2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for OU2 and OU4 Former Process Area


Final

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update

for OU2 and OU4
Former Process Area

Prepared for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 10

February 2014

GH2MHILL®

1100 112th Avenue NE
Suite 500
Bellevue, WA 98004

-------
Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations	vii

Executive Summary	1-1

Upper Aquifer	ix

Confirmation Core Visual NAPL Observations	ix

TarGOST Log Fence Diagrams	ix

Comparison of Boring Data, Soil Type, and NAPL Observations	ix

Mining Visualization Software Data Interpolation	x

Thiessen Polygon Soil Volume and NAPL Volume Analysis	x

Lower Aquifer Nature and Extent of Contamination	xi

Aquitard Nature and Extent	xi

1.	Introduction	1-1

1.1 Site Location and Description	1-1

2.	Background	2-1

2.1 Groundwater Investigation History	2-1

2.1.1	Groundwater Monitoring	2-1

2.1.2	Upland NAPL Field Investigation	2-1

2.1.3	Sheet Pile Wall Evaluation	2-2

3.	Current Conditions	3-1

3.1 Remedy Components	3-1

3.1.1	Sheet Pile Wall	3-1

3.1.2	Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System	3-1

3.1.3	Long-term Monitoring	3-2

3.1.4	Volume of Water Treated	3-2

3.1.5	NAPL Removal per Year	3-2

3.1.6	Mass Removal per Year	3-3

4.	Hydrogeology	4-1

4.1	Regional Hydrogeology	4-1

4.1.1	Hydrostratigraphic Units	4-1

4.1.2	Groundwater Flow Directions	4-2

4.2	Site Hydrogeology	4-2

4.2.1	Hydrogeologic Units	4-2

4.2.2	Groundwater Flow Conditions	4-4

5.	Nature and Extent of Contamination	5-1

5.1	Potential Contaminant Sources	5-1

5.2	Upper Aquifer - NAPL Characteristics and Distribution	5-2

5.2.1	NAPL Characteristics	5-2

5.2.2	Extent of NAPL	5-3

5.3	Lower Aquifer Nature and Extent	5-7

5.4	Aquitard Nature and Extent	5-7

6.	CSM Summary and Conclusions	6-1

6.1	2007 FPA CSM Update Summary	6-1

6.2	Summary of Conclusions from the 2014 FPA CSM Update	6-2

7.	References	7-1

ES020314093033SEA	iii

-------
CONTENTS

Appendixes

A	NAPL Characteristic Data and Aquitard Entry Pressure Calculation
Tables

2-1	Historical Groundwater Investigation Chronology

3-1	Well Inventory for the Wyckoff Site

3-2	Groundwater Extraction Volumes by Well - April 2012 through March 2013

3-3	LNAPL and DNAPL Removed from Extraction Wells - March 26, 2012 through March 25, 2013

3-4	Estimated Dissolved Mass Removed and Treated - March 21, 2012 through March 26, 2013

4-1	Regional Hydrogeologic Units, Thicknesses, Depths, and Hydraulic Conductivities

5-1	Volume Estimates of NAPL-lmpacted Soil Developed Using MVS

5-2	Compartmental Volumes of Soil Types with TarGOST Response >10% RE

5-3	Volume Estimates of NAPL-lmpacted Soil Developed Using the Thiessen Polygon Approach

5-4	TarGOST Integration NAPL Volume Estimate by Compartment

Figures

1-1	Site Location

1-2	Location of Operable Units and Site Features

3-1	Site Map with Sheet Pile Wall, Seam, and Well Locations

3-2	Monthly Precipitation and Groundwater Extraction Rates - April 2012 through March 2013

4-1	Surficial Hydrogeologic Units at Bainbridge Island
4-2	South-North Cross-Section B-B'

4-3	West-East Cross-Section E-E'

4-4	Regional Groundwater Elevations and Flow Directions in the QA1 Aquifer

4-5	Previous Boring and Cross-Section Locations

4-6	Schematic of Original and Current Groundwater Conditions

4-7	Geologic Profile Locations

4-8	Geologic Profile A-A'

4-9	Geologic Profile A-A"

4-10	Geologic Profile A'A"

4-11	Geologic Profile B-B'

4-12	Geologic Profile C-C'

4-13	Geologic Profile D-D'

4-14	C-C Inset - Aquitard

4-15	D-D' Inset - Aquitard

4-16	Top Elevation of the Glacial Till Portion of the Aquitard

4-17	Aquitard Thickness

4-18	Potential Foundation Locations

4-19a	Water Elevation Measurements (ft MLLW) July 25, 2012, Pumping Wells Active - Upper Aquifer
Wells

4-19b	Water Elevation Measurements (ft MLLW) July 25, 2012, Pumping Wells Active - Lower Aquifer
Wells

4-20a	Water Elevation Measurements (ft MLLW) September 3, 2012, Pumping Wells Inactive - Upper
Aquifer Wells

iv

ES020314093033SEA

-------
CONTENTS

4-20b	Water Elevation Measurements (ft MLLW) September 3, 2012, Pumping Wells Inactive - Lower
Aquifer Wells

4-21	Difference in Water Elevation Measurements (ft MLLW) Between Pumping and Non-pumping
Scenarios - Upper Aquifer Wells

5-1	Potential Source Areas and Site Features

5-2	Graphical Fingerprint of PAH and PCP Constituents in NAPL Samples

5-3	Confirmation Boring Lithology and NAPL Observations by Historical Geologic Unit Descriptions

5-4	Fence Diagram Illustrating Compartment Thicknesses Upland Dataset

5-5	NAPL Distribution: Total of Subareas and Compartments

5-6	Calibration Curve between TarGOST LIF Response and Weight Percentage of LNAPL

5-7	NAPL Presence in Upper Aquifer Wells Measured September 2012

5-8	Acenaphthene Concentration Isopleths Measured May 2013

5-9	Aquitard Observations for Assessing Potential for NAPL Migration to Lower Aquifer
Plates

1	Fence Diagrams Overview, A-A', B-B', and C-C'

2	Fence Diagrams D-a - D-b, D-a - D-c, D-D', EE', and F-F'

3	Fence Diagrams F-a - F-b, G-a - G-b, G-b - G-c, and G-c - G-d

4	Visualization of Subarea 2

5	Visualization of Subarea 3

6	Visualization of Subarea 4

7	Visualization of Subarea 5

8	TarGOST Distribution by Thiessen Polygon

9	Integrated Volume of NAPL at Greater Than or Equal to 10%RE TarGOST Response, Upland Dataset

ES020314093033SEA

V

-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations

%RE	TarGOST response

amsl	above mean sea level

AST	aboveground storage tank

bgs	below ground surface

C	centigrade

cm/s	centimeters per second

CSM	conceptual site model

CUL	cleanup level

DAF	dissolved air flotation

DNAPL	dense non-aqueous phase liquid

EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FFS	focused feasibility study

FPA	Former Process Area

FS	feasibility study

ft	feet

ft2	square feet

g/cc	grams per cubic centimeter

g/mL	grams per milliliter

GAC	granular activated carbon

gpm	gallons per minute

GWTP	groundwater treatment plant

HPAH	high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

LIF	laser-induced fluorescence

LNAPL	light non-aqueous phase liquid

LPAH	low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

MCL	maximum contaminant level

mg/L	milligrams per liter

MLLW	mean lower low water

mm	millimeters

MTCA	Model Toxics Control Act

MVS	Mining Visualization Software

NAPL	non-aqueous phase liquid

NPDES	National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

ES020314093033SEA

vii

-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

OU	operable unit

PAH	polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

PCP	pentachlorophenol

ppm	parts per million

QAPP	quality assurance project plan

RAO	remedial action objective

Rl	remedial investigation

ROD	Record of Decision

SVOC	semivolatile organic compound

TarGOST	Tar-specific Green Optical Scanning Tool

TPH	total petroleum hydrocarbons

TPH-Dx	total petroleum hydrocarbons -diesel

USACE	U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(JSCS	Unified Soil Classification System

viii	ES020314093033SEA

-------
Executive Summary

This document presents an updated conceptual site model (CSM) for the Former Process Area (FPA) located
within Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Soil and Groundwater Operable Unit 2 (OU2) and Operable Unit 4 (OU4),
respectively. This is an update to the previous 2007 CSM Update - Groundwater Conceptual Site Model
Update Report for the Former Process Area, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Soil and Groundwater
Operable Units. This report incorporates new information on the subsurface distribution of non-aqueous
phase liquid (NAPL) obtained from a recently completed Tar-specific Green Optical Scanning Tool (TarGOST)
investigation, as well as other information obtained from site-related activities. This 2014 CSM Update is
considered a companion document to the 2007 CSM Update.

For the TarGOST investigation, a total of 141 TarGOST probes and 20 confirmation borings were advanced
over two investigation phases between January and March 2013. The resulting dataset was evaluated using
multiple methodologies to determine the nature and extent of contamination and the distribution of NAPL
in the Upper Aquifer. The following points, organized by hydrostratigraphic unit and evaluation
methodology, summarize the investigation findings regarding NAPL distribution in the subsurface FPA.

Upper Aquifer

Confirmation Core Visual NAPL Observations

The evaluation of the confirmation core visual NAPL observations with the ex situ TarGOST results indicates
that a TarGOST response (%RE) between 5%RE and 10%RE can be justifiably selected as representing the
presence of NAPL. Based on stakeholder review and approval, TarGOST responses of 10%RE and greater are
inferred to indicate that NAPL is present at measured locations.

TarGOST Log Fence Diagrams

The preparation and analysis of TarGOST log fence diagrams provide the following important and relevant
observations of NAPL distribution in the Upper Aquifer:

• In general, NAPL is thickest in the center of the site where higher TarGOST responses are located, then
transitions to thinner lenses with lower response as the fence diagrams move radially away from the
center of the FPA and potential source(s).

• Beyond the center of the FPA and potential sources, the NAPL lenses are vertically distributed but not in
any obvious patterns with depth. This distribution is likely a result of multiple source areas, preferential
pathways associated with interbedded lithologies, and interaction with variable fluid densities resulting
from the Upper Aquifer's transition from freshwater to saltwater and operation of the hydraulic
containment system.

• Deeper (near Aquitard) TarGOST responses at greater than 10 percent appear to terminate at or above
the TarGOST boring refusal depths. In general, where comparable lithology is available, TarGOST boring
refusal is coincident with or slightly below the transition from the Upper Aquifer to the glacial till (e.g. a
layer within the Aquitard). These factors suggest that the glacial till is restricting the migration of NAPL
to lower elevations.

• Along the FPA's west side and north end, elevated TarGOST readings were measured adjacent to the
outer sheet pile wall at depths at and above the glacial till layer. In these areas, the sheet pile wall driven
depths are greater than the deepest elevated TarGOST responses.

Comparison of Boring Data, Soil Type, and NAPL Observations

Confirmation boring data, soil type, and NAPL observations were compared to evaluate the association of
NAPL with soil type. Results indicate a tendency for NAPL to preferentially inhabit coarser-grained soil.
Eighty-two percent of the NAPL was observed in coarser-grained material consisting of marine sand or

ES020314093033SEA

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

marine sand and gravel, and 15.5 percent of NAPL was observed in finer-grained material consisting of
marine silt or marine sediment.

Mining Visualization Software Data Interpolation

Soil observations and TarGOST response data were interpolated in three dimensions using Mining
Visualization Software (MVS). Important and relevant observations of NAPL distribution in the Upper Aquifer
resulting from this analysis are as follows:

•	Review of the MVS visualizations indicates the NAPL has partially separated vertically with some
migration downward to the Aquitard with further migration downslope, some migration horizontally
along the water table, and some in between these two zones but with a downward slope. Based on
these observations, the Upper Aquifer was segregated into three vertical compartments: Compartment
1 - vadose zone to just below the water table (ground surface to -5 mean lower low water [MLLW]),
Compartment 2 - the intermediate zone (-5 MLLW to 10 feet above the Aquitard), and Compartment 3 -
above the Aquitard (10 feet above the Aquitard to boring refusal depth).

•	Volume estimates of NAPL-affected soil developed using these MVS interpolations are presented in
Table 5-1. Approximately 68,500 cubic yards of NAPL-affected soil are estimated to be present in the
FPA distributed as follows: 55 percent is in Compartment 1, 18 percent in Compartment 2, and 28
percent in Compartment 3. This estimate is considered to represent a low-end estimate of NAPL-
affected soil volume at the site. It is 27 percent lower than the previous U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) estimate of 94,400 cubic yards, and 37 percent lower than the high-end estimate developed
using the Thiessen Polygon method.

•	A comparison of interpolated soil layers (as defined by the Unified Soil Classification System) with the
TarGOST NAPL model provides a preliminary estimate of the combined NAPL distribution by geologic
unit. Eighty percent of the NAPL was estimated to be contained in coarser-grained material consisting of
gravel and sand, and 18 percent of NAPL was estimated to be contained in finer-grained material
consisting of silt and clay. The relative distribution of these model results is consistent with
NAPL/material distribution observed in the TarGOST confirmation borings - 82 to 15.5 percent of NAPL
in coarse- to fine-grained material, respectively.

Thiessen Polygon Soil Volume and NAPL Volume Analysis

Important and relevant observations from the Thiessen Polygon soil and NAPL volume analysis approach are
as follows:

•	In comparison to potential sources, the thickest accumulations of NAPL-affected material (greater than
20 feet thick) appear to be concentrated in the center of the FPA near the Retort area, as well as to the
east by the Naphthalene Block Excavation Area. Lesser but still significant accumulations of NAPL-
affected material appear to be associated with other potential sources such as the Old Sump to the east;
the shop building to the north; the sump associated with a concrete pit for an outhouse, also to the
north; the discharge point from a buried drain to the west; and the former floating dock, also to the
west.

•	Volume estimates of NAPL-affected soil developed using the Thiessen Polygon approach indicate
approximately 109,069 cubic yards of NAPL-affected soil are estimated to be present in the FPA. Fifty-
two percent is present in Compartment 1 (5 percent in Compartment la and 47 percent in
Compartment lb), 23 percent is present in Compartment 2, and 25 percent is present in Compartment
3. This estimate is considered a high-end estimate of NAPL-affected soil volume at the site. It is 16
percent higher than the previous USACE estimate of 94,400 cubic yards, and 59 percent higher than the
low-end estimate developed using the MVS interpolations.

•	NAPL volume was roughly estimated by applying the dilution series for TarGOST signal calibration
completed under OU1 field investigation activities in 2012, integrating the TarGOST response by boring

X

ES020314093033SEA

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

and interpolating to the surface. Rounding to the appropriate significant digit using this method,
approximately 650,000 gallons of NAPL are estimated to be present in the Upper Aquifer. Forty-five
percent is estimated to be in Compartment 1 (5 percent in Compartment la and 40 percent in
Compartment lb), 19 percent in Compartment 2, and 36 percent in Compartment 3. The NAPL volume
estimates provided should not be considered as absolute, but are provided for relative comparison with
application of potential remedial technologies. This provides an estimate of NAPL phase contaminant
volume in the Upper Aquifer, which can be roughly compared with the previous USACE NAPL volume
estimate of 1,200,000 gallons. This methodology provides the most benefit as a tool for estimating the
relative mass reduction resulting from implementation of potential remedial action alternatives. This
tool would be useful for evaluating the relative remedy protectiveness and to support the estimation of
relative duration to reach remedial action objectives for the potential alternatives.

Lower Aquifer Nature and Extent of Contamination

Nature and extent of contamination in the Lower Aquifer were evaluated using water quality results from
the May 2013 sampling event and NAPL measured in monitoring wells in June 2012. Important and relevant
observations for the Lower Aquifer are as follows:

• The results show two areas where acenaphthene (and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons [PAH]
constituent concentrations) are consistently detected near or above cleanup levels (CUL). One area is in
the northern portion of the FPA and encompasses monitoring wells CW05, CW15, P-3L; and VG-2L; the
other area is in the southwest portion of the FPA, surrounding piezometer PZ-11.

• In general, acenaphthene concentrations appear to be relatively stable above the CUL wells CW15, P3L,
and VG2L, and are increasing at CW05 in the northern portion of the FPA. In the southwest portion of
the FPA, acenaphthene concentrations are relatively stable, with slight fluctuations above the CUL since
May 2010.

• The June 2012 NAPL measurements indicate the presence of NAPL in three Lower Aquifer wells (CW-15,
P-3L, and VG-2L) in the northern portion of the FPA. This corresponds with an area where acenaphthene
and other PAH constituent concentrations are consistently detected near or above CULs. In 2012, NAPL
measurements were not attempted at monitoring well PZ-11; however, based on PZ-11 water quality
results, the presence of NAPL in this well is possible.

Aquitard Nature and Extent

The nature and extent of contamination in the Aquitard was estimated through indirect observations,
specifically NAPL presence above and below the Aquitard, and pool height pressures required for NAPL entry
into the Aquitard. Interpretation of these lines of evidence suggests that NAPL and dissolved constituents
are likely present in the Aquitard in the northern portion of the FPA and possibly in the center of the FPA. At
the north end of the FPA, Lower Aquifer water quality effects align with NAPL thicknesses observed in the
Upper Aquifer that exceed the required height for NAPL entry into the Aquitard (as observed at TarGOST
location 2013T-043). Furthermore, the Aquitard thickness is estimated to be thinner in this vicinity at
approximately 8 to 25 feet, and the Aquitard surface itself is thought to have several depressions where
NAPL could pool.

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 1

Introduction

This document presents an updated conceptual site model (CSM) for the Former Process Area (FPA) located
within Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Soil and Groundwater Operable Units. The FPA CSM was updated to
incorporate new information on the subsurface distribution of non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) obtained
from a recently completed Tar-specific Green Optical Scanning Tool (TarGOST) investigation, as well as other
information obtained from site-related activities.

A CSM is typically a graphical and narrative representation of a contaminated site that illustrates
relationships between contaminant sources (primary and secondary), release mechanisms, routes of
migration (air, vadose zone, groundwater, surface water/sediment, and biota), contaminant degradation
and non-degradation processes, and potential receptors. The CSM, which is constantly evolving as new
information on a contaminated site is acquired, is an important stakeholder communication and remedy
selection tool. Updates to this FPA CSM may occur in the future as new information, such as updates to the
3-D geostatistical geology and TarGOST model or Upper Aquifer water quality data, become available.

The FPA CSM was last updated in 2007 to summarize groundwater conditions predicated on completion of a
contingent containment remedy, which was described in the 2000 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Wyckoff
Soil and Groundwater Operable Units. The contingent containment remedy has not been fully implemented
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently reevaluating source removal options for the
Soil and Groundwater Operable Units in a focused feasibility study (FFS. Certain background and detailed
hydrogeologic information presented in Groundwater Conceptual Site Model Update Report for the Former
Process Area, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Soil and Groundwater Operable Units (2007 CSM
Update; CH2M HILL 2007b) is not repeated in this updated FPA CSM, as they are not directly pertinent to
source removal. As such, the 2007 CSM Update is considered a companion document to this updated FPA
CSM.

1.1 Site Location and Description

The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site (also referred to in this report as the "Wyckoff Site" or the "Site")
is located on the east side of Bainbridge Island in central Puget Sound, Washington (Figure 1-1). The Site
includes the former Wyckoff Company wood treatment facility and subtidal/intertidal sediments in Eagle
Harbor. Different environmental media, sources of contamination, enforcement strategies, and
environmental risks in different areas of the Site led to the division of the site into four operable units (OUs):

• OU1, the East Harbor OU (subtidal and intertidal sediments in Eagle Harbor contaminated by
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs])

• OU2, the Wyckoff Soil OU (unsaturated soil contaminated with PAHs and pentachlorophenol [PCP]). This
is also referred to as the Soil OU.

• OU3, the West Harbor OU (subtidal and intertidal sediments in Eagle Harbor contaminated by metals,
primarily mercury, and upland sources)

• OU4, the Wyckoff Groundwater OU (the saturated soil and groundwater beneath OU2). This is also
referred to as the Groundwater OU.

Overall, the Wyckoff property occupied approximately 57 acres; of this, about 18 acres are in OU2. OU2
consists of three areas: the FPA, the Former Log Storage/Peeler Area, and the Well CW01 Area. This CSM
Update Report primarily addresses those portions of OU2 and OU4 lying beneath the approximate 8-acre
FPA, where the majority of known remaining NAPL occurs (Figure 1-2).

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 2

Background

This section presents information associated with ongoing and recently completed investigation activities
that generated the information used to prepare and update the FPA CSM. This section summarizes the work
performed. The results are presented in Sections 3, 4, and 5.

2.1 Groundwater Investigation History

Numerous investigations have been conducted at the Wyckoff Site since the 1970s. Table 2-1 provides a
chronological list of groundwater investigations conducted at the Wyckoff Site to date. A brief summary is
also provided for recent investigations and studies that are the primary data sources evaluated in this FPA
CSM Update.

A Focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for groundwater was completed in 1994. The
purpose of the focused RI/FS was to provide information for implementing interim actions while the full
RI/FS for the Soil and Groundwater OUs was being conducted. The focused RI/FS assessed the risks posed by
contaminants present in the groundwater to human health and the environment, the integrity of water
supply wells located within the FPA, and the condition of the existing interim action groundwater extraction
and treatment systems. Additional well installation and groundwater sampling were conducted as part of
the 1995 Supplemental Rl for the Soil and Groundwater OUs.

A Record of Decision (ROD) for OU2/OU4 was issued in 2000 (EPA, 2000). The remedy selected for the site
included constructing a sheet pile wall around the highly contaminated portion of the FPA and completing a
thermal remediation pilot study within this area. If the pilot study was successful at meeting performance
expectations, then full-scale thermal remediation was to be implemented. However, the pilot was not
successful; therefore, the contingency remedy, Containment with a sheet pile wall and groundwater
extraction and treatment, was implemented.

Installation of the sheet pile wall was completed in 2001. Operation of the groundwater extraction and
treatment system is ongoing. Groundwater monitoring to demonstrate hydraulic containment and monitor
changes in contaminant levels in the Upper and Lower Aquifers was initiated in 2004.

Recently completed groundwater investigations and studies include the Wyckoff Upland NAPL Field
Investigation (the Upland Investigation) and the sheet pile wall evaluation in 2013.

2.1.1 Groundwater Monitoring

Groundwater monitoring to demonstrate hydraulic containment and monitor changes in contaminant levels
in the Upper and Lower Aquifers was initiated in 2004. The hydraulic containment monitoring program
involves continuous water-level monitoring using data loggers installed in Upper and Lower Aquifer wells
and evaluating vertical gradients between the aquifers.

The groundwater sampling program includes groundwater quality sampling at 24 Lower Aquifer wells and
piezometers and one Upper Aquifer well. The groundwater samples are analyzed for semi-volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), PAHs, PCP, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)- diesel (TPH-Dx) and TPH-motor
oil.

2.1.2 Upland NAPL Field Investigation

The Wyckoff Upland Investigation was conducted by CH2M HILL for the EPA in 2013 to support the
OU2/OU4 FFS. Field data were collected using Dakota Technologies' TarGOST. TarGOST is a laser-induced
fluorescence (LIF) field tool used to semi-quantitatively determine the relative distribution of NAPL in the
subsurface. The TarGOST data generated from the field investigation will be used to help define the
remedial target area(s) in support of the FFS technology screening, alternatives development, and
alternatives evaluation steps.

ES020314093033SEA

2-1

-------
SECTION 2. BACKGROUND

Specific objectives for the Upland Investigation relevant to TarGOST data collection and data evaluation
included:

• Evaluate the horizontal and vertical extent of NAPL within the defined area.

• Assess NAPL occurrence in relation to hydrostratigraphy.

• Evaluate NAPL mobility and the potential for NAPL to migrate through the Aquitard and/or sheet pile
wall.

The Upland Investigation included advancing 141 TarGOST probes and 20 confirmation borings over two
investigation phases between January and March 2013. TarGOST investigation activities were conducted in
accordance with procedures outlined in the 2013 Wyckoff Upland NAPL Investigation Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) (CH2M HILL, 2013a). The Upland Investigation included the following field activities:

1. TarGOST LIF Probing (Phase 1 - January 14 through February 8, 2013). An initial round of field
screening using the TarGOST technology to semi-quantitatively assess the presence or absence of NAPL,
as guided by historical NAPL occurrences. Phase 1 TarGOST probes were advanced at 77 locations.

2. TarGOST LIF Probing (Phase 2 - February 25 through March 22, 2013). A second round of TarGOST
investigation, to extend the Phase 1 grid and evaluate spatial data gaps, was conducted based on Phase
1 results. A total of 64 Phase 2 locations were completed.

3. Confirmation Soil Coring (Phase 1 and Phase 2). Soil cores were collected through either sonic or direct-
push drilling methods and visually logged, and then selected intervals were analyzed ex situ using the
TarGOST technology to verify in situ results and to correlate with field observations (visual NAPL and
water sheen testing observations). Confirmation soil cores were advanced at 10 selected TarGOST
Phase 1 locations and 10 Phase 2 locations. Soil lithology and geologic unit interpretations were logged
for each soil core.

TarGOST replicate probes were completed at selected locations to evaluate signal response (as percent RE)
variability. Seven field replicates were also completed for a total of 84 Phase 1 TarGOST probes. The
TarGOST probes were advanced to refusal, expected to be the glacial till layer, at the majority of the
exploration locations.

2.1.3 Sheet Pile Wall Evaluation

An investigation was completed in 2013 to indirectly assess the integrity of the sheet pile wall and identify
possible pathways for NAPL migration beyond the sheet pile wall. The conceptual model for the sheet pile
wall is that it can physically impede NAPL migration from the upland area. The sheet pile wall is also
expected to physically impede groundwater flow such that there is limited hydraulic communication
between the Upper Aquifer and Eagle Harbor.

The integrity of the sheet pile wall was evaluated using field measurements collected from January through
May 2013, as well as other data analysis. Collected data included the following:

• Measurement of conductivity profiles (static measurement of salinity while lowering a programmable
multi-meter instrument through the water column) under pumping and non-pumping conditions in
sheet pile wall seams and monitoring wells located near the sheet pile wall. Conductivity profiles were
measured for seams 1 through 5, seam 7, as well as nearby Upper and Lower Aquifer wells. In addition,
salinity measurements were performed in Eagle Harbor for comparison purposes.

