-.'~ ~ ." ~
.,-
. ,
. .
-------
i.
, .
trivalent forms of chromium under neutral conditions are less.
soluble and more subject to adsorption. er(III)" is, thus, less
susceptible to dissolution and is less mobile.
The organic content of the soil samples, reported in Table D.5 of
Appendix D, varied from less than 0.1 to 0.86 percent. Although
the organic content of the soil may not. be 'directly responsible
for adsorption of' Cr(VI), it may reduce Cr(VI) to Cr(III)
(Stollenwerk and Grove, 1985; James and Bartlett, 1983). Because
of the complexity of the geochemical reactions, the overall effect
. .
of organic matter on the reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III) cannot be
assessed.
4.7.2 Waste Extraction Tests
To evaluate the leaching characteristics of the contaminated soil\
with respect to dissolved total chromium, Waste Extraction Tests
(WETs) were performed according to the guidelines issued by the DHS
(January 1984). . The rationale for performing the tests for total
chromium was that it has been shown that a large percentage of the
chromium in the soil is in trivalent form. The WET results are
presented in Table D.6 of Appendix D. The results show that
according to existing criteria the soil is not considered a
hazardous waste. Although the WET results do not provide any
information on the long-term leachability of Cr(VI), the test was
designed to evaluate the leaching characteristics of total chromium
in ~oil under aggressive acidic conditions. The long-term leaching
behavior of Cr(VI) could be assessed if sufficient field data were
available. At this time, however, the collection and evaluation
of such data, under partially saturated flow conditions and' in
heterogeneous soils, is still in the research stage.
4-26
.~.~ . :".': ~ '" -} '\ . i" - ..: .
-------
4.7.3
Sort)1A on" ,!'ests
To evaluate the migration characteristics' of Cr(VI) in ground
water, batch sorption tests were performed on uncontaminated soil
samples. The tests were performed on two samples; one representing
the silty clay material of Zone 1 and the other the sand and gravel
of Zone 2. The tests were performed for two initial
concentrations of 1 and 10 mg/l. The results demonstrated that the
~ distribution coefficient (Kd) varies from 0.65 to 2.98 ml/g and the
, corresponding retardation factors (R) range from 4.9 to'12.4. The
retardation factor of 4.9 represents the minimum calculated value'
for the sand and gravel layer.
I
[ .
The results of batch sorption tests demonstrate th~t adsorption on
the soil matrix can occur, retarding the migration of Cr(VI) . - Even
though all the adsorption mechanisms and their relati ve
\
contributions are not known, the results of previous studies
. .
(Stollenwer~ . and Grove, 1985) support the conclusion that
adsorption of Cr (VI) on alluvial materials is likely. This is
particularly true for soils containing high concentrations of iron
oxides. The results of the sorption tests. have been utilized in
evaluating the migration behavior of chromium (Section 6.0).
. .
4.7.4 DesorPtion Tests
Desorption tests have been performed to evaluate. the behavior of
. .
Cr(VI) in the pore fluid as noncontaminated water flows through
contaminated soil. Two soil .samples, one classified as sandy
gravel and the other as clayey silt, were used for the desorption
studies. Solutions of sodium. chromate were first used' to
contaminate the soil samples. The initial concentration of the
. .
influent to the soil columns was 20 mg/l. However, since achieving
steady state conditions appeared to be very .slow, the influent..
concentrations were increased to 190 mg/l. The result of the
contamination phase of the desorption tests showed that more than
.. .
'...'
4-27
, .
~ ~ . :: ~ " i- \~ . f:- -C'~ ;~ -~ :~-i .
-------
I
I'
I
. .
.. .
70 pore volumes were requi'red to achieve steady state conditions. .
This may be an indication that '. the soils exhibit a considerable
adsorptive capacity for Cr(VI). Limited data on the iron content
of the soils underlying the site indicated the presence of about
23,500 mg/kg of iron. oxides and hydroxides of iron may contribute
to the adsorption of Cr(VI) (stollenwerk and Grove, 1985; James and
Bartlett,. 1983). .
The desorption phase was conducted by replacing the influent
solution with distilled water. The data showed that about 10 pore
volumes were required to reduce the effluent concentration of
Cr(VI) from approximately 185 mg/l to about 0.1 mg/l. The results
. also showed that, in the low concentration 'range, the rate of
reduction in concentration was very slow. However, it should be
noted that desorption per se is not a slow process.
..
It . should also be pointed out that the sorption and desorption
studies were conducted using distilled water as a solvent. This
may affect the sorption/desorption characteristics as compared to
the actual field conditions where the ground water contains a
number of other chemical compounds. For instance, the adsorption
of Cr(VI) in the presence of other salts .may be reduced
(stollenwerk and Grove, 1985) and the desorption may be enhanced.
However, the laboratory data using distilled water are considered
to have generated useful information under highly controlled
conditions. Since, the ground water characteristics vary with time
under actual field conditions,.. it appears that the long term
geochemical behavior can best be evaluated by studying field data.
The advantage of this approach is that any observations reflect the
aggregate effect of all hydrogeologic and geochemical processes
occurring in the field. .
,
i '.
!
. .
4-28
.': ~'. .:-::\~~?f \. . i- .
-------
The g:,:"ound wats1: leval .fluc'cuations and water quality data have
. .
been reviewed to assess possible correlation between ground water
level and chromium concentrations. . A~though certain wells
. .
exhibited a discernable trend of increasing chromium concentrations -
with rising ground water levels, the majority of the data do not
. suggest a relationship between the two factors. The column
-desorption test data have been .used to estimate the duration of
aquifer cleanup in terms. of pore wat~r volumes extracted as
discussed in section 7.0
. .
...
4-29
'"~
_.
-'" -. '" ~ ". . ~ - --. - ..
'- ~-::: "\\ ~ \ -.::; - - .-:;:. .
~ "" .:=~. ~ -.:::- : ,= - ~ - '-J,/
-------
5.0
INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES
Since the initiation of investigations .at the CWP site, a number
of improvements have been made. to the facilities and several
interim remedial measures have been implemented. . Overall
improvements to the CWP facility include extension of the area
covered by surface paving, erection of canopies over the wood
treatment area, and construction of berms to divert and control
surface runoff from treated wood storage areas. Specific remedial
measures include construction of a slurry cutoff wall, installation.
of a ground water extraction trench upgradient of the cutoff wall,
and installation of a ground water extraction well near the retort
area. Each of these measures is described in the following
sections.
5.1 GENERAL FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
In re$ponse to RWQCB requests and on a voluntary basis, over the
past several years, CWP has implemented a 'number of measures to
reduce and control surface runoff and eliminate the source of
. .
. .
chromium to soil and ground water. These measures have included
grading and construction of berms to prevent surface runoff from
the retort and treated wood storage areas, surface paving, and the
construction of roofs over the retort area. Surface grading and
berm construction was performed in 1981 and focused primarily on
the retort area and areas used to store treated wood. The
locations of the berms are shown in Figure 2.
I..
The asphalt paving was extended to the northern and southern
portions of the site in 1979 and 1981, r~spectively. The areal
extent of the surface paving is shown in Figure. 2. '. With. the
exception of the narrow strip to the east of the slurry wall, the
remaining unpaved areas, as defined in Figure 2, will be paved.
The paving serves to reduce the amount of water seeping into the
~
. .
5-1
':: .:~ . '" ~ \. . -::S ...:.:: '._~-' ~ :-
\::-:-.. .:-=~ ~. - ~ . .._.:..
-------
soil and possibly leaching chroIiiiu~u into ground water in' areas of,
, ,
elevated chromium concentration. In addition, the paving reduces
the likelihood of spilled wood preservatives and drippings from
treated wood directly infiltrating the soil. Forklifts and other
equipment used to handle treated wood are required to remain in
, .
: certain ,areas to avoid tracking of wood preserving chemicals to
.iareaswhere surface runoff is not controlled.
:.
.:'80.1
'" Three large roofs or canopies were erected in 1985 over the retort
and adjacent area, as shown in Figure 2. These covers prevent
precipitation from falling directly onto surfaces where wood
preserving chemical drippings from treated wood may be present.'
~The clean rain water running off these roofs eventually reports to
,surface drainage ditches around the CWP facility.
. It was observed that~the concrete utility box around Well CWP-10;
, located near the retort area, became filled with water during heavy .
precipitation at the site. Samples of water from the utility box
, ,
,were collected and analyzed. The results indicated high chromium
concentrations. Ground water samples from Well CWP-10' had also
indicated a sudden increase in chromium concentrations, from non-
detected to relatively high concentrations (Appendix B). It was
concluded that Well CWP-10 was conducting chromium~containing
,surface, runoff to ground water. Well CWP-10 was subsequently
abandoned by grouting ~,
5.2 SLURRY WALL AND EXTRACTION TRENCH
, , ,
In ~ctober1983, CWP constructed a slurry cutoff wall along the
eastern site boundary. The' slurry wall is reportedly about
300 feet long and 20 feet deep. CWP also installed a groundwater' ,
extraction trench immediately to the west, hydraulically upgradient '
of the slurry wall. The extraction trench is approximately 15 feet
long, 18:."feet deep, and 2 feet wide. The trench is gravel-filled
5-2
~ "~ -:-- \ . .... _.', - - ,-
~ ~..: ..:'0. ~ ..... ~ ~ i:- -, - .~_: .~ : ~ .I ~
-------
, , '
and a 12-inch diameter extraction well, Well HL-7, is, located
approximately at the mid-point of the trench. The well casing is
, ,
,perforated from 9 to 19 feet below grade and is equipped with a
permanent, electric submersible pump. Ground water extracted from
the trench via Well HL-7 is used directly in CWP's wood preserving
operations or transferred to the recycled water tank for subsequent
use.
The slurry wall is intended to intercept the plume of dissolved
chromium originating near the retort area and migrating to the
southwest in the direction of ground water flow. The slurry wall
location and configuration was based'on the known chromium plume
at the time. The extraction trench and Well HL-7 are intended to
. .
remove ground water impounded behind the slurry wall to prevent
flow around the northern and southern ends of the wall. It shoul~
be noted that the slurry wall and the trench were constructed by
CWP without the approval of the RWQCB' and without professional
supervision.
"
I
I
i
5.2.1 Recvclinq/Treatment of Extracted Ground Water
In the drier' summer months, extracted ground water is recycled
directly into CWP' S wood preserVing operations. In the wetter
winter months, when a higher rate of ground water extraction can
be achieved from Well HL-7, the extracted water that cannot be
utilized in CWP' s operations could be treated and discharged,
provided the appropriate permits are obtained. Ground water can
be treated using the existing electrochemical equipment at the
site. The electrochemical treatment process produces effluent
containing less than 0.05 mg/l of dissolved total chromium. The
, ,
operation details of the electrochemical unit are provided in
, Section 7. 2 . 4 .
5-3
'V.- . on:" y..-...':'-~'<....' --:"..
-- ~.-'"
,~ . .'...~ '';-: '-=--- c ~
'-
-------
5.2.2 Treated Grourid'Water DisDosal' -
As mentioned above, excess extracted groundwater that cannot be
recycled into wood preserving operations can be treated by
electrochemical process equipment. CWP had planned to reinject
the treated ground water into the water-bearing zone via an
- inj ection well, Well CWP-19, located to the west (hydraulically
,::-upgradient) of the retort area.
,~t'
t- Well CWP-19 was installed in August 1985 in - an open trench (IT
"Corporation, September 1985) . The trench was excavated using a
backhoe and is 25 feet long, 2.5 feet wide, and 24 feet deep. An
8-inch diameter, flush-threaded wel,l casing was then installed
approximately in the center ot"the trench. - The well casing is
perforated from 6 to 24 feet below qrade. - The trench was - then.
backfilled with washed pea gravel and a surface seal of 5 feet o~
. -
imported, medium-textured soil was placed and compacted.
According to CWP, Injection Well CWP-19 has not been effective in
accepting large volumes of treated water, particularly_during the
wet, winter months when ground water levels are high. This is of
, --
concern as the volume of ground water extracted from Wells CWP-18
and HL-' is highest during the winter months and, consequently,
the volume - of water to be disposed is also highest. After
evaluating this method of disposal of treated ground water,
injection was judged to be inappropriate during the winter months
and h~gh ground water level conditions. Under such conditions,
discharge in the Ukiah sanitary sewer system seems appropriate.
During summer months, however, injection into Well CWP-19 may be
a feasible alternative, if recycling is not possible or needed.
5.2.3 ObserVation Wells CWP-20 and CWP-21
On August 30, 1985, Observation Wells CWP-20 and CWP-21 were
installed at the northern and southern ends, respectively, of the
5-4
~ .::.: ~ v\"' ".=::- -= : :-
-. ':: "\ ~ ,- ~ .-:-
~--.. .:-:::: ~ ~ - -::: .. -'::--:-. ~ - ;'
-------
, .
'slurry cutof!' wall. The locations of these wells are shown in
Figure 2.. The purpose of these wells was to enable an assessment
of the effectiveness of extraction from Well HL-7 and the integrity
of'the slurry wall.
Wells CWP-20 and CWP-21 were installed in 8-inch diameter borings
drilled to 23 and 22 feet, respectively. Both wells were completed
with 2-inch diameter, flush-threaded PVC well casings with
. .
O.020-inch, machine-cut slots. Well. CWP-20 is perforated from 5 to
23 feet below grade and Well CWP-21 from 5, to 20 feet. Sand packs
of No.3 grade silica sand were installed to about the top of the
perforated interval. The screened zones were then sealed with
approximately 1 to 1.3" ~eet of bentonite pellets and grouted with
concrete up to the ground su~face.
The stratigraphy encountered during drilling indicates that neither
well intercepts the more permeable Zone 2, although Well CWP-21
apparently intercepts a substantial gravel layer between 7.5 and
14 feet depth. Wells CWP-20 and CWP-21 were used as observation
, ..
wells during evaluations of the effectiveness of the slurry wall
and extraction trench., .
5.2.4 Performance Evaluation
The performance of the slurry' wall and extraction trench in
containing the chromium plume and remediating the ground water has
been assessed by evaluating ground water quality data and by a
series of pumping tests. '
Ground water quality data obtained'since 1981 (Table B.2,
Appendix B) demonstrate that the installation of the slurry cutoff
wall and extraction of ground water from Well HL-7 have resulted
in a reduction. in chromium concentrations in wells located
hydraulically downgradient of the slurry wall. The improvement in
5-5
~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~. \ . f-'~: ~~~ .~.: .'
-------
I ,.
ground water quality subsc\..;;."'~::"~ to 1983 he...;. been discu$sed in
Section 4.5.3 . Therefore, these interim remedial measu~es are
. .
believed to have been effective in reducing off-site migration.
Two pumping tests were performed to ,evaluate the effectiveness of
extraction from Well HL-7 in containing the chromium plume and to
assess the integrity of the slurry cutoff wall. One test was
performed in FebruarY 1986, and the other in July 1986 when water'
. levels were low. The results of these tests demonstrated that
extraction from Well HL-7'is effective in containing the plume near
the southern end of the slurry wall where Well CWP-21 is located.
The results were not conclusive in demonstrating that hydraulic
. .
containment of the plume is achieved near the northern end of the
slurry wall. However, water quality data indicate that there is
no plume migration in the zone intercepted by Well ewp-20 locate4
\
. .at the northern end of the slurry cutoff wall.
The details of the pumping tests have been presented in technical
reports (Geosystem, March 1986; Geosystem,September 1986), copies
of which have been submitted to the appropriate regulatory
agencies.
5.3 RETORT AREA RECOVERY WELL
On August 29, 1985, a large diameter recovery' well, CWP-18, was
installed in the retort area at the location shown in Figure 2.
Al though the installation of this well has been previously reported
(IT. Corporation, September 25, 1985), a brief discussion is
included for completeness.
Well CWP-18 was installed in a 36-inch diameter boring, advanced
to a total depth of 14 feet and intercepting only Zone 1. An
8-inch diameter, flush-threaded weli casing was installed. The
casing is perforated from 5 to 14 feet below grade with O.020-inch,
5-6
I '
" -" ~ ~\". . ~---=-..=: .-
.-'.' ~\. ~ "7
~"" ..:::-:~. ~ -;::" -.':';: - .: .
-" ...
-------
i" s:anQ pack of No.3 grade' silica' sand was
, ,
installed up to 6 feet below grade and sealed with 200 Ibs of
O.25-inch bentonite pellets emplaced. The remaining' annular space
was ,concreted to the ground surface~
It".chine"(..;ut sl(:l:;.,
On February 13, 1986, a short duration pumping test was conducted
(Geosystem, March 1986). Ground water levels at theCWP site were
at or very near the seasonal high at this time of year. Water
levels were measured in the pumping well and in nearby Monitoring,
Well CWP-6. The objective of this pumping test was to evaluate the
maximum yield of Well CWP-18 and to estimate the hydrogeologic
characteristics of Zone 1 in the retort area.
The pumping test demonstrated that Well ewp-18 can be effective in
removing highly contaminated ground water from Zone 1 in the retort,
area. Extraction, however, must be at a low, continuous rate, on
the order of 0.5 to 2.0 gpm, or by intermittent pumping at a higher
discharge rate. During the dry season, when ground water levels
in Zone 1 drop significantly, We11CWP-18 is expected to be less
effective.
CWP-18 is not expected to contain the
direction. However, this portion
captured/contained by extraction 'from
wall.
plume in the downgradient
of the plume should be
Well, HL-7 and the slurry
5-7
I .
I
~ -' '" "':' , .'
,":: ~ \' ~
~", ,:'C' ~ ~, - ~
-. -.-.&. .
-------
6.0
RISK ASSESSMENT
The purpose' of this assessment is t.o identify and assess the
potential migration pathways and exposure. mechanisms by .which
contaminants in soil and ground water in the study area may cause
possible' health risks and adverse environmental impacts. The
information presented in this section corresponds to the
~requirements of sections 5 and 6 of the ,RAP guidelines.
. .
Systematic risk assessment includes site characterization, hazard
identification, and fate analysis. The site has been characterized
by a number of investigations, the results of which are summarized
in Section 4.0. Hazard identification is performed by establishing
the pri~ary contaminants or indicator parameters and, based on
available data, evaluating the level of hazard to human health and
the environment. Ch~omium and arsenic have been selected as the
indicator parameters based on their occurrence in soil and ground .
water, their geochemical behavior, and their toxicity.
Accordingly, the risk assessment presented herein has been
, .
performed for these compounds. Fate analysis considers migration
pathways in order to identify the potential exposure of
contaminants to receptors.
Based on the above, the risk assessment includes an evaluation of
potential migration pathways, documentation of toxicity, a
description 'of the population potentially at risk, an exposure
assessment, and a description of risk characteristics. The'
emphasis in this assessment has been placed on health rather than
ecological impacts. Also,. because of current zoning and the
expected industrial use subsequent to site closure, the results of
the risk assessment are believed to be applicable to post-closure
. .
conditions.
6-1
~ . = ~ "'.' . ::-
. --' ~.. ~
'::: . ,;;' \::: ~ _.::
-~ ~ ~ .
-------
6.1
MIGRATION PATHWAYS
Potential migration pathways include airborne particulate matter
and direct exposure to soil, surface water , and ground water. Each
of these pathways is addressed below.'
6.1.1 Miqration Through Air
Potential sources of chromium, arsenic, and copper in the air
include contaminated soil and CWP's wood preserving operations.
Monitoring of air emissions from CWP's wood preserving process has
been performed periodically: however, evaluation of the resulting
air quality data is not within the scope of this RAP. .
. .
Contaminated soil exposed to the atmosphere may dry and soil
particles can enter. the atmosphere as dust. Thus, chromium,
arsenic, and copper could be carried by soil' particles and
dispersed into the atmosphere according to the prevailing climatic
conditions. As pointed out in Section 5.1, .however, essentially
ail areas where near-surface soils are known to contain elevated
concentrations of chromium, arsenic, and copper have been paved.
Therefore, there is not believed to be a significant potential for
chromium, arsenic, and copper from on-site surface soils to migrate
through air. Soils with background concentrations of chromium,
. .
arsenic, and copper in the study area could introduce these
.constituents into the atmosphere, but at insignificant levels.
No site-specific background air quality monitoring data are
available: however, the concentrations of total chromium measured
in ambient air in many urban and nonurban areas of the United
States, from 1977 to. 1980, have been documented (U.S. EPA, August
1984). The concentrations range from less than 0.0060 mg/m3 to
greater than 0.6000 mg/m3. The mean chromium concentrations in
nonurban, background areas. such as national parks ranged from
'0.0052 mg/m3 to 0.0090 mg/m3 over the 1977 to 1980 period. Selected
6-2
~ ~ .:~ ~~ ~ '\,~ . i --- .--= .~. "
-------
data, considered to be representative of the range o.f .total
. .
chromium concentrations in air, have been summarized in Table 8.
In summary, under normal conditions, there is not believed to be
a significant contribution' of chromium, arsenic, and copper to the
atmosphere through the residual contaminated soil. at the site.
Excavation and removal or other soil disturbance may, however,
provide a potential air pathway. This pathway would require a
'detailed evaluation if excavation/removal were to be selected as
. .
a remedial 'alternative or if some other soil disturbance occurred.
The evaluation would include air monitoring and comparison of the
resul ting data wi th background concentrations for hazard
determination.
6.1.2
Direct Ex-oosure
! .
The most direct pathway for chromium, copper, and arsenic to impact
human health and the environment is through. contact with
contaminated soil. As described in Section 5.1, the areas where.
near-surface soils are known to have been impacted are paved with
asphalt or concrete. Direct exposure would be likely only if these
soils were excavated or disturbed. Thus, such exposures would most
likely occur during the closure of the plant and the subsequent
remediation of the site.
-
According to tests performed on soil samples collected in the study
area, the background concentrations of chromium, arsenic, and
copper are less than 50, 14, and 20 mg/kg, respectively (Table D.1,
Appendix D). For comparison, chromium concentrations in soils at
selected locations in the United States are summarized in Table 9.
The concentration of chromium in soil varies according to its
origin. Comparing the chromium concentrations of surface soils at
the CWP site with concentrations presented in Table 9, site
, -
6-3
'" -..:= " ~ ',' . ~
~.~ .~~~'.~ . ~ .~~'
.. ~... .
. - - ..
I
-! .
-------
I
I ,
I
I
I
I .
, i
I
I ..
I
I .
background concentrations are near the upper boundary of the range
of median concentrations measured at the selected locations. .
6.1.3 . Miqration Throuqh Surface Water
Potential surface water migration pathways include sheet flow over
the site and channel flow in the surface drains. Runoff from the
site is collected in unlined ditches around the perimeter of the
site. The di tcheseventually discharge into' the Russian River,'
also through unlined ditches. Surface runoff from the treated wood,
storage and retort areas. is collected i:n' .asump and recycled into
CWP's wood preserving operations.
According to RWQCB staff, flow in the surface drains may be
continuous during the winter months due to the inflow of ground
water. Also, dur~ng periods of high precipitation, the water
levels in the ditches rise to near the surrounding land surface.
Observations made by CWP personnel indicate that intense
. ,
. precipitation results' in flow ih all surface drains surrounding.
the site. During light rainfall., however, ,storm water rapidly
infiltrates into the valley fill through the unlined ditches and
no flow is recorded at Station C-100 (Figure 2)..
In accordance with RWQCB requirements~ CWP personnel periodically
monitor storm water quality during precipitation events of
sufficient intensity and duration to cause flow in the ditches
around the site. The results of storm water quality monitoring
are presented in Appendix C. The highest recorded concentrations
. , . .
were 0.630 mg/l and 0.790 mg/l for Cr(VI) and total chromium,
respectively, on March 13, 1984. Recent storm water quality data
have indicated chromium concentrations to be at or. below the
drinking water standard of 0.05 mg/l on all but a few occasions.
Recent storm water monitoring data for Monitoring Stations NE, NW,
and C-100 show that concentrations of chromium and arsenic were
6-4
'~ ~ . :-:; ~'" ''i- \,~ . ~~ .- :.' ~~ .
-------
. "
.
. ,
I,
\, ,
less than 0.02 and 0.004 mg/l, respectively, which are the
detection limits for the compounds tested (Geosystem; April19~9).
A summary of water quality criteria is presented in Table 10~
6.1.4 Miaration Throuah Ground Water
The most probable pathway for chemical migration from the CWP site
is via ground water. The data representing the January 1988
(Figure 14) conditi9ns indicate that elevated chromium
concentrations ,are detected primarily on site, to the west and
hydraulically upgradient of the slurry cutoff wall. The
isoconcentrat,ion . lines represent the areal extent of chromium
contamination in the uppermost water-bearing zone, Zone 1. Because
of the 'southeasterly flow direction, the dissolved chromium
compounds have a'tendency to migrate in the same direction, toward
the slurry wall. The concentrations, however, decrease with
distance from the retort area.
The rate of migration of chromium in on-site areas depends
primarily on the seepage velocity of ground. water and sorption
. ,
characteristics of chromium. Previous analyses (IT Corporation,
June 1985) have indicated that the migration rate of the chromium
front at the site is about 58 feet per year. In this estimation,
. .
the lowest retardation factor, representing the lowest distribution
coefficient, was used to provide a conservative analysis. A
conservative analysis in this case is one resulting in larger
migration rates and higher downgradient concentrations. The
analysis is also conservative because ground water flow and
chromium transport were assumed to be one-dimensional. Although
the flow may be uniform and represented one~dimensionally, chromium
transport is two-dimensional.
Hydraulic and ground water quality. data, obtained from pumping
tests and regular ground water monitoring, indicate that the
6-5
~ ~ ~ ~', . ~ ...c .~= ~. .
~" -=~ ~ - ~ ' . ."
-------
, ,
, ,
chromium front is intercepted by the slurry wall. Water impounded
behind the slurry wall is then extracted via Well HL-7., It, is
noted that without some. form of hydraulic control, ,in this case
ground water, extraction, impounded water would eventually flow
around and beneath the slurry wall and chromium would continue to
migrate in the downgradient direction. Construction of the slurry
wall and extraction from Well HL-7 have substantially reduced
, '
dissolved chromium concentrations in off-site areas.
The presence' of chromium, in off-site areas is believed to have
resulted primarily, from migration prior to construction of the
slurry wall in October 1983. Since then, the concentra~ions of
chromium in off-site wells have gradually de~reased, as discussed
in Section 4.5.3. Ground water quality data from off-site wells,
obtained in January 1988, show that chromium concentrations were
below the drinking water standard of 0.05 mg/l. Although chromium
concentrations in Well AT-2, located in the pear orchard" have
occasionally exceeded the drinking water standard, the ,data
, ,
representing 1989 conditions show less than 0.05 mg/l and generally
less than the detection limit of 0.02 mg/l.
The ground water quality data indicate that because of the overall
site improvements and the interim remedial measures implemented,
off-site migration is limited.' To address' potential off-site
migration for risk assessment purposes, however, a two-dimensional
areal model has been used. Details ,of this modeling effort are
presented in Appendix E., The model has been used to predict the
downgradient distribution of chromium under uniform flow conditions
considering various management practices. The model results have
shown the following:
o
The predicted chromium concentrations are less than
0.05 mg/l at a distance of about 250 meters (820
feet) to the southeast of the slurry wall. This
6-6
~.-'-: "~"~,,';; - -,'':': .. -
~"'c . .~.,~, '=- _:::: ' ., '
-------
distance corresponds approximately to the location
of Well AT-5. Chromium has not been detect~d in
this well since its installation in December 1986. .
o
The predicted chromium concentrations. at 'other
receptors beyond Well AT-5 are below the detection
limit of 0.02 mg/l.' .
An increase in the chromium concentration in the
assumed source area (near Well CWP-8), to about
1 mg/l for short durations, will not result in
chromium concentrations higher than 0.05 mg/l at
the nearest receptor. .
o
A'.
~:.
The model resul ts . indicate that fluctuations in. chromium
concentrations in the ,assumed source area (primarily Well CWP-8),
within the range observed since slurry wall construction, will not
result in chromium concentrations higher than drinking water
standards in the nearby receptors. Off-site contamination is
.
,likely only if high chromium concentrations are allowed to migrate
. .
beyond the slurry wall and p~rsist for a long duration. However,
,model simulations (Appendix E) have shown that if the
concentrations of chromium at Well CWP-8 remain 'at about 1 mg/l
for four years, downgradient concentration at about 820 feet from
Well CWP-8 may approach 0.05 mg/l.
6.2 OCCURRENCE. INTAKE. AND TOXICITY CHARACTERISTICS OF
CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC
Chromium, copper, and. arsenic are elements which are found
naturally in food, water, and air. Exposure of human beings to
these elements at levels which exceed natural concentrations may.
. .
lead to adverse health effects. Based on the occurrence of metals
at the site, their concentrations and relative. toxicity, the
subject evaluation pertains only to chromium and arsenic. Details
related to the occurrence, intake mechanisms, and toxicity
characteristics of chromium and arsenic are presented in
Appendix F.
6-7
"" -~ " "': . :-:. -. ... .
" '. ...:::::;-. '. -.:::..'
\~ . 'C-,,~. ~ - ~.
'! '
I .'
-------
6.3
,
PUBLIC HEALTH AND POPULATION DENSITY
This section summarizes the information related to public health
protection goals and population potentially at risk~
I .
6.3.1 Public Health Protection Standards
Public health protection goals are established by public health
and regulatory agencies. Recommended or.established standards for
chromium in the United States are summarized in Table 11. For.
protection of human health from the toxic properties of Cr(III)
ingested through water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the
ambient water criterion has been determined to be 170 ug/l. For
protection of human health from the toxic properties of Cr(III)
ingested through contaminated aquatic. organisms alone, the ambient
water criterion has been determined to be 3,433 ug/l. The ambient
water quality criterion for total Cr(VI) is recommended to be
. .' . .
identical to the existing drinking water standard, which is
0~05 mg/l.
6.3.2 PODulation Potentiallv at Risk
Using population density statistics (Greater Ukiah Chamber of
Commerce, June 1987) and the results of a survey and interviews by
Geosystem personnel, the estimated number of people living in the
study area within one-half mile from the CWP site varies seasonally
from about 20 to 100. This population is potentially at risk in
relation to surface water and ground water migration pathways.
The population distribution around the site is addressed in more
detail in Section 3.2.4.
6.4 EXPO.SURE ASSESSMENT ANDRISt( CHARACTERIZATION
. .
Based on the evaluation of potential. migration pathways and the
population potentially at risk, an exposure assessment has been.
performed and the risk associated with the exposure characterized.
6-8
~ . --: , ~. ~ ',~. . ~ .:.- .~..
~ . .".: ~ ~ - .::-
-------
6.4.1 Potential EXPosure throuqh Air . . . ... ..
with maintenance of a cap or implementation of a permanent . soil.
remedy, there is no significant exposure to chromium, arsenic, and
copper through air. Since there is no significant exposure, the
risk of adverse health effects associated with migration of
chromium through air is believed to be insignificant.
6.4.2 Potential Exposure through Direct Contact with Soil
As described in section 6.1.2, because of surface paving over soils'
containing elevated qhromium concentrations, there is no direct
exposure to contaminated soil. Therefore, there is no risk of
adverse health effects associated with this pathway under present
. ,
conditions. However, during post-closure soil remediation"
potential exposure is likely. Such exposure must be addressed by
implementation of an appropriate health and safety plan.
I :
6.4.3 Potential Exposure through Surface Water
Storm water runoff originating from the site is subject to
infiltration and diluti~n by downstream flows. Potential exposure
mechanisms, therefore, include exposure to groundwater recharged
by infiltrating surface waters and direct exposure to contaminated
surface water. The fi~st exposure mechanism is believed to be
insignificant because of the intermittent nature of the runoff and
attenuation of chromium and arsenic concentrations during downward
percolation. The 'second exposure mechanism must consider the
impact of dilution on chromium concentrations within the surface
drainage ditches.
. ,
Site improvements and impl'ementation of surface ~noff control
measures have reduced the concentration of chromium at the
compliance point (Monitoring Station C-100) .to acceptable levels
(less than O.05mg/l). Additional surface water controls,
. .
identified in Section 7.2.1, shall be implemented to further reduce
6-9
~:~ ~ ~ \, . -:; --..: :~.- :- :-
~ '. -= ~ ,~ - ~ . - -- ' .: .
-' .
-------
the exposure through surface water. The most. recent data have
shown less than. 0.02 mgll and 0.004 mg/l concentrations for
chromium and arsenic, respectively, at Station C-100. Under such
circumstances, the potential exposure of biOlogical receptors in
.. .
downstream ditches and streams is negligible.
Although no flow measurements have been made in the ditches
downstream of the CWP site, based on field observations, an
approximate dilution factor can be calculated. According to CWP,
the flow rate at Mon~toring Station C-100 is twice that at Station
NE due to the. contribution from other culverts and streams. . As
shown below, a comparison of water quality data between these two
monitoring stations supports the above obserVation.
DATE
CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION (mall)
MONITORING MONITORING
STATION STATION
NE C-100
. .
April 6, 1986
March 5, 1987
0.14
0.06
0.09
0.03
. The above data show that the chromium concentrations at Monitoring
station C-100 are about 50 percent of those detected at Monitoring
station NE~ The distance between Monitoring stations NE and C-100
is about 550 feet. It is evident that if flow rates increase at
such p~oportions in the downstream direction and no chromium is
introduced along the flow path, the chromium concentration will not
exceed 0.05 mg/l within a short distance from Monitoring Station
C-100,if waste discharge requirements are observed. Under such
conditions, the impact of chromium on downstream receptors would
be insignificant. ~o provide a more quantitative assessment of
risk, flow rates must be known to estimate the dilution factors and
the consequent potential impact.
6-10
~ . ~ . '" ~ .~. . ~ ,:;-:,',:-:: .
\.'... :':='~ ~ - ~ : .
-------
, "
The minimum flow in the Russian" River is maintained,at"150cfs
(DWR, May 1980)~ Under intense rainfall conditions, when storm
water flows to the Russian River, the volume originating from the
site is assumed to be 1 percent of the flow in the river. With
such an assumption, a dilution factor of 100 would be applicable
for calculating the chromium concentrations in the river.
Therefore, the storm water events, with historical concentrations
"of chromium, are not likely to have an adverse impact on surface
\.,ater quality in the Russian River. A maximum concentration of
"0.63 mg/l (Appendix C) at the site would result in a concentration
of 0.0064 mg/l in the river. Thus, the risk associated with this
potential exposure is insignificant.
6.4.4 Potential EXDosure throuqh Ground Water
'Potential exposure through ground water has been evaluated
. considering 'on-site and off-site areas separately. Potential
exposure to on-site ground water will only be possible during
~onitoring or activities related to ground water extraction and
treatment. This exposure potential must be eliminated by following
the appropriate health and safety measures and other standard
procedures outlined in this RAP, the St;.orm Water/Ground Water
Monitoring Protocol,and other pertinent documents. As there are
no on-site wells producing water from the contaminated zone, there
is no exposure and, thus, no risk.
As described in Section 4.5.3, the current understanding of off-
site ground water quality conditions indicates that Cr(VI)
concentrations are below the drinking water standard of 0.05 mg/l.
No water-producing wells are known to exist in areas where historic'
chromium concentrations have exceeded the 0.05 mg/l drinking water
"standard. , At the present time, therefore, there is not believed
to be a significant potential for exposure through this migration
6-11
~.:j ~"~ \. . ~_n:;: -~ :" .
~ '. . ":=. ~ ~ -' ~
-------
. '
. ' ,
pathway. This condition is, expected to persist as lon9 as on~si te ,
extraction from Well HL-7 and other remediation measures are in
effect.
Failure to contain the chromium plume on site could result in the
introduction of chromium. to 9round water immediately to the east
(down9radient) of the slurry cutoff wall. The impact on
down9radient receptors will depend on the concentration and
, .
persistence of the source, as demonstrated by the transport model
(Appendix E). For instance, an initial concentration of 1 m9/l in
9round water to the east of the slurry cutoff wall, with a source
, ,
reduction rate of 0.0063 per day, would result in a concentration'
, . '
of less than 0.00068 m9/l at about 820 feet from the site. ,This
concentration is about two orders of mac;ni tude lower than the
drinkin9 water standard of 0.05 m9/l. However, persistence of the
1 m9/l 'concentration .may result in 9radual de9radation of water
qual i ty in, down9radient areas. As mentioned in Section 6. 1. 4 ,
. persistence of a 1 m9/1 chromium concentration for four years at
Well CWP-8 may cause an increase in chromium concentrations to
0.05 m9/1 at a distance of 820 feet down9radient.To eliminate
this potential situation, the recommended remedial action includes
hydraulic control measures at Wel~ CWP-8 (Section 7.0). Extraction
from Well CWP-8 would contain the chromium plume in the vicinity
and would eliminate the' potential. for further down9radient
mi9ration.
As mentioned in Section 7.0, a contingency plan has been developed"
for possible, ,off-site remediation. The plan will be implemented
subsequent to, the. rec;rulatory agencies " decision regarding the
criteria for initiation of off-site . remediation. The criteria'
would include a prescribed chromium concentration persisting for
6-12
I
'" :..: ~ ~.. ... .:= -.== - -~
.. ~...::::::- -
'::-- '. ," ..,~ ':-::. .:.~
-------
I
i
a given time period.
provide additional
migration~
Implementation of the contingency plan will
. .
control to prevent further downgradient
"Based on the above considerations, it is concluded that under
present conditions and with continued on-site remediation, there
i's no potential eXposur~ to chromium through ground water.
Therefore, .there is no health risk associated with this pathway.
)
6-13
~ ~ "~~':~~ ~ \~ "i ._"".:.~ ":~"-
-------
7.0
EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of evaluating various remedial actions is to select an
environmentally 'acceptable and technically/economically feasible
, '
alternative for implementation. This evaluation considers viable
remedial technologies to address soil and ground water
contamination at the CWP site. The evaluation has been performed
according to the procedure outl ined by the EPA in a, document
entitled "Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA" (U.s. EPA,
June 1985b).
Section 7.1 presents an evaluation' of the various remedial
technologies considered. Those selected for implementation, based
on technical, environmental, and cost consideration!;" ~re described
. '. . .,'- :--~';:"':.':..'. '.
in Section 7.2. The rationale ,for selectinq the:" recommended
aiternative and rejecting the others is presented in Section 7.3.
The environmental effects of the recommended alternative and the
applicable laws and regulations are presented in sections 7.4
and 7.5.
'.
As described in section 5.0, a number of interim remedial measures
have been implemented in the course of the remedial investigations
at 'the site. Therefore, in the evaluation of remedial action
alternatives, the interim remedial actions already implemented have
been considered.
7 . 1 ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL ACTIONS , '
Remedial alternatives may be categorized as pertaining to source'
control or management of migration (U.S. EPA, June 1985a). For
the CWP site, source control refers to the control of contaminated
soil to reduce or prevent introduction of' the contaminants to
ground water. Management of migration refers to containment of the
chromium plume and remediation of the impacted water-bearinq zone.
7-1
'" .-' ~ ~ '\ . ~ - O' .:;;:: .
~',: ,~;,~ ~ '~' ~ ,~'. - ~ .
-------
. .' .'
The technologies evaluated to address soil and ground' water
contamination range from complete remediation to no action. The
evaluation of viable options to address contaminated' soil is
presented in section 7.1.1. 'Remediation of contaminated 'soils will
:~occur at the time of closure of the facility. The closure of the
~facility is projected to occur in 10 years. A trust fund will be
,~established (Section 9.0) to fund future remediation of soils.
, tTreatability studies will be conducted prior to selecting the final'
soils remedy at the time of closure of the facili ty. The
evaluation of the technologies available to address ground water
contamination is presented in Section 7.1.2. As extraction is a
viable option for the remediation of ground water coritaminatiori,
alternative methods of ground water treatment have also been
evaluated. This evaluation is presented in section 7.1.3. The
~options for the discharge of treated ground water are evaluated in
Section 7.1.4.
7.1.1 Control of Contaminated Soil
Previous investigations have delineated the areal extent of soils
containing elevated concentrations of chromium and arsenic.
tVertically, soils conta,ining over 100 mg/kg of chromium and arsenic
,above background level (15 mg/kg) occur predominantly within the
upper 1 foot of the soil profile. Most soil samples collected
"below a depth of 1 foot contain less than' 50 mg/kg of total
..chromium and arsenic concentrations in the range of background
l~vels. More specifically, of the 25 soil samples collected from
.,the 3-foot depth, only 5 contained more than 50 mg/kg of total
chromium and none contained more than 100 mg/kg. The four 3-foot
samples containing over 50 mg/kg were from Borings S-2, S-4, S-6,
'S-12, S-14, 'andS-23, which are spatially distributed across the
site and do not indicate a single, source such as the retorts on
treated wood storage areas. In particular, it is noted that Boring
S-23 is ~ocated off site, across Taylor Drive. The distribution
7-2
~ ~ ,< ~~' ~ \.' i .' ~ ,
-------
L-
I
,
I
of elevated total chfomium concentrations 1 i.~. greater than ~O
mg/kg, at depths of 6 and 10 feet below grade, is similar to that
described above at the 3-foot depth. Accordingly, the areal.
' .
distribution of total chromium is best. represented by
isoconcentrations at the 1-foot depth. The approximate
distribution of soils containing over 100 mg/kg of chromium at the
1-foot depth is shown in Figure 11. This delineation of chromium,
distribution and other pertinent remedial investigation findings
(Section 4.0) have been used as a basis for developing and
evaluating various remedial technologies. The potential remedial
technologies considered for . control of the contaminated soil
include:
[ ,
o
o
o
o
o
o
Soil removal and off-site disposal
Soil removal and on-site treatment
In-situ treatment
Partial excavation
Containment
No action.
7.1.1.1 Sot1 Removal and Off-Site Discosa~ .
This technology considers removal and off-site disposal of soil in
. which the. chromium concentration is above 100 mg/kg and the arsenic
. .
concentration is above 15 mg/kg. The concentration for chromium
has been selected on the basis of the previous soil quality
characterization which demonstrated that 100 mg/l may be considered
to be definitely above background levels. Based on the 100 mg/kg
total chromium isoconcentration shown in Figure 11, the area of
concern is estimated to be about 69,800 ft2 or 1.60 acres .To
estimate the volume of contaminated soil 1 it has ,been assumed that
the soil is uniformly contaminated to an average depth of 1.5 feet
below grade. Based on this assumption, the volume of contaminated
soil' would be approximately 3,880 cubic yards. It should be noted
that in certain areas, such as the main process area, the depth of
contamination may be greater. Accordingly, in the absence of any
7-3
2'\ - ' ~ =0 '.' . ::-., -' ---'
~". .~ '. ~
~',.' ...\..': ~. -. ~
-------
other data, it has been assumed that the area beneath the'retorts
and the rail lines, measuring about 50 feet by 280 feet, is
contaminated with more than 100 mg/kg t9tal chromium and more than
15 mg/kg arsenic to an average depth of 5 feet below grade. The
additional volume within this arbitrary zone is 1,890 cubic yards.
,:' The estimated total volume of soil containing 100 mg/kg or more of
. .
- total chromium is estimated to be 5,770 cubic yards.
"
:". Typically, soil excavation to a depth of 1 to 2 feet would be
performed by dozers and the soil loaded onto trucks and transpo.rted
to a licensed hazardous waste facility approved by the EPA and in
accordance 'with applicable SARA. requirements. The nearest
operating facility to the site is in Kettleman City, located in
central California.
". Complete removal of contaminated soil, to the limits shown in
; Figure 11,. would require the cessation of wood preserving
operations and the removal of the wood preserving facilities.
Therefore, it has been assumed that any such remediation would
. occur. subsequent to the' closure of' the CWP operation. The
estimated cost. for removal and off-site disposal of 5,770 cubic
:,: yards of soil is presented in Table 12.
7.1.1.2 Soil Removal and On-Site Treatment'
,This alternative includes excavation and removal of soil, followed
by on-site treatment. On-site treatment may involve the use of
. organic or inorganic polYmers which have the capability of binding
the metals, making them less susceptible to leaching. These
technologies have not been tested at field scale; thus, it is -not
known how applicable they may be to the CWP site. To realistically
evaluate on-site treatment as a remedial option for contaminated
soil, laboratory and field tests are needed. Normally, a number
of products are tested to assess their fixation potential. The
7-4
~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ .~- . i- ~':~ . . .'
-------
fixation potential is determined by evaluating the 'leaching
behavior of the soil prior to and after treatment. If laboratory
tests indicate that a particular 'treatment is' acceptable in terms
of leaching, a pilot test is generally performed to assess the
applicability of the technology to field conditions. If the pilot
test demonstrates that the method is applicable to field-scale
remediation, a detailed design is prepared. Geosystem' s experience,
in similar projects shows that on-site treatment is feasible.,
For cost estimating purposes, it has been assumed that on-sit,e
treatment is a feasible remedial option. It is noted, however,
that despite the avoidance of the high cost of off-site disposal,
, '
the estim~ted ,cost of on-site treatment is still relatively high.
This is due primarily to the duration of implementation. The
estimated costs associated with excavation and on-site treatment
are shown in Table 12~
7.1.1.3 In-Situ Treatment'
This option includes in-situ physical and/or chemical treatment to
fix the chromium and arsenic in soil to the extent that it would
not act as a source to ground water contamination. The simplest
in-situ treatment method would be leaching the soil with water and
, ,
extracting and treating the leachate. If this method were chosen,
the pavement would have to be, removed to allow water to percolate
through the contaminated soil and leach the chromium.
Previous laboratory leachability studies (IT/D'Appolonia, May 1984)
, '
have shown that under acidic conditions (pH = 5.0), a maximum of
2.8 percent chromium is recoverable. These results have also
indicated that most of the chromium in the soil is in the Cr(II!)
form. The trivalent forms of chromium are more s,table, less
,soluble, and le'ss mobile than the hexavalent forms. Therefore, if
, ' ,
in-situ le~ching was performed with a neutral pH solution (water),
lower chromium recovery would be expected. Considering the
7-5
:: -~ ~\ ~ \~,- . ~ '-.--' .~- ,
'~ '. ,: ':: ~ ~ -..:::. '
-------
leaching characteristics of trivalent,
constraints, in-situ leaching does not
means of remediation.
chromium and operational
appear to be an efficient
Oth~r options include injection of compounds into the soil to
'chemically fix the chromium and arsenic in soil. . This option is
, .
generally more effective in homogeneous, saturated aquifer systems
~f high permeability. Given the complex stratigraphy and'
, . .
aiscontinuity of permeable strata at the site, this type of in-situ
treatment is judged to be ineffective and has not been considered
further.
7.1.1.4 Partial Excavation and Off-site Dis~osal
Partial excavation is another viable alternative to control
contaminated soil at the site. Based on previous site investiga-
tions, the areas of soil containing more than 130 mg/kg of chromium
. '
and 15 mg/kg of arsenic have been identified in Figure 11 of 'the
'C'Appolonia (1984) report. These areas center around Borings S-4,
S-5, and S-8 and Sampling Locations G-5, G-10, and G-11. The
locations of these borings and sampling locations are shown in
Figure 11. The 130 mg/kg Cr concentration was chosen because it
enabled areas within the 100 mq/kg soil contamination boundary to
be addressed without complete soil removal. It is noted that the
areal extent of arsenic contamination generally coincides with that
of chromium (Figure 11). Based on a depth of contamination of
. .
2 feet, partial excavation would result in an estimated soil
volume of about 1,300 cubic yards. The estimated costs associated
with implementation of this option are summarized in Table 12.'
7.1.1.5
Containment
The simplest method of containment is to provide surface paving
over the areas known to contain greater than 100 mg/k~ of chromium
and 15. n.t9/kq of arsenic. The surface paving or capping would
. ';>!
7-6
~ -' ~ ",', ' . ,.
-' 'H,' ~ ..:::;,-.
~ " ,:cc, ~- '-:::' - ~
-
-------
prevent infiltration of surfac~ water through the contaminat.edsoil
and consequently minimize or eliminate the leaching of chromium
into ground water. Surface paving has been installed at the site
in various phases since 1979. The present extent of surface paving
. .
is shown in Figure 2. Comparison with the area of near-surface
soil contamination demonstrates that the large majority of
chromium-containing soils are located beneath the. paved area.
Maintenance of the integrity of the existing cap is an essential
component of effective containment prior to implementation of a
permanent remedy. Approximately 3 percent of the contaminated 50il
area is not currently paved. Recommendations concerning these
remaining unpaved areas are presented in section 7.2.
other methods of containment include physical barriers, such as
slurry, sheet pile, or chemical grout cutoff walls; or hydraulic
barriers, such as extraction/injection systems. These options are
. . .
addressed further in relation to plume control in section 7.1.2.
7.1.1.6 No Action
This option allows the contaminated soil to remain in place,
unremediated. Implementation of the no action option is typically
combined with other control measures if groundwater contamination
is of concern. Also, the no action option requires extensive
monitoring to evaluate the potential impact of residual soil
contamination on the environment. Ground water monitoring data,
generated since 1981, have indicated some improvement in water
quality, primarily in off-site areas. Application of the no action
al ternati ve to the entire site would, however,. require further
evaluation of the potential impact on ground water quality and the
environment, as described in Section 7.3. .
7-7.
" -.: ,,\ ;;:-... . . -~. - -.
... ~'-::::::-
~ '" " ..~ ~ _-::.
-------
7.1.2
Plume control
.r
Plume control measures would be designed to limit the migration of
the dissolved, constituents while gradually remediating existing
contamination. The alternatives considered for screening are as
follows:
'1r.
o
o
o
o
o
Physical containment
In-situ, treatment
Hydraulic control
Electrokinetic treatment
No action.
'f
7.1.2.1 Physical containment
Physical containment measures include slurry cutoff walls, sheet
,piles ~ and grout curtains ~ The most common method of physical
containment for plume control is the construction of slurry cutoff
: walls. This option, per se, does not remediate the aquifer;
:'ihowever, the contaminants are contained. A slurry cutoff wall is
~constructed by excavating a continuous, n~rrow trench ~hich is kept
,filled with bentonite slurry to stabilize the sides of the
excavation. The trench is backfilled with a mixture of excavated
soil and bentonite as trenching progresses. Backfilling displaces
the slurry, which is recycled. The slurry wall acts as a barrier
,to lateral ground water flow if the zone ,of contamination is
,completely contained. Otherwise, hydraulic control must be
initiated to provide adequate containment. Flow beneath the wall
is restricted by eith~r keying the wall into a low permeability
stratum or by hydraulic control. As discussed in section 5.2, this
option has been implemented as an interim remedial measure by CWP.
Other physical containment measures, such as sheet piles and grout
curtains, have not, therefore, been considered further.
.'.
7.1.2.2 In-Situ Treatment ,
This technology involves the passage, of a treatment a~ent through
the, contaminated aquifer, usually by pumping and/or injection.
7-8
': .~; ~ ~ \~, . .:::S-':;" ~< '
~'-'- ,',= ~ ~ '- ~ '
-------
The effectiveness of this option depends primarily on the
permeability of the contaminated medium, the continuity of the
water-bearing zone, and the degree of bonding of chromium to soil
. '
. '
particles. In-situ treatment by this method is not a proven
technology, particularly if considered for application to chromium
fixation in large areas. Research related to application of this
technology is underway, and if future data show promising results,
its application to theCWP site could be reconsidered. At this
time, however, in-situ treatment by chemical fixation has not been
considered further. .
. . ,
. ,
7.1.2.3 Hvdraulic Control
. .
Hydraulic control is an accepted and well documented method of
plume control and aquifer remediation. This option includes
extraction and/or injection in order to produce a zone of influence
beyond which there will not be significant migration of
contaminants. Extracted ground water is replenished by
contaminant-free ground water, resulting in a gradual reduction in
chromium concentrations.
! .
Considering the chromium isoconcentrations shown in Figures 12,
13, and 14, the application of hydraulic control is believed to be
relevant to the following geographic areas:
o
o
o
Near the retorts
Near the eastern site boundary
Off site to the southeast.
i,
The ground water quality data have shown that chromium
concentrations are higher in Zone 1 in the retort area than in
other locations. To prevent chromium migration from the retort
area to downgradient locations, interception of the plume by.
trenches or large diameter recovery wells has been. considered.
Both of these methods co~ld provide a barrier to chromium migration
7-9
,~~ ,~~,~~ ~ \:~ . f- ~ :~7. ,', '
-------
.within their respective radii of influence. Trenches are tyPically
more effective in water-bearing zones which are not very conductive
and lack hydraulic continuity: however., the presence. of wood
preserving facilities in the retort area precludes the installation
of a trench. As described in Section 5.3, a large-dia.meter
re~overy well, Well CWP-18, was installed near the retort area as
."
. "
an interim remedial measure.
'"
t.
Plume control near the eastern site boundary has also been
considered in order to prevent off-site migration. As described
in Section 5.2, this option includes extraction from Well HL-7 and
has been implemented as an interim remedial measure. In addition
to extraction from Well HL-7, pumping from the downgradient side
of the slurry wall would contain any contamination which may hav~
passed the barrier and acts as a source of off-site contamination.
Off-site" remediation has been considered because of the presence
of chromium in some ~ff-site wells in the past.' Off-site
remediation has been evaluated in some detail (Geosystem, April
1987) and is not believed to be necessary at this time. This
judgement is based on current ground water quality and the trend
of improving water quality in off-site areas as a result of the
interim remedial measures implemented near the eastern site
boundary. It should be noted, however, that future monitoring and
new regulations may dictate reconsideration of off-site
remediation.
Hydraulic control measures which involve the extraction of
contaminated ground water reqUire an environmentally-acceptable
and cost-effective method of handling the extracted water. As
previously mentioned, the majority of the extracted chromium-
containing water is recycled back into CWP' s . wood- preserving
operations: therefore, no special handling is required. Excess
7-10
~ ~ . ~~:" "~ ~ ~\~ . i '". '. - ~=~"", .
-------
I
I
I
I
i
, contaminated water must, however, be treated prior to
Section 7.1.3 summarizes the alternative treatment
considered to achieve acceptable effluent quality.
discharge. '
processes
7.1.2~4 Electrokinetic Phenomena
Electrokinetic phenomena refers to those methods by which migration
of dissolved contaminants in ground' water is enhanced by the
application of an'electric current. The methodology is based'on
inducing electrical gradients to the soil-electrolyte-water system,
resul ting in displacement or migration of cations and anions.,
Historically, this technology has achieved some degree of success
in inducing flow in low permeability dispersive soils. Application-
of this method to the removal of inorganic species and dewatering
has been demonstrated by a number of investigations (Mitchell and
Arulanandan, 1968; Gray and Mitchell, 1967; Mehran, 1971).
