SDMS US EPA Region VWaste Management Division Office 4, Superfund 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago,...

D

SDMS US EPA Region VImagery Insert Form

Document ID

Some images in this document may be illegible or unavailable inSDMS. Please see reason(s) indicated below:

Illegible due to bad source documents. Image(s) in SDMS is equivalent to hard copy.nun mi

238513Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:

EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.

Includes COLOR or RESOLUTION variations.Unless otherwise noted, these pages are available in monochrome. The source document page(s) is more legible than theimages. The original document is available for viewing at the Superfund Records Center.

Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:

Confidential Business Information (CB1).This document contains highly sensitive information. Due to confidentiality, materials with such information are not availablein SDMS. You may contact the EPA Superfund Records Manager if you wish to view this document.


Unscannable Material:Oversized X or Format.Due to certain scanning equipment capability limitations, the document page(s) is not available in SDMS. The original

document is available for viewing at the Superfund Records center.


MANY OVERSIZE MAPS - PART/ALLY SCANNED

Document is available at the EPA Region 5 Records Center.


Page 1

Golder Associates Inc.

305 Fellowship Road, Suite 200M t . Laurel, N J U S A 08054 *m*. - -Assoaates

REVISEDREMOVAL ACTION WORK PLAN ADDENDUM

NEASE SITE, SALEM, OHIO

Submitted to:

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 5

Waste Management Division Office 4, Superfund77 West Jackson Blvd.Chicago, Illinois 60604

and

Ohio Environmental Protection AgencyDivision of Emergency Remedial Response

Northeast District Office2110 East Aurora RoadTwinsburg, Ohio 44087

DISTRIBUTION:

3 Copies - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency2 Copies - Ohio Environmental Protection Agency2 Copies - B&V Waste Science and Technology Corp.1 Copy - Thompson, Hine & Flory2 Copies - Ruetgers-Nease Corporation2 Copies - Golder Associates Inc.

February 1 995 Project No. : 933-6 1 58

OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, GERMANY, HUNGARY, ITALY, SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES


305 Fellowship Road, Suite 200Mt. Laurel, NJ USA 08054Tel: (609) 273-1110Fax (609) 273-0778

, GolderAssociates

February 16, 1995 Project No.: 933-6158

Ms. Sheila Sullivan (HSRM-63)USEPA Region 5Waste Management DivisionOffice 4, Superfund77 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, IL 60604

Mr. Joseph E. TrocchioOhio Environmental Protection AgencyDiv. of Emergency and Remedial ResponseNortheast District Office2110 East Aurora RoadTwinsburg, OH 44087

RE: REVISED REMOVAL ACTION WORK PLAN ADDENDUMNEASE SITE, SALEM, OHIO

Gentlemen:

Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) is pleased to provide herewith the Insert Package (Revision#1) of the Removal Action Work Plan Addendum for the above project. In accordance withthe requirements of Removal Action Administrative Order by Consent, this Addendum reportson all Tasks of the Removal Action Work Plan (RAWP) (Revision #3), approved by theAgencies on May 25, 1994. Under the framework provided in the Removal Action WorkPlan, this document constitutes Appendix C of Volume 1, Section 1 of the RAWP.

As requested, copies of this Addendum have been distributed as per the list shown on the coversheet. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call this office at 609/273-1110.

Very truly yours,

GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.

Todd H. Rees, Ph.D.Project Environmental Engineer

ôrrest, P.G., C.P.Eng.Project Director and Associate

THR/GRF/bjt D:\PROJECTS\933-6158VRAWPA\RESPCOMM\CVRLTR2.EPA


February 1995 -i- 933-6158

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Letter

Table of Contents i

SECTION PAGE

PREFACE 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 31.1 Regulatory Background 31.2 Regulatory Status 4

2.0 WORK PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 72.1 General 72.2 Task 1: Collection of Contaminated Groundwater 72.3 Task 2: Installation of Float Activated Pumps 92.4 Task 3: On-Site Leachate Treatment System 102.5 Task 4: Review of Hydrogeologic Data 12

2.5.1 Task 4-1: Review Extent of Shallow SandAquifers 122.5.1.1 Introduction 122.5.1.2 Water Table Elevations 142.5.1.3 Geologic Interpretation 15

2.5.2 Task 4-2: Review of Hydraulic ConductivityResults 18

2.5.3 Task 4-3: Review of Round I/Round 2 RI SamplingResults 202.5.3.1 Southern Boundary 212.5.3.2 Northern Boundary 212.5.3.3 Eastern Boundary 222.5.3.4 Central Area 24

2.5.4 Task 4-4: Review of July 1993 Sampling Results 252.5.4.1 Background 252.5.4.2 Fieldwork Program 252.5.4.3 Analysis 262.5.4.4 Discussion of Results 27

2.5.5 Task 4-5: Evaluation of Surface Water FlowRegime 302.5.5.1 Surface Drainage Network 302.5.5.2 Local Climatic Conditions 31

Colder Associates

February 1995 -ii- 933-6158

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

SECTION PAGE

2.5.5.3 Soil Types 312.5.5.4 Surface Water Modeling 32

2.5.6 Task 4-6: Evaluate Condition and Effectivenessof Existing Surface Water Control Measures 342.5.6.1 General 352.5.6.2 Fabric and Rock Barriers 35

2.5.7 Task 4-7: Review of Design Components of ControlMeasures 36

2.6 Task 7: Monitor and Address Seeps 362.7 Task 8: Removal of Materials 372.8 Summary 37

3.0 ADDENDUMPLAN 423.1 Task 5 Preparation of Work Plan Addendum 42

3.1.1 Shallow Groundwater Extraction System forLeachate Collection and Seep Abatement 423.1.1.1 Pumping Test 44

%*"" 3.1.1.2 WorkElements 453.1.2 Operation of the Shallow Groundwater

Extraction System 463.1.2.1 Normal Operating Conditions 463.1.2.2 Contingency Operations 50

3.1.3 Surface Water Management Measures 503.2 Task 6: Implementation of Work Plan Addendum 53

3.2.1 Shallow Hydrogeology Measures 533.2.2 Surface Water/Sediment Measures 54

REFERENCES 55

In OrderFollowing

Page 56

LIST OF TABLES

Table la Daily Leachate Collection System Volumes: Feb. 94Table Ib Daily Leachate Collection System Volumes: March 94

((i Jf Table Ic Daily Leachate Collection System Volumes: April 94

Colder Associates

February 1995 -111- 933-6158


LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

Table Id Daily Leachate Collection System Volumes: May 94Table le Daily Leachate Collection System Volumes: June 94Table If Daily Leachate Collection System Volumes: July 94Table 2 Monitoring Well DescriptionsTable 3a Monthly Monitoring Well Water Levels: 1993Table 3b Monthly Monitoring Well Water Levels. 1994Table 4 Aquifer Testing Results (Hydraulic Conductivities from 1993 RI)Table 5a Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Aqueous): VolatilesTable 5b Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Aqueous): Semi VolatilesTable 5c Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Aqueous): InorganicsTable 5d Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Aqueous): PesticidesTable 5e Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Aqueous):

Mirex compoundsTable 5f Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Aqueous): Dioxins, Furans, and

CyanideTable 6a Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Soil): VolatilesTable 6b Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Soil): Semi VolatilesTable 6c Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Soil): JjiorganicsTable 6d Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Soil): PesticidesTable 6e Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Soil):

Mirex compoundsTable 6f Summary of July 1993 Sampling Results (Soil): Dioxins, Furans, and CyanideTable 7 Removal Action Schedule

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1A Site Location MapFigure IB Site TopographyFigure 2 Interim Remedial Measures and July 1993 Sampling LocationsFigure 3 Daily Leachate Collection VolumesFigure 4 Monitoring Well and Cross Section Location Plan: Nease SiteFigure 5 Monitoring Well and Cross Section Location Plan for Areas Within

and Near Property BoundariesFigure 6 Interpreted Geology and Shallow Groundwater Cross Section: A-A1

Figure 7 Interpreted Geology and Shallow Groundwater Cross Section: B-B1

Figure 8 Interpreted Geology and Shallow Groundwater Cross Section: C-CFigure 9 Interpreted Geology and Shallow Groundwater Cross Section: E-E1

Figure 10 Water Table (Elevation) vs. Topography (Elevation): East WellsFigure 11 Water Table (Elevation) vs. Topography (Elevation): West Wells

Colder Associates

February 1995 -IV- 933-6158


LIST OF HGURES (ContW

Figure 12A Interpreted Water Table Shallow Aquifers (March 1993)Figure 12B Water Table Shallow Aquifers (Jan. 1985)Figure 13 Interpreted Geology and Shallow Groundwater Cross

Sections: P-P&T-fFigure 14 Interpreted Extent of Sand 1 Outcrop and SubcropFigure 15 Interpreted Extent of Sand 2 Outcrop and SubcropFigure 16 Round 1 and Round 2 RI Results for Geologic Cross Section: A-A'Figure 17 Round 1 and Round 2 RI Results for Geologic Cross Section: B-B'Figure 18 Round 1 and Round 2 RI Results for Geologic Cross Section: C-CFigure 19 Round 1 and Round 2 RI Results for Geologic Cross Section: E-E1

Figure 20 Existing and Proposed Rock/Fabric BarriersFigure 21 Surface Water Flow DirectionFigure 22 Site WatershedsFigure 23 Soils MapFigure 24 Detail of Control Outlet and Silt FenceFigure 25 Interim Remedial Measures: Conceptual Groundwater Extraction

SystemFigure 26 Interim Remedial Measures: Cross Sections P-P1 and T-TFigure 27 Interim Remedial Measures: Existing and Proposed Site Drain

and Piping System

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Grain Size Analyses: July 1993 Sampling ResultsAppendix B Form A (Site Inspection Form Plan)Appendix C TR-5 5 (Surface Water Hydrology Model) Program OutputAppendix D Pumping Test Work PlanAppendix E Figures 6, 7 and 9 of the Treatment Plant Modification Design Technical

Memorandum

Colder Associates

February 1995 -1- 933-6158

PREFACE

Ruetgers-Nease Corporation (RNC) submits this Removal Action Work Plan Addendum

(RAWPA) in accordance with the approved Removal Action Work Plan (RAWP) dated May

13, 1994, and the Removal Action Administrative Order by Consent (Removal AOC), entered

into by RNC, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) on November 17, 1993. • This Addendum as a

"stand-alone" document, reports on all Tasks of the RAWP, separating certain on-going review

and site activities into one section, and the recommendations and conceptual design of

proposed interim remedial measures in another section. This report describes the

implementation of the RAWP, and presents results of the eight Work Plan tasks (Tasks 1-8)

contained therein, and listed as follows:

Task 1: Collection of Contaminated Groundwater;

Task 2: Installation of Float Activated Pumps;

Task 3: On-Site Leachate Treatment System;

Task 4: Review of Hydrogeologic Data;

Task 5: Preparation of Work Plan Addendum;

Task 6: Implementation of Work Plan Addendum;

Task 7: Monitor and Address Seeps; and,

Task 8: Removal of Materials.

Tasks 1 through 4, Task 7, and Task 8 are presented in Section 2. Task 5 and Task 6 of the

RAWP, are presented in Section 3.

Tasks 1 through 4, 7, and 8 of the RAWP concern review activities and on-going site activities

that provide the background upon which the recommendations and conceptual design for the

removal activities of Tasks 5 and 6 are founded. Therefore, Tasks 1 through 4, 7 and 8 are

Colder Associates

February 1995 -2- 933-6158

presented together in Section 2 of this document, reporting the fact and nature of the

conditions at the Nease Chemical Site, in accordance with the Removal AOC.

Tasks 5 and 6 of the RAWP concern the preparation of (Task 5) and implementation of (Task

6) a Work Plan Addendum for "1) surface water management and leachate collection and

treatment measures for the area northeast of the Conrail tracks, and 2) develop, as an

addendum to the Work Plan, any additional necessary measures for the existing leachate

collection and treatment system on the Nease Chemical Site at large," as stated in the

Paragraph 4d. of the Removal AOC.

This Addendum provides a schedule for implementing the removal activities proposed herein,

and is presented in Section 3 of this document.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -3- 933-6158

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Nease Chemical Site located near Salem, Ohio (Site) is a forty four (44) acre closed

chemical manufacturing facility that operated from 1961 until 1973 (Figures 1A and IB).

During this time period, Nease Chemical was involved in the manufacturing of products

including pesticides and fire retardants. One product was mirex, a pesticide and fire retardant

additive for plastics. Other chemicals included diphenylsulfone, chloramine B, benzene,

sulfonic acid, methoxychlor, and hexachloroethylene. After OEPA oversaw decommissioning

in 1974 and 1975, the Site consisted of primarily open fields with five (5) unlined

neutralization/settling ponds, a warehouse, and two (2) masonry buildings. The Site was

placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983, for remedial activities under the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act (CERCLA) of

1980.

1.1 Regulatory Background

In February 1988, Ruetgers-Nease Corporation (RNC) entered into an Administrative Order

by Consent (AOC) to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the

Site. An RI report was submitted to the Agencies on July 6, 1993 and is currently being

revised by RNC. RNC also voluntarily undertook source control measures at the site to

prevent further offsite migration of contaminants into the Middle Ford Little Beaver Creek

(MFLBC) However, over the course of several subsequent site inspections and sampling, the

Agencies determined that these source control measures were not sufficient. Subsequently, on

November 17, 1993, RNC entered into a Removal AOC with the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) concerning removal actions to take place at the Nease Site.

The Removal AOC "requires the Respondent to undertake and complete emergency removal

activities to abate conditions which the USEPA has determined may present an imminent and

substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment because of an

actual or tlireatened release of hazardous substances at the Site."

Colder Associates

February 1995 -4- 933-6158

Based upon the findings and determinations of the USEPA contained therein, and pursuant to

Section 106(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9606(a), the Respondent is required to

undertake certain removal actions/measures, as described in Paragraph 4. of the Removal

AOC. A Work Plan was developed to identify, describe, and schedule the work elements to be

undertaken to meet the requirements of the Removal AOC.

1.2 Regulatory Status

On behalf of RNC, Colder Associates Inc. (Colder) submitted Revision #0 of the Removal

Action Work Plan (RAWP) to the USEPA and OEPA (Agencies) on December 17, 1993.

The RAWP was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the November 17, 1993_#

Removal AOC. In an Agencies Comments Letter dated January 18, 1994, RNC received a

formal disapproval of the RAWP from the Agencies, and was directed to revise the RAWP in

response to both general and specific Agencies comments. In accordance with the Agencies

Comments Letter and the Removal AOC, Colder (on behalf of RNC) submitted Revision #1 of

the RAWP to the Agencies on February 4, 1994.

On March 25,1994, the Agencies requested in a formal letter that additional revisions be made

to the RAWP, and a Revision #2 of the RAWP was submitted (by Colder, for RNC) to the

Agencies on April 13, 1994 reflecting these changes. On May 5, 1994, the Agencies in a

formal letter requested that additional changes be made in the RAWP, and Colder (on behalf of

RNC) submitted a Revision #3 of the RAWP on May 13, 1994. In a letter dated May 25,

1994, the Agencies found that 1) the Agencies comment letter of May 5, 1994 had

satisfactorily been responded to; 2) that the Agencies had no further specific comments; and 3)

that the May 13, 1994 Revision #3 submittal of the RAWP was approved for use.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -5- 933-6158

This report, entitled the Removal Action Work Plan Addendum (RAWPA), describes the

implementation of the RAWP, and presents results of the eight Work Plan tasks (Tasks 1-8)

contained therein, and listed as follows:

Task 1: Collection of Contaminated Groundwater,

Task 2: Installation of Float Activated Pumps;

Task 3: On-Site Leachate Treatment System;

Task 4: Review of Hydrogeologic Data;

Task 5: Preparation of Work Plan Addendum;

Task 6: Implementation of Work Plan Addendum;

Task 7: Monitor and Address Seeps; and,

Task 8: Removal of Materials.

However, as per Paragraph 4c. of the Removal AOC (as described in the Removal AOC and

the RAWP), a performance evaluation of the on-site leachate treatment system shall be

performed prior to submission of the RAWP (on December 17, 1993). To accomplish this

task (Task 3 of RAWP), a Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation Work Plan (TPPEWP) for

the Nease Site was submitted under separate cover to, and granted Interim Approval

(November 28, 1993) and Final Approval (January 3, 1993) by the USEPA. On February 11,

1994, Colder (on behalf of RNC) submitted a Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation Report

(TPPER) to the Agencies describing the results of the performance evaluation conducted from

December 1 through December 8, 1993. This TPPER will be referenced but not included in,

the results of Task 3 of this report.

Finally, as per the approved RAWP (Task 5, page 36), an addendum to the Work Plan shall be

prepared for 1) the management of surface water and leachate in the area Northeast of the

Conrail tracks, and 2) any additional necessary measures for the existing leachate collection and

treatment system at the Site. The results of removal activities Tasks 1 through 4 provide the

Colder Associates

February 1995 -6- 933-6158

background necessary for development and implementation of the Addendum. This

Addendum is to be incorporated into the Removal AOC Work Plan as Appendix C of Section

I, Volume 1.

Golder Associates

February 1995 -7- 933-6158

2.0 WORK PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

2.1 General

This section describes results of various on-going review and site removal activities required in

Paragraphs 4a. through 4f, of the Removal AOC. The removal activities contained therein

were separated into discrete Removal Action Work Plan tasks, Tasks 1 through 4, 7, and 8,

that are discussed here in Section 2, and Tasks 5 and 6, discussed in Section 3, following. The

methodology and procedures to perform these tasks were described previously in the RAWP.

The following subsections describe the results on a Task by Task basis.

2.2 Taskl: Collection of Contaminated Groundwater

As described in the Removal AOC, the Respondent (RNC) shall "continue to collect all

contaminated groundwater from existing collection areas and properly dispose of it off-site."

This on-going site activity is currently being performed at the Nease Site, in accordance with

the provisions of the Removal AOC.

Briefly, the existing collection system of interim remedial measures is composed of three (3)

independent leachate collection structures, Leachate Collection Systems 1 and 2 (LCS-1 and

LCS-2, respectively), and Pond 1 (see Figure 2), two of which (LCS-1 and LCS-2) provide the

majority of collected leachate. The influent from these three independent sources is pumped to

an existing on-she 5000 gallon above ground storage tank, designated the "silver tank." From

this tank, the influent is transported via truck for off-site treatment and disposal.

Detailed descriptions of the leachate collection systems and pumps are provided in Sections

3.1.1 of the approved RAWP, including discussion on construction materials, piping, trenches,

culverts, and contingency locations. A description of normal operating conditions for the

collections systems is provided in Section 3.1.2 of the approved RAWP, and Section 2.5.2 of

the Treatment Plant Modifications Work Plan (TPMWP), a work plan for modifying the

Colder Associates

February 1995 -8- 933-6158

existing treatment plant, submitted on June 24, 1994 to the Agencies and approved on July 28,

1994. Contingency plans are provided in Section 2.5.3 of the TPMWP.

In February of 1994, RNC began a program of daily measurement of the leachate volumes that

were pumped from the three collection structures to the 5000 gallon "Silver Tank," prior to

off-site treatment and disposal. The individual flow streams were metered prior to entering the

manifold at the treatment plant, from where leachate can be directed to either the treatment

plant or the silver tank. These data (compiled through July, 1994) are provided in Tables la.

through If. of this report, and shown on Figure 3. The data were used in conjunction with the

shallow hydrogeologic review conducted under Task 4 of the RAWP (results discussed in

Section 2.5.1. herein), to establish existing, and predict future flows expected at the on-site

leachate treatment plant for proposed modifications to the collection systems.

The data shows seasonally high flows occurring in March, 1994 when strata beneath the Site

are near or at saturation, and snowmelt and early spring rain events contribute to infiltration.

During this period, flows from the existing leachate collection system average 851 gallons per

day (GPD) for LCS-2 and 8,427 GPD for LCS-1, while Pond 1 was not pumped during this

period. The combined flow of approximately 10,000 GPD is near in agreement with the off-

site transportation arrangements for this month of about two (2) 5,000 gallon tankers per day

transported under contract by Research Oil Company, of Cleveland, Ohio.

Peak flows to the leachate collection systems during March were approximately 15,000 GPD

(days 3/8,3/12,3/14, and 3/21). These peak flows correspond to the use of the three (3) 5,000

gallon tankers that RNC requested per day for these events. Peak flow events of this

magnitude (13,000 - 16,000 gpd) occurred on fifteen (15) days during February, March, and

April, 1994. By occurrence, these flows provide 17% of the Spring high flow.

After seasonally high flow conditions abate during the later spring (approximately April 20 for

current data on Figure 3), daily flows may be expected to approach less than one-thousand

(1,000) GPD as the water table elevation declines. Though this has yet to be accurately

Colder Associates

February 1995 -9- 933-6158

quantified by field measurement of leachate quantities during the drier summer/fall season,

monthly monitoring well water level elevations taken over a period of 17 months indicate that

the phreatic water table will decline approximately 2-7 feet from early spring through October,

leading to less infiltration in collection trench structures.

The field measured and summer/fall estimated leachate volumes have been used for estimation

of mean annual flows to the existing leachate treatment system for use in determining the

operational demands for the plant. Described in detail in Section 2.2 of the TPMWP, these

operational demands led RNC to propose modifications to the treatment plant consistent with

the hydrogeologic interpretation of the influent flow, meeting peak flow conditions, and

allowing for potential expansion during removal action measures.

For contingency planning (see below), and for verifying the hydrogeologic interpretation of the

shallow gioundwater system, as discussed in Section 2.5.1.3, the data was used to estimate

expected mean annual and peak flow conditions for the existing system. As described in detail

in the TPMWP, RNC has a contractual agreement with Research Oil Company of Cleveland,

Ohio (Appendix B of TPMWP) for transport and disposal of Hazardous Waste Leachate

(FO39) from the Nease Site. As stated in the correspondence included in Appendix B of the

TPMWP, Research Oil "has the capacity to property haul, treat, and dispose of up to 30,000

gallons of leachate per day from the site." Provided 24-hour advanced notice, Research Oil

Company will arrange for the trucking and disposal of this quantity of leachate, as required.

This contingency plan shall provide for uninterrupted treatment of leachate during any failure of

the leachate collection or treatment system elements/components.

2.3 Task 2: Installation of Float Activated Pumps

As per the November 17, 1993 Removal AOC, and as described in the RAWP (Revision #3,

Volume 1, Section 1, page 19), RNC will install a water level (float) activated pump system in

LCS-2. This controller will replace the existing "Coyote" timer controller. The detailed design

of new controller system at LCS-2 is contained in the Treatment Plant Modifications Design

Colder Associates

February 1995 -10- 933-6158

Technical Memorandum (TPMDTM) submitted to the Agencies on July 26, 1994, and

currently before the Agencies for their review and approval. Pursuant to the approved

TPMDTM, RNC shall install the new controller system.

2.4 Task 3: On-Site Leachate Treatment System

As described previously, this Task was performed out-of-sequence with the timing of other

removal activities required under the Removal AOC. Therefore, for clarity, prior to further

description of the results of this Task, a re-statement of the Removal AOC directive for this

activity is provided as follows:

"Upon the effective date of this Order [November 17, 1993] the Respondent shall take steps to

commence operation of the existing on-site leachate treatment system located in the metal

warehouse building on the Nease property. Nease will ensure that the existing on-site leachate

treatment system is operating within 10 business days of the effective date of this Order. Nease

will meet all substantive permit requirements for effluent discharge. Within 15 business days of

the effective date of this Order, when the system is effectively operating, Nease will conduct a

one-week trial run of the treatment system and will have the data from the trial run analyzed.

The trial run and data analysis period must be completed within 45 calendar days. If the

analyzed results demonstrate that the existing treatment system is unable to meet permit

requirements, Nease will so advise U.S. EPA by telephone and in writing within two business

days of receiving the results and will provide U.S. EPA with a copy of such analytical results.

Nease will then have 45 days form notification to develop and submit to U.S. EPA for its

approval, a Work Plan Addendum for the necessary modifications to the system, and a

schedule for implementation of the modifications that includes a final date upon which the

system will be fully operational. Within 7 calendar days of receipt of U.S. EPA's approval of

the Work Plan Addendum, Nease will commence implementation of those modifications in

accordance with the approved schedule, and will achieve compliance with those effluent

discharge permit requirements by no later than the date specified in the Addendum to the Work

Plan that is finally approved by the U.S. EPA"

Colder Associates

February 1995 -11- 933-6158

Results of this ongoing site activity are best described chronologically, with reference to the

appropriate documents as follows:

On November 17, 1993, RNC began taking steps to commence operation ofthe leachate treatment system by planning for operation and testing of theexisting leachate treatment facility.

Under authority of the Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation Work Plan(TPPEWP), conferred interim approval by the Agencies in a letter datedNovember 18, 1993, and granted final approval by the Agencies in a letterdated January 3,1994, RNC, on December 1,1993 (within 10 business days ofthe effective date of the Removal AOC), commenced operation of the on-siteleachate treatment plant, and began the required one-week trial run of thetreatment system within 15 business days of the effective date of the RemovalAOC, as required. The trial run was performed from December 1 throughDecember 8, 1993.

Within the required 45 calendar days of the completion of the trial run (January15, 1994), all analyses were performed and evaluated against substantivedischarge requirements, and on January 17, in written and verbalcommunication to the Agencies, RNC informed the Agencies that the existingtreatment plant had experienced operational difficulties and was unlikely tomeet some of the discharge requirements. The results of the one-week trial runare described in detail in the Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation Report(TPPER), submitted to the Agencies on February 11, 1994.

Within the required 45 calendar days from Agency notification of treatmentplant discharge performance, RNC, on March 2, 1994, submitted to theAgencies a Treatment Plant Modifications Work Plan (TPMWP) outlining aconceptual design of the proposed modifications to the existing treatment plantthat would bring the plant into compliance with the substantive dischargerequirements which were being finalized by the Agencies.

On July 28, 1994, the Agencies granted final approval of the TPMWP, andRNC commenced implementation of the TPMWP immediately, as per theschedule contained therein.

On July 26, 1994, RNC submitted to the Agencies a Treatment PlantModifications Design Technical Memorandum (TPMDTM) detailing themodifications to the treatment plant. This document is currently before theAgencies for their review and approval.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -12- 933-6158

• As specified in the TPMWP, the initial schedule for achieving compliance withthe effluent discharge permit requirements is September 24, 1994. Uponapproval of the TPMDTM, RNC shall revise the schedule.

2.5 Task 4: Review of Hydrogeologic Data

As defined in the RAWP, Task 4 was broken into a total of seven (7) subtasks, as follows:

Task 4.1: Review Extent of Shallow Sand Aquifers

Task 4.2: Review of Hydraulic Conductivity Results

Task 4.3: Review of Round I/Round 2 RI Sampling Results

Task 4.4: Review of July 1993 Sampling Results

Task 4.5: Evaluation of Surface Water Flow Regime

Task 4.6: Evaluate Condition and Effectiveness of Existing SurfaceWater Control Measures

Task 4.7: Review of Design Components of Control Measures

The results of these tasks are presented below. Many of these tasks include the use of

monitoring well data, borehole logs, and geologic and hydrogeologic cross sections (see

Figures 4 and 5).

The following discussions (Section 2.5) will be limited to the shallow hydrogeological

environment. Detailed descriptions of regional and Site geology and hydrogeology are

provided in the 1993 RI Report (RNC, 1993).

2.5.1 Task 4.1: Review Extent of Shallow Sand Aquifers

2.5.1.1 Introduction

To establish the geometry and physical nature of the shallow groundwater system at the Nease

Site, shallow and deep site borehole logs were reviewed. Monitor wells S-l through S-19 and

Colder Associates

February 1995 -13- 933-6158

D-l through D-17, production wells PI, P2, P3, and wells Tl, and T2 were used for this task.

These borehole logs and descriptions were originally presented in the "Environmental

Assessment of Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Company, Inc., Salem, Ohio, Phase I-B Report,

Preliminary Draft," prepared by SMC Martin, Inc. (1985). For the alphanumeric delineated

well clusters (A through L), installed in 1990 as part of Remedial Investigation activities,

shallow and deep site wells were reviewed, as presented in Appendix D (Monitor Well Drilling

Descriptions) and Appendix E (Monitor Well Drilling Logs) of the April 5, 1991, Partial

Remedial Investigation Report (RNC, 1991). The pertinent hydrogeologic findings from

borehole data are presented in Table 2.

In addition, geologic cross sections provided by ERM-Midwest Inc. (ERM), were reviewed,

checked against the borehole logs and descriptions (Martin 1985, RNC, 1991), and revised as

appropriate. These interpreted geologic cross sections are presented in Figures 6 through 9 of

this report. The cross-section, monitor well, and borehole locations are presented on Figures 4

and 5.

The cross-sections are:

a generally east-west section (A-A1) through the center of the site.

an east-west cross-section (B-B1) running along the southern boundary of thesite;

an east-west cross-section (C-C) running along the northern boundary of thesite; and,

a north-south cross-section (E-E1) running along the eastern (hydrogeologicallydowngradient) boundary of the site.

In addition to the modified ERM cross-sections, additional cross-sections are:

a generally SW-NE section (P-F) from the western boundary through Pond 1,Pond 2, LCS-2, and Pond 3; and,

Colder Associates

February 1995 -14- 933-6158

\*s • a SW-NE section (T-T) from near the western boundary through the oldproduction area and LCS-1.

This arrangement, used similarly in presenting groundwater chemistry (Section 2.5.3), provides

site closure for calculating hydrologic (or chemical) fluxes, and provides right-angle

intersections to obviate geologic interpretations of continuous and discontinuous strata, and

migrating chemical constituents of concern.

2.5.1.2 Water Table Elevations

Since March of 1993, RNC has taken monthly monitoring well water level measurements. The

seventeen (17) monthly sampling events are compiled in summary form in Table 3 A (1993

measurements) and Table 3B (1994 measurements). These data have been used to determine

the seasonal high, and seasonal low water table conditions in the shallow glacial sediments at

the Site.

*""*' As seen on Figures 6 through 9, the fluctuation in the annual groundwater cycle varies. The

lowest seasonal (annual) variation in the water table (approximately one foot) occurs near the

wells located along the northwest-southeasterly trending topographic ridge that slopes down

from the Conrail tracks towards the Crane-Deming Marsh (wells S-2, S-3, S-12, S-13, Figure

10). Seasonal high fluctuations of nearly seven (7) feet (March to October, 1993) occur in

wells located west of the old production area (wells A-S, B-S, C-S, I-S, S-5, S-9, and S-10,

see Figure 11).

It appears that the higher summer/fall depression in the water table towards the west of the site

may actually lead to localized reversal in the direction of the groundwater table. During most

of the year, and for most of the site, the gradient of the water table is towards the east and

north (Figures 12A and 12B). Both the existing topography and top-of-bedrock contour (RI,

1991) slope towards the northeast. However, during late summer and early fall, the elevation

of the water table along the western boundary of the Site lies 0.5 to 1.0 feet below the

--fludt^W l~ ~ '^ e *Colder Associates

February 1995 -15- 933-6158

elevation of the water table in an area beneath the topographic high (ridge) on which the plant

previously existed.

As seen in Figures 6,7 and 9, there is an overall gradation from downward gradients (as

measured at clustered piezometers, multiple wells at one location, with multiple screened

sections isolated at differing depths) in the unconsolidated strata in the western area of the Site,

to upward gradients at clustered piezometers near the MFLBC (clustered piezometers E, J, and

K). The "inflection point" or zone along which the stronger downward gradients start to

flatten coincides with that water level elevation of smallest annual fluctuation (recall discussion

above). Both of these zones roughly coincide with the invert elevation of the Feeder Creek

(1 168 ft MSL, see Figure 13) in the area of the Crane-Deming Marsh, just east of the Conrail

tracks. The importance of locating the alignment of this water table "elevation of minimum

seasonal variation", is that it probably represents the elevation at which a coalescence of

groundwater occurs from differing permeable horizons within the glacial till. The 1 168 ft MSL

, ,, elevation is also important because (as will be discussed ahead, see Figure 12) it is coincident

with the invert elevation of the Feeder Creek. Groundwater remedies that can control the

water table at a depth of 1 168 ft MSL, will likely influence the presence of seeps in the Crane-

Deming Marsh.

