FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS) REPORT, APPENDICES, VOLUME 2 OF 2 · BALSAM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS INC, ....

!^^-">^«r,s^^-'mmi KJTE. M.-;

V SDMS DocID 468497

VOLUME II OF II MOTTOLO SITE

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT APPENDICES

Submitted to:

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region I

John F. Kennedy Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203

Prepared on behalf of:

K. J. Quinn & Company, Inc. 195 Canal Street

Maiden, Massachusetts 02148

Prepared by:

BALSAM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 5 Industrial Way

Salem, New Hampshire 03079

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824

(S4368COV)

BALSAM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION MOTTOLO SUPERFUND SITE

FEASIBILITY STUDY 1-1

1.1 PURPOSE AND APPROACH 1-1

1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION 1-2

1.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1-3

1.3.1 Site History 1-3 1.3.2 Summary of Current Conditions 1-5

1.3.2.1 Site Geology 1-5 1.3.2.2 Site Hydrogeology 1-6 1.3.2.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination 1-7 1.3.2.4 Contaminant Fate and Transport 1-10 1.3.2.5 Summary of Potential Risks 1-11

2.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND TECHNOLOGY SCREENING 2-1

2.1 REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES 2-1

2.1.1 Source Control 2-2 2.1.2 Management of Migration 2-6 2.1.3 ARARs 2-7

2.1.3.1 Development of Ground Water TCLs 2-8 2.1.3.2 Development of Soil Treatment Levels 2-14 2.1.3.3 Soil Remediation Volumes 2-17

2.2 GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS 2-19

2.3 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES 2-20

2.3.1 Technology Identification 2-20 2.3.2 Technology Screening 2-21

2.4 SELECTION OF PROCESS OPTIONS 2-22

3.0 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 3-1

3.1 RATIONALE FOR ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT 3-1

(S4368TOC)


TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

3.1.1 Former Disposal Area 3-1

SECTION PAGE

3.1.1.1 Historical Information 3-1

3.1.1.1.1 Source History 3-1

3.1.1.1.2 Migration 3-3

3.1.1.2 Site Conditions 3-3

3.1.1.2.1 Source 3-3

3.1.1.2.2 Migration 3-5

3.1.2 Southem Boundary Area 3-7

3.1.2.1 Historical Information 3-7 3.1.2.2 Site Conditions 3-7

3.1.2.3 Migration 3-8

3.1.3 Leaching Study Results 3-9

3.1.3.1 Study Methods 3-10

3.1.3.2 Study Results 3-11

3.1.4 Altemative Development Basis 3-12

3.2 SCREENING CRITERIA 3-17

3.2.1 Eff'ectiveness 3-17 3.2.2 Implementability 3-17

3.2.3 Cost 3-18

3.3 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL SCREENING 3-19

3.3.1 Source Control Altematives 3-19 3.3.1.1 Altemative SC-1: No Action 3-19 3.3.1.2 Altemative SC-2: Containment 3-20 3.3.1.3 Altemative SC-3: In Situ Vapor Extraction 3-22 3.3.1.4 Altemative SC-4: On-Site Aboveground Vapor,

Extraction 3-23 3.3.1.5 Altemative SC-5: Chemical Fixation 3-25 3.3.1.6 Altemative SC-6: On-Site Low Temperature

(S4368TOC) Thermal Stripping 3-26 3.3.1.7 Altemative SC-7: On-Site Thermal Destmction 3-28

3-35



SECTION PAGE

3.3.1.8 Altemative SC-8: Off-Site Thermal Destruction 3-31

3-33 3.3.1.9 Altemative SC-9: Off'-Site Disposal

3.3.2 Management of Migration Altematives

3-35 3.3.2.1 Altemative MOM-1: No Action 3-36 3.3.2.2 Altemative MOM-2: Limited Action 3-38 3.3.2.3 Altemative MOM-3: On-Site Treatment 3-42 3.3.2.4 Altemative MOM-4: Off"-Site Treatment

3.3.3 Site^Wide Altematives 3-43

4.0 DETAILED EVALUATION OF SITE-WIDE ALTERNATIVES 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1

4.1.1 Remedial Objectives 4-1 4.1.2 Analysis Criteria and Approach 4-1

4.1.2.1 ARARs Analysis 4-2 4.1.2.2 Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, and Volume

Analysis 4.1.2.3 Short-Term Effectiveness Analysis 4.1.2.4 Long-Term Effectiveness Analysis 4.1.2.5 Protectiveness Analysis 4.1.2.6 Implementability Analysis 4.1.2.7 Cost Estimation 4-10

4.2 SITE-WIDE ALTERNATIVE 1 4-12

4.2.1 Description 4-12 4.2.2 Compliance with ARARs 4-13 4.2.3 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-13 4.2.4 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-14 4.2.5 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-14 4.2.6 Protectiveness 4-14 4.2.7 Implementability 4-15 4.2.8 Cost 4-15

4.3 SITE-WIDE ALTERNATIVE 2

4.3.1 Description 4-16 4.3.2 Compliance with ARARs 4-19

(S4368TOC)

4-16


SECTION

•

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7


4.3.3 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4.3.4 Short-Term Effectiveness 4.3.5 Long-Term Effectiveness 4.3.6 Protectiveness 4.3.7 Implementability 4.3.8 Cost

SITE-WIDE ALTERNATIVE 3

4.4.1 Description 4.4.2 Compliance with ARARs 4.4.3 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4.4.4 Short-Term Effectiveness 4.4.5 Long-Term Effectiveness 4.4.6 Protectiveness 4.4.7 Implementability 4.4.8 Cost






4.7.1 Description4.7.2 Comphance with ARARs

PAGE

4-19 4-20 4-20 4-21 4-22 4-23

4-24

4-24 4-27 4-28 4-28 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32

4-33

4-33 4-36 4-36 4-37 4-37 4-38 4-39 4-40

4-41

4-41 4-44 4-44 4-45 4-45 4-46 4-46 4-47

4-48

4-48 4-52

(S4368TOC)


SECTION

4.7.3 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-52 4.7.4 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-53 4.7.5 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-53 4.7.6 Protectiveness 4-54 4.7.7 Implementability 4-54 4.7.8 Costs 4-55


PAGE


4.8.1 Description 4-56 4.8.2 Compliance with ARARs 4-58 4.8.3 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-58 4.8.4 Short-Term Eff'ectiveness 4-59 4.8.5 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-59 4.8.6 Protectiveness 4-60 4.8.7 Implementability 4-60

4.8.8 Cost 4-61


4.9.1 Description 4-62 4.9.2 Compliance with ARARs 4-70 4.9.3 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-70 4.9.4 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-71 4.9.5 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-72 4.9.6 Protectiveness 4-73 4.9.7 ImplementabiHty 4-75 4.9.8 Cost 4-76

5.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 5-1

5.1 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs 5-1

5.2 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME 5-2

5.3 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS 5-4

5.4 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS 5-6

5.5 PROTECTIVENESS 5-7

5.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY 5-9

(S4368TOC)



SECTION PAGE

5.7 COSTS 5-9

5.8 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 5-10

6.0 REFERENCES 6-1

TABLE 1-1

TABLE 1-2

TABLE 2-1

TABLE 2-2

TABLE 2-3

TABLE 2-4

TABLE 2-5

TABLE 2-6

TABLE 2-7

TABLE 2-8

TABLE 2-9

TABLE 2-10

TABLE 4-1

TABLE 4-2

TABLE 4-3

TABLE 4-4

(S43G8TOC)

TABLES

CHRONOLOGY OF MOTTOLO SITE ACTIVITIES

SATURATED THICKNESS AND TRANSMISSIVITY ESTIMATES IN OVERBURDEN

WATER SOLUBILITY DATA FOR INDICATOR VOCs

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND CRITERL^

COMPARISON OF SITE GROUND WATER QUALITY WITH ARARs

SOIL TREATMENT LEVELS

GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS FOR SOURCE CONTROL

GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION

SOURCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SCREENING

POST-SCREENING REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY LIST FOR SOURCE CONTROL

MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION TECHNOLOGY SCREENING

POST-SCREENING REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY LIST FOR MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION

SUMMARY OF ARARs ANALYSIS

SITE-WIDE ALTERNATIVE 1 COST ESTIMATE




TABLE 4-5

TABLE 4-6

TABLE 4-7

TABLE 4-8

TABLE 4-9

TABLE 4-10

TABLE 5-1

FIGURE 1-1

FIGURE 1-2

FIGURE 2-1

FIGURE 2-2

FIGURE 2-3

FIGURE 3-1

FIGURE 3-2

FIGURE 3-3

FIGURE 4-1

FIGURE 4-2

FIGURE 4-3

FIGURE 4-4

FIGURE 4-5






AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF COMPOUNDS MEASURED IN GROUND WATER


COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

FIGURES

SITE LOCUS PLAN

SITE AREA MAP

CONFIRMED SOURCE AREAS AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

SOURCE CONTROL PROCESS OPTION EVALUATION

MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION PROCESS OPTION EVALUATION

SITE AREA CONCEPTUAL GROUND WATER FLOW CROSS-SECTION

BROOK A VALLEY CONCEPTUAL GROUND WATER FLOW CROSS-SECTION F-F^

DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

SITE-WIDE ALTERNATIVE 1 SITE LAYOUT


INTERCEPTOR TRENCH CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION

MULTIMEDIA CAP CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION


(S4368TOC)

FIGURE 4-6

FIGURE 4-7

FIGURE 4-8

FIGURE 4-9

FIGURE 4-10

FIGURE 4-11

FIGURE 4-12

FIGURE 4-13

FIGURE 4-14

FIGURE 4-15

FIGURE 4-16

FIGURE 4-17

FIGURE 4-18

FIGURE 4-19

FIGURE 5-1

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E



CONCEPTUAL VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL CONSTRUCTION

VES PROCESS SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM

ABOVEGROUND VES PROCESS SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM


ABOVEGROUND VES CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION


SITE-WIDE ALTERNATIVE 5 PROCESS SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM

SECURE CELL CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION


LTTS PROCESS SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM



GROUND WATER COLLECTION TRENCH CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION

GROUND WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROCESS SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM

SUMMARY ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

APPENDICES

ACTION-SPECIFIC AND LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs

DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL TREATMENT LEVELS

SOIL LEACHING STUDY REPORT

REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS

EVALUATION OF GROUND WATER CLEANUP TIMES

(S4368TOC)



APPENDIX F GROUND WATER COLLECTION TRENCH AND EXTRACTION WELL POINT SYSTEM FLOW RATE ESTIMATES

APPENDIX G EVALUATION OF SOUTHERN BOUNDARY AREA EXTRACTION WELL SYSTEM

(S4368TOC)

APPENDIX A

ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs

ARAR

FEDERAL:

Standards for Owners and Operators of Permitted Hazardous Waste Facilities (40 CFR 264).

Manifesting, Record Keeping and Reporting (40 CFR 264.70 264.77).

Ground Water Protection (40 CFR 264.90 - 264.109).

ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs MOTTOLO SUPERFUND SITE RAYMOND, NEW HAMPSHIRE

SYNOPSIS

These regulations outline facility requirements including; general waste analysis, security measures, inspections, personnel training requirements, and location standards.

This regulation sets forth the operating records and biennial reporting required for on-site facilities.

This regulation sets forth the ground water monitoring program required for a RCRA permitted facility. In the facility permit, the Regional Administrator will specify the hazardous constituents, concentration limits, point(s) of compliance, and compliance monitoring period.

ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO COMPLY

Treatment systems will be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable provisions of these regulations. Operations personnel will be trained.

On-site remedial activities will comply with record keeping and reporting requirements. Treatment residuals and wastes sent to off'-site treatment and disposal will be managed in compliance with manifesting requirements.

A ground water monitoring program consistent with the requirements of this regulation will be developed and implemented.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368k

ARAR

RCRA Post-Closure Care Requirements (40 CFR 264.310).

RCRA Waste Pile Standards (40 CFR 264.250 - 264.269).


SYNOPSIS

This regulation sets forth the specific requirements for closure and post-closure of hazardous waste facilities. These requirements include but are not limited to: closure performance standards, a detailed closure plan, time allowed for closure, disposal or decontamination of equipment, structures and soils, certification of closure, survey plat, post-closure care and use of property, and post-closure notice.

This regulation sets forth design and operating requirements for owners and operators of facilities that store or treat hazardous waste in piles. In addition, this requirement includes provisions for dry storage, monitoring and inspection procedures, special requirements for incompatible wastes, and closure and post-closure care.


Monitoring and maintenance programs will be implemented in compliance with applicable provisions of this regulation.

Stockpiles for altematives involving aboveground handling of contaminated soils will be managed in accordance with applicable provisions of this regulation.


ARAR

RCRA Landfill Standards (40 CFR 264.300 - 264.339).

RCRA Standards for Tanks (40 CFR 264, Subpart J).

Clean Water Act (40 CFR Parts 122 and 125).


SYNOPSIS

This regulation sets forth the design and operational requirements for new landfills. More specifically, each facility must have, a double liner and incorporate a leachate detection and collection system. Monitoring and inspection requirements, surveying and recordkeeping and closure and post-closure care are also addressed in this regulation.

This regulation establishes design and operation standards for storage and treatment tanks.

Regulation 40 CFR Part 122 addresses permitting requirements for discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. According to Part 122, waters of the United States include wetlands, bogs,-swamps and marshes. Regulation 40 CFR Part 125 establishes criteria and standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system and references the pretreatment standards established in 40 CFR Parts 401 through 464.


Altematives involving replacement of contaminated residues on site will comply with applicable provisions of this regulation.

Altematives that involve management of contaminated media in tanks will comply with applicable provisions of this regulation.

Management of diverted and treated ground water will comply with applicable requirements of this regulation.


ARAR

OSHA - Safety and Health Standards for Construction Sites (29 CFR 1926).

OSHA - Record Keeping, Reporting and Related Regulations (29 CFR Part 1904).

National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 6).


SYNOPSIS

This regulation sets forth the protective clothing and equipment to be used for work on Superfund sites. In addition, decontamination and heat stress procedures are addressed.

This regulation outlines the health and safety record keeping and reporting regulations for employers. More specifically, this regulation requires an employer to develop information regarding causes and prevention of occupational accidents and illnesses based upon past incidents.

This regulation directs all federal agencies to include in their decision making processes, careful consideration of all environmental effects. More specifically, this requirement outlines the conditions for which environmental impact statements are required.


Appropriate safety equipment will be on site, and safety procedures will be observed.

Appropriate records will be maintained in compliance with this regulation.

The need for an environmental impact statement will be reviewed.


ARAR

Clean Air Act - . National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Total Suspended Particulates. (40 CFR 129.105).

Clean Air Act National Emissions Standards for Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61).

D.O.T. Rules for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials (49 CFR Parts 107, 171.1 - 171.500).

Rivers and Harbors Act (33 CFR 320 329).


SYNOPSIS

This regulation establishes standards for particulate emissions.

This regulation establishes emissions limitations for specific pollutants.

This regulation outlines requirements for lawful transportation of hazardous waste.

This regulation outlines requirements for discharging dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. Furthermore, this regulation addresses dredge and fill operations with respect to protection of wetlands and floodplains.


Monitoring and, if warranted, control measures will be employed to ensure compliance with this regulation.

Implementation of remedial altematives will comply with this regulation.

Treatment residuals and wastes sent to off-site treatment and disposal will be managed in compliance with this regulation.

Activities in the drainage swale and Brook A valley wetland areas will included measures to mitigate potential impacts. .


ARAR

Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (40 CFR 230).

OSHA - General Industry Standards (29 CFR 1910).


SYNOPSIS

This regulation sets forth guidelines to restore and maintain the chemical and biological integrity of the waters of the United States through the control of discharges of dredged or fill materials.

This regulation sets forth health and safety procedures for employees working in industry. More specifically with respect to the subject site, it addresses personal protective equipment, hazardous materials handling procedures, fire protection, and medical and first aid preparation procedures.


Mitigative measures, such as erosion and siltation controls will be used during activities in wetland areas to comply with this regulation.

Personal protective equipment and measures will be employed as required to comply with applicable provisions of this regulation.


ARAR

STATE:

New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Act (RSA Ch.l47-A, NH Admin. Code He-P Ch.l905).

Hazardous Waste Facility Security Requirements (He-P 1905.08(d), incorporating by reference 40 CFR 264.14).


SYNOPSIS

These regulations establish standards applicable to the treatment, storage, transport and disposal of hazardous waste, and the operation and closure of hazardous waste facilities.

This regulation sets forth the responsibilities of owners of hazardous waste facilities.


Treatment systems will be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable provisions of these regulations.

Access to remedial activities and facilities will be controlled in compliance with this regulation.


ARAR

General Environmental Standards (He-P 1905.08(d)[l]).


SYNOPSIS

This regulation requires facilities to comply with specified state and federal environmental standards and to provide protection for workers in accordance with state and federal occupational health and safety requirements. Applicable occupational standards.include 29 CFR Ch. 1910 (industry standards); 29 CFR Ch. 1926 (safety and health standards); N.H. RSA Ch. 277-A (Worker's Right-to-Know Act); N.H. Admin. He-P Ch. 1800, Part 1803 (Toxic Substances in the work place.)


Personal protection and training programs will be implemented as required to comply with the applicable provisions of this regulation.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824;S4368k

ARAR

Ground Water Protection (He-P 1905.08 [d][4][j], incorporating by reference 40 CFR 264, Subpart F).

Closure and Post-closure (He-P 1905.08 [d][4][k], incorporating by reference 40 CFR 264, Subpart G).


SYNOPSIS

This regulation, which incorporates federal RCRA standards and supplements N.H. Admin. Code Ws Ch. 410, establishes additional standards for ground water inonitoring and appropriate remediation at hazardous waste facilities. The provision prohibits the discharge of constituents into ground water above federal RCRA limits for such contaminants at the compliance point, which is defined as the boundary of each waste management unit under 40 CFR 264.95.

This regulation, incorporates federal RCRA requirements and sets forth design and performance standards for hazardous waste facility remediation and closure.


A ground water monitoring program consistent with the requirements of this regulation will be developed and implemented.

Monitoring and maintenance programs will be implemented in compliance with applicable provisions of this regulation.


