V^.iT;:^' •i-contract number 68-01-7347. E & E and C.C. Johnson & Malhotra, P.C. (CCJH), a...

,7.EXPANDED SITE INSPECTION/

GROUNDWATER PATHWAY ASSESSMENTFOR

NORTH SAN LDFL, INC.DAYTON, OHIO

U.S. EPA ID: OHD980611875SS ID: NONE

TDD: F05-8808-028PAN: FOH0519XB

OCTOBER 31, 1991

FILE

ecology and environment, inc.111 WEST JACKSON BLVD.. CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604. TEL. 312-663-9415

International Specialists in the Environment

recycled puoer

SIGNATURE PAGEFOR

EXPANDED SITE INSPECTION/GROUNDWATER PATHWAY ASSESSMENT

FORNORTH SAN LDFL, INC.

DAYTON, OHIOU.S. EPA ID: OHD980611875

SS ID: NONETDD: F05-8808-028PAN: FOH0519XB

Prepared by: Date:Mike Duet and Larry Lueck.FIT Team Leader and FIT SiteGeotechnical ManagerC.C. Johnson & Malhotra, P.C. andEcology and Environment, Inc.

Reviewed by

Approved by:

Pat Vojack arfd Sidney F. PaigeFIT Geotechnical Manager and FITAssociate Firm Project ManagerC.C. Johnson & Malhotra, P.C. andEcology and Environment, Inc.

Date: /

TABLE OF CONTENTS

*

Section Page

1 INTRODUCTION......................................... 1-1

2 SITE BACKGROUND...................................... 2-1

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION................... 2-12.2 SITE HISTORY.................................... 2-72.3 REGIONAL GEOGRAPHY.............................. 2-232.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY............... 2-25

3 PROCEDURES........................................... 3-13.1 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY.............................. 3-33.2 SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES........................ 3-43.3 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION: FIRST

PHASE........................................... 3-63.4 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION: SECOND

PHASE.................'........................... 3-103.5 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS........................ 3-143.6 MONITORING WELL SAMPLING PROCEDURES............. 3-153.7 RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING PROCEDURES .........*... 3-15

3.8 NATURAL GAMMA LOGGING............................ 3-163.9 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTES.................... 3-19

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................... 4-14.1 RESULTS OF THE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY............... 4-1

4.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF FIT-COLLECTED

SAMPLES......................................... 4-3

4.3 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY........................... 4-31

4.4 SITE-SPECIFIC HYDROGEOLOGY...................... 4-35

4.5 GRONDWATER TARGETS.............................. 4-47

1 iii

Table of Contents

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A FIT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS................................. A-l

B PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE TAKEN IN 1971, 1973 AND

1974.................'................................ B-l

C REGIONAL BORING AND WELL LOGS........................ C-l

D 1987 MCD GROUNDWATER LEVEL SURVEY MAP................ D-l

E U.S. EPA TARGET COMPOUND LIST AND TARGET ANALYTE

LIST.................................................. E-1

F SOIL SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS............................. F-l

*

G BORING LOGS OF FIT-INSTALLED MONITORING WELLS........ G-l

--.s

H WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORDS OF FIT-INSTALLED

MONITORING WELLS..................................... H-l

I WELL DEVELOPMENT RECORDS OF FIT-INSTALLED

MONITORING WELLS..................................... 1-1

J SOIL BORING SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS...................... J-l

K NATURAL GAMMA LOGS OF THE DEEP WELLS................. K-l

L COMPARISON OF GAMMA LOGS AND BORING LOGS

FOR THE DEEP WELLS................................... L-l

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure • Page

2-1 Site Location.......................................... 2-2

2-2 Si te Features.......................................... 2-3

2-3 Site Conditions, 1962................................'... '2-9

2-4 Site Conditions, 1968.................................. 2-13

2-5 Site Conditions, 1970............................A.... 2-15

2-6 Site Conditions, 1980.................................. 2-20

2-7 Site Conditions, 1987.................................. 2-21

2-8 Area Stratigraphy...................................... 2-26

2-9 Surficial Geology of the Area of the Site.............. 2-27

3-1 Soil Sampling Locatins................................. 3-5

3-2 Typical Monitoring Well Construction................... 3-9

3-3 Monitoring Well Locations.............................. 3-11

vi

L

List of Illustrations (Cont.)