2.5.1.3 Geologic Interpretation

The geologic strata through which the shallow groundwater is flowing at the Site occurs in

upper (Sand 1) and mid-level (Sand 2) horizons. Identified in boreholes in the 1991 and 1993

RI submittals, the extent of these hydraulically conductive horizons are interpreted in Figures

14 and 15 (Sand 1 and Sand 2, respectively). As seen in the Figures, both sand horizons are

interpreted to be discontinuous, both laterally and vertically. The overall configuration of these

sand horizons, and of the other four (4) sand horizons (Sands 3 through 6, respectively), is an

en-echelon pattern of cascading lenses, characteristic of deposition in glacial sediments,

trending in an eastern and northern direction, coincident with the overall topographic pattern at

' tne site-

Colder Associates

February 1995 -16- 933-6158

Figure 14 shows the interpreted extent of Sand 1 lenses at the Site. The interpreted outcrop of

these lenses is limited to the Site proper (e.g., in the region of Exclusion Area A, past Pond 2

and on towards well S5 in the north-west), except for the potential existence of outcrops on

private property to the east of the Site between the Conrail tracks and Route 14. Historically,

seeps have been located downgradient of S18, i.e., at the location of leachate collection system

No. 2 and it is possible that this may be related to the Sand 1 horizon interpreted at this

location, and recently (April 1994), a wet zone was detected in the embankment of Pond 1 and

is possibly related to the outcrop of the large Sand 1 stratum which extends from well S10 to

well SI 1. A recent site inspection of the residential area east of the Site reveals that there are

currently no seeps in this area, however, vegetation types suggest that seeps may occur in this

area on occasions.

Figure 15 indicates the interpreted extent of Sand 2 horizons. These are interpreted to outcrop

northeast of the Conrail tracks at an elevation that is lower topographically than the Sand 1

lenses. Again, historically, these locations approximately coincide with the locations of known

seeps. It is also interesting to note that the interpreted outcrop of both Sand 1 and Sand 2

lenses cloisely corresponds to the areas mapped as sandy soils by the Soil Survey of

Columbiana County (see Figure 23).

Thus, based on the above, an understanding of the nature and extent of these sands and their

influence on the shallow groundwater flow provides the key to the location of known seeps

and the strategy for seep abatement. Portions of Sand 1 and Sand 2 lie directly under the old

production area, and the area of existing Pond 2. From 1985 to present, chemical analysis of

the Site shows that the highest concentration of chemicals of concern lie in and about the area

of Pond 2. Measurements from the Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation Report (TPPER)

showed that leachate originating from the area of Pond 2 (LCS-2, see Figure 2) was higher in

metals, organics, pesticides, and mirex, photomirex, and kepone (MPK) than other sampling

results at the She. Therefore, Sands 1 and 2 are of particular interest, not only from a

preventive stand point (i.e. mitigating the effects on them), but from a pro-active point in using

Colder Associates

February 1995 -17- 933-6158

these horizons, and their important geographical location, to mitigate the movement of

constituents and abate seeps.

Figure 13 is a more detailed cross sectional look through the "center" of the Site (recall Figure

4 shows cross section locations). In Figure 13, Sand 1 and Sand 2 extent and thicknesses are

inferred within the till strata as a whole, based upon outcrop and subcrop mapping (Figures 14

and 15). The seasonal high water table has been placed on the cross section showing that most

sand lenses occur below the high water table, therefore acting as conduits for downgradient

(westerly to northeasterly) near surface flow. There are however several Sand 1 horizons that

do lie above the saturated zone.

Additionally, Figures 10 and 11 indicate how well topography establishes and controls this near

surface flow. The figures separate those wells that are screened in the shallow glacial strata

and those that lie either east or west of the Conrail tracks (Figure 10 and 11, respectively). The

figures show a strong correlation between topography and water table elevation, for both

seasonal high and low water table conditions.

Figure 12A shows the interpreted (averaged multiple horizon) water table contour plan, for

measurements taken in March, 1993, the high water table condition for that year. It should be

noted that an averaging of water level measurements at nested piezometers (e.g. well cluster J)

was necessary to show the general shallow groundwater flow patterns. The plot shows the

general trend of the water table surface, with small nuances. Figure 12B shows the water table

surface condition in January 1985, as presented by SMC Martin, Inc. It is seen that not only is

the appearance of the surface very similar to the 1993 data, but the absolute magnitudes of the

elevation measurements are within feet of each other, across the entire Site area.

As discussed above, strong downward gradients exist between the sand horizons and

underlying strata in the western portion of the Site, and upward gradients exist between lower

sand horizons and upper sand horizons near the MFLBC (e.g., well cluster K and L, Figure 8).

Based on topographic control and the conditions about the MFLBC, it would appear that

Colder Associates

February 1995 -18- 933-6158

(unmeasured) shallow groundwater flow also occurs towards the MFLBC from the east of the

MFLBC. This is further evidenced by the western sloping hydraulic gradient that exists

between well cluster E and the MFLBC, as seen in Figure 6.

2.5.2 Task 4.2: Review of Hydraulic Conductivity Results

In 1990, ERM, as part of Remedial Investigation activities, performed slug tests on the existing

monitoring wells at the Nease Site. Exceptions to these tests, were production wells PI, P2,

and P3, and the proposed extraction wells Tl and T2. Their six (6) inch or greater diameters

are not compatible with low head, slug type testing and the associated analysis techniques that

are based on the instantaneous injection (slug) of a known quantity of water into the test well.

Table 4 shows the results of the slug tests and the calculated saturated hydraulic conductivities

associated with the differing sand horizons reported in the Remedial Investigation Report

(1993). The analysis methods used to interpret the field measured hydraulic parameters (falling

water table elevation in the tested monitor well with time) were three accepted methods for

unconsolidated materials, the Hvorslev, Bouwer & Rice, and the Copper et. al. methods. The

Hvorslev and the Bouwer & Rice methods determine the hydraulic conductivity of a media

under the assumption of zero (0) storativity (delayed release of water following primary

dewatering of an aquifer body). The Copper et. al. method accounts for storativity, a hydraulic

condition common to confined aquifer systems, less common in unconfined systems. The

differing underlying assumptions lead to differing hydraulic conductivity values, as seen in

Table 4.

As a general rule, the Hvorslev method provided the middle range of conductivity values. The

Bouwer & Rice method provided values that were consistently about 1/3 to 1/2 of the

conductivity value obtained by the Hvorslev method. The values provided by the Cooper, et.

al. method were consistently much higher, being three (3), five (5), as much as nine (9) times

values obtained by the other methods. For further analysis herein, this report will use the

hydraulic conductivity values obtained by the Hvorslev method.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -19- 933-6158

A review of the slug test results show several important relationships in the analyzed data from

the Nease Site. Firstly, by all analyses, variability is evident in the results. No single test

produced results from the three methods that were within +/- 20% of one another. Secondly,

there exists in the mean, a gradation in conductivity magnitude across the Site. Sand horizons

that occur in the western, topographically higher, old production area of the Site are generally

lower in conductivity than those sand horizons to the east. Sands 4, 5, and 6 (associated with

well clusters J, K, and E), show increasing conductivity.

Using the hydraulic conductivity results, in conjunction with the sand horizon descriptions

(1991 RI), volumetric fluxes can be calculated for the different sand horizons. Using Darcy's

Law for saturated groundwater flow (Q=K-rA; A=b-w), where b is the mean thickness, w is

the mean width, K is the mean (Hvorslev) conductivity of each sand horizon, and i is the

hydraulic gradient of the water table in the area of the respective horizon, the specific

»,„„,», discharges (v, v = Q/A = K-i) and the volumetric fluxes (Q) can be calculated as shown below,

if the mean width (w) is considered 1 ft:

Sand 1: Wells S-6, S-9, B-S, C-SK = 0.239 ft/day (8.43 x 10-5 cm/sec)b =6.5 fti =0.008 ft/ftv = 0.698 ft/vr Q - 0.093 eal/dav-fUwidtto (5). b=6.5 ft

Sand 2: Wells S-4, S-7, S-12, H-SK = 1.717 ft/day (5.48 x 10-4 cm/sec)b =0.5-2.0 fti =0.047 ft/ftv = 29.46ft/yr Q= 1.21 gal/dav-ftfwidtto (5). b=2ft

Sand 3: Wells S-15,EVF1K = 8.139 ft/day (2.87 x 10-3 cm/sec)b =3.5-9.5fti =0.002 ft/ftv =5.94 ft/vr 0 = 0.791 eal/dav-ftfwidth') (a), b=6.5 ft

Colder Associates

February 1995 -20- 933-6158

Sand 4: Wells S-16, S-17, DW2, EVF2, KW2, LVF2K = 0.995 ft/day (3.51 x 10-4 cm/sec)b =5-10 fti =0.039 ft/ftv = 14.16ft/vr O = 2.177gal/day-ft(width>)@.D=7.5ft

Sand 5: WeUs S-19, DVF3, EVF3, FVF3, JW3K = 1.836 ft/day (6.48 x 10-4 cm/sec)b = 6-10f ti =0.021 ft/ftv = 14.07 ft/vr Q = 2.307 gal/dav-ft(width) @. b=8 ft

Sand 6: Wells EVF4, FVF4, JW4, KW4K = 0.595 ft/day (2.10 x 10-4 cm/sec)b =10 fti =0.006 ft/ftv =1.30ft/yr 0 = 0.267 gal/dav-ft(widtfr) @ b=10 ft

2.5.3 Task 4.3: Review of Round I/Round 2 RI Sampling Results

Figures 16 through 19 show the results of CLP analyzed groundwater samples from the 1993

Remedial Investigation for wells that appear on the geologic cross sections, as provided in

Figures 6 through 9. These chemistry cross sections do not intersect all shallow wells at the

Nease Site, but a significant number thereof. The cross sections are provided to illustrate the

distribution of constituents of concern at depth, underlying the Site. Round 1 sampling was

conducted in October and November of 1992, and Round 2 sampling was conducted in March

of 1993. Detailed results are provided in Appendk K of Volume 4 of the July, 1993 RI

Report, and plan view maps of Round I/Round 2 chemistry are provided in Plates 8 through

13 of the Revised RI (November, 1994).

In cross section, it appears that groundwater at the boundaries of the Nease Site contain either

only a few compounds with low levels or no levels of constituents. These boundaries, defined

previously by cross sections B-B' (southern boundary), C-C (northern boundary), and E-E1

(eastern boundary), provide an indication that migration of constituents of concern are: 1), not

yet present at these locations because of the slow groundwater velocities and the

Colder Associates

February 1995 -21- 933-6158

disconnectedness of the multiple sand horizon system; and/or 2), that degradation processes

operate at a scale similar to groundwater velocities.

2.53.1 Southern Boundary

Looking first at the perimeter cross sections, Figure 17 (fairly coincident with the southeast

property line), shows minimal volatile organic compound (VOCs) concentrations with- two (2)

unqualified detects (1,2-Dichloroethane = 150-170 ppb, and total 1,2-Dichloroethene =10-11

ppb) at Well A-S. Chloroform and Trichloroethene were detected (J qualified) during Round 2

at concentrations of 1 ppb and 6 ppb, respectively. Aside from these samplings, no other

volatile organic compounds were detected in sand horizons along section B-B1. For semi-

volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), Bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate was detected in Round 2 in

well AS at 1 ppb-J. No other semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were detected.

Mirex was detected in well CS at 0.003 ppb-J and 0.205 ppb during Round 1 and Round 2. In

well HS, mirex was detected in both rounds at 0.00279 ppb and 0.0699 ppb. Photomirex was

detected in well HS during Round 2 at 0.0441 ppb-J. No other mirex or photomirex

detections were reported for cross section B-B' wells.

No pesticide compounds were detected in wells HVF1 and AS. In well CS, heptachlor was

detected in Round 2 at 0.0078 ppb-J. In well HS, heptachlor and dieldrin were detected in

Round 2 at 0.0018 ppb-J and 0.0043 ppb-J, respectively.

2.5.3.2 Northern Boundary

Along the northern property boundary, cross section C-C (Figure 18) shows much the same

perimeter concentrations as seen on Figure 17. Eight (8) of nine (9) wells on Figure 18 show

no detected concentrations of VOCs. Only well SI, and only during Round 2, were total 1,2-

Dichloroethane (2 ppb-J) and trichloroethene (4 ppb-J) detected. For semi-volatile organic

compounds (SVOCs), trace (1-2 ppb) levels of phenol were measured in three (3) of nine

wells (SI, JVF2, JVF4), and in one (1) well at levels of 7 ppb (LVF2), all qualified J. Bis(2-

Golder Associates

February 1995 -22- 933-6158

"*"' ethylhexyl)Phthalate was detected at JVF3 and JVF4 during Round 2 at 1 ppb-J. In well LVF2

during Round 2, five additional SVOCs were detected, all qualified J, at levels of 1-2 ppb.

Mirex was present in wells JVF2 (0.00705 ppb), KVF2 (0.0154 ppb),and KVF4 (0.0047 ppb,

qualified J). These wells are all located along the MFLBC. All other wells shown on Figure

18, that lie away from the MFLBC, had no detected concentrations of mirex. Generally, as for

mirex, pesticides are present in wells near to the MFLBC, at the range of 1-6 parts per trillion

(ppt,) for Dieldrin, gamma-Chlordane, and Heptachlor (all qualified J for Figure 18). In wells

SI and LVF1, ppt, levels of alpha-BHC and Dieldrin are qualified J, and well SI has

Methoxychlor at 19 pptrJ. All other wells have no pesticide detects.

2.5.3.3 Eastern Boundary

Figure 19, representing cross-section E-E a north-south transect running just to the east of

Crane-Deniing and west of and sub-parallel to the MFLBC, shows the chemistry results of nine1*1""' (9) screened well sections. To the south at well cluster H, two (2) sections (H-S and HVF1)

show no detects of VOC's or SVOCs. The lower of the two wells, HVF1 screened at about

20 feet below ground surface, showed no detects for MPK or pesticides. For the upper well,

H-S, only mirex was detected (qualified J) in Round 1 (0.00279 ppb), and in Round 2, mirex

was detected unqualified at a value of 0.0699 ppb. Additionally, in Round 2 sampling,

photomirex, and the pesticides Dieldrin and Heptachlor were detected (qualified J) at the levels

shown.

Moving to the north from well cluster H, well S-14, screened across a clay-sand and a sand

horizon, showed no VOC, MPK, or pesticide during Round 1, and low level, qualified

concentrations of the SVOC compounds 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (3 ppb-J) and Diphenylsulfone

(4 ppb-J). During Round 2, no VOC, SVOC, or pesticide compounds were identified, and

mirex was measured (qualified J) at a concentration of 0.00329 ppb.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -23- 933-6158

Further north along E-E1, wells S-15 and S-17 are screened in two (2) sand horizons at depths

of about 20 and 28 feet, respectively. The upper well, S-15, appears to be screened in the same

sand horizon as HFV1 and S-14, and shows similar chemistry. During Round 1, no MPK or

pesticide compounds were detected, and only one (1) volatile and one (1) semi-volatile

compounds were detected, qualified, at levels of 3 ppb and 2 ppb (carbon disulfide and

diphenyl sulfone, respectively). Endrin aldehyde was detected during Round 2 at 0.039 ppb-J.

For the deeper screened well S-17, nine (9) volatile and five (5) semi-volatile organic

compounds were detected in either of or both Rounds 1 and 2, but no MPK or pesticides were

detected. Compared to all other wells along the perimeter of the site (wells found in Figures

17, 18, and 19), several VOCs' are present at higher concentration levels. Included in the

Round 1 VOC and SVOC detected compounds are benzene (270 ppb-J), chlorobenzene (53

ppb), 1,2-dichloroethane (92 ppb-J), total 1,2-dichloroethene (4,600 ppb), vinyl chloride (600

ppb), 1,2-dichlorobenzene (1,400 ppb) and diphenyl sulfone (970 ppb). During Round 2

sampling, all of the above detected VOC compounds were measured at significantly less

concentrations, and for the SVOC compounds, concentrations were slightly less.

Well S-16, to the north of well S-17 and screened three (3) feet deeper, had no detects of MPK

or pesticide compounds in either Round 1 or Round 2. Three (3) VOC and one (1) SVOC

compounds were detected in both Round 1 and 2. 1,2-Dichloroethane, total 1,2-

dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, and phenol were detected at maximum concentrations of 14

ppb-J, 57 ppb, 150 ppb, and 3 ppb-J, respectively, all from Round 2.

For the wells at well cluster J (JVF2, JVF3, JVF4), except for low level, qualified, detections of

phenol and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, no detects of VOC, SVOC, photomirex, kepone or

pesticide compounds were reported. A 1 ppb (qualified J) detection of phenol was reported

for well JW4, and 1 ppb detections of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were reported for wells

JVF3 and JVF4. In well JVF2, the uppermost screened section, mirex was detected in Round

1 only, at a concentration of 0.00705 ppb, with no detection in Round 2.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -24- 933-6158

2.5.3.4 Central Area

Finally, Figure 16 illustrates a cross section drawn centrally through the site, in the direction of

groundwater flow. Broadly, Figure 16 shows low to non detect concentrations of VOC,

SVOC, MPK, and pesticide compounds for the perimeter wells at well cluster I (upgradient of

the old production area), and well clusters D and E, located along the MFLBC. In between

these two areas, VOC's and SVOC's were detected at significantly (several orders of

magnitude) higher concentrations. Wells S-18 and S-13, both screened in the shallow glacial

sediments, show concentrations for compounds of interest ranging from 620 ppb to 45,000

ppb-benzene, 75 ppb to 4,700 ppb-chlorobenzene, 610 ppb to 23,000 ppb-l,2-dichloroethane,

2,300 ppb to 20,000 ppb-trichloroethene, 2,800 ppb to 60,000 ppb - 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane,

and 72 ppb to 9, 100 ppb-diphenyl sulfone. The above serves to represent the magnitude of the

concentrations encountered in the vicinity of Pond 2.

Shallow wells S-15 and S-17 in cross section A- A' have been previously discussed in detail

(Figure 19). Well S-19 shows twelve (12) VOC and SVOC compounds detected, but no

detection of MPK. Concentration levels for S-19 range from 1-350 ppb for the SVOC

compounds, the highest concentration being detected for 1,2-dichlorobenzene. The VOCs

ranged from 12 to 3,400 ppb; the highest concentrations included 320 ppb for benzene and

vinyl chloride each, and 3,400 for total 1,2-dichloroethene. The latter concentration

represented a small decease in concentration for total 1,2-dichloroethene as compared to wells

upgradient and to the west of well S-19. Round 2 results for well S-19 were not reported,

since S-19 well water was frozen during Round 2 sampling. As mentioned previously, wells

associated with the well clusters about MFLBC (clusters D and E, Figure 16), show no

detectable concentrations for VOCs and SVOCs, and low but qualified levels of mirex.

Summarizing all the Round 1 and 2 results for shallow groundwater, 1,2-dichloroethane and

total 1,2-dichloroethene appear the most commonly reported compounds. In the area about

Pond 2, concentrations for as many as twenty compounds are in the ppm range.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -25- 933-6158

2.5.4 Task 4.4: Review of July 1993 Sampling Results

2.5.4.1 Background

During a walkover inspection of the Site on May 20, 1993 the Agencies noted the presence of

a white residue material on soil and other surfaces of structures of Pond 1, Pond 2 and

associated drainage ditches. The Agencies were concerned that this material, which had

previously been identified as calcium sulfate by RNC, may in fact contain mirex and in a letter

dated June 18, 1993 notified RNC that sampling to identify the white residue substance at the

Site was necessary.

In a letter to the Agencies dated June 22, 1993 RNC indicated a desire to collect additional

information on the white residue material and also conduct sampling of the three influent

sources to the existing on-site treatment plant as a precursor to running a pilot test on the plant.

The Agencies acknowledged this communication in a letter dated July 1, 1993 and encouraged

RNC to proceed immediately with the field program. Subsequently, a meeting was held with

the Agencies on July 13, 1993 to discuss, amongst other things, the schedule for the sampling

activities to be conducted at the Site.

The field sampling and analysis program was confirmed in a letter to the Agencies on July 19,

1993 and Agency approval to proceed with the sampling was granted during a teleconference

call on July 26, 1993. The sampling was conducted on July 29 and 30, 1993 and split sampling

was conducted by USEPA TAT contractor ecology and environment, inc. (E&E) of

Cleveland, Ohio.

2.5.4.2 Fieldwork Program

The Sampling and Analysis Program was described in detail in the July 19 letter from Colder

Associates submitted to the Agencies on behalf of RNC. In brief, it included provision for

sampling of the white residue material around the Pond 2 area and associated drainage ditches

and the sampling of each of the influent sources IX1S-1, LCS-2 and Pond 1 (Figure 2).

Colder Associates

February 1995 -26- 933-6158

Upon arrival at the Site, it became apparent that the white residue material was no longer

present as previously observed during the May 20 visit. (Based on field observations by site

personnel during the winter of 1994, it is likely that the appearance of the white residue

material is tied to precipitation events and the subsequent rise in groundwater elevations in and

about the Pond 2 area.) Consequently, Golder Associates, the oversight contractor (E&E)

and the Ohio EPA representative agreed on a revised program to take sediment samples from

Exclusion Area A, Pond 2 and the drainage ditch to Pond 2 below Fabric Barrier 4 as shown

on Figure 2. A total of three (3) sediment samples were collected by Golder Associates and

split with USEPA TAT contractor E&E as follows:

POND 2: within Pond 2 close to the sediment control structure;

P2D: within the drainage ditch below Fabric Barrier No 4; and

EXCLA: within Exclusion Area A.

2.5.4.3 Analysis

The samples collected at the Site by Golder Associates were shipped to Mid-West Research

Institute Laboratories (MRI) for chemical analysis. On arrival, MRI determined that the

integrity of sediment samples EXCLA and P2D may have been compromised during shipment.

Since E&E. had also taken split samples, and samples had previously been taken of the Pond 2

drainage ditch in 1992 (ecology and environment, 1992a and 1992b), samples EXCLA and

P2D were not recollected for analysis. Thus, only the Pond 2 sediment sample was analyzed.

Analyses were conducted for:

flame atomic adsorption for calcium

TCL volatiles

TCL semivolatiles

• pesticides/PCB's

Golder Associates

February 1995 -27- 933-6158

TAL metals

mirex/photomirex/kepone

particle size analysis

Particle size analyses were carried out by Colder Associates' Soil Laboratory in Mt. Laurel,

New Jersey for samples EXCLA, Pond 2, and P2D. These are provided in Appendix A,

Analyses for the three (3) influent sources included:

TCL volatiles

TCL semivolatiles

TAL metals

diphenyl sulfone

3,4 dichloronitrobenzene

pesticides/PCB's

dioxins

furans

mirex/photomirex and kepone

2.5.4.4 Discussion of Results

Results of the analyses of the influent sources and the sediment samples collected by Golder are

presented in Tables 5 and 6 respectively. Tables 5a through 5f provide results for LCS1,

LCS2, and Pond 1 aqueous samples for volatiles (5a), semi-volatiles (5b), inorganics (5c),

pesticides (5d), MPK (5e), and dioxins, furans and cyanide (5f). Tables 6a through 6f provide

results from Pond 2 sediment samples for volatiles (6c), semi-volatiles (6b), inorganics (6c),

pesticides (6d), MPK (6e), and dioxins, furans, and cyanide (6f). As described in Section

Golder Associates

February 1995 -28- 933-6158

2.5.4.3, sediment sample results are provided for only Pond 2. Results of the grain size analyses

on the sediment samples are presented in Appendix A. (Results of the split samples taken by

the USEPA TAT contractor (E&E) are not provided with this report).

Tables 5a through 5f show that the concentrations of both organic and inorganic compounds

are the highest in LCS-2 and lowest in Pond 1 influent respectively. Table 5a shows that

concentrations of volatile organic compounds are generally one or two orders of magnitude

greater in LCS-2 than LCS-1. For LCS-1 and LCS-2, total VOCs are 3223 ppb and 95,521

ppb, respectively, and 75 ppb and 13,769 ppb for total SVOCs, respectively. For Pond 1 the

only volatile organic compounds detected (Table 5a) were Acetone (5 ppb), Carbon

Tetrachloride (4 ppb), chlorobenzene (2 ppb), Total 1,2-Dichloroethene (2 ppb), 1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane (6 ppb), tetrachloroethene (15 ppb), trichloroethene (4 ppb, and Toluene (2

ppb). A similar pattern between volatiles concentration and source was also noted for

semivolatiles (Table 5b) with the highest concentrations in LCS2 and the lowest in Pond 1,

with LCS2 concentrations several orders of magnitude greater than LCS1 concentrations.

Diphenyl sulfone was detected at 60 ppb in LCS-1 and 990 ppb in LCS-2 but not in the Pond 1

sample. The compound 3,4-Dichloronitrobenzene was not detected in any of the three influent

source samples.

As per Table 5d, some pesticide organic compounds were detected in the low parts per billion

range for all three samples. Table 5e indicates that mirex was detected in all three sources at

concentrations ranging from 1.07 ppb (Pond 1) to 7.6 ppb (LCS-1); photomirex was detected

in all three sources from 0.0393 ppb in LCS-2 (qualified I, J, Y) to 0.157 ppb in LCS-1; and

kepone was detected in all three sources from 0.0113 ppb in Pond 1 (qualified J) to 0.159 ppb

in LCS-2 (qualified J). The only detect of dioxin or furan compounds was 96.4 ppb Total

TCDF for LCS-2 (Table 5f).

Table 5c presents the results of analyses for total inorganics for each of the three influent

sources. The highest metals concentrations are detected in LCS-2 and again are generally an

order of magnitude greater (for the more commonly-occurring metals) than those

Colder Associates

February 1995 -29- 933-6158

concentrations detected in LCS-1 and POND 1. These concentrations are not dissimilar to the

results of the June 1993 sampling results which were reported in the TPPEWP.

Results of the analysis of the POND 2 sediment sample indicated detects of volatile organic

compounds (Table 6a), including Acetone (180 ppb), Benzene (94 ppb), 2-Butanone (19 ppb),

1,2-Dichloroethane (28 ppb), Total 1,2 Dichloroethene (75 ppb), Ethylbenzene (28 ppb),

1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane (690 ppb), 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (66 ppb), Trichloroethene (640

ppb) and Total xylenes (160 ppb). Semivolatile organic compounds and pesticides were also

detected as shown in Tables 6b and 6d respectively. The compounds detected at the highest

concentrations included Diphenylsulfone (45000 ppb), 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (4500 ppb), 1,2-

Dichlorobenzene (3400 ppb), Hexachlorobenzene (3700 ppb) and Methoxychlor (920 ppb).

Pond 2 was the only source from which sediment samples were collected.

Table 6e presents the results of analyses for MPK. Dioxins and Furans are presented in Table

6f. Pond 2 sediment was the only sediment sample source analyzed for MPK. Mirex was

detected at a concentration of 74,200 ppb, Photomirex at 44.4 ppb (qualified I, J, K) and

Kepone at 41.3 ppb (qualified I, J). No dioxins or fiirans were analyzed for in the Pond 2

sediment sample (Table 6f).

Results of metals analyses are presented in Table 6c. Pond 2 sediment was the only sediment

sample source analyzed for metals. Concentrations range from 256 mg/kg for Manganese to

22,400 mg/kg for Iron for the more commonly occurring metals to less than 1 mg/kg for

metals like Antimony (0.21 mg/kg), Beryllium (0.55 mg/kg), Cadmium (0.46 mg/kg), Mercury

(0.55 mg/kg), Selenium (0.36 mg/kg), Silver (0.81 mg/kg) and Thallium (0.26 mg/kg).

Particle size distributions for each of the three sediment samples collected at the Site are

presented in Appendix A. Inspection of the graphs indicates that the samples have similar well-

graded curves representative of clayey sands and silty sands.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -30- 933-6158

2.5.5 Task 4.5: Evaluation of Surface Water Flow Regime

A review of the RI Report (RNC, 1993) was performed to establish the climate, soil

permeability/infiltration, and hydrologic characteristics of the Site so as to delineate the

watershed and the existing capacities available within the streams, channels, etc., and assess the

magnitude and direction of overland flow into, across, and exiting the Site. In addition, a

hydrologic routing of the 25 year, 24 hour storm event was performed to determine the

required capacities of hydrologic structures found at the Site.

Figure 20 shows the Site topography, the relevant hydrologic features (such as channels and

ponds), and the existing hydraulic structures (fabric barriers, rock barriers, and groundwater

wells) that occur at the Site and was used to perform the above mentioned work.

2.5.5.1 Surface Drainage Network

Overall the Site drainage is in a northeasterly direction toward an unnamed tributary of the

MFLBC (for site related purposes, this tributary is called Feeder Creek). As shown on Figure

21, the area of the Site along State Route 14, which is the southwestern boundary of the Site,

drains southwesterly toward Route 14. Areas along the southeastern boundary between Route

14 and the; railroad tracks, discharge toward the east to the Golf Course tributary. The

remainder of the Site discharge is northeast through culverts under the railroad tracks to the

Feeder Creek tributary of the MFLBC, behind the Crane-Deming Building. The site related

watersheds, delineated from site topography, are presented on Figure 22.

Throughout the Site, a network of surface water channels convey stormwater overland to the

MFLBC. As part of the design of interim actions at the Site, this network was evaluated for

anticipated flows.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -31- 933-6158

2.5.5.2 Local Climatic Conditions

The Site is located close to the Ohio-Pennsylvania state line in the Appalachian Mountains.

This area is on the border of the humid continental, hot summer and humid continental, mild

summer climates as outlined by the Koppen Classification described by Gabler et al. (1987).

The summer in this climate is subject to higher temperatures and longer growing seasons which

permits a wider variety of crops. This climate experiences humid summers and occasional

winter cold waves. Average monthly mean temperature (as recorded at Youngstown, Ohio)

for 1989 ranged from 18°F (December) to 72°F (July). The average annual precipitation,

which typically occurs from March to June, is 38.09 inches (as recorded at Youngstown, Ohio

from 1893 to 1990). The prevailing winds (Youngstown, Ohio) tend to originate from the

west, southwest, and northwest. The average wind speed for 1989 was 8.73 mph. The

growing season extends from 140 to 200 days. The vegetation consists of broad-leaf

deciduous trees (coniferous in sandy areas), with mixed forest and some grasslands. Typical

crops for the area include wheat and corn.

2.5.5.3 Soil Types

Based upon mapping presented in the Soil Survey of Columbia County, Ohio dated 1968, and

reproduced in the July 1993 RI Report (RNC, 1993), the soils in the vicinity of the Site are

classified as listed below with their hydrologic soil classification:

Colder Associates

February 1995 -32- 933-6158

SOIL TYPE

Bogart Loam

Canfield Silt Loam

Chili Gravelly Loam

Chili Loam

Jimtown Loam

Jimtown Silt Loam

Lorain Clay

Made Land

Sebring Silt Loam

HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP

B

C

B

B

C

C

D

D

C

Comparing these soil groups with the soils map reproduced in Figure 23, it is evident that the

majority of soils within the Site boundaries are hydrologic soil group B. This soil group is

defined as permeable soils. Other Site soils fall into the classification of hydrologic soil groups

C and D, which correspond with lower permeability and impermeable soils, respectively. It

should be noted that the majority of the Type C and D soils occur along the watercourses.

2.5.5.4 Surface Water Modeling

The surface water modeling was performed to evaluate the existing available capacities and

required capacities within the existing streams and channels located on-site.

In order to perform the hydrologic routing study, analyses for the existing Site conditions were

conducted with the assistance of the TR-55 computer program prepared by the Soil

Conservation Service (SCS). The information utilized by TR-55 includes the areas of the

watersheds (Figure 22), the curve numbers, and the times of concentration (see Appendix C).

The rainfall distribution for the SCS TR-55 program was designed such that the peak intensity

for long duration storms will approximate the rainfall intensity for a shorter duration storm of

Colder Associates

February 1995 -33- 933-6158

'*""' the same frequency. For example, the most intense hour of a 2 year, 24 hour storm event is

simulated by the rainfall intensity for the 2 year, 1 hour storm. Based on industry standards, the

analysis of surface water routing was performed for the 25 year, 24 hour storm event. Since

the short duration storm events are "contained within" the 25 year, 24 hour design storm, the

SCS TR-55 program can be used to study surface water drainage under varying conditions.

The program calculated that the precipitation depth of a 25 year, 24 hour storm event is 4.2

inches.

Input Parameters

As the first step to determine the input parameters, watersheds were delineated using the Site

topography, and Figure 22 shows this watershed delineation. The outlet points for each

watershed were selected as the points of convergence or divergence of two channels. After

delineating the limits of each watershed, the watershed was separated into subareas by

vegetative cover (e.g. wooded, open space). Then, the areas of each cover type were

, determined with the use of a digital planimeter.

The cover type and the hydrologic soil group were used to tabulate the curve number (CN)

which allows estimation of the depth of precipitation which will runoff. The CN value for each

cover type was obtained from CN tables presented in the SCS TR-55 manual. The CN values

for each watershed were weighted to account for the various cover types and hydrologic soil

groups contained within that delineated watershed.