ARAR

Transfer of Facility (He-P 1905.08 [d][5]).

Monitoring (He-P 1905.08 [d][6]).

Public Notification Plan (He-P 1905.08 [d][9]).

Additional Technical Standards for Treatment (He-P 1905.08 [fj[2][a]).


SYNOPSIS

This regulation .provides for notifying the Division and future owners or operators when a facility is transferred. In addition, upon closure of a facility, the owner is required to ensure that all future owners are aware of the previous land use and any restrictions that are necessary to preserve the integrity of contained waste.

These regulations establish monitoring requirements and authorize the Division to require appropriate environmental monitoring of such media as ground water, air, and leachate.

This regulation states that the WSPCC may require owners or operators to develop and follow a plan describing methods to inform the public of the status of facility activities.

He-P 1905.08[fJ[2][a] requires a demonstration that proposed treatment methods will meet specified design and construction requirements.


Deed notifications and, if warranted, restrictions will be employed to comply with this regulation.

Monitoring programs will be developed and implemented to comply with applicable provisions of this regulation.

If required, a public notification plan will be prepared and implemented.

Remedial facilities will be constructed and operated to comply with applicable provisions of this regulation.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368k 10

ARAR

Technical Standards for Waste Piles (He-P 1905.08 [fj[l][d], incorporating by reference 40 CFR 264, Subpart L).

Technical Standards for Tanks (He-P 1905.08 [fl[l][b], incorporating by reference 40 CFR 264, Subpart J).

Manifesting Requirements (He-P 1905.04).^

Packaging and Labeling Requirements (He-P 1905.05, incorporating by reference N.H. Admin. Code Saf-C-600 and 49 CFR 172, 173, 178 and 179).

December 10, 1990


SYNOPSIS

This regulation incorporates federal RCRA requirements for waste piles.

This regulation incorporates federal RCRA requirements for facilities using tanks to treat or store hazardous wastes.

This regulation stipulates that the transport of any hazardous wastes off-site must comply with the manifesting and record keeping requirements set forth in this provision.

These regulations stipulate that hazardous wastes transported off-site must be packaged and labeled in accordance with New Hampshire Department of Safety rules, and federal transportation requirements.


Stockpiles for altematives involving aboveground handling of contaminated soils will be managed in accordance with applicable provisions of this regulation.

Altematives that involve management of contaminated media in tanks will comply with applicable provisions of this regulation.

Treatment residuals and wastes sent to off-site treatment and disposal will be managed in compliance with manifesting requirements. .

Treatment residuals and wastes sent to off'-site treatment and disposal will be managed in compliance with this regulation.

Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368k 11

ARAR

New Hampshire Solid Waste Management Act; RSA Ch. 149-M (N.H. Admin. Code He-P Ch. 1901).

New Hampshire Ground Water Protection Regulations (Ws 410) Ground Water Quality Criteria.

New Hampshire Air Regulations Toxic Air Pollutants (Chapter Env-A 1300).

Fugitive Dust Emission Control (N.H. Admin. Code Air Part 1002).


SYNOPSIS

These regulations establish a permitting process which is applicable to the treatment, storage and disposal of solid waste and the closure of solid wa'ste facilities.

These regulations establish monitoring and intervention requirements and water quality standards for ground water discharges.

These regulations establish ambient air limits for toxic pollutants from new sources.

This regulation requires precautions to prevent, abate and control fugitive dust during construction and excavation activities. ,


Remedial activities that involve management of solid waste will comply with applicable provisions of this regulation.

A monitoring program will be developed and implemented to comply with applicable provisions of this regulation.

Air monitoring and, if warranted, controls will be employed in compliance with applicable provisions of this regulation.

Monitoring and, if warranted, control measures will be employed to ensure compliance with this regulation.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368k 12

ARAR

Dredging and Control of Run-off; RSA 149:8-a: Dredging Rules (Ws Ch. 400 Part 415).

Fill and Dredge in Wetlands, Criteria and Conditions (RSA 483-A, Ws Ch. 300, and Wt Chapters 100 through 700).

Antidegradation Policy (Ws Ch. 400, Part 439).

LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs MOTTOLO SUPERFUND SITE RAYMOND, NEW HAMPSHIRE

SYNOPSIS

RSA 149:8-a and Ws Ch. 400 Part 415 establish criteria for conducting any activity in or near state surface waters which significantly alters terrain or may otherwise adversely affect water quality, impede natural runoff' or create unnatural runoff. Activities within the scope of these provisions include excavation, dredging, and grading of topsoil in or near wetland areas.

These regulations govern filling and other activities in or adjacent to wetlands, and establish criteria for the protection of wetlands from adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, commerce and public recreation.

Ws Ch. 400, Part 439 estabUshes the state policy against degradation of existing water quality, and requires protection of in-stream beneficial uses.


Work performed in wetland areas and in the vicinity of Brook A will comply with applicable provisions of this regulation.

Activities in the drainage swale and Brook A valley wetland areas will included measures to mitigate potential impacts and comply with applicable criteria.

Activities in the drainage swale and Brook A valley wetland areas will included measures to mitigate potential impacts and prevent degradation.


APPENDIX B



A P P E N D K E


1.0 ORGANIC LEACHING MODEL METHOD

A mass balance approach, taken from the Summers Model, was used to estimate

the leachate concentration from source a;rea soils corresponding to the TCE and

vinyl chloride TCLs in overburden groimd water in the former disposal and

southem boundary areas. This estimated leachate concentration was used in

conjunction with the Organic Leachate Model (OLM), developed by the EPA, to

estimate the soil treatment levels for TCE and vinyl chloride.

The input parameters for the mass balance in the former disposal area were: an

estimated influent grovmd water flow rate of 100 ftVday, based on hydrogeologic

data obtained in the RI, discussed below, and the cross sectional area ofthe flow

path beneath source area soils at a VOC concentration of zero; a leaching flow rate

through the source area soils estimated based upon an assumed infiltration rate of

5.4 in/yr and a sinface area ofthe source area soils of 4,200 ft^; and a contaminant

concentration downgradient of the mixing zone beneath the source area soils,

which was assigned a value equivalent to the appropriate ground water TCLs.

The influent ground water flow rate of 100 ft^day was based upon an average

overbiirden hydraulic conductivity of 1.13 feet per day, a hydraulic gradient and

saturated thickness upgradient ofthe source area of 0.16 and 8 feet, respectively,

and a width of the som*ce area soils perpedicular to the ground water flow

direction of approximately 70 feet. To provide a conservative basis for

development of soil treatment levels, a safety factor of 1,000 percent was applied

to the OLM output. With these input parameters and safety factor, the leachate

concentrations that would cause TCE emd vinyl chloride TCLs to exist in

overburden ground water downgradient of the former disposal area source soils

were estimated to be 100 ppb and 40 ppb, respectively. A similar analysis was

made for southern boimdary area soils; however, overbui-den ground water in that

December 10, 1990 DRAFT Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368o B - 1


a rea originates solely from recharge, so the leachate concentration from these soils

was set equal to the ground water TCL for TCE, the consti tuent of concem in this

area.

These leachate concentrations were used in conjunction with the EPA's OLM

model to determine the soil treatment levels in both areas. The model equation

used was of the form:

cO.373 C,, = 0.00221 C 0.678

SF

where: C^ = concentration of VOC in leachate (ppm);

Cg = concentration of VOC in soil (ppm);

S = solubility of VOC in water (pprd); and

SF = safety factor of 10 (1000%).

This model is an empirical equation developed from a best fit of a large data base,

made from obseirvations of a wide range of industrial wastes. The model is

expected to be representative of mid to long-term leaching from unsaturated soil.

The previously estimated leachate concentrations were input to the model in

conjunction with solubilities of 1,100 ppm, and 2,760 ppm for TCE and vinyl

chloride, respectively, to calculate soil treatment levels. In the former disposal

area, the soil treatment levels were estimated to be 0.6 ppm and 0.1 ppm for TCE

and vinyl chloride, respectively, and in the southem bovmdary area the TCE

treatment level was estimated to be 0.01 ppm. The following example calculation

was performed for TCE in the former disposal area soxu*ce soils to demonstrate the

approach. The specific mass balance equation from the Summers Model was:

QGW ^ G W + Qi^ i = (QGW + Qi) ^TCL



where: Q^w = influent ground water flow ra te (100 ftVday);

CGW = influent ground water TCE concentration (zero);

Qi = infiltration flow rate (5.2 ftVday);

Cj = leachate concentration (to be determined); and

CTCL = TCL for TCE (5 ppb).

Q, was calculated by multiplying the infiltration r a t e pf 5.4 in/yr (1,23 x 10'^ ft/day)

by the approximate area of the source area soils of 4,200 ft^. The leachate

concentration, Cj, was determined to be 100 ppb from this equation.

Cj was then input into the OLM, to obtain Cg, as follows:

0.00221 C°-^'^ S°-''^ SP

where: C = Cj = leachate concentration (0.1 ppm);

Cg = soil action level (to be determined);

S = TCE solubility (1,100 ppm); and

SF = safety factor of 10 (1,000 percent).

The soil action level calculated for TCE in the former disposal area was 0.6 ppm.

2.0 SUMMERS MODEL METHOD

The mass balance approach described in Section 1.0 was used to estimate the

leachate concentration from source area soils corresponding to the TCE and vinyl

chloride TCLs in overburden groimd water in the former disposal and southem

boundary areas. The same input parameters were also used in the mass balance

calculation. Using this approach, the leachate concentrations that were calculated

to result in TCE and vinyl chloride TCLs to exist in overburden groimd water

downgradient ofthe former disposal area source soils were estimated to be

100 ppb and 40 ppb, respectively. For the reasons discussed in Section 1.0, the



leachate concentration from southern boimdary area soils was set equal to the

TCL for TCE.

These leachate concentrations were then used to calculate soil concentrations that

would result in the leachate concentrations using the model:

Cg = K Q C I

where: Cg = concentration of VOC in soil (ug/Kg):

KQ = soil/water partition coefficient for VOC (cmVg); and

CI = leachate concentration (ug/L).

Use of the soil/water partition coefficient is based on the assimiption that

infiltrating precipitation water and soil establish equilibrium and that VOCs do

not partition into the vapor phase. For the unsaturated zone, soil-water

equilibrium is not uniformly established in the absence of saturation, and VOCs

will preferentially partition into the vapor phase in soil pore space air.

Accordingly, use of the Summers Model should overestimate VOC mass transfer to

water in the unsaturated zone and will result, in turn, in soil TCLs that are lower

than those representative of VOC transport mechanisms actually occtirring in the

unsaturated zone.

The soil-water partition coefficient is typically either determined from laboratory

batch tests or by calculation from K , the organic carbon-water partition

coefficient, which is, in turn, calculated from the octanol-water partition coefficient,

K„^. A Ko„ value of 2.72 was used for TCE along with the expression:

log (K„,) = 0.544 (log K„J + 1.377

to estimate a K ^ for TCE of 720 cmVg. Using the relationship:

KQ = K„ X (percent organic carbon content)



and the organic carbon content measured in the leaching study of approximately

0.1 percent, a K^ of 0.72 cmVg was estimated for TCE. Using the range of K^

values for TCE and the TCE influent concentration of 100 ppb, a soil treatment

level of 0.1 ppm was estimated for the former disposal area.

A similar analysis was performed to estimate treatment levels for vinyl chloride in

the former disposal area source soils and for TCE in the southem boundary area

soils. The estimated soil treatment level for vinyl chloride in former disposal area

soils was 0.005 ppb. For TCE in southem boundary area soils, the estimated

treatment level was 0.005 ppm.

According to EPA Manual SW-846, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste:

Physical/Chemical Methods," the practical quantitation limits on a wet weight

basis for TCE and vinyl chloride are 0.005 (ppm) and 0.01 ppm, respectively.

Accordingly, the soil treatment level for vinyl chloride in former disposal area

source soils was set at the practical quantitation limit of 0.01 ppm.



REFERENCES

Montogomery, J. H., and Welkom, L. M., "Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference," Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 1990.

Dragun, James, "The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials," Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, Maryland, 1988.

Howard, Philip H., "Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposm-e Data for Organic Chemicals," Volume I, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 1989.


APPENDIX C

SOIL LEACHING STUDY REPORT

A P P E N D K C

SOIL LEACHING STUDY REPORT MOTTOLO SUPERFUND SITE RI/FS

RAYMOND, NEW HAMPSHIRE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVES

It has been more than 10 years since hazardous waste disposal activities occurred

on the Mottolo Superfund site in Rajmiond, New Hampshire, and approximately

10 years since the emergency removal action performed by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). Dixring that time, it is expected that volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) present in site soils were transferred to grovmd water by

precipitation percolating through misaturated soils, by ground water flow through

affected saturated soils, and by temporal fluctuation of the ground water table.

Based upon available data, it appeared that the most heavily impacted soils

remaining in the former disposal area were located near or below the water table,

and it was expected that water table fluctuations result in satinration of most of

these soils during at least part of the year. These mechanisms appeared to have

resulted in the presence of VOCs in saturated soil and ground water beneath and

downgradient of the former disposal area, based upon the results of laboratory

analyses of grovmd water and soil samples and shallow ground water headspace

screening performed during the soil gas survey.

The results of source area investigations performed during the Remedial

Investigation (RI) indicated that highly affected soil was present in a relatively

small section of the former drum disposal area (see Figure C-1). It was

anticipated that both unsaturated and saturated soil in the aff'ected portion of the

former disposal area would be subject to remediation because of the relatively

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368m C-1

limited volume of affected soil, the relatively shallow depth to bedrock (typically,

10 to 15 feet or less) in the area, and hydrogeologic conditions amenable to efforts

to lower the water table in the aff'ected area.

It is expected that VOCs migrating in ground water from the former disposal area

have been adsorbed to saturated soils downgradient of the source area, and that,

given the length of time for which migration and adsorption has occurred, these

soils may serve, in effect, as another source of VOCs released to less contaminated

ground water as it flows through the aff'ected soils, as well as contaminated

ground water itself in soil pore space. Additional information regarding the

relationship between soil quality and ground water quality downgradient of the

former disposal area appeared to be necessary to better characterize potential

impacts associated with these saturated soils and the effects of source remediation

on site ground water quality. Specifically, it was important to assess the potential

of downgradient saturated soil to continue to release VOCs to ground water after

remediation of directly affected soils in the former drum disposal area. The ability

of these downgradient soils to serve as a VOC source to ground water was

considered to be a potentially important factor affiecting the length of time

required to attain remedial goals for ground water, as well as the size of the area

within which soil remediation would be pursued. Accordingly, the objective of the

soil leaching study discussed herein was source area.definition, focused primarily

on downgradient saturated soils, and the related matter of the effects of soil

remediation on ground water quality. Because the mechanisms of interest were

desorption and flushing of VOCs from the saturated zone, the appropriate

approach was to evaluate the ability of ground water passing through these soils

to leach or transport VOCs present in this zone.


1.2 BACKGROUND

During the RI, a two-phase soil boring program was performed at the Mottolo site

to assess the approximate boundaries of the contaminated soil area associated

with the former container disposal area and to evaluate the t3rpes and levels of

contaminants present in this area. Four soil borings were advanced in the former

disposal area during the Phase I program, and sixteen additional soil borings were

advanced in and around the former disposal area during the Phase II program.

During the boring programs, soil samples collected from the borings were t3rpically

subjected to field screening analyses for the presence of VOCs and selected

samples were subjected to laboriatory analyses for the presence of Hazardous

Substance List (HSL) VOCs by EPA Method 8240. The methods employed and

results of this program are summarized in the RI report submitted to EPA in

September 1990. In conjunction with Phase I of the program, soil gas and shallow

ground water samples were collected and the sample headspace analyzed in the

field with a Photovac 10S50 portable gas chromatograph (GC) to preliminarily

assess the subsurface distribution of VOCs. The results of the soil gas survey

program are also summarized in the RI report. The information obtained from

these programs is briefly summarized in Section 1.3 to provide a general basis for

discussion of the soil leaching study objectives and approach.

1.3 SOILS INVESTIGATION RESULTS

In general, the soil gas survey results indicated the presence of VOCs in soil gas

and shallow ground water primarily in and downgradient ofthe former disposal

area, the location of which was estimated by review of maps from prior

investigations and aerial photographs. In addition, VOCs typically were not

detected or were detected at low levels (generally 8 ppb or less) in soil samples

collected from borings advanced in and around the former disposal area with the

exception of a relatively limited area in the center and northem side of the area


investigated. In this portion ofthe former disposal area, soil samples were found

to contain elevated levels (2.0 to 465 ppm) of VOCs. The VOCs detected at

elevated concentrations included primarily toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and

methylene chloride. Chlorinated VOCs, including 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA),

trichloroethene (TCE), and tetrachloroethene (PCE), when detected, were typically

found at low concentrations in samples from the area of most heavily aff'ected soils.

Samples in which VOCs were detected at elevated concentrations were generally

collected in an interval extending from slightly above or at the water table to

several feet below the water table, as measured at the time of drilling. These

samples also appeared to generally contain higher levels of organic carbon, as

indicated by the results of total volatile solids (TVS) analyses performed during

the Phase I and II boring programs.

The results of the soil gas survey. Phase I and Phase II soils investigations, review

of aerial photographs, maps from previous investigations, and site observations

were used to identify the approximate boundaries of the former disposal area and

the portion of this area in which soil appeared to be most heavily impacted by

residual VOCs. The approximate boundaries ofthese areas are illustrated in

Figure C-1.


2.0 STUDY APPROACH DEVELOPMENT

A search of the scientific literature was performed of previous research regarding

leachability of VOCs from soils (see attached reference list). Review of available

information indicated that research on this subject was typically performed by

preparing experimental soil samples using uncontaminated materials, placement of

the soil samples in columns or other leaching apparatus, spiking the soil samples

with VOCs of interest, passing distilled, deionized water through the soil samples,

and monitoring leaching of VOCs from the soil samples into the water. 4

Alternatively, adsorption studies were performed by leaching VOC-spiked water

through similarly constructed experimental uncontaminated soil samples and

apparatus. The approach taken to these studies did not, however, address the

possible effects of long term interaction between a natural soil matrix and VOCs,

which was expected to be an important factor affecting leaching of VOCs from site

soils given the length of time that VOCs have been present in the ground at the

site. In addition, the characteristics of the experimental soils, such as grain size

distribution and organic carbon content, were generally controlled and relatively

uniform, and the leaching medium was usually deionized, distilled water, both

unrepresentative of conditions encountered in the site environment.