'"
Recently, the EPA has initiated a number of projects to test the
applicability of this technology to field-scale problems. As this
technology is still in the developmental stage, however, it has not
been considered further for implementation at the CWP site.
7.1.2.5 No Action
This option allows the dissol ved contaminants to, migrate
uncontrolled and unremediated. This option would result in an
expansion of the plume in the downgradient direction and would
place potential biological receptors at risk.
7.1.3 Ground Water Treatment Technoloqy Assessment
As mentioned in Section 5.0, CWP is able to utilize extracted
, .
ground water in wood preserVing operations at certain times of the
year. When the supply of extracted ground water exceeds CWP' s
, ,
needs, however, treatment is reqUired before discharge.
7-11
" ~ ~ 0" . ::' -' : . . . .
.." .~'~....
'.'::: "."':":~ -.:: ....:.':.
-------
I
The evaluation of the various ground water treatment technologies.
is based on a continuous extraction rate of 5 to 20 gpm for seven
years, a chromium concentration of less than 10' mg/l . in the
influent, and a required effluent concentration of less than
0.05 mg/l.
. -
The treatment technologies have been screened on the basis of the
.;,
following technical and economic criteria:
.( ..
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Performance and effectiveness of the technology.
Projected service life.
Demonstrated reliability.
Ease of implementation.
Safety considerations.
capital costs.
Operation and maintenance costs.
The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are those post-
.fonstruction costs necessary to maintain satisfactory operation of
,the treatment system and the required mQnitorinq (Table 13) .
. .
The objective of the screeninq was to eliminate th~se technoloqies
that have a~ order of magnitude qreater cost, but do not pr9vide
:~reater environmental or public health benefits or greater
reliability. The technologies considered for screeninq were:
o
Electrochemical process.
Chemical reduction and precipitation.
o
.. .
o
Chemical precipitation
filtration.
sedimentation
or
with
,.
o
Activated carbon adsorption..
o
Ion exchanqe.
o' Electrodialysis.
...
7-12
" ~ ", ".
'. ~
'~.' .:'..'-"::::' ..:::
. .
~
'"
/'
-------
...
7.1.3.1 Electrochemical Process .
The electrochemical process involves passing chromium-containing
ground water through a cell containing consumable iron electrodes
which, in the presence of an electrical current, generate ferrous
and hydroxide ions. These ions react with chromate ions in
solution to precipitate chromic and ferric hydroxides. This
process is unique in .that no chemical additives are required to
generate the precipitant. The electrochemical operation is. a
"once-through process" requiring minimal reaction time. The theory
of operation involves an oxidation-reduction reaction whereby
electrons are supplied by an external ~lectrical source reducing
. .
the metal ions in the electrolyte to .form elemental metal at the
cathode surface. The equipment consists of a ..reactor module
containing the anode and cathode assemblies and two controllable.
power supplies. The details of this. technology related to
. .
electrode potentials, equilibrium, oxidation-reduction, and mixed
potentials, voltammetry, and electrocapillarity capacity have been
described in the literature (Ahmed, 1979; pemsler and Rappas, 1979;
Ayres and Fedkiw, 1983; and Dean, et al., 1972). More specific
information on operation of electrochemical process units is
presented in section 7.2.4.
Electrochemical treatment has been used for many years in the
mining and. utility industries and is a. proven .technology for
removing hexavalent chromium from wastewater. The electrochemical
treatment process, therefore, is capable of removinq hexavalent
chromium from ground water extracted at the CWP site. The salient
features of the electrochemical process pertinent to the CWP site
. .
are summarized in Table 13. Removal efficiency of the
electrochemical process for chromium is demonstrated in Table 14.
7-13
..
~
-_: '" "..
. ~.
..-~ ..:.":
~.
" .
.~
-------
The advantages of the electrochemical process, are' as ,folloYls:' "
Reduces the Cr(VI) content of ground water to EPA
compatible levels.
oVery loYl operating costs.
o
o
No consumable reagents required for operation.
Requires little floor space and operator attention~
o
"
."
o
Eliminates the conventional chemical precipitation
process.
The operating costs for electrode consumption, power, and acid for
the electrochemical unit are estimated at about, 10 cents per,
1,000 gallons of ground water treated. At the anticipated flow
, .
rate of 20 gpm, the operating costs amount to about $1,000
~nnually. Labor and waste disposal costs .for the electrochemical
process ar~ estimated to be about $50 per day.
7.1.3.2 Chemical Reduction and PreciDitation
The most conventional method for the removal of chromium is
reduction of the hexavaient chromium to the trivalent state,
, ~ollowed by pH' adjus~ment to form insoluble carbonates or
qydroxides which can be removed as sludges. Some common reducing
agents include gaseous sulfur dioxide, sodium bisulfite or
metabisulfite, and ferrous sulfate. In the reduction of hexavalent
chromium to trivalent chromium using sulfur dioxide, the oxidation
state of chromium changes from 6+ to 3+ (cr is reduced) and the
oxidization state of sulfur increases from 2+ to 3+ (S is oxidized).
2H2cr04 + 3S02 + 3H20
->
Cr2 (S04) 3 + 5H20
Sulfur dioxide
,reduction tank
sulfonator. The
is ,supplied as a gas and fed into the chrome
as liquid through a vacuum educt or-type of
sulfonator is controlled by an oxidation reduction
7-14
", ." ~. ~ ',' ,,--.
, ~ \' ~
\..,:-',- ,~ '-:::.' , .:.-
-------
potential (ORP) probe measuring free. sulfides. in the.. chrome.
reduction tank. Mixing is usually required. to improve contact
between the reduction agent and the ground water. Reaction times
vary with reducing agents, temperature, pH, and concentration;
however, reduction times are on the order of minutes.
i
I
Reduction of hexavalent chromium requires pH adjustment, normally
with sulfuric acid, to a pH of approximately 2 to 3. When sulfur
dioxide is used as the reducing agent, sulfonators must be used to
combine sulfur dioxide with water to form sulfurous acid. The
. . .
sulfurous acid reacts with chromium to form chromic sulfate. Other
reducing agents are added as solids or as solutions~ The chemical
reduction is followed by alkaline addition, which results in
precipitation of chromium hydroxide.
. .
Chemical reduction followed by precipitation requires several
process steps, consumes chemical additives for pH adjustment and
the reduction reaction, and generates a sludge that must be
. .
disposed of. An automated system could be provided to carry out
these operations: however, some operator attention would be
. required. Chemical reduction can be carried out. using simple,
readily available equipment and reagents.
Chemical reduction is used primarily for the,,- reduction of
hexavalent chromium, mercury, and lead and is a well tested and
documented method of treatment for these metals. Due to its
. .
documented applicability, laboratory and pilot-scale tests may not
be, required to determine appropriate chemical. feed rates and
reactor retention time for the reduction of hexavalent chromium to
. . . '
trivalent chromium (it the CWP site.
The total capital costs for chemical reduction, includinq the costs
for chemical storaqe, feedinq, and mixinq, were estimated to be
7-15
~ . -: ~ ~ ':. . ~::. . .
,-' ~" .' . ~ ~ -~.
-------
$224,000 with a total annual O&M cost of
These cost estimates are based on a 20
ENR Construction Cost Index.
. . .
. .
$192,000 (U.S. EPA,1978)..
. .
gpm system using the 1987
7.1.3.3 Chemical PreciDitation with Sedimentation or Fi1~ration
This technology involves the addition of chemicals to an aqueous
~olution to' combine dispersed particles into larger agglomerates
j" ..
,~hich are removed during the precipitation (settling) process..
Precipitation is a physicochemical process whereby some or all of
. a substance in solution is transformed into a solid phase.
Generally, lime or sodium sulfide is added to the .ground water in
a rapid mixing tank. The water flows to a flocculation chamber in
which adequate mixing and. retention time is provided for
agglomeration of precipitation particles by adding an agent such
as alum. Agglomerated particles are separated from the liquid
. .
~hase by settling in a sedimentation chamber and/or .by other
~hysical processes such as filtration.
Precipitation is applicable to the removal of most metals from
wastewater including zinc,. cadmium, chromium,. copper, fluoride,
lead, manganese, and mercury. Cyanide and other ions in the
wastewater may also complex with metals, making treatment by
precipitation less efficient. Precipitation is non-selective in
that compounds other. than those targeted may be removed. Both
precipitation and flocculation are nondestructive and generate a
large volume of sludge which must be disposed. The technology is,
however, consid~red to be potentially applicable to the treatment
of chromium-containing ground water at the CWP site.
Precipi tation and flocculation pose minimal health and safety
hazards to field workers. The entire system is operated at near
7-16
~ ~:2.~~ 'i-..:~ . i-- ~ . .
-------
. .
ambient conditions, eliminating the dangerQf high pres~ure/high
temperature operation. While the chemicals employed are often skin
irritants, they can be handled in a.safe.manner.
Arumugam (1976) studied hydroxide precipitation for the recovery
of chromium from spent tan liquor.. This precipitation process was
the least expensive method for the removal and recovery of
chromium. Using lime and at an optimum pH of 6.6, the removal of
.chromium exceeded 98 percent. . The precipitated chromium hydroxide
is separated by settling, filtered, and redissolved in sulfuric
acid to form chromium sulfate which can be recycled for further
tanning. The use of lime was more economical than the use of other
alkalines (NaoH, Na2Co], and NH4oH). The use of lime softening and
coagulation, using alum for removal of such heavy metals as Cr(III)
and Cr(VI), has been investigated by the EPA (U.S. EPA, 1978).
. .
For a 20 gpm chromium removal system, the equipment cost is
estimated to be $50,000 (EPA/625/6-85/006, updated to 1987 using
the ENR Construction Cost Index). A total chemical cost of $4.80
per 1,000 gallons is estimated for this precipitation process to
achieve an effluent containing less than 0.05 mg/l of chromium.
The annual O&M cost is estimated to be $64,000 with a total capital
cost of $192,000. .
7.1.3.4 Activated Carbon Adsorction .
Chromates can be effectively removed from qround water by passinq
. .
the chromate-containing ground water through a column packed with
. activated carbon (Yoshida, et al., 1977). Huang and Wu (1975)
found that the removal of Cr(VI) by calcinated charcoal was most
significant at low pH and for low initial Cr(VI} concentrations.
Landrigan and Hallowell (1975) demonstrated that activated carbon
could be used by small plating facilities for removal of chromium.
Huang and Wu (1975) studied the effect of pH on Cr(III) and Cr(VI)
7-17
~ ~. : ~.~ ?--:.. ':,~ . -:~:.
-------
" "
"" "
ac;1sorption by Filtr?1sorb 400 activated carbon. Cr(VI)wasa"t least
twice as adsorbable as Cr(III). The optimum pH for adsorptive
removal was 5.5 to 6.0 for Cr(VI) and 5.0 for Cr(II!).
Granular activated carbon (GAC) is usually preferred since it can
~,be chemically regenerated and reused. Powdered activated carbon
.;-JPAC) is less expensive, but it can only be used on a once-through
;: basis.
Activated carbon will adsorb hexavalent chromium and many metals
complexed in organic form. The adsorptive capacity depends on the
carbon pore size, solution pH, and the initial and final
concentrations of the metal(s). Activated carbon adsorption is
,considered to be an applicable technology for the removal of Cr(VI)
from ground water at the CWP site. In particular, activated carbon
adsorption shows considerable promise forr~moving low
"'concentrations of chromium (in the range of 1 to 2 mgjl)remaininq
. after other treatment methods such as precipitation, cementation,
etc. Regeneration of the spent carbon is possible with the use of
caustic solution.
':'There are a number of operational considerations, however, that
make carbon adsorption an inappropriate choice as a treatment
'option for ground water containing Cr(VI) , as discussed below:
o
On the carbon surface, Cr(VI) is partially reduced
to Cr(III) which does not adsorb well on carbon.
The maximum adsorption of Cr(VI) occurs at a pH of
approximately 2.5. At lower pH values, the er(VI)
is reduced to er(III); at higher pH values, the
adsorption of Cr (VI) decreases rapidly.'
'0
o
er(VI) can be stripped from the carbon with a
caustic solution. Removal of Cr(VI) can then be
accomplished by chemical addition and pH adjustment
in a mixing vessel; however, a chromium-
60ntaminated sludge is qenerated.
7-18
~, ,-::: '" "',' , "
. ~"" -.::::..'
.~ '. .' u" ~ ~ - ~
- , -
-------
A carbon adsorption system with caustic regener~tion could be
designed to remove Cr(VI) from ground water at the CWP site, but
Cr(III) would not be removed by this method. Although it is true
that higher. concentrations of Cr (III) in the effluent can be
tolerated, for certain methods of treated water discharge, lower
concentrations of Cr(III) are advantageous. Certain equipment and.
chemicals are needed to carry out pH adjustment of the ground water
and in the adsorption operation.
Typical capital and O&M costs are presented in Table 13.
Addi tional equipment, controls, and, chemicals would be required
for carbon regeneration, which is preferred over a nonregeneration
approach, to minimize the cost of carbon replacement and
contaminated carbon disposal. . However, even with the use of carbon
regeneration,. disposal of chromium contaminated sluQge and some
spent carbon would be necessary. For the reasons stated above,
carbon adsorption would not be a cost-effective option for the
removal of chromium from ground water at the CWP site.
7.1.3.5 Ion Exchanqe .
The ion exchange process for chromium removal is similar in
operation to . the carbon adsorption system discussed in Section
7 . 1. 3 . 4 . Wastewate.r is passed through a bed of ion exchange res in,
which contains active ionic functional groups. Chromium ions are
exchanged and removed from the' resin and then separated by. pH
. adjustment and precipitation. Ion exchange is a process whereby
the mobile ions are removed from the ground water. phase by being
exchanged with relatively immobile ions held by the. ion exchange
matrix (Weber, 1972). The removal of chromium depends primarily
on the valence of the chromium ion, the type of resin, and the
chromium concentration in ground water. The chromate-dichromate
pair of divalent anions presents a different case. In alkaline
.7-19
\.,:.~.:.'~\~~'.-}'<- 'f"~' .-'
-------
solutions,
ion CrO 2..
10
dichromate
.. .
. .
hexavalent chromium exists in solution as the chromate
. .
As pH drops below 6, chromate ions condense to form
ions crZo7Z.. Both ions appear to be held selectively
monovalent anions.
over common
+t,.
(RIoN ) 2' Cr207 + 2NaOH
->
(RIoN+) 2' cro4t,- + Na2Cro4+H20
. .
L .
. jiThis reversibility is used in removing hexavalent chromium from
ground water.
'.
Ground water enters the top of the resin column under pressure,
. .
. passes downward through the resin bed, and is removed at the
bottom. When the .resin capacity is exhausted,. the column is
backwashed to remove trapped solids and then regenerated.
. ..
Suspended solids in the feed stream should be less than 50 mg/l to
,:.preventplugging the resins. The cationicexchal1ge resin is
,regenerated with a strong acid, such as sulfuric acid. or .
hydrochloric acid. Sodium hydroxide is a commonly used regenerant
for anion exchange resin. This process can take place in separate
exchange columns arranged in series, or both resins can be mixed
in a single reactor (Elzel and Tseng, 1984).
. .
For the reduction of Cr(VI) and Cr(III), both anionic and cationic
. .
exchange resins must be used. The ground water is first passed
~hrough a cation exchanger where the positively charged ions, such
as Cr(VI), are replaced by hydrogen ions. The cation exchanger
effluent is then passed over an anionic exchange resin where the
anions are replaced by hydroxide ions. Thus, the chromium ions are
replaced by hydrogen and hydroxide ions that react to form water
molecules.
Lo
7-20
\~~\(\\~~ -~= 7.;-
~ u '-=' -..:::... ~ - ~ - - - - - ~
. ,.
-------
, . . . '. .
Hexavalent chromium can be successfully. recovered u~ing ion
exchange treatment. Because of factors such as resin capacity and.
the number of times the resin can be regenerated, this technology
. .
is usually applicable only to those situations involving relatively
low influent concentrations. Removal efficiencies of 90 to 99
. .
percent have been reported for the treatment of ground water with
a conventional two-stage exchanger system. Even higher removals.
are possible with mixed-bed exchangers.
T~e un.it volUme cost for strong-base resins is 3 to 4 times that
of strong-acid resins. The higher cost of strong-base resins is
due to the considerably more complex manufacturing process required
for the anion resins.
The advantages of the ion exchange process are:
. .
o
Simple, basic type of unit with easy maintenance.
o
Better quality control
process variability.
due
to
elimination
of.
.,
o
Reduced waste disposal costs.
"
Ion exchange has similar disadvantages to carbon adsorption for
application to the treatment of ground water from the CWP site.
Specifically, the ion exchange, regeneration, and chromium
precipitation operations require a variety of equipment, controls,
. .
chemicals, and labor. These items result in. high capital and
operational costs. Included in these expenses is the high cost of
ion exchange resin. If both Cr(VI) and Cr(III) are present. in the
wastewater, two resin beds would be required because Cr(VI) absorbs
on anion resin (cr+6 existing as Cr04-2) and Cr(III) absorbs on
cation resin. Regeneration and precipitation of chromium would
. also be further complicated if both Cr(III) and Cr(VI) are present
in the ground water. The major disadvantages of'this technology
are as follows:
7-21
" .-' " .~ ',' . :::- .. .~. -
" '.: ...::::::-- ,..:::;;-. .
.~. '. ,'.:: ~ ~ - ~':.
-------
o
o
o
High regeneration cost.
Fluctuating effluent quality.
Requires substantial floor space.
The construction cost for a system capable. of handling' 20 gpm,
:including a steel contact vessel, a resin depth of 6 feet, housing
:for the columns, and all piping and backwash facilities, . is
p;estimated to be $84,000 with an O&M cost of $14,000. The O&M cost'
.includes electricity for backwashing and periodic repair and
replacement costs. Costs for regenerant chemicals are not included
because they vary depending on the concentrations of chromium to
be removed from the ground water.
7.1.3.6 Reverse Osmosis
If a pressure equal to or greater than the osmotic pressure is
:applied to the solution side of a membrane, the solvent will flow
,across the membrane leaving a more concentrated solution. This
,process is known as reverse osmosis. Sufficiently high pressure,
usually in the range of 200 to 400 psi, will force the solvent out
of solution, producing a more concentrated stream which must be
treated further or disposed of. Ions and small molecules in ground
water can be separated from water by this technique. The
concentrated waste stream requires additional treatment to remove
or recover the chromium.
. .
. ..
The basic components of a reverse osmosis unit are the membrane,
a membrane support structure, a containing vessel, and a high
pressure pump. The membrane and membrane support structure are
the most critical elements. The fact that reverse osmosis units
can be operated in series or in parallel provides some flexibility
in dealing with increased flow rates or concentrations of dissolved'
species.
~..,
7-22
~_:~~>. .~
'. ~ \" ~-...
,~ ". ." --:~, ..:::. _....:
-------
I
Available information and experience is limited regarding.the use
of reverse osmosis for ground water treatment. A hexavalent
chromium removal efficiency of 93.5 percent has been reported for
an influent concentration of 49.6 mg/l (Hindin, 1965). .The volume
of the reject generated by reverse osmosis is about 10 to
25 percent of the feed volume. Provisions must be made to treat
this potentially hazardous waste. Pretreatment of the secondary
effluent with filtration and carbon adsorption is usually
. necessary.
!
i'
I
I
[ . . .
Avery high quality feed is required for efficient operation of a.
reverse osmosis unit. The removal of iron and manganese is also
necessary to decrease scaling potential. The pH of the feed should
be adjusted to a range of 4.0 to 7.5 to inhibit scale formation.
The primary limitations of reverse osmosis are its high cost and
. '"
the problem of a concentrated waste stream which must be treated
further' . using another technology. Because of the low removal
efficiency and high quality feed requirements, reverse osmosis is
not considered to be applicable to the treatment of ground water
at the CWP site.
The total capital cost, including housing, tanks, piping,
membranes, flow meters, cartridge filters, acid and polyphosphate
feed equipment, and cleanup equipment, to treat 20 qpm are
estimated to be $400,00~ with a total annual O&M cost of $150,000.
The O&M costs include electricity for the high pressure feed pumps.
(450 psi operating pressure), building utilities, routine periodic
repair,. routine cleaning, and membrane replacement every three
years (EPA 600-S-S0-042d).
7.1.3.7 Electrodialvsis
In the electrodialysis process, ionic components
such as Cr(VI), are separated through the use of
of a solution,
semi-permeable,
7-23.
~ . -: ~ ~ ':,. . ,;
~ " .". -' ~ ~ _.:..~
-------
ion-selective membranes. Application of an electrical potential
between the two electrodes causes electric current to pass through
. .
the solution; which, in turn, causes a migration of cations toward
. the negative electrode and a migration of anions toward the
positive electrode. Because of the alternate spacing of cation and
anion permeable membranes, cells of concentrated and dilute
solution are formed (poon and Lu, 1981)..
'Ground water is pumped through the membranes which are separated
by spacers and assembled into stages. The retention time in each
stage is usually about 10 to 20 seconds. Removal of chromium from
ground water varies with:
o
o
o
o
o
Ground water temperature
Amounts of electrical current passed
Amount of Cr(VI) and/or Cr(III) ions
Fouling and scaling potential
Number and configuration of stages.
This process may be operated in either a continuous or a batch
'mode. The units can be arranged either in parallel to provide the.
~ecessary hydraulic capacity or in series to achieve the desired
degree of chromium removal. Makeup water, usually about 10 percent
of the feed volume, is required to wash the membranes continuously.
A portion of the concentrate stream is recycled to maintain nearly
equal flow rates and pressures on both sides of each membrane.
Sulfuric acid is fed to the concentrate stream to maintain a low
pH and, thus, minimize scaling.
. .
To achieve high throughput, electrodialysis cells in practice are
made very thin and assembled in stacks of cells in series. Each
stack of 10 consists of more than 100 cell~. Generally,
electrodialysis works best on acidic streams containing a single
principal metal ion.
~'.
7-24
'" .-" '" ". \. . :..' .
.~ ""..:._-'.~. . ~ \~ ~'
-
-------
. .
An electrodialysis plant prOduces two prod~ct streams, one dilute
and one concentrated, which may need to be disposed or further
treated. Because of hydrogen generation, this technology may cause
some local air pollution (EPA 600-S-S0-042c).
I
, '
Electrodialysis has the advantage of being a continuous process
which, unlike the adsorption process, does not require regenera- .
tion. However, electrodialysis is usually not economical for
treatment of very dilute chromium solutions like the CWP ground
water and for situations where low effluent concentrations are
required. A more common application for this technology is the
. recovery of ionized species such as metal salts, cyanides, or
chromates from metal finishing wastewaters, which are at
considerably higher concentrations'than the cwp ground water.
. .
Problems associated with the electrodialysis process include
chemical precipitation on the membrane surface and clogging of the
. .
membrane by the residual colloidal organic matter in ground water.
To reduce membrane fouling, activated carbon pretreatment, possibly
preceded by chemical precipitation and some f.orm of multimedia
filtration, may be required. This process may, therefore, require
more attention and maintenance than other systems discussed in
previous sections. Also, this process is not an established
technology for the ,subject application. It is still considered to
be possibly applicable to the treatment of ground water at the CWP
site.
The capital cost associated with this option' is approximately
$S5,000. The O&M costs are estimated at $1.00 per 1,000 gallons.
7.1.4 Alternatives for Discharae of Extracted Water
Ground water extraction for plume control and remediation requires
an appropriate means ofhandlirig the pumped water. The options
7-25
.'
-------
considered for han~lling extracted groundwater,
without treatment, are as follows:
either with or
o
o
o
o
Recycling
Sanitary sewer discharge
Surface water discharge
Subsurface injection.
7.1.4.1 Recvclinq
The most cost-effective method of handling the contaminated water
is to recycle the pumped water into CWP operations without
treatment. This would be possible so long as CWP's demand was
larger than the volume extracted. Otherwise, partial recycling
, .
combined with treatment/disposal of the balance could be performed.
To explore the possibility of recycling, ,a review of the water
balance is necessary. The total surface water collection area is
22,840 ft2. Thus, one inch of rain generates 14,180 gallons of
runoff. The storm events of interest and the corresponding volume
of water are as follows (Department of Water Resources, 1976):
STORM EVENT
RAINFALL
(inches)
VOLUME OF WATER
(gallons)
10-year winter
100-year/24-hour
48'. 93
6.66
693,827
94,439
The CWP operation uses 20 above-ground tanks with a total storage
capacity of 752,000 gallons. Assuming the occurrence of a 10-year
winter storm, the available storage will amount to 59,173 gallons
(752,000 minus ,693,827). The daily operational use is about 8,000
gallons or approximately 5.5 qpm. Therefore, if the extraction
system operates at about 5 qpm during dry conditions, all the
extracted water can be recycled. Also, during the storm events
(10-year winter), extraction rates of 4 to 6 qpm could be
accommodated for about eight days utilizing the availabie storage.
7-26
;:-
-------
It is evident from the mass balance calculations that for
, ,
extraction rates greater than 5 gpm or during th~ wet winter
months,' an addi tion'al discharge option is required. It is
important to note that higher extraction rates are desired during
the wet season to achieve a greater degree of migration control
and remediation.
7.1.4.2 Discharae into the SanitarY Sewer
Discharge of treated ground water into the sanitary sewer is a
viable option 'which is currently being pursued by CWP. This option
. .
has been under consideration since 1983, when the City of Ukiah
(the City) informed CWP of the regulations concerning the criteria
for discharging wastewaters into the sanitary sewer system. Upon
the City's request, Kennedy/Jenks Engineers were directed to
evaluate the compatibility of treated water from the CWP facility
wi th the City's wastewater :treat1Dent plant regulations. The
Kennedy/Jenks Engineers (March 19, 1984) evaluation concluded that
a discharge of 40,000 gallons per day of wastewater containing no
more than 0.5 mg/l of hexavalent chromium would be acceptable under
the limitations of restricted discharges. The acceptability of the
wastewater discharge would be subject to verification of the
, existing baseline (pre-discharge) levels of chromium present in the
, ,
City sewage and sludge. The baseline data were subsequently
generated and submitted' to the City. On April 30, 1987, CWP
submitted a proposal to discharge the electrochemically-treated
water during those periods when extracted ground water cannot be
recycled or stored on site (CWP, April 30, 1987). This proposal
provided the required baseline data and the electrochemical
treatment unit influent and effluent chromium concentrations. The
data provided demonstrated that the existing discharge limitations
can be complied with. The maximum chromium concentration in the
electrochemical treatment system effluent was specified as
7-27
::--
..:. .."
. .
, "
-------
. .
0.1 mg/l. The City has provided CWP with an authorization to
discharge subject to certain provisions, prohibitions, and
requirements as outlined in Table 15. CWP is currently reviewing
the City's requirements.
7.1.4.3 Discharae into the Surface Drainaae System
r
Another possible method of handling excess treated water is
.,'
discharge to the surface drainage ditch to the east of the site.
As discussed in section 4.3, this drainage ditch eventually reports
to the Russian River, although some seepage into the valley fill
deposits is likely to occur. The ditch has the capacity to accept
excess discharged water, even during peak flow periods.
, .
Implementation of this option would only be possible if
restrictions on discharge into the Russian River and its
tributaries are relaxed. The probable development of more
stringent discharge restrictions does not make this option a
promising or feasible alternative at this time.
7.1.4.4 Subsurface In;ection
Injection of excess treated water into the more permeable strata
beneath the site is more appropriate during the dry seasons when
ground water levels are generally lower. CWP has attempted to
implement this option by installing Inj~ction Well CWP-19
upgradient of the. contaminated zone. . During the wet winter months,
however, when the volume of water to be disposed is greatest, Well
CWP-19 has not been able to accommodate the required flow. During
the drier months when ground water is deeper, this discharge
alternative may be necessary in order to flush the contaminants
toward the extraction well. One of the major disadvantages of this
method is bio-fouling and microbial growth in the injection wells,
requiring frequent maintenance.
7-28
':-
~. . ".: ". ~~": ~...
. .' .~. ~ "..;;-
-------
7.2 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTION
This section describes the recommended remedial action based on
the screening of various alternatives presented, in Section 7.1.
The rationale for selection of the recommended alternative and
rej ection 'of the others, and a description' of the environmental
effects of the recommended alternative are also provided. The
components of the recommended remedial action plan are as follows:
. '
I '
i
o
Surface runoff management
Control of contaminated soil
o
o
Plume control and aquifer remediation
o
Electrochemical treatment of ground water
o
Water recycling/discharge to
Treatment Plant or reinjection
the
Ukiah
Sewage
o
,
Monitoring.
Each of the above components is described below.
I.
!
7~2.1 Surface Runoff Flow Manaaement
Surface runoff shall be controlled in order to prevent the
discharge. of potentially contaminated water. to surface waters.
The remaining unpaved portioris of the site shall be paved. The
area located adjacent to the 330,OOO-gallon storage tank shall also
be regraded and repaved to prevent ponding. ,The site shall be
inspected periodically, at 'least once per year before the wet
season, and surface paving and. drainage features repaired as
appropriate. Particular attention shall be given to areas around
the sumps and retorts. Mobile equipment (e.g., forklifts) shall
be designated for exclusive use in the retort area, treated wood
storage area, or untreated wood storage area to prevent cross
7-29
o
:::--. ~...
<:....'
..~ ':..:-
. - ,-. .
.. ~_. -
, .
','
.~
. .. "-.
-------
I.
. . .
surface contamination. storm water monitoring shall" be p~rforIned
in accordance with RWQCB Order No. 85-101. .The results of storm
water quality monitoring will be evaluated and appropriate actions
. taken accordingly. .
7.2.2 Control of Contaminated Soil .
The contaminated soil shall be controlled by preventing surface
water infiltration and by exercising hydraulic control of the plume
in Zone 1. As described in Section 5.0, these remedial measures
have been partially implemented at theCWP site. Surface paving
has been installed to prevent the passage of water through the
near-surface, chromium-containing soil. Consequently, the soil is
not expected to be a significant source of contamination by surface
water infiltration during the operation of the facility. Post-
closure remedial measures include on-site treatment of the
contaminated soil to a depth of 1.5 feet for areas containing
greater than 100 mg/kg of total chromium and 15 mg/kg of arsenic.
Beneath and ar~und the retort and sump areas, the depth of
excavation is expected to be 5 feet. Treatability studies will be
conducted prior to selecting the final soil remedy at the time of
closure of the facility.
Contaminated soil that comes in contact with ground water during
seasonal high ground water conditions will be controlled
hydraulically. The hydraulic control measures include ground water
extraction near the retort area from Well CWP-18 and near the site
boundary from Well HL-7. Details of the hydraulic control measures
are presented in' Section 7.2.3. The proposed approach shall
prevent direct human exposure to contaminated soil, eliminate the
contribution of infiltrating surface water to ground water
contamination, and prevent off-site migration. Implementation of
. these measures, combined with proper treated wood handling
practices, should gradually improve the site conditions. The
7-30
>
. ~, ~.
. ...:.:::.'
-.~ ~
~ . - - -
~-
~. ...:
-------
. . .'
criteria for. evaluating such improvements'include the trend of
chromium concentrations in wells located near the ret~rt or process
area. If no improvement is observed, additional investigation and
.remediation actions may be required.
Based on the above considerations and agencies participation in the
selection of remedial alternatives, Table 16 summarizes the soi1
remedial. action al ternati ves as suggested by DHS. As shown' in
Table 16, Alternative No. S.2, which includes on-site treatment of
the contaminated soil, is favored by DHS.
7.2.3 Plume Control and Aauifer Remediation
The zone of contamination shall be controlled hydraulically to
prevent off-site migration and to gradually remediate the aquifer.
, '
This will be accomplished by extracting ground water from locations
near the retort area and near the site boundary. A contingency
plan has also been developed for off-site ground water extraction,
should .chromium concentrations exceed a prescribed level for
prolonged periods of time. The "action level" and persistence of
chromium in off-site wells are to be decided by the regulatory
agencies.
Extraction from near the retort area will be performed through
Well CWP-18 , which intercepts the chromium plume in Zone 1.
Although this well cannot sustain continuous pumping at high flow
. .
rates, the impact of intermittent pumping is still believed to be
significant because of the high chromium concentrations in ground
water in that area.
Extraction from. near the site boundary shall be performed through
Well HL-7, located to the west (hydraulically upgradient) of the
slurry wall. As described in Section 5.0, Well HL-7 is located at
the center of a trench which is about 20 feet deep and intercepts
7-31
~. .~. "~: . ~
'': . . .~ ~ .. .:.:
-
-------
the chromium plume approximately perpendicular to the direction of
groundwater flow. Extraction from Well HL-7 can produce a zone
of influence which, in effect, contains the chromium plume and
prevents off-site migration. The extraction rate from Well HL-7
shall vary seasonally from 5 to 20 gpm, depending primarily on
~ground water conditions . The extraction of ground water from
; Well HL-7, combined with the presence of the slurry wall, is
~believed to be the principal remediation measure to prevent the'
joff-site migration of chromium. '
. '.
In addition to containing the chromium plume on site, ground water
extraction, particularly from Well HL-7, will also gradually
remediate the affected water-bearing zone. Aquifer remediation is
accomplished by removing chromium-containing water and replacing.
.i t with chromium-free water. To estimate the time required to
'\remediate the water-bearing zone, three factors have been
considered, as follows:
o
o
'. 0
The total fluid present in the water-bearing zone
containing elevated chromium concentrations.
The number of pore volumes required to achieve a
given concentration limit.
The rate of ground water extraction.
Based on the site-specific characteristics. and a
"assumptions, 'the above parameters are discussed below.
number
of
Using the most recent areal definition of the chromium plume, the
area contained within the 0.02 mg/l isoconcentration is estimated
to be about 130,000 ft2. Based on the assumptions that the average
saturated thickness of the water-bearing zone is 12 feet and its
effective porosity is 0.3, the total fluid present in the water-'
bearing zone is estimated' to be about 3.5 million gallons.
Approximately 10 pore' volumes are estimated to be required to
7-32
,'- ~ .:< ~~ -f:'
-.
-------
reduce the existing chromium concentrations to 0.05mgjl.
'. .
estimate is based on the following factors and assumptions:
This
o
Laboratory adsorption test data obtained from site-
specific soil samples (IT Corporation, June 1985) .
Higher desorption rate under field conditions as
compared to laboratory conditions.
o
o
Possible reactions causing fixation and transfor-
mation of Cr(VI) to more insoluble forms with time.
o
PUblished
desorption.
Inaccuracies and uncertainties associated with data
translation from laboratory to field.
and
unpublished
data
on
Cr (VI)
o
The pumping rate from Well HL-7 could vary from about 5. gpm to
20 gpm, depending on seasonal hydrologic conditions, the water
demand by CWP's operation, and discharge cons~raints. Assuming an
average pumping rate of. 10 gpm for the entire duration of
remediation, the time required to remove one pore volume is
estimated to be about 8.5' months. Thus, based. on the above
. assumptions and considerations, the estimated time of aquifer
cleanup is about seven years.
In the above calculation, it is assumed that the.soil does not act
as a source of chromium to ground water. However, the chromium
contaminated soil at the CWP site may continue to act as a source
of contamination. Therefore, the actual length of time for aquifer
cleanup will be greater than that calculated above. For long-term
budgetary purposes, the duration of aquifer cleanup is projected
to be between 7 to 20 years. A more accurate estimate of aquifer
cl~anup time would be possible provided ground water remediation
is monitored and results evaluated. Thus, a long-term monitoring
I .
i .
7-33
.:---. .-~' ~.~.
\.." . . . ''"- ~
. ..
-.:::..'
~
-------
program (Section 7.2.6.3) is
of the remediation in Order
objectives are achieved.
needed to establish thfa performance
to assure that ground water cleanup
Hydraulic testing of Well HL-7 has shown that duringth~ winter
months, when ground water levels are highest, it is possible to
extract 20 gpm from Well HL-7 (Geosystem, March 1986). To
accommodate higher extraction rates, discharge of treated water
into the sanitary sewer would be required.
! .
Because of the occasional appearance of chromium in Well CWP-8,
located to the east of the slurry, extraction from Well CWP-8 is
proposed. At the same time, the pumping rate of Well HL-7 may be
increased to provide a more effective. hydraulic barrier.
Extraction from Well CWP-8, however, will be effective in reducing
or eliminating the source of chromium to off.-site areas. The
extracted water shall be transferred through a 3-inch line to the
..
sump, as shown in Figure 19. The water will be treated as.
described earlier. Based on CWP's experience, during wet seasons
it is possible to extract 3 to 5 gpm continuously from Well CWP-8.
.
~ecause of the occasional presence of dissolved chromium in Well
AT-2 above 0.05 mg/l, a contingency plan has been developed to
initiate off-site ground water extraction, if needed. The criteria
~or initiation of off-site extraction are currently being developed
by the regulatory agencies, depending on the persistence of
chromium above a prescribed concentration.
I
I .
The off-site extraction program shall include pumping from Well
AT-2 or a new extraction well in the same vicinity. The extracted
water shall be transferred, via a 3-inch underground PVC pipe, to
..
7-34
" -' " ",' . ~~ .
-:::::--.. -.:::..:.
.. ." .''''::::: ~ . "
-------
. .
the on-site sump, as shown in Figure 19. The off-site groundwater
quality data indicate that pumping from Well AT-2 would most likely
be intermittent, if required at all.
Based on the above considerations and agencies participation in
remedial alternative selection, a summary of ground water remedial
action alternatives suggested by DHS is presented in Table 17.
. ..
Alternative No. ~W.3, which includes hydraulic control combined
with existing physical containment, is favored by DHS.
7.2.4 Electrochemical Treatment of Ground Water
Extracted ground water in excess of.CWP's water requirements shall
be treated using the existing electrochemical unit at the site.
This unit is manufactured by Andco Environmental Services (Andco)
and is capable of handling up to 150 qpm. However, for greater
efficiency, the flow ~ate shall be maintained below 50 qpm.
. .
As shown in Figure 19, the. extracted ground water shall be pumped
to the on-site, concrete-lined sump, from which it will be
transferred to the. treatment unit for processing.. After
processing, the water will 'enter the holding tanks for
precipitation and retreatment. Subsequently, the water shall be
transferred to the 330,000-gallon tank for sampling prior to
discharge. From this tank, the water will be pumped through a
. .
4-inch PVC pipeline, parallel to Taylor Drive, and into the sewer
. .
main at Plant Road.
The Andco chromate removal system employs a patented electro-
chemical process designed to reduce total chromium concentrations
to less than 0.05 mq/l. The process reduces soluble hexavalent
chromium to trivalent chromium, which is precipitated as hydroxide,
as discussed in Section 7.1.3 .1. The precipitate can then be
removed from the waste stream by filtration or sedimentation,
7-35
.:-
.-: ~~',:,
." .~ ~
. ,
.... ."'--
, '
~
.:.::
-------
[.
yielding an effluent containing less than O. 05mg!l .. chromium.
Tests performed by CWP have demonstrated that the effluent
concentration of chromium .is generally less than 0.04 mg/l.
Selected data obtained from CWP are as .follows:
INFLUENT . . EFFLUENT
DATE CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
(mg/l) (mg/l)
";1,: 3/06/84 5.3 0.02
11/05/84 6.8 0.02
11/06/84 (Sample 1) 169 0.02
11/06/84 (Sample 2) 160 0.07
The Andco chromate removal system consists of two electrochemical
cells connected in series, two separate DC power sources contained
in one cabinet, and an acid wash system. The cell housings and
acid tank are constructed of fiberglass and all interconnecting
.piping is of PVC. The incoming stream passes into the first cell
-.;via a 3-inch line which includes a flow meter and a pressure gauge.
-.The stream then passes through the second cell -and exits via a
three-way valve for direct discharge from the treatment stream.
A second pressure gauge is included in the discharge line. A
strainer and gas relief valve are fitted to the top of each cell-
to provide a release for hydrogen generated during the
electrochemical process and shutoff during acid washing . The
bottom of each cell is piped to the acid pump for drainage prior
to and after acid washing and for drainage ~rior to ~ell
replacement (Andeo, June 1987).
The acid wash system consists of an acid storage tank, acid pump,
and interconnecting piping to allow acid washing of the cells on
a daily basis. Acid washing prevents coating of the electrode
surfaces and the corresponding loss in treatment system efficiency.
The procedure is relatively simple to perform and requires only
7-36
~ -" " ~,'.' ...
. ~.~ '=:.." ~
~ . . --::: ~ -::: -~:
-------
about 15 minutes per day to accomplis~. Two to three times a week,
the acid concentration should be checked and kept to 8 to 10
. .
percent by the addition of fresh muriatic acid. On a monthly
basis, the spent acid can be' neutralized and bled into. the
discharge line and new acid made up. The electrode plates have a
normal life of about one million gallons at an influent
concentration of 10 to 11 mg/l of Cr(VI).
, .
,
I .
Subsequent to the initial treatment, the water shall be transferred.
to holding tanks, located north of the tank farm, where the metal
. .
hydroxides are precipitated. After precipitation is completed, the
water could be passed through thetre~tment unit a second time to
assure compliance with effluent limitations. .The effluent shall
be transferred to the 330,oOO-gallon tank for testing and storage
. .
prior to discharge. The tank. is connected to the sanitary sewer
located at the intersection of Taylor Drive and Plant Road
(Figure 19). The resulting sludge shall be handled according to
the appropriate EPA and DHS regulations. .
7.2.5 Water Reuse/Discharae to the Ukiah Sewaae Treatment Plant
or Reiniection .
Extracted ground water will be recycled into CWP's wood preserving
operations to the extent possible. . Excess ground water which
cannot be recycled into the wood preserving operations will be
treated electrochemically, as described in the previous section,
and discharged. Among the viable discharge options considered in
Section 7.1.4, discharge into the sanitary sewer during the wet
months or reinjection during the dry .months appear to be the most
practical methods. Discharge to the Ukiah Sewage Treatment Plant
must meet pretreatment requirements. On December 23,' 1987, a draft
permit to discharge pretreated ground water was issued by the City.
The draft document outlines the requirements which need to be met
prior to allowing CWP to discharge the treated ground water. . cwp
7-37
~ _C ~ "':. . ~. ."
..' -.- ~ '. --::::--
.~ . . '~-:.- ~ ~ - ~..
-------
has proposed to discharge treated water in. a batch mode. after
monitoring. The initial monitoring program, as specified by the
City, is presented in Table 15. CW~ is currently reviewing the
draft document and preparing a response.
7.2.6 Monitorinq
Monitoring is an integral part of remediation to document the
-performance and efficiency of the extraction/treatment system. -
~ased on the monitoring results, recommendations and modifications
shall be made for further site improvements, as appropriate.
Various elements of the proposed monitoring program are described
below.
7.2.6.1 Air Oualitv Monitorinq
The recommended remedial action does not require air monitoring~
~owever, as part of routine wood preserving operations, air quality
is monitored on a periodic basis. Air quality monitoring pertinent
to RAP requirements shall be evaluated if contaminated soil is to
b.e excavated for remediation or otherwise disturbed. The air
quality monitoring plan will be part of the overall health and
safety plan and according to OSHA requirements.
- .
7.2.6.2 Storm Water Monitorinq
Storm water monitorinq, as specified by the RWQCB, shall be
performed at Stations NE, NW, and C-100, the locations of which are
shown in Fiqure 2. These locations have been selected to provide
an indication of the quality of surface runoff from the CWP site.
This is of importance, as the surface drainage system ultimately
drains into the Russian River. Storm water samples shall be
collected once per month during any precipitation event sufficient
to produce a flow of water in the subject ditches. The samples
shall be analyzed for dissolved total chromium and arsenic. Storm
water moni torinq results shall be compiled and reported to the
I'
7-38
. ,~:: - ~.: ~ ". :f'. ~ - i - -
-------
I ..
RWQCB as specified' in Revised Monitoring . and Reporting Program
No.. 85-101 (RWQCB, May 1987). . The results shall be evaluated and
recommendations and modifications regarding overall facility
improvements shall be made as appropriate.
7.2.6.3 Ground Water Monitorina
A ground water monitoring program (RWQCB, May 1987). is in effect.
. .
to evaluate the ground water flow regime and the distribution of .
. .
chromium throughout the study area. Monitoring includes ground
water level. measurements and ground water quality sampling/
analysis. The ground water monitoring results shall be used to
evaluate the. effectiveness of the hydraulic control measures
implemented. Recommendations regarding additional mitigation
measures will be made as appropriate.
. .
The ground water samples will be analyzed for total chromium as
specified in Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 85-101,
(RWQCB, May 1987). The monitoring shall be performed according to
the procedures outlined in the "Ground water/Storm Water Monitoring
Protocol" (Geosystem, August 1987, or its subsequent. revisions)
prepared specifically for the CWP facility.
I :.
The results of the ground water monitoring shall. be reviewed on a
. quarterly basis and reported to the RWQCB as required by Revised
Monitoring and. Reporting Program No. 85-101 (RWQCB, May 1987).
Based on the evaluation of the monitorinq results, recommendations
and modifications shall be made as appropriate and subject to RWQCB
approval.
7.2.6.4 Treatment System Monitoring
During the operation of the electrochemical
effluent concentrations shall be monitored
unit, the influent and
for hexavalent chromium
7-39
~ .' ~ ~.
..::...;,
'-~ "" ',' . ~ -.:::
. , .
'. ?>
-------
and total chromium. The monitoring frequency shall ,be' in,
accordance with the requirements of the Ukiah Sewage Treatment
, ,
Plant, as outlined in Table 15.
7.3 REASONS FOR SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTION
Environmental and public health criteria and cost were the
principal considerations in the selection of the proposed remedial
action pian. specific reasons for selection of various components'
~f the plan areas follows:
o
Paving of the areas of soil in which higher
chromium concentrations have been measured prevents
surface water infiltration ~nd reduCes the
potential for leaching of chromium.
o
On-site treatment of soil after site closure
provides a permanent remedy for the contaminated
soil.
o
Extraction from Recovery Well CWP-18 removes
chromium-containing ground water in areas where
chromium concentrations are highest, thus reducing
the source to downgradient areas.
Extraction from Well HL-7, in combination with the
slurry cutoff wall, is effective in containing the
chromium plume on site and gradually remediating
the aquifer.
I .
o
o
Extraction from Well CWP-8 would contain any
residual chromium to the east of the slurry wall
and prevent further downgradient migration to off-
site areas.
o
Use of the electrochemical unit is an
environmentally and economically sound approach
for ground water treatment.'
Discharge of the treated water into the Ukiah
Sewage Treatment Plant is the most flexible and
environmentally sound approach.
o
. ."
"
7-40
" ~ " ~.. . ..:-::
~'..: .'~ ~ ?"~ ?-'
.. - _0
'-,
-------
o
The proposed monitoring plan provides sufficient
data to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
remedial action plan and to identify the need for
additional remedial actions, if any.
other
alternatives
broadly
The reasons for rejecting
categorized as follows:
are
o
Marginal ~nvironmentalenhancement.at the expense
of an "order of magnitude" increase in cost, as
illustrated by cost estimates for soil removal.
o
Environmental unacceptability and lack of proven
technology for all hydraulic control measures
except the selected option.
Technical difficulties for ground water injection
during wet seasons.
o
o
Inefficiency and relative high cost associated with
other treatment technologies compared with the
electrochemical process.
7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION
In general, the selected remedial plan will minimize potential
adverse impacts on human health and the environment. The specific
features of the remedial plan, with respect to environmental
effects, are described below.
7.4.1 Control of contaminated Soil
Routine maintenance of surface paving over areas of soil
contamination shall prevent direct exposure to contaminated soil
and minimize the infiltration of surface waters. Consequently,
the top 1 to 2 feet of the' soil profile, which have been shown to
contain elevated concentrations of chromium and arsenic, will not
act as a major source of ground water contamination. The post-
closure remediation provides a permanent remedy for the on~site
contaminated soils.
i .
7-41
" ~ " ~ r . ~. ~:- ~: .-
.:-.: ~,. ~
.~. .':":.:-'~ ~ - ..:::.
-------
7.4.2 Plume Control
The two major objectives of plume control are preventing off-site
migration and remediating existing contamination in the on-site
. water-bearing zone. Off-site migration. is 'controlled by the
combination of. the slurry cutoff wall and extraction of ground
water from Wells HL-7 and CWP-8. On-site remediation is
. .
accomplished by ground water extraction from Wells HL-7 and ewp-18.
. .
}-later quality data have demonstrated that these hydraulic control'
.
measures have been effective in preventing the off-site migration
of chromium. Subsequent to construction of the slurry wall in
October 1983, chromium concentrations in off-site wells have
generally decreased with time, as described in Section 4~5.j.
Based on the current chromium concentrations in off-site wells and
the continuing trend of decreasing chromium concentrations, no
remediation is proposed for off-site areas. However, a contingency
plan is developed to address off-site remediation when the criteria
for such remediation are established by the regulatory agencies.
To demonstrate the potential environmental impacts of selection of
. the "no action" alternative for off-site areas, the transport of
chromium was simulated using a two-dimensional areal model
.(Geosystem, April 1987). Details of this modeling effort are
presented in Appendix E. The model results demonstrated the
following:
o
Under present conditions, downgradient receptors
will not be adversely impacted.
Dispersion and attenuation mechanisms will continue
to reduce chromium concentrations in downgradient
areas.
o
7.4.3 Monitorina
The proposed monitoring
significant environmental
program is designed to detect any
changes and to provide early warning to
7-42
~ -' v. ::--.. . .: .
. . ~ :::..'
~~. ." .-.,~. ~
-------
the responsible parties. Using the monitoring 'data,
. .
effectiveness of the proposed remedial action plan shall be
, '
evaluated. This evaluation shall be used as a basis
modification of the remedial action plan, if necessary.
the
for
7.5 APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The CWP site is included on the State Superfund and National.
. .
Priority Lists and is, thus, subject to both state and federal laws
and regulations. Although the more formal and systematic soil and
ground water quality investigations at the site began in June. 1980,
a certain amount of monitoring was performed in the 1970s by the
RWQCB. During the early phases of t.he investigations, however,
many of the current regulations and guidelines were not in effect.
Therefore, investigation and remediation activities were not always'
~ ".
performed in accordance with the state and federal laws currently
in effect. Certain activities were par-formed by CWP without
authorization of the regulatory agencies (Appendix A) ~
As required by the National Contingency Plan (NCP 1985) and
Superfund Amendment and Reauthor~zationAct (SARA 1986), applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) have been used as
a guide to evaluate the appropriate extent of site cleanup, select
appropriate remedial action alternatives, and has been and will be
used in implementation and operation of the selected remedial
action. As required by SARA, state requirements that are more
stringent than federal requirements must generally be attained in
implementation of remedial actions. These laws and regulations are
as follows: .
o
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(S~) of 1986.
7-43
,"
'-." ~ <:~ .
,~ -:::.
-"
".-...
- "
,'- ". .
-------
o.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. (RCRA) . of.'
1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (RCRA or HSWA) . .
Safe Drinking Water Act.
o
o
California Code of Regulations, Title 22,
Division 4: Environmental Health (Chapter 1,
Article 1; Chapter 2, Article 1; Chapter 30), July
1986.
o
California Health and Safety Code.
North Coastal Basin Water Quality Control Plan
adopted by the RWQCB.
o
o
All orders, including specifications, provisions,
prohibitions, and requirements issued by the RWQCB.
Court order by the State of California, Office of
the Attorney General.
o
o
National contingency Plan, pertinent hazardous
waste regulations under 40 CFR, Parts 260 to 265;
Part 300-68, July 1985.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, 1969.
o
Based on a request made,by DHS, a draft of the Deed of Restriction
on Real Property is under preparation and will. be included as
Appendix G to this document.
7-44
". ...: '" ".' . .' .
~;.::.~. ~'~ ~'
-------
8.0
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
As mentioned in Section 5.0, the interim .remedial meaSures program
has been in effect for some time. Therefore, a number of elements
of the recommended remedial action plan have already been
implemented. According to CWP, pumps and piping associated with
ground water extraction from Wells CWP-18, HL-7, andCWP-8 are in
place and in operating condition. Also, the electrochemical unit
is on site and in operating condition.
Subsequent to approval of the RAP, the following activities need
to be completed prior to full-scale operation:
o
Final permit from the City for discharge of treated
water into the sanitary sewer.
o
Connecting the line to the sewer system.
o
Permitting, design, and construction of off-site
extraction system, if needed.
System startup and testing.
o
Because of uncertainties associated with the time of approval of
. the RAP and obtaining the permit to discharge into the sanitary
sewer, the real time schedule is not known. Connecting the line
to the sewer system, construction of the. off-site extraction
system, if needed, and system startup can be completed within a
three-month period. . .
8-1
~ _.: :y.. ~ \ . ::-- ...
,~'.'.:.".~ 2'.~ '{-'
-------
9.0
ALLOCATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND..
PROVISIONS FOR FINANCIAL ASSURANCE.
Allocation of financial responsibility and provisions
assurance are being negotiated with the regulatory
will be included in the RAP in the near future.
for financial
agencies and
9-1
~. --.: " ~,' . .. ..'" -
.': ~ .....-::-
"-..::: 0.- . ~..-: ~ ~ - ~ ~
-------
10.0
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
Operation. and maintenance (O&M). requirements will be developed
subsequent to system design, installation, and startup. These
requirements shall be outlined in an operation and maintenance
manual. . However, the general O&M requirements related . to the
following components and features of the recommended remedial
action are briefiy described. .
o
o
o
o
o
o
Ground water extraction
Ground water treatment
General system inspection and monitoring
General safety procedures
Evaluation of system effectiveness
Reporting. .
I
10.1 GROUND WATER EXTRACTION
During the startup period, flow adjustments shall be made in
accordance. with CWP's water recycling requirements and limits of
treated water discharge. However, attempts will be made to
maximize extraction rates for more effective hydraulic control and
remediation. provisions must be made to record the extraction rate
and cumulative flow from each extraction well.
During normal operation, the O&M requirements include flow
adj ustment and recording, maintenance of pumps and pipelines,
calibration of gauges and flow totalizers, periodic system
inspection, and record keeping. The O&M manual should provide
detailed procedures for flow control and data recording during
system operation.