Figure Page

3-4 Residential Well Sampling Locations.................... 3-18

4-1 Contour Map of the Total Magnetic Field Survey......... 4-2

4-2 Fence Diagram of the Site.............................. 4-33

4-3 Piezoraetric Surface Map for the Shallow Wells,June 1991.............................................. 4-38

4-4 Piezometric Surface Map for the Shallow Wells,September 1991......................................... 4-39

4-5 Piezometric Surface Map for the Deep Wells,June 1991.............................................. 4-40

4-6 Piezometric Surface Map for the Deep Wells,September 1991. ................................,.*...... 4-41

vn

i *

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2-1 Descriptions of Aerial Photographs....................... 2-10

3-1 Monitoring Well Data..................................... 3-12

3-2 Addresses and Depths of the FIT-SampledResidential Wells........................................ 3-17

4-1 Results of Chemical Analysis of FIT-Collected'SoilSamples.................................................. „4-4 . ,

• . ' '-x*1;--''"*̂ ••'.':-••

1. INTRODUCTION

Ecology & Environment, Inc. (E & E), Field Investigation Team (FIT)was tasked by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) to conduct a groundwater pathway assessment (GPA) for an expandedsite inspection (ESI) of the North San Ldfl, Inc. (NSL), site undercontract number 68-01-7347. E & E and C.C. Johnson & Malhotra, P.C.(CCJH), a subcontractor to E & E under the above contract, were

I responsible for conducting this investigation.( , The NSL site was discovered through three Comprehensive Environ-«̂ **--«.-" ' ,

: mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) notifications,pursuant to section 103(c) of the act- Two notifications were filed by

'] Michael J. Quigley. Quigley is the Division Manager/Solid JJaste Col-lections for both Blaylock Trucking Company, Inc. (ETC), and Industrial

The site vas subsequently evaluated in the form of a preliminaryassessment (PA) prepared by Scott Shane of the Ohio Environmental /\ /Protection Agency (OEPA) on May 20, 1985 (U.S. EPA 1985).

FIT prepared an ESI/GPA work plan for the NSL site under technicaldirective document (TDD) F05-8808-028, issued on August 31, 1988. Thework plan was approved on April 28, 1990. The ESI/GPA activities wereconducted in June 1990, and March, May, and June 1991, under amended TDDF05-8808-028, issued on February 14, 1990.

The activities included a reconnaissance inspection of the site; ageophysical survey; the installation of monitoring veils; the collectionof soil, soil boring, monitoring well, and'residential well samples; andphotographing currenr-site conditions and sampling locations.

The objectives of the ESI/GPA for the NSL site were:

o To characterize hazardous wastes present by collecting andanalyzing surface and subsurface soil samples from variouslocations at the site;

o To determine the stratigraphy of the site by drilling andsoil borings;

o To determine the characteristics of the subsurface soilsand the aquifer materials through the physical analysis of

•wthe soil samples;

o To determine the hydrogeological conditions and flow withinthe aquifer of concern by calculating water level eleva-tions in the FIT-installed monitoring wells;

o To determine if an observed release to groundwater hasoccurred at the site by collecting and analyzing watersamples from the FIT-installed monitoring wells;

o To determine if compounds and analytes present in the on-site groundwater have migrated off-site and had an impact ]on area groundwater.

1-2

2. SITE BACKGROUND

(

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The NSL site is comprised of three inactive landfills located inDayton, Ohio. Currently, open dumping occurs at the site. The site,which is situated on 14 parcels of land, comprises 101.90 acres' ineastern Montgomery County, Ohio (sec. 30 and 36, R. 7 T.2) (MontgomeryCounty Engineer [MCE] 1980). The site address is 200 Valleycrest Drive(U.S. EPA 1985) (see Figure 2-1 for site location).