Based upon the assessment previously described, it appeared that performance of

leaching tests on VOC-contaminated soil samples collected from the site would

provide information more indicative of the processes likely to occur on site.

Several key factors affecting performance of such testing were identified including:

0 collection of relatively undisturbed soil samples from the areas and strata of identified contamination;

o establishment of a base line characterization of soil quality for samples to be tested;

0 minimization of, or control for, the possible loss of VOCs from soil samples during collection and transfer to the leaching apparatus;


I 0 the ability to estimate and control the rate of leaching or flushing;

0 the ability to periodically sample and analyze the leachate for the presence and concentrations of VOCs; and

0 use of a leaching medium more representative of site conditions than deionized, distilled water.

Accordingly, the conceptual study approach, described in the final leaching study

protocol transmitted to EPA on May 1, 1990, involved the collection of relatively

undisturbed soil samples from the site and placement in a controlled test

environment for leaching with ground water collected from the site. The actual

leaching test procedures used, including soil sample and ground water collection

methodologies, leaching apparatus and test specimen set up, leachate sampling

methodology and analytical protocols, are discussed in Section 3.0.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368m > C-6

A^

3.0 LEACHING TEST PROCEDURES

3.1 SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION

3.1.1 Sampl ing Locat ions

In general, soil samples were collected from locations outside of the former

disposal area that were believed to be within the boundaries of the contaminated

ground water plume originating from that area. Initial selection of locations and

strata from which to collect samples was based upon results obtained from the

earlier soil boring programs and field observations. Locations were selected in an

effort to obtain samples representative of a range of conditions downgradient of

the former disposal area source soils, i.e., immediately downgradient of the source

area in the path of the main body of the ground water VOC plume and other

locations further downgradient or on the periphery ofthe plume. Final sampling

locations were adjusted in the field at the time of test pit excavation based upon

(1) field screening results, (2) apparent water table elevation, (3) test pit

excavation limitations (e.g., boulders), and (4) physical limitations of pushing

Shelby tube samplers (see Section 3.1.2). Field screening of soil samples from the

test pits and of ambient air along the test pit walls was performed using an HNu

Systems Model PI-101 Photoionization Detector (HNU).

Six test pits were excavated at the locations shown in Figure C-2. Soil samples

were collected from test pits TP-2, TP-3, and TP-6. Test pit TP-3 was located

immediately downgradient of the source area. Test pit TP-2 was excavated fiirther

downgradient and more toward the periphery of the plume. Test pit TP-6 was also

located in the vicinity of the source area, although more cross-gradient and, based

upon screening results, apparently toward the edge of the ground water VOC

plume. Excavation refiisal was encountered above the ground water table in test

pit TP-1, and field screening did not indicate the presence of VOCs in soil samples


collected from test pits TP-4 and TP-5. A summary of soil sample information is

presented in Table C-1. Test pit logs that include stratum descriptions, field

screening results, description of sampling locations within the test pits, and

limitations encountered during excavation, e.g., boulders and bedrock, are included

in Attachment A.

3.1.2 Sample Collection Method

Soil samples to be used in the leaching study were collected from the test pits by

pushing a thin-walled, 2.8-inch inside diameter (I.D.) Shelby tube, mounted on a

backhoe bucket, horizontally into the face of one of the test pit walls at the

elevation of interest. Samples were collected in this orientation, i.e., parallel to

the general direction of ground water flow, so that the flow of leaching medium

through the sample during testing would be in the same general direction that

ground water flows through the soil on site. The Shelby tubes were attached to

the backhoe bucket using a specially constructed adaptor consisting of a standard

Shelby tube attachment welded to a steel plate, which was bolted to the bucket at

the time of sampling. Figure C-3 illustrates the Shelby tube mounting

arrangement.

For each sampling attempt, a new Shelby tube was screwed on to the bucket

attachment. The tip of the tube was guided to the selected sampling location by

lowering the bucket, and the tube was pushed as smoothly and horizontally as

possible xmtil (1) the backhoe arm was fully extended (typically approximately

2 feet because ofthe equipment configuration and desired sampling depth); (2)

refusal was encountered due to an obstruction, which did not necessarily preclude

retrieval of a usable sample; or (3) the tube was severely bent, precluding

collection of a usable sample. The tubes were slowly and smoothly withdrawn

from the test pit face, and subsequently handled as described in Section 3.1.3. The

test pits were backfilled with the excavated material after sample collection was


completed or when it became apparent that samples would not be retrieved

because of physical limitations or because VOC contamination was not evident

based upon screening results.

The excavation equipment was decontaminated prior to and between use at test

pit locations to limit possible cross-contamination. To accomplish this

decontamination, the bucket of the backhoe was first rinsed with tap water, then

scrubbed with a solution of tap water and trisodium phosphate (TSP), and then

rinsed again with tap water. Personal protective equipment, primarily gloves, that

may have come in contact with contaminated materials, was either cleaned or

changed between sampling locations. Disposable equipment and clothing was

managed in accordance to the procedures established for these materials in

Section 4.4.1.2 ofthe Mottolo Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP).

3.1.3 Sample Hand l ing

Upon retrieval from the excavation, the Shelby tubes were immediately removed

from the adapter on the backhoe bucket. The driven end ofthe tube (tip) was

immediately capped and taped to limit possible VOC loss. The soil recovery was

then immediately measured by placing a ruler inside the other end of the tube

(butt) and recording the distance from the end of the tube to the soil surface. This

measured length was later subtracted from the total tube length to give the

estimated soil recovery. A small amount of melted wax, enough to initially seal

the soil surface but not enough to cause wax penetration into the soil matrix, was

poured into the butt end of the tube to limit VOC loss. While this wax was

hardening, the tube tip was dipped several times into melted wax to augment the

cap and tape seal. Finally, additional melted wax was poured into the butt end of

the tube to an approximate thickness of 2 to 3 inches.


Once the sealing process was completed, the Shelby tubes were labeled in

accordance with the procedures established in Section 4.5 of the Mottolo SAP and

placed in an insulated cooler with ice for transport to the testing laboratory.

Chain-of-custody documentation was prepared in the field and maintained through

delivery to the laboratory in accordance with the procedures established in

Section 5.0 of the Mottolo QA/QC Plan.

3.2 GROUND WATER COLLECTION

Ground water used as the leaching medium was collected from an upgradient dug

well, DW-1, that is located on the Mottolo site (see Figure C-1). Site ground water

provided a leaching medium more representative of site conditions than would use

of deionized, distilled water. The ground water was collected with a 4-inch

diameter bailer and poured directly into 2-liter amber glass containers. The

collected water was immediately transported to the testing laboratory, where it

was transferred to the influent reservoirs of the leaching apparatus or stored for

refilling of reservoirs. Collected ground water to be used for leaching was stored a

maximum of 2 to 3 days in insulated coolers at ambient temperatiire. The water

in the reservoirs was replaced every 2 to 3 days to limit possible effects of changes

in ground water chemistry on leaching behavior. The ground water containers

were labeled in accordance with the sample coding system described in Section 4.5

of the SAP, and chain-of-custody was maintained and documented as specified in

Section 5.0 of the QA/QC Plan.

3.3 LABORATORY PROCEDURES

The collected soil samples were delivered to GEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI) of

Winchester Massachusetts, the testing laboratory, within 2 days of collection,

where they were stored in insulated coolers with ice until being set up in the

leaching apparatus. One sample was tested for physical characteristics only, i.e.,


permeability and specific gravity, in order to estimate the porosity and, therefore,

the pore volume ofthe leaching samples, as described in Section 3.3.1. This

infonnation was subsequently used to estimate the leaching test flow rates

required to model the desired leaching period (e.g., 1 to 4 years) in a practical time

period (e.g. 4 to 8 weeks). Subsequently, the soil samples selected for leaching

were set up in the modified triaxial permeameters, as described in Section 3.3.2.

3.3.1 Basel ine Physical Soil Character is t ics

A soil sample contained in Shelby tube MTL-ST-TP3-001 was set up in a standard

triaxial permeameter and tested for hydraulic conductivity in accordance with

ASTM Method D-2434(74). The porosity of the sample was estimated using an

assumed particle specific gravity of 2.69. As previously described, this information

was used to estimate the leaching test flow rates for the four leaching samples.

3.3.2 Leach ing Test Appa ra tu s

A flexible wall triaxial permeameter apparatus was modified to accommodate the

leaching procedure. Figure C-4 is a schematic ofthe leaching test system. In

general, the system consisted of a Incite influent reservoir, nylon 11 influent

tubing, a Nupro model SS-SS2-D precision flow meter, a brass or stainless steel

control block, scintered teflon porous end plates, a Incite pressure cell, an effluent

sampling port, nylon 11 effluent tubing, and a Incite effluent reservoir. Glass

burets were attached to the influent and effluent lines for flow measurement. The

control block was used to control flow through the influent and effluent lines and

was equipped with a pressure transducer to allow measurement of the pressure

differential across the sample (i.e., gradient). The lucite pressure cell surrounding

the sample in the flexible membrane was filled with site water and pressurized to

simulate the in situ cohfiining stress from overlying soil.


The leaching systems were tested for leaks and calibrated prior to set up of the

leaching specimens. The systems were first saturated with site water and placed

under a pressure greater than would be encountered during the test, and visible

leaks were repaired. The influent and effluent burets were calibrated by weighing

a volume of water discharged, calculating the volume from the weight, and

dividing the recorded buret reading by the calculated volume to obtain the volume

per buret demarkation. The volume of water in the tubing between the sampling

port and the effluent buret was determined similarly. In addition, the initial flow

rate was set without the sample in place, so that when leaching began, the

starting flow rate was close to the required test flow rate. This rate could be set

before the test because the pressure drop over the flow meter was very large

compared to the pressure drop across the soil sample. Because it is pressure

which drives flow, the relatively small change in head loss caused by the addition

of the sample to the system would cause little change in flow rate. The final step

in apparatus preparation was to drain the effluent side of the system leaving the

influent side saturated, so that when leaching began all fluid collected on the

effluent side was leachate.

3.3.3 Leach ing Specimen Handl ing

The Shelby tube was removed from the cooler immediately prior to test set up and

placed in a chain vise for cutting and trimming operations. Stifflening rings were

used during cutting operations to limit sample deformation.

The first step in soil sample removal was to remove the wax, tape, and cap from

the tip of the tube by cutting the tube. The exposed soil was trimmed level, and

the distance from the trimmed soil surface to the tube end recorded. This end of

the tube was then immediately resealed with a Teflon packer with o-rings to limit

VOC loss. The tube was then measured and cut so that a trimmed sample

approximately 12 centimeters (cm) long would be produced, i.e., a length of


approximately 15 cm was cut from the tube. When the tube was cut, the end of

the sample not immediately used was capped, taped, and put back in to the cooler

to be used for base line chemical analyses, as described in Section 3.3^4. The other

end of the tube was trimmed level to approximately 12 cm in length (the actual

length was measured and recorded), and the cut end of the tube was deburred to

prevent sample disturbance during extrusion. The end of the tube was resealed

with a Teflon packer seal until just before extrusion, which typically occurred

within 5 to 10 minutes of resealing.

The sample was extruded slowly and smoothly into a latex membrane, the

thickness of which was previously measured and recorded. During extrusion, the

soil sample traveled in the same direction inside the tube that it was travelling

relative to the tube when the sample was collected in the field. This process was

facilitated by a membrane expander, which consisted of a metal cylinder with an

inside diameter slightly greater than the sample outside diameter and equipped

with a vacuum port. The membrane was stretched over the inside of the expander

with the ends rolled over the outside, and a suction was placed on the vacuum port

to draw the membrane to the inner walls of the cylinder.

The extruded soil sample, now inside the membrane and expander, was

immediately placed on the bottom porous plate of the permeameter such that

leaching water would travel through the sample in the same general direction as

ground water flow at the site. The top porous plate was placed on the sample, the

expander vacuum released, and the membrane rolled over the endplates. To seal

the sample from the confining cell water, the edges of the endplates were lightly

greased with Dow Vacuum Grease, and two o-rings placed over the membrane at

each endplate. T3rpically, less than 6 minutes passed from the start of the

extrusion process to the time the sample was sealed on the permeameter.



The length and diameter of the sample on the permeameter was measured and

recorded before the confining lucite cell was placed on the permeameter. After

placement, the confining cell was filled with site ground water and pressurized to

0.27 kilograms per square centimeter (kg/cm^), which was approximately

equivalent to the in situ confining stress from overljdng soil. At this point in the

sample setup procedure, the influent valve was closed, and the effluent valve was

open to allow consolidation due to reinstitution of in situ confining stress. Once

the sample was consolidated, i.e., no further pore water movement out ofthe

sample was observed, the leaching procedure could begin. Back pressure

saturation would have introduced water not intrinsic to the sample; therefore, the

sample was not back pressure saturated in order to retain the in situ pore water

condition. The leaching protocol is described in Section 3.3.5.

3.3.4 Base Line Soil Sample Hand l ing

With the exception of the TP-2 sample, base line samples were removed from the

cooler immediately after the associated leaching samples were set up and were

subjected to handling similar to that used in setting up the leaching samples, as

described in Section 3.3.3, to the point of sample dimension measurements on the

permeameter. The base line sample was then removed from the permeameter, the

membrane was removed, and the soil placed on a clean metal plate. The sample

was immediately and rapidly divided into three portions: one sample for HSL

VOCs analysis by EPA Method 8240; one sample split for Total Volatile Solids

(TVS) analysis by Standard Method 209F and for Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

ana:lysis by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Method IN847; and one sample for

grain size distribution and specific gravity analyses. The base line sainple for

TP-2 was prepared for analysis prior to setup of the TP-2 leaching sample to meet

holding time limitations for chemical analysis. The base line samples for TP-6

were collected from trimmings from the leaching sample because of insufficient

recovery in the Shelby tube to provide both leaching and base line samples. The


D


VOC and TOC/TVS samples were placed in 8-ounce glass sample jars, in a manner

which minimized headspace, labeled in accordance with the provisions of the

Mottolo SAP, and placed in an insulated cooler with ice. The elapsed time from

removal of the membrane to sealing the VOC sample in the sample jar was

typically less than 1 minute. The samples were shipped to the analytical

laboratory via overnight courier, and chain of custody was documented and

maintained in accordance with the Mottolo QA/QC Plan.

3.3.5 Leach ing and Leacha te Sampl ing Protocol

Immediately following sample consolidation, the influent valve was opened and the

leaching process initiated. The flow rate, initially set before the sample was

placed in the permeameter apparatus, was adjusted to accommodate the increased

head loss through the sample. Initially, sample pore volume estimates were made

using the sample dimensions and the measured porosity of the sample tested for

physical characteristics at the start of the program. These estimated sample pore

volumes were used to select sampling times for the, initial sampling schedule of

0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 10 pore volume exchanges, as well as subsequent sampling points

selected on the basis of prior results. The actual pore volumes sampled were

calculated at the end of the test using the measured porosity for the individual

samples.

Prior to leachate sampling events, the sampling port was opened to allow the

stagnant water in the port to be flushed out. The volume of flush water required

to clear the port, typically approximately 1 ml, was measured either by the

calibrated buret or by weighing the flushed fluid on a Mettler 1200 balance. After

flushing the sampling port, a 14-milliliter (ml) glass vial was filled and capped

with a fluorocarbon resin-lined septum held in place by a screw cap. The sample

containers were labeled in accordance with the procedures established in

Section 4.5 of the Mottolo SAP.



The leachate samples were placed in insulated containers with ice and shipped by

overnight courier service to an analytical laboratory, Aquatec, Inc. of Burlington,

Vermont. Chain of custody was documented and maintained in accordance with

Section 5.0 of the Mottolo QA/QC Plan. The samples were analyzed for HSL VOCs

by EPA Methods 624. The first six leachate samples from each leaching test

sample were analyzed on an expedited basis to allow close tracking of leaching

behavior in the initial stages of the study. Data obtained from the expedited

analyses were used to select subsequent sampling times.

The volume of leachate water removed from the effluent reservoirs ofthe test

apparatus to prevent their overflow was measured and recorded. The leachate

volume records for the individual soil samples, which also included volumes

sampled and flushed, were used with the individual sample porosities to calculate

the actual pore volumes collected in the individual leachate samples. The leachate

volume records for the leaching samples are presented in Attachment B.

The leaching flow rate was checked periodically throughout the study. At the

onset of the test, it was adjusted until equilibrium was achieved at the desired .

flow rate and, subsequently, it was checked on a daily basis, excluding weekends.

If the flow rate for a given test system required adjustment, the influent valve was

adjusted appropriately and the flow rate re-checked after equilibrium was

achieved, generally within approximately 1 hour.

The influent reservoir water was changed approximately three times per week

with water collected from well DW-1 at the Mottolo site. On July 1, 1990, the test

pit TP-3 and TP-6 leaching specimens were shut down for approximately 1 day due

to a shortage of leaching fluid. Subsequently, additional ground water from site

was also stored in 2-liter amber glass jars to provide a reserve. The reserve water

was replaced when fresh water was brought from the site.



Two samples of leaching medium were collected from influent lines to the leaching

apparatus and analyzed for HSL VOCs by EPA Method 624 to assess possible back

diffusion of VOCs from the soil specimens. One sample was collected from the

sample TP-3 test apparatus and the other from the sample TP-3D apparatus prior

to a change of water in the influent reservoir. The samples were collected from

points immediately upstream of the leaching specimens.

3.3.6 Test Conclusion

To evaluate possible effiects ofthe test flow rates on desorption equilibria, the flow

rates for leaching specimens from test pits TP-2, TP-3, and TP-6 were reduced by a

factor of approximately five when VOCs were not detected or were detected at very

low concentrations (less than 10 ppb of total VOCs) in the leachate sample

analyses. Leaching was continued at the reduced rates until approximately

10 pore volumes were exchanged and leachate samples were collected after

exchange of an estimated 0.5, 1, 2, 5, and 10 pore volumes. When VOCs were not

detected in these leachate samples, the leaching tests were stopped. The results of

these analyses and assessment ofthe results are discussed in Section 4.3.

