&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region II Air & Waste
Management Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York N.Y. 10278
Solid Waste
EPA/902/8-87-002
An EPA Evaluation of
The Site Geology
As it Applies to the
Minimum Technological
Requirements
Exemption Request Submitted
By E.I. du Pont Pompton Lakes
Works Facility
-------
AN EVALUATION OF
THE SITE GEOLOGY
AS IT APPLIES TO THE
MINIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS
EXEMPTION REQUEST
SUBMITTED BY
E.I. DU PONT POMPTON LAKES WORKS FACILITY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Library, Room 2404 PM-211-A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 204BQ
Prepared by
Malcolm S. Field,
Hydrogeologis t
New Jersey and Caribbean Section
Hazardous Waste Facilities Branch
Air & Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II
New York, New York 10278
-------
-i-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Sharon Jaffess of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and David Muscalo of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Geological Survey for their invaluable assistance
in field mapping and data interpretation of the E.I. du Pont Pompton
Lakes Works facility project.
The author would also like to thank the New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Division of Water Resources for the use of their files
and copies of internal memos.
Special thanks belong to Clifford Ng and Stuart Deans of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency who are reponsible for the editing of this report.
Clifford Ng also provided assistance and advice in computer programming
for data reduction.
-------
-ii-
ABSTRACT
E.I. du Pont has requested an exemption from the Minimum Technological
Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Section 3005(j)(4) for the waste
cap shooting pond. Section 3005(j)(4) provides that EPA or a state with
an authorized program may modify the requirements of Section 3004(o)(l)(A)
upon demonstration that an interim status surface impoundment is:
"...located, designed, and operated so as to assure that there will
be no migration of any hazardous constituent into groundwater or
surface water at any future time."
To determine the validity of the exemption request, EPA conducted an
investigation of the E.I. du Pont Pompton Lakes waste cap shooting pond.
The investigation utilized a variety of techniques, consisting mainly
of a careful records review, geological mapping and data analysis, and
hydrogeological evaluation of the site.
The results of the investigation has shown the waste cap shooting pond to
be in a highly fractured area. Wells installed in the bedrock have
intercepted water filled fractures and are showing contamination by
several constituents. This contamination is a direct result of the
operation of the waste cap shooting pond. The waste cap shooting pond is
located in the recharge zone of the alluvial stratified drift aquifers to
the south of the facility which are utilized for municipal drinking water.
The contaminated water migrating into the bedrock fractures are contributing
to the contamination of the stratified drift aquifers.
-------
Plate 1. Waste Cap Shooting Pond.
-------
-iv-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page Number
1. Acknowledgements i
2. Abstract ii
3. Table of Contents iv
4. List of Plates v
5. List of Figures vi
6. List of Tables v11
7. Synopsis of Events 1
8 • Introduction 3
9. Jointing and Faulting in Crystalline Rocks 4
10. Ground Water Flow in Crystalline Rocks 6
11. Investigatory Techniques 10
12. Location 11
13. Physiography and Topographic Drainage 12
14. Regional Geologic Setting 15
15. E.I. du Pont Facility Geologic Setting 18
16. Geology of the Shooting Pond Area 23
17. Hydrogeology of the Shooting Pond Area 41
18. Drainage Patterns 49
19. Air Photo Interpretation 51
20. Climatological Data 54
21. Contamination from the Shooting Pond 59
22. Conclusions 72
23. Recommendations 73
24. Bibliography 74
25. Appendix A — Surface Impoundment Variance Checklist A
26. Appendix B — Monitoring Well Logs B
27. Appendix C — E.I. du Pont Correspondence C
28. Appendix D — U.S. EPA Correspondence D
-------
-V-
LIST OF PLATES
Plate Page Number
1. Waste Cap Shooting Pond ...;..... ill
2. Air photo of the E.I. du Pont, Pompton Lakes facility In Pocket
3. Fault plane at outcrop F 21
4. Boudinage structure observed at outcrop 9 24
5. Joint at outcrop 7 32
6. Shear fractures at outcrop 1 33
7. Offset pegmatite by an ancient healed fault 34
8. Massive exposure of biotite-quartz-feldspar-gneiss. 35
9. Several joints exposed at outcrop 9 36
10. Joints exposed at outcrop 10 37
11. Amphibolite-gneiss at outcrop D 38
12. Contact between amphibolite-gneiss and cataclastic-gneiss....... 39
13. Low-angle fracture at outcrop E 40
14. Air photo of the shooting pond and surrounding area 51
-------
-vi-
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page Number
1. Development of shear zone by uniaxial compression 5
2. Development of shear zone (macroscopic scale) • 5
3. Relationship of faults to axes of principal stress 7
A. Relationship of faults to axes of principal stress 7
5. Relationship of faults to axes of principal stress 8
6. Different stages in the development of shear fractures 8
7. Location of the E.I. du Pont, Pompton Lakes facility 11
8A. Physiographic Provinces of New Jersey ••• 12
8B. The Wisconsinan Glacial cycle in New Jersey 13
9. Topography and Drainage in the town of Pompton Lakes • 14
10. Geologic Map of Passaic County 16
11. Terminology of fault related rocks and their occurrence 17
12. Partial Geologic Map of the E.I. du Pont, Pompton Lakes facility 19
13. Principal stress directions calculated from two fault planes.... 20
14. Generalized cross-section A-A1 of facility Geologic Map 22
15. Equal-area plots of the foliation data of the site 23
16. Equal-area plots of the fracture data of the site 25
17. Rose diagrams of the fracture data of the site 25
18. Model of rock fracturing due to brittle deformation 26
19- Geologic Map of the shooting pond area 27
20. Generalized cross-section B-B' of shooting pond geologic map.... 28
21. Outcrop location Map 29
22. Piezometric Surface Map of shooting pond area 44
23. Hydrogeologic cross-section C-C' from MW18 to MW14 45
24. Hydrogeologic cross-section D-D' from MW22 to MW15 46
25. E.I. du Pont facility Piezometric Map 47
26. Surface Water Drainage Map of the Wanaque quadrangle 50
27. Diagram of individual fracture traces and lineaments 51
28. Overlay of fractures and lineaments for shooting pond air photo. 53
29A. Relationship of saturation vapor pressure to temperature........ 57
29B. Variation of A with temperature 57
30. Concentration of lead and selenium in MW14 61
31. Concentration of lead and selenium in MW15 61
32. Concentration of lead and selenium in MW16 62
33. Concentration of lead and selenium in MW17 62
34. Concentration of lead and selenium in MW18 63
35. Concentration of lead and selenium in MW19 63
36. Concentration of selected organics in wells 14-19 for 1984...... 64
37. Concentration of selected organics in wells 14-19 for 1986 64
-------
-vii-
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page Number
1. Outcrop data at the E.I. du Pont, Pompton Lakes facility 30
2. Statistical data for rose diagrams... 31
3. Ground water level measurements. 48
4. Monthly climatic data for 1985 56
5. Average solar radiation received at the atmosphere 56
6. Monthly solar radiation and vapor pressure values for 1985 57
7. Mean daily evaporation per month for 1985 58
8. RCRA Well Sampling Summary 65-71
-------
-1-
Synopsis of Events
The Hazardous Waste Facilities Branch of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in Region II is presently reviewing an exemption request from
the Minimum Technological Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Section 3005(j)(4) for the waste cap shooting pond (hereafter, the shooting
pond) submitted by E.I. du Pont Pompton Lakes Works (NJD002173946) on
July 26, 1985 to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
and referred to our office on August 2, 1985.
RCRA Section 3005(j)(l) provides that interim status surface impoundments
shall meet the Minimum Technological Requirements of Section 3004(o)(l)(A)
by November 8, 1988. These requirements include the use of a double liner
beneath the surface impoundment. Section 3005(j)(4) provides that EPA or
a state with an authorized program may modify the requirements of Section
3004(o)(1)(A) upon demonstration that an interim status surface impoundment
is:
"...located, designed, and operated so as to assure that there will
be no migration of any hazardous constituent into groundwater or
surface water at any future time."
EPA responded by letter, dated August 28, 1985, to the exemption petition
by requesting additional site specific information. EPA also took the
position and advised E.I. du Pont that the 45 feet diameter shooting pond
is a "replacement unit", subject to the May 8, 1985 deadline to achieve
the Minimum Technological Requirements. This was based on facts set
forth in the submissions by E.I. du Pont documenting the removal of waste
from this unit on an annual basis.
E.I. du Pont responded by letters, dated September 10, 1985 and
February 11, 1986. E.I. du Pont disputed the "replacement unit" issue,
claiming that the surface impoundment includes the area surrounding the
shooting pond (200 by 600 feet). EPA rejected this contention by letter
dated January 15, 1986, and advised E.I. du Pont that the unit was
subject to the May 8, 1985 deadline.
E.I. du Font's exemption request application presented the following basis
(with their supporting information and data):
"...the bedrock liner and operation of the "shooting pond" prevent
migration of hazardous constituents into groundwater or s.urface
water, and because the pond is essential for the safe operation of
the manufacturing facility."
Presently, New Jersey is not authorized to implement portions of RCRA
enacted as the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, so EPA has
full responsibility in the review and determination of the exemption
request. EPA has conducted the necessary studies and investigations
jointly with the NJDEP-Division of Water Resources (NJDEP-DWR) and the
NJDEP-Geological Survey (NJDEP-GS) to determine the validity of the
exemption request application.
During the review, EPA requested E.I. du Pont to provide a detailed report
of the "brittle history" of the site. E.I. du Pont disputed the necessity
-------
-2-
of the requested information. Subsequently, EPA and NJDEP-GS, conducted
a joint geological investigation of the brittle history of the site.
The following investigatory methods were performed:
- Detailed geological mapping—field work and data analysis
- rock type identification
- foliation trend
- analysis of joint sets—rose diagrams and equal-area nets
- geological cross-sections
- fault identification—principle stress direction calculation
- photographs of rock outcrops with fractures
- Development of a detailed hydrogeologic map and cross-sections
- Air photo interpretation
- fracture trace analysis
— lineament trace analysis
- Geomorphic drainage analysis—drainage basin control
- Evaporation calculation—Penman Evaporation Formula
- Evaluation of well sampling data—all wells in the shooting
pond area, including the bedrock well (contamination in bedrock
well MW19).
The field work and file review revealed that the site is highly fractured
and is located in the recharge zone for a stratified drift aquifer that
supplies drinking water to the Town of Pompton Lakes. The investigation
and file review also revealed the shooting pond area to be contaminated
by various contaminants (lead, selenium, trichloroethane,...). It is EPA
policy to assume that the contaminants originate from the regulated unit,
unless E.I. du Pont can prove otherwise. Evidence gathered during the
investigation has led to the conclusion that contaminated water is migrating
from the regulated unit into the fractured bedrock which eventually reaches
the alluvial aquifers south of the E.I. du Pont Pompton Lakes facility.
-------
-3-
Introduction
To evaluate the E.I. du Pont, Pompton Lakes' exemption request, the
geology and the hydrology of the site must be determined. The exemption
request is based on the premise that the shooting pond is situated in
glacial till underlain by impermeable Precambrian gneiss. If Indeed
this is the case, then the following assumptions can be made: (1) all
water loss (of which there is a significant amount) from the shooting
pond is through the process of evaporation because the glacial till and
Precambrian gneiss are impermeable; (2) that ground water flow does not
exist at the site; (3) periods of intense deformation of the Precambrian
gneiss did not affect the shooting pond; and (4) any contamination of
the ground water beneath the shooting pond is not connected to the
operation of the shooting pond.
This report is a result of an investigation of the geology and hydrology
of the site. EPA and NJDEP conducted this investigation to verify the
above assumptions and statements made by E.I. du Pont. Their statements
contradict the natural behavior of rocks to applied stresses and the
behavior of ground water to an applied hydraulic gradient such that it
was impossible to accept without substantial evidence to support these
claims.
EPA requested information from E.I. du Pont to assist EPA in making a
determination concerning the E.I. du Pont Pompton Lakes exemption
request. E.I. du Pont responded to EPA's request for "site-specific"
information with published reports and/or past studies. In this unique
case, in which EPA/NJDEP had the available expertise, the two Agencies
initiated an investigation at the site to obtain site-specific information.
Persons involved:
Malcolm S. Field - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hydrogeologist
Clifford Ng - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Engineer
David Muscalo - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Metamorphic Petrologist
Sharon Jaffess - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Geologist
-------
-4-
Jointing and Faulting in Crystalline Rocks
In order to understand the site geology at E.I. du Pont Pompton Lakes,
It is necessary to understand the mechanisms governing the formation of
fractures and faults in rocks.
When rocks are subjected to stresses, they will behave in either a plastic
or in a brittle manner or some combination of the two. Stresses causing
mechanical failure of a rock, results in the formation of smooth fractures
known as joints which disrupt the original continuity of the rock.
Most joints are initially tight fractures, but because of weathering
(the physical disintegration and chemical decomposition of rock), the
joint may become enlarged into an open fissure which could allow for the
flow of ground water.
Joints may be classified geometrically or genetically; the former being
strictly descriptive while the latter places them in context with their
tectonic environment. A geometric classification of joints classifies
joints on the basis of their attitude relative to the bedding of some
similar structure in the rocks they cut. Strike joints parallel the
trend of the rocks, dip joints parallel the dip direction of the rocks,
and oblique or diagonal joints strike in a direction somewhere between
the strike and dip directions of the rocks. A joint set consists of a
group of parallel joints while a joint system consists of a group of
two or more joint sets. Joints may be classified genetically as either
shear fractures or tension (extension) fractures, the ultimate causes
being (1) tectonic activity; (2) residual stresses; (3) contraction due
to shrinkage by cooling or dessication; and (4) surficial movements
[Billings, 1972].
Many joints are systematically disposed about folds and are considered
to have resulted from the same compressive forces that produced the
folds [Billings, 1972].
Tension joints form as a pressure relief normal to the direction of
maximum tension to form a fissure—the pulling apart of the rock
[Anderson, 1970] . No movement of the rock walls relative to each other
is necessary.
Two sets of joints that intersect at a high angle to form a conjugate
system are considered shear fractures. Shear fractures, unlike tension
fractures, can develop when there is and when there is not tension, if
the stresses in different directions differ sufficiently from .one
another. Shears develop along planes which correspond more nearly to
those in which there is a maximum tangential stress, than to those in
which there is a maximum tension, if tension is present [Anderson, 1970].
Figures 1 and 2 show how the greatest principal stress directions will
produce a shear zone.
For shear fracturing to occur, some movement relative to opposite sides
of the fracture must occur. It is not, however, termed a fault unless
visible signs of movement are evident.
Faults are ruptures along which the opposite walls have visibly moved
past each other. Faults are classified as normal, thrust or reverse,
and strike-slip. A normal fault develops when one block slides down
-------
-5-
the dip relative to the opposite block. A thrust fault develops when
one block is thrust up the other block, and a strike-slip fault develops
when one block slides past the other in a horizontal direction.
Shearzone
(plastic)
Figure 1. Development of shear zone
by uniaxial compression.
(After Larsson, 1984)
Figure 2. Development of shear zone
(macroscopic scale).
(After Larsson, 1984)
A further discussion on jointing and faulting in rocks is beyond the
scope of this report. The interested reader is referred to the references
at the end of this report for a more detailed discussion on the subject
of rock deformation.
-------
-6-
Ground Water Flow in Crystalline Rocks
From a hydrogeological standpoint, fractures in low permeability materials
play a significant role in the flow of ground water and migration of
contaminants. Recently improved laboratory and in-situ testing techniques
have shown many geologic materials to be of low permeabilities. When
properly tested, no geologic media has proven entirely impermeable.
"Large regions composed of low-permeability lithologies are often signifi-
cantly more permeable than small volumes of the same rock, owing to the
presence of joints, fractures, and faults" [Neuzil, 1986]. "Hard rocks
while mostly solid, non-porous, and absolutely impervious at the scale of
a hand sample, can hold water in networks of cracks, joints, fractures,
or faults or along contacts between rocks on various types, as in the
case of dikes and sills" [Larsson, 1984]. As shown by these two statements,
crystalline rocks (igneous and metamorphic) can transmit water. In
upland or mountainous regions, surface drainage networks are commonly
aligned along the fracture system in the underlying rock. Nearly all
percolating water must move by necessity, through the weathered layer
before entering deeper fracture systems of the host rock.
In order to transmit water, a fracture system must exhibit a certain
degree of interconnectivity. A good hydraulic system exists if the
joint sets show a good connection to other joint sets. Highly fractured
rocks may even be treated in a similar way to porous media [Larsson,
1984].
Little recharge occurs by direct infiltration from precipitation,
rather, recharge occurs mainly by infiltration from streams crossing or
closely following fracture traces. This percolating water follows the
hydraulic gradient through open fracture systems to discharge through
springs at points where the traces of closed clay-filled fractures
intersect stream channels or where masses of impervious unfractured
rock interrupt the continuity of open fracture systems [Larsson, 1984].
Glacial till, weathered bedrock, and unweathered bedrock are low-
permeability materials. Ground water is stored in these units transiently,
which allows the ground water to form a continuum with ground water
stored in deeper fracture systems of the crystalline bedrock.