Finally, the time of concentration, defined as the time required for water to travel overland

from the hydrologically most distant point within the watershed to the most downstream point

within the watershed, was calculated for each watershed.

Analysis Assumptions

In order to evaluate the input parameters of the analyses, several assumptions were made about

the Site. These assumptions are as follows:

Colder Associates

February 1995 -34- 933-6158

There is no recharge to or from groundwater in the streambeds.

Made land was assumed to be hydrologic soil group D for conservatism.

Vegetation coverage was assumed to be "fair", which represents fifty toseventy five percent coverage.

Wooded Areas were considered a mixture of woods and grass.

Based upon these assumptions, the hydrologic analysis of the 25 year, 24 hour storm event was

performed. The results of the analysis are presented in the following section.

Analytical Results

The computer printouts for the TR-55 analyses of the existing conditions and supporting

calculation;? are presented in Appendix C. The peak discharges for the 25 year, 24 hour storm

event are presented below for the existing and proposed conditions.

DRAINAGE PATTERN

Southwest to Route 14

Southeast to Golf Cse

Northeast to MFLBC

CONTRIBUTINGWATERSHED

OS-3, D

E

remaining

PEAK DISCHARGE (cfs/gpm)

15/6,735

2/898

133/59,717

Note: cfs = cubic feet per second gpm = gallons per minute

These calculations indicate that almost 90% of the surface water discharges to the MFLBC.

Additionally, these calculations generally indicate that this flow remains within the banks of the

watercourses which convey the flow.

2.5.6 Task 4.6: Evaluate Condition and Effectiveness of Existing SurfaceWater Control Measures

2.5.6.1 General

Figure 20 presents the locations of the existing eleven (11) fabric barriers and two (2) rock

barriers at and around the Site. Two sediment control outlet structures also exist on the Nease

Colder Associates

February 1995 -35- 933-6158

Site. Sediment Control Structure No. 1 is located in Exclusion Area A, Watershed C (Figures

2 and 22) and Sediment Control Structure No. 2 is located in Pond 2, Watershed B (Figures 2

and 22).

2.5.6.2 Fabric and Rock Barriers

The fabric barriers (Figure 24) consist of woven filter fabric staked into the ground with a

minimum key of four inches, and riprap on the downgradient side to minimize the erosion of

the downgradient soils by water passing through the fabric. It should be noted that filter fabric

barriers, typically, require routine maintenance in order to remain effective. Emergency

maintenance will be performed as required after extreme storm events. A schedule of routine

bi-annual maintenance is suggested to ensure that the fabric barriers continue to function

properly.

The rock barriers are hydraulic control structures installed close to the confluence of the Feeder

Creek with the MFLBC (Figure 20). In addition to filtering coarse grained sediment, the

primary purpose of the rock barriers is to dissipate much of the energy contained in flowing

water, preventing erosion and down-cutting in stream channels.

Field observations of these measures were made by Golder personnel on July 30, 1993 and

March 22, 1994. Since mid-1993, field inspections have also been performed on a monthly

basis by Mr. Denny Lane of Howells and Baird. The rock barriers (RBI and RB2) appear to

be in good condition, with little downstream cutting of the stream channel.

Historically, the fabric barriers have been maintained on an "as needed" basis. Such

maintenance may be needed when downgradient erosion occurs or when silting of the fabric

caused excessive ponding behind the barrier resulting in the surface water passing over the top

of the barriers. For instance, it is understood that erosion has occurred around the ends of

FB10, surface water flow has occasionally overtopped FB11, and FB7 is understood to be

Golder Associates

February 1995 -36- 933-6158

overgrown. Simultaneously, the two (2) rock barriers appear to be in good condition and

performing satisfactorily.

On the basis of the above, and the work conducted under Task 4.7 (described below), it is

recommended that filter barriers FB7 and FB10 be relocated to perform more effectively (with

respect to storm water routing), all fabric barriers be replaced with an upgraded filter cloth

specification, and that two (2) new fabric barriers (FB12 and FB13) be installed (Figure 20). A

description of these options and their implementation is provided in Section 3.

2.5.7 Task 4.7: Review of Design Components of Control Measures

The sediment control outlet structures (Figure 24) are in good condition and appear to be

functioning as intended. The 15-inch diameter perforated corrugated metal pipe (CMP) riser is

wrapped with Trevira Type 1125 filter fabric for "filtering" sediment from the outflow.

A review of the use of this particular filter cloth in relation to the grain size of the sediments

sampled in July 1993 (Appendix A), for sampling points EXCLA, POND2, and P2D

undertaken in Section 2.5.7 below, indicates that the sediment in Pond 2 and Exclusion A is

finer grained than the sediments in the Feeder Creek at P2D (i.e. 82+% pass the #10 sieve in

Exclusion A and Pond 2 while 66% pass the #10 sieve at P2D). This information indicates that

the use of the nonwoven geotextile results in a sufficiently lengthy detention time for ponded

surface water to allow finer grained particulate to "settle out" of suspension. Based upon these

grain size iinalyses, the Sediment Control Outlet Structures are performing their desired goal

and shall remain unaltered as part of the interim measures recommended in this report.

2.6 Task 7: Monitor and Address Seeps

As discussed in the RAWP, a program for monthly Site inspection to monitor, record, and

address seeps is provided in Section 3.7 of the RAWP. In addition to this program, new forms

and a map are provided, and are contained in Appendix B of this document. The Site

Inspection Forms include:

Colder Associates

February 1995 -37- 933-6158

Monthly Site Inspection Form

Monthly Monitoring Well Water Level Measurements Form

Site Inspection Form Map (Form A)

The use of these forms, currently in use as of July, 1994, will assist with the implementation of

the program set forth in the RAWP, and the accompanying documents meet the requirements

of Task 7 of the RAWP (as described by Paragraph 4e. of the Removal AOC. The findings of

the monthly inspections is described in the monthly progress report for the Site, provided to

Agencies on or before the tenth (10th) day of each month.

2.7 Task 8: Removal of Materials

As discussed in Section 3.8 of the RAWP, a program for the removal of groundwater (Section

3.8.1) and soils and sediments (Section 3.8.2) has been provided. This program, based on past

approved practices at the Site, is deemed to satisfy the requirements of Task 8 of the RAWP

(as described by Paragraph 4f. of the Removal AOC). The volume of materials removed is

described bi the monthly progress report for the Site, provided to Agencies on or before the

tenth (10th) day of each month.

2.8 Summary

The following list provides a summary of the pertinent points and findings of Tasks 1 through

4, 7, and 8 of the RAWP, which provide the background and the basis for the interim remedial

measures discussed in Section 3.0.

Task 1: Collection of Contaminated Groundwater

Seasonally high flows to the existing leachate collection system occur duringFebruary, March and April, and average approximately 850 GPD and 8,400GPD for LCS-2 and LCS-1, respectively.

Peak flow events occur less than 20% of the days during the high flow season,and range in magnitude from approximately 13,000 GPD to 16,000 GPD.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -38- 933-6158

During the drier months of the year (June through January), flows to theleachate collection system average approximately 1,500 GPD to 2,000 GPD,approaching 1,000 GPD during the driest months of August, September andOctober.

Task 2: Installation of Float Activated Pumps

A detailed design of modifications to the new controller system at LCS-2 iscontained in the TPMDTM, submitted to the Agencies on Jury 26,1994.

Task 3: On-Site Leachate Treatment System

Activities conducted under Task 3 of the RAWP (i.e. treatment plantoperations/modifications, etc.) are described in detail under separate cover,specifically in the Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation Report TPPER),Treatment Plant Modifications Work Plan (TPMWP), and Treatment PlantModifications Design Technical Memorandum (TPMDTM).

Task 4: Review of Hydrogeologic Data

> ^ Task 4.1: Review of Extent of Shallow Sand Aquifers

Borehole logs were reviewed and the interpreted geologic cross sections werepresented in Figures 6 through 9. Cross sections were chosen so as to describethe boundary (downgradient and sidegradient) conditions at the Site.

Monthly monitoring well water table elevations were measured for a period of17 months (March, 93 to July, 94), presented in tabular form (Table 3 A and3B) and cross sections (Figures 6 through 9), and used to establish theseasonally high and seasonally low water table at the Site.

The seasonal variation in the shallow groundwater water table is approximatelyfive (5) to seven (7) feet in the westernmost area of the Site, and approximatelyone (1) to two (2) feet in the middle and eastern areas of the Site;

Based on previous work (SMC Martin, Inc., 1985) the configuration andmagnitude of the shallow groundwater water table appears to have changedvery little in nine (9) years;

Shallow groundwater flow in the shallow glacial sediments is stronglyinfluenced by and responds to topographic control, flowing downgradient in aseries of en-echelon sand layers whose interconnectedness has not beenadequately defined.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -39- 933-6158

The zone along which stronger hydraulic gradients in the shallow groundwatersystem begin to flatten coincides with both the water level elevation of smallestannual fluctuation and the "invert" elevation of the Feeder Creek, providing apossible guide for the level at which seepage control may potentially beachieved.

As described by more recent data, nuances in the shallow groundwater watertable have been delineated (Figure 12A), which show the existence of an"eastern" lobe, from which shallow groundwater flows both easterly and to thesouth and southwest during conditions of low water table, typically occurringin the Fall season;

Strongest hydraulic gradients in the shallow glacial sediments lie along a zoneroughly parallel and adjacent to the Conrail tracks;

Task 4.2: Review of Hydraulic Conductivity Results

Sand 2 has a higher hydraulic conductivity value (and associated saturatedtravel time) than Sand 1; however, conductivity and travel time valuesgenerally increase from west to east across the Site;

^ • The range of volumetric flux rates for sand horizons that occur in the nearvicinity of the Site (Sands 1,2, and 3) are 0.093 GPD/ft-width, 1.21 GPD/ft-width, and 0.791 GPD/ft-width, respectively.

Task 4.3: Review of Round I/Round 2 RI Sampling Results

Based on Round 1 and Round 2 monitoring well samples as presented in thegeologic cross sections, the extent of contamination as measured in perimeterwells is low, ranging from No Detects, to qualified detects near reportinglimits, to unqualified detects very near reporting limits;

Constituents of concern measured in Site perimeter wells are primarily mirex,1,2-Dichloroethane, and total 1,2-Dichloroethene, with rare detects of a veryfew other organic compounds (See Figures 17 through 19);

As shown on cross section A-A1 (Figure 16), constituents of concern aremoving laterally to the east in the shallow groundwater system;

Beneath the old production area and the Pond I/Pond 2 area constituents havebeen detected in the range of parts per billion for numerous volatile and semi-volatile organics to parts per thousand (percent level) for several compounds;

• The major source of constituents in groundwater appears to be the PondI/Pond 2 area.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -40- 933-6158

Task 4.4: Review of July 1993 Sampling Results

In response to an Agency Site inspection and subsequent request for furthersampling (letter dated June 18, 1993), RNC performed sampling (July 29-30,1993) to further characterize both Site conditions and the three influent sourcesto the on-site treatment plant.

For the three influent sources LCS-1, LCS-2, and Pond 1, total VOCs were3,223 ppb, 95,521 ppb, and 40 ppb, respectively;

For the three influent sources LCS-1, LCS-2, and Pond 1, total SVOCs were75 ppb, 13,769 ppb, and 20 ppb, respectively;

LCS-2 showed metals concentrations of 487,000 ppb for calcium, 185,000 ppbfor sodium, 155,000 ppb for magnesium, and 68,000 ppb for iron;

Pond 2 sediment samples showed elevated concentrations of mirex (74,200ppb) and diphenyl sulfone (45,000 ppb);

Task 4.5: Evaluation of Surface Water Flow Regime

Generally, site drainage is in a northeasterly direction toward the Feeder Creekand MFLBC, with lesser drainage in a southeasterly direction toward the GolfCourse Tributary Creek and hence to the MFLBC;

Annual precipitation is approximately 40 inches per year, occurring primarily inthe spring months of March, April and May;

The majority of soils at the Site are of the permeable hydrologic soil group B,with lesser quantities of the less permeable to impermeable hydrologic soilgroups C and D, respectively, which occur primarily along watercourses;

The precipitation depth of the 25 year, 24 hour storm event is 4.2 inches;

Results from hydrologic routing modeling of the 25 year, 24 hour eventindicates that approximately 90 percent of surface water run-off is to theFeeder Creek, and 10 percent of run-off is southwest to along State Route 14,for a total volume of 150 cfs;

Task 4.6: Evaluate Condition and Effectiveness of Existing Surface Water ControlMeasures

Existing filter barriers appear to be performing in their intended capacity ofimpounding fine sediment, but require regular maintenance; and

Colder Associates

February 1995 -41- 933-6158

'*"""'' • Existing rock barriers are in good condition and functioning properly.

Task 4.7: Review of Design Components of Control Measures

Results of grain size analyses on samples taken in July 1993 for Pond 2,Exclusion Area A and the drainage ditch to Pond 2, indicate that the existingsediment control outlet structures (No. 1 and No. 2) are effectively performingtheir desired function.

Task 7: Monitor and Address Seeps

A monthly Site inspection program (see Section 3.7 of the RAWP) has beendeveloped to monitor, record, and address seeps.

Task 8: Removal of Materials

A program for the removal of ground water and soils has been developed basedon past approved practices at the Site (see Section 3.8 of the RAWP).

Colder Associates

February 1995 -42- 933-6158

3.0 ADDENDUM PLAN

In accordance with Paragraphs 4d and 4e of the November 17, 1993 Removal AOC, RNC

will, utilizing the information provided from Tasks 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 performed and

summarized in Section 2, recommend interim remedial measures for surface water and leachate

collection and treatment for the area that lies northeast of the Conrail tracks and the Site at

large. This plan, developed and implemented in accordance with Tasks 5 and 6 of the RAWP

is presented below. The plan will be based upon 1), controlling seep occurrence with a shallow

groundwater extraction well system strategically located in Sand 1 and Sand 2 horizons; and

2), refurbishing old sediment barriers and installing several new sediment barriers for improved

control of sediment transport.

3.1 Task 5: Preparation of Work Plan Addendum

3.1.1 Shallow Groundwater Extraction System for Leachate Collection and SeepAbatement

A source control approach (extraction well system) is proposed for the mitigation of seeps that

have occurred in the area of the Crane-Deming swamp and the drainage ditch that fronts the

eastern edge of Pond 2. Figure 25 shows the conceptual design of the shallow groundwater

extraction system. These seeps were documented in the Technical Assistance Team (TAT)

Site inspections of April 24 and October 15, 1992 (ecology and environment, inc., 1992a and

1992b). The seeps are believed to be geologically and geographically related to the

outcropping of the sand horizons. Figures 14 and 15 show that the interpreted extent and

outcrop of the sand horizons tend to coincide with the location of past seeps. Therefore, the

seeps are believed to be a result of preferential shallow groundwater movement in the Sand 1

and Sand 2 horizons.

The hydraulic conductivity results indicate that movement of shallow groundwater in the sand

horizons is the primary pathway by which groundwater passes underneath the area of the old

production facility, and on towards the topographically lower areas to the east. Though the< _4

conductivities of Sand 1 (8.4 x 10 cm/sec) and Sand 2 (5.5 x 10 cm/sec) are relatively low

Colder Associates

February 1995 -43- 933-6158

for a typical sand, in contrast to the surrounding till, it is the most conductive horizon. Simple

analyses of a potential pumping scenario using Walton (1987) indicate that for these

conductivities, a well radius of influence (defined as a drawdown of 0.4 feet) of approximately

55-60 feet could be sustained in the high water table months, with a drawdown of 1.6 feet at a

radius of 10 feet (see calculations in Appendix D). The sustainable pumping rate for these

conductivities is approximately 0.25 gpm (360 GPD). Using the above estimates, a steady

state (mean annual average) extraction volume of 1.0 gpm to 2.0 gpm may be estimated, with a

peak flow total volume of 3.0 to 7-10 gpm for spring flow conditions, depending on the

number of wells in the finalized design.

The glacial till in which the sand horizons are embedded has not been tested for hydraulic

conductivity, but is likely to have a conductivity one to two orders of magnitude less than the

sands, and therefore is not likely to be conveying the majority of groundwater. Secondary

porosity (fracturing) is however believed to exist in the upper several feet of the till, as

evidenced by the rapid response to precipitation that is seen in the existing leachate collection

structures (Figure 3), and may contribute to groundwater movement. The contribution of

groundwater to the pumping system from secondary porosity, especially during high water

table months of February through April, may contribute 0.3 gpm to 0.7 gpm per well. This

pathway, the actual volume of water it may convey, the depth to which it may operate, and its

overall importance on the proposed shallow groundwater extraction well system are important

data gaps which will be addressed by the conduct of a pumping test in one of the proposed

extraction wells before finalizing design (see Section 3.1.1.1 below).

The expected quality of groundwater can be estimated from existing data. As described in

Section 2.3 the TPMWP, using both monitoring wells in the vicinity of the existing leachate

collection structures and data from source sampling of the collection structures, it is anticipated

that groundwater extracted from wells EW-1, EW-2, and EW-3 (Figure 25) could have total

VOC plus SVOC concentrations of approximately 93,000 ppb. For wells, EW-4 and EW-5,

total VOC plus SVOC concentrations of approximately 1400 ppb are anticipated, and for more

distant wells from the Pond I/Pond 2 area, comparable or lower total VOC plus SVOC

Colder Associates

February 1S>95 -44- 933-6158

concentrations are expected. Therefore, as for the existing system, only those sources that are

compatible with the limitations of the modified leachate treatment plant will be conveyed to the

plant for treatment. Thus, at this time, it is expected that shallow groundwater extracted from

wells EW-1, EW-2, and EW-3 (like those from LCS-2) will be pumped to the header panel of

the treatment plant building, and then to the expanded exterior storage tank for off-site

treatment and disposal by a licensed contractor. All other extracted groundwater is anticipated

to be processed on-site in the modified treatment plant.

In summary, after satisfying the need to fill pertinent data gaps by the conduct of a pumping

test in the area of proposed extraction wells, the installation of a shallow groundwater

extraction system is the recommended action for interim measures for the control of seeps at

the Site. Figure 25 shows the conceptual groundwater extraction system envisioned, consisting

of a series of pumping wells to be installed upgradient of past seeps. As seen in Figure 26, this

system is expected to depress the water table elevations below that of the invert elevation of

the Feeder Creek, thus aiding the prevention of seeps. Again, the uncertainty of

interconnectedness of sand horizons, transmissivities (hydraulic conductivities and sand unit

thicknesses), radii of influence of extraction wells and other in-situ conditions in the immediate

area of the system prohibit any greater detailed design prior to performing a pumping test at the

site. A refined shallow groundwater extraction system design of sufficient detail to construct in

the spring of 1995 will be developed upon completion of field investigatory activities.

3.1.1.1 Pumping Test

Appendix D contains the proposed Work Plan for conducting the pumping test at the Nease

Site. This document provides detail as to pumping test location, pumping test layout, including

construction of extraction well EW-5 and the installation of water level piezometers PZ-1 and

PZ-2 to be screened in the till material, specifics as to step-drawdown and constant rate testing,

flow velocity profiling, and data analysis. The results will be used to fill data gaps to allow the

completion of a detailed extraction system design.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -45- 933-6158

3.1.1.2 Work Elements

In summary, the work elements to be performed for the shallow groundwater extraction

system task include:

Constructing extraction well EW-5 and two water level observationpiezometers, PZ-1 and PZ-2, in the Fall of 1994;

Using well EW-5 and several of the nearby Site monitoring wells (listed inAppendix D) and the new piezometers to perform a pumping test at the Site inthe Spring of 1995;

Using the data provided from the pumping test, to develop a detailed design ofthe shallow groundwater extraction system for the interim remedial measures;and

Constructing the shallow groundwater extraction system in the Spring of 1995.

As discussed above, the proposed Work Plan approach for leachate collection and seep

abatement utilizes hydraulic control by the extraction of contaminated groundwater. The

collected groundwater is expected to be compatible with existing conveyance and/or treatment

capabilities. However, based on previous observations in wells in or very near to Pond 1 and

Pond 2, there is a possibility that non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLS) may be encountered

during the construction or operation of the groundwater extraction system. These products are

not compatible with the existing or conceptualized groundwater extraction system, and at this

stage it is proposed that such products should not be extracted, conveyed, or treated by the

existing proposed systems.

If during the construction of the pumping test well (EW-5), or the shallow groundwater

extraction system, the presence of NAPL compounds are indicated and require consideration in

the design of the system, then the ability of these systems to extract, convey and treat these

multi-phase liquids will be evaluated. Otherwise the presence of NAPLs will be further

investigated during the pre-Feasibility Study or pre-Remedial Design phases of the remedial

activities.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -46- 933-6158

3.1.2 Operation of the Shallow Groundwater Extraction System

3.1.2.1 Normal Operating Conditions

The shallow groundwater extraction system will adhere in principal to existing, approved

practices at the Site as documented in the approved RAWP, TPMWP, and TPMDTM.

Pumps

As per the approved TPMWP, where new pumps are required (each extraction well),

commercially available industrial grade pumps will be used and will be specified for the

following:

Capacity and head requirements;

Discharge pressure;

Fluid density and viscosity;

Materials of construction;

Seal type and flushing requirements; and,

Drive type and speed.

The pumps would be expected to be electrically powered, down-the-hole submersible pumps

controlled by float activated mechanisms (described below).

Controls and Alarms

Controls and alarms will be incorporated into the system as described in Section 2.5.2 of the

TPMWP (i.e. float activated high and low level pumping control with a high-high float alarm).

Alarms will be linked via telemetry to notify local support personnel and/or RNC in the event

of a problem. Appendix E contains Figures 6,7 and 9 from the TPMDTM. These figures are

reproduced here to illustrate the alarm and telemetry system that will be installed at the Site

under the TPMWP. This telemetry system presently has one unused port. All extraction well

alarms will be connected to a single control panel which will be connected to the one unused

Colder Associates

February 1995 -47- 933-6158

port on the telemetry system. In the event of any pump failure in the extraction system as a

whole, the telemetry system will notify personnel of a groundwater extraction system failure. It

will be the responsibility of support personnel to identify the specific failed pump by

observation of a failure light on the control panel of an individual well. Section 2.5 of the

TPMDTM describes the eight pre-programmed numbers and six pre-recorded messages of the

telemetry/alarm system.

Piping

Figure 27 shows the proposed pipe system for the groundwater extraction system, subject to

modifications based on the Fall 1994 field activities. It is proposed to use existing in-ground

and available PVC piping for fluid conveyance to the treatment plant. Appendix E contains

Figures 6, 7, and 9 of the TPMDTM, and shows the piping and header system at the treatment

plant and expansion capabilities already in place. As per the approved TPMWP, piping will

conform to industry Standard specifications for material and installation and the system will be

designed for operations during all seasons. The piping will be protected from freeze damage by

insulation and/or heat tracing.

To ensure compatibility with the existing piping and the integrity of the new piping, all in-

ground pipes will be pressure tested prior to backfilling to ensure that they have been correctly

installed. The test pressure for the leakage test will be 50 percent above the normal operating

pressure or pressure rating of the pipe, whichever is greater. The pipe must hold this pressure

and the allowable leakage must meet the requirements of American Water Works Association

Standard C600-77.

HDPE pipe will be specified for in-ground installation and shall be designated SDR-11 which is

rated for an internal working pressure of 160 psi. As the maximum internal working pressure

for piping will be approximately 40 psi, a safety factor of four (4) applies. All HDPE pipe

joints will be made using the heat fusion welding technique according to the manufacturer's

installation and welding techniques.

Colder Associates

February 1995 • -48- 933-6158

' 4*~x Heat Tracing

In order to ensure continuous performance of the shallow groundwater extraction system

during cold periods, any pipe above ground or less than three (3) feet below ground shall be

heat traced and insulated. The selected heat tracing shall be self-regulating to maintain process

temperatures above freezing regardless of the external conditions, such as that provided with

the BTV heating system by Raychem, (or approved equal). All new pipes to be installed as

part of these modifications will be plastic pipes. As heat tracing plastic pipe is a special

condition, aluminum tape placed over the heating cable can be used to increase the thermal

output of the system, and ensure obtaining the desired affect.

Operations and Maintenance

RNC will operate and maintain the groundwater extraction system to provide continuous

collection of groundwater. Expected new flow volumes (in addition to the current loading of

approximate 2 gpm, annual average) to the treatment plant are anticipated to be 1-2 gpm at

^^ steady-state (mean annual) conditions, and 5-10 gpm peak flow conditions for approximately

90 days during the months mid-February to mid-April. These flow volumes are compatible

with the existing treatment system capacities, as described in Section 2.2 of the approved

TPMWP.

Maintenance will consist of an inspection of the shallow groundwater extraction system at least

on a weekly basis. As per the approved TPMWP, RNC will have standby pumping equipment

stored at the site and local support personnel available to implement continuous manual

controlled pumping within 24 hours of an alarm.

Performance Monitoring

Upon commissioning the shallow groundwater extraction system, a monitoring program will be

implemented. This monitoring program has been developed to evaluate both the hydraulic

performance of the system, and to establish the chemical quality of the extracted groundwater,

and its compatibility with the existing on-site leachate treatment system.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -49- 933-6158

To monitor the performance of the operational groundwater extraction system, RNC will

measure shallow groundwater water table elevations at all wells that were used in the pump

test, once per day for one week, then on a weekly basis for one month, in addition to the site-

wide montlily water table measurement program currently in effect. Should it become evident

that after the initial month of monitoring that water elevations are consistently shown to be in

accordance with the intent of the Removal AOC (control of seeps), RNC would wish to

discuss a reduction in the frequency of water table elevation measurement and revert to those

taken as part of the site-wide monitoring program.

It is expected that during the spring of 1995 when the shallow groundwater extraction system

is commissioned, the treatment plant will be operating under the approved TPMWP monitoring

program, as described in Section 3.6 of the TPMWP. Presented here for completeness, the

TPMWP states. "After the initial month of operation [expected in the Fall of 1994], the results

will be evaluated and a monthly monitoring program as per the April 14, 1994 OEPA facsimile

will be implemented. The monitoring program is tentatively expected to consist of bi-weekly

monitoring of aqueous phase VOCs from sample location SP-4 and gaseous phase VOCs from

sample location A-2. Sampling of these locations will allow for evaluation of breakthrough of

the first caibon units, and therefore, will signal when the first carbon units have been exhausted

and change-out is required." Further, "The effluent will be monitored for all parameters on a

once per month basis to verify that the substantive discharge criteria have been met. Also, in

accordance: with the substantive discharge permit, the effluent (SP-5) will be sampled and

analyzed once every two weeks for VOCs, BOD, TSS, oil and grease (total), and PAHs (as

stated in Section 2.6 [TPMWP], the need for bi-weekly monitoring will be assessed during the

initial months after start-up)."

When the shallow groundwater extraction system is brought on-line, and the additional influent

is processed at the treatment plant, RNC will sample (as per the above stated locations and

sample parameters) at once per week for a period of one month. This increased sampling will

allow for re-evaluation of carbon usage and characterize the treatment plant effluent quality for

meeting the substantive discharge criteria.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -50- 933-6158

3.1.2.2 Contingency Operations

As per the approved TPMWP, "measures will be implemented that either allow the system to

operate continuously and/or with minimal downtime, such that the system's ability to maintain

hydraulic control of leachate seeps is not adversely affected, even when maintenance is required

or power outages occur." Sections 2.5.3 of the TPMWP and 4.0 of the TPMDTM describe in

detail the contingency plans for the Site, including on site storage of replacement pumps for

each collection system, on-site storage of gasoline powered pumps, the use of existing and

proposed exterior storage tanks, a contractual arrangement with a licensed hauling and disposal

firm for off-site treatment and disposal of up to 30,000 gallons of leachate per day, and a alarm

and telemetry system to inform both local support personnel and RNC in the event of a system

failure. RNC will continue to adhere to these approved practices.

For the proposed groundwater extraction system, RNC will alarm all pumps and connect them

to the telemetry system. RNC will purchase and store on-site at least one identical replacement

pump for every 5 wells that will comprise the groundwater extraction system. RNC believes

that the likelihood of multiple mechanical pump failure of industrial grade pumps is especially

small, and the need for replacement pumps for each of the wells of the extraction system is not

warranted.

3.13 Surface Water Management Measures

Several sediment control alternatives were considered as part of interim measures. These

alternatives included the use of Pond 3 as a sedimentation basin, refurbishing existing sediment

barriers and installing new barriers, and redesigning the sedimentation barriers. Any alternative

would include a scheduled maintenance program.

The use of Pond 3 as a sedimentation basin provides control for abating sediment transport.

Surface water flows from a portion of the Site that lies south of the Conrail tracks and passes

through an existing culvert pipe underneath the Conrail tracks. This discharge is then released

Colder Associates

February 1995 -51- 933-6158

"11—••' into the Feeder Creek system adjacent to the southwestern comer of Pond 3 (see Figure 20).

An alternative to treating the sediment in this discharge with downstream fabric barriers would

be to divert the discharge at the northern terminus of the culvert pipe into Pond 3, which would

be regraded, as needed, to perform as a sedimentation basin. The impoundment of this surface

water in a sedimentation basin would allow the finest grained silt and clay particles ample time

to settle out of ponded water, and prevent off-site transport of sediment.

The refurbishing of existing sedimentation barriers and the installation of new barriers provides

in-stream control for abating sediment transport, but not to the degree of efficiency of a

sedimentation pond. In addition, these measures must, by design, be placed downstream from

those areas that generate surface water runoff. These types of measures then treat the majority

of runoff during dynamic, high energy events (i.e. storm generated runoff), and as such, are

more limited than basins in both dissipating erosion energy and filtering sediment. Providing

additional sedimentation barriers of similar design should "filter out" more sediment. The

, replacement of existing filter fabric with new, woven fabric should improve the efficiency of

existing sedimentation barriers.

The redesign of existing sediment barriers offers improvement in sediment capture, over that

offered at present. Fabric barriers can be retrofitted with nonwoven geotextile. The use of

such material could result in significantly more water ponded behind the barriers than currently

occurs. The ponding could result in greater settling time for the fine grained particles.

However, impounding water behind relatively small hydraulic structures is comparatively less

efficient than a sedimentation basin.

Under the shorter-term status of the Removal AOC, the Agencies preferred alternatives other

than the use of Pond 3 (August 11, 1994 teleconference); the Agencies question the technical

feasibility of the proposal and also believe its scope to be beyond that of a removal action.

Therefore, the alternative to refurbish existing barriers, install new barriers, and more routinely

inspect and maintain these structures is the recommended action for interim remedial measures.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -52- 933-6158

Figure 20 shows the locations of existing and proposed fabric barriers at the Site. All existing

barriers will be inspected and repaired, as necessary, using woven filter fabrics. New fabric

barriers FBI2 and FBI3 will be installed in the Feeder Creek as indicated. Two fabric barriers,

FB7 and FB10, will be moved and reconstructed in new locations to be more beneficial to the

overall barrier system. At this time, no modifications are proposed for Pond 3. Over a 20 year

period, a vegetative cover has been well established and no erosional features are evident.

Thus, the Pond 3 structure appears to be hydraulically stable. Soil disturbances in this area

would disturb the well established vegetative cover. Therefore, in keeping with the interim

nature of the work modifications are not deemed necessary under interim remedial measures.

To ensure that the filter barriers will continue to function effectively, a bi-annual maintenance

and replacement schedule will be established for the woven filter fabric. As the most critical

time for these measures is during storm events, each structure will be inspected after each

storm event of two (2) inches of precipitation (2 year storm event) or greater (in addition to the

monthly site inspection). The fabric barriers will be repaired or replaced as needed. The

replacement material shall be installed to the design shown on Figure 24 using a woven filter

fabric with the following properties:

Fabric Properties

Grab Tensile Strength (Ibs)Elongation at Failure (%)Mullen Burst Strength (PSI)Puncture Strength (Ibs)

Slurry Flow Rate (gal/min/sf)Apparent Opening Size

Ultraviolet RadiationStability %

MinimumAverageValue

905019040

0.370

90

Test Method

ASTMD1682ASTMD1682ASTMD3786ASTMD751(modified)

US Std. SieveCW-02215ASTM-G-26

Colder Associates

Febmary 1995 -53- 933-6158

These probities are typically required of filter fabric used as silt fences to control sediment

transport from unvegetated, disturbed areas during construction efforts. Material with

properties exceeding these values is equally acceptable.

Under routine maintenance of filter barriers, impounded soils may need to be removed to

ensure continued effectiveness. Removal of soils will be conducted in accordance with the

Health and Safety Plan of the RAWP. As per Section 2.7 and 3.8.3 of the RAWP, RNC will

continue its practice of disposing of soil with a licensed hazardous waste transport and disposal

service, such as ENSCO, Corporation of Eldarado, Arkansas.

