United States Region 10
Environmental Protection 1200 Sixth Avenue
Agency Seattle WA 98101
January, 1981
&ERA Report of the
Preliminary
Groundwater
Contamination
Investigation
Lakewood, Washington
October—November, 1981
-------
REPORT OF THE PRELIMINARY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
INVESTIGATION, LAKEWOOD, WASHINGTON
OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 1981
By
Frederick Wolf
Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10
and
Kwasi Boateng
Field Investigation Team Region 10
Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 - Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington
98101
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10
U.S. EPA LIBRARY REGION 10 MATERIALS
H0D203A
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to numerous EPA, Ecology and Environment, Inc.,
and local officials for helping to secure access to the drilling sites,
providing technical support, and reviewing the draft report.
Jack Sceva of EPA was instrumental in the development of the study
plan, and reviewing the draft report. His suggestions were very
helpful. Charles Morgan, Ph.D., Jake Newland, Chris Moffett of
EPA Region X Office in Seattle, Joe Keeley of The Robert F. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, and Hussein Aldis
of Ecology and Environment, all made contributions.
Special appreciation is extended to Wayne Dunbar and the entire staff
of the Lakewood Water District for their cooperation and understanding.
Technical support was provided by Peter Evers and Tom Tobin of Ecology
and Environment Office in Seattle, and John Panaro of E & E Office in
Boston. We wish to express our appreciation to all of them.
Fred Wolf
Kwasi Boateng
-------
ABSTRACT
During the summer of 1980, organic solvents were discovered in the water
produced by lakewood Wells H-l and H-2. Significantly higher concentra-
tions were repeatedly detected in Well H-2. The drillers logs indicated
that a tight hard pan (till) layer seperated the production aquifer from
the unconfined semi-perched aquifer above. The annular space at H-2 was
found to have been filled with pea gravel and it was hypothesisized that
this could be a conduit for vertical migration of contaminent. This
hypothesis would also account for the higher concentrations found in H-2.
This preliminary investigation tests this hypothsis by the construction
and monitoring of 10 observation wells. The study provides information
which suggests hydrologic interconnections do exist between the semi-
perched and the production aquifers, but does not suggest that the
semi-perched zone is infact the source of the organic solvents.
ii
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for public release. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views or policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute enforcement or recommendation for use.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 1
2.1 Location 1
2.2 Climate and Water Budget 3
2.3 General Geology 3
2.4 Site Geology 3
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of Methodology and Drilling Site 3
Selection
3.2 Well Construction 4
3.3 Well Development 4
3.4 Pump Test 4
3.5 Equipment Decontamination 6
3.5 Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) 9
3.7 Survey 9
4.0 SAMPLING PROGRAM
4.1 Observation Wells 9
4.2 Production Wells 9
4.3 Analytical Requirements 11
4.4 Sampling Documentations 11
4.5 Quality Assurance 11
4.6 Site Safety Plan 13
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
13
5.1 Summary
5.2 Data Obtained
13
13
5.3 Discussion
42
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX A - PERMISSION FOR DRILLING FORM
APPENDIX B - WELL LOGS
APPENDIX C - OVA DATA
APPENDIX D - WELL LOGS FROM H-l & H-2
APPENDIX E - SITE SAFETY PLAN
v
-------
1-0. Introduction
This investigation of ground water contamination occuring at
the Lakewood (Washington) Water District's Ponders Well Field
was initiated to obtain more detailed hydrogeologic data con-
cerning the site. Earlier sampling at this location has shown
strong evidence that both production wells, H-l and H-2 are
contaminated by Trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene and 1, 2
(trans) Dichlorethylene. (Littler et.al 1981). An examination
of the "as constructed" well logs from the two production wells
revealed that the annular space of H-2 had been filled with highly
porous gravel pack having no cement seal to prevent vertical migra-
tion of contaminants from the surface. The logs also showed the
occurrence of a confining layer of till at about 25-30 ft. from
the surface. It was hypothosized that this till could act as a
confining layer creating a perched water table. If grossely con-
taminated, such an aquifer could be the source of contamination
reaching the deeper aquifer downward through the annular gravel
pack. The concentrations of the organics were higher in H-2
than H-l which reenforced this hypothesis.
The purpose of this study was to probe the upper, perched aquifer to
attempt to define the direction of movement and levels of contami-
nants present. If possible, a direction to the source area of the
contaminants would be obtained. A network of shallow observation
wells using low cost, but adequate levels of technology and con-
struction were installed. Their siting was "interactive" based
on field data and chemical information obtained from the Century
Systems Model 128 Organic Vapor Analyzer (0VA-128)gas chromatograph.
The physical installation of wells occurred during the first half
of October, 1981, and the gathering of samples and data from October
to January, 1982.
This project was carried out under the direction of the Environmental
Services Division, U.S. EPA, Region 10 with supporting professional
services and contracting support from the Field Investigation Team,
Region 10, Ecology and Environment, Inc., under TDD 10-810803.
2.0. Physical Description
2.1 Location
The Lakewood Water District contaminated wells are located
within 200 feet N.E. of the intersection of 1-5 and New York
Ave. in Lakewood, Pierce County, Washington. The site is also
located at N.W. 1/2 of the N.E. 1/4 of,S£CJion 14, Township 19N,
Range 2E, and may also be located at LWF^mde 47° 08'30"N and
tatrtude 122° 31'15" W. The site is shown in Figure 1.
1
-------
S220O0°m.f|
Inutrtion 11 .42 | -£% ¦ .* [
ibrickiTj&te&ardefl Tya'gt. 'v.?* • ~ *'
0 INTEBiOR—r.fOLOGlCAU SURVEY, RESTQN. VIRGINIA—< 9 »# 5$70®mEj
47"07'30"
122"30'
Heavy-duty.-...
Medium-duty.
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
— Light-duty
WASHINGTON
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
Unimproved dirt
(^) Interstate Route
STEILACOOM, WASH.
NEM ANDERSON ISLAND IS' QUADRANGLE
N4707.5—W12230/7.5
1959
PHOTOREVISED 1968 AND 1973
AMS 1478 II NE—SERIES V891
4c.
Figure 1
Location of Lakewood Study Area
2
-------
2.2 Climate and Water Budget
The Lakewood-Tacoma general area has a temperate maritime climate
with cool wet winters and warm dry summers. There is a marked
deficit of actual transpiration over potential transpiration
during the summer so that May-October are water deficit months,
and November-April have excess precipitation.
Average annual precipitation for the area from 1945 to 1980
is 39.19 inches. Mean lake evaporation is about 23 inches per
year (DOE 1981), leaving approximately 16 inches to infiltrate
or run-off the site. The maximum 2-year precipitation expected
in 24-hour period is 2 inches (Miller, et. al., 1973).
2.3 General Geology
The Lakewood-Tacoma general area is underlain by a great thick-
ness of semiconsolidated and unconsolidated materials laid down
in lakes or by streams during recent, Pleistocene and late
tertiary time (Griffin, Sceva, et. al., 1962). These sedi-
ments include clay, silt, sand, and gravels, glacial till and
peat. Water-bearing characteristics of the general area dif-
fer from place to place depending upon the rock type. The
areas underlain by outwash sand and gravel deposits are the
most productive aquifers, while in the till-capped areas,
where permeability is low, aquifers are generally not produc-
tive and yield only small amounts of water to wells.