The site is situated in a residential/industrial area of Dayton. Anorth-south street, Valleycrest Drive, runs through the site and dividesthe landfill into eastern and western portions. The eastern portioncovers 34.171 acres and is bordered by private residences on the northand east, by residences, businesses, and industrial facilities on thesouth, and by Valleycrest Drive on the west. The 67.729-acre westernportion of the site is bordered by private residences on the north, byValleycrest Drive on the east, by residences, businesses, and anabandoned Baltimore & Ohio (B & 0) Railroad right-of-way on the south-west, and by Brandt Street (also known as Brandt Pike) and residences onthe west (Montgomery County Assessor [MCA] 1987). The residencesnearest to the site are located approximately 30 feet from the edges ofthe site, on the north, east, southeast, and west sides, and alongValleycrest Drive (see Figure 2-2 for site features).

Among the businesses and industrial facilities bordering the siteare a garage belonging to an active Sewer cleaning company and anautomobile auction company on the eastern portion of the site. On the

western portion, an inactive industrial plating facility, an active

2-1

I' -i7" r

_ SITE BOUNDARY

FOUNDRYSAND;

DISPOSALENTRANCES

DRUM: DISPOSAL: AREA

INDUSTRIALLAUNDRY

FOUNDATION• "**»

BULKSTORAGEFERMINAL

u^ENTRANCEI

FOUNDRYSAND

DISPOSALAREA

HAULROAD

RESIDENCEPLATING

CRUSHINGFACILITY

200SCALE

400 600 800 1000 FEET

FIGURE 2-2 SITE FEATURES

automobile crushing facility, an automobile service station, and anautomobile auction company border the site. y

The auction company also stores vehicles on part of the site. The V.auction company property and the part of the NSL site where its vehiclesare stored are located on opposite sides of Valleycrest Drive. Thevehicle storage area on the vest side of Valleycrest Drive is part ofthe NSL site. The property on the east side of Valleycrest Drive islocated directly south of the site and is owned by the auction company.

Located across Brandt Street, and approximately 30 feet west of thesite, are a demolition debris landfill, an industrial laundry facility,and two bulk oil storage terminals.

Ther; are three entrances to the NSL site that were used during thelandfill operations. These entrances provided access to the landfillareas when the site was in operation. The first entrance is locatedalong the east side of Valleycrest Drive, just north of the automobileauction company. There is a cable across this entrance, but there is nolock on the cable. This is the only entrance to the eastern portion ofthe site. The second entrance is located along the west side of Valley-crest Drive, just north c-f a residence. There is a fence extendingnorth from the residence to the vehicle storage area-operated by theautomobile auction company. A locked cable was recently placed acrossthis entrance. The third entrance is located on Brandt Street, directly

£

across from the demolition debris landfill. The entrance has a lockedcable across it. The second and third entrances provide access to thewestern portion of the site. Local residents have created other en-trances to the site. Numerous paths on both portions of the site havealso been formed in the time since the landfills ceased operation.

Only a small portion of the site perimeter is fenced. Fences arepresent along only three parts of the site: along the east side ofValleycrest Drive; along the west side of Valleycrest Drive between thevehicle storage area and the residence; and along Brandt Street at thenorthwest corner of the site.

The entire eastern portion of the site appears to have been used asa mixed-use landfill. The edges of the eastern portion slope upward,presumably indicating the limit of the former gravel pit area that was

2-4

later used as a landfill. The landfill area is approximately 8 feetlower than the surrounding off-site areas..

The eastern portion of the site is covered by woods, tall weeds,and grasses, and the ground surface is very uneven. FIT observed somedepressions in the ground surface. These depressions and the unevenground surface were apparently formed by covering the landfill wastes.Some landfill waste and rusted drums were exposed on the surface.During the ESI/GPA, FIT also observed some crushed drums. These drumshad been buried, but were partially exposed by the drill rigs andvehicles driven by local residents. From FIT observations, it is ap-parent that open dumping of'trash had occurred on the eastern portion ofthe NSL site. FIT observed discarded furniture, trash, and wood on-site.