The Sediment Control Outlet Structures (Figure 2) will be unaltered under the interim

measures. Replacement of the existing Trevira 1125 nonwoven geotextile will be performed as

needed based upon field inspection of the material after every storm event having two (2)

inches of precipitation or greater.

3.2 Task 6: Implementation of Work Plan Addendum

Table 7 (an updated version of Table 1 of the RAWP) provides the scheduling of previous

Removal AOC events and new Removal AOC events proposed herein.

3.2.1 Shallow Hydrogeology Measures

Installation of a pumping well and piezometers for performing the pumping test was scheduled

for the Fall of 1994 (this work was performed and completed during December 1994). In

order to obtain the most relevant information it is proposed to undertake the pumping test

when the water table is at or near its highest level. In this way, the pumping test will most

closely simulate the effects of lowering the water table from seasonally high to its seasonally

low position. Thus, the pumping test is to be performed in early Spring 1995, afterwhich a

final design of the groundwater extraction system will be developed. Construction of both the

designed groundwater extraction system and all surface water measures proposed herein will

be performed in the Spring of 1995.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -54- 933-6158

3.2.2 Surface Water/Sediment Measures

As described in Section 2.5.6.2 and Section 3.1.3, a routine bi-annual maintenance schedule is

proposed for the fabric barriers at the Nease Site. Inspection of these structures currently

occurs on a monthly basis as part of the monthly Site Inspection. Emergency maintenance will

be performed as necessary after extreme storm events.

To verify whether or not the fabric barriers located on the northeast side of the Nease Site

(areas to the north and east of the Conrail tracks) are functioning properly in abating the off-

Site transport of contaminated soils, a sampling plan (to be submitted under separate cover)

will be developed. Both stream sediment and suspended sediment will be sampled in the

drainage ditches downgradient of the Pond 3 area (also known as the Feeder Creek System).

To evaluate the condition of Feeder Creek sediments, options for sampling include tasks such

as depth discrete sampling (vertical profiling) of sediments that have been accumulating behind

fabric structures, and the sampling of a short "experimental reach" in Feeder Creek upstream

from its confluence with the Middle Fork of the Little Beaver Creek where the existing

sediment contamination levels are well defined and can be observed for changes..

The specifics of this sampling plan will be developed and submitted to the Agencies in late

Spring 1995. All work associated with the sampling plan will be conducted in accordance with

the Site Specific Sampling Plan (SSSP), Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP), and the

Health and Safety Plan (HSP) of the Removal Action Work Plan (May 1994).

COLDER ASSOCIATES INC.

ToddH.Rees,Ph.D.Project Environmental Engineer

Geonrey R. Forrest, P.G., C.P.Eng.Project Director and Associate

Colder Associates

February 1995 -55- 933-6158

REFERENCES

ecology and environment, inc., 1992a Letter Report for Nease Chemical, Salem, ColumbianaCounty, Ohio, submitted to EPA - Region V on May 31,1992.

ecology and environment, inc., 1992b Letter Report for Nease Chemical, Salem, ColumbianaCounty, Ohio, submitted to EPA - Region V on November 30,1992.

Gabler et al., 1987, Essentials of Physical Geography. CBS College Publishing, New York,NY.

Golder Associates, Inc., 1993, Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation Work Plan, NeaseChemical Site, Salem, Ohio, Revision #1, submitted to U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA on November23, 1993.

Golder Associates, Inc., 1993, Removal Action Work Plan (Revision #2), Nease ChemicalSite, Salem, Ohio, Volumes 1 & 2, submitted to U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA on April 13, 1994.

Golder Associates, Inc., 1994, Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation Report, NeaseChemical Site, Salem, Ohio, submitted to U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA on February 11, 1994.

Golder Associates, Inc., 1994, Treatment Plant Modifications Work Plan (Revision #2), NeaseChemical Site, Salem, Ohio, submitted to U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA on June 24,1994.

Golder Associates, Inc., 1994, Treatment Plant Modifications Design Technical Memorandum,Nease Chemical Site, Salem, Ohio, submitted to U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA on July, 1994.

Golder Associates, Inc. and ENVIRON Corporation, 1994, Additional Remedial Investigation:Middle Fork of Little Beaver Creek, Nease Site, Salem, Ohio, submitted to U.S. EPA andOhio EPA on August, 1994.

Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Company, Inc., November 1990, Design Report for LeachateCollection and Management System and Surface Water and Sediment Control, Revision 2,Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Company, Inc.

Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Company, Inc., 1991, Partial Remedial Investigation Report,Volumes 1-4, Nease Chemical Company, Salem, Ohio, submitted to U.S. EPA and Ohio EPAon April 5, 1991.

Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Company, Inc., 1993, Remedial Investigation Report, Volumes 1-4,Nease Chemical Company, Salem, Ohio, submitted to U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA on July 6,1993.

Golder Associates

February 1995 -56- 933-6158

SMC Martin, Inc., 1985, Environmental Assessment of Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Company,Inc., Salem, Ohio, Phase I-B Report, Preliminary Draft, submitted to Ruetgers-Nease ChemicalCompany: July, 1985.

USDA, SCS, 1986, TR-55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds.

Walton, W.C., 1987, Groundwater Pumping Tests, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.

D:\PROJECTS\933-6158\RAWPA\RESPCOMM\RAWPAREV.TXT

Colder Associates

February, 1995 933-6158

TABLE 1ADAILY LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM VOLUMES


MONTH = FEBRUARY, 1994

DATE LCS-1 LCS-2 Pond 1 TOTAL(GAL) (GAL) (GAL) (GAL)

2-1-942-2-942-3-942-4-942-5-942-6-942-7-942-8-942-9-942-10-942-11-942-12-942-13-942-14-942-15-942-16-942-17-942-18-942-19-942-20-942-21-942-22-942-23-942-24-942-25-942-26-942-27-942-28-94

TOTALS

NANANANA

2144.71964.11454.71897.41348.21439.41404.51380.41665.71571.21636.94270.34621.0

10112.88789.05218.3

10537.012212.85637.4

11854.19499.67362.05535.46045.8

119602.7

NANANANA537.5616.4469.3530.2457.4467.1585.8431.6802.4419.5542.9737.7627.7

1244.21018.5782.5986.4874.4754.7

1054.4862.7710.8664.5757.4

16936.0

NANANANA

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

437.70.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

437.7

NANANANA2682.22580.51924.02427.61805.61906.51990.31812.02468.11990.72179.85008.05248.7

11357.09807.56438.5

11523.413087.2

6392.112908.510362.38072.86199.96803.2

136976.4

Note: NA = Not Available, as daily leachate collection measurements

did not begin until 2/5/94.

mtl_rees c:\nease\rawpa\tbl1 a.wk1

August 1994 933-6158

TABLE1BDAILY LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM VOLUMES


MONTH = MARCH, 1994


3-1-943-2-943-3-943-4-943-5-943-6-943-7-943-8-943-9-943-10-943-11-943-12-943-13-943-14-943-15-943-16-943-17-943-18-943-19-943-20-943-21-943-22-943-23-943-24-943-25-943-26-943-27-943-28-943-29-943-30-943-31-94

2676.43697.33263.13921.08690.9

12358.08941.8

13901.76595.44157.8

10169.013460.46895.1

13324.412325.55206.04532.75092.93942.87896.1

14056.912434.711843.411153.210542.15723.97750.7

13680.57802.36411.08808.6

635.3595.9645.3742.2789.4

1023.51029.4999.3686.0597.3

1000.71215.3774.5

1002.31005.0577.2640.8676.5775.3

1054.71413.4930.0879.7949.5787.2831.8826.7

1041.9739.7690.8779.6

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

487.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

3311.74293.23908.44663.29480.3

13381.59971.2

14901.07281.44755.1

11169.714675.77669.6

14326.713330.55783.25173.55769.44718.18950.8

15470.313364.713210.612102.711329.36555.78577.4

14722.48542.07101.89588.2

TOTALS 261255.6 26336.2 487.5 288079.3

mtl_rees c:\nease\rawpa\tabl-1 b.wkl

August 1994 933-6158

TABLE 1CDAILY LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM VOLUMES


MONTH = APRIL, 1994


4-1-944-2-944-3-944-4-944-5-944-6-944-7-944-8-944-9-944-10-944-11-944-12-944-13-944-14-944-15-944-16-944-17-944-18-944-19-944-20-944-21-944-22-944-23-944-24-944-25-944-26-944-27-944-28-944-29-944-30-94

3980.83693.95663.4

13018.57656.56744.9

14150.77572.86389.47624.76453.3

12199.514997.912133.28486.77567.36552.56700.56085.27025.93047.54035.51679.53465.61796.32378.12077.02056.81974.22303.1

630.1699.7412.8944.9755.7706.2961.4660.5705.2597.7679.0

1208.31332.6962.2734.2750.6676.7703.5669.6904.3668.7843.9583.3778.5552.3809.8649.9687.6720.6677.9

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

4610.94393.66076.2

13963.48412.27451.1

15112.18233.37094.68222.47132.3

13407.816330.513095.49220.98317.97229.27404.06754.87930.23716.24879.42262.84244.12348.63187.92726.92744.42694.82981.0

TOTALS 189511.2 22667.7 0.0 212178.9

mtl_rees c:\nease\rawpa\tabl-1 c.wkl

August 1994 933-6158

TABLE 1DDAILY LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM VOLUMES


MONTH = MAY, 1994


5-1-945-2-945-3-945-4-945-5-945-6-945-7-945-8-945-9-945-10-945-11-945-12-945-13-945-14-945-15-945-16-945-17-945-18-945-19-945-20-945-21-945-22-945-23-945-24-945-25-945-26-945-27-945-28-945-29-945-30-945-31-94

2028.61743.61758.91773.91767.41680.11667.81883.61580.11765.71540.01496.31422.51150.01084.22144.31542.41401.41408.91547.91547.91547.8

810.71278.34686.96296.95904.21963.91836.01662.51265.8

689.3778.4717.0726.0812.6573.6887.9559.6570.0601.2756.4650.0730.4495.0489.1817.1645.4681.5571.3689.0689.0688.9468.7509.9413.8630.6743.5572.8796.2517.3418.5

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

2717.92522.02475.92499.92580.02253.72555.72443.22150.12366.92296.42146.32152.91645.01573.32961.42187.82082.91980.22236.92236.92236.71279.41788.25100.76927.56647.72536.72632.22179.81684.3

TOTALS 61188.5 19890.0 0.0 81078.5

mtl_rees c:\nease\rawpa\tabl-1 d.wkl

February, 1995 933-6158

TABLE 1EDAILY LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM VOLUMES


MONTH = JUNE, 1994


6-1-946-2-946-3-946-4-946-5-946-6-946-7-946-8-946-9-94

6-10-946-11-946-12-946-13-946-14-946-15-946-16-946-17-946-18-946-19-946-20-946-21-946-22-946-23-946-24-946-25-946-26-946-27-946-28-946-29-946-30-94

1571.41534.41384.81373.01267.71581.71425.71281.71293.11389.11112.61329.31379.21280.21291.01260.71180.51334.51162.21347.21212.51306.11044.01045.11731.71779.6879.8972.3

1719.84317.8

620.1879.9220.2667.8534.5454.4514.7551.4455.2427.8312.6627.5333.9390.1370.1410.5233.6451.8435.7366.3394.5393.1302.2302.2329.5423.0355.5278.6392.4489.7

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

152.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

2191.52414.31605.02040.81802.22036.11940.41833.11748.31816.91577.21956.81713.11670.31661.11671.21414.11786.31597.91713.51607.01699.21346.21347.32061.22202.61235.31250.92112.24807.5

TOTALS 42788.7 | 12918.8 152.0 55859.5

mtl_rees c:\nease\rawpa\tabl-1 e.wk!

August 1994 933-6158

TABLE 1FDAILY LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM VOLUMES


MONTH m JULY, 1994


7-1-947-2-947-3-947-4-947-5-947-6-947-7-947-8-947-9-947-10-947-11-947-12-947-13-947-14-947-15-947-16-947-17-947-18-947-19-947-20-947-21-947-22-947-23-947-24-947-25-947-26-947-27-947-28-947-29-947-30-947-31-94

1869.91340.83166.2999.7

1501.71309.51303.21220.01213.91351.81147.31285.61252.11206.21108.01183.81163.61324.11141.01128.41184.31091.81194.02453.1

901.71138.11190.31075.81166.21092.81069.1

335.5284.3545.4262.7247.2295.6299.8293.4253.0398.5152.5351 .5265.2265.0165.8357.2194.7158.9193.0202.0215.5199.4190.8174.7130.6182.2202.0217.1184.0144.2221 .8

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

199.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

1837.21593.81848.61482.71748.91605.11603.01513.41466.91750.31299.81637.11517.31471.21472.91541.01358.31483.01334.01330.41399.81291.21384.82627.81032.31320.31392.31292.91350.21237.01290.9

TOTALS 40774.0 7583.5 199.1 48556.6

mtl_rees c:\nease\rawpa\tabl-1 f .wk1

February, 1995 933-6158

TABLE 2MONITORING WELL DESCRIPTIONS

NEASE SITESALEM. OHIO

WellNo.

SI

S2S3

S4

SB

S6

S7

S8S3

S10

snSI 2S13SI 4S16S16

SI 7S18S19

GroundSurfaceElevation

MSL

1172.901167.701167.601179.40120E.6O1188.701181.30119O.3O1198.901201.201196.401180.201 1 66.701168.8O1167.301167.301167.401184.901161.80

Top ofCasing

ElevationMSL

117E.691 1 7O.O61169.311181.181208.611191.O91183.341192.1212O0.761203.081197.961182.061168.9411 68 .701166.971169.2811B7.141187.061164.18

ScreenedInterval

BGS

27-378-13

14.6-19. B12-17

8-13

8.6-13.64.6-9.6

8-13

18-2316-2111-16

7.8-12.84.6-9.6

9.1-14.117.6-22.626.6-31.823 .8-28.8

13-1829-34

SandPack Section

DepthBGS

27-376-13.6

13.B-2O1O.26-18

6.7-137.76-143.6-106.E-1314-2410-21

9.2E-163.6-12.81 .6-9.6

7.6-14.617-2323-32

23-29.412-2O34-27

Primary StrataWithin Screened

Section

Hard rock or *and & clayBlue-gray, sandy-silty clayBlue-gray, silty clayGray silty clay w/sandGray-brown, sandy, silty-clay w/ironBlue-gray sandy clayBlue-gray sandy clay to brown clay sandGray sandy clayBlue-gray sandy clay, sandstone interbedBlue-gray silty clay w/coal & sand bandsDark sand w/silty sand & claySilty clay on coarse sand & gravelSandy gravel on shale bedrock (6.6'}Gray sandy loam to coarse sandCoarse gray sand & gravelCoarse gray sand & gravel over clay (3O*)Gray sandy clay on sand & gravel (27')Silty sand w/sllty clay bandSandy gravel

D1

D2D3

04

D6

D6

D7D8

D9

D1O

011

012D13

D14

DIE

D16

D17

1198.401180.601167.6O1179.701211.701189.1011 68 .801167.601167.60116O.801182.6O1180.401182.301163.201161.601146.801 1 60.70

12O0.261182.881169.681181.961214.481191.121168.721167.481169.101163.181184.471182.661184.971166.961164.121149 .001161.33

46-6148-E3

28.6-33. B38.6-43.582.6-87.6

19-2426.7-30.7

32-3766.6-71.893.6-1O1

66-6147-62

1O6-11O112-142

44.3-64.6138-163

9-14

44-62.646.6-6427-34.6

3B.E-44.E78-88.6

17-2624.7-31.2

31-37.761-72.6

91 .6-1 02BO.2-62

43.3-62.81 01 .6-1 12101.6-142

42-66.613O-164

14-7

Sandstone-light grayGray sandstoneGray sandstoneBrown-flray sandstoneCoarse sandstoneSandy clay on sandstone (21 .8 'IGray sandstoneGray sandstone w/gray shaleGray sandstoneConglomeritic sandstoneGray sandstoneGray sandstoneInterbedded shale/siltstone/sandstoneInterbedded shale/siltstone/ss/coalGray sandstone with shale bandGray sandstoneClay on sandstone

REFERENCES

II July 6. 1993, Remedial Investigation Report, Vol. 1, RJ Report2) April 6, 1991, Partial Remedial Investigation Report, Vol. 3, Appendices B through J of Rl Report3) July, 1985, Environmental Assessment, Phase I-B Report, Preliminary Draft

NOTE:MSL = Feet above Mean Sea LevelBGS = Feet Below Ground Surface

mtl_rees c:\nease\rawpa\tabl-2.wk1

February, 1995 933-6158

TABLE 2MONITORING WELL DESCRIPTIONS

NEASE CHEMICAL SITESALEM, OHIO

WellNo.

A-SAUBAB-S

C-S

CLBACUBAD-SDVF3DLBAEVF1

EVF2EVF3EVF4ELBAFVF3FVF4FVF6FLBAGUBAHSHVFIHUBAI-S

I-SHALEIUBAILBAJVF2JVF3JVF4JLBAKS

KVKLBALVF1

LVF2LLBA

GroundSurface

ElevationMSL

1193.901194.1O1196.201189.601189.601189.001137.1O11 37.OO1137.001146.8011 47.OO1146.9O1146.9O1146.301 1 60.401161.101 1 60.80116O.7011B6.7O1 1 69.7O11 69 .401170.OO1208.061207.7612O7.9612O7.461143.301146. 1O11 46 .4011 44 .301136.7O1136.OO1136.7O1169.OO11 68.OO1168.40

Top ofCasing

ElevationMSL

1196.311196.311198.231191.861191.801192.00114O.2311 39 .601140.621149.1O1149.471149.661148.621148.841162.741163.461163.181163.4811 69 .001172.141172.421172.04121O.0112O9.96121O.16121O.O11146.711147.461147.811146.811137.411139.681140.991171.831 1 7O.20117O.61

ScreenedInterval

BGS

9.O-19.O44.7-64.78.6-18.6

11.4-21.4110-120

42-626-16

22-2749-69

6-11

19-2931-4146-6079-8941-61

66.6-66.682.3-92.3

11 7.6-1 27.S

34-446-11

16-2134-44

18.1-28.132.6-42.662.6-72.6

134-1441O-162O-3O36-4664-74

6-15

3O-4064-6416-2033-4387-97

SandPack Section

DepthBGS

7-21

44.2-68.67-20.69.4-24

109-12040.8-56.6

3.6-172O-2963-47

4.6-1117-31

29.6-43.643-62

77-91 .637-63.6

64-698O-98

116-13O31-46

6-14

16-2332-61.616-28.1

31.4-43.660-74.6

131.8-1468-17

18.6-3234-48

62-76.64-22.629-42

61.6-67.313-2231-46

86.101

Primary StrataWithin Screened

Section

Gray *and within silty clay bedsFine to coarse silty sandstone, some iron(2) thin brown sands within clay(7) sand/gravel layers within clayO.6* limestone within fractured shaleMedium grained sandstone, some iron(3) sands within silty clays(2) gray sands within fillGray shale(2) brown sands, silty clay interbeds(2) gray sands, silty clay interbeds(3) fine sands, silty clay interbeds(2) brown sands, silty clay interbedsO.6' limestone with fractured shaleSand/gravel & clayey sand within silty clays12) sand/gravel & 12) brown sands, silty clay interbedsBrown sand on clayGray-black limestone on shale (1 19.6')Blue-gray sandstone with ironSandy loam & coarse sand within claysCoarse sand & gravel under tillGray sandstone with ironBrown sand within silty clayFractured shaleGray sandstone(3) gray-black limestones within shales(2) gray sands within silty clayGray sand within silty clay(2) sand/gravel within sandy silty clayGray fractured sandstone undershale (6O'lBrown sand, fine to medium grained, grading to siltGray sand with trace gravel, interbedded with silty clayGray sandstone under shale (63')Clay annd silty clayGray sandstone "within silty clay(2) black limestone within shale

P1-S

P1-D

P2-S

P2-D

P3

(8)

(a)

(a)(•)

(a)la)

(a)(»)

173-178246-261143-148198-203

171-179.6244-262

14O.2-162.1196.6-206.6

Gray aandstone (Tionesta Sandstone)Gray sandstone (Middle Mercer Sandstone)Limestone in shale (Vanport Limestone)Gray sandstone (Tionesta Sandstone)

Decommissioned In Dec. 1994. Casing removed, seated to surface with bentonite/cement grout.

T1T2

1192.401187.3O

1193.8711 89 .30

8.E-18.626-76

6.6-1924-78

Soft clay and sands within brown to gray tillGray sandstone under shale 136.6')

REFERENCES

1) July 6, 1993, Remedial Investigation Report, Vol. 1, Rl Report2) April 6, 1991, Partial Remedial Investigation Report, Vol. 3, Appendices B through J of Rl Report3) July, 1986, Environmental Assesment, Phase I-B Report, Preliminary Draft

NOTE:MSL = Feet above Mean Sea LevelBGS = Feet Below Ground Surfacela) = Piezometers PI-S. PI-D, P2-S, and P2-D retrofitted in former Production Wells PI and P2 In Dec. 1994, to be sun/eyed Spring, 1996.

mtl_rees c:\nease\rawpa\tabl-2.wk1 2 of 2

TABLE 3A

MONTHLY MONITORING WELL WATER LEVELS: 1993SHALLOW 6ROUNDWATER SYSTEMNEASE SITE, SALEM, OHIONote: All Water Level Elevations in Feet Above Mean Sea Level (MSL)

Sampling Date:

Well No.

A-S

B-S

C-S

DVF3D-SEVF1EVF2EVF3EVF4FVF3FVF4FVF6HS

HVF2IS

JVF2JVF3JVF4K-S

K-VLVF1LVF2S-1

S-2S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6S-7S-8

S-9

S-10S-11S-12S-13S-14S-1 5S-16S-1 7S-1 8

CasingElevation

(MSL)

1195.31198.231191.851139.51140.2

11491148.5

1149.661149.4

1163.241163.261163.28

1177.41171.6

1210.011146.6

11461146.71

1137.71138

1170.831170.2

1175.591170.061169.311181.181208.511191.091183.341192.121200.761203.081197.961182.051168.94

1158.71156.971159.281157.141187.05

3-93

Depth ToWater

(ft)

8.3

74.65

03

5.439.015.013.89

12.5713.310.22.98

16.3416.6

11.3210.587.48

3

010.5317.3714.117.644.453.7812.65.034.354.92

12.159.4

5.93.484.472.53

1

12.61

6.29

WaterLevel(MSL)

11871191.231187.21139.51137.2

1143.571139.491144.651145.511150.671149.961153.081174.421155.261193.411135.281135.421139.231134.7

11381160.3

1152.831161.481162.421164.861177.4

1195.911186.061178.991187.2

1188.611193.681192.061178.571164.471156.171155.971146.681156.141180.76

4-93

Depth ToWater

(ft)

8.246.345.31

03.035.029.1

5.24.1

12.7313.4810.463.15

16.5617.5111.2110.737.512.92

08.49

17.5914.31

7.64.453.79

13.835.384.095.3113.3

10.355.863.424.27

2.71.82

12.811.156.27

WaterLevel(MSL)

1187.061191.391186.541139.5

1137.171143.98

1139.41144.461145.3

1150.511149.781152.821174.251155.041192.5

1135.391135.27

1139.21134.78

11381162.341152.611161.281162.461164.861177.391194.681185.711179.251186.811187.461192.731192.1

1178.631164.67

11561155.151146.471155.991180.78

5-93

Depth ToWater

(ft)

10.6610.698.36

03.858.17

10.135.9

4.7813.4514.2

11.116.02

17.1118.9612.5111.28.273.52

010.0918.4415.078.655.455.33

15.426.7

7.336.46

15.4711.728.735.415.283.352.43

13.881.826.47

WaterLevel(MSL)

1184.641187.541183.491139.5

1136.351140.831138.371143.761144.621149.791149.061152.171171.381154.491191.051134.091134.8

1138.441134.18

11381160.741151.761160.521161.411163.861175.851193.091184.391176.011185.661185.291191.361189.231176.641163.661155.351154.541145.4

1155.321180.58

7-93

Depth ToWater

(ft)

11.111.378.38

03.728.1

10.576.125.03

13.5114.27

11.26

17.0818.3512.7111.218.343.44

010.5

18.5115.138.645.52

4.8

15.656.546.66.4

15.67

11.28.824.395.113.311.82

13.371.776.05

WaterLevel(MSL)

1184.21186.861183.471139.5

1136.481140.9

1137.931143.541144.371149.731148.991152.081171.4

1154.521191.661133.891134.791138.371134.26

11381160.331151.691160.461161.421163.791176.381192.861184.551176.741185.721185.091191.881189.141177.661163.831155.391155.151145.911155.37

1181

mtl rees c:\nease\wells\tabl-3a.wk1 1OF2

TABLE 3A

MONTHLY MONITORING WELL WATER LEVELS: 1993SHALLOW GROUNDWATER SYSTEMNEASE SITE, SALEM, OHIONote: All Water Level Elevations in Feet Above Mean Sea Level (MSL)

Well No.

A-SB-S

C-S

DVF3D-SEVF1

EVF2EVF3EVF4FVF3

FVF4FVF6HS

HVF2IS

JVF2JVF3JVF4K-SK-VLVF1

LVF2S-1

S-2S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6S-7S-8

S-8

S-10

S-11

S-1 2

S-1 3

S-1 4

S-1 5

S-1 6

S-17

S-1 8

CasingElevation

(MSL)

1195.31198.231191.851139.5

1140.21149

1148.51148.661149.4

1163.24

1163.261163.281177.41171.6

1210.011146.6

1146

1146.711137.7

1138

1170.831170.2

1175.591170.061169.31

1181.18

1208.511191.091183.341192.12

1200.761203.081197.961182.05

1168.94116.8.7

1156.971159.281157.141187.05

8-93

Depth ToWater

(ft)

12.26

12.58

9.67

0

4.04

9.56

11.3

6.73

5.64

14.1

14.8511.76

6.8

17.6720.2913.11

11.51

8.92

3.81

0.58

12.4

19.02

15.729.37

6.15

5.59

15.63

7.23

7.65

7.05

16.95

13.2110.66

5.7

5.63

3.92.7

13.73

2.35

7.79

WaterLevel

(MSL)

1183.041185.651182.181139.5

1136.161139.44

1137.21142.931143.761149.14

1148.411151.521170.6

1153.931189.721133.491134.491137.791133.891137.421158.431151.181159.871160.691163.16

1175.591192.88

1183.861175.691185.071183.811189.871187.3

1176.35

1163.311154.8

1154.271145.551154.791179.26

9-93

Depth ToWater

(ft)

13.01

13.15

10.33

03.81

10.59

11.677.08

6

14.29

15.0512.04

7.07

17.92

20.7913.03

11.46

9.05

3.73

0.87

14.0419.27

15.92

9.52

6.34

5.17

15.62

7.37

7.11

7.17

17.5913.71

11.12

5.05

5.9

4.06

2.67

13.85

2.52

10.33

WaterLevel(MSL)

1182.291185.08

1181.5211395

1136.391138.41

1136.£;31142.581143.4

1148.95

1148.211151.24

1170.331153.681189.221133.571134.S41137.661133.971137.131156.791150.931159.671160.541162.97

1176.01

1192.891183.721176.231184.951183.171189.371186.84

1177

1163.041154.64

1154.31145.431154.e>21176.72

10-93

Depth ToWater

(ft)

13.7313.73

10.98

0

3.36

11.32

11.777.23

6.16

14.38

15.1512.14

7.44

18.0421.89

12.8

11.2

8.98

3.29

0.93

16.7519.31

16.02

9.16

6.31

4.83

15.65

7.98.77

7.86

18.2814.94

12.33

4.72

5.71

4.08

2.213.74

2.44

12

WaterLevel(MSL)

1181.571184.5

1180.871139.5

1136.84

1137.681136.731142.431143.241148.86

1148.111151.141169.961153.561188.121133.81134.8

1137.731134.411137.071154.081150.891159.57

1160.91163

1176.351192.86

1183.191174.571184.261182.481188.141185.63

1177.331163.231154.621154.771145.541154.7

1175.05

11-93

Depth ToWater

(ft)

13.7213.69

9.42

0

2.83

4.95

10.796.36

5.28

13.41

14.1911.22

2.82

17.1220.2411.56

10.4

8.09

3.03

011.5218.34

14.93

8.01

4.95

4.28

15.64

6.41

4.24

6.35

17.28

13.44

9.18

3.81

5.03

3.15

2.15

13.021.63

7.16

WaterLevel(MSL)

1181.581184.54

1182.431139.5

1137.37

1144.051137.711143.3

1144.121149.83

1149.071152.061174.581154.481189.771135.041135.6

1138.621134.67

1138

1159.311151.861160.661162.051164.36

1176.91192.87

1184.681179.1

1185.771183.481189.641188.781178.24

1163.911155.551154.821146.261155.511179.89

12-93

Depth ToWater

(ft)

13.26

13.45

8.31

0

2.96

5.92

10.816.39

5.29

13.47

14.24

11.24

3.24

17.17

18.7511.66

10.47

8.09

3.05

0

11.2218.53

15.058.22

5.11

4.28

15.3

6.33

4.39

6.18

16.61

11.5

7.31

3.62

5.39

3.32

1.77

13.17

1.79

7.67

WaterLevel(MSL)

1182.041184.781183.541139.5

1137.241143.081137.691143.271144.111149.77

1149.021152.041174.161154.431191.261134.941135.531138.621134.65

1138

1159.611151.671160.541161.84

1164.2

1176.91193.211184.761178.951185.941184.151191.581190.651178.43

1163.551155.381155.2

1146.111155.351179.38

mtl_rees c:\nease\wells\tabl-3a.wk1 2 OF 2

TABLE 3B

MONTHLY MONITORING WELL WATER LEVELS: 1994SHALLOW GROUNDWATER SYSTEM

NEASE SITE, SALEM, OHIONote: All Water Level Elevations in Feet Above Mean Sea Level (MSL)

Sampling Date:

Well No.

A-S

B-SC-SDVF3D-SEVF1EVF2EVF3EVF4FVF3FVF4FVF6H-S

HVF1ISJVF2JVF3JVF4K-S

K-V

LVF1LVF2S-1S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6S-7S-8

S-9

S-10S-11S-12S-13S-14S-1 5S-1 6S-17S-18

CasingElevation

(MSL)

1195.31198.231191.851139.51140.2

11491148.5

1149.661149.4

1163.241163.261163.281177.41171.6

1210.011146.6

11461146.711137.7

11381170.83

1170.21175.591170.06

1169.311181.18

1208.511191.091183.341192.121200.76

1203.081197.961182.051168.941158.7

1156.97

1159.281157.14

1187.05

1-94

Depth ToWater

(ft)

1313.37.63

01.553.959.755.764.72

13

13.810.982.29

17.1517.919.969.267.631.88

0

10.9918.1914.827.554.583.72

15.095.723.392.57

16.2810.75.952.072.68

NANA

12.51NA

6.51

Water

Level(MSL)

1182.31184.931184.22

1139.51138.651145.051138.751143.9

1144.681150.241149.461152.3

1175.111154.45

1192.11136.641136.741139.081135.82

1138

1159.84

1152.011160.771162.51

1164.731177.46

1193.421185.371179.951189.551184.48

1192.381192.011179.981166.26

NA

NA

1146.77NA

1180.54

2-94

Depth ToWater

(ft)

11.8112.27

6.20

2.62

3.79

9.92

5.92

4.83

13.11

13.88

11.033.15

17.03

17.8

1 1 .0210.07

7.77

3.13

0

10.2318.3214.777.87

4.66

4.01

14.32

5.52

4.11

5.38

15.42

10.66

6.53.27

4.52

3.13

1.65

12.97

1.63

7.02

WaterLevel(MSL)

1183.491185.961185.651139.5

1137.581145.211138.581143.74

1144.571150.131149.381152.251174.251154.571192.211135.581135.931138.941134.57

1138

1160.61151.881160.821162.191164.651177.171194.191185.571179.231186.741185.34

1192.421191.461178.781164.421155.571155.32

1146.311155.511180.03

3-94

Depth ToWater

(«)

9.89

8.47

4.70

2.57

4.62

9.33

5.34

4.25

12.6313.41

10.542.7

16.5316.88

10.94

9.83

7.42

2.99

0

9.09

17.85

14.357.66

4.47

3.89

12.51

4.82

3.89

4.82

13.42

9.62

5.9

3.19

4.28

2.72

0.9

12.57

1.25

6.81

WaterLevel

(MSL)

1185.411189.761187.151139.5

1137.631144.38

1139.171144.321145.151150.611149.851152.74

1174.71155.071193.131135.66

1136.171139.291134.71

1138

1161.74

1152.351161.241162.4

1164.84

1177.291196

1186.271179.45

1187.31187.34

1193.46

1192.061178.861164.661155.981156.07

1146.711155.891180.24

4-94

Depth ToWater

(«)

8.02

7.06

4.92

02.81

6.01

9.02

4.96

3.85

12.47

13.22

10.293.36

16.37

16.41

11.4310.01

7.63

3.15

0

8.63

17.74

14.25

7.74

4.53

4.05

11.51

4.95

4.51

4.93

12.36

9.18

6.17

3.65

4.57

2.49

1.87

12.51

1.07

6.69

WaterLevel

(MSL)

1187.281191.171186.93

1139.51137.391142.991139.481144.7

1145.551150.771150.041152.991174.041155.231193.6

1135.171135.991139.081134.55

1138

1162.21152.461161.341162.321164.78

1177.131197

1186.141178.831187.191188.4

1193.91191.79

1178.41164.37

1156.211155.1

1146.771156.071180.36

mtl rees c:\nease\wells\tabl-3b.wk1 1o(2

TABLE 3B

MONTHLY MONITORING WELL WATER LEVELS: 1994SHALLOW GROUNDWATER SYSTEMNEASE SITE, SALEM, OHIONote: All Water Level Elevations in Feet Above Mean Sea Level (MSL

Well No.