The storage capacity of unweathered, fractured bedrock depends on the
secondary porosity or fracture porosity although this condition is
dependent on the weathering processes and hydraulic properties of any
material filling the fractures which in turn are influenced by local
conditions of geology, topography, and climate.
Tensile fractures resulting from plastic deformation tend to follow an
"en echelon" pattern, exhibit weak interconnections, and have very low
storage capacities. Sometimes, these joints may serve as release areas
to stress because of the already existing plane of weakness. The resulting
hydraulic conductivity can be considerable, but ground water storage is
still poor due to the lack of hydraulic interconnectivity.
Tensile fractures that develop from brittle deformation have a high
storage capacity because such fractures act as large drain pipes to
collect water from minor fractures belonging to the same fracture system
-------
-7-
[Larsson, 1984]. This allows for a significant hydraulic interconnectivity
which in turn is responsible for good transmission of water.
The storage capacity of shear fractures is very complex. While most
shears are tightly compressed by residual stresses, heavy fracturing
is usually followed by intense weathering [Larsson, 1984]. Slightly
dipping shears and thrust faults tend to possess high storage capacities
due to weathering within the shear and gravel infilling of thrust
faults. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the resulting shear fractures in
crystalline rocks from the greatest principal stress directions. In
Figure 3, the greatest principal stress al is horizontal and the least
pricipal stress 03 is vertical. Significant movement produces thrust
faults. Figure 4 shows the greatest principal stress al acting vertically
and the least principal stress 03 in the horizontal plane to produce a
normal fault. Figure 5 illustrates a case in which the greatest and
least principal stresses al and a3 are acting in a horizontal plane
with the intermediate principal stress acting vertically to produce a
strike-slip fault [Larsson, 1984].
-^5- cr.
Figure 3. Relationship of faults to axes of principal stress
( al - horizontal; a3 - vertical)
(After Larsson, 1984, p. 25)
Figure 4. Relationship of faults to axes of principal stress.
( al -vertical; 03 - horizontal)
(After Larsson, 1984, p. 25)
-------
-8-
rv
!
(c)
Figure 5.
Relationship of faults to axes of principal stress.
( ai and 03 - horizontal)
(After Larsson, 1984, p.25)
A clearer indication of the resulting permeability of shear fractures
is illustrated in Figure 6. Here, the crushing and rotation of blocks
to form a permeable zone is evident which is followed by intense
weathering. Clay weathering enlarges the initially tight shears to
produce relatively high storage capacities [Larsson, 1984].
Tight
Almost
tight
Permeable
Highly
permeable
Single First order of
shear secondary
shear planes
Multiple shear;
partly rotation
of small blocks
Multiple shear;
crushing of pieces
of rocks.Rotation
into gravellike
material
Clay and gravel
Multiple shear,
crushing of
rock; rotation;
clay and gravel
Figure 6. Different stages in the development of shear fractures
and permeability.
(After Larsson, 1984, p. 49)
-------
-9-
As has been explained in the preceding text, a clear understanding of
the brittle history of a particular area is essential to understanding
the hydrology of the area when considering flow in crystalline rocks.
This information was deemed necessary by EPA and NJDEP before any
determination concerning the requested exemption could be made. It was
this necessity that forced EPA into conducting a detailed geological
Investigation of the shooting pond area at the E.I. du Pont Pompton
Lakes facility.
-------
-10-
Investigatory Techniques
In reviewing the documents submitted by E.I. du Pont in support of their
request for an exemption from the Minimum Technological Requirements of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, EPA requested
additional information in order to conduct a meaningful review. One
item requested by EPA, an evaluation of the brittle history of the site
was not submitted by E.I. du Pont. Because EPA deemed this information
request essential to the exemption request to allow for an accurate
determination to be made, EPA undertook a geological investigation of
the shooting pond area in conjunction with the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP).
The site investigation of the geology at the shooting pond included
carefully made observations and photographs of the rock outcrops in the
vicinity of the shooting pond and 1500 feet away to determine if there
was a significant difference between the geology of the shooting pond
and the geology of the rest of the facility (as was suggested). An
E.I. du Pont camera was made available for photographing the rock
outcrops.
With the aid of field observations using a Brunton compass, hand lens,
topographic map, air photo, rock hammer, and observers-quad (field
equal-area net), a detailed geologic map was constructed by EPA with
assistance from NJDEP- This geologic map identifies the petrology and
structure at the E.I. du Pont facility at specific locations.
Office techniques included the construction of geologic maps, cross-sections,
graphs, equal-area nets, and rose diagrams to analyze the brittle history
of the site. In evaluating the hydrology of the site, a hydrogeologic
map and hydrogeologic cross-sections were constructed utilizing infor-
mation submitted by E.I. du Pont. A correlation between the brittle
history and ground water flow could then be made. Other office techniques
included a fracture-trace analysis on an air photo of the site, a
surface water drainage analysis for structural control, and calculation
of the rate of evaporation from the shooting pond.
These investigatory techniques make up the basis for EPA's analysis of
the exemption request by E.I. du Pont.
-------
-11-
Location
The E.I. du Pont plant described in this report is located in the town
of Pompton Lakes which is in central Passaic County in northcentral New
Jersey (Figure 7). The facility is situated in an ancient glacial
outwash channel between two northeasterly trending mountains. These
mountains are part of the New Jersey "Highlands", which in turn, are part
of the Appalachian Mountain Chain.
Figure 7. Location of the E.I. du Pont Pompton Lakes facility
in Passaic County.
-------
-12-
Physiography and Topographic Drainage
The Highlands of New Jersey extend in a NE-SW direction across northern
New Jersey, continuing northward into New York and southward into
Pennsylvania (Figure 8A). "These ridges are a southward continuation
of the Green or Taconic Mountains of Vermont and Massachusetts, the New
England Upland of Connecticut and the Hudson Highlands of New York"
[Widmer, 1964]. Precambrian gneiss makes up the bulk of the Ramapo and
Passaic mountains of moderate relief, but include an outlier of folded
sedimentary rocks of the Paleozoic Age. These rocks form a series of
parallel ridges and valleys with a prominent NE-SW alignment reflecting
the dominant structural orientation of the rocks, as well as the direction
of movement of the ice which overrode the area during the Wisconsinan
Glaciation [Carswell and Rooney, 1976]. The Wisconsinan Glacial cycle
(Figure 8B) shows the extent to which glacial ice overode Northern New
Jersey, ancient glacial lakes, and drainage from the glaciers.
The Pequanuock, Wanaque, and Ramapo Rivers join to form the Pompton
River which is tributary to the Passaic River. The eastward flowing
streams are controlled by erosion along transverse joints and shear
zones associated with cross faults. Streams flowing along the NE-SW
trending valleys are developed along major longitudinal or oblique
faults (Figure 9).
Figure 8A. Physiographic Provinces of New Jersey,
(After Widmer, 1964).
-------
-13-
*.sco*s* ice
« ik. r
• *-w- »
Figure 8B. The Wisconsinan Glacial cycle in New Jersey.
(After Widmer, 1964)
-------
Figure 9. Topography and drainage in the town of Pompton Lakes.
Note the location of faults in relation to the facility,
Mile
-------
-15-
Regional Geologic Setting
This section of the report is taken from an investigation performed by
the consulting firm of Dames and Moore (1977) for Consolidated Edison.
The rocks found in the town of Pompton Lakes consist of Precambrian
gneisses of the Reading Prong (Figure 10) west of the Ramapo Fault and of
Trio-Jurassic sedimentary and igneous rocks of the Newark Basin east of
the Ramapo Fault. This report is not concerned with the Newark Basin.
The gneisses of the Reading Prong exhibit both plastic and brittle
deformation. Plastic deformation resulted in the development of a
regional foliation trending NE-SW which parallels the compositional
layering and axial plane of the regional isoclinal folds. Re-folding
and intrusion by dikes ranging from granite to diorite occurred during
the plastic deformation phase. Abundant exposures of boudinage or
pinch-and-swell structures are evidence of significant flowage due to
heat and pressure.
Intense faulting and shearing of the gneisses occur along and near the
Ramapo Fault. Many smaller fault zones have been re-activated during
later episodes of deformation. Three sets of faults predominate in the
Pompton Lakes area, (1) N-S to NE high angle faults, parallel to the
regional foliation, are mylonitic, and exhibit retrograde metamorphism;
(2) ENE, E-W, and WNW high and low angle faults that are commonly
brecciated and show a cataclastic texture; and (3) NW high angle faults.
Although the term mylonite has taken on an ambiguous meaning [Tullis et
al., 1982 and Wise et al., 1984], it is still used in the literature.
The accepted definition lists mylonites as "coherent rocks with at
least microscopic foliation, with or without porphyroclasts, characterized
by intense syntectonic crystal-plastic grain-size reduction of the
country rock to an average diameter less than 50 microns (0.5 mm) and
invariably showing at least minor syntectonic recovery/recrystalliza-
tion"[Wise et al., 1984]. This definition does not require faulting to
be responsible for the formation of all mylonites. The NS to NE-trending
faults are high-angle strike-slip faults and are the most predominant.
N-S and N15°E-trending, 'small fault zones have been observed along the
walls of the valley containing Lake Inez and Twin Lakes. This can be
interpreted to reflect the presence of a larger fault along the valley
bottom, termed the Lake Inez Fault. The top of the ridge overlooking
the east side of Lake Inez has a vertical diabase dike exposed for
nearly a mile and sub-parallel to the Lake Inez Fault during Paleozoic
movement along the Ramapo Fault.
Repeated movements along faults with shears within and parallel to the
Ramapo Fault are evident. Protomylonites, mylonites, and ultramylonites
(Figure 11) all exhibit fracturing or shearing, and sometimes show
evidence of multiple movement senses, brecciation, and alteration.
Several of the shears within the mylonite zones are curved along the
strike or down the dip. Splaying main shears and cross-cutting shears
are common.
Earthquakes are caused by the movement along faults. The main effect
of faulting is to reduce the supplementary stress [Anderson, 1970].
Earthquake distribution in the vicinity of the Ramapo Fault is irregular
along the length of the fault. The earthquakes that have occurred recently,
-------
-16-
.^jS^^ii^ff/iK^^^
y^^M&^^^f:/ /^:^#:;:?Sf*£ I-::-.-..
; !!*,
('•••»•• ••-^•••:^-^::;^^-- •. :£££%
Waste Cap
Shooting Pond
Eg 1
«HhMt*H« I
NM *Mr • < IBlUII il **•! »i 'I I
••; :;H : :;.y *.y. /-<:/ -^ ;i\jt* 11 • «
'-. •%"••:/»"// ,- /••••/^?' >»C/.-'. :•
*&?&$. ffi ^
j\ 'y&^fe Ac-?-
C3
ED
!•<*»• MIC •«•**-.•-
•0-1,
(After Carswell and Rooney, 1976)
Figure 10. Geologic Map of Passaic County.
-------
-17-
the most recent in 1976, were few in number and of low intensity. It
is evident that the Pompton Lakes area is still subject to residual
stresses and future earthquakes are likely.
tt
h-
co
u.
o
ID
K
§
{COHERENT BUT UNFOLIATED HOCKS PRODUCED BY MICRO- ANO/OR MACRO-FRACTURING AND SHOWING LITTLE OR NO
FICTIONALLY PRODUCED THERMAL EFFECTS.
NON- FOLIATED. BUT WITH SOME FRICTIONALLY PRODUCED GLASS CEMENTING A MICROBRECCIA.
^MATRIX PRODUCED BY SYNTECTONIC CRYSTAL-PLASTIC PROCESSES, HAS AT LEAST
MINOR MYLONITIC FOLIATION. LITTLE RECOVERY, AND ALMOST NO ANNEALING,
VWITH APPROPRIATE MINERAL CONTRASTS. SURVIVOR MEGACRYSTS COMPRISE
MORE THAN 50% OF THE ROCK.
MATRIX PRODUCED BY SYNTECTONIC CRYSTAL- PLASTIC PROCESSES,
SHOWS STRONG RECOVERY, POSSIBLY WITH SOME ANNEALING.
STRONG MYLONITIC FOLIATION COMMON. WITH APPROPRIATE
MINERAL CONTRASTS. SURVIVOR MEGACRYSTS COMPRISE
10 TO 50% OF THE ROCK.
MATRIX PRODUCED BY SYNTECTONIC CRYSTAL-PLASTIC
PROCESSES, SHOWS PERVASIVE RECOVERY. POSSIBLY
WITH EXTENSIVE ANNEALING. SURVIVOR MEGACRYSTS
COMPRISE LESS THAN 10% OF THE ROCK. MATRIX
GRAINS ARE LESS THAN 0-5 MM IN DIAMETER.
PERVASIVE RECOVERY, INCLUDING ANNEALING
OF SYNTECTONICALLY PRODUCED MATRIX WITH
MATRIX GRAINS INCREASING ABOVE OS MM.
MEGACRYSTS MAY INVOLVE SYNKINEMATIC OR
ANNEALING GROWTH, EITHER AS NEOCRYSTS
OR AS OVERGROWTHS ON PORPHYROCtASTS.
(MATRIX RECRYSTALLIZATION INCREASES
AVERAGE GRAIN SIZE TO EQUAL OR
./ \EXCEEO THAT OF THE PROTOLITH.
KINK
FIBROUS
BANDS ° GROWTHS
GNEISS. SCHIST
STICK-SL/P FAULT
MOTION /SEISMIC)
1 STABLE SLIDING
USEISMICJ
RATE OF RECOVERY
Figure 11. Terminology of fault related rocks and their occurrence.
(After Wise et al., 1984)
-------
-18-
E.I. du Pont Facility Geologic Setting
The E.I. du'Pont, Pompton Lakes facility is situated in a valley between
two NE-SW trending mountains. These mountains are smooth and well
streamlined as a result of the Wisconsinan Glaciation. Glaciers tend
to smooth topographic high points and to scour out topographic low
points. The low points or depressions may then act as depositional
basins or troughs for glacial drift, either stratified (sorted) or
unstratified in nature. In general, the bedrock at the facility is a
Precambriam, metamorphic gneiss, that is well foliated and structurally
complex.
When discussing deformed crystalline rocks, the term tectonite is often
used. A tectonite is a deformed rock, with a fabric developed by the
systematic movement of individual units under a common external force.
Two principal kinds of tectonites are referred to in the literature—
S-tectonites and B-tectonites [Billings, 1972]. The S-plane is the most
prominent structural feature of S-tectonites which is exhibited at
Pompton Lakes as a visible foliation. This foliation is formed by slip
planes. Each grain in the rock rotates until one of the glide planes
become subparallel to a slip plane. Gliding takes place when the glide
direction parallel to the shear stress exceeds a critical value. The
grains are locked in this position and continue to deform by gliding.
This gliding results in a preferred orientation of minerals [Billings, 1972].
In this way an alignment of the minerals in the rock in a NNE-SSW
direction resulted in the prominent NNE-SSW foliation (Figure 15).
Three distinct metamorphic gneisses and two minor metamorphic rocks
(Figure 12) were identified at the E.I. du Pont plant at Pompton Lakes.
On the mountain overlooking the east side of Lake Inez, a quartzofeldspathic-
gneiss with biotite as an accessory mineral was found. This rock
exhibits a well defined granitic texture, moderate foliation, and a
weak lineation. Massive, coarse grained permatites were evident.
Moving down off the mountain towards the facility, a cataclastic-gneiss
with 15 to 20% mafics (hornblend and pyroxene) were identified. Cataclasis
is the deformation of a rock by fracture and rotation of the mineral
grains or aggregates without chemical reconstitution. A cataclastic-gneiss
is, therefore, a result of intense crushing or fracturing of the pre-existing
rock by mechanical forces in the crust forming a new rock fabric which
is a structureless rock powder= Further analysis is possible only
under a polarizing microscope, but it is enough for the purpose of this
report to note that the rocks at this facility have been subjected to
such intense stresses that the rock has literally been crushed by internal
forces within the crust of the earth.
A very small outcrop of amphibolite-gneiss was found contained within
the cataclastic gneiss. This amphibolite-gneiss is greatly sheared,
exhibits cataclasis, and contains less than 10% epidote. This amphibolite-
gneiss may have been a small knob of sedimentary or igneous rock that
was later engulfed by a plutonic intrusion of magma before the period
of metamorphism. Before final crystallization of the magma, the rocks
were subjected to the intense east-west compression that combined with
heat resulted in cataclastic flow.
-------
-19-
0 200 FEET
--. :- v>':-- •'•:'••-:•
^CcnS&SWS #•? ?*
•
-
V
STRIKE AND DIP OF
THE FOLIATION-
STRIKE AND DIP
OF THE FRACTURES
STRIKE OF VERTICAL
FRACTURES
QUARTZOFELDSPATHIC-GNEISS
BIOTITE IS ACCESSORY
CATACLASTIC-GNEISS WITH
15-20% MAFICS
BIOTITE-QUARTZ-FELDSPAR-GNEISS
FAULTS WITH TREND AND
f PLUNGE OF SLIKENSIDES
? (? = UNKNOWN AFTER THIS POINT)
A>fPHIBOLITE-GNEISS
LESS THAN 10% EPIDOTE
"Ems'* I BIOTITE-MUSCOVITE-SCHIST
CONTACT BETWEEN LITHOLOGIES
Figure 12. Partial Geologic Map of the E.I. du Pont
Pomptor. Lakes Facility.