Along the southeastern boundary of the site is a small plateau(apparently comprised of fill material and sludge) extending from thenorth side of the sewer cleaning company and on to the NSL site. Theplateau is used by the company as a truck turnaround and as a temporarystorage area for trucks and roll-off boxes. FIT observed some trucksand roll-off boxes parked on this plateau and marked^with symbols thatdesignated the material carried within as industrial.waste and/orhazardous waste. At the base of the plateau is a low area. On numerousoccasions standing water was observed on both sides of the base of the

_. *plateau.

Trees are present along the eastern boundary of the site and in thenortheastern corner. Most of the trees appeared to be relatively young.Aerial photographs taken during the years of on-site operations showtrees only along the site borders in this area.

The areas north, west, and south of the second entrance were usedas landfills. A dirt path (called a haul road) leads from the entranceinto these areas. Just west of the entrance, the haul road divides intosouth and north legs. Tall grasses and some weeds cover the area westof the entrance. The ground surface is uneven and there are locationswhere uncovered waste is visible.

The south leg of the haul road leads to a grass-covered area. FITobserved trash, furniture, and other items deposited in this area,indicating that the area had been used for open dumping. This area

2-5

borders the west sides of the inactive plating facility and the resi-dence. An ungated path, extending from the area between the plating andthe car crushing facilities, leads to this area and allows human andvehicular access to the site.

FIT observed hubcaps, automobile parts, and hundreds of tiresstrewn on the ground along the southern leg of the haul road. Tireswere also present along the west fence of the adjacent car crushingfacility, and these may have fallen from this facility on to the NSLsite. FIT observed a pool of standing water in this area during everysite visit.

The northern leg of the haul road leads past the part of theve' cle storage area. The haul road continues north to another ori-sitelandfill area. Part of this landfill had been used as a drum disposalarea. The area used for drum disposal is parallel to Valleycrest Driveand extends approximately 150 feet west from Valleycrest Drive. Thesouthern edge of the drum disposal area was located approximately 50feet north of the vehicle storage area. Its northern edge was situate.!approximately 200 feet south of a residence adjacent to the northernborder of the site,. FIT observed the foundation of a building that hadbeen located within the drum disposal area. Aerial photographs of thesite confirm the location of the building. The landfill area along thenorth leg of the haul road is relatively level and is covered withgrasses and weeds.

The landfill areas accessed by the second entrance and the haulroad extend west to the areas where gravel pits and foundry landfillareas are located. In July 1990, FIT observed a small gully between thefoundry sand disposal area in the northwest corner of the site and theother landfill area. The gully had been approximately 15 feet below thegrade of the landfill area. Since the initial observation, much of thegully has been filled in by an operation that is covering the foundrysand. The level of the gully may have indicated the original depth ofthe gravel excavation at that location.

At the third entrance, along Brandt Street, is one the foundry sanddisposal areas. This foundry sand disposal area is delta-shaped andextends eastward from the entrance. The foundry sand, which was pre-dominantly black, is being covered with "clean" dirt by Jergens

2-6

Excavating. Large pieces of rubble and brick were also observed in this,. area.

At the southwest corner of the site is ah abandoned foundry sanddisposal area. This area is now overgrown with grasses and weeds. Eastof this area, along the B & 0 right-of-way, is an abandoned structure.It is not known how the structure was used during on-site operations.Directly north of this structure are the only remaining sand/gravel pitareas on-site. Currently, the pits are not used. There are 3 or 4 pitsand they are approximately 15 to 20 feet deep. FIT observed trash, auto-mobile parts, and abandoned vehicles in the pits.

FIT photographs from the ESI/GPA of the NSL site are provided inAppendix A.