10.2 GROUND WATER TREATMENT
Andco Environmental Services, Inc. has provided CWP with procedures
for operating the electrochemical unit existing at the site. Some
of the operational features of the. unit are summarized in
10-1
~, -- "'...~
...' '. '-......' '.
'~.." .~ ~
-'''''~
,
-------
section 7.2. The Andco operating procedures outline the following
steps with sufficient detail for implementation:
o
o
o
o
o
.0
o
Startup operation
Daily acid washing and
Spent acid disposal
Acid makeup
Shutdown
Electrode replacement
Precautions.
polarity changing
Since installation of the electrochemical
modifications to improve its operation.
extraction/treatment system shall be
modifications.
unit, CWP has made some
The operator of the
familiar with these
10.3 SYSTEM INSPECTION AND MONITORING
It is recommended that the ground water extraction/treatment system
be inspected once per day. The inspection should include the
extraction well piping and instrumentation; pipelines transferring
contaminated water to the sump; main header to. .the sewer system:
and treatment system unit, pipes, and instrumentation. Flow
totalizer readings at the extraction wells and the treatment system
influent line should be recorded.
System monitoring should be performed according to the requirements
set forth by the RWQCB and the City of Ukiah, as provided in the
RAP and supplementary documents issued by these agencies.
A daily operation log shall be maintained at the site to record
these routine inspections. The log shall be a bound, hard-covered
book with numbered pages. In addition to flow totalizer readings
and other observations, the operator(s) shall record any problems
encountered, the corrective actions taken, and any other relevant
information. Each entry shall include the time, date, and the
operator' sname or initials. The information in the daily
10-2
~ ..~ ~~.. .~ .
\::. . .:.-_: ~ -:::. h.'::'
-------
--- ---------~-_._- -- --~~-~~~.-
, , ,
, ,
operation log will be used in preparing monthly reports to the
RWQCB and in evaluating the effectiveness of the ground water
extraction and treatment system.
Information related to
recorded in the log book.
minimum:
water quality sampling shall also be
This"information should include, at a
o
o
o
o
o
o
Sample locations
Date and time of sample collection
Number of containers collected
Analyses requested
Name of sampling personnel
Comments.
Comments may include such things as odors observed, appearance of
the water (turbidity, color, etc.), weather conditions, or other
, ,
pertinent information.
10.4 GENERAL SAFETY PROCEDURES
The general safety procedures pertinent 'to the
action are as follows:
recommended remedial
o
Operating equipment shall be checked frequently
for signs of leakage, corrosion~ or damage. Any
such defects noted shall be repaired or otherwise
corrected before any adverse consequences result.
Tools, pip~, and other equipment shall not be left
lying around the extraction well heads or around
the electrochemical treatment unit.
o
o
Waste material and sludge should be placed in a
suitable receptacle or removed from the site
according to the appropriate regulations.
Any spills of contaminated ground water shall be
cleaned up immediately and reported, as
appropriate.
o
10-3
~ ~ .;?,~~ i \~ - f: -_-c','
-------
. It is recommended that only persons familiar with the ground water
. .
extraction and. treatment system perform operation and maintenance
activities.
10.5 EVALUATION OF SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS.
Based on ground water monitoring data, the effectiveness of the
. .
.extractionjtreatment system. shall be evaluated. The evaluation
will include the hydraulic response of the water-bearing zones to '
::extraction and water quality changes with time. This type of
evaluation is usually performed on an annual basis. The results
of such evaluations will be used to make projections for aquifer
cleanup and modifications to the remediation strategy, if
necessary.
10.6 SITE INSPECTION
:The site shall be inspected periodically to identify potential
migration pathways of the contaminants and take appropriate
. corrective actions. The asphalt cover, particularly in retort.and'
sump areas, shall be carefully inspected and repaired accordingly
to prevent surface infiltration. Other surface features shall be
. .
. ,
inspected to prevent migration of wood preserving chemicals into
. ,
:surface waters.. .
10.7 REPORTING
.The reporting requirements during the implementation of the
recommended remedial action will be in accordance with the'
guidelines and procedures set forth by the RWQCB, DHS, EPA, the
Ci ty, and other regulatory agencies. Monthly progress reports
shall be prepared and submitted to the agencies. The progress
reports will present a summary of the work performed, data
collected, and interpretations made in the preceding month. If,
changes need to be made, the progress reports will outline the
propose~changes for the agencies' information and approval. An
10-4
~ -' ~ "',
..' '. . "",--"", .....
, \~-.. - :~
~ . " ,'''':::: ~ --
-------
annual report shall be prepared summarizing.the data obtained. and
theassocicited findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOSYSTEM CONSULTANTS, INC.
H~~ HJ;?'t/'vJ
I
I
I . .
Mohsen Mehran, Ph. D..
Project Manager
(CGWP No. 189) .
f}(6'? tL{{ -
Ph~l~p .Klller
Senio Project Engineer
(RCE No. C 042600)
, ;
10-5
'" -' :::\ ~. . . . ,~ .
.' . ....::::....... .' -..::..:. "-
~ " .' -,: ~ ~- h :....
-------
REFERENCES
Ahmed, S.M., 1979, "Electrochemical Studies of Metal Sulfides in
Relation to Flotation," Recent Developments in Separation Science,
Vol. V, ed. CRC Press, West Palm Beach, Florida,pp. 95-133.
Andco Environmental
communications.
Processes,
Inc. ,
June
1987,
personal
Arumugam, V., 1976,
Liquor by Chemical
18 (1): 47-57.
"Recovery of Chromium from Spent Chrome Tan
Precipitation," Indian J. Environ. Health,
Ayres, J.L. and P.S. Fedkiw, 1983, "Abatement of Heavy Metals in
Industrial Effluents by a catalyzed Electrochemical Removal
Scheme," Report No. 207, Water Resources Research Institute of The
University of North Carolina, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina. .
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4: Environmental.
ijealth, July 1986.
California Department of Health Services, November 1987, "Health
~ffects of Arsenic Compounds," prepared by Air Unit Hazard
Evaluation Section.
California Department of Health Services, August 1, 1989, "Comments
and Changes for. Final Remedial Action Plan - coast Wood Preserving"
submitted to Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.
California Energy Commission, March 1978, "California Solar Data
Manual," report prepared by Solar Energy Group, Energy and
Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
California Energy Commission, April 1985, "Wind Atlas," report
prepared by the California Department of Water Resources for the
California Energy Commission, Contract Number P-500~82-044.
California Health and Safety Code, 1986, "Environmental Health,"
Section 25356.1.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, -North Coast
Region, 1982, "North Coastal Basin Water Quality Control Plan.".
California Regional Water Quality control Board, North Coast
Region, May 29, 1987, "Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program
No. 85-10~ (Revised May 29, 1987) for Coast Wood Preserving
Company."- .
l .
R-1
",' .-' ~ ..'.'
. . . ....-......
~ '. . .~ 0~
~-:.:....
-------
Cardwell, G.T. 1965, "Geology and GroundWater in the Russian River
Valley Areas, and in Round, Laytonville, and Little Lake Valleys,
Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, California," U. S. Geological Survey,
Water-Supply Paper 1548, 154 pages. ' ,
Cleary, R.W. and M.J. Ungs, 1978, "Ground Water, Pollution and
Hydrology, Mathematical Models and 'Computer Programs," Rep.
78 -WR-15 ,Wa ter Resources Program, Princeton University, Princeton,
NJ.
Coast Wood Preserving, Inc., April 30, 1987, "Proposed Discharge
of Treated Ground Water to City of Ukiah Sewage Treatment Plant,"
proposal submitted to City of Ukiah.
County of Mendocino, Department of Agriculture, 1985, "Agricultural
Crop Report," 6 pp.
D'Appolonia consulting Engineers, Inc./IT Corporation, May 1984,
"Investigation of Chromium in Soil, Ukiah, California," report,
submitted to Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. '
Dean, J.G., F.L. Bos~i, and K.H. Lanouette, 1972, "Removing Heavy
Metals from Wastewater," ,Environ. Sci. Technol., 6(6): 518-522.
Department of, Health Services, January 11, 1984 , "criteria for
Identification of Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Wastes,"
California Administrative Code, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30,
Article' 11.
I .
Department of Health Services, June 1985, "The California Site
Mitigation Decision Tree," A draft working document, prepared by
the Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control
Division, Alternative Technology & Policy Development section.
Department of Health Services,' February 18, 1987, "Draft Guidelines
for the Remedial Action Plan," memorandum from Jerry Marcotte to
SMU Staff.
Department of Health Services, September 1987, "DHS, Policy and
Procedure for Remedial Action Plan Development and Approval
,Process, opp#: 87-2," prepared by Toxic Substances Control Division.
Department of Water Resources, June 1956, "Geology, Hydrology and
Water Quality of Alluviated Areas in Mendocino County and
Recommended Standards of Water Well Construction and Sealing,"
Water Quality Investigations, Report ,No. 10.
Department of Water R.esources, May 1980, "Water Action Plan for
the Russian River Service Area." '
.,
R-2
,",
~ ,",
. ...::::.."
..~ .:.'
""'-."
..:c'
-------
" '
Department of Water Resources,' october 1986, "Inventory of 'Wells
in Township 14 North, Range 12 West, Sections 4 and 5, and Township
15 North, Range 12 West, Sections 32 and 33 in Mendocino County,"
report prepared for Geosystem Consultants, Inc. '
Elzel, J.E. and D.H. Tseng, 1984, "Regeneration of Heavy Metal
Exhausted cation Exchange Resin with a Recoverable Chelating
Agent," paper presented at the Summer National AICHE Meeting,
Philaqelphia, Pennsylvania, August 19-22., '
H. Esmaili & Associates, Inc., August 1981, "Investigation of
Ground water Pollution at Coast Wood Preserving, Inc., Plant Site
in Ukiah, California,"report prepared for Coast wood Preserving,
Inc., 41 pages.
Farrar, C.D., July 1986, "Ground-water Resources in Mendocino
County, California," u.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources
Investigations Report 85-4258, 81 pp.
, '
Geosystem Consultants, In,c., March 1986, "Evaluation of On-Site
Ground Water Extraction, Ukiah, California," report submitted to
Coast wood preserving,' Inc.
Geosystem Consultants, Inc., September 15, 1986; "Remedial Action
P'lan,Coast wood Preserving, Inc., Ukiah, California,u predraft
report submitted to Coast wood Preserving, Inc.
Geosystem Consultants, Inc., September 19, 1986, "Definition and
Hydraulic Control of Chromium in Ground Water, Ukiah, California,"
draft report submitted to Coast wood Preserving, Inc.
Geosystem Consultants, Inc., November 21, 1986" "Soil Leaching
Characteristics and Duration of Aquifer Cleanup, Coast wood,
Preserving, Inc., Ukiah, California," letter report submitted to
Coast Wood preserving, Inc. ' ' ,
Geosystem Consultants, Inc., January 15, 1987, "Monitoring Well
Installation and Additional Site Characterization, Ukiah,
California," report submitted to Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. '
Geosystem Consultants, Inc., April 1, 1987, "Evaluation of Off-site
Remediation, Ukiah, California," report submitted to Coast Wood
Preserving, Inc.
Geosystem Consultants, Inc., August 1987, "Ground Water/storm Water
Monitoring Protocol," report submitted to Coast Wood Preserving,
Inc.
R-3
::'
.:::"\ ..-'" .
. '-:.:..."
. ','" ,\..
-
,~ .
,
-------
. . .
. .
Geosystem Consultants, Inc., February 29, 1988, "Remedial Actio.n'
Plan, Draft No.2," report submitted to Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.
Geosystem Consultants, Inc., February '3, 1989,
Remedial Action Plan," Coast Wood Preserving,
California. .
"Third
Inc. ,
Draft-
Ukiah,
Geosystem Consultants, Inc., April 21, 1989, "progress. Report,
March 1989, Coast Wood Preserving, Inc., Ukiah, California,"
submitted to Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. .
Geosystem Consultants, Inc. May 3, 1989, "Final Draft - Remedial
Action Plan," Coast Wood Preserving, Inc., Ukiah, California.
Gray, D.H., 1966, "Coupled Flow Phenomena in Clay-Water Systems,"
Ph.D. thesis, Universlty of California, Berkeley.
Gray D. and J.K. Mitchell, 1967, "Fundamental Aspects of Electro-
osmosis in Soils," J. of Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE 93 (SM6) :
209-236.
Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce, June 21, 1987, "The Ukiah Daily
Journal," newspaper.
Hindin, I., 1968, "Water Reclamation by Reverse Osmosis," Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration.
Huang, C.P. and M.H. Wu, 1975, "Chromium Removal by Carbon
Adsorption," J. Water Pollute Control Fed., 47(10): 2437-2446.
IT corporation, June 1985, "Hydrogeologic and Remedial Action
Feasibility studies," report submitted to Coast Wood Preserving,
Inc.
James, B. R. and R.J. Bartlett, 1983, "Behavior of Chromium in
Soils: VII. . AdsorptIon and Reduction of Hexavalent Forms," Journal
Environmental oual{tv, Vol. 12, No.2, 177-181.
JAM, March 1974,. "Richard
Environmental Impact Report.
Javandel, I., C. Doughty, and C.J. Tsang, 1984, "Ground Water
Transport: Handbook of Mathematical Models," Water Resources
Monograph Series 10, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.
Todd
Gravel
Extraction,"
draft
J. H.' Kleinfelder & Associates, November 1982, "Phase II Ground
Water Study, Coast Wood Preserving, Inc., Ukiah, California,"
report prepared for Coast Wood Preserving, Inc., 11 pages.
R-4
"'. .': '" :--..
'. ...:::...-...
~,....'~. ~
- .
~..
.. -
-------
Konasewich, D.E. and F.A. Henning, July 1986,"CCA" wood
Preservation Facilities" - Recommendations for" Design "and.
Operation," report prepared for Environmental Protection Service,
Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada.
Landrigan, R.B. and .1.B. Hallowell, 1975, "Removal of Chromium from
Plating Rinse Water Using Activated Carbon," U.S. NTIS AD-A Report
No. PB-243370: 54. "
Life Systems, Ihc., October 1985, "Drinking Water criteria Document
for Chromium (Final Draft);" prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. "
McBride, J.R." and J. Strahan, September 1981, "Fluvial Processes
and Woodland Succession Along Dry Creek, Sonoma County,
california," paper presented at the California Riparian Systems
Conference, University of California, Davis. ""
Mehran, M., 1971, "Electrical Dispersion and Electrokinetic
Phenomena in Clays, II Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Davis.
Mitchell, J.K. and K. Arulanandan, 1968, "Electrical Dispersion in
Relation to Soil Structure," J. of Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE
94(SM2):447-471. . "
NAS (National Academy of Sciences), 1974, "Medical and Biological
Effects of Environmental Pollutants: Chromium," National Academy.
Press, Washington, "D.C.
NIOSH, 1975, "Occupational
document HEW (NIOSH) 76-129.
Pemsler, J.P. and A.S. "Rappas, 1979, Metal Recovery from Solution
by Selecti ve Reduction of Metal Ions," Recent Developments in
"Separation Science, Vol. V, ed. CRC Press, West Palm Beach,
Florida, pp. 135-158.
Exposure to Chromi um VI , "
criteria
Poon, C.P.C. and C.-F. Lu, 1981, "Seawater Electrolysis for
Chromium Removal," Poco 36th Purdue Industrial Waste Conf., 36:493-
499.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, 1969.
Savings Bank of Mendocino County, 1987, "Rainfall Data," customer
service information reportedly compiled from U.S. Weather Bureau
reports and Ukiah Fire Department records.
R-5
,"
. ".... ---~'
.' . \...."- . :.................
"
\~ ".
-------
I-
,
Stollenwerk, K.G. and D.B. Grove, 1985, "Adsorption and Desorption
of Hexavalent 'Chromium in Alluvial Aquifer Near 'Telluride,'
Colorado," Journal of Environmental Ouality, Vol. 14, No.1,
150-155.' .
Towil1", L.~.., C.R. Shriner, :;.S. Drury, A.S. Hammons, and J.W.'
Holleman, 1978, "Reviews of the Environmental Effects of
Pollutants: III. Chromium," prepared for Health Effects Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA,
Cincinnati, Ohio; Report No. ORNL/EIS-80 and EPA-600/l-78-023.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 1982, "Russian River Basin
Study - Northern California streams Investigation," final report.
U. S. Environm-ental Protection Agency, 1976, "National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations," EPA/570/9-76-003.
Interim
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978, "Manual of Treatment
Techniques for Meeting the Interim primary Drinking Water
Regulations," EPA 600/8-77-005. -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980, "Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Chromium," EPA/440/5-76-035.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1984,
Assessment Document for Chromium," EPA-600/8-83-014F. -
"Health
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1985a, "Guidance on
Remedial Investigations under CERCLA," EPA/540/G~85/002.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1985b,
Feasibility Studies under CERCLA," EPA/540/G-85/003.
U.s. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1985, "National oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution contingency Plan," Code of Federal
Register, 40 CFR Section 300.61 et seq. .
"Guidance on
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1986, "Quality Criteria
for water 1986," EPA/5-86-00l.
U.S. Public Health Service, November 1987, "Toxicological Profile
for Arsenic," prep~red by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry.
Weber, W.J., Jr., 1972, "Ion Exchange~" Physicochemical Processes
for Water Quality Control, W.J. Weber,ed., Wiley-Interscience,
New York, New York. .
R-6
"'
~
" ~..
'.,~ ~'::..-.. ",'
, '-
".:::::--
"' .
:::
-------
I \
,. ,
,
, ,
. '
. .
Yoshida, H.K., K. Karnegawa, and S. Arita, 1977, "Adsorption of '
Heavy Metal Ions on Activated Carbon. Adsorption and Reduc~ion of
Chrorniurn(VI) on Activated Carbon," Nippon Kaguku Kaishu, 3:387-390;
(abstract) Chern. Sbstr., 86(24) :176,757s.
R-7
~ _: ,,- v. . ...
.,':' ~'..::..,......
~. . ~= ~ ..::: . ~
-------
TABLES
I.
,,-- ~ "':
...::::........ \"
~'. .'_:~'~
::---- -- .
.::s
~
-------
TABLE'
WELL COMSTRUCTIOM DETAILS
GROUND ELEVATION OF
SURfACE REFERENCE BOR ING PERFORATED ZONE CASrNG
WELL NO. ELEVATION(') POINT(1) 2fW INTERVAL MONITORED 0 r AI"ETER
(ft. aboye (ft. aboye (ft.) (ft. belo.. Cinches)
MSL) MSL) ground surhce)
CWP - 1 582.2 582.99 20.0 17 - '9 1 6
CWP-2A 582.6 582.08 17.1 13.5 - 15.5 1 6
!:WP - 28 . 582.6 582.08 11.0 9 . 11 1 6
CWP-3 580.1 580.37 .20.0 9 - 12 ,(2) 6
CWP-4A 579.2 578.83 . 12.0 10 - '2 , 6
CWp.4D 579.6 578.76 14.5 10 . 14 1 6
CWP'5 578.2 578.10 20.0 7.5 - 10 1 6
CWP-6 582.5 582.02 14.8 8 . 12 1 6
CWP-7 576.1 576.75 25.0 6 . 25 1 &2 12
CWP-8 576.7 577. 09 23.0 4 . 23 1 & 2 . 12
CWP.9 578.8 579.21 26.0 6 . 26 1 & 2 12
CWp.11 578.0 579.76 12.0 6 - 11 1 4
CWP-12 576.9 579.29 26.5 13 . 23 1 4
CWP - 13 576.4 579.19 41..5 28 . 38 2 & 3 .4
CWP . 14 576.2 577.65 31.5 18 . 28 1 & 2 4
CWP-15 578.1 . 579.96 41.5 22 . 32 2 "
CWP - 16 578.3 581.84 12.0 7 - 12 1 4
CWP-17 580.0 581.19 46.5 35 . 45 4 4
CWP' 18 582.3 582.69 14.0 5 - 14 1 8
CWp.19 584.2 583.37 24.0 6 . 24 1 & 2 8
CWP-20 578.9 578.52 23.0 5 - 23 1 2
CWP-21 576.6 579.39 .22.0 5 - 20 1 2
CWP-22 577.3 580.02 28.0 21.8 . 26.8 2 4
HL-7 577.5 578.36 19.0 9 . 19 1 12
FPT'1A NM(3) NM 20.0 13 . 18 1 2
FPT.1B 575.3 575.23 9.0 6 . 9 1 2
FPT.28 569.1 568.68 14.5 10 . .14.5 1 2.
FPT.2C 568.9 568.81 8.0 5 . 8 1 2
FPT-3 574.5 575.57 20.0 11 . 16 ,(b) 2
FPT-4 572.2 573.30 18.0 4 - 18 1 2
FPT.5 570.0 571.90 17.0 5 . 17 1 2
AT-1 571.8 572.95 16.5 7 . 16 1 4
AT'2 569.9 571.10 17.0 1 . 15.5 1 4
AT-3 568.9 570.04 22.0 9 - 22 1 4
AT.4 510.1 511.33 30.0 11.5 . 27 2 4
AT-5 568.6 569.33 41.0 10.3 . 14.7 1 4
NOTES: 1) Established by level survey on January 7, 1987. Supersede previous eleyeti'ons.
2) Well construction may cause communication bet..e.n Zones 1 and 2.
3) NM denotes Not Measured.
" ~ ". ~ \' . -...
.~~ "." ~"~.....
.~'. .=-=-- ~ -':::: -,'
-------
TABLE 2
MONTHLY AND ANNUAL MEAN CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA'
UKIAH, cALIFORIIA
!!Q.I!l!!. TEMPERATURE(1) PREC I P I TA HON (2) WINDSPEED(3)
(oF) (inches) (lIIiles/hour)
January 46.0 7.97 2.9
February 49.8 6.17 3.5
March 51.7 4.62 4.2
April 56.1 2.38 4.5
May 61.6 1.03 4.9
June 67.6 0.32 5.3
July 73.7 0.04 4.5
August 72.7 0.06 4.2
September 69.7 0.46 3.6
October 61.5 1.83 3.2
November 52.7 4.38 2.4
December 47.0 6.94 2.3
Annual 59.2 36.27 3.8
NOTES:
1) California Energy Commission, .California Solar Data. Manual,. report
prepared by Solar Energy Group, Energy and Environment Division, Lavrence
Berkeley Laborator;es, 317 pp, 1978.
2) Farrar, C.D., .Groundvater Resources in Mendoc;no County, California,. U.S.
Geological Survey, Water' Resources Investigations Report 85,4258, 81 pp,
July 1986.
3) California Energy COIIIIIiss;on, .California \Hnd Atlas,. report prepared by
California Department of Water Resourc.s, 210 pp, April 1985.
" .:-:' ,"" v -..: .. ::-- h- .:
." ~ '-' .~
~ ',."-'::~"':::: --
.-
- .
-------
TABLE 3
ON-SITE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION RECORDS
(All~nits are inches)
~ ill!.:. ill..:. ~ lli.:.. ~ :Ull!S. lYU ~ ~ Q£L. ~ Q!4 ~
1981 NA (1 ) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.6
1982 0.8 4.95 8.19 5.66 0(2) 0.30 0 0 0.08 1.26 8.59 7.20 37.03
1983 NA NA 14.88 6.20 0.30 0 0 0 0 0.10 16.01 13.85 51.34
1984 0.04 3.71 2.30 0.37 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 10.70 2.25 22.67
1985 0.20 3.25 4.19 0 0 0 0 0 1.40 1.80 3.40 2.81 17.05
'"
1986 7.42 15~97 7.39 0~62 0 0 0 0 0 0.80 0.30 3.95 36.45
1987 7.20 4.81 6.10 0.55 0.35. 0 0 0 0 2.10 4.10 10.04 35.25
1988 8.63. 0.45 0.20 1.40 0.60 1. 01 0 0 0 0.03 7.22 3.92 23.46
NOTES:
1> NA denotes Not Available.
2) "0" denotes no rainfall.
" ..~ " ,,'.: ~, -_.' -
. ~. ~ .
~", .' .~. ..:~ ~~.
-------
C'" .
": .*"
TABLE 4
YATER-paOOUCIM' YELL IMVEMTORJ AMD COMST.UCTIOII DETAILS
OA JE OF IIAf fa CASIIiG WELL LOG
WElL IIUMBER COMPLETIOII ~ 0 I AMEJER PERFORATIOIIS ill!! AVA ILABLE
(inches) (feet) (feet)
1I.1I/12W- 3F 1 (1) IIA(2) IIA IIA NA IIA 110.
1I.1I/12Y. 3J1 (1) NA IIA IIA IIA IIA 110
1411/12\1-3Q10 ) IIA NA IIA IIA NA 110
11, 11/1211'1,8 (3 ) IIA IIA IIA IIA IIA 110
1I,1I/1211.4C 1911 Irrigation 12 35.-75 75 Yes
11,11/1211-401 1972 Irrigation 8 29.68 68 Yes
1411/1211'402(3) NA NA IIA IIA IIA 110
1I,1I/1~1I' 4E 1 6/11/46 IIA 12 12-25. 35-36 107 Yes.
1I,1I/12W-,,(3) IIA IIA IIA IIA IIA 110
1411/1211-4J(3) IIA Irrigation NA IIA NA 110
1411/1211-41(1(1) IIA IIA IIA IIA NA 110
1411/1211-4" 1961 Domestic NA NA IIA 110
1411/1211-I,P1 IIA NA 12 NA 100 Yes
1411/1211' 4R 1 (3) IIA Irrigation IIA IIA IIA 110
1I,1I/1211-4R2(3) IIA Irrigation IIA IIA NA 110
1411/12\1-5A1 6/08/'8 IIA 8 50'62 107 Yes
1I,1I/12\1.5A2 4/30/86 Domes tic 6 81'101. 121.181 181, Yes
11,11/12\1- 5G 1 Deepened 1960 OOPlestic IIA IIA IIA 110
1I,1I/12\1.5G2 1960 Domest ie IIA IIA IIA 110
1I,1I/12\1.5G3 1963 Irrigation 8 19-29 29 Yes
1411/1211'5"' 1959 Irrigation IIA IIA IIA 110
1411/12W.5112 1977 Irrigation 8 18-50 100 Yes
1411/1211-51(1 1952 Domest ic 8 69-85.5 94 Yes
1411/12W-5111 1962 Domest ic IIA NA IIA 110
11.11/1211' 5p 1970 Domest ie IIA IIA IIA 110
1411/1211-5112 1977 Dcmest ie NA IIA IIA 110
1411/1211-5 (I,) 1971, DomeU ie NA IIA IIA 110
"11/1211-5 (I,) 1977 Domest i c IIA IIA IIA 110
"11/1211,5 (I,) 1977 Domest ie 6 .271 - 295 295 Yes
.\
II
-------
IABlE4
(Continued)
PAlE Of WUER CASING WEll lOG
WEll NUMBER COMPlEI10N ...Yft- D IAMEJ ER PERfORUIONS lli!! AVAILABLE
(inthes) (feet) (feet)
1411/12W-9A1 5126/75 Municipal 14 35-95 100 Yes
1411/12"-9A2 1978 Municipal 14 34-94 101 Yes
1411/12W-9H1 (1) IIA IIA NA IIA NA 110
1511/12"-271:1(1) .NA Irrigation 72 IIA NA 110
1511/12W-27111(1) NA Irrigation 14 IIA 90 110
1511/12W-28C 8125/61 Irrigation 8 40-60 60 Yes
1511/1211-28C8 7/06/60 Irrigation 12 18-60 64 Yes
15N/12W-28D 5115/73 Domest ic 8 20-39 39 Yes
1511/12W-28E 1/01/79 Irrigation 8 24-70 70 Yes
15N/12W-28f 8/31/63 Municipal 14 18-98 116 Yes.
1511/12W'28G1 3/21/69 Pomest I c 12 19-64 64 Yes
1511/12W'28G2 3/28/69 I rrigat ion 8 20-40 40 Yes
1511/12W.28G3 8/03/75 . Irrlguion 12 28-91 95 Yes
1511/12w-28G4 8/07/77 Irrigation 12 30-85 85 Yes
1511/12W-28"8 12127/73 I rr igat ion 12 61-101, 121-141 202 Yes
158-178, 195-202
1511/12W-28J 3/24/68 Irrigation 12 310-38, 103-92 95 Yes
1511/12W-28J 3119168 Test Welt 72 Yes
1511112"- 2811 3/12/59 Irriguion 12 18-40 40 Yes
1581/12W-28l2 3114/59 Irrigation 12 20-38 38 Yes
1581/12W-28" 2/06/59 Irrigation 16 17-18, 21-26, 40 Yes
33-38
1581112W- 28R1 (1) IIA Domest ic 36 IIA 30 110
1511112w-298 10/23/67 Domestic 8 17-1,2 1,2 Yes
1511/12W-29" 11118/66 Domestic 8 20-1,0 1,0 Yes
1511/12W- 32[1 10/21/1,8 IIA 12 IIA 150 Yes
1511/1211.32G 1957 Public 12 IIA 100 Yes
\'
-------
NOlfl;
~-l ~"
TABLE 4
(Continued)
DATE OF IIAT ER CASING IIELL lOG
IIELL IIUHBER COHPlETIOII .J!!L 0 JAHETER PUFORA TI ONS DEPTH AVAILABLE
(inches) (feet) (feet)
15N/12W-32i.1 1960 Domestic 14 IIA 30 Yes
1511/12W-32L2 1977 Oomest ie 8 12-22 22 Yes
'511/1211-]2l] 1977 Oomest i e IIA IIA IIA No
1511/1211-32 (4) '973 Irrigation IIA IIA IIA 110
1511/'2W- 32a, (1) NA Domes tie 12 IIA 65 110
'511/1211-3]0 .1969 Domes tic: 12 18-58 58 Yes
'511/1211-33E,(5) IIA Irrigat ion 6 IIA 25 No
1511/1211-33E2(5) 7/22153 Municipal 16 30-47. 76-104 108 Yes
1511/12W-33EJ 1955 Municipal 810 22-33 33 110
1511/1211-33E4 1959 Municipal 84 15-29 29 110
1511/1211-3U5 1972 Municipal 12 32 -104 104 Yes
1511/1211-33E6 1972 Hunl c1pal 16 100-50. 60-115 130 Yes
1511/1211-33J8 1966 Irrigation 12 35-"". 50-510. 125 Yes
61 - 78, 810 - 100,
105-112. 120- 123
1511/1211-33111 1971 Domes tie IIA IIA IIA 110
1511/1211- 33112(3) IIA IIA IIA IIA NA No
'511/1211-33H(3) IIA IIA IIA IIA IIA 110
'511112W-34E'(') IIA Irrigation 24 IIA 24 110
1511/1211- 350 1976 Irrigation 8 86-106 111 Yes
1) From Knight, Our~ee, and Bank. (1956).
2) IIA c lIot Available.
3) lie III were located by field inspection (Geosystem).
4) Unable to loclt. accurltely; not plotted on figure 5.
5) ALandoned. . .
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF AQUIFER PARAMETERS
ZOIE 1
PARAMETER
w.Yi.
SOURCE
Aquifer type
Semi-confined
Boring loga, subsurface
profile, field observations")
. - Aqui fer th i cknesa
10'15 ft.
Boring logs, subsurface profile
Hydraulic conductivity
1.13 x 10-3 .
3.3 x 10'2 cm/see
See Table 3
Average hydraulic gradient
0.009
Water level dltl, January '987
Effective Porosity
0.3
AssUlied
( ,
Ground water flow direction:
On-site
Off'site
Southeast
Southeast to South
Water tevel dlta
Water level data
Retlrdation factor
5
IT Corporltion, June '985
NOTES:
1) The water'bearing zone eppelrs to be confined. In AT'5, ground water was encountered
during dri II ing et a depth of about 13 feet and stebi"l i zed at a depth of about 6.0 feet.
'" -- ~ ~.
.:::;:,
~-_. -\::: ..:::.
-
~"
. .
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS
;
PUMPING OBSERVATION TESTED
TYPE OF TEST WELL WEll ~ PERMEAB fL ITY
(CII/sec)
Slug test (1) CWP'6 CWP'6 6.6 x 10'3
Pump i ng test (1) CWP.7 FPT.3 1 & 2 1.15 x 10'2
FPT'4 1 & 2 3.3 x 10.2
Slug test(1) CWP'10 CWP.10 3 5.4 x 10'6
Slug test(1) CWP'13 CWP'13 3 & 4 9.65 x 10.5
Pumping test(2) Hl'7 Cwp.5 1.5 x 10'2
"
Pumping tes't(2) CWP'18 CWP'18 1.13 x 10.3
CWP'6 2.93 x 10'3
NOTES:
1) Performed by IT Corporation.
2) Performed by Geosystem Consultants, Inc.
l '
'" ..:.c: '" ~" . ::-- -.::
. ':;, ~ \, -:::::-
~", .".:..'~ ~ -.::" .
-
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMART OF JANUART 1988 MONITORING RESULTS
STATION NO. TOTA( DISSOLVED CONCENTRATION
, OR ( lIIg/l )
SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE 1.0. CHROMIUM ARSENIC
Surfece Weter NE <0.02(1) <0.004
NW <0.02 <0.004
C.100 <0.02 <0.004
Ground WeCer CWp.1 <0.02
CWp.ZA 0.94
cwp.28 2.7
Cwp.] <0.02
CWP - 4A Dry
CWp.4D <0.02
~ CWP.5 12
CWP.6 50
CWP.7 <0.02
CWp.S 0.14
CWP.9 <0.02
CWp.11 <0.02
Cwp.12 <0.02
CWp. 1] <0.02
CWp.14 <0.02
CWp.15 <0.02
Cwp. 16 <0.02
Cwp.17 <0.02
CWp.1S ]7
Cwp.20 <0.02
,Cwp. 21 <0.02
HL.7 5.1
AT. 1 <0.02
AT.Z <0.02
AT.] <0.02
AT-I. <0.02
AT-5 <0.02
FPT - ZA <0.02
FPT.] <0.02
FPT-4 <0.02
FPT. 5 <0.02
::: .,~: '" ~ '<, . ~ -,~ '--- - ..
~ '" , :-..:- ~ .::::, .. ~ .
-------
TAILE 1
(Continued)
. SAMPLE TYPE
STATION NO.
OR
SAMPLE 1.0.
TOTAL DISSOLVED CONCENTRATION
(lII8/l)
CHROMIUIII
ARSENIC
Quality Assurancel
Quality Control Samples:
Duplicates
Dupl ican A
Dupl ican I
Dupl ican C
<0.02
2.1
<0.02
Field Method
Blanks
FMI. 1
FMI.2
<0.02
<0.02
NOTES:
.1) The symbol "
-------
TABLE 8
TOTAL CHROMIUM II AMBIEIT AIR
AT SELECTED LOCATIOIS
II THE UNITED STATES(1)
TOTAL CHROMIUM CONC. (mg/m3)
i
i
i .
MAXIMUM
AR ITHMET I C OBSERVED
LOCATION YEAR MEAN VALUE(2)
Los Angeles, CA 1977 0.0188 0.0666
Grand Canyon National
Park, AZ 1977 0.0058 0.0134
Bal timore, MD 1977 0.1568 0.2470(3)
1979 0.0935 0.4589
Steubenvilla, OM 1978 0.0517 0.2602
1978 0.1Z12 0.6839
NOTES:
1) Unpubl ished data froll 1977 to 1980 in the National Aarometric Data Bank.
maintained by the Monitoring and Data Analysis Division of EPA, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
2) Value. represent maximum 24-hour average.
3) Corrected from Maryland State Yearly Air Quality Oau Report, Baltimore,
MO, March 1978.
~ .: '" ~
...- ~
\..,"'.. ..-.0-' \:::. ~
~ . '-
.~
- ~.
-------
TABLE 9
CHROMIUM CONTENT OF SOIL AT
SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES(1)
CHROMIUM CONTENT (oom or ua/a)'
SOIL
LOCATION CHARACTERISTIC RANGE MEDIAN
PennsyLvania Agricultural surface and NR 110
subsoil
peninsular Florida Surface and subsoil <1 to 1,000 50
FLorida Surface and subsoiL <1 to 500 NR
Missouri On- and off-road soil NR 71
New Jersey Various soi Ls 29 to 75 NR
Michigan Various surface soils 3.2 to 17.6 ,NR
Ukiah(3) Agriculturel 20 to 100
...
NOTES:
1) Source: TowilL et al., 1978.
2) NR . Not Recorded.
3) RWQCB
'" ::.= ~ ,,\" . .;:-.
~. ":= . ~ \. ~
~ .: ,= \::::. ":::. - ~
-------
,.
..
TABLE 10
WA'ER QUALI'Y CRI'ERIA SUMMARY
NOTE:
'his chart is for general information; please use criteria. documents or detailed
summaries in "Quality Criteria for lIater 1986" for regulatory purposes.
COMPOUND
Arsenic
Arsenic (pent)
Arsenic (tr i)
Chromium (hex)
Chromium (tri)
Copper
NO. Of
CONCENTRA TlONS IN UQ/I UN IT S PER LITER STATES
WITH
EPA fRESH FRESH MARINE MARINE WATER FISH DRINKING AQUA TI C
PR 10Rl" CARCINOGENICI" ACUTE CHRONIC ACUTE CHRONIC AND fiSH CONSUMPTION !lATER DATE LIfE
POLLUTANl CLASSIFICATION(4) CRITERIA CRITERIA CRITERIA CRITERIA INGESTION ONLY M.C.l. REFERENCE STANDARD
Y A 2. 2ng( 1) 17. 5ng (1) O.05mg 1980fR 21
Y A 850(2) 48(2) 2,319(2) 13(2) 1985FR 21
Y A 360 190 69 36 1985fR 21
Y A 18 11 1,100 50 50ug O.OSmg 1985fR 24
N A 1,700(3) 210(3) 10,300(2) 1 70mg 3,433mg O.05mg 1985fR 24
Y D 18(3) 12(3) 2.9 2.9 1985fR 20
NOTES:
1 )
2)
3)
4)
Insufficient data to develop criteria. Value presented is the Lowest
Human health criteria for carcinogens rep9rted for three risk levels.
Hardness dependent criteria (100 mg/l used). .
Group A denotes "human carc.inogen" and Group D denotes "not classifiable."
9bserved Effect Level (LOEL).
Value presented in the 10-6 Risk Level.
Reference:
U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1, 1987, "Quality Criteria for \later 1986," Update 112, Office of !later Regulations and Standards.,
Criteria and Standards Division.
-------
TABLE 11
PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION STANDARDS
RECOMMENDED
OR
CHEMICAL ESTABLI SHED
!!S.!U.\ll! SPECIES/FORM STANDARD REFERENCE
Drinking water Cr(YI) 0.05 mg/l U.S. Public Health Standards,
1962
Drinking water Total Cr 0.05 mgll NAS, 1974; U.S. EPA, 1976
Workplace air Carcinogenic 0.001 mg/,,(S NlOSH, .975
forms of Cr(YI)
Workplace air Noncarcinogenic 0.025 mg/m3 TWA or NIOSH, 1975
forms of Cr(YI) 0.05 mg/m3 ceiling
Ambient water Cr(YI) 0.05 mgll U.S. EPA, 1980
Ambient wBter CrOll) 0.170 mg/l U.S. EPA, 1980
Ambient "Air (7) (7) 0.15 ug/m3 CARl R hit Va l ue
" " -' '" "
."": ~
~""._;.,~ ~
" . ....
~
- ~
-------
TABLE 12
ESTIRATED COST- OF VARIOUS REMEDIAL ACTIQI ALTER.ATIVES
(All amounts are in thousands of dollars)
SOIL REMOVAL AND SOIL REMOVAL AND IN-SITU PARTIAL EXCAVATION
Off'SITE DISPOSAL ON-SITE TREATMENT TREATMENT Off-SITE DISPOSAL CONTAINMENT NO ACTION
(4 MONTHS) C1 YEAR) - (2 YEARS) (4 MONTHS) (2 YEARS) (2 YEARS)
Design/Control 10 NA(1) NA(1) 5 20 5-
Mobilization 5 10 - 15 5 5 5 0
Excavation 40 - 50 40 0 50 30(2) 15 - 25 0 0
Transportation/Disposal 1,450 500(3) 260 200 0 275 0 0
Health and Safety 10 30 . 30 10 10 0
Supervision 20 150 100 10 15 . 20 0
Site Restoration 10 30 30 10 0 0
Contractor Profit 30 - 70 50 - 80 50 . 75 20 0 40 25(4) 0
Laboratory Costs 30 - 50 50 0 80 50 0 75 15 0 25 120- 15 15
Reporting 30 - 40 70 70 10 . 15 12 - 15 15
'otal Costs(5) 1,635 0 1,715 930 . 1,005(6) 625 . 675(7) 300 0 420 99 . 110 35
NOTES:
1) NA denotes Not Available; cost depends on design requirements.
2) Asphalt removal.
3) Treatment only.
4) Yell developers, samplers. -
5) All costs are estimates and are intended to provide relative cost comparisons for remediation olterna~ives.
- is not considered.
6) Excluding design costs-
7) Excluding design and field testing costs.
Inflation factor
-------
. TECHNOLOGY
Electrochemical Process
Chemical Reduction and
preci pitat i on
Chemical Precipitation with
Sedimentation or filtration
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmos is
Electrodialysis
GROUMD YATER TREATMEMT TEtHMOLOGIES
TABLE n
INSTALLATION
COMPARISONS
Relies on proven
technology
Relies on proven
technology
Re lies on proven.
technology: limited
installation for
chromium removal.
Relies on proven
technology.
Relies on proven
technology.
Relies on proven
technology.
Relies on proven
technology.
PROBABLE COST ($)
BASED ON 20 GPM
CAPITAL 0 & M.
Low
19,500
224,000
192,000
192,000
64,000
50,000 328,000
84,000 14,000
400,000 150,000
85,000
11,000
. .
COMMENTS
By far the most effective technique for
removing Cr(VI) from ground water: depletes
Cr(VI) content of ground water to EPA
compatible level.
This process
sludge which
disposed.
generates a large volume of
must be pretreated and
Effectiveness limited: low removal
efficiencies are reported in literature.
Effectiveness limited.
High regeneration cost; fluctuating
effluent quality.
Generates a concentrated stream, 10 to 25
percent of the feed volume, which must be
treated further by secondary treatment and
high cost.
Membrane fouling and clogging by residual
colloidal organic matter in ground water; .
may require more skill and care than other
systems discussed in this application.
-------
TABLE 14
REMOVAL OF CHROMIUM BY ELECTROCHEMICAL PROCESS
INITIAL RESIDUAL
CHROMIUM CHROMIUM REMOVAL
...2!!.... CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION EFFICIENCY COMMENTS
(mg/l) (mg/l) (X)
4.0 195 0.1 99.94. 30 minute, current densfty . 0.0085 A/cm2
6.8 180 0.04 99 . 91 50 IWfnute, current densfty . 0.007 A/cm2
7.7 150 0.0 .100.0 30 IWfnute, .current densfty . 0.011 A/cm2
8.8 185 0.06 99 . 96 40 8fnute, current density. 0.012 Alcm2
7.6 175 0.1 99.94 60 mfnute, current density. 0.0085 AI CII"
8.9 188 0.18 99.90 50 mfnute, current density. 0.011 Alcm2
~ --= '" ~ \. . :::--.--'
.. -::::::-. '.. ..::;:..
~....".,~ ~ _-::::
. ...
-------
I
-
TABLE 15
CITY OF UCIAH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR COAST WOOD PRESERVING. INC.
DECEMBER 1987
1.
WWTP BACKGROUND SCAN, ANNUALLY, PRIOR TO CWP DISCHARGE
LOCATION
A) Influent
B) Pri. Sed. Effluent (water)
C) Pri. Sed. Effluent (sludge)
D) Final Effluent (weter)
E) Sec. Sed. (sludge)
F) Digester
G) Sludge Lagoon
2.
WWTP, DURING DISCHARGE
LOCATION
A) Influent
B) Pri. Sed. Effluent (weter)
C) Pri. Sed. Effluent (sludge)
D) Final Effluent (water)
E) Sec. Sed. (sludge)
F) Digester.
G) Sludge Lagoon
3.
FREQUENCY
2 at 1 week
2 at 1 week
2 at 1 week
2 at 1 week
2 at 1 week
2 at 1 week
2 at 1 week
interval
interval
interval
interval
Interval
interval
interval
FREQUENCY
Weekly
Twice per week
Weelel y
Twice per week
Weekly
Weelel y
Monthly
CWP, ON-SITE BATCH SCAN BEFORE DISCHARGE
LOCATION
A) Holding Tank
NOTES:
1) A . BOD
B . pH
C . settleable solids
D . NFR
E . total chromium
FREQUENCY
Each batch
F .. arsani c
a . copper
H . volatile acids
I . total alkalinity
J . pH (sludge)
ANALYSIS(1)
A, B, C, 0, E, F, G, L
A, B, C, 0, E, F. G
E, F, a
A, I, C, 0, E, F, a, L, K
E, F, a
E. F, a, H, I, J
E, F, a
ANALYStS(1)
A, B, C, 0, E, F, G. L
A, I, C, 0, E, F, a
E, F, a
A, I, C, O,.E, F, G, K, L
E, F, a
E, F, G, H, I, J
E, F, G
ANALYSIs(1)
A, B, C, 0, E, F, G, N, N
K . coli for..
L . COD
'" . sulphate .
N . 96.hour bioassay
(stickleback)
See Sect. 3706.4
City Code.
(I) of
." ~ " ,="..
-..:::-:...\ ~
~'''..:'---...\::::.' ~ -. ~.
-------
UllE 16
SUN..I' Of SOil IEREDIAl ACII01 AlIE.IAIIVES
AlUIUIIVE AUUIIAHVE PIOnCHOII Of CO.PII AliCE IEDUCIIOII 0' lOXICII'(II
110. DESCRIPIIOII IIUIIAN liE all II 111111 AUR's fffEClIVEIIESS( I I 11081111'1111 & VOIUMEIVI couezl
(lon,- 'er.) Ii)
$.1 $011 l.-oval and Off. 'es. Mould ell.lnale MaV nol UlOpl V fffeclive 110 reducll2V of 1,100.000
Ih. Olspo181 lource of conll.lnl' Mhh loa) I, II. & v
lion
$.2
Soil I..oval. and On'
site '..a'.en'
$.3
In-sl,u Irea'..n'
5.4
Parlial facavallon &
Of"III. DI.po.al
5.5
Conlal...nl
S.6
10 Acllon
'ea, If truI ibilhv hs fffeclive Signifiesnl
studies prne reduct Ion 0'
fusible.( '. II, & V.
Yel, If IrUl ibll itv Yes IIIV be fffecilve leducllon 0'
studies fUn I. II, & V .ay nol
....Ibl. . change
Overall prolecllon lilY nol Ullply leu fffective 10 reduc'lf~ of'
frOlD Ihl. IIIernallve . ..ilh loa) '. II, & V. )
Mould be leu Ihan .
AII~rnalivel 5.1. 5.2.
and 5.].
hpplne Ihe Ihe 10 leu Effective 10 reduction of
..hh ..plla" Mill nol '. II. & V
redue. ISObUIIV 0'
conl..lnann
lIould nOl reduce 10 101 Effectlv. 10 reduc I Ion of
presenl or fulure '. II. & V.
"polures 10 chr08l...
I arunlc. Ihrul 10
IU88n 'ealth ..1&15.
1) All re..dlal acllon III.rnellvet Mill r.q~lre long"er. 8Onllorlo8.
e'f.cllvens.1 every 5 yeerl.
2) CO'II lIood're..rvln., Inc. Mill be requIred 10 .el up a Irutl Iccounl. Su'flcl.nl fund. Mill be IVIII.ble 'or Ihe
]) llnd dl,po'll ,..Irlcllon. (10') .,e an .ppllc.bl. 0' ,elev.n, .nd .pproprl.le requl,..enl. (.....1 pur.u.nl 10 Ihe
I) '..ov,1 or ea'lvlllon do.. nol ,.du,e 'he loalclly, .oblll,y or volume. 'he ..I." II relo'II.d '0 Inolh.r II'e.
5) Ir..I.enl le,hnologlel Mill b. eVllu'led prior 10 I..ple..onlilion 01 Ihe .elecled re...dv.
10lU:
1,000,000
675,000
420,000
110,000
o
OEPalIIlEI' Of HEal'H
SEIVICES 10HS) aCCEPlaNCE
I' AIIerollive 5.2 I. nol leasible
II li.e of closure; OHS will have
10 reconsider Ihis oplion. .
Does not leem 10 be promising
due 10 101.
this is the favored ,'t.rnatiwe
by OHS. provided lechnology is
lusible.
DHS Icetplln.. Is I... Ihan .
AII.rnaliv. 10. 5.2. boc.use o'
currently unproven technologies.
OHS Icc.pllnc. I. lOll, COOII""
Inanl. ar. nol ,o..ov.d. lOR .ay
apply.
'hIs pr.s.nl' Ihe 8real.sl
po..n,lal of r.l.a.e o.
conillOlnlnls If c'p 'allt.
00.1 not relult '" 8 per..nent
lolut ion. .
Ihls is nol .ccepl.d by OilS.
Conll..in.led solll lIould 001
be treated 0' ~e.oved.
In addilion. Ihe Superfund A...nd...OIS and 'eaulhorllilioo Acl (SaRA) o. 1986 require, review o' Ihe romedy
propo..d relOedlal IClion allernalive.
le.ourc. Con,ervelion and R.cove,y Acl (RCRal 01 1916.
-------
AltERNATIVE
NO.
MO'U:
AltERNATIVE
DESCRIPTION
'V. 1
PhYAlcal Contaln8ent
,v.2
In.Aitu frealaent
'V.J
lIydraullc Control
(ground ~atar a.tra'tlon
and treataent)
'V.4
.Elactrotlnetlc 'raataent
'V.5
110 Action
_IIAII Of '1l1li80 vatu l[ltEDIAI ACfl08 AltUlAflVES
'AilE 17
PRon Cf I ON 01
IIUIIAN H(AII II
'as, taeps tha ground
~ater plUtlle confined.
Maybe, Ireataent Is
not yet a proven
technolol)'.
'n, i-ediallly
raaediateA Iha ground
waler cont..ination.
"ayba, technology I.
stili In developaental
Uage.
Vould not raduca prasent
or lutura a'poAura 10
chroaiUII and arunlc.
'hreat 10 hUllan haallh
and env'roMlenl ealatl.
COIIPIIANCE
IIItH AlA"
'es
No
'as
No
No
If If Cli VE HESS (1)
(lone'hra)
REDUCflON 01 'OIIClfY('1
M08111'YIII) & VOIUIIE(V)
COS,121
(S)
Already
i"",le..ented
Nol
avai lable
19,500
Not
Available
o
DEPAR'"E.' 01 HEAI'H
SERVICES (DMS) ACCEPIANCE
'his Is the favored opl.ion by
OKS along with ground water
e~tr&t"on & treat~ent.
this is not' 8 proven technology
and nol I,cepted by DIIS.
'hi. IA Ihe favored option by
DIIS, Iione wilh plly.i,"'
containment.
'hiA IA nol I proven le,hnology
at Ihi, tiee. Mot accepted by
OMS.
'his IA nol accepled by DHS.
Contaminated tround water.
~outd not be treated or removed.
1) All raaadial action alt.rnatlv.. Hili raqulra long. lara 8Onllorlng.
aff.cllvana.. Ivar, flv. yaar..
2) COI.t \lood'ra.arvlng, Inc. will ba r.qulr.d to ..t up a truII accounl.
In addition, .Sup.rfund Auncleenll and Rtlulhorhalion ACI (SAU) 01 1986 requir.. revie.. 01 .Ihe re..edy
Sufllclenl fund. will be aVlilabl. lor the propo.ed re..edial "'ll on aiternllive.
Effective
leduc.. "
Unknown
Unknown
Effective
Significantly r.duce.
I, ", & V in co8bin..
allon.Hilh phy.ic.1
contaiNlcnt
Unknown
Unknown
110
110
-------
~ f
i' /] ('" r.""-~~ ~ -r-
. ,~-: .,~... .'r''-~~L. -':.:... - "/:-.- :~.
- ....:t ". . l' , ,,1.r<> /:~/~~t.~, :'~~~~~IIAl ., . '~r':"
'j.... 'I ' .' --. }( J'~: <.,' , ,'0:
;( ..... '!.!. ~ '... ;..., "'!..; ..r.:.;-.r.....!fm;. .... .,..:~. t, " I
, " " ~~~' ':, ,Zj r-:£'fi . \'!.r;:.11''1':i';''!.~{;'''''''+'''' )., .: (,. ':
l '''''' , "'.'.. . ,. - \ . ..':J'" J - ','., L.--:-
l.' [' .' .. \' ~:! :Talm;~e +'.. .." .._It -::,:::: ~ ~-., ",Cr;~:t;:,r.r--
: (-p t. '............ "-:1'"..--..-r:-- . -". a
Ri..,. Union Ikhool:"'- -:- ',: ... f
':) .~~.. (
<'-, "', '90 ,,- )\...:::\
i. '~.-,~_. "-'-'~nt-.. ,P.. ,'. 1.'
I ~;.. 0.'00101' I. .1~ . -,' _.'" '.,-- - '. - -'" .-.:: '
~, --'
,: :1: (~/'~'"
, ... , 1::
, :, ~I \". ~1--./V'
\~ '>. f- .~~
\'~ ~,
)~:,..~ V. /
? "'t'~~'" '~~ ~
\'1 ~.. ~~. .~ r.:7
t, " ' ~
. "'r.' ..: .
\, . 'I' "
(, 'r--,.:... '."
~
.~ ~.:- - /. ... - -
... - - . \ / ; '. '\'. 'f<-..... ..,"',
'I I'. /' - '"
. .;.~I '::,: " : ; .. ~ '.. ~.: .~. i-
, .. - -. ~ ,,~
.J:~.. V . ~\ . ',:,(
'L"".' ("4 ' . " ,=~
, ,..'" O' .'': ~
: ;-c ' ~.~~...,
'''\ . .:. ,.. ~.~"
y , " '--
~ \\ . c.;'".;".." ' :~~)
, \: \\: " \, "'~." '..
~ \
.~
'1~ i
co !
;, \'j
!\\ Q;
'u .
'~. --- L
"
,!"
. \
56'
: ~.: j
--~'--
'\:
,.,
.:
"
\ , '.-:,:.,~;." \ I .
\ .' ,32 "t l':.,', .