-------
-20-
Nearer to the plant facility a small outcrop of biotite-muscovite-schist
was observed with the same foliation as the rest of the site. This is
one of two fault planes observed, the other being slightly north.
Measurements of the fault plane and the slickensides (Plate 3) allowed
the stress directions to be calculated (Figure 13) for a period of
brittle deformation that would have occurred during the Triassic Period.
Fault Plane #1
Figure 13.
Fault Plane #2
048° 56C
Principal stress directions calculated by plotting two
dipping fault planes and their respective slickensides
on an equal-area net (Table 1).
01 = 235°, 47°
02 = 017°, 37°
03 = 123°, 20°
These stress directions are not related to the fracturing or folding of
the rocks of the Precambrian Period. They developed as splays off the
Ramapo fault during the Triassic Period, millions of years after the
Precambrian Period. The Ramapo fault is a major border fault that
extends on through New England. The calculated stress direction of the
measured fault planes indicates the greatest principal stress was
nearly vertical, the other two being nearly horizontal. This indicates
normal faulting.
Still nearer to the facility, a biotite-quartz-feldspar-gneiss was
observed. This biotite-quartz-feldpar-gneiss was also observed at the
shooting pond with the same foliation as the rest of the site.
It can be concluded that the E.I. du Pont facility is built in a glacially
scoured fault zone on the basis of the following: (1) the elevation
differences of the biotite-quartz-feldspar-gneiss at different locations;
(2) the deep V-notch separating the two areas of biotite-quartz-feldspar-
gneiss parallel to the Lake Inez fault; and (3) the measured fault at
the site and other splays off the Ramapo fault.
As stated above, glaciers tend to scour out topographic lows or weakness
planes. This fault zone was just such a weakness plane. As the glaciers
receded, this scoured fault zone acted as a flume for directing glacial
melt water down towards the southern end of the facility. Thus, this
trough allowed the deposition of stratified sands and gravels that
spread out at the southern end of the facility to form an alluvial fan.
-------
-21-
A generalized cross-section A-A' (Figure 14) drawn from the mountain
overlooking the eastern edge of Lake Inez to the mountain containing the
shooting pond shows how the geology of the E.I. du Pont facility is
related from one end to the other. The fault bisecting the facility is
evident in this section, even if the movement direction is speculative.
At the very northeastern edge of the E.I. du Pont facility is the shooting
pond, where the bulk of this geological investigation was concentrated.
*>'
9* -f .
Plate 3. Fault plane at outcrop F. Note the tension fractures
contained within the fault plane.
Fault orientation: 048° 56°
Slickensides orientation: 320° 50°
-------
.-
: :
w
,
u
• :
:.
•
-:-:
:-
500 -,
400 -
300 -
i-i r* "
20u -
100 -
0 -
-100 J
\
I
AT
I
r 500
- 400
- 300
- 200
- 100
- 0
L -100
0 100 Feet
SCALE
Figure 14. Generalized cross-section A-A' ot facility
Geologic Map.
-------
-23-
Geology of the Shooting Pond Area
The shooting pond is situated in a glacially scoured basin approximately
200 feet by 600 feet that has been filled in by glacial till. Petrologically,
the bedrock is classified as a biotite—quartz-feldspar-gneiss with minor
amounts of amphibolite and epidote. The foliation of the gneiss exhibits
a slight granitic texture and in some places, appears to be slightly
pegmatitic. The glacial till consists of a heterogeneous mixture of
clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders in assorted shapes and
sizes. As the glaciers overode North America, high points were smoothed
and depressions, such as fault zones or any other natural depression,
were scoured out.
A series of subparallel folds can be observed on the geologic map
(Figure 19) of the shooting pond and the geologic cross-section B-B'
(Figure 20). The three folds west of the shooting pond were calculated
to be plunging south while the two folds to the east of the shooting
pond were found to be plunging north. Both sets of folds level off
approaching the shooting pond, indicating a rotation from a southward
plunge, to the horizontal, and finally to a northward plunge. This
folding indicates that the rocks in this area were subjected to intense
stresses acting in an ESE and WNW direction to compress the rocks in a
NNE-SSW trending direction. These same stresses are probably responsible
for the well-defined foliation, also trending NNE-SSW, evident in the
gneiss. Figure 15 is an equal-area plot of the poles to the foliation
of the gneiss, and associated computer generated contour diagrams that
includes foliation data from the mountains overlooking Lake Inez indicating
a strong NNE-SSW strike direction in the overall site. This contradicts
E.I. du Font's claim that the shooting pond is isolated geologically
from the rest of the site.
N
(A)
(B)
(O
Figure 15. Equal-area plots of the foliation data of the site.
(A) Poles to the foliation
(B) Pi diagram of the foliation
(C) Beta diagram of the foliation
-------
-24-
The ductile deformation phase of the rocks also resulted in the formation
of a boudinage structure at outcrop 9 (Figure 21 and Plate A).
Plate 4. Boudinage structure observed at outcrop 9. The boudins
appear to be rhomboidal indicating rotation and layering
perpendicular to the direction of compression.
The same lateral compression producing the folds also causes extension
perpendicular to the compression [Roberts, 1982]. Boudins are the product
of "necking" and possible brittle fracture of relatively competent rock
and may be elongated as a result of minor internal flow preceding rupture
[Turner & Weiss, 1967]. The difference in competency between the various
layers influences the shape of the boudins. The boudins at Outcrop 9
exhibit a banded nature which is indicative of flow of incompetent material
between the boudins to form scar folds, the hinges of which are parallel
to the long axes of the boudins. It may also be possible for cavities to
open between the boudins allowing the filling in by vein minerals such as
quartz (as in this case). These boudins also appear to have been affected
by rotation, taking on a rhomboidal form. This would occur if the layering
was originally at an angle to the direction of extension. The layering
then rotates towards this direction as a result of extension. The banding,
however, actually lags behind the rotation undergone by the layering as a
whole, so that it lies closer to its original attitude indicating that
the surrounding material is most affected by rotation rather than the
boudinaged layer [Roberts, 1982].
-------
-25-
The ductile deformation of the area was accompanied by a period of
brittle deformation as evidenced by the fractures observed at outcrops
throughout the facility (Figures 12 and 19). Three joint sets are well
developed to form a joint system. In analyzing this brittle deformation,
joints were mapped in detail at the shooting pond and on the mountains
overlooking the eastern edge of Lake Inez to determine if there was
any correlation to be observed.
A clear correlation can be made. Most of the observed fractures
appear to have near vertical dips, while only a small number exhibit
shallow dips. The strongest orientation of fractures is NW-SE, followed
by a NNE-SSW orientation, and finally a WSW-ENE orientation as can be
observed on an equal-area net of the poles to the fractures and its
corresponding computer generated contour diagrams (Figure 16 and Table 1)
(A)
(C)
Figure 16. Equal-area plots of the fracture data of the site.
(A) Poles to the fractures
(B) Pi diagram of the fractures
(C) Beta diagram of the fractures
Rose diagrams (Figure 17 and Table 2) were also constructed to clarify
the trends of the various joint sets.
N
(A)
(B)
Figure 17. Rose diagrams of the fracture data of the site.
(A) Rose diagram of just the shooting pond data
(B) Rose diagram of all the site fractures measured
-------
-26-
Rose A contains just the shooting pond data while Rose B contains the
shooting pond data and mountain fracture data. These two diagrams show
a clear correlation does exist throughout the area. It is probable that
these fractures are a result of the same east-west compression that
resulted in the folding at the shooting pond.
As described above, the formation of an S-tectonite or slip tectonite is
a result of sliding (shear) or compression of the rock fabric. Therefore,
the observed fractures would probably be shear fractures. However, Turner
(1948, quoted from Larsson, 1984) claims that fractures cannot develop during
plastic deformation because rock flow eradicates any previous jointing.
Price (1966, quoted from Larsson, 1984) also claims that in metamorphic
rocks, joints are formed after the main tectonic compression, at a time
when the rocks were no longer plastic. He feels that the joints developed
at shallower levels in the crust than those where the rocks underwent
tectonic deformation. Price feels that residual stress was modifed during
uplift in such a way as to result in tension joints or both shear and
tension joints. The E.I. du Pont facility exhibits both shear and tension
joints. The site geologic maps (Figures 12 and 19) show joints that are
dominated by slip parallel to the ab-plane and tensile fractures parallel
to the ac-plane as a result of rotational movements (external and internal)
around the b-axis. Figure 18 is a generalized diagram by Larsson (1984)
that helps to identify the type of joint.
Shear fracture
Water-bearing
tension fracture
Dike of diabase
Maximum
compression stress
ightly dipping
overhrust plane (sic)
Water- bearing
Figure 18. Model of rock fracturing due to brittle deformation.
(After Larsson, 1984)
Shear fractures develop at an acute angle to the greatest principal
stress and tensile fractures develop parallel to the direction of
compression due to parting and dilation perpendicular to the compression
direction [Larsson, 1984] .
To assist EPA in evaluating the fracturing at the E.I. du Pont facility,
several photographs of fractures were taken (Plates 3-14).
-------
-27-
UPPER
BURNING
CAGE
. Strike and Dip
f of the Foliation
Strike and Dip
of the Fractures
Vertically Dipping
Fractures
Plunging Antiform
Plunging Synform
BIOTITE-QUARTZ-
FELDSPAR-CNEISS
100 Feet
I
SCALE
Figure 19. Geologic Map of the Shooting Pond Area
-------
-28-
425 n
B
i
B'
i
ACID
BROOK
325 -
SHOOTING
POND
225 J
100 FEET
SCALE
r425
325
Figure 20. Generalized cross-section B-B1 of the
shooting pond geologic map.
-------
11
-29-
UPPER
BURNING
CAGE
'12
' 2
SHOOTING
POND
* 5
• 4
100 FEET
SCALE
Figure 21. Outcrop location map of the shooting pond area.
-------
-30-
Table 1. Outcrop Data at the E.I. du Pont, Pompton Lakes Facility.
Outcrop Foliation Fractures Faults Sllckensides Stresses^
D
Sigma 1 Sigma 2 Sigma 3
T P T P T P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
020
194
212
025
195
018
189
004
199
010
003
245
198
189
206
195
017
013
47
56
57
72
65
52
42
73
64
86
85
82
69
78
74
70
84
83
85
085
315
120
300
303
270
102
274
170
314
300
303
043
260
108
255
010
197
020
245
217
324
303
318
308
196
208
213
254
023
62
57
78
88
78
66
69
77
15
11
89
67
39
54
58
75
85
90
20
69
90
84
66
83
85
73
84
78
61
24
048 56 320 50
021 85 296 88
235 47 017 37 123 20
Outcrops 1-11 were mapped at the
shooting pond area
Outcrops A-H were mapped at the mountain 'Over-
looking Lake Inez
Each measurement was recorded according to the right hand rule - the forefinger
of the right hand points in the strike direction and the thumb of the right hand
points down the dip. In this way, compass directions were unnecessary.
-------
-31-
Table 2. Statistical Data for Rose Diagrams.
Intervals
Eastward
1 -
21 -
41 -
61 -
81 -
101 -
121 -
141 -
161 -
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Westward
181
201
221
241
261
281
301
321
341
- 200
- 220
- 240
- 260
- 280
- 300
- 320
- 340
- 360
Shooting Pond Fractures
# of Frac
3
1
1
3
3
5
3
1
Square Root
1.73
1.00
1.00
1.73
1.73
2.24
1.73
1.00
x5
8.65
5.00
5.00
8.65
8.65
11.20
8.65
5.00
of Frac
5
3
1
4
4
5
7
1
1
All Fractures
Square Root
2.24
1.73
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.24
2.65
1.00
1.00
x5
11.20
7.05
5.00
10.00
10.00
11.20
13.25
5.00
5.00
Opposite trending intervals are combined because fractures are bi-directional
(extend in opposite directions)
Once the number of fractures per interval have been determined, the square root
is taken to avoid creating exaggerated distances for the radius
The radius of the rose diagram then equals the square root times the scale
factor of 5 (5 was chosen to present a large enough radius for the rose diagram
to be clear)
Radii were then plotted on a polar equal-area net to define the trend of each
prominent joint set
Each photograph shows the highly fractured and weathered nature of the
bedrock. An important point—the fractures are not just surface expressions,
but descend many feet into the earth where intense lithostatic pressures
eventually force the fractures to remain very tightly closed. This
extreme depth however, is many hundreds of feet below the depth at
which ground water exists.
-------
-32-
Plate 5. Joint at outcrop 7. Note the width of the opening
(hammer for scale) which would indicate the possibility
of relatively high permeabilities in the bedrock.
Fracture orientation of joint: 260° 54°
-------
-33-
'
Plate 6. Shear fractures at outcrop 1. Note the acute angle
at which the two fractures intersect (hammer for scale)
and how the fractures deviate according to weakness
planes contained within the rock.
Fracture Orientations: 315° 57° and 085° 62°
-------
-34-
Plate 7. Offset pegmatite by an ancient healed fault at
outcrop 1 (compass for scale).
-------
-35-
Plate 8. Massive exposure of biotite-quartz-feldspar-gneiss
at outcrop 9 (hammer for scale).
-------
-36-
Plate 9. Several joints exposed at outcrop 9.
-------
-37-
*
-
Plate 10. Joints exposed at number 10. Note the highly
weathered nature of the rock.
Fracture orientations: 196° 90° and 020° 20°
-------
-38-
Plate 11. Amphibolite-gneiss at outcrop D exhibiting shearing and
cataclasis with minor amounts of epidote.
Fracture orientations: 213° 78° and 254° 61°
-------
-39-
Plate 12. Contact between amphibolite-gneiss and cataclastic-
gneiss which may be a zone of higher permeability.
-------
-40-
J
. <
•
•
. J
Plate 13. Low angle fracture at outcrop E. Note how the rock was
so weakened as to fall apart below the fracture.
Fracture orientation: 023° 24°
-------
-41-
Hydrogeology of the Shooting Pond Area
A detailed or even cursory examination of the fractures or their hydraulic
significance has yet to be attempted by E.I. du Pont. Oriented lithologic
cores of the Precambriam gneiss and in-situ well tests were requested
from E.I. du Pont, but have still not been supplied one year after the
requests were made by EPA.
From the geologic map (Figure 19) of the shooting pond, three joint sets
are shown to exist. The NE-SW set appears to be of a tensile nature that
resulted from the same deformation period that caused the folding of the
rocks. The rocks behaved plastically up to a critical point where they
then behaved in a brittle way and fractured. According to models described
by [Larsson, 1984], this type of tensile joint is one of low hydraulic
interconnectivity due to its en echelon layout. However, these tensile
joints ultimately played a significant role millions of years later.
The next set of joints are seen to be trending in an almost east-west
direction. These joints correspond to Larsson's (1982) model as tensile
fractures that developed by brittle deformation as a stress release
from the east-west compressive stress that was squeezing the rocks.
Fractures of this type may act as large drains for other minor fractures
of the system, and therefore, may possibly exhibit a high storage capacity.
The last set of joints developed at an oblique angle to the two previous
sets and appear to be shear fractures. This set of joints developed
during the brittle phase of the deformation period. These shear fractures
have been subjected to millions of years of weathering, and appear on
the surface to be open enough to allow the transmission of water.
Later, during the Triassic Period, the Atlantic Ocean opened up causing
the greatest principal stress to rotate from an east-west direction to
one acting in a vertical direction. This resulted in an extension of the
rocks in an east-west direction to develop. This extension manifested
itself in the form of normal faulting along the east coast (the Connecticut
Valley Border Fault and the Ramapo Fault are examples of this). If previous
weakness planes exist, faults will tend to follow those planes. New
joints and faults followed the joints already developed in a NE-SW direction
to form tension fractures, shear fractures, and faults. The Lake Inez
Fault and the E.I. du Pont facility Fault are examples of such fault
development along ancient weakness planes (as is the Ramapo Fault).
Millions of years later glacial till was deposited on the bedrock.
Hydrologically, the till forms a single continuum with the fractured
bedrock. Water levels plotted on a piezometric surface map (Figure 22
and Table 3) indicates this clear connection.
Water has been found in bedrock wells throughout the facility. Wells 14,
19, and 22, installed in the shooting pond area in the bedrock, contain
water (Figure 22 and Table 3). Well 19 penetrated the bedrock approximately
28 feet to a water filled fracture at an elevation of 294 feet or 34 feet
below land surface.
The water in this well, according to E.I du Pont, is from fractures that
are unconnected to the shooting pond due to the depth necessary to reach
this water filled fracture. This assertion is counter to normal ground
-------
-42-
water hydrology and requires supporting evidence. Geologically, it is
much more logical for this fracture to be connected with fractures be-
neath the shooting pond. Disregarding the water levels in monitoring
Wells 14, 19, and 22 (MW14, MW19, and MW22) would not change the interpreta-
tion of the map. The piezometric map shows how the water levels in the
three bedrock wells correspond to the other wells. Two hydrogeologic cross-
sections C-C' and D-D' (Figures 23 and 24) show the relation of these three
monitoring wells to the overall hydrogeology of the site. It should be
noted in both of the cross-sections and on the piezometric map that Acid
Brook is dry at the time of construction of these figures and therefore,
no connection to the ground water is shown. However, if Acid Brook is
joint controlled (as is suspected) then the equipotential lines would
bend in the upstream direction of Acid Brook resulting in flow to the
fracture underlying the brook. This joint would then be a drain for
ground water flow at the site. During the wet months of the year, when
Acid Brook is flowing, Acid Brook would be losing water to this subsurface
fracture controlling its orientation. In this case, the equipotential
lines would bend in the downstream direction. No evidence is available
to substantiate if Acid Brook is behaving in this manner.