Samples of the confining cell water were collected from the apparatus for samples

TP-3 and TP-3D and analyzed for HSL VOCs by EPA Method 624, to assess

whether VOCs may have been transferred through the latex membrane during the

test. The results of these analyses are discussed further in Section 4.3.

The leaching specimens were removed from the apparatus, and sampled as

described in Section 3.3.4. The results ofthe soil VOC sample analyses are in

Section 4.2.



4.0 RESULTS

4.1 SOIL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

4.1.1 Base Line Soil Physical Charac ter i s t ics

A soil specimen 10.59 cm in length and 7.28 cm in diameter was cut from Shelby

tube MTL-ST-TP3-001, placed in a flexible wall triaxial permeameter, and tested

for hydraulic conductivity in accordance with ASTM Method D-2434(74). The

hydraulic conductivity determined from this test for the soil was 1.2x10"^

centimeters per second (cm/sec). Particle specific gravity was assumed to be 2.69,

and the water content, unit weight, and porosity were determined to be

13.4 percent, 137.4 pounds per cubic foot, and 0.28, respectively.

The hydraulic conductivity and porosity measured from this sample were used

with a representative field gradient, determined from RI data, to calculate a flow

rate indicative of conditions in the area from which the leaching samples were

obtained. This field flow rate was then multiplied by a scale factor to allow

modeling of a certain period of in situ flow in a shorter real-time period. The

representative field gradient was measured to be 0.14, which multiplied by the

measured hydraulic conductivity and divided by the porosity gave a field flow rate

of 6x10"^ centimeters per second.

4.1.2 Leaching Specimen Physical Charac te r i s t ics

Leaching specimens were obtained from Shelby tube samples MTL-ST-TP3-004,

MTL-ST-TP3-005, MTL-ST-TP2-002, and MTL-ST-TP6-001, referred to herein as

samples TP-3, TP-3D, TP-2, and TP-6, respectively. Sample TP-3D was a from an

area adjacent to sample TP-3, which was subjected to leaching flow at



approximately one half the test flow rate of the other three samples, as previously

described.

After completion of tbe leaching tests, the specific gravity, unit weight, porosity,

grain size distribution, and hydraulic conductivity were determined for each ofthe

tested specimens using the methods described in Section 4.1.1. The results of

these analyses are summarized in Table C-2. Grain size distribution curves of the

tested specimens are included in Attachment C.

4.2 SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS

4.2.1 Base Line Resul ts

As discussed in Section 3.3.4, base line soil samples representative of the leaching

specimens were analyzed for HSL VOCs. The compounds and concentrations

detected in these analyses are summarized in Table C-3. The results obtained

from analyses of the base line soil samples were generally consistent with

analytical results for soil samples collected from the Phase I and Phase II soil

boring programs. Samples collected from borings BE-10 and BE-11, located on the

periphery of the source area (see Figure C-2), were found to contain levels of total

VOCs in the range of approximately 30 to 70 ppb (see Table C-4). The level of

total VOCs detected iii base line sample TP-3, also located on the periphery of the

source area and in the vicinity of boring BE-10 (see Figure C-2), was

approximately 63 ppb. HSL VOCs were not detected in the base line sample from

test TP-6, which was located slightly further away and cross-gradient from the

source area. Soil collected from boring BE-13, located in the immediate vicinity of

test pit TP-6, was found to contain only a trace (approximately 2 ppb) of TCE.

Test pit TP-2 was located further downgradient from the source area, and HSL

VOCs were also not detected in the base line sample from this test pit. Boring

BE-15 was located a similar distance downgradient to that of test pit TP-2, but



more directly in the path of the ground water plume. Soil sampled from this

boring was found to contain approximately 34 ppb of total VOCs. HSL VOCs were

not detected in base line sample TP-3D, which was obtained from test pit TP-3.

Based upon its collection from an adjacent locatiori to sample TP-3 and the

observation of VOCs in leachate from sample TP-3D, it appears that VOCs were

not detected in this base line sample because of subsurface heterogeneity,

limitations in anal3îcal sample preparation, or, possibly, VOC losses during

handling in the field or laboratory.

Results of soil sample analyses for TOC and TVS are summarized in Table C-5.

TOC levels in both base line and leaching samples were tjrpically less than 0.1

percent. TVS levels were in the range of 0.5 to 0.7 percent by weight, although

TVS levels in the soil samples from test pit TP-6 were slightly higher, 0.9 to 1.2

percent by weight.

4.2.2 Pos t -Leaching Resul ts

At the conclusion of the leaching tests, samples of leached soil specimens were

analyzed for HSL VOCs as described in Section 3.3.6. HSL VOCs were not

detected in these samples.

4.3 LEACHING TEST RESULTS

4.3.1 Flow Rates

Three of the leaching test flow rates were set to model approximately 1 year of in

situ flow in 2 weeks of real time by multiplying the field flow rate of 6x10^ cm/sec

by a factor of 26 to yield an approximate test flow rate of 1.56x10'^ cm/sec. The

design volumetric flow rates were then estimated by multiplying the test flow rate

by the net cross sectional area of the individual leaching specimens and the

porosity measured in the baseline sample (see Table C-6). The fourth leaching



specimen, a duplicate of one of the other three specimens, was set up to model

approximately 1 year of in situ flow in 4 weeks, approximately half the test flow

rate used for the other leaching samples, or 7.8x10"'' cm/sec. A slower test flow

rate was used for this sample to assess potential effects of the increased flow rate

relative to field conditions on VOC desorption behavior.

One concem associated with increasing the test flow rate over the natiu-al flow

rate is that laminar flow conditions may not be maintained, i.e., the flow might

become turbulent, and that the altered flow regime may affect VOC leaching and

flushing behavior. The type of flow condition is evaluated by the dimensionless

ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces, called the Reynolds number (R .). To check

the flow condition, a R is calculated for a given set of conditions, i.e., flow of water

through a soil specimen, and compared to some critical value. Bear (1972) found

that flow conditions remained laminar in porous media up to a critical R of

approximately 1, when using dgo of the porous media as the length parameter.

A conservative approach was taken to check the model flow conditions, specifically,

the largest dgg and the highest velocity were used to calculate the model R for

comparison to the previously described critical R of 1. The calculated R^ was

9.88x10'^, which is significantly less than the critical R , indicating that laminar

conditions were maintained in the leaching specimens at the accelerated test flow

rates.

Because of variability in the physical characteristics of individual leaching

specimens, the actual leaching test flow rates varied somewhat from the nominal

test flow rates estimated on the basis of the base line soil sample characteristics.

In addition, the test flow rates were changed during the tests to assess possible

equilibrium effects on VOC desorption associated with the accelerated test flow

rates relative to field flow rates. The leaching tests can be broken down into two

primary stages on the basis of the average test flow rates. Stage 1 was the initial

test flow rate as set according to the initial calculations. These initial flow rates



are summarized in Table C-6. The Stage 2 flow rate was slower than the initial

test flow rate by a factor of five to assess possible equilibrium effects, as previously

discussed.

The actual pore volumes from which leachate samples were obtained were

calculated at the conclusion of the leaching tests using the measured bulk soil

volumes and porosities of the individual leaching specimens in conjunction with

the leachate volume records, which were maintained as discussed in Section 3.3.5.

The calculated pore volumes for samples TP-3, TP-3D, TP-2, and TP-6 were

140.2 ml, 129.6 ml, 162.3 ml, and 175.5 ml, respectively.

4.3.2 Leacha te Da ta

Tables C-7 through C-9 are summaries of the HSL VOCs and levels detected in

leachate samples collected from leaching samples TP-3, TP-3D, and TP-2,

respectively. HSL VOCs were not detected in the leachate samples from leaching

sample TP-6. In addition to the compounds listed on these tables, carbon disulfide

was periodically detected in the leachate samples from three of the four leaching

samples (TP-3, TP-3D, and TP-6), and detected concentrations generally exhibited

an increasing trend, contrary to the generally decreasing trends exhibited by the

concentrations ofthe other VOCs detected. Carbon disulfide was also detected in

both of the confining cell water samples analyzed, but it was not detected in

influent samples. Based upon these results, it is possible that the presence of

carbon disulfide was a result of biodegradation of sulfur-containing compounds

present in the leaching soil samples or that it was associated with the latex

membranes used to hold the leaching samples. Changes in the leaching test flow

rates are also shown on these tables.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368m , C-22


4.3.3 QA/QC Data

A sample of influent leaching fluid was collected from the TP-3 and TP-3D test

systems to assess whether VOCs were diffusing hydraulically upgradient of the

sample. HSL VOCs were not detected in either of the collected samples, indicating

that VOCs were not diffusing hydraulically upgradient. In addition, a distilled

water rinse of the influent reservoir of TP-6 was performed and the rinse water

analyzed in an eff'ort to assess possible sources of carbon disulfide. HSL VOCs,

were not detected in this sample.

At the conclusion of the leaching tests, samples of the confining cell fluid were

collected from the sample TP-3 and TP-3D test systems, and analyzed for VOCs in

order to estimate the mass of VOCs that may have diffused through the latex

membrane surrounding the specimens or leaked through seals or fittings. VOCs

were not detected in the collected samples, with the exception of carbon disulfide,

indicating that VOCs were not lost from the specimens to the confining cell fluid.

Trip blank samples accompanied the empty sample vials shipped from the

analytical laboratory to the leaching laboratory, and were sent back to the

analytical laboratory periodically with the collected leachate samples. VOCs were

not detected in the trip blank samples, indicating that extraneous contamination

was not introduced into the sample containers duririg shipping and handling.

4.3.4 Discussion

As discussed in Section 2.0 ofthe FS, TCE and vinyl chloride were selected as the

principal constituents of concem in site ground water. Accordingly, analysis of the

leaching study results was focused on these constituents. Results for other

constituents of concern were found to be constituent with those for TCE and vinyl

chloride.



TCE was detected in leachate from only sample TP-3 at concentrations below the

TCL of 5 ug/l. Vinyl chloride was detected in one leachate sample collected from

leaching sample TP-3D and in four leachate samples from leaching sample TP-3; it

was not detected in leachate from samples TP-2 and TP-6. In leachate from

sample TP-3D, vinyl chloride was not detected aft er exchange of approximately

two pore volumes. In TP-3 leachate sample, vinyl chloride was detected at the

TCL of 2 ug/l after exchange of approximately five pore volumes and was not

detected subsequently. These results suggest that, after removal of the VOC

source in affected former disposal area soils, the combined mechanisms of pore

water flushing and desorption by ground water flow will reduce levels of the

constituents of concern to below ground water TCLs after exchange of less than

one to five pore volumes in soils containing similar levels of residual VOCs as the

samples tested. The fact that VOCs were not observed in leachate samples

collected after the test flow rates were slowed by a factor of five may indicate that

the VOCs originally in the leaching samples were present principally in pore water

and that significant amounts of VOCs were not sorbed to the soils. This

observation is consistent with the relatively low organic carbon content of the soil

samples, tjrpically less than 0.1 percent on a weight basis. Analyses of leaching

water from influent lines and of confining cell water did not detect VOCs, with the

exception of carbon disulfide, which appeared to be unrelated to site

contamination. These data suggest that significant, losses of VOCs from the

leaching samples and leachate did not occur.

Near the conclusion of the tests, when little or no VOC contamination was being

detected in leachate samples, the test flow rates were reduced by a factor of five,

and leachates samples subsequently collected and analyzed to assess desorption

equilibrium behavior. HSL VOCs were not detected in the leachate samples

collected after the test rates were reduced, suggesting that desorption equilibria

were not significantly affected by the test flow rate. Also, VOC concentrations in

leachate samples from sample TP-3D, which was tested at a flow approximately

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824 :S4368m C-24


half that of an adjacent sample, TP-3, did not exhibit significantly different results

with regard to levels of VOCs in leachate, nor in the number of pore volume

exchanges required to desorb and flush the sample.



REFERENCES

1) American Public Health Association, et al.. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th ed., 1985.

2) Bouchard, D.C, et al., "Sorption Nonequilibrium During Solute Transport," Joumal of Contaminant Hydrology, Vol. 2, pp. 209-223, 1988.

3) Curtis, G.P., et al.,"A Natural Gradient Experiment on Solute Transport in a Sand Aquifer: 4. Sorption of Organic Solutes and its Influence on Mobihty," Water Resources Research, Vol. 22, No. 13, pp. 2059-2067, December 1986.

4) Fetter, C.W., Applied Hydrogeology, 2nd. ed., Merrill Publishing Company, Toronto, 1988, pp.397-400.

5) Freeze, R., and Cherry, J., Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliff's, New Jersey, 1979, pp. 432-434.

6) Hunt, J.R., et al., "Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Transport and Cleanup," Water Resources Research, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 1247-1269, August 1988.

7) Hutzler, N.J., et al., "Transport of Organic Compounds With Saturated Groundwater Flow: Experimental Results," Water Resomrces Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 285-295, March 1986.

8) Lee, L.S., et al., "Nonequilibrium Sorption of Organic Contaminants During Flow Through Columns of Aquifer Materials," Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 7, No. 10, pp.779-793, 1988.

9) Oliver, E.G., "Desorption of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons from Spiked and Anthropogenically Contaminated Sediments," Chemosphere, Vol. 14, No. 8, pp. 1087-1106, 1985.

10) Schwarzenbach, R.P., and Westall, J., 'Transport of Nonpolar Organic Compounds from Surface Water to Groundwater. Laboratory Sorption Studies," Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 15, No. 11, pp. 13601367, November 1981.

11) Staples, C.A., and Geiselmann, S.J., "Cosolvent Influences on Organic Solute Retardation Factors," Groundwater, Vol. 26, No.2, pp. 192-198, March-April 1988.



REFERENCES (continued)

12) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water Samples, May 1981.

13) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Determining Soil Response Action Levels Based on Potential Contaminant Migration to Ground Water: A Compendium of Examples, EPA/540/2-89/057, October 1989.

14) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Phvsical/Chemical Methods. 3rd. ed., SW-846, November 1986.

15) Wu, S., and Gschwend, P.M., "Sorption Kinetics of Hydrophobic Organic Compounds to Natural Sediments and Soils," Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 717-725, July 1986.


TABLE C-1 SOIL SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dep th (ft) Below

Sample G r o u n d S t ra tum HNu Test P i t Designat ion Date Surface Description (ppm) Recovery (in)

TP-1 Not sampled 6/12/90

TP-2 MLT-ST-TP2-001 6/12/90 5.0 Gray fine to medium 3.5 15.5 MLT-ST-TP2-002 6/12/90 5.0 sand. 19.5 MLT-ST-TP2-003 6/12/90 5.0 19.0

TP-3 MLT-ST-TP3-001 6/12/90 5.6 Gray fine to medium 40 16 MLT-ST-TP3-002 6/12/90 5.6 sand. 14 MLT-ST-TP3-003 6/12/90 5.6 12 MLT-ST-TP3-004 6/12/90 5.6 22 MLT-ST-TP3-005 6/12/90 5.6 18 MLT-ST-TP3-006 6/12/90 6.0 20

TP-4 Not sampled 6/15/90 4.0 Brown fine to medium ND sand.

TP-5 Not sampled 6/15/90 4.0 Gray fine to medium ND sand.

TP-6 MLT-ST-TP6-001 6/15/90 4.5 Gray fine to medium 10 sand.

Notes:

1) HNu screening results in parts per million (ppm) above background referenced to an isobytylene standard. 2) "-" = Sample not collected. 3) ND = Screening results at background. 4) VOCs = Volatile organic compounds.

Comments

Bedrock encountered at 6 feet. Soils unsaturated.

Ground water encountered at 4.5 feet below ground surface.

Ground water encountered at 3.3 feet below ground surface.

VOCs not detected.

VOCs not detected.

Ground water encoimtered at 3.5 feet below ground surface.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368m Page 1 of 1

TABLE C-2

SOIL SAMPLE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Length Diameter Unit Weight Water Content Hydraul ic Specimen (cm) (cm) (pcf) (%) Porosi ty Conductivi ty (cm/s)

Baseline 10.59 7.28 137.4 13.4 0.28 1.2 X 10-4

TP-3 11.67 7.33 137.2 13.5 0.28 4.8 X 10-*

TP-3D 11.86 7.29 140.5 13.4 0.26 1.3 X 10-*

TP-2 11.78 7.28 132.5 18.3 0.33 2.8 X 10-3

TP-6 12.57 7.27 123.3 11.6 0.34 2.3 X 10-

Notes: 1) Baseline sample des igna ted MTL-ST-TP3-001 1) cm = centimeters. 2) pcf = pounds per cubic foot. 3) % = percent on weight/weight basis. 4) s = seconds.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185:824:S4368m Page 1 of 1

TABLE C-3

SUMMARY OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN BASE LINE SOIL SAMPLES

Compound 'l'P-3 TP-3D TP-2 TP-6

1,2-dichloroethene (total) 10 ND(5) ND(5) ND(5)

ethylbenzene 9 ND(5) ND(5) ND(5)

toluene 11 ND(5) ND(5) ND(5)

4-methyl-2-pentanone 4J ND(IO) ND(IO) ND(IO)

total xylenes 29 ND(5) ND(5) ND(5)

Notes:

1) Concentrations in micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) or parts per billion (ppb). 2) ND(5) = compound not detected at specified detection limits. 3) J = compound present below limit of reliable quantitation, estimated concentration. 4) All other HSL VOCs not reported present at detectable levels.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185:824:S4368m Page 1 of 1

TABLE C-4 SUMMARY OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED

IN SELECTED RI SOIL SAMPLES

SOIL SAMPLE

Compound BE-10(002) BE-10(004) BE-11(002A) BE-13(003) BE-14(004) BE-15(002)

1,2-Dichloroethenes 4J ND ND ND ND ND

Chloroform 3J ND ND ND ND ND

Trichloroethene 4J 2J ND 2J ND ND

Tetrachloroethene 2J 15 ND ND ND ND

Toluene 3J ND SJ ND ND ND

Total Xylenes 7J 34 29J ND ND ND

2-Butanone ND 15 ND ND 310 ND

Ethylbenzene ND 3J 7J ND ND ND

Acetone ND ND ND ND ND 31

1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 3J

Total VOCs 33(J) 69(J) 44(J) 2J 310 34(J)

Notes:

1) Concentration units are micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) or parts per billion (ppb). 2) ND = Not detected. 3) VOCs = Volatile organic compounds. .