• Conductivity measurements of water purged from the seams under pumping conditions.

• Water level measurements using transducers.

Other data collected or used for this assessment included the following:

• Groundwater level data

2-2

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 2. BACKGROUND

•	Groundwater monitoring data (NAPL measurements)

•	Sheet pile wall as-built drawings and measurements

•	Boring logs and well construction diagrams for wells near the sheet pile wall

Collectively, these data were integrated into a multiple lines of evidence approach to assess the integrity of

the wall with respect to groundwater and potential NAPL migration. The lines of evidence examined

included the following:

•	A recent history of gradient reversals in the 10 well pairs used to monitor hydraulic containment
effectiveness

•	Vertical profiles of specific conductance in monitoring wells near the sheet pile wall to evaluate salinity
effects and potential interaction with Eagle Harbor

•	Tidal efficiencies of Upper Aquifer wells calculated from water level monitoring data obtained under
non-pumping conditions

•	Seam testing, including vertical specific conductance profiling, specific conductance monitoring while
pumping out the seams, and subsequent water level recovery monitoring

•	The distribution of NAPL as designated by TarGOST results near the sheet pile wall, relative to the sheet
pile wall driven depths and soil type

ES020314093033SEA

2-3

-------
SECTION 3

Current Conditions

The selected remedy for the Soil and Groundwater OUs presented in the 2000 ROD (Section 12.1) was
Alternative 3, Thermal Remediation. In addition to the selected remedy, the ROD identified a Contingency
Remedy as follows:

"If the pilot test [for thermal remediation] does not reasonably achieve performance expectations, then
Alternative 2b, Containment with a Sheet Pile Wall Remedy, will be implemented."

The contingency remedy was implemented in 2004 after the thermal treatment pilot study failed to meet
remedial action objectives (RAOs).

3.1 Remedy Components

The contingency remedy includes the following components:

• Sheet Pile Wall - The 1,870-foot-long sheet pile wall was installed in 2001.

• Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System - The groundwater extraction and treatment system
has been operating since 1990. The treatment system was replaced in 2010.

• Long-term Monitoring - Groundwater monitoring to demonstrate hydraulic containment and monitor
changes in contaminant levels in the Upper and Lower Aquifers was initiated in 2004.

• Institutional Controls - Institutional controls in the form of a Prospective Purchasers Agreement with
the City of Bainbridge Island and EPA have been implemented to prevent access to groundwater.
Engineering controls including fencing and access controls have been implemented to restrict site use to
prevent direct exposure to surface soil.

The following component of the containment remedy has yet to be implemented:

• Site Cap - A low-permeability cap would reduce the amount of precipitation recharge entering the FPA
that needs to be treated and would prevent direct contact with contaminated soil.

3.1.1 Sheet Pile Wall

Construction of the sheet pile wall was completed in February 2001. The sheet pile wall is located around
the outer, shoreline perimeter of the facility. This wall is approximately 1,870 feet long and extends
approximately 20 to 90 feet bgs (CH2M HILL, 2004a). It was constructed with the intention to embed (for
example, key) the bottom of the wall into the Aquitard. A second sheet pile wall was constructed to isolate
the thermal remediation pilot study area (CH2M HILL, 2004a). This wall has a total length of 536 feet and is
located in the interior portion of the site. The two sheet pile walls are informally referred to in this
document as the perimeter and inner walls.

3.1.2 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System

The groundwater extraction system consists of dual extraction (groundwater/NAPL) wells. Seven recovery
wells (RPW1, RPW2, RPW4, RPW5, RPW6, PW8, and PW9) and two former pilot extraction wells (E-02 and
E-06) screened in the Upper Aquifer are currently used (see Figure 3-1). The extraction wells recover
groundwater, light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL), and dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL). The
system was designed to hydraulically contain contaminated groundwater and NAPL within the FPA by
pumping groundwater from the Upper Aquifer to maintain an upward vertical gradient between the Lower
and Upper Aquifers and to induce groundwater flow away from the site perimeter and toward the
extraction wells. The groundwater/NAPL mix recovered by the extraction wells is separated, the
groundwater treated at the onsite groundwater treatment plant (GWTP), and the treated water discharged
to Puget Sound. The recovered NAPL is shipped to an offsite facility for incineration. NAPL is periodically

ES020314093033SEA

3-1

-------
SECTION 3. CURRENT CONDITIONS

pumped from the wells, although NAPL recovery is not a primary objective of the system. Groundwater and
NAPL extraction volumes are measured and recorded for each well.

Figure 3-2 is an as-built drawing for the new GWTP, which was constructed in 2009 to replace the previous
GWTP. The groundwater/NAPL mix from the recovery wells is pumped to a 51,000-gallon equalization tank
at the GWTP where a majority of the NAPL removal occurs. Any residual NAPL and suspended solids are
then removed from the influent using dissolved air flotation (DAF) separation, which is aided by a polymer
injection system. The effluent from the DAF unit is filtered through a hydromation deep bed filter that uses
walnut shell media for solids and oil removal. Effluent from the deep bed filter is polished through a series of
granular activated carbon (GAC) units to reduce PCP and PAH concentrations below the maximum target
discharge levels required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Standby GAC units are available to allow for change-out of loaded lead units without requiring interruption
of treatment operations. Effluent from the GAC units is directed to an effluent tank before it is discharged
through an outfall. Influent and effluent water quality sampling and analysis is routinely performed to assess
and confirm GWTP performance.

The GWTP and recovery well systems generally operate 24 hours per day 7 days a week during the rainy
season and 24 hours per day 5 days a week during the summer months, but are shut down periodically
because of low groundwater levels or for system maintenance.

3.1.3 Long-term Monitoring

The long-term monitoring program includes water level measurements to evaluate hydraulic containment.
The monitoring program also includes monitor well groundwater sampling and analysis to evaluate
contaminant concentration trends in the Lower Aquifer within the FPA and in the Upper Aquifer outside the
FPA. Locations for all of the Wyckoff Site wells are shown on Figure 3-1, and information for each well (type,
aquifer, elevations, and well construction details) are included in the well inventory provided in Table 3-1.
Long-term monitoring results are presented annually in four quarterly water level monitoring reports
evaluating hydraulic containment, and one annual report evaluating water quality conditions of the Lower
Aquifer.

3.1.4 Volume of Water Treated

Table 3-2 shows groundwater extraction volumes by well. A total of 21,979,747 gallons were extracted from
April 2012 through March 2013. The monthly groundwater extraction rate for all nine extraction wells in
2012 varied from 0 gallons per month in August 2012 to 3,381,757 gallons per month (77.2 gallons per
minute [gpm]) in December 2012. Groundwater pumping rates generally follow a seasonal pattern that
correlates with monthly rainfall totals (Figure 3-2). Average pumping rates were 1.6 gpm to 9.5 gpm at
individual wells. As shown on Figure 3-2, approximately 72 percent of the groundwater extracted from April
2012 through March 2013 was from four wells (RPW2, RPW4, RPW5, and RPW7).

The number of aquifer pore volumes withdrawn by the groundwater extraction system for the same time
period was estimated using the following equation:

NPV (year) = Q (year)/PV

Where NPV is the number of pore volumes, Q is the total annual pumping rate, and PV is the volume of
contaminated Upper Aquifer groundwater within the FPA. Using the TarGOST results to define the area and
volume of contaminated material, the volume of contaminated media is estimated at approximately
570,000 cubic yards (15,381,000 cubic feet). Assuming a total porosity of 0.3, the estimated pore volume of
the Upper Aquifer is 4,614,000 cubic feet, or 34,517,000 gallons. Given these assumptions, 0.64 pore
volumes were withdrawn by the groundwater extraction system from April 2012 through March 2013.

3.1.5 NAPL Removal per Year

Table 3-3 shows the volume of product (LNAPL and/or DNAPL) recovered from each extraction well from
March 26, 2012 through March 25, 2013. Atotal of 1,287 gallons of NAPL (120 gallons LNAPL and 1,167

3-2

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 3. CURRENT CONDITIONS

gallons DNAPL) were removed from seven recovery wells (RPW1, RPW2, RPW4, RPW5, RPW6, RPW8, and
RPW9). Approximately 90 percent of the NAPL recovered during this period was from four wells (RPW1,
RPW2, RPW5, and RPW8). For comparison, during a step test of the groundwater extraction system
conducted in 1995, 1,460 gallons of NAPL were recovered from extraction wells RPW1, RPW2, RPW5, RPW6
and RPW8 over a 21-day period (CH2M HILL, 1996).

In addition to the NAPL recovered from the extraction wells, an estimated 2,945 gallons of NAPL were
removed from the treatment plant tanks during the same time period. This is NAPL that is separated from
the groundwater by the treatment plant.

A total of 4,232 gallons of NAPL were removed from the extraction wells and treatment plant.

3.1.6 Mass Removal per Year

As presented in Section 5.0, based on laboratory analysis results for product recovered from the Wyckoff
Site, the average densities for the LNAPL and DNAPL are 0.988 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc) and
1.033 g/cc, respectively. Given these densities, an estimated 988 pounds of LNAPL and 10,060 pounds of
DNAPL (total 11,048 pounds of NAPL) were removed by the extraction wells, and 25,278 pounds of NAPL
were removed from the treatment plant from April 2012 through March 2013 (see Table 3-3). A total of
36,326 pounds of product (LNAPL and DNAPL) were removed.

Table 3-4 shows the estimated mass of PAH, PCB, and oil and gas removed by the GWTP from March 27,
2012 through March 26, 2013. The mass removed was estimated using the weekly volume of extracted
groundwater and influent concentration into sample port SP-0. An estimated 3,555 pounds of PAHs,
36 pounds of PCBs, and 4,097 pounds of oil and grease were removed and treated during this time period (1
year).

ES020314093033SEA

3-3

-------
SECTION 4

Hydrogeology

The hydrogeology of the Bainbridge Island area and the Wyckoff Site has been well-documented. This
section describes the regional hydrogeology and the site hydrogeology in detail.

4.1 Regional Hydrogeology

The regional hydrostratigraphic units and groundwater flow directions are described in this section.

4.1.1 Hydrostratigraphic Units

The Preliminary Geologic Map of Bainbridge Island (Haugerud, 2005) shows the surficial deposits at the
Wyckoff Site as "Modified Land (Holocene)/' which is described as "sand and gravel as fill, or extensively
graded natural deposits," and shows the areas immediately south and west of the Wyckoff Site as the
Esperance Sand Member of the Vashon Drift (Qve). The subsurface beneath Bainbridge Island is divided by
Frans, Bachmann, Sumioka, and Olsen (2011) into 11 hydrostratigraphic units based on their hydraulic and
geologic characteristics. Frans et al. differentiated the surficial geologic units from Haugerud (2005) and the
deposits at depth into aquifers (A) and confining units (C) based on their areal extent and general water-
bearing characteristics. The hydrostratigraphic units at Bainbridge Island in descending order include:

1.	Vashon Till Confining Unit (Qvt)

2.	Vashon Advance Aquifer (Qva)

3.	Upper Confining Unit (QC1)

4.	QClpi, permeable interbeds, included locally with QC1

5.	Sea Level Aquifer (QA1)

6.	Middle Confining Unit (QC2)

7.	Glaciomarine Aquifer (QA2)

8.	Lower Confining Unit (QC3)

9.	Deep Aquifer (QA3)

10.	Basal Confining Unit (QC4),

11.	Bedrock (BR)

Note: The Frans et al. (2011) descriptions of the hydrogeologic units do not exactly match those by Kato and
Warren and Robinson and Noble (2000) that were presented in the 2007 CSM Update (CH2M HILL, 2007b).
Frans et al. present a comparison table of the terminology used in their study versus previous studies by
Kato and Warren and Robinson and Noble and others.

Figure 4-1 is a surficial hydrogeologic map of Bainbridge Island from Frans et al. (2011) that shows the Upper
Confining Unit (QC1) as the surficial hydrogeologic unit at the Wyckoff Site. The Vashon Till units (Qvt and
Qva) are not shown as present at the Wyckoff Site, although the surficial hydrogeologic unit immediately
south and west of the Wyckoff Site is the Vashon Advance Aquifer (Qva). Figure 4-2 is a schematic
hydrogeologic cross-section from Puget Sound to the south to Murden Cove to the north, showing the
relationships among the hydrostratigraphic units. Figure 4-3 is a schematic hydrogeologic cross-section from
west to east, terminating at the Wyckoff Site.

The cross-sections show that the Wyckoff Site and Eagle Harbor are underlain by QC1 and all lower units
except QClpi. The Upper Aquifer beneath the FPA (the primary target aquifer for remediation at the site) is
not shown on these cross-sections, and therefore does not appear to match with any unit described by
Frans et al. (2011). The Aquitard underlying the Upper Aquifer in the FPA at the Wyckoff Site matches with
the QC1 Upper Confining Unit described below. The Lower Aquifer beneath the FPA correlates with the Sea
Level Aquifer (QA1), and the confining unit underlying the Lower Aquifer correlates with the Middle
Confining Unit (QC2). The Frans et al. descriptions of these units (lightly edited and augmented for clarity)
are presented below in descending order. Horizontal hydraulic conductivities, calculated by Frans et al. using

ES020314093033SEA

4-1

-------
SECTION 4. HYDROGEOLOGY

specific capacity data from driller's logs, are also presented where available. Table 4-1 summarizes the
thickness, top elevation, and estimated hydraulic conductivity for each hydrogeologic unit described by
Frans et al.

4.1.2 Groundwater Flow Directions

Groundwater elevations in the Qva aquifer range from near 0 to 300 feet amsl, depending on location. Flow
directions are generally radial, moving from central areas toward the shoreline or toward surface water
bodies. The vertical hydraulic gradient is downward in the interior areas of the island and upward along the
coastline (Frans et al., 2011).

The QA1 is a confined aquifer occurring, for the most part, below sea level. Groundwater elevations within
the QA1 range from a high of over 100 feet amsl in the central portion of the island to approximately sea
level near the shoreline. Generally, higher groundwater levels occur below the inland portion of the island
and decrease toward the shoreline. Correspondingly, groundwater in the QA1 flows from the central portion
of the island outward toward the shore, as shown on Figure 4-4. The vertical hydraulic gradient is downward
in the interior areas of the island and upward along the coastline (Frans et al., 2011).

4.2 Site Hydrogeology

This section describes the hydrogeologic units, groundwater flow directions, and hydraulic interconnection
between aquifers at the Wyckoff Site. As summarized in Section 2.0, numerous subsurface investigations
and studies have been conducted at the site, including the installation of borings, monitoring wells,
extraction wells, piezometers, and direct-push probes/cone penetrometers. Currently there are 77 wells at
the site that can be used for monitoring. These are shown on Figure 3-1 and listed with their installation
details in Table 3-1.

4.2.1 Hydrogeologic Units

Based on observations collected at onsite wells (the deepest of which is 127 feet bgs), three hydrogeologic
units underlie the vadose zone beneath the Wyckoff Site: the Upper (unconfined) Aquifer, a silt/clay
Aquitard, and the Lower (confined to semi-confined) Aquifer. Schematic cross-sections showing the
relationships among the units and groundwater flow are shown on Figures 4-5 and 4-6. Figure 4-5 shows the
locations of the schematic cross-sections A-A' and B-B' on Figure 4-6. Figure 4-6 shows the original
groundwater conditions at the site (before the groundwater extraction system and sheet pile wall were
operational), and current conditions.

A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) report (2000) presented detailed cross-sections showing the
relationships among and within the hydrogeologic units present at the Wyckoff Site. To supplement the
following discussion, cross-section plates from this report are presented here as Figures 4-7 through 4-15
(USACE, 2000). Note, these cross-sections have not been updated with the more recent site borings. Figure
4-16 shows the topography of the Aquitard (defined as the glacial till), while Figure 4-17 shows the
corresponding thickness of the Aquitard. The Aquitard topography and thickness were estimated using soil
classification and other information from over 200 logs for soil borings, wells, and other investigative borings
installed at the Wyckoff Site, including theTarGOST confirmation borings in 2013.

4.2.1.1 Buried Infrastructure

Figure 4-18 shows the locations where there is a potential for buried infrastructure/debris, such as building
foundations, in the FPA. Some of these features are currently partially exposed at the ground surface,
whereas others may have been covered during filling and regrading. The presence of this material is an
important consideration when screening remedial technologies for effectiveness and implementability
during the FFS.

4-2

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 4. HYDROGEOLOGY

4.2.1.2 Vadose Zone

The vadose zone generally consists of fill (see Figures 4-8 through 4-15). Based on depth to groundwater
measurements collected on September 3, 2012 during the groundwater extraction system shutdown, the
vadose zone ranges in thickness from approximately 6 feet at well CW13 in the western FPA to 13 feet at
well VG-2U in the northeastern FPA under non-pumping conditions. Direct contact with contaminants
present in the vadose zone is the primary human health exposure pathway at the site. Contaminants
present in the vadose zone may also represent a source for leaching to groundwater.

4.2.1.3 Upper Aquifer

The Upper Aquifer primarily consists of marine sand and gravel. The Upper Aquifer is unconfined, with
groundwater elevations ranging from approximately 7.5 to 10 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) under
non-pumping conditions (based on September 2012 data). Groundwater elevations in the Upper Aquifer
during active pumping ranged from 5.5 to 8.5 feet MLLW on July 25, 2012 (the synoptic event) and from 4.5
to 12 feet MLLW for the period between March 2012 and March 2013. Tidal influence within the Upper
Aquifer has historically ranged in magnitude from 1 to 10 feet, with the highest tidally induced changes near
the shoreline. Since the installation of the perimeter sheet-pile wall in 2001, tidal influence has been
diminished, and most upper aquifer wells now show a tidal influence ranging from 0.1 to 4 feet.

Groundwater in the Upper Aquifer underneath the FPA is not currently extracted, nor is it expected to be
extracted in the future, for potable, agricultural, or industrial purposes, because of saltwater intrusion
caused by tidal flushing. High salinity levels are anticipated to remain in the future. The Washington State
Department of Ecology has determined Upper Aquifer groundwater in the FPA to be non-potable because it
is significantly affected by salinity. The assignment of a non-potable Class III designation (total dissolved
solids greater than 10,000 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) to the Upper Aquifer groundwater present beneath
the FPA is consistent with EPA's definition of a potential source of drinking water.

Sheet Pile Wall

Although not a natural hydrogeologic unit, the sheet pile wall is an important feature because it represents a
low permeability, vertically oriented flow barrier lying within the Upper Aquifer. The integrity of the sheet
pile wall influences the Upper Aquifer's hydraulic response to regional, seasonally induced water level
changes and daily tidal cycles in Eagle Harbor. Sheet pile wall integrity also affects NAPL and dissolved phase
contaminant transport.

As described in Section 2.1.3, multiple lines of evidence were evaluated to assess the sheet pile wall's
integrity (CH2M HILL, 2013c). The various lines of evidence indicate that the sheet pile wall has a relatively
moderate to high degree of effectiveness in hydraulically isolating the upland side of the Upper Aquifer from
the Eagle Harbor side. Currently, although there is some hydraulic flux through the sheet pile wall via the
seams, a comparison of current to historical tidal efficiency factor measurements combined with the sheet
pile wall construction information indicates that the current hydraulic flux through the sheet pile wall is
significantly less than during pre-wall conditions.

4.2.1.4 Aquitard

A low permeability Aquitard separates the Upper Aquifer from the Lower Aquifer. The Aquitard is composed
of marine silt, glacial deposits, and non-marine clay. The top of the Aquitard extends from near ground
surface in the south-central portion of the Wyckoff Site to approximately 90 feet bgs along the northern
portion of the site (see Figure 4-16). Based on numerous field explorations conducted during the Rl for the
Wyckoff Soil and Groundwater OUs (CH2M HILL, 1997) and various USACE exploratory drilling events
(USACE, January 1998, April 1998, May 2000, October 2006), the Aquitard appears continuous throughout
most of the site.

As shown on Figure 4-17, the Aquitard's thickness ranges from 10 to 40 feet, with the thinnest areas located
near the northeast corner of the site and in the central portion of the site. Borings drilled along the south
hillside in 2004 to characterize the area for a possible upgradient cutoff wall (CH2M HILL, 2004b) identified

ES020314093033SEA

4-3

-------
SECTION 4. HYDROGEOLOGY

gaps in the Aquitard in the southwest and southeast corners of the site upgradient of the FPA. Additional
investigation in 2008 also identified a gap in the Aquitard in the southeast corner of the site. The locations of
these gaps are shown on Figures 4-5, 4-16, and 4-17. Moreover, the last 200-foot segment of the sheet pile
wall in the southeast corner of the site may not be keyed in Aquitard material (CH2M HILL, 2009). No
Aquitard material was observed at boring PZ-03, which is located about 20 feet east of the end of the sheet
pile wall. Boring PZ-03 is completed about 10 feet below the base of the wall. No Aquitard material was
observed at boring SE-02, which is located about 100 feet northeast of the sheet pile wall.

4.2.1.5 Lower Aquifer

The Lower Aquifer is continuous across the Wyckoff Site and is strongly influenced by tides. The Lower
Aquifer consists primarily of sand, with small amounts of silt, clay, and gravel. The lower boundary of this
aquifer has not been characterized at the site. However, it is believed that this aquifer extends to
approximately 200 or 250 feet bgs, based on the regional work of Frans et al. (2011) and the logs recorded
for two deep onsite water supply wells that were decommissioned in 1997, and for a new water supply well
that was completed in January 2002.

Groundwater in the Lower Aquifer (approximately 80 to 200 feet bgs) is considered potable (Class II B -
Groundwater Not a Current Source but Potential Future Source,) although this aquifer has never been used
for drinking water at the site.

4.2.2 Groundwater Flow Conditions

As shown on Figure 4-6, groundwater flow in both aquifers prior to installation of the sheet pile wall
(original conditions) was from south to north, toward Eagle Harbor and Puget Sound. The flow was also
upward from the Lower Aquifer to the Upper Aquifer as expected in a sea level groundwater discharge zone.
Groundwater in the Upper Aquifer flowed from the southern portion of the Wyckoff Site north toward Eagle
Harbor and Puget Sound, where it formerly discharged into the intertidal and subtidal zones. The perimeter
sheet pile wall now impedes groundwater flow into Eagle Harbor while the pump-and-treat system extracts
groundwater to maintain a net upward vertical hydraulic gradient from the Lower to Upper Aquifer and to
maintain an inward flow gradient within the Upper Aquifer.

Groundwater elevations and flow directions in the Upper Aquifer are influenced both by groundwater
extraction and by tidal fluctuation. The GWTP and groundwater recovery wells were shut down for an
extended period for routine maintenance and because of low Upper Aquifer groundwater levels in the third
quarter of 2012. The long-term shutdown allowed for a comparison of groundwater flow directions during
pumping and non-pumping conditions and an evaluation of pumping influences on groundwater flow.

Results of this evaluation were presented in a Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2013d). The effect of
tidal fluctuation on groundwater elevations in the Upper Aquifer was evaluated for the 2013 sheet pile wall
evaluation (CH2M HILL, 2013c). Results of both of these evaluations are summarized in Section 4.2.2.1.

4.2.2.1 Groundwater Flow Directions

Groundwater flow directions during pumping and non-pumping conditions were evaluated using data from
two synoptic monitoring events. The first event occurred on July 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM, which represents a
moment in time when the tidal elevation was approximately 3 feet MLLW on an incoming tide. At that
measurement time, six production wells (RPW2, RPW4, RPW5, RPW8, E-02, and E-06) were extracting
groundwater at a total rate of 44 gpm, with rates at the individual wells ranging from 4.8 gpm to 10.2 gpm.
The second event occurred on September 3, 2012 at 9:01 PM, representing a moment in time when the tidal
elevation was also approximately 3 feet MLLW on an incoming tide, and production wells had been off for
over a month. Water levels were interpolated for Upper and Lower Aquifer monitoring wells for each of
these events using the pressure transducer measurements.

Figures 4-19a and 4-19b show the groundwater elevations and inferred flow directions for the July 25th
synoptic (pumping) event for both the Upper and Lower Aquifers, respectively. The Upper Aquifer flow map

4-4

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 4. HYDROGEOLOGY

demonstrates inward hydraulic gradients toward the active production wells, and the Lower Aquifer map
shows a horizontal hydraulic gradient toward Eagle Harbor and Puget Sound.

Figures 4-20a and 4-20b show the groundwater elevations and inferred flow directions for the September
3rd synoptic (non-pumping) event for the Upper and Lower Aquifers, respectively. The Upper Aquifer flow
map shows a partial inward gradient toward the production wells with some gradient reversal toward the
sheet pile wall. The outward gradients along the sheet pile wall are an artifact of the contour interpolation,
which does not take into account the sheet pile wall as a hydraulic barrier to groundwater flow. The Lower
Aquifer flow map shows horizontal gradients and groundwater flow toward Eagle Harbor and Puget Sound.

Figure 4-21 shows the difference between the July 25th and September 3rd groundwater elevations in the
Upper Aquifer wells. This difference reflects the approximate water level change resulting from shutting
down the groundwater recovery wells in late July. Because of dry, summer conditions, natural, seasonal
water level changes over this period are likely negligible. As shown on Figure 4-21, the water level change
was +1 foot at all monitored locations except for PW9 and CW13. This suggests that most, if not all, of the
FPA is within the recovery well hydraulic capture zone (RPW2, RPW4, RPW5, PW8, E-02, and E-06, which
were active on July 25). It should be noted that this radius of influence evaluation is applicable to the low
water levels consistent with summer - dry season conditions. The hydraulic effects of groundwater
extraction may differ for winter - wet season conditions.

Historical tidal efficiency factors representing conditions prior to installation of the sheet pile wall are
available for a limited number of site monitoring wells. For Upper Aquifer wells CW13 and MW14, pre-wall
tidal efficiency factors were 54 percent and 21 percent, respectively (CH2MHILL, 1996). In 2012, tidal
efficiency factors of 2 percent and 5 percent were found for these areas (CH2M HILL, 2013c). These results
indicate that installation of the sheet pile wall has resulted in a substantial decrease in the hydraulic
connection of the Upper Aquifer with Eagle Harbor in these two areas. It was concluded that tidal
fluctuation plays a minor role in causing the short duration downward gradients observed within the FPA.