2.4 Site Geology
The study area is underlain by sand and gravels (see well logs),
deposited by meltwater streams that flowed westward accross the
general area during the Vashon glacietion in the late Pleisto-
cene. These outwash deposits are highly permeable and yeild
large quantities of water. One of the study wells, H-l yields
more than 2,000 gpm. with specific capacity of about 35 gpm. per
foot of drawdown. (Griffin, Sceva, et. al., 1962).
Ground water was encountered between 20'-35' below ground
elevation in all the observation wells.
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Description of Methodology and Drilling Site Selection
Drilling sites were preselected by the investigators allowing
adaquate time to obtain permission to drill, and to ensure the
location could be reached by the rig. A standardized permission
form was developed and is presented in the appendix. A total
of 17 potential drilling sites were located with permission for
3
-------
access and drilling obtained. Because the drilling program was
interactive, individual sites selected for drilling based on field
judgement and OVA data; each well site was chosen on the basis of
information gathered in preceeding wells. The flexibility inher-
ent in this approach permitted more data to be obtained using fewer
drill sites. A map showing observation well locations is presented
in Figure 2.
3.2 Well Construction
The observation wells were excavated to an average depth of 35 feet
utilizing a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig (Mobile Drill
D-61), to about 10 feet below the water table. The internal diam-
eter of the auger was 4-inches.
A 2-1/2-inch ID ungalvanized steel casing (black iron pipe), was
then installed. The perforated section of the casing was 10 feet
(except observation wells #1 and 2 which were 20 and 15 feet long
respectively). Since the formation material was coarse, it was
not necessary to place gravel pack around the "screen" to serve
as a filter media. Figures 3 and 4 show the slot being "cut" by
torch and the finished slotted screen
The annular space from the top of the screen (perforations) to
6 feet below ground surface was backfilled with drill cuttings.
The annular space from the depth of 6 feet to ground surface was
filled with a mixture of bentonite and fine sand in a ratio of one
portion of fine sand and one portion bentonite in accordance of
Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) specifications.
Details of well construction are illustrated in Figure 5.
3.3 Well Development
The completed wells were developed with compressed air to insure
their utility as monitoring wells. This was done in a manner that
did not cause any undue disturbance of the strata above the water
table nor disturb the seal effected around the well casing and
thereby reduce the sanitary protection. The development of the
wells continued until the water pumped from the wells was clear
and free of sand. This usually took 1-1/2 to 2 hours per well.
3.4 Pump Test
A pump test to establish the existance of the confining layer
or significant difference in vertical permeability at the well
field location was carried-out on 5 November 1981. The test
was carried-out by pumping H-l and H-2 for one hour each, while
measuring drawdown in the pumping wells and water level changes
in the observation wells. Measurements were carried out by two
4
-------
•-10
—A
—3
OH-2
—1
OH-1 *"9
—2
—5
'Not Drawn to Scale
Weil Location Map*
Lakewood Washington
o Lakewood Water District Production Weil
•— Observation Well Installed by EPA
Figure 2
5
-------
Observation Well Construction*
Lakewood Project
'Not Drawn to Scale
» — _ w ¦ — v v '
« * ."'-V
.ft#'-
6 feet
35 feet
Drill
Cuttings
variable
Length _
Threaded Cap
Ground Surface
Grout
(bentonite & sand)
Ungalvanized 2 1/» inch
Steel Casing
(or Black Iron Pipe)
6 inch hole
Water Table
Formation Material
Perforations
(Torch Cut 1/8 inch to
6 inches, 3 per foot)
igure 5
-------
Driller's assistant cutting slots using a torch
Torch-cut slots in black iron casing.
Figures 6 and 7
7
-------
teams of two people, with one team using electric tape and the
other, steel tape. Well H-l was pumped from 1149 to 1249
at a flow rate initially of 1250 gallons per minute, H-2 was
similarly pumped for one hour, 1400 to 1500, at an initial flow
of 1000 gallons per minute.
Water level elevations are presented in Table 1 and their
curves are presented in Figures 8 through 19 . During the pump
test, water samples were obtained from the discharge pipe at the
on-site discharge pit adjacent to H-2. The samples were taken
at approximately 10 minute intervals and analyzed for tetrachlo-
roethylene, trichloroethylene and 1, 2 (trans) Oichlorethylene.
Equipment Decontamination
The Lakewood project required us to use equipment decontamination
procedures to insure that trace levels of volatile organic com-
pounds were not the result of cross-contamination between drill
sites nor resulting from sources outside the scope of the project
area. Outside sources of contamination could include drilling
water, contaminated truck surfaces used to haul auger sections
or equipment in contact with contaminated surfaces. The dril-
ling contractor was required to provide 2 complete 50 foot strings
of auger. This permitted one string to be in use while the other
was being cleaned and decontaminated off site. Prior to arrival
on-site, the drill rig was steam cleaned. One technician and a
driller's helper were responsible for operating the off-site de-
contamination station. Located at the Lakewood Water District's
equipment and storage area, the station also served as a water
source for the rig, where pre-analyzed water was available in
adaquate supply. A steam cleaner was obtained by the contractor
for this project. The tank of this cleaner was scrubbed with
Alconox and water and thoroughly rinsed before it was used.
The water tank on the rig was similarly rinsed followed by
steam cleaning.
Equipment decontamination during the drilling phase occured as
follows:
1. The truck carrying the augers and equipment was unloaded
at the decontamination site, then scrubbed with Alconox
and water followed by steam cleaning.
2. All drilling equipment and tools were scrubbed with Alconox
and steam cleaned in the same manner and reloaded onto the
truck without being set on the ground.
3. Since cleaning was carried out on a paved surface, drainage
was controlled and directed to the sewer system.
8
-------
Equipment used in the project was periodically checked by both the
OVA-128 and HNU Vapor detector systems. No detection of organic
vapors on tools or auger sections decontaminated by this procedure
was observed.
3.6 Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA)
A Century Systems Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) Model 128 was used
to detect and monitor the presence of organic vapor during and
after well installation. A twofold method was used. The survey
mode was used to "sniff" the wells during drilling to determine if
organic vapors were encountered. The G.C. mode was used to detect
the type of organic compounds in the soil and water samples in the
field (see appendix). HNU Model 101 Photoionization Analyzer was
used to screen methane. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the use of the
HNU and the OVA to assess ambient vapor levels around the auger
during drilling.
3.7 Survey
Elevations of the top of the well casings were surveyed to a
common datum. This was necessary to determine the direction
of ground water flow at the site.
The survey datum was an artificial plane 100 feet below the top of
the cement monument located in the well house at H-l.
4.0 Sampling Program
A total of ten observation wells and two production wells were sampled.
4.1 Observation Wells
At least three to five times the volume of water originally stand-
ing in the well was bailed out and the wells allowed to recharge
before sampling. Samples were collected with a 1" stainless steel
bailer lowered by a stainless steel wire. The bailer was cleaned
with acetone, methylene chloride and dried with air before sam-
pling each well.
All sampling containers, the bailer and the sampler's gloves
were rinsed two times with the media to be sampled. The
gloves were changed between sampling each well to eliminate
cross-contamination. The outside of the containers were rin-
sed with distilled water before the containers were placed
in the ice chest.
4.2 Production Wells
Samples were collected from the production wells H-l and H-2
with 1" stainless steel bailer.