A-S

B-S

C-SDVF3D-S

EVF1

EVF2EVF3EVF4FVF3FVF4FVF6H-SHVF1

IS

JVF2JVF3JVF4K-SK-V

LVF1

LVF2S-1

S-2S-3

S-4

S-5S-6S-7

S-8

S-9S-10

S-11

S-1 2S-1 3

S-1 4

S-1 5S-1 6

S-1 7

S-1 8

CasingElevation

(MSL)

1165.3119&.231191.8511 £9.5

1U0.2

1149

1148.5114&.661149.4

1163.241 1651.261163.28

1177.41171.6

1210.011146.6

1146

1146.711137.7

1138

1170.831170.2

117H.591170.061169.311181.181208.51119-1.09118:1.34

1192.121200.761203.081197.96

1182.051160.94

1158.7

115(5.97115!>.281157.141187.05

5-94

Depth ToWater

(ft)

10.3

10.248.24

0

3.54

8.18

9.89

5.71

4.6

13.2113.98

10.955.99

17.03NA

12.19

10.55

7.94

3.45

010.28

18.35

14.94

8.42

5.22

4.56

14.55

6.45

6.19

6.2

15.6510.97

9.31

4.99

5.33

3.17

2.312.97

1.78

7.57

WaterLevel

(MSL)

1185

1187.991183.611139.5

1136.66

1140.821138.611143.95

1144.81150.031149.281152.331171.411154.57

NA1134.41

1135.451138.771134.25

1138

1160.551151.85

1160.651161.641164.09

1176.621193.961184.641177.15

1185.921185.111192.111188.651177.061163.611155.53

1154.671146.311155.361179.48

6-94

Depth ToWater

(ft)

11.4511.739.36

04.128.95

10.716.365.26

13.8414.6111.59

6.6

17.5NA

12.9311.138.633.880.3511.7

18.8315.559.125.885.76

15.636.8

7.776.48

16.6112.259.956.035.663.662.62

13.522.238.97

Water

Level(MSL)

1183.851186.5

1182.491139.5

1136.081140.051137.79

1143.31144.141149.4

1148.651151.69

1170.81154.1

NA1133.671134.37

1138.081133.321137.651159.131151.371160.041160.941163.431175.421192.881184.291175.57

1185.641184.151190.831188.01

1176.021163.281155.04

1154.351145.761154.91

1178.08

7-94

Depth ToWater

(ft)

12.2312.38

10

04.249.6

11.116.75.6

14.1214.8911.936.96

17.72NA

13.111.338.853.950.68

13.0219.0715.799.426.075.92

15.617.128.346.95

17.1913.0710.945.885.673.832.63

13.832.4110.5

WaterLevel

(MSL)

1183.071185.851181.851139.5

1135.961139.4

1137.39

1142.961143.8

1149.121148.371151.351170.441153.88

NA

1133.51134.671137.861133.75

1137.321157.811151.131159.8

1160.641163.241175.261192.9

1183.971175

1185.171183.571190.011187.021176.171163.271154.871154.341145.451154.731176.55

mtl_rees c:\nease\wells\tabl-3b.wk1 2 of 2

TABLE 4Aquifer Testing Results

Ruetgers-Nease, Salem Aquifer Testing

WELL*

S-4

S-6S-7S-9

S-12

S-15

S-16

S-17S-19

D-1D-3

CM

D-8D-9

D-10D-11

D-12

D-1 3D-1 4D-1 5

D-1 6

D-1 7

A-UBB-S

C-SC-UB

D-VF2D-VF3E-VF1

E-VF2E-VF3E-VF4E-LB

F-VF3F-VF4

F-VF6F-LB

G-UB

H-SH-UB

l-lI-UB

J-VF3J-VF4J-LB

K-VF2K-VF4K-LB

L-VF2L-LB

•TEST

METHOD

P

PP

BP

P

P

PP

P

P

PP

P

PP

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

BPPP

P

P

P

P

PP

P

P

P

P

P

BP

P

PP

P

P

PP

P

P

P

Hvorslev Method

HYDRAUUC

CONDUCTIVITY(cm/sec)

4.92E-052.41 E-05,7.74E-052.15E-06-3.15E-05

7.41 E-04

5.19E-046.52E-042.46E-O42.73E-041 .08E-037.57E-055.55E-043.43E-031.19E-054.99E-052.77E-051 .51 E-04

6.01 E-045.20E-051 .30E-04

9.68E-064.15E-041.95E-041.16E-046.43E-057.72E-044.98E-045.00E-032.53E-051 .36E-033.51 E-044.02E-O44.25E-04

8.59E-053.14E-051 .70E-031 .83E-032.26E-034.20E-O3

9.70E-041.74E-057.10E-042.17E-041.37E-031 .35E-041.85E-041.88E-04

2.34E-062.29E-05

HYDRAUUC

CONDUCTMTY(ft/day)

0.1400.0680.219

0.0060.0892.101

1.4721.8470.6970.7733.0600.215

1.5759.7300.0340.141

0.079

0.4291.7040.147

0.3680.027

1.1750.5530.3280.1822.1891.413

14.1780.0723.851

0.9961.139

1.205

0.2430.0894.8095.201

6.42111.9192.7490.0492.013

0.6163.8980.3830.5250.533

0.0070.065

Bouwer & Rice Method

HYDRAUUC

CONDUCTIVITY(cm/sec)

2.62E-051.24E-054.02E-052.99E-O6

1.56E-051.62E-053.43E-04

5.26E-041.76E-041.80E-O4

5.34E-04

4.31 E-051.08E-042.38E-038.39E-O62.31 E-051.32E-056.60E-053.11 E-042.66E-057.56E-05

5.47E-062.23E-049.47E-051.07E-O44.15E-053.50E-042.59E-042.26E-031.68E-051.05E-042.62E-041.52E-04

2.42E-O43.98E-O52.18E-O55.69E-04

8.58E-041.30E-033.36E-O36.08E-041.16E-053.19E-041.38E-O41.20E-037.14E-051.28E-041.42E-04

1.40E-061.32E-05

HYDRAUUCCONDUCTIVrrY

(ft/day)

0.0740.0350.1140.0080.044

0.046

0.9721.4910.4990.510

1.514

0.122

0.3066.7470.024

0.0650.037

0.187

0.8820.0750.214

0.016

0.6320.2680.3030.1180.9920.734

6.4070.0480.2980.7430.4310.686

0.113

0.0621.613

2.4323.6869.5261.7240.0330.9040.3913.4020.2020.3630.4030.004

0.037

Cooper, etal Method

HYDRAUUCCONDUCTIVITY

(cm/sec)1.52E-031.13E-041.18E-O4

MA

6.97E-065.35E-05

3.21 E-03

5.15E-031.10E-038.30E-04

1.31 E-031.12E-04

NANA

9.88E-066.00E-051.00E-O54.80E-04

NA1.74 E-04

3.84E-O4

1.87E-03

1.41 E-03NA

5.88E-045.62E-052.94E-031.87E-031.86E-027.20E-041.94E-035.60E-052.07E-Q3

4.15E-032.05E-04

2.76E-05NA

4.19E-03

NANA

NA1.74E-052.38E-022.10E-O31.22E-021.06E-044.52E-044.64E-041.74E-064.94E-06

HYDRAUUCCONDUCTIVrTY

(ft/day)

4.3020.3200.334

NA

0.020

0.152

9.109

14.6053.1062.3533.7040.318

NANA

0.0280.1700.0281.361

NA0.4941.089

5.2924.006

NA

1.6670.1598.3345.292

52.6382.041

5.4950.1595.866

11.7660.582

0.078NA

11.892NANA

NA0.049

67.3485.953

34.6060.3001.2821.316

0.0050.014

* TEST METHOD: P = PNEUMATIC, B = BAILER

*** NA = No Curve Match

REFERENCE: 1993 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

G:\project\202-01\202-01

^

Matrix: Aqueous

TABLE 5aSUMMARY OF JULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULTS

RUETGERS-NEASE CHEMICAL SITESALEM, OHIO

Volatile Organics

933-6158

Parameter

AcetoneBenzeneBromoform2-ButanoneBromodichloromethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroethaneChloroformChloromethaneDibromochloromethane1 ,2-Dichloroethane1,1-DichloroetheneTotal 1 ,2-Dichoroethene1 ,2-DichloropropaneEthyl benzene4-Methyl-2-PentanoneMethylene Chloride1.1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneTetrachloroethene1 ,1 ,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroetheneTolueneVinyl ChlorideTotal Xylenes

Sample PointLCS1

Date Sampled: 07/30/93

Result

37.0110NDNDNDNDND74.0ND50.0NDND61.08.0

1200ND8.0ND23.016078019.057046.077.0ND

Qual

J,D

JD

J

J,D

Sample PointLCS2


Result

1100230004405.010.040.031012002.028018098.0

110005.065.010.061.025.0670

2800017000110

8900270040.0270

Qual

J,DD

J,DJJ

J,DJ.DJ

J,D

DJ

J

J,DD,#D,#

DD

Sample PointPOND1


Result

5.0NDNDNDNDND4.02.0NDNDNDNDNDND2.0NDNDNDND6.015.0ND4.02.0NDND

Qual

J

JJ

J

J

JJ

Notes:All units are ug/l.* MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2D.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result following data validation (see below).NA - Indicates parameter was not analyzed. ND - Indicates parameter was not detected.

Qualifiers:D - Value is from diluted sampleE - Quantitation exceeded the calibration rangeJ - Concentration is below reporting limits and is an estimate# - Not detected in undiluted sample

voa/svoa.rpS07/05/94 06:03:23

Golder Associates Pagel

Matrix: Aqueous

TABLE 5bSUMMARY OF JULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULTS


Semivolatile Organics

933-6158

Parameter

Butyl be nzylphthalate2-Chlorophenol1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene3,4-Dichloronitrobenzene2,4-DichlorophenolDiethylphthalateDI-n-Butylphthalate2,4-DimethylphenolOlphenylsulfonebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadineHexachloroethane4-MethylphenolNaphthalene2-Nitroaniline3-Nitroaniline4-NitrophenolN-Nitroso-di-n-PropylamineN-NitrosodiphenylaminePhenol1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

Sample PointLCS1


Result

1.01.01.01.05.0NDND1.0NDND60.03.0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.0NDND1.0NDND

Qual

JJJJJ

J

J

J

J

Sample PointLCS2


Result

NDND

9500ND88.0ND180

2800ND2.09903.0NDND110NDND20.0NDNDNDND76.0NDND

Qual

D

E

ED

JEJ

E

Sample PointPOND1


Result

1.0ND12.0ND1.0NDNDND2.0NDND2.0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.01.0NDNDNDND

Qual

J

J

J

J

JJ

Notes:All units are ug/l.• MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2D.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result following data validation (see below).NA - Indicates parameter was not analyzed. ND - Indicates parameter was not detected.


voa/svoa.rpS07/05/94 08:03:23

Colder Associates Pag«1

r933-6158

TABLE 5cSUMMARY OFJULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULT


Inorganics (Total)

Matrix: Aqueous

Parameter

AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

Sample PointLCS1


Result

2630<1.026.344.1

<0.453.56

5720015.36.6512.260903.5

116008870.2417.871602.712.3

142001.213.2122

Flag

aa

a

c

a

a

Sample PointLCS2


Result

72900<1.02<2.0528.37.2210.9

48700013.215143.4

680002.5

155000152000.29339

119002.632.7

1850004.042.31070

Flag

aa

a

c

a

a

Sample PointPOND1


Result

222<5.05<2.0538.1

<0.454.3

14100013.66.128.976170.70

2400055.80.2814.74270<2.4219.3

16000<1.1512.49.67

Flag

aa

a

c

a

a

Notes: All units are ug/l.• MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2DThe Flag column indicates the sample results were obtained by ICP analysisexcept those with the following flags:a - (GFAA analysis) b - (FLAA analysis) c - (CVAA analysis)d - Antimony results for POND2 are suspect due to low recovery of matrix spiked samples.

metals.rpS Colder Associates Paget

Matrix: Aqueous

TABLE 5dSUMMARY OFJULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULTS


Pesticide Organic*

933-6158

Parameter

AldrinAlpha-Chlordane4.4-DDD4,4-DDTDieldrinEndrinEndrin Aldehydegamma-BHC(Lindane)HeptachlorMethyoxychlor

Sample PointLCS1


Result

NDND

0.031ND

0.023NDNDND

0.0380.53

Qual

JP

JP

JP

Sample PointLCS2


Result

ND0.470.19NDNDND2.021.7NDND

Qual

PP

P,DP

Sample PointPOND1


Result

0.010.0420.038ND

0.0160.0780.71ND

0.0940.29

Qual

JPJ

JP

JPPP

PJP

Notes:All units are ug/l.* MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2D.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result following data validation (see below).NA - Indicates parameter was not analyzed. ND - Indicates parameter was not detected.

Qualifiers:J - Concentration is below reporting limits and is an estimateP - Concentrations between GC columns varied by more than 25%

pesticide rpS07/05/94 10:27:52

P«ge1

Maim: Aqueous

TABLE 5eSUMMARY OF JULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULTS

RUETGERS-NEASE/SALEMSALEM, OHIO

Mirex, Photomirex, and Kepone

933-6158

Parameter

MirexPhotomirexKepone

Sample PointLCS1


Result

7.60.1570.0534

Qual

J

Sample PointLCS2


Result

4.270.03930.159

Qual

I.J.YI

Sample PointPOND1


Result

1.070.06480.0113

Qual

XJ

Notes:All units are ug/l.The dilution factor for Mirex is 10.* MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2D.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result following data validation (see below).NA - Indicates parameter was not analyzed. ND - Indicates parameter was not detected.

Qualifiers:.U - Undetected at the detection limit I - Quantitation using the recovery internal standard, 13C-PCBJ - Concentration is below reporting limits and is an estimateY - Presence of compound strongly indicated, but not all ions were presentX - Presence of compound strongly indicated, but ion ration criteria were not metZ - Presence of the compound is strpnly indicated, but the ion ratio criteria were not met for the quantitation ionsK - Concentration was calculated using the confirmation ions

orgothers.rpS08/29/94 08:48:28


TABLE 5fSUMMARY OF JULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULTS

933-6158

Matrix: Aqueous


Dioxins, Furans, and Cyanide

Parameter

2378TCDD2378TCDFTotal TCDDTotal TCDFCyanide

Sample PointLCS1


Result

16.613.216.613.2

<10.0

Qual

UUUU

Sample PointLCS2


Result

15.314.515.396.412.9

Qual

UUU

Sample Po ntPOND1


Result

15.512.015.512.0

<10.0

Qual

UUUU

Notes:All units are ug/1.The dilution factor for Mirex is 10.* MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2D.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result following data validation (see below).NA - Indicates parameter was not analyzed. ND - Indicates parameter was not detected.

Qualifiers:.U - Undetected at the detection limit I - Quantitation using the recovery internal standard, 13C-PCBJ - Concentration is below reporting limits and is an estimateY - Presence of compound strongly indicated, but not all ions were presentX - Presence of compound strongly indicated, but ion ration criteria were not metZ - Presence of the compound is stronly indicated, but the ion ratio criteria were not met for the quantitation ionsK - Concentration was calculated using the confirmation ions

orgothers. rp508/28/94 09:51:09

Colder Associates Paget

Matrix: Sediment

ITABLE 6 a

SUMMARY OF JULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULTS


Volatile Organics

933-6158

Parameter

AcetoneBenzeneBromoform2-ButanoneBromodichloromethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroethaneChloroformChloromethaneDibromochloromethane1 ,2-Dichloroethane1,1-DichloroetheneTotal 1 ,2-Dichoroethene1 ,2-DichloropropaneEthyl benzene4-Methyl-2-PentanoneMethylene Chloride1 ,1 ,2,2-TetrachloroethaneTetrachloroethene1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroetheneTolueneVinyl ChlorideTotal Xylenes

Sample PointPOND2*


Result

18094.0ND19.0NDNDND110NDNDNDND28.0ND75.0ND28.0ND19.0690ND66.0640NDND160

Qual

J

J

J

J

J

J

Sample PointP2D


Result

NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA

Qual

Sample PointEXCLA


Result

NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA

NANANANANANANA

Qual

Notes:All units are ug/kg.• MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2D.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result following data validation (see below).NA - Indicates parameter was not analyzed. ND - Indicates parameter was not detected.

LegendPOND 2 - SEDIMENT SAMPLE, POND 2P2D - DISCHARGE DRAIN FROM POND 2EXCLA - SEDIMENT SAMPLE FROM EXCLUSION AREA A

voa/svoarpS07/05/94 08:02:49



Matrix: Sediment

TABLE 6bSUMMARY OF JULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULTS


Semivolatile Organics

933-6158

Parameter

Butyl benzylphthalate2-Chlorophenol1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene

3,4-Dichloronitrobenzene2,4-DichlorophenolDiethylphthalateDi-n-Butylphthalate2,4-DimethylphenolDiphenylsulfonebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadineHexachloroethane4-MethylphenolNaphthalene2-Nitroaniline3-Nitroaniline4-NitrophenolN-Nitroso-di-n-PropylamineN -N itrosodiphenyla minePhenol1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

Sample PointPOND2*


Result

NDND

3400450066.022.044.022.0NDND

45000152

370023024.022.0NDNDNDNDNDND22.027.022.0

Qual

D.JJJJJ

DJ

D,JJJJ

JJJ

Sample PointP2D


Result

NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA

Qual

Sample PointEXCLA


Result

NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA

Qual

Notes:All units are ug/kg.* MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2D.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result following data validation (see below).NA - Indicates parameter was not analyzed. ND - Indicates parameter was not detected.



voa/svoa.rp507/05/94 06:02:48

Colder Associates Pafl«1

-S i933-6158

TABLE 6cSUMMARY OFJULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULT


Inorganics (Total)

Matrix: Sediment

Parameter

AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

Sample PointPOND2*


Result

88000.2111.958.70.550.46706012.16.7416.0

2240017.128502560.0515.68970.360.811020.2615.956.0

Flag

a.da

b

a

c

a

a

Sample PointP2D


Result

NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA

Flag

Sample PointEXCLA


Result

NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA

Flag

Notes: All units are mg/kg.• MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2DThe Flag column indicates the sample results were obtained by ICP analysisexcept those with the following flags:a - (GFAA analysis) b - (FLAA analysis) c - (CVAA analysis)d - Antimony results for POND2 are suspect due to low recovery of matrix spiked samples.

LegendPOND 2 - SEDIMENT SAMPLE, POND 2P2D - DISCHARGE DRAIN FROM POND2EXCLA - SEDIMENT SAMPLE FROM EXCLUSION AREA A

metals.rpS Colder Associates Pagel

f

Matrix: Sediment

TABLE 6dSUMMARY OFJULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULTS


Pesticide Organics

933-6158

Parameter

AldrinAlpha-Chlordane4,4-DDD4,4-DDTDieldrinEndrinEndrin Aldehydegamma-BHC(Lindane)HeptachlorMethyoxychlor

Sample PointPOND2*


Result

2.3ND18.07.5NDNDND4.1ND920

dual

P

PP

P

P

Sample PointP2D


Result

NANANANANANANANANANA

Qual

Sample PointEXCLA


Result

NANANANANANANANANANA

Qual

Notes:All units are ug/kg.* MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2D.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result following data validation (see below).NA - Indicates parameter was not analyzed. ND - Indicates parameter was not detected.

Qualifiers:J - Concentration is below reporting limits and is an estimateP - Concentrations between GC columns varied by more than 25%

LegendPOND 2 • SEDIMENT SAMPLE. POND 2P2D • DISCHARGE DRAIN FROM POND 2EXCLA - SEDIMENT SAMPLE FROM EXCLUSION AREA A

pesticide.rp507105/94 10:27:31

Paflet

Matrix: Sediment

TABLE 6eSUMMARY OF JULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULTS


Mirex, Photomirex, and Kepone

933-6158

Parameter

MirexPhotomirexKepone

Sample PointPOND2*


Result

7420044.441.3

Qual

I,Z,KU

Sample PointP2D


Result

NANANA

Qual

Sample PointEXCLA


Result

NANANA

Qual

Notes:All units are ug/kg.The dilution factor for Mirex is 10.' MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2D.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result following data validation (see below).NA - Indicates parameter was not analyzed. ND - Indicates parameter was not detected.


Qualifiers:.U - Undetected at the detection limit I - Quantitation using the recovery internal standard, 13C-PCBJ - Concentration is below reporting limits and is an estimateY - Presence of compound strongly indicated, but not all ions were presentX - Presence of compound strongly indicated, but ion ration criteria were not metZ - Presence of the compound is strpnly indicated, but the ion ratio criteria were not met for the quantitation ionsK - Concentration was calculated using the confirmation ions

orgotheis.rpS08/29/94 09:47:22

Colder Associates Pagal

Matrix: Sediment

TABLE 6fSUMMARY OF JULY 1993 SAMPLING RESULTS


Dioxins, Furans, and Cyanide

933-6158

Parameter

2378TCDD2378TCDFTotal TCDDTotal TCDFCyanide

Sample PointPOND2*


Result

NANANANA<1.0

Qua!

Sample PointP2D


Result

NANANANANA

Qual

Sample PointEXCLA


Result

NANANANANA

Qual

Notes:All units are ug/kg.The dilution factor for Mirex is 10.• MRI POND2 sample labeled and shipped as P2D.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result following data validation (see below).NA - Indicates parameter was not analyzed. ND - Indicates parameter was not detected.


Qualifiers:.,

orgothervrpS08/28/94 08:44:41

U - Undetected at the detection limit I - Quantitation using the recovery internal standard, 13C-PCBJ - Concentration is below reporting limits and is an estimateY - Presence of compound strongly indicated, but not all ions were presentX - Presence of compound strongly indicated, but ion ration criteria were not metZ - Presence of the compound is stronly indicated, but the ion ratio criteria were not met for the quantitation ionsK - Concentration was calculated using the confirmation ions

Colder Associates P«g«1

February, 1995 Table 7Nease Site, Salem, Ohio

Removal Action Schedule

933-6158

Date Task/Activity /Deliverable/Milestone

November 17, 1993

November 17, 1993

November 23, 1993

November 28, 1993

December 1, 1993

December 9, 1993

December 10, 1993

December 17, 1993

January 3, 1994

January 10, 1994

January 15, 1994

January 17, 1994

January 24, 1994

February 4, 1994

February 10, 1994

February 11, 1994

March 2, 1994

March 1O, 1994

April 1O, 1994

April 13, 1994

April 20, 1994

May 10, 1994

May 13, 1994

May 25, 1994

May 25, 1994

Removal AOC Effective Date.

Commence Preparation of Removal Action Work Plan.

Submit Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation Work Plan (Rev. #1).

USEPA Conditional Approval of TPPEWP.

Commence Treatment Plan Performance Evaluation.

Complete Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation.

Submit monthly progress report.

Submit Removal Action Work Plan (Rev. #0) to USEPA.

USEPA Approval of TPPEWP (Rev. #1).


Complete Treatment Plant Data Analysis and Evaluation.

Notify EPA of inability of Treatment Plant to meet proposed dischargecriteria. Commence preparation of Treatment Plant ModificationsWork Plan (TPMWP).

USEPA disapproval of Removal Action Work Plan (Rev. #0) andassociated comments.

Submit Revised Removal Action Work Plan (Rev. #1) and Response toAgency comments.


Submit Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation Report (TPPER).

Submit Treatment Plant Modifications Work Plan (TPMWP, Rev. #0).



Submit Revised Removal Action Work Plan (Rev. #2) and Response toAgency comments.

Submit Revised TPMWP (Rev. #1) and Response to Agency Comments


Submit Updates (Rev. #3) to Removal Action Work Plan (Rev. #2) andResponse to Agency comments.

USEPA approval of Revised RA Work Plan (Rev. #2). Commence work onWork Plan implementation.

Commence Preparation of Removal Action WP Addendum.

mtl rees c:\nease\rasched.wk1 Colder Associates Page 1 of 2

February, 1995 Table 7Nease Site, Salem, Ohio

Removal Action Schedule

933-6158

Date Task/Activity/Deliverable/Milestone

June 1, 1994

June 10, 1994

June 24, 1994

July 10, 1994

July 26, 1994

July 28, 1994

August 10, 1994

August 30, 1994

September 10, 1994

September 23, 1994

October 3, 1994

October 4, 1994

October 10, 1994

November 9, 1994

November 10, 1994

December 1, 1994

December 10, 1994

December 12-19, 1994

January 10, 1995

January/February/March, 1995

February 10, 1995

March 10, 1994

Spring, 1996

Spring, 1995

Spring, 1995

Spring, 1995

Receipt of USEPA approval of Revised RA Work Plan (Rev. #3).


Submit TPMWP (Rev. #2).


Submit Treatment Plant Modifications Design Technical Memorandum(TPMDTM, Rev. #0).

Receipt of USEPA approval of TPMWP (Rev. #2 with revised Table 4).


Submit Removal Action Work Plan Addendum (RAWPA).


Receipt of USEPA Comments on TPMDTM.

Receipt of USEPA Comments on RAWPA

Submit TPMDTM (Revision #1).


Submit TPMDTM (Revision #2).


Receipt of USEPA approval of TPMDTM (Revision #2).


RAWPA Extraction Well and Piezometer Installation.


Construction of TPMWP/TPMDTM measures.



Preperation of Treatment Plant Operation and Maintenance Manual

Pumping Test and final design of shallow groundwater extraction system.

Submition of Surface Water/Sediment Sampling Plan for Feeder Creek System.

Anticipated construction of RAWPA interim measures.(Surface water measures)

mtl rees c:\nease\rasched.wk1 Colder Associates Page 2 of 2

/ D BEECHWOOD ROAD

NEASE SITE

LOCAL SETTING

CRANE-DEMINGCOMPANY

.8 So REGIONAL SETTING

SITE BOUNDARY

FENCE

', ', ', \ ', \ \ \ RAILROAD TRACKS

SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE

REFERENCEI.) BASE MAP AND EXISTING MONITORING WELLS TAKEN

FROM ERM 11x17 DRAWING, FIGURE No. 1-1, RLENo. 07FG1-1.

REATMENPLANT

1.) BASE DRAWING CONVERSION INTO THEOHIO STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM(NAD27) PROVIDED BY HOWELLS ANDBAIRD INC. ON 07/21/93.

SITE LOCATION MAP

Colder Associates RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION

•MM

••MM

«•••

1244?

8O

olUJ

457500!000

iSV''1

200 0 200 400

scale feet

REV DATE DESCRIPTION DR

-'*xU'>•^ Vi I '-

BY CHK BY RVW BY

PROJECT: ^^ RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONiRNCi NEASE SITEiSS SALEM, OHIO

SHEET TITLE:

SITE TOPOGRAPHY

__. *»«fc*i ••_ »,^h— dssjfc, PROJECT No. 933—6158 FILE No.:

^P gHk CUENT PROJ. No. DRAFTING

/SflfiB/'T felJ|AM» DES BY THR 08/11/94 SCALE:

W ^ge^m~A ^^^^^jT»<*T«_ 08/22/94^^ r ASSOClftlftS CHK BY rmz e ^c 9^ FIG

Mt. Laurel, New Jersey pyw BY ^'V; fl^/^y

f/\ ->/ } A .

OH01-324SUBTITLE: 07

AS SHOWN

iURE 1B

NOTES1.) LOCATIONS OF SOME FEATURES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY.

2.) BASE DRAWING CONVERSION INTO THE OHIO STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM(NAD27) PROVIDED BY HOWELLS AND BAIRD INC. ON 07/21/93.

REFERENCE1.) MODIFIED FROM AN ERM-MIDWEST, INC. BASE DRAWING ERM-3, SUPPLIED BY

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION.

60ffscale

0 60 120

feet

REV DATE DESCRIPTION DR BY CHK BY RVW BY

PROJECT:

RNCRUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION

NEASE SITESALEM, OHIO

SHEET TITLE:

INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURESAND JULY 1993 SAMPLING LOCATIONS

, GolderAssociates

Mt. Laurel, New Jersey

PROJECT No. 933-6158CLIENT PROJ. No.

DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

THR

WME

12/06/93

08/26/94

2 (.-'-.Of.

FILE No.: OH01-316DRAFTING SUBTITLE: 07

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 2

I

g

mo

&

•_oX

CD

O>

ovl ro

O

is<oOI

mCO

DO

"0C0d

CN (/I"D

1 C(/I DO m_J D

0

(/IU

§_0

U.

0-M

0

Daily Leachate Co ect ionNease Si te, Salem, Ohio

uantit ies

February 5 through July 31, 1994

N

FEEDER . .POND (J

I

D BEECHWOOD ROAD

CRANE-DEMING |COMPANY

S17D8

TREATMENT

CROSS SECTION DESIGNATION

nGURE No. WHERE ROUND 1 AND 2 Rl RESULTSFOR GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION IS PRESENTED

FIGURE No. WHERE GEOLOGY AND SHALLOWGROUNDWATER CROSS SECTION IS PRESENTED

SITE BOUNDARY

519 MONITORING WELL

Rt/FS MONITORING WELL CLUSTER WELLS

EXCLUSION AREAS

REFERENCE

.) BASE MAP TAKEN FROM ERM-MIDWEST DRAWING RLENo. 07FG2-14. PROJECT No. 202-01-07.

EXCLUSION AREAS TAKEN FROM SMC MARTIN. INC.DRAWING TITLED "EXISTING AND PROPOSED MONITORWELL LOCATIONS MAP'. FIGURE 3. PROJECT No.9061-94004. DATED JULY 1987.

5.) BASE DRAWING CONVERSION INTO THE OHIO STATEPLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (NAD27) PROVIDED BYHOWELLS AND BAIRD INC. ON 07/21/93.

400ffscale

FEB 16400•3

feet

07

Ckdder Associates

MONITORING WELL ANDCROSS SECTION LOCATION PLAN

NEASE SITE

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONFMURE

CRANE-DEMINGCOMPANY

CROSS SECTION DESIGNATION1.) BASE MAP AND EXISTING MONITORING WELLS TAKEN

FIGURE No. WHERE ROUND 1 AND 2 H RESULTS FROM ERM 11x17 DRAWING, FIGURE No. 2-15, FILEFOR GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION IS PRESENTED *°- 07F52-15.

FIGURE No. WHERE GEOLOGY AND SHALLOWGROUNDWATER CROSS SECTION IS PRESENTED NOTES feet

D5

SITE BOUNDARY

EXISTING MONITORING WELL

1.) LOCATION OF WELL RW1 IS APPROXIMATE ONLY.