ES020314093033SEA

4-5

-------
SECTION 5

Nature and Extent of Contamination

This section integrates existing information with the results of the recently completed TarGOST Phase
1/Phase 2 investigations to develop an improved understanding of NAPL distribution within the vadose zone
and Upper Aquifer at the site.

5.1 Potential Contaminant Sources

Potential sources of NAPL in the FPA are divided into categories based on historical source documentation
as primary and secondary sources (Figure 5-1). Primary sources were identified from Figures B, C, and D of
the Final Removal Report (Ecology and Environment, 1995) for 1992 through 1994 removal activities at the
site. Primary sources were identified as sumps, trenches, and other areas with observed contamination. The
areas identified in addition to sumps and trenches include the following:

• Naphthalene disposal area - The site of the naphthalene block excavation activities that were
performed in conjunction with the removal actions from 1992 through 1994. A block of solid phase
naphthalene 4 to 5 feet thick and 15 feet long located to the southwest of Tank 4-A in the tank farm
area was removed from this location.

• An area of excavated major pipes and leaks - This area is located in the Engine Room (the large building
southeast of the retorts).

• Old sump - The old sump area contained sludge that were excavated during the removal actions from
1992 to 1994 (Ecology and Environment, 1995).

Wastewater, oil, and sludge remaining in site sumps and trenches were removed during the actions from
1992 through 1994 (Ecology and Environment, 1995).

Secondary sources have also been identified and prioritized based on a review of historical documentation.
These secondary sources are typically in process areas, are sites of documented spills or contamination, and
may have had previous removal actions. These areas include the following:

• West Dock - During the removal actions conducted from 1992 through 1994, an area between wooden
bulkheads adjacent to the West Dock was found to contain buried sludge. EPA decided to amend the
Removal Action scope to include the demolition of a section of the West Dock and the excavation of 120
cubic yards of sludge located under the dock.

• Former Lagoon/Tram Loading Area - Prior to the 1920s when the site was reconstructed, a lagoon area
existed to the south of the retorts and transfer table pit. Logs were reportedly floated in and out of this
lagoon prior to it being filled in (USACE, 2007). Later use of this area included the tram loading.

• Tank 6C - This one-million-gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) contained PCP and creosote-
contaminated waste oil and sludge at the time of removal actions in 1992 to 1994 (Ecology and
Environment, 1995). The materials within the tank were treated and the tank was demolished in 1993.

• Log Storage Area - This area was primarily used to store untreated wood (USACE, 2007).

• Former Seattle Steam Storage Tank - This location housed a steam storage tank.

• Area of reported pipeline leak - This site was the location of a reported leak in an underground creosote
pipeline.

• Transfer Table Pit - Transport of treated logs occurred through the transfer table pit to the West Dock.
Historically, chemical process fluids from the retorts were allowed to discharge directly to the ground
surface in this area and seep into the soil and groundwater (USACE, 2007). During the 1992 to 1994
remedial actions, the transfer table pit was observed to contain drippings and buried creosote-

ES020314093033SEA

5-1

-------
SECTION 5. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

contaminated sludge (Ecology and Environment, 1995). Excavation activities were performed to remove
all sludge, as well as contaminated concrete and wood debris to the depth of the groundwater/saltwater
interface at approximately 10 to 15 feet bgs (Ecology and Environment, 1995).

5.2 Upper Aquifer - NAPL Characteristics and Distribution

This section discusses the nature and extent of creosote-related NAPL contamination present in the Upper
Aquifer. For this draft, the discussion focuses on NAPL characteristics and distribution summarized from
both historical site data and data collected from recent TarGOST field investigations and relevant
information from the OU1 2012 field investigation. Existing information regarding the nature and extent of
dissolved phased contamination has been reviewed and deemed non-representative of current conditions.
The most recent groundwater quality data representing conditions in the Upper Aquifer were collected in
the 1990s prior to installation of the perimeter sheet pile wall. Supplemental sampling of Upper Aquifer
wells is planned. Following evaluation, the Upper Aquifer groundwater quality data set will be used to
update the CSM.

5.2.1 NAPL Characteristics

Historical NAPL characteristic data are available from the USACE 1999 pre-remedial design field exploration
for the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site (USACE, 2000) and Final Report: Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site

Steam Injection Treatability Study (EPA, 2002). These historical data are compiled and described in NAPL
Characteristic Data and Aquitard Entry Pressure Calculations provided in Appendix A. Available data include
NAPL product chemical composition, density, oil-water interfacial tension, and solubility measurements
from NAPL samples collected at upland monitoring wells in 1999.

5.2.1.1 Chemical Composition

The chemical composition of creosote NAPL influences its properties (density, interfacial tension, viscosity
and solubility), which in turn affects migration and weathering in the subsurface environment and the
partitioning of dissolved phase contaminants from the NAPL to groundwater. Historical chemical
composition data are available from NAPL samples collected from site extraction wells and a composite
sample taken from the GWTP. Figure 5-2 graphically presents percent chemical composition of historical
upland NAPL samples.

The NAPL samples contained comparable proportions of naphthalene and other low molecular weight (less
than 200 grams per mole) PAHs (LPAHs) including acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and anthracene.
Pyrene and fluoranthene were the most prominent high molecular weight (greater than 200 grams per
mole) PAHs (HPAHs) detected. PCP was detected in several samples but was a minor component compared
to the LPAH and HPAH constituents. In general, the chemical fingerprints of NAPL samples exhibit limited
variability and establish a consistent compositional pattern of PAHs and PCP. PW9 and the composite
sample show the greatest variability, with reduced naphthalene composition and a greater fraction of
dibenzofuran.

5.2.1.2 Density

NAPL density is the measure of the NAPL mass per unit volume. Site data are available from 11 NAPL
samples collected from recovery wells and a composite at the GWTP. Measured values ranged from 0.978 to
1.052 grams per milliliter (g/mL) at 10° centigrade (C). Compared to a water density of 0.9997 g/mL at 10° C,
the specific gravity of NAPL is close to water.

Within the vadose zone under a two fluid system (air and NAPL), gravity forces dominate and creosote NAPL
migrates primarily downward with some lateral spreading as a result of capillary forces and medium spatial
variability (that is, layering). Once the water table is encountered, NAPL will tend to pool on the water
surface until the pool height results in a gravity force that exceeds the pore entry pressure of the saturated
soils below the water table.

5-2

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 5. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

Once within the saturated zone, because of the density ranges, NAPL will tend to partition into phases that
are both lighter (LNAPL) and heavier (DNAPL) than water. LNAPL will tend to move laterally with the water
table gradient. DNAPL will displace water and continue its migration under pressure and gravity forces.
Preferential spreading will occur where DNAPL encounters relatively permeable layers or other pathways
that present less capillary resistance to entry than underlying, less-permeable strata. The potential presence
of salt water, because of the proximity with Eagle Harbor, with a density of approximately 1.03, will also
influence DNAPL migration.

5.2.2 Extent of NAPL

This section presents the horizontal and vertical extent of NAPL at the FPA by site hydrogeologic unit, based
on the most recent site investigation activities conducted in 2012 and 2013. The extent of NAPL in the Upper
Aquifer is estimated from the recently collected TarGOST data as summarized in the Draft 2013 Wyckoff
Upland NAPL Field Investigation Technical Memorandum Field Summary Report (CH2M HILL, 2013b). The
extent of NAPL in the Lower Aquifer is estimated from NAPL thickness measurements of Lower Aquifer
monitoring wells during the June 2012 Lower Aquifer groundwater sampling event (CH2MHILL, 2013e). The
extent of NAPL in the Aquitard is inferred through comparison of Lower Aquifer to Upper Aquifer NAPL
extents and calculation of capillary entry pressures required to induce NAPL migration into the Aquitard.

5.2.2.1 Upper Aquifer NAPL Extent and Distribution

The extent and distribution of NAPL in the Upper Aquifer is evaluated through the TarGOST dataset and
through NAPL thickness measurements in site monitoring wells screened in the Upper Aquifer.

Distribution via the TarGOST Dataset

During the 2013 Upland NAPL field investigation, 141 primary and 7 replicate TarGOST borings and 20
confirmation soil core borings were advanced to characterize the extent of NAPL in the Upper Aquifer.
Because of the relative high density of vertical to horizontal readings, the final TarGOST dataset consists of
198,992 data points. In raw form, the TarGOST data do not explicitly indicate the presence or absence of
NAPL. Interpretation is needed to select a %RE value that represents a transition or cutoff between the
presence or absence of NAPL. To accomplish this, a robust analysis was completed to evaluate the cutoff
between the presence or absence of NAPL using multiple lines of evidence. Details of the analysis are
presented in the 2013 Wyckoff Upland NAPL Field Investigation Technical Memorandum Field Summary
Report (CH2M HILL, 2013b). Evaluation findings indicate that a TarGOST %RE response between 5%RE and
10%RE can be justifiably selected as representing the presence of NAPL. Based on stakeholder review and
approval, TarGOST responses of 10%RE and greater are inferred to indicate that NAPL is present at
measured locations.

Visualization and evaluation of the TarGOST dataset was conducted using multiple approaches including raw
TarGOST logs as fence diagrams, geostatistical interpolation using mining visualization software (MVS), and
data filtering and integrating with Excel in conjunction with 2-D visualizations. Results of each of the
approaches are summarized below, because each is helpful for assessing NAPL extent and distribution in the
Upper Aquifer.

Fence Diagrams including Analysis of Confirmation Boring Data

Plates 1 through 3 present the series of fence diagrams along 12 transects across the site, produced from
the raw TarGOST logs to present the distribution of NAPL across the Upland Project Area. The primary
transects (A through F) were chosen such that they radiate outward from a centrally located TarGOST probe
location at the site (2013T-005). Three sub-transects stemming from transects D and F were added for
greater spatial coverage and to aid in identifying potential flow paths. Transect G was added to evaluate
NAPL effects along the interior perimeter of the sheet pile wall. All LIF response graphs are scaled the same,
with vertical response grid lines at an interval of 25%RE and a maximum response of 150%RE.

Important relevant observations from the TarGOST log fence diagrams are as follows:

ES020314093033SEA

5-3

-------
SECTION 5. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

• Deeper (near Aquitard) TarGOST responses at greater than 10 percent appear to terminate at or above
the TarGOST boring refusal depths. In general, where comparable lithology is available, TarGOST refusal
is coincident with or slightly below the transition from the Upper Aquifer to the glacial till (e.g., a layer
within the Aquitard). These factors suggest that the glacial till is effectively restricting the migration of
NAPL to deeper elevations.

• Along the FPA's west side and north end, elevated TarGOST readings were measured adjacent to the
outer sheet pile wall at depths at and above the glacial till layer. In these areas the sheet pile wall driven
depths are greater than the deepest elevated TarGOST responses.

As part of the TarGOST investigation, confirmation borings were advanced and logged for soil type and NAPL
observations. The resulting datasets were compared to evaluate the association of NAPL with soil type.
Figure 5-3 presents the confirmation boring lithology and NAPL-affected soil core lengths by historical
geologic unit. The first graphic represents the confirmation boring footage by soil type and NAPL absence
and presence. The second graphic to the right represents the lithology type as a percent of total recovered
confirmation boring footage. The third graphic at the bottom represents the presence of NAPL as a
percentage of total NAPL footage observed, segregated by lithologic unit. Of the 598.5 feet of recovered soil
cores, NAPL was observed in 119 feet, or 20 percent of the sampled material. When compared with NAPL
presence by geologic unit, there is a tendency for NAPL to preferentially inhabit coarser-grained soil as
evidenced by the increased percentages of NAPL by soil type relative to the general prevalence of soil type
in the Upper Aquifer. Eighty-two percent of the NAPL was observed in coarser-grained material consisting of
marine sand or marine sand and gravel, and 15.5 percent of NAPL was observed in finer-grained material
consisting of marine silt or marine sediment. This is compared with coarse- to fine-grained material
distribution of 68 to 24 percent, respectively, from the confirmation soil logs.

MVS Visualizations and Volume Estimate of NAPL-affected Soil

MVS visualizations were conducted by Sundance Environmental and Energy Specialists LTD (Sundance).To
manage the size of the TarGOST dataset, the site was separated into four subareas (2 through 5) and each
was interpolated separately. Subareas overlapped along their boundaries to ensure complete coverage.
Three-dimensional visualization files presenting the interpolated 10% RE TarGOST response shells were
created for each subarea, thereby allowing a user to rotate the visualization and see the estimated NAPL
extent from varying angles. Plates 4 through 7 present screen shots for the respective subarea visualizations
from multiple angles. Upon review of these, it appears that the NAPL has partially separated vertically with
some migration downward to the Aquitard with further migration downslope, some migration horizontally
along the water table, and some in between these two zones but with a downward slope. Based on these
observations, the Upper Aquifer was segregated into three vertical compartments: Compartment 1 - vadose
zone to just below the water table (ground surface to -5 MLLW), Compartment 2 - the intermediate zone (-5
MLLW to 10 feet above the Aquitard), and Compartment 3 - above the Aquitard (10 feet above the Aquitard
to boring refusal depth). Figure 5-4 displays how the compartments juxtapose with each other.

Volume estimates of NAPL-affected soil developed using these MVS interpolations are presented in
Table 5-1. Approximately 68,500 cubic yards of NAPL-affected soil are estimated to be present in the FPA
distributed as follows: 55 percent is in Compartment 1, 18 percent is in Compartment 2, and 28 percent is in

5-4

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 5. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

Compartment 3. This estimate is considered to represent a low-end estimate of NAPL-affected soil volume
at the site. It is 27 percent lower than the previous USACE estimate of 94,400 cubic yards, and 37 percent
lower than the high-end estimate developed using the Thiessen Polygon method, presented in the next
section.

In addition to interpolating the TarGOST dataset, Sundance also interpolated soil layers (as defined by the
Unified Soil Classification System) obtained from site historical soil borings. This was performed to provide
an estimation of higher resolution stratigraphic detail within the Upper Aquifer, which will theoretically
influence NAPL migration. At CH2M HILL's request the resulting "micro-stratigraphy" model was combined
with the TarGOST NAPL model within MVS to provide a preliminary estimate of the combined distribution by
geologic unit. Combined results are presented in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-5. Eighty percent of the NAPL was
estimated to be contained in coarser-grained material consisting of gravel and sand, and 18 percent of NAPL
was estimated to be contained in finer-grained material consisting of silt and clay. The relative distribution
of these model results is consistent with NAPL/material distribution observed in the TarGOST confirmation
borings - 82 to 15.5 percent of NAPL in coarse- to fine-grained material, respectively (see previous section).

Thiessen Polygon Distribution and Volume Estimate of NAPL-affected Soil

An evaluation to estimate the total volume of NAPL-affected soil in the FPA was conducted using the
TarGOST response data coupled with a Thiessen polygon analysis.

• For the first step, the raw response data from each TarGOST location was first converted from discrete
point data to thickness data. This was accomplished by applying each discrete response measurement to
the interval represented by the midpoints between each discrete response depth. Once readings were
paired with thicknesses instead of discrete depths, the total thickness of the >10%RE TarGOST response
levels at each location was summed.

• For the second step, Thiessen polygons were created for the surveyed TarGOST locations within the
sheet pile wall boundary, and the areas for each polygon were multiplied by the summed thickness for
each TarGOST location (from Step 1). This provided a volumetric estimate for each polygon
corresponding to a >10%RE response.

• For the third step, the volumes from the individual Thiessen polygons (from Step 2) were summed to
provide the total volumetric estimate of NAPL-affected soil, as defined by the >10%RE TarGOST
response.

Additional details on the application of this approach are presented in the Wyckoff Upland NAPL Field
Investigation Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2013b).

For graphical presentation of the resulting NAPL-affected soil by Thiessen Polygon method, the Upper
Aquifer is segregated into the same vertical compartments identified via the MVS visualizations presented in
the previous section (Plate 8). In addition to the compartments, NAPL-affected soil distribution for the
combined Upper Aquifer is also displayed. Within each polygon both the total summed thickness (>10%RE)
and the percent of NAPL-affected volume (NAPL-affected volume divided by total polygon volume) are
posted. The polygons are color-coded by summed thickness. As an example, the Thiessen polygons with
summed thickness greater than or equal to 10 feet are color-coded as red. For the combined Upper Aquifer
(All Compartments), 34 of the 129 polygons have summed NAPL thicknesses greater than or equal to 10 feet
and encompass a combined area of approximately 2.7 acres.

In comparison to potential sources detailed in Section 4.1, the thickest accumulations of NAPL-affected
material (greater than 20 feet thick) appear to be concentrated in the center of the FPA near the Retort
area, as well as to the east by the Naphthalene Block Excavation Area. Lesser but still significant
accumulations of NAPL-affected material appear to be associated with other potential sources such as the
Old Sump to the east; the shop building to the north; the sump associated with a concrete pit for an

ES020314093033SEA

5-5

-------
SECTION 5. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

outhouse, also to the north; the discharge point from a buried drain to the west; and the former floating
dock, also to the west.

Volume estimates of NAPL-affected soil developed using the Thiessen polygon approach are presented in
Table 5-3. For this approach, Compartment 1 is further divided into both unsaturated (Compartment la) and
saturated (Compartment lb) zones. Approximately 109,069 cubic yards of NAPL-affected soil are estimated
to be present in the FPA using the Thiessen polygon approach. Fifty-two percent is present in Compartment
1 (5 percent in Compartment la and 47 percent in Compartment lb), 23 percent is present in Compartment
2, and 25 percent is present in Compartment 3. This estimate is considered a high-end estimate of NAPL-
affected soil volume at the site. It is 16 percent higher than the previous USACE estimate of 94,400 cubic
yards, and 59 percent higher than the low-end estimate developed using the MVS interpolations, presented
in the previous section.

TarGOST Reading Integration with 2-D Interpolation to Estimate NAPL Volume

The method and results presented in this section provide a rough approximation of the NAPL volume by
gallons present in the Upper Aquifer. This is important to the CSM and FFS development of remedial action
alternatives, as it provides an estimate of NAPL phase contaminant volume in the Upper Aquifer. The results
can be roughly compared with the previous USACE NAPL volume estimate of 1,200,000 gallons. This
methodology provides the most benefit as a tool for estimating the relative mass reduction resulting from
implementation of potential alternatives. This tool would be useful for evaluating the relative remedy
protectiveness and to support the estimation of relative duration to reach the remedial action objectives for
the potential alternatives.

The NAPL volume was prepared by applying the dilution series for TarGOST signal calibration completed
under OU1 Field Investigation activities in 2012 (CH2M HILL, 2012). The dilution series was developed by
adding different weight percentages of LNAPL collected from Wyckoff upland recovery wells to a composite
sample of OU1 beach sand. The upland LNAPL sample consisted of equal proportions of LNAPL from
individual samples collected by CH2M HILL from wells PW-1 and PW-4. The composite sediment sample was
created by combining approximately equal proportions of gravelly sand material with minor shell fragments
from three near-surface locations on the East Beach and North Shoal in the OU1 project area. Visible wood,
algae, and other organic materials were excluded from the sample. The signal calibration curve comparing
the TarGOST LIF response to weight percentages of LNAPL is presented on Figure 5-6. Historical soil and
NAPL density data were used to convert from weight percentage to volumetric percentage, then a linear
interpolation was applied to the dilution series to allow conversion of the TarGOST readings to the
volumetric percent concentration in parts per million (ppm).

NAPL volumes were estimated using techniques similar to the Thiessen polygon approach described above.

• For the first step, each TarGOST reading >10%RE is converted to an estimated ppm concentration
(TarGOST concentration) using the dilution series linear interpolation.

• For the second step, the estimated TarGOST concentration is converted to a percentage of volume and
multiplied by the associated discrete response volume. The discrete response volume is simply the
discrete response depth (developed through Step 1 of the Thiessen polygon approach) multiplied by a
5x5-foot area. This results in an estimate of NAPL volume within each discrete response volume. When
summed together, this represents the volume of NAPL within a 5x5-foot column coincident with the
TarGOST location.

• For the third step, the NAPL volumes from each TarGOST location column are interpolated to a grid with
5x5-foot cell spacing. The interpolated values from each grid cell are summed to provide an estimate of
total NAPL volume.

Plate 9 presents the estimated distribution by NAPL volume developed using this method. This includes
NAPL distribution for the combined Upper Aquifer and the compartments identified via the MVS

5-6

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 5. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

visualizations. Volume estimates of NAPL developed through this TarGOST integration approach are
presented in Table 5-4. Rounding to the appropriate significant digit using this method, approximately
650,000 gallons of NAPL are estimated to be present in the Upper Aquifer. Forty-five percent is estimated to
be in Compartment 1 (5 percent in Compartment la and 40 percent in Compartment lb), 19 percent in
Compartment 2, and 36 percent in Compartment 3. The NAPL volume estimates provided should not be
considered as absolute, but are provided for relative comparison with application of potential remedial
technologies.

5.3 Lower Aquifer Nature and Extent

OU2 groundwater quality sampling is conducted on an annual basis, with samples primarily collected from
monitoring wells screened in the Lower Aquifer. Under the current sampling program, a total of 25 wells and
piezometers are sampled and analyzed for SVOC, PAH, PCP, and TPH constituents. Twenty-four of the 25
wells sampled are screened in the Lower Aquifer. In June 2012 NAPL measurements from the wells were
obtained to evaluate the presence of NAPL in the Lower Aquifer. This is not typically done during sampling
events. The last water quality sampling event was conducted in May 2013.

For the May 2013 sampling event, of the 24 Lower Aquifer samples, 19 were reported by the laboratory to
have non-detect or very low detects of analyzed constituents with no exceedances of the groundwater
cleanup levels (CULs). The remaining five Lower Aquifer samples at monitoring wells CW05, CW15, P-3L,
PZ-11, and VG-2L were reported to have at least one constituent concentration that exceeds a CUL.

Based on the varying PAH constituents detected above their corresponding CULs in May 2013,
acenaphthene was selected as an indicator constituent to present the spatial distribution of PAH
constituents in the Lower Aquifer. It was selected as the most appropriate indicator constituent because it
was detected above its CUL of 3 mg/L in the most monitoring wells. Figure 5-8 presents the resulting
concentration isopleths for acenaphthene. The results show two areas at the site where acenaphthene (and
other PAH constituent concentrations) are consistently detected near or above cleanup levels. One area is in
the northern portion of the FPA and encompasses monitoring wells CW05, CW15, P-3L and VG-2L; the other
area is in the southwest portion of the FPA, surrounding piezometer PZ-11. In general concentrations of
acenaphthene appear to be relatively stable above the CUL in wells CW15, P3L, and VG2L, and are increasing
in CW05 in the northern area of the site. In the southwest area of the site, concentrations are relatively
stable, with slight fluctuation, above the CUL since May 2010.

June 2012 NAPL measurements indicate the presence of NAPL in three Lower Aquifer wells (CW15, P-3L, and
VG-2L) in the northern area of the FPA. This corresponds with the northern portion of the FPA where
acenaphthene and other PAH constituent concentrations are consistently detected near or above cleanup
levels. In 2012, NAPL measurements were not attempted at monitoring well PZ-11; however, based on PZ-11
water quality results, the presence of NAPL in this well is possible.

5.4 Aquitard Nature and Extent

There are no monitoring wells or piezometers within the Aquitard, and only limited borings have been
advanced through the Aquitard. Consequently, creosote as NAPL or as dissolved constituents in Aquitard
pore water cannot be directly measured. Instead, indirect observations and estimates must be relied on to
evaluate the extent of NAPL contamination in the Aquitard. The following observations are informative in
evaluating NAPL extent in the Aquitard:

• NAPL is present at the base of the Upper Aquifer at varying thicknesses and volumes in certain areas of
the FPA, as depicted in the TarGOST logs and the 2- and 3-D visualization methods presented in
Section 5.2.2. This provides the potential for downward NAPL migration into the Aquitard across a broad
expanse of the site.

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 5. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

• NAPL is present in the Lower Aquifer in an area to the north in three Lower Aquifer wells (VG-2L, P-3L,
and CW15). NAPL has migrated to this area from the Upper Aquifer, but the migration pathway is
unclear.

• Lower Aquifer water quality conditions indicate two areas with PAH constituents greater than CULs; one
to the north encompassing monitoring wells CW05, CW15, P-3L, and VG-2L; the other to the southwest
surrounding piezometer PZ-11.

• The Aquitard is thin to absent in the vicinity of PZ-11 (See Figure 4-18). Consequently, the potential
migration of dissolved phased constituents from surface contamination to the Lower Aquifer is not
inhibited in this area. It is unclear whether NAPL is present in the Lower Aquifer in this area.

• The Aquitard thickness varies over areas of the site where NAPL is present at the base of the Upper
Aquifer. The Aquitard's slope and thickness, its capillary forces, and NAPL pool height control the
potential for NAPL penetration and migration through the Aquitard to the Lower Aquifer.

Figure 5-9 presents a compilation of the observations and estimates for assessing the potential for NAPL
migration through the Aquitard. This includes potential depressions in the Aquitard surface as indicated for
the Aquitard surface interpolation; a color-flood of the Aquitard thickness; water quality impacts to the
Lower Aquifer, including isopleth contours indicating Lower Aquifer concentrations of acenaphthene
exceeding the CUL, and wells with observed NAPL; and TarGOST boring locations that indicate a NAPL pool
height greater than required for NAPL entry into the Aquitard. Estimated values of pool height in saturated
sediment required for NAPL to enter the Aquitard underlying the FPA were calculated using an air entry
pressure scaling method and site data obtained from previous site investigations, and are presented in
Appendix A.

Interpretation of these lines of evidence suggests that the presence of NAPL and dissolved constituents in
the Aquitard is likely in the northern portion of the FPA and possible in the center of the FPA. At the north
end of the site, Lower Aquifer water quality effects align with NAPL thicknesses observed in the Upper
Aquifer that exceed the required height for NAPL entry into the Aquitard (as observed at TarGOST location
2013T-043). Furthermore, the Aquitard thickness is estimated to be thinner in this vicinity at approximately
8 to 25 feet, and the Aquitard surface itself is thought to have several depressions where NAPL could pool.