2.2 SITE HISTORYThe NSL site is owned by Keystone Gravel Company (Keystone), Inc.

(MCE 1980r~MCA 1987). The president of Keystone is Joseph Ramsey(J. R.) McGregor of Dayton, Ohio (Van-Someren 1987). It is not known

/' how long Keystone has owned the site.Keystone operated a sand and gravel mining operation at the NSL

site for an unknown period of time. However, based on an aerialphotograph of the area, the western portion of the site was used as agravel mine in 1948.(MCA 1948). Mining operations at the site concludedduring the 1970s.

• -_ x In approximately 1966, an industrial and municipal waste landfillbegan operating on the eastern portion of the site (U;S. EPA 1981b).

; After closing the landfill on the eastern portion of the site, a secondlandfill began operating on the western portion of the site in 1970CCity-of-Dayton-Health-Department (CDHDJ 1970a). The second landfillwas closed in 1975 (Jones 1975).

During the operation of the first two landfills at the site (from1966 to 1975), the site was operated by North Sanitary Landfill, Inc.,

'": of Dayton, Ohio (-IT.S. EPA 1981b). North Sanitary Landfill was a wholly-owned subsidiary of IWD (U.S. EPA 1981a). IWD and BTC, a firm thattransported wastes to the site, were both owned by a holding company

( named B. G. Danis Company, Inc. In 1983, Waste Management, Inc., of. , North America purchased B. G. Danis Company (-Schmidt.-4.986). During this

2-7

period, the site was known as Valleycrest Landfill as well as NorthSanitary Landfill. V

The third landfill, used for foundry sand disposal, was operated by 'Peerless Transportation Company (Peerless), of Dayton, Ohio £5£hjn±d-t-1986). It is not known when Peerless started its operation, but thefoundry sand disposal area, which is located in the northwest corner ofthe site, was in use by 1977 £G4rlmore 197?-). In approximately 1989,Peerless was ordered to close the foundry sand area by City of Daytonofficials B̂cidgas— 1£9i?-si-te-cond-i*4ons~in-JL9£2 r -and -Table-2̂ t~forttie-scrip-tipns-af— the-aeriat-phot-ogtaphs— *£-the_s-i-te-) . The industrial andmunicipal waste landfill began* operating in 1966 by disposing of wastesin a former gravel pit on the eastern portion of the site

The landfill utilized the area fill method of disposal byplacing the wastes in layers in the pits and then covering the waste(•Banis_-19TF1̂ -. The site was being used to dispose of household, com-mercial, industrial, and. other unlisted wastes (Ohio-Depart men t~ of --H«a3rth— tOBH] -1970)-. The landfill predominantly served industrialfacilities from all areas of the city (CDHD-1-968}-*

Among the materials disposed of at the site were foundry sand,demolition materials, slag, fly ash, plaster, glass, metal shavings,rubber, paper, cardboard, tires, latex, lampblack, grind ings from brakeshoes, and drums of chemicals (Knajtgi*-4r970T Joho 1072). However,according to the site operators, wastes not accepted at the NSL siteincluded wood, potentially explosive materials, ink, ash, paint, con-struction debris, and paint thinner jfdaekson— 1969}% According to anarea resident, Verner Storost, the landfill also was used to dispose ofelectrical transformers

In 1967, North Sanitary Landfill filed a landfill application withthe City of Dayton Bureau of Environmental Health (BEH) for a landfillexpansion on the eastern portion of the site. According to the applica-tion, the landfill would extend from the area in operation to thecurrent site boundary on the north. The landfill was already operatingin the southern areas of the eastern portion of the site,

2-8

SCALE0 200 400 600 800 1000 FEET

LEGENDGP GRAVEL PITW WATER :== ACCESS ROAD

FIGURE 2-3 sire CONDITIONS. 1962

Table 2-1

DESCRIPTION OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Year Description

1962 'The eastern portion of the site is a gravel pit; water(Figure-' -3) is present along eastern border; western portion is

vegetated, with gravel mining present along the southwestboundary; a derrick is shown along the right-of-way; twobuildings are present along the west side of ValleycrestDrive; some standing water is shown on the western portionof the site.