JOBN«: 933-6158Mi BY: MRM

AS SHOWNDATE: 01/26/95«? *>•= 10H01-307OR SUBH1LE- 07

Associa

MONITORING WELL AND CROSSSECTION LOCATION PLAN FOR

AREAS WITHIN AND NEARPROPERTY BOUNDARIES

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONFIGURE


PROJECT: RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONNEASE SITESALEM, OHIO

SHEET TITLE:

INTERPRETED GEOLOGY AND SHALLOWGROUNDWATER CROSS SECTION A - A'



DES BY

CHK BY

THR

JSG

03/15/94

06/30/94

!2i

FILE No.:: OH01-269DRAFTINC4 SUBTITLE: 07

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 6

REV

01/19/95

DATE

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST. 1994 RAWPA

DESCRIPTION

JSG

DR BY CHK BY RVW BY


SHEET TITLE:

INTERPRETED GEOLOGY AND SHALLOWGROUNDWATER CROSS SECTION B-Br



DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

THR

MRM

THR

GRF

03/15/94

08/22/9408/26/94

08/26/94

FILE No.: 10H01-270DRAFTING SUBTITLE: 07

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 7

V

01/27/95

DATE

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST, 1994- RAWPA

DESCRIPTION

JSG

DR BY CHK BY


RVW

SHEET TITLE:

INTERPRETED GEOLOGY AND SHALLOWGROUNDWATER CROSS SECTION C-C'

eutesMt. Laurel, New Jersey


DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

JCV

JSG

THR

GRF

03/15/9408/18/94

08/26/9408/26/94


SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 8

REV

01/19/95

DATE

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST. 1994 RAWPA

DESCRIPTION

JSG

DR BY CHK BY RVW BY


SHEET TITLE:

INTERPRETED GEOLOGY AND SHALLOWGROUNDWATER CROSS SECTION E-E1

, GolderAssociates

Mi. Laurel, New Jersey

PROJECT No. 933-6158CLIENT PROJ, No.

DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

THRJSG

THR

GRF

03/15/9408/11/94

08/26/9408/26/94


SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 9

§

m

i

m3)

' H

CO TJ

•83)

TJ

D>^0 (0-Q -0D C

_UJ

Water Table vs. Topography: East Wel lsNease Chemical Site, Salem Ohio

1.185

1.18

1.175

1.17

1.165

1.16

1.155

1.15

1.145

1.14

1.135

1.13DVF3 EVF1 EVF3 FVF3 FVF6 HVF2 JVF3 K-S LVF1 S-1 S-3 S-14 S-16

D-S EVF2 EVF4 FVF4 H S JVF2 JVF4 K-V LVF2 S-2 S-13 S-15 S-17Well Number

D 'We l l Casing Elev. + Maximum Water Table O Minumurn Water Table

K)830

>

O

I

_Q-C.

§

m

cgm

rOCO 13. O

O

-o

_i

2<D

0 'n

0 C4-*

01 î' O

I1u

Water Table vs. Topography: West WellsNease Chemical Site, Salem Ohio

A-S C-S S-4

D

B-S IS

Maximum Water Table

S-6S-5 S-7

Wel l NumberS-9 S-11 S-18

+ Minimum Water Table O Well Casing Elev.

mu m

«M*M

MM

\

244?

o8?01

UJ

4575001000

I

A!JG 2 9 !994

200 0 200 400•• ^^^^^^^^^^ • ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^J

scale feet


PROJECT: .*. RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONiRNCl NEASE SITEiSSSi SALEM, OHIO

SHEET TITLE: INTERPRETED WATER TABLESHALLOW AQUIFERS

MARCH 1993«-=- PROJECT No. 933-6158 FILE No.: OH01-314

CLIENT PROJ. No. DRAFTING SUBTITLE: 07

tf^xWl^xk.^* DES ^ THR 04/26/94 SCALE: AS SHOWN |• V^ W!« M«m. jjH yy J5Q 08/22/94 I

ssotiaies C H K BY •,-• ^^/^ FIGURE 12 A 1Mt. Laurel, New Jersey Ryyy gy ^/tc f/u,/?y- |

•-3OOO

-2800

-26OO

-240O

-2200-

-2OOO

-I8OO

—200

-400

' : ' i l \i i , //; \j ;1 ! - !

i //! '/ .

• i 1 i i I 1 M V

i ii

jI F

Y X W V Ui i

T S R 0 P> i iO N M L K J

-i i \ '• ^-^1 — T-^ — I — j — — — TT i I! V • '. « • \ • » r r , r r « > f f •> y jr y

_ _fTTr r r r

LEGEND

S-15 MONITOR WELL IN SHALLOW AQUIFER•

(1157) ELEVATION OF WATER TA8LE FT. (MSL)

O OTHER MONITOR WELLS

(DATA COLLECTED JANUARY 1985)

REFERENCE1.) FIGURE PROVIDED BY 'ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF

RUETGERS-NEASE CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. SALEM,OHIO SITE. PHASE I-B REPORT. PRELIMINARY DRAFT.PREPARED BY SMC MARTIN, INC.. JULY 1985.

«00«FE£T>

* , : • •

! • • .

*» "x: 933-6158

w8" MRMCHKBYS-T-^^ *&I?LI<\*\

REV BKi /T<^- ^/ifr/'jW-

«* AS SHOWNOATE 06/30/94

«"»= OH01-323OR SUBTITU: Q7

CMder Associates

WATER TABLESHALLOW AQUIFERS

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION T 1 2B

100IS!horizontal scale

10 0>""*—P^—Jvertical scale

100

10

200

feet

205

feet



SHEET TITLE:

INTERPRETED GEOLOGY AND SHALLOWGROUNDWATER CROSS SECTIONS P-P' AND T-T'

I ' l - ,

AssociatesMt. Laurel, New Jersey


DES BY

OR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

THR

MRM

tf

02/22/94

08/22/94


SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 13

CRANh-DEMINGCOMPANY

D5

SITE BOUNDARY

EXISTING MONITORING WELL

INTERPRETED SAND t OUTCROP

INTERPRETED SAND 1 SUBCROP

EXCLUSION AREAS

1.) BASE MAP AND EXISTING MONITORING WELLS TAKENFROM ERM 11x17 DRAWING. FIGURE No. 2-15, FILEMa 07FG2-15.

NOTES ___1.): LOCATION OF WELL RWt IS APPROXIMATE ONLY.

2.) BASE DRAWING CONVERSION INTO THE OHIO STATEPLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (NAD27) PROVIDED BYHOWELLS AND BAIRD INC. ON 07/21/93. -• •"

feet

JOB NO.: 933-6158

OR BY: MRMCHK BT.

SCALE: AS SHOWNDATE 01/27/95Fl£ No.: 10H01-308DM SUBTITLE: 07

Gdder Associates

INTERPRETED EXTENT OF SAND 1OUTCROP AND SUBCROP

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION 14

CRANE-DEMINGCOMPANY

LEGEND

D5

SITE BOUNDARY

EXISTING MOWTORWe WEU,

INTERPRETED SAND 2 OUTCROP

INTERPRETED SAND 2 SUBCROP

EXCLUSION AREAS

1.) BASE MAP AND EXISTING MONITORING WELLS TAKENFROM ERM 11x17 DRAWING, FIGURE No. 2-15, RLENo. 07FG2-15.

NOTES1.) LOCATION OF WELL RWI IS APPROXIMATE ONLY.

2.) BASE DRAWING CONVERSION INTO THE OHIO STATEPLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (NAD27) PROVIDED BYHOWEUS AND BAJRD INC. ON 07/21/9J.

FEB 1 6 1995

0 200^3feet

JOB MO. 933-6158OK BTi MRM011

SCALE: AS SHOWNDATE 01/26/95FH£ 10H01-309Dft SUBITtlE: 07

Goider Associates

INTERPRETED EXTENT OF SAND 2OUTCROP AND SUBCROP

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONFWWC

15

02/02/95 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST, 1994 RAWPA JSG



SHEET TITLE:

ROUND 1 AND ROUND 2 Rl RESULTS FORGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A - A'

r GolderAssociates



DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

JEC

JSG

THRGRF

03/15/94

08/26/94

08/26/94

03/26/94


SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 16

02/03/95 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST, 1994 RAWPA JSG


PROJECT: RUETQERS-NEASE CORPORATIONNEASE SITE

SALEM, OHIOSHEET TITLE:

ROUND 1 AND ROUND 2 Rl RESULTS FORGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B - B'

Golder'Associates

Mi. Laurel, New Jersey


DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

JEC

JSGTHRGRF

03/15/94

08/26/9408/26/9408/26/94


SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 17

REV

01/27/95

DATE

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST, 1994 RAWPA

DESCRIPTION

JSG

DR BY CHK BY RVW BY


SHEET TITLE:

ROUND 1 AND ROUND 2 Rl RESULTS FORGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C - Cr

FGolderAssociates



DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

JEC

JSGTHRGRF

03/15/9408/26/9408/26/94

08/26/94


SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 18

REV

01/26/95

DATE

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST, 1994 RAWPA

DESCRIPTION

JSG

DR BY CHK BY

GRfRVW BY


SHEET TITLE:

ROUND 1 AND ROUND 2 Rl RESULTS FORGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION E - E'

Mt. Laurel. New Jersey


OES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

BY

JEC

JSG

THR

GRF

03/15/94

08/26/94

08/26/94

08/26/94


SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 19

•/]]V

11

'' \ \

• "'- 'S3.... ^

1

1

ll1 1 1

\\

»>ii>»

100 0 100 200pHH^ ^M^ ^pBBi ^K^ ^B^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^scale feet


PROJECT: ^^ RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONIRNCJ NEASE SITEl5Bi SALEM, OHIO

SHEET TITLE:

EXISTING AND PROPOSEDROCK / FABRIC BARRIERS

«- PROJECT No. 933-6158 FILE No.:

CLIENT PROJ. No. DRAFTING

fVf^l JUv«* DES BY THR 08/11/94 SCALE:^* - "»" i*^ OK BY JSG 08/20/94

ssoaales C HKBY -^ &/2^^ PIQMt. Laurel, New Jersey RVW BY tAf- 1/27/'}y

OH01-335SUBTITLE: 07

AS SHOWN

iURE 20

LEGENDFEEDER//POND (/

0 BEECHWOOD ROAD

INACTIVE LANDFILL(APPROX. LOCATION)

CRANE-DELING |COMPANY

GARFIELD RD.

SALEM \\WASTE WATER \\

TREATMENT \\PLANT \\

SITE BOUNDARY

FENCE

RAILROAD TRACKS


SURFACE WATER FLOW DIRECTION

GAS PIPELINE

BUILDING

REFERENCE

1.) BASE MAP TAKEN FROM ERM-MIDWEST DRAWING RLENo. 07FG2-14, PROJECT No. 202-01-07.

2.) BASE DRAWING CONVERSION INTO THE OHIO STATEPLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (NAD27) PROVIDED BYHOWELLS AND BAiRD INC. ON 07/21/93. ,<>*

400ffscale

^"4003

feet

07

Gdder Associates

SURFACE WATERFLOW DIRECTION

RUETCERS-NEASE CORPORATIONFIGURE

21

D BEECHWOOO ROAD

INACTIVE LANDFILL(APPROX. LOCATION)CRANE-DEMING]

COMPANY

D L-JRâ . Do

SALEM \\WASTE WATER

TREATMENTPLANT

iates

SITE BOUNDARY

FENCE

RAILROAD TRACKS


GAS PIPELINE

LIMITS OF DELINEATED SUBWATERSHED

DIRECTION OF RUNOFF

BUILDING

ON-SITE WATERSHED NAME

OS—1 OFF-SITE WATERSHED NAME

1.) IN SOME PLACES THE SUBWATERSHED LIMITS DIRECTLYOVERLAY THE SITE BOUNDARY. REFER TO FIGURE 1 FORSITE BOUNDARIES THAT MAY BE OVERPRINTED HERE.

REFERENCE

1.) BASE MAP TAKEN FROM ERM-MIDWEST DRAWING RLENo. 07FG2-14. PROJECT No. 202-01-07.


400escale

1 B 7995400

feet

SITE WATERSHEDS

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONroue

22

LEGEND

BEECHWOOD ROAD

BgBCaBChC2

INACTIVE LANDFILLPROX. LOCATION)CRANE-DEMING |

COMPANYLn \ Ma

REFERENCE

\SALEMV \\

WASTE WATPB \\TREATMENT \\\

PLANT X\\\

SITE BOUNDARY

FENCE

RAILROAD TRACKS


BOGART LOAM. 2 TO 5% SLOPES

CANFIELD SILT LOAM. 2 TO 55C SLOPES

CHIU GRAVELLY LOAM, 5 TO 1 0X SLOPES.MODERATELY ERODED

CHILI LOAM. 2 TO 5% SLOPES

CHIU LOAM, 5 TO 1 0X SLOPES,MODERATELY ERODED

FITCHVILLE SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5X SLOPES

JMTOWN LOAM, 2 TO 5X SLOPES

JIMTOWI SILT LOAM. 2 TO 5X SLOPES

LORAIN CLAY

LURAY AND MARENGO SILTY CLAY LOAMS

MADE LAND

OLMSTED SILTY CLAY LOAM

PAPAKAT1NG SILT LOAM

PAPAKAT1NG SILTY CLAY LOAM

RAVENNA SILT LOAM. 2 TO 5X SLOPES

RITTMAN SILT LOAM. 5 TO 1 0X SLOPES,MODERATELY ERODED

SEBRING SILT LOAM

WAYLAND SILT LOAM

WOOSTER LOAM, 5 TO 1 0X SLOPES,MODERATELY ERODED

WOOSTER SILT LOAM. 2 TO 5X SLOPES

SOIL SURVEY OF COLUMBIANA COUNTY. OHIO, 1968.

APPROXIMATE LJMfT OF SPECIFIEDSOU. CLASSIFICATION

1.) BASE MAP TAKEN FROM ERM-MIDWEST DRAWING FILENo. 07FG2-14. PROJECT No. 202-01-07.

400

feet

Colder Associates

SOILS MAP

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONnoure

23

- DETAIL OR CROSS SECTION DESIGNATION

RGURE No. WHERE DETAIL OR CROSS SECTION !S PRESEN^D

- FIGURE No. WHERE LOCATION 0^ DETAIL OR CROSS SFCT'C-NiIS FIRST SHOWN

REFERENCE1.) DETAIL TAKEN FROM ERM-8 ENTITLED "DETAILS - MISCELLANEOUS, SEDIMENT

CONTROL STRUCTURES / LCS #1", PREPARED BY ERM-MIDWEST, INC. DATED APRIL1990.

REV DATE DESCRIPTION DR 3Y CHK BY RVW8YJ


SHEET TITLE:

DETAILS OF CONTROL OUTLETAND SILT FENCE

£

S



DES BY VEF

DR BY j WME

CHK BY

RVW BY

Tt*-i*.

06/24/94

08/27/94/ ?. a ,<>'-/

FILE No.:

DRAFTING SUBTITLE:

OH 01-320 £07 !;

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 24

100nscale

100 2005

feet

REV DATE

PROJECT:DESCRIPTION OR BY CHK BY RVW BY

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONNEASE SITESALEM, OHIO

INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURESCONCEPTUAL GROUNDWATER

EXTRACTION SYSTEM



DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

THR

MRM

08/16/94

08/26/94


SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 25

REV DATE

PROJECT:

SHEET TITLE:

100E5horizontal scale

10 0Cvertical scale

100

10

200

feet

20a

feet

DESCRIPTION DR BY CHK BY RVW BY


INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURESCROSS SECTIONS P-P' AND T-Tr



DES BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

THRMRM

02/22/9408/26/94


SCALE: AS SHOWN

FIGURE 26

1C. OIOiC.IV! i »J«(\C.i^ T ROM riUWLLj-i MiMlJ dMJiXU, INC.,

WING TITLED "N.W. 1/4 OF SEC. 35 AND S.W. 1/4 OF SEC. 36. (TWP. 17.4GE 4), PERRY TWP., COLUMBIAN A COUNTY, OHIO", DATED 11/23/83.

>E DRAWING CONVERSION INTO THE OHIO STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEMD27) PROVIDED BY HOWELLS AND OAIRD iNC. ON 07/21/93.

-BUILT DATA SHOWN TAKEN FROM DRAWINGS CREATED BY ENVIRONMENTALiOURCES MANAGEMNT-MIDWEST, INC. TITLED "AS-BUILT DRAWING", SHEETS 12 AND 2 of 2.

'•X-'\e

E DESCRIPTION DR BY CHK BY

i'

\

II

RVW BY)


INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURESEXISTING AND PROPOSED

SITE DRAIN AND PIPE SYSTEM



DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

THR

JSG

08/16/94

08/26/94

FILE No.: OH01-338DRAFTING SUBTITLE: 07SCALE: NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 27

APPENDIX A

Grain Size Analyses: July 1993 Sampling Results

ASTM GRAIN SIZE ANALYSISASTM D42L, D422, D1140, D221« and D2217

PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NUMBER:

RUTGERS/FEASIBILITY STUDY/PA923-6112

Sample NOJSample ID.:

EXCA 1BULK |

WATER CONTENT (Delivered Moisture)

Tare no.

Wt sofl & tare^moist <wi>

Wtsoil&tare,dry iw»Wtlare (w»Wt moisture <w-w,.w»Wt dry soil (w*wiwj>% WATER iw«w<rt.

BL-11

1767.43

1554.19195.87213.241358.3215.70%

% PASSING #10 SIEVE

Total Wt m

Wt Split #10 <wi,

% PASSING #10 (-w.~

1358.32

1113.88

82.0%

uses

coarse gravel

Tine gravel

coarse sand

•tedium sand

SIEVE

3.000

LSOO

1.000

0.7500.375#4

wtret %rtt %PASS

24.16

59.98111.61U1.15244.73

0.00%0.00%1-78%

4.42%8.22%11.86%18.02%

100.00%100.00%

98.22%

95.58%91.78%88.14%81.98%

SIEVE

3,000 coarse gravel1.5*0LOOO

0.750 flnegravtl0.375

#4 eoarae land#10 Medium und

SAMPLE PREPARATION FOR HY% Paw #10 SieveSpecific Gravity W—IMD)ail Dicperinx Agent U<ed

UKUMK1 KK ANALYSIS81.981.65125

WATER CONTENT (Hygroscopic #10)Tare no.Wt coil and tare,moUt (in)

Wttoil£tarc,dry mWt tan on.)Wt moisture lost nni«wiw*)Wt dry soil,Tinal fmx-wMn^% HYGROSCOPIC MOISTURE (w,uw,»i«PERCENT BETWEEN #1SIEVE

#10#20#40#60#100#200

DATE

08/05/93

08/M/93ET (min)

XOO4.008.0015.0030.00M.OO120.00240.00480.001440.00

Initial Moist WLCalculated Dry Wt(40ml Na(PO4)n per 1000ml H2O)

23B42.0842.0519.7»0.0322.290.1%

7L1S71.05

% PASSING 200 SIEVETare no.Wt soil and tare,dry (wt,dry) (WIDWt coil&tare,wash (wt,wasb) fm.)Wllare ou>Wl Hnes lost (wt,dry-wt,wath) (wi<-wu.wi<>Wt dry soil, (wt,dry-wt,tare) (wii-muni)% FINES LOST <w,*wi7r>-

0 AND #200 SIEVE CALCULATIONCUMULWT. CUMULWT.RETAINED RET. CORR

0.003.J910.4220.1927.5732.53TIME

06220*240*280*350*5007:2008:2010:2014:200*20

RDNG.C29.002*0025.0011.0018.5015.0014.H13.0011.009.00

ET(mln)2.004.008.0015.0030.00M.OO120.00240.00480.001440.0

EFFLTHits12.012.2U.913J13.814.014.214.514.8

15.6219.212*0435.8143.1948.15

RDNGR

34.031.030.02*023.520.019.018.017.013.0K

0.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0140.0140.013

COLDER ASSOCIATES INC TECHMT. LAUREL, NJ DATE

TEMPT

24.0024.0024.0024.0024.0023.5022.0020.0018.5025.00

ALOOLOOLOOLOOLOOLOOLOOLOOLOOLOOBM

8/7/93

PERCENTPASSING

81.98%77.84%69.*,%58.69%50.17%44.45%

TEMP.CORK

0.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0140.0140.013

PARDIA0.0310.023O.OU0.0120.0090.0060.0050.0030.0020.001

CHECKEDREVIEWED

BYD.RONG.

H5.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.006.004.00

«F1NER33.530.028.824.22L317J1*215.012.710.4

^hf/\j~fV

WET COLOR:DESCRIPTION:

A-2263.8822*25192.8237.637L0653.0%

LLPLPIGs

Grain Sixe 1• CQBVL

• FQftVL

• cauv«M«U«

• rau»

•roiu.

'ercentaRis4.4%7.4%*2%12.0%25.5%44.4%

100.00%

Brown

nmmimt^mun,

•*»—

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRD3UTION ASTM D-421 AND 422

US STANDARD SIEVE OPENING SIZES

6' 3" 1.5' .75' .375' 4 10 20 40 60 100 200iuu- •

<yv. .

ATV- •

PA ^SS

I *° I

NG 40""

•an- - -

1000

I

100

^•x,.

10

^ X\

"X 1 5

N

\

\\\\\

01

S

v\\\

\P

o.bi

fcB. -\,S

o.c

Grain size in millimeters

COBBLESCoarse Fine

GRAVEL

Cor Med Fine

SANDFINES (Silt and Clay)

SAMPLE ID

EXCA

W%

15.7

LL PL PI Gs

Date Tested: 8/7/93

TECHNICIAN: BM DATE: 8/11/93

DESCRIPTIONBrown

FINES and m-f SAND,

little gravel

CHECKED: $#V REVIEWED:

RUTGERS/FEASIBILITY STUDY/PA

923-6112


MT. LAUREL, NJ

ASTM GRAIN SIZE ANALYSISASTM D421, D422, D1140, D22U and D2217

PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NUMBER.-

RUTGERS/FEASIBILITY STUDY/PA«J-*1L2

Sample No_-Staple ID.S

P2DBULK

11


Tare no.

WtMil&tare^mist <*,,

Wt soil & tare^ry mWtlare mWt moisture fwnunWt dry Mil <wi.»»n>

% WATER (wvro-i-

C-30

14(L77

10(8.35185.42393.428819344.5(%

% PASSING #10 SIEVE

ToUlWt c~>

Wt Spilt #10 (-T>

% PASSING #10 (wv-o.-

88193

580.33

(5.7%

uses SIEVE wtret %ret %PASS SIEVE

coarse gravel 3.000LSOO

LOOO

Tine gravel 0.750OJ7S

coarse sand #4•ediom sand #10

111.04

177.K193.8922S.(2255.71302.38

(.00%1156%20.97%

21.9«%25.55%28.96%34.25%

100.00%87.42%

79.93%

78.04%74.45%71.04%(5.75%

3.000 coon* gravelL500

LOOO

0.750 fine gravelOJ75

#4 coarse sand#10 Medium sand

SAMPLE PREPARATION FOR HY% Paw #10 SieveSpecific Gravity tamxtmml Dicpering Agent Used

UKUMt.1 tK ANALYSIS(5.751(5125

WATER CONTENT (Hygroscopic #10)Tare no.Wt soil »nd lare^Holct dmWl soil&tare,dry <w»Wt Ure on*)Wt moisture lost <wu-m-w>>Wt dry Eoil/inal nni.in.ino% HYGROSCOPIC MOISTURE miAmrt-PERCENT BETWEEN #1SIEVE

#10#20#40#(0#100#200

DATE

08/05/93

08/06/93ET (mln)

2,004.008.0015.0030.00(0.00120.00240,00480.001440.00

Initial Moist WLCalculated Dry Wt(40ml Na(PO4)n per 1000ml H2O)

20B42.8242.8020.880.0221.920.1%

71887181

% PASSING 200 SIEVETare no.Wt sail and Ure,dty (wt,dry) <wuiWt soil&Ure,wash (wt,wash) dn«Wt tare moWt Tines lost («t^ry-wt,wash) cmowiun*Wt dry sail, (wV)ry-wt,Un) <tn>.wu.in»% FINES LOST nn«nnTri~

0 AND #200 SIEVE CALCULATIONCUMULWT. CUMULWT.RETAINED RET. CORK

0.004.3510.781(.(521.1725.81TIME

0621062306270634064907:19Ofltl910:191*190619

RDNG.C32.00».oo25.002LOO17.5014.5011.0010.507.005.50

ET(.In)ZOO4.008.0015.0030.00(0.00120.00240.00480.001440.0

EFFLTH11.111.912.211913.514.014J14.715.215.5

37.93412848.7154.5859.10(3.74

RDNGR

37.031030.02(.021519317.0ISJ13.09.5K

0.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0140.0140.013

COLDER ASSOCIATES INC ITiCHMT. LAUREL, NJ DATE

TEMPT

24.0024.0024.0024.00240023.50210020.0018.5025.00

A1.00LOO1.00LOOLOOLOO1.001.001.00LOOBM

8/7/93

PERCENTPASSING

(5.75%(1.82%5(.02%50.72%4(.(4%4145%

TEMP.CORK

0.013COO0.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0140.0140.013

PARDIA0.0310.022O.OK0.0120.009O.OM0.0050.0030.0020.001

CHbXJKiOREVIEWED

BYD.RDNG-

H

5.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.00(.004.00

*FINER28.924.421(19.015.813.110.89.5635.0

W'jw

WET COLOR:DESCRIPTION:

1-102(3.11217.05190.304(.M7181(3.3%

LLPLPIGs

Grain Size I«CC*VL

• rokvi.«ca*f«

«MMW

«PteM>

• TOX4L

'ercentages210%7.0%S.3%9.7%13. t%414%

100.009}

Brown

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D-421 AND 422US STANDARD SIEVE OPENING SIZES

61 3' 1.5' .75' .375' 4 10 20 40 60 100 200

fin- •

pA 60-SsI *°N

G *°

on-

100C) 100

s\

\s \

V\,V

10

si,s

X x

• f i

\

\^ \

s

01

s

\

\\

\A\' i

o.bi

iB.

N--B

0.(


COBBLESCoarse Fine

GRAVEL

Cor Med Fine


SAMPLE ID

P2D

•w%44.6

LL PL PI Gs

Date Tested: 8/7/93


DESCRIPTION

Brown

FINES, some c gravel,

some f sand

CHECKED: WfaJ REVIEWED:


COLDER ASSOCIATES INC.MT. LAUREL, NJ

ASTM GRAIN SIZE ANALYSISASTM D421, D422, D1140, D22U ami D2217

PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NUMBER:


Sample No.:Sample ID.!

POND 2BULK

11


Tare no.

Wtsoil&Ureôlst wi

Wt soil & lare^ry r-n,Wttare an,Wt moisture o—wum,Wt dry soil *n.w>m*

% WATER <wv-»r»«

BL-91893.31

1465.18185.92428.031279.3433.46%

% PASSING #10 SIEVE

Total Wt OH)

Wt Spilt #10 (w»

% PASSING #10 «*~M»

1279 J<

1077.03

84.2%

uses SIEVE wtret %ret %PASS

L5M

LOW

nnc gravel t.75*•J7S

coarse uind #4medium und 4*1*

42.7512L63102.81

•.00%0,00%0.00%

100%4.90%9.51%15.85%

100,00%100.00%

100.00%

100.00%95.10%90.49%84.15%

SIEVE

3.000

L500

LOOO

•.7500.375

#4 coan* Mnd#10 medium und

SAMPLE PREPARATION FOR HY%P»« #10 Swv*Specific Gravity IUKIIOIml Ditpering Agtnt U«cd

UKOMKltK ANALYSIS

84.15r«5125

WATER CONTENT (Hygrocopk #10)Tire no.Wt coll and tarrâolct <m,Wt coil&tan,dry (w,,Wt Ure (w^Wt Boisturc Icwt oni-wi-wnWl dry (oil/inal <wiM<n.wi»% HYGROSCOPIC MOISTURE (w,um^M

PERCENT BETWEEN #1SIEVE

#10#20#40#<0#100#200

DATE

08/05/93

08/04/93ET (mtn)

1004.008.0015.0030.00CO.M120.00240.00480.001440,00

Initial Moist WLCalcuUttdDryWt(40ml Na(P04)n per 1000ml H2O)

IB40.9040.8720.630.0320.140.1%

M.29«.19

% PASSING 200 SIEVETan no.Wt soil and Urt,dry (wtîry) rm*Wl Mil&tare,wafh (wt,wath) (wi4)

Wt tan (w,»Wt fine, loct (wt,dry-wt,wa«h) «n«.w».m4Wt dry foil, (wt^ry-wtârt) rwu-wi^wun% FINES LOST oivwii).,.

0 AND #200 SIEVE CALCULATIONCUMULWT. CUMULWT.RETAINED RET. CORR

0.002.70«.4910.7514.9319.29

TIME

•62*•62206 2i•633Mc48•7:180&1810:1814:180618

RDNG.C33.0030.0028.00240012.5020.0017.0015.001J.OO11.00

ET(•In)ZOO4.008.0015.0030.00<O.M120.00240.00480.001440.0

EFFLTH10.911.41L711.0U.713.013.513.814.214.5

12.4715.17IS-Xi23.2227.4031.7*

RDNGR

38.035.*33.031.*27.515.022.021.0».»15.0

K•.0130.0130.0130,013•.0130.0130.013•.014•.014•.013

GOLDEN ASSOCIATES INC TECHMT. LAUREL, NJ DATE

TEMPT

24.0024.0024.0024.0024.0013.5022.0020.0018.5025.00

ALOO1.00LOO1.00LOOLOOLOO1.00LOO1.00BM

8/7/93

PERCENTPASSING

84.15%80.72%75.90%70.48%65.17%59.«2%

TEMP.CORK

0.0130.0130.013•,0130.0130.0130,013•,0140.014•.013

PARDIA0.0300.022O.OU0,0110,0080.00*•,004•.003•,002•,001

CHECKEDREVIEWED

HYD.RDNG.

H

5.005.005.00

5.00

5.00

S.OO

5.00

«,00

(.00

4.00

%FINER41038.135.433.128.415.42L«1>.11<JU» ,

ftsftir

BL-*258.07211.84191.8844.2344.1949.8%

LLPLPIGi

WET COLOR:DESCRIPTION;

Grain Size I«COKVL

«rcavL• CMI««uaun• PMItt

• p»a>

« TOTAL

percentages0.0%9.5%4.3%8.3%14.3%59.6%

100.00%

Brownrtmmmttuun.UkrM

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D-421 AND 422

US STANDARD SIEVE OPENING SIZES

6' 3' 1.5' .75' .375' 4 10 20 40 60 100 200I\AT -

%

P

A 00SS

er>- .

I ^N

4O- -G

on- ,_

on. [

iifi- i-»

100C

I

i

î

) 1(X)

\

10

*»

\\,

' E

SS\\

\

\.

01

B

\\

\\

\ sS,

\i

o.bi

îs

bN

N

o.c 01


COBBLESCoarse Fine

GRAVEL

Cor Med Fine


SAMPLED)

POND 2

W%

33.5

LL PL PI Gs

Date Tested: 8/7/93


DESCRIPTION

Brown

FINES and f SAND,

, little gravel

CHECKED: WfaJ REVIEWED:

RUTGERS/FEASIBILITY STUDY/PA

923-6112


MT. LAUREL, NJ

APPENDIX B

Site Inspection Form

SITE INSPECTION FORMRUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION

NEASE SITE, SALEM OHIO

Date of InspectionEntry Time Exit Time_Weather

Inspector's NameInspector's Company_

INSPECTION RESULTS

SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS: STRUCTURES

(Responses: S = Satisfactory, U = Unsatisfactory, Yes/No,Levels measured in Feet, NA = Not Applicable)

Quick Water Berm VisiblePump Connect Level Erosion Leakage

Leachate Collection System 1 (LCS-1)Leachate Collection System 2 (LCS-2)Pond 1 PumphousePond 1 BermPond 2 EmbankmentExclusion Area A EmbankmentStorage Tank

_Other (specify)_

SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS: SEDIMENT BARRIERS

Condition of sediment barriers

Fabric Bypassing Is MaintenanceBarrier ID Intact? Evident? Necessary ?

Sediment ControlStructure 1

Sediment ControlStructure 2

Fabric Barrier 2

Fabric Barrier 3

Fabric Bypassing Is maintenanceBarrier ID Intact? Evident? Necessary ?

Fabric Barrier 4

Fabric Barrier 5

Fabric Barrier 8

Fabric Barrier 9

Fabric Barrier 10

Fabric Barrier 11

Rock Barrier 1

Rock Barrier 2

Pond 7-North

Pond 7-South

SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS: SEEPS (if present, use more forms as necessary)

Seep ID Located Areal Extent Magnitude(yr-month-#) on Map (ft~2) (flow?, ponding?)

Note: Seep ID # equal the 'nth1 observed seep during the yr-month in question

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS OR REMARKS

Inspector's Name Inspector's Signature Date

I

Date of InspectEntry Time

/IONTHLY MONITORING WELL WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT FORMRUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION


ionExit Time

Weather

Inspector's NarInspector's CorInspector's Sig

Tienpanvnature

WELL DEPTH TO CASINGNUMBER WATER & LOCK COMMENTS

(FT) INTACT ?