5-8

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 6

CSM Summary and Conclusions

The distribution of contaminants in soil and groundwater at the Wyckoff Site is related to the types of
chemicals released at the site (that is, creosote, PCP, and aromatic carrier oils as NAPL) and to the geology
and hydrogeology underlying the site. The primary sources of contamination are located along the eastern
portion of the FPA and include sumps, trenches, and other areas (naphthalene disposal area, areas with
pipes and leaks) with observed contamination. Wastewater, oil, and sludge remaining in site sumps and
trenches were removed during removal actions conducted from 1992 through 1994. Secondary sources are
located throughout the FPA, typically in process areas or at sites of documented spills or contamination,
which may have also been addressed by previous removal actions.

6.1 2007 FPA CSM Update Summary

The conceptual model for contaminant migration at the site from the 2007 CSM Update is summarized
below:

• As the spills and leaks occurred, the contaminants moved as mobile NAPL into the vadose zone,
adsorbing onto soil, volatilizing into soil gas, and dissolving into pore water.

• The mobile NAPL migrated downward through the vadose zone until it reached the water table and
separated into light and dense phases:

- The LNAPL spread out along the water table surface and migrated laterally with the groundwater.

- Downward migration of DNAPL was slowed or halted as it encountered higher-density brackish
groundwater and lower-permeability zones within the Upper Aquifer. Some DNAPL continued
migrating downward until it reached the Aquitard.

- Lateral movement of DNAPL has occurred through high-permeability gravel and cobble zones, or
through spreading when the DNAPL reached low-permeability zones within the Upper Aquifer or at
the top of the Aquitard.

- NAPL underwent dissolution as it encountered groundwater in the Upper Aquifer, resulting in
dissolved contamination. The aqueous-phase contaminants were then transported with the
groundwater flow, laterally toward Eagle Harbor.

Potential mechanisms for transport of contaminants into the Lower Aquifer include:

• Leakage of DNAPL or dissolved contaminants through "holes" and sand zones in the Aquitard.
Downward advective transport of dissolved contaminants through the Aquitard is considered unlikely
under natural conditions or containment pumping, because the hydraulic head is higher in the Lower
Aquifer than in the Upper Aquifer creating a net upward flow potential.

• Transport of DNAPL across the Aquitard by water displacement/"wicking" mechanisms.

• Leakage of DNAPL or dissolved contamination as a result of early drilling activities on the Site, which
may have provided conduits through the Aquitard. In 1995, EPA decommissioned 12 old wells. These
were industrial water supply wells, monitoring wells, groundwater/contaminant extraction wells, and
two deep drinking water supply wells.

• Transport of dissolved contaminants by molecular diffusion across the Aquitard from DNAPL on top of
the Aquitard.

Any dissolved contaminants reaching the Lower Aquifer would be carried by regional groundwater flow
toward discharge areas deep in Eagle Harbor and Puget Sound. However, due to the long transport

ES020314093033SEA

6-1

-------
SECTION 6. CSM SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

distances involved, it is likely that any contaminants reaching the Lower Aquifer would likely be removed by
sorption and decay before discharge to the surface waters.

6.2 Summary of Conclusions from the 2014 FPA CSM
Update

The conclusions from the FPA CSM Update for contaminant migration at the Site are summarized below:

• Results from recent NAPL thickness measurements and the 2013 TarGOST investigations indicate that
NAPL is thickest in the vadose zone and Upper Aquifer in the center of the Site.

• The thickest accumulations of affected material (greater than 20 feet thick) appear to be concentrated
in the center of the site near the Retort Area as well as to the east by the Naphthalene Block Excavation
Area.

• Lesser but still significant thickness of NAPL-affected material appears to be associated with other
potential sources such as the Old Sump to the east; the shop building to the north; the sump associated
with a concrete pit for an outhouse, also to the north; the discharge point from a buried drain to the
west; and the former floating dock, also to the west.

• Moving radially away from the center of the Site and potential source areas, NAPL occurs in thinner
lenses that are vertically distributed but not in any obvious pattern with depth.

• TarGOST results suggest that the glacial till layer at the base of the Upper Aquifer is restricting the
migration of NAPL to deeper elevations at most locations underlying the FPA.

The volume of NAPL in the Upper Aquifer was estimated using results from the 2012 and 2013
investigations.

Based on the Thiessen polygon approach, approximately 109,069 cubic yards of NAPL-affected soil is
present, with 52 percent present in Compartment 1 (the vadose zone to just below the water table [ground
surface to -5 MLLW]), 23 percent in Compartment 2 (the intermediate zone [-5 MLLW to 10 feet above the
Aquitard underlying the Upper Aquifer]), and 25 percent in Compartment 3 (the material 10 feet above the
Aquitard to approximately the top of the Aquitard). Approximately 650,000 gallons of NAPL are estimated to
be present in the Upper Aquifer, with 45 percent in Compartment 1, 19 percent in Compartment 2, and 36
percent in Compartment 3. The NAPL volume estimates provided should not be considered as absolute, but
are provided for relative comparison with application of potential remedial technologies.

Confirmation sampling results indicate an association of NAPL with soil type/geologic unit. Of the 598.5 feet
of recovered soil cores, NAPL was observed in 20 percent of the sampled material. NAPL was found to
preferentially inhabit coarser-grained soil, with 82 percent of the NAPL observed in coarser-grained material
consisting of marine sand or marine sand and gravel in the vadose zone and Upper Aquifer. Approximately
16 percent of NAPL was observed in finer-grained material consisting of marine silt or clay.

NAPL and dissolved NAPL constituents have been detected in the Lower Aquifer wells monitored at the site.
June 2012 NAPL measurements indicate the presence of NAPL in three Lower Aquifer wells (VG-2L, P-3L, and
CW15) in the northern area of the site. This is consistent with the groundwater monitoring results, which
indicate the presence of acenaphthene and other PAH constituent concentrations near or above cleanup
levels in wells located in the northern portion of the site. Elevated PAHs are also detected in the southwest
portion of the site, surrounding piezometer PZ-11.

Although none of the many onsite subsurface explorations before 2004 directly identified "holes" in the
Aquitard, existing data indirectly support hydraulic connection between the aquifers. The Aquitard thickness
varies over areas of the site where NAPL is present at the base of the Upper Aquifer. The Aquitard's slope
and thickness, its capillary forces, and NAPL pool height control the potential for NAPL penetration into and
through the Aquitard to the Lower Aquifer. Based on multiple lines of evidence, including Aquitard NAPL

6-2

ES020314093033SEA

-------
SECTION 6. CSM SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

entry pressures, Aquitard thickness, and depressions on the Aquitard surface where NAPL could pool, the
presence of NAPL and dissolved constituents in the Aquitard are likely in the northern extent of the site and
are possible in the center of the site (areas near CW12, VG-4L, and VG-5L).

Available information (TarGOST results, geologic information, sheet pile wall construction information)
indicates that the sheet pile wall has been driven to sufficient depths, and that it is keyed into the Aquitard.
Multiple lines of evidence were evaluated to assess the sheet pile wall's effectiveness as a NAPL and
dissolved phase plume migration barrier (CH2M HILL, 2013c). The various lines of evidence indicate that the
sheet pile wall has a relatively moderate to high degree of effectiveness in hydraulically isolating the upland
side of the Upper Aquifer from the Eagle Harbor side. Currently, while there is some hydraulic flux through
the sheet pile wall via the seams, a comparison of current to historical tidal efficiency factor measurements
combined with the sheet pile wall construction information indicates that the current hydraulic flux through
the sheet pile wall is significantly less than during pre-wall conditions. NAPL observations within the five
channels welded to the sheet pile wall seams suggest that NAPL migration through the sheet pile wall seams
is possible. As with the hydraulic flux, current NAPL flux through the wall would be significantly less than
pre-wall conditions. This is borne out by the observed reduction in NAPL seeps from pre-sheet pile wall
conditions.

ES020314093033SEA

6-3

-------
SECTION 7

References

Berkeley Hydrotechnique, 1989 Final Pump Test Report For Eagle Harbor Site-Analyses. June.

CH2M HILL. 1996. Groundwater Extraction System Assessment, Report 1, Wyckoff Groundwater Operable
Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Report prepared for
EPA. August.

CH2M HILL. 1997. Remedial Investigation Report, Wyckoff Soil and Groundwater Operable Units,

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Report prepared for EPA.

June.

CH2M HILL. 2004a. Wyckoff Site & Sheet Pile Wall Summary, Technical Memorandum. April.

CH2M HILL. 2004b. Geotechnical Data Report, Borings and Piezometer Installation-Upgradient Cut-off Wall,
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site. Report prepared for EPA. September.

CH2M HILL. 2007a. Sheet Pile Installation Summary Technical Memorandum, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site, Bainbridge Island, Washington. June.

CH2M HILL, 2007b. Groundwater Conceptual Site Model Update Report for the Former Process Area,
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Soil and Groundwater Operable Units. April.

CH2M HILL, 2009. Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Construction Summary - Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site. January.

CH2M HILL. 2012. 2012 Field Investigation Technical Memorandum Wyckoff OU-1 Focused Feasibility Study.
September.

CH2M HILL. 2013a. Quality Assurance Project Plan Wyckoff Upland NAPL Investigation. January.

CH2M HILL. 2013b. 2013 Wyckoff Upland NAPL Field Investigation Technical Memorandum Field Summary
Report. June.

CH2M HILL. 2013c. Wyckoff Sheet Pile Wall Evaluation. August.

CH2M HILL. 2013d. Evaluation of Wyckoff Groundwater Level Data June 24, 2012 through September 21,
2012. January.

CH2M HILL. 2013e. Technical Memorandum - Groundwater Quality Sampling Results for Wyckoff/Eagle
Harbor Superfund Site—June 2012. January.

Ecology and Environment, 1995. On-Scene Coordinator's Report, Wyckoff Facility Operable Unit,
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site. July.

Frans, L.M., Bachmann, M.P., Sumioka, S.S., and Olsen, T.D., 2011, Conceptual model and numerical

simulation of the groundwater-flow system of Bainbridge Island, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5021, 96 p.

Haugerud, Ralph, 2005, Preliminary Geologic Map of Bainbridge Island. Washington: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 2005-1387, 1 pi.

Kato and Warren and Robinson and Nobel. 2000. City of Bainbridge Island Level II Assessment—An Element
of the Water Resource Study. Report prepared for the City of Bainbridge Island. December.

Tetra Tech, 1988, Assessment of Expedited Response Actions, February.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1998. Onshore Field Investigation Report for the Barrier Wall Design
Project, Wyckoff Groundwater Operable Unit. Report prepared for EPA. January.

ES020314093033SEA 7-1

-------
SECTION 7. REFERENCES

	. 1998. Offshore Field Investigation Report for the Barrier Wall Design Project, Wyckoff Groundwater

Operable Unit Report prepared for EPA. April.

	. 2000. Comprehensive Report, Wyckoff NAPL Field Exploration, Soil and Groundwater Operable Units,

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Bainbridge, Island, WA. May.

	. 2006. Thermal Remediation Pilot Study Summary Report, Revision 3.0, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor

Superfund Site, Soil and Groundwater Operable Units. Report prepared for EPA. October.

	. 2007. Wyckoff Second Five-Year Review Report for the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site,

Bainbridge Island, Washington. September 26, 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000. Record of Decision, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site,
Soil and Groundwater Operable Units, Bainbridge Island, Washington. February.

	. 2002. Final Report: Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Steam Injection Treatability Study. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center, Ada, Oklahoma.
July 11.

7-2

ES020314093033SEA

-------
Appendix A

NAPL Characteristic Data and Aquitard Entry

Pressure Calculation

-------
MEMORANDUM

CH2MHILL®

NAPL Characteristic Data and Aquitard Entry Pressure
Calculations - Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Upland
Area

PREPARED FOR: File

copy TO: Rob Healy/SEA

PREPARED BY: Morgan Bruno/PDX

date: February 3, 2014

PROJECT NUMBER: 438527.Fl.01.01

1.0 Introduction

This memorandum to file presents available NAPL characteristics data historically collected from site production
wells. Using the historical NAPL properties data, the potential for NAPL to migrate into the Aquitard from the
Upper Aquifer is assessed.

2.0 NAPL Characteristics Data

Historical NAPL characteristic data are available from the USACE 1999 pre-remedial design field exploration for
the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site (USACE, 2000). No new samples were collected during the spring 2013
field event for physical or chemical NAPL characterization.

Available data include NAPL product chemical composition, density, oil-water interfacial tension, and solubility
measurements. Because the 1999 NAPL samples were collected from upland site wells with accumulated NAPL,
these samples represent mobile phase product. These samples provide comparative information for assessing
properties of Wyckoff NAPL originating from upland sources, although NAPL properties may change with
subsurface transport to down-gradient areas. Changes to NAPL properties can occur through potential
chromatographic-like separation, geochemical interaction with substrate, and constituent weathering. As a result,
the NAPL samples collected from upland extraction wells may not fully represent the range of characteristics of all
NAPL present in the upland area.

2.1 Chemical Composition

Table 2-1 presents the chemical composition of historical upland NAPL samples collected as part of the USACE
2000 field exploration activities. NAPL composition results are available for seven upland wells and one
composited sample, with analyzed constituents including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX),
low and high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (LPAHs and HPAHs), and pentachlorophenol
(PCP). This data set was evaluated using the EPA Fingerprint Analysis of Leachate Contaminants (FALCON) analysis
(EPA 2004) to identify the chemical signature of the NAPL samples. Figure 2-1 presents the graphical fingerprints
of the PAH and PCP constituents for individual samples. The NAPL samples contained comparable proportions of
naphthalene and other LPAHs including acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and anthracene. Pyrene and
fluoranthene were the most prominent HPAHs detected. PCP was detected in several samples but was a minor
component compared to the LPAH and HPAH constituents. In general the chemical fingerprints of NAPL samples
presented on Figure 2-1 exhibit limited variability and establish a consistent compositional pattern of PAHs and
PCP. PW9 and the composite sample show the greatest variability with reduced naphthalene composition and
enhanced dibenzofuran.

A 2001 investigation conducted by Battelle indicated that the fingerprint of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in
Wyckoff sediment samples was characterized as consisting of various two-ring low-molecular weight PAH (LPAHs)

-------
NAPL CHARACTERISTIC DATA AND AQUITARD ENTRY PRESSURE CALCULATIONS - WYCKOFF/EAGLE HARBOR SUPERFUND SITE UPLAND AREA

(i.e. Carbon [C] 0 to C4 naphthalenes) and three- and four-ring LPAH and high-molecular weight PAH (HPAH)
compounds (phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene). No significant petroleum-derived
components or contributions from plant waxes were identified. This investigation concluded the characteristics of
TPH in the Wyckoff sediment samples are typical of various coal-derived liquid products formed during the
heating/conversion of coal, most consistent with creosote (Battelle 2001).

2.2 Physical Characteristics

For the NAPL samples collected from the upland wells, Table 2-2a and 2-2b present density measurements of both
groundwater and NAPL, Table 2-3 presents the interfacial tension measurements, and Table 2-4 presents the
viscosity measurements. Measurements are presented for a temperature of 10°C, but measurements at other
temperatures are also available (USEPA, 2002). These data can be used for assessing the potential for NAPL
migration and estimate potential NAPL flux rates.

2.3 Data Quality Concerns

The quality of the NAPL physical property data obtained from previous investigations is of concern. The range of
interfacial tension values obtained for NAPL-groundwater from the site are very low compared to published
values for petroleum distillates (50 dynes/cm at 20° C) (API, 2002).

It was noted in the interfacial tension table notes from the USACE data set that one of the NAPL samples
appeared to be an emulsion (USACE, 2000). To obtain accurate interfacial tension measurements, two distinct
phases (NAPL and water) must be present. An additional sample appeared to contain two different NAPL
products, one lighter than water and one denser than water. Finally, multiple samples were reported as having
very little difference in density between the two fluids, making an accurate reading very difficult to obtain. USEPA
also noted that the range of NAPL/water IFT values measured were close to the practical limits of measurability
with the instrument used to conduct the measurements (USEPA, 2002).

3.0 Aquitard Entry Pressure Calculations

A range of anticipated values of non aqueous-phase liquid (NAPL) pool height in saturated sediment required for
NAPL to enter the aquitard underlying the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site was calculated using an air entry
pressure scaling method and site data obtained from previous site investigations.

3.1 Methodology

Particle size data was obtained for 5 aquitard samples previously obtained and analyzed from the site. These data
are included in Table 3-1. The percentages of sand, silt, and clay for each sample was entered into the USDA's
pedotransfer function (PTF) Rosetta software package to obtain the van Genuchten parameters for each sample,
including the air entry pressure (See Table 3-2). The average air entry pressure for the site was calculated as
65.90 cm water (2.16 feet water). This average air entry pressure value was carried forward in the evaluation to
encompass the range of soil types observed in the aquitard across the site (USEPA, 2002).

The ratio of NAPL-water interfacial tension (IFT) to water-air interfacial tension was calculated based on
previously measured site IFT data to scale the air entry pressure obtained from Rosetta (Table 1) to a NAPL entry
pressure. The IFT values and scaling factors are shown in Table 3-3. These IFT values were reported in the Final
Report: Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Steam Injection Treatability Study (USEPA, 2002). Only the IFT
measurements taken in the downward direction were used in this evaluation, as USEPA reported the downward
reading values to be more within the range where measurements can be reliably made than those measured in
the upward direction (USEPA, 2002).

This scaling factor is multiplied by the air entry pressure to calculate the NAPL entry pressure. The scaling factor
accounts for NAPL as the non-wetting fluid as opposed to air, as assumed in the Rosetta PTF (Miller and Miller,
1956). Additionally, the published average NAPL-water IFT value for creosote NAPL (50 dynes/cm at 20°C) was
used with the average measured site water-air IFT value (70.9 dynes/cm at 10°C) to obtain an "average" scaling
factor, as the published value was thought to be more accurate than previously measured NAPL-water IFT values
(API, 2002).

-------
NAPL CHARACTERISTIC DATA AND AQUITARD ENTRY PRESSURE CALCULATIONS - WYCKOFF/EAGLE HARBOR SUPERFUND SITE UPLAND AREA

The resulting NAPL entry pressures, expressed in feet of water pressure head are shown in Table 3-4. Table 3-4
also displays the NAPL entry pressures converted from water pressure head to the height of NAPL saturated
sediment in feet, based on the difference in density between the site NAPL and groundwater. In the saturated
zone, the difference in density between the DNAPL and water is what induces pressure on the aquitard. The
average measured density values for groundwater and DNAPL samples at each temperature were used in the unit
conversions (Table 2-2a). These average density values were 1.006 g/mL and 1.033 g/mL for groundwater and
DNAPL, respectively. Since the difference in densities between groundwater and DNAPL are relatively small, a
large DNAPL pool height is required to produce the required entry pressure, as demonstrated by the much larger
NAPL pool heights than water pressure head (Table 3-4).

Based on the available data for aquitard grain size distribution, interfacial tension, and groundwater and NAPL
densities, a minimum NAPL pool height of 9.40 feet is required under current field conditions (~10 °C) for NAPL to
enter the aquitard. However, there are some concerns about the quality of the available physical property data,
as described in the following section.

3.2 Data Quality Concerns

The quality of the data obtained from previous investigations and used in this calculation is of concern. It was
noted in the interfacial tension table notes from the USACE data set that one of the NAPL samples appeared to be
an emulsion. To obtain accurate interfacial tension measurements, two distinct phases (NAPL and water) must be
present. An additional sample appeared to contain two different NAPL products, one lighter than water and one
more dense than water. Finally, multiple samples were reported as having very little difference in density
between the two fluids, making an accurate reading very difficult to obtain. USEPA also notes that the range of
NAPL/water IFT values measured were close to the practical limits of measurability with the instrument used to
conduct the measurements (USEPA, 2002).

The range of interfacial tension values obtained for NAPL-groundwater from the site are very low compared to
published values for creosote NAPLs. The lower end of the range of anticipated NAPL head values is based upon
site-specific measured interfacial tension values (5.3 dynes/cm at 10 °C). Based on the possible inaccuracy of the
very low measured IFT values and the reported difficulties obtaining measurements for some of the NAPL-
groundwater sample pairs at the site (USEPA, 2002), a literature value for anticipated NAPL head values was
calculated using the average published IFT for creosote (50 dynes/cm). However, the API guidance notes that field
values of interfacial tension are normally much lower than laboratory-measured literature values, and therefore
field values are generally preferred.

The density values used for NAPL also affect the final NAPL pool height value calculated, and there is uncertainty
regarding the final pool height values reported based on using the average measured DNAPL density at the site
rather than analyzing the NAPL entry pressures on a location by location basis with location-specific NAPL density
data. Additionally, there is uncertainty in the average measured DNAPL density value, as it is significantly lower
than the reported literature density values of creosote (1.050 g/mL) (Environment Agency, 2003).

Because of these uncertainties, it is recommended that new samples of NAPL and groundwater be obtained from
the site and analyzed for IFT and density in order to better refine these results.

-------
NAPL CHARACTERISTIC DATA AND AQUITARD ENTRY PRESSURE CALCULATIONS - WYCKOFF/EAGLE HARBOR SUPERFUND SITE UPLAND AREA

4.0 References

API, 2002. Evaluating Hydrocarbon Removal from Source Zones and its Effect on Dissolved Plume Longevity and
Magnitude, September 2002, API Pub No 4715.

Environment Agency. 2003. An Illustrated Handbook ofDNAPL Transport and Fate in the Subsurface. R&D
Publication 133. United Kingdom Environment Agency. June.

Miller, E.E., Miller, R.D., 1956. Physical theory of capillary flow phenomena. J. Appl. Phys. 27, 324-332.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2002. Final Report: Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Steam
Injection Treatability Study. USA Environmental Protection Agency. Ada, Oklahoma. July 11, 2002.

	. 2004. Fingerprint Analysis of Contaminant Data: A Forensic Tool for Evaluating Environmental

Contamination. EPA/600/5-04/054. Office of Research and Development. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. U.S. EPA. Russell H. Plumb, Jr., Lockheed Martin Environmental Services. May 2004.

4

-------
1.00

0.90

0.80

¦ Composite

¦ RPW1 LNAPL

¦ PW1 DNAPL

¦ PW3

LNAPL

¦ PW3

DNAPL

¦ PW4 LNAPL

¦ PW5 DNAPL

¦ PW6 DNAPL

¦ PW6 LNAPL

¦ PW8

DNAPL

PW9

DNAPL



o
o
>
C/)

0

CD

CD

-i—<

c
0

o

i_

0
CL

"ro

E

o
0
Q

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

z

M

>

>

m

"O

3

o

CD

O
CD

=r

CD

=3

=3

i—H

=r
0)

r+

=r

fl)
"D

=r

0)
~o
=r

CD
=3
CD



i i

i i

fl)
"D

=r

=r
CD

=r
CD
=3



i—H

=r
0)

=3
CD

CD

J2

"0

>

c
o

—J

=r

=3

CD
=3

i t

=T

CD

fl)

Q)

=3

=3

O

CD

i i

=T
—s

CD
=3



CD

CD

O

3"

-5
in

CD

CD
3
CD

O"
CD
3
N
O

Figure 2-1: NAPL Fingerprint

CD

CD

"0

3

CD

CD

CD

CD

Q_

CD

=3

=3

=3

CD

=3

N

N

r+

(D
O

N

O

O

O

O

2

s

=r

Q

CQ

—h

c

~o

o

—s

Q

K>

=r

o

—J

CD

"O

CO

i

tT

0)

=3

=r

o

CD

=3

i i

CD

CD
=3
O

Q.



=r

CD
=3
CD.



~o

—s
CD

CD
=3
CD

D
cr

CD
=3
N
O
fl)

£1)
O
CD

-------
Table 2-1

EPA Fingerprint Analysis of Leachate Contaminants (FALCON) for Wyckoff Superfund Site Historical Upland Samples
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

Composite RPW1 - LNAPL RPW1-DNAPL

Compound/Sample Name:

Composite

RPW1 LNAPL

PW1 DNAPL

PW3
LNAPL

PW3
DNAPL

PW4
LNAPL

PW5
DNAPL

PW6
DNAPL

PW6
LNAPL

PW8
DNAPL

PW9
DNAPL

Toluene

NA

NA

NA

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ethylbenzene

NA

NA

NA

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

m,p-Xylene

NA

NA

NA

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

o-Xylene

NA

NA

NA

0.0

0.0

2.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.4

Phenol

NA

NA

NA

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Naphthalene

168.4

89.3

526.8

305.7

408.8

335.3

400.6

376.3

298

333.7

385.7

2-Methylnaphthalene

65.1

9.3

75

148.1

146.7

166.9

74.9

70.7

135.8

128.2

156.4

Acenaphthylene

1.4

2.1

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

Acenaphthene

40.8

4.3

29.4

24.8

29.5

22

31

30.1

20.6

29

31.1

Dibenzofuran

30.0

3.2

25.2

13.4

20.7

10.7

23

24.4

10.7

20.5

261

Fluorene

0.18

3.5

27.6

12.4

21.2

9.4

25.7

27.6

10

22.1

25.6

Pentachlorophenol

0.18

0

0

2.4

2.3

0

2.5

0

2.4

2.4

0

Phenanthrene

72.7

9.1

0

25.7

53.1

19.4

61.8

0

20.7

27.6

63.7

Anthracene

8.9

2.5

7.1

4.1

5.8

4

6.8

7

4.2

5.9

8.2

Carbazole

16.7

*

5.4

0

3.2

0

4.9

4.7

2.7

4.2

6.6

Fluoranthene

35.1

3.7

25.8

12

24.2

8.1

26.9

26.4

9.1

23.7

21.7

Pyrene

14.1

2.7

13.5

7.1

13.9

5.1

14.8

14.3

5.6

13

11.3

Benz(a)anthracene

4.6

*

3.4

2.6

3.8

2.3

4.1

3.7

2.4

3.9

2.9

Chrysene

3.5

2.1

3

2.6

3.3

2.4

3.8

3.5

2.5

3.6

2.8

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

2.3

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.3

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.7

2.4

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

1.1

2.2

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.2

2.6

2.4

2.3

2.5

2.3

Benzo(a)pyrene

1.5

2.3

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.3

2.7

2.5

2.4

2.6

2.4

lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene

0.6

0

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.2

0.0

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

0.7

0

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

0.7

0

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Notes: Upland NAPL samples were collected as part of the USACE 2000 field exploration activities (USACE, 2000).