December 10,1990 Balsam Project 6185/824;S4368m Page 1 of 1

TABLE C-5

TOC AND TVS RESULTS FOR BASE U N E AND LEACHING

SOIL SAMPLES

Sample TOC TVS

TP-2 (B)

TP-2 (L)

TP-3(B)

TP-3 (L)

TP-3D (B)

TP-3D (L)

TP-6 (B)

TP-6 (L)

0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

0.2

<0.1

0.5

0.7

0.6

0.4

0.7

0.5

0.9

1.2

Notes:

1. TOC and TVS results in percent by weight. 2. (B) = Base line soil sample. 3. (L) = Leaching soil sample.


TABLE C-6

SUMMARY OF DESIGN AND TEST FLOW RATES AND VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATES

SAMPLES

TP-3 TP-3D TP-2 TP-6

Design Flow Rate 1.56 x 10' 7.80 X i C 1.56 X 10" 1.56 X 10- (cm/s)

Initial Test Flow 1.18 X 10" 5.46 X 10-* 1.23 X 10- 8.47 X IO-:" Rate (cm/s)

Sample Cross Sectional Area 42.2 41.7 41.6 41.5 (cm^)

Design Volumetric Flow Rate 66 33 65 65, (cm%r)

Initial Test Volumetric Flow 50 21 61 43 Rate (cm^/hr)

Notes:

1) cm/s = centimeters per second. 2) cm^ = square centimeters. ' • 3) cm^/hr = cubic centimeters per hour. 4) Test flow rates from samples TP-3, TP-2 and TP-6 were reduced by a factor of five for a second

stage of tests.


Table C-7: Summary of Compounds Detected in Sample TP-3 Leachate

Sample TP3-001 TP3-005 TP3-007 TP3-009 TP3-011 TP3-013 TP3-015 TP3-017 TP3-018 TP3-019 TP3-020 TP3-020a TP3-021 TP3-022 TP3-023

Date Collected 06/19/90 06/19/90 06/19/90 06/20/90 06/20/90 06/21/90 06/23/90 06/26/90 06/28/90 07/02/90 07/12/90 07/23/90 07/23/90 7/24/90 07/31/90

Pore Volumes 0.44 0.99 2.09 4.87 9.71 19.48 48.67 70.43 83.24 107.72 228.36 0.8 1.39 2.6 14.32

Concentration Units ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

Flow Flow

Stage 1 Stage 2

Acetone 12

2-Butanone 16 12 7

Chloroform 4

1,2-Oichloroethenes 660 390 170 66 20 3

Ethylbenzene 110 83 75 40 29 16

4-Methyl-2-pentanone 32 21 8

Trichloroethene 3 2

Toluene 430 300 180 95 54 15 3

Vinyl Chloride 19 11 4 2

Xylene (total) 280 200 180 110 83 46 10

Total VOCs 1547 1017 631 327 195 80 16

TABLE C-8

SUMMARY OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN SAMPLE TP-3D LEACHATE

Sample TP3D-001 TP3D-003 TP3D-005 TP3D-007 TP3D-009 TP3D-011 TP3D-012 TP3D-013 TP3D-014 TP3D-015

Date Collected 06/22/90 06/22/90 06/22/90 06/22/90 06/24/90 06/26/90 07/01/90 07/05/90 07/12/90 07/17/90

Pore Volumes 0.48 0.79 1.7 4.2 11 17 41 53 85 134

Concentration Units ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l • ug/l

2-Butanone

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethenes

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

Ethylbenzene

4-Methyl-2-pentanone

Tetrahydrofuran

Toluene

Vinyl Chloride

Xylene (total)

Flow

Stage 1

120

320

90

62

87

28

310

10

45

20

250

20

22

32

4

24 62 60 41

340 260 56 17

50 83 100 120

Total VOCs 592 792 450 407 216 178

TABLE C-9

SUMMARY OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN SAMPLE TP-2 LEACHATE

Sample TP2-001 TP2-002 TP2-003 TP2-004 TP2-005 TP2-006 TP2-007 TP2-008 TP2-009 TP2-010 TP2-011 TP2-012 TP2-013 TP2-014

Date Collected 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/27/90 06/29/90 07/01/90 07/05/90 07/18/90 07/18/90 07/12/90 07/20/90 7/22/90

Pore Volumes 0.39 1.06 1.61 2.83 7.28 15.63 37.3 54.8 74.5 0.44 0.76 1.76 3.76 7.03

Concentration Units. ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

Acetone

Flow

Stage 1

10

Flow

Stage 2

40 21

Chloroethane 10 6 3

1,1-Dichloroethane 440 260 180 74 10

1,2-Dichloroethenes 4 2 2

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 7 5 5 3 2

Toluene 1 2

Total VOCs 461 273 188 80 14 10 40 21

ATTACHMENT A

TEST PIT LOGS

TEST PIT FIELD LOG TEST PIT N0 ._ TP-1 A\ BAUAM PROJECT: Mottolo FS PROJECT N0 ._ i§5/e2(? ENVIRONUENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC Raymond, New Hampshire OATF 6/12/90

BALSAM ENGINEER/GEOLOGIST: CONTRACTOR Environmental D r i l l i n g GROUND ELEV. OPFRATOR Br ian Hayes TIMF STARTFn 0930

G. G a r f i e l d & F. F ied le r FQIIIPMFNT, MAKT l>j- MOHFl • Ford 555 TII^F C n U P I FTFn- ÛiO WFATHFR Clear 70 's

CAPACITY: 1 r., yH REACH: 12

FIELD BOULDER EXCAV. REMARK DEPTH STRATUM DESCRIPTION SCREENING COUNT EFFORT NO. (PPM)' NO.-SIZE

Brown, f i n e to medium SAND, l i t t l e S i l t , t race Gravel w i t h roo t M 1-A mat and p l a s t i c sheet f ragments. DRY. <1 1.2 1

1.0 M

<1 D 13-A Grayish brown, f i n e to coarse SAND, some Grave l , t race S i l t , w i t h approximately 5 - 10 % Cobbles. DRY. D

D ^ 3 . 0 —

• D D

— 4.0 — D

D

O.U <1 D

3 p. A Bottom of t e s t p i t a t 5.5 f e e t .

• D.U

7.0 - ^

— 8.0 —

, — 9.0 —

— 1 0 . 0 —

— 1 1 . 0 —

— 1 2 . 0 —

— 1 3 . 0 —

— 1 4 . 0 —

REMARKS: 1 . S o i l samples screened i n the f i e l d f o r VOCs using a HNu Pho to ion iza t ion d e t e c t o r .

2. S o i l samples co l l ec ted i n j a r s a t 1.0, 2.5 and 5 f e e t below ground su r face . 3. Backhoe r e f u s a l encountered a t 5.0 f ee t on bedrock.

TEST PIT PLAN BOULDER CLASSinCATION PROPORTIONS ABBREVIATIONS EXCAVATION USED EFFORT

h — 10 F = FINE SIZE RANGE CLASS TRACE(t.) 1-10%

M = MEDIUM E = EASY 6--18r A UTTLEO.) 10-20% mmm.

0 C = " ' ' M •» MorDERATE COARSE "

18"-36" B SOME(s.) 20-35% F-M - RNE TO MEDIUM D " DIF FICULT

>36" C AND 35-50% ro«ws/o«/Hr NORTH F-C •= RNE TO COARSE

3

TEST PIT FIELD LOG TEST PIT N 0 . _ TP-?, BALSAM P R O J E C T : M o t t o l o FS PROJECT N O . - ^185/826 # ^ ENVIRONUENTAL CONSULTANTS. I N t Raymond, New Hampshire OATF 6/12/90

BALSAM E N G I N E E R / G E O L O G I S T : C O N T R A C T O R E n v i r o n m e n t a l D r i l l i n g . GROUND ELEV. O P F R A T O R - B r i a n H a v e s . TIME STARTED: ^03°,,,,, ,

G. G a r f i e l d & F . F i e d l e r FOI I I P M F N T U A K F fr M O O F I F o r d 5 5 5 TIMF C O M P l F T F n - 1 ^ WFATHFR- C l e a r 7 0 ' s

C A P A C I T Y : 1 r . i yH R F A C H r 12

HELD BOULDER EXCAV. REMARK DEPTH STRATUM DESCRIPTION . SCREENING COUNT EFFORT NO. (PPM)' NO.-SIZE n

Dark brown, fine to medium SAND, l i t t l e S i l t , t r ace Gravel with M 2-A 1.2 heavy root mat. DRY. 0.5

— 1.0 5-A Brown, fine to medium SAND, l i t t l e Gravel, t r ace S i l t with

approximately 10% cobbles . DRY. y— 2.0 — - M 3

M L3.0 —

M 5 M

4.0 Gray, f ine to medium SAND, t race Gravel, t r ace S i l t . MOIST M\ 7

D 5 . 0 ' ^

3.5 D 1-C / C l a s s C N. / Boulder \ D

6.0 Bottom of t e s t p i t a t 6.0 f e e t . 2.5

— 7.0 —

8.0 — _

9.0 —

— 1 0 . 0 —

I 11.0 — •

12.0 —

13.0 —

—^14.0 — •

REMARKS: 1. Soil samples screened in the f i e ld for VOCs using a HNu Photoionization de t ec to r . 2. Soil samples col lected in j a r s a t depths of 0 . 5 , 5.0 and 6.0 f ee t . 3 . Ground water observed a t 4.5 f e e t . 4 . Three thin walled shelby tube sampels co l lec ted a t 5.0 f ee t . 5. TP-2 terminated a f te r c o l l e c t i o n of required number of samples.

BOULDER ClASSIFICATION TEST PIT PLAN PROPORTIONS ABBREVIATIONS EXCAVATION USED EFFORT

F = FINE SIZE RANGE CLASS TRACE(L) 1-10%

M «• MEDIUM E - EASY 6"-ier A LTTTLEO.) 10-20%

10 wmA C = "COARSE M Mor DERATE

18"-36" B S0ME(3.) 2 0 - 3 5 % F-M - RNE TO MEDIUM 0 DIF -ICULT

>36" C ANO 3 5 - 5 0 % •rrô^/rÂKT NORTH F-C " FINE TO ( :OARSE

TEST PIT FIELD LOG TEST PIT N 0 . _ TP-3 A\ BALSAM P R O J E C T : M o t t o l o FS PROJECT N O . - ^185/826 ENVIRONUENTAL CONSULTANTS. INt Raymond, New Hampshire | PATF 6/12/90

BALSAM ENGINEER/GEOLOGIST: CONTRACTOR E n v i r o n m e n t a l D r i l l i n g . GROUND ELEV. 1 OPFRATOR B r i a n Hayes TllulF <;TARTFnr 1330

G. G a r f i e l d & F . F i e d l e r FOI IIPMFNT, MAKF fr. MOOFI Ford 5 5 5 . TIMF COMPI F T F n 1630 W/FATHFR- C l e a r 7 0 ' s

CAPACITY: i c u . yd . REACH: i^ |

FIELD BOULDER EXCAV. REMARK DEPTH STRATUM DESCRIPTION . I SCREENING COUNT

EFFORT NO. (PPM)' NO. -S IZE n Brown, f i n e t o c o a r s e SAND, l i t t l e S i l t , t r a c e Grave l w i t h r o o t M 2-A 1.2 ma t . DRY.

1 n 1 .(J Y 1-C

A5 M 2n n Gray , f i n e t o medium SAND, t r a c e S i l t , t r a c e G r a v e l w i t h t i m b e r , z .U • Mp l a s t i c and wheel r i m s . MOIST. FILL.

M" n Tl o . \ j • 50 M 3

Brown, f i n e t o c o a r s e SAND, l i t t l e S i l t , l i t t l e G r a v e l w i t h s c r a p m e t a l . WET. M 3-A

— 4.0 D

Gray f i n e t o medium SAND, t r a c e S i l t , t r a c e - G r a v e l . WET. M

5.0 — M A

M — 6.0 —

40 M M

7.0 5Bottom of t e s t p i t a t 7 . 0 f e e t .

8.0 —

n - 9 . 0 —

:—10.0 ^

11.0 —

12.0 —

^ 1 3 . 0 — )

' 14.0 —

REMARKS: 1. S o i l s amples sc reened i n t h e f i e l d f o r VOCs u s i n g a HNu P h o t o i o n i z a t i o n d e t e c t o r .

2 . S o i l s amples c o l l e c t e d in j a r s a t d e p t h s of 1 . 5 , 3 . 0 and 6 .0 f e e t . 3 . Ground wa te r encoun te red a t 3 . 3 f e e t . ^ . S ix t h i n wa l l ed she lby t ube sampels o b t a i n e d from 5 . 5 f e e t t o 6 . 0 f e e t . 5 . TP-3 t e r m i n a t e d a f t e r c o l l e c t i o n of r e q u i r e d number of s a m p l e s .

TFST PIT PI AN BOULDER ClASSinCATlON ABBREVIATIONS PROPORTIONS EXCAVATION USED EFORT I 1 — 12 - H F - RNE

SIZE RANGE CLASS TRACE(L) 1-10% 28 M = MEDIUM E = EASY

^ ^ ^ 6"-16" A LTTTLECl.) 10 -20% C - COARSE M - MO J t R A T t

18"-36" B S0ME(3.) 2 0 - 3 5 % MEDIUM D - Din F-M - RNE TO •ICULT

> 3 6 ' C AND 3 5 - 5 0 % \ . r ^ , ^ f ^ NORTH F-C - FINE TO (;OARSE

TEST PIT FIELD LOG TEST PIT NO. TP-4 A BAUAM PROJECT: Mot to lo FS PROJECT NO ^165/826 ^ K ^ w \ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC Raymond, New Hampshire DATE 6/15/99

5 WOUSTKIAL WAY, SALEM. NH 03079

BALSAM ENGINEER/GEOLOGIST: C O M T R A O T O R - Environmental D r i l l i n g GROUND ELEV.. • 0 8 3 r OPFRATOR- Brian Hayes TIME STARTED:.

G. Garfield & F. Fiedler EQUIPMENT, MAKE & MODFI ; Ford 555 TIME COMPLETED: _2§32_ WFATHFR- Sunny 60s

CAPACITY: _ J cu . yd . REACH: 12_

FIELD BOULDER EXCAV. REMARK DEPTH STRATUM DESCRIPTION SCREENING COUNT EFFORT NO. (PPM)' NO.-SIZE I 0

Dark brown, fine to medium SAND, little Silt, trace Gravel with 2-A root mat. MOIST.

1.0 —

<1 2.0

Gray, fine SAND, little Silt. MOIST.

3.0 <1 Brown, fine to medium SAND, little Silt, trace Gravel with

V - iron stains. WET. Changes to gray brown at 4 feet. — 4.0

•5.0 Bottom of test pit at 5.0 feet.

•6.0 —]

•7.0

•8.0 —

•9.0 —

•10.0

•11.0 —

•12.0 —

•13.0 —

•14.0

REMARKS: 1. Soil samples screened in the field for VOCs using a HNu Photoionization detector. 2. Ground Water observed at 3.8 feet. 3. TP-4 terminated due to VOCs not being present.

TEST PIT PLAN BOULDER CUSSIFICATION PROPORTIONS . ABBREVIATIONS EXCAVATION iiSED F-FFORT f— 9 - H F " RNE

SIZE RANGE CLASS TRACE(t) 1-10% 4 M = MEDIUM E - EASY

er-ier A LTTTLEO.) 10-20% mm. 0

C = COARSE M - MODERATE 18"-36" B S0ME(3.) 20-35%

F-M - FINE TO MEDIUM D - DIFFICULT >36" . C AND 35-50%

NORTH F-C - RNE TO COARSE fORUS/tXC/PfT

TEST PIT FIELD LOG TEST PIT N 0 . _ TP-5 A\ BALSAM PROJECT: Mottolo FS PROJECT N 0 . _ $185/826 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC. Raymond, New Hampshire PATF 6/15/90

BALSAM ENGINEER/GEOLOGIST: CONTRACTOR Env i ronmen ta l D r i l l i n g GROUND ELEV. OPFRATOR B r i a n Hayes TIME STARTED: 0900

G. G a r f i e l d & F . F i e d l e r FQIIIPUFMT MAKF fr. M O D F I - Ford 555 . TIME COMPLETED: "^^^ Vl/FATHFRr Sunny 6 0 ' s

CAPACITY: 1 n , yH.RFACH: 12

DEPTH

n

— 1.0

2.0 —

^ 3 . 0 — 2 _

4.0 —

5.0 —

6.0 —

S T R A T U M D E S C R I P T I O N .

Dark brown, fine to medium SAND, l i t t l e S i l t , t r a ce Gravel with reminents of a hay ba le . MOIST.

Grayish brown, f ine to medium SAND, t r ace S i l t , t r a ce Gravel . MOIST.

Gray, fine to medium SAND, t race S i l t . WET.

Bottom of t e s t p i t a t 5.4 f ee t .

FIELD SCREENING

(PPM)'

<1

•

<1

<1

EXCAV. EFFORT

E E

E

t : E

E

E

E

E

E

E

BOULDER COUNT

NO.-SIZE

REMARK NO.

.1

2

3

7.0 —

8.0 —

9.0 —

10.0 —

11.0 —

12.0 —

13.0 —

14.0 —

REMARKS: 1. Soil samples screened in the f ie ld for VXs using

2. Ground water observed a t 3.8 fee t . I 3 . TP-5 terminated due to VOCs not being present .

a HNu Photoionizat ion de tec to r .

TEST PIT PIAN BOULDER CLASSinCATION PROPORTIONS ABBREVIATIONS EXCAVATION USED EFFORT 1 K- 12 -H F = RNE

SIZE RANGE CLASS TRACE(L) 1-10% 4 / / / / / / / / M « MEDIUM E - E^SY

6'-18" A LTTTLEO.) 10-20% ^ZT/AA///.