Regardless of the exact connection of ground water to Acid Brook, it is
still clear from the piezometric surface map and the two hydrogeologic
cross-sections that the bedrock monitoring wells and the glacial till
monitoring wells are hydraulically connected.
To further define the hydraulic connection between the shooting pond,
glacial till, and the bedrock, a carefully planned well test is required
such as described by Larsson (1984). However, the connection has
already been established in the form of a tracer test. Contamination
found in MW19 since the date of its construction corresponds with
constituents that exist in the shooting pond water. This means that
contaminated water from the shooting pond leaks downward into the
bedrock fractures where it then migrates under the influence of the
hydraulic gradient. The vertical component of the hydraulic system
has not been adequately determined by E.I. du Pont so that the depth
of vertical migration of contaminants is unknown.
E.I. du Pont claims that water beneath the shooting pond is not stored
in significant enough quantities to ever be developed as a drinking
water supply and that it is unconnected to any significant aquifers in
the Pompton Lakes area. Whereas this first statement may be true, (it
is still an unknown possibility), the second statement is definitely
false. The shooting pond is located in the recharge zone for the
lower, stratified drift aquifer at the extreme southern end of the
facility which is utilized by the town of Pompton Lakes for drinking
water. Not only is this a logical assumption by any hydrogeologist, it
is shown to be a fact by a map of the piezometric surface of the entire
facility submitted by E.I. du Pont (Figure 25). The tracing of ground
water flow lines clearly shows that ground water flows from the shooting
pond to the lower stratified drift aquifer.
The rate of migration of contaminated ground water from the shooting
pond to this stratified drift aquifer may in all probability be slow,
but nevertheless, would travel in this direction. It should be noted
that ground water is never stagnant, it is always moving.
-------
-43-
One final note on the hydrogeology of the site is the occurrence of, or
lack of, any springs that would indicate a discharge point for the
ground water. E.I. du Font's geologist contends that after a detailed
investigation of the facility, no springs were found. During the EPA
investigation of the structural geology of the site, a spring was found
downgradient from the shooting pond (Figure 22). The spring was approxi-
mately 150 feet from the shooting pond and topographically lower. This
spring was not discharging from the bedrock, but from the glacial till.
This could be a location where the bedrock is very close to the land
surface.
The direction of flow of the spring was downgradient from the shooting
pond which may imply a connection between the spring and the shooting
pond, although more substantial evidence is necessary to support this.
Sampling this spring and comparing its quality with the shooting pond
water should help determine if a connection exists with the shooting
pond. A dye-trace may take too long to prove a connection (or lack of)
and may be ineffective due to the nature of the subsurface flow regime.
However, a dye-trace is definitely worth trying.
This spring probably becomes dry in the summer months, so that an
inspection and sampling of this spring must be conducted during the wet
season. EPA's Environmental Services Division has already been instructed
to sample this spring as part of a sampling program to be conducted at
the E.I. du Pont, Pompton Lakes facility. It is recommended that
sampling the water quality of this spring be scheduled during the wet
season and that one of the three geologists that conducted the structural
geology investigation be on hand to pinpoint the spring to the sampling
crews.
An important point that has not been mentioned in any E.I. du Pont
correspondence is the relation of the water table to the shooting pond.
Noting that the shooting pond is anywhere from ten feet to fifteen feet
below the land surface and the ground water table is approximately five
feet below the land surface indicates that the bottom of the shooting
pond is below the water table. This explains why E.I. du Pont has
never been able to drain the shooting pond completely during dredging
operations. The ground water continues to flow into the shooting pond.
-------
-44-
UPPER
BURNING
CAGE
_-
-310
WATER TABLE CONTOUR
CONTOUR INTERVAL = FIVE FEET
0
I
100 FEET
I
WATER TABLE CONTOUR
INFLUENCED BY A
SUBSURFACE FRACTURE
FLOW LINE
320.89 MONITORING WELL WITH WATER LEVELS
• 17 RECORDED ON 7/3/'85
ACID BROOK (DRY)
SPRING
Figure 22. Piezomtric Surface Map of the shooting pond area
-------
330 +
320 4-
w 310
w
n
w
•:
i
300 J
2904-
SHOOTING
POND
PIEZOMETRIC
SURFACE
-<- 330
WELL
SCREEN
UNDIFFERENTIATED
UNSORTED DRIFT
PRECAMBRIAN
GNEISS
i
I
50 FEET
EXAGGERATION
= lOx
Figure 23. Hydrogeologic cross-section C-C.
-------
PIEZOMETRIC
SURFACE
50 FEET
SCALE
D1
330 4-
VERTICAL
EXAGGERATION
= lOx
SHOOTING
POND
UNDIFFERENTIATED
UNSORTED DRIFT
PRECAMBRIAN
GNEISS
+ 330
+ 320
::
310
t 300
Figure 2A. HydroReologic cross-section D-D'.
-------
-47-
Figure 25. E.I. du Pont facility Piezometric Surface Map,
-------
Table 3. Ground Water Level Measurements
E.I, du Pont Shooting Pond Monitoring Wells
Ground Water Elevations in Feet Above Mean Sea Level
Well # 8/81 11/81 2/82 4/82 5/82 8/82 11/82 2/83 8/83 4/84 5/84 7/85
11
14
15
16
17
18
NA
321.04*
323.40*
291.69*
219.08*
294.33*
NA
324.18
326.51
294.58
320.85
298.88
NA
NA
326.88
296.30
321.53
298.30
NA
324.27
326.88
296.79
321.74
298.47
NA
323.96
326.55
295.13
327.36
297.80
NA
324.10
326.60
296.55
321.93
298.12
NA
324.10
326.63
296.29
320.91
298.88
NA
324.22
326.63
295.96
319.47
298.05
NA
321.98
324.50
293.09
319.99
296.80
318.75*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
315.50
324.27
326.80
295.01
321.59
298.13
312.66
324.04
326.61
295.28
320.89
297.98
i
j^
oo
1
19 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 313.59* 313.44 312.80
22 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 297.84* 297.93 295.99
NA = Water levels not available
* = Original static water level and installation date
-------
-49-
Drainage Patterns
Drainage patterns describe a particular pattern that surface water
streams create as a result of their geomorphic control. The overall
pattern the streams make up can be useful in structural interpretation
and as a first approximation of lithology [Ritter, 1984]. In general,
drainage patterns reflect the influence of factors such as initial
slopes, inequalities in rock hardness, structural controls, recent
diastrophism, and the recent geologic and geomorphic history of the
drainage basin. Because drainage patterns can be influenced by so many
factors, they are extremely useful for interpreting geomorphic features
and are one of the more practical approaches in understanding the structural
and lithologic control of land form evolution [Thornbury, 1969]. The
most commonly encountered drainage patterns are dendritic, trellis,
barbed, rectangular, complex, and deranged. Each of these patterns
represents some type of control on the hydrologic system.
E.I. du Pont was requested to analyze the drainage of surface waters
around the Pompton Lakes facility. This analysis was performed as
requested, but EPA does not agree with E.I. du Font's interpretation.
A careful examination was made by EPA of the surface water drainage
(Figure 26) to determine the nature of the controlling force on the
drainage patterns developed in the Pompton Lakes area. Clearly, rectangular
drainage best describes the area surrounding the E.I du Pont facility.
Contrary to E.I. du Font's interpretation, EPA feels that the entire
area exhibits rectangular drainage, not different patterns. Also
contrary to E.I. du Font's interpretation, the glacial deposits are
not the controlling force on the pattern developed [Schaefer, 1986].
In a rectangular pattern, streams and their tributaries display right-
angle bends which reflect joint or fault control. A comparison of
surface water flow directions and fracture trace directions indicates a
definite correlation. The main fracture directions are NE-SW, E-W, and
NW-SE which is the same basic direction as the surface water flow direction.
As a further note, an examination of the two ground water flow maps
(Figures 22 and 25) indicates that ground water also follows the local
jointing.
E.I. du Pont admits that the lower portion of Acid Brook (which flows
through the middle of the facility) is fault controlled, but in the
vicinity of the shooting pond (which Acid Brook flows very closely to)
E.I. du Pont claims that the brook is not joint controlled [Schaefer, 1986].
This is false. Clearly, the bend made by the brook is a result of
joint control. The brook makes two sharp bends in the vicinitiy of the
shooting pond parallel to two of the regional joint sets. This contradicts
the E.I. du Pont statement that the brook makes these bends too quickly
to be joint controlled. The brook is just switching from one joint set
to another.
-------
-50-
SlIOOTINf-
POND
0 2000 FEET
SCALE
Figure 26. Surface Water Drainage Map of the Wanaque Quadrangle.
-------
-51-
Air Photo Interpretation
Since the early 1960's, evidence has shown that a definite relationship
exists between fracture traces and major lineaments in defining zones
of higher permeability and porosity [Parizek, 1976]. Lattman and
Parizek (1964) established this relationship so clearly, that hydrogeology
textbooks since that date discuss this method in detail [Freeze and
Cherry, 1979]. These discussions usually include a famous diagram
(Figure 27) published by Lattman and Parizek (1964) to explain the
relationship. Valleys or lines can be observed on air photos which when
traced out, usually intersect at some angle. Once these lines are
field checked, it can be determined if they are significant fractures.
If so, drilling at the intersection of the lines or within a certain
distance of one of the lines will result in a higher probability of
significant well yields. The diagram shows various structural features
with their possible topographic expression and the logical location for
drilling a well.
DEPTH
IN
f**25-^^^
Tcilurol and
Campotitianal
Variatian
100-•
200- •
300 J-
(Allar Lailmon and Parliak 1164)
Figure 27. Individual fracture trace intersections and lineaments
are field mapped and test well sites are chosen. Other
important geological factors are weathering and
secondary permeability development (joints, bedding
plane partings, faults, beds with intergranular
permeability, etc.)
(After Parizek, 1971)
A fracture and lineament analysis was conducted on an air photo of the
E.I. du Pont facility (Figure 28 and Plate 14). Unfortuneately, this
photograph (supplied by E.I. du Pont) was taken early in the morning.
The resulting tree shadows create a definite set of lines trending in
a westward direction which are not related to the geology. To avoid a
bias towards E-W trending lines, an unavoidable negative bias towards
E-W trending lines was introduced, which means that fewer real E-W
trending lines were recorded than actually exist.
-------
-52-
The mapped fracture traces were separated into two prominent subparallel
sets, a N-S set and a less prominent NE-SW set, and a minor E-W set.
The N-S and NE-SW set are subparallel to the regional strike of the
foliation of the Precambrian gneiss. These fracture traces and the
strike of the bedrock are cut by E-W trending fracture traces that are
transverse to the two dominant sets [Carswell and Rooney, 1976].
Two prominent lineaments trending NNE-SSW were evident on the air photo.
One can be seen at the far western edge of the air photo as Lake Inez,
the other is the valley in the middle of the air photo that contains the
E.T. du Pont facility.
The two NNE-SSW trending lineaments are considered splays off of the
Ramapo Fault as discussed earlier (Figure 9). The Ramapo Fault is a
Triassic Border Fault that reutilized a previous Precambrian fault.
The Lake Inez Fault and the E.I. du Pont facility fault are probably
dip-slip faults resulting from stretching and rotation due to the Ramapo
faulting episode.
The fracture trace sets are Precambrian in age for the most part, but
some have definitely been reactivated as the area was subjected to new
stresses.
These fracture traces and lineaments need to be field investigated to
determine their structural and related hydrological significance. It
is sufficient for the purposes of this report to point out that the
Precambrian gneisses in Passaic County are a major source of ground water
with some wells producing over 200 gallons per minute (gpm) [Carswell and
Rooney, 1976]. For this to be possible, those well locations, whether
intentional or unintentional, must have coincided with the intersections
of fracture traces or lineaments.
-------
\!
W
K
^y 5t!
£**t J*cx
-------
I?'
f&
\J
•-
-------
-54-
Cllmatological Data
To maintain the water level in the shooting pond during the dry summer
months, E.I. du Pont adds approximately 1000 gallons of water to the shoot-
ing pond each day (gpd) [Shaeffer,1986]. According to documents submitted
to EPA, this is necessary because so much water evaporates from the pond
during the summer months. To determine if the equivalent of 1000 gpd of
water actually does evaporate from the shooting pond and does not leach
to the ground water, EPA found it necessary to calculate the water loss
from the shooting pond.
The method chosen to calculate the rate of evaporation from the shooting
pond is the "Penman Evaporation Formula". This formula takes into account
the energy received from net radiation and partitions it to sensible heat
lost to the atmosphere. The year 1985 was chosen for the purpose of this
study to illustrate the amount of evaporation that occurs in New Jersey.
Table 4 is the mean monthly climatic data recorded at Newark International
Airport which is considered representative of northern New Jersey.
Only the average solar radiation received (Io) is taken from a standard
table using latitude 40°N .(Table 5).
The first step in calculating the rate of evaporation from the shooting
pond requires the calculation of the mean daily solar radiation per
month (Qs). This calculation takes the average monthly cloudiness and
combines it with I to gain Qg.
Q = I (0.803 - 0.340C - 0.458C2)
S o
Table 6 lists the monthly values of Qs for the area calculated by using
the above relationship with the units of Cal/cnr/day. To convert Q to
the net radiation (H) in cm/day, Qs must be divided by 590 Cal/gm. The
values for H are listed in Table 6.
The term A / y is a function of temperature. The symbol A is the slope of
the curve relating saturation vapor pressure (ega) in mb/°C to temperature,
read off of Figure 29B. The symbol y is the psychometric constant, 0.66
mb/°C. Since A and y have the same units, mb/°C, the term A / y is
dimensionless. Table 6 lists the values for A / y .
Before preceding any further, the atmospheric vapor pressure (ea) must
be calculated. To do this, the relative humidity (RH) is combined with
esa which is read off of Figure 29A. Therefore,
ea = (RH)(esa)/100
Table 6 lists the values for esa and ea.
The final term necessary for using the Penman Formula is Ea which describes
the contribution of mass-transfer to evaporation. Ea is in the units cm/day,
and is combined with windspeed (^) in km/day .and the terms ega and ea.
The equation :
Ea = (0.013 + 0.00016u2)(esa - ea)
produces the monthly values for Ea, which are tabulated in Table 7.
-------
-55-
All the necessary information is now available to calculate the average
rate of evaporation per day for each month. EO, the rate of evaporation
in cm/day is found from equation:
H A / y + Ea
Eo =
A / Y + 1
Values for EO are tabulated in Table 7.
All calculated values for the rate of evaporation must be converted to
the equivalent of gpd for comparison with the quantity of water being
added to the shooting pond. This is accomplished by the following
equation:
E ' = (E /86,400)(2.121 x 104)(1590.43)
o o
where: EO' is the rate of evaporation in gpd
86,400 converts days into seconds
2.121 x 104 converts to gpd/ft2
1590.43 is the surface area of the shooting pond in ft2
The values for E ' are also recorded in Table 7.
o
The highest value for the rate of evaporation (276.81 gpd) occurs in
the month of July. This value of approximately 277 gpd is far below
the value of 1000 gpd that E.I. du Pont is adding to the shooting pond.
Taking into account the blasting in the shooting pond, which would
probably result in more water being vaporized than was calculated, the
amount of water evaporated is not expected to yield significantly
higher values than the calculated 277 gpd.
This would indicate that the shooting pond is losing water to the
glacial till which in turn, is losing water to the Precambrian gneiss.
-------
-56-
Month
Cloudiness
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
0.64
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.65
0.62
0.62
0.60
0.57
0.55
0.63
0.64
Table 4. Monthly Climatic Data
Northern New Jersey, 1985
Temp °C
-0.44
0.44
5.11
11.17
16.83
21.94
24.89
24.17
20.11
14.00
8.06
1.94
u?
433.92
445.44
460.80
437.76
384.00
390.96
341.76
334.08
345.60
360.96
391.86
414.72
RH
67.00
64.50
60.75
57.25
62.75
64.00
63.00
66.75
68.50
68.25
68.25
68.50
355
490
650
820
880
985
960
870
740
550
395
325
Cloudiness = mean monthly cloudiness (decimal fraction)
U2 = mean monthly windspeed (km/hr)
RH = relative humidity
Io = average solar radiation per day received in a horizontal plane at the
upper edge of the atmosphere (Cal/cm^/day)
Table 5. Average Solar Radiation Received on a horizontal Plane
at the Upper Edge of the Atmosphere (cal/cm^/day).
LATITUDE
90°N
80° N
70° N
60°N
50° N
40°N
30° N
20°N
10°N
0
10°S
20°S
30° S
40°S
50°S
JAN.
—
—
—
75
200
355
500
640
755
855
930
985
1015
1020
1000
FEB.
—
—
65
205
350
490
620
725
820
885
930
940
930
895
835
MAR.
—
105
255
400
540
650
750
820
870
895
885
855
800
715
620
APR.