9
-------
OVA-128 and H-NU instruments being used to measure vapor levels during augering.
Direct read-out of vapor levels using the OVA-128.
Figures 8 and 9
10
-------
3 Analytical Requirements
All samples obtained from the observation wells were analyzed
by the EPA Region X Laboratory for heavy metals, pesticides,
acid extractible, base/neutral extractible and volatiles on
the priority pollutants list. The production wells were ana-
lyzed for Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene and 1, 2
(trans) - Dichloroethene. All the wells except H-l were ana-
lyzed for hardness, specific conductance, alkalinity, total
dissolved solids, pH, SO4 and CI. A list of priority pollutants
analyzed during this study is provided in Table 1.
The following containers were used:
Extractable Organics
Volatile Organics
Pesticides
Two 1-gal. glass jars with teflon-lined
lids.
Two 40-ml. vials with teflon-lined lids.
One 1/2 gal. glass jar with teflon-lined
lids.
Heavy Metals and
General Parameters
One 1-qt. polyethylene cubitainer.
Sampling Documentations
The sampling procedures were documented in a field log book.
Samples were shipped to EPA Region X Laboratory, and were ac-
companied by a Field Sample Data Sheet, an Analysis Requirement
Sheet and a white copy of the Chain-of-Custody Record. These
forms were sealed in a ziplock plastic bag. Each container was
labled with a sample number. A sample identification tag was
tied around the container. The ice chest containing the samples
was sealed with a Chain-of-Custody Seal before shipment in ac-
cordance with EPA procedures (MEIS, 1980).
5 Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance was maintained by use of analytical blanks,
field transfer blanks and appropriate media samples as de-
scribed in section 3.5. All samples shipped to the labora-
tory were accompanied by appropriate pre-analyzed organic-free
water blanks, in containers of the type used for the environ-
mental samples and/or field transfer blanks. Field transfer
blanks were used to establish that trace levels of organic
compounds in environmental samples did not result from field
procedures. All analytical data obtained in this study has
been reviewed by the Environmental Services Division for
quality assurance acceptability.
11
-------
Table 1
Priority Pollutant Analyses Request
for Lakewood Observation Wells
METALS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
beryllium
cadmium
CHROMIUM
COPFER
LERC>
MERCURY
N'CIEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
THALLIUM
ZINC
PESTICIDES
RLDRIN
CHLORDANE
DIELDR1N
4, 4 DDT
4. 4'DDE
4, 4'DDD
ALPHA EW-OSULFRN
BET B ENDOSULFAN
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
wePTftCHLOR
HEPTfiCHLOR EPOXIDE
ALPHA BHC
BETA BHC
GAMMA BHC
DELTA BHC
TOXAPHENE
PCB 1016
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
TCB 1243
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
(LINDANE)
BASE/HEUTRAL EXTRACTIBLES
. ACEHAPHTHENE
. BENZIDINE
. 1>2> 4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
. HEXACHLOROBENZENE
. HEXACHLOROETHANE
. BIS < 2-CHL0R0ETHVL) ETHER
. 2-CHL0R0NAPHTHALENE
. 1. 2-DICHLOROBENZENE
. 1. 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
. 1. 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
. 3< 3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
. 2. 4-DINITROTOLUENE
. 2/ 6-DINITR0T0LUENE
. 1/ 2-D1PHENVLHYDRAZINE
. FLUORRNTHENE
. 4-CHL0R0PHENVL PHENYL ETHER
. 4-BROMOPHENVL PHENYL ETHER
BIS < 2-CHL0R01SOPROPVL >ETHER
BIS < 2-CHL0R0ETH0XV > METHANE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXRCHLOROCVCLOPENT ADIENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
N-NITROSODIMETHVLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPVLRMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENVLAMINE
BIS < 2-ETHVLHEXVL > PHTHRLRTE
N-BUTVL BENZYL PHTHRLRTE
DI-N-BUTVL PHTHRLRTE
DI-N-OCTYL F'HTHALATE
DIETHYL PHTHRLRTE
¦DIMETHYL PHTHRLATE
BENZO < R)ANTHRACENE
BENZO < A >PVRENE
BENZO< B > FLUORRNTHENE
BENZO< K> FLUORRNTHENE
CHRVSENE
ACENRPHTHVLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO (GHI) PERYLENE
FLUORENE
PHENRNTHPENE
1, 2/5<6-D1BENZRNTHRACENE
INDENOC1, 2/ 3-CD>PVF:ENE
PVRENE
TCDD
ACID EXTRACTIBLES
2,4. 6-TRICHL0R0FHEN0L
P-CHLORO-M-CRESOL
2-CHL0R0PHEN0L
2, 4-D I CHLOROPHENClL
2,4-DIMET HVLPHENOL
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2. 4-DINITROPHENOL
4. 6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
PENTRCHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
VOLATILE ORGANICS
ACROLEIN
RCRVLONITRILE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1.X, 1-TRICHLOROET HANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1, 2-TRICHLOROET HANE
1,1. 2. 2-TETRACHLOROETHRNE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1, 2-TRANS-DICHLOFOETHVLENE
1, 2-DICHLORGPROPPNE
CIS-1. 3-DICHLOROF ROPENE
TRRNS-i, 3-D I CHLOF-OPROF'ENE
ETHVLBEN2ENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
nETHVL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMOFORM
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHRNE
DIBROMOCHLQROMETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHVLENE
TOLUENE
T RICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
BIS C CHLORQMETHVL > ETHER
2-CHLOROETHVL VINYL ETHER
12
-------
4.6 Site Safety Plan
A site safety plan was prepared by the Field Investigation
Team, Region 10, Ecology and Environment, Inc. (FIT). This
plan established the criteria for personnel protection as
dictated by 0VA-128 and HNU Model 101 analytical data. Since
the level of organic vapors was expected to be very low in the
respirable zone (breathing area of workers) respiratory protec
tion was not required. Drillers were instructed to use dispos
able gloves, changing them on each well. The FIT provided a
supply of MSA Ultra-twin respirators and Level D protective
gear as a contingency. A copy of the Site Safety Plan is pro-
vided in the Appendix.
Results
5.1 Summary
This study generated a generous amount of hydrogeological
and chemical data. These samplings were highly specific in
purpose and the results should be interpreted with this in
mind. Numerous samples were obtained prior to and during
the course of drilling. These samples were either of a
quality assurance nature or were exploratory, such as sam-
ples of aquifer material. All such samples were analyzed
by the EPA Manchester lab for the Volatile Organics listed
with the 129 priority pollutants, none were detected. The
study produced physical data in terms of lithologic logs,
which are presented in the Appendix, water level elevations
and fluctuations, dynamic levels of chemical constituents
during pumpage in waters from H-l and H-2 and extensive
background water quality data from the observation wells.
5.2 Data Obtained
The results of this study have been tabulated and plotted
in the following Tables and Figures.
13
-------
Ground Water Elevations (in Feet) During $umpage
November 5, 1981
WELL TIME ELEV TIME ELEV TIME ELEV TIME ELEV TIME ELEV TIME ELEV TIME ELEV
PRODUCTION WELL H-l
1030
68. 0
1103
68.
1
1149
67. 9
1158
49. 4
1207
49.
2
1216
48. 8
1225
48. 6
PRODUCTION WELL H-2
1031
68. 4
1105
68.