© C - COARSE 3ERATE M - Mor

ier-36" B SOME(s.) 20-35% F-M - RNE TO 'ICULT MEDIUM D = OlFf

>36" C ANO 35-50% P,>m«/e>»/Pa NORTH F-C - RNE TO ( :OARSE

TEST PIT FIELD LOG TEST PIT NO. TP-6 ABALSAM PROJECT: Mottolo FS PROJECT NO. 6185/826 T R S W \ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Raymond, New Hampshire DATE ^/1^/90

5 INDUSTRIAL WAY. SALEU, NH (U078

BALSAM ENGINEER/GEOLOGIST: COMTRArTOR- Environmental D r i l l i ng GROUND ELEV. OPFRATOR- Brian Hayes TIME STARTED:. 0925

G. Garfield & F. Fiedler EQUIPMENT. MAKE & MOOFI - Ford 555 TIME COMPLETED: l£30_ WFATHFR- Sunny 60 s

CAPACITT: _ J cu. yd. REACH: _ 1 L

FIELD BOULDER EXCAV. REMARK DEPTH STRATUM DESCRIPTION SCREENING COUNT EFFORT NO. (PPM)' NO.-SIZE <1 Black and dark brown, fine SAND, l i t t l e S i l t . MOIST.

Black Gravel. 1.0

<1

T<1 5+-A _Grayish brown, fine to medium SAND, trace Silt, trace Gravel.

<1 2.0

-Orangish brown, fine to coarse SAND, little Silt, trace Gravel.

3.0 Gray, fine to medium SAND, trace Silt, trace Gravel, <1

4.0 —\

5.0 —

6.0 Bottom of test pit at 5.8 feet.

7.0

• 8 .0 —

•9 .0 —

•10.0

•11.0 —

•12.0 —

•13.0 —

•14.0 —

REMARKS: 1. Soil samples screened in the field for VOCs using a HNu Photoionization detector. 2. Ground water observed at 3.5 feet. 3. TP-6 terminated after obtaining one thin walled shelby tube.

TEST PIT PLAN BOULDER CLASSIFICATION PROPORTIONS ABBREVIATIONS EXCAVATION iiSED EFFORT I f * - 20.5 F » RNE

SIZE RANGE CLASS TRACE(L) 1-10% M = MEDIUM E = EASY

6--18" A UTTLEO.) 10-20% ^ C - COARSE M «- MODERATE

18'-36" B S0ME(3.) 20-35% T © F-M - RNE TO MEDIUM D - DIFRCULT >36" C AND 35-50%

NORTH F-C " RNE TO COARSE rORUS/ENC/PtT

ATTACHMENT B

LEACHATE VOLUME RECORDS

CONSTANT- FLOW RATE LEACHABILITY TEST o o o-o to

o o o-o in

o o o -o-*•

Stage 2: o Avera ge flow rat^ = 89 ccj^hour

ô

o -c o

Ld O O

o Stage 1: (N Average fl 3w rate = 50 c c / h o u r

tage 3: /Iverage flow rate = IC c c / h o u r

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Flow Duration (Hours)

LEI BORING: M T L - S T - T P 3 - 0 0 4 MOTTOLO LEACHABILirr STUDY SPECIMEN: 1 PROJECT 90221 August 16. 1990 Structure: Undisturbed tube sample Initial water content = 13.52S5, density = 137.22 pcf _ GEI Consultants. Inc. Specific Gravity = 2.699. Volume of Voids = 140.2 cm Winchester Massachusetts

CONSTANT FLOW RATE LEACHABILITY TEST o o o o

O O o — Stage 3: m - * CN Averog e flow rat J = 16 c : / h o u r

O . - - ' ' ^ O / - O

/ • /Stage

Average flow rate = 52 CC / h o u r * /

-•

o Stage 1: ^ /Average •low rate ^ = 22 c c / l lour^^ ' ' ' * ' ^

o o _ j • . ^ ^ ' ' ^ o ^

\ ' 1 1 1 1 . 1 I 1 1 1

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Flow Duration (Hours)

LE2 BORING: M T L - S T - T P 3 - 0 0 5 MOTTOLO LEACHABILITY STUDY SPECIMEN: 1 PROJECT 90221 August 20, 1990 Structure: Undisturbed tube sample Initial water content = 13,39s8. density = 140.54 pcf GEI Consultants, Inc. Specific Gravity = 2 . 6 9 1 , Volume of Voids =• 129.6 cm^ Winchester Massachusetts

Eff

lue

nt

(cc)

)0

0 1

50

00

1

CONSTANT FLOW RATE LEACHABILIIY TEST o o o o

o o . o — m f ^ ^ ^ o o o

O O

St age 2: Av srage flow rote •• = 75 c c / h o u r ^ - ' o — y ^

c o o 5/-^

s§Stage 1:

u Average flow ra :e = 61 c c / h o u i o * . y^^ o o — o

s_ O 1 Stage 3:

— • — Average flow -ate = 9 cc /hou r . * *

o — r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l - l 1 1 C) 100 200 300 400 500 600

Flow Duration (Hours)

BORING: M T L - S T - T P 2 - 0 0 2 _ MOTTOLO LEACHABILITT STUDY SPECIMEN: • PROJECT 90221 August 16. 1990 Structure: Undisturbed tube sample Initial wateir content = 18.31$c, density = 132.5 pcf GEI Consultants, Inc. Specific G ravity =• 2.682, Volume of Voids = 162.3 cm^ Winchester Massachusetts

CONSTANT FLOW RATE LEACHABILITY TEST o o o-o rO

O O O — m CN

O O o-O OJ Stage 2:

Average flow rate = 61 c c / h o u r o

J-. o C lO 15 .

. UJ

Stage 1:

Stage 3: Average flow 'ate = 15.5 c c / lour

200 Flow

300

Duration (Hours) 400 500 600

BORING: SPECIMEN:

M T L - S T - T P 6 - 0 0 1 1

Structure: Undisturbed tube sample Initial water content = 11.5655, density = 123.3 pcf Specific Gravity = 2.670, Volume of Voids = 175.5 cm^

LE4 MOTTOLO LEACHABILITY STUDY

PROJECT 90221 August 17. 1990

GEI Consultants, Inc. Winchester Massachusetts

ATTACHMENT C

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS

GRAIN SIZE niSTRIEUTION TEST REPORT

— " T — T rr iT"" :T r" r r r r j : | rrr 1 i ! ! I •44:. i j ! i 1

i • • - : M L.J. -— ' i _ ! —- i-i 4-- '

-"' r1

!! ii 7-

i 1 ; ! i 1r

i 1 f : li-. 1; i I ... 80 • j Ji 1 : : • ; T •

70

cc . _ s1 . — —\ 1- :

^ ^ 50 K I

1 LU

•

\ :

\30

20 '. j i: i

10 •

\ 0 200 100 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm

y. +3^ y. GRAVEL y. SAND y. FINES O 0.0 6.5 79.: 14.0

LL PI ^ l D60 I'50 I>30 KlS Dl0 C,

1.08 0.29 0. 17 0. 100 0.075;

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AASHTO uses Silty sand

Pr-eject No.: 90221 Remarks: Project: Mottolo Leachability

O Location: MTL-ST-TP2-002

|Dc.,te: .August 2, 1990

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIOtl TEST REPORT

GEI CONSULTANTS, INC., WINCHESTER, M li F i g ur e H o .

i GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT

l o u ,_.r.. i " ^TTT"" — \ — ' T l • ^^ I

rA I 1 —.— •

I i • ^ • i i ;

: ; ! • :•?o .. . y — 1 ' V ^ 1 1 !""

1 \ , • . '••

8 0 • . ;

1 ; j

I ' ^ i 1

7Q .i ;

LU c-kf

»—* LL

• ' .

H; 5 0 LU

o h ui 4 0

3 0 1:

2 0

\: : '.10 H^ - . "TJ >a. " ^ 0

2 0 0 100 1 0 . 0 1 .0 0 . 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 1 GRAIN SIZE mm

y. + 3 ' y. GRAVEL y. SAND y. F INES 0 . 0 0 . 0 50 .6 4 9 . 4

LL P I DsR1^5 D60 D30 D l 5 D10 Cu

o 0 . 16 0.09 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 4 0 0 . 0 1 2 0 0 . 0 0 6 S -54 1 3 . 4

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AASHTOuses O Silty sand iM

Project No.: 90221 jRemarks: Project: Mottolo Leachability Sample +rom LE2 io Location: MTL-ST-TP3-0e5

test spec imen

Date: August 10, 1990

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT

GEI CONSULTANTS, INC., WINCHESTER, MA jj Figure Ho..


... ^ r• r- r'-X 'n :.) • 5. 1 - ' 1 0 U

9 0

se :

i

I

^ „ _

' : : • :

T"1 ' " "

• T • •

•

N i

:

•

•

]

S

: 1

• l i ! J i I ! i : ; - ! • •

s ! T - . •• !

f] ! 1I I I! 1

- i

•

! i

r!!

i

1 1

I I

i l 1 i 1

1 i

...

i i

:

70 ••

: az LU 6 0 - \ U- ; j -iz: LU

£

5 0

40

3 0

2 0

10

;

\

:

'•

.

j

:

I

\

\ \

;

1

K >S

V ^ kVN

h

i r. : - s 3« «*t)i : > > -«o0

200 100 10.0 1.0 0. 1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm

y. +3' y. GRAVEL y. SAND y. FINES 0.0 0.2 50.6 49.2

LL PI D-r1^5 % 0 D50 '50 Dl5 I'10 c., 0.20 0. 10 0.0s 0.033 0.010s 0.006S 1.71 14.0o

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AASHTOuses o Silty sand SM

Project No.: 90221 Remarks: Project: Mottolo Leachability

O Location: MTL-ST-TP-03-004



GEI CONSULTANTS, INC., WINCHESTER, MA Figure Ho.

GRAIN S IZ E DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT r

.100

90

80

!|I;\ i l i i

! I ' i ! 1 ! i ! 1 • !

" """"1: i

- • • : - ^

••; v T :

- } ' •

s s

1 i: i

• - - Is

i ? i11

i I 1 I \~ ' : 1!(

_

'is

-

i i li

iJ.i... ] ; ; i . 1

' : 1

i : i i 1 ;

1 r I

i „ . !

1

I

!

70

i '

•

•

i 'N^ V^ i I I

UJ 6W *—* Lu

.1 i

:

" \ s VL, ^V \ i

i i

i-i :l

I 1- 5 0 \ ; LU

o : ]

S40 : D-

: ;\; ; ;30 -

20 i> S V:

1 Nn. ^

10 'G* :> •<> 0 "

200 100 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.01 0 .001 GRAIN SIZE - mm

y. + Z " y. GRAVEL y. SAND y FINES C- 0.0 8.5 68.1 23.4

LL P I ifes D60 D50 D30 Dl5 D10 Cc c,. o 2.37 0.26 0.16 0.091 0.0427 0.0226 1.43 11 .4

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

o Silty sand j SM

i

i Project No.: 90221 :| Remarks: Project: Mottolo Leachability O Location: MTL-ST-TP6-001



1 GEI CONSULTANTS, INC., WINCHESTER, f-"H "F 1 cIJ.r-e r \ o . ....

BACKHOE ARM

ADAPTOR

SHELBY TUBE . . o - •

.•.•.o-.°-/ 0 I O

DRIVEN DRIVE END (TIP) END (BUTT)

• • • o EXCAVATtQK •

FACE. . . . .O .

Q. s^/.'p/.y.'&.y.'' O

ifl^Mlf: K.J. QUINN &

COMPANY. INC. . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, WC WE SHELBY TUBE

S INDUSTRIAL WAY, SALEU, NH 03079 ATTACHED TO BACKHOE BUCKET

0A1E: BRXBT PROJECTi

MOTTdLO 12 /7 /90 T.E.S. G.M.G. RI/FS SOME FILE NOi APPftOVHk HOUKNOs Ut6]iki Hi "

N.T.S. FS47 J.A.G. C-3 6185/826

PRESSURE GAGE (TYPICAL)

cc PRESSURE REGULATOR < (TYPICAL)

Q LU in CO UJ Q :

CL

O

o

LEACHING MEDIUM

RESERVOIR

BACK PRESSURE

^

AIR/WATER INTERFACE (TYPICAL)

PRECISE CONTROL ONE-WAY

VALVE 14-MLGLASS VIAL

LEACHATE COLLECTION

VESSEL

A iALSA M ° ^ . J QUINN &

COMPANY INC.

^ B S w \ EMV1R0NWENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC

B INOUSTKIAL WAY, SALEK NH 03079

TT^ LEACHING

STUDY APPARATUS

SCHEMATIC

DATE

12/7/90 DRAWN BY

F.R.F. CHECKED

G.M.G. PROJECT

MOTTOLO RI/FS

SCALE HLE N a APPROVED FIGURE N a PROJECT N a

N.T.S. 6185A J.A.G. C-4 6185/826

APPENDIX D

REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS

REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY LIST FOR SOURCE CONTROL

MOTTOLO SUPERFUND SITE

RESPONSE CATEGORY REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

NO ACTION Site Security

Monitoring

CONTAINMENT Capping - Single or Multi-Layer Systems

Surficial Stabilization or Sealing

Bottom Seal Grouting

Installation of security measures to inhibit access to site or contaminated areas, e.g., fencing with locking access.

Performance of periodic monitoring of appropriate environmental media, e.g., ground water, surface water, soil, air.

Placement of low permeability cover to limit direct contact with wastes or contaminated soils and to limit precipitation infiltration. Multi-layer systems incorporate drainage layer(s), weathering layer(s), gas migration layer(s), and impermeable layer(s) with grading, re-vegetation, and other runon/runoff controls.

Sealing of surficial sediments using grouts, chemical sealants, or paving techniques (e.g., asphalt or cement) to form a low permeability cover over wastes or contaminated soils.

Construction of a horizontal barrier beneath wastes or contaminated soils using steam and grout injection to limit contact of waste constituents with ground water.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:s4386L

REMEDLy;. TECHNOLOGY LIST FOR SOURCE CONTROL



Dewatering

IN SITU TREATMENT PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL:

Aeration

Soil Flushing

Vapor or Vacuum Extraction

Lowering the water table beneath contaminated areas by diversion (e.g., slurry wall), interception (e.g., drainage trench), or extraction, thereby reducing physical contact of the ground water with contaminated soils or wastes. Treatment of extracted ground water may be required.

Mechanical mixing of soils with tilling or excavation equipment to promote volatilization of contaminants, or to improve contact of air with contaminated soils to enhance biodegradation processes.

Introduction of solvents that selectively dissolve wastes and recovery of the solvent containing dissolved wastes firom the ground for treatment and disposal. When water is the solvent, selected additives (e.g., acids, bases, surfactants, and chelating agents) may be used to enhance removal of waste constituents.

Removal of contaminants in the vapor phase by vacuum extraction of air or gases present in waste or soil interstices.





IN SITU TREATMENT Vegetational Uptake (continued)

Reduction of Soil Vapor Pore Volume

Aerobic Biodegradation

Enzymatic Degradation

Augmentation

Uptake and translocation of ionized contaminants fi"om soils to growing plants followed by harvesting and disposal of the plants, generally requiring a number of growth and harvesting cycles.

Controls rate of waste constituent volatilization by reducing air-filled pore space in soils, typically through compaction and addition of water. Generally intended for use in conjunction with other in situ treatment techniques.

Detoxification or decomposition of waste constituents by indigenous microbial populations. May involve adjustment of various soil characteristics (e.g., oxygen content, pH, moisture content).

Degradation of wastes by injection of synthetic purified enzymes into the ground, which decompose or transform waste constituents.

Addition of exogenously grown microorganisms to soils to enhance degradation of waste constituents by native microbial populations.




RESPONSE CATEGORY REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

IN SITU TREATMENT (continued)

Neutralization

Oxidation

Reduction

Hydrolysis

In Situ Heating

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

Treatment of wastes by adjustment of corrosive properties through addition of acids or bases to alter pH.

Addition of oxidizing agents (e.g., hydrogen peroxide, ozone, hypochlorite) to the ground to degrade waste constituents.

Addition of reducing agents (e.g., sodium borohydride and catalyzed metal powders) to the ground to immobilize or degrade waste constituents.

Degradation of waste constituents typically by displacement of functional groups by water or hydroxyl ion. Preference is for base-catalyzed hydroloysis because acid catalysis can result in mobilization of trace metals.

Destruction or mobilization of contaminants (typically, volatile organic compounds) through thermal decomposition, vaporization, or distillation using heat generated by steam injection or radio wave excitation of conductors placed on or in the ground. Temperatures range from 200 to 400 °F.





IN SITU TREATMENT Dehalogenation (continued)

Addition of Proton Donors

Attenuation

IMMOBILIZATION:

Soil Cooling

Artificial Ground Freezing

Detoxification of wastes by chemical treatment with reagents, such as alkali metals and polyethylene glycols, that remove halogens (e.g., chlorine, bromine). Dechlorination of PCBs is an example.

Enhancement of photodegradation of soil contaminants by addition of proton donor materials to the soil.

Mixing of contaminated soil or wastes with clean soil to reduce concentrations of hazardous constituents to acceptable levels.

Reduction of volatilization by cooling of surface soils by application of solid or liquid carbon dioxide, liquid nitrogen, or ice.

Stabilization of wastes by freezing the ground using a refrigeration system circulating coolant through coils installed in the ground.




RESPONSE CATE(X)RY

IN SITU TREATMENT (continued)

REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

Vitrification

Thermoset Fixatives and Polymerization

Cement and Silicate Based Fixatives and Grouting

Thermoplastic Fixation

Surface Macro-encapsulation

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

Transformation of wastes into a molten glass or crystalline form by passing electric current through electrodes installed in the ground to obtain temperatures above 2,400 to 2,900 "F.

Mixing of wastes with organic fixatives followed by heating to form a solid mass, which is then containerized.

Fixation of wastes by formation of hydration products of the wastes in the interstices of silicate matrices. Fixatives include such materials as Portland cement and lime.

Mixing of wastes with heated organic fixatives (e.g., asphalt, paraffin, polyethylene, polypropylene) and cooling of the product in containers. Containerization is necessary because thermoplastic materials can re-liquify if heated.