465
460
540
655
750
820
870
895
895
870
810
740
640
525
400
MAY
880
860
800
860
910
880
945
930
885
820
730
630
505
375
240
JUNE
1070
1050
1000
975
985
985
975
930
870
790
685
570
445
305
175
JULY
930
970
870
925
950
960
955
930
870
795
705
595
465
335
200
AUG.
660
625
670
750
820
870
900
900
885
840
770
680
575
450
315
SEPT.
155
235
400
500
620
740
795
850
880
880
845
790
725
630
505
OCT.
—
10
140
275
430
550
670
760
830
885
900
900
870
810
735
NOV.
—
—
5
110
155
395
540
660
770
860
920
965
985
960
950
DEC .
—
—
—
55
175
325
465
610
730
840
930
990
1030
1045
1040
-------
-57-
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Table 6. Monthly Solar Radiation and Vapor Pressure Values
Northern New Jersey, 1985
5s.
141.22
199.44
264.56
333.76
341.88
409.90
399.50
377.68
340.69
262.60
160.77
129.29
H
0.239
0.388
0.448
0.566
0.580
0.695
0.677
0.640
0.577
0.445
0.273
0.219
A /
0.74
0.77
0.97
.29
.82
.46
.88
1,
1,
2.
2.
2.77
2.20
1,56
1.09
0.82
4.02
4.00
4.86
7.16
11.92
17.22
20.16
20.03
15.21
10.92
6.96
4.45
6.0
6.2
8.0
12.5
19.0
26.9
32.0
30.0
22.0
16.0
10.2
6.5
Q = mean daily solar radiation for the month (Cal/cnr/day)
H = net solar radiation (cm/day)
A = slope of the curve relating saturation vapor pressure to temperature (mb/°C)
Y = Pschometric constant (mb/°C)
ea = atmospheric vapor pressure (mb)
esa = saturation vapor pressure (mb)
(A)
(B)
0 3
2r
E
z
/ j
40 0
Temperature (°C)
20
40
Figure 29. (A) Relation of Saturation Vapor Pressure to Temperature.
(B) Variation of A (Slope of the Curve in A) with Temp.
-------
-58-
Table 7. Mean Daily Evaporation per Month
New Jersey, 1985
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Ea = contribution on mass-transfer to evaporation (cm/day)
E = mean evaporation rate per month (cm/day)
o
E ' = mean evaporation rate per month (gpd)
Ea
0.151
0.170
0.245
0.443
0.527
0.731
0.801
0.663
0.477
0.359
0.245
0.163
E
0
0.264
0.265
0.349
0.512
0.561
0.705
0.709
0.646
0.546
0.411
0.260
0.188
E
—o
103.07
103.46
136.26
199.90
219.03
275.25
276.81
252.22
213.17
160.47
101.51
73.40
-------
-59-
Contamlnation from the Shooting Pond
Ground water quality analyses dating back to November 1981, (Table 8)
have shown that all the ground water monitoring wells around the shooting
pond are contaminated, including the two upgradient monitoring wells MW14
and MW15. The contamination of MW14 by metals has been decreasing over
the past five years, MW15, which is farther upgradient has exhibited
fluctuating lead levels, but a relatively stable level of selenium
(Figures 30 and 31). Selenium is not a common constituent in ground
water [Kimmel, 1986].
MW16 initially showed an increase in lead, but this soon fell to moderate
levels. Selenium on the other hand has been showing a steady increase
until the latest round of sampling in April 1986, where a moderate decrease
was observed (Figure 32).
MW17 has only shown a low level of selenium in February 1982, but started
out with excessively high levels of lead in November 1981. Since 1981,
lead levels have continued to drop to moderate levels (Figure 33).
Sampling data for MW18 initially showed high contamination levels of lead
in 1981 and 1982, but has since dropped to a negligible level (Figure 34).
Sampling results for MW19 are only available for 1984 and 1986. Lead
levels have essentially remained at low levels, but selenium has stayed
at a relatively high level (Figure 35).
Sampling for organics was conducted in May 1984, and April 1986. Contam-
ination by organic constituents of the upgradient wells has been noted
in 1986 when previously no organics had been found. The down gradient
wells have shown a decrease in some organic constituents while exhibiting
an increase in others.
A moderate decrease in 1,1,1-trichloroethane and tetrachloroethylene were
observed in MW16 while showing an increase in 1,1-dichloroethylene
(Figures 36 and 37).
MW17 exhibited a decrease in tetrachloroethylene, but also exhibited a marked
increase in methylene chloride which is the same for MW18 (Figures 36 and 37).
MW19 exhibited a decrease in 1,1,1-trichloroethane and tetrachloroethylene,
but also exhibited a significant increase in methylene chloride (Figures 36
and 37).
The ground water sampling data is recorded in Table 8.
These ground water contamination levels appear to be erratic, but the
immediate impression is that the shooting pond is releasing fewer contam-
inants now than in the past (which may be true). However, EPA and NJDEP
feel that the timing is essential when sampling at the shooting pond.
Ken Siet of NJDEP-DWR believes that when ground water sampling coincided
with dredging of the shooting pond, even higher levels of contamination
were detected [Siet, 1986]. EPA also suspects that a seasonal factor is
important. Sampling in the early spring should show lower contamination
because the melting of snow and ice would result in a dilution effect on
-------
-60-
the contamination. Sampling during the summer months would also exhibit
lower levels of contamination because E.I. du Pont is pumping approximately
1000 gallons of water into the shooting pond, the majority of which is
leaching into the ground water and as such is diluting the contamination.
It is therefore recommended that sampling of the wells should be conducted
in the winter for the most representative results.
The main issue of this section in relation to the E.I. du Pont exemption
request from MTR is the fact that monitoring well MW19 is contaminated.
How is it possible for a bedrock well that is set at a water filled
fracture and that is unconnected to the shooting pond, as claimed by
E.I. du Pont, still be contaminated with selenium, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
tetrachloroethylene, and methylene chloride? These contaminants could
only have been detected in MW19 if it is connected to the shooting pond.
If the shooting pond is located on a truly impermeable bedrock, then
MW19 would not contain those contaminants. E.I. du Pont claims that
the shooting pond operation produces only an inorganic lead constituent,
but an NJDEP Fact Sheet (1985) states that these constituents are found
in the shooting pond water. A verbal request from E.I. du Pont for an
analysis of the shooting pond sludge in October 1985, was agreed to by
E.I. du Pont, but still has not been sent to EPA.
Further drilling to characterize the plume of contamination must now be
conducted as described in the Code of Federal Regulations 40 (40 CFR)
§270.14(c)(4) and §270.14(c)(7) to conform with the requirements of
40 CFR §264.99 Compliance Monitoring. NJDEP has already sent a letter
to E.I. du Pont informing them of this. If E.I. du Pont drills wells
in the proper locations for intersecting fractures, a better chance of
tracking the plume(s) of contamination is possible (this requires a
detailed analysis of the brittle history and site hydrogeology).
Sampling results must be carefully evaluated in relation to monitoring
well locations to ensure that proper tracking of the contaminants is
being pursued so that the plume(s) of contamination can be accurately
characterized and a proper Corrective Action Plan as described in 40
CFR §264.100 may be instituted.
-------
-61-
LEAD & SELENIUM CONC. IN MW 14
aoo -t
600 -j
I
I
400 -!
300 -)
100 -
n
L.I...H
NOV31
FEB82
ZZ LEAD
y*Y32
SAW
AiJCS2
UATS4
PUWflDATES
• SELENUM
Figure 30. Concentration of Lead and Selenium in MW14
LEAD & SELENIUM CONC. IN MW 15
1» -
16-
17 -
1« -
15 -
14 -
13 -
*
» ill
' 10-
i
7 -
::
J -
t -
0 -
!
r
1
NCVo' FcS52 UATo-t AuCo2 y^Vo* APnoo
fiAMPLMGDATES
I/XI LEAD •B SELEMUM
Figure 31. Concentration of Lead and Selenium in MW15
-------
-62-
LEAD & SELENIUM CONC. IN MW 16
w 1
1»0 -I
180 -]
170 -j
1*0 -1
1*0 -
130 -
120 —
110 -
100-
K-
•0 1
70-
60 -
60-
to -
30 -
20 -
10 -
1
J
fl
m
9
1 1 i — i ' '• i i — r^
NuVSl Ft
E
^
•
I
]
1
J
i
SE2 U*T
&AU
7j LEAD
_J
S2 AUC
PUN^ATtS
f
r
£2 UA1
3-fNJUU
r
£4 Iff
\
86
Figure 32. Concentration of Lead and Selenium in MW16
LEAD & SELENIUM CONC. !N MW 17
300
2CO -j
2*0-1
220 -)
I
ZOO -4
I
18C -j
H
140 -j
120 -|
I
100 -)
I
*0 4
eoJ
"H
I
H
M
M
i
M
n
W
1
U
fj
n
M n
-i—i—i T i—i—i ' P i
M
K
u
fi
NOV31
FIBS;
UAYS2
AUCSZ
H
i *r i
UAY&t
i ' I I I I '
APRSo
V S\ LEAD
SCLENIUW
Figure 33. Concentration of Lead and Selenium in MW17
-------
-63-
LEAD &. SELENIUM CONC. IN MW 18
2UU -T
1»0-(
,80 -j
170 -j
160 -(
150 -j
140 -t
110 -j
N 12C ~^
110 -)
1 loo-l
r ' '
70 _j n
•o -t H
So,' «
.-, J M r
*" 1 M !•
30 -1 H i
-r i J
' °~l U
ID-! i
fvuVei rT
E
•f'
j
^
\
\
1
'i
j
i
352 WAV o* AkJCe£ UAT54 APnoo
&U^6 DA7E&
J LEAD iH SE1XNUM
Figure 34. Concentration of Lead and Selenium in MW18
LEAD & SELENIUM CONC. IN MW 19
X
n -
x-
24 -
22 -
20 -
14 -
12 -
10 -(
1 — i — i
UATS4
&
!77"l LEAD
TES
SCLEMUM
Figure 35. Concentration of Lead and Selenium in MW19
-------
-64-
ORGANICS IN WELLS 14-19 MAY 1984
130-
140 -
130 -
120 -
110 -
too -
to-
•0-
70-
•0 -
•o -
40 -
30 -
1
I
20-j
,0] I 8 J
U 16 1« 17 18 ie
HpNnOMttJBJJ
p"7i i r 2 25 3 is?^ 4
Figure 36. Concentration of selected organics in wells 14-19 (1984)
1 = 1,1-Dichloroethylene 2 = 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
3 = Tetrachloroethylene 4 = Methylene Chloride
X
3
I
ORGANICS !N WELLS 14-19 APRIL 1986
30 -
26 -
K-
10-
e -
H
IS
1771 i
II
fNTTOOMO
2
IS
Figure 37. Concentration of selected organics in wells 14-19 (1986)
1 = 1,1-Dichloroethylene 2 - 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
3 = Tetrachloroethylene 4 = Methylene Chloride
-------
-65-
RCRA WELL SAMPLING
SUMMARY SHEET
NOVEMBER 1981
PAJttMETSk J7ELT
Static Head Elevation Ft.
PH
Specific Conductance umho/1
Disolved Organic Carbon fDOC) mg/1
Total Organic Halogen (TOX) Ag/1
Chloride mg/1
Iron mg/l
Manganese mg/1
Phenols mg/1
Sodium mg/1
Suliate mg/1
Arsenic ug/1
barium • . mg/1
Cadmiuir. PC /I
Chromiurr mg/1
Fluoride mg/1
Lead -yg/1
Mercury ue/1
Nitrate (as Ni mg/1
Seleniuir. ug/1
Silver mg/1
Endrin mg/1
Lindane mg/1
Methoxychlor mg/1
Toxaonene mg/1
2.4-L mg/1
2,4-TP (Silver) mg/1
Radium pCi/1
Gross Alpha pCi/1
uross beta M rem/yr
Coliform bactcri:i count/100 ml
14
324.18
6.3
6 3
182
16S
2 n
2.7
s
7
6.3
6.3
186
162
2.2
2.4
5
c;
< 1
4.10
0.21
0.006
4
< 40
< a
0.025
<0.5
0.16
608
0.46
0.25
< 5
<0.01
<.0.0005
^O.OOOS
*o nnnt
^0. 001
«1 .0
<0.5
0
IS
326.
6.4
6.3
94.9
91.3
0.5
0.5
6
£
51
6.3
6.2
92.5
90.5
1.0
0.5
5
6
23
1.99
0.04
0.006
4
< 40
< a
16 I 17
294.
6.4
.24.4
1.4
1284
SS
6
1.60
0.05
0.005
4
< 40
< 3
O.UJ-J U.UZ1
O.i
0.11
Ib
0.17
u.yu
10. T
< 0.01
< 0.0005
<. 0.0005
<> 0.0005
< 0.001
«1. 0
<0.5
0
< O.d
320.
6.4
329
5.4
85
]
29S
O.J
L2o.t
.7
21. 0|
16
K
.8.'
12. 0|
-
9
0.69 1 «• '
1.02
O.OOS
16
/
O.Oa
0.00-
0
< 40 i < *u
< 5
u.ub^
0.0
<
d
U.Uj;
D.o
1
U.I/
20
U.ia
U.OO
35.7
< 0.01
^0.0005
<.Q 000"%
<. 0 000?
U.iJ U.JJ
2^0 1 '^
u.ye
U.sl.1
0.04 O.S1
< 5 |10. f'
<0.01 K0.01
<. n nnn<; ivO . no
v o ooru KG. DC
< 0 000 > KO on
^ 0.003 K n nrn Kn on
<1 .0 1 <1 . o l
-------
-66-
RCRA WELL SAMPL1NT.
SUMMARY SHEET
FEBRUARY 1982
r AIVATII. 1 Cl\ If ti*l»
Static Head Elevation Ft.
PH
Specific Conductance umho/cm
Total Orcanic CarbonfTOCI mc/1
Total Organic Halogen (TOX) UC/1
Chloride me/1
Iron me/1
Mancanese mc/1
Phenols me/1
Sodium . mc/1
Sulfate mc/1
Arsenic Ufc/1
fcariurr uc/1
Cadmium • PC/1
Chrom: jrr uc/1
Fluoride mc/1
Leac ue/1
Mercurv uc/1
Nitrate (as NI tnc/1
Seleniur UC/1
Silver uc/1
Endrin uc/1
Lindane ue/1
Methoxychlor ug/1
Toxaphene ue/1
2.4-D t B / i
2.4-TP (Silveri us/1
Radiuir,
Gross Alpha pCi/1
Cross Beta t>Ci/l
Coli form Bacteru count/100 ml
14
*
7. 1
7 n
130
np
i
11.1
8 4
6.8
ft 9
130
1
2
8.7
10-4
ft 1
0.
0.
59
16
•£0.005
4.
0
33
BMDL
15
326.88
6.6 6.5
ft. 7 ft 7
70 70
71 71
J 2
2 1
19.9 21.7
11.9 -»5 ft
6 1
16
296.30
6.5) 5.8
_ft-fl
95
Q5
1
1
C 9
96
94
1
3
£48.^259.
'-4 t
17
321.53
7 7
7 ft Q
18
298.2
... 7,
300 300 13301 ??
%nn ^nn
^ ^
4 4
itQ'i*
«C1 1 e
1 I
) 18.6145.8(17.944
••ft'ft P T? "> JT nn ? n #
1 A
0.13 0
BMDL
B?
<0. 005 <0
4.0 4
• 35
18
0 -5
•1DL 1 . 5
.005
.4
25 21
BMDL BMDL
ND ND ND
ft
BMDL
«0 1
1 iO
BMDL
*0.05
65
ND
£0. 1
f.2 . 0
< 50
<2.5
< 50
<5.0
O 0
1 1*
0.6
o
1MD1 i
15.0
4ft
N'D
ND
p £-> n
<• 50 1^50 1 <5D «.5f1
<2.5
<50
<5.0
.
0.8
1 ^*0 ft
o
<2
5
< 50
<5.
0
^.i n
^•25 ^!> 5
<^0 i?A
. 0
*e~ r
^* n
' 5*0 • J • ?»n o • ••<
o
0
n
Kell Nos. 14 • 15 are upgradient
Well Nos. 16 - 17 - IS are downgradient
BMDL - Below method detection limit
ND - Not detected
* - Not reported
-------
-67-
RCRA WELL SAMPLING
SUMMARY SHEET
MAY 1982
PARAMETER WELL
Static Head Elevation Ft.
PH
Specific Conductance umho/cm
Total Ofsanic Carbon(TOC) mg/1
Total Organic Halogen (TOX) wg/l
Chloride mg/1
Iron mg/1
Manganese mg/1
Phenols mg/1
Sodium mc/1
Sulfate mg/1
Arsenic ug/1
Barium ug/1
Cadmium pg/1
Chromium ug/1
Fluoride mg/1
Lead pg/1
Mercury pg/1
Nitrate (as N) mg/1
Selenium uc/1
Silver ug/1
Endrir. ug/1
Lindane ug/1
Methoxvchlor ug/1
Toxaohene ug/1
2,4-D us/1
2,4-TP (Silveri ua/1
Radium
Gross Alpha pCi/1
Gross Beta oCi/1
Coliform Bacteria count/100 ml
14
322
1*0
i
-------
-68-
RCRA WELL SAMTM.lNf.