. ''', . '- .' (\' ':: ,'" ',',' .
, ;', \. ",-1; ,,\--;;-.:':
..... ,: ~".':. , -:-:~, .... -.c..:. .
'-"-"n - l.' <'l . .' -, ',' ,.
...... . "" .
'\ . \. S. '- ,,:\
, \, "\ . ':., ..: "
..-\ '\ \ ~_.,,--- '"0 1".
), -'-'\. A. ,
:;-)"L:.-:-:'\":\'I\ . " ' ,.
\ - :, ) ~,"I ....
. . '. :...... ~ ---, \. " .
'-. ":' .~.; <"'~-\ ~\ '\ \ ',) ~ ":,''',
; . ",. ";. f ;l' ~,:,:,-,~:,
i '\.''''-- -- '1---.. ('''/ ~ /' ',' '
'~I /. ,-....., ",.
,,00:\ 5 ;r' "'~'
.'" ! \'" ,~.,: .
,. , )
\. ,..' 'I': Cffr!; --000 .-
;> {~~C'\
..,.'~: '\~J=~\~_..I
. \~., -" .. ('.j, \;j '~'ffi: Hi' \~ ..
>' I 'v . ,- ,-)!.. ~ . , '.
\ '" ,-...., ' I; i.!. '. ->- '
: . ',> -'.-, 8.. -\~ '" ; 'j t~ - .' ,
: l. (-..-,. ~ ~,~ \~.
"
l:..'''",'''''.''
"
., {"r"."
, ..,
.,.t'.
"
, -~--
'," \
1 ; '.
-:,') I " .W'
I -1,'
-,\ .'-..;.. ,.,~
f't'tC'~'f~1
'"
,,-;
( ~ .0(',
\ -,
I
'\
,
,
1 -
S:-,J
;';".'
'000,
, ,
'..:...'
"
"':','rlng...;
-- :- ..
I
I
\
I CT""
;
,
is.'
()
~,
~
.....
,
I
...
,\
o
, ,
'';I:
"f.
/.
-:r-.
,-
So'
y
..
."
',..
'(
,./..
\ f'J HolM
f.l'Robl~ H..nch
I
I
, I
I
I
,
o
SCALE
.
2000
,
4000 FE [T
.,REFE RENCE
9ASE MAP, 75 MIN US G,S (TOPOGRAPHIC)
>ERIES, ELLEDGE PEAK AND UI
-------
~
1)
~,
I: h!
, ,I <
II: Ii ;1; i
~L.l.:. - ~ _1,
I':
(\' "
"I AIif' --a,.
IlllIOot'lifO ....,..
."'''08'9.
i :
I:
:1
, <
,i
:! I:
, "
"1; :
, .
" "
: ~ r '..
-------
..,
,', ,01. -\:' ". I:!,\, t" r' ',~ ' -
l- /; - " , ," '.....:.:: ',:~ ",,' i- .. " "'---':"
,/~., I ,~, .-;..,.. ..,....:" ',ro.:, I":,' - .
Q~:~'"- '-'~':; . -' r::\.'~ ;"f"- ~9.-:t -:=~;~. I~:. :'
'..JI.' ,,~ .. 1." .::,;,J:tSIAlfHOSPIIAl ,: ,'~ 'I'
- . "r ..... ~""',,~ '.:.' -'- :-. ...'... L .r.:' -,'=" ......-:t.~.; ).( ~:.f'..~;" , , , , .' ,,: t
-- . . - "'~ - . I' . .".,.... '. J
, . " ' "1" -,.", "Ii--' "':"''\4'''-- ) "
" '.......... Jr,//.,;:,j;;! ';r.....:.'\'.., ; 't...~,-+~ J ~ ,~', " '7' ':
~ : ~ \' :;!: -' ." ".-"/ \ - -"::."..." --
AVF "'-.,,;' T~~~~~' ,'f,,' -: :,'::: :, - -" ',Cr~~1c 0' or ~
AVF : . (.... "~'+'-:"Tf'.,!": 1 '. c.,
, Riyer Unm Behool "", - " "'~:
\~) . )..". )
.t--.- n,\,- ' ' : , ~o h..,. r ~ ,
'~ . 0 ~'~'-;r. - -.- -.rl'., ,P... " . . " .
- ' ,;- 0'.00..,' . F'-.:-' r-'- '"~'-r ,'n 0 '.: .
~~".\ . .,::~
ACC .n
, r~- '~---"'.',
'",-
, ,=- I
\ 5:;:;J(_. (,' r'/'.
;:- r". - c.' ~ L/?
-~ >v-~
,.~ I - ~~-, -- cr<
, , ~,
\., , ...-'-'--, ;f'?
, - '~V;>
- -: -; t .. '; ~ '\ ~
'~:<'3 'f~
, i' ,: (-:;J)- '. "'..., I
.I:-"'~, i ~ ~ ,(
, ) .
""tt" L/' (" 1 - - " '
.." L/~' ~
. ~,~ ~~
~ - v'
(' -=-. ?
"1 '-q, \.
,0, \.
."",'
'.~ --
,.----.
" I-./IJ'
"-"'-;7
~":::>
-" '
.~ .....
'r
...t.
, . 04££'''
,! .
\--;- \',
~\~ :'
'\
,
, \~
\\'"
, ,
'r
"".0
)"'0'8"'-..
I .rnf''''~
\
,
F:I'Rubles I(.n,'"
,-".->~ )
.
,
j,
I'
KEY TO LAND USE
ACC - CROPL AND
AR AGRICULTUnAI-REI A1rO FACIUm
ARE - AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT STORA.
AVF - FRUIT AND NU1 TREES
AVV - VINEYARDS
FO FORESTED LAND
UCB - BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL
UIF FOOD PROCESSING
UIL LUMBER MILLS AND STORAGE
UOV VACANT OR CLEARED
URH MORILE HOMES
URS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
UUS - SEWAGE PLANTS
UUT TRANSPORTATION
WAR RESERVOIRS
.
o
SCALE
.
2000
,
4000 FEET
REFERENCE,
!lASE MAP, 7,5 MIN US G S (TOPOGRAPHIC)
SERIES- ELLEDGE PEAK AND UKIAH QUADRAN.
IJATED' 1958. - PHOTOREVISED 1975. SCALE 1-24
lAND USE FROM H, ESMAILI 8 ASSOCIATES, '''C-
I.UGUST 1981, A"D AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS DATED 4-2.
FIGURE 3
SURROUNDING LAND USE
COAST WOOD PRESERVING, IN'
UK IAH. CALIFORNIA
@~ a ~W~T~(JM{
-------
~"'~.J
''''~~
_\,00
'''u..,--
r.f'P"''''''
'-
( '~ (''',
r'
I.EGEND
s
WELL LOCATION CAPPROKIMATE'
---
GROUND WATER CONTOUR, F'EET MSL
(DASHED WHERE APPROKIMATE'
.
o
SCALE
.
2000
,
4000 FE
REFERENCE
OASE MAP - 75 MIN U S G S (TOPOGRAPH
SERIES ELLEDGE PEAK AND UKIAH QUADRI
DATED'I958, PHOTOREVISED 1975, SCALE I
I;ROUND WATER CONTOURS F'ROM "GROUND-WATER
RESOURCES IN MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIF'ORNIA'
IJSGS; WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPO
115-4258, JUL Y 1986
F'lGURE 4
WATER-PRODUCING WELLS
REGIONAL GROUND WATER co~
COAST WOOD PRESERVING,
UKIAH. CAUF'ORNIA
@ ~(Q)~W~1(E~
-------
: '
Qal,
,1:",/ -
.~..~.., .
,.
\
"
-.,
, '\
.
..? [.
--~,...' ". !-
,.j
ICMf
i
::,:1
----I
I
'J
I
I
I
\.
'-
,.-
'\,
~~"Tkf
\
,
, \
\
',- .
- '\
, \
\ '
r' .' '
I
I '
----..
. ~ ';>00 "
~
'/.
.. '
'"
:0
~
~
"
~
',.,
"
...
'~
0°
.z-
"\ -t :
.\1
, \
I
"
''Z
:,
\
.~
\.~
: ';;;'o.-~'.I'. - .----
, .
\
'eOo...
-- ~ ..
-'1.ru'gs
, .
Qal
I Cr.....
;
,
i'.'
~
J
,
I
..
,J
- -
-:-;.-::-"
~
50.
o
'::c ~
~
-:!'.
..
!040' 'r
" ~
',:- .
. - ..L.
. ~J Huhlp
Qat '7
[I'itnbj"" Hanch
LEGEND
B Alluvium
B !"""flntn'ol T."ace 0'P08"', Undiff.,.,
I~ YounO" Contrnental TerraelOtpOlits
."
B Oleler Conlonenlol Terrace Del""'"
~ Conllnenlol 8ol,n DePOlO"
IrK' I Fronco.con Comple. - Coallol BI"
~ F'ranc"can comp". - Centro' Belt
-- Con'oc', doshed ."tr, approumo'"
----"
. .
/
.
o
SCALE
,
2000
.
4000 FEI
l~EFERENCE .
BASE MAP - 7.5 MIN U S G.S (TOPOGRAP"I
;ERIES. ELLEDGE PEAK AND UKIA.. QUADRA
)ATED'1958, P..OTOREVISED 1915, SCALE I,
:iEOLOGY ~ROM "GROUND-WATER RESOURCES IN
MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ", USGS WATEP'
RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT B~4258, JUL'
FIGURE 5
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
COAST WOOD PRESERVING,
UK IAH, CALIFORNIA
-------
11 0371
ct
I
pt')
j'"
\D
CI)
~o:
~;
~~
n
WEST
EAST
Francilcan Camp leI(
balement rockl
Not to scale
FIGURE 6
SCHEMATIC SECTION T~ROUGH
UKIAH VALLEY
REFERENCE:
FARRAR, C. 0., JULY 1986, "GROUND-WATER RESOURCES
IN MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA," USGS, WATER-
RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 85-"258, FIGURE S
COAST WOOD F8RESERVING, INC.
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA
@~(Q)~W~u~~
-------
r'" -
II
~
~
f' , .
!1-
L
~-~
Ct'-.;;.
I:! >;
t'-~
J-'"
e-
L
~
c.
5~~ h
~~ ~ -
i:
<
f
1J'~ 1~\\-PA.
C,.- _.
_.-." --.
,
5of: -
;;:,
;::>
i
-'---- -
-~
~ ~~. -
Irpp SC;:..
c ~r -. j,
"' ~900~" SA~OY CL4Y
r
. _,--9~~( etA'
~":'i ~- ~~~~c~~~..
~ LJCE\~'£"JT[O G"~\L
~ <.- .'
, I
'" bs",r\ COA\El
L..:
~1; . 'CE'-'EN r£L' G~" \'[.
RQ01l.'W CLa,f
~:: -, t
ICIU\U t.1T~ SILT .~;) Ct..,.
"9'" - ~
, ICq"VL
r8QO--.N Ct"(
J~: -
, !Cq....'L
,,-: dTAN Ct,-
I ICqlt\!-
4f: " ~
~SA~O A~O C"~\'[..L)' Cl"''f
4: ~ -
o
~
:-
>-
!D
lJ.:--
---.-------
-..-
VERTICAL SCALE:
~- ---
3C
60 rE!::
I-'O~IZOt.JiA!... SCALE:
- -..- ---, - ~- ---
150" 3C'0 rEE:
.
h
A
~
..-.._~- -.- .-- ---'-
..-p. .-.---..- -..-
~:
3,
--1 C,,", SIlt i
, (P~o.KCrrD) I--
I I
1A.N'12W-4PI
I
~.
"
:z
~
>:,
~~-4r'.
HTC~ SOiL
~S"8SC' -
I
8ljt et.....
H>jCEL'(~1 COA~-
.:: COARS( Gft"1/[.
....' CEuE~T C."'~-
...
~BRO,"" 10f' SOIL
'''8RO,"" SOIL 8r
, n'8(OrED Cl!A\~C
, 18'0.'" CI! A \'!:l
,', t. COARSE SA~O
f0:
~E"BEODED CRAVE'.
~
~
. ICII.."t.
.;..-;
~.~
~r~OWN :LA(
~EU!EOOEO C.EY GRAVEc
~B'OWN ClAt
..tCO"q~~ a\lE'=T G't"'w'£~
,',1\£-' CIIAVEcL1
~'121'i-33Ef
1-
~--
-.-----
ToP SOle
'~":'2"'~,
H... lIRO"j 5...01 TC. S:,L
II~OWN S"'D AND GRA~-
bd"ROTiN S"'C
~IIRO"" 5...0 AND C..~c
~IIRO"" CLAY "TN [WBEOOEl
~,SANO 8r GIIA~-
~~
~'
, BROWN S"'O AND GqA~-
':-8ROTiN Cc'-
--BCUE etA)
1~1I/12w-~e'l.
-j--'
~2"'-28~
r --
SAND . ORAVEc
S4t«>,
P[" C"A'iE-
. ItOCf(S
c~A~ilf .&~~
5.....,0, GRAV(L. . "OCI(S
~u.ow CtA- ~
,I
,1
IJ
-,
.',
5...0. cmu . ~OC«S (j
'.'~ ." I
'''OMI -0:" So.:...
LJTCP SOil
. '''O'IIWN :;'A(
~...I'''OWN WAllO ,....".)~~,:"I C,,','Ut
""A;fe '
,', "'~WN CtlA\II:LlY CLAY'" .
::: CI.lItNItO CtlAVE~ W':",;C..VE
IIP?WN CLA1 ", . -
r-J. 'I"WN HAltO PAN ::: .
I'JCtA"~_' I
L~GEN::'
NOTES:
~Cl"1
jn
i!:'! Sil T
ll.u
EJ SAND A~;;,'C" G~""::-
~ CLA) A';) 5""::
~ CL"1 A~; ~q...,,,:-
EfRj SilT A~,~ ~""',::.
ta
1. T:t[ O!PTrt ANO Tt'iICl(N[SS or Tti[ S"J!lSJRr"CE S1't"T-'
"O:CATtD CN 'H[ SECTIONS W'[ftE INTUtc:~:.."rro 8!TWUN
,6NO CEN£~"'UZEO rROW """Fl..A8:..£ DRI~lfS LOGS.
"'fOfU~Ar::N ON ACT'JAL S:J8SlJlllr.c£ CCNOITI()t4!:'
[X<:S.S OtL'" ,.. T~! LO:4r.ON or '0-'£ 8':)fh"'~S ,,~C
IT 15 poss:a~!: iHAT 5'J8S'JRr.:£ CO-"CJ'':,C-.,S 8£TWt£U
Toi( 80"!.'~S I.4"Y' ...""... fRo... 1ttOS! 1~t'..:...1tt.
2. ADDROk'..-.AT! CftOUNO S'JArl.:t E\i""Tj:~;S r'tOto!
US~S 7.5 "'t:'JTt 5ER'~S ~T'D:»C;q~PH!:: LL£DC~ P£AI(. CAL'r.
t"7!O 19~1!. PHOTO..[\~!r;; 1'-:.
SCI.L! . ':2'0::-
r
. --- -. 82'"
... 81~
- 8~'J
- ~8~
- ~e'.
- ~7:
- !\e',
- S!': ~
2
- s,.tt;, !
=
- !>J~ ~
- 52~ <
~
- !-~ ":
- ...
- 49:
- Ae{,
- £:-:
- 4£:
- 4~:
-.J '.1;
REGIONAL GEOLOGI
SECTION 1- r
FIGURE 7
COAST WOOD PRESERVING
UIClAH, CALIFORNIA
@ ~(Q)~\'1~'fn
-------
........ ".
-.. ; [i:;;]
: (::
~ of ~ .
~ \ ~ .
''''''.
; !:~
'. -, , ,
;![->~;b
~;~:
:; ~~.~.:..~..- ~--"-'
~., I; I' 1':
"'11', I ( .
~(,I;: _: ~
- -
-_...,-
.,'." .\-,.,....,."t........,.",
,. ':"'''='~~r1t"lO~~'''''
.".." ~ 11('''''., " .,
Il'~~~ ,."
I [g. :: -. ....,
I :;~.~:: "'--....,
lq~f~
I ~ (."f."..~~
~;'d;~'
--.- :
"-
I ,
L--.
.--. ~
10 0 I
L_. --'
ii.. 'Ii
L..!!-..
j4:N;
~
,...~.":.::.:
pa""u"."
M" sa..
ua..,..,....
.._--
..:.:;,;, :
~~::O-...~~~~r.
(,a'.
, .
k
~ r,o::''''''
-f a
:1
~ :;-
, ,-
': :;;
L
LEGEND
.~ .-
~1FF::; ...~..'"
JH1i(~'
li!E~' -...
mIll! -
o.a",..,.'
.------'---
-.--- --
--
'--.-
--'
--
-.
.-
'"'1,'
t-...t'
I "00' r,~,::',~ ;~:;
'''''Of
,,,,a.~."''''
Al'.''''''''
-
,_.
...-ro.CtIC'
,
T
(-7':
-Ii
~~'(';"'.
1_""'.'"
..
.'
I.
,
.'
l-o~"",
., .
,-
.. .
~"~,"II
.!:_' -
I ZONE <1 I
,,~.
~,
u,...,."
~~.,':.i"'f.'t(...
(0t"J"
~~"..
~c;,IU.""ll'a..'
~2~'
~.lO'1>t.. ~:..
~ ---;':
a~ 'If'
"".~"-::.. ,= ~-
~~
,~.#:;o!
~ 'U'
PROFILE A-t..
SUBSURFACE
OOC'-!' "--r-..-n c- tot ~"':~.;.
;;<.~:::;-=-... ':.:-:'':~7.:'..:.:::. .,,~
"OL8"tD -;;:,.,:, ,0101 ..~..... '...
;.:"~::" '-'=:-:;"n --.::::::
\OC:.'OiIf:"~~.....
~= ~ MIOCUU
~"""'1'a.J..
~~.L
: :; ~ ~:- :... .:
@~~;W~1r~M
~ .t1'a..'
-------
~ 1101 ""
III
, B
1']
,
It'
Uo
~ 0:
U&
-
<1m
0:
()
r-
~
..!.
t-
'~._'-'----
. .' - -.._-~ "-
-
CO"~' WOOl! '~Il$t"YIN(I'"
+~q.
I
I
1
I
I
.:1
.'1
I
.;1
f>1
~I
"I
I
I '" .
iT
-r T
r
. O".'d 11fOIMh P, fNA"'''''UNIAhhU
~'h' -
I I
I I
I I
I I ,."
!L~~l! T
"(H""
,,"-x
'I'
1""oJ 1.1 tv)
-r
'IIW&;'
--r
,.., ..
~MO
----'-----.
-~?
ClATn 51.1
'''4(( ,t8I!AVl.l
~10
fOO'''''
,..,"
DU'SE, '.~5 alC) GRavt:l'
""'" .L1
~60 -
::.:"
,,.~
Q."
o
~.-D
D:-o
~-:o
?
GRaV[u y ,afiC)S
~1
~1~?
?
~?
~~n
--,
'"
,.
0-
~
I ZONE 2 I
z
o
"-
..
>
...
J
...
LEGEND
rav~ [~J mlilITII ~, ~ ClA'
r~~:o GNavt I saf"",
~.! -.!.!.
ffiT~ L~r':'l m~~m ~
~)~,. SArlO' C:;"Avtl CO s'.:I COU."lI t , saN() GRAvt-. 'f ~ I G.8oI""'fll'CI'"
._~
~~l l~_~,] Sill " s...,.. IllII UIII ,...". Sli T ~~ S.&.'()' (I A'
:f.vJ 5t11'(j,""vtl
~~'-~\1 L--:] 1111111111 ~~ 511. If (la,
r")'4~.oc 0"'" (,.....,tl U .,'f "&'11.1 It''''f. ...., _<:0 -
U~~ ~'--
-------- ------ .-----.----.--.
MOf'I1ON'Al SCAlf
'-- -..---
o >0
--,
~o fHI
100
L
o
y(UIC.... seAL(
-- ----,
!I I() ~ fEll
frIIO'U
I '1" DfI"".NO'",-N(~S()l" ''''' StAI!IoUftfAet
~1fIAU H)l(A1(O 0fiI 'f1( SfCII()1(S .("t ..'U
~OlAI(O 8( .wr(N AND c;(N(fIIIAlIno flltOU
.",.....A8L( Of'II..l(ftS lOG' ~0Mt"'1OH ON AC 'UAI
~'II'" ac( COfrP'1ON5 [1'1' 1S CJIIIIl' a; ,~
loca,IONO' ,t4IlKJIIWG' '&111)"" ~O'S8I.( ,.a.
'*-8,.,...ACf COJrrO'tON~ 8f '.UN 't« 8C)8MfGt....,
v.., (ROM 'HO'( "'-.110
It "', II
8'
-
',",
- ~,ft'J
',If)
~t.lV
:.:;:.,
flltllf"l
'J
SUBSURF ACE PROFILE
((It, S 1 V.'O()[) I'R[ 5( Ihlil 1(,
IIKIAtt, ( "I II' OI?JJIA
@ ~(Q)~W~IfU
-------
_.-.--'~~"'-~'
.1
.J
1:
.~
III
o
,
~
)
I
,
,
\
~..--
/' ''''.re
-~- ,.".,1"
.,,''''U'
'0.(" ."UC'I '...'''o-''''IC*
\
i
I
I ,:
\ ;:
-"
.""'..
O?<.\
. .
,
\1
.'
. .
~ "[
""'...... ::
.'", l . I
. ~ : .
,~...~~. ...~, :
"Tlili~~~~"
.~.~[>~;'
. .,.""""",
: : ) ........ '..../
. : ~ "-....~7
\;. ..T"~
"'--=:\\c
\ \ ~\".._,..~
\\- ..~~'"
~ .,
..,.. .,.."
,.,.,.,., ., ..,
=~~~~~~~~~===~~:_~~~~~~~~~-~
""".0.'"'' T[ "AU
00
'40 rn'
L£G£ND
.
-..,-
...,..... .111
MO" "'f. CIQIIIIftUI .,rrT 8&..1
FIGURE 10
GROUND WATER CONTe
ZONE I-JANUARY 19
COAST WOOD PRESERYING
UKIAH. CALIFORNIA
~ ~(Q)~\f~1rn
100
~". I"G'NU"",' co U-IAM. CAlI'O""",
.'O"OG."~M'C IU.Y('t"' S"((' 10" Z. SCAl[ I "'CM-
10 '1(1. aND 1"'(' l 0' z. se"l( 'IN(".. '0 'U'.
...".. ....
-------
1
I
;
\
.'~
.'
----,
~ - - ..
IItIloOOCtIt(' ,...~,'
.u,..~".
"
\~ ~ 0 .'~, ~--'I \
I ':" - :;'r. ,..~ ..-
I ~.~ ::;0, i '-.~.~, ~:.~:...,.
I.... -~;i,i/.- ..'. ~:.:'._-~j.~t I'~
~~=- - .-- 2"---,..-<~-j .1'7~~:1
'\' ,.\.,. ,.
'~~,. ".' :,. (,r:.,.11i Ik.'" . .....
(;:). ~~~ ~~ --~~---
.-'
.~-
'0."- ..00u(" '.'.'.""'''''1(1<0
-,E~-- .';'~~-- ~~:' - \
\
\
I:
."
, "
..,.:,
.. '.... 1
. '.
"l f. '000"'" "".... t8('...r
." .
" ,.
. !"" ~ ' J.
.'"
'.
...
.. ~
.
"
\
\
I
II-'''''''-U
'.f""'.' 'L ....
~.
---------.--------
-----.---
- - - - - - - - - --
1
---.-----
A"'80.'..'1 seau
..
"0
Z.O 'u'
mu1!IU.
"01"" COUIItt(S ("'..1([81"" CO U_IA". CAll'O."'.
"01'00.."".( SUAVr,.- SIt(IT 10" 1. ICAlf I'"''''
,O'U'. ."0 '''(IT lOf' 2. seau II"C'" '0'(['.
."'''l. I'.. ...tAl f'U'" Of' Mru-SUIUK[ C~
,.. SOIL ,1tOII O'UPOt.O".. ...,. 'N4 "8ua, ,
L£i11f1L
..
.,
(:J
,,--....
. --'
" ---
II8OIfI.C)tIItK, .'11
--
......,....11 &.A'UIA&. U,,'" ~ 'OUI.
~..~. . '00' Of 801. COIn""'"
IIOItI fMa.. '00 ....,.. ~
-III'PIIO.""" UTI"'" ,."'" 01 ...-=:..
....,. . '00' or 801. CO"',,.'''' ....
'MA" .. ...,.. .....-=:
FIGURE II
son.. SAMPLING LOCA TJONS AND
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF
CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN
NEAR-SURFACE SOIl
COAST WOOO PRESERVING, INC
UklAH, CALIFORNIA
~~@~W~1F~~
-------
-,
,~
a1
:IE
J
Z
~
-...
I,
I';;
I~
~
a1
.
o
I
t
I,
\
p, .., ...
_-.c:- ,...,,,
..'..." l'
;
.
o
I
.
:1
-'
'011(1' "lI08wc'. '.."1008'."-
r'.- -'~.,.... .rM,'(
,~-
.
.
.
,
,
,
...,'tC I "
, \ '"
""-t ,\
~ " -.\ "OIS!
" I
.....=.'
f:~-:
- : 'I
....~; "... .
--..:0. "
--,- --,!< ~
"'f-' -,",,-. "
'nrn'>:::0~
, :: . '1'[> ,~,'.~-
: :: t: '.. ',,~" /
~,I:: """'~7
, I
I I
I '
1/
~
..'.".01
.llW 'tIOtIa, --r.. .C...D
.,,~
.
~
".... If-_.
,qu...' ""..'
=~~~~==~~====~~-~~~~~~~~~-::~
o
.'''''0.'.''[ SCALI
"-
taa flU
00
010
~Tlrl (.".((8'''' CO u.,aM. 'All'O."'.
.'OPOGIII."'UC SU....(,. SMUt 10. I. SCalI I'''C"-
'0 'UT. ."0 IM([1 :r 0" I. SCAU I '.CN. '0 F(n.
.".'l. ,.,.
~'.,......
LEGEND-
.
-..-
"""oat... Wu.... ""''''0 'DtAl 01
C.-:I"'..'''' ............ .0 ....,
_trenD, .nCt~ l"" DO' ....
~ ......"'..,......... ...
.... ....,...."
FIGURE 12
DISSOL VED TOTAL CHR
ISOCONCENTRATIO
JANUARYIFEBRUAR~
COAST WOOD PRESERVIP
UKIAH. CALIFORNI
@~(Q)~W~1r
-------
1
jJ .l~L
r
\=-
'" ..., 8Dar
~-
':
..-- --
, ,
I :
! .
.""0(1.0 ....,.,
IIIU'II04II'.
I ~:
, !:
-
c..."
a.
I~,
!~I
\ \
i I
, 1
~~
'0"'" ""UCt, '...'''0-'''I0Il
-
.'..'.
(M)I 'UII
,.~'~,.'C
~\
\, \
\ \'"
-------------------------
,
--------- ---------- --------...
.""'08'..'1 SCAlI
o
l40np
LEGEND
-1'1-
..
..,..
,.."
,...
at._....,,:,,;
...,
.81.'
.....,. '1108&. .... 08C"..O
-
" .
. -
".'111" If..~.
,.......- Pl....
00
"0
~
808'" COUIfT'fS ("'.11."" co "".". C.lI~O."I.
-TOPOC..""'C su..," a 'Mlt' '0' I. ICAll I '.C"-
so 'Ut. a"D ''''(It I ~ I. ICALI 1111<".'0 'r(t.
."all. 'M"
MiC*"IOMItG .'U.Df'ltOlV(O lO'AL c-
CCJIItCf ..'U'1OJt ~ "".... "" GOIJt
_"CUD OInCIIOllflf8" 00' ..."
~1U8 8DU*Cl.""''''''.'--
~,,"'r
FIGURE 13
DISSOLVED TOTAL CI-fID
ISOCONCENTRATION
APRIL 1987
COAST WOOO PRESERVING
UKIAH. CALIFORNIA
@ ~(Q)~W$1r~
-------
I
I ~
.~
',. JjJm
'9
~ r
'..
,~
~
I,
"
It
\--.. ... .., 110&0
" ,
I; "
IT --r ~
~ i I:
@
<>
a
Q.
Q.
'"
i
, ~ ..
~ ,
,
, I;
'"
:u
[
I'
I
'.
, .
I :,
:r ",
, I
" 'II
-..j, L
"... "....:
-<.
,-....
..IIOOCt880 '...Slr
'Ufl..t"'",
"ltQ8vc.. ,........u-
\
.U.IC..,I
I Jet I "'-&"."11""
nIl 1t80..S "'..0'1("."0
.",., ,"',
.t., he:ll
. '
~
...... II ".1
,...,..., PL..'
,...,
,."-e"II' 1""'11"1'''''''''' .''''K
~. -,.~~
=~~~~~~~~====::_~~~~-:~~~~-~
,
,,""ROX,"" T[ SCALE
10
110
Z40 Hn
UGEHb
.
'.
-,
....,oatfII 81lL ..''"0 ,.,.
CQ8IC.I"''' 'IIJII .... ..... .....
..' ."U". .'1(-"" .Of"
---"'..,..,-,...
.... "...... 11
FIGURE
14
!flf.ft1IIU.
JfO'tTM tDUN"rS (ffGIN[(",MG co UIII"H. CAlI'O"M.a
.'OPOGRaPHIC $U"\I'[Y- ,"([T 10' Z. SCAU I'NCM-
)0 H[T. AND SME(T Z Of' z. SCAlr I'''(M-'O HIT.
.""IL. 1'141
DISSOL VED TOTAL C
ISOCONCENTRA T
JANUARY 1988
COAST WOOD PRESER"
UKI"H, CALIFORI
@3~(Q)~W~C
-------
sac::
~CE
<::I:
a::~
:::.z
>-
~~: a:
:'c
t:1;';
C~
,'''' (l.
'=(l.
(- «
::;
:;)
I
....,
'D
~
"'. ""
"~
\"~-
...
\
I
I \,
1\ '~l\
. '- II \
I . \
: 1] !
;~o
120
~"
""
".
110
100
".
"
'-."
"-
0\
E
')0
90
..,.
g
...
~
...
z
U
'J
Z
:)
U
:: ~
50 I
:: j
20 I
10 l
'J i
~oJn-31
:'--:-0-3:
.\loJr-a3
.':';;.r-a...
~ ..l1j- 35
.: ~ \ !
. I
,! .zJ
:::EJ-
:;)
I \..
~ I T
\ b
:.: 5,3
i ,.
Ii"
I
!
1.
..
-;
,i
'- -
r
::
- - ,'.
~ ,...., ,
: -.
--
; :!:..'=
~~
3---:1
. .
L ::
I
.I
...
.:.....:; :;,
.. ...
:~
a ..-=:
:: ~'a~:: '-:
-"'-.
--
::3~-:-":'~~5~5 -..::-
. - '..
---
... . =-.:
..
-' ~ ~~-
.'" ....
".. ...-
~ ~::;:;~~ "~~-.
- -- ... .
. \ ':'-.
~'=
--
.-...== -.
--... \\ -..' -= '. '
.~~ \,- ~~ --
~~-
'":::,,,.,.-=
-------
~I
:;)
0
I
....,
'::J
~
':J a::
z
~ ::i:
< :::.
x Z
.:;)
"
C7I
E
-'
Q
t-
'1:
a:
Z
w
:- u
>- rr: z
o
CC '.J
:;:'5
'-- ~
':::a.
C a.
<{
."
;),j
I ,
(". ..,
CC"I
I
m
Z
,; ~
< Cr:
~
1.*
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
:: ~
0,6
,),5
OA
0.3
02
0.1
a,o
5ep-82
~
I
I
I
J l~~ I~.
'J~ ~
,~ :;J,
3-2J =:E] ::0 C
I ,
Jet-d3
Nov-8*
Dee -035
::::IJ :0- '::::I:I::_L-L,;..r:''''
I
;In-d7
II
! I ::c :::::r::=::c
'~o-dd
':':>r-3'3
-..... -- ."
.. ..:...:"t:" ':
.::5S~;..'.:::
.... -..,.
.... -""\ -' - .
-,-,
,\-' .....-
=:::.:::' , - \ '.:-
"_.\_-- . '-
... ~ -.:
,,:"::~:)7 :.~,,::;
------ . ~
:- "\:.'::'~ -.. '0""".
_!\:~:-.
.: ~~ :..: ::'... .:.
~ ~ ~ ~I:\ - ~=~- -
-' ==. .~ \~. .:::::\ = , I
\ \.... - '<"'- \\-, ,~:;:::::;., -,.'
,"=-"" '--" "-=- ... '-" - - - --
. l
-------
"'1
a
0
I
"'1
'J:)
a:>
0.5
<--'0: 0.4
Zu..,
~CI:
<::E
0:=
OZ
0.4
" 0.3
0\
E
z' 0.3
Q
....
<{
Q:
.... 0.2
z
,', l.J
~~ U
.,.
IDa: 0 0.2
OC u
L..I~
00
....,0:
J:Q. 0.1
UQ.
<
0.1
" 0.0 ~
Mar-83
~~
~c::
a
. .
. '.
.. .
; ,
. .
, .
i
~/ \J \ uJ~~J~.,.~.~ .
Apr-S4
~un-85
Sep-aS
Oct-59
Jul-86
Aug-87
'IGURE ~-
2ISSCL'.::O i0~ AL :-~C'."~,,~
\ERSUS 7':"~E
,- .~
'" ,--
COASi \\00D pqES~=-\ ::>;-::. . ~
lI\IAH. ':.~L!FC::;:~;~
@~~~~{~-;. ~~~
-------
",
1
",
,
....
uO 0
IUIf :z
:to.. W
uc{
U
:z
0 00
U 0.1 0 0
o 0 0
z
~~ 00000
a:: CD
0
0.01
'0 500 1000 1500
TI ME, days
FIGURE /8
DISSOLVED TOTAL CHROMIUM
VERSUS TI ME, WELL cwp-e
COAST WOOD PRESERVING, INC.
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA
~~(Q)~w~r~~
-------
"
,J
.,
r
,"
a. -([~I
'"
CD
~ ~
..
~
..:
I!
~
)-
ID
,0
,'"
>
,0
,a
0.
.0..
.
, "
"'"
'.
. -1- .
'(I-(S' ..O(>UC1'!1 Y...'''~1.'>('to
~,.
..~ I' T"';'....., "r.. o-C".'(
~-
~-
,\
\'\
\"'-
\.
UIIII." sr..G.(
'..iII'.'''' ",...-
, i
~ \
.' ,
.,.
"%
-~
'\
\ ,
~
~
-- ---------- - --- -- ---------
------ - - - - ---------
... - - - - .
L(r.r III)
.
aP."OJl'Y&T[ scaLE
10
'60
1.0 ru-
~
"0.'" COu",'tfS (JrtGI_t[ltING CO U' ,."', caL ,rO."1L
".OPOGlltI"MtC Sultvt..." '!ilol((T 10' 2. S!&l( . INC'"
30'(['. ."05"'((120'2, SCAll IINC".'Or([T.
Acell. ."It..
r,nt8f. ,,,... ..u
..
.
"'~I",,,,,,,. .."
,.n1',,"'." ~~'r.
.fiC)D8'Ift'8QtII~ '19-
COff'...,fllC.r...-." '0-1'0,-..1 0
1f" 11("" 1l1')li. 1M08"8fG .... 'I-
&t8) OIIfCfIC)til 0/1 fl O.
FIGURE 19
GROUND WATER EXTi
TREATMENI
SYSTEM FLOW DI!
COAST WOOD PRESER\
UKIAH. CALIFOR.
~1E(Q)~W~1
-------
Project No. 86-113
September 1989
REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
Volume II - Appendices
, .
i
Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.
Ukiah, California .
!
!'
-------
REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
COAST WOOD PRESERVING, INC.
URIAH, CALIFORNIA.
VOLUME II - APPENDICES
Prepared for
COAST WOOD PRESERVING, INC.
URIAH, CALIFORNIA
, .
[ ;
I :..
I .
I ..
I ,"
, I
I
I:
I
I
Prepared by
Geosystem Consultants, Inc.
18218 MCDurmott East, Suite G
Irvine, California 92714
(714) 553-8757
FAX (714) 261-8550
Project No. 86-113
September 1989
.
0: ::: ."~ ~ ~ f; \~~ . {:- -:.~ .:",' ~. '
-------
I '
I
I
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
APPENDIX F:
APPENDIX G:
APPENDIX H:
I..
"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME II
CHRONOLOGY
GROUND WATER MONITORING DATA
STORM WATER QUALITY DATA
SOIL CHEMICAL DATA'
SIMULATION OF CHROMIUM TRANSPORT IN
OFF-SITE AREAS '
, ,
OCCURRENCE, INTAKE, AND TOXICITY
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHROMITJM AND ARSENIC
DEED OF RESTRICTION ON REAL PROPERTY
THE ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
i
"':, . -~~ ~ "" .
,.. ~
~~, . .
... . - - --
-:-:>
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
CHRONOLOGY
1-
~.'..~ ". ~ .
,-'. .~ ..:: ~ .:.::.
. .
- ~
~
. -
-------
APPENDIX A
CHRONOLOGy'1 )
1971
Coast Wood Preserving, Inc. (CWP) begins
wood preserving operations at the site.
The County raises questions about the.
discharge of chemical preservatives from
the CWP site via r~inwater runoff. .
January 31, 1972
February 23, 1972
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
notifies the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, North Coast
Region (RWQCB) that wood preservatives
are being discharged from the CWP site
to the Russian River.
March 28, 1972
RWQCB staff request a report of waste
discharge from CWP. .
April 17, 1972
The RWQCB Executive Officer issues
Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 72-29 to
CWP. .
, ..
April 26, 1972
The RWQCB adopts Order No. 72-22 which
includes Waste Discharge Requirements
for the CWP site. .
May 1, 1972
Because of non-compliance, the RWQCB
Executive Officer requests that the
Attorney General petition the court to
issue an injunction requiring immediate
compliance with Order No. 72-29.
RWQCB staff request that CWP store
treated wood on asphalt-paved surfaces
during the winter months.
January 9, 1973
Court orders CWP to install storage
facilities to contain contaminated
rainwater, originating from the wood
storage area, by January. 15, 1973.
CWP complies with court order.
January 15, 1973
March 25,.1974
RWQCB staff requests a spill contingency
plan pursuant to Order No. 74-38.
A-1
. ~. ~.~.: '" >,~~,
.. . -.. .
'.-~ -:'
-------
May 2, 1975
The RWQCB Executive'Officer rescinds
Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 72-29.
.' .
April 4, 1979
RWQCB staff observe CWP's expansion
activities and request a new report of
waste discharge. .
CWP indicates that no wastes are
discharged; therefore, a report 'of waste.'
discharge is not applicable.
May 24, 1979
April 17, 1980
Public concerns are expressed through
RWQCB about wastes being discharged from
the CWP facility.
RWQCB staff inspect the CWP facility and
identify the potential for ground water
and surface water contamination.
Surface water samples are collected.
June 13, 1980
I .
I '.'
September 16, 1980
Sampling results indicate wood
preserving chemicals may be contami-
nating ground water.
RWQCB staff request a technical report
to determine the cause of the surface
discharge and the extent of contamina-
tion, including that in ground water.
August 6, 1980
October 28, 1980 .
CWP requests a meeting to discuss the
RWQCB's evaluation of potential
contamination.
CWP seeks profes,sional consulting
services.
November 17, 1980
RWQCB staff meet with CWP representa-
tives who request an extension to the
deadline for developing the technical
report.
RWQCB staff identify the northeast
portion of the facility as the area of
key concern.
November 21, 1980
RWQCB staff sample runoff from treated
wood on asphalt near culvert.
A-2
~ ~2.~ ~~ ~ .~.~ "-f .~~ .:: . .
: .,. #
-------
November 25, 1980
I
November 26; 1980
December 15, 1980
January 14, 1981
February 9, 1981
. .
February 20, 1981
March 20, 1981
..
'.
..
..
March 10 & 24, 1981
March 19 and 20, 1981
March 26, 1981
RWQCBstaff extends deadline for receipt
of proposal for technical report until
December 17, 1980..
The results of analyses of storm water
samples, collected by RWQCB staf~ on .
November 21,1980, indicate the presence
of wood preserving chemicals.
CWP provides technical study proposal
requested on September 16, 1980.
RWQCB staff request that the study
proposal be expanded to include sampling
of surface flow and storm water runoff.
Laboratory results of storm water
stream water samples collected by
staff on January 2J, 1981 reveal
continued discha~ge.
and
RWQCB
RWQCB staff meet with CWP's consultant
on technical study and indicate need fQr
early results of monitoring.
RWQCB staff notices a Cease and Desist
hearing.
RWQCB staff obtain storm water discharge
samples from CWPwhich indicate that
elevated levels of chromium, copper, and
arsenic are being discharged during
rainfall events. '
Draft RWQCBCease and Desist Order
requirements, including measures for
control of ground water and storm water
discharges, are forwarded to CWP. ,.
H. Esmaili & Associates, Inc. (HEA)
installs ground water monitoring wells
CWP-1 through CWP-6. . .
RWQCB adopts Cease and Desist Order No.
81-61, requiring cWP to cease the
discharge of wood preservatives to
ground and surface waters no later than
September 15, 1981.
A-J
V '-:.: ~~.:.
. -'..... - -~ ......
... ". .
':~
-
-------
April 10, 1981
April 20,'1981
April 27, 1981
April 29, 1981
May 15, 1981
May 28, 1981
Jtihe 12, 1981
a
June 25, 1981
July.6, 1981
July 22, 1981
CWP submits information to the RWQCB in
partial compliance with the first task
of the Cease and Desist Order, requiring
implementation of interim pollution'
control measures. '
Preliminary monitoring results from
Wells CWP-1 through CWP-6 indicate
ground water contamination by chromium.
CWPapproaches the City of Ukiah (the
City) for permit to discharge untreatec.
wastewater to sanitary sewer system.
"
CWP submits information to the RWQCB in
partial compliance with that portion of "
the Cease and Desist Order requiring
proposals or remedies for storm water
discharge control.
RWQCB staff meet with CWP and tenta-
tively agree on control measures. RWQCB
staff indicate that discharge to sewage
treatment plant without pre-treatment is
not feasible.
The City refuses to accept CWP waste-
water in sanitary sewer system. .
RWQCB staff are informed, in a meeting
with CWP, that previously proposed
control measures cannot be implemented
and an alternative, ion exchange, method
for wastewater treatment is being
considered. RWQCB staff ask for a plan.
RWQCB staff ask that a plan on ion
exchange wastewater treatment process be
submitted by July 6.
CWP does not submit requested plan.
The RWQCB again requests plan for
wastewater treatment, to be received
within 10 days of RWQCB letter. RWQCB
also reminds CWP of the September 15,
1981 deadline, whereby all ground water
and surface water discharge must be
eliminated.
A-4
",: ~ "~~~~ ~ ~" i ':" . i-
- --,
-
-------
August 6~ 1981
The RWQCB receives letter from C~'lP
providing a brief description of the ,ion
exchange process. ' RWQCB staff judge
this submittal to be an,insufficient
plan. CWP indicates it intends to meet
the September 15, 1981 deadline.
August 26, 1981
HEA issues report entitled "Investiga-
tion of Ground Water Pollution."
August 28, 1981
CWP finds ion-exchange wastewater
treatment process is inefficient in
testing. CWP proposes a new interim
measure to control and treat contami-
nated storm water, but does not provide
full details to the RWQCB.
September 14, 1981
CWP provides results of HEA ground water
study to RWQCB staff which indicate
contamination by hexavalent chromium.
September 15, 1981
RWQCB staff judge that the measures
implemented to prevent discharge of wood
pr~serving chemicals to soil, storm
water, and ground water are inadequate
and refer the case to the Attorney
General.
Septe~er 22, 1981
.
RWQCB staff meet with CWP to specify
their informational needs. The
info'rmation is to be provided by
October 1, 1981.
CWP proposes ground water extraction
wells along the eastern site boundary.
September 24, 1981
september 28, 1981
CWP indicates in a telephone conversa-
tion with RWQCB staff that the technical
information requested on September 22,
1981 is being submitted.
RWQCB staff outline CWP's responsibili-
ties in a letter.
October 2, 1981
CWP submits a plan to RWQCB.
judged inadequate by RWQCB.
Plan is
October 12, 1981
CWP submits revised plan to RWQCB.
A-S
~. ,:= ~.~ "~ . :::- ~-: -.-.
'~-:<'\ ..
,"
-------
October 19, 1981
NoveIr.ber 9, 1981
.November 11, 1981
November 17, 1981
November 20, 1981
December 1 - 18, 1981
December 18, 1981
..
..
.
.
January 13, 1982
January 28, 1982
February 10, 1982
RWQCB staff send letter to c~p detailing"
plan inadequacies.
CWP installs extraction wells CWP-7, "
CWP-8, and CWP-9.
RWQCB staff install off-site monitoring
wells (FPT-1A, FPT-1B, FPT-2A, and
FPT-3) some of which.confirm off-site
ground water contamination. .
CWP ceases the discharge of ground water"
from extraction wells to surface
drainage ditches at the request of the
Attorney General.
CWP meets with RWQCB staff and presents
plans: RWQCB outlines needs for more
information and timely action.
CWP submits new plan.
RWQCB and Deputy Attorney General
determine that threat of discharge to
the Russian River exists. .
Cour~ issues preliminary injunction at
Deputy Attorney General's request
incorporating CWP's proposals of
November with. agency modifications.
RWQCB.staff send letter to CWP pointing
out delays and urging timely effort in
ground water investigation: RWQCB staff
suggest a meeting to help resolve any
questions.
CWP's.legal counsel sends letter to
Deputy Attorney General indicating plans
for further investigation. Indicates
concern that RWQCB staff is involved"
with issues outside their jurisdiction.
Deputy Attorney General, representing
the RWQCB, contacts CWP by telephone
requesting more information on progress.
CWP sends letter detailing recent
activities.
A-6
y -=-.: " ~\. . .::
~<~~~~ ~ - ::
.... -- -
-"
,. :
-------
February 24, 1982
I '
I
I
,
I'
March 24, 1982
April 6, 1982
April 16, '1982
April 26, 1982
June 30, 1982
July 6, 1982
July 22, 1982
July 26, 1982
August 26/27/30, 1982
September 15 & 16, 1982
September 29, 1982
November 2, 1982
I
Deputy Attorney General sends letter to
CWP expressing concern with lack of .
progress and insufficient compliance
with RWQCB orders.
CWP provides exploratory drilling plan
without technical support information.
RWQCB transmits draft Waste Discharge
Requirements to CWP. '
CWP requests consideration of the draft
Waste Discharge Requirements be post-
poned until the next Board Meeting.
RWQCB staff agree to postpone considera~
tion of the requirements until the July'
Board Meeting. .
CWP submits Kleinfelder Phase II plan.
RWQCB staff send letter on deficiencies
in self-monitoring of ground and surface
waters.
CWP provides comments on draft Waste
Discharge Requirements.
Board adopts new Waste Discharge
Requirements for CWP.
Deputy Attorney General,representing
RWQCB, sends comments to CWP on
Kleinfelder Phase II plan.
Kleinfelder installs four monitoring
wells (CWP-10, CWP-11, CWP-12, and
CWP-lJ).
Kleinfelder installs three additional
monitoring wells (CWP-14, CWP-15, and
CWP-16); soil samples are collected.
CWP sends progress report on investiga-
tion and revises spill contingency plan.
RWQCB staff send comments related to
inadequacy of submittals.
A-7
~. ~c=: "',;;: \, ".:;: - -::- -= -
\'.:> . ..'~-. ':".~::.' T-.~
-------
November 16, 1982
RWQCB staff and the Deputy Attorney
General meet with CWP and their.
consultant to discuss m~difi~ation of
preliminary injunction. ~
Kleinfelder submits "Report for Phase II
Groundwater Study." .
December 3, 1982
Deputy Attorney General ;,', representing
RWQCB, sends letter to CWP summarizing
the November ,16, 1982 meeting and .' .
requesting that several, ,actions be
taken. :
December 27, 1982
Deputy Attorney General," representing
RWQCB, sends comments on Kleinfelder
report. '~ .
December 27, 1982
> .
CWP sends a letter in response to Deputy
Attorney General's lett~r of December 3.
RWQCB issues press relea~e on the.
inclusion of the CWP site on the new
federal and state Superfund list.
December 31, 1982
January 7, 1983
RWQCB'staff meet with Cwp, who agree to
install additional off~site wells and
take other actions. ,c
".~':-
January 14, 1983
CWP requests modification of Waste
Discharge Requirements to permit -
discharge of extracted:ground water to
sani tary sewer system. -~'->
.. '
January 18, 1983
RWQCB staff reply to the'January 14,
1983 request, indicating their position
on no discharge to surface waters or
ground waters and indicating the need to
modify the City's permi~ if treated
wastewater from the CWP:facility is
accepted. "
- ~~ .
'''''''
RWQCB staff send letter~indicating need
for submittal of inform~tion, now past
due, discussed at the M!eting.
- '-
February 4, 1983
CWP replies, stating tha.',t evaluation of
alternatives and work are in progress.
, .
"....-
,:;..
A-8
,:",.
. '~
_.- .... Y. = :::'\ ~ "," . ::'" -=-= - -::- . .
-.,';~,-... :-" --= ~,..::::;;-: -
'- ~== '-~ ,~. ':::
',....?
-------
March 11, 1983
May 16, 1983
June 2, 1983
'June 8, 1983
July 16, 1983
July 19, 1983
July 27, 1983
August 9, 1983
August 22, 1983
September 2, 1983
Kleinfelder submits report on "50il
Chemical Arialysis Results." [RWQCB
indicates no such report on file.]
, Deputy Attorney General, representing
RWQCB, sends letter requesting immediate
installation of the agreed upon two off-
site wells, as previously requested.
CWP installs off-site wells (FPT-4 and
FPT-5) .
.
CWP letter reports construction details
of Wells FPT-4 and FPT-5, but provi~es
inadequate response on other issues.
RWQCB staff send necessary' forms for
filing a new report of waste discharge,
per CWP request. ", ,
CWP submits brief report on installation
of Wells FPT-4 and FPT-5. '
Kleinfelder submits report titled
'''Recommendations for Pumping Program at
Well CWP-8." [RWQCB indicates no such
report on file. )
Deputy Attorney General, representing
RWQCB, sends letter regarding receipt of
reports, and informs CWP that their
response to RWQCB orders has been
inadequate.
Control measures to contain contaminated
stormwater are implemented.
CWP responds to Deputy A~torney General
letter of August 9, 1983.
CWP informs RWQCB staff of the planned
construction of a bentonite slurry
cutoff wall ,to prevent pr retard off-
, site migration of chromium-contaminated
ground water. '
RWQCB staff meet with CWP and discuss
needed actions. CWP indicates plans to
install cutoff wall; RWQCB indicates
that these activities should be
A-9
.~ .~.~ ~. <.<:~ '."
. -. --- ._- .
... ~. .-
. '. ~- . .
...-.~.
-------
September 9, 1983
September 15, 1983
September 26, 1983
October 6, 1983
October 13, 1983
October 20, 1983
October 25, 1983
November 18, 1983
December 23, 1983
January 5, 1984
January 6, 1984
January 19, 1984
conducted by a professional in the field
of hydrogeology. .
Kleinfelder installs three additional
monitoring wells (AT-1, .AT-2, and AT-3)
off site at locations recommended by
RWQCB staff.
CWP sends letter report to RWQCB.
Kleinfelder submits "Groundwater.
Monitoring Well Construction" report.
Deputy Attorney General, representing
RWQCB, sends letter to CWP regarding
need for professional hydrogeologist to .
design and supervise construction of
cutoff wall.
..
RWQCa issues Cleanup and Abatement Order
No. 83-128 because of qelays and failure
to use professional assistance in .
determining needed remedial actions.
CWP responds to Deputy Attorney General
letter of October 6, indicating that
they see no need for professional
oversight. .
CWP requests a full review of the
cleanup and abatement order before the
Board.
CWP informs RWQCB staff that cutoff wall
was installed, without professional
oversight.. .
RWQCB staff respond to ~ovember 18, 1983
letter from CWP.
CWP applies for permit to discharge
treated wastewater to the City's
sanitary sewer system.
CWP responds to RWQCB's December 23
letter.
RWQCB hearing is held on the Cleanup and
Abatement order, which is subsequently
ratified.
A-10
V -.:': :::'\ ~.
.~. ~.
~'. .:"':--"-'::. ~
. .... ----
... .. -
~,
-
..:.
-------
January 31, 1984
RWQCB staff re-transmit ratified order
and require immediate compliance. .
CWP submits D'Appolonia work plan
entitled "Investigation of Chromium in
Soil" to DHS for review.
February 7, 1984
CWP informs RWQCB staff that they have
hired a consultan~ to conduct the soil.
and ground water investigation, and that
they fully intend to comply with the
Board orders.
I
I .
[
February 17, 19~4
The City retains a consultant to review
the proposed discharge of treated.
wastewater from CWP..
February 28, 1984
CWP submits revised D'Appolonia work
plan for investigation .of chromium in
soil.
March 19, 1984
D'Appolonia conducts soil quality
investigation, including Borings 5-1
through 5-26.
The City's consultant recommends
acceptance of treated wastewater into
the sanitary sewer system.
April 1984
CWP hires Alpha Lab to perform baseline
analysis of the City's sanitary sewer
discharge.
D'Appolonia issues report entitled
"Investigation of Chromium in Soil;"
May 1, 1984
May 3, 1984
CWP submits work plan for determining
full extent of ground water
contamination by hexavalent chromium.
May 24, 1984
RWQCB staff comment on the needed
modifications to the May 3, 1984 work
plan.
RWQCB, DHS, and EPA meet with CWP to
discuss further needed actions. A report
is required by June 22, 1984.
May 29, 1984
A-11
'...'.
" - n-: ~ =\' \' . ::-
.' .-~' \:<: ~..' ~'
-------
June 5, 1984
EPA informs RWQCB of requirements for
cleanup ot Superfund sites.
June 20, 1984
On behalf of CWP, D'Appolonia submits a
letter report on progress and proposed
interim site remediation. .
RWQCB transmits EPA's concerns regarding
Superfund requirements to CWP.
July 3, 1984
RWQCB and other agency staff meet with
CWP and D'Appolonia to discuss the May 3
and June 20 submittals.