Sealing stabilized or microencapsulated wastes (i.e., monolithic mass) with an organic coating (e.g., polyethylene, vinyl).


REMEDML TECHNOLOGY LIST FOR SOURCE CONTROL



REMOVAL Excavation/Dredging

ON-SITE STORAGE Waste Pile

Storage Vault

Storage Bins

Storage Bags

Tank/Drum Storage

Physical removal of contaminated wastes,soils or sediments using various types of excavating or dredging equipment, such a:s backhoes, bulldozers, draglines, etc.

Storage of waste piles on a structurally sound base covered with an impermeable liner. Runon/runofF controls, protection fi*om wind dispersion, ultraviolet light and precipitation and a ventilation and leachate collection system are generally provided.

Storage of waste in reinforced concrete vaults with an impermeable flexible cover or fixed roof and possibly a liner and leachate collection system.

Storage of wastes in roll off containers which may be lined with impermeable liners.

Storage of wastes in thick polyethylene bags.

Storage of wastes in tanks or drums placed on a diked platform, which may be covered with an impermeable liner and cover structure.




RESPONSE CATEGORY

ON-SITE TREATMENT

REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL:

Classification

Screens and Sieves

Classifiers

Filtration

Granular Filtration/ Drying Beds

Vacuum Filtration

Pressure Filtration

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

Separation of different sized particles by filtration through screens or sieves of appropriate mesh sizes.

Separation of particles from liquid streams using sedimentation tanks, cyclones, or spiral classifiers.

Physical separation of solids from liquids by passage through porous media (e.g., anthracite coal or sand) in a contained unit or open bed.

Physical separation of solids from liquids in which liquids are drawn under vacuum through permeable material that retains the solids.

Physical separation of solids from liquids in which the liquids are forced under pressure through permeable material that retains the solids.





ON-SITE TREATMENT Carbon Adsorption (continued)

Evaporation

Low Temperature Thermal Stripping

Vapor or Vacuum Extraction

Mechanical Aeration

Removal of waste constituents by contact with activated carbon.

Use of heat energy to vaporize volatile waste constituents which have low vapor pressures.

Heating of affected soils to temperatures above 350 °F. with countercurrent air flow to remove volatile organic compounds.

Removal of contaminants in the vapor phase by passive release or vacuum extraction of air or gases present in waste or soil interstices. Involves placement of waste or soil in piles with perforated pipe laid internally and exposed to air or connected to a vacuum system.

Forcing contact of waste constituents with affinities for the vapor phase with ambient air by mechanical mixing to induce volatilization.





ON-SITE TREATMENT Solvent Extraction Mixing of soils or wastes with solvents that selectively (continued) dissolve waste constituents and separation and recovery of

the solvent containing dissolved constituents for treatment and disposal. When water is the solvent, selected additives (e.g., acids, bases, surfactants, and chelating agents) may be used to enhance removal of waste constituents.

Supercritical Extraction Similar to. solvent extraction, but performed at elevated temperatures and pressures to facilitate separation of solvent from soil.

Addition of Agricultural Mechanical mixing of wastes with agricultural materials Products and By (e.g., animal manure, straw, sawdust, peanut hulls) to products absorb waste constituents.

Anaerobic Digestion Bacterial digestion and stabilization of wastes in an atmosphere void of oxygen.

Composting Degradation of wastes by mixing with large quantities of organic matter which decomposes and emits heat thereby promoting aerobic thermophylic digestion of waste constituents by indigenous microorganisms.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:s4386L 10




ON-SITE TREATMENT Landfarming (continued)

Enzymatic Degradation

Neutralization

Oxidation

Reduction

Hydrolysis

Biodegradation of wastes by applying them to the land via spray irrigation with the addition of nutrients, oxygen, acids and bases, heat and acclimated microorganisms or purified enzymes, as appropriate.

Degradation of waste constituents by addition of synthetic purified enzymes, which decompose or transform waste constituents.

Treatment of wastes by adjustment of corrosive properties through addition of acids or bases to alter pH.

Addition of oxidizing agents (e.g., hydrogen peroxide, ozone, hypochlorite) to degrade waste constituents.

Addition of reducing agents (e.g., sodium borohydride and catalyzed metal powders) to degrade waste constituents, typically by lowering oxidation states.

Degradation of waste constituents typically by displacement of functional groups by water or hydroxyl ion. Preference is for base-catalyzed hydroloysis because acid catalysis can result in mobilization of trace metals.

December 10, 1990 Balsam ^Project 6185/824:s4386L 11

REMEDLVL TECHNOLOGY LIST FOR SOURCE CONTROL



ON-SITE TREATMENT Catalytic Oxidation (continued)

Dehalogenation

IMMOBILIZATION:

Chemical Fixation

Cement and Silicate Based Fixatives and Grouting

Thermoplastic Fixation

Detoxification of wastes through oxidation by ozone, hydrogen peroxide, or other oxidant catalyzed by ultraviolet light.

Detoxification of wastes by chemical treatment with reagents, such as alkali metals and polyethylene glycol, that remove halogens (e.g., chlorine, bromine). Dechlorination of PCBs is an example.

Stabilization of wastes by chemical fixation in soil. Fixative agent reacts with waste constituents and chemically binds them to soil.

Fixation of wastes by formation of hydration products of the wastes in the interstices of silicate matrices. Fixatives include such materials as Portland cement and lime.

Mixing of wastes with heated organic fixatives (e.g., asphalt, paraffin, polyethylene, polypropylene) and cooling of the product in containers. Containerization is necessary because thermoplastic materials can re-liquify if heated.





ON-SITE TREATMENT (continued)

Thermoset Fixatives and Polymerization

Surface Macro-encapsulation

Absorbents

Vitrification

THERMAL:

Rotary Kiln

Multiple Hearth Incineration

Mixing of wastes with organic fixatives followed by heating to form a solid mass, which is then containerized. Thermoset materials cannot re-liquify if heated.

Sealing stabilized wastes (i.e., monolithic mass) with an organic coating (e.g., asphalt, polyethylene, vinyl).

Improvement of waste handling characteristics by addition of bulking agents (e.g., fly ash, kiln dust, vermiculite) to reduce free water content.

Transformation of wastes into a molten glass or crystalline form by passing electric current through electrodes inserted in the wastes to obtain temperatures above 2,900 °F.

Destruction of wastes in a rotating, cylindrical refractory lined vessel by combustion at temperatures of 1,500 to 3,000 "F.

Destruction of wastes in a refractory lined steel shell with zones of increasingly higher combustion temperatures between 1,400 and 1,800 "F.





ON-SITE TREATMENT High Temperature Fluid (continued) Wall

Infrared Incineration

Fluidized Bed

Molten Glass

Molten Salt

Destruction of wastes in a reactor consisting of a porous core surrounded on the outside by carbon electrodes, a heat shield, insulation, and a double wall cooling jacket and surrounded on the inside by an inert gas (fluid wall). Combustion temperatures are between 4,000 and 5,000 °F.

Destruction of wastes by passing them under infrared heating elements in a ceramic insulated furnace (operating temperatures of 500 to 1,850 °F.), sometimes fitted with an afterburner for combustion of gases (operating temperatures of approximately 2,300 °F.).

Destruction of wastes by injection into fluidized bed of inert media (e.g., sand expanded by forced air) and combustion at temperatures of 1,300 to 2,100 "F.

Destruction of wastes by injection onto molten glass and resulting combustion at temperatures of 1,800 to 2,200 °F. Ash is entrained in glass.

Destruction of wastes by contacting with molten salt at temperatures of 1,000 to 1,200 °F. in an insulated reactor. Ash is incorporated in molten salt bath.


REMEDL\L TECHNOLOGY LIST FOR SOURCE CONTROL



ON-SITE TREATMENT PjTolysis (continued)

Advanced Electric Reactor

Plasma Arc

Circulating Bed Combustor

Supercritical Water Oxidation

Thermal conversion of organic waste constituents into solid, liquid, and gaseous compounds in an oxygen-deficient environment at temperatures of 900 to 1,600 "F. and subsequent incineration of volatile (gaseous) pyrolysis products at 1,800 to 3,000 °F. in a second stage fume incinerator.

Destruction of finely divided wastes by pyrolysis at approximately 4,000 °F. in an electrically heated fluid wall reactor.

Destruction of wastes through pyrolysis by contact with ultraviolet radiation emitted by decaying gas plasma at approximately 10,000 °F.

Similar to fluidized bed except high turbulence within unit provides greater destruction efficiency with more compact unit. Operating temperatures up to 1,500 to 1,600 °F.

Destruction of aqueous wastes by mixing with compressed air and heating to temperatures above 740 °F. at pressures of 3,200 to 3,600 psi. At these conditions, contaminants insoluble in water become soluble and vice versa, resulting in precipitation of inorganic materials and dissolution and destruction of organic materials.





ON-SITE DISPOSAL

OFF-SITE TREATMENT

RCRA Landfill

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL:

RCRA Hazardous Waste Treatment/Storage/ Disposal Facility

Dehalogenation

THERMAL:

Wet Air Oxidation

Placement of wastes in a contained cell or fill area designed in accordance with RCRA 40 CFR 264 regulations for landfill design.

Repackaging and treatment or disposal of wastes at off-site permitted hazardous waste facilities.

Detoxification of wastes by chemical treatment with reagents, such as sodium metal or polyethylene glycols, that remove halogens (e.g., chlorine, bromine). Dechlorination of PCBs is an example.

Mixing of aqueous wastes with compressed air and heating them to temperatures of 350 to 650 °F. at pressures of 300 to 3,000 psi to enhance degradation via oxidation.





OFF-SITE TREATMENT (continued)

Supercritical Water Oxidation

Rotary Kiln

Cement, Lime and Aggregate Kiln Coincineration

Multiple Hearth Incineration

High Temperature Fluid Wall

Destruction of aqueous wastes by mixing with compressed air and heating to temperatures above 740 °F. at pressures of 3,200 to 3,600 psi. At these conditions, contaminants insoluble in water become soluble and vice versa, resulting in precipitation of inorganic materials and dissolution and destruction of organic materials.

Destruction of wastes in a rotating, cylindrical refractory lined vessel by combustion at temperatures of 1,500 to 3,000 °F.

Destruction of wastes in kilns by countercurrent injection to material feed as an auxiliary fuel. Combustion is typically at temperatures of 2,500 to 2,900 °F.

Destruction of wastes in a refractory lined steel shell with zones of increasingly higher combustion temperatures between 600 and 1,000 " F.

Destruction of wastes in a reactor consisting of a porous core surrounded on the outside by carbon electrodes, a heat shield, insulation, and a double wall cooling jacket and surrounded on the inside by an inert gas (fluid wall). Combustion temperatures are between 4,000 and 5,000 °F.





OFF-SITE TREATMENT Infrared Incineration (continued)

Fluidized Bed

Molten Glass

Molten Salt

Pyrolysis

Destruction of wastes by passing them under infrared heating elements in a ceramic insulated fumace, sometimes fitted with an afterburner for combustion of gases.

Destruction of wastes by injection into fluidized bed of inert media (e.g., sand expanded by forced air) and combustion at temperatures of 1,300 to 2,100 °F.

Destruction of wastes by injection onto molten glass and resulting combustion at temperatures of 1,800 to 2,200 "F. Ash is entrained in glass.

Destruction of wastes by contacting with molten salt at temperatures of 1,000 to 1,200 "F. in an insulated reactor. Ash is incorporated in molten salt bath.

Thermal conversion of organic waste constituents into solid, liquid, and gaseous compounds in an oxygen-deficient environment at temperatures of 900 to 1,600 °F. and subsequent incineration of volatile (gaseous) pyrolysis products at 1,800 to 3,000 °F. in a second stage fume incinerator.





OFF-SITE TREATMENT (continued)

OFF-SITE DISPOSAL

Advanced Electric Reactor

Plasma Arc

Circulating Bed Combustor

RCRA Landfill

Resource Recovery Facility

Asphalt Batch Plant

Destruction of finely divided wastes by pyrolysis at approximately 4,000 "F. in an electrically heated fluid wall reactor.

Destruction of wastes through pjrrolysis by contact with ultraviolet radiation emitted by decaying gas plasma at approximately 10,000 °F.

Similar to fluidized bed except high turbulence within unit provides greater destruction efficiency with more compact unit.

Transport of wastes off-site to a RCRA-permitted landfill.

Processing of wastes at an off-site facility to extract reusable materials.

Destruction, fixation, or stabilization of wastes in asphalt matrix by incorporation of wastes or contaminated soil in asphalt batching process.


APPENDKE

EVALUATION OF GROUND WATER CLEANUP TIMES


A P P E N D K E

EVALUATION OF GROUND WATER CLEANUP TIMES MOTTOLO SUPERFUND SITE RAYMOND, NEW HAMPSHIRE

1.0 SOIL CONDITIONS

During the Remedial Investigation (RI), efforts to identify and characterize the

sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the Mottolo site included a review

of historical data, a soil gas and shallow ground water headspace screening survey,

advancement and sampling of soil borings, field screening of surface and

subsurface soils, and laboratory analyses of boring soil samples. Information

obtained from these activities indicates that soils heavily impacted by VOCs

released as a result of activities in the former disposal area are limited to a

relatively small area. In this area, and coincidental with the location of borings

BE-3, BE-4 and BE-9 (see Figure E-1), levels of total VOCs in the heavily impacted

unsaturated and saturated soils appear to be on the order of tens to hundreds of

thousands of parts per billion (ppb) on a weight basis, based upon consideration of

laboratory analytical, soil gas, and soil screening data. These findings are

consistent with the RI report, which concluded that the former disposal area

contained areas of very localized and highly contaminated soils due to the nature

of non-catastrophic releases from some of the drums bimed in the area. As

evidenced by other data, such as a soil sample from boring BE-2 (see Figure E-1),

also advanced within the former disposal area, some soils within the area have'

lower levels of total VOCs ranging between hundreds and thousands of ppb. Such

data further support conclusions regarding the dispersed, and thus limited, areal

extent of soils that have been directly and heavily impacted by VOC releases.

At locations toward the edges of this heavily impacted area, and coincidental with

the location of borings BE-10, BE-13 and BE-14, soil gas, field screening, and

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368V E-1


laboratory analytical data indicate that VOC levels in soils are significantly lower,

on the order of tens to hiindreds of ppb. Laboratory soil analytical data showed

some variability, although detected levels were within this total VOC

concentration range, which could be expected due to soils heterogeneity and

variable soils organic carbon content. These soil VOC levels correlated with field

headspace analysis of samples collected from these same borings showed total VOC

sample headspace levels of hundreds of parts per million (ppm) on a volume basis.

The hydrogeologic flow regime described in the RI report, as well as site ground

water quality data indicate adyective transport of high levels (i.e., scores of

thousands of ppb) VOCs through these soils by grotmd water. Thus, although

impacted by elevated levels of VOCs in ground water, the soils adjacent to and

downgradient of the former disposal area appear to be only minimally impacted by

the VOCs with total VOC concentration in the tens and hundreds of ppb. As

discussed in Appendix C, the leaching study report, soils data collected during that

program are also consistent with this conclusion in that the total VOC levels

detected in soil samples from test pits excavated in close proximity to but

downgradient of the former disposal area ranged from low ppb to scores of ppb.

Farther downgradient from the former disposal area soiirce soils, available data

indicate that VOC levels in soils are on the order of tens of ppb. Headspace

analysis of samples from boring BE-15 showed total VOC concentrations of

approximately 300 ppm in headspace, whereas laboratory analytical data for a

saturated soil sample from this same boring was reported to contain less than

40 ppb total VOCs. Farther still downgradient from the former disposal area, at

well 0W-2SR, headspace analyses of soil samples from the well boring were in the

range of 10 to 50 ppm, significantly less than the headspace levels observed in

samples from boring BE-15 located approximately 30 feet upgradient. In

accordance with this apparent trend of decreasing soil and headspace VOC

concentrations as well as soil gas survey data, it is expected that levels of VOCs in

soil in the Brook A valley are on the order of 10 ppb or less.



As stated above, laboratory analyses and field screening of soil samples collected

during the soil leaching study described in Appendix C yielded results consistent

with the general trend of VOC distribution previously discussed. As discussed in

Section 4.2 of Appendix C, sample TP-3 was collected from a location immediately

downgradient of the former disposal area source and in the general vicinity of

boring BE-10. The level of total VOCs detected in this sample was consistent with

the levels detected in soil samples from boring BE-10 and other borings advanced

on the periphery of the source area. Sample TP-3 was collected from a location

selected based upon data from prior investigation activities to be representative of

more heavily impacted non-source area soils. Accordingly, results for this sample

are expected to be representative of the higher end of the range of residual VOC

levels in downgradient non-source area soils, i.e., soils which were not directly

impacted by VOC release but rather by ground water containing dissolved VOCs.

Soils from areas farther downgradient of the former disposal area are expected to

contain lower levels of VOCs than those observed in sample TP-3 and samples

from borings similarly located in the immediate vicinity of the source area soils.

This assessment is consistent with the fact that VOCs were not detected in soil

samples collected from test pits TP-2 and TP-6, which were located farther

downgradient from the source area and more toward the edge of the grotmd water

plume than test pit TP-3.

In the southem boundary area, the area of VOC-affected soils appears very limited

in nature. Both soil gas sampling and field screening of soil samples collected

from aroimd a concrete pad previously used for waste material drum storage did

not indicate the presence of VOCs in soils above trace levels. Furthermore, ground

water quality data from wells MW-8S, MW-21S and MW-20S show the extent of

VOCs in overburden ground water emanating from this source to be limited to an

area in close proximity to and downgradient of the concrete pad. Based on these

and other data, the RI report concluded that the area of VOC-affected soils was



highly localized and most probably existing beneath or immediately adjacent to the

concrete slab.