This dataset was evaluated using the EPA Fingerprint Analysis of Leachate Contaminants (FALCON, EPA 2004) analysis to identify the chemical signature of the NAPL samples.

*Peak area was below quantification limits

NA - not available, not presented in historical documentation

-------
Table 2-2a

Groundwater Density at 10 C
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Super fund Site

Sample

Location

GW density at 10° C (g/mL)

99293528

EWC3

1

99293533

EW7

1.007

99293534

EW7

1.014

99293535

MW14

1.02

99293536

P03

1.006

99293537

P09

1.003

99293538

P011

0.999

99293539

P017

1.001

99293540

EW03

1.008

GW Statistics

Minimum

0.999

Maximum

1.02

Average

1.006

Standard Deviation

0.007

-------
Table 2-2b

NAPL Density at 10 C

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Super fund Site

Sample

Location

NAPL density at 10° C (g/mL)

9929352

P001 DNAPL
Average density

P001

1.027

9929365-1
RPW-1 DNAPL
Average density

RPW-1

1.052

9929365-2
RPW-3 DNAPL
Average density

RPW-3

1.024

9929365-3
RPW-6 DNAPL
Average density

RPW-6

1.045

9929365-4
RPW-5 DNAPL
Average density

RPW-

1.036

9929365-6
RPW-8 DNAPL
Average density

RPW-8

1.029

9929365-7
RPW-9 DNAPL
Average density

RPW-9

1.044

-------
Table 2-3

Interfacial Tension Measurements at 10 C
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Super fund Site

Fluid Pair

IFT (dynes/cm) at 10 C

Average Air/Water IFT

70.9

Maximum Air/Water IFT

76.8

Minimum Air/Water IFT

45.4

Literature Value NAPL/Water IFT

50

Average NAPL/Water IFT

12.5

Maximum NAPL/Water IFT

19.5

Minimum NAPL/Water IFT

5.3

Average NAPL/Air IFT

36.1

Maximum NAPL/Air IFT

41.4

Minimum NAPL/Air IFT

32.8

Notes: Literature value is for petroleum distillate (API, 2002)

-------
Table 2-4

NAPL Viscosity at IOC
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Super fund Site

Sample

Location

Viscosity (Cp)

99293527

P001

12.4

99293650

RPW-1

17.4

99293652

RPW-3

11.3

99293653

RPW-6

15.8

99293654

RPW-5

14.9

99293656

RPW-8

15.8

99293657

RPW-9

9.9

99293658

RPW-4

4.9

99293651

RPW-1

17.4

99293655

RPW-3

9.1

99293659

RPW-6

5.7

-------
Table 3-1

Particle Size Data - Aquitard Samples
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Super fund Site



99CD01

99CD02

99CD03

99CD04

99CD05



45.5-46.5 ft

48-49.5 ft

31-33 ft

41-43 ft

57-59 ft

Bulk Density (g/cc)

1.37

1.85

1.63

1.33

1.95

Cation Exchance Capacity (meq/lOOg)

6.2

5.0

2.8

21

5.4

TOC (mg/kg)

1120

270

3850

3150

ND (<100)

Particle Size











Description

Silt

Fine Sand

Silt

Silt

Medium Sand

Median grain size (mm)

0.007

0.237

0.007

0.006

0.339

Particle Size Distribution:











Gravel

0

11.13

0

0

18.75

Coarse Sand

0

5.67

0

0

6.32

Medium Sand

0

16.24

0

0

19.62

Fine Sand

5.6

38.68

7.28

5.58

32.07

Silt

56.16

na

52.4

50.64

<2

Clay

38.22

na

40.33

43.51

<2

Silt and Clay

94.4

28.31

92.72

94.15

23.24

Notes:

na = not analyzed

-------
Table 3-2

van Genuchten Parameters from Soil Type
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Super fund Site

Sample
Name

Soil Type

van Genuchten Parameters from Rosetta

Calculated Air
entry pressure

Calculated air
entry pressure



0r

0s

N

a (cm water)

(cm water)

(ft water)

99CD01

Silty Clay
Loam

0.0966

0.4921

1.4545

0.0102

97.66

3.2

99CD02

Sand

0.0507

0.376

4.4249

0.0344

29.11

0.96

99CD03

Silty Clay

0.0979

0.4913

1.4302

0.0108

92.62

3.04

00CD04

Silty Clay

0.1015

0.5056

1.3932

0.0125

79.89

2.62

99CD05

Sand

0.0523

0.3766

3.1769

0.0331

30.21

0.99

Average











65.9

2.16

-------
Table 3-3

Interfacial Tension Values and Scaling Factors
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Super fund Site

Temperature (°C)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Average Air/Water IFT (dynes/cm)

70.9

67.7

71.2

69.8

68.5

67.4

66.9

65.9

63.5

Maximum Air/Water IFT (dynes/cm)

76.8

76.6

74.1

72.3

72.1

69.1

69.3

66.8

69.5

Minimum Air/Water IFT (dynes/cm)

45.4

62.4

61.6

66.2

60.5

65.5

59.7

65

51.4

Literature NAPL/Water IFT (dynes/cm)

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

Average NAPL/Water IFT (dynes/cm)*

12.5

13.3

13.3

13.1

11.9

13.8

11

12.5

12.4

Maximum NAPL/Water IFT (dynes/cm)*

19.5

22.6

19.7

18.8

21

16.9

15.6

12.9

19.8

Minimum NAPL/Water IFT (dynes/cm)*

5.3

4.4

6.3

7.7

5

12.4

5

12.1

6.6

Scaling Factor - Literature NAPL value

0.71

0.74

0.7

0.72

0.73

0.74

0.75

0.76

0.79

Scaling Factor - Average site NAPL value

0.18

0.2

0.19

0.19

0.17

0.21

0.16

0.19

0.2

Scaling Factor - Maximum site NAPL value

0.25

0.3

0.27

0.26

0.29

0.24

0.23

0.19

0.28

Scaling Factor - Minimum site NAPL value

0.12

0.07

0.1

0.12

0.08

0.19

0.08

0.19

0.13

Notes: *IFT data for NAPL/water is average, maximum, and minimum of DOWN direction data only. Noted in USACE dataset as being thought to be more within the reliably
measurable range than those in the UP direction.

Scaling factors are based on similar parameters-Average IFT/Average IFT; Maximum IFT/maximum IFT, etc. Literature scaling factor is Literature value NAPL/water IFT over average
water/air I FT

-------
Table 3-4

Anticipated NAPL Entry Pressures
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Super fund Site

Temperature (°C)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Lower End Value (ft water)3

0.25

0.15

0.22

0.25

0.18

0.41

0.18

0.4

0.28

Average Value (ft water)3

0.38

0.42

0.4

0.41

0.38

0.44

0.35

0.41

0.42

Upper End Value (ft water)3

0.55

0.64

0.57

0.56

0.63

0.53

0.49

0.42

0.62

Literature Value (ft water)3

1.52

1.6

1.52

1.55

1.58

1.6

1.61

1.64

1.7

Lower End Value (NAPL Pool Height in Saturated

9.4

5.67

8.23

9.36

6.65

15.24

6.74

14.98

10.33

Sediment [ft])3



















Average Value (NAPL Pool Height in Saturated

14.17

15.8

15

15.09

13.98

16.52

13.22

15.27

15.71

Sediment [ft])3



















Upper End Value (NAPL Pool Height in Saturated

20.43

23.74

21.4

20.93

23.44

19.68

18.12

15.54

22.93

Sediment [ft])3



















Literature Value (NAPL Pool Height in Saturated	56.76	59.44	56.52	57.65	58.74	59.7	60.15	61.06	63.37

Sediment [ft])3	

a Lower end value based on minimum measured interfacial tension data. Upper value based on maximum measured interfacial tension data. Average value based on average
measured interfacial tension data. Literature value based on published interfacial tension data for petroleum distillates (API, 2002).

-------
Tables

-------
TABLE 2-1

Historical Groundwater Investigation Chronology

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/ Eagle Harbor Superfund Site	

Year

Investigation Activities

Reference(s)

1972

Investigations began due to reports of oil observed on the
beach. Drilling of shallow soil borings and installation of
slotted casings in the borings. Data from these "wells" were
used to determine general hydrogeologic conditions at the
site in order to evaluate possible strategies for eliminating oil
seepage from the site to Puget Sound.

Harbinger. May 2,1972. Reports on Wood Preservative
Seepage at the Eagle Harbor Plant. Prepared for the Wyckoff
Company, Seattle, Washington.

Harbinger. June 12,1972. Report on Wood Preservative
Seepage at the Eagle Harbor Plant. Prepared for the Wyckoff
Company, Seattle, Washington.

CH2M HILL. September 29,1972. Abatement of Creosote
Seeps at Eagle Harbor Plant. Letter from W.T. Dehn to D.
Johnson/Wyckoff Company, Seattle,

Washington.Harbinger. October 20,1972. Report on Wood
Preservative Seepage at the Eagle Harbor Plant. Prepared for
the Wyckoff Company, Seattle, Washington.

1986

Nine shallow monitoring wells (EW03 through EW08 and
EW10 through EW12,10.8 to 29 feet below ground surface
[ft bgs]) and three deeper wells (EWC1 through EWC3, 59.7
to 64.5 ft bgs) were installed within the FPA. Water-level
measurements and analytical data obtained from samples
collected from the wells were used to evaluate hydrogeologic
conditions and contaminant concentrations in groundwater
at the FPA.

Entrix. December 9,1986. Data Report for the RCRA 3013
Investigation. Prepared for the Wyckoff Company, Eagle
Harbor, Washington.

1988

12 monitoring wells (MW13 through MW23, and MWC20)
were installed at the Wyckoff Site. Well depths were
between 20 and 60 ft bgs. Water-level measurements and
analytical data collected from these wells and those installed
in 1986 were used to evaluate hydrogeologic conditions and
contaminant concentrations in groundwater, to assess
potential risk, and to develop possible remedial actions. An
aquifer pumping test was also conducted in 1988. Four
pumping wells (PW1 through PW4) and 10 observation wells
(OBI through OBIO) were installed for the test.

Tetra Tech. February 2,1988. Final Report. Assessment of
Expedited Response Actions, Wyckoff Company. Prepared for
Jacobs Engineering Group, Bellevue, Washington.

Applied Geotechnology Inc. (AGI). December 16,1988.
Aquifer Pumping Tests, Data Package, Wyckoff Company,
Eagle Harbor, Washington. Bellevue, Washington.

-------
TABLE 2-1

Historical Groundwater Investigation Chronology

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/ Eagle Harbor Superfund Site	

Year

Investigation Activities

Reference(s)

1989

Seventeen shallow observation wells (POl through P017,19
to 20 ft bgs) and one deeper observation well (P018, 47 ft
bgs) were installed to gauge NAPL thickness in the FPA.
Water-level data, NAPL thickness measurements, and
analytical results obtained from samples collected at these
wells were used to evaluate the extent of light NAPL (LNAPL)
and characterize contaminant concentrations in the upper
aquifer. Three extraction wells (PW5, PW6, and PW7) were
also installed to depths of 39 to 40 ft bgs.

Applied Geotechnology Inc. (AGI). June 2,1989. Data Report,
Further Product Exploration, Wyckoff Company, Eagle Harbor
Site. Bellevue, Washington.

1994

Focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for
groundwater. Five additional monitoring wells were installed
in the FPA, two in the upper aquifer (CW03 and CW04) and
three in the lower aquifer (CW01, CW02, and CW05). Water-
level measurements and groundwater samples were
collected from these wells and from 29 previously installed
monitoring, observation, and extraction wells. The samples
were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In addition, a sample of
dense NAPL (DNAPL) was collected from one well (CW05)
and analyzed for physical properties.

CH2M HILL. July 13,1994. Final Focused RI/FS for the
Groundwater Operable Unit for the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle,
Washington.

1995

Supplemental Remedial Investigation. Nine new monitoring
wells were installed. Six wells were completed in the upper
aquifer: three to monitor LNAPL (CW07, CW08, and CW13)
and three to monitor DNAPL (CW06, CW10, and CW14).
Three wells were completed in the lower aquifer (CW09,
CW12, and CW15) to evaluate the interconnection between
the lower and upper aquifers and to monitor water quality in
the lower aquifer. The new wells, as well as 10 existing wells,
were sampled as part of the investigation. The groundwater
samples were analyzed for PAHs, polychlorinated phenols,
VOCs, base/neutral and acid extractables (BNAs), pesticides,
and PCBs.

CH2M HILL, June 1997. Remedial Investigation Report for the
Wyckoff Soil and Groundwater Operable Units. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle,
Washington.

-------
TABLE 2-1

Historical Groundwater Investigation Chronology

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/ Eagle Harbor Superfund Site	

Year

Investigation Activities

Reference(s)

1995

Groundwater Extraction System Assessment Report. A large
scale step rate pumping test was conducted at the Wyckoff
Groundwater Operable Unit to evaluate fluid-level, NAPL
recovery, and water quality data collected from individual
extraction wells. The assessment was conducted to
determine the effectiveness of the extraction system in
containing contaminants beneath the facility and determine
the most effective pumping rate for optimizing NAPL
recovery.	

CH2M HILL, June 1996. Groundwater Extraction System
Assessment Report No. 1 & No. 2. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle,
Washington.

1999

NAPL field Investigation. USACE conducted an intensive field
investigation in the FPAto more clearly define the extent of
NAPL in the subsurface and to characterize the continuity
and topography of the upper aquitard. The investigation
focused primarily on soil conditions above and below the
water table. Two monitoring wells (99CD-MW02 and
99CD-MW04) were installed in the lower portion of the
aquitard where sand lenses and DNAPL had been observed.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], May 2000.
Comprehensive Report, Wyckoff NAPL Field Exploration.

2001

Construction of the perimeter sheet pile wall completed. The
wall is approximately 1,880 feet long and extends
approximately 20 to 90 feet below grade. It was constructed
with the intention to embed the bottom of the wall into the
aquitard layer. Construction of a 536-foot-long sheet pile
surrounding the steam injection pilot text area was also
completed.	

CH2M HILL. 2004. Wyckoff Site & Sheet Pile Wall Summary,
Technical Memorandum. April.

CH2M HILL, 2007. Sheet Pile Installation Summary Technical
Memorandum. June.

2002

Thermal Pilot Study Baseline Investigation. USACE conducted
a baseline investigation of groundwater conditions in the
vicinity of the thermal treatment pilot study area in the
central portion of the FPA. Groundwater samples were
obtained from seven extraction wells (E-01 through E-07, five
lower-aquifer monitoring wells (99CD-MW02, 99CD-MW04,
CW05, CW09, and CW15), and three upper-aquifer
monitoring wells (MW17, MW18, and MW19). The samples
were analyzed for PAHs and PCP.	

USACE, 2006. Thermal Remediation Pilot Study Summary Report.

-------
TABLE 2-1

Historical Groundwater Investigation Chronology

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area

Wyckoff/ Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

Year Investigation Activities Reference(s)

2004 to 2013 Groundwater monitoring to demonstrate hydraulic CH2M HILL, various Technical Memoranda from September

containment and monitor changes in contaminant levels in 2004b through March 2013. Evaluation of Groundwater Level
the upper and lower aquifers was initiated in 2004. The Data.

current hydraulic containment monitoring program involves
continuous water-level monitoring using data loggers
installed in 17 upper-aquifer wells and eight lower-aquifer
wells. Contaminant concentrations in the lower aquifer and

select upper aquifer wells are monitored on an annual basis.

2013 Upland NAPL Field investigation. Field investigation using CH2M HILL, 2013. 2013 Wyckoff Upland Non-Aqueous Phase

Tar-specific Green Optical Scanning Tool (TarGOST) to semi- Liquid (NAPL) Technical Memorandum
quantitatively determine the relative distribution of NAPL in
the subsurface at the Wyckoff Site upland area. The
investigation included the advancement of 141 TarGOST
probes and 20 confirmation borings over two investigation

phases in January through March 2013.

2013 Evaluation of the integrity of the sheet pile wall and identify CH2M HILL' 2013- Wyckoff Sheet Pile Wall Evaluation.

possible pathways for migration of NAPL and/or contaminated
groundwater to Eagle Harbor. Field measurements (salinity profiles
under pumping and non-pumping conditions, groundwater level
data, NAPL measurements) and evaluation of existing data (sheet
pile wall as-built specifications, boring logs and well construction
diagrams).

-------
Table 3-1

WyckoffWell Data

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/ Eagle Harbor Superfund Site	







Surveyed

Surveyed

Surveyed Inner

















Ground

Outer Casing

Casing



Bottom Of



Total Well

Well

Monitoring Well





Elevation

Elevation (ft

Elevation

Top of Screen

Screen

Sump Length

Depth

Diameter

Identification

Type of Well

Aquifer

(ft MLLW)

MLLW)

(ft MLLW)

(ft bgs)

(ft bgs)

(ft)

(ft bgs)

(inches)

02CD-MW01

Monitoring Well

Lower

16.13

18.34

18.01

53.0

63.0

0

63.0

2

99CD-MW02A

Monitoring Well

Lower

14.82

17.29

16.72

72.5

82.5

0

82.5

2

99CD-MW04A

Monitoring Well

Lower

16.18

18.54

18.17

66.0

76.0

0

76.0

2

CW01

Monitoring Well

Lower

59.04

61.82

61.12

52.0

62.0

3

65.0

4

CW02

Monitoring Well

Lower

17.17

20.10

19.60

67.0

77.0

3

80.0

4

CW03

Monitoring Well

Upper

17.06

19.91

19.43

39.0

49.0

3

52.0

4

CW04

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.11

18.02

17.59

49.0

67.0

3

70.0

4

CW05

Monitoring Well

Lower

15.93

18.96

18.45

58.0

99.0

3

102.0

4

CW06

Monitoring Well

Upper

14.82

16.97

16.77

54.5

64.5

3

67.5

4

CW07

Monitoring Well

Upper

14.74

17.46

16.84

5.0

20.0

3

23.0

4

CW08

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.59

18.35

18.00

5.0

20.0

3

23.0

4

CW09

Monitoring Well

Lower

15.56

18.49

17.94

95.0

105.0

3

108.0

4

CW10

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.32

18.03

17.53

49.0

59.0

3

62.0

4

CW12

Monitoring Well

Lower

16.39

19.25

18.79

55.0

65.0

3

68.0

4

CW13

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.03

18.20

17.52

5.0

20.0

3

23.0

4

CW14

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.09

17.85

17.18

26.0

36.0

3

39.0

4

CW15

Monitoring Well

Lower

14.46

17.06

16.48

85.0

95.0

3

98.0

4

E-01

Steam Pilot Well

Upper

14.51

21.66

N/A

4.5

31.4

5

36.4

10

E-02

Steam Pilot Well

Upper

18.61

21.64

N/A

6.6

35.5

5

40.5

10

E-03

Steam Pilot Well

Upper

19.04

21.05

N/A

7.6

28.8

5

33.8

10

E-04

Steam Pilot Well

Upper

19.21

21.73

N/A

7.0

31.5

5

36.5

10

E-05

Steam Pilot Well

Upper

19.31

21.57

N/A

6.6

30.0

5

35.0

10

E-06

Steam Pilot Well

Upper

18.69

20.63

N/A

7.4

38.0

5

43.0

10

EW03

Monitoring Well

Upper

17.25

17.51

17.38

17.5

22.5

1

23.5

2

EW04

Monitoring Well

Upper

N/A

N/A

N/A

17.0

22.0

1

23.0

2

EW07

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.15

17.41

17.01

15.0

20.0

1

21.0

2

EW08

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.25

18.46

17.52

4.8

9.8

1

10.8

2

EWC3

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.55

15.55

15.26

58.5

63.5

1

64.5

2

MW14

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.86

18.59

18.05

7.0

17.0

5

22.0

2

MW15

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.95

15.97

15.62

5.0

15.0

7

22.0

2

MW16

Monitoring Well

Upper

14.35

14.53

14.03

5.0

15.0

7.5

22.5

2

MW17

Monitoring Well

Upper

16.39

19.27

19.21

5.0

15.0

15

30.0

2

MW18

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.95

16.22

16.18

5.0

15.0

7

22.0

2

MW19

Monitoring Well

Upper

18.74

18.94

18.60

5.0

15.0

5

20.0

2

MW21

Monitoring Well

Upper

18.75

18.82

18.41

8.5

18.5

5

23.5

2

MW23

Monitoring Well

Upper

18.35

18.15

17.60

5.0

15.0

5

20.0

2

P-1L

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

85.0

95.0

2

97.0

2

P-2L

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

102.6

112.6

2

114.6

2

P-3L

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

110.4

120.4

2

122.4

2

P-4L

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

78.8

88.8

2

90.8

2

P-5L

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

68.0

78.0

2

80.0

2

P-6L

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

75.0

85.0

2

87.0

2

POOl

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.75

18.85

18.09

4.0

14.0

3

17.0

2

PO03

Monitoring Well

Upper

14.37

17.01

16.51

4.0

14.0

3

17.0

2

PO04

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.10

17.16

16.83

4.5

14.5

3

17.5

2

PO05

Monitoring Well

Upper

14.67

17.35

16.87

4.5

14.5

3

17.5

2

PO09

Monitoring Well

Upper

16.52

19.04

18.69

5.0

15.0

3

18.0

2

P013

Monitoring Well

Upper

15.05

17.35

16.93

5.0

15.0

3

18.0

2

P018

Monitoring Well

Upper

16.40

18.01

17.75

5.0

15.0

1

16.0

2

PW8

Extraction Well

Upper

14.42

16.11

16.22

5.0

48.0

4

52.0

2

PW9

Extraction Well

Upper

N/A

N/A

N/A

4.0

34.0

6

40.0

8

PZ-03

Monitoring Well

Lower

18.14

20.43

20.01

20.0

30.0

2

32.0

2

PZ-05

Monitoring Well

Lower

20.60

22.82

22.24

3.0

8.0

2

10.0

2

PZ-06

Monitoring Well

Upper

19.47

22.38

21.98

1.0

6.0

2

8.0

2

PZ-07

Monitoring Well

Upper

20.22

21.31

20.88

2.0

12.0

2

14.0

2

PZ-08

Monitoring Well

Lower

17.99

20.25

19.92

15.0

25.0

2

27.0

2

PZ-09

Monitoring Well

Lower

18.16

20.23

19.89

15.0

25.0

2

27.0

2

PZ-10

Monitoring Well

Lower

18.25

20.37

20.10

15.0

25.0

2

27.0

2

PZ-11

Monitoring Well

Lower

18.23

20.48

20.13

15.0

25.0

2

27.0

2

PZ-12

Monitoring Well

Lower

18.00

20.14

19.88

15.0

25.0

2

27.0

2

RPW1

Extraction Well

Upper

15.95

16.82

16.66

5.0

38.0

4

42.0

8

RPW2

Extraction Well

Upper

14.87

15.45

15.27

5.0

55.0

4

59.0

8

RPW3

Extraction Well

Upper

15.57

16.27

16.08

4.2

57.0

4

61.0

8

RPW4

Extraction Well

Upper

15.61

15.97

16.30

5.0

49.4

4

53.4

8

RPW5

Extraction Well

Upper

14.34

15.20

15.02

5.0

54.0

4

58.0

8

RPW6

Extraction Well

Upper

15.69

16.07

16.45

4.1

35.6

4

39.6

8

RPW7

Monitoring Well

Upper

16.54

16.87

17.30

5.0

46.0

4

50.0

8

SE-01

Monitoring Well

Upper

N/A

N/A

N/A

37.9

47.9

2

49.9

2

SE-02

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

38.1

48.1

2

50.1

2

VG-1L

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

88.5

98.5

2

100.5

2

VG-2L

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

114.7

124.7

2

126.7

2

VG-2U

Monitoring Well

Upper

N/A

N/A

N/A

78.7

88.7

2

90.7

2

VG-3L

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

85.4

95.4

2

97.4

2

VG-3U

Monitoring Well

Upper

N/A

N/A

N/A

49.9

59.3

2

61.3

2

VG-4L

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

75.0

85.0

2

87.0

2

VG-5L

Monitoring Well

Lower

N/A

N/A

N/A

60.6

70.6

2

72.6

2

VG-5U

Monitoring Well

Upper

N/A

N/A

N/A

15.4

25.4

2

27.4

2

Notes

bgs = below ground surface
ft = feet

MLLW = mean low low water

PAGE 1 OF 1

-------
Table 3-2

Groundwater Extraction Volumes by Well - April 2012 through March 2013
2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/ Eagle Harbor Superfund Site	























All WELLS

All WELLS























(gallons per

(gallons per

Month-Year

RPW1

RPW2

RPW3

RPW4

RPW5

RPW6

RPW7

RPW8

E-02

E-06

month)

minute)

Apr-12

178,424

611,287

0

412,687

392,961

152,531

358,862

104,209

155,131

221,681

2,587,773

59.0

May-12

0

466,212

0

369,560

359,225

0

341,710

21,226

0

243,041

1,800,974

41.1

Jun-12

0

370,019

0

270,843

303,368

0

299,951

9,294

0

216,482

1,469,957

33.5

Jul-12

0

251,638

0

178,006

219,366

0

162,043

0

47,770

128,403

987,226

22.5

Aug-12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

Sep-12

68,083

214,909

0

173,030

189,252

78,565

177,359

22,698

83,300

107,431

1,114,627

25.4

Oct-12

84,355

299,780

0

260,180

270,841

90,955

262,597

48,775

0

149,738

1,467,221

33.5

Nov-12

238,749

523,216

0

370,109

466,525

244,943

337,190

203,013

178,826

189,121

2,751,692

62.8

Dec-12

352,981

663,175

0

495,308

601,883

302,264

355,610

210,368

203,679

196,489

3,381,757

77.2

Jan-13

268,947

566,437

0

318,153

489,888

223,016

271,431

159,718

145,059

145,157

2,587,806

59.0

Feb-13

68,089

537,702

0

352,233

429,909

81,317

295,042

63,149

45,032

167,194

2,039,667

46.5

Mar-13

0

516,014

0

378,775

417,206

0

298,954

0

0

180,098

1,791,047

40.9

TOTAL Extracted April 2012 through

























March 2013 (gallons)