July 6, 1984
RWQCB staff send letter outlining.
agreements reached and requirements
identified at the July 3 meeting.
RWQCB staff comment on D'Appolonia's
June 20, 1984 proposal and suggest a few
minor modifications.
July 18, 1984
August 1, 1984
D'Appolonia responds, on behalf of CWP,
to the July 18 RWQCB letter. .
I .
October 4, 1984
D'Appolonia submits status report on
behalf of CWP.
November 2, 1984
D'Appolonia submits status report on
behalf of CWP. ;:
.
.
December 10, 1984
D'Appolonia submits status report on
behalf of CWP. .
January 15, 1985
Deep Boring 5-27 drilled and converted
to Well CWP-17.
April 5, 1985
RWQCB staff meet with CWP and other
regulatory agencies.
RWQCB staff send letter outlining points
of agreement reached at meeting and the
clarification which is needed.
April 15, 1985
May 29, 1985
RWQCB staff meet with CWP and other
regulatory agencies.
June 4, 1985
RWQCB staff send letter to CWP summar-
izing meeting and needed actions.
A-12
,-'- ~ .:~ ~~,.~ ::- . f ..--= ~~. -h'
-------
June 26, 1985
July 25, 1985
July 29, 1985
August 23, 1985
August 29 and 30, 1985
September 27, 1985
March 20, 1986
March 31, 1986
April 30, 1986
June 12, 1987
June 13, 1986
June 19, 1986
C~P submits "Hydrologic and Remedial
Action Feasibility Studies" .report to
all agencies. "
RWQCB re-issues WasteCischarge Require-
ments forCWP, with modifications for
treated ground water reinjection.
RWQCB staff and agencies meet with CWP
on the revised report submitted on
July 10, 1985.
Based on" the comments of all the
reviewing agencies, RWQCB staff send
letter to CWP identifying additional
information needed.
Wells CWP-18, CWP-19, CWP-20, and CWP-21
are constructed at the site.
IT Corporation submits report entitled
"Remedial Action Implementation
Schedule."
RWQCB staff indicate that sampling
techniques should be improved and that
CWP has failed to submit a sampling
protocol as previously requested "in 1981
and 1982.
On behalf of CWP, Geosystem submits"
report on "Evaluation of On-Site Ground
Water Extraction."
CWP sends letter to RWQCB indicating
that no sampling protocol is available
and requesting a discussion of the
matter with staff.
CHS receives EPA comments on "Evaluation
of On-Site Ground Water Extraction,"
submitted on March 31, 1986.
RWQCB and other agencies meet with CHP
and Geosystem to discuss further efforts
required at CWP.
DHS sends letter to CWP regarding
requirements for preparation of a
Remedial Action Plan (RAP).
A-13
~::::: '" ,<"':: '.~ . ~ ~~ -" -: -:: -
--. .
,'.. .
-------
June 20; 1986
June 25, 1986
! -
JUly 2-1, 1986
August 21, 1986
I :
I
August 28, 1986
j
August 29, 1986
September 4, 1986
September 15, 1986
September 19, 1986
October 28, 1986
November 4, 1986
RWQCB staff summarize meeting of June
13, 1986 and request the submittal of
sampling plan and other information.
EPA sends letter to Geosystem identi-
fying the need for further evaluat,ion of
leachability of chromium from soil at
CWP.
On behalf of CWP,Geosystem submits draft
Ground Water Monitoring Protocol to .
RWQCB.
CWP receives comments from RWQCB staff
on draft Ground Water Monitoring
Protocol.
RWQCB staff remind CWP in a letter of
the need for prompt action on previous
requests. . .
Geosystem submits Ground Water
Monitoring Protocol and a time frame for
obtaining additional information.
Geosystem submits progress report which
addresses issues outlined in June 20,
1986 letter from RWQCB.
CWP indicates that they-misread the
deadline and p~omptly comply.
Geosystem submits pre-draft RAP.
DHS transmits sample deed restriction to
CWP and explains annuity requirement.
Geosystem issues draft report on
"Definition and Hydraulic Control of
Chromium in Ground Water."
RWQCB staff and agencies meet with CWP
to discuss draft RAP.DHS issues
comments on pre-draft RAP.
RWQCB staff re-issue the Cleanup &
Abatement Order and set out several
needed tasks.
A-14
~~- _2 ~~ ~ .:~ - i .~= -; - - -
-------
. November 13, 1986
November 21, 1986
December 2, 1986
December 9-11, 1986
December 19, 1986
,
I
i '
I,
January 9, 1987
January 27, 1987
February 23, 1987'
March 4, 1987
March 24, 1987
CWP submits plan for needed activities.
'Geosystem submits letter report on,
Additional Site Characterization,
addressing Item 1.a of Revised ~leanup
and Abatement Order No. 83-128.
RWQCB staff comment on the locations of
the monitoring wells proposed in the
drilling plan.
Geosystem submits letter report on Soil,
Leaching Characteristics and Duration of
Aquifer Cleanup.
Geosystem issues progress report.
Geosystem installs new monitoring wells
(CWP-22, AT-4, and AT-5). RWQCB staff
are present during well installation.
CWP requests modifications to monitoring
program. ,
CWP sends comments to RWQCB regarding
Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program
No. 85-101.
EPA issues comments on CWP letter
reports dated November 13 and 21, 1987.
Geosystem submits report on "Monitoring
,Well Installation and Additional Site
Characterization," which documents the
installation and sampling of additional
wells (CWP-22, AT-4, and AT-5).
Geosystem submits progress report.
CWP requests extension of Cleanup &
Abatement Order deadline from March, 1 to
April 1, 1987.
RWQCB staff'grant CWP's request for an
extension.
EPA issues comments on pre-draft RAP and
"Monitoring Well Installation and
Additional Site Characterization."
A-15
~ -=:-: ~\ ~ ~
,0":::= ,-:;:. "
, , -
. -.. ~ ~"
. -.. .--- .--- .
... '. - .-
.~ ':::": " ~:
-------
March.25, 1987
DHS transmits to CWP "Draft Guidelines
for the Remedial Action Plan - Re-
revised" (February 18, 1987) and
additional comments on pre-draft RAP.
March 31, 1987
DHS notifies CWP of May i, 1987 date for
submission of draft RAP.
April 1, 1987
Geosystem submits report on
of Off-Site Remediation" in
Ite~ 1.d of Revised Cleanup
Order No. 83-128.
"Evaluation
response to
& Abatement
April 14, 1987
CWP submits Hydrologic Remediation Plan.
Geosystem submits time schedule for
remedial actions.
April 29, 1987
Geosystem issues a review of regulatory
agencies comments.
April 30, 1987
CWp. submits "Proposed Discharge of
Treated Groundwater to City of Ukiah
Sewage Treatment Plant" report to the
City. City responds with various items.
May 12, 1987
RWQCB and other agency staff meet with
CWP and Geosystem personnel
RWQCB staff send letter to CWP outlining
needed actions.
May 29, 1987
Geosystem issues progress report.
June 10, 1987
CWPresponds to RWQCB letter of May 29,
1987. .
June 17, 1987
Geosystem requests extension of deadline
for submission of draft RAP to July 31, .
1987. .
. .
.. :
CWPmeets with the City regarding
discharge of treated ground water to
treatment plant; the City requests
further information.
July 10, 1987
DHS sends CWPthe EPA's comments on
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
efforts and grants extension of deadline
A-16
~.-=: =0, -::--\'.::.
"'~ " . :~~, \>~ ~ ' ~~
/
-------
. July 16, 1987
July 31, 1987
August 7, 1987
August 19, 1987
I . .
I
August 24, .1987
September 10, 1987
September 17, 1987
,.
I ~ ,
September 18, 1987
, .
i . .
September 24, 1987
September 29, 1987
October 7, 1987
October 14, 1987
November 3, 1987
November 13, 1987
November 24, 1987
for submission of draft RAP from June 30
to July 31, 1987.
Geosystem submits response to EPA
comments (as forwarded by DHS on
July 10, 1987).
Draft RAP submitted by Geosystem to all
agencies.
Geosystem submits revised Ground Water/
Storm Water Monitoring Protocol.
CWP meets with Ukiah Sewage Treatment
Plant personnel. The City requests
further information. .
The City drafts monitoring program.
RWQCB issues comments on draft RAP.
Letter from'cWP to the City outlining
discussions of the August. 19, 1987
meeting and indicating that the
additional information requested is
being pursued.
Geosystem issues progress report.
DHS issues comments on draft RAP and
forwards DHS and EPA comments to
Geosystem.
Geosystem receives table of contents for
the new RAP policy.
The City gives verbal approval for
discharge to sanitary sewer system.
City attorney to draft documents.
Geosystem issues progress report.
Geosystem submits draft Chronology to
. RWQCBstaff for review and comment.
Geosystem issues progress report.
RWQCB staff issues comments on draft
Chronology.
A-17
" -- '" ~. '\ . ~..
. ..:: ~. ~
~ '. '. , '-
-------
November 30, 1987
Geosystem submits second draft
Chronology to RWQCB for review and
comment.
Geosystem submits ~ProposedResponse
Approach to Regulatory Agencies
Comments" to CWP and agencies.
December 7, 1987
RWQCB staff issues comments on second
draft Chronology.
December 14, 1987
Geosystem issues progress report.
January through
December 1988
Geosystem issues monthly progress
reports.
I .
February 24, 1988
DHS transmits DHS and EPA comments on
draft RAP.
February 29, 1988
Geosystem issues Draft No. 2, Remedial
Action Plan
August 4, 1988
DHS transmits EPA, RWQCB, and DHS
comments on Draft No.2, Remedial
Action Plan.
January through
June 198.9
Geosystem issues monthly progress
reports.
Geosystem issues the third draft of RAP.
February 3, 1989
..
-
.
April 24, 1989
Geosystem issues the preliminary final
draft of RAP. .
May 3, 1989
Geosystem issues the final draft RAP.
August 1, 1989
DHS issues comments and changes on final
draft of RAP.
I ~.
A-18
~ ~. .:~..: ~ ~. ~ \'. . i-~ _7
-------
NOTES:
I.
I
i .
I .
[
1) Definitions:
CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
City = City of Ukiah
County = Mendocino County Department of Public
Health
Court = Mendocino County Superior Court
CWP = Coast Wood Preserving, Inc.
D'Appolonia = D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc.
DFG = Department of Fish and Game
Executive Officer = Executive Officer of RWQCB
Geosystem = Geosystem Consultants, Inc.
HEA = a. Esmaili & Associates, Inc.
IT Corporation = International Technology Corporation,
formerly D'Appolonia Consulting
Engineers, . Inc.
RAP = Remedial Action Plan
RWQCB = California Regional Water Quality Control
. Board, North Coast Region
Superfund = Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund
. for CERCLA
.
A-19
y.. --= ~ y "
-- ~.
~ ". ,':.:-- <~ "~
. .... . - --. .
... '.. ...
~ -
-------
-
-
I
I x:
I C
Z
IJ.i,
..
--
..
<:
..
~
," ~.
-------
. APPENDIX B
GROUND WATER MONITORING DATA
Table B.l:
Table B.2:
[ .
.
Summary of Ground Water Levels
Summa.ry of Ground Water Analyses
"
:;:--. ~-:= =0. ::"......., . :::--- :---- -=..=. .
: -- ~ ~ -
. .~. '. .:_:' \~ ~. - :::
-------
TABLE B.1
SUMMARY .OF GROUND IIA TER LEVELS
DEPTH TO IIATER SURFACE
~ Qill ',.lATER ELE'/AT!Oll c::'r'E~ITS
e tt) eft
-------
I TABLE B.1
, SUMMARY OF GROUND ~ATER LEVELS
I DEPTH TO ~ATER SURFACE
~ELL Qill '.lATER ELE'IA T! OPj C::'f'r;: ~ T S
(ft) (ft aoove MSL)
C\.IP-3 03/23/81 1.20 579.17
03/25/81 1.29 579.08
04/02/81 4.30 576.07
04/04/81 575.15
05/08/81 4.53 575 . 84
06/09/81 5.70 574.67
09/20/82 DRY
03/01/84 3.77 576.60
05/01/85 ~.42. 574.95
08/01/85 DRY
10/31/85 DRY
05/01/86 3.92 576.45
01/09/87 6.82 573.55
04/20/87 5.41 574.96
07/21/87 DRY
07/23/87 DRY
10/19/87 DRY
01/20/88 4.92 575.45
04/22/88 DRY
07/19/88 DRY
10/24/88 DRY
01/24/89 6.34 574.03
04/27/89 3.99 576.38
07/25/89 DRY
C\.IP-4A 03/23/81 10.80 568:03
03/25/81 12.21 566.62
04/02/81 10.80 568.03
04/04/81 567.98
06/09/81 10.50 568.33
09/20/82 5.10 573.73
01/09/87 10.44 568.39
01/20/88 DRY
01/24/89 7.10 571. 73
CWP-40 03/23/81 2.83 575.93
03/25/81 2.50 576.26
04/02/81 2.45 576.31
04/04/81 576.45
05/08/81 3.24 575.52
06/09/81 4.20 574.56
09/20/82 7.90 570.86
01/09/87 6.11 572.65
01/20/88 1.91 576.85
01/24/89 4.20 574.56
""
\....'- ".
.c: '" 0
..:..: ~
''':='~ ~
. . ":::- -
:-':.....-
-------
TABLE B.1
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER lEVELS
DEPTH TO WATER SURFACE
WELL ~ '.lATER ELE'/ATlON. CC!A'''E ~l T S
( f t) (ft above MSl)
CIJP-5 03/23/81 8.'-9 569.61
03/25/81 8.51 569.59
04/02181 8.50 569.60
04/04/81 570.88
05/08/81 9.21 568.89
06/09/81 10.50 567.60
09/20/82 DRY
03/01/84 8.08 570.02
01/30/85 DRY
05/03/85 DRY
08/01/85 DRY
10/31/85 DRY
01/12/86 2.24 575.86
. 05/01/86 DRY
01/09/87 9.88 568.22
04/20/87 7.65 570.'-5.
07/21/87 ORY
07/23/87 DRY
10/19/87 DRY
01/20/88 4.89 573.21
04/22/88 DRY
07/19/88 DRY
10/24/88 DRY
'01/2'-/89 8.05 570.05
04/27/89 8.50 569.60
07/25/89 DRY
~ ~= ~ ~"
':- = ~
~ , ',:= ~ ~
....... '--..
... '. -. -
~
<:..
-
-------
TABLE 8.1
SUMMARY OF GROUND ~ATER LEVELS
DEPTH TO \lATER SURFACE
~ Qlli ~ATER ELEVATIC11 CC1"'E~H 5
i (ft) (ft above MSL)
C~P'6 03/23/81 6.05 575.97
03/25/81 5.45 576.57
04/02/81 5.15 576.87
04/04/81 577.09
05/08/81 6.08 575 . 94
06/09/81 7.20 574.82
09/20/82 9.10 572 . 92
02/01/84 5.98 576.04
04/02/84 6.00 576.02
05/10/84 6.79 575 .23
05/01/85 6.46 575.56
08/29/85 10.05, 571. 97
10i01/85 DRY
10/30/85 DRY
10/31/85 10.96 571.06
12/03/85 9.42 572 . 60
02/13/86 5.80 576.22
03/26/86 6.67 575 .35
05/01/86 6.21 . 575 .81
06/03/86 6.92 575.10
07/01/86 7.56 574.46
08/11/86 8.88 573.14
09/03/86 10.79 571.23
10/06/86 10.98 571.04
01/05/87 9.72 572.30
01/09/87 10.48 571.54
I 02/25/87 6.70 575.32
04/20/87 6.97 575.05
05/19/87 6.81 575.21
07/21/87 8.65 573.37
08/24/87 10.70 571.32
09/23/87 DRY
10/20/87 DRY
11/13/87 DRY
12/18/87 7.25 574.77
01/20/88 5.60 576.42
02/18/88 6.56 575.46
03/21/88 6.69 575 .33
04/22/88 6.81 575.21
OS/23/88 7.54 574.48
06/23/88 6.98 575 . 04
07/19/88' 8.64 573.38
08/24/88 10.12 571. 90
09/19/88 10.77 571.25
10/24/88 12.70 . 569.32
11/21/88 10.72 571.30
12/23/88 9.86 572.16
01/25/89 7.27 574.75
02/21/89 7.38 574.64
03/21/89 5.85 576.17
04/28/89 5.83 576.19
OS/22/89 6.68 575 .34
06/28/89 7.14 574.88
07/26/89 7.77 574.25
,,-=:.-:- ~ ~ . . .... ---
'~<~-'~" '_.~~. \.\~ ~,. ~
-
-------
TABLE B.1
SUMMARY OF GROUND ~ATER LEVELS
DEPTH TO '.lATER SURFACE
~ELL !2lli ~ATER E~E'/A T raN CC!A,AE'ITS
(ft) Cft above MSL)
CIJP-7 09/20/82 10.90 565.85
03/01/84 6.50 570.25
05/01/85 8.75 568.00
08/29/85 12.78 563.97
10/31/85 12.88 563.87
02/11/86 5.92 570.83
02/12;86 5.78 570.97
05/01/86 8.25 568.50
08/11/86 12.67 564.08
01/09/87 11.12 565.63
04/20/87 7.75 569.00
07/21/87, 12;43 564.32 '.
10/19/87 13.83 562.92
01/20/88 5.23 571.52
04/22/88 9.85 566.90
07/19/88 12.51 564.24
10/24/88 13.89 . 562.86 .
01/24/89 6.74 570.01
04/28/89 7.07 569.68
07/25/89 11.83 564.92
CIJP-8 09/20/82 9.80 567.29
02/01/84 6.69 570.1.0. .
03/01/84 6.25 570.84
04/02/84 6.42 570.67
05/10/84 7.92 569.17
05/01/85 7.38 569.71
08/29/85 12.55 564.54
10/30/85 12.75 564.34
10/31/85 12.25 564.84
12/03/85 7.92 569. 17
02/11/86 5.89. 571.20
02/12/86 5.69 571.40
03/26/86 6.21 570.88
05/01/86 7.12 569.97
06/03/86 9.67 567.42
07/01/86 11. 00 566.09.
08/11/86 13.50 563.59
09/03/86 10.08 567.01
10/06/86 11. 85 565.24
01/05/87 8.52 568.57
01/09/87 10.25 566.84
02/25/87 8.30 568.79
05/19/87 8.37 568.72
06/16/87 10.38 566.71
07/21/87 11.87 565.22
08/24/87 12.65 564.44
09/23/87 12.64 564.45
10/19/87 12.52 564.57
11/13/87 8.41 568.68 .
12/18/87 7.03 570.06
01/20/88 5.38 571 . 71
02/18/88 6.44 570.65
03/21/88 7.68 569.'1
04/22/88 7.71 569.38
OS/23/88 10.'0 566.69
06/23/88 11.70 565.39
07/19/88 12.50 564.59
08/2'/88 11.69 565.'0
09/19/88 11.60 565.'9
10/24/88 13.28 563.81
12/23/88 6.98 570.11
01/25/89 6.21 570.88
02/20/89 8.99 568.10
03/21/89 5.87 571.22
04/28/89 6.61 570.:'8
OS/22/89 7.64 569.'5
06/28/89 4.90 572.19
07/25/89 11. 15 565.94
" - '" '0.' --... --_..
,. -. - -.
'-.. .~ ~
\\~'". '. . ~.
-------
TABLE B.1
SUMMARY OF C~OUND ~ATEK LEVELS
DEPTH TO ~ATER SURFACE
~ELL ~ \lATER ELEVATION C:~A~A:~~ T $
(ft) (ft above MSL)
C'.IP-9 09/20/82 8.50 570 . 71
08/29/85 10.05 569.16
02/11/86 5.47 573.74
02/12/86 5.27 573.94
01/09/87 8.76 570.45
01/20/88 5.03 574.18
01/24/89 6.81 572.40
C'.IP-10 09/20/82 11. 30 571.09
03/01/84 9.12 573.27
03/26/86 7.18 575.21
C\lP-" 09/20/82 9.20 570.56
02/01/84 7.58 572.18
03/01/84 7.33 572.43
04/02/84 7.50 572.26
05110/84 8.42 571.34
05/01/85 8.42 571.34 .
08/01/85 DRY
08/29/85 12.00 567.76
09/09/85 DRY
10/01/85 DRY
10/30/85 . DRY
10/31/85 11.71 568.05
. 12/03/85 10.58 569.18.
02/11/86 7.55 572.21
92/12/86 7.44 572.32
05/01/86 8.29 571 .47
06/03/86 8.67 571.09
.. 07/01/86 10.03 569.73
. 08/11/86 12.17 567.59
09/03/86 . 12.24 567.52
10/06/86 ".68 568.08
01/05/87 10.33 569.43.
01/09/87 10.60 569.16
02/25/87 8.01 571.75
04/20/87 8.01 571.75
, 05/19/87 8.87 570.89
'. 06/16/87 10.00 569.76
07/21/87 11.08 568.68
08/24/87 12.02 567.74
09/23/87 12.80 566.96
10/19/87 DRY
11/13/87 DRY
12/18/87 8.46 571.30
01/20/88 6.68 573.08
02/18/88 7.77 571. 99
03/21/88 8.33 571.43
04/22/88 8.60 571.16
OS/23/88 9.89 569.87
06/23/88 10.40 569.36
07/19/88 11.38 568.38
08/24/88 12.00 567.76
09/19/88 12.57 567.19
10/24/88 13.32 566.44
t. 11/21/88 11.47 568.29
12/23/88 11.21 568.55
01/24/89 7.18 572.58
02/20/89 9.14 570.62
03/21/89 6.88 572.88
04/28/89 7.39 572.37
OS/22/89 8.10 571.66
06/28/89 4.17 575 .59
07/25/89 10.52 .569.24
~ -=.- " ". ~
'" ~
~". ,":.-- ~ ~.
. - --.. -- . -
_. -
::::.. .
. ""
. ,
-------
TABLE B.1
SUMMARY OF GROUND ~ATER LEVELS
, DEPTH TO ~ATER SURFACE
~ Qlli ~ATER ELE'/ATICN C::~A'AE~TS
( ft) (ft above MSL)
C\JP-12 09/20/82 12.50 566.79
03/01/84 8.92 570.37
05/01/85 11. 79 567.50
10/31/85 16.38 562.91
02/1 1/86 8.02 571.27
02/12/86 7.96 571.33
05/01/86 1 1. 25 568.04
08/11/86 16.00 563.29
01/09/87 15.01 564.28
04i20/87 10.77 568.52
07/21/87 15.92 563.37
10/19/87 16.87 562.42
01/20/88 7.01 572.28
04/22/88 13.21 566.08
07/19/88 15.91 563.38
10/24/88 16.97 562.32
01/24/89 1 1. 42 567.87
04/28/89 10.02 569.27
07/25/89 15.18 564. 11
C\o/P-13 09/20/82 10.30 568.89
03/01/84 8.71 570.48
05/01/85 10.42 568.77
08/29/85 14.60 564.59
10/30/85 14.96, 564.23
10/31/85 14.44 564.75
12/03/85 14.02 ' 565. 17
02/11/86 8.01 571. 18 '
02/12/86 7.79 571.40
03/26/86 8.40 570.79
05/01/86 9.96 569.23
06/03/86 12.21 566.98
07/01/86 13.00 566.19
08/11/86 14.25 564.94
09/03/86 14.71 564.'8
10/06/86 14.41 564.78
01/05/87 11.58 567.61
01/09/87 13.06 566.13
02/25/87 9.87 569.32
04/20/87 9.70 569.49
05/19/87 10.66 ' 568.53
06/16/87 12.42 566.77
07/21/87 14.05 565.14
08/24/87 14.14 565.05
09/23/87 15.19 564.00
10/19/87 15.00 564.19
11/13/87 11.88 567.31
12/18/87 10.50 568.69
01/20/88 8.36 570.83
02/18/88 9.24 569.95
03/21/88 11. 410 567.75
010/22/88 ' 11. 59 567.60
OS/23/88 110.210 5610.95
06/23/88 13.81 565.38
07/19/88 110.45 564.7'
08/2'/88 14.18 565.01
09/19/88 1'.25 564.9'
10/24/88 15.93 563.26
11/21/88 14.51 564.68
12/23/88 10.19 569.00
01/2'/89 8;'6 570.73
02/20/89 11.46 567.73
03/21/89 8.18 571. 01
04/28/89 8.70 570.49
OS/22/89 10.22 568.97
06/28/89 10.21 568.98
07/25/89 13.31 565.88
.~:~ .
=0. =:. ~ ~ '\
" ~-'=--: ':>':~~> \.
.. - --.
... '.. ~ ~-
. . ',"0
-------
TABLE B. 1
SUMMARY OF GROUND ~AiER LEVELS
DEPTH TO '.lATER SURFACE
~ Qill ~ATER ::cE'IATICN C::~"E'HS
(ft) (ft above MSL)
CUP-14 09/20/82 11.50 566.15
03/01/84 7.42 570.23
05/01/85 9.40 568.25
08/29/85 13.25 564.40
10/31/85 13.29 564.36
02111/86 6.53 571. 12
02/12/86 6.37 571.28
05/01/86 8.98 568.67
08/11/86 13.00 564.65
01/09/87 11.53 566.12
04/20/87 8.19 569.46
07/21/87 12.72 564.93
10119/87 14.04 563.61
01/20/88 6.02 571.63
04/22/88 4.90 572.75
07119/88 12.91 564.74
10/24/88 14.31 563.34
01/24/89 7.02 570.63
04/28/89 7.37 570.28
07/25/89 12.04 565.61
C\JP-15 09/20/82 7.t.O 572.56
08/29/85 10.80 569.16
02/11/86 6.15 573 .81
02/12/86. 5.95 57t..01
01/09/87 8.t.8 571.t.8
01/20/88 5.7t. 574.22
01/2t./89 7.37 572.59
[
I CWP-16 09/20/82 10.00 571.84
08/29/85 11. 70 570.1t.
01/09/87 9.32 572.52
01/20/88 6.39 575.t.5
01/24/89 12.25 . 569.59
CIJP-17 05/01/85 13.25 567.94
10/30/85 17.50 563.69
10/31/85 16.96 564.23
12/03/85 15.73 565.t.6
02/12/86 11.31 569.88
03/26/86 10.62 570.57
05/01/86 12.19 569.00
06/03/86 14.t.2 566.77
07/01/86 15.41 565.7'8
08/11/86 17.00 564.19
09/03/86 16.82 564.37
10/06/86 16.83 564.36
01/05/87 17.10 564.09
01/09/87 16.06 565.13
02/25/87 13.36 567.83
04/20/87 10.67 570.52
05/19/87 14~26 566.93
07/21/87 16.26 564.93
10/19/87 17.87 563.32
01/20/88 10.79 570.40
04/22/88 13.37 567.82
07119/88 16.84 564.35
10/2t./88 17.85 563.34
01/24/89 12.92 568.27
04/28/89 11. 50 569.69
07/25/89 15.82 565.37
~ -::: ~ ~ '.~
~:;. .~~:~ ~.
~ '~-~.-= -:.-:::' - .
~~
.,
(
-------
TABlEB.1
SUMMARY OF GROUND UATER lEVELS
DEPTH TO. UATER SURFACE
\JELL W1 UATER !:LE'IATtON C:~A~~E~'TS
(ft) (fe above MSl)
CUP-18 02/12/86 6.31. 576.35
01/09/87 12.31 570.38
01./20/87 6.61. 576.05
07/21/87 . 12.50 570.19
10/19/87 12.93 569.76
01/20188 6.21 576.1.8
01./22/88 7.1.0 575 . 29
07/19/88 9.56 573.13
10/24/88 DRY
01/26189 7.78 574.91
04/28/89 6.22 576.47
07/26/89' 8.52 574.17
CIJP-19 01/09/87 9.35 574.02 TRENCH
C'JP-20 02/11/86 1..72 573.80
02/12/86 4.51 574.01
03/26/86 5.12 573.1.0
01/05/87 7.80 570.72
01/09187 7.59 570.93
02/25/87 5.92 572.60
01./20/87 6.05 572.47
05/19/87 6.37 572.15
06/16/87 8.06 570.46
07/21/87 7.79 570.73
08/24/87 9.85 568.67
09/23/87 11.81 566.71
10/19/87 11.17 567.35
11/13/87 9.67 568.85
12/18/87 2.45 576.07
01/20/88 1..98 573.54
02/18188 5.57 572.95
03/21/88 6.00 . 572.52 .
04/22/88 6.18 572.34
05/23188 7.27 571.25
06/23/88 7.57 570.95
07i19/88 8.68 569.84
08/24188 9.91 568.61 ,.
09/19/88 10.46 568.06
10/24188 11.1.4 567.08
11/21/88 9.99 568.53
12/23188 7.85 570.67
01/25/89 6.62 571.90
02/21189 7.15 571.37
03/21/89 5.01 573.51
I ~ 04/27/89 5.13 573.39
05/22/89 5.60 572.92
I 06/28/89 5.99 572.53
I 07/26/89 7.81 570.71
Y'. ~::., ~ ,.';~ ':, - ..:.~~'
-" ~ '»~- -
--- -,". .
-------
?
TABLE B. 1
SUMMARY OF GROUND, IIA TER LE'/ELS
DEPTH TO \lATER SURFACE
~ Qill IIATER ELE'/A T! C~ C:::"'E'ITS
(t t) (ft above MSL)
CIIP-21 01/12/86 3.05 576.34
02/1 1 186 3.41 575.98
03/26/86 8.03 571.36
01/05/87 13.51 565.88
01/09/87 13.50 565.89
02/25/87 9.03 570.36
04/20/87 9.14 570.25
05/19/87 10.28 569. "
06/16/87 11. t.7 567.92
07/21/87 13.09 566.30
08/24/87 7.86 571.53
09/23/87 14.67 564.72
10/19/87 14.59 564.80 .
11/13/87 13.80 565.59
12/18/87 8.80 570.59
01/20/88 6.34 573.05 '
02/18188 , 9.15 570.24
03/21/88 9.57 569.82
04/22/88 11.42 567.97
05/23/88 12.68 566.71
06/23/88 12.82 566.57
07/19188 13.41 565.98
08/24/88 13.85 565.54
09/19/88 14.11 565.28
10/24/88 15.00 564.39
11/21/88 14.25 565.14
12/23/88 13.07 566.32
01/25/89 8.78 570.61
02/21/89 11.27 , 568.12
03/21/89 7.13 572.26
04/27/89 6.27 573.12
OS/22/89 10.51 568.88
06/28/89 12.15 567.24
07/26/89 12.61 566.78
C'olP-22 03/26/86 7.93 572.09
01/09/87 11.08 568.94
02/25/87 8.72 571.30 ...
.
04/20/87 8.61 571.41
05/19/87 9.70 570.32
~-== ~ ~'~
'H- ..::::::-'
~", ,.~-'~ ~
. ~ ...:-::' -.-"":" .
..::::::-
.::::
-
.':".
;".~
-------
TABLE B.1
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER LEVELS
DEPTH TO WATER SURFACE
WELL . Qlli. WATER ELEVATION CC~AME N T S
(ft) (ft above MSL)
HL-7 02/11/86 5.57 572.79
02/12/86 5.62 572.74 MAY NOT HAVE FULLY REC:'JERE~. ;:,=,::~ S7Ef' :~,\
01/05/87 12.50 565.86
01/09/87 13.53 564.83
02/25187 7.63 570. 73
04/20/87 7.73 570~63
05/19/87 9.08 569.28
06/16/87 10.30 568.06
07/21/87 12.82. 565.54
.08/24/87 14.16. 564.20
09/23/87 13.41 564.95
10/19/87 13..1 1 565.25
11/13/87 12.71 565.65
12/18/87 8.46 569.90
01/20/88 4.98 573 .38
02/18/88 7.52 570.84
03/21/88 8.08 570.28
04/22/88 10.59 567.77
05/23/88 11.48 566.88
06/23/88 11.79 566.57
07/19/88 12.31 566.05
08/24/88 12.71 565.65
09/19/88. 12.71 565.65
10/24/88 13.76 564.60
12/23/88 11.44 566.92
01/25/89 8.90 569.46
02/20/89 10.00 568.36
03/21/89 5.76 572.60
04/28/89 6.79 571.57
05/22/89 9.34 569.02
06/28/89 11.05 567.31
07/26/89 11.42 566.94
FPT-1A 09/20/82 8.00 -8.00
08/29/85 7.69 -7.69
FPT-1B 09/20/82 7.60 567.63
08/29/85 7.53 567.70
01/09/87 6.27 568.96
FPT-2A 04/20/87 1.24 567.44
01/20/88 1.83 566.85
01/26/89 1.38 567.30
FPT-2B 09/20/82 4.10 564.58
03/01/84 0.25 568.43
05/01/85 1.79 566.89
08/29/85 7.70 560.98
10/31/85 5.25 563.43
05/01/86 1.42 567.26
I 08/11/86 7.25 561.43
01/09/87 2.70 565.98
FPT-2C 08/29/85 7.72 561.09
01/09/87 3.00 565.81
~ :.~". ~ <~;:; ','
. ,.
-------
TABLE B.1
SUMMARY OF G~OUNO ~ATER LEVELS
DEPTH TO ~ATER SURFACE
~ELL Qill \lATER "L"'AT!C'j C:...UA: ~j 7 'S
eft) eft above MSL)
FPT-3 09/20/82 . 9.80 565.77
02/01/84 6.21 569.36
03/01/84 5.50 570.07
04/02/84 5.96 569.61
05/10/84 8.17 . 567.40
05/01/85 7.83 567.74
08/29/85 12.10 563.47
10/30/85 12.50 563.07
10/31/85 12.16 563.41
12/03/85 8.06 567.51
03/26/86 5.31 570.26
05/01/86 7.25 568.32
06/03/86 9.54 566.03
07/01/86 10.31 565.26
08/11/86 11.92 563.65
09/03/86 12.56 563.01
10/06/86 12.21 563.36
01/05/87 9.16 566.101
01/09/87 10.10 565.47
02/25/87 6.38 569.19
04/20/87 6.76 568.81
05/19/87 7.67 567.90
06/16/87 9.60 565.97
07/21/87 11.38 5610.19
08/24/87 12.47. 563.10
09/23/87 13.03 562.510
\,0/19/87 12.98 562.59
11/13/87 9.47 566.10
.12/18/87 6.35 569.22
01/20/88 3.00 572.57
02/18/88 6.00 569.57
03/21/88 7.72 567.85
010/22/88 8.86 566.71
OS/23/88 10.73 5610.84
06/23/88 11. 1 1 5610.46
07/19/88 11.87 563.70
08/24/88 11. 93 563.610
09/19/88 12.47 563.10
10/24/88 13.22 562.35
11/21/88 11.42 564. 15
12/23/88 9.51 566.06
01/26/89 7.78 . 567.79
02/20/89 9.25 566.32
03/21/89 4.54 571.03
04/27/89 6.26 569.31
OS/22/89 7.84 567.73
06/28/89 9.96 565.61
01/25/89 11.07 5610.50
FPT-4 03/01/84 4.17 569. 13
05/01/85 5.50 567.80
08/29/85 9.49 563.81
10/31/85 9.75 563.55
05/01/86 5.25 568.05
08/11/86 9.33 563.97
01/09/87 6.83 566.47
04/20/87 4.48 568.82
07/21/87 .9.08 5610.22
10/19/87 10.69 562.61
01/20/88 1.90 571.40
04/22/88 6.25 567.05
01/19/88 9.30 5610.00
10/24/88 10.63 562.67
01/26/89 5.36 567.910
04/27/89 3.84 569.46
07/25/89 8.53 5610.77
"- --=: '" ~ \~
~_.' .~~ :?'..
... - - . ---
... -"- -
?'
-
..
/
"~. ".
-------
1------------
TABLE B.1
SUMMARY' OF GROUNO UATER LEVELS
OEPTH TO UATER SURFACE
UELL Q.ill UATER ELE'IATIC/I :::'~'E~ T S
(ft) (f t above MSL)
FPT-5 02/01/84 3.29 568.61
03/01/84 2.94 568.96
04/02/84 3.25 568.65
05/10/84 4.67 567.23
05/01/85 4.71 567.19
08/29/85 8.05 563.85
10/30/85 7.96 563.94
10/31/85 8.29 563.61
12/03/85 3.81 568.09
03/26/86' 2.23 569.67
05/01/86 4.29 567.61
06/03/86 5.96 565.94
07/01/86 6.62 565.28
08/11/86 . 8.38 563.52
09/03/86 8.79 563.11
10/06/86 8.64 563.26
01/05/87 5.44 566.46
01/09/87 5.48 566.42
02/25/87 2.90 569.00
04/20/87 3.24 568.66
05/19/87 3.90 568.00
06/16/87 5.79 566.11
07/21/87 7.50 564.40
08/24/87 8.54 563.36
09/23/87 9.10 562.80
10/19/87 9.32. 562.58
11/13/87 6.23 565.67
12/18/87 2.78 569.12
01/20/88 0.59 571.31
02/18/88 2.49 569.41
03/21/88 .' 4.00 567.90
04/22/88 4.95 566.95
OS/23/88 6.75 565.15
06/23/88 7.00 564.90
07/19/88 7.25 564.65
08/24/88 8.02 563.88
09/19/88 8.41 563.49
10/24/88 9.24 562.66
11/21188 7.07 . 564.83
12/23/88 3.22 568.68
01/26/89 4.05 567.85
02/20/89 5.33 566.57
03/21/89 1.90 570.00
04/27189 2.67 569.23
05/22/89 3.81 568.09
06/28/89 6.01 565.89
07/25/89 7.12 564.78
" - -. . '" ...~.. \~ ~ ..<~-:.~ . ~ -: =~ ~ .
__h. "~"
-------
TABLE B.1
SUMMARY OF GROUND UATER LEVELS
DE~TH TO 'JA TER SUR FACE
!:!5.1h . DATE UATER ELE'/A T IClj "::,'''.A~.'/TS
(ft) (ft above MSL)
AT-I 02/01/84 1.25 571.70
03/01/84 '0.27 572.68
04/02/84 1.25 571. 70
05/;0/84 3.33 569.62
05/01/85 3.17 569.78
10/30/85 7.67 565.28
10/31/85 7.46 565.49
12/03/85 3.06 569.89
03/26/86 3.51 569.44
05/01/86 2.71 570.24
06/03/86 4.96 567.99
07101/86 5.71 567.24
08/11/86 6.25 566.70
09/03/86 7.83 565.12
10/06/86 7.72 565.23
01/05/87 5.60 567.35
01109/87 9.57 563.38
02125/87 5.06 567.89 . .
04/20/81 5.88 561.01
05/19/87 5.84 .567.11
06/16/81 8.17 564.78
01/21/87 10.00 562.95
08/24/87 11.48 561.47
09/23/87 11.68 561.21
10/19/87 11. 82 561. 13
11/13/87 10.46 562.49
12/18/87 4.92 568.03
01/20/88 2.66 570.29
02118/88 4.72 568.23
03/21/88 6.64 566.31
04/22188 8.21 564.74
05/23/88 9.70 563.25
06/23/88 9.80 563.15
07/19/88 10.73 562.22
08/24/88 10.25 562.70
09/19/88 11. 25 561.70
10/24/88 11.78 561. 17
11/21/88 10.82 562.13
12/23/88 8.24 564.71
01/26/89 6.62 566.33
02/20/89 8.20 564.75
03/21/89 2.70 570.25
04/27189 5.22 567.73
05/22189 5.75 567.20
06/28/89 7.61 565.34
07/26/89 10.00 562.95
-
.
. .-
"
v-::= ~ :::"-,-'::"
~<~ ~ ~- '?'
- --. . .
-------
TABLE B.'
SUMMARY OF GROUND ~ATER LEVELS
OEPTH TO ~ATER SURFACE
~ Qlli IJATER ELE'/ATrON ':::""'E~TS
eft) eft aoove MSL)
AT-2 02/01/84 -0.50 571.60 ':ATER LEVEL 6 PICHES AaC'/e '~E~~ :~$ Z ~~~ '.
03/01/84 ARTESIAN CCNDITICNS.
04/02/84 . -0.50 571.60
05/10/84 1.33 569.""
05/01/85 1.08 570.02
10/30/85 5.79 565.31
10/31/85 5.75 565.35
03/26/86 2.07 569.03
05/01/86 1.42 569.68
06/03/86 ' 2.92 568.18
07/01/86 3.79 567.31
08/11/86 4.83 566.27 .
09/03/86 6.02 565.08
10/06/86 6.04 565.06
01/05/87 4.00 567.10
01/09/87 7.82 563:28
02/25/87 3.46 567.64
04/20/87 12.63 558.47 .
05/19/87 3.98 567.12
'06/16/87 6.40 564 . 70
07/21/87 8.57 562.53
08/24/87 9.81 561.29
09/23/87 10.16 560.94
10/19/87 10:35 560.75
11/13/87 9.00 562.10
12/18/87 3.24 567.86
01/20/88 1.41 569.69
02/18/88 3.15 567.95
03/21/88 4.93 566.17
04/22/88 6.55 564.55
OS/23/88 7.91 563.19
06/23/88 8.01 563.09
07/19/88 8.94 562.16
08/24/88 8.52 562.58
09/19/88 9.46 561.64
10/24/88 10.26 560.84
11/21/88 9.11 561. 99
12/23/88 6.51 564.59
01/25/89 4."" 566.33
02/20/89 6.43 564.67
03/21/89 1.42 569.68
04/27/89 2.13 568.97
OS/22/89 5.30 565.80
06/28/89 5.30 565.80
07/26/89 8.26 562.84
o .~: " ~~ ," . .... _.-. --- .
,":~~,~ ~. ~ -=
-------
TABLEB.1
SUMMARY OF GROUND ~ATER LEVELS
DEPTH TO liATER SURFACE
~. ~ ~ATE=1 ELEVATIC'I :::'~AE~TS
(ft) (It above MSL)
AT-3 02/01/84 -2.00 572.04 ~ATER LEVEL ABCUT 2 rE~i ;a:'J: '..:~~ :':5: ~,:; .'
03/01/84 ARTESIAN CONDITICNS.
04/02/84 -1.25 571.29
05110/84 0.08 569.96
05/01/85 0.33 569.71
10/30/85 4.50 565.54
10/31/85 4.35 565.69
12/03/85 IJATER STAtlOING OVER ~ELL.
03/26/86 1.68 568.36
05/01/86 IJATER STArlDING OVER ~ELL
06/03/86 1.58 568.46
07101/86 2.39 567.65
08/11/86 3.25 566.79
09/03/86 4.50 565.54
10/06/86 4.40 565.64
01/05/87 1.95 568.09
01/09/87 5.72 564.32
02/25187 2.40 567.64
04/20/87 18.83 551.21
05119/87 2.43 567.61
06116/87 4.48 565.56
07/21/87 6.15 563.89
08/24/87 8.32 561. 72
09/23187 8.71 561.33
10119/87 8.85" 561. 19
11113/87 7.04 563.00
12/18/87 2.09 567.95
01/20/88 1.43 568.61
02/18/88 2.27 567.77
03/21/88 3.48 566.56
04/22/88 4.69 565.35
OS/23/88 6.01 564.03
06/23/88 6.59 563.45
07/19/88 7.36 562.68
08/24/88 6.73 563.31
09/19/88 7.68 562.36
10/24/88 8.83 561.21
11/21188 7.49 562.55
12/23/88 3.94 566.10
01/26/89 3.07 566.97
02/20/89 4.48 565.56
03/21/89 1.41 568.63
04/27/89 2.56 567.48
OS/22/89 3.85 566.19
06/28/89 4.58 565.46
07/26/89 6.61 563.43
AT-I. 03/26/86 4.64 566.69
01/09/87 9.43 . 561. 90
02/25/87 5.74 565.59
04/20/87 20.94 550.39
05119/87 6.30 565.03
07/21/87 10.00 561. 33
10119/87 12.03 559.30
01/20/88 2.56 568.77
04/22/88 8.35 562.98
07/19/88 10.68 . 560.65
10/24/88 12.20 559.13
01/26/89 6.67 564.66
04/27/89 5.88 565.45
07/26/89 9.99 561.34
'" '~': ~ ~ ~ . ~
'=- '. ..:.::...~ ""';:: ~ - ::::.
..- . --. .
~
-------
TABLE B. 1
SUMMARY OF GROUND IJA TER LEVELS.
DEPTH TO IJATER SURFACE
!@.h DATE. \.lATER ELE'/ATION C:~"~E~TS
Cft) Cft above MSL)
AT-5 03/26/86 1.26 568.07
01/09/87 7.45 561.88
02/25/87 2.53 566.80
04/20/87 9.90 559.43
05/19/87 1.59 567.74
06/16/87 4.10 . 565.23
07/21/87 7.86 56,1.47
08/24/87 9.28 560.05
09/23/87 9.29 560.04
10/19/87 8.78 560.55
11/13/87 9.03 560.30
12/18/87 2.36 566.97
01/20/88 1.08 568.25
02/18/88 3.01 566.32
03/21/88 4.36 564.97
04/22/88 6.52 562.81
OS/23/88 7.01 562.32
06/23/88 6.37 562.96
. 07/19/88 8.22 561.11
08/24/88 6.33 563.00
09/19/88 7.84 561.49
10/24/88. 9.32 560.01
11/21/88 4.70 564.63
12/23/88 6.91 562.42
01/26/89 4.14 565.19
02/20/89 6.01 563.32
03/21/89 1.04 568.29
04/27/89 3.71 565.62
OS/22/89 3.37 565.96
06/28/89 3.51 565.82
07/26/89 7.14 562.19
~
~ ." ~ "~?; ',-,- . .::~. ".
""
"'~
-------
TABLE B.2
SUMMARY OF GROUND ~ATER ANALYSES
(All units are mg/l)
DI SSOL VED CHROM IUM
I,/ELL . Qlli ~ !Q!& ARSENIC ~ CC~"'E'ITS
CWP-1 04/02/81 <0.01 <0.01
05/08/81 <0.01 <0.01
06/09/81 0.001 0.004 0.021o
09/28/82 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
03/20lSlo <0.01 <0.05
01/18/88 <0.02
01/24/89 <0.02
CWP-2A 08/31/00 0.39
04/02181 2.2 <0.01
06/09/81 0.01 0.003 <0.01
09/28/82 5.18 5.9 0.092 0.05
06/16/83 2.3 0.3 0.12
10/04/83 0.39 3.6 1.8 1.8
12/08/83 2.1. 2.1o 0.26 <0.02
03/01/Slo 11 11 0.36 0.03
03/25/Slo 0.56 0.058 <0.05
01/30/85 0.24
05/03/85 1.9
08/01/85 0.04
10/31/85 6.6
02/19/86 6.5
05/01/86 2.8
08/13/86 0.31
. 04/20/87 1.4
07122187 0.38
10/20/87 DRY
01/20/88 Q.94
04/25/88 0.40
07/20/88 0.59
. 10/25/88 1.3
01/24/89 0.81
04128189 0.73
07/26/89 3.9
CWP-2B 08/31/00 4.0
04/02/81 11o <0.01
06/09/81 16 0.001 <0.01
09128/82 12 13 <0.02
06/16/83 3.7 0.041 0.08
10/04/83 1o.0 9.2 0.32 3.2
12/08/83 8.5 9.0 <0.02
03/01/Slo 11 11 0.015 <0.02
03/21/Slo 2.4 <0.05
03/21/Slo .2.4 2.5 0.01 <0.01
01/30/85 1.4
05/03/85 1.0
08/01/85 0.79
10/31/85 DRY
02/19/86 6.0
05/01/86 1.7
08/13/86 6.3
04/20/87 3.8
01/19/88 2.7
01/24/89 7.4
....'" =--: ~ :::--. ~ . ::- "~
. ,~:. \ .~:
\\." ~. ","
. ..
~
-------
TABLE S.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
~ Q,lli. illill !2ill .illlli.£ ~ CC~~tA!:~ITS
CIJP-3 04/02/81 0.02 0.02
06/09/81 0.004 0.001 0.033
06/16/83 0.05 0.021 0.06
12/08/83 0.07 0.09 <0.02
03/01/84 <0.02 0.16 0.65 0.003
03/21/84 <0.01 0.028 <0.05
01/30/85 0.04
05/03/85 0.18
08/01/85 DRY .
10/31/85 DRY
02/19/86 0.04
05/01/86 <0.02
04/20/87 0.07
07/23187 DRY
10/19/87 DRY
01/18/88 <0.02.
04/22/88. DRY
07/19188 DRY
10/24/88 DRY
0.1124/89 <0.02
04/27189 <0.02
07/25/89 DRY
CWP-4A 04/02/81 0.04 0.02
09/28182 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
03/25/84 0.057 0.06 <0.05
01/20/88 DRY
01/24/89 DRY
CIJP-4D 04/02/81 <0.01 <0.01
06/09/81 0.004 0.001 0.034
09/28182 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
03/20/84 <0.01 <0.05
01/18/88 <0.02
01/24/89 <0.02
CIJP-5 04/02/81 43 0.02
06/09/81 31 0.002 <0.01
06/16/83 24 0.03
12/08/83 19 19 <0.02
03/01/84 15 . 15 0.02
03/21/84 14 <0.05
01/30/85 DRY
05/03/85 DRY
08/01/85 DRY
10/31/85 DRY
02/19/86 14
05/01/86 DRY
04/20/87 12
07/23187 DRY
10/19/87 DRY
01/20/88 12
04/22/88 DRY
07/19/88 DRY
10/24/88 DRY
01/24/89 14
04/27/89 13
07/25/89 DRY
,,-=:~~ ~. ~ ".'
\~"'" .:.:.:.: ,,:- .:::
~ ............. ~ --.:
:::...:..
,-'
-------
TABLE 8.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
\.IELL DATE £!:rill TOTAL ARSENIC COPPER CC:'P~E~TS
CI./P-6 04/02/81 125 0.02
05/08/81 120 0.006 <0.01
06/09/81 120 0.002. <0.01
06/16/83 . 75 0.03
08/13/83 78 78 .0.003 <0.05 .
12/08/83 72 75 0.08 <0.02
01/06/84 23 22 <0.02
01/24/84 64 72 <0.02
02/01/84 36 7J <0.02
03/01/84 70 70 <0.02
03/21/84 50 <0.05
03/21/84 63 70 0.01 <0.01
04/02/84 62 63 <0.02
12/04/84 59 59 <0.02
01/03/85 59 59 <0.02
01/30/85 65
03/01/85 40
04/01/85 57
05/03/85 29
07/02/85 42
08/01/85 48
09/09/85 50
10/01/85 DRY
10/31/85 12
12/04/85 .12
01/02/86 34
02/19/86 13
03/14/86 14
04/03/86 26
05/01/86 48
08/13/86 35
09/03/86 <0.02
10/06/86 17
.' 02/25/87 37
03/27/87 54
04/20/87 51
05/19/87 60
OS/20/87 60
06/16/87 62
07/22/87 50
08/24/87 41
10/20/87 DRY
11/13/87 DRY
12/21/87 40
01/20/88 50
02/18/88 67
03/21/88 81
04/22/88 59
OS/23/88 67
06/24/88 .40
07/19/88 73
08/24/88 56
09/19/88 42
10/24/88 DRY
11/21/88 DRY
12/23/88 6.9
01/25/89 71
02/21/89 89
03/21/89 77
04/28/89 67
OS/22/89 62
06/28/89 73
07/26/89 48
)~._~'.'" ~~. -',
. -::---.:.--:: --:-0" .
':::::.:~ . .
-------
r
TABLE B.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
~ 2.lli Cr(VI) !Q!i!. ~ £.QE.ill CC~.HA'E~~TS
CIJP-7 09/20/82 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
12/08/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
03/01/84 <0.02 0.20 <0.004 <0.02.
03/20/84 <0.01 <0.05
03/21/84 . <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001
01/30/85 <0.02
05/03/85 <0.02
08/01/85 <0.02
10/31/85 <0.02
02/13/86 <0.02
05/01/86 <0.02
08/13/86 <0.02
04/20/87 <0.02
07/21/87 <0.02
10/19/87. <0.02
01/18/88 <0.02
04/25/88 <0.02
10/24/88 <0.02
01/24/89 <0.02
04/28/89 <0.02
07/25/89 <0.02
y ~ ~ :::'.'
....= ~
~. .=:\::: - ~
~
~. --
-'
/
:-j
-------
TABLE B.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
~ ~. £!iill. !.lli1 ~ ~ CCW'!:NTS
C'JP-8 08/31/00 7.8 .
09/20/82 13 '4 <0.02
06116/83 22 <0.02
07/19/83 12 12 <0.02
07/20/83 '1 '1 <0.02
07/21/83 11 11 . <0.02
07/22/83 11 11 <0.02
07/23183 10 10 <0.02
07/28/83 8.75 9.6 <0.02
07/28/83 8.1,8 9.2 <0.02
08/02/83 6.9 7.3 <0.05
08/04/83 6.8 6.9 <0.05
08/09/83 6.6 6.9 <0.05
08/11/83 <0.05 <0.05 0.002 <0.05
08/12/83 6.6 6.8 <0.05
08/13/83 . 6.6 6.9 0.002 <0.05
10/04/83 7.8 8.8 0.005 <0.05
12/08/83 0.71, 1.1 <0.02
12/12/83 0.53
12113/83 . 0.94
01/06/84 . 1.0 1.0 <0.02
01/21,/84 0.9 0.90 <0.02
01/21,184 1.3 1.4 <0.02
02/01/84 0.9 0.90 0.02
03/01/84 1.2 1.2 <0.02
03/20/84 1.1 <0.05
03/21/84 1.2 1.3 <0.001
01,102/84 ~.3 1.4 <0.02
12/04/84 0.47 0;47 <0.02.
01/03/85 0.52 0.52 <0.02
01/30/85 0.29
01/31/85 0.52 0.52 <0.02
03/01/85 . 0.40
04/01/85 Q.11
05/03/85 0.10
07/02/85 0.15
08/01/85 0.05
09/09/85 <0.02
10/01/85 <0.02
10/31/85 <0.02
12/04/85 <0.02
01/02/86 <0.02
02/19186 0.10
03/14/86 0.06
04/03/86 0.05
05/01/86 <0.02
08/13186 <0.02
09/03/86 <0.02
10/06/86 <0.02
12/03186 <0.02
01/05/87 0.09
02/25187 0.05
03/27/87 0.09
03/27/87 0.09
04/20/87 0.03
04/20/87 0~03
05119/87 <0.02
OS/20/87 <0.02
06116/87 <0.02
07/21/87 <0.02
08/24/87 <0.02
09/23187 <0.02
10119/87 <0.02
11113/87 0.15
12118/87 0.010
01118/88 0.14
02118/88 <0.02
::::-- -- =0 ,:::--"~ -.. -- -_.- .