1968 The eastt'rn portion of the site is a landfill; a large(Figure 2-4) pond is present along the eastern boundary and extends to

the center of the eastern portion Of the site; mining ispresent in the northwest and southwest corners of thesite.

1970 The eastern portion of the site is an inactive landfill(Figure 2-5) with scant vegetation present; standing water is located

along the eastern boundary of the site; the activelandfill is in operation on the western portion of thesite and is located northwest of the residence; thebuildings north of the second entrance are still present;a pool of standing water is located northwest of theactive landfill area; mining operations continue in thesouthwest corner and eastward along the right-of-way.

2-10

Table 2-1 (Cont.)

Year Description

1980 The eastern portion of the site shows scars from the(Figure 2-6) landfill operation; there are several pools of water on

this part of the site, with the largest located near thecenter of the eastern portion; the western portion of thesite is vegetated with grasses and trees; on the westernportion of the site, scars from the landfill operation arevisible near the drum disposal area.

1987 Much of the site is covered by trees and grass; a small(Figure 2-7) pool of standing water is located on the eastern portion

of the site, approximately 30 feet east of the firstentrance; small, scattered pools of standing water arepresent on the western portion of the .site; the area westof the car crushing facility is unvegetated and there arecars present in this area; the area near the southwesterncornet of the site is unvegetated.

2-11

Since the site area did not have sewers,/the Chief Engineer for the Cityof Dayton Bureau of Sewers suggested that the height of the landfill

/expansion be limited to 765 feet above mean sea level (MSL), which wouldbe approximately 6 feet below the. level of the surrounding area. Thiswould prevent surface water runoff\from the landfill from damagingsurrounding property (Gooch 1967). The authorization was given for theexpansion on August 23, 1967, and theNlandfill was authorized for amaximum period of 4 years/of use (Gantner 1967).

According to a 1968 letter from Clayton Gantner, Community HygieneChief for the City of Dayton, the landfill operation was "very good"(Gantner 1968). Standing wafer was present at the site, but was treatedwith soda ash and lime to eliminate odors

•••

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

SCALE0 200 400 600 800 JjOOO FEET

LEGENDGP GRAVEL PIT ° DISPOSAL AREA

W WATER --^ ACCESS HOA°

FIGURE 2-4 SITE CONDITIONS. 1968

October the pool of standing water vas almost completely filled,apparently with lime and gravel. /A site inspection by city officials /also observed that cover of the'fill was satisfactory and surface debriswas minimal (CDHD 1969e).

The 1970 application for a so/lid waste disposal license filed byNorth Sanitary Landfill lists the-' landfill as 25 acres fODII 1970).After a fire in 1970, CDHD officials inspected the site and told thesite operators that tires could/be accepted at the landfill, but must bestored flat and covered with fill material. The operators were informed

/ \that the ongoing open dumping pf tires violated state law. Theoperators were also told to discontinue the acceptance of containerswith "hazards or ... chemicals" (Gantner 1970). .

The site operators were advised by' CDHD officials in early 1970that no burnable wastes could be .placed in the landfill; these wastes

\ / • ' • • ' • 'would have to be sent to county incinerators (Hammond 1970a) . The site• /'•• •

\ license was amended at this time/to allow only for the disposal of/d^demolition material not accepted at the incinerators (ODH 1970a)

/• — •\A state Division of Health memorandum, dated April 13, 1970,

states that the landfill will "probably be closed in about a montk"1970) . The memorandum apparently applied to the eastern

portion of the site because, in June 1970, site operators asked ODH forpermission to begin landfill operations on the western portion of thesite. The new area had also been a gravel pit. The new area would beused to dispose of foundry sand, demolition materials, slag, fly ash,plaster, glass, metal shavings, and other non-burnable materials -(Knauoc•W£f, By July 1970 the western area was in operation. (CDHD 1970-). Theeastern portion of the site was no longer used for disposal, althoughcover material was being spread over the area.CGDHD -1970a?—see-Figure-