4
1157
62 9
1205
62. 3
1214
62.
2
1223
62. 5
1232
61. 9
OBSERVATION
WELL
1
1031
69. 4
1105
69.
4
1155
69. 4
1204
69. 5
1213
69.
5
1222
69. 5
1231
69. 5
OBSERVATION
WELL
2
1035
68. 5
1101
68.
4
1152
68. 5
1159
68. 4
1209
68.
4
1217
68. 4
1226
68. 4
OBSERVATION
WELL
3
1014
69. 7
1037
69.
7
1112
69. 8
1200
69. 8
1210
69.
8
1223
69. 8
1239
69. 7
OBSERVATION
WELL
4
1019
69. 8
1041
69.
8
1117
69. 8
12Q3
69. 7
1214
69.
7
1227
69. 7
1238
69. 7
OBSERVATION
WELL
5
1003
68. 0
1032
68.
0
1106
68. 0
1126
68. 0
1155
68.
0
1206
67. 9
1232
67. 7
OBSERVATION
WELL
6
1038
67. 5
1109
67.
1
1154
67. 4
1203
67. 8
1212
67.
3
1220
66. 9
1230
66. 8
OBSERVATION
WELL
7
1040
67. 6
1059
S7.
5
1153
67. 6
1202
67. 6
1211
67.
6
1219
67. 6
1228
67. 5
OBSERVATION
WELL
8
1016
68. 6
1039
68.
6
1115
68. 6
1202
68. 6
1212
68.
4
1225
68. 3
1236
68. 3
OBSERVATION
WELL
9
1007
69. 7
1036
69.
7
1110
69. 7
1158
69. 7
1209
69.
6
1229
69. 6
1247
69. 5
OBSERVATION
WELL
10
1025
74. 1
1046
74.
1
1120
74. 0
1218
74. 0
1257
74.
0
1430
74. 0
1611
74. 0
WELL
TIME
ELEV
TIME
ELEV
TIME
PRODUCTION NELL H-l
1233
48. 5
1241
67. 7
1250
PRODUCTION WELL H-2
1240
61. 8
1248
61. 8
1323
OBSERVATION
WELL
1
1238
69. 5
1247
69. 5
1321
OBSERVATION
WELL
2
1235
68. 4
1243
68. 4
1315
OBSERVATION
WELL
3
1248
69. 7
1302
69. 7
1320
OBSERVATION
WELL
4
1252
69. 6
1306
69. 6
1325
OBSERVATION
WELL
5
1243
67. 6
1311
67. 5
1313
OBSERVATION
WELL
6
1238
66. 7
1246
66. 9
1320
OBSERVATION
WELl.
7
1237
67. 5
1244
67. 5
1318
OBSERVATION
WELL
8
:'.250
68. 2
1304
68. 2
1322
OBSERVATION
WELL
9
1308
69. 5
1318
69. 6
1355
OBSERVATION
WELL
10
67. 8
67. 8
69. 5
68. 4
69. 7
69. 7
67. 5
66. 8
67. 4
68. 4
69. 6
1310
1232
1331
1327
1357
1401
1352
1329
1328
1324
1412
67. 7
67. 8
69. 6
68. 3
69. 7
69. 7
67. 6
66. 8
67. 4
68. 4
69. 5
1326 66.
1346 68.
1345 69.
1341 68.
1410 69.
1408 69.
1443 67.
1344 68.
1342 67.
1359 68.
1425 69.
1340
1400
1405
1408
1423
1421
1445
1411
1422
1406
1441
60. 6
64. 9
70. 6
68. 3
69. 7
69. 5
67. 3
66. 8
67. 4
68. 5
69. 5
1407
1402
1418
1420
1439
1437
1501
1424
1429
1419
1454
61. 9
22. 2
70. 8
68. 3
69; 7
69. 5
67. 2
66. 7
67. 4
68. 3
69. 4
-------
Table 2
Ground Water Elevations (in Feet) During Pumping
November 5, 1981
WELL
TIME
ELEV
TIME
ELEV
TIME
ELEV
TIME
ELEV
TIME
ELEV
TIME
ELEV
PRODUCTION WELL H-l
1419
66. 8
1427
60. 6
1434
60. 5
1441
60. 4
1448
60. 2
PRODUCTION WELL H-2
1546
66. 0
OBSERVATION
WELL
1
1425
71. 1
1432
71. 3
1439
71. 6
1447
71. 8
1453
72. ©
1545
73. 3
OBSERVATION
WELL
2
1428
68. 3
1435
68. 3
1443
68. 3
1451
68. 3
1456
68. 3
1546
68. 0
OBSERVATION
WELL
3
1452
69. 7
OBSERVATION
WELL
4
1458
69. 5
1458
69. 5
OBSERVATION
WELL
5
1546
67. 2
OBSERVATION
WELL
6
1439
66. 5
1445
66. 7
1449
66. 5
1458
66. 4
1543
66. 5
OBSERVATION
WELL
7
1437
67. 5
1444
67. 4
1450
67. 4
1457
67. 4
1553
67. 2
OBSERVATION
WELL
8
1435
68. 1
1449
68. 0
1456
68. 0
1606
68. 2
OBSERVATION
WELL
9
OBSERVATION
WELL
10
-------
Production Well H i
Elevation: 99.9 Feet
Novembers, 193?
Pumping Time for
Production Well H-1
,149 a.m.—12.49 p.rn.
1 «r„Row Rate
• »o gaMons/mlnuie
70
«
£
£ eof
I
®
50f
10:00a]
1B0"
1.00 p.m.
Tl">e of Observation
pigure 8
-fir!?®T,me
2Mn 0n We" H-2
00 p rn—3.00 p.m.
* nnmn°w Ra'e
1,000 gattonaAnfnuje
-------
Production Well H-2
Elevation: 98.4 Feet
November 5, 1981
Pumping Time tor
Production Well H-1
11:49 a.m.—12:49 p.m.
Pumping Time for
Production Well H-2
2:00 p.m.—3:00 p.m.
a>
©
U.
0)
^ %
o
a
£
70
Flow Rate
1,250 gallons/minute
60
50
40
10:00a.m.
_i i—i i ¦—i i I i i i i i i t.
Flow Rale
1,000 gallons/minute
11:00 a.m.
J I, t—>. . i I i ¦ i i i I I L J U
12:00
1:00 p.m.
2:00 .m.
« i,,t *,l i i i i—L.
3:00 p.m.
J i—i—i i
4:00 p.m.'
-I L
J
5:00 p.m.
Time of Observation
22.2
Figure 9
-------
Observation Well
Elevation: 99.4 Feet
November 5,1981
Pumping Time for
Production Well H-1
11:49 a.m.—12:49 p.m.
Pumping Time for
Production Well H-2
2:00 p.m.—3:00 p.m.
Flow Rate
1,250 gallons/minute
Flow Rate
1,000 gallons/minute
73*
®
a>
IL
C
CO
CO
$
70
69.4 \-
I i i—
10)003.m.
> i i i
4:00 p.m.
11:00 a.m.
12:00
1:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
Time of Observation
Figure 10
-------
^Za,iZT"2
Member 5^oe»
ProdC,Qt
49 p.m.
^¦saaa
'minute
a-m.
t2:i
'p.m.
Time
of
°bse
Nation
figure 12
S35
-------
Well 3
"°»embe, 5^'
1 pc„n°.w flare
glons,minuta
69.80
^OffpMh
11:°0 a.m.