... >- - .-
'<~::'<" '.~ '.
. .
-------
TABLE 8.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
:!5lh Qlli £.t:S..Yll ~ ~ ~ C::~~"E~ltS
CWP-8 03/21/88 <0.02
04/22/88 0.02
05123/88 <0.02
06/23/88 <0.02
07/19/88 <0.02
08/23188 <0.02
09/19/88 <0.02
10124188 <0.02
11121/88 <0.02
12123/88 0.19
01/25/89 0.084
02/20189 <0.02
03/21/89 0.19
04/28189 0.06
05/22/89 0.07
06/28/89 <0.02
07/25/89 <0.02
CWP-9 09/20/82 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
03/20/84 <0.01 0.053 <0.05
03/21/84 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005' <0.001
01/20/88 <0.02
01/24/89 <0.02
CWp.10 08/31/00 0.077 0.169 .0.043
08/31/00 0.26 0.60 0.053
09/20/82 <0.02 :<0.02 <0.004 <0.02
06/16/83 0.07 0.02
12/08/83 5.7 5.8 <0.02
I 01124/84 0.17 0.17 0.015 <0.02
I' 03/01/84 18 18 0.042 0.20
03/21/84 41 50 1.8 1.1
03/21/84 37 2.1 1.0
~ .:.~ ~ ~,. . ':~...
,-" C' .:; ~ ~. :;"
-------
TABLE B.2
. (continued)
DISSqLVED CHROMIUM
!. \JELL lli£ £rilll !Qlli. ARSE~IC ~ CC~A"'E'ITS
C\JP-11 08/31/00 0.01
09/28/82 <0.02 0.05 <0.004 <0.02
06116/83 0.04 <0.02
08/13/83 0.05 0.05 0.018 <0.05
10/04/83 0.01 1.9 0.95 16.0
12/08/83 0.04 0.05 <0.02
01/06/84 0.03 0.05 <0.02
01/24/84 0.03 0.03 <0.02 ..
02/01/84 0.04 <0.05 <0.02
03/01/84 0.03 0.03 <0.02
03/21/84 0.016 <0.05
04/02/84 0.04 0.04 <0.02
06/16/84 0.04 <0.02
12/04/84 <0.02 <0.02 0.01 <0.02
01/03/85 0.02 0.02 <0.02
01/30/85 <0.02
03/01/85 <0.02
04/01/85 0.02
05/03/85 <0.02
01102/85 <0.02.
08/01/85 DRY
09/09/85 DRY
10/01/85 DRY
.10/31/85 DRY
12/04185 <0.02
01/02/86 <0.02
02/13/86 <0.02
03/14/86 <0.02
04/03/86 <.0.02
05/01/86 . <0.02
08/13/86 <0.02
09/03/86 <0.02
10/06/86 <0.02
01/05/81 <0.02
02/25/81 <0.02
03/21181 <0.02
04/20/81 <0.02
05/19/87 <0.02
OS/20181 <0.02
06/16/81 <0.02
01121/81 <0.02
08/24/87 <0.02
09/23/87 <0.02
I 10119187 DRY
I 11/13/87 DRY
I 12/18/87 <0.02
! 01/18/88 <0.02
02/18/88 <0.02
03/21/88 <0.02
04/22/88 <0.02
OS/23/88 <0.02
06/23/88 <0.02
07119188 <0.02
08/23/88 <0.02
09/19/88 <0.02
10/24/88 DRY
11/21/88 <0.02
12/23/88 <0.02
01/24/89 <0.02
02/20/89 <0.02
. 03/t1 /89 <0.02
04/28/89 <0.02
OS/22/89 <0.02
06/28/89 <0.02
01/25/89 <0.02
~ - 0. .' . - --
. ... ~ -::::::-
H" \, '<~ ~ '.
-------
TABLE B.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
~ QM1 f.tlID !£illh ~ ~ CC~"'E~I TS
CWP-12 08/31/00 0.05
09120182 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
09128/82 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
06/16/83 <0.02 0.027 0.03
10/04/83 <0.05 0.047 0.063 0.51
12/08/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
03/01/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
03/20/84 <0.01 0.032 <0.05
01/30/85 <0.02
08/01/85 <0.02
10/31/85 <0.02
02/13186 <0.02
05/01/86 <0.02
08/13/86 <0.02
04/20/87 <0,02
07/21/87 <0.02
10/19/87 <0.02
01/18/88 <0.02
04/22/88 <0.02
07/19/88 <0.02
10/24/88 <0.02
01/24/89 <0.02
04/28/89 <0.02
07/25/89 <0.02
',,'-": ". "'.. --
~ ~..4 .~-;.~ ~ ~ \- ?"
..:
-------
TABLE 8.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
WELL DATE £!:!ill lQlli ARSE//IC COPPER CC~~~E~TS
CIo/P-13 09/20/82 <0.02 0.02 <0.004 <0.02
06/16/83 <0.02 <0.02
12/08/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
01/24/84 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.02
03/01/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.03
03/21/84 0.081 <0.05
01/30/85 <0.02
03/01/85 <0.02
04/01/85 <0.02
05/03/85 <0.02
07/02/85 <0.02
08/01/85 <0.02
09/09/85 <0.02
10/01/85 DRY
10/01/85 <0.02
10/31/85 <0.02
12/04/85 <0.02
01/02/86 <0.02
02/13/86 <0.02
03/14/86 <0.02
04/03/86' <0.02
05/01/86 <0.02
i 08/13/86 <0.02
09/03/86 <0.02
I 10/06/86 <0.02
12/03/86 <0.02
01/05/87 <0.02
02/25/87 <0.02
03/27/87 <0.02
04/20/87 <0.02
05/19/87 <0.02
OS/20/87 <0.02
06/16/87 <0.02
07/21/87 <0.02
08/24/87 <0.02
09/23/87 <0.02
10/19/87 <0.02
11/13/87 <0.02
12/18/87 <0.02
01/18/88 <0.02
02/18/88 <0.02
03/21/88 <0.02
04/22/88 <0.02
.05/23/88 <0.02
06/23/88 <0.02
07/19/88 <0.02
08/23/88 <0.02
09/19/88 <0.02
. 10/24/88 <0.02
11/21/88 <0.02
12/23/88 . <0.02
01/24/89 <0.02
02/20/89 <0.02
03/21/89 <0.02
04/28/89 <0.02
OS/22/89 <0.02
06/28/89 <0.02
07/25/89 <0.02
I
i
~ ~~. "'-, .-""';:;...-:.~ \. . ~~: . ~
'.~ '." .'.:' \~. '
-------
TABLE B.2
(continued)
I
,
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
\JELL ~ £tlill IQlli ~ ~ cc:~r'E~ITS
CIJP.14 08/31/00 0.05
08/31/00 0.05
09/20/82 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
06/16/83 <0.02 <0.02
10/04/83 <0.05 0.05 0.064 1.2
12/08/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
03/01/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 ,<0.02 ','
03/21/84 <0.01 <0.05
01/30/85 <0.02
05/03/85 <0.02 .~
08/01/85 <0.02
10/31/85 ' <0.02
02/13/86 <0.02
05/01/86 <0.02
08/13/86 <0.02
04/20/87 <0.02 "
07/21/87 <0.02
10/19/87 <0.02
01/18/88 <0.02
04/22/88 <0.02 -
-
07/19/88 <0.02
10/24/88 <0.02
, 01/24/89 <0.02
04/28/89 <0.02
07/25189 <0.02
CIJP.15 09/20/82 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02'
03/21/84 <0.01 <0.05
01/18/88 <0'.02
01/24/89 <0.02
C'oIP.16 09/28/82 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
03/21/84 <0.01 <0.05 "
01/18/88 <0.02 .:.
01/24/89 <0.02
'.
,;.
,.
..'
~ c::: " ;;:-
~".,' ,~~ ~ ?'
, '
.~. ~
/
-------
TABLE B.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
~ Qill £!:illi ~ ~ fQlli! CC~"':"TS
I
I
CIJP-17 01/31/85 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.078
03/01/85 <0.02
04/01/85 <0.02
05/03/85 <0.02.
07102/85 <0.02
08/01/85 <0.02
09/09/85 <0.02
10/01185 <0.02
10/31/85 <0.02
12/04/85 <0.02
01/02/86 <0.02
02/13/86 <0.02
03/14/86 <0.02
04/03/86 <0.02
05/01/86 <0.02
08/13/86 <0.02
09/03/86 <0.02
10/06/86 <0.02
12/03/86 <0.02
01/05/87 <0.02
02125187 <0.02
03/27/87 <0.02
04/20/87 <0.02
05/19/87 <0.02
05/20/87 <0.02
07121187 .<0.02
10/19/87 <0.02
01/18/88 <0.02
01,.125/88 <0.02
07119/88 <0.02
10/24/88 <0.02
01/24/89 <0.02
04/28/89 <0.02
07/25/89
-------
~
CWP-20
CWP-21
Q..lli
12/03/86 .
01/05/87
. 02/25/87
03/26/87
04/20/87
05/19/87
OS/20/87
06/16/87
07/21/87
08/24/87
09/23/87
10/19/87
11/13/87
12/21/87
01/18/88
02/18/88
03/21/88
04/25/88
OS/23/88
06/23/88
07/19/88
08/23/88
09/19/88
10/24/88
11/21/88
12/23/88
01/25/89 .
02/21/89 .
03/21/89
04/27/89
OS/22/89
06/28/89
07/26/89
12/03/86
01/05/87
02/25/87
03/26/87
04/20/87
05/19/87
OS/20/87
06/16/87
07/21/87
08/24/87
09/23/87
10/19/87
11/13/87
12/21/87
01/18/88
02/18/88
03/21/88
04/22/88
OS/23/88
06/23/88
07/19/88
08/23/88
09/19/88
10/24/88
11/21/88
12/23/88
01/25/89
02/21/89
03/21/89
04/27/89
OS/22/89
06/28/89
07/26/89
TABLE 8.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
Cr(V'! ) TOT AL
~
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02.
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.09
<0.02
0.05
0.06
0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.16
0.07
0.05
0.43
0.05
<0.02
3.1
<0.02
0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02 .
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
£Q.E2Q
C:~~~AE~ITS
~
~'"
-~ " ~
. ~~
.~ -
, ,
-.
.
- .
."
~.,
-------
TABLE B.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
\JELL DATE £!:illl TOTAL ARSENIC COPPER CC~-!!AE~I TS
C\JP-22 01/06/87 <0.02
02/25/87 <0.02
03/27/87 <0.02
04/20/87 <0.02
05/19/87 <0.02
OS/20/87 <0.02
HL-7 12/03/86 5.8
01/05/87 4.7
02/25/87 4.4
03/27/87 5.3
04/20/87 4.9
04/20/87 4.9
05/19/87 6.3
05/19/87 6.0
OS/20/87 6.3
OS/20/87 6.0
06/16/87 5.9
07/21/87 3.8
08/24/87 6.5
09/23/87 8.1
10/20/87 5.5
11/13/87 3.4
12/18/87 3.4
01/20/88 5.1
02/18/88 5.8
03/21/88 8.4
04/22/88 2.8-
OS/23/88 3.6
06/23/88 4.6
07/19/88 4.3
08/24/88 4.9
09/19/88 5.3
10/24/88 5.5 G~OUND \JATER EXT?AC7!CN 7~:SCH
11/21/88 5.2
12/23/88 5.0
01/25/89 6.8
02/20/89 4.7
03/21/89 4.9
04/28/89 6
OS/22/89 3.7
06/28/89 4.8
07/26/89 4.1
FPT-1A 09/28/82 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
05/18/83 <0.04 <0.04 <0.005 <0.02
03/21/84 <0.01 <0.05
FPT-1B 09/28/82 <0.02 <,0.02 <0.004 <0.02
05/18/83 <0.04 <0.04 <0.005 <0.02
03/21/84 <0.04 <0.01 <0.05
03/21/84 <0.01 <0.05
FPT-2A 01/19/88 <0.02
01/26/89 <0.02
FPT-Z8 05/18/83 <0.04 <0.04 <0.005 <0.02
03/21/84 <0.005
-------
TABLE 3.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
mh Qlli . £!:illl !.9m" ~ ~ CC~A'AE~ITS
FPT-3 08/31/00 0.44
09/20/82 0.48 0.48 <0.02
05/18/83 0.17 0.17 <0.02
06/16183 0.21 <0.02
08/13/83 0.062 0.65 <0.05
08/13/83 0.62 0.65 <0.05
10/04/83 0.44 1;4 0.041 0.95
12/08/83 0.11 0.12 <0.02
01/06/84 0.06 0.06 <0.02
01/18/84 0.09 0.12 <0.02
01/24/84 0.16 0.16 <0.02
02/01184 0.20 0.20 <0.02
03/01/84 0.10 0.10 <0.02
03/21/84 0.071 <0.05
03/21/84 0.098 0.12 <0.01
04/02/84 0.13 0.16 <0.02
12/04/84 0.08 0.08 <0.02
01/03/85 0.35 0.35 <0.02
01/30/85 0.12 .
03/01/85 0.11
04/01/85 0.10
05/03/85 <0.02
07102/85. <0.02
.08/01/85 <0.02
09/09185 0.07
09/20/85 <0.02
10/01/85 <0.02
10/31/85 <0.02
. 12/04/85 0.02
01/02/86 0.06
02/13/86 <0.02
03/14/86 <0.02
05/01/86 <0.02
08/13/86 <0.02
09/03/86 <'0.02
10/06/86 <0.02
12/03/86 <0.02
01/05/87 <0.02
02/25/87 .0.03
03/26/87 <0.02
04/20/87 <0.02
05/19/87 <0.02
.05/20/87 .<0.02
06/16/87 <0.02
07/22/87 <0.02
08/24/87 <0.02
09/23187 <0.02
10/20/87 <0.02.
11/13/87 <0.02
12/18/87 0.04
01/19/88 <0.02
02/18/88 <0.02
03/21188 <0.02
04125/88 <0.02
05/23/88 <0.02
06/24/88 <0.02
07/20188 <0.02
08/24/88 <0.02
09/19/88 <0.02
10/25/88 <0.02
11/21/88 <0.02
12/29188 <0.02
01/26/89 <0.02
02/20/89 <0.02
03/21/89 <0.02
04/27189 <0.02
05/22/89 <0.02
, . ~ ,. ."
"\.'; .-- ~
~.. ~-.:'
."'~ ~. " .I
-------
TABLE B.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
~ Q.lli £!:.illl lQlli . ARSENIC £2!:ill CC:''''E'ITS
FPT-3 06/28/89 <0.02
07/25/89 <0.02
FPT-4 08/31/00 <0.005
06/16/83 0.27 0.15
10/04/83 <0.005 0.014 0.02 0.10
12/08/83 0.16 0.20 <0.02
01/24/84 0.14 0.16 <0.02
03/01/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
03/21/84 0.037 0.03 <0.01
03/21/84 0.027 <0.05
01/30/85 , 0.04
05/03/85 <0.02
08/01/85 <0.02
10/31/85 <0.02
02/13/86 . <0.02
05/01/86 <0'.02
08i13/86 <0.02
07/22/87 <0.02
10/20/87 <0.02
01/19/88 <0.02
04/25/88 <0.02
07/20/88 <0.02
10/25/88 <0.02
01/26/89 <0.02
04/27/89 <0.02
07/25/89 <0.02
I
I
I
i
I
I:
~. .--' ~.
. ..,'::.
., '
:.~..., .
, .-
", "
-------
TABLE B.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
~ ~ £!.iill !Qill ~ ~ CC~'~'E'Its
FPT-5 08/31/00 <0.005
06/16/83 0.75 0.007 0.31
08/13/83 0~58 0.62 O.OOlo. 0.05
10/04/83 <0.005 <0.005 0.001 <0.05
12/08/83 0.9 0.90 <0.02
01/06/84 0.02 0.20 <0.02
01/18/84 0.36 0.51 0.01 <0.02
01/24/84 0.45 0.59 <0.02
02/01/84 0.2 0.40 <0.02
03/01/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.02
03/21/84. 0.32 0.04 <0.05
03/21/84 0.34 0.40 <0.01
04/02/84 <0.02 0.04 <0.004 <0.02
12/04/84 .0.02 0.02 <0.02
01/03/85. 0.1 0.10 <0.02
01/30/85 0.16
03/01/85 0.27
04/01/85 0.22
05/03/85 <0.02
07/02/85 <0.02
08/01/85 <0.02 .
09/09/85 <0.02
10/01/85 <0.02
10/31/85 <0.02
12/04/85 <0.02
01/02/86 <0.02
02/13/86 <0.02
03/14/86 <0.02
05/01/86 . <0.02
08/13/86 <0.02
09/03/86 <0.02
10/06/86 <0.02
12/03/86 <0.02
01/05/87 <0.02
02/25/87 <0.02
03/26/87 <0.02
04/20/87 <0.02
05/19/87 <0.02
OS/20/87 <0.02
06/16/87 <0.02
07/22/87 <0.02
08/24/87 <0.02
09/23/87 <0.02
10/20/87 <0.02
11/13/87 <0.02
12/18/87 <0.02
01/19/88 <0.02
02/18/88
-------
TABLE B.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
~ DATE, £!:ill.l !Qlli ARSENIC ~ CC""E'ITS
AT-1 08/31/00 <0.005
10103/83 <0.05 <0.005 0.003 <0.05
01/18/84 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
01/24/84 0.01 0.012 <0.02
02/01/84 0.03 <0.05 <0.02
03/01/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.02,
03/21/84 0.03 0.06 <0.01
03/21/84 0.021 <0.05 .
04/02/84 0.04 0.05 <0.02
12/04184 <0..02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
01/03/85 0.03 0.03 <0.02
01/30/85 0.04
03/01/85 0.03
03/01/85 0.03
05/03/85 <0.02
07/02/85 <0.02'
08/01/85 <0.02
09/09/85 0.03
10/01/85 <0.02
10/31/85 <0.02
10/31/85 0.13 0.13
12/04/85 <0.02
01/02/86 <0.02
04/03/86 <0.02
05/01/86 <0.02
08/13/86 <0.02
09/03/86 <0.02
10/06186 <0.02
12/03/86 <0.02
01/05/87 <0.02
02/25/87 <0.02
03/26/87 <0.02.
04/20/87 <0.02
05/19/87 <0.02
OS/20187 <0.02
06/16/87 <0.02
07/23/87 <0.02
08/24/87 <0.02
09/23/87 <0.02
10/20/87 <0.02
11/13/87 <0.02
12/18/87 <0.02
01/19/88 <0.02
02/18188 <0.02
03/21/88 <0.02
04/25188 <0.02
OS/23/88 <0.02
I 06/24/88 <0.02
i 07/20188 <0.02
I 08/23/88 <0.02
09/20/88 <0.02
10/25/88 <0.02
11/21/88 <0.02
12/29188 <0.02
01/26/89 <0.02
02/20189 <0.02
,- 03/21/89 <0.02
04/27/89 <0.02
OS/22/89 <0.02
06/28/89 <0.02
07/26/89 <0.02
"
".. ..:-:~
0--.'
,.'" .
. 0,,'<.
-------
TABLE B.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
~ Qlli. £rilll l2lli ~ £Qfill C:~A"!:'TS
AT-2 08/31/00 <0.005
10/03/83 <0.05 0.42 0.046 0.22
01/24/84 0.07 0.09 <0.02
01/25/84 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
02/01/84 . 0.03 <0.05 <0.02
03/12/84 0.04 0.04 <0.02
03/21/84 0.054 <0.05
03/21/84 0.07 0.10 <0.01
04/02/84 .0.04 0.05 <0.02
01/30/85 0.12
03/01/85 0.11
05/03/85 <0.02
07102/85 <0.02
08/01/85 <0.02
09/09/85 0.18
09/20185 0.11
10/01/85 0.10
12/04185 0.11
01/02/86 0.13
05/01/86 0.06
08/13/86 0.05
09/03/86 0.13
10106/86 0.09
12/03186 0.08
01/05/87 0.09
02/25187 0.05
03/26187 <0.02
04/20/87 <0.02
05/19/87 <0.02
05/20/87 <0.02
06/16/87 0.05
07/23187 <0.02
08/24/87 <0.02
09/23/87 0.09
10/20/87 0.03 0.03
11/13/87 0.05
12/18/87 0.04
01/19/88 <0.02
02/18/88 <0.02
03/21188 <0.02
04/25/88 0.05
05/23/88 0.05
06/24/88 <0.02
07/20/88 <0.02
08/23/88 0.04
09/20/88 <0.02
10/25/88 0.03
11/21/88 <0.02
12129188 <0.02
01/25/89 0.04.
02/20189 <0.02
03/21/89 <0.02
04/27189 <0.02
OS/22/89 <0.02
06/28/89 <0.02
07/26/89 <0.02
~ ---' "';:..
-- '--.:;
~". .'---'~ ~
.- -
, ,
-------
TABLE 8.2
(continued)
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
~ Qlli £!:illl lQill ARSENIC ~ CC:""ENTS
AT-3 01/24/84 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.02
02/08/84 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 0.02
03/21/84 <0.01 <0.05
03/21/84 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01
01/18/85 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.02
01/30/85 (~IACCESS I BlE
03/01/85 <0.02
05/03/85 <0.02
07/02/85 <0.02
08/01/85 <0..02
09/09/85 <0.02
10/01/85 <0.02
10/31/85 <0.02 <0.02
01/02/86 <0.02
05/01/86 INACCESSIBLE
08/13/86 <0.02
09/03/86 <0.02
10/06/86 <0.02
12/03/86 <0.02
01/05/87 <0.02
02/25/87 <0.02
03/26/87 <0.02
04/20/87 <0.02
05/19/81 <0.02
OS/20/81 <0.02
06/16/81 <0.02
01/23/87 <0'..02
08/24/81 <0.02
09/23/81 <0.02
10/20187 <0.02
11/13/81 <0.02
12/18181 <0.02
01/19/88 <0.02
02/18/88 <0.02
03/21/88 <0.02
04/25/88 <0.02
05/23/88 <~.02
06/24/88 0.10
01/20/88 <0.02
08/23/88 <0.02
09/20/88 <0.02
10/25/88 <0.02
11/21/88 <0.02
12/29/88 <0.02
01/26/89 <0.02
02/20/89 <0.02
03/21/89 0.04
04/27189 <0.02
OS/22/89 <0.02
06/28/89 <0.02
07/26189 <0.02
AT-4 01/05/87 <0.02
02/25/87 <0.02
03/26/81 <0.02
04/20/81 <0.02
05/19/81 <0.02
OS/20/87 <0.02
01/23/87 <0.02
10/20/81 <0.02
01/19/88 <0.02
04/25/88 <0.02
01/20/88 . <0.02
10/25/88 <0.02
01/26/89 <0.02
04/27/89 <0.02
01/26/89 <0.02
-' ", .'
--. .--
~. ". . . " <~
-------
I
~
AT-5
Q.lli
01/05/87
02/25/87
03/26/87
04/20/87
05/19/87
OS/20/87
06/16/87
07/23/87
08/24/87
09/23/87
10/20/87
11/13/87
12/18/87
01/19/88
02/18/88
03/21/88
04/25/88
OS/23/88
06/24/88
07/20/88
, 08/23/88
09/20/88
10/25/88
11/21/88
12/29/88
01/26/89
02/20/89
03/21/89
04/27/89
OS/22/89
06/28/89
07/26/89
DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
fr.l'ill IQill.
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0~02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
, <0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
,0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
TABLE B.2
(continued)
~
~
CC:'fA!: 'I T S
V-'''~'.
~', ,'~'~ ?'
-' ,
"-
'- :..~
-------
...
APPENDIX C
STORM WATER QU~TY DATA
"
....
.~.
..,..'
, -
-
"
~'" - '" .~.. .
~.'. .=~ ?'
-:::::-
- ....'.
. - .~-
I :
-------
TABLE C.1
STORM ~ATER QUALITY DATA
(All units are mg/l)
SAMPLING DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
STATION Qlli £riill lQ!& ~ £Qill! CC~A~AE'ITS
C-100 01/31/00 0.02 0.10
01/21/83 . 0.03 <0.02
01/28/83 -=0.02 <0.02
02/09/83 0.03 <0.02
03/24/83 0.02 0.005 <0.02
05/18/83 0.04 0.04 0.005 <0.02
11/03/83 0.08 . 0.10 0.051 0.07
11110/83 0.05 0.15 0.058 0.09
11/17/83 <0.01 0.07 <0.05 0.03
12/05/83 0.02 0.48 0.53 0.40
12/29/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01 <0.02
01/16/84 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
02/10/84 0.10 0.10 0.03
02/21/84 0.04 0.04 0.007 0.02
02/21/84 0.04 0.04 0.007 0.02
03/13/84 0.38 0.38 0.043 0.06
10/11/84
10/16/84 <0.02 0.05 0.03 0.06
11/15/84 <0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
11/27/84 0.02 0.02 0.04
12/03/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.02
12/10/84 <0.02 <0.02 0.004 <0.02
10/21/85 0.08 0.04
11/25/85 0.03 0.03
12/02/85 . 0.04 0.04
01/16/86 0.02 0.02
02/03/86 <0.02
04/16/86 0'.09 0.05
12/23/86 0.04 0.006
01/03/87 0.02 <0.004
01/28/87 <0.02 0.01
10/22/87 <0.02 0.024
10/28/87 <0.02 0.013
12/04/87 <0.02 <0.004
01/04/88 <0.02 <0.004
11/13/88 <0.02 0.008
11/16/88 <0.02 0.012
12/20/88 <0.02 0.007
02/22/89 0.03 0.01
03/0Zl89 <0.02 <0.004
04/21/89 <0.02 0.005
". . :~.~
~ ~.. . :;:.-
'.S- '. -:=::-~
~
-------
TABLE C.1
(continued)
STORM UATER aUALITY DATA
(All'units are mg/l)
SAMPLING DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
STATION ~ £!:.till. Illi.!:. ~ ~ CCMMENTS
NE 01/31/00 0.06 0.05
01/21/83 0.02 0.02
01/28/83 <0.02 <0.02
02/09/83 0.02 <0.02
03/24/83 0.12 0.055 . 0.06.
05/18/83 <0.04 <0.04 <0.005 <0.02
11/03/83 0.06 0.15 0.041 0.10
11/10/83 0.08 2.20 0.54 1.12
11/17/83 <0.01 0.32 0.14 0.23
12/05/83 0.24 1.10 0.38 0.70
12/29/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01 <0.02
. 01/16/84 0.10 0.20 <0.02
02/10/84 0.04 . <0.05 <0.02
02/21/84 0.04 0.07 0.027 0.04
03/13/84 0.63 0.r9 0.08 0.10
10/11/84 <0.02 0.06 0.008 0.03
10/16/84 <0.02 <0:02 0.Op9 <0.02
11/15/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.03
11/27/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.03
12/03/84 0.02 0.02 0.02
12/10/84 <0.02 0.02 <0.004 <0.02
10/21/85 0.02 0.02
11/25/85 0.02 0.02
12/02/85 0.05 0.05
01/16/86 <0.02
02/03/86 <0.02
04/16/86 0.14 0.04
12/23/86 0.04 0.006
01/03/87 0.02 <0.004
01/28/87 0.04 0.01
10/22/87 0.05 0.017
10/28/87 <0.02 0.01
12/04/87 <0.02 <0.004
01/04/88 <0.02 <0.004
11/13/88 <0.02 <0.004
11/16/88 <0.02 0.005
12/20/88 <0.02 <0.004
02/22/89 0.03. 0.005
03/02/89 <0.02 <0.004
04/21/89 0.03 0.01
i
~:.~~~i;. ''i._.,~= . -
-------
I
fABLE C.1
(continued)
STORM ~ATER QUALITY DATA
(All units are mg/l)
SAMPL/ NG DISSOLVED CHROMIUM
STATION Qlli . £tlY.!l l2lli ARSENIC ~ CC~r~ENTS
NIJ 01/31/00 <0.02
01i21/83 <0.02 <0.02
01/28/83 <0.02 <0.02
02/09/83 <0.02 <0.02
03/24/83 <0.02 <0.02 .
05/18/83 <0.04 <0.04 <0.005 <0.02
11/03/83 0.05 0.05 0.005 <0.05
11/10/83 0.01 0.014 <0.05 .
11/17/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
12/05/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
12/29/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01 <0.02
01/16/84 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
02/10/84 <0.01 . <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
02/21/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
03/13/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
10/11/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02'
10/16/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
11/15/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
11/27/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.02
12/03/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
12/10/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
10/21/85 <0.02
11/25/85 <0.02
12/02/85 <0.02
01/16/86 <0.02 0.006
02/03/86 <0.02'
04/16/86 <0.02
12/23/86 <0.02 <0.004
01/03/87 <0.02 <0.004
01/28/87 <0.02 <0.004
10/22/87 <0.02 <0;010
10/28/87 <0.02 <0.01
12/04/87 <0.02 <0.004
01/04/88 <0.20 <0.004
i 11/13/88 . <0.02 <0.004
I 11/16/88 <0.02 <0.004.
! 12/20/88 <0.02 . <0.004
02/22/89 <0.02 0.008
03/02/89 <0.02 . <0.004
04/21/89 <0.02 <0.004
Sf' 01/21/83 <0.02 <0.02
01/21/83 <0.02 <0.02
01/28/83 <0.02 <0.02
02/09/83 <0.02 <0.02
03/24/83 <0.02 <0.02
05/18/83 <0.04 <0.04 <0.005 <0.02
11/03/83 0.01 0.017 0.002 <0.05
11/10/83 0.10 0.15 0.045 0.07
11/17/83 <0.01 0.06 <0.05 0.02
12/05/83 0.02 0.15 0.16 0.10
12/29/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01 <0.02
01/16/84 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
02/10/84 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
02/21/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
03/13/84 0.02 0.02 0.02
10/11/84
10/16/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.02
11/15/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
11/27/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.02
12/03/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
12/10/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
I
"
"',
~ :::--.','
'::.--::-' ...
. ::--- :--::.'
. -
.,.",::.::,
-------
TABLE C.1
(continued)
STORM ~ATER QUALITY DATA
(All units are mg/l)
SAMPLING DiSSoLvED CHROMIUM
STATtON Qlli. £illU I.Qlli. illlli£ ~ C::~A"E'ITS
sw 01/21/83 <0.02 <0.02
01/28/83 <0.02 <0.02
02/09/83 <0.02 <0.02
03/24/83 <0.02 <0.02
05/18/83 <0.04 <0.04 <0.005. <0.02
11/03/83 0.02 0.017 0.002 <0.05
11/10/83 0.01 0.017 0.002 <0.05
11/17/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
12/05/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
12/29/83 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01 <0.02
01/16/84 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
02/10/84 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02
02/21/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
03/13/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.02
10/11/84
10/16/84
11/15/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
11/27/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 0.02
12/03/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
12/10/84 <0.02 <0.02 <0.004 <0.02
~. -= ~ "- ~._" . :::- .:-= - .
~.' . ~-=. ~ ~.?' -= .
-------
Table 0.1:
Table 0.2:
Table 0.3:
Table 0.4:
\
Table 0.5:
Table 0.6:
. APPENDIX D
SOIL CHEMICAL DATA
Results of Soil Chemical Analyses
Concentrations of Cr, As, and Cu in Shallow and Deep
Soil Samples
Concentrations of Cr, AS, and cu in Near-Surface Soil
Samples
Chromium Concentrations (ppm) in Soil Samples. in
Various Areas Relative to Retort and Sump Areas
Summary of Soil Analysis
Carbon Content
for Chromium and Organic
Results of
Leachates
Analysis
Test
Extraction
of
Waste
. ~ ~, ~ ~\, . ~.c::-:.~ ~ .
~" -=.o~. ~ . ~ "-. ~.
-------
TABLE 0-1
RESULTS OF SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES
CONCENTRATION (oom)
LOCATION SAMPLE 1.0. CHROMIUM ARSEN I C COPPER
Upgradient S.1, l' 15 2.5 5.4
S.1, 3' 26 12 13
S.1, 6' 36 11 17
$-1, 10' 32 12 19
$.1, 15' 49 12 20
S. 1, 20' 23 6.0 13
Treated S-2,1' 29 ..(1)
Wood $.2, 3' 23
Storage S.2, 6' 36
Area $.2, 10' 50
S.2, 15' 44
S-2, 20' 25
S-3, l' 28
S-3, 3' 29
S-3, 6' 25
S-3, 10' . 31
S.3, 15' 32
S.-3, 20' 27
S-4, l' 210 220 170
S.4, 3' 50 11 26
S.4, 6' 46
S.4, 10' 31
S.4, 15' 52 12 20
S.4, 20' 39
Retort and S.5, O' 130 15 69
Sump Area S.5, l' 130 14 79
S.5, 3' 26 6.7 17
S.5, 6' 39 7.8 18
S.5, 10' 32 7.0 20
S.5, 15' 42 5.8 16
S-5, 20' 29 5.7 16
S.6, O' 48 7.5 22
S.6, l' 10 9.5 10
S.6, 3' . 53 6.1 15
S.6, 6' 34 3.1 15
S.6, 10' 58 5.5 17
S.6, 15' 50 4.6 18
S.6, 20' 27 5.1 17
~ ~~ ~~..\. ,~.-:-::- .~:. ,
,:::. '. -'=:: ~ \::::: .-.:.:: .
-------
TABLE 0.1
(Continued)
CONCENTRATION' Coom)
LOCATION SAMPLE 1.0. CHROMIUM ARSENIC COPPER
Retort and S.7, 0' 23 3.1 11
Sump Area S.7, l' 53 10.8 9.0
. (cont i nued) S.7, 3' 25 11 16
S-7, 6' 26 12 16
S.7, 10' 33 7.7 . 17
S-7, 15' 101 10 17
S-7, 20' 31 8.3 19
S.8, 0' 160 38 91
S.8, l' 38 13 22
S-8, 3' 38 7.3 20
5.8, 6' 23 6.1 9.6
S-8, 10' 100 14 210
S.8, 15' 53 14 21
S.8, 20' 35 12 21
S.10, 0' 32 15 110
S.10, l' 34 9.0 19
5.10, 3' 38 11 17
S'10, 6' 32 7.2 13
5,10, 10' 100 11 17
$.10, 15' 75 7.9 17
$. 10, 20' 29 10 20
Unpaved and $-11, l' 19
Untreated S'11, 3' 24
Wood 5.11, 6' 47
Storage 5,11, 10' 39
Area 5.11, 15' 43
S"11, 20' 34
$'12, l' 110 12 20
S.12, 3' 53 9.2 18
$,12, 6' 50 11 17
S'12, 10' 38
S.12, 15' 44
S. 12, 20' 29
S.13, l' 18
5.13, 3' 26
S'13, 6' 66 9.0 20
S'13, 10' 35
S. 13, 15' 49
S.13, 20' 30
~ -= '" ".\ ' :::: = -=., -
'-~ :=. '- ~ .' ~ =-.
'-:::: . -- ~ \.::: - -..;: - - - - -
-------
TABU D. 1
(Continued)
CONCeNTRATION (oom)
LOCATION SAMPLE LD. CHROMIUM ARSENIC COPPER
Unpaved and S'14, l' 43 11 18
Untreated. S'14, 3' 79 6.6 14
\lood S'14, 6' 25
Storage S- 14, 10' 44
Area S- 14, 15 I 32
(continued) S'14, 20' 27
S'15, l' 43 .
S'15, 3' 22
S"15, 6.' 42
S-15, 10 I 38
S'15, 15' 29
S. 15, 20' 28
S'16, 1 I 22 6.3 12
S'16, 3' 19 5.9 10
S'16, 6', 32 11 15
S'16, 10' 35 8.6 17
S'16, 15' 29 9.7 12
5,16, 20' 35 10 15
$.17, l' 26
$'17, 3' 33
$,17, 6' 35
5,17, 10' 43
5,17, 15' 37
5,17, 20' 18
$.18, l' 28
5,18, 3' 21
$,18, 6' 34
$,18, 10' 37
$.18, 15' 28
5,18, 20' 31
Off.site and 5,19, l' 29 3.9 13
Downgradient $,19, 6' 26 9.1 18
Areas $. 19, 10' 17 3.6 6.6
$'19, 15' 38 8.1 17
$,19, 20' 48 13 17
S'20, l' 31
5,20, 3' 25
5,20, 6' 22
5,20, 10' 15
S'20, 15' 48
5'20, 20' 41
~ -= ~ ~ <:' . ~.
.,...' '-"". ~ \ ..::::::-.
~ > ~ '. . ,'..,-':"~ \~- .~~. ,.:~
... . ."- - -
-------
[ TABLE D.1
(Continued)
CONCENTRATION (oom)
LOCATION SAMPLE I.D. CHROMIUM ARSENIC COPPER
Off-site and S- 21, l' 85 17 . 21
Downgradient S-21, 3' 33
Areas' S- 21, 6' 47
(continued) S-21, 10' 40
S-21, 15' 39
S.21, 20' 47
S-22, l' 24
S.22, 3' 33
S-22, 6' 36
S.22, 10' 59 14 19
S.22, 15' 32
S-22, 20' 28
, S-23, l' 25 11 13
I $-23, 3' 69 5.4 16
I. $ . 23 , 6' 43 8.0 18
$.23, 10' 53 11 14
$.23, 15' 29 11 11
$.23, 20' 25 7.8 9.7
$-24, l' 16 8.6 13
$.24, 3' 32 4.9 17
$-24, 6' 34 12 17
$ - 24, . 10' 34 6.1 16
$.24, 15' 45 9.0 . 20
$-24, 20' 38 12 23
$.25, l' 9.3
$-25, 3' 39
$.25, 6' 54 8.2 19
$-25, 10' 54 9.3 22
$-25, 15' 29
$.25, 20' 39
$-26, l' 31 14 20
$-26, 3' 30 9.3 17
$.26, 6' 38 9.6 15
$-26, 10' 27 6.6 13
$-26, 15' 42 9-5 18
$-26, 20' 25 6.8 16
I.
I
\~~-~~~~\.. -i"~ ~~. .". -
-------
TABLE 0.1
(Continued)
CONCENTRATION (oom)
LOCATION SAMPLE I. O. CHROMIUM ARSENIC COPPER
Throughout G.1 110 32 60
the Entire G.2 110 1100 59
Site G.3 60 16 33
Golo 31 7.3 15
G.5 150 39 99
G.6 29 6.5 15
G.7 43 19 21
G.8 55 15 36
G.9, l' 46 13 24
G.10, l' 540 170 230
G'11, l' 130 7.3 18
G.12, 2' 29 15 25
G.13, l' 24 8.6 13
G.14, l' 24 11 14
G'15, l' 45 8.0 16
G'16, l' 30 8.5 20
G'17, l' 29 12 29
[ .
[
[
,
NOTES:
1) .. indicates Not Analyzed.
Reference:
O'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., 19810.
'=0 c:= "" ~ \- . ~.:..-= -c= -:- -
.. -- ~ \. ~ . -
'~-'" =-~ ~- ~ ' ..= _.:,
-------
TABLE D.2
CONCENTRATIONS OF Cr, As, AND Cu
IN SHALLOW AND DEEP SOIL SAMPLES
CHROMIUM ARSENIC COPPE~
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
BORING NO. L1l Lt.! 11..!.! L1l Lt.! 11..!.! L1l Lt.! 15 f~
5.1 15 26 49 2.5 12 12 5.4 13 20
S.2 29 23 . 44
s.3 28 29 32
$.4 210 50 52 220 11 12 170 26 20
$,5 130 26 42 14 6.7 5.8 79 17 16
$,6 10 53 50 9.5 6.1 4.6 10 15 18
5.7 53 25 41 4.8 11 10 9 16 17
$,8 38 38 53 13 7.3 14 22 20 21
$.10 34 38 15 9 11 7.9 19 17 17..
$.11 19 ~4 43
S. 12 110 53 44 12 9.2 20 18
s. 13 18 26 49
S. 14 43 79 32 11 6.6 18 1/.
5.15 43 22 29
S. 16 22 19 29 6.3 5.9 9.1 12 10 12
$.17 26 33 31
S- 18 28 21 28
s. 19 29 38 3.9 8.1 13 17
S.20 31 25 48
S.21 85 33 39 17 21
S.22 24 33 32
S.23 25 . 69 29 11 5.4 11 13 16 "
S.24 16 32 45 8.6 4.9 9.0 13 17 20
. S'25 9.3 39 29
S.26 31 30 42 14 9.3 9.5 20 17 18
\ .
Reference: D'Appolonia ConsuLting Engineers, Inc., 1984.
'", -::..= '" :::--. \. . =\' -.:.a --:- '-:7:' -:- .
" '~- ~ \. ~
~ "... -= ~ -::::: " ,-'
-------
Reference:
TABLE D.3
CONCENTRATIONS OF Cr, As, and Cu
IN NEAR-SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
SAMPLE 1.0. CHROMIUM ARSENIC £Qfill
, (ppm) (ppm) . (ppm)
G.1 "110 32 60
G.2 110 140 59
G.3 60 16 33
G-4 31 7.3 15
G'5 150 39 99
G.6 29 6.5 15
G.7 43 19 21
G.8 55 15 36
G-9, l' 46 13 24
G.10,1' 540 170 230
G '11, l' 130 7.3 18
G'12,2' 29 15 25
G'13,1' 24 8.6 13
G-14,1' 24 11 14
G.15,1 45 8.0 16
a.16,1' 30 8.5 20
G.17,1' 29 12 29
O'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1984.
~ _: '" "'" \~ . ~
.," ~"-:::::--
\.' " .' :- ~ ~ - :.:::
. .. .
-------
TABLE 0.4
CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) IN SOIL SAMPLES
IN VARIOUS AREAS RELATIVE TO RETORT AND SUMP AR~AS
BORING' DEPTH ( feet)
LOCATION ..1!Sh- ---L ~ -L --L ..l.Q... ...1L -LL
Upgradient S-1 15 26 36 32 49 23
Background S-26 31 30 38 " 27 42 25
Retort and Sump Area S-5 130 130 26 39 32 42 29
S.8 160 38 38 23 100 53 35
S.10 32 34 38 32" 40 75 29
Downgradient S-15 43 22 42 38 29 28
S.22 24 33 36 59 32 28
S.25 9.3 39 54 54 29 39
- .
Reference:
D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1984.
.-
, .
,
, -
- .
. '::::-- ..:-- '" v\" - ~."-=-
.,- ..:. . ~ \. ..::::..---
~ '. .::"- ~ ~ - ~ . .
-------
1-----
TABLE D.S
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES
FOR CHROMIUM AND ORGANIC CARBON CONTENT
ORGANIC
SAMPLE HEXAVALENT TOTAL HEXAVALENT CARBON
IDENTIFICATION CHROMIUM CHROMIUM CHROMIUM CONTE~T
(ppm) (ppm) (X) eX)
G.10, 1 I 3.0 580 0.52 NR(1)
S. 1, 1 I NR NR NR 0.86
S.4, l' 1.0 200 0.5 NR
5.5, 1 I 1.0 260/260(2) 0.38 Nil
s. 16, 15' <1.0 52 2.5 NR
S.17, 10' NR NR NR <0.10
5.19, 6' 3.0/4.0 58 6.03 NRo'
S.21, l' 8.0 69 11.59 NR
S.25, 21' NR NR NR 0.14
NOTES:
1) NR Indicate. that the corre.pondlng te.t wa. not requested by project
2) The indicated .ample wa. analyzed in duplicate.
personnel.
Reference:
IT Corporation, Jun. 1985
" '
"" ~ ~ "'\ ' -~
~ '.,' . :_:~~, ~ 2' ','. ~
-------
..1" -
, ~ ~OTAL (2)
(ppm)
As
..~. ._A
TABLE 0.6
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF WASTE EXTRACTION TEST LEACHATES
r:- ,-
...... ...
WASTE EXTRACTION TEST RESULTS(1)
(mg/l )
SAMPLE I.O. (3) Cr As Cu
5.1, 6' <1.0 <2.5 <5.0
S-4, l' 4.8 <2.5 7.3
5-~, l' 3.1 <2.5 <5.0
5 -16, 15' <1.0 <2.5 <5.0
5-19, 6' <1.0 <2.5 <5.0
5'21, l' 2.4 <2.5 <5.0
G -1 0, l' 4.4 6.8 8.8
STLC(4) 560(5) 5 25
TTLC(6)
Cr:'~:'
-"-
36 -'.,-
210 7'...,
130: ~~~,'
29 .
26 . .~.
85
540 '
;\':7~, .
2,500.}
..,.',
'"
.'
-'
........ ..
'.
'-~
Cu
,-
11 17
220 170
14 79
9.7 12
9.1 18
17 21
170 230
-
~ '
< .
, ,
.r
-------
s-:
o I
-1 -i
-2 -j
-J 1
-4 -j .
I
-5 -:
i
-6 -;
I
- 1
-/ ~
,
.;
-
-6-<
I
-9 ~
-10 l
-11 l
-12 l
=:~ j-1
-15
=:~L
-16 .
-19 '
-20 --
o
20
CHROMIUM IN SOIL. ppm
~o
/ .
1:
...
:l.
:..I
::)
~
>
~-- .
~
S-2
o
-1
-2
-J
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
.;
... -9
2: -10
:l. -11
:..J
Q
-12
-IJ
-14-
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
o
/
/
/'
/"-
./'
/"
~/
----
20
':'CJ
CHROMIUM IN SOIL, ppm
",= y ~ ',- . 0 ._'c..; -,
...'= .~\. ~
'::-'. .:=~ '::. - ~ .
-------
C ~---_"_'_':~:::'---
-1 ~
-2 j
-3 ~
-4l
-5 j
-6 I
;"7 ~
~
j
I
~
...
...
:"'8
-9
-10
-11
-12 .....;
-13 I
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
I
I-
:l..
:.J
a
o
"
o
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
:: -9
I -10
I-
:l.. -11
:.J
a
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
o
I
40
S-J
20
/
r
,
CHROMIUM IN SOIL, ppm
80
5-4
CHROMIUM IN SOli.. ppm
120
~\
./
'~
\
I
I
I
/
I
/
/
40
-.
160
:cc
V :...: " ::::-- ,.
".'- ~. ~
~ .'. .:-_:7 ~ ~ _..:.':
-------
5-5
0 l ~
-1"1 ~
-2 -4
-.3 j ~
I
-4 j
-5 ~ '"
-6 ~ 1
-7
-8 l /
i I
-9 .... I .
2: I I
-10 ] \
Cl. -II
W
0 -12 ~ \
\.
-13
-14 \
-15 /
-16
-17
-18
-19 I
-20
O. 20 40 60 80 lCO ,2: . ..
CHROMIUM IN SOIl.. ppm
i
o
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-1.3
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
;...20
S-6 .
I'
i
I-
a..
w
o
----I
---,
20
~
./,.../'
~.
~
o
.:.0
6C
CHROMIUM IN SOIL, ppm
~ ~ '" ,,\' . ::-...
\~'. .: '.\,: ~.. ?'
-------
1------
I
!-7
.
,
-~ -
=: ~
-4.
-5 j
-6
-7
i
.~ -8 -:
I
-9 .....
I -10 J
....
(l. -11 ~
:..J
~ -121
-1.3 J
-14. ,
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
0
~-~
",
,
,
'"
\
',>
/
/
?
/
.
~o
20
..
CHROMIUM :N SOIL. ppm
5-8
o
-1
-2
-.3
-4
-5
-6
-7
/
...
-
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-1.3
/
=:; ~ ;/
=:~L /
-18 "
/
-19 ,/
-20 . ~,~"J..,.~,,~~-,'~.,--,
1 , ! . I ; I '
o 20 4.0 60 80
!.:.o
~c:
.--
I
....
:l.
:..J
~
"
100
120
CHROMIUM iN SOIL.. ppm
V .....: ~ '" ' , ~ '. ::
.", ~ '. ~
~" ,:,:-:-:\:::-, -'::: - -::: ' '
-------
.;
....
=~ ~
-03 ~
=: l
-6 j
-7 ~
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-1,3
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
i
1-
:.J
o
o
o
-1
-2
-,3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
~ -9
i -10
0.. -11
w
o
-12
-1,3
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
o
5-10
\\
\
(
'\
\
20
40
60
:!c
CHROMIUM IN SOIL, ppm
5-12
20
~
80
1:0
.~~
...;.-..
60
CHROMIUM IN SOIL. ppm
~ ,~' .~ ~ \. . ~- c:, ~-
~ '. ,:''::'-~ ~ - -:::
-------
I
I.
I
i
2-1 :-;
.;
...
o
-1
-2
-J
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-IJ
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20 ,
o
40
i
I-
a..
w
a
20
CHROMIUM IN SOIL, ppm
5-22
o
-1
-2
-J
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
i -9
~ -10
a.. -11
w
a
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
o
20
. CHROMIUM IN SOIL, ppm
40
60
~ -' " "\" ,n.
o 0.- ~ \. "'-,
~.'...' -.\.'::: ~ h:::-
-. .
-------
5-25
(j
-1
-2
-J
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
.;
... -9
J: -10
~
a. -11
UJ
a
-12
-1J
-14
-15
.-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
o
.. .
t
.',
"
"
".
20
CHROMIUM IN SOIL., ppm
40
60
" .-c '" ::-- ,.. . ::--
. ... ~\ ~
~. .'..'~. -:::: --::::
.-. . . - -
. .
-------
a !
-j -1
I
-2 1
-.3 l
-~ l
-5
I
-~ ~
-I
I
-8 ~
... -9
...
1: -10 i
.... -11 ~
:l.
w -12 -1
Q
I
-1.3
-14
-15
I -16
I , -17
I
I -18
I -19
-20
o
-
"
(~""c~.-=r~~:"1d~
5-26.-~ -
"-......-
--
--------
1
~,
",'-....,"
. -,
/
/
/
./
/'
~ '.
~'"
~
/
20
MIUM IN SOIL. ppm
CHRO .
.:.c
=" "," . .:::-.-. .-.
~ ,-: ;--, --S \' -g:-"
~','"u,~ ~
-------
I
APPENDIX
E
~.. .......
.'
.'.-....
,,-...:'
. :;".:
"'7 -".
.<
:....'
.:."':"
. .
.~:~....
.;".
~-
.
". 7--~'
.. ~ ':" j'
:~. ~.~
SIMUIATION OF CHROMIUM TRANSPOR'l'
IN OFF-SITE AREAS
. z
;:'.... :~~..
l'~ .
..
. .
..'
~~\d'
. -
..
..
..;.~. ..
.'
.....
." ,..
.
.,~~:
,.
~ .'"
......."
.-,.
-'-'J...
-.-
.-... ~
- .~,
~ . ':;,i ~':
".
.- ~.:
..
.'-;,
"
".,..,-
~i'''.
'" _.: "" '" \. .. :;-.. - .:'
", ~ '.' ...::...~
'_..~:",.: ~ ~ ..:..::.
.. .
..
. -.-
~
-------
AJ?PENDIX E
SIMULATION OF CHROHIUM TRANSMPORT
IN OFF-SITE AREAS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E.l SYSTEM CONCEPTUALIZATION
E.2 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
E.3 INPUT PARAMETERS
, E. 4 MODEL GRID
E.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
E.6 RESULTS
TABLES
FIGURES
PAGE'
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
. ,
,~~.:-:~,"-~~\~ of 0- .~
-------
APPENDIX E
SIMULATION OF CHROMIUM TRANSPORT IN OFF-SITE AREAS
..'
The presence of chromium in excess of drinking water standards in
off-site areas in the past has raised concern over possible
downgradient migration toward wells and the Russian River.' This
off-site migration has been addressed considering the current and
historical water quality data. The migrat'ion evaluation was
performed by modeling the' downgradient transport of chromiUI:1
under regional ground water flow conditions, as no significant
artificial gradients due, for example, t.o ground. water
extraction, are known to exist. The results of this mOdeling
effort could be used in evaluating the historical data and in
predicting transport behavior under various management practices.
:"",.
E.l SYSTEM CONCEPTUALIZATION
"
For any modeling activity, the system of concer~, must be properly
conceptualized. Based. on . Geosystem' s present understanding of
the hydrostratigraphy, the water-bearing zone of concern (Zone 1)
has been considered to be 10 to 15. feet thick.. Zone 1 consists
primarily of silty clay and clayey silt. However, sandy to silty
gravel materials within this zone are assumed t? be the principal
pathway for chromium migration. Therefore, this conceptualiza-
tion of Zone 1 is believed to be conservative.. According to the
. '.
most recent water quality data, a portion of this water-bearing
zone, downgradient of the cutoff wall, contains total dissolved
chromium concentrations at or near 0.05 mg/l. This portion' of,
the water-bearing zone is subject to regional ground water flow
, .
and, thus, could act as a ~ource of chromium to downgradient'
areas. As ground water containing chromium p.asses through the
uncontaminated zone, concentrations decrease as a result of' '
convection-dispersion mechanisms andgeochemical'processes.
because
the
field conditions is
water-bearing zone
usually three
of concern is
Although the
dimensional,
flow
under
E-1
, \C' ~:~ ~~. -:} '<'~ '-f ..,' ,,-:'.
-------
relatively thin (average 12.5 feet), thb 4ssumption of complete
mixing is believed to be valid and, therefore, the flow has been
considered to be only areal (horizontal). In addition, the off-
site well inventory has shown that there are no wells in the
vicinity of the site that discharge at high rates and, thus, the
assumption of a uniform, one-dimensional . flow field is valid.
. .
The system to be modeled is subject to the following assumptions
, .
and conditions:
o
The source 1s a JO-meter (98 feet) strip of the
water-bearing zone containing an initial chromium
concentration, Co, immediately downgradient of
the slurry wall. This strip source is assumed to.
be perpendicular to the flow direction near Well
CWP-8.
o
The water-bearing zone is subject
dimensional, uniform ground water flow.
to
one-
o
Dissolved chromium is subject to two-dimensional
areal transport and adsorption~
The chromium concentration at the source reduces
with time at a rate calculated on the basis of
historical data.
o
. E.2 GOVERNING EOUATIONS
Transport. of a dissolved chemical species in a homogeneous,
isotropic porous medium under a unidirectional steady state flow
can be described by the following equation (Cleary and Ungs,
1978):
DL ~ + Dr a2c - v ~ - ARC = R ~
ax2 ay2 ax at
( 1)
where
C .= concentration
x,y = space coordinates
v = seepage velocity
DLI ~ = longitudinal and transverse
R = retardation factor
A = decay constant
t = time
dispersion coefficients
E-2
~ -:. '" "'. ' :::-._' . ..'
..~ :.' .:..'. ~ . ~'..:;::- . .
-------
. .
. '
'..'
(.
. .
"".
It is assumed that initially the soil is free from chromium and
at a certain time a strip-type source wi,th - the width of 2a,
orthogonal to the ground water flow direction" is introduced
along the y-axis. This strip source is shown in Figure E-1. If
the concentration of chromium so introduced diminishes
exponentially with time, then the initial and. boundary conditions
of this mathematica~ model (Javandel et al., 1984) may be written
~;
as :
C (O,y,t) =coe-at
for -a < y < a
C (O,y,t) = 0
for other values of y
lim
y..j:tO
~ = 0
ay
lim
x.. j: .0
£.C = 0
ax
where a is the source decay factor.
An analytical solution to the above model (Cleary and Ungs, 1978)
may be presented as:
Cox -YX
C (x,y,t) D 4 J ~UL exp [ ZDL - at ]
. It/R
a
exP [ - ( AR - aR + V2) r - x2 ]
4fDL -rnu
r"J/}'
. [ erf ( a - v ) + erf ( a + v ) ] dr
2 ./ DTr 2 ./ DTr
(2)
A computer program has been provided by
which enables calculation of the ratio
point downgradient from the source at any
Javandel et ale
(1984),
of C/Co for any' given.
given time.
E-3
~ ~ ,~:_~~~ ~ \~ - i -_:" ,'-= '-. -
-------
E. 3 INPUT PARAMETERS .
The input parameters include the properties of the water-bearing
. .
zone and the geochemical characteristics of chromium with respect
to the geologic materials. Some of these properties
(permeability, retardation factor) have been obtained from
previous si.te investigations and have been used as input
parameters for the model. Some parameters ~hange according to
the flow conditions ~o be simulated (hydraulic gradient, flow
direction) and obtained from field observations. Other
parameters have been assumed based on our understanding of the
field conditions and our judgement. The input parameters
utilized in the model are as follows:
PARAMETER
VALUE
3.3 x 10-2 em/see
0.15 to 0.3
Southeast
0.005
. 5 .
0.0063 da~-l
0.23 to 2.3 m ~day
0.023 to 0.23 m /day
. 0.0 day-1
Hydraulic conductivity
Effective porosity.
Flow direction
Hydraulic gradient
Retardation factor (R)
Source decay factor (Q)
Longitudinal dispersion coeff.(DL)
Transverse dispersion coeff.(DT)
Decay constant
..
The hydraulic conductivity of 3.3 x 10-2 em/see represents the
maximum value obtained during a pumping test in Well CWP-7.
Observations during this test were made in off-site monitoring
wells FPT-3 and FPT-4(IT Corporation, June 1985; Geosystem,
september 15, 1986). The effective porosity is assumed to vary
from 0.15 to 0.3. Previous calculations have been performed
using porosity values of 0.32 to 0.36.
The selected retardation factor of 5 is based on geochemical
studies performed earlier (IT Corporation, June 1985). This
retardation factor is the lowest value among all values obtained
. and, thus, results in the most conservative migration analysis.
E-4
"'. n= ~ ~ \, - ~ =-= -= :- :- .
.:- -= '~\' ~ =
~ " .= ~ \::::. - \::::: - ,= - ~ -
-------
I .'
I
i
To evaluate the reduction in concentration of the source, the
historical chromium concentrations in Well cwp-a have been
considered. The primary reason for this consideration is that
Well CWP-8 is located to the e.ast (downgradient) of the slurry.
. .
wall and upgradient of off-site areas of concern. In addition,
numerous water quality data are. available for this well
(Table B. 2, Appendix B) which demonstrate the reduction of the
source concentration and allow calculation' of the rate of
. .
reduction in concentration with time. Review of chromium
.,\ concentrations in Well CWP-8
(0) is approximately 0.0063
. .
concentration' in this well
construction of the slurry
extraction of water from Well
shows that the source decay factor
day-1. The reduction in chromium
appears to be a result of the
cutoff wall in October 1983 and
HL-7.
It should be noted that the assumptions made and parameters used
are generally conservative, resulting in higher concentrations
. and higher migration rates.
E. 4 MODEL GRID
The model grid, . shown in Figure E-1, is 250 meters (820 feet)
long in the 'x' direction and 120 meters (394 feet) wide in the
'y' direction. The' x' direction corresponds to the southeast
direction of flow at the CWP site. It should be noted that in
the model it has been assumed that flow in off-site areas
continues to the southeast. This may not be strictly true as the
flow. direction varies locally to the south in off-site areas.
The model results are applicable, however, with the appropriate
rotation of the model grid. The strip source is introduced at
x = 0 and is subjected to lateral migration with time. Migration
is predominantly in the' x' direction due to the prevailing
ground water flow direction and the greater longitudinal
dispersion coefficient as compared to the transverse dispersion
coefficient.
E-5
. ",'=: ~ ~ '\ - ~::...-= --= -:- ~
c..- =. ~ \....:::::::-- =.
'~'--=~ ~ - ~ - -=--.
-------
E.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
To assess the model' behavior in an attempt to simulate the
observed off~siteconcentrations, a sensitivity analysis was
performed. Factors considered for sensitivity analysis included
the porosity and dispersivities. The reason for selecting these
two factors was that none of these parameters were measured.
Parameters such as hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient,
and retardation factor"remained constant because measured values
were available. For sensitivity analysis, three effective
porosities of 0.15, 0.2, and 0.3 were used. The longitudinal
dispersivities for sensitivity analysis were 1, 3, 5, and 10.
The transverse dispersivities were assumed to be equal to
10 percent of longitudinal dispersivities for each simulation.
The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in the
attached computer outputs. The concentrations of chromium at
different grid points, as calculated by the model, are expressed
relative to the unit concentration at the source.
The results of the sensitivity analysis show that at the plume
, '
centerline (y = 0 and x = 250m), for a constant porosity, as
dispersivity increases, the relative concentration increases. At
a constant dispersivity of 5' m, as porosity decreases, the
relative concentration increases. Comparing the results of the
sensitivity analysis with the observed concentrations, an attempt
was made to select the most representative model parameters. The
procedure is described below.
The original source concentration has been assumed to be
,1.1 mg/l. This concentration represents the chromium concentra-
tion measured in Well CWP-8 in December 1984, shortly after the
cutoff wall was constructed. The model results for porosity of
0.3 and lon,;;itudinal dispersivity' of 5 m indicate that after
,'1,080 days (about 3 years), the relative concentration at a
receptor 125 m downgradient of the source would be 0.11361. This
E-6
'" C-: ~ "", ' :::-,,:..' ,-: : ' '
," ~ \, -.:::::; "
'-"" ".~ ~ ~, '. ,,:' , ' -' : ,
-------
~5~~~nce corresponds approximately to the location of Well AT-2.
The predicted concentration is calculated to be 0.12. mg/l. The
most recent chromium concentration in Well AT-2 was 0.05 mg/l on
February 25, 1987 (Table B.2, Appendix 'B). The predicted
concentration is, however, on the order of measurements made in
late 1986. Model results showed a relative chromium
concentration of 0.13587 at a location near Well FPT-3. This
indicates that. using. a source concentration of 1.1 mg/l, the
predicted concentration at FPT-3 would be 0.15 mg/l after about
3 years. The measured concentration for that. time measured in
December 1987 is 0.04 mg/l. Therefore, porosity of 0.3. and
longitudinal dispersivity of 5 m appear to be reasonable and
conservative for modeling purposes.
E.6 RESULTS
Since all relative concentrations. are less than unity, and
considering that the highest chromium concentration in any of the
off-site wells near the assumed strip source was 0 ~ 05 mg/l in
Well CWP-8 on February 25, 1987 (Table B. 2, Appendix B), all
downgradient concentrations should be less. than the drinking
water standard. Therefore, if the chromium concentration at the
source does not increase, the model predictions show that
chromium concentration in off-site areas should not exceed 0.05
mg/l. For instance,. considering the model results after 1,440
days (approximately 4 years), it may be seen that the relative
chromium concentration, along the centerline y = 0, at 250 meter~
. from the site is 0.00068. Therefore, the chromium concentration'
will be equal ,to 3.4 x 10-5 mg/l or 0.034 ppb. Because of
lateral dispersion, as 'y' increases, the calculated relative
concentration decreases further. Therefore, the computed
concentration at y = 0 represents the maximum concentration.
If the chromium concentration at the source (Well CWP-8) were to
persist for a long period of time, the potential for off:-si te
contamination would exist. To predict possible downgradient
E-7
~~ ,=~=Y\'l \ 'i--:' ,~;,':.-
-------
chromium concentrations under such conditions,
a simulation 'Has
performed by assuming a constant strip source, as shown in
Figure E-1. . The results, shown in Scenario 7, indicate that at
the centerline of the plume, where concentrations are highest,
the relative concentration would be 0.00513 at 250 meters from
the source. Assuming that the most recent data in Well CWP-S
refiect the strength. of . the. source, the predicted downgradient
concentration would 'be.0.00077 mg/l if the source concentration
remains at 0.15 mg/l for four years. An increase in source
concentration to 1 mg/l would result in a predicted downgradient
concentration of 0.0513 at the same location. It should be noted
that given the extraction of ground water from Well. CWP-S,
. increased chromium concentrati.on would not persist for long
periods of time.
Application of the model results to other known receptors, such
. as the Russian River, would result in insignificant chromium
concentrations even using,the most conservative source strength.
It should be noted that the model is based on a number of
assumptions and, thus, the relativ!' concentrations computed by
the model should be considered approximate. An attempt was made
to use the existing data to calibrate the model for predicting
chromium concentrations. However, because of the complexity of
the site conditions, such as construction of the slurry wall and
the pumping history in Well HL-7, and limitations of the
. . .
analytical techniques, such calibration was not possible. To
include historical water quality data and site modifications to
model chromium transport at the CWP site, a numerical model must
be used. Such a model would first predict the two";dimensional
flow field and compute chromium transport taking into considera-
tion the initial concentrations existing in off-site areas. Such
a model could also account for the change in flow regime as a
resul t of slurry wall construction and pumping from Well HL-7.
However"the use of such a numerical model for off-site areas is
E-8
~ ..~." '" ~ \: . ~ ..0: ~. --
\:::-.-:.. ..:--''- ~ ~ - ~
-------
[ .
not w&r~~~ted because of a lack of sufficient data to verify the
model results. Specifically, most, and sometimes all, off-site
wells show concentrations of chromium near detection limits.
Model calibration and verification becomes exceedingly difficult
under such conditions because of a lack of sensitivity and the
non-uniqueness of the model results.
~
E-9
~ ,-~' ~\ ~ \, - ~ .-' -~- :::;::: -
~. --=~ ~ - ~ .
-------
TABLE E.1
COMPUTER MODEL TOAST INPUT PARAMETERS
PORE LONGITUDINAL TRANSVERSE RADIOACTIVE SCU~CE
DISPERSION' . DISPERSION . HALF-LENGTH DECAY RETARDATION DECA'!'
WATER
SCENARIO VELOCITY COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT OF SOURCE CONSTANT FACTOR lli:2
(m/day) (m2/day) (m2/day) em) (1/day) (1/day)
0.475 0.475 0.0475 15 0 5 . 0.0063
2 0.475 1.42 0.142 15 0 5 0.0063
3 0.475 2.30 0.230 15 0 5 0.0063
I. 0.475 4.75 0.475 15 0 5 0.:::C63
5 0.713 3.56 0.356 15 0 5 0.0063
6 0.950 4.75 0.475 15 0 5 0.0063
7 0.475 3.30 0.230 15 0 5 0
."
~ '-' ~. "\. . :;:..:: -'
.. ~. ~ .
~'-" .:='~ ~ _.::: . ." .."
-------
Scenario 1
.CONTHOL ~NFOR~ATION.
VELOCITY(M/DAY)------------------------ =
LONGITUDINAL DISPERSION COEF.(~.M/DAY)- =
TRANSVERSE DISPERSION COEF. (M.M/DAY)--- =
HALF LENGTH OF SOURCE (M)-------------- =
1
0.4750
0.4750
0.0475
15 . 00''''
RADIOACTIVE DECAY CONSTANT(1/DAY)------ =
RETARDATION FACTOR--------------------- =
SOURCE DECAY FACTOR(1/DAY)------------- =
0.00e"
5.00ee
0.0218.3'
"
TOTAL NUMBER OF X POSITIONS------------ =
TOTAL NUMBER OF Y POSITIONS------~---- =
TOTAL NUMBER OF TI~E POINTS----------- =
1
X
5e.e
75."
1""."
125.0
15".0
175.0
2210.0
25".0
1
X
5".0
75.0
li10.0
126.0
15".0
176.0
2210.0
250.0
1
8
4
8
'.
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0) AT TIME T=
1821."
DAYS
[[[
V=0.475
16.0
OL= 0.47
DT= 0.06
R= 5.0111
A=
ALFA=0.011183
LAIo4BDA=".0111"" ,
Y= 0.0 Y= 20.0 Y= 40.0 Y= 80."
0.00""" 0.0"21111" ".0eee" ".e"""111
0.0""111" 21.0"11111121 ".0111"21" 0.0""21"
0.0"""" 0.0"0111111 0,0111"21" ".0""""
0.0"""" 0.0"""" ".0""21" 0.0""""
".0"""0 "."21""" ".21"0"" ".,,""""
0.0"""" ".21"""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
0.000"0 0.00000 0.0"0210 0.00000
0.0"""" 0.0"""" ".0"""" ".0""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0) AT TIME T: 270.0 DAYS
[[[
V=0.47S
16.0
OL= 0.47
OT: 0.06 ,
R= 5.00
A=
ALFA:0."083
LAIo4BOA:0.""""
Y= 0.0 Y= 2".0 Y: 4"." Y= 80.0
0.00042 0.021""1 0.0"210" 0."""21"
0."""0" 0.0"0"" 0.""""" ".0""""
0."0"00 0.00""" 0.0""0" 0."0"0"
0.""0"" "."0""" 0.""""" 0."""""
".""""0 "."e""0 ".0"""" ,.,,""""
0.0"""" 0.""""" 0.""""" 0.0""""
0.""""0 0.""""0 0.00"00 0.0"00"
0.""000 0.021"00 0.00"00 0.0021210
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0) AT TIME T= 38".0 DAYS
[[[
V=0.476 A: 16.0 DL= ".47 OT= 0.0S .' R= 5.210
ALFA=e.0"83 LAIo4BOA=".""""
x Y: 0.0 Y= 20.0 Y= 40.0 Y= 80.0 ..
60.0 0.02942 0.00071 0.0"""" 0.0"0"" '..
76." ".""""0 ".""0"" 0.""""0 ".,,""""
1"0.0 0.00000 ".0""0" 0.0"""0 0."00"0
126.0 0."00"0 0.0"""0 0.000"0 0.0"""0
160.0 0.0"""" 0.""000 ".0"0"" 0.0"000
176.0 0. 00e00 0.0e000 0.000"0 0.00000
-------
1
X
5'" '"
75."
1"'''.'''
125."
15"."
175."
2""" 0 -
25".0
1
X
6".0
75.0
1""."
126."
IS"."
175. "
2"".0
25".111
1
X
6111,0
75.111
1111".111
125.0
16111.111
17S. III
2111".111
25111.111
1
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C") AT TI~E T= 54".'" OAYS
[[[
V=0.475
A=
OL= 0.47
15.0
OT= 0.05
R= 5.0"
ALFA=0.0"83
LA~BOA=0.0"00
Y= 111.0 Y= 2111.0 Y= 40.0
0.38881 111.01781 0.000""
".""991 "."""55 ".,,""""
III.""""" ".0"""" "'."'''''''''
0."""0" 1II.0"""e "'.0""""
0."""0" . "."''''''''' O.0"""'''
".,,"""" III.""""" ".,,""""
"'.0"""" O.""""" ".0""'''''
0."''''''''' 0.0"""" "'."00""
VALUES OFCONCENTATION(C/C"') AT
Y= 8".0
" . """"" -
".,,""""
"."'''''''''
".,,""""
"."'''''''''
".,,""""
".,,""""
0.0""""
TI~E T=
72".'"
01.'(5
[[[
V=0.47S
OL= ".47
A=
15."
DT= "."'5
R= 5.""
ALFA=".0"83
LA~BOA=".""""
Y= e.e y= 2"." Y= 4"." Y= 8"."
".3"561 "."1927 ".,,"""" 0. """"e
".213"9 0.01899 '".,,"""" 0.0""""
".""35" "."'''''29 ".,,"""" ".,,""""
" . """"" " . "''''''''' " . """"" " . """''''
".,,"""" 0.""""" ".0"""" 0."""""
".,,"""" 0."0"0" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
0.0"""" ".0"""" 0.""""" 0.0""""
O.""""" 0.""""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C"> AT TIME T= 9""." DAYS
[[[
V="-t475
OL= ".47
A=
15."
DT= "."5
R= 5."'''
ALFA=".""83
LAtoIBDA=".""""
Y= 0.111 Y= 2111.111 Y= 40.0 Y= 8111.0
111.1191111 111.""823 - "."''''''''' III."""""
".35252 111."3452 ".,,"""" 0.0""""
".1111584 111.1111129 III.""""" III."""""
111.111"127 111.111""14 111.111"111"" 111.111""""
111.111"""" 0.111"""" 111.111"111"" ".,,""""
111.111"""" 111.111"""" ".111""""".111""""
".111"""" ".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
e.III0I!I"" ".,,"""" ".,,"""" III."""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0' AT TI~e T= 108"." OAYS
[[[
V=".475 A= 15." DL= ". 47 OT= 0.05 R= 5."'''
ALFA=".111"83 LAtoIBDA=".""""
X Y= "." Y= 2"." Y= 4".", Y= 8"."
5111." ".1113932 ".""277- III."''''''''' ".,,""""
76." ".19743 ". "'2148 ".,,"""" ".""01!1"
1"".111 ".36991 111."3882 ".111"""111 ".,,""""
125.0 0.1114831 0.""827 111.0"""" 0. 001!1""
-------
i'
. ~ . ~ -",t.
1
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/Ce) AT TI~E T= 144".0
[[[
DAYS
V=0.475 A= 15.0 DL= e.47 DT= e.05 R= 5.:;'''
ALFA=".0"63 LAMBOA=".0"""
X y= 0.0 Y= 20.0 Y= 40.0 Y= 60.3
50.0 0.00408 0.00029 0.00000 0.00000
75.0 0.02423 0.0e277 e.ee"ee 0.eeeee
1"".0 ".12589 ".01822 e.""0"" 0.0""""
125.0 ".29693 0."<4722 ".0"""0 0.00"0"
15".0 ".14062 0.02312 ".""""0 0.0""""
175.0 0.0"894 0.00149 0.00000 0.00000
200.0 0.00007 0.00"01 0.00""" 0.0""""
25".0 ".0"0"" 0.00""" ".~"0"" ".0""0"
..
".
-
-.
. '
-------
1
Scenar io 2 .
.CONTROL INFOR~ATION.
VELOCITY(~/DAY)------------------------ =
LONGITUDINAL DISPERSION COEF.(~e~/DAY)- =
TRANSVERSE DISPERSION COEF.(MeM/DAY)--- =
HALF LENGTH OF SOURCE (~)-------------- =
".475"
1. 42""
".142"
15.""""
RADIOACTIVE DECAY CONSTANT(1/DAY)------ =
RETARDATION FACTOR--------------------- =
SOURCE OECAY FACTOR(1/DAY)------------- =
".,,"""
5.""""
" . ""83 .
. '
TOTAL NU~eER OF X POSITIONS------------ =
TOTAL NU~BER OF Y POSITIONS----------- =
TOTAL NU~BER OF TI~E POINTS----------- =
1
X
6"."
75."
1""."
125.0
15".0
175.0
2"".0
250.0
1
x
58.0
76.0
108.8
125."
158.0
175.8
288.8
258.8
1
8
4
8
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C") AT TI~E T= 18"." DAYS
[[[
V=8.475
DL= 1.42
A= ,15 . 0
ALFA=".""83
DT= ".14
R= S.""
LA~BDA="."""0
Y= 0." Y= 2".e Y= 48.e Y= 60."
"."""80 e.""""4 e.e"""" ".,,""""
".,,"""" 0.""""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
0.""""" e.""""" e.""""e ".,,""""
".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
".""""8 8.8"""" ".""""8 ".,,""""
8.88"88 8."8ee8 8.08088 0.08088
".8e8"" 8.8"8"" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
8.""""" 0:"""8". ".,,"""" 8.""""8
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C") AT TIME T= 27"." DAYS
[[[
V=".475
15.8
OL= 1. 42
OT= e.14
R= s.e"
A=
ALFA=".""83
LA!.tBOA=". ",,,,,,
Y= "." Y= 20.0 Y= 40." Y= 8"."
8.82829 0.8"252 ".8"888 ".888"8
8.08"e6 8.88888 8.8e8e8 8.08888
e.8888" e.8e88. 8.e88e8 8.88"8"
".""."" ".,,"""" ".,,"""''' ".,,""""
0.0888" 8.88"8. e.""""" ".,,"""'''
1.11""" 8."""88 1.0"""''' 8.01"8"
1.11888 8.0"8"" 1.8"888 1.088""
8.8"""" 8.1"88" 8."88"8 8.18888
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/CI) AT TIME T: 381.1 DAYS
[[[
V:8.475 A: 15.1 OL= 1.42 OT: ".14 R= 5.0"
ALFA=".II83 LA!.tBOA=".""""
X Y= 8.1 Y= 28.1 Y= 41.1 Y= 88.1
58.1 1.120431 1.11486, 1.11""" 1.0""""
75.1 1.11281 1.1"833 1.188". 1.""8""
11".1 8.""""" 8.88888 1."8""8 1.1""""
125.0 1.""088 "."""0" 1."000" 1.""80"
15".8 8.88."" 0.0"""" 0.8"""" 0.0""00
-------
1
VALUES OF CONC~~TAT1D~(C;~L) ~~ TI~E T= 540.121 DAYS
[[[
V=0.475
DL= 1. 42
A=
15.121
DT= e.14 "
R= 5.121121
ALFA=e.e"83
LAMBDA=".e"""
x y= 0." Y= 20.0 Y= 4".0 Y= 60.0 ;
50.0 0.29257 0.1214847 ,0.""""" 0.0000"
75.0 0.07659 0.01317 0.0"""" 121.0"""0
1""." 0.""297 0.121121"53 0."0""" 0.121""""
125.121 121.""""2 0.121"""" 121.121"""" 0.1210"00 "
15".0 0 . 0'''''''' 0.121""0" " . 0''''00 121.121"""0
175." 0.""""" "~e0""" e.""""" ".,,""""
20".0 " . e"",,&- 0.""""0 e.""""" 121.0""""
250.0 0.0"000 '0.00000 0.00000 0.0"000
1 VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0> AT TI~E T: 72".0 DAYS
[[[
X
50.0
75.0
100."
125.0
150.0
175.0
200.0
250.0
1
X
5".0
75.0
100.0
125.0
150.0
175.0
2"".0
25e.0
1
.'
V=0.475
OT= 0. 14 ~,
R= 5.1210
15.0
OL= 1. 42
A=
ALFA=".""83
LAMBOA=0.0"0"
V= ".0 V= 2".0 V= 40.0 V= 8".0
".23921 ".04483 "."""00 0."""""
".21872 "."4420 0.0"""0 0.00""0
0.04912 0."1037 0.0"""" 0.12100"0
0.""2810."""58 ".,,"""" 0.0""""
0.0"""3 0.0"""1 ".0"""" 0.00""0
e.0"""" ".0"""e 0.""0"" e."e"""
e.""""" ".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
".,,"""" ".,,"""" ~.,,"""" ".,,""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/Ce> AT TIME T=
9"".e
OAVS
[[[
V=I.475
DL= 1.42
R= 5."e
DT= e.14
A=
15.e
ALFA..".""83
LAMBDA=".e"""
Y= ".e V= 20." V= 4e.e V= 6".e
".12834 ".026&1 ".""0"1 0.0""""
".23993 "."&481 ".""""2 ".,,""""
e.156e7 e.e3687 e.ee""2 0.e""""
".e3219 ".0"78" ".""""1 1.0""""
1.""2"7 e.00"61 ".0""0" 1.0""""
".0"""4 1.""""1 ".,,"""" 1.0""""
".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
. ". """e" " . """"" " . """"" " . 0"""" ,
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(c/ce> AT TIME T= 1e8e.e DAVS
[[[
V=e.476 A= 15." DL= 1. 42 DT= 1.14 R= 5. ee
ALFA=0.e"63 LAMBDA=".""""
x V= e.e V= 2"." V= 4"." V= 6"." "
5"." "."56"" "."1241 ".""""1 "."""""
75." ".16848 "."413e ".""""6 e . ,,,,,,,,,, H
l"".e ".21379 "."&5&4 "."e""9 "."""""
125." ".1"929 ".029"4 e.""""6 "."""""
-------
1
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0) AT TIME T= 1..0.0
[[[
DAYS
V=0.H5 A= 15.0 DL= 1.42 DT= 0.14 R= 5.210
ALFA=e..0"83 LAI.ISDA=e.0""e
x. y= 0.e y= 2".e y= .e.0 y= ee.0
60.0 e.0079. e.0"192 e.e"""" 0.0"0""
75.0 0.0."25 0.01118 0.00""5 0."""""
1"0.0 e.l1811 0.03.85 0.0""2" e.0""""
125.0 0.18259 . e.05553 0.0"038 0 . 0"""" .
150.0 0.141.3 0.0.37. ".00033 0.0""""
175.0 0.053.6 0.01870 0.0""13 0.00000
200.0 0 . 0"971 0.0"305 0.0"0"3 0.00000
-------
Scenario 3
.CONTROL INFOR~ATION.
VELOCITY(~iDAY)------------------------ :
LONGITUDINAL DISPERSION COEF. (Y.M/DAY)- :
TRANSVERSE DISPERSION COEF. (~.M/DAY)--- :
HALF LENGTH OF SOURCE (~)-------------- =
RADIOACTIVE DECAY CONSTANT(1/DAY)------ =
RETARDATION FACTOR--------------------- :
SOURCE DECAY FACTOR(1/DAY)-------------' :
TOTAL NUMBER OF' X POSITIONS------------
TOTAL NUMBER OF Y PQSITIONS-----------
. TOTAL NU~BER OF TI~E POINTS-----------
1
X
50.0
75.0
100.0
125.0
150.0
175.0
2"0.0
250.0
1
x
50.0
75.0
1011" 0
125."
16"."
175. "
2""."
25"."
1
0.4750
2.3"0"
0.2300
15.00"0
0.0000'
5.""0"
0.0"63
=
8
4
8
=
:
180.0
DAYS
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0) AT TI~E T=
V:0.475
A=
15.0
DL= 2.30
[[[
ALFA=0.011163
Y= 0.111 Y= 20.0 Y= 4".0
0.00719 0."""7" 0.0111""0
0.00""1 0.0"""" 0."""""
".0"""" ".0"""" 0.0""""
".111"""" ".00111111111 0.0""00
0.0""0" 0."0"0" 0.0111"0"
III.""""" 0.00"00 0.00000
".,,"""" 0."0""" ".00"0"
".0"""0 0.00""0 ".00000
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0) AT
V=0.475
A=
15."
DL= 2.30
R: 5.00
DT: 0.23
LAMBOA=".00""
Y= 60.0
0.0"""0
0.0"0"0
0.0"0"0
0.0"0""
".000""
0.0"00"
0.0""00
".0"""0
TI~E T=
270.0
DAYS
ALFA=".IIIIII63
Y= 0.0 Y= 2".0 Y= 40.0
0.06662 ".""931 ".0000"
".0"116 ".0""17 ".0""""
".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
".,,"""" ".,,"""" "."""0"
".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
"."0""'' ".111"""0 ".,,""""
".,,"""" ".0"""" ".0"""0
0.""""" ".111"0"" 0."""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C") AT
[[[
DT= 0.23
R= 5.00
LAMBDA=".0111""
Y= 6"."
".0""""
".,,""""
0."""""
".0""""
" . "00"" .
"."000"
".0""""
"."""0"
TI'-4E T=
36"."
DAYS'
~[[[
V=".476 A.. 16." OL= 2.3" OT.. ".23 R= 5.""
ALFA=".""63 LAMBDA=".""""
x Y= "." Y= 2".0 y= 40.0 Y= 60.0
50.0 0.16430 0.028"2 0.0000" 0.0"""0
75.0 ".01413 0.0"257 0.00"0" 0."""""
1""." "."""2" ".0"""4 ".0"""" 0.0""""
125.O ".,,"""" ".111"""" 0.""""" ".0""""
15"." ".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
175." ".,,"""" ".,,"""" 0.""""" ".0""""
-------
'-.
. .
,: .
X
50.0
75.0
100.0
.125.0
150.0
175.0
200.0
250.0
X
50.0
75.0
100.0
125.0
150.0
175.0
200.0
250.0
1
X
50.0
75.0
100.0
125.0
150.0
175. "
200.0
250.0
1
VALUES OF CQNCENTATION(C;C0) AT TI~E T=
540.0
OA"(5
15.0
DL= 2.30
[[[
. R= 5..,0
V=0.475
A=
.DT= 0.23
LAMBDA=0.0000
'f= 50."
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0."000"
rr1.lE T=
720.0
DAYS
V=0.475
15."
OL= 2.3"
[[[
R= 5.00
OT= 0.23
LAMBDA=0.0000
y= 60.0
".00000
".00000
0.00000
".00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o . '''''~0 0
TIMe; T=
900.0
ALFA=0.0063
Y= 0.0 Y= 20.0 Y= 40.0
0.25719 0.05517 0.00002
0.11125 0.02551 0.00001
0.01433 0.00338 0.00000
0.00054 0.00013 0.00000
0.00001 0.00000 0.00000
'0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0.00000 0."0000 0."0""0
0.00000 0.00000 0.0"0"0
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C;C0)AT
A:::
ALFA:::0.0063
Y= 0.0 . Y= 20.0 Y= 40.0
0.19987 0.04936 0.00008
0.19757 0.05227 0.00011
0.07824 0.02136 0.00006.
0.01240 0.00344 0.0"001
0.00078 0.00022 0."0000
0.00002 0.00001 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 ".~~r' .
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C;C0) AT
DAYS
V=0.475
A:
DL= 2.30
[[[
R= 5.00
15.0
ALFA=0.0063
Y= 0~0 y= 20.0 Y= 40.0
0.11617 0.03180 0.00014
0.19118 0.05616 0.00032
".14989 0.04554 ".00031
0.05630 0.01743 0.00013
0.01012 0.00317 0.00003
0.00087 0.00027 0.00000
0.00004 0.00001 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C;C0) AT
DT= 0.23
LAMBDA=0.0000
Y= 60.0
0.00000
0.00000
0."""""
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TI"-/E T= 1080.0
[[[
DAYS
V=0.475 A= 15.0 DL= 2.30 DT= 0.23 R= 5..,0
ALFA=0.0063 LA"-/BDA=0.0000
X Y= 0.0 Y= 20.0 Y= 40.0 Y= 60."
50.0 0.05814 0.01729 0.00015 0.00000
75.0 0.13587 0.04340 0.00049 0.00000
100.0 0.16922 0.05600 0.00074 0.0000"
125.0 0.11361 0.03836 0."0057 0."0000
-------
. .
. .
1
VALUES OF CONCENniION(C/C~) AT TI'AE ;;: 144~.6
..-[[[
DAfS
V=~.475 A= 15.~ DL= 2.3~ DT: ~.23 q: s.aa
ALFA=~'.0063 LA~8DA=0.0000
X y= 0.0 y= 20.0 y= 40.0 y: 60.3
50.0 0.01157 0.00392 0.00009 0.00000
75.~ 0.04286 0.01561 0.00~42 0.00000
H'0. ~ ~.09674 0.03656 0.00114 0.00000
125.0 0.13578 0.05247 ~.001a0 0.00000
150.~ " . 11940 0.04681 0.00171 0.00000
175.0 0.06595 0.02611 0.00100 0.00000
200..0 0.02289 .0.~0912 0.00036 0.00000
-------
1
Seer-ario 4
.CONTROL INFOR~ATION.
VELOCITY(~/DAY)------------------------ =
LONGITUDINAL DISPERSION COEF.(~.M/OAY)- =
TRANSVERSE DISPERSION COEF.(M.M/DAY)--- =
HALF LENGTH OF SOURCE (M)-------------- =
9.4759
4.75""
".4759
15.""""
RADIOACTIVE DECAY CONSTANT(1/DAY)------ =
RETARDATION FACTOR--------------------- =
SOURCE DECAY FACTOR(1/DAY)-~----------- =
".9"""
5.9"""
9.998J'
.
TOTAL NU~BER OF X POSITIONS------------ =
TOTAL NU~BER OF .Y POSITIONS----------- =
TOTAL NUMBER OF TIME POINTS----------- =
1
X
6".9
75.9
19S.9
125."
15".S
176.9
2""."
25".1
1
x
6".1
75.1
1"".1
125. "
15"."
175."
211.1
25"."
1
8
4
8
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/CI) AT TIME T: 181.0 DAYS
[[[
V=I.476
DT= ".47
R= 5.""
A=
16."
DL= 4.75
ALFA=S.""83
LA~BDA="."S""
Y= I.S Y= 2".9 Y= 4".9 Y: 81.1
"."481" ".1"839 ".,,"""" "."S"""
".""129 "."""24 ".9"""" ".""""S
S.SSSSl ".9""SS S.SSS0S S.00S0S
I.""""" ".""""S "."""0" ".,,""""
S.I"""" ".S"""S S."""SS S.S""""
S.S"""" S.""""" 1.11""" ".9""""
I.""""" I.""""" ".,,"""" 1.1""""
1.1"""" ":""""" ".""""" "."""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/CI) AT TI~E T= 271.~ DAYS
[[[
V=".476
A=
15.1
DL= 4.75
DT= 1.47
R= 5.0"
ALFA=I.I"83
LAMBDA=".S"""
Y= ".1 Y= 21.1 Y= 4".1 Y= 61.0
".13878 I.I2999S.IS"Sl "."SS0S
S."1774 1.1"414 I.IS""" I.I"S""
I.SS"7" ".1""17 I.""""" S.""SS"
S.II"Sl ".""""" 1.1"""" I.I"""S
I.""""" 1.1"""" ".""""" I.IS"""
".""""" 1.1"""" ".11""" I."""""
I.""""" I.""""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
"."1111 1.88811 1."1111 8.1"111
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/CI) AT TIME T= 36"." DAYS
[[[
V=".476 A= 1&.1 DL= 4.75 DT= S.47 R= 5.""
ALFA=8."163 LAMBDA=".""""
X Y= "." Y= 2".1 Y= 4"." Y= as.s
51.S S.19837 I.S4984 ".""""9 ".S""""
76." "."5738 1."1647 I.""SS4 ".SSIIJ"S
11".8 1.1188" "."1189 ".1"""1 ".1""""
125." 1."""33 ".""""9 " . ""'''''' ".11"""
151.1 .1.""""1 I.S"""S S.S"S"" ".,,""""
-------
1
X
50.0
75.0
100.O
125.O
160.0
176.O
20"."
25"."
1
X
6".0
75."
10".0
125.0
16"."
175."
2""."
250."
1
x
50.0
75."
1"".0
125.0
150."
175."
2"0.0
260.0
1
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C;C0> Ai lIME T=
540."
DAYS
[[[
V=0.475
DL= 4.75
R= 6."0
15.0
DT= 0.47
A=
ALFA=0.0063
LAMBDA=" . 0''''0
Y= 0.0 Y= 20.0 Y= 40.0
0.19838 0.0608" 0.0""63
0.13632 0.04449 0.0"068
0.04972 0.01678 0.0"926
".0"986 ".00338".""006
".00107 ".00037 ".""001
0."0""6 0.000"2 0.0"000
" . """"". " . 0"""0 0 . """0"
".0"""0 ".0"""" ".0""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C;C0> AT
Y= 80.0
".""""0
".0""""
0.0""""
".,,""""
O.0""""
0.0"""0
".,,""""
0."""""
TI\jE T=
72"."
DA'f$
[[[
V=0.476
DL= 4.75
R= 5.0"
OT= ".47
A=
16.0
ALFA=".""83
LAMBDA="."""0
Y= 0." Y= 2"." Y= 4".0 Y= 80.0
".13893 "."4898 "."0127 ".,,""""
".15177 ".05674 ".0"176 0.0""""
"."997" 0.03848 ".0"134 ".0""""
"."4"72 "."16"3 ".""061 "."0"""
"."1048 ".""418 ".""017 ".,,""""
".""171 0."0"69 ".""""3 0."""""
"."""18 ".""""7 0.""""" ".,,""""
0.""""0 ".0"""0 "."""00 0.""""0
. VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C;C0> AT TIME T= 9""." DAYS
[[[
V=0.475
DL= 4.75
R= 5.0"
DT= ".47
A=
16 .0
ALFA=0.""63
LAMBDA=0.""0"
v= ".0 V= 2"." V= 40." V= 6"."
".08424 "."3325 ".""166 ".""""1
0.12436 "."6175 0."028" 0.0"""2
".11836 "."6075 "."0302 0."""02
0."7666 0.033"7 0.00210 0."00"2
0.03307 0.01484 0.0"098 0.0"0"1
0.0"997 ".""446 0.""031 0."""""
".""2"8 0.0""94 0.""""7 0.0""""
'''.0''''''3 ".0"""1 ".0"0"" 0.0""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C;C0> AT TIME T= 1"8".0 DAYS
[[[
V=".476 A= 16." OL= 4.76 OT= 0.47 R= 5.""
ALFA=".0063 LAMBDA=".00""
X Y= 0.0 Y= 2"." Y= 4"." Y= 6".0
50.0 0.04788 ".02"81 0.0"16" 0.""""2
75.0 0."8784 0.03987 ".""320 ".0"004
1"".0 0. 108"6 0.06048 0.0"437 0.0"""6
-------
'..
1
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C") AT TIME T= 144".0
[[[
OAYS
V=0.475 A= 16.0 OL= 4.75 OT= 0.47 R= 5.a0
ALFA=".0"63 LA"'BOA="."""0
X y= 0.0 y= 2".0 Y= 40.0 Y= 60.0
50." 0.01448 0."0734 0.""095 0.00003
75.0 0.03630 ".01~48 0.00253 0."0""9
100.0 0.08123 0."3268 0.0"489 0.0"017
125.0 0.07962 0."4308 0.0"642 0.0""25
150.0 0."7961 ' "."4361 "."0888 0."""27
'175.0 0.0621/13 1/1.03416 1/1.""638 0.00022
21/10.0 0.03798 0.021"4 0.0"337 0.0""14
-------
I
I.
I
I
1
Scenario 5
-CONTROL INFORMATION-
VELOCITY(Y/DAY)------------------------ :
LONGITUDINAL DISPERSION COEF.(M_M/DAY)- :
TRANSVERSE DISPERSION COEF.(M-Y/DAY)--- :
HALF LENGTH OF SOURCE (M)-------------- :
".713"
3.56""
".368"
16.""""
RADIOACTIVE DECAY CONSTANT(l/DAY)------:
RETARDATION FACTOR--------------------- :
SOURCE DECAY FACTOR(l/DAY)------------- :
3.""""
6.""""
".""63
. .
TOTAL NUMBER OF X POSITIONS------------ :
TOTAL NUMBER OF Y POSITIONS----------- :
TOTAL NUMBER OF TIME POINTS----------- :
1
X
6"."
76."
1""."
125."
15" . "
175."
2""."
25"."
1
. X
6"."
75."
1111., . .,
125."
16"."
175. "
2e"."
25.,."
1
a
4
a
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(c/ce> AT TIME T:
18e . "
DAYS
[[[
V:".713
OT: ".36
A=
15."
OL: 3.58
R= 5.""
ALFA:".""83
LAMBDA:".""""
Y= "." Y= 2".e Y= 4"." Y: 6e.e
e.e7649 e.e1e72 ".""e"e e."e"e"
e.e"143 "."""22 e.e"e"" e.""e""
e.""e"" ".,,"""" ".,,"""" e.e""""
".,,"""" ".,,"""" e.""""" ".,,""""
".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,"""" e."""""
".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
".,,"""" ".,,"""" e.""""" ".,,""""
".,,"""" "."""",,. ".,,"""" ".,,""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C"> AT TIME T= 27e.." DAYS
[[[
V:". 713
OL= 3.56
OT= e.36
R= 5.""
A=
15."
.ALFA:". ""63
LAMBDA=" . ",,,,,,
v= "." V= 2"." V= 4"." V= 6"."
e.24261 ".e4483 ".e"""" ".,,""""
e."3622 ".""898 ".,,"""" ".e""""
".""111 "."""23 ".,,"""" ".,,""""
".""""1 ".,,"""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
".,,"""" ".,,"""" .e.eeeee e."""""
".,,"""" ".""""" e.""""" ".,,""""
".,,,,,,,,, e.""""" e.""""" ".,,""""
.,.".,,,.,,, ".,,,,,,,,, ".,,"""" ".,,""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(CIC") AT TIME T= 36"." DAYS
[[[
V=".713 A= 16.e DL: 3.56 DT: e.3S R= 5.""
ALFA=".""S3 LAMBOA=".e"""
X y= "." Y= 2"." Y= 4"." Y= 6"."
5"." ".32748 "."8976 ".""""2 ".,,""""
76." ".13117 "."3"32 ".""""2 ".,,""""
1""." ".e17es ".""4"8 e."""0" ".0""""
126." ".e""7" "."""17 ".,,"""" ".,,""""
16"." e.e"""l ".e"""" ".,,"""" ".,,""""
-------
1
X
SS . 0 .
7S.0
10S.0
125.0
15S.0
175.0
20S.0
25S.0
1
X
5S.0
75.0
108.0
125.0
15S.S
175.S
208.0
260."
1
X
6".0
76."
1"8."
125."
168.8
176."
288.0
268."
i
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/CQJ) AT TI~E T:
540.8
DAYS
[[[
V=".713
DL= 3.56
R= 5.~8
A=
15.8
DT: 0.36
ALFA=8.a863
LA'-IBOA=".0"""
y= e.0 Y= 2".0 Y= 4"." Y= 60.0
",24662 "."6235 ".""816 ".0""""
".26962 ".07511 0."""29 "."0"""
S.14426 ".S4195 S.0""2" S.0"""S
0.S3838 S.01082 .0.S"0S8 S.SS0"S
S."8424 '''.8''128 8.0"""1 ".""8""
"."""23 ".""""7 ".0"000 ".000"0
0.0"8"1 0,000SS 0.S"SS8 0.08808
0.00S08 0. 00088 0.0''''00 0 . "0""8
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C") AT TIME T: 720.0 DAYS
[[[
V=".713
15."
DL= 3.56
DT= 0.38
A=
R: 5.08
ALF A=0 . 0083 .
LA~BDA=0 . 0"8S .
y= "." Y= 20.0 Y= 40.0 Y= 60.0
0.11875 0.03329 ".0""24 0.0"""8
0.21204 0.06848 0.0S871 0.00000
8.22888 8.07532 0.00102 0.008"8
0.14229 0.04833 S.08S76 0.0SS"S
S.06S37 0.0174S S.SSS3S S.SSSSS
S.SS999 S.0S349 S.SSSS8 S.0sses
8.00110 0.00039 0.00S01 0.00000
0.00008 8.000S0 0.00S88 0.S88S8
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C8> AT TIME T= 980.0 DAYS
....................~.................................
V=8.713
A.
16.8
DL= 3.68
.DT= S.38
R= S.0S
ALFA=8.SS83
LAtoIBOA=8.se8S
Y= S.S Y= 28.S Y= 48.S Y= 68.8
8.84788 S.S1448 8.S8819 8.S88SS
S.11368 S."3872 S.SSS77 S.ssse8
S.18432 S.S8879 8.S8178 8.SSSS8
0.19894 "."7382 ".S"217 8. "8011J8
8.13634 8.86177 8.88188 8.S08"8
8.16898 8."2286 8.18878 8."'''.
1.11818 ...08832 8."8822 8~"8"11J8
8.11J8829 8."8812 8.S8888 8. "8811J8
. VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C"> AT TIME T= 1081.0 DAYS
[[[
V=8.713 A= 16.1 OL= 3.66 DT= 1.38 R= 5.00
ALFA=8."063 LAtoIBOA=..1008
X Y= "." Y= 2S.0 Y= 411L S Y= 68.S
68.S S."1769 S.S868" S . S"811 S.8S8SS
76." I.S6S31 1."1828 S.SSS56 "."SSS8
.lS8." ".10667 0.04162 0.00181 0.08081
126." ".18231 ".S8670 ".S8296 III. 08811J 1
168." O.17292 0. "7188 8.18364 8."8S82
-------
I
1
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(CIC0) AT TI~E T= 1440.0
[[[
DAYS
Vi:0.713 A= 1S.0 DL= 3.S8 DT= 0.38 R='5."0
ALFA=0.0083 LAMBDA=0.0000
X y= 0.0 y= 20.0 y= 40.0 y= e0.0
50.0 0.00213 0.00072 0.00002 0."0000
75.0 0. "0741 0."e298 e."0e1S 0.00e0e
1"".0 0.02178 0.00939 0."0e82 0.0eeel
125.0 0.0se92 0.023"8 0.00178 0."e002
lse.0 0.09298 0."4340 0."e371 0.0e"0S
115.0 0.13030 0.08203 0.00S87 0.0ee08
200.0 0.13857 0."8888 0.0"840 0. 0""UJ
250.0 0.0e8e8 0.03289 0."0332 0."0"08
'"
-------
Scenario 6
.CONTROL INFORMATION.
VELOCITY(M/DAY)-------------~-~------~- =
LONGITUDINAL DISPERSION COEF.(M.M/DAY)- =
TRANSVERSE DISPERSION COEF.(M.M/DAY)--- =
HALF LENGTH OF SOURCE (M)-------------- =
1
15.951515
4.75""
15.475"
15.""""
RADIOACTIVE DECAY CONSTANT(1/DAY)------ =
RETARDATION FACTOR--------------------- =
SOURCE DECAY FACTOR(1/DAY)----------~-- =
".,,"""
5.15"""
".15"63
TOTAL NUMBER OF X POSITIONS------------ =
TOTAL NUMBER OF Y POSITIONS----------- =
TOTAL NUMBER OF TIME POINTS-----------
1
x
5".a
75.a
1"".a
~25.a
16".a
175. "
2"".a
258.8
1
X
68.8
75.8
1a"."
125.a
16"."
175.8
221".a
258.a
1
8
4
8
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(c/ca, AT TIME T= 18a.a DAYS
[[[
v=a.95"
A=
15."
Dl.= 4.75
DT= ".47
R= S.""
ALFA=".""63
LAMBDA=".a"a"
Y= a.e Y= 2a.e Y= 4a.e Y= 6e.e
e.2"3a3 15.153469 15."""1515 15.15""""
a.e1718 e.a"317 e."8""e e.e""""
15."""26 ".""""5 e.e"""" ".ee"""
e.""""" ".,,"""" e.""""" e.e""a"
".,,"""" ".a"""" ".,,"""" ".e""""
a.e"""8 e.e8""8 8.""""" 8.""""8
8.""""" 8.""""8 8.8"""8 8.8""88
8."""""8.""""8 8."88"8 8."""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATIOH(C/CIiJ> AT TIME T= 27".a DAYS
[[[
v=a.95a
DT= a.47
R= s.a"
DL= 4.75
A=
15.a
ALFA=".a"63
LAMBDA=".""""
Y= e.a Y= 2".a Y= 48." Y= 68.8
8.37544 ".87893 8.""""2 8.a8"8"
8.14161 ".83258 ".8"""2 8."""""
"."1789 ".a"427 ".a"""" ".a""""
8."""12 8.a""17 8.a"""" ".""8""
8.""""1 8.""""" 8.a"""8 ".a"""8
".,,"""" ".a"""" 8.""aa8 ".""""8
e."e""e e.""""e e.""""e e.a"e2le
I.a"""e I.""""" "..,,,,,,,,, I.""aae
VAl.UES OF CONCENTATION(c/ca, AT TIME T= 36".aDAYS
[[[
v=e.9&e A= 15.1 DL= ".75 DT= e.47 R= s.aa
Al.FA=8.12I"63 LAMBDA=".a""8
x Y= a.a Y= 2e.e Y= 4".e Y= 68.121
58. a e.36496 e."862e e."""12 ".0000"
75." ".28367 "."1442 ".ea"16 e.ae"""
l"".a ".1"166 1.12789 I.a8""8 e.aa"a8
125." 1.81583 8.a"44" a.a"""l I.aa"""
158." "."81a. ".0""3" 8.0"00" ".00000
-------
, .
i
I
1
X
58.8
75.0
10QU'
125.0
158.8
175.8
280.8
250.0
1
X
50.0
75.0
U,,, . "
125.0
150."
175.0
2""."
2&8.1
1
X
51.0
7&.1
1"".0
126.8
161.1
17&.1
21/18.8
268.1
1
,
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(CIC") AT TIME T=5.8.; DAYS
. .................. .......................... .~'.......
V=8.968
DL= 4.75
DT= a.47
R= 5.""
15.0
A=
ALFA=8."863
LAMBDA=8.""""
Y= 1.1 Y= 2".0 Y= .8.8 Y= e8."
8.18427 8."4942 8.00029 0.""0""
".27962 8."8584 0."8883 0."8880
".27356 8."8942 8."8116 ".""""8
8.18128 0.06449 1.00083 0.00000
".0661" ".01898 0."""32 0.0888"
8.01"68 8."0372 .."00"7 0.00000
o . 00118' 0 . 0""41 I . 00081 0 . """"0
0.0"000 0.0000" 0.00000 0.0"00"
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(CIC0) AT TIME T= 72".". DAYS
[[[
V=".95"
15."
DT= 0.47
R= 5.""
A=
DL= 4.75
ALFA=".""63
LAMBDA=8."""0
Y= 0.0 Y= 2".0 Y= .8." y= e"."
0.06972 0.01992 8."""23 ".,,""""
8.1."23 0.04708 0."""93 0.""00"
0.21692 . 0.07901 0."0215 0.0000"
0.241a" 0.09180 0.003"" 0."00"1
".18377 0.07187 0.0"263 0."0001
0~09356 0.03720 0."0147 0."000"
0.83127 0.01267 0.00"52 0.0""0"
8."01/19& 8.88839 8.88082 8."8"8"
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/CI) AT TIME T= 9"".8 DAYS
[[[
-.
V=8.96"
DL= 4.75
OT= 8.47 .
R= 5.""
A=
16.8
ALFA=8.0083
LAMBDA=".0""8
}-~.
Y= 0.0 Y= 28.8 Y= 48.0 Y= e8.0
0.02398 8.08788 1.00"11 8.0088"
0.16&0& 8.01960 1.00"&8 0.00"0"
0.108"8 0.04228 8.0"177 0.0"""1
0.17847 8.81055 8.""384 8.0"""2
0.28&78 0.88813 0.""618 0.""003
0.1840& 0.18"&4 8.8"&12 8."8"84
8.11948 8.8&382 0.88368 8.88083
'0.81833 0.80827 0."0869 8.08001
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C8) AT TIME T= 1080.0 DAYS
[[[
-
'",.
t.,
V=8.950 A= 16.8 OL= 4.75 OT= 0.41,- R= 5.""
ALFA=0.0"83 LAt.lBDA=0."0"8 ,.
-
X y= 0.0 Y= 28.0 Y= .0.0 Y= 8".0
58,1 0.08793 0.0"238 0.0"085 " . "",,,,,,
16.8 0.81948 ". "0712 8."8"27 "."80""
108." 0.043&5 0.01784 0.00"98 0.""8"1
125." 0.08447 0.03708 0.0"258 0.0"""3 . 4
158.8 8.13564 8.0828" 8.0""96 8.00008 :.
-------
I
1
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(c/ce) AT TI~E T= 1448.8 DAYS
..........................................~...........
V=8.968 A= 16.8 DL= 4.76 DT= ".47 R= 6."8
ALFA=8.""83 LAIoiBDA=".""""
X y= 8.8 y= 2".8 Y= 4".8 Y= 88.8
6".0 0.""88" 8."""28 8."""81 a.e""""
75.8 8.""218 8.0""81 8.888"" ".8""""
le8.0 0."0541 0."8233 8."8817 0."8808
125.8 8."128" 8."8803 8.""858 8."e0"1
16" ." . 8.02787 8.01388 8.08159 0."808"
175.0 ".85349 8.02788 8.""368 0. """11
2"8.e 8.08822 8.04888 8.8"868 0."""23
25".0 0.14084 0.07709 8.01185 0.0"047
,,' ,,": . ~..
'....~ \. ~
~..". .'." "=. ~. .. ~
~
. .
-------
1---
I
...
Scenario 7
-CONTROL INFORMATION.
VELOCITY(M/OAY)----~-----------~------- =
LONCITUDINAL DISPERSION COEF. (M_M/DAY)- =
TRANSVERSE DISPERSION COEF. (M-M/DAY)--- =
HALF LENGTH OF SOURCE (M)-------------- =
0.4750
3.3000
. 0.2300
15.0000
RADIOACTIVE DECAY CONSTANT(1/DAY)------ =
RETARDATION FACTOR--------------------- =
SOURCE DECAY FACTOR(1/DAY)------------- =
0.00"0
5 . 0000 .
0.0000
TOTAL NUMBER OF X POSITIONS------------ =
TDTAL NUMBER OF Y POSITIONS----------- =
TOTAL NUMBER OF TIME POINTS----------- =
1
x
50.0
75.0
100.0
125.0
150.0
176.0
200.0
250.0
X
60.0
75.0
100.0
125.0
150.0
175.0
200.0
250.0
8
4
8
,.
.. 'ow
~.\.
;.
.'.
.. .
,.,... .'.
--
, '.
. .
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0) AT TIME T= 180.~ DAYS
................................................~.....
.~.
V=0.476
A=
16.0
DL= 3.30
LAMBDA=0 . ''''''''
DT= 0.23 ";.;:' R= S. 00
Y= 60.0
0.00000
0.000""
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.0''''00
0. "0"00
TIME T=
~-~ -:;.."o. ""
-
. ?'
V=EI.475
DL= 3.3E1
................................................~.....
270.0 'DAYS
A=
16.0
LAMBDA=0.0000
Of: 0.23. ;:. R= 6.EIEI
-::l:."':
,.
~. '.,
-~.-"'" .
-.:. '.-
'"
[[[
. -
36E1. 0 .,~'DA YS
X
5E1.EI
75.0
100.0
126."
150.0
175.0
200.0
250.0
ALFA=0.0E100
Y= 0.0 Y= 20.0 Y= 40.0
0.02537 0.00233 0.00000
0.00014 0.00001 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000. 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0.00000 0.000"0 0.00000
0.0000" 0.000"0 0.00000
0.00000 0.000"0 0.00000
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0) AT
ALFA=0.0000
Y= 0.0 Y= 20.0 Y= 40.0
0.13943 0.01812 0.00000
0.00684 0.00099 . 0.00000
0.00007 0.00001 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 0.00"00
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0.00"0" "."0000 0.000"0
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0) AT
V=0.476
16.0
Dl.= 3.30
A=
ALFA=0.0000
Y= 0.0
0.30811
".04371
0.00192
0."0002
0.00000
0.000"0
0.0""00
0.00000
Y= 20.0
0.04805
.0.00764
0.00035
0.00000
0."0000
0.0"000
0.0"000
0.00000
Y= 40.0
0.000"0
0.00000
0.00000'
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Y= 60.0
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TIME T=
';;.'~'.
OT: 0. 23 {~:,:R= 6,00
LAMBDA=0.0000
Y= 60.0
0."""00
0.0"0"'"
0.00000
0.0""""
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
~.~
.;.:w,
,'~ ..
- ~"'~ " ..
_.~~,;';-'
,"-. '...-
~r.:..
.~.. .
'''''',;.
"<.
,:",.,...
-
~ --. ...
'.
.. .::~ :."" ";,, ''-
-------
1
x
5"."
75."
18".8
126."
15"."
175. "
200.0
250.0
X
60."
76."
10"."
126."
160.0
176."
200."
26".e
1
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(CIC") AT TIME T=
64".0
DAYS
[[[
v=e.476
16. e '
R= 6.""
DL= 3.3e
DT= ".23
A=
ALFA=".""""
LAMBDA=".""e"
Va ".0 V= 20." y= 40.0
0~81117 ".1149" 0.""""2
8.23744 1.1&128 1.""""2
"."4692 1.81851 ".10811
".""408 1."""98 ".11"""
0."""18 "."""04 0."""""
I.""e"" I.""""" ".,,""""
"."0000 ".0"""0 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 0."0000
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0) AT
y= 6e."
".,,""""
" . """"" .
".8""""
".,,""""
".8""""
".,,""""
"."0000
0.""000
TI~E T=
720.0
DAYS
[[[
V=".476
DT= 0.23
R= 5.""
15.0
DL= 3.30
A=
ALFA=e."eee
LA~BDA=".""00
y= e.0 - Y= 2"." Y= 4e.0Y='S".0
".7ge60 ".16268 ".e0"12 "."0000
".47873 ".11696 "."0016 0.00"00
".18696 ".e4839 e."0"09 "."""00
"."4243 0.01145 0.00003 0.0000"
".00641 0.0"149 0.00000 0.00000
0.0"e38 "."001" ".0000" ".""""0
".e"""1 ".,,"""" ".,,"""" "."""",,
".""""e ".~"e"" e.""""" e.0""""
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(c/ce> AT TIME T= 9""." DAYS
.....0................................................
V=".476
DT= ".23
16.e
DL.. 3.3"
R= 5.""
A..
ALF A=" . ''''''''
LAMBDA=" . "''''''
x y.. "." Y= 2e.0 Y= 40.0 Y= 6".0
60.0 e.88096 0.19"16 0.0""3" ".0"00"
76." ".88477 ".17271 "."""53 "."0"0"
1"0.0 e.37693 e. 1"691 "."0050 0.0""00
126.e ".147e6 e."4388 e."""26 0.0""""
150.0 ".03727 ".01137 0.00088 0.00"00
175.0 e.e"693 e.ee184 ".e0e"1 e.e""00
2"".e e.e""68 e."""18 ".,,"""" ".0""""
26".e ".e"""" ".ee""e e.""""" ".""""e
1 VALUES OF CONCENTATION(c/ce> AT TIME T= 108".111 DAYS
[[[
V=e.476 A.. 16.111 DL= 3.3e DT= e.23 R= 5.""
ALFA="."""" LAMBDA..e.e""e
x Y= e.e Y= 20.0 y.. 4".0 Y= 6e.0
60.0 e.92416 ".2e473 III. ""e5" e.e"0e"
75.0 0.78147 0.21215 e . ee 11" ".e""""
1ee.e 0.55081 ".18680 0.""136 0 . ",,,,,,,,
125." 0.29871 0.0962" ".001"3 0.00"""
160." 0.11723 0."3883 0.""06" "."0"""
-------
VALUES OF CONCENTATION(C/C0) AT TIME T= 1440.0
DAYS
[[[
V=0.475 A= 15.0 DL= 3.30 DT=0.23 R= 5.00
ALrA=0.0E1E10 LAM8DA=0.0E100
X Y= . E" 0 Y= 20.0 Y= 40.0 Y= 60.0
50.0 0.95396 0.21596 0.0E1083 0.00000
75.EI 0.88328 0.25057 0.00224 0.00000
100.0 0.76204 0.24587 0.00379 0.00000
125.0 0.58246 0.20339 0.00443 0.00001
150.0 0.37327 0.13693 0.00370 0.00001
175.0 0.19149. 0.07248 0.00225 0.00000
200.0 0.07606 0.02938 0.00100 0.00000
250.0 0.00513 0.00203 0.00008 0.00000
-------
.,
<
I
~
T
\D
to
<:I
za:
i~
<::I:
a::J
oz
50
75
)0)0
111111
0 100
01lJ
IIJ>
¥o
Ua:
IIJ~
X a.. 125
U<
~
.to
en.!. 150
XI")
enl
,...
,.. 175
200
i.
SOURCE
30 METER STRIP
250
..- -
0 40 20 0 20 40 60 Y (meters)
FPT - 3S
I
AT_IJ ~PT-4
S
-
f-
Z U')
I ~
-------
APPENDIX P
OCCURRENCE, INTAKE, AND TOXICITY .
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHROMIUM AND ~ENIC
\ .
I.
~ .= :::;-, ~ \ - ".== -= :- :-
.~-:: .~;;, ~ ~ '~ ~ . . .- .. : .
-------
APPENDIX F
OCCURRENCE, INTAKE, AND TOXICITY
. CHARACTERISTICS OF CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC
TABLE 01' CONTENTS
I
OCCURRENCE OF CHROMIUM IN THE ENVIRONMENT
INTAKE CHARACTERISTICS OF CHROMIUM
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTICS OF CHROMIUM
F.J.l Inhalation and Direct Exposure
F.3.2 Ingestion
F.J.3 Other Administered Routes
F.J.4 Reproductive Effects
F.3.5 Acute Toxicity
F.3.6 Chronic Toxicity
F.3.7 Aquatic Toxicity of Chromium
F.4 TOXICITY C~CTERISTICS OF ARSENIC
. .
F.4.1 Arsenic Occurrence in Environment
F.4.2 Intake Characteristics of Arsenic
F.4.3 Toxicity Characteristics of Arsenic
REFERENCES
F.l
F.2
F.3
~
F-l
F-l
F-3
F-J
F-6
F-7
F-7.
F-8
F-9
F-ll
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-14
F-18
,~~ :_~:: ,,- ~ .i'; . ~ -..'.-:-: .
-------
. APPENDIX F
OCCURRENCE, INTAKE, AND TOXICITY
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC
i
I .
I
[
F.1 OCCURRENCE OF CHROMIUM IN THE ENVIRONMENT
Chromium (Cr) occurs naturally in the earth's crust at levels of
a few parts per million to 300 ppm. Chromium is also released to
, the atmosphere by industrial activities, and into the subsurface
, environment via the aisposal of industrial wastewaters. and
landfilling of solid wastes. Between 1977 and 1980, the mean
concentrations of chromium in air in the united States ranged frQm
0.0052 ug/m3 (background level) to 0.1568 ug/m3 (urban annual
average). Chromium .occurs naturally in surface waters at
concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 6 ug/l. A survey of 14 ground
water and 69 surface water supplies in 83 United states cities
.' showed chromium levels from less than 5 up to 17 ug/l. In another
~ .
. survey, analyses of 3,834 tap water samples from 35 geographical
" locations showed that 28 percent of the areas surveyed had chromium
, levels above the detection limit of 0.1 ug/l. The concentrations
, of chromium in selected United states soils ranged from less than
1 to 1,000 mg/kg. Several authors have found that chromium
concentrations decrease in higher trophic
aquatic ecosystems (Towill, et al., 1978).
level
organisms
in
F.2 INTAKE CHARACTERISTICS OF CHROMIUM
Chromium is absorbed through both the respiratory and
gastrointestinal tracts (U.S. EPA, 1978). The principal routes of ,
human exposure to chromium are through drinking water, food, and
. .
air. Inhalation is both the most predominant route of exposure to
chromium compounds in industry and the route most extensively
investigated. Concentrations of chromium in water are generally
less than 0.05 mg/li however, approximately 215,000 people in the
United States use public water systems with water containing more
than 0.05 mg/l. Dietary intake of chromium ranges from 5 to 500
,
F-1
~~, ,:~~~ ~ ~ \.. . f-':;:.:i.:: .-
-------
ug/day and averages 100 ug/day. Intake of chromium from the air
ranges from 0.03 to. 0.3 . ug/day and averages 0.1 ug/day. Thus,
people drinking high-chromium water (0.05 mg/l) receive about one-
half of their chromium intake from food and one-half from drinking
water. Those with average-chromium water (0.005 mg/l) receive
about 91 percent of their chromium intake from food and 9 percent
from water.
In the respiratory tract, water and serum soluble chromates are
absorbed into the blood system, whereas insoluble Cr(III) particles
and the inert oxides and hydroxides of Cr(III) remain in lung
tissue (U.S. EPA, 1978).. In the blood stream, chromium compounds
are bound by proteins (Gray and Sterling, 1950). It has been shown
that. ionic Cr (VI) (injected intravenously) passes through the
membrane of red blood cells and binds to the globin moiety of
hemoglobin.. Once inside the erythrocyte, Cr (VI) compounds are
. rapidly reduced to Cr (III) and are unable to pass through the cell
membrane (Aaseth, et al.; 1982: Yamaguchi, et al., 1983). In
healthy red cells, Cr(III) is partially bound to hemoglobin and
partially to small molecular weight substances.
Chromium disappears quickly from the blood and is taken up by other
tissues in the body, where it is concentrated much more heavily (by
a factor of 10 to 100) than in the blood. Therefore, blood levels
of chromium may not be a usable indicator of chromium nutritional
status (Mertz, 1969; Mertz and Roginski, 1971).
A wide range of values for chromium content in blood has been
reported. Schroeder, et ale (1962) reported chromium levels in
serum of 0.52 and 0.17 mg/l, whereas Doisy, et ale (1969, 1971)
found a chromium concentration of 2 ug/l in serum. Other chromium
values reported have ranged from 0.11 to 55 ug/l in human plasma,
and from 5 to 54 ug/l in red blood cells (Underwood, 1971). Imbus,
F-2
Y: -" " ,,\' . ...:.:.:~' -" ," :--
,'.'. ~\. ~ --
~ ' .' ,~. ..:::: - ~ . =-.-,' ~ ,
-------
i.
!
et ale (1963), working with United states subjects, found blood
chromium levels ranging from 13 to 55 ug/l, with a median of
27 ug/l, while Hamilton, et ale (1973), studying subjects from the
. .
United Kingdom, reported a blood level of 70 ug/l chromium.
A wide range of values for chromium content in urine has been
reported. Hambidge. (1971) reported chromium levels in urine of
i. 8.4 ug/l for adults and 5.5 ug/l for children over a 24-hour
period. Imbus, et ale (1963) reported median urin~ry
concentrations of chromium for adult males of 3.77 ug/l. Renal
excretion is the major pathway of chromium elimination, with more
than 80 percent of injected chromium excreted in .this manner
(Mertz, 1969).
F.3 TOXICITY CHARACTERISTICS OF CHROMIUM
A number of' investigations have been performed to evaluate the
toxici ty of chromium compounds. The most recent and complete
re~iews are documents prepared by EPA (U.S. EPA, .1984; U.S. EPA,
1986) and by Life Systems, Inc. (October 1985) for the EPA.
F.3.1 Inhalation and Direct Exposure
The' production of chromates from chromite and the production of
chromate pigments have been associated with occupational
. .
respiratory canc~r. Workers producing chromate pigments who
developed respiratory cancer had an estimated chromium exposure of
0.5 to 1.5 mg/m3 for 6 to 9 years. To date, chromium compounds
have not induced significantly increased incidences of tumors in
laboratory animals following exposure by the inhalation and
ingestion routes. N,either trivalent nor hexavalent chromium
compounds have induced significantly increased incidences of lung
tumors by inhalation. .
F-3
~~ .~:~ ~ ~ \ . i ~.'-= .',-;;-~: ~
-------
Cr(VI) easily crosses biological membranes and is highly toxic.
Cr(VI) levels in air greater than 0.05 mg/m3 are associated with
high risk of injury to nasal tissues. Levels as low as 0.01 mg/m3
can produce strong - irritation in the nose, even after short
exposure. The lethal oral dose of Cr(VI) (single dose basis for
humans) is estimated to be 10 mg/kg body weiqh~. The most common
manifestation ofCr(VI) poisoning is kidney damage. Repeated
,-
exposure to chromium compounds causes dermal sensitization in some
workers; such sensitized individuals may react to solutions as
. -
dilute as 0.005 percent KZcrZ07. Concentrated Cr (VI) solutions
(3 to 10 percent by weight) are corrosive to skin, causing slow-
to-heal ulcers.
. Local effects on the respiratory system are the primary toxic
- -
effects observed in workers exposed to chromium in the atmosphere~
Cr(VI), in the form of chromic acid, has been associated for many
years with the development of perforations of the nasal septum.
The implication of chromic acid as the causative agent results from
the - common occurrence of this disorder in the chromium-plating
industry, where exposure is restricted to this Cr(VI) compound.
Other Cr(VI) compounds may also- participate il} the etiology of
perforated nasal septums, since this disorder has been reported in
the chromate manufacturing industry, where the predominant
exposures are to Cr(III) and the Cr(VI) compounds, sodium chromate
and sodium dichromate; however, chromic acid mist may also be
present in these plants. 'Severe irritation of the throat and lower
respiratory tract have been associated with Cr(VI) at
concentrations as low as 0.12 mg/m3. Hyper sensitivity may result
from dermal or inhalation exposure to either Cr(VI) or Cr(III);
however, there is little information available on the levels of
exposure necessary to induce an-allergic response.
F-4
~.~ . ~! ~~ ~ \.~ . i ~--- . ~~ :. ;-
-------
[
I :
[
Little information is available on ~is'Le~.;:; c effects of inhalation
of, chromium compounds, although Pascale, et ale -<-1952) and Mutti,
et ale (1979) reported liver injury in a chromate worker and kidney
injury in a welder exposed to chromium, respectively. Acute
exposure of animals using a variety of routes of administration
has indicated that both Cr(VI) and Cr(III) compounds can produce
kidney and liver damage, although the dose le¥els employed were
? relatively high. From the evidence available from both human case'
1 reports and animals studies, it can only be speculated whether the
kidneys and liver may be target organs following 'chronic exposure
to chromium compounds. '
Although inhalation studies of occupational exposure to chromium
indicate that exposure to some chromium compounds can result in
perforation of, the nasal septum, irritation of the respiratory
. tract, pneumoconiosis, bronchitis, chronic lung congestion, and
: possible liver and kidney damage (as supported by target organ
toxicity in acute animal, studies), there are insufficient data
available to make a quantitative risk assessment for either
chromium as a class or individual chromium compounds from these
inhalation studies. The only studies that prov~de any exposure
data are the studies of the occurrence of perforated nasal septums.
However, these are of limited and questionable quality. In the
,study by Glaser et at. (1986), wi star rats were' continuously
exposed to aerosols of sodium dichromate and, to a pyrolyzed
Cr(VI)/Cr(III) oxide mixture for 18 months. Mortality rates of the
exposed group were not significantly. different t~an the rats living
in fresh air. Adverse findings included eleva~ed white and red
blood cell counts, serum cholesterol_and lung tumors. The results
indicated a weak carcinogeniety at 100 ug/m3. Although these data
can be used to derive an acceptable inhalation exp~sure level, they
are inadequate for determining safe levels of '''chromium by all
routes of exposure.
-,
. ..
F-5
.,
~ . '" '::'\,\ . " - - - -
_\S~: ,:_~ ~" ~ \~ if-.- .~;" - :. ~
-------
I-~-----_.
[
[.
F.3.2 Inqestion .
There are only a few instances of human exposure to overtly toxic
levels of chromium compounds by ingestion, and these represent
,acute exposure to massive doses which provide little information
on the' safe levels of chromium following chr.onic exposure. A
number of animal studies have been performed in which the chromium'
. compound was administered in the food, water, or by gavage. The
acute oral toxicity data indicate that Cr(VI) is approximately 2 or
3 orders of magnitude more toxic than Cr(III). The difference in
valence state may be less relevant following chronic or subchronic
ingestion of chromium, since 'it is suggested that Cr(VI) is reduced
to Cr(III) . under the acid conditions .of the stomach. The
determination as to whether Cr(III) or Cr(VI) is more toxic afte:r-
chronic exposure, however, cannot be made, since none 0 f the
studies employed a sufficiently high dose to produce a toxic
effect.
The only' ingestion study in which an effect was observed was that
of Ivankovic and Preussman(1975) in which rats were fed diets
containing 2 or 5 percent CrZ03 (cr.3), 5 days a week, for 90 days.
The only observed effect was a reduction in the weight of the liver
and spleen in the treated male rats as compared with liver and
spleen weights of control animals. Similar results were observed
in female rats maintained on the same diet. Neither organ showed
macroscopic or microscopic abnormalities, and the 'authors concluded
that these changes were not toxicologically important. In a larger
2-year study using the same experimental procedure' and 60 animals
of each sex per group, Ivankovic and Preussman( 1975) did not
mention any treatment-related changes in organ weight, although it
was mentioned that no signs of chronic toxicity were observed.
F-6
'" . -' '" ,,\' . ,~
.,," '~\'~"'"
~ '. ,'-'\'::: ~. ..:..~
-------
F.3.3
other Administered Routes
I
I.
There is some positive evidence that chromium, particularly some
hexavalent chromium compounds, is carcinogenic following
subcutaneous injection or intrabronchial, intrapleural,
intramuscular, or intratracheal implantation; however, implantation
site. tumors have only. consistently been 4emonstrated using
':. intramuscular implantatJon.. . Of all the chromium salts, calcium.
, chromate is the only one that has been consistently found to .be
carcinogenic in rats by several routes. Calcium chromate,
strontium chromate, zinc chromate, sodium dichromate, lead
chromate, lead chromate oxide, and sintered chromium trioxide have
produced local sarcomas or lung tumors in rats. at the site of
application. although the studies available indicate that metallic
chromium powder and trivalent chromium compounds are not
. .
carcinogenic, these~compounds have been studied less extensively
, than hexavalent chromium compounds. The relevance of studies using
intramuscular implantation to human risk following inhalation or
oral exposure to chromium compounds is not clear; however, these
animal studies may indicate that some hexavalent chromium compounds
. are likely to be the etiologic agent in human chromium-related
cancer.
F.3.4 Reproductive Effects .
While chromium compounds have been shown to cause developmental
toxicity in experimental animals, reproductive effects (e.g., fetal
malformation) were observed only where maternal toxicity was also.
present. Because of the unnatural routes of exposure in these
studies (e. g., intravenous. and intraperitoneal inj ection), the
relevance of these developmental effects to envir.onmental exposures
is very uncertain.
F-7
~ ~ .<~:v -f.. . ~-;.:.. .
-------
Chromium has adversely affected fetal development and male
reproduction in experimental. animals. Hamsters, administered
chromium trioxide intravenously on day 8 of gestation, had an
increased incidence of cleft palates in the young when examined on
day 15 of gestation. The malformations were strain-specific and
associated with maternal toxicity. Studies on ~ice indicated that
. .
while some skel,etal oeff.ects were present, increased incidence of.
cleft palate or fetal death were not observed. While several of
the studies reported fetal malformations only where maternal
toxicity was also present, not all studies reported data on
maternal effects. Therefore, definitive conclusions concerning
the correlation, if any, between fetal and maternal effects cannot
be made at this time.
other reproductive effects of chromium include testicular
. .
degeneration in rabbits receiving 2 mg/kg/day for 6 weeks of either
Cr{III) or Cr{VI) compounds by intraperitoneal injection.. The
Cr{III) compound produced more severe effects in this study than
did the Cr(VI) compound (Behari, et al., 1978).
F.3.5 Acute Toxicitv
Acute toxicity studies indicate that the LCso forCr(III)
administered intravenously to rats is 10 mg/kg. Many mammalian
and microbial studies indicate that Cr{VI) compounds are mutagenic.
Acute chromium poisoning is rare in humans. Ingestion of 0.5 to
1.5 g of potassium dichromate can be fatal, causing liver and
kidney damage as well as thrombocytopenia and internal hemorrhage.
Acute toxicity values for. Cr{VI) are available for freshwater
animal species in 27 genera and range from 23.07 ug/l for a
cladoceran to 1,870,000 ug/l for a stonefly. These species include
a wide variety of animals that perform a wide spectrum of
ecological functions. All five tested species of daphnids are
F-8
.~ .-.:. ~\ ~ \..0 ~
~ " . ~_-:. ~- ~ -.:::.
-------
especial~y sensitive. The few data that are availalEe illc.ij c::I.t:e
that the acute toxicity of Cr(VI) decreases as hardness and pH
increase.
The acute toxicity of Cr(VI) to 23 saltwater vertebrate and
invertebrate species ranges from 2,000 ug/l for a polychaete worm
and a mysid to 105,000 ug/l for the mud snail. :The chronic values
.' for a polychaete range . from less than 13 to 36.74 ug/l, whereas-
-I that for a mysid is 132 ug/l. The acute-chronic ratios range from
15.38 to more than 238.5. Toxicity to macroalgae was reported at
1,000 and 5,000 ug/l. Bioconcentration factors for Cr(VI) range
from 125 to 236 for bivalve molluscs and polychaetes.
Acute values for Cr(III) are available for 20 freshwater animal
species in 18 genera ranging form 2,221 ug/lfor a mayfly to 71,060
ug/l for caddis fly . Hardness has a significant influence on
, .
toxicity, with Cr(III) being more toxic in soft water.
F~3.6 Chronic Toxicity
Chronic ingestion of water containing 1 mg/l of Cr(VI) over a 3-
year period did not produce ~ny adverse health effects in a Long
Island family which obtained drinking water from a private well.
It should be noted that th~ degree of medical follow-up of this
family, as reported in the literature, was' limited to' physical
examinations.
Subchronic and chronic exposure to Cr(VI) in the form of chromic
acid can cause contact dermatitis and ulceration of the skin in
humans. Chronic inhalation of dust or air containing Cr(VI) or
Cr(III) can cause respiratory effects including" perforated or
ulcerated nasal septa and decreased spirometric values. Recent
. .
studies have suggested that inhalation of Cr(III) compounds does
not pose a significant carcinogenic risk to humans. However, an
F-9
~ --: '" -::S ':. - ~ .- --- ,-: '
~ ',.'--'~ ~ - ~
-------
association between prolonged inhalation of Cr(VI) compounds and
the development of cancer of - the respiratory tract has been
suggested by epidemiological studies.
I
I
The chronic value for both rainbow trout and brook trout is
264.6 ug/l, which is much lower than the ,chronic value of
1,987 ug/l for the fath~ad minnpw. The acute-chronic ratios for-
these three fishes range form 18.55 to 260.8. In all three chronic
tests, a temporary reduction in growth - occurred at low
concentrations. Six chronic tests with five species of daphnids
gave chronic values that range from less than 2.5 to 40 ug/l and
the acute-chronic ratios range from 1.130 to more than 9.680.
Except for the fathead minnow, all the chronic tests were conducted
in soft water. Green algae are quite sensitive to Cr(VI). Th~
bioconcentration factor obtained with rainbow trout is less than
3. Growth of chinook salmon was reduced at a measured
concentration of 16 ug/l.
A life-cycle test with DaDhniamaana in soft water gave a chronic
value of 66 ug/l. In~a comparable test in hard water the lowest
test concentration of 44 ug/l inhibited reproduction of DaDhnia
maana, but this effect may have resulted from ingested precipitated
chromium. Effects such as liver and respiratory damage were
observed at lowest levels of 10 ug/l for Cr(VI) and 30 ug/l for
Cr(III) for this species (Nrigau and Nieboer, 1988). In a life-
cycle test with the fathead minnow in hard water, the chronic value
was 1,025 ug/l. Toxicity data are available for only two
freshwater plant species. A concentration of 9,900 ug/l inhibited
growth of roots of Eurasian watermilfoil. A freshwater' green alga
was affected by a concentration of 397 ug/l in soft water. No
bioconcentration factor has been measured for Cr(III) with
freshwater organisms.
F-10
~ --:" "~,:,. ~~
~'. ,-~- ~,- ~
-------
The acute value (LCso) forCr(III) is 10,300 ug/l for the America~
oyster Crassostreavirainica in 96 hours and for Cr(VI) is 91,000
ug/l for the mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus in 96 hours (Eisler,
1986) . In a chronic test, effects were not observed ona
polychaete worm at 50,400 ug/l at a pH of 7.9, but acute lethality
occurred at a pH of 4.5. Bioconcentration factors for saltwater
organisms and Cr(III) range from 86 to 153, similar to the
< bioconcentration factors for Cr(VI) and saltwater species.
F.3.7 Aauatic Toxicitv of Chromium
Based' on Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (U.S. EPA, May 1986), the
aquatic toxicity of Cr(VI) and Cr(III) is summarized below:
o
Acute toxicity values for Cr(VI) vary from
23.07 ug/l' for a cladoceran to 1,870,000 ug/l
for a stonefly, which are fresh water species.
The chronic value for rainbow trout and brook
trout is 264.6 ug/l, which is less than the
chronic value of .1,987 ug/l for the fathead
minnow. Growth of chinook salmon was reduced
at a measured concentration of 16 ug/l.
o
o
Acute toxicity of Cr(VI) to salt water
vertebrate and invertebrate species ranges from
2,000 ug/lto 105,000 ug/l. The chronic values
are much less, ranging from less than 13 to
132. .
o
The corresponding concentrations for Cr(III)
are higher than those cited for Cr(VI).
Acute toxicity of Cr(VI) decreases as hardness
and pH increase.
o
o
The Federal Drinking
chromium is 50 ug/l.
Water
Standard
for'
According to EPA, except possibly where a locally important species
is very sensi ti ve, fresh water aquatic organisms should not be
affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cr(VI)
F-11
". ..: y ". . . ..'.
." ~ \' -..:::...........
~ -', . ~ '..~ ~ ..:.-- ...:..
-------
does not exceed 11
average, and the
16 ug/l more than
EPA, May 1986)
ug/l more than once in every three years, on the
l-hour' average concentration does not exceed
once every three years, on the average. (U.S.
F.4 'TOXICITY CHARACTERISTICS OF ARSENIC.
The information present~d in this. section was provided by DHS.
According to DHS, this information was obtained from the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (U.S. Public Health Service, ,
November 1987) and DHS Air Unit Hazard Evaluation section (November
1987) .
F.4.1 Arsenic Occurrence in Environment
Arsenic occurs naturally in the earth's crust at levels of a few
parts per million. Arsenic is isolated commercially as a byproduct
during the refining of other metals. Arsenic is released to the
atmosphere in large amounts during industrial activities and has
resulted in significant local air and soil pollution. The
contamination ol drinking water is due to naturally-occurring
arsenic. The u.S. Geological Survey has found levels of arsenic
in surface waters up to approximately 250,000 ug/l; however, the
majority of surface and ground waters contain less than 10 ug/l.
EPA estimates that most ground and surface water systems contain
less than 5 ug/l of arsenic.
F.4.2 Intake Characteristics of Arsenic
Soluble inorganic arsenic salts are well absorbed (70 percent to
98 percent) from the gastrointestinal tract of humans (Coulson,
et al., 1935; Be.ttley and O'Shea, 1975) and animals (Coulson,
et al., 1935; Charbonneau, et al., 1978). Insoluble. salts are
poorly absorbed (Mappes, 1977). Following the ingestion of 8.25 mg
of arsenic (as KAsOz solution) in three doses at eight-hour
~ntervals, human subjects had peak blood levels of arsenic within
F-12
~ -~ " :::-- '.: . ..~ . '.: ...
.." ~'--::::::-- "
~ " . ~ .. ~ ~. '- ~
-------
24 hours, and absorption was 97 percent to 98 percellt complete
(Bettley and O'Shea, 1975). Analysis of human tissues at autopsy
indicates that arsenic distributes throughout the body and
accumulates with time in nails, hair, bone, and skin. Average
levels (ppm net weight) were 0.89 in nails; 0.18 in hair; 0.07 to
0.12 in bone and teeth; 0.06 in skin; 0.04 to 0.05 in heart, liver,
kidney and lung; and 0.03 in brain (Kadowaki, ~960). In animals
dosed with either As.3 .or As.5, . arsenic - initially distributes in
h soft tissues (liver, kidney, lung, spleen, skin, brain) but is'
cleared quickly from these except for skin and brain (Hunter, et
al., 1942; Ducoff, et al., 1948; Crema, 1955; Ariyoshi and Ikeda,
1974; Cikrt and Bencko, 1974; Sabbioni, et al., 1979).
Inorganic arsenic compounds undergo methylation in mammalian
species to produce monomethyl and dimethyl arsenic. Buchet, et al..
(1981) administered~500 ug of arsenite to human volunteers, and
observed that 25 percent was excreted in urine as inorganic
. .
arsenic, 25 percent as monomethylarsenic acid, and 50 percent as
. the dimethYl form. In humans ingesting arsenic-rich wine, about
80 percent of the arsenic ingested (50 ug As.3 and .13 ug AS+5) was
excreted in urine in 61 hours. Of this, 63 percent was dimethyl-
arsenic acid, 18 percent was monomethylarsenic acid, and about
9 percent each was inorganic AS.3 and AS.5 (Crecelius, 1977).
Reduction of administered As+s to As.3 has been demonstrated in
rats, mice and rabbits (Rowland and Davies, 1982; Vahter and
Envall, 1983), but in vivo reduction has not been well documented
in humans. Excretion of arsenic is primarily via the urine,
initially in the same form as the ingested dose and later as the
methylated derivatives (Crecelius, 1977). The rate of clearance
depends somewhat on valence and dose, but typically 50 to
90 percent is excreted by humans within two to four-days (Braman
and Foreback, 1973; crecelius, 1977). In contrast to humans,
arsenic is retained in red blood cells of the rat, with a half-time
F-13
~ :-~: '" ~ \. - -.;: .
~ . --~::: ~ \:::. - ~
- -
-- .
-------
of 60 to 90 days (Lanz, et al., 1950). ,For this reason, the rat
is not an appropriate model for assessing' arsenic toxicity in,
humans.
F.4.3 Toxicitv Characteristics of Arsenic
The toxicity of arsenic depends upon its chemical form and the
" . ~
route and duration of exposure. In general, arsenites (As) are
more toxic than arsenate~ (As+5), soluble compounds are more toxic
than insoluble compounds, and inorganic compounds are more toxic
than organic derivatives. Short-term effects of arsenic poisoning
are similar in humans and animals. With oral exposure, symptoms
include muscular cramps, facial edema, gastrointestinal damage,
vomiting, diarrhea and general vascular collapse (U.S. EPA, 1984a).
Long-term exposure produces effects similar to those observed
, , ,
following short-term exposure, along with signs of injury to the
hematopoietic., renal and nervous systems. In humans, chronic
exposure to arsenic is associated with a characteristic pattern of
skin lesions. For many years, Fowler's solution (AsZ03 dissolved
in potassium bicarbonate) was used as a medicinal. As described
by Holland (1904), a patient was usually given five drops (about
9 mg ASZ03 or 6.8 mg As+3) three times a day. The dose was
increased one drop per day until the eyelids puffed and the bowels
moved too freely. Most people' tolerated the dose of 6.8 mg
As+3/day with no adverse effects.
Accidental exposure of humans via ingestion of arsenic-contaminated
foods is another source of short-term data in humans. Mizuta,
et ale (1956) described an episode of acute arsenic poisoning in
Japan caused by arsenic-tainteg soy sauce. Exposure was estimated
to be about 3 mg/ day f.or two to three weeks, and 417 cases 0 f
,illness attributed to the arsenic were reported. Symptoms included
catarrh and edema of the face and eyelids, along'with signs of mild
~ematological,hepatic,' gastrointestinal and neurological effects.
F-14
~ ::~~ ~ ~ \. ~ _::. -:-
\:::,. '. .':.-~ ~ -.:::: .
-------
Hamamoto (1955) described an incident in Japan where 130 deaths
were reported among 12,000 infants exposed to arsenic-contaminated
milk. The estimated dose of arsenic in this case was about
3.5 mg/day
fatal dose
noted that
for about 33 days. Vallee, et ale (1960) estimated the
for arsenic trioxide for humans to be 70 to 180 mg, but
toxicity could result from much smaller quantities.
silver and Wainman (195~) described a patient who ingested 3.3 to.
6.7 mg As+3 (as Fowler's solution) daily for 28 months.' Signs of
arsenic toxicity (increased freckling and darkening of the nipples
along with gastrointestinal distress) first occurred after about
13 months. Neurological symptoms (paresthesia and weakness)
occurred after two years. Zaldivar (1974) reported the incidence
of chronic arsenic. poisoning in Antofagasta, Chile, where water
supplies contained arsenic at about 0.58 mg/l. poisoning wa~
diagnosed on the basis of weight loss, diarrhea, debility,
anorexia, bronchi tis and skin disorders. The incidence of arsenic-
induced toxicity was 146/100,000 in males and 168/100,000 in
females.' A majority of cases occurred in children (aged 0 to 10
years), with progressively fewer cases in each older age bracket.
Installation of a water treatment plant reduced arsenic levels to
0.08 mg/l and dramatically decreased the incidence of arsenic-
induced toxicity.
One of the most characteristic effects of chronic arsenic exposure
in humans is a pattern of skin disorders, beginning with
hyperpigmentation and keratosis, developing in some cases into
squamous cell or basal cell carcinoma. These effects have not been
consistently produced in laboratory animals. Sommers and McManus
(1953) reported 57 cases of multiple skin cancers in humans.
Fifteen of the patients had used Fowler's solution, seven had been
treated with arsenic, two had known exposure to arsenical sprays
and four had possible exposure to sprays. In three, the (presumed)
F-15
"~: .:-.~: ~ ~ i\ . -:;-~ . - -, ::-:. :.-
-------
means of arsenic exposure was unknown. Arsenical cancer was
diagnosed on the basis of multiple keratoses of palms and soles.
. .
A variety of internal cancers (not. likely to have arisen by
metastasis from the skin cancers) was observed in ten (37 percent)
of the patients. The time between arsenic exposure and development
of cancer in these patients ranged from 13 to 50. years, with a mean
value of 24 years. No- precise estimate of exposure levels was'
provided, but some of the patients took Fowler's solution in
"small" doses for only a few months. Fierz (1965) examined 262
patients who had received long courses of medicirtal arsenic 6 to
25 years previously and found keratoses in 40 percent and typical
. .
skin cancer in 8 percent. There was. evidence of a dose
. .
relationship for both keratoses and skin cancer. Patients who had
received more than 400 ml .of Fowler's solution (4 g of arsenic
trioxide) had an incidence. of hyperkeratoses of greater than
50 percent, but as little as 60 ml (600 mg of arsenic trioxide) had
resul ted in keratotic changes in one patient, and only 75 ml
. .
(750 mg of arsenic trioxide) had been consumed by one patient with
. .
. skin cancer. The shortest time to cancerous change was six years,
with an average of 14. years.
I'
I
[
[
There have been a number of epidemiologic studies of the
relationship between arsenic in drinking water and skin cancer.
Tseng, et al. (1968) reported a 'high prevalence of skin cancer
(10~~ percent) in a study population of 40,400 individuals in an
area of Taiwan where drinking water was contaminated with 0.4 to
0.6 mg/l of arsenic. A number of epidemiological studies in the
United states have failed to detect an association between elevated
arsenic levels in drinking water and skin cancer. Goldsmith, et
al. (1972) evaluated the effects of well water containing ~rsenic
at 0.1 to 1.4 mg/lon the health of 98 people in Lassen County,
California~ Data were collected by questionnaire. No arsenic-
related illnesses were detected. Morton, et al. (1976) performed
F-16
" .~ ~ ~ '.: . -:..
.' '.' ..:::::::-- " ..:::::::--
\.:: . . ..-. \~ .;::. .. ,>.
.. . .. ~ .
-------
':'.
,-
'.
a retrospective analysis of skin cancer incidence in Lane County,
" .
Oregon, where arsenic levels in water ranged fOrm 0 to 2.15 mg/l.
, .
In 3,691 cases of nonmelanoma skin cancer,:"- no significant
association with arsenic levels in water was det~cted. Harrington,
et ale (1978) found no signs of arsenic-induce4. toxicity in 211
individuals in Fairbanks, Alaska, ingesting _;~ater containing
arsenic at 0.0,01 to, 2.45 mg/l. Southwick, et.<,at. (1981) found
; signs of arsenic toxicity in 12 df 249 individual~' in West Millard'
County, Utah, where arsenic concentrations ra~ged from 0.05 to
0.75 mg/l, but no association was noted betweeq~arsenic dose and
skin 'lesions. Several studies suggest that low ~levels of arsenic
, . ~~-
may be benef.icial to animals, but a beneficial_rple in humans has
not been established.
.,. ..
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (!.ARC) has reviewed
the evidence regarding the carcinogenic potential' of arsenic, and
has concluded that arsenic is a Group 1 comp'ound (suffi'cient
. '
evidence for carcinogenicity in humans) (WHO, 19~2). Applying the
criteria described in EPA's proposed quidelines:for assessment of
. .
carcinogenic risk (U. S. EPA, 1984b), arsenic may;~be classified in
Group A: Human Carcinogen. This category includes.: agents for which
there is sufficient evidence to support the ca.sual association
between exposure to the agents and cancer. OnlY:9ne study (Tseng,
. .-
et al., 1968) provides sufficient data to pe~~,t a quanti tative
assessment of cancer risk due to arsenic exPC?sure. Assuming
consumption of two liters of water/day plus an ay~rage of 6.5 g/day
fish and shellfish by a 70-kg adult over a 70-ye~r lifetime, u.S.
EPA (1980) calculated that drinking water concentrations of 22,
2.2, and 0.2 g/l corresponded to risk levels of :~6.5, 10.6, and 10.7,
respectively. . ~.,
~:;~-" ..
". ~::-Io-"
...~. -"~...
...
"",
- ,
. "-""~".
, '
F-17
"
~...
-..,... "
"'. :.~~~ ,:-::,~ ~'" ~;',', . f -. ,
. ~.. .
, ,
"
-------
I.
REFERENCES
Ariyoshi, T., and T; Ikeda, 1974, "On the Tissue Distribution and
the Excretion of Arsenic in Rats and Rabbits of Administration with
Arsenical Compounds," J. Hyg. Chern. 20:290-295.
Aaseth, . J., J ~ Alexander and T. Norseth, .1982, . "Uptake' of
51Cr-chromate by Human Erythrocytes - A Role of' Glutathione," Acta.
Pharmacol. Toxicol. 50:310-315. .
Bettley, F.R., and J.A. O'shea, 1975, "The Absorption of Arsenic
and its Relation to carcinoma," Dr. J. D.ermatol. 92:563-568.
Braman, R.S., and C.C. Foreback, 1973, "Mehylated Forms of Arsenic
in the Environment," Science. 182:1247.
Buchet, J.P., R. Lauwerys and H. Roels, 1981, "Comparison of the
Urinary Excretion of Arsenic Metabolites After A single Oral Dose
of Sodium Arsenite, Monomethyl Arsenate or Dimethyl Arsinate in
Ma11," Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 48 :71-79.'
I
i.
Charbonneau, S.M., G.K.H. Tam, F. Bryce and B. Collins, 1978,
"Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism of Inorganic Arsenic in the Dog,"
Trace Subst. Environ. Health. 12:276-283.
Cikrt, M., and V. Bencko,1974, "Fate of Arsenic After Parenteral
Administration to Rats, with Particular Reference to Excretion via
Bile," J. Hyg. Epidemiol. Microbiol. Immunol. 18:129-136. '
Coulson, E.j., et ale 1935, "Metabolism in the Rat of the Naturally
Occurring Arsenic of Shrimp as Compared with Arsenic Trioxide,"
J. Nutr. 10:255.
Crecelius, E.A. 1977, "Changes in the Chemical Speciation. of
Arsenic Following Ingestion by Man," Environ. Health Perspect.
19:147-150.
Crema, A. 1955, "Distribution et Elimination De L'Arsenic 76 Chez
La Souris Normale' et Cancereuse," Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn.
103:57-70. .
Doisy, R.J., D.H.P. Streeten, R.A. Levine and R.B. Chodos, 1969',
"Effects and Metabolism of Chromium in Normals, Elderly Subjects,
and Diabetic," In: Trace Substances in Environmental Health. II.
D.D. Hemphill, ed. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.
pp. 75-81. (Cited in U.S. EPA, 1978.) .
F-18
'" : -' '" -:: ' ,'.. ..
. ~ , --::--.. \ ....::::::--.
~',' .\'::: .::::.~- ~
-------
-
"
. ~.
, '
Doisy, R.J., D.H.P. Streeten, M.L. Souma, M.E. Kalafer, S.I. Rekant
and T.G. Dalakos, 1971, IIMetabolism of Chromium-51 in Human
Subj ects - Normal, Elderly, and Diabetic Subj ects, " In: Newer
Trace El-ements in Nutrition. W. Mertz and W.E"~':, Cornatzer, eds.
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. pp. 155-168. .
H
~,
Ducoff, H.S., W.B. Neal, R.L. Straube, L.D. ':'acobson and A.M.
Brues, 1948, IIBiological Studies with Arsenic 76 .;II. Excretion and
Tissue Localization,1I Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med.~' 69:548-554.
,., Eisler, Ronald, 1986, "Chromium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and,
Invertebrates: 'A Synoptic' Review" contaminant~' Hazards Reviews
,:, Report No.6, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center', U. S. Fish and
wildlife service, Laurel, Maryland. "
Fierz, U. 1965,. "Katammestische Untersuchungen
Nebenwirkungen der Therpie Mit Anorganischem
Hautkranheiten," Dermatologica. 131:141.
Uber
Arsen
Die
Bei
- ,
Glaser, 0,. D. Hochrainer, H. Kloppel, and H~ Oldiges,
"Carcinogenicity of Sodium Dichromate and Chromium (VI/III)
Aerosols Inhaled by Male wistar Rats," Toxicology, Volume 42,
219-232. ,:
1986,
oxide
pages
. -,
Goldsmith, J.R., M. Dean, J. Thom and G. Gentry, :i972, "Evaluation
, of Health Implications of Elevated Arsenic in Well Water," Water
Research. 6:1133-i136. ':.
I"
Gray, S.J. and K. Sterling, 1950, "The Tagging ~f Red Cells and
Plasma Proteins with Radioactive Chromium. J. Clin. Invest.
.29:1604-1613.
-,
Hamamoto, E. 1955, "Infant Arsenic Poisoning bY:: Powdered Milk, tt
Jap. Med. J. 1649:2-12. '
Hambidge, K.M., 1971, IIChromium Nutrition in the Mother and Growing
Child," In: Newer Trace Elements in Nutrition. "W. Mertz and W.E.
Cornatzer, eds. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New Yor~. pp. 169-194.
(Cited in U.S. EPA, 1978.)
, ,
Hamilton, E.I." M.J., Minski and J.J. Cleary, 1973, "The
Concentration and Distribution of Some Stable Elements in Healthy
Human Tissues from the united Kingdom," Sci'.,," Total Environ.
(Netherlands). 1:341-374. (Cited in U.S. EPA, 1978.)
, '
Harrington, J .M., J. P. Middaugh, D. L. Morse and J,.", Housworth, 1978,
"A Survey of a Population Exposed to High Arsenic., in Well Water in
Fairbanks, Alaska," Amer. J. Epidemiol. 108:377:,,:,385.
-
, -
F-19
~.':~~ -~~ ~ ~ "'- ":f --,:':,:~,:: .."
-------
Holland, J.W., 1904, "Arsenic," In: ~. Peterson and W.S. Haines,
eds. A textbook of legal medicine and toxicology~ Philadelphia:
W.B. Saunders and Co. 2:404. .
Hunter, F.T., A.F. Kip and J .W. Irvine, Jr., 1942, "Radioactive
Tracer Studies on Arsenic Injected as Potassium Arsenite,"
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.:207-220.
Imbus, H.R., J. Chola, L.H. Miller and T. SterJ.ing, 1963, "Boron,
Cadmium, Chromium,.and Nickel in Blood and Urine," Arch. Environ.
Health. 6:112-121. '(Ci-ted in U.S. EPA, 1978.) .
Ivankovic, S. and R. Preussman, 1975,
Carcinogenic Effects After Administrations
Oxide Pigment in Subacute and Long. Term
Rats," Fo~d Cosmet. Toxicol. 13:347-351.
"Absence of Toxic and
of High Doses of Chromic
Feeding Experiments in
Kadowaki, K., 1960, "Studies on the Arsenic Contents in Organ
Tissues of the Normal Japanese," Osaka City Med. Jour. 9:2083.
(In Japanese with English summary).
Lanz, H., Jr., et al., 1950, "The Metabolism. of Arsenic in
Laboratory Animals Using as 74 as a tracer,". Univ. Calif. PubIs.
Pharmacol.. 2:263.
Mappes, R., 1977, "Exp.eriments on Excretion of Arsenic in 'Urine,"
Versuche zur ausscheidung von arsen in urine Int. Arch. Occup.
Environ. Health. 40:267.
Mertz, W., 1969, "Chromium Occurrence and Function in Biological
Systems;" Physiol. Rev. 49(2): 163-239.
Mertz, W. and E. E. Roginski, 1971, "Chromium Metabolism - The
Glucose Tolerance Factor," In: New Trace Elements in Nutrition.
W. Mertz and W.E. Cornatzer, eds. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.
pp. 123-153. (Cited in NAS, 1974.). .
Mizuta, N., Mizuta, F. Ita, T. Ito, H. Uchida, Y. Watanabe,
H. Akama, T. Muraka i, F. Hayashi, K. Nakamura, T. Yamaguchi, W.
Mizuia, S. Oishi and H. Matsamura, 1956, "An Outbreak of Acute
Arsenic Poisoning Caused by Arsenic-Contaminated Soy Sauce
(Shoye)," A clinical report of 220 cases. ~ull. Yamaguchi Med.
Sch. 4:131-150.
Morton, W., G. Starr, D. pohl, J. Stoner, S. Wagner and P. Weswig,
1976, "Skin Cancer and Water Arsenic in Lane County, Oregon,"
Cancer. 37:2523-2532.
F-20
::::----' ~ ,,\' . "
,," . ~.\ ..::::::-.
~ ,,"~ ~ -- 0-
-------
,--.---
clu~ti, 1~., A. cav~torta, C. Pedroni, A. Borghi, C. Giaroli and I.
Franchini, 1979, "The Role of Chromium Accumulation in the
Relationship Between Airborne and Urinary Chromium in Welders,"
Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 43:123-133. . .
Nriagu, Jerome o. and Evert Nieboer, 1988, "Chromium in Natural and
Human Environments," Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York.
Pascale, L.R., S.S. Waldstein, G. Engloring, A. Dubin and P.B.
Szanto, 1952 ,"Chromium Intoxication with Special Reference to
Hepatic Injury," J.. Amer. . Med. Assoc. 149: 1385-1389. (Cited. in-
NIOSH, 1975.)
Rowland, I.R., and M.J. Davies, 1982, "In vitro Metabolism of
Inorganic Arsenic by the Gastrointestinal Microflora of the Rat,"
J. Appl. Toxicol. 1:278-283.
Sabbioni, E., E. Marafonte, .F. Bertolero and V. Foa, 1979,
"Inorganic Arsenic: Metabolic Patterns and Identification of
Arsenic-Binding Components in the Rabbit," Proc. Int. Conf.
Management control Heavy Metals in the Environment. London. 18-
21. . . .
. Silver, A.S., and P.L. Wainman, 1952, "Chronic Arsenic Poisoning
FOllowing Use of an Asthma Remedy," JAMA. 150:584.
..
Sommers, S.C., and R.G. McManus, 1953, "Multiple Arsenical Cancers
of the Skin and Internal Organs," Cancer. 6:347-359.
Southwick, J.W., A.E. Western, M.M. Beck, T. Whitley, R. Isaacs,
J. petajan and C.D. Hansen, 1981, "Community Health Associated with
Arsenic in Drinking Water in Millard County, Utah," Report to the
Health Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Grant No. R-804 617-01.
. .
Towill, L.E., C.~. Shriner, J.S. Drury, A.S. Hammons and J.W.
Holleman, 1978, "Reviews of the Environmental Effects of
. Pollutants: III. Chromium," Prepared for Health Effects Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Report No. ORNL/EIS-80 and EPA-600/1-78-023.
. .
Tseng, W.P., H.M. Chu, S.W. How, J.M. Fong, C.S. Lin and S. Yeh,
1968, "Prevalenc.e of Skin Cancer in an Endemic Area of Chronic
Arsenismin Taiwan," J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 40:453-463.
- .
Underwood, L.J., 1971, "Chromium In: Trace Elements in Human and
Animal Nutrition," 3rd ed. Academic Press, New York. pp. 253-266.
(Cited in U.S. EPA, 1978.)
...
F-21
,~ ~: .;~ ~Y. 'f- \.~ . i - :.- . - -: :: .
-------
u.s. EPA, 1978, "Reviews of the Environmental Effects of
Poll'.ltants. III. chromium," Towill, L.E., C.R.'Shriner, J.S. Drury,
A.S. Hammons and J.W. Holleman. Publication No. EPA-600/1-78-023.
Prepared by the Information Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
U. S.' EPA, 1980, "U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ambient
Water Quality criteria for. Arsenic," Springfield, VA. National
Technical Information Service. Publication nutriber PB81-117327.
u.S. EPA, 1984, "Health Assessment Document for Chromium,"
Environmental criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA 600/8-83-014F. NTIS PB 85-115905.
. U.S. EPA,' 1984a, "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health
Assessment Document for Inorganic Arsenic, Final Report," Research
Triangle Park, N.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication number EPA-600/8-83-021F. .
U.S. EPA, 1984b, "U.S. Environmental Protection
Quantification of Toxicological Effects for Arsenic
Office of Drinking Water. .
Agency,
(Draft) ,"
Vahter, M., and J. Envall, 1983, "In vivo Reduction of Arsenate in
Mice and Rabbits," Environ. Res. 32:14-24.
Vallee, B.L., D.D. Ulmer and W.E.C. Wacker, 1960, "Arsenic
Toxicology and Biochemistry," Arch. Ind. Health. 21:132-151.
. WHO, 1982, "World Health Organization, IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of' the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans,"
Chemical, industry processes and industries associated with cancer
in humans. International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs.
Vol. 1 to 29, Supplement 4. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Yamaguchi,S., K. Sano, and N. Shimojo, 1983, "On the Biological
Half-Time of Hexavalent Chromium in Rats," Ind. Health. 21:25-34.
Zaldivar, R., 1974, "Arsenic Contamination of Drinking Water and
Foodstuffs causing Endemic Chronic poisoning," Beitr. Path.
151:384-400.
F-22
" .-: " "\"
". .'.: _:. ' ',: 2' \.
. :::-.. ~ ".7 .-:. . .
~ ."
-------
APPENDIX G
DEED OF RESTRICTION ON REAL PROPERTY
". _: " "\' . ".- -. =-. ~ .-
" " '~\' ~ -:'-.
~,,' ,~ ~ ,,(:, , ,',',.-
-------
APPENDIX G
DEED OF RESTRICTION ON REAL PROPERTY
Deed of restriction on real property is under preparation and will
be included in the RAP at a later date.
G-l
"~. ":~:~ ~~ ~\:. . i"' -" ... .
-------
APPENDIX H
THE ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
i
I
I .
RECIEVED ON DRAFT RAP
COAST WOOD PRESERVING, INC.
JUNE 1989
I
. .
1 .
. .
'-
,.
., -
. .~ :.:..: "\\ :::::-, '\ . :;:.::-=: -= -:- .-
. ":".-= ~ \...::::::-. =
-. ~"" .:= \::::. ~ - ~ _.:= . :. -
-------
APPENDIX H
THE ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
I
I
RECEIVED ON DRAFT RAP
COAST WOOD PRESERVING INC.
JUNE 1989
On May 25, 1989, the Cal-iforniaDepartment of Health Services held'
a public meeting on the proposed remedial action plan for the Coast
Wood Preserving site, located in Ukiah, Mendocino County,
California. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the public
.with information regarding the re~edial action plan (RAP) and to
solicit public comments on the adequacy of the plan. In addition,
from May 9, 1989 to June 8, 1989, the -California Department of
Health Services held a pUblic comment period on the draft remedial
action plan.
There were no written pUblic comments received by the Department
on the draft RAP". during this comment period. Therefore, the draft
RAP will be approved as the final RAP.
A copy of the transcript of the public meeting is available for
review at:
Department of Health Services
Toxic Substances Control Division
5850 Shellmound Stree, Suite 100
Emeryville, California 94608
Mendocino County Library
105 North Main Street
Ukiah, California 95402
~ .~~:., "', ~ '\. - ~ .-';:' .~ '
.~ '.. ~._: ~;::: - ~ . . - . . .
------- |