1,259,628

5,020,389

0

3,578,884

4,140,424

1,173,591

3,160,749

842,450

858,797

1,944,835

21,979,747



Average (gallons per month)

104,969

418,366

0

298,240

345,035

97,799

263,396

70,204

71,566

162,070

1,831,646



Average (gallons per minute)

2.4

9.5

0.0

6.8

7.9

2.2

6.0

1.6

1.6

3.7

41.8



Minimum (gallons per month)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0



Maximum (gallons per month)

352,981

663,175

0

495,308

601,883

302,264

358,862

210,368

203,679

243,041

3,381,757

-------
Table 3-3

LNAPL and DNAPL Removed from Extraction Wells and Plant Tanks - March 26, 2012 through March 25, 2013

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/ Eagle Harbor Superfund Site



RPW1

RPW2

RPW4

RPW5

RPW6

RPW8

RPW9

Plant



LNAPL

DNAPL

LNAPL

DNAPL

LNAPL

DNAPL

LNAPL

DNAPL

LNAPL

DNAPL

LNAPL

DNAPL

LNAPL

DNAPL





Pumped

Pumped

Pumped

Pumped

Pumped

Pumped

Pumped

Pumped

Pumped

Pumped

Pumped

Pumped

Pumped

Pumped



Date

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

(gal)

NAPL (gal)

March-12

11

30

15

34







28



11



14



11



April-12



41



32







44







18







May-12































June-12







43

23





41







26







July-12































August-12































September-12

17

41



37







34







15







October-12































November-12



34



21







32







31







December-12



43



17







23







18



28



January-13



38

23

38

31





54







23



23



February-13



24



44







44







21







March-13







37







43







31







Total Gallons Pumped March 23,
2012 through March 25, 2013

28

251

38

303

54

0

0

343

0

11

0

197

0

62

2,945

Number Times Pumped

2

7

2

9

2

0

0

9

0

1

0

9

0

3

0





Total LNAPL Recovered - Wells	120 Gallons 988 pounds

Total DNAPL Recovered - Wells	1,167 Gallons	10,060 pounds

Total Product Recovered - Wells	1,287 Gallons	11,048 pounds

Total NAPL Removed - Plant Tanks	2,945 Gallons	25,278 pounds* (note: for purpose of this estimate, assumed to be 90 percent DNAPL and 10 percent LNAPL)

Total Product Removed - Wells and Plant	4,232 Gallons	36,326 pounds

-------
Table 3-4

Estimated Mass of Dissolved Contaminants Removed and Treated - March 27, 2012 to March 26, 2013
2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff / Eagle Harbor Superfund Site



SP-0: Plant Influent

Estimated Mass Removed

Removal Efficiency

Date

Weekly Influent

(gal)

Total PAH (ug/L)

PCP
("g/L)

O&G
(mg/L)

PAHs (lbs)

PCP (lbs)

O&G (lbs)

PAHs
(lbs/gal)

PCP (lbs/gal)

O&G
(lbs/gal)

3/27/2012

641,932

11,000

170

5.6 J

58.9

0.91

30.0

9.2E-05

1.4E-06

4.7E-05

4/3/2012

544,671

14,000

180

29.2 J

63.6

0.82

132.7

1.2E-04

1.5E-06

2.4E-04

4/10/2012

641,139

27,000

180

20.6 J

144.4

0.96

110.2

2.3E-04

1.5E-06

1.7E-04

4/17/2012

611,865

42,000

150

28.5 J

214.4

0.77

145.5

3.5E-04

1.3E-06

2.4E-04

4/24/2012

632,719

21,000

170

23.3 J

110.9

0.90

123.0

1.8E-04

1.4E-06

1.9E-04

5/1/2012

493,614

11,000

140

7.8 J

45.3

0.58

32.1

9.2E-05

1.2E-06

6.5E-05

5/8/2012

431,411

11,000

120

7.8 J

39.6

0.43

28.1

9.2E-05

1.0E-06

6.5E-05

5/15/2012

425,315

24,000

120

15.2 J

85.2

0.43

53.9

2.0E-04

1.0E-06

1.3E-04

5/22/2012

384,443

12,000

130

14.9 J

38.5

0.42

47.8

1.0E-04

1.1E-06

1.2E-04

5/29/2012

385,266

22,000

130

30.5 J

70.7

0.42

98.1

1.8E-04

1.1E-06

2.5E-04

6/5/2012

391,080

10,000

140

9.3 J

32.6

0.46

30.3

8.3E-05

1.2E-06

7.8E-05

6/12/2012

389,687

19,000

130

11.9 J

61.8

0.42

38.7

1.6E-04

1.1E-06

9.9E-05

6/19/2012

398,518

11,000

140

8.6 J

36.6

0.47

28.6

9.2E-05

1.2E-06

7.2E-05

6/26/2012

243,485

19,000

180

11.6 J

38.6

0.37

23.6

1.6E-04

1.5E-06

9.7E-05

7/3/2012

229,124

13,000

140

13.6 J

24.9

0.27

26.0

1.1E-04

1.2E-06

1.1E-04

7/10/2012

235,068

13,000

180

7.6 J

25.5

0.35

14.9

1.1E-04

1.5E-06

6.3E-05

7/17/2012

237,542

13,000

180

9.6 J

25.8

0.36

19.0

1.1E-04

1.5E-06

8.0E-05

7/24/2012

270,328

16,000

160

7 J

36.1

0.36

15.3

1.3E-04

1.3E-06

5.7E-05

7/31/2012

236,401

NC

NC

NC

31.6

0.32

13.4

1.3E-04

1.3E-06

5.7E-05

8/7/2012

0



















8/14/2012

0



















8/21/2012

0



















8/28/2012

0



















9/4/2012

0



















9/11/2012

340,282

13,000

260

8.6 J

36.9

0.74

24.4

1.1E-04

2.2E-06

7.2E-05

9/18/2012

308,854

9,700

170

9.9 J

25.0

0.44

25.5

8.1E-05

1.4E-06

8.3E-05

9/25/2012

294,548

14,000

150

8.4 J

34.4

0.37

20.6

1.2E-04

1.3E-06

7.0E-05

10/2/2012

247,559

13,000

190

8.6 J

26.9

0.39

17.8

1.1E-04

1.6E-06

7.2E-05

10/9/2012

241,505

17,000

210

12.1 J

34.3

0.42

24.4

1.4E-04

1.8E-06

1.0E-04

10/16/2012

245,180

15,000

190

10 J

30.7

0.39

20.5

1.3E-04

1.6E-06

8.3E-05

10/23/2012

329,486

12,000

240

7 J

33.0

0.66

19.2

1.0E-04

2.0E-06

5.8E-05

10/30/2012

497,219

13,000

220

6.6 J

53.9

0.91

27.4

1.1E-04

1.8E-06

5.5E-05

11/6/2012

607,874

14,000

200

8.2 J

71.0

1.01

41.6

1.2E-04

1.7E-06

6.8E-05

11/13/2012

623,710

13,000

190

7.6 J

67.7

0.99

39.6

1.1E-04

1.6E-06

6.3E-05

11/20/2012

547,176

44,000

230

77.8 J

200.9

1.05

355.2

3.7E-04

1.9E-06

6.5E-04

11/27/2012

722,695

23,000

230

8.0 J

138.7

1.39

48.2

1.9E-04

1.9E-06

6.7E-05

12/4/2012

769,215

27,000

200

13.5 J

173.3

1.28

86.7

2.3E-04

1.7E-06

1.1E-04

12/11/2012

781,306

13,000

220

13.4 J

84.8

1.43

87.4

1.1E-04

1.8E-06

1.1E-04

12/18/2012

753,508

18,000

230

8.4 J

113.2

1.45

52.8

1.5E-04

1.9E-06

7.0E-05

12/25/2012

762,719

15,000

270

6.5 J

95.5

1.72

41.4

1.3E-04

2.3E-06

5.4E-05

1/3/2013

641,019

16,000

260

14.1 J

85.6

1.39

75.4

1.3E-04

2.2E-06

1.2E-04

1/8/2013

529,771

15,000

270

11.7 J

66.3

1.19

51.7

1.3E-04

2.3E-06

9.8E-05

1/15/2013

306,335

28,000

310

304 J

71.6

0.79

777.1

2.3E-04

2.6E-06

2.5E-03

1/22/2013

681,335

18,000

280

37.0 J

102.3

1.59

210.4

1.5E-04

2.3E-06

3.1E-04

1/29/2013

681,328

39,000

240

68.9 J

221.7

1.36

391.7

3.3E-04

2.0E-06

5.7E-04

2/5/2013

628,520

15,000

220

10 J

78.7

1.15

52.4

1.3E-04

1.8E-06

8.3E-05

2/12/2013

423,824

30,000

190

48 J

106.1

0.67

170.5

2.5E-04

1.6E-06

4.0E-04

2/19/2013

435,078

42,000

180

24.3 J

152.5

0.65

88.2

3.5E-04

1.5E-06

2.0E-04

2/26/2013

442,731

13,000

180

16.2 J

48.0

0.66

59.8

1.1E-04

1.5E-06

1.4E-04

3/5/2013

406,190

11,000

170

8.5 J

37.3

0.58

28.8

9.2E-05

1.4E-06

7.1E-05

3/12/2013

385,142

26,000

190

47.1 J

83.6

0.61

151.4

2.2E-04

1.6E-06

3.9E-04

3/19/2013

407,101

16,000

180

19.4 J

54.4

0.61

65.9

1.3E-04

1.5E-06

1.6E-04

3/26/2013

384,238

13,000

170

9.2 J

41.7

0.55

29.5

1.1E-04

1.4E-06

7.7E-05

Total

22,249,056







3,555

36

4,097

0.0073

0.00008

0.0092

NC = not collected

J = estimated concentration

-------
Table 4-1

Regional Hydrogeologic Units, Thicknesses, Depths, and Hydraulic Conductivities

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff / Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

Regional Hydrostratigraphic Unit

Thickness Range
(feet)

Top Elevation Range
(feet above sea
level)

Hydraulic Conductivity
Range and Median
(feet/day)

Present
Beneath
Wyckoff Site?

Approximate Depth

Interval
(feet above sea level)

Qvt

Vashon Till Confining Unit

10 to 100

—

—

No

—

Qva

Vashon Till Advance Aquifer

20 to 200

0 to 300

0.70 to 13,000 [37]

No

—

QC1

Upper Confining Unit

50 to 300

-80 to 300

3.8 to 7.7 [4.9]

Yes

-100 to 0

QClpi

Permeable interbeds

10 to 50

0 to 200

7.4 to 750 [13]

No

—

QA1

Sea Level Aquifer

25 to 200

-200 to 200

0.20 to 8,100 [22]

Yes

-150 to-100

QC2

Middle Confining Unit

150 to 600

-200 to 0

3.8 to 7.7 [4.9]

Yes

-230 to-150

QA2

Glaciomarine aquifer

20 to 300

-500 to -300

0.18 to 87 [5.4]

Yes

-350 to -230

QC3

Lower confining unit

50 to 300

-800 to -400

3.8 to 7.7 [4.9]

Yes

-680 to -350

QA3

Deep aquifer

50 to 300

-900 to -600

5.2 to 60 [26]

Yes

-800 to -680

QC4

Basal confining unit

unknown

-800 to -400

3.8 to 7.7 [4.9]

Yes

-1150 to -800

BR

Bedrock

unknown

-900 to 0

0.0043 to 5.7 [2.8]

Yes

below -1150

Information Source: Frans, Bachmann, Sumioka, and Olsen (2011)
— not reported or not applicable

-------
Table 5-1

Volume Estimates of NAPL-lmpacted Soil Developed Using MVS
2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff / Eagle Harbor Superfund Site	



Volume >10%RE (CY)

Precent of total volume
>10%RE by Compartment

Total

68,526

100%

Compartment 1

37,396

55%

Compartment 2

12,130

18%

Compartment 3

19,001

28%

Notes:

CY = cubic yards

-------
Table 5-2

Compartmental Volumes of Soil Types with TarGOST Response >10% RE
2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff / Eagle Harbor Superfund Site



SubArea 2

SubArea 3

SubArea 4

SubArea 5

Total

Soil Type

(CY)

(CY)

(CY)

(CY)

(CY)

Compartment 1: Ground Surface to -5 ft MLLW



Gravel

345

4,076

207

4,692

9,320

Sand

852

10,530

2,582

8,275

22,239

Silt

1,077

1,889

19

1

2,986

Clay

692

909

18

0

1,619

Fill

6

1,118

32

75

1,231

Total

2,972

18,522

2,859

13,043

37,396

Compartment 2: -5 ft MLLW to 10 ft above Aquitard



Gravel

38

1,765

319

1,528

3,650

Sand

1,290

3,793

282

2,334

7,699

Silt

170

576

21

0

767

Clay

5

7

0

0

12

Fill

0

0

0

0

0

Total

1,504

6,142

622

3,862

12,130

Compartment 3:10 ft above Aquitard to Bottom of Boring



Gravel

688

363

169

63

1,283

Sand

6,335

4,004

301

218

10,858

Silt

2,248

2,121

383

39

4,791

Clay

1,592

444

33

0

2,069

Fill

0

0

0

0

0

Total

10,863

6,932

887

319

19,001

Compartment Sums



Gravel

1,071

6,204

696

6,283

14,254

Sand

8,477

18,328

3,165

10,826

40,796

Silt

3,495

4,586

424

40

8,545

Clay

2,290

1,359

51

0

3,700

Fill

6

1,118

32

75

1,231

Total

15,339

31,595

4,368

17,224

68,526

Notes:

CY = cubic yards

-------
Table 5-3

Volume Estimates of NAPL-lmpacted Soil Developed Using the Thiessen Polygon Approach

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area

Wyckoff / Eagle Harbor Superfund Site	



Volume >10%RE (CY)

Precent of total volume
>10%RE by Compartment

Total >10%RE

109,069

100%

Compartment 1A

5,121

5%

Compartment IB

51,512

47%

Compartment 2

24,779

23%

Compartment 3

27,657

25%

Notes:

CY = cubic yards

-------
Table 5-4

TarGOST Integration NAPL Volume Estimate by Compartment
2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff / Eagle Harbor Superfund Site	



Gallons

Percent of Total NAPL Volume

Total

678,872

100%

Compartment la

30,740

5%

Compartment lb

271,206

40%

Compartment 2

127,751

19%

Compartment 3

249,174

37%

-------
Figures

-------
316783.DE.01_ES042007003SEA . 1-1 site location.ai . 4/9/07 . dk

Kenmore

Kirkland

Bellevue



Renton

Figure 1-1

Site Location

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
LEGEND

Approximate Operable Units

« CW01

Sources:

Operable Units approximated from Figure 7 (USEPA, 2000).
Aerial: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS.AEX, GeoEye,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

N

0 50 100 200 Feet

Figure 1-2

Location of Operable Units and
Site Features

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

C:\USERS\GGEE\DOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFRMAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT F!GURES\FIGURE1-2 WYCKOFFOUS.MXD GGEE 9/30/2013 9:13:16 AM

-------
SEAM 05

CW06 CW07

Ai

SEAM 03

SEAM 06

SEAM 02

MW23

C:\USERS\GGEE\DOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT F!GURES\FIGURE3-'I_SITEMAP.MXD GGEE 9/19Z20T3 2:11:02 PM

PZ-12

IV 10

PZ-09

P-6L

EW03

EW04

A

CW14 VG -4L

CW13^

MW19

~

SE-02

PZ-03

-P-5L

VG-3U

VG-3L

PO09

A

MW17

A

VG-5L

A
SE-01

Groundwater
Treatment Plant

Tank-Farm

0°oo

Trailer

Trailer

A

MW21

A
PZ-06

CW08

A

MW14

A

CW05

•

SEAM 04

CW15

VG-2U

A#

VG-2L

RPW2

ACW04

MW16 RPW5

V

CW09

99CD-MW02A ,-„PW8

PO03

A

MW15 Rpwi

4®

PO05

CW12

99CD-MW04A	A

E-02

PO04

A

MW18 RPW6

02CD-MW01

Extraction System Piping

PZ-08

Trailer

0

P-4L
©

P013

• A

VG-1L

EW07
A P-1L

PZ-07

A

RPW3

© EWC3

A

PO01

P-2L

CW10

A

EW08

A

RPW4
©

SEAM 01

RPW7

A

CW03 # AP°18
A CW02

LEGEND

Well Locations
A Monitoring Well, Upper Aquifer
• Monitoring Well, Lower Aquifer
© Extraction Well, Upper Aquifer
© Steam Pilot Well, Upper Aquifer
¦ Sheet Pile Wall Seams
Sheet Pile Wall

(color coded by driven elevation ft Ml I W)

	79 - -65

-64 - -55
-54 - -45
-44 - -35

	34 - -25

	24 - -15

Existing Site Features
Current Structures
Current Buildings
Current Roads
*—Fence
	* Pipelines

	Pilot Study Containment Wall

	Sheet Pile Wall

Ground Surface Contours (ft MLLW)

Figure 3-1

Site Map with Sheet Pile Wail, Seam, and
Well Locations

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

120.0

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

0.0

E

Q.

M

TO
CC

ro

1-

s

o

1-

15

20.0

Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13

Figure 3-2

Monthly Precipitation and Groundwater Extraction Rates

April 2012 through March 2013

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff /Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
122°35"

47°40'

47°35'

T.26N.
T.25N.

T.25N.
T.24N.

R.1E. R.2E.	R.2E. R.3E.

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,1988

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11	0	1	2	3	4 MILho

North American Datum of 1983	|	1	1	1	1—1	1	1	1

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS
Data Source: Frans, Bachmann, Sumioka, and Olsen, 2011..

Figure 4-1

Surficial Hydrogeologic Units at
Bainbridge Island

2014 Conceptual Site Mode! Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfurid Site

-------
NAVD 80

1,000 -

1,200 -

1,400

1,600

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X 10

METERS
r 150

100

-1,000

- 1r!CO

1.400

50

SEA LEVEL

GO

- 100

- 150

200

2E0

300

- 3BQ

400

4S0

North American Vertical Datum or 19B3 i.NAVD GS.i

1,600

3 MLE5

3 EILDWETEHS

EXPLANATION FOR SECTIONS

Hydrogeologic Unit

Yashon till confining unit ( Qvt)

Vashon advance aquifer (Qva|

IC31 Upper confining unit (QC11,
locally includes permeable
interbeds (QCIpl)

I | Sea-level aquifer (QA11
I I Middle confining unit (QC2}
I I Glacio-marine aquifer (QA2)

	~^\ Lower confining unit (QC3)

J Deep aquifer (QA3J
~] Basal confining unit (QC4}
I | Bedrock (BR}

ja

Well No.

%

- Land surface
Well
Well bottom

Common well

iL

Source: Frans, Bachmann, Sumioka, and Olsen, 2011

for two sections

Figure 4-2

South - North Cross-Section B-B'

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
eoo

400

200

DOO

200

400

600

900

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,000

METERS

r 150

- 100

-1,000

- 1,200

- 1,400

-5B

-SEALE

- 50

- 100

- 150

- 2M

- 250

- 3M

- 350

- 4C0

L- 150

jtHTICAL EXAGGERATION X IG

North Armrican V*anv: si D slur of I EM i.NAVD it •

i	3 HLE'i

1.600

EXPLANATION FOR SEC TIONS
Hydrogeologic Unit

	|] Vadion till confining unit (Qvt)

] Vashon advance aquifer (Qva}

[IS] Upper confining unit (QC1),
locally includes permeable
interbeds {QClpi)

I I Sea-level aquifer (QA1)

I I Middle confining unit |QC2)

I ] Glado-maiine aquifer (QA2)

I 2! Lower confining unit (QC3j

| Deep aquifer (QA3}

H Basal confining unit (QC4)

1 Bedrock (BR)

g Well No.

I

Si

Land surface

Well
Well bottom

|'7 Common well
"! for two sections

Source; Frans, Bachmann, Sumioka, and Olsen, 2011.

1 CIDMETH'

Figure 4-3

West-East Cross-Section E-E'

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former
Process Area

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
122°35"

T. 25 N.
T. 24 N.

R. 1 E. R.2E.

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,'
Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11
North American Datum of 1983
North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Source: Frans, Bachmann,
Sumioka, and Olsen, 2011.

4 MILES

3 4 KILOMETERS

Figure 4-4

Regional Groundwater Elevations and
Flow Directions in the QA1 Aquifer

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
CW06 CW07

&A

CW08

RPW2

ACW04

RPW3

EWC3

RPW5

PO01

CW09

99CD-MW02A

PO03

A

EW04

RPW1

PO09

A

CW10

PO05

99CD-MW04A

PO04

EW07

EW03

MW18 RPW6

02CD-MW01

RPW4

EW08

RPW7 I

A

CW03 Q AP°18
A CW02

MW23

C:\USERS\GGEE\DOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT F!GURES\FIGURE4-6_CROSSSECTIONS.MXD GGEE 9/19/2013 3:13:21 PM

PZ-12

©

MW19

A

Grouridwa
Treatment F

ailer

U

Trailer

Trailer	MW21

Trailer

PZ-05 + S.	PZ-03 .

A	•	+ \	•

PZ-06	, \

SE-02

-H- X -M * '

PZ-09
? •?

lank I arm

0°oo

PZ-08

PZ-11

PZ-10

LEGEND

Well Locations
A Monitoring Well, Upper Aquifer
• Monitoring Well, Lower Aquifer
® Extraction Well, Upper Aquifer
0 Steam Pilot Well, Upper Aquifer
Existing Site Features
Current Structures
Current Buildings
Current Roads
-—* Fence

	 Pipelines

Pilot Study Containment Wall

•	Sheet Pile Wall

Ground Surface Contours (ft MLLW)
Aquitard Thin (<4 ft) to Absent

Figure 4-5

Cross-Section Locations

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
~ GW Level

Precipitation =

Upper Aquifer

Lower Aquifer



Groundwater flow

Original Groundwater Conditions at A-A'

Upper Aquifer
Monitoring Well

Lower Aquifer
Monitoring Well

A'

Current Groundwater Conditions at A-A'

Upper Aquifer
Monitoring Well

Lower Aquifer
Monitoring Well

Groundwater

Extraction

Wells

Precipitation

upper Aquifer

Current Groundwater Conditions at B-B'

Figure 4-6

Schematic of Original and Current Groundwater Conditions

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff / Esgle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
LEGEND

-	MONITORING/EXTRACTION WELL

-	SOIL BORING

PROPOSED SHEETPILE
WALL ALIGNMENT

0

100'

200'

HORIZONTAL DATUM IS WSPCS NADB3
VERTICAL DATUM IS MLLW

CH2MHILL

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
¦aE.hWv.'L.

Figure 4-7

Geologic Profile Locations

2014 Conceptual Site Model U pdate for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: SSSDATESSSS STIME	L	P**rT

DESIGN FILE: S$SDGNS$S$S$S$S$$S$$$$$$$S$S$S$S$S$$S$$$$$S$S$S$

SIZE

D

INVITATION HO. FILE NO.

DATE:	PLATE

3

BROOKSHIER

-------
1

MATCH TO
FIGURE 3-24

B-B'

M
CD

W

is

H

is

z

H
CO

CD
n

o

CO

to
CO

CO
CO
to

to

in

to

m



97AP32



1-H

CO

1-H

o

cu

CL,

co

OLh

H

Oh

<

o

<

CO

<



is



Ob

05

Oi

L>

05

05

H
in

A'

1-20

—20

-40

~ ~ o a	a a a o a a o a a a a o a a o a	a a	a o	o a

o a o	o a o o a	o	a o a	o a ~	o o ~	~~ o	a o o	o a ~	o o ~	~~ o oo ~ o o ~ o o ~

O O O O	00 OO O O OO 00 OO OO OO	00	oo	oo

~ O O	DO O OO	o	DO o	DO O	DO O	OO O	DO O	DO O	DO O	OO O DO O DO O DO C

OO OO	OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO	oo	oo	oo

oo o	on o oo	o	o o o	oo o	o a o	o a o	o a o	oo o	o a o	o a o oa o oo o o a c

o a oo	Oo Oa Oa oo oo o a oa oo	Oo	Oa	Oa

a ° o	aa o oD	o	a D o	o° o	a a o	a ° o	a D o	a ° o	a a o	oD o oD o o ° o aa a

-BO-

DO OO OO DO DO	DO OO OO DO DO OO OO	DO

oo a oo a oo o oo a o o a oo	a	oo o	oo a	oo a	oo a	oo o	oo a	oo o oo a

OO OO DO DO OO	OO DO DO OO OO DO DO	OO

oa o aa o ao o aa o oa	o	aa o	ao o	aa o	oa o	aa o	ao o	aa o oa c

oa ao aa do	oa ao aa do oa ao aa	do

o ao o ao o ao o oo	o	ao o	ao o	ao o	oo o	ao o	ao o	ao o ao c

o oo oo oo	OO OO OO oo oo oo oo	oo

o a a° d o° a a a	~	D o a	a ° a	o ° o	a a ~	D ~ a	a° a	o° o aa a

ao ao ao	oo ao ao ao oo ao ao	a	o

ao a do a oo	a	ao o	ao a	do a	oo a	ao o	ao a	do a oo a ao a ao a d

ao oo	ao ao ao oo ao ao ao	oo	ao	oo a «¦

oa o oa	a	oa a	oo a	oa o	oa a	oa a	oo a	oa a oa a oa a op

i a	oa ao aa do oa ao aa	do	aa	a

- n	a	ao a	ao d	ao o	oo a	ao a	ao d	a o a ao a n

a o Da oo ao do do	oo

¦* «¦»	a o a	a° a	o ° d	o ° **

oa oo	oa oa oa	oo

oa o	oo o oa o	oa o	oa o oo o	oa o oa o oa

oo oo	oo oo oo	oo oo oo

ao o	ao o ao o	do o	ao o ao o	ao o do o oo

OO OO	OO OO OO	OO 00 oo

oa o	oa o oo o	oa o	oa o oa o	o o o oo o oo

oo Oa	Oa oa oo	oa Oa Oo

a ° o	a ° o o ° o	aa o	a ° o a ° o	o ° o aa o

-60

ao	ao ao	oo	oo ao ao

oo a	oo a	oo a	oo a oo o oo a oo ~

ao	ao oo	ao	ao ao

aa o	ao o	aa o	oa o aa o an

ao	aa do	oa	a

ao o	ao o	ao o	oo o «-

o o	o o o o	o

a o a	oa d	d° d

a o	a o a

oo ao ao ao oo oo ao ao oo

** o oo a oo a oo a oo o oo a oo a oo a	oo a o

ao oo ao ao ao oo ao ao	ao

aa o oa o oa o ao o aa o oa o	oa o ao o oa o

a oa aa ao aa do aa	a a a

o ao o ao o ao o oo o	ao o ao o ao o

oo oo oo oo oo	oo o

«i° a d° d qO a	oa d a° d o° d

-i o ao do ao	ao a

"a a oo a	ao a ao a do a

n oo ao	ao o

n	oa a oa a oa

a a	a a a
no d do t

oo o ao o ao

o o o o o o
o a a a a a a 0 a a ° d
i oo ao ao ao
oo a ao a ao a do a c

—BO

-100-

1"

60' 30' 0
60' I I—I I—I

60'

120'

NOTE:

PROFILE IS DRAWN ON A CURVED ALIGNMENT AND DOES
NOT REPRESENT A PLANAR SURFACE.