1$0fr
^OpTR?
Tln""0b..n„lm
Figure 12
f»°°08'attS,nufe
-------
°tlTaUon Well 4
69.9i
69.8 i
69.7|
69.6]
69.5 J
69.4,
69.3]
69.2]
69.1j
o
I?
©
Time f0f
iZ-49 p.m
1 9KnF,ow Rate
' Ba"°ns/ntlnute
10Witi
11:00
am.
p.m.
n:o
T,n"°'Ob.m„loa
Figure 13
PmTp,n9 r'me for
-------
68.4,
Pr"!Pp,nO Tlme for
"Xszsssi
1'2s°eZnZlnu,e
0
if
$
«
5 67.6]
67.4 j
67.2 j
67.0 j
66.8!
t0;i
11:00
a.m.
1:00 Pm.
Time of
2:00
0i>8orvatlon
Pigure 14
P"mp(n0 Time for
'•000ga°fto„Rinufe
-------
67.8
67.6
67.4
67.2
67.0
fc 66.8
66.6
66.4
66.2
11:00 a.m.
12:00
3."Oo p.rn;
5:00 p.
figure 15
-------
68.2
68.0
67.8
67.6
> 67.4
£ 67.2
67.0
66.8
66.6
11:00 a.m.
12:00
m.
p.m.
Figure 16
-------
«
To
$
Observation Well 8
Elevation: 99.3 Feet
November 5,1981
e
a>
^ 5
69.2
69.0
68.8
68.6
68.4
68.2
68.0
67.8
67.6
Pumping Time for
Production Well H-1
11:49 a.m.—12:49 p.m.
Flow Rate
1,250 galtons/mlnute
t i ¦ i i i L
J_i_
-I I I t I
. I . .
Pumping Time for
Production Well H-2
2:00 p.m.—3:00 p.m.
Flow Rate
1,000 gallons/minute
teiis
—4—III I I I ' ' ' »
10:00a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m
Time of Observation
Figure 17
I . 11 .1. « I i „ i 1 t i
3:00 p.m.
-i—i
J i i i i i i i I
4:bo p.m.*
5:00 p.m.
-------
Observation Well 9
Elevation: 101.7 Feet
November 5,1981
69.9
69.8
69.7
69.6
©
£
c 69.5
5
a
69.4
•
a
5
69.3
69.2
69.1
J I I—I ¦ I L
10:00a.m.
X
Pumping Time for
Production Well H-1
11:49 a.m.—12:49 p.m.
Flow Rale
1,250 gallons/minute
11:00 a.m.
_1 I—I—I—I 1
-4, t t int ,'ii , I ...I
Pumping Time for
Production Well H-2
2:00 p.m.—3:00 p.m.
Flow Rate
1,000 gallons/minute
12:00
1:00 p.m.
_l I I I I L
„Li. I i. i-U t ' t
2:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
j i i i i i.
1:00 p.m.'
J I I L.
J
5:00 p.m.
Time of Observation
Figure 18
-------
Observation Well 10
Elevation: 105.0 Feet
November 5, 1981
N>
~-J
O
u.
«
>
o
74.10 r
74.09
74.08
74.07
"Z 74.06
a>
a
5
74.05
74.04
74.03
Pumping Time for
Production Well H-1
11:49 a.m.—12:49 p.m.
Flow Rale
1,250 gallons/minute
Pumping Time lor
Production Well H-2
2:00 p.m.—3:00 p.m.
Flow Rate
1,000 gallons/minute
10:00a.m.
_L
11:00 a.m.
12:00
¦ i. -i » i
±
1:00 p.m.
i
2:00 p.m.
< « i i i i. >
1L
3:00 p.m!
I L
p.m.
J
5:0Q p.m.
Time of Observation
Figure 19
-------
TABLE 3
CONTAMINANT CONCNETRATION V. S TIME DURING PUMPAGE
WELL - PRODUCTION WELL H-l
CONTAMINANT - TETRHCHLOROETHVLENE
SAMPLE #
TIME
44-264
1
5. 6
44-365
11
22. ©
44-366
23
22. 0
44-267
25
26. Q
44-268
47
29. 9
44-269
68
29. ©
28
-------
TABLE 4
CONTAMINANT CONCNETRATION V. S TIME DURING PUMPAGE
WELL - PRODUCTION WELL H-l
CONTAMINANT - TRICHLOROETHVLENE
SAMPLE #
TIME
CONCENTRATION
44-364
1
1. 9
44-365
11
6. 6
44-366
23
3. 0
44-367
35
3. 2
44-363
47
4. 2
44-369
60
3. 8
29
-------
TABLE 5
CONTAMINANT CONCNETRATION V. S TIME DURING PUMPAGE
WELL - PRODUCTION WELL H-l
CONTAMINANT -1,2 TRANS DICHLOROETHYLENE
SAMPLE #
TIME
CONCENTRATION
44-364
1
9. S
44-265
11
24. 0
44-266
22
24. 0
44-267
25
22. 0
44-26S
47
27. 0
44-369
60
24. 0
30
-------
TABLE 6
CONTAMINANT CONCNETRATION V. S TIME DURING PUMPAGE
WELL - PRODUCTION WELL H-2
CONTAMINANT - TETRRCHLOROETHVLENE
SAMPLE #
TIME
44-270
1
8©
44-371
14
128
44-272
24
126
44-372
48
128
44-274
50
121
44-275
60
122
31
-------
TABLE 7
CGNTRMINflNT CONCNETRfiTION V. S TIME DURING PUMPfiGE
WELL - PRODUCTION WELL H-2
CONTAMINANT - TRICHLOROETHVLENE
SftMPLE #
TIME
CONCENTRATION
44-378
1
18. 5
44-371
14
16. 0
44-372
24
14. ©
44-373
40
15. 0
44-374
50
12. 0
44-375
60
13. 0
32
-------
TABLE 8
CONTflMINHNT CONCNETRfiTION V. S TIME DURING PUMPHGE
WELL - PRODUCTION WELL H-2
CONTAMINANT - 1,2 TRANS DICHLOROETHVLENE
SAMPLE #
TIME
44-370
1
128
44-271
14
130
44-372
24
138
44-373
48
138
44-374
50
126
44-375
50
136
33
-------
Concentration vs. Time During Well Pumpage
Lakewood Groundwater Study
Concentration of Tetrachloroethylene
Well H-1
November 5,1981
40.0 -
35.0 -
fc 30.0 -
£ 20.0
15.0
10.0
50rf 111 111111 111111> 111111., i .......« . i
10 20 30 40 50 61
40
50
60
Time in Minutes
Figure 20
-------
Concentration vs. Time During Well Pumpage
Lakewood Groundwater Study
Concentration of Trichloroethylene
Well H-1
November 5,1981
8.0
7.0
od
~ »
2 E
CO
a |)
" 8
OS
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
20
Time In Minutes
Figure 21
-------
Concentration vs. Time During Weil Pumpage
Lakewood Groundwater Study
Concentration of 1,2 (Trans)-Dichloroethylene
Weil H-1
November 5, 1981
40.0
od
s «2
2 E
+* (0
So>
OS
30.0
20.0
10.0 -
10
illlt
I l
20
¦ i i !¦ 1 i * » i » * i i i 1 « 1 i t » » « i « 1 i « i « « » i»i 1
30 40 50 60
Time In Minutes
Figure 22
-------
Concentration vs. Time During Weil Pumpage
Lakewood Groundwater Study
Concentration of Tetrachloroethylene
Well H-2
November 5, 1981
140.0
U>
•^4
§d
S E
£ 2
m D>
§2
OS
130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
i « » i t i i i « I i» t i i » i i « I i
10
20
' » i * I i ' i i i i i i i I i
I I I I I I ¦ I I ! t « I I I I I I
30
Time In Minutes
Figure 23
40
50
60
-------
Concentration vs. Time During Well Pumpage
Lakewood Groundwater Study
Concentration of Trichloroethylene
Well H-2
CO
00
November 5, 1
20.0
981
!|
5 |
4* (0
go,
S°
OS
~ 15.0
10.0
5.0
J_L
i i » i « i « I i i » » ' ' » « i I
i i
10
20
» i i « » I *¦»«»¦*¦ i > * « » * i « i i i I i » « « « i « i ' I
30 40 SO 60
Time In Minutes
Figure 24
-------
Concentration vs. Time During Well Pumpage
Lakewood Groundwater Study
Concentration of 1,2 (Trans)-Dichloroethylene
Well H-2
November 5, 1981
U>
VO
135.0
s «
si
130.0
§2
OS
125.0
120.0
10
20
' « » i» i « » » i » » « « ¦ I ' « » i « » * i « I i ¦ i ¦ i « * « « I
30 40 50 60
30 40
Time in Minutes
Figure 25
-------
Table 9
General Geochemical Parameters
(mg/1)
WELL
SAMPLE
HARD
CONCr/ALK
TDS
PH2/
S04
CL
OBSERVATION
WELL
1
46-075
79
190
42
225
6. 2
8. 4
6. 6
OBSERVATION
WELL
2
46-076
69
143
42
320
6. 4
4. 6
2. 9