-in -1970) .The solid waste disposal license for the site was renewed on

January 26, 1971 {flPfr 1971r). This license application stated that thecommercial, industrial, and demolition wastes accepted at the landfillwere to be placed in layers and covered (Harris— i-97-t)-r- However, thelicense was adjusted by city officials so that the landfill was limitedto accepting industrial waste that was unacceptable for incineration

2-14

r"

SCALE0 200 400 600 BOO J0°° FEET

LEGENDGP GRAVEL PIT D DISPOSAL AREAW WATER -= ACCESS ROAD


4Gantner=I97*)-. The source of the landfill cover material was over-burden removed during the gravel pit operation (ODH 197 la). {/

Uncovered scraps of rubber and tires were observed by CDHDofficials during an inspection on January 29, 1971. The uncovered wasteviolated state law (CDHD 19iM̂ . Drums, paper, pieces of steel, and"black powdery dust" were also observed at the site in 197 1 . (Jones- and-

/ An ODH inspection on March 23, 1972, revealed a "large amount of/ standing water" present at the site./ The operators were told to take

/ corrective measures to eliminate 'vthe standing water and to prevent arecurrence (Montgomery County Combined General Health District [MCCGHD]1972). By mid-April 1972, the pool\of standing water had;, lot been

\ removed and was filled with oil (MCCGHD 1972a). Trash .was subsequently\ placed in the standing water/until an '̂ MCCGHD sanitarian told theV operators to fill the pool/with hard fill only (MCCGHD 1972b).

ŝsJ There were various reports that burnable materials were disposed ofat the site, violating the adjusted operating license for the site '-(MCGCHD 1972e). An inspection by officials from the Ohio Department ofNatural Resources fODNR-H ODH, and MCCGHD, was conducted at the site onOctober 3, 1972. Based on this inspection, it was discovered that thewastes being accepted at the site included non-permitted materials,including commercial refuse, paper, cardboard, latex, lampblack,grindings from brake shoes, and drums of unknown chemicalsjThe operators also had permitted a person to salvage metal and ap-pliances from the waste disposed of at the site (Miller 1972).

\Â 1972 Miami Conservancy District (MCD) study of groundwa.ter nearwaste disposal facilities collected a water sample from the well at theresidence south of the second entrance to the site. Only limitedparameters (physical characteristics, major ions, and some metals) werestudied in the analysis, yet the well water sample indicated that theNSL site had caused contamination of the well. The water sample hadelevated levels of chloride, total dissolved solids, and total organiccarbon in relation to other well water samples collected in the Daytonarea,

The results of a June 16, 1973,. MCCGHD inspection indicated thatthe site continued to receive waste /hat should have been sent to thete -Chat

2-16

c

incinerator. The operators werexalso told to remove or cover the drumsobserved in the inactive areas of\the site and to eliminate standingwater and oil from that area (MCCGHD 1973). HCCGHD attempted to revokethe operating license of North Sanitary Landfill because burnable wasteswere still accepted at the site. The\revocation attempt was defeatedfollowing an appeal to HCCGHD (Herfe 1973).

I On January 29, 1974, Paul Plummer ofvMCD-and.Jeff Hosier of OEPA1 visited the NSL site. They noted that an area along Valleycrest Drive; between the residence and the' plating facility was filled. The area had

been a pond. They also observed that many barrels dumped in the drumdisposal area contained "oil and other chemicals" and that the contentswere released when the barrels were dumped or crushed at the site(Plummer 1974).

Plummer and Hosier also observed leachate seeping into a pond ofstanding water, along the west face of the: active landfill. The pondwater was coated with oil and was white beneath the oil. Barrels ofwaste chemicals had been dumped north of the pond and along the face ofthe landfill. The contents of the barrels were being poured onto thelandfill so that scavengers could take the barrels away. The contentsof the barrels entered standing water at the base of the working face ofthe fill. According to Plummer, most of the barrels contained "wastepaint and other volatile materials." While at the site, Plummer andHosier observed a truck from Inland Products dumping a 40 cubic yardroll