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 3X

GEOLOGIC UNITS

FILL:

BROWN. FINE SAND. RARE SHELL
FRAGMENTS, WOOD DEBRIS AND
MAN-MADE DEBRIS.

Tr.d

NON-MARINE CLAY:

GRAY TO BROWN,SOFT TO MEDIUM
CLAY WITH PLANT FIBERS, WOOD AN
ROOTS, AND BROWN CLAYEY FINE S



MARINE SAND AND GRAVEL:

GRAY TO DARK GRAY, LOOSE TO DE
SAND AND GRAVEL WITH OCCASIONAL
COBBLES (COBBLE-RICH AND GRAVEL
ZONE SHOWN SEPARATELY). LOW SILT
CONTENT AND ABUNDANT SHELL
FRAGMENTS.

MARINE SILT:

GLACIAL CLAY. SILT AND SAND:

GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND WITH
GRAVEL, BLUE-GRAY SILT/CLAY,
AND GRAY-BROWN SILT/CLAY;
DENSE. NO ORGANIC MATTER.

FLUVIAL SAND:

SURFICIAL MARINE SEDIMENT:

OFFSHORE HARBOR-BOTTOM
SILT AND CLAY. DARK OLIVE
TO BLACK, OFTEN WITH
ABUNDANT WOOD CHIPS AND
WOOD AND PLANT DEBRIS.

Ed
CO

03

is

CL.

BORING ID NUMBER
AND DISTANCE OF
OFFSET FROM
ALIGNMENT

CH2MHILL

OLIVE-GRAY SILTY SAND (WITH
THIN LAYERS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
TO SILT OR CLAY. ABUNDANT
SHELL FRAGMENTS.

o

O O (

DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY-BROWN
TO BROWN, WELL GRADED TO POORLY
GRADED SAND WITH VARIABLE GRAVEL
AND COBBLES.

k

WELL SCREEN

MOBILE NAPL

(SEE DEFINITION IN TEXT)	

	 APPROX WATER TABLE

U.S. ARM'i ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Figure 4-8

Geologic Profile A-A'

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

INVITATION HO.

DIMBIRS

EASTERLY

PLATE

4

DATE AMD TIME PLOTTED: S$SDATES$S$ STIME

mr«Tl" \T TPTT TP- 
-------
1

z

lO

Oh
<



o

o

i

cu
<:
i

zv

05

O

CO

c\?

Oh
<

05

CO

- £
cu ®

o

CO

CO

I

cu
<
I

05

C-C

20 —

z
o

z





CO

CO

r-

c\?

CO



o

cv>

m



O





CO
Oh

m
H



CJ
&

CO
CO

<

CO

IV

H

CU



05

1



<

05

05

o

CU



£

B-B*

CO

0

c\?

1

cu
c

CO

CO





lO

m









CO

c\?

Dh

Dh

<

<





05

05

CO

cu

c\?
c\?

? 2

lO ud

CO

MATCH TO
FIGURE 3-25

-20 —

J
J

s

o

t-1
<
>
H
J

w

-40 —

-60

A"

— 20

	20

O	o ° o	o ° o	o ° o	O ° O	O ° O O ° O	o ° o	o ° o	o ° o o ° o

o oo	oo oo	oo	oo	oo oo	oo oo o

o	oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o oo o

o oo	oo oo	oo	oo	oo oo	oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo

o	oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o

o oo	oo oo	oo	oo	oo oo	oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo

o	oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo

o oo	oo oo	oo	O	^	nr. no	oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo

oo0oo0oo°n	- n	-O o o° o o° o o° o o°

o o o	o	^

o	o o o
o

o o o o

o o

-80 —

1"

-100 -

40' 0
80' I H 1—1

80'

160'

	40

-60

— -B0

-100

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION - 4x
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

NOTE:

PROFILE IS DRAWN ON A CURVED ALIGNMENT AND DOES
NOT REPRESENT A PLANAR SURFACE.

GEOLOGIC UNITS

FILL:

BROWN, FINE SAND. RARE SHELL
FRAGMENTS, WOOD DEBRIS AND
MAN-MADE DEBRIS.

J :\o.

NON-MARINE CLAY:

GRAY TO BROWN, SOFT TO MEDIUM
CLAY WITH PLANT FIBERS, WOOD ANlJ)
ROOTS, AND BROWN CLAYEY FINE SAW

MARINE SAND AND GRAVEL:

GRAY TO DARK GRAY, LOOSE TO DE
SAND AND GRAVEL WITH OCCASIONAL
COBBLES (COBBLE-RICH AND GRAVEL
ZONE SHOWN SEPARATELY). LOW SILT
CONTENT AND ABUNDANT SHELL
FRAGMENTS.

MARINE SILT:

GLACIAL CLAY, SILT AND SAND:

GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND WITH
GRAVEL, BLUE-GRAY SILT/CLAY,
AND GRAY-BROWN SILT/CLAY;
DENSE, NO ORGANIC MATTER.

FLUVIAL SAND:

OLIVE-GRAY SILTY SAND (WITH
THIN LAYERS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
TO SILT OR CLAY. ABUNDANT
SHELL FRAGMENTS.

o o c
o

~ o (
~

DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY-BROWN
TO BROWN, WELL GRADED TO POORLY
GRADED SAND WITH VARIABLE GRAVEL
AND COBBLES.

SURFICIAL MARINE SEDIMENT:

OFFSHORE HARBOR-BOTTOM
SILT AND CLAY, DARK OLIVE
TO BLACK,OFTEN WITH
ABUNDANT WOOD CHIPS AND
WOOD AND PLANT DEBRIS.

MOBILE NAPL

(SEE DEFINITION IN TEXT)

w

CO

co
i£
Cu

BORING ID NUMBER
AND DISTANCE OF
OFFSET FROM
ALIGNMENT

CH2MHILL

I

WELL SCREEN

— APPROX WATER TABL

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT. SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Figure 4-9

Geologic Profile A-A"

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

SIZE	INVITATION NO.

D

DIMBIRS

PLATE

5

EASTERLY

DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: S$$DATE$S$$ STIME

DESIGN FILE: S$SDGN$$S$S$$$SS$S$$$$S$$$$S$S$$$SS$$$$$$$$S$S$$

-------
SECTION

C-C

*	A"

£ SECTION D-D'

i— 20

— 0

-20

-40

¦'TJ'tJ 75	o o o

o oo oo	o o oo oo

oo o oo o	oo o	oo o oo o c

o oo oo	oo oo oo

oo o oo o	oo o	oo o oo o c

o oo oo	oo oo oo

			o o

o~ o

o o o o o o

oo o oo o cjo O 00 o oo o oo o	oo o	oo O	00 o oo

oo oo oo oo oo oo	oo	o

o o oo o oo o oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o oo

oo oo oo oo oo oo	oo	o

o o oo O oo O oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o oo

oo OO oo oo oo oo	oo	o

o o o
o o o o o o
o oo o oo o oo o oo
oo oo oo oo oo
OO O 00 o oo o 00 o oo o oo o

oo oo oo oo oo oo

O O o 0° o o ° o o° o o° o o ° o o° o o °
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo

-60

o o o ° O o ° o 0° O 0° O 0° o c° O 0° O o ° O o ° O 0° O

o o O o o o.

o o o o o o

o o o o o

1"

60' 30' 0

60' I I—I I—I F=r

60'

120'

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 3x

NOTE:

PROFILE IS DRAWN ON A CURVED ALIGNMENT AND DOES
NOT REPRESENT A PLANAR SURFACE.

GEOLOGIC UNITS

FILL:

BROWN, FINE SAND. RARE SHELL
FRAGMENTS, WOOD DEBRIS AND
MAN-MADE DEBRIS.

Tr.di

NON-MARINE CLAY:

GRAY TO BROWN, SOFT TO MEDIUM
CLAY WITH PLANT FIBERS, WOOD ANp|>
ROOTS, AND BROWN CLAYEY FINE SM&1

MARINE SAND AND GRAVEL:

GRAY TO DARK GRAY, LOOSE TO DE
SAND AND GRAVEL WITH OCCASIONA
COBBLES (COBBLE-RICH AND GRAVEL
ZONE SHOWN SEPARATELY). LOW SILT
CONTENT AND ABUNDANT SHELL
FRAGMENTS.

MARINE SILT:

GLACIAL CLAY, SILT AND SAND:

GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND WITH
GRAVEL, BLUE-GRAY SILT/CLAY,
AND GRAY-BROWN SILT/CLAY;
DENSE, NO ORGANIC MATTER.

FLUVIAL SAND:

SURFICIAL MARINE SEDIMENT:

OFFSHORE HARBOR-BOTTOM
SILT AND CLAY, DARK OLIVE
TO BLACK, OFTEN WITH
ABUNDANT WOOD CHIPS AND
WOOD AND PLANT DEBRIS.

w

CO

co
i£
Cu

-BO

	100

BORING ID NUMBER
AND DISTANCE OF
OFFSET FROM
ALIGNMENT

CH2MHILL

OLIVE-GRAY SILTY SAND (WITH
THIN LAYERS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
TO SILT OR CLAY. ABUNDANT
SHELL FRAGMENTS.

~ o I
o

a o i

DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY-BROWN
TO BROWN,WELL GRADED TO POORLY
GRADED SAND WITH VARIABLE GRAVEL
AND COBBLES.

V

WELL SCREEN

MOBILE NAPL
(SEE DEFINITION

IN TEXT)

APPROX WATER TABLE

U.S. ARM'i ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Figure 4-10

Geologic Profile A'-A"

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

INVITATION ¥0.

DIMBIRS

EASTERLY

PLATE

6

DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: S$SDATES$S$ STIME

DESIGN FILE: $$$DGN$S$S$$fl$fl$fl$fl$$$$$$fl$S$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$S$S$

-------
B

MATCH TO
FIGURE 3-26

SECTION A-A"

SECTIONS C-C, D-D'

SECTION A-A'

-100 —

1"

	100

60' 30' 0
60' I I—I I—I l^=t~

60'

120'

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION - 3x

H
m

GEOLOGIC UNITS

FILL:

BROVN. FINE SAND. RARE SHELL
FRAGMENTS. VOOD DEBRIS AND
MAN-MADE DEBRIS.

NON-MARINE CLAY:

GRAY TO BROWN, SOFT TO MEDIUM
CLAY WITH PLANT FIBERS, WOOD AND
ROOTS, AND BROWN CLAYEY FINE SAND.

V:\4l

MARINE SAND AND GRAVEL:

GRAY TO DARK GRAY, LOOSE TO DENSE
SAND AND GRAVEL WITH OCCASIONAL
COBBLES (COBBLE-RICH AND GRAVEL
ZONE SHOWN SEPARATELY). LOW SILT
CONTENT AND ABUNDANT SHELL
FRAGMENTS.

MARINE SILT:

OLIVE-GRAY SILTY SAND (WITH
THIN LAYERS OF SAND AND GRAVEL)
TO SILT OR CLAY. ABUNDANT
SHELL FRAGMENTS.

GLACIAL CLAY, SILT AND SAND:

GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND WITH
GRAVEL, BLUE-GRAY SILT/CLAY,
AND GRAY-BROWN SILT/CLAY;
DENSE, NO ORGANIC MATTER.

FLUVIAL SAND:

o o c
o

o o <

DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY-BROWN
TO BROWN, WELL GRADED TO POORLY
GRADED SAND WITH VARIABLE GRAVEL
AND COBBLES.

SURFICIAL MARINE SEDIMENT:

OFFSHORE HARBOR-BOTTOM
SILT AND CLAY, DARK OLIVE
TO BLACK, OFTEN WITH
ABUNDANT WOOD CHIPS AND
WOOD AND PLANT DEBRIS.

MOBILE NAPL

(SEE DEFINITION IN TEXT)

co
i£
Cu

BORING ID NUMBER
AND DISTANCE OF
OFFSET FROM
ALIGNMENT

k

WELL SCREEN

APPROX WATER TABLE

CH2MHILL

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Figure 4-11

Geologic Profile B-B'

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

INVITATION ¥0.

BROOKSHIER

EASTERLY

PLATE

7

DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: S$SDATES$S$ STIME

DESIGN FILE: $$$DGN$S$S$$fl$fl$fl$fl$$$$$$fl$S$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$S$S$

-------
SECTION A-A"
	s	

z

N

SECTIONS B-B', D-D'













CO



CO
CO
CO

H
CO
CO

ise



H

_ Z

C\2
CD

CO

SECTION A'-A"

hJ

S

2
O

£

>
H
J
H

O O O O O OO O O O ^

o o oo oo o o|- -
o o oo o oo o oo o|oo o
OO oo oo ool oo

o o nO D nO O nO o I n O

-60

oo oo oo oo| oo oo o
o o oo o oo o oo o|oo o oo o oo o
oo	oo|ooooo

-BO

o O
o o o

o o o o

o o o

I o o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo

I	">00 00 00 00 0 -Bfc> fl> O oo oo o cr

I 	 	 	 	 	 			 			 													 	 '

~T> o 0 t) O TT (T~ OS U~ o~T) TT o O O oo O O O O O O O OO C

oo OO OO OO OO OO oo oo o

O 0° O o ° o o° o o ° o 0° O 0° o o ° o o ° o
o o o o o o o o o oo oo oo o

~ ~	no O OO C

no o

-100 —

	100

60'

1"

60'

30' 0
I—I I—I

60'

120'

GEOLOGIC UNITS

FILL:

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 3x

MARINE SAND AND GRAVEL:

BROWN, FINE SAND. RARE SHELL
FRAGMENTS, WOOD DEBRIS AND
MAN-MADE DEBRIS.

NON-MARINE CLAY:

GRAY TO BROWN, SOFT TO MEDIUM
CLAY WITH PLANT FIBERS, WOOD AND
ROOTS, AND BROWN CLAYEY FINE SAND.

):'.d

GRAY TO DARK GRAY, LOOSE TO DENSE
SAND AND GRAVEL WITH OCCASIONAL
COBBLES (COBBLE-RICH AND GRAVEL
ZONE SHOWN SEPARATELY). LOW SILT
CONTENT AND ABUNDANT SHELL
FRAGMENTS.

MARINE SILT:

OLIVE-GRAY SILTY SAND (WITH
THIN LAYERS OF SAND AND GRAVEL)
TO SILT OR CLAY. ABUNDANT
SHELL FRAGMENTS.

GLACIAL CLAY, SILT AND SAND:

GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND WITH
GRAVEL, BLUE-GRAY SILT/CLAY,
AND GRAY-BROWN SILT/CLAY;
DENSE, NO ORGANIC MATTER.

FLUVIAL SAND:

o o <
o

O O 1

o

DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY-BROWN
TO BROWN, WELL GRADED TO POORLY
GRADED SAND WITH VARIABLE GRAVEL
AND COBBLES.

SURFICIAL MARINE SEDIMENT:

OFFSHORE HARBOR-BOTTOM
SILT AND CLAY, DARK OLIVE
TO BLACK, OFTEN WITH
ABUNDANT WOOD CHIPS AND
WOOD AND PLANT DEBRIS.

MOBILE NAPL

(SEE DEFINITION IN TEXT)

CO

co
IS
Cu

BORING ID NUMBER	,

AND DISTANCE OF	'

OFFSET FROM	¦-
ALIGNMENT

AREA OF AQUITARD
DETAIL, FIGURE 3-1B

CH2MHILL

k

WELL SCREEN

— APPROX WATER TABL

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Figure 4-12

Geologic Profile C-C'

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

INVITATION ¥0.

BROOKSHIER

EASTERLY

PLATE

B

DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: S$SDATES$S$ STIME

DESIGN FILE: $$$DGN$S$S$$fl$fl$fl$fl$$$$$$fl$S$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$S$S$

-------
SECTIONS J3-B', C-C'

SECTION A'-A"

SECTION A-A'

1"

GEOLOGIC UNITS

FILL:

80'

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION - 4x

BROWN, FINE SAND. RARE SHELL
FRAGMENTS, WOOD DEBRIS AND
MAN-MADE DEBRIS.

I:\o-

NON-MARINE CLAY:

GRAY TO BROWN, SOFT TO MEDIUM
CLAY WITH PLANT FIBERS, WOOD AN
ROOTS, AND BROWN CLAYEY FINE SW

GRAY TO DARK GRAY, LOOSE TO DE
SAND AND GRAVEL WITH OCCASIONAL
COBBLES (COBBLE-RICH AND GRAVEL
ZONE SHOWN SEPARATELY). LOW SIL
CONTENT AND ABUNDANT SHELL
FRAGMENTS.

MARINE SILT:

GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND WITH
GRAVEL, BLUE-GRAY SILT/CLAY,
AND GRAY-BROWN SILT/CLAY;
DENSE, NO ORGANIC MATTER.

FLUVIAL SAND:

OLIVE-GRAY SILTY SAND (WITH
THIN LAYERS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
TO SILT OR CLAY. ABUNDANT
SHELL FRAGMENTS.

~	o <
o

~	~ <
o

DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY-BROWN
TO BROWN, WELL GRADED TO POORLY
GRADED SAND WITH VARIABLE GRAVEL
AND COBBLES.

OFFSHORE HARBOR-BOTTOM
SILT AND CLAY, DARK OLIVE
TO BLACK,OFTEN WITH
ABUNDANT WOOD CHIPS AND
WOOD AND PLANT DEBRIS.

MOBILE NAPL

(SEE DEFINITION IN TEXT)

k

BORING ID NUMBER
AND DISTANCE OF
OFFSET FROM
ALIGNMENT

WELL SCREEN

CH2MHILL

APPROX WATER TABLE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Figure 4-13

Geologic Profile D-D'

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

SIZE

D

INVITATION ¥0.

BROOKSHIER

K EASTERLY

PLATE

0

DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: $BSDATESSM STIME

DESIGN FILE: SSSDGNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

-------
-10

¦20

s

0

a)

o

I—I

E-1
<1
>
H
J
H

30

¦40

¦50

-60

-70

CO

o
Q

o

O)
OS

CD

T—I

H

CO

a>

05

H

CO

a>

Oi

C\2

t-H

o

I

PQ

o

£
Oh
Oh

0
S

1

Q
U
OS
OS

w

CO
OS
OS

CVJ
O

S

I

Q
U
O)
05

• O o o0 o O0 O O0 O O0 o	o ° c>^^Ss***^- + l+ + + 1 -v.

O O	O O	OO	OO	OO	OO

OO O OO O OO O OO O	OO O	OO o

OO OO OO OO OO	OO	o

O OO O OO O OO O	OO O	OO O OO O OO

o OO OO OO OO	OO	OO

o o o o o o o o	o o o	o o o oo o oo o o

^ O O O O O O O	O o	o o o o

o ° O o ° O	o ° O	o ° O o ° o O ° o O

OO OO OO	OO	OO	OO

^ o a	oo o	oo o oo o oo o o

** o	oo	oo oo
" r» o o o o o

o	o° O	o° O	o° O	o° O	O ° O O °
OO OO OO OO OO OO	o

O	00 0	00 0	00 0	00 0	00 0 00

oo oo oo oo oo oo o

o	oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o oo
oo oo oo oo oo oo o

o	oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o	oo o o o	

oo oo Oo o o o o o o o

o o o	o ° o	n° n	- n

o° o o° o o° o o ° o o° o o(> o o ® o o

oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
00 0 00 0 00 o oo o oo o oo o oo o o

oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o o

1"

40'

40' 20' 0
I H H l-rFT

40'

80'

o oo oo oo oo oo
_oo o oo a oo o oo o oo o o
o Oo Oo OO OO oo

O o ° o 0° o o° o o ° o o
oo oo oo oo

oo o oo o oo o o
o o o o o

o o a o o
o o —

o o o o

o o o o o
O o o o

O o ° o c
o o o o

o o o o c
o o o o

o o a o
¦a o

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION - 4x

GEOLOGIC UNITS

Tr.a:

MARINE SAND AND GRAVEL:

GRAY TO DARK GRAY, LOOSE TO DENSE
SAND AND GRAVEL WITH OCCASIONAL
COBBLES (COBBLE-RICH ZONE SHOWN
SEPARATELY). LOW SILT CONTENT AND
ABUNDANT SHELL FRAGMENTS.

MARINE SILT:

OLIVE-GRAY SILTY SAND (WITH
THIN LAYERS OF SAND AND GRAVEL)
TO SILT OR CLAY. ABUNDANT
SHELL FRAGMENTS.

GLACIAL CLAY, SILT AND SAND:

BROWN SILTY SAND: BROWN TO GRAY
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND GRAY-
BROWN SILT/CLAY, COMMON OXIDATION,
DENSE TO VERY DENSE.

GRAY CLAYEY SILT: GRAY TO BLUE-
GRAY CLAYEY SILT WITH FINE SAND
AND RARE GRAVEL, VERY STIFF.

DENSE SILTY GRAVEL: GRAY-BROWN TO
GRAY-OLIVE SILTY GRAVEL AND SAND
WITH OCCASIONAL OXIDIZED CLASTS,
EXTREMELY DENSE.

FLUVIAL SAND:

DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY-BROWN
TO BROWN, WELL GRADED TO POORLY
GRADED SAND WITH VARIABLE GRAVEL
AND COBBLES.

MOBILE NAPL

(SEE DEFINITION IN TEXT)

Ed
CO

co
i£
0,

-10

-20

-30

-40

¦50

-60

-70

CH2MHILL

BORING ID NUMBER
AND DISTANCE OF
OFFSET FROM
ALIGNMENT

k

WELL SCREEN

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Figure 4-14

C-C Inset - Aquitard

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

INVITATION ¥0.

BROOKSHIER

EASTERLY

PLATE

12

DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: JSSDATESSS# JCTIME

DESIGN FILE: $$BDGN$$$Sfl$fl$fl$fl$$$$$$S$S$S$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$S$

-------
-10 -I



GO

OS

T 1

lO

CD

CO

T—1

t-H

o

PL,
K

H

H

H

Q

cn

CO

m

o

O)

OS

03

OS

05

OS

O)

OS

-20

s

0}

a)

O

E-"
<1
>
H
J
H

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70

	10

o oo o o oo	oo	oo

oo o oo o oo o oo	o	oo o o

oo oo oo	oo	oo

n oo o oo o oo	o	oo o o

oo oo	oo	oo

oo o oo	o	oo o o

"• o	o o	o o

o	o	o 0 o o

o	o	o _

o oo	oo	oo oo oo oo oo oo oo o

o oo o oo	o	oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo c

o oo	oo	oo oo oo oo oo oo oo o

o oo o oo	o	oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo c

o oo	oo	oo oo oo oo oo oo oo c

oooooo	"^ooooooooooooooooooo

oo	~OoOOOOOOOO

°	•"»	n O o

^ 0 0 o

1"

40' 20' 0
40' I I—I I—I I—I F=l~

40'

80'

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70

GEOLOGIC UNITS

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION - 4x

Tr.a:

MARINE SAND AND GRAVEL:

GRAY TO DARK GRAY,LOOSE TO DE
SAND AND GRAVEL WITH 0CCASI0NA
COBBLES (COBBLE-RICH ZONE SHOWN
SEPARATELY). LOW SILT CONTENT
ABUNDANT SHELL FRAGMENTS.

Ah

MARINE SILT:

OLIVE-GRAY SILTY SAND (WITH
THIN LAYERS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
TO SILT OR CLAY. ABUNDANT
SHELL FRAGMENTS.

GLACIAL CLAY, SILT AND SAND:

BROWN SILTY SAND: BROWN TO CRAY
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND GRAY-
BROWN SILT/CLAY, COMMON OXIDATION,
DENSE TO VERY DENSE

GRAY CLAYEY SILT: GRAY TO BLUE-
GRAY CLAYEY SILT WITH FINE SAND
AND RARE GRAVEL. VERY STIFF

DENSE SILTY GRAVEL: GRAY-BROWN TO
GRAY-OLIVE SILTY GRAVEL AND SAND
WITH OCCASIONAL OXIDIZED CLASTS.
EXTREMELY DENSE

O o (
O

a o [

FLUVIAL SAND:

DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY-BROWN
TO BROWN, WELL GRADED TO POORLY
GRADED SAND WITH VARIABLE GRAVEL
AND COBBLES.