OBSERVATION
WELL
3
46-077
130
203
78
270
6. 4
8. 6
8. 4
OBSERVATION
WELL
4
46-078
154
344
40
330
6. 2
18. 0
31
OBSERVATION
WELL
5
46-079
252
449
66
410
6. 5
156
3. 3
OBSERVATION
WELL
6
46-080
96
202
58
350
6. 4
8. 4
5. 4
OBSERVATION
WELL
7
48-081
140
160
74
310
6. 7
6. 4
5. 2
OBSERVATION
WELL
8
46-082
210
168
78
220
6. 5
7. 8
4. 6
OBSERVATION
WELL
9
46-083
99
193
64
300
6. 1
8. 4
8. 6
OBSERVATION
WELL
10
46-084
63
162
49
270
6. 2
19
2. 4
PRODUCTION WELL H-l
N. A.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PRODUCTION WELL H-2
46-086
86
223
77
160
6. 1
14
13
1/ Conductivity is expressed as wmohs.
2/ pH is expressed in pH units.
40
-------
TABLE 10
PRIORITV POLLUTANT ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
DETECTED
WELL SAMPLE DICHLORO TRI TETRA NAPHTHALENE PCB 1254
OB
WELL
1
46-075
8. 0
0. 5
2. 0
ND
ND
OB
WELL
2
46-076
0. 2
ND
0. 2
ND
ND
OB
HELL
3
46-077
ND
ND
ND
<4. 0
ND
OB
WELL
4
46-078
2. 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
OB
WELL
5
46-079
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
OB
WELL
6
46-080
14. 0
1. 2
2. 6
ND
ND
OB
WELL
7
46-081
ND
ND
5. 1
<4. 0
0. 130
OB
WELL
8
46-082
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
OB
WELL
9
46-082
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
OB
WELL
10
46-084
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PR
WELL
H-l
46-085
9. 9
0. 2
5. Q
NA
NA
PR
WELL
H-2
46-086
127. 0
19. 0
111. 0
Nft
NA
ND NOT DETECTED
NA NOT ANALV2ED
41
-------
Oiscussion
The observation wells provided data concerning the intercon-
nection between the upper and lower aquifers. Clearly, the two
zones are slightly interconnected and it is reasonable to expect
that vertical pathway of high permeability is signigicantly
lower than horizontal. The hypothesis that the annular gravel
around H-2 could provide a vertical pathway for contaminant
migration remains viable. Chemical analysis of the ground water
from the observation wells indicates that the target
contaminants (1, 2
(trans) Dichloroethylene, Trichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene)
are present in wells immediately adjacent to H-2. The concentra-
tions are significantly lower than are present in H-2 during static
or pumped conditions.
It is possible that these materials are present in the aquifer,
between 35 and 90 ft. moving with the ground water through zones
of higher permeability.
Since a hydraulic interconnection has been demonstrated, the
background water chemistry becomes significant. If the waters
are similar geochemically, it is likely that they have a similar
source and occur as a common ground water regime. The study
generated data concerning the general chemical nature of the
ground water in observation wells 1-10 and from the deeper water
in H-2. Analyses seemed to exhibit significant variation in the
parameters analyzed. No clear trend was obvious; hence the data
was analyzed statistically. Using the Biomedical Computer Pro-
grams, P-series, 1979, a cluster analysis was performed. The
program formed clusters of analytical data based on one of four
distance measures. These distances are the Euclidean distance
(L2) the square root of the sum of the squares of the differ-
ence between the values of the variables for two cases); the Lp
distance (the sum of the pth power of the absolute difference);
chi-square or phi-square (both measure the difference of frequen-
cies in two cases).
Initially each case was considered a unique cluster. The pro-
gram, by a series of steps, amalgamates two clusters having the
shortest distance between them, forming a new, single cluster.
This process of combining clusters continue until all the cases
are combined into a single cluster. The data so obtained is
presented in Figure 26. This figure shows that the data tends
to amalgamate into two unique clusters. One cluster is formed
by the data from observation wells 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
and H-2. The other cluster is the data from observation well 5.
It would appear that the ground water in observation well 5 has
a longer residence, perhaps representing a zone of low velocity
or "stagnation" (of flow) in the regional flow network.
42
-------
Chemical analyses for organic priority pollutants show the
presence of Trace Naphtaline in observation wells 3 and 7.
Also, in observation well 7, PCB 1254 has been identified.
These are likely due to local sources in the immediate vac-
inity of the wells. The priority metal analyzis (Table 13)
indicates that distinctive geochemical differences do exist
between the observation wells and the production zone of this
aquifer. Based upon this information, and the pump test re-
sults, the lower aquifer appears to have a higher transmis-
sivity than the upper zone. It should also be noted, the
upper aquifer does not meet drinking water standards based
on numerous violations of heavy metal standards.
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
It is concluded from this investigation that the shallow zone of
the aquifer serving Lakewood H-l and 2 is not the source of contam-
inants reaching the lower, production zone. It is reasonable to
assume that the principle contaminants, in H-l and 2, are not the
result of disposal or spillage in the recent past at or near the
site. The hypothesis that these contaminants are migrating ver-
tically through the gravel around H-2 remains a possibility. It
is possible that a deeper zone, between 35 and 90 feet, beneath
the surface is significantly contaminated. It is therefore recom-
mended that an additional well be constructed near H-2 to a depth
as required in order to establish or rule out this "intermediate
zone" of contamination. Depth selection would necessarily be
based on field data obtained by careful sampling during drilling.