SUMMARY SHEET
August 1962
PARAMETER WELL
Static Mead Elevation pt
PH
Specific Conductance umho/cm
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) me /I
Total Organic Halogen (TOX) ..
vf.fl
Chloride mc/]
Iron itP/1
Manganese uP/1
Phenols mc/1
Sodium uP/]
Sulfate mp/1
Arsenic UP /I
Barium vp/1
14
324.1
6.4
6.4
1f>0
150
l_4l
118
3
6,4
6.4
160
150
^ j
104
IDS
.5
700
1
0
20
.033
3400
29
BMDL
1
f,
326.6
6.0
6.0
75
75
3
2
284
242
6.0
6.0
75
75
3
3
247
247
5.7
16
296.55
6.4
6.4
100
9B
35
35
325
L309
8
6.4
6.4
98
98
35
22
297
290
.3
190 1 BMDL
BMDL
0.010'
BMDL
^0.01
17
321.
6.4 |
340 1
340
41
28
105
.2JLJL
1
93 \
6.4
<>•>_
18
29B.1J
|7.2 I
7.Z
':? 7,5
340 (130 1 12(
340
40
] 20
bf.O
2B 1270
92.2
}f)0
17
1300
1300
) 2(
46(
in
59.1165
If,? 4
LU
10
110
BMDL
"07ETE u.ia»
2500 3300 13000
17 24 23
•BHbL ND B.I:DL
NH 1 i
>m ND NP
Cadciutc MP/1 1 ND NP ND ND
Chronlus uP/3
Fluoride mp/1
NP 1 ND ND ND
4.0.1 0.12 0
Lead UP/1 60
Mercury PP/1
Nitrate (as N) mp/1
Seleniutc PP/1
Silver up/1
L BMDL
0.1
ND
ND
Endrin ug/1 <
Lindane up/1 <
Methoxvchlor UR/1 <
Toxaphene up/1 4
2.4-D up/1 <
BMDL 7
.14 0.
72
BMDL BMDL 0.
0.36 0
.50 40.
If
7
1
11 80 IJMDL
ND ND ND
0.1 40.1 4.0
.1 40.
2.0 4.2.0 4.2.0 <2.
1
0
.50 450 OO -OO
.2.5 42.5 <2.5 <2.
.50 <
2,4-TP (Silver) UR/1 <5
Radius
Cross Alpha oCl/1
<.!
Cross Beta oCl/J <
Conform Bacteria COunt/100 ml
j
15
4
50 <,5
5
-------
-69-
LJATER ANALYSIS SUMMARY Iwell 1 n 1 1* 1 15
Sample Dace
Static Head
IV Acrolein
2V Acrylonitril
3V Benzene
4V bi«(ChloromethyHether
5V Bromoform
*v Carbon tetrachlor ide
7V Chlorobenzene
BV Chlorodibromomethane
9V Chloroethane
10V 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
11V Chloroform
12V Dichlorobromomethane
L3V Dichlorodif luoromethane
14V 1,1-Dichloroethane
15V 1,2-Dichloroethane
H6V 1,1-Dichloroethylene
I7v 1 , 2-Dichloropropane
18V cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropylene
19V Ethylbenzene
20V Methyl bromide
21V Methyl chloride
22V Methylene chloride
23V 1 ,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
24V Tetrachloroethylene
25V Toluene
26V 1 ,2-trans-dichloroethylene
27V 1 ,1,1-Trichloroethane
2BV 1 ,1,2-Trichloroethane
29v Tr ichloroethylene
JOV Tr ichlorofluoromethane
31V Vinyl chloride
?H
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Silver
roc
Lf\n/*i t/30/841 4/30/8* U/30/84
ft. hi«; ^
ug/ll
ug/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
ug/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
ug/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
ug/ll
ug/ll
ug/ll
ug/ll
ug/ll
ug/ll
ug/ll
ug/ll
ug/ll
ug/ll
UQ/ll
ug/ll
ug/ll
UQ/ll
ug/ll
UQ/ll
ug/l!
ug/ll
ug/ll
std. I & <
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll 36
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
\)L '1 J«* «n
6.4
31
6.2
10
7
16 | 1?
5/5/84 (i/7/14
?o* m
•»•>
•0
S i
13
IIP
^71 %Q
1»
•« n
65
mg/ll 1.3.1. :|1.J. 1.3|<1.<1 |1.0. 1.4|10. 11
-------
-70-
IATER ANALYSIS SUMMARY
IV Acrolein
2V Acrylonitril
3V Benzene
4V bis(Chloromethyl)ether
5V Bromoform
6V Carbon tetrachloride
7v Chlorobenzene
•V Ch 1 or odibromome thane
9V Chloroethane
10V 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
I IV Chloroform
12V Dichlorobromomethane
L3V Dichlorodif luoromethane
1 4V 1,1-Dichloroethane
15V 1,2-Dichloroethane
B6V 1,1-Dichloroethylene
I7v 1 ,2-Diehloropropane
16V ci»-l,3-Dichloropropylene
19V Ethylbenzene
bov Methyl bromide
biv Methyl ehloride
B2V Methylene chloride
B3V 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
S4V Tetrachloroethvlene
25V Toluene
26V 1 ,2-trans-dichloroethylene
27V 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
28V 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
29V Trichloroethylene
30V Tr ichlorof luoromethane
31V Vinyl chloride
PR
Uraenic
Chromium
t«ad
Selenium
Silver
roc
IWell 1 18
IS/3/14 J
ft. (?«« 11
1 UQ/ll J
un/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll J
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll 1
UO/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll 21
UQ/ll
•UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
•td.l 6.0
UQ/ll
UQ/ll
UQ/ll 8
UQ/ll
ua/lt
•0/111.7,1.7
1 19
i/7/«4
|
127
16
6.2
L 7
21
2.2. 2.2
1 22
1 */7/li
1 I
1 1
IB
5.6
5
|3.0.:.2
SH.PON
LIV\I*A
•»»* ni 1
1
127
34
7.3
•000
50
13. U
Stream
iJSDJA^
1
11
6.9
8
P. 4. 1.5
-------
Table 8. RCRA Well Sampling Summary
April 1986 Ground Water Quality - Appendix VIII Sampling (ug/1)
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Calcium
Lead
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Magnesium
Manganese
Sulfide
Antimony
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Selenium
Fluoride
Iron
Mercury
Barium
Tetrachloroethylene
MW14
e 23.3
24.6
19000
6.0
720
4400
37
7800
210
0.05
.ene
:hane
;ne
MW15
12.6
5100
950
2400
31
1700
0.06
20
MW16
7.0
180
20
3.87
33.6
80
0.247
MW17
17.5
46800
18
2300
1200
69
18800
1650
0.07
0.209
890
0.26
MW18
18.6
31.2
8900
710
6900
65
2200
4.8
0.17
0.138
110
MW19
14.5
18.2
16000
5.0
1600
15000
29
3600
15
27
4.62
24
0.131
420
0.26
60
19.8
Wells MW14 and MW15 are upgradient from the shooting pond
Wells MW16, MW17, MW18, and MW19 are downgradient from the shooting pond
-------
-72-
Conclusions
After completing the geologic and hydrologic investigation of the
shooting pond, several very clear conclusions were drawn.
1) The Pompton Lakes area of New Jersey has been subjected to intense
stresses over the past billion years or more as has the shooting
pond site. These stresses have resulted in various episodes of
plastic and brittle deformation of the rocks.
2) The periods of brittle deformation resulted in extensive fracturing
of the rocks throughout the E.I. du Pont facility.
3) Precambrian fractures have been reutilized by later episodes of
fracturing and faulting.
4) The Pompton Lakes area is still subjected to intense stresses as
evidenced by the relatively recent earthquakes occurring in the
area (the last recorded earthquake occurred in 1976).
5) Regionally, fractures and faults control the drainage of the area.
6) Ground water flows in fractures beneath the shooting pond and is
connected with the shooting pond.
7) The shooting pond is losing a significant amount of water to the
subsurface.
8) The ground water beneath the shooting pond has become contaminated
by the operation of the shooting pond.
9) Contaminated ground water has been discovered in bedrock wells,
indicating that subsurface water filled fractures are connected to
the shooting pond.
10) The shooting pond is located in one of the recharge zones for aquifers
supplying public drinking water to the Town of Pompton Lakes.
11) Continued operation of the shooting pond without the implementation
of proper Minimum Technological Requirements poses a serious threat
to human health and the environment.
12) Because the shooting pond is dredged annually, it was subject to the
Minimum Technological Requirements on May 8, 1985, and therefore has
been operating illegally since that time. E.I. du Pont was twice
informed of this situation.
13) The bottom of the shooting pond is approximately five feet below the
seasonal low water table.
On the basis of these conclusions, several recommendations have been made
to protect human health and the environment and to bring the E.I. du Pont
Pompton Lakes facility into compliance with federal regulations.
-------
-73-
Re commendations
Due to the serious nature of the proble'm, several recommendations are
presented for implementation to protect the public. These recommendations
are based on the contents of this report, submittals from E.I. du Pont,
and from internal NJDEP memos documenting the contamination resulting from
the shooting pond.
1) The operation of the shooting pond must cease immediately.
2) The shooting pond must be drained and the water analyzed.
3) The shooting pond sludge must be dredged and analyzed.
4) The surrounding glacial till must be sampled for contamination.
Any contamination found will result in the removal of the
contaminated till.
5) A complete plume characterization must be instituted in accordance
with 40 CFR §270.14(c)(4) and §270.14(c)(7).
6) An approved corrective action plan must be designed and implemented
in accordance with 40 CFR §264.100.
7) If E.I. du Pont desires to continue operating the shooting pond in
the future, the Minimum Technological Requirements must be met.
8) E.I. du Pont should be subject to enforcement action by EPA due to
the operation of the shooting pond after May 8, 1985.
-------
-74-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
-75-
Anderson, E. M. 1972. The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formation with
Application to Britain. Hafner Publishing, New York, NY. 206 pp.
Avery, T* E. 1977. Interpretation of Aerial Photographs.
Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN. 392 pp.
Bates, R. L. and Jackson, J. A. Eds. 1980. Glossary of Geology.
American Geological Institute. Falls Church, VA
Billings, M. P. 1972. Structural Geology.
Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 606 pp.
Boehmer, W. K. and Boonstra, J. 1986. Flow to Wells in Intrusive Dikes.
Wageningen, The Netherlands. 260 pp.
Bouwer, H. 1978. Groundwater Hydrology.
McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. 480 pp.
Carswell, L. D. and Rooney, J. G. "Summary of Geology and Ground-Water
Resources of Passaic County, New Jersey". U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations 76-75. U.S. Dept. of Interior
(Washington DCrGPO, 1976) 47 pp.
Cuthbert, H. M. 1984. Letter to US EPA Regional Administrator.
RCRA - Groundwater Monitoring
Dames and Moore. 1977. Vol I and II. "Geotechnical Investigation of
the Ramapo Fault System in the Region of the Indian Point Generating
Station".
Davis S. N. and DeWiest, R. J. M. 1966. Hydrogeology.
John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY 463 pp.
Driscoll, F. G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells.
Johnson Division. St. Paul, MN. 1089 pp.
Dunne, T. and Leopold, L. B. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning.
W. H. Freeman and Co. San Francisco, CA. 818 pp.
Freeze, R. A. and Cherry, J. A. 1979. Groundwater.
Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 604 pp.
Hem, J. D. "Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of
Natural Water, Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1473. US Dept.
of Interior (Washington, DC: GPO, 1970) 363 pp.
Hobbs, B. E., Means, W. D., and Williams, P. F. 1976. An Outline of
Structural Geology. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY. 571 pp.
Hyndman, D. W. 1985. Petrology of Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks.
McGraw-Hill. New York, NY. 786 pp.
Kimmel, G. 1986. Personal Communication.
-------
-76-
LaPointe, P. R. and Hudson, J. A. 1985. Characterization and Interpretation
of Rock Mass Joint Patterns. Special Paper 199.
The Geological Society of America, Inc. Boulder, CO. 62 pp.
Larsson, I. 1984. Ground Water in Hard Rocks.
UNESCO. Paris, France. 228 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1985. "Local Climatological
Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Newark, NJ"
New Jersey Dept. of Envir. Protec. Fact Sheet - E.I. du Pont, Pompton Lakes
Facility. 1985
Neuzil, C. E. 1986. Vol 22, No 8. "Groundwater Flow in Low-Permeability
Environments". Water Resources Research. 1163-1195.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 1985. "RCRA Part B Permit Application"
Vol I, II, and III". E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Inc).
Pompton Lakes Works. Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 1985. "Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
Closure Plan, Final Site Sampling Plan, Shooting Pond, Lower Burning
Ground, Upper Burning Ground".
Parizek, R. R. 1976. "On the Nature and Significance of Fracture Traces
and Lineaments in Carbonate and Other Terranes". Karst Hydrology
and Water Resources. Ed. V. Yevjvich. Vol I. Lithocrafters. Ann
Arbor, MI. pp. 41-109.
Priest, S. D. 1985. Hemispherical Projection Methods in Rock Mechanics.
Allen and Unwin LTD. Winchester, MA. 124 pp.
Reilly, B. J- 1985. Letter to Mr. Ken Siet of the New Jersey Dept. of
Envir. Protec., Div. of Water Res. "RCRA Section 3005(j)(4)
Modification Request".
Ritter, D. F. 1984. Process Geomorphology.
Brown Co. Pub. Dubuque, IA. 603 pp.
Roberts, J. L. 1982. Introduction to Geological Maps and Structures.
Pergamon Press. Oxford, Great Britain. 332 pp.
Shaeffer, R. G. 1984. "Ground Water Assessment Report"
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Pompton Lakes, NJ.
Shaeffer, R. G. 1986. "Variance Request for the Waste Cap Shooting
Pond Answers to U.S. EPA Requests"
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. Pompton Lakes, NJ.
Siet, K. 1986. Personal Communication.
Spayd, S. 1982. Internal New Jersey Dept. of Envir. Protec. Memo.
E.I. du Pont, Pompton Lakes Works. "Review of Dupont's Ground
Water Investigation.
-------
-77-
Spayd, S. 1984. Internal New Jersey Dept. of Envir. Protec. Memo.
E.I. du Pont, Pompton Lakes, Passaic County - Review of
Hydrogeological Report.
Thornbury, W. D. 1969. Principles of Geomorphology.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. 594 pp.
Till, R. 1974. Statistical Methods for the Earth Scientist, an Introduction.
McMillan Press LTD. London, Great Britain. 154 pp.
Tullis, J., Snoke, A. W., and Todd, V. R. 1982. Vol 10, No 5. "Penrose
Conference Report: Significance and Petrogenesis of Mylonitic
Rocks". Geology. 227-230.
Turner, F. J. and Weiss, L. E. 1963. Structural Analysis of Metamorphic Tectonites.
McGraw-Hill. New York, NY 545 pp.
Walton, W. C. 1984. Practical Aspects of Groundwater Modelling.
National Water Well Association. Worthington, OH. 566 pp.
Widmer, K. 1964. The Geology and Geography of New Jersey.
D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. Princeton, NJ. 189 pp.
Wise, D. U., Dunn, D. E., Engelder, J. T., Geiser, P. A., Hatcher, R. D.,
Kish, S. A., Odom, A. L., and Schamel, S. 1984. Vol 12, No 7.
"Fault-Related Rocks: Suggestions for Terminology". Geology. 391-394.
Vetter, K. 1983. New Jersey Dept. of Envir, Protec. Internal Memo.
"E.I. DuPont DeNemours, Pompton Lakes Facility".
-------
-A-
APPENDIX A
Surface Impoundment Retrofitting
Variance Checklist
-------
Suface Impoundment Retrofitting Variance Checklist
Section 3005 (j)(4)
Provided Comments
or
N/A
Demonstration of "no migration"- hazardous
constituents will not migrate to either the
groundwater or surface water to the un-
saturated soil beneath the facility during
the units active life as well as during and
following closure
Factors which will assure no migration of
hazardous constituents should be explained
and fully documented with appropriate sampling
and analysis data including waste attenuation,
degradation, and migration rates
Liner/leachate compatability test data
Wetting front calculations from the first day
the unit went into service, documenting the
extent of current and potential future leachate
migration
Documentation of hazardous constituents at-
tenuation in the unsaturated zone
Detail closure and post closure plans that
ensure there will be no contaminant migration
to ground or surface water during or after
closure
A firm closure date should be set for storage
and treatment impoundments, and occur before
the time that leachate is expected to migrate
through the liner to the adjacent soil
The initial information and subsequent
Submittal of Data does not Demonstrate
Yes "No migration"
Yes
N/A
No
No
Yes
Factors affecting migration of hazardous
constituents was not adequately provided
No Liner Exists
Yes
Closure plan provided only. Does not
ensure no contaminant migration to ground
or surface water.