AUBAA-SB-SC-S

CLBACUBAD-1D-2D-3D-4D-5D-6D-7D-8D-9

D-10D-11D-12D-13D-14D-1 5D-1 6D-17DLBADVF3D-S

mtLrees c:\nease\rawpa\siteform.wk1 Golder Associates Page 1 of 3

K


MONTHLY MONITORING WELL WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT FORMRUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION


ionExit Time

Weather


nenpanynature


(FT) INTACT ?

ELBAEVF1EVF2EVF3EVF4FLBAFVF3FVF4FVF6GUBAH-S

HUBAHVF2

I-SHALEILBAI-S

IUBAJLBAJVF2JVF3JVF4KLBA

K-SK-VLBALVF1

mtl_rees c:\nease\rawpa\siteform.wk1 Golder Associates Page 2 of 3

K


1ONTHLY MONITORING WELL WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT FORMRUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION


ionExit Time

Weather


nenpanynature


(FT) INTACT ?

LVF2P-1P-2P-3

RW-1S-1S-2S-3S-4S-5S-6S-7S-8S-9S-10S-11S-12S-13S-14S-15S-16S-17S-1 8S-19T-1T-2

mtLrees c:\nease\rawpa\siteform.wk1 Colder Associates Page 3 of 3

Q

100escale

0 100 200

feet



SHEET TITLE:

SITE INSPECTION FORM PLAN

I I



DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

THRMRM

06/06/94

06/23/94

FILE No.: OH01-302

DRAFTING SUBTITLE: 07

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FORM A

APPENDIX C

TR-55 (Surface Water Hydrology Model) Program Output

GolderAssociates

SUBJECT QJob No. Made by

Checked

Ftevtowed "T"E -

To d&jenrrfinc, r0-X$

VJ.

Date 2-1-94

Sheet

4) ft?^

-find -£i/vi£ oj

-for each-Av

9*

2)

3) "

]

Golder

Associates

0

SUBJECT find (\f

""•Made by

Checked

Reviewed

Date

f fe-/)

A

6

C

O

eF

3 0S- 3)

310,000

4d4}ooo

liÔOO

124,060

21.35

11.06

(acres)

6.(?0

fr.ol

|2.\4

0,011

0.01k

0.021

o.o n

0.0030-019

23 -~ _, vy . - i^ ;V- . .

' \r J jfl I. - J< . f l <iMAHONIN

ColderAssociates

SUBJECT nfld QjobNo. q*,3-Me&

"*• fc -ort ioMade by y£^.Checked fy\ U_Reviewed Y*^

Date 2 - 9 - 9-fSheet A of Ô

3)

I "7

OS -

A5

C

f

(jure,

0-12

042.

-be.

0,32.

03%

-The inpxi ~ C

as ê OaJic. -t,c of

o-

Worksheet 3: Time of concentration (Tc) or travel time (Tt)

Project f-IN-OrllU By [ft V Date //P/94-

Location Ffe- \ Checked ^X- Date 2-1^1^

Circle one: ('present Developed1

Circle one: /tT) Tt through subarea

NOTES: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for eachworksheet.

Include a nap, schematic, or description of flo- segments.

Sheet flow (Applicable to T only) Seement ID

2. Manning's roughness coeff., n (table 3-1) ..

3. Flow length, L (total L < 300 ft) ft

j • 2

5. Land slope, s f t / f t

6< T 0.007 (nL)°*8 Con?uteT t hr

t 0.5 0.4 t

Shallow concentrated flow Segment ID

7. Surface description (paved or unpaved)

10. Average velocity, V (figure 3-1) ft/s

11. T.. • -Jr. „ Compute T hrt 3600 V t

Channel flow Segment ID

*w

, 2/3 1/217. v - '• * r s Compute V f t / s

n

18. Flow length, L ft

19' Tt " "\fnn v Compute T hr

|

|2Ms

0,1^3002&0,04

2.h&&>?&oQfi^

33

0.(& •

i-

3vWs

\200.0^6

3fl" 0.01

+• .

- 0,34

- 0,04-

—20. Watershed or subarea T or T (add T in steps 6, 11, and 19) ... hr 0 '•>£/

(210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed.. June 1986) D-3


Location

By

Checked "M00116

Date

Pate

'(*4

Circle one: /Fresenp Developed

Circle one: T through subarea

NOTES: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for eachvorksheet.

Include a nap, schematic, or description of flow segments.

Sheet flow (Applicable to TC only) Segaent ID

1. Surface description (table 3-1)

2. Manning's roughness coeff., n (table 3-1) .. 0-40

3. Flov length, L (total L£300 ft) ft 2.QO I \QQ

4. Two-yr 24-hr rainfall. P., in 1& 2/3

5. Land slope, s ft/ft

6. Tt - 0-0°75

(>y°'8 Conpute Tt 'hr


7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) .....

8. Flow length, L ft (o&O

9. Watercourse slope, s ft/ft | Q.Q3~7


ll'Tt-3Wv Compute Tt ...... hr 0-Ob


12. Cross sectional flow area, * ft

13. Wetted perimeter, pu ft

14. Hydraulic radius, r -— Compute r ftpw

15. Channel slope, s ft/ft

16. Manning's roughness coeff., n ..............

i i<» .2/3 «l/217. V • .'•** -r Compute V ft/sn


'" - - L - Conpute Tt hr l +

20. Watershed or subarea TC or T£ (add Tt in steps 6, 11, and 19) ... hr

(210-VI-TR-55. Second Ed., June 1986) D-3

Worksheet 3: Time of concentration (Tc) or travel time (T^)

Project

Location

Byj/£3rChecked

Circle one:

Circle one: /T,

Date

Date

4Developed

T chrough subarea


Include a aap, schematic, or description of flow segments.

Sheet flow (Applicable to Tfi only) Segment ID



3. Flow length, L (total LjC 300 ft) ft

4. Two-yr 24-hr rainfall, P- in





9. Watercourse slope, s ft/ft


11. T. 3600 VCompute T hr


12. Cross sectional flow area, a ft

13. Wetted perimeter, p ft

U. Hydraulic radius, r • — Compute r ft


16. Manning's roughness coeff., n

17. V I .49r2 / 3 . l / 2

18. Flow length, L

• q T •t 3600 V

20. Watershed or subarea TC or t (add TC in steps 6, 11

Compute V ft/s

ft

Conpute T hr

1&@&>OA^wo10$ô.yfr <

H

-

1. and 19)

K

t

f .

... h

• 0.?>8

• — -

• —r 0-"*&

(210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) D-3

*• -~f


Project

Location

Circle one:

Checked 4AJ6

Date

Date

Circle one: Presen Developed

subarea

NOTES: Space for a* aany as two aegmentc per flow type can be used for eachworksheet.

Include a nap, schematic, or description of flow segaents.

Sheet flow (Applicable to TC only) Segaent ID

1. Surface description (table 3-1) ............

2. Manning's roughness coeff., n (table 3-1) .. (/ '| x*

3. Flow length, L (total L_< 300 ft) .......... ft

4. Iwo-yr 24-hr rainfall, ?2 .................. in

5. Land slope, s .............................. ft/ft 0,020

». ...... - ' QShallow concentrated flow Segment ID /•


8. Flow length, L ............................. ft

9. U.tercourse slope, s ....................... ft/ft 0 .

10. Average velocity, V (figure 3-1) ........... ft/s

"• Tc ' lofer P"" Tt ...... hr


12. Cross sectional flow area, a ............... ft

13. Wetted perimeter, pw ....................... ft

14. Hydraulic radius, r •— Compute r ....... ftpw

15. Channel slope, s ........................... ft/ft

16. Manning's roughness coeff., n .. ............2/3 1/2

17. V - -'• * .r - = - Coopute V ....... ft/sn

18. Flow length, L ............................. ft

ConputeTt ...... hr

20. Watershed or subarea TC or TC (add T£ in steps 6, 11, and 19) ... hr


Worksheet 3: Time of concentration (T) or travel time

Project

Location

By Ofr

Checked

Date

Date

Circle one: (Present Developed

Circle one: T through subarea



Segment IDSheet flow (Applicable to T only)



3. Flow length, L (total L_< 300 ft)

4. Two-yr 24-hr rainfall, PZ

ft

in


6' Tt " oV r <wTt •««P2 8




9. Watercourse slope, c ft/ft


It T •"' t 3600 V Compute T hr

Channel flow

12. Cross sectional flow area, a

13. Wetted perimeter, pu

Segment ID

... ft*

ft

14. Hydraulic radius, r - Compute r ftFw


16. Manning's roughness coeff., ni AQ 2'3 «1/2

P. v - li*UE 5 Conpute V f t / sn

f t

... hr

IB. Flow length, L

Coopute T19* Tt " 3600 V

20. Watershed or subarea TC or t (add

1

\&0

0-014

2

0,40120

.07*7

3VJooisno0-0423.3

(9.0|

i\ Oft 42£

<^ss

O

0.0tf>\.5

H o>ol 040

in steps 6. 11, an<J 19) ....... hr 0.52


Worksheet 3: Time of concentration (T) or travel time

Froject

10

Location ABy \)£>t

Checked

Date

Circle one: C Presentj

Circle one:/ ! Tt through subarea

ROTES: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for eachworksheet.

Include a map, schematic, or description of flov segments.

Sheet flow (Applicable to TC onlv) Seroent ID



6. T - °'°°7 '"n^'8 Conpute T. 'hrt 0.5 0.4 ' tP2 S

Shallow concentrated flow (scf) Segment ID



11. T, - ,J . ., Compute T hrt 3600 V t


14. Hydraulic radius, r - r2- Compute r ft•w

2/3 1/2P. v - . * r Conpute V ft /s

n


19' Tr " -unn v Conpute T hr

t

6I?ASS0i |5

35V.*?

0.026

O.\( t H

z6&

3\3£

\ttIF?

0-015K 0.3|

4&&tesWO.Obl

O.o2- \*

50

150.04-0,00

^<SfZA^

400,025

^^ 0.004-

'

•

20. Watershed or subarea TC or T£ (add TS in steps 6, 11, and 19)

f .

• Ott

- o.oz

- . —

... hi^'^6^~^.'—'

.5-3.



Project

I)

Location

By

Checked

Date g

Circle one: (Present) Developed

Circle one: flT)Tt through subarea

NOTES: Space for as aany as two segments per flow type can be used for eachworksheet.

Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segaents.

Sheet flow (Applicable to TC only) Segment ID

1. Surface description (cable 3-1)


3. Flow length, L (total L£300 ft) ft

4. Two-yr 24-hr rainfall, P. in

5. Land slope, s . ft/ft

6. T. 0.007 (nL) Coopute T{ •hr




9. Watercourse slope, s ....................... ft/ft

10. Average velocity, V (figure 3-1) ........... ft/s

11. T.L

3600 VCompute T hr



13. Wetted perimeter, p ft

14. Hydraulic radius, r -— Compute r ft


16. Manning's roughness coeff., n2/3 1/2

17. V - !'49 r 5 Coopute V ft/»

300

0.05

0,11

IB. Flow length. L

19 T - !•"' t 3600 V

20. Watershed or subarea TC or T£ (add T£ in steps 6, 11, and 19) ... hr

Coopute T

26(?ASS140

0.02.3

an0 - 0 1 |*


Worksheet 3: Time of concentration (Tc) or travel time (Tt) \n C n n

Project feH"£MO i By l)fy Date _2 /9f

Location Checked ft»l£Dace

Circle one: ( ) Tt through subarea


Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segments.

Segment IDSheet flow (Applicable to TC only)



3. Flow length. L (total L £ 300 ft)

A. Two-yr 24-hr rainfall, P

ft

in


6. T. - °-°°Vni:)0'8 ConputeT hr0.5 0.4




9. Watercourse slope, s ft/ft


11' Tt " 3600 V Coapute T hr

Channel flow


13. Wetted perimeter, pw

Segment ID

Hydraulic radius, r • •— Compute r


16. Manning's roughness coeff., n

n. v 1.49 r2'3 s1/2 Compute V ft/s

18. Flow length, L

I9> Tt " 3600 VConpute T

0,40 0,1*7

0.01&

0>\5 * 0.^4

0.0?

0-003

D

ft2

f t

ft

/ f t

t/$

f t

hr + ,

20. Watershed or subarea T£ or T£ (add in steps 6, 11, and 19) ....... hr


Worksheet 3: Time of concentration CTC) or travel time (Tj) .,, r n n

Project

Location Checked

Circle one:

Circle one:

Developed

T through cubarea


Include a nap, schematic, or description of flo- segoents.




3. Flow length, L (total L_£300 ft) ft \300

4. Two-yr 24-hr rainfall, PZ in

5. Land slope, ft/ft 0.0 + 1

6- Tt • °-02Vno!r *w Tt •»'P2 *




9. Watercourse slope, s f t / f t \ G•1/13


l l-T t-366o-V Compute Tt hr



13. Wetted perimeter, pw ft

14. Hydraulic radius, r - —- Compute r ft*w

15. Channel slope, s f t / f t

16. Manning's roughness coeff., n2/3 1/2

17. V • *•"* * 2 Coopute V ft/sn

IB. Flow length, L ft

19' Tt-3656-V ConputeTt hr

20. Watershed or sobarea T£ or TC (add Tt in steps 6, 11, and 19) ... hr


Worksheet 3: Time of concentration (Tc) or travel time (T^)

Project J-0/m? _ By j/£ tote

fT

location Checked

Circle one:

Circle one: (1.

AVt Pate

Developed

T through subarea



Sheet flow (Applicable to T only) Segment ID



* 2

«• T - O-^V"^!*8 Conpute T -hrt f^ s0.4

Shallow concentrated flow - Segment ID


ll* Tt *" ôo v Compute T hrt JOUU V I


Prv

2/3 1/217. V - '* r Conpute V ft /s

n

IB. Flow length, L ft

19' Tt " if.nn v Conpute T hrt JoUU V t

20. Watershed or subarea T or T (add T in steps 6, 11

/

WWcQM3002.<?0.0+3oni- H

îVoofe'^0

4$0.00^

-

, and 19)

Y

^>

6>$&<2-6>

o.ofr4.(s

- o.oo J5

f .

... — h

• 0-12-

- 0-Ook

- —r A 72-


Worksheet 3: Time of concentration (Tc) or travel time CI^) , f 22

Project

Location

By f#V

Checked

Date

Date

Circle one: PTesenj> Developed

Circle one: / rT ) Tt through subarea

NOTES: Space for as many as two segment* per flow type can be used for eachworksheet.





* *

6. T. - °-°" «"«°'8 Compute T hrt 0.5 0.4 T tP2 *



»• Tt • -dsnr co*?"" Tr hr

\KJOG:s04o

2&0-01

z&fi&5>

0\c=>110£Ô.OC

- 0-4&

*

- 0.&4-

—



13. Wetted perimeter, pw

14. Hydraulic radius, r - —- Compute r*w


16. Manning's roughness coeff., n2/3

17. V 1.49 r

IB. Flow length, L

' Tt " 3600 V

20. Watershed or subarea TC or TC (add

Coopute V ft/s

Coopute T ......

in steps 6, 11

D

ft2

ft

ft

/ f t

t/s

ft

hr

2>6

<?>1ObVr

o.onf).02>'4.1&no

o.ool + •and 19) ... hr

(210-V1-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) D-3

.50 -

.20 -

.10 -

I •<*v>

o>E .04ou0*

.02 -

.01 -

.005 -

7

?/>z

/ ^

/

/

/-

?-

i i i i i i i i i2 4 6 ' 10Average velocity, ft/sec

i20

Figure 3-1.—Average velocities for estimating travel lime fur shallow concentrated flow.

(210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986)

2-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)

Colder

Associates

SUBJECT Q

Owcked 18 " 2£

find -the &Jr\f& fir each

Upon -the. hydro/oak

^pect-hc Cfrl vfilat*.

jiJ94 ^tib-tiGt " Selection of

ttstd

C&-2

A

5

6

V

E

P

in cdts

". fwm

Opsn ^fXte, far, Type- D

Opw Save, far, Types BfC

OfZfi Spcetflr, Typg; &{ P

Dpw SfQtefeir,

cd

L »

79 C "

C "

74

79

ck

Colder

Associates

'Pun

E

F

SUBJECT QMade by

Checked

Reviewed

Date

Oompofo- fnod l 4o

o&asktd

n4

41

10

G»

17

20-22 22 )

//->

HONE

HONE

TR-55 TABULAR DISCHARGE METHOD

«/'22VERSION 1.11

oject : RN-OHIOurity :

Subtitle: RN-OHIO,

User: VEF Date: 02-10-94State: OH Checked: WyL Date: cz -n

DETERMINE PEAK Q TO EVALUATE FILTER BARRIERS

Total watershed area:

Areci(sq mi)Rainfall (in)Curve numberRunoff (in)Tc (hrs)

(Used)TimeToOutletla/P

(Used)

(hr) Flow

11.0 311.3 511.6 611.9 1312.0 2412.1 48••2.2 85

J.3 120

12.4 127P12.5 11812.6 9912.7 7912.8 6613.0 4513.2 3213.4 25

13.6 2013 . 8 1714.0 1414.3 1414.6 1315.0 1115.5 1116.0 8

16.5 717.0 517.5 518.0 519.0 420.0 4•2.0 3

r,6 . 0 0

OS-l0.034.265

1.150.570.500.000.260.30

OS-l

000002612

1617P14119644

33222221

11111110

0.157 sq mi Rainfall type: II Frequency: 26years

OS-20.014.265

1.150.720.750.000.260.30

OS-2

00000001

234P44322

11111111

00000000

OS-3 OS-40.024.265

1.150.380.400.000.260.30

ContributionOS-3

00000259P

98643222

11111111

11110000

0.034.284

2.550.420.400.000.090.10

to Total FlowOS-4

122510193241P

3930211511754

43332222

21111110

A0.024.279

2.130.570.500.000.130.10

A

1113481422

25P24191411743

32222111

11111110

P - Peak Flow

TR-55 TABULAR DISCHARGE METHOD

21 4 w-VERSION 1.11

•Oject : RN-OHIOwdunty :Subtitle: RN-OHIO,

Areai(sq mi)Rainfall(in)Curve numberRunoff ( in)Tc (hrs)

(Used)TimeToOutletla/1?

(Used)

Time(hr)

11.011.311.611.912.012.1••2.2

User: VEF Date:State: OH Checked: tntf Date:

DETERMINE PEAK Q TO EVALUATE FILTER BARRIERS

Continuation of subarea information

02-10-94

12.412.512.612.712.813.013.213.4

13.613.814.014.314.615.015.516.0

16.517.017.518.019.020.0'2.. 0

B0.014.2

792.130.320.300.000.130.10

B

01135

1016P16

117533221

11111111

10000000

c0.014.2

792.130.490.500.000.130.10

— — — Gl 1 V^3 T"O3

C

00112369

10P10

864321

11111110

00000000

OUJ

D0.014.2

741.740.881.000.000.170.10

C> OH C 2T 3. JDU

D

00001112

34556P543

22111110

00000000

to

11112358

121517P17151075

43222111

11111100

Flow (cfs)

P - Peak Flow

TR-55 TABULAR DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1.11

oject : RN-OHIO User: VEF Date: 02-10-94: State: OH Checked: Mtf Date: ?_ //

Subtitle: RN-OHIO, DETERMINE PEAK Q TO EVLUATE FILTER BARRIERS

Total watershed area: 0.007 sq mi Rainfall type: II Frequency: 25 yearsSubareas

OS-5 E\rea(sqmi) 0.00 0.00Rainfall(in) 4.2 4.22urve number 74 74Runoff(in) 1.74 1.74Tc (hrs) 0.85 0.72

(Used) 0.75 0.75limeToOutlet 0.00 0.00la/P 0.17 0.17

(Used) 0.10 0.10

Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)(hr) Flow OS-5 E

11.0 0 0 011.3 0 0 011.6 0 0 011.9 0 0 012.0 0 0 012.1 1 1 0n 2 . 2 2 1 1

.3 2 1 1

12.4 4 2 2P12.5 5P 3P 212.6 5 3 212.7 5 3 212.8 5 3 213.0 3 2 113.2 2 1 113.4 2 1 1

13.6 1 1 013.8 1 1 014.0 0 0 014.3 0 0 014.6 0 0 015.0 0 0 015.5 0 0 016.0 0 0 0

16.5 0 0 017.0 0 0 017.5 0 0 018.0 0 0 019.0 0 0 020.0 0 0 0^ 2 . 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0

P - Peak Flow

APPENDIX D

Pumping Test Work Plan

PUMPING TEST WORK PLANNEASE SITE

SALEM, OHIO

Introduction

The proposed pumping test will be conducted to help determine the nature and degree of

hydraulic interconnection between flow zones in the till beneath the Site. In addition, the

results of the test are expected to provide information on flow rates and potential capture zones

together with hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and storativity (specific yield) data for the

design of the interim remedial groundwater measures at the Site.

It will be necessary to temporarily cease operation of the existing leachate recovery and

treatment system during the pumping test program. Recovery of selected groundwater levels

following cessation of extraction will be monitored to ensure equilibrium conditions are

obtained prior to initiating pumping tests.

All work performed under this Work Plan will be in accordance with the approved Health and

Safety Plan of the Removal Action Work Plan (May 25,1994).

Pumping Test Location

A pumping test is proposed utilizing an extraction well to be installed in an area southeast of

Pond 2 (Figure 25). The location was selected to provide reasonable stratigraphic coverage

about Pond 1 and Pond 2. The exact location of the pumping well (EW-4 or EW-5) will be

determined in the field based on access and geologic conditions.

Pumping Test Layout

Water level drawdown will be monitored in two (2) newly installed piezometers (PZ-1 and PZ-

2) as well as in existing observation wells during the pumping tests to assess flow zones and

determine transmissivity and storativity. The wells proposed to be monitored during the

pumping test are (see Figure 25):

Colder Associates

February 1995 D-2 933-6158

ProposedExtraction Well

EW-4/EW-5

ExistingObservation Wells

S-6, S-7, S-8, S-9, S-10,S-ll, S-12, S-13,B-S,D-6

ProposedObservation Wells

PZ-1, PZ-2

Observation and extraction wells will be monitored once daily for seven (7) days prior to

initiation of the pumping test to establish background water level trends. The existing leachate

collection system will be turned off two (2) days prior to the pumping test, and water

elevations in the collection structures will be monitored twice daily during this period, again to

establish background water level trends.

Piezometer Construction and Development

Prior to the installation of the extraction well and the new piezometers, the drill rig, drilling and

sampling equipment will be decontaminated prior to use at the site and prior to the installation

of each piezometer and the extraction well. Decontamination will be conducted at the

designated decontamination area at all times and will include steam cleaning.

A 6-inch diameter borehole will be completed using hollow stem auger drilling techniques for

new piezometers PZ-1 and PZ-2. Soil samples will be taken continuously by driving a 2-inch

outside diameter (OD) split-spoon sampler a distance of two feet. Blow counts required to

drive the split spoon each 6-inch increment will be recorded. Total recovery of the sample will

be measured and recorded and the soil classified using Unified Soils Classification System

(USCS).

Each piezometer will be constructed with a 5 to 10 foot long 2-inch inside diameter (ID)

Schedule 40 PVC machine slotted well screen (0.010 inch openings) and PVC riser. The

length of the well screen will depend on the location of the sand horizons. The purpose of the

Colder Associates

February 1995 D-3 933-6158

proposed piezometers are to monitor the water level within the till only. The well screen length

will be determined in the field based on observation by a field hydrogeologist/engineer. The

well screen and riser will have threaded, flush joints and a threaded bottom cap. Figure D-l

illustrates the typical piezometer construction details.

A sand pack will be placed around the well screen and will extend a minimum of two feet

above the well screen. The depth of the screened interval will be based on observation by the

field hydrogeologist/engineer. A minimum two-foot thick bentonite pellet seal will be placed

above the sand pack. A cemenêntonite grout (6%-10% bentonite) mixture will be pressure

grouted with a tremie pipe from above the bentonite pellet seal to approximately three feet

below ground surface. The piezometers will be completed with approximately two feet of riser

extending above ground surface. A protective steel casing equipped with a locking cap will be

set approximately three feet below ground surface around the 2-inch PVC riser. A concrete

pad will be installed around the protective casing.

The piezometers will be developed by air-lift and/or bailing until relatively free of turbidity.

Extraction Well Construction and Development

In order to verify the design parameters of the extraction well, a small diameter pilot borehole

will be advanced using hollow stem auger augers (6-inch diameter). Soil samples will be taken

continuously by driving a 2-inch OD split-spoon sampler a distance of two feet. Blow counts

required to drive the split spoon each 6-inch increment will be recorded. Total recovery of the

sample will be measured and recorded and the soil classified using USCS.

The pilot borehole will be reamed with 14-inch OD hollow stem augers (10.25-inch ID). A 4-

inch ID continuous-wrapped stainless steel well screen (0.010 inch openings) and carbon steel

riser will then be installed inside the borehole. The depth of the extraction well will depend on

the depth of the bedrock encountered at that location. The length of the well screen will

depend on the depth to bedrock and the location of the sand horizons encountered within the

Colder Associates

Febmaryl995 D-4 933-6158

borehole. The well screen length will be determined in the field based on observation by the

field hydrogeologist/engineer. Figure D-2 illustrates the typical extraction well construction

details.

A sand pack will be placed around the well screen and extend a minimum of two feet above the

well screen. The depth of the sand pack will be based on observation by the field

hydrogeologist/engineer. A minimum two-foot thick bentonite seal will be placed above the

sand pack. A cemenêntonite grout (6-10% bentonite) mixture will be pressure grouted with

a tremie pipe above the bentonite pellet seal to approximately five feet below ground surface.

The well will eventually be completed, upon final approval of the groundwater extraction

design from the USEPA and Ohio EPA, with a 2-inch submersible pump and pitless adapter.

The extraction well will be developed by mechanical surging and pumping by air-lift or with a

trash pump. Specific capacity tests will be performed each day to monitor the progress of well

development. Well development will be considered complete when the specific capacity tests,

performed at the same pumping rate, have stabilized.

Step-Drawdown Testing

Step-drawdown tests are proposed to be completed in the extraction well to confirm

appropriate pumping rates for the constant rate pumping test (see below). The step-drawdown

tests will be completed using three 1-hour steps for each test. These will be conducted

incremental, in three steps by pumping at approximately half the expected maximum

sustainable yield, the expected maximum sustainable yield, and twice the expected maximum

sustainable yield. Based on available purging and recovery data and the data collected during

the Remedial Investigation, Golder anticipates the maximum sustainable yields (see attached

calculations) to be approximately 0.25 gpm in the "wet" spring months of March and April, and

0.1 gpm for the "drier" fall months of September and October. Therefore, the pumping rates

for the step-drawdown testing in EW-4/EW-5 are anticipated to be approximately .1, .25, and

.5 gpm for a test conducted in the "wet" spring months.

Golder Associates

February 1995 D-5 - 933-6158

The results of the step-drawdown tests will be evaluated to determine appropriate pumping

rates for the constant rate pumping test. Pumping rates will be selected that produce a

measurable drawdown in the observation wells, while minimizing the potential for the water

level in the extraction well to drop below the pump intake.

Constant Rate Testing

Following completion of the step-drawdown test, the extraction well will be allowed to recover

for a minimum of 12 hours and/or until 95 percent recovery is reached, whichever is of shorter

duration.

The total length of pumping for the extraction well location will be a maximum of 48 hours. A

shorter duration may be used if the following termination criteria are satisfied:

The drawdown curves for the extraction and observation wells providesufficient data for analysis of hydraulic conductivity and specific yield, andequilibrium has essentially been reached; or

Change in drawdown is less than 0.1 feet per hour in the extraction andobservation wells for six (6) consecutive hours.

Water levels will be monitored in the observation and extraction wells for approximately 24

hours following termination of pumping (to a minimum of 95% recovery) to observe and

document aquifer response.

The water generated during step testing and the constant rate tests will be discharged to the

existing above ground 5000 gallon storage tank at the Site. Discharge from the treatment

system itself will be limited during the testing period to minimize any possible influence of

recharged groundwater.

Water levels in the extraction and observation wells will be monitored during each of the two

stages of each constant rate pumping test using pressure transducers connected to an electronic

Colder Associates

February 1995 D-6 933-6158

datalogger device. Water levels will be monitored at the following time intervals,

approximately twice that recommended by Walton (1987) to enhance data analysis capabilities:

Time After TimePumping Started Intervals

0-1 minutes 5 seconds1-5 minutes 10 seconds

5-10 minutes 30 seconds10-20 minutes 1 minute20 - 50 minutes 5 minutes50-100 minutes 10 minutes100 - 500 minutes 30 minutesAfter 500 minutes 1 hour

In addition, manual water level measurements will be recorded in the extraction and

observation wells as rapidly as possible during the first 15 minutes of the test. After this initial

period, manual water levels will be recorded in the extraction and observation wells at 1 hour

to 2 hour intervals for the purpose of verifying transducer calibration.

The monitoring frequency of the datalogger will again be systematically decreased during the

24 hour recovery period following the same schedule discussed above.

The pumping discharge will be measured using a totalizer flowmeter. The flow rate will be

monitored at 15 minute intervals during the first hour of the pumping period, and adjusted for

variations in pumping rate exceeding 10%, to help ensure that a near constant discharge rate is

maintained throughout the duration of each stage of the pumping tests.

Data Analysis

The pumping test data will be analyzed qualitatively for information on flow zones and

interconnectivity and, to the extent possible, quantitatively for determination of transmissivity,

hydraulic conductivity, and storativity (specific yield). Boundary effects will also be assessed if

observed.

Colder Associates

February 1995 D-7 933-6158

The shallow groundwater system at the Site is a system of en-echelon sand horizons acting

under unconfined (water table) conditions. Therefore, it is anticipated that the methods of

Theis (1935), Cooper-Jacob (1946), and Neuman (1975) will all be used. These methods will

be used in conjunction with the pumping test analysis software AQTESOLV (Aquifer Test

Solver: Version 1.00) of Duffield and Rumbaugh (Geraghty and Miller, 1991). This software

provides state-of-art analysis, offering several methodologies (solution techniques) for

contrasting test data results, and arriving at appropriate conclusions.

It should be noted that while every effort will be made to follow the testing and analytical

procedures described above it may be necessary to make adjustments to the designated

procedures during the implementation of a pumping test to ensure that the required data is

obtained. Any deviations from the procedures described above will bediscussed with the

USEPA or USEPA representative oversight contractor (BVWST) at the time and documented

accordingly..

D:\PROJECTS\933-6158\RAWPA\RESPCOMM\PUMFTEST.TXT

Colder Associates

STEEL CAP WITH PADLOCK

CAP

BENTONITE PELLETS

#1 MORIE SAND PACK

2" DIA. SCHEDULE 40PVC MACHINE SLOTTED10 SLOT WELL SCREEN

BORE HOLENOTES1.) ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION MAY BE VARIED TO

SUIT ENCOUNTERED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.

JOB NO, 933-3158DRBY^

NOT TO SCALE

08/19/94

OH01-340DR SUSTITVE: QJ

TYPICAL PIEZOMETERCONSTRUCTION DETAIL

Golder Associates RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONFIGURE

__ _

Q— 1

LOCKING CAP

GROUND SURFACE

4" DIA. STAINLESS STEEL RISER

CEMENT BENTONITE GROUT(6 - 10% BENTONITE)

#1 MORIE SANDPACK

5' - 10'(VARIES)

4" DIA. 316 STAINLESS STEELCONTINUOUS-WRAPPED SCREEN.(10 SLOT)

BORE HOLENOTES1.) ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION MAY BE VARIED TO

SUIT ENCOUNTERED SUBSURFACE! CONDITIONS.