The OVA-128 should be used to analyze bailed water during drilling.
Such a well would be constructed by cable tool, installing casing
continuously and sampling at a very close interval, perhaps 1 foot.
If a "hot" zone of contamination is encountered, the drilling would
stop and slot cut at depth using a Mills knife. Extreme care in
order not to provide an additional pathway of migration into the
production zone would have to be present during this drilling pro-
gram.
If it is determined that the source of contaminants is desired,
additional wells completed deeper in the formation are required.
The depth selection would be based on the results of the single
additional well. From the information obtained in this study it
is reasonable to assume that without removal of the source, the
contamination of Lakewood H-l and H-2 will continue for an un-
known period of time. The problem is serious enough to warrant
taking the two wells out of service indefinitely or begining
treatment by advanced technology for removal of these compounds.
We recommend:
#
1) A survey should be initiated at Clover Creek for the
target compounds.
43
-------
the construction of a deeper well near H-2 to evaluate
the presence of these compounds beyween a depth of 35
and 90 feet
The construction of 8-10 additional wells, screened in
the zone located in 2 above. These wells would be best
constructed interactively making use of the OVA and HNU.
With these wells, a better data base will be established
for tracking this contamination to its source.
44
-------
TABLE 13
Priority Metals Analysis
(ug/1)
WELL SB AS BE CD
OBSERVATION
WELL
1
<2
211
2.
9
1.
2
OBSERVATION
WELL
2
<2
9
<0. 1
<0. 2
OBSERVATION
WELL
3
<2
500
6.
6
1.
8
OBSERVATION
WELL
4
<2
244
4.
2
1.
0
OBSERVATION
WELL
5
<2
69
2.
1
0.
4
OBSERVATION
WELL
6
<2
44
1.
7
0.
5
OBSERVAfION
WELL
7
<2
111
5.
6
4.
2
OBSERVATION
WELL
8
<2
178
7.
0
2.
0
OBSERVATION
WELL
9
<2
104
2.
1
0.
6
UBbERVATIDN
WELL
10
<2
111
1.
7
0.
6
PRODUCTION WELL H-l
NA
NA
NA
NA
PRODUCTION WELL H-2
<2
7
<0.
1
<0.
2
CU PB HQ NI SE AG TL ZN
228
72
1. 4
510
<2. 5
2. 1
<1. 0
680
14
19
0. 15
28
<2. 5
<0. 2
<1. 0
70
448
238
1. 4
900
<2. 5
2. 2
<1. 0
70
280
154
0. 6
525
<2. 5
2. 2
<1. 0
650
120
132
0. 3
165
<2. 5
<0. 3
<1. 0
266
34
122
0. 5
170
<2. 5
<0. 2
<1. 0
210
456
220
2. 7
510
<2. 5
1. 0
d. 0
1110
408
176
1. 5
730
<2. 5
1. 0
<1. 0
950
144
47
0. 2
413
<2. 5
0. 2
<1. 0
330
96
56
0. 2
275
<2. 5
0. 3
<1. 0
220
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
62
6. 0
60
<2. 5
0, 3
<1. 0
80
CR
194
6
250
159
69
19
231
200
23
23
NA
8
-------
8MDP2M PAGE 3
lakewoop groundwater study
C N
0
1 t
A, 149361-0 782*
SL oonortHnonon
A 00000-10000
AMALG,
distance
#*»»•#•*»#*
1.924 I I I I I I I •~• !!
1.975 X I 1 I X I IT.
2,222 III I II I
2,603 I I I •+•• lit
2,730 % I I X I
2,708 III »•+•— T
2,966 X I I
2,961 I 1.
3,354 I
4.009
Convergence and Amalgamation Analysis
E B
E
L
Figure 26
46
-------
1. National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC), 1980, Enforcement
Considerations for Evaluation of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Disposal Sites by Contractors: EPA, Denver, Colorado.
2. U.S. Geological Survey (US6S), 1959, (photo rev. 1973) Steilacoom
Quadrangle, Steilacoom, Wash, 7.5 Minute Series (topographic), Scale
1:24,000.
3. EPA, 1977, Procedures Manual for Ground Water Monitoring at Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities: - EPA/530/SW-611.
4. Griffin, W.D., Sceva, J.E. Swenson, H.A. and Mundorff, M.J., 1962:
Water Resources of the Tacoma Area Washington. U.S.G.S. Water Supply
Paper 1499B. U.S. GPO, Washington, D.C.
5. U.S. Dept. of Commerce (DOC), 1968, Climatic Atlas of the United
States Environmental Science Services Administration, Environmental
Data Service, National Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C.
6. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, (DOC), 1981, Local Climatological Data, 1980,
Seattle-Tacoma Airport. NOAA, Environmental Data and Information
Service, National Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C.
7. Littler, 0. D., Aden, J.T., Johnson, A.F., 1980-1981, Survey of
Ground Water and Surface Water Auality for the Chambers Creek/Clover
Creek Drainage Basin, Pierce County, Washington, State Dept. of
Social and Health Services, Health Services Division, Water Supply
and Waste Section, LD-11, Olympia.
8. Miller, J.F., Frederic, R.H., Tracey, R.O., 1973, Precipitation
Frequency Atlas of the Western United States: Vol. IX, Washington,
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver
Springs, M.D.
47
-------
APPENDIX
PERMISSION FOR DRILLING FORM
WELL LOGS
OVA DATA
WELL LOGS FROM H-l AND H-2
SITE SAFETY PLAN
48
-------
APPENDIX
Well Logs
Note: All water levels are as of 17 November 1981
Observation well #1 — Date: 10-9-81
O'-M1 sand and gravels with cobbles, loose. Grain size decrease with
depth.
14'-17* Generally fine to medium gravels with few cobbles. A smell of
solvents was detected around 16'.
17*-23* Same as above. There was a heavy smell of solvents around 22'.
23'-241 Generally large cobbles, loose.
241-30' Small to medium cobbles.
Boring completed at 30'
Water level after drilling 21.11 ft.
Observation Wei 1 #2 — Date 10-12-81
0'-151 Coarse sand and gravels with few cobbles, loose.
15'-18' Mainly coarse gravel.
18'-21' Fine to medium gravels.
211 -26* Coarse gravels with few large cobbles.
261-30* Small to medium gravels, loose.
30'-35' Same as above with large cobbles.
Boring complete at 35'
Water level after drilling 31.90 feet
50
-------
Observation Well #3 — 10-14-81
0*-251 Generally fine to medium sand and gravels, loose.
25*35' Medium to coarse gravels.
Boring completed at 35'
"Water level after drilling 29.05 feet
Observation Well #4 - 10-15-81
0'-13' Sand and gravels, loose. Gravel size generally range from fine
to medium with few coarse gravels. There appears to be slight
increase in grain size from 10'.
13'-18' Medium to coarse gravels with few cobbles, loose.
18'-28' Same as above with occasional large cobbles.
28'-35' Generally coarse gravels with few cobbles. Grain size increase
with depth.
Boring completed at 35'
Water level after drilling 26.75 feet.
Observation Well #5 — 10-20-81
0'-4' Sand and gravels, loose.
4*-81 Generally fine to medium gravels, loose.
8'-17' Fine gravels with occasional zones of cobbles.
17'-28' Medium to coarse gravels with few boulders, loose. Grain size
generally increase with depth.