Not provided before time that leachate
migrates through liner to adjacent soil
-------
A prediction of no migration at the compliance
point supported by modeling study using site
specific data and by providing modeling results
and procedures
QA/QC measures documented by procedures
and estimates of the reliability of the
conclusions
No migration calculation to a level of
certainty that will ensure results and
conclusions are accurate and reliable
Hydraulic conductivity (as a function
of water content or pressure potential)
Porosity of the medium, particle and
bulk densities, water capacity, and
diffusivity
Soil water retention curves
Infiltration, drainage, evaporation,
and transpiration rates and volumes
Hydrogeologic maps and cross sections
Parametric values for the dispersion
and adsorption and ion exchange pro-
perties
Effects of permeant of soil
Location and strength of contaminant
sources
Provided
or
N/A
Comment s
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Calculation was based incorrectly
on textbook data
Porosity of bedrock did not include
weathering effects resulting in
too low a value
Provided, but of extremely poor
quality. Geology not adequately described
Yes
Provided, but ignores organic
constituents
-------
Basic physical and chemical properties
of the contaminant
Estimation of degradation potential
within the unsaturated zone
Estimation of adsorption potential
within unsaturated zone
Constituent loading rates
Provided
or
N/A
Yes
No
No
Yes
Comments
Only describes lead
Provided only lead values, but
not for organic constituents
-------
-B-
APPENDIX B
Monitoring Well
Construction Summary and Well Logs
-------
Monitoring Well Construction Summary
Specifications
Monitoring Wells
Coordinates
North
East
Elevations
Top of PVC Ref
Ground Surface
Orig Static Water
Screen Material
Depth to Screen Top
Depth to Screen Bot
Bottom of Well
Depth (elevation)
Casing Material
Diameter
Well Depth
Capacity
Installation Date
U_
797685
2106825
325.27
322.75
318.75
PVC
6.0
11.0
311.88
PVC
2"
11.0
4 gpm
4/9/84
li
797662
2107082
329.35
326.62
321.04
PVC
8.5
10.5
315.85
PVC
2"
10.5
4 gpm
8/25/81
15
797545
2106975
331.88
329.06
323.40
PVC
8.0
13.0
315.88
PVC
2"
13.0
5 gpm
8/26/81
ii
797800
2106660
299.96
297.11
291.69
PVC
10.0
14.0
282.96
PVC
2"
14.0
2 gpm
8/28/81
J7
797800
2107022
328.99
325.91
319.08
PVC
10.0
14.0
311.99
PVC
2"
14.0
2 gpm
8/25/81
li
797910
2106780
303.30
300.41
294.33
PVC
6.0
9.0
291.30
PVC
2"
9.0
1 gpm
8/26/81
11
797788
2106930
318.15
315.59
313.59
None
284.31
Steel
6"
32.0
2 gpm
4/2/84
22.
798053
2106747
304.26
301.83
297.84
PVC
5.0
18.0
291.52
PVC
2"
10.0
2 gpm
4/9/84
-------
A.C.OCHULTBS & SONS INC
1
2.5'
1
'iwi^ *flp
, j
i
B
0
H
H
i
^
<
*
O
in
^
i
r
»
i
r
•
zz zz zz
ZZ — _—
zz zz zz
zz zz zz
LEVEL
OiravaUC UAdCU WtLL
WELL LOO
Topsoil w/roots
Granite (boulder)
Topsoil fill
Gray granite
•
FEET FROM
GROUND SURFACE
010-4
4-7
7-8
8-11
•
NAME OF OWNER
DuPont (Pompton Lakes)
Between Shooting
Pond & Upper Burning Gr.
WMM MQL 1 j^
s^r^,
JobN* 19838
T^Fwdi^.) x w/air
Capadty(GPM)
Static Laval
mptng Laval
Datum
Spadfie
Diamatar
of Casing 2"
Daptti of Wall
(Ground) j^i
Daplh to Graval
Graval Sba
fl
Langthof
Casing 4 Scraan ^3 i
t
Scraan Malarial _ .. _
P.V.C.
Scraan Mfg.
Scraan Ola. . H <
Langth of Scraan f
Top of Scraan
FKting Flush Joini-
Bonom of
Scraan Flttino « •
r i^csf^ JO! ^^ ^f^T^
SlotSK* .020
S-Matan- Cement
Ouamtty _ . '
2 baas
SaalUataHal 3 . 5 tO ground
Drilling MacWna g_
Data Wall
Completed 4/9/84
Driller
Jim Duffy
-------
RWE BESUN i.
PfiTE COMPLETER
RI6 NUMBE1?_E£_
LOG OF TESTMRING ^g NuM&&R
.HOLE PIA.. £ '/g
ll
•i • imm^m^— 9 mmmmmmm^^^^^^^ — - •
TCHAL. PgrPTH llf
T?*l> '
PKOJBCT MAME ,
***-». ^U^i^.'fe^^Uftift^r Bufv^^ dr
METHOP
IN rr
TIME
s
SOIL. TK> PAItriCUE SIZE,
SAMPLER DRIVING hcrres,
DEPTHS CliecULATiOM U>ST,
MOTES OH DRILLINQ EASE,
BITS USED, ETC.
JLtt.
0.
I
a.
3
n
//
TD
k,
UNLESS
NJTEf AU. SftMPjS *fK Tt*£t< rJ/1.4 !.C. STANSW93 PENETRATION f^MPliR DSTiVEN i\ 'I4OL6. HAMMER
-------
GROUND
3»-0"
f .LEVEL
A.U.k-IU±lUJUTlJJSS & JS
• *
' SINGLE CASE WELL
•ELL LOG
fill
brown, grey clay
.gravel. & stones
rock
k.
I
X,
s
2"
•CASINO-
FROM CMOUND
SURFACE
» TO 3
13-7
7-12
12- 12*-6!
NAME OF OWNER
E.-I-. -DOPONT -
18920
L.c.«.n POMPTON LAKE
W,"IIM». -CBS 14 •-
blew 1 hr
C.P.M. -
Stotic'L.«v*l
5 •*-?-'
Pumping Level
Seecific Coeooty
Diemeter el Well
Dee* •( W.ll (ground) 10'-6'
Length el C«ting O ~6
Dinencr H> Tap »< Poefco
Type Scr»*n
Si i» el Ser»«n
Ungih «f Scr««n 2'~0"
T»» S«r>«n Fitting
Bottom Scf««« Fitting
Blank
SUt Six.
.016'
Drilling MicKin* No.
6B
Dtill.r
Kramer
Cr*v«l
#1
B*gi •' Cement
Dei* Well CemDleteo- 8-25-81
Retery Teble epprei. 3* •beve ground level
-------
•«*OUNO
LEVEL
SINGLE CASE WELL
VCLL LOO
top soil
stones; yellow clay •
stones, gravely
co&bles, layers ot
sand stone
rock
«n t
^ 8
2"
-CASIN
rcer
FROM OMOUNO
SURFACE
pro 1
1-3
3 - 16-
16 - 16'-6" '-
NAME OP OWNER
E. I. DUPONT
18920 -r
- Pompton Lakes
W>HM»;- - QBS 15 -
—blew 1 hour
5* -7*?-
L«*«< -
Specific -C«»«ei«y
13 '-(
ttifth •! C«minf 8 ~
(9'.)
TrM
PVC
Sis* »f Screen
S'-O1
s«r»«n
couple
SUi fci*
.016'
Dnlliltf M«chin» No.
6B
DrilUr
Kramer
C....I
II
««nt *
W.ll
8-26-1
TckU
• T »fc»»»
ae«
-------
OftOUND
LEVEL
•SINGLE CASE WELL
WELL LOG
top soil
.gray clay
yellow, silty sand
grey sand & gravel
rock
k.
I
s
0.
s
J
t-
0
2"
-CASING-
,i
K
^
FEET- —.-•
r«OM GROUND
SURFACE •
0 TO 1
1-6
6-9
9- 14
14 -
-=•-- . -*AMC Or OWNER
E. I. DUPONT
Job '
18920
Location Pompton Lake
. p»m»«d blew 1 hov
Cip*<>*y C.P.M. 2
Static L««l 5*-5'
L»»»l
Specific Capacity
Diamc-tatof W*ll 2"
D.p* of W.ll (flro«nd) 14 '-0'
Lanf th at Coting 10 '-0'
t}i»tanc» to Top of Peck*? (gr.)
Typ. Scr.*! PVC
Si I* a' Scr»*n
4*-0"
Tap Scr«»n Fitting
S»tt«m Set«»n fitting C&P
Blank
Slat Sita '
.016'
Drilling Machine Na. 6B
Orillar
Kramer
Crev*l
II
Bag* of
Data Wtll Ccmplti.d 8-28~8
Rotary Tabla apprai. 3* above growna* Ivvel
-------
GROUND
I3
t
'"0"
LCVCI.
TJbJb & SONS INC.
SINGLE CASE WELL
WC4.L LOO
fill
grey, yellow clay
yellow sand & gravel
yellow, silty clay
sand £ gravel
sandish yellow clay
rock
Ji
^ a
o
2"
.CASING-**
FEET
FROM GROUND
SURFACE
0 TO 2
2-5
5-8
8-11
11 - 14
14 - 15
15 - 15*-6'
NAME OF OWN CM
E. I. DUPONT
Jab '
18920
Lo«..iof.- -POMPTON IAKE
NO. QBS 17
H>». Pumped blew 1 hour
Capacity C.P.M.
Static level 6 '-10'
Pumping Lovol
Specific Capacity
Diameter al Wall
Depth af Wall (ground)
14'-0''
1
Langih af Cotino 10 '-0"
Pittone* IP Tcp of Poefcar (gr.)
TT»a Scraan PVC
Sita o' Scraan
at Sctaati4 **0
Tap Ser«»« Fining
Bottom Screen Fitting
Blank
Slot Sit*
.016'
Drilling M.cK.i.* Na.
6B
Dnllaf
Kramer
II
Baot al Cement ••
'Cat. Wall Completed
8-25-
•.alary TaMa appro*. T *ha«« •i»Mf»4 la«al
-------
GROUND
3'-0"
f LEVEL
'JB;b & SONS INC.
• *
SINGLE CASE WELL
WELL LOC.
top soil
brown clay
sand & gravel
rock
k,
I
Z
i
J
-CASING-*
O F.
FEET
men a MOUND
SURFACE
OTO I
1-3
.3 --9
9 - 10
NAME Or OWNER
E. I. DUPONT
18920
Uc*»i«* -Pompton Lake
W.I I No.
OBS 18
Hn. Pwm»«d bleW 1 hot
Copocity C.P.M.
Stotie Lovol
Pumping Level
Caoeeity
Diameter •( Well
Depth of Well ((round) 9 ' -0 "
Length of Cosine 6'-0"
Pittance to Top of Pecker (o,r.)
Ty0« Screen
PVC
Sit* of Screen
of Screen 3'-0"
Top Screen Fitting
Bottom Screen Fitting
cap
Blonli
Slot Site
.016'
Drilling Mockino No. 6B
Kramer
Grovel
of Cement
Dete Well Completed
8-26-
Rotary To He oppro«. 3' obove frownd lo»ol
-------
xS
A.C.QCHULTES & SONS INC.
s~*
• t
HOI
(
'*. .
I
I
+
\
^
;
I
~T
•
2*0
•
-1
t
.
•
V
• *
*
*
IN
• in
»
IV
1
1
I «
1
4
f
8
• co
&
t 1
»
•
1
f
•
^
— — * —
•— — —
— — —
IZ IZ —
= = =
zEzrzE
LtVEL
OinVJUC WM0CI/ TO
WELL LOO
Traprock
{Sran4 ^» /Vv*iilH»i»^
vxfitnA&c |wi4Auv&^
Granite (bedrock)
•
• *
CkU
FEET FROM
GROUND SURFACE
Oie_2
2-4
4-32
*~ ^*™* * "~ ~"
«
• •
•
NAME OF OWNER ~
DuPont (Pompton Lakes)
L-e*lio" Shootina Pond
W*IN«. • 19
suMrHram
• "
JO***.. 19838
T«« FvmtMd ».) i w/air
Opacity (G^M) j
SUMLMl _ ,
O*lum
SpMiliC
Capacity
Oiamatar
olCaMtg 4.
OtpihafWM
(Ground) ^ ,
OapMH0Gr«Ml
GraoalfiM
langmot
Cawna 4 8a««i H *
SCTMA Material
SerMAMIa.
•oMAOla.
LangthofScrMn
Tepo4Scra.il
F»tti«Q
SCTMA Fining
Slot tea
s«aiMaiarw Cement
oua«wr . 2 bags
sTM^u, 11' to ground
OrtBIng MaeMM* gg
Data Wan
Cemp'ai- 4/2/84
Ori""' Jim Duffv _
-------
BBSUN_LJ2
LOG OF TEST BORING
B*TE CCMPLETEP.
f?Ka NUMBSe.
PROJECT NUMBCE.
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
METHOP
SAMPLING
PLE.
DeSCKIPTION
SOIL TVPR. «aau», TEJCTURE,
E5TlMA>TtC» r^imaJE StZf,
SAMPLER. CttlVINQ NOTES,
DEPTHS Oe^UUAllON LOST,
NOTES ON DeiUJMQ EHSE,
BITS USED, ETC.
LT
LOCSUON MOTES AMD DUW3I5AM
J _L
T
D
I
3
^
s
'" ^ftyJ ^
£
t
w 8
»' *'-
* - />
i\-
V-
17-
hCTEP AU. 1
U^H
5JB=V
&SMP1B5 ARE TU
-------
A.C.OCHULTES & SONS INC.
TO
t
....
\
I
3
s
•t
if
T
2.5
1
JNO +
k
•
k,
Y
,»
s
•
»
1
' ,
*
*
0
in
h
f'
1
f
»
.
r
•
•
.
*•»
ra^JT ^^ «M,
^^^^ ^^^ ^««»
ZI H II
IZ ZI —
HI ZZ.ZZ
~ ~ s
LCVO.
Oinukb v^^^^bw ¥»
WELL LOO
Topsoil w/cobbles
Rfttil i^Air
Topsoil
f2»-An^ 4»A v rfr*a»\y
* v
.
*
Ckb
FEET FROM
OHOUND SURFACE
««• 4
4-4 5
4.5-5
5-10
•'
% %
NAME OF OWNER
DuPont (Pompton Lakes)
Loe*KSwer •• Near Road
**m" „
SUM ton*
**"* 19838
TMI Pumpwl (Hn.) — - • •'—
1 w/air
C^aeity (OPM| .,
?
SlMie L**« ,
Datum
Specif*
Capacity
DtenwMT
ofCasiftfl 2"
Ocptti o< W«a
(Ground) JQ i
O^»th to Grmtf ,
Gr«v«IS
-------
were BasuN___JLi*2
DOTE eOMPLETEPL
RIG NUM5>EJ?.£t_2
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
METHOP
FIELD
LOG OF TEST BORING
SAMPLING
IU
ill
SAMPLER DRIVING NOTES),
rTHS (SieojLAiioN U>ST,
NOTES OH DKILLJNQ EfiSJE,
&CT& USED, ETC.
spit TVPB. oxoe,
LOCATION MOTES AND
TI8ft.Frie. DITCH.
OMH5S &n:FPVJiS£ NOTSP AU. SAMPLES ATX. TtXEH w/l.4"l.O. STAWCARD PENETRATION SAMPLER
W/I4OLB. HAMHO?
-------
-c-
APPENDIX C
E.I. du Pont Correspondence
-------
fOHM
UPON:
ISlMUSMCDieoI
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY
INCORPORATED
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19898
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
July 26. 1985
Express
ME, Ken Siet
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Division of Water Resources
Trenton. NJ 08625
Dear Sir:
RCRA Section 3005(1)(4) Modification Request
The Du Pont Company requests a modification of the
requirement that a double liner be installed under the blasting
cap destruction pond ("shooting pond") at its explosives
manufacturing plant in Pompton Lakes. New Jersey. Du Pont has
no on-site or off-site alternative to detonation in this pond
for the safe destruction of off-specification or unreliable
blasting caps. Groundwater and surface water are protected
from lead metal, the sole constituent of concern, by the single
natural liner of stone coupled with dredging on an annual basis
and groundwater monitoring.
Authority
Section 3005(j)(l) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) provides that interim status surface
impoundments shall meet the requirements of section
3004(o)(1)(A) by November 8. 1988. These requirements include
use of a double liner. Section 3005(j)(4) provides that EPA or
a state with an authorized program may modify the requirements
of section 3004(o)(1)(A) upon a demonstration that an interim
status surface impoundment is
"located, designed and operated so as to
assure that there will be no migration of
any hazardous constituent into ground water
or surface water at any future time."
Description
The shooting pond has been used for the safe
destruction of blasting caps since 1950. It consists of a pool
-------
- 2 -
of water approximately 45 feet in diameter and 10 feet deep. A
natural depression in the Precambrian metamorphic bedrock.
diameter 200 to 600 feet and depth 15 feet, contains the pond
and colluvial till that helps absorb the explosive energy of
the charges. An intermittent stream. Acid Brook, flows across
the till in the depression approximately 40 feet from the
pond. The rock liner meets the requirements of N.J.A.C.
7:26-10.6(b)(2) for a maximum saturated hydraulic conductivity
of 3.28 x 10~9 ft/sec (1 x 10"7 cm/sec). A site survey and
test borings have revealed no faults in the rock liner, so no
migration to groundwater is possible. This will be verified in
a mass-balance test when the pond is drained later this
summer. A more detailed description is attached as Exhibit I.