JOB No.: 933-6158IDR BY. JSGCHK BY:

ItEV BY:

SCALE: NOT TO SCALEDATE 08/23/94

OH01-339DR SUBTITLE: 07

TYPICAL EXTRACTION WELLCONSTRUCTION DETAIL

Golder Associates RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONITOJRE

D-2

DATA BASE:

2UIFER HORIZ. HYDR. COND. (GPD/SQ FT)= 11.65QUIFER VERT. HYDR. COND. (GPD/SQ FT)= 2.900AQUIFER THICKNESS (FT)= 8.00ARTESIAN AQUIFER STORATIVITY (DIM)= 5.0000D-03WATER TABLE STORATIVITY (DIM)= 0.2500PRODUCT. WELL EFFECTIVE RADIUS (FT) = 0.167TOP OF AQUIFER DEPTH (FT)= 6.00BASE OF AQUIFER DEPTH (FT)= 14.00INITIAL WATER LEVEL DEPTH (FT)= 6.00INFINITE AQUIFER SYSTEM

COMPUTATION RESULTS:

PRODUCTION WELL DISCHARGE RATE (GPM)= 0.25

TIME-DRAWDOWN OR WATER LEVEL VALUES (FT)

SELECTED DISTANCES (FT)

TIME(MIN) 0.17 26.47 66.48 167.00 419.49 1053.70

0.140.230.360.570.911.44

,, 2.283.625.739.0914.4022.8236.1757.3390.86144.00228.22361.71573.27908.581440.002282.253617.125732.749085.7914400.0022822.4736171.1757327.4490857.87144000.00

6.056.086.136.196.296.446.636.897.217.587.988.388.759.089.369.619.8310.0210.1810.3310.4710.6010.7310.8510.9911.1511.3511.6011.9312.3813.06

6.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.016.036.O56.086.116.156.196.236.276.316.356.396.446.516.586.686.796.91

6.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.016.016.026.036.046.056.076.106.146.196.276.36

6.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.016.026.04

6.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.OO6.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.00

6.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.. 006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.00

?IME AFTER PUMPING STARTED(MIN)=%144000.00,/DISTANCE-DRAWDOWN OR WATER LEVEL VALUES AT END OF PUMPING PERIOD

NODE RADIUS (FT) DRAWDOWN OR WATER LEVEL (FT)NO2 0.17 13.06

,. 3 0.26 11.72""" 4 0.42 10.88

5 0.66 10.236 1.05 9.677 1.67 9.188 2.65 8.739 4.19 8.3110 6.65 7.9311 10.54 7.5712 16.70 7.2313 26.47 6.9114 41.95 6.6215 66.48 6.3616 105.37 6.1617 167.00 6.0418 264.68 6.01

AQUIFER HORIZ. HYDR. COND. (GPD/SQ FT)= 11.65AQUIFER VERT. HYDR. COND. (GPD/SQ FT)= 2.900AQUIFER THICKNESS (FT)= 6.00

,: .ATESIAN AQUIFER STORATIVITY (DIM)= 5.0000D-03'*"?/ATER TABLE STORATIVITY (DIM)= 0.2500PRODUCT. WELL EFFECTIVE RADIUS (FT)= 0.167TOP OF AQUIFER DEPTH (FT)= 6.00BASE OF AQUIFER DEPTH (FT)= 12.00INITIAL WATER LEVEL DEPTH (FT)= 6.00INFINITE AQUIFER SYSTEM

COMPUTATION RESULTS:

PRODUCTION WELL DISCHARGE RATE (GPM)= 0.10

TIME-DRAWDOWN OR WATER LEVEL VALUES (FT)

SELECTED DISTANCES (FT)

TIME(MIN) 0.17 26.47 66.48 167.00 419.49

TIME AFTER PUMPING STARTED(MIN)=%144000.00

DISTANCE-DRAWDOWN OR WATER LEVEL VALUES AT END OF PUMPING PERIOD

'NODE RADIUS (FT) DRAWDOWN OR WATER LEVEL (FT)NO2 0.17 8.65

1053.70

0.140.230.360.570.911.442.283.625.73

tf 9 . 0914.4022.8236.1757.3390.86144.00228.22361.71573.27908.581440.002282.253617.125732.749085.7914400.0022822.4736171.1757327.4490857.87144000.00

6.026.036.056.086.126.186.276.386.536.716.907.107.287.437.557.667.747.817.877.927.978.018.058.098.148.198.268.348.438.538.65

6.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.016.016.026.036.056.066.086.096.116.136.156.186.216.256.306.366.43

6.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.016.016.026.036.046.076.116.15

6.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.00$.006.006.006.016.01

6.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.00

6.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.006.00

3456789101112131415161718

0.260.420.661.051.672.654.196.6510.5416.7026.4741.9566.48105.37167.00264.68

8.398.147.917.707.497.307.116.936.756.586.436.286.156.066.016.00

APPENDIX E

Figures 6, 7, and 9 of the Treatment PlantModification Design Technical Memorandum

AI I fit KIU KAINtL.

AUTO DIALER

UPON ACTIVATION THE AUTO DIALER SHALL DIAL UP TO EIGHT TELEPHONE NUMBERS,WAIT FOR AN ANSWER CONNECT. AND PLAY A PRE-RECORDED MESSAGE FOR EACHANSWER CONNECT, THE ALARM MESSAGE LEVELS SHALL BE:

#1 - EXTRACTION WELL HIGH LEVEL ALARM#2 - EXTERIOR STORAGE TANK HIGH LEVEL ALARM#3 - TANK LEAK DETECTION#4 - PRE-TREATMENT EQUALIZATION TANK HIGH LEVEL ALARM#5 - POWER OUT ALARM#6 - TEMPERATURE MONITORING

SEE SECTION 16700 - SEQUENCE OF OPERATION FOR MORE DETAIL

2.) ALL COMPONENTS ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

3.) CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE NEW WATER SERVICE AS SHOWN ON FIGURE 7.

I


PROJECT: . RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATIONIRNCI NEASE SITE• ^2fl vÂLtnn. tJrll«J

SHEET TITLE:

SCHEMATIC FORCONTROL MODIFICATIONS


PROJECT No. 933-6158

CLIENT PROJ. No.

DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

RHWME

Ml-r/-x

04/06/9407/26/94

FILE No.: OH01-273DRAFTING SUBTITLE: 09SCALE: NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 6

PROPOSED 2" WATER SERVICEFROM MODIFIED WATER METER PITSEE DETAIL



SHEET TITLE:

TREATMENT PLANT MODIFICATIONS LAYOUT



DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

BY

VEFMRM

06/14/9407/26/94


SCALE: NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 7

PUMP P-4

REV DATE DESCRIPTION DR BY CHK BY RV"W BY


i

SHEET TITLE:

ELECTRICAL SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM



DES BY

DR BY

CHK BY

RVW BY

RHRH

06/27/9407/25/94

Fli.E No.: OH 01- 319DRAFTING SUBTITLE: 09

SCALE: N.r.s.

FIGURE *-& g


305 Fellowship Road, Suite 200

Fax (609) 273-0778

REMOVAL ACTION WORK PLAN ADDENDUMNEASE SITE, SALEM, OHIO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Submitted to:

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 5

Waste Management Division Office 4, Superfund77 West Jackson Blvd.Chicago, Illinois 60604

and

Ohio Environmental Protection AgencyDivision of Emergency Remedial Response

Northeast District Office2110 East Aurora RoadTwinsburg, Ohio 44087

DISTRIBUTION:

3 Copies^ U.S..Environmental Protection. Agenc^^;^-'- ^2 Copies - Ohio Environmental Protecijon "Agency '.'. " f j ^ ;2 Copies - B&V^Waste Sciersis arid Teehi^plogy Corp!' ^y

1 Copy '^Thompson, M^Mory """ .. -^.45?^^fJ?^*'2 Cppie^-:Ri%.ger3-NeaseC^r^cjratiQn ° 4J!V '" '?ieft*-.;"-T ' ' •'• T-.v

February 1995 Project No.: 933-6158



305 Fellowship Road, Suite 200Mt. laurel, NJ USA 08054Tel: (609) 273-1110Fax (609) 273-0778

February 16, 1995

, GolderAssociates

Project No.: 933-6158

Ms. Sheila Sullivan (HSRM-63)USEPA Region 5Waste Management DivisionOffice 4, Superfund77 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, IL 60604

Mr. Joseph E. TrocchioOhio Environmental Protection AgencyDiv. of Emergency and Remedial ResponseNortheast District Office2110 East Aurora RoadTwinsburg, OH 44087

RE: RESPONSE TO USEPA AND OHIO EPA COMMENTS ON THEREMOVAL ACTION WORK PLAN ADDENDUMNEASE SITE, SALEM, OHIO

Dear Sheila and Joe:

On behalf of Ruetgers-Nease Corporation (RNC), please find enclosed Response to Commentson the Remedial Action Work Plan Addendum (RAWPA) for the Nease Site, Salem, Ohio.This submission has been prepared in response to Agency comments received October 9, 1994and should be read in conjunction with the associated Revised RAWPA which is also beingsubmitted at this time.

If you have any questions regarding the documents, then please do not hesitate to call.

Very truly yours,

GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.

Todd H. Rees, Ph.D.Project Environmental Engineer

Arrest, P.O., C.P.Eng.Project Director and Associate

THR/GRF/bjtD:\PROJECTS\933-615 8\RAWPA\RESPCOMM\CVRLTR.EPA


February 1995 -1- 933-6158

REMOVAL ACTION WORKPLAN ADDENDUMRESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Comment No. 1:

Table of Contents, Page ii, Section 2.5.6.2. Change the spelling of the term "Fabrick" toFabric".

Response to Comment No. 1:

The revision has been made as requested.

Comment No. 2;

Preface, Page 1, Paragraph 1, last two sentences. Identify each task by name andnumber as they are raised in this paragraph. This will enable the reader to understandwhat is being accomplished with respect to the Removal AOC.



Comment No. 3:

Section 1.0, Page 3, fifth sentence. Replace the term "decommissioned" with the term"unlined". The previous sentence already mentions that the facility wasdecommissioned. In addition, acknowledging in the text that the wastewater ponds wereunlined helps to show the route of contamination.



Comment No. 4:

Section 1.1, Page 3, Paragraph 1. The following text should precede this paragraph:

"In February 1988, Ruetgers-Nease Corporation (RNC) entered into anAdministrative Order by Consent (AOC) to conduct a Remedial Investigationand Feasibility Study (Rl/FS) at the Site. An RI report was submitted to theAgencies on July 6, 1993 and is currently being revised by RNC. RNC alsovoluntarily undertook source control measures at the site to prevent furtheroffsite migration of contaminants into the Middle Fork Little Beaver Creek

Colder Associates

February 1995 -2- 933-6158

(MFLBC). However, over the course of several subsequent site inspections andsampling, the Agencies determined that these source control measures were notsufficient Subsequently, On November 17, 1993, RNC entered into a RemovalAOC with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)concerning removal actions to take place ..."



Comment No. 5;

Section 2.2, Page 10, first partial paragraph. In order to accurately reflect theconditions under which Research Oil will perform hauling and disposalservices(Treatment Plant Modifications Work Plan, Appendix B), insert the followingsentence before the last sentence of the paragraph: "Provided 24-hour advance notice,Research Oil will arrange for the trucking and disposal of this quantity of leachate asrequired."



Comment No. 6;

Section 2.4, Page 12, first full bullet, last line. Revise this sentence to read: "... thatwould bring the plant into compliance with substantive discharge requirements whichwere being finalized by the Agencies."



Comment No. 7;

Section 2.4, Page 12, last bullet, first sentence. Remove the phrase: "(contingent uponAgency review times)", since other factors besides Agency review times enter into thescheduling.



Colder Associates

February 1995 -3- 933-6158

Comment No. 8:

Section 2.5, Page 12, Paragraph 1, first sentence. List the seven subtasks by name.



Comment No. 9;

Section 2.5.1.1, Page 13, Paragraph 2, first sentence. This sentence should referenceFigures 4 and 5 of the report which depict the location of the cross-sections andmonitoring wells and boreholes.



Comment No. 10;

Section 2.5.1.1, Page 13. Paragraph 3. The cross sections T-T and P-P1, which areidentified in Figure 4 have been omitted from the discussion. Add two separate bulletsdiscussing these cross-sections.


The revisions have been made as requested.

Comment No. 11;

Section 2.5.1.1, Page 14, Paragraph 1, first sentence. Interpretations of lateral continuityare somewhat suspect; boring locations on cross-section A-A', B-B', and C-C do notshow the same stratigraphy as shown on cross-section E-E* for the same boringlocations. See comments 50 through 52, and make the appropriate corrections.


Revised cross sections (updated for the Revised RI, submitted to the Agencies on November23, 1994) have been provided, superseding Figures 6 through 9. These revised cross section!*address the issues in Specific Comments 11, 50, 51, and 52.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -4- 933-6158

Comment No. 12:

Section 2.5.13, Page 16, Paragraph 2, last sentence. Change "(see Figure 22)" to "(seeFigure 23)".



Comment No. 13;

Section 2.5.13, Page 18, first full paragraph, third sentence. Delete this sentence: "Thislateral westerly moving groundwater ... any further east than the MFLBC." Well nestlocation £ on cross-section A-A' supports the argument in this sentence; however, wellnests J and K on cross-section C-C show a relatively flat gradient that does not provideoverwhelming support to the statement It is agreed that shallow groundwater possiblyoccurs toward the MFLBC from east of the MFLBC, but until documented, reference toa "hydraulic barrier" is unwarranted.


jhe directed change has been made as requested.

Comment No. 14:

Section 2.5.2, Page 20. The presentation of specific discharges and volumetric fluxcalculations for each of the sands should include definitions of the variables; specifically,for variables "b" and "i".



Comment No. 15;

Section 2.53.1, Page 21, first sentence. Revise this sentence to read: "Looking first atthe perimeter cross sections Figure 17 (fairly coincident with the southeast propertyline), shows minimal volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations with two (2) ..."

In addition, many of the "j" qualified positive results for VOCs, SVOCs, MPK andpesticides have been omitted from this discussion. Positive mirex concentrations foundin wells CS and HS during Round 2 of groundwater sampling were also not mentionedin this discussion. Revise the text to include this information.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -5- 933-6158

Re-check Figures 16-19 to ensure that all monitoring wells are included in the figures,.Include the groundwater results for monitoring wells S2, S3, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, Sll, S12,and B-S.


The directed change to Section 2.5.3.1, (first sentence) has been made as requested.Additionally, in the sections on groundwater chemistry as presented on Figures 16-19, morediscussion on the analytic results has been provided in the text. As discussed with the Agencieson February 2, 1995, additional text has been added to Section 2.5.3 clarifying the intent andscope of the presentation of groundwater chemistry cross sections, and cross references areprovided to more detailed presentation of results (including the "S" series wells) in theappropriate location in the Revised RI.

Comment No. 16;

Section 2.5.3.2, Page 22, first partial paragraph. Include in this paragraph, the factsthat bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in 2 of the 9 wells at trace levels, and thatwell LFV2 contained trace levels of several different SVOCs.


The revisions to Section 2.5.3.2 have been made as requested.

Comment No. 17:

Section 2.5.3.3, Page 23, first full paragraph, third sentence. Insert the word "no" intothis sentence so that it reads: "During Round 1, no MPK or pesticide compounds weredetected,..."

In addition, include in the discussion of monitoring well S15, that 0.039 ppb of endrinaldehyde was detected in Round 2.


The directed changes have been made as requested.

Comment No. 18;

Section 2.5.3.4, Page 24, Paragraph 1, first sentence. Delete the term "MPK" because0.00705 ppb of mirex was detected but unqualified in JVF2.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -6- 933-6158

In addition, revise the third sentence of this paragraph to read: "In between these twoareas, SVOCs and VOCs were detected at significantly (several orders of magnitude)higher concentrations.



Comment No. 19;

Section 2.5.3.4, Page 24, fourth sentence. Revise this sentence by changing 600 ppb to620 ppb such that it reads: "Wells S-18 and S-13, both screened in the shallow glacialsediments, show concentrations for compounds of interest ranging from 620 ppb to45,000 ppb benzene, ..."

In addition, this discussion omitted the significant finding of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane inthese wells, ranging from 2,800 ppb to 60,000 ppb. The text must be revised to includethis information.

Response to Comment No. 19.

Xhe revisions have been made as requested.

Comment No. 20:

Section 2.53.4, Pages 24 (paragraph 2) through 25 (top paragraph). This paragraphmisreports several of the concentration levels and chemicals found and presents severalof the SVOCs and VOCs in a confusing manner. Revise this paragraph to read asfollows:

"Shallow wells S-15 and S-17 in cross-section A-A' have been previouslydiscussed in detail (Figure 19). Well S-19 shows twelve (12) VOC and SVOCcompounds detected, but no detection of MPK. Concentration levels for S-19range from 1-350 ppb for the SVOC compounds, the highest concentration beingdetected for 1,2-dichlorobenzene. The VOCs ranged from 12 to 3,400 ppb; thehighest concentrations included 320 ppb for benzene and vinyl chloride each,and 3,400 ppb for total 1,2-dichloroethene. The latter concentration representeda small decrease in concentration for total 1,2-dichloroethene as compared towells upgradient and to the west of well S-19. Round 2 results for well S-19 werenot reported, since S-19 well water was frozen during Round 2 sampling. Asmentioned previously, wells associated with the well clusters about the MFLBC(clusters D and £, Figure 16), show no detectable concentrations for VOCs andSVOCs, and low but qualified levels of mirex."

Colder Associates

February 1995 -7- 933-6158

''»«./


Paragraph 2 of Section 2.5.3 A has been revised as requested

Comment No. 21;

Section 2.5.4.1, Page 26, top paragraph, last sentence. Change this sentence to reflectthat the split sampling was conducted by USEPA TAT contractor Ecology andEnvironment, Inc. (E&E) of Cleveland, Ohio.



Comment No. 22:

Section 2.5.4.2, Page 26, Paragraph 2, first sentence. The information regarding whythe white residue material was not longer present should be presented here. A possibleexplanation is that RNC's on-site manager, Mr. Denny Lane of Howells and Baird,indicated that he had rotated and seeded the soil in the Pond 1 and Pond 2 areas to

""* inhibit surface water runoff.


Additional text has been added to Section 2.5.4.2 describing that based on observations of thetransient appearance of the white residue material in the winter of 1994, it is likely that theappearance of the white residue is tied to precipitation events and subsequent rise ingroundwater levels in the area about Pond 2.

Comment No. 23:

Section 2.5.4.2, Page 26, Paragraph 2, last sentence. Delete the Phrase: "... split withB&VWST as follows:" and insert: "... split with USEPA TAT contractor E&E as:follows:"



Colder Associates

February 1995 -8- 933-6158

Comment No. 24;

Section 2.5.4.4, Pages 28-30. In general, the analytical results in this section arepresented in a misleading fashion. This section text must clearly indicate whether thesamples being discussed are from an aqueous or sediment matrix, and explain thatsediment samples were only collected at the Pond 2 source and not other influentsources.


Additional text has been provided to clarify what samples are discussed and in what tables theresults are to be found.

Comment No. 25;

Section 2.5.4.4, Page 28, Paragraph 1, last sentence. Delete the phrase: "Oversightcontractor (B&VWST)" and replace with: "TAT contractor (E&E)"



Comment No. 26:

Section 2.5.4.4, Page 28, Paragraph 2, second sentence. Revise the beginning of thissentence as follows: "Table 5A shows that concentrations of volatile organic compoundsare generally one or two orders of magnitude greater in LCS-2 than LCS-1.



Comment No. 27;

Section 2.5.4.4, Page 28, Paragraph 2, fifth sentence. This sentence states that a "similarpattern" can be seen for semivolatiles in Table 5b. This "similar pattern" must bedefined in this sentence as it is not obvious from the previous sentence.


Additional text has been provided to clarify the mentioned "pattern", that being that the highestconcentrations are in LCS2 and lowest in Pond 1, with LCS2 concentrations several orders ofmagnitude greater than LCS1 concentrations.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -9- 933-6158

Comment No. 28;

Section 2.5.4.4, Page 28, Paragraph 3, first two sentences. Revise these sentences toreference the appropriate tables in the following way: "As per Table 5d, some pesticideorganic compounds were detected in the low parts per billion range for all three samples,.Table 5e indicates that mirex was detected in all three sources at..."



Comment No. 29:

Section 2.5.4.4, Page 29, second full paragraph. Add the following sentence to the end ofthis paragraph: "Pond 2 was the only source from which sediment samples werecollected." (see comment 24).



Comment No. 30:

Section 2.5.4.4, Page 29, third full paragraph, first sentence. After this sentence, insertthe following sentence: "Pond 2 sediment was the only sediment sample source analyzedforMPK."

In addition, in the last sentence of this paragraph, change the word "detected" to"analyzed for" such that the sentence reads: "No dioxins or furans were analyzed for inthe Pond 2 sediment sample (Table 6Q."



Comment No. 31;

Section 2.5.4.4, Page 29, last partial paragraph, first sentence. After this sentence, insertthe following sentence: "Pond 2 sediment was the only sediment sample source analyzedfor metals."

Colder Associates

February 1995 -10- 933-6158



Comment No. 32:

Section 2.5.5.2, Page 31, Paragraph 1. This paragraph discusses climate in a verygeneral sense and many of the descriptive terms are subject to relativity. This sectionwould be enhanced by providing some quantitative information such as temperatureranges, relative humidity percentages, etc.


Additional text has been provided to further describe local climatic conditions.

Comment No. 33;

Section 2.5.6.2, Page 35, first sentence. This section must provide more details such asdepth at which the filter fabrics are keyed into the soil and the frequency of requiredroutine maintenance.


Additional text has been added to Section 2.5.6.2 to further discuss the fabric barriers and aschedule of routine and emergency maintenance.

Comment No. 34:

Section 2.5.6.2, Page 36, third full paragraph. Identify the new and relocated fabricbarriers referenced by figure 20,3.g., relocated filter fabric barriers (FBI, FB10) and thetwo new fabric barriers (FB12, FB13).


Additional text has been added to clearly reference these barriers.

Comment No. 35:

Section 2.5.7, Page 36, Paragraph 1, first sentence. Change "(Figure 2)" to "(Figure24)".

Colder Associates

February 1995 -11- 933-6158

vii»^



Comment No. 36;

Section 2.6, Page 37, Paragraph 1, third buUet Revise this buUet to read: "SiteInspection Form Map (Form A)".



Comment No. 37:

Section 2.8, Page 40, top bullet. This sentence references Figure 15 as showing thedelineation of the shallow groundwater table. This reference should be rechecked asFigure 12B appears to be the correct reference.


<||U J

The reference should be to Figure 12A (not Figure 15 or 12B). This revision has been made tothe text.

Comment No. 38:

Section 2.8, Page 40, sixth bullet Delete the term "very" from this sentence, as it is toosubjective.


The directed change has been made as requested.

Comment No. 39:

Section 2.8, Page 41, Task 4.5. This task, established to evaluate the surface water flowregime, makes no mention of the performance of the rock barriers. Revise this section toinclude this information.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -12- 933-6158


Additional text has been added to Section 2.5.6.2 discussing the condition and performance ofthe rock barriers. These observations are summarized in Section 2.8 under the appropriateTask number (Task 4.6).

Comment No. 40:

Section 3.1.1.2, Page 47, Paragraph 2. Add the following sentence to the end of thisparagraph: "Otherwise, the presence of NAPLs will be further investigated during thepre-Feasibility Study or pre-Remedial Design phases of the remedial activities."



Comment No. 41;

Section 3.1.3, Page 53, First full paragraph, first sentence. The Agencies stronglydisagree with the statement that the use of Pond 3 as a sedimentation basin is the besttechnological alternative for controlling sediment migration.

This draft RI report (July 6,1993) indicated that three soil borings were placed in Pond3. Thickness of the sludge in Pond 3 ranged from 1-4 feet Native soils beneath thesludge consisted of silty clay with sand seams. Black staining was observed to a depth of7.0-9.8 feet below ground surface. Total detected VOC levels in the sludge and nativesoils ranged from nondetect to 17,090 ppb. Total SVOC levels in the sludge and nativesoils ranged from 150-12,200 ppb. Mirex in the sludge ranged from 104-4,050 ppb,however, it was documented at low levels (1.06-11.1 ppb) in the native soils.

In addition, Pond 3 overlies a sequence of glacial till ranging in thickness from 10.5 feetat well S2 to 26 feet at well D3. The till is primarily composed of sandy day withpebbles, cobbles and some sandier zones. The hydraulic conductivity of the glacial tillunderlying Pond 3 has not been determined, but the geologic logs for S2, S3 and D3indicate that the underlying material may have a hydraulic conductivity exceeding 1x10*7 cm/sec. When wdls S2 and S3 at the eastern downgradient edge of Pond 2 weresampled during Round 2 ground water monitoring, the results showed low levels of totalVOCs (7 ppb) and SVOCs (29 ppb).

In consideration of this information regarding Pond 3, the Agencies do not consider theuse of Pond 3 as a viable alternative for the following reasons:

Colder Associates

February 1995 -13- 933-6158

It is not clear whether RNC has verified that contaminants are leaving the site viasurface water runoff. Now that the site, including Pond 3, has a full vegetative cover, thepotential for contaminants leaving the site has been greatly reduced.

Surface water discharges from the site to Pond 3 would result in additionalcontaminants in the pond. Any water accumulation in the pond would result in ahydraulic head that would discharge additional contaminants from the new sources andexisting sludge into the aquifer underlying the pond. Presently, this aquifer has lowlevels of contamination; therefore, the current proposal would only increase the levels ofcontamination.

RNC's proposal would have to comply with all criteria set forth in Ohio EPA's StormWater Permitting program. Thus, the facility would be required to comply with therequirements of a storm water permit. Retrofitting Pond 3 would require cleaning outthe sludge and installing a liner. The liner could be clay or synthetic and must have amaximum hydraulic conductivity of 10 7 cm/sec. The bottom of the liner must be at least4 feet above the maximum ground water elevation. The pond walls would also need tobe repaired and a new outlet structure designed to contain sediments would need to beconstructed.

The Agencies believe that this type of retrofitting project is neither appropriate nor1<k* commensurate with the timeframe and objectives of the Removal AOC. The Agencies

believe a more effective solution that is also consistent with the goals and schedule of theRemoval AOC would include the removal of contaminated sediments and soils from thefeeder creeks and drainage channels. The RI report indicated that these drainage waysleading to Pond 3 are significantly contaminated. Feeder Creek sample #2 containedtotal VOCs at 3,840 ppb, total SVOCs at 22,807 ppb and Mirex at 46,400 ppb. FeederCreek Sample #4 contained total SVOCs at 3,260 ppb and Mirex at 267 ppb.

The Agencies also believe that RNC needs to conduct sampling following a storm eventto determine if contaminants are migrating off site via surface water or sediment Ifcontaminants are leaving the site, the source should be located, contained andcontrolled. Periodic sampling of the drainage ways could be used to confirm whethercontaminants are leaving the site.


RNC notes the Agencies comments. The statement that a Pond 3 sedimentation basin is "besttechnology" has been revised accordingly. As per the conference call with the Agencies, RNCand Colder February 2, 1995, additional text will be added to Section 3.2.2 (Implementation ofWork Plan Addendum) describing the development of a sampling plan for the drainage ditchesdowngradient of the Pond 3 area. This sampling plan is being developed (as a separate

^ submittal) for determining whether or not off-Site migration of contaminated sediments is

Colder Associates

Febmaryl995 -14- 933-6158

occurring, and if so, can this be qualified for use in determining a removal measure for thesesediments.

Comment No. 42:

Section 3.1.3, Page 54, first full paragraph, first sentence. Revise this sentence to read:"Under the shorter-term status of the Removal AOC, the Agencies preferredalternatives other than the use of Pond 3 (August 11, 1994 teleconference); the Agenciesquestions the technical feasibility of the proposal and also believe its scope to be beyondthat of a removal action."


The directed changes have been made as requested.

Comment No. 43:

Table 1A. Define the term "NA" used in the table.


The term "NA" (Not Available) has been defined in a footnote to Table 1 A.

Comment No. 44:

Table IE. The table represents daily leachate collection volumes, however, twoparticular dates (6-16-94 and 6-26-94) appear twice, and two dates (6-15-94 and 6-25-94) are missing. It is unclear whether these are typographical errors or if samples werecollected twice on 6-16-94 and 6-26-94. These discrepancies must be clarified.


The typographical errors (6-16-94 for 6-15-94 and 6-26-94 for 6-25-94) have been correctedon Table IE.

Comment No. 45:

Table 2. Provide clarification for the primary strata for wells KS and KV.

In addition, the T wells and P wells are not shown in this table, yet, they are shown inFigure 5 and discussed on page 13 of the text Clarify this discrepancy or correct thetable accordingly.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -15- - 933-6158


Table 2 has been revised to provide the primary strata for wells KS and KV. In addition, wellsTl, T2, and P3 and the recently retrofitted (December 1994) wells Pl-S, Pl-D, P2-S, and P2-D have been added to Table 2. Note that survey information for wells Pl-S, Pl-D, P2-S, andP2-D is to be obtained in the spring of 1995.

Comment No. 46:

Table 7. The date corresponding to the task "Construction of TPMWP/TPMDTMmeasures' is incorrect and must be changed from "Sept/October, 1995" to"Sept/October, 1994".

In addition, there is no entry in this table for the preparation of a treatment plantoperation and maintenance manual.


Table 7 has been updated through January 1995, including a corrected date for construction ofTPMWP/TPMDTM measures, and a new entry for preparation of TP O&M Manual.

Comment No. 47:

Figure 1A. Pond 1 needs to be labeled on this figure.


The directed change to Figure 1 A has been made.

Comment No. 48:

Figure 4. Include monitoring well and borehole locations on this figure.


The directed changes to Figure 4 have been made.

Comment No. 49;

Figure 5. This figure shows the orientation of only the T-T* and P-P' cross-sections. Thetitle of the figure implies that all cross-sections are shown. Resolve this inconsistencyand revise the figure and/or title accordingly.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -16- 933-6158


The title to Figure 5 has been revised to clarify that this 1:200 scale "blow-up" of Figure 4(1:400 scale) is showing the wells, boreholes, and cross sections that are within or very nearRNC property boundaries.

Comment No. 50;

Figure 6. Units shown at borings S15 and S17 do not agree with those shown at thesame borings on cross-section E-E' (Figure 9). On cross-section A-A', the borings S15and SI 7 penetrate only gray till and sandstone. On cross-section E-E', they penetratetwo sand units interbedded in the gray till and a shale in the sandstone. Resolvewhether the sand units shown at boring S17 on cross-section E-E' are contiguous withthose shown at boring S19 on cross-section A-A' and revise the figures accordingly.


Updated cross-sections (from the Revised RI, submitted to the Agencies November 23, 1994)have been provided, superseding the cross-sections issued in Revision #0 of the RAWPA(August 1994). These updated cross-sections address all issues brought forth in Comments 11,50, 51, and 52.

Comment No. SI;

Figure 7. Units shown at boring H-S on cross-section B-B* do not agree with thoseshown for boring H-S on cross-section E-E'. Boring H-S on cross-section E-E' shows, indescending order, a sand unit, a clayey sand unit, and a sand unit interbedded in the till.Boring H-S on cross-section B-B' only shows the upper and lower sand units. Explain

why the clayey sand unit is no longer present in boring H-S in the B-B' cross section.


See Response to Comment No. 50.

Comment No. 52:

Figure 8. The till near elevation 1120 MSL, located in the middle of the sand tongueshown in JVF2-4 on cross-section E-E', is not shown in the same borehole location(JVF2-4) on cross-section C-C. Explain whether the bedrock geology on the west end ofcross-section C-C' is inferred, since no boring is shown to confirm the depth to thesandstone/shale interface.

Colder Associates

February 1995 -17- 933-6158


See Response to Comment No. 50.

Comment No. 53;

Clarify whether the upper sand lens in wells D5 and D6 is truly an S2 lens. Its elevation(-1178-1184 MSL) and vertical position relative to SI outcrops in Figure 14 suggest itmay be an SI lens.


Well D5 is a considerable distance from the area of interest, and is likely a typographical errorfor well S6. In the area of S6/D6, the sand horizon of interest (as seen in both Figure 14 andFigure 13), can be a SI sand horizon as it lies above 1,178 feet MSL. Figure 13 and 14 havebeen revised appropriately, Figure 14 revised to show the modified extent of Sand 1 outcropand subcrop.

Comment No. 54:

Figure 14. Label Pond 1, Pond 2, and Exclusion Area A on this figure.


The revisions to Figure 14 have been made as requested.

Comment No. 55:

Figure 22. The site boundary northeast of the Conrail tracks is coincident with thesubwatershed delineation line and is difficult to discern.


Figure 22 has been revised to better show the different delineations on the map.

Comment No. 56;

Figure 25. This figure does not show D6.


Figure 25 is a shallow groundwater conceptual extraction design. It has on it the contours ofthe shallow "water table" groundwater system, contours generated using only shallow well

Colder Associates

February 1995 -18- 933-6158

information. Well D6 is a bedrock well screened in the Middle Kittaning Sandstone, and it, likeall other bedrock wells, have not been included in Figure 25.

Comment No. 57:

Appendix B, Form A. Include sediment barrier locations on this figure.


The locations of existing and proposed fabric barriers and existing rock barriers have beenadded to Form A.

Comment No. 58;

Appendix D, Page D-7, last paragraph, last sentence. Revise this sentence to read:"Any deviations from the procedures described above will be discussed with the USEPAor USEPA representative oversight contractor (B&WVS) at the time and documentedaccordingly."


The revision has been made as requested

drs Z:\933-5158\RAWPA\RESPCOMM\RAWPARES.COM

Colder Associates

Date post:	21-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

SDMS US EPA Region VWaste Management Division Office 4, Superfund 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago,...

Documents