The remedial altematives proposed for the Mottolo site are designed to isolate or

treat heavily impacted source area soils, in effect eliminating releases from those

soils. The soil treatment altematives considered for the site are expected to

remove 99 percent or more of the VOCs present. Treatment to this level will

reduce the levels of VOCs present in the heavily impacted portion of the source

area from on the order of thousands of ppb to the order of tens of ppb, with

concomitant reductions in soil VOC levels in downgradient areas as releases of

VOCs from the source area decline. These predicted post-remedial total VOC soil

concentrations are well below the soil target clean up levels (TCLs) presented in

Section 2.0 of the feasibility study (FS) report. Accordingly, after source isolation

or treatment, levels of VOCs in saturated soils in the zone between the

downgradient edge of the source area and the top of the valley wall near well

0W-2SR (Zone A) should be similar to or lower than the levels observed in the soil

samples from test pit TP-3 and boring BE-15, approximately 10 to 100 ppb,

assuming no treatment or containment of these soils. After remediation, saturated

soil VOC concentrations in the vicinity of well 0W-2SR and the zone between the

top and bottom of the valley wall (Zone B) should be on the order of 10 ppb, if they

are not already in this range. Soil concentrations in the Brook A valley in the

zone between the base ofthe valley wall and the brook (Zone C) are expected to be

on the order of less than 10 ppb.

Unlike the former disposal area, little overburden VOC ground water

contamination is associated with the southem boundary area. As such, the levels

of VOCs expected to exist in southem boundary area soils that are not contained

or treated as part of the site remedial program should range from below detectable

levels to up to 10 ppb.



2.0 ATTAINMENT OF GROUND WATER TARGET CLEANUP LEVELS

As discussed in Section 2 of the Feasibility Study Report, TCE and vinyl chloride

were selected as the principal constituents of concem for ground water

downgradient of the former disposal area because they are relatively more difficult

to treat as compared to other VOCs on site and the TCLs for these two

constituents are significantly lower than those for the other indicator compounds.

Similarly, TCE was selected as the constituent of concem for ground water

downgradient of the southem boundary area. The results of the leaching study

discussed in Appendix C of the FS indicated that the leaching behavior of the

other seven indicator constituents from overburden was consistent with that of

TCE and vinyl chloride, and that attainment of TCE and vinyl chloride ground

water TCLs should result in attaining other ground water TCLs. Accordingly, the

discussion of attainment of ground water TCLs focused on TCE and vinyl chloride.

Based upon the results of the leaching study, in the area of test pit TP-3 located

immediately downgradient of the source area, exchange of approximately 1 to

5 pore volumes of ground water will result in levels of TCE and vinyl chloride, the

identified constituents of concern, that are below the ground water TCLs once the

concentrated source area soils have been remediated. Due to the low total VOC

levels observed in soils samples collected from leachability study test pits and

boring BE-15, it is believed that pore water exchange was the principal mechanism

responsible for VOC reduction observed during the study. In practical terms, it is

estimated that 2 to 3 pore volumes would have to be exchanged to fiilly flush a

given volume of pore water from the soil matrix, and with it, dissolved VOCs

present in the pore water. Accordingly, it is assumed that 3 to 5 pore water

volume exchanges will result in TCE and vinyl chloride concentrations below the

TCLs in Zone A. Following remediation, VOC levels in saturated soils in Zone B

should be less than levels currently present in the vicinity of test pit TP-3.

Accordingly, it is assumed that a similar exchange of 3 to 5 pore volumes of water



will result in TCE and vinyl chloride levels below TCLs in ground water in this

zone. Because levels of VOCs in soils in Zone C are expected to be considerably

less than those in Zones A and B, it is assumed that removal of VOCs from these

soils will involve primarily flushing of VOCs in pore water, an estimated exchange

of 2 to 3 pore volumes.

In the southem boundary, data obtained during the RI indicate that VOCs

released from overbin-den soil enter bedrock ground water directly and do not

migrate significantly in overburden ground water. After remediation of soil in this

area, it is anticipated that VOCs currently present in bedrock ground water in this

area will be flushed by ground water flowing through this zone. VOC sorption in

bedrock systems is typically much less than that in overburden because of the lack

of organic carbon, reactive materials, and fine-grained sediments. Evidence of

these materials was not observed in site bedrock during the RI bedrock well

installation program. Accordingly, because the leaching study results indicate that

levels of TCE in overburden ground water will decline to below the TCL within

3 to 5 pore water volume exchanges after remediation, it is expected that fewer

pore volume exchanges in bedrock will result in TCE levels below the TCL. It is,

therefore, assumed that exchange of 2 to 3 pore volumes in bedrock in the

southem boundary area will result in acceptable levels of TCE.

3.0 ESTIMATED CLEANUP TIMES

Hydrogeologic data obtained during the RI were used together with the estimated

number of pore water volume exchanges to estimate the time within which ground

water concentrations of TCE and vinyl chloride will attain TCLs after source area

soils containment or treatment. Because ground water flows at different rates in

the three previously identified zones downgradient from the former disposal area,

individual cleanup times were estimated for the three zones. Overburden ground

water flow rates for Zones A, B and C downgradient of the former disposal area



were described in Section 3.0 ofthe RI and are summarized in Table E-1. The

number of pore volume exchanges per year to each zone was estimated by dividing

the flow rate by the length of the zone in the direction of ground water flow. This

factor was then divided into the estimated number of pore volume exchanges

resulting in attainment of TCLs to obtain the estimated cleanup time for the zone.

The estimated cleanup times and data used in the estimation are summarized in

Table E-1.

For the southem boundary area, the average bedrock hydraulic conductivity for

the site (4.6x10"^ cm/sec) was used in conjunction with a range of values for

near-smface bedrock porosity used in the RI of 0.005 to 0.10 and a gradient of 0.01

estimated from potentiometric data for bedrock wells in the southem boundary

area to estimate a groimd water flow rate of from 480 to 9,500 feet per year. This

range of flow rates was divided by the distance to the expected discharge zone for

shallow bedrock ground water from this area,~the Brook A headwaters, to estimate

the number of pore volumes exchanged in one year. This factor was then used in

conjiuiction with the estimated number of pore volume exchanges resulting in TCE

levels at or below TCLs to estimate a cleanup time (see Table E-1).

The results of these analyses indicate that the area located downgradient of the

former disposal area between the base of the Brook A valley wall and Brook A

(Zone C), the discharge point for overburden and shallow bedrock ground water

flowing beneath the former disposal area will achieve groimd water TCLs from 0.5

to 6.0 years after source area remediation, with a calculated average expected time

of 1.1 years. In Zone B, the western Brook A valley wall, the analysis indicated

ground water TCLs would be achieved in 0.3 to 2.2 years after source area

remediation, with a calculated average expected time of 0.6 years. In Zone A,

located between the former disposal area and the crest of the western Brook A



valley wall, the analysis indicated that ground water target cleanup levels would

be achieve in 0.5 to 5.0 years, with a calculated average expected time of 1.1 years.

In the southem boundary area, it is estimated that approximately 0.1 to 1.9 years

will be required to attain the TCL for TCE.


TABLE E-1

SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER FLOW RATES . AND ESTIMATED CLEANUP TIMES

ESTIMATED CLEANUI

(yr)

0.5 - 5.0

(Ll)

0.3 - 2.2

(0.6)

0.5 - 6.0

(Ll)

0.1 - 1.9

(0.1)

Page 1 of 1

ZONE

Zone A (overburden)

Zone B (overburden)

Zone C (overburden)

Southem Boundary Area (bedrock)

NOTES: 1) 2)

- 3)

FLOW RATES (ftyyr)

70 - 440

(260)

170 - 840

(500)

30 - 220

(130)

480 - 9,500

(5,000)

ft == feet yr = year Values in parentheses

DISTANCE (ft)

70

70

75

75

60

60

300

300

are averages.

PORE VOLUMESPER YEAR

1.0 - 6.3

(3.7)

2.3 - 11

(6.7)

0.5 - 3.7

(2.2)

1.6 - 32

(17)

REQUIREDPORE VOLUMES

3 - 5

(4)

3 - 5

(4)

2 - 3

(2.5)

2 - 3

(2.5)

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368V

APPENDIX F

GROUND WATER COLLECTION TRENCH AND EXTRACTION WELL POINT

SYSTEM FLOW RATE ESTIMATES

APPENDIX F

GROUND WATER COLLECTION TRENCH AND EXTRACTION WELL POINT

SYSTEM FLOW RATE ESTIMATES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Recovery of overburden ground water at this site is limited by the low

transmissivities exhibited by the overburden deposits. To effect overburden

ground water recovery in the three zones downgradient of the former disposal

area, a ground water collection trench was selected for the Brook A valley wall

area. Because of the low overburden transmissivity in Zone C, the extent of •

influence of the trench was not expected to extend to the west much beyond the

base of the Brook A valley wall. To effect capture of overburden ground water,

along the valley wall, a system of extraction wells was proposed because of the

impracticability of trench construction due to slopes and surface soil material. The

proposed system included four wells in the upland area in the vicinity of well

0W-2SR and eight wells at the base of the valley wall. The analyses used to

estimate overburden ground water flow rates from the collection trench and well

point system are discussed in the sections that follow.

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185:824/S4368p

2.0 GROUND WATER COLLECTION TRENCH FLOW RATE ESTIMATES

Two methods were used to estimate ground water flow into the downgradient

collection trench adjacent to Brook A. In each method, it was assumed that the

hydraulic head within the trench was to be maintained approximately 2 feet above

the base of the trench and that the bottom of the trench was located approximately

2 feet above the overburden-bedrock interface. A second assumption was that

ground water inflow from the east side of the trench was minimized due to the

placement of an impermeable barrier along this side. This assumption could result

in significantly underestimating flow into the trench and would be further

evaluated as an element of remedial design. Ground water inflow due to bedrock

discharge was also not considered at this level of design.

The first method is illustrated in Figure F-1. Flow from one side ofthe trench was

estimated as:

a = Kdf - h ) X 2L

where H = 10 feet, h = 2 feet, X = 100 feet, and K ranged from 0.57 to 1.5 feet per

day based upon the range of hydraulic conductivities observed in Brook A valley

overbiu-den during the RI. Assuming that L ranges from approximately 5 to 25

feet based on the overburden transmissivity values estimated during the RI, the

ground water inflow to the trench from the western side was estimated to range

between 1 and 6 gallons per minute (gpm).

This approach \yas also used assuming that the stress to overburden ground water

occurred for a distance, L, of approximately 300 feet, or between the upland

portion of the site and the trench. This approach was used to provide a range of

estimated ground water inflow volumes since the area affected by the trench in


terms of a change in the hydraulic gradient was not assessed at this level of

design. In this case, H = 10 feet, h = 2 feet, L = 300 feet and the other parameters

are as described above. Based upon this approach, the ground water inflow into

the western side of the trench was estimated to be less than 1 gpm.

The second method used is based upon the equation (McWhorter and Sunada,

1977):

So = Q((3.14) (a) (t))°' 3.14(T)

where SQ is the drawdown, q is the specific discharge per unit length of trench, T

is transmissivity, t is time, and a is a ratio of transmissivity to specific yield. The

drawdown was assumed to be 8 feet and the specific yield"was assumed to be 0.2.

Assuming the trench to be 100 feet long, T ranging from 4 x 10' . to

1.6 x 10"* ftVsec, and the other parameters as described previously, the

ground water inflow was estiniated for times ranging from 0.5 to 5 days, a range

in time judged to be a reasonable approximation for equilibrium conditions to

occur. Based upon this approach, the inflow into the western side of the trench

was estimated to range between approximately 2 and 17 gpm.

Therefore, based upon the approaches discussed the range of ground water inflow

to the western side of the interceptor trench was estimated to range from 1 to

17 gpm.


3.0 EXTRACTION WELL POINT SYSTEM

3.1 UPLAND AREA

Assuming a saturated thickness in the vicinity of monitoring well 0W-2SR of

12 feet, the maximum desirable drawdown was estimated to be 6 feet. The

transmissivity in this area was estimated to ramge from 4.2 to 20 ftVday and the

storativity was estimated to be 0,2. Assuming approximately 180 days of

continued operation as a conservative approach to establishing equilibrium

conditions, the estimated pumping rate from a 4-inch diameter extraction well

installed in this upland area was 0.1 to 0.6 gallons per minute using the modified

non-equilibrium well equation:

s = 0.183 Q log 2.25 Tt T r^S

As an example, using T = 20 ftVday and solving for Q:

Q= (sTO 0.183

log L

2.25 Tt i^S ] • •

Q = (1.83m) (1.9 mVdav) flog (2.25) (1.9 mVday) (180 davs)] "' 0.183 L (0.051m)'(0.2) J

Q = 3.1 mVday

Q = 0.6 gallons per minute

iere, s = drawdown (m) S = storativity Q = pumping rate (mVday) T = transmissivity (mVday) t = time (days) r = radius of influence (m)


The radius of influence of the weU was estimated using the equilibrium well equation:

Q = K (If - h') 1055 log R/r

where, K = 13.7 gpd/ft' based upon satiorated thickness of approximately 12 feet in upland area.

H = 12 feet h = 6 feet Q = 0.6 gallons per day r = 0.167 feet

Solving for the radius of influence, R = 36 ft.

Allowing for the effects of such factors as aquifer heterogeneity, the presence of

low permeability zones, cobbles, boulders, and the effect of decreasing

transmissitivity, it was conservatively assumed that the well radius of influence

would equal approximately 20 feet. On this basis, a net yield of approximately 0.4

to 2.4 gallons per minute was estimated for the four upland wells.

3.2 BASE OF VALLEY WALL

Using the same approach as taken in the upland area, a saturated thickness of

approximately 10 feet was assumed and the desirable drawdown was estimated to

be 6 feet. Based upon RI data, the transmissivity in this area was estimated to

range from approximately 4.2 to 15 ft'/day, the storativity was assumed to be 0.2,

and the hydraulic conductivity was assumed to be 10 gal/day/ft'. Using the

remaining variables as defined for the upland area, the estimated pumping rate at

equilibrium was 0.1 to 0.4 gallons per minute with a corresponding radius of

influence of approximately 10 feet. On this basis, a net. yield of approximately

0.8 to 3.2 gallons per minute was estimated for these eight wells.


3.3 TIME TO EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS

Using the non-equilibrium well equation previously discusised, drawdown estimates

were made as a function of time for the extraction wells in both areas. Results

indicated that significant changes in drawdown did not occur and that equilibrium

was approached for wells in both areas after approximately 60 to 90 days.

Therefore, this is the anticipated time period for which the well system would be

cycled on and off. Actual effective cycle times would be further analyzed during

remedial design and refined by field testing following system installation.

Individual air pressure controls would also be installed on each well point so that

regulation of the suction applied to each well could be adjusted independently of

other wells in the two systems.


BROOK A

. ^ _ = STATIC POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE

CLEKT

K.J. QUINN & COMPANY, INC.

- ^

n

=

=

POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE

IMPERMEABLE BARRIER

BEDROCK

DURING TRENCH OPERATION , ENMRONUEHTAL CONSULTANTS, INC

9 BeUSTRAL WAY, SAtEU. m 03070

DATE

9/25/90 DRAWI BY

E.S.W,

CHECKED

G.M.G.

INTERCEPTOR TRENCH GROUND WATER INFLOW

ESTIMATE PROJECT

MOTTOLO SITE RI/FS

NONE FS46 JAG F-1 6185/824

APPENDIX G EVALUATION OF SOUTHERN BOUNDARY

AREA EXTRACTION WELL SYSTEM


APPENDIX G EVALUATION OF SOUTHERN BOUNDARY

AREA EXTRACTION WELL SYSTEM

A modified non-equilibrium well equation was used to estimate the available yield

of a typical 8-inch diameter (r„=4 inches) ground water well placed in the southem

boundary area. This yield was then used as input to a steady-state well equation

to estimate the radius of influence ofthe tj^pical well. In addition, the radius

influence was estimated by two empirical equations as a check of the analytical

method. The estimated radius of influence was then used to select well locations

to capture the plume as defined by a 5 ppb action level contour.

The available yield, Q, was estimated using the equation:

s = 0.183Q X log 2.25 Tt T r^S

J

where: T = transmissivity of the formation, square meters per second (mVs)

t = time, seconds r = distance from center of well to point where drawdown is

measured s = drawdown at radius (r), meters S = storativity

Assuming a well depth of 50 feet (15 m), and operating space in the well for a

pump, the maximum desirable drawdown, s, in a t3rpical recovery well would be

approximately 67 percent of 14 m, or 9.4 m. The average hydraulic conductivity,

K, of wells MW-20D and MW-21D was determined to be 2.2 x 10" m/s, which when

multiplied by an assumed saturated thickness, D, of 15 m, 3rields a transmissivity

value of 3.4 x 10" mVs. The storativity, S, was assumed to be 0.005. Using these

values in conjunction with an assumed reasonably long time of pumping of 180

days, Q was determined to be approximately 20 m^/day (3.6 gpm).

December 10, 1990 Balsam Project 6185/824:S4368r G-1


Q was then used in the steady-state equation:

Q = 3.14159K [D^ - (D-S.,)^ In (R/rJ.

where: S^ = drawdown in the well, m

r^ = radius of the well, m

Rj = radius of influence, m

to estimate the radius of influence, R . The previously described input parameters

resulted in an estimate of Rj equal to approximately 36 m.

The assumptions associated with the development of both these equations are:

0 the aquifer is infinite in areal extent; 0 the aquifer is homogeneous, isotropic, and of uniform thickness over

the area influenced by pumping; 0 the aquifer is pumped at a constant rate; 0 the pumped well penetrates the entire aquifer and thus receives

water from the entire thickness of the aquifer by horizontal flow; 0 leakage and recharge do not exist; 0 flow within the radius of influence is laminar; 6 the pumping well is 100 percent efficient; 0 water is instantaneously released from storage; and 0 the potentiometric surface has no slope before pumping.

Two empirical equations, developed by Siechardt and Kusakin, were used to check

Rj as estimated by the analytical method. These equations were:

Siechardt: Rj = 3,000 S„K^ and

Kusakin: R; = 575 S^T*'',

Where the variables are the same as previously described. The range of

estimations by these equations were 30 m to 40 m, which were in the range

calculated by the analjrtical method.



Based on the estimated Rj and 5 ppb action level plume, two ground water

recovery wells may be required in the southem boundary area. The exact

placement of these wells would determine the amount of interference between the

wells; accordingly, the total ground water recovery rate was estimated to be

between 4 and 8 gpm.


Date post:	26-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS) REPORT, APPENDICES, VOLUME 2 OF 2 · BALSAM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS INC, ....

Documents