MOBILE NAPL

(SEE DEFINITION IN TEXT)

w
m

to
iS

Cu

BORING ID NUMBER
AND DISTANCE OF
OFFSET FROM
ALIGNMENT

CH2MHILL

k

WELL SCREEN

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Figure 4-15

D-D' Inset - Aquitard

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

INVITATION ¥0.

BROOKSHIER

EASTERLY

PLATE

13

DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: JSSDATESSS# JCTIME

DESIGN FILE: $$BDGN$$$Sfl$fl$fl$fl$$$$$$S$S$S$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$S$

-------
LEGEND

Top Elevation of Glacial Till (2 ft CI, ft MLLW)
Aquitard Thin (<4 ft) to Absent
¦ Sheet Pile Wall

Notes:

CI = contour interval

ft MLLW = feet mean low low water

N

50	100

200 Feet

Figure 4-16

Top Elevation of the Glacial Till Portion
of the Aquitard

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

C:\USERS\GGEE\DOCUMENTS\GIS\WrCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE4-16 GLACIALTILLSURFACE.MXD GGEE 1/30/2014 3:08:53 PM

-------
C:\USERS\GGEE\DOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE4-17_AQUITARDTHICKNESS.MXD GGEE 1/30/2014 3:07:36 PM

LEGEND

Contours of Aquitard Thickness (5 ft CI)
Aquitard Thin (<4 ft) to Absent
Sheet Pile Wall

Figure 4-17
Aquitard Thickness

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
Pilings

Shop
Building

Conveyor

shallow
buried
bricks

el	Fuel Oil, £

n Trench #4 incineration
Trench #4 Building
Boiler stack
Building	Fuel

Sump #12 Diesel
Sump #11 Condensate
Return

BMg



Sump *4
Sumf^o

Water
Watev^

Retort

Retort

Electrical
Panel

Retort
Electrical
Substation

Retort

Retort

Floating
Dock

Pettibone

40o;oooV

gal:. Steel ^
Creosote Tank

\Afoter

> Extraction
System Manifold
A	Building

Extraction System Piping

leavily contaminated
concrete 7 e
debris stockpile

Penta Mix
Building

Concrete Slab

Trailer

Control
Room

Tank^Farm

Office'

LP Storage
Janks

PfF^liiFl

Groundwater

Treatment Plant

LEGEND

*

Current Structures
Sheet Pile Wall

Old Bulk Head

Debris Fill Between Old Bulk Head
and Sheet Pile Wall

Potential Buried Features

Potential Remaining Foundations
Current Roads

Ground Surface Contours (ft MLLW)

N

0

50 100

200 Feet

Figure 4-18

Potential Foundation Locations

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

C:\USERS\GGEE\DOCUMENTS\GIS\WVCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE4-18 POTENTIALFOUNDATIONLOCATIONS.MXD GGEE 1/30/2014 2:28:29 PM

-------
CW08
6.73

RPW2
3,34

RPW5
0.81

PO03
6.12

/RPW.1
6.33

RPW6
6.65

RPW4
*4.30^

\ cwo

6.34

Tide Level = 3 ftMLLW

LEGEND

A Upper Aquifer Well (Well ID, Groundwater Elevation ft MLLW)
A Wells Pumping at the Time of Measurement
t Groundwater Flow Direction
- - - - - Bulk Head Prior to Current Sheet Pile Wall

		Tide Level (3 ft MLLW)

Current Sheet Pile Wail
Groundwater Elevation (ft MLLW)

-3.5 - -3
-2.9 - -2
-1.9 --1
-0.9 - 0
0.1 - 1

1.1

2.1
3.1
4.1
5.1

6.1 -7
7.1 -8
8.1 -9

Displayed Data:

Tidal Data - Incoming Tide; July 25, 2012 at 1248

Surface water level = 2.96 MLLW
Well Transducer Data - July 25, 2012 at 1255

Pumping Data:

RPW1 (off)

RPW2 = 10.20 gpm
RPW4 = 7.46 gpm
RPW5 = 9.22 gpm
RPW6 (off)

PW8 = 6.87 gpm
PW9 (off)

E-02 = 4.80 gpm
E-06 = 5.60 gpm

N

50 100

200 Feet

Figure 4-19a

Water Elevation Measurements (ft MLLW)
July 25, 2012, Pumping Wells Active
Upper Aquifer Wells

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

C:\USERS\GGEBDOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE4-20A UPPER JULY.MXD GGEE 9/20/2013 8:18:34 AM

-------
/

¦ 		Tide Level = 3 ft MLLW	

\

.'V

T t

J."1

t t

t t

jCW05

t t

9.33*



< ~

/ /

\

\

\

~	X \

V ##*VG-2L^ V

1 ** 8*19 *"

\

/

/

V Sk. —~ ,

-+¦	-+• • 00

\

\

\

\

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/



/ #
/ #































*





/ 4







\









99CD MW02A













*





X N

s +

\

\

\

>•





**¦

"no? "* *" PW8'

9.3b

*

/

/

/

/

/

*























a













•





A \ \

\

\

\

t













/

/

/

/

/

" 4



~





























VG-1L

•

/
X <
/ •

v VG-4L 1



\

t

/















/

/

\

9.08

¦I

-

«
*+¦
•

*

10.85

































*

/ ~

-fg «* /

t

t

/

/



















\

\



J

/ *





































/ w

/ #



V

1

/

/

















N.



Si

-*¦



/ ~

/







t





























/ ~

/ ~



















E-02

















~





































/

/

/

^ / / /
s s / /
s s /

02CD-MW01
9.02

v
V
\
\
\
\

\
\
v
v

\

\
V
\

v
V
\
\

V

V
\

V

/

V
\
\

V

LEGEND

H Lower Aquifer Well (Well ID, Groundwater Elevation ft MLLW)

Wells Pumping at the Time of Measurement
t Groundwater Flow Direction
—.. Tide Level (3 ft MLLW)

¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ Bulk Head Prior to Current Sheet Pile Wall

Current Sheet Pile Wail
Groundwater Elevation (ft MLLW)

-3.5 - -3
-2.9 - -2
-1.9--1
-0.9 - 0
0.1 - 1
1.1 -2
2.1 -3
3.1 -4
4.1 -5
5.1 -6
6.1 -7
7.1 -8
8.1 -9

Displayed Data:

Tidal Data - Incoming Tide; July 25, 2012 at 1248

Surface water level = 2.96 MLLW
Well Transducer Data - July 25, 2012 at 1255

Pumping Data (Upper Aquifer):

RPW1 (off)

RPW2 = 10.20 gpm

RPW4 = 7.46 gpm

RPW5 = 9.22 gpm

RPW6 (off)

PW8 = 6.87 gpm

PW9 (off)

E-02 = 4.80 gpm

E-06 = 5.60 gpm

N

50

100

200 Feet

Figure 4-19b

Water Elevation Measurements (ft MLLW)
July 25, 2012, Pumping Wells Active
Lower Aquifer Wells

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

C:\USERS\GGEBDOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE4-20B LOWER JULY.MXD GGEE 9/20/2013 8:18:07 AM

-------
LEGEND

A Upper Aquifer Well (Well ID, Groundwater Elevation ft MLLW)
t Groundwater Flow Direction

•	Tide Level (3 ft MLLW)

..... Head Prior to Current Sheet Pile Wall
Current Sheet Pile Wall

Groundwater Elevation (ft MLLW)
2.95-3.00
3.01 -4.00
4.01 -5.00
5.01 -6.00
6.01 -7.00
7.01 -8.00
8.01 -9.00
9.01 -10.00
10.01 - 11.00
11.01 - 12.00
12.01 - 13.00

Displayed Data:

Tidal Data - Incoming Tide; September 3, 2012 at 2106

Surface water level = 2.99 MLLW
Well Transducer Data - September 3, 2012 at 2101
No wells pumping

N

50 100

200 Feet

Figure 4-20a

Water Elevation Measurements (ft MLLW)
September3, 2012, Pumping Wells Inactive
Upper Aquifer Wells

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

C:\USERS\GGEBDOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE4-21 A UPPER SEPT.MXD GGEE 9/20/2013 8:17:35 AM

-------
LEGEND

H Lower Aquifer Well (Well ID, Groundwater Elevation ft MLLW)
t Groundwater Flow Direction

¦	Tide Level (3 ft MLLW)

- - - - - Bulk Head Prior to Current Sheet Pile Wall

Current Sheet Pile Wall
Groundwater Elevation (ft MLLW)

2.95-3.00
3.01 -4.00
4.01 -5.00
5.01 -6.00
6.01 -7.00
7.01 -8.00
8.01 -9.00
9.01 -10.00
10.01 - 11.00
11.01 -12.00
12.01 - 13.00

Displayed Data:

Tidal Data - Incoming Tide; September 3, 2012 at 2106

Surface water level = 2.99 MLLW
Well Transducer Data - September 3, 2012 at 2101
No wells pumping

N

50 100

200 Feet

Figure 4-20b

Water Elevation Measurements (ft MLLW)
Septembers, 2012, Pumping Wells Inactive
Lower Aquifer Wells

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

C:\USERS\GGEBDOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE4-21 B LOWER SEPT.MXD GGEE 9/20/2013 8:17:08 AM

-------
LEGEND

A Upper Aquifer Weil (Well ID)

~ Wells Pumping (July 25, 2012)
...... Bulk Head Prior to Current Sheet Pile Wall

— 		Tide Level (3 ft MLLW)

Current Sheet Pile Wall

Difference in Groundwater Elevation (ft MLLW)
-0.3 - 0
0.1 - 1
1.1 -2
2.1 -3
3.1 -4

4.1 -5
5.1 -6
6.1 -7
7.1 -8
8.1 -9
9.1 - 10

July 25, 2012 Data:

Tidal Data - Incoming Tide; July 25, 2012 at 1248

Surface water level = 2.96 MLLW
Well Transducer Data - July 25, 2012 at 1255

Pumping Data (July 25):

RPW1 (off)

RPW2 = 10.20 gpm
RPW4 = 7.46 gpm
RPW5 = 9.22 gpm
RPW6 (off)

PW8 = 6.87 gpm
PW9 (off)

E-02 = 4.80 gpm
E-06 = 5.60 gpm

September 3, 2012 Data:

Tidal Data - Incoming Tide; September 3, 2012 at 2106

Surface water level = 2.99 MLLW
Well Transducer Data - September 3, 2012 at 2101
No wells pumping

N

50 100

200 Feet

Figure 4-21

Difference in Water Elevation Measurements
(ft MLLW) Between Pumping and
Non-Pumping Scenarios
Upper Aquifer Wells

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

C:\USERS\GGEE\DOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE4-22 DIFFERENCEUPPER.MXD GGEE 9/20/2013 8:16:00 AM

-------
West
Dock

Sludge

Unlabeled

^West Dock
f Excavation!

Pit

Excavation

Sludge

Retort

Retort

Electrical'
^Panel
Unlabeled

Retort

Petti bone
Garage
400,000\
gal. Steel i
Creosote Tank

Former
Lagoon/Tram
Loading Area

V\feter

Floating
Dock

Creosote
Pipeline
(Underground)

Pilings

Sump
Sump - |
Concrete Pit .
for Outhouse

Some floatmg
oil east of
bulkhead

%k	^ .Fuel

SK	Bin,	Fuel Oil

rmrio mi	%	Trench #4 Incineration

rrz ? m Bulldin9

Storage Tank sump#j^ ^	9Sump

^Retort A Sump 0
T ren ch #3 ^ 80,000

^Sump gal. Steel Sump %

Creosote Tank

Retort B 32,000
Retort C gal.

\ ^or

Y

Retort D

Retort F

Retort

Retort

Retort Retort 4k oljmn
Sump

Retort

Electrical
Substation

Area of*
-^Reported .
Pipeline 0.

Transfer

Table Pit

#12 Diesel
r ^ndensate
Return
1 Fuel
Oil

•	Old Sump
Excavation

*	*

Old[SlImp

Oily sands from
surface down

420,000
gal. Steel
Creosote Tank
Sump

Sump
"%#10

iried Bulkhead

V\Mer

Cooling
/ Water

"

/ 4.C(

5A
Creosote

Block
Excavation

Tank 6C

6C Creosote
1,000,000
gal. Steel
Creosote Tank

ater

6P Evap

Extraction
System Manifold

Building some
Unlabeled oily gravels
and sands

Milwaukie
Dock

Penta Mix
Building

Log
Storage
Area

Pilings

Control
Room
Unlabeled

Horace
LP-, Storage
Tanks

Former
Seattle Steam
Storage Tank

LEGEND

Historic Features

Historic Features Identified from 1917 Saridborn Map

Site Remediation Excavation Performed in 1992 through 1994

Potential Primary NAPL Sources (Sumps, Trenches,
and other features with observed contamination)

Potential Secondary NAPL Source Areas

Trenching and other features of
interest identified in April 1989 Map

Facility Shoreline as of 1917

- - ¦ - - Bulk Head Prior to Current Sheet Pile Wall

Current Sheet Pile Wall

Ground Surface Contours (2 ft CI, ft MLLW)

Sources:

Bulk Head Prior to Current Sheet Pile Wall
digitized from current sheet pile wall design drawings
(USACE, 2000)

Some sumps and trenches were digitized from

"Figure 1 Site Location" (Environment and Ecology, 1995)

Sumps and Trenches were digitized from

"Figure B Area 1 Trenches and Sumps";

"Figure C Area 2 Drums, Sumps, 7 Tanks"; "Figure D

Area 3 Containers, Drums, Sumps, Tanks & Trenches"

(Environment and Ecology, 1995)

Secondary NAPL Source Locations digitized from

"Figure 2-1 Wycoff Site Vicinity Map" (CH2M HILL, 1993)

Trenching observations digitized from 1989 hand markup.

Prioritizing of source areas conducted 2012.

Figure 5-1

Potential Source Areas and Site Features

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

C:\USERS\GGEE\DOCUMENTS\GIS\WTCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE5-1 SOURCEAREAS.MXD GGEE 9/3/2013 3:20:29 PM

-------
1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

O

o
>

£ 0.6

0
a)

O)

(0

1	0.5
o

a)
a.

"ro

gj 0.4

o
a)

Q







¦

PW3

LNAPL

¦

PW4

LNAPL

¦

PW5

DNAPL

¦

PW6

DNAPL

¦

PW6

LNAPL

¦

PW8

DNAPL

¦

PW9

DNAPL

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

03
~a

m

CD
CD

>

>

T]

~U

>

o

O

c

zr



CD

CD

o

—5

CD

r+

=r
-%

03

03

CD

03

03

~D

~D





O

IT

zr

CD

r+
~T

CD

<

5

CD



(B

CD

CD

CD



3
CD



CD









CD
CD

C

o

CD

3.

zr
CD

CD

•5

C/J
CD

CD

ro

CD

N
O

S

3

03
O
CD

CD

C

o

CD

3.

zr
CD

CD

C

o
S

r+

zr
CD

CD

3
Q.
CD

O

N>
CO
O
Q.

T3
<

a>

CD

CQ

~D
CD

•5

CD
CD

cr
CD

N

o
Id

03
3

03
O
CD
3

NAPL Fingerprint

FIGURE 5-2

Graphical Fingerprint of PAH and PCP
Constituents in NAPL Samples
2014 Conceptual Site Model Update

CH2MHILL.

-------
250

200

S 150

U-
T3
_0J
Q.

i ioo

to

50

0



Sampled Length (feet)

¦ MAPI Ahcont



L

NAPL Present (feet)

























1



















Fill

Marine Sand

Marine Sand
and Gravel

Marine Sand
and Gravel
(Gravel Zones)

Marine Silt Surficial Marine
Sediment

Wood

Summary of Lithology and NAPL Absence/Presence by feet

Fill

Marine Sand

Marine Sand and Gravel

Marine Sand and Gravel
(Gravel Zones)

Marine Silt

Surficial Marine Sediment
Wood

Summary of NAPL Presence in Lithology by Total Observed NAPL

0.3%

4.6%

34%

I Fill

I Marine Sand

Marine Sand and Gravel

I Marine Sand and Gravel (Gravel
Zones)

Marine Silt

Surficial Marine Sediment
Wood

Summary of Lithology by Percentage of Confirmation Boring Footage

Data Table

Lithology

Sampled Length

(feet) NAPL Absent (feet)

NAPL Present
(feet)

Fill

47

46

1.1

Marine Sand

144

100

44

Marine Sand and Gravel

205

169

36

Marine Sand and Gravel (Gravel Zones)

60

42

18

Marine Silt

113

100

13

Surficial Marine Sediment

27

22

5.4

Wood

1.5

0

1.5

Grand Total

598

479

119

Figure 5-3

Confirmation Boring Lithology and NAPL Observations
by Historical Geologic Unit Descriptions

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
X

X'

N- at wall

Compartment 1 -
Ground surface to -5 ft MLLW

Compartment 2-
5ft MLLW to 10 ft above Aquitard

LEGEND

Ground Surface
Bottom of Compartment 1
Bottom of Compartment 2
Bottom of Boring

Aquitard (top of GT) elev (ft MLLW)

Compartment 3-
10 ft above Aquitard to bottom of boring

r 30

20

10

0

-10 §

b -20 §

TO
>
-------
5%

2%

12%

21%

60%

I Gravel

¦	Sand
Silt

¦	Clay
Fill

Figure 5-5

NAPL Distribution: Total of Subareas and Compartments
(see Table 5-2)

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
NAPL Concentration (ppm)

Figure 5-6

Calibration Curve Between TarGOST LIF Response and
Weight Percentage of LNAPL

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
CW06 CW07

CW08

RPW2

CW04

EWC3

RPW5

PO03

EW04

PO09 MW15
SJ	4 RPW1

CW10 •

PO05

PO04

EW07

RPW6

EW08 RPW4

RPW7 •

CW03

MW23

C:\USERS\GGEE\DOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE5-7_NAPLPRESENCE.MXD GGEE 1/30/2014 2:41:41 PM

MW21

PZ-07

PZ-06

LEGEND

Upper Aquifer Well with Measured NAPL Presence

Fl Upper Aquifer Well with No NAPL Present

Trenching and other features of
interest identified in April 1989 Map

a Historic Features Identified from 1917 Sandborn Map

g Site Remediation Excavation Performed in 1992 through 1994

(Potential Primary NAPL Sources (Sumps, Trenches,
and other features with observed contamination)

Potential Secondary NAPL Source Areas

a Historic Features

mm m m m Bulk Head Prior to Current Sheet Pile Wall

Current Sheet Pile Wall

Aquitard Thin (<4 ft) to Absent

Sources:

Bulk Head Prior to Current Sheet Pile Wall
digitized from current sheet pile wall design drawings
(USAGE, 2000)

Some sumps and trenches were digitized from

"Figure 1 Site Location" (Environment and Ecology, 1995)

Sumps and Trenches were digitized from

"Figure BArea 1 Trenches and Sumps";

"Figure C Area 2 Drums, Sumps, 7 Tanks"; "Figure D

Area 3 Containers, Drums, Sumps, Tanks & Trenches"

(Environment and Ecology, 1995)

Secondary NAPL Source Locations digitized from

"Figure 2-1 Wycoff Site Vicinity Map" (CH2M HILL, 1993)

Trenching observations digitized from 1989 hand markup.

Prioritizing of source areas conducted 2012.

Prior remediation excavation areas from 1992 through 1994

digitized from Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1995.

Figure 5-7

NAPL Presence in Upper Aquifer Wells
Measured September 2012

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
CW05

CW09
0.058 |

P 5I\ » ,
,0:031 U pg/L

99CD-MW02A
0,031 U |jg/L

99CD-MW04A
0.03 U ng/L

02CD-MW01
0.03 U pg/L

CW02 \
0.03 U |jg/L

MW21
0.03 U pg/L

C:\USERS\GGEE\DOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE5-8_ACENAPHTHENE.MXD GGEE 1/30/2014 3:04:44 PM

PZ-09
0.03 U (jg/L

•	9

LEGEND

® Acenaphthene Measured May 2013 (ng/L)

	 Acenaphthene Isopleth (0.1, 3, and 50 |jg/L)

		 Inferred Acenaphthene Isopleth

Interpolated Acenaphthene Concentration ((Jg/L)
r High : 90

Low: 0

Trenching and other features of
interest identified in April 1989 Map

[

a

Historic Features and Potential Source Areas

IZZ

~ Historic Features Identified from 1917 Sandborn Map

Site Remediation Excavation Performed in 1992 through 1994

Potential Primary NAPL Sources (Sumps, Trenches,
and other features with observed contamination)

Potential Secondary NAPL Source Areas

Historic Features

...... Bylk Head Prior to Current Sheet Pile Wall

Aquitard Thin (<4 ft) to Absent

Current Sheet Pile Wall

Notes:

Bold values = Acenaphthene was detected in well.

Shaded/Bold values = Acenaphthene exceeds groundwater
cleanup level of 3.0 pg/L established in the Wyckoff ROD 2/2000.
pg/L = micrograms per Liter

Sources:

Bulk Head Prior to Current Sheet Pile Wall
digitized from current sheet pile wall design drawings
(USACE, 2000)

Some sumps and trenches were digitized from

"Figure 1 Site Location" (Environment and Ecology, 1995)

Sumps and Trenches were digitized from

"Figure B Area 1 Trenches and Sumps";

"Figure C Area 2 Drums, Sumps, 7 Tanks": "Figure D

Area 3 Containers, Drums, Sumps, Tanks & Trenches"

(Environment and Ecology, 1995)

Secondary NAPL Source Locations digitized from

"Figure 2-1 Wycoff Site Vicinity Map" (CH2M HILL, 1993)

Trenching observations digitized from 1989 hand markup.

Prioritizing of source areas conducted 2012.

Prior remediation excavation areas from 1992 through 1994

digitized from Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1995.

N

60	120	240 Feet

Figure 5-8

Acenaphthene Concentration Isopleths
Measured May 2013

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

-------
m&WWfimmmWmwM

SE-02

A

Wm,

PZ-11

A

m

m

, A	A

PZ-05

A

PZ-03

A

LEGEND

¦

TarGOST Location where NAPL pool height
at aquitard > 9.4 feet

# Lower Aquifer Well with Observed NAPL Presence

A Lower Aquifer Well

	 Acenaphthene Isopleth (3 pg/L)

	 Inferred Acenaphthene Isopleth (3 pg/L)

I	r Aquitard Surface Depressions

Aquitard Thickness (ft MLLW)

35

Aquitard Thin (<4 ft) to Absent
Notes:

Acenaphthene groundwater cleanup level of 3.0 pg/L
established in the Wyckoff ROD 2/2000.
pg/L = micrograms per Liter
ft MLLW = feet mean low low water

45

N

90

180 Feet

Figure 5-9

Aquitard Observations for Assessing
Potential for NAPL Migration to Lower Aquifer

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

C:\USERS\GGEE\DOCUMENTS\GIS\WYCKOFF\MAPFILES\2013\CSM\REPORT FIGURES\FIGURE5-9_AQUITARD.MXD GGEE 1/30/2014 3:03:55 PM

-------
Plates

-------
Fence diagrams A through F radiate out from a TarGOST location central to the site (2013T-005). Fence diagram G
(a through c) parallels the sheet pile wall on the upland portion of the site.

Dashed sub-fence diagrams are intended to follow potential flow paths of NAPL to the sheet pile wall.

LEGEND FOR FENCE DIAGRAM ELEMENTS

Sheet Pile Wall
Glacial till depth indicated by
recent boring <20 ft from fence

¦/

A NE - Approximate Site Center	SW A'

C SE - Approximate Site Center

30

Plate 1

Fence Diagrams Overview, A-A\ B-B', and C-C'

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckotf/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

	CH2MHILL

-------
Plate 2

Fence Diagrams D-a - D-b, D-a - D-c, D-D', E-
E', and F-P

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagie Harbor Superfund Site

	CH2MHILL

-------
-------
Northeast View

ym.

Northeast View - Lithology

"229.500	'229:'1L"J	229,300

West View - Lithology

Plate 4

Visualization of Subarea 2

CH2MHILL

-------
oos,ess, r

South View

Northwest View

West View

Site Map

Top View

Plate 5

Visualization of Subarea 3

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Bagle Harbor Superfiind Site

	CH2IVIHILL

uses

¦

GW



GP



GM



GC

-

SW
SP



SM



SC

_

ML

r

CL



OL

c

OTHER

East View with Lithology

Northeast View

-------
East View - Lithology

uses

GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
MH
CL
OL

OTHER

CH2MHILL

-------
Site Map

North View

iVtiSvc h—Am, oo i-

¦

GW



GP



GM



GC



SW



SP



SM



SC



ML



MH



CL



OL

¦

OTHER

West View - Lithology

Plate 7

Visualization of Subarea 5

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update for the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

	CH2IVIHILL

West View

=1=4-4

4z).z)n

. . 4-KH

"'te IS?" i?3 •»».. -S»

Northwest View

Northeast View

Ea sit View

-------
All Compartments	Compartment 1

Compartment 2

10%RE - -5 ft MLLW to 10 ft above Aquitard

Compartment 3

-10 ft above Aquitard to tf

LEGEND

Thickness of Affected TarGOST Sample (ft)

^¦>0-1.0	(1.4 acres)

|^^1.0-2.0	(0.5 acres)

I I 2.0-3.0	(0.4acres)

I I 3.0-4.0	(0.7 acres)

1 1 4.0 - 5.0	(0.4 acres)

~ n
He

(2.7 at

ST

Plate 8

TarGOST Distribution byThiessen Polygon

CH2MHILL

-------
All Compartments

Compartment 2

Compartment 3

~

0-0.1



0.1 -10



10-20

II

20-30

~

30-40

~

40-50

nn

50-60

~

60-70



70-80



80-90



90 -100



>100

Plate 9

Integrated Volume of NAPL at Greater Than or
Equal to 10%RE TarGOST Response
Upland Dataset

2014 Conceptual Site Model Update tor the Former Process Area
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

Compartment 1

Compartment 1A

Compartment 1A: Ground Surface to Non-Pumping Groundwater Surface

Compartment IB

Compartment 1B: Non-Pumping Groundwater Surface to -5 ft MLLW

CH2MHILL

-------