28*-35' Fine sand and gravels with few cobbles.
Boring completed at 35'
Water level after drilling 29.10 feet
51
-------
Observation Well #6 -- 10-21-81
0'-5' Sandy clay with gravels (fill)
5'-91 Sand and gravels, loose. Gravels are generally fine.
9'-10' Medium to coarse sand and gravels with few cobbles.
10'-35' Coarse gravels and cobbles. Grain size increase with depth.
Boring completed at 35'
Water level after drilling 30.90 feet.
Observation Well #7 — 10-21-81
0*-31 Sand and gravels (fill).
3'-6' Sand and gravels with few cobbles.
6*-18' Generally fine to coarse gravels.
18'-29' Medium to coarse gravels with occasional cobbles.
29'-35' Sand and gravels with clay lenses.
Boring completed at 35'
Water level after drilling 33.25 feet.
Observation Well #8 — 10-21-81
0'-2' Top soil - dark brown sandy clay.
2'-7' Medium to coarse sand and gravels with few cobbles.
7'-26' Generally coarse gravels with occasional zones of fine gravels.
26'-28' Sand and gravels with few cobbles.
28'-35' Coarse gravels with cobbles.
Boring completed at 35'
Water level after drilling 30.35 feet.
52
-------
Observation Well #9 — 10-22-81
0'-2* Top soil, sandy clay with few gravels.
2'-11' Coarse gravels.
11'-151 Fine to medium gravels with few cobbles.
15'-23' Generally coarse gravels with cobbles, clean and loose.
23'-35' Cobbles, loose
Boring completed at 35'
Water level after drilling 31.65 feet.
Observation Well #10 — 10-22-81
01 -4' Gravels.
41-6* Generally medium to coarse sand.
6'-15' Sand and gravel.
15'-27' Medium to coarse gravels with few cobbles, loose.
271 -341 Coarse sand and gravels with cobbles.
34'-35' ^ Medium to coarse gravels.
g v r \ A ^
Be44fKj- completed at 35'
Water level after drilling 30.70 feet.
53
-------
APPENDIX
OVA - Organic Vapor Analyzer Results
Observation Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4. Date: 10-9-81 thru 10-19-81.
Each of the monitoring wells had a varying degree of methane as a
contaminant. Only Tetrachloroethylene was positively detected in
well number 1.
Observation Wells 3, 4, and 5. Date: 10-20-81.
There was a varying degree of total organics in Well #5, between
15'-30* level. The highest reading was 30 ppm.
- 100 ml. of the 1.1.2 trichloroethylene standard was run with a
peak developing at the predicted retention time of 7 minutes.
200 ml. of water from well #5 showed no results.
- 200 ml. of water from well #3 showed a peak in the backflush cycle
at about 11 minutes. This could indicate the presence of tetrachloro-
ethylene or a substance with a similar molecular weight.
200 ml. of water from well #4 showed no results.
Observation wells 6 & 7. Date 10-21-81.
The survey mode was used to "sniff" wells 6 and 7 during well construc-
tion. The readings showed very small levels of total organic vapor.
54
-------
Observation wells 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9. Date 10-22-81.
The survey mode was used to "sniff" #8 and 9 during well construction.
The readings indicated less than 5 ppm total organics in the well.
200 ml. of water from well #1 showed a small methane peak and a very
small peak at 2-3 minutes was noted in the backflush cycle.
200 ml. of water from well #2 showed no results.
- 200 ml. of water from well #3 showed a small peak at 11-12 min.
which may indicate a low level of tetrachloroethylene or a substance
of like molecular weight. Small peaks also noted at 12-13 min. of
backflush cycle. Possibly this may merely be "noise" on the strip
chart recorder.
Observation Well #4. Date 10-23-81.
- 50 ml. of the trichloroethylene standard was run with a peak
developing at the predicted time of 4.5 min.
200 ml. of water from well #4 showed a peak at about 3 min.
This may indicate presence of dichloroethylene.
55
-------
24 "Top 2 Ft. above ground
g'VAw<
: h-2-f'QD.
A
Gravel ,D/'rty
S.W.L. 3-15-51
20.T from top o/ 2"V Casing
Hard pa n wit h
Large Boulders
Dirt-y
Ha rdpar\
5cind ^ Gravel
Dirty
O ^ :j O0
|£».!° ° Q
* .cO a
», . -» ° O
o o r>o o
3 Ci M
°o<- c. r> a "=>
o a ^ °
'-cc o® o
U , CO o o o
<'o°o
— o o
\n « cr»
«*. -
<*
,/'¦ a do'o'o48 ' fl
. - « o •
G ravel , Loose,
Coarse
Sand, Fine
Gravel Pack
V/LLL DATA
50"^ 24-" Casing 3/8'Thick
g) Cement, Grav-el <=> Sand Grout Sackfill
Gravel Backfill from \0(J to 110' 8eW Screen
56
-------
Test~Well No. l AT Poa/d£ZS Coachek.
G#«umd
ft -tt it
//'
W
43'
/as
til'
tid*
*
tor
2&
»'¦ - • • •
,.' nr,
o» > Vy
- *a • <
15* *A4
O O.o-o'
: °. °®.
eO . • •
ao'
= o° ®
O • • ° O
o O ¦ ,
fcfO • ¦ O
o---aa I
O'Q . <3<=>
' * °~X 7"'
O . ° . O
. _¦ I "J.
Pw>p 7tsreD-tt3'ro242>
£42'
(C5W5SW
O*. o®
¦ -» u ¦
2W
2&r
ztr
34*'
nr
J44'
J74"
J 73'
3&V
394'
4or
m
4b(f
4tS'
46 f
StO>
•9:"o:o
_i.iT/ft .
//'— A64MM <& sS*V6j lOM£
U rtA#D*AAt
S3'— TtMT G*+VSL& SAHOj 3a*t£ MATB* OmLOM SO'
ZZ <— 6*A*SL <6 JAMOj WATS ft 0£A*/M9
/y
££'— j CaA43£ 4*0 Sd*te G#*vri
H'- ClAfj jAMJty
3C'~ sSA#Oj P/Mgj >jA#D /MCK&D
3'-CLAY
W-3AMD 4
-• -r-} tSct/£j J
W-Clay j 6#ay
'<=>—• a
.0 _o
• '
.0
o 7" «»_
n,r°)
<53 — ~ «
• 0 * >
o • « •-
Si'-Habopaaij veuan/
£'- G&iveL. Cffittvreo
4->-£a*IQ <4 S/tAVfL
4f-C£fijrMTO> 6*AI/Cl & HAJgOfiAM
Hois SorroMcp at j/o'
'
LArs»vooD titers* Dtsrp/cr
P/£KCE Com tv, tVAStf/Arera#
/?oBt*
A-433}H.1. \
Ptt'LLipBY: L J? CrAL'D/O &?tLUH6 CO-
57
-------
'•""V
Coa/struct/qm Deta/ls
OF WELL AT POMOE&S Co/?A/E&
0'-
°t L£V£L
OreOi'.VD
tb-iNtrt 0-D. Cas/.-IG
PEA 6 GAYS L f/LL
A XO WO CA&HG
6-i»CH AJOM/MAL
\JCHA/h "/.£>.
¦'— 80 Jcor £c*££m
o. '. <-Vv4 -Cr^J
Sept. 24^59
A- 43<)} H. N.
58
------- |