The water in the pond and till is slightly
contaminated with several metals and trichloroethylene (TCE)
from operations in adjacent areas at the plant over the past
100 years. Du Pont is working with your agency to determine
whether remedial efforts to deal with this contamination shall
be necessary, but such efforts should not prevent the pond from
being used for destruction of blasting caps.
No TCE or metals other than lead are introduced into
the pond by the practice of destroying blasting caps. The caps
have the hazardous "characteristic" of reactivity when
introduced into the pond, but this is eliminated in the
explosion. The explosion generates lead oxide particulate.
which is non-organic and highly insoluble. Dredging on an
annual basis removes this lead as a potential source of a
future problem. Even with the effects from past contamination.
lead levels in Acid Brook immediately downstream of the pond
are within the drinking water standard of 0.05 milligrams per
liter. These levels are monitored on a routine basis further
downstream at the discharge outfall of the plant's NJPDES
permit.
Necessity
Many of the caps manufactured at this plant have
sophisticated delay mechanisms that must satisfy rigorous
criteria to assure safe use. Although the plant has extensive
quality control programs, a certain number of caps fail this
criteria. In order to avoid storage of these unreliable or
off-specification caps, it is necessary to destroy at a rate of
approximately 600 caps per charge at 10 minute intervals. The
energy liberated by such a blast is in excess of 1.7 million
joules. He have not calculated the size and thickness of a
metal tank of water that might contain such blasts on a
repeated basis, but it would be immense. Retrofit of the pond
with a synthetic or clay liner is not an alternative since
these would be destroyed by the blasts and shrapnel.
-------
- 3 -
Destruction in water is the only accepted industry
practice since it assures complete destruction. It also
muffles noise and contains the shrapnel. The plant has used
this practice for more than 35 years without injury. Attempts
to detonate in air or air chambers results in damaged and
unexploded caps that cause unacceptable hazards to employeees.
Incineration is unfeasible because of the explosive energy.
Summary
Because the natural lining and operation of this pond
prevent migration of hazardous constituents into groundwater or
surface water, and because the pond is essential for the safe
operation of the manufacturing facility, it should be permitted
to operate.
We are eager to meet with you at any time to answer
your questions. My phone number is 302/774-2117.
Very truly yours.
Bernard J. Reilly
1794E
BJR:jfd
cc: Jim Reidy. U.S. EPA. Region II
Ruth Izraeli, NJ DEP
-------
FOAM L<»-«»7«
CSTAHJSHCOIS02
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY
INCORPORATED
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19898
LEGAL DEPARTMENT September 10, 1985
Ms. Denise Hawkins, Acting Chief
New Jersey/Caribbean Permit Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Ms. Hawkins:
Pompton Lakes Shooting Pond
Modification Request
Thank you for your letter of August 28, 1985, in
response to Du Font's request of July 26, 1985 for a modifi-
cation of the requirement for a double liner for the blasting
cap destruction pond ("shooting pond") at Du Font's explosive
manufacturing plant in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey. We are
gathering the information indicated in your letter and will
submit it promptly.
This letter is to respond to your concern that
recent dredging and testing of the shooting pond may result
in its classification as a "replacement", thereby necessitating
retrofit with double liners and leachate collection prior to
any use after May 8, 1985.
The purpose of the dredging is routine maintenance
to prevent buildup of_lgad_residue in the bottom of the pond and
to reshape the crushelProckthat lines the pond. This rock
becomes pulverized from the blasting and settles to the pond
bottom, making the pond too shallow for safety. During this
recent maintenance we drained the water from the pond as part
of our program to verify the integrity of the rock liner that
defines the boundary of the surface impoundment that contains
the pond. As indicated in my letter, the pond is 45 feet
diameter, 10 feet deep; the impoundment^00-600 feet diameter,
15 feet deep. Aside from the pond, the imponndment'contains
till and residues from waste practices that_j3£gdate the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations. The
annual dredging does not disturb this till or the waste
residues - which make up the overwhelming volume of this
unit. Hence, neither all nor substantially all wastes have
been removed thus the impoundment is not a "replacement".
-------
Ms. Denise Hawkins - 2 - September 10, 1985
I hope this clarifies this matter. As noted in my
previous letter, this pond is essential for the safe operation
of this plant. Prior to any action by your agency to disallow
its use, we hope you will accept our offer to meet with you to
assure your full appreciation of this matter. I may be reached
at 302/774-2117.
Sincerely,
r^~ - tX ~ v /
Bernard J. Reilly
BJR:jad
cc: Mr. Clifford Ng
U.S. EPA
Region II
Ms. Ruth Izraeli, Geologist
Div. of Water Resources, NJDEP
-------
SECTION C-5
EXHIBIT C-3-3
E. I. DU PONT OE NEMOURS & COMPANY
POMPTON LAKES. N. J. 07442
*U««:AIM: .- •.. - m ^ •> - .-.«/•
February 11, 1986
i ••«•* *•
Clifford Ng
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Re: Du Font's Pompton Lakes Works, EPA I.D. No.: NJD002173946
Status of "Shooting Pond" Variance Request
Dear Mr. Ng:
Attached for your review is a report written in answer
to questions posed in your October 28, 1985 and January 15. 1986
letters to Mr. B. J. Reilly, Du Pont Legal Department. The report
follows the form set forth in your January 15th letter.
Information requested in both letters has been answered to the
best of our ability at various points in time over the past
several years. This attached report has combined all data
specific to questions asked.
During your review you will note some new work has been
proposed. No specific time schedule has been developed for this
work but we intend to develop specific work scopes for these tasks
within 30 days of receipt of your letter of approval for our plan
and Intend to complete work within an additional 120 days after
the first time period has expired. This timing will allow the EPA
and Du Pont to agree on specific work scope items and further
allow bidding and work orientation time for the contractors. We
feel that this is a reasonable schedule based on other
hydrogeologic work now ongoing within the plant. As with our
current and past experience with well drilling elsewhere on plant,
the 120 days may be subject to Influence by weather conditions and
well drilling contractor availability.
Copies of two other reports requested in the August 28,
1985 letter are also enclosed with this submittal. Orthogonal
geologic cross sections requesed in the January 1986 letter have
not been prepared at this time due to the relocation of Mr.
Schaefer (our company hydrogeologlst) to our Beaumont engineering
office. As soon as he is settled he will prepare these sections
ffti»w»»»rt fcham f.n vnn.
-------
-2-
li" any questions develop during your review of these
reports, please call.
Sincerely,
Carl B. Everett
CHE:1170n
cc: Ken Slct, DWR, NJDEP
Dan Brakensiek, Pompton Lakes Works-Du Pont
-------
-D-
APPENDIX D
U.S. EPA Correspondence
-------
2 8 1985
Mr. lernartf J.
Le{.6l Department
t. I. DuPont dfc
Wilmington, Delaware 191 S3
Re: Response to Request for Variance fro* the Kin1»us Technological
Requirements for the Ponpton Lakes "Shooting Pond".
Dear Kr. Re Illy:
Your formal request, on August 2, 1585. to the New Jersey Oeparteent of
Environmental Protection (NJDLP), for a variance fro* the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) double liner requirement has been
referred to this Region for response. RCRA Mas amended on Nove&bcr L,
19£4. ty the Hazardous and Solid Waste Aaend*ents of 1$£4 (HSWA). Becaust
MC£P has net receive* authorization to laplement the HHSA. this Kefilor.al
Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (CPA} 1s responsible for
reviewing and responding to your request. After evaluating the BsaterlaH
accompanying your letter, wt are unable to approve the variance request
due to the Insufficient Information you have thus far provided.
Section 3005 (J) (4) provides that EPA, after notice anc opportunity for
convent, Bay oodlfy the requirements of Section 3CC4(o)(l)(«) upon demons-
tration that an Intertn status surface Impoundment 1s
•located, designed, and operated so as to assure that there Hill
be ne atlgratlon of any hazardous constituent Into groundvater
or surface water at any given time*.
Based on Information tuta1tte4 with your letter, ve cannot detervlno th«t
the requirements of Section 30Ub(j)(4), «s amended have been net. In order
for us to be$1n a meaningful analysis on your variance request, the following
Information, at a alnlKuw, should be
- Site, survey and test borings mentioned 1n your letter,
- Kcvecber/Ueeeiriber 1S£3 report submit teu to fcJUfcP,
- July 19i>4 report submitted tc KjbcP
- Tests for fractures 1n the bedrock InclutMn^ ROCK Quality Oeslgnatlf. .-.
(R3F) values In the vicinity of the site-,
- Plan «p of groundwat*-r rnonltorinc *nc «1< monitoring results anc
other analysis fror sucf- monitoring,
-------
- In-depth geological studies inducing cross sections s'-owlnv, t^e suL-
granlte geo1oy>, tht elldvljl stratifUc wrlr't ^uiff.r*, sn«j the
fault trace aquifers,
- Site specific water tail? profile, and
- lesion and corses It lor, of sxistln-j llntr.
T>e petitioner Dears the burden of providing convincing oocuroentatlon dem-
onstrating that the location, design and operation of this surface Impoundment
fleets the performance specifications established by EPA to taeet the require-
ments of 3CG4(o)(l)(a), as amended, to allow proper evaluation of the
variance request.
In accordance with HSMA, the "shooting pond", qualifies as a "replacement"
surface impoundment unit — that Is, a unit that 1s taken out of service
and emptied by removing all or substantially all waste from 1t. (See 42
U.S.C. 3015; Federal Register, Volume 5C, Number 135, a5 28706). This
classification results fro* your own statements concerning annual dredging
and removal of waste In the operation of this surface Impoundment. Such
an interim status replacement unit continuing to accept waste must have
been In conference with the minimum technological requirements established
by the above cited HSNA provisions by Kay 8, 1985.
As a result, the November «, 1983, compliance deadline cited 1n your letter
is not applicable to the Pompton Lakes surface Impoundment facility. Since
the Fay 8, 1985, deadline for compliance 1s past, no further waste can be
accepted at that unit until the minimum technological requirements are
net or your variance Is approved.
If .you have any questions, please contact Mr. Clifford tig of my staff at
264-0505.
Sincerely yours,
r»tn1se Hawkins
Acting Chief
.Vv, -Jerse>/CariDbt>an Parrlt Section
cc: ^oth Izraeli
t.eo1og1st. Division cf fcster r\t; sources, r'Jc;tP
bcc: Angel Chang, 2AWM-SW
Clifford Mg, 2AUN-SW
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1O27B
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
JAN i s isee
Mr. Bernard Rellly
Legal Department
E.I. DuPont de Nemours
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
RE: E.I. DuPont Pompton Lakes Works, EPA I.D. Number: NJD002173946
Status of "Shooting Pond" Variance Request
Dear Mr. Reilly:
This letter shall advise you of the status of the request for a variance
from the minimum technological requirements of §3004 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act of 1984 (HSWA), 42 u.S.C.
§6924, for the Pompton Lakes "shooting pond" surface impoundment unit.
After reviewing DuPont's initial submission dated July 26, 1985, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II responded by letter
dated August 28, 1985. That letter described additional information and
data that would be necessary for the initiation of a meaningful analysis
of the DuPont variance request. In addition, EPA responded by dispatching
two technical staff members for an authorized site visit on October 9, 1985,
This site visit provided EPA with the opportunity to observe actual site
conditions and develop an additional inventory of geological and hydrolop-
1cal information essential to evaluate the variance request (copy enclosed).
These informational requirements, in addition to the material requested in
the August 28, 1985 letter, comprise the material that EPA, at a minimum,
would require to continue the variance review process.
As noted in previous correspondence, the petitioner bears the burden of
providing convincing documentation demonstrating that an interim status
surface impoundment'is located, designed, and operated so as to assure
that there will be no migration of any hazardous constituent into ground-
water or surface water at any future time. See 42 U.S.C. §6925(j)(4).
At present, EPA has received no additional information in response to the
August 28, 1985 request. Please inform my staff within 15 calendar days
from the receipt of this letter whether or not your company intends to
pursue the modification request.
-------
-2-
If DuPont wishes to continue the review process, please submit within
30 calendar days from the receipt of this letter, either the information
recommended by EPA or a detailed proposal describing necessary studies
and test plans and the expected schedule for initiation and completion
of such studies and tests. Failure to submit either the information
itself or the required proposal within the 30-day deadline will result
in an immediate denial of the modification reouest.
Finally, EPA continues to view the "shooting pond" at the Pompton Lakes
facility as an interim status replacement unit subject to the May 8, 19R5
deadline for implementation of the minimum technological requirements.
See 42 ll.S.C. 66936(b)(l). Despite the discussion in your September 10, 1985
letter, EPA's review of the Part A application for this facility and knowledge
of the actual on-site conditions confirm the Agency's characterization of
this unit.
Direct all questions and comments to Clifford Ng at (212) 264-6139.
Sincerely yours,
Barry Tornick, Chief
New Jersey/Carribean Permit Section
Enclosure
cc: Ken Siet, DWR, NJDEP w/encl.
Rosemary DiCandilo, DWR, NJDEP w/encl.
bcc: Barry Tornick, 2AWM-SW? w/encl.
Stuart Dean, 20RC w/encl.
Clifford Ng, 2AWM-SWB w/encl. ~'
C. Kenna Amos, 2AWM-SW w/encls.
Richard A. Baker, 2PM-PA w/encl.
-------
ATTACHMENT
To support the variance request from the minimum technological requirements,
evidence showing that the bedrock underneath the surface impoundment is
not leaking due to any fracturing or faulting should be submitted. This
can be done by any valid method chosen. However, it is recommended that
the following information, as a minimum, be submitted:
1. Historical Geology - Conduct tectonic and stress history analysis.
(a) Local and regional joint sets and joint system
(b) Local and regional veins and dikes
(c) Local and regional faulting
(d) Compare analyses for a determination of the stress history
2. Drainage Patterns - Trace out drainage areas and analyze each for
structural control.
3. Determine Vertical and Horizontal Gradients - Install sufficient
number of piezometer clusters at discrete depths in appropriate
locations and adeouate depths to accurately define the vertical
and horizontal gradients in the vicinity of the shooting pond.
4. Drilling Plans - Include shallow and deep boreholes.
(a) Shallow Boreholes
(i) Bore sufficient number of boreholes in appropriate locations
down to the bedrock to accurately describe the unconsolidated
deposits beneath the shooting pond.
(ii) Soil samples should be collected for subsequent laboratory
analysis and observation.
(b) Deep Boreholes
(i) Bore sufficient number of boreholes in appropriate
locations and sufficiently deep to accurately describe
the bedrock geology beneath the shooting pond. Particular
emphasis should be placed on observing drilling conditions
and/or drilling problems encountered.
(ii) Drill chips and cores should be collected and preserved
for subsequent laboratory analysis and observation.'
5. Surface Geophysics
(a) Applicable geophysical techniques should be conducted in the
vicinity of the shooting pond. The depth of penetration
should be sufficiently deep so as to be consistent with the
scope of this report.
(b) Correlate the surface geophysical techniques with boreholes.
-------
-2-
6. Geophysical Well Logging - Deep boreholes should be callper logged.
7. Well Tests Results and Data - At least one 1n-s1tu well test must
be run in the bedrock in the vicinity of the shooting pond while
monitoring the shallow wells, the shooting pond, and Acid Brook.
8. Monitoring Well Installation Plans - A sufficient number of monitoring
wells must be installed at discrete depths in appropriate locations to
monitor groundwater flow conditions 1n the vicinity of the shooting pond.
RECOMMENDED SUBMITTALS TO EPA
1. Field data
2. Facility maps as described in the EPA document, RCRA Ground-Water
Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (August 1985)
a. Description of all drill logs of borings
b. A minimum of four geologic cross-sections in orthogonal
boxwork around the surface impoundment. Each section should
identify the following:
1) Type and characteristic of geologic material
2) Contact zones between geologic materials
3) Zones of high permeability or fracture
4) Location of each borehole
5) Depth of termination
6) Screen location
7) Depth of saturation zone
8) Horizontal and vertical scales
c. Topographic maps
1) Constructed by licensed surveyor
2) Show contours at a maximum of 2 feet contour intervals
at a scale of 1 inch equal 200 feet
' 3) Locations and illustrations of man-made features
4) Descriptions of nearby bodies of water and/or off-site
wells
5) Site boundaries
6) Individual RCRA units
7) Delineation of the waste management areas
8) Plan map of wells and boring locations
-------
-3-
d. Aerial photographs - properly labeled
1) Showing the subject unit
2) Adjacent off-site features
3) Surface water and adjacent municipalities or
residential areas
4) Lineament studies
e. Groundwater flow pattern (site specific)
1) Horizontal component
2) Vertical component
3) Hydraulic conductivities and method of determination
(note that laboratory results are unacceptable unless
supported by in-situ well test data)
f. Geophysical analysis
1) All field data
2) Interpretation supported by data and references
3) Correlation with direct measurements
Recommended guidance manual: RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical
Enforcement Guidance Document (August 1985, US EPA).
For information on obtainina a copy of the guidance manual, please contact
Ms. Lori Heise, Office of Solid Waste, EPA, 401 M Street, S.W..
Washington D.C., at l-(202)-475-9360.
Direct all comments concerning the recommendations in this enclosure to
Malcolm Field of my staff at I-(212) 264-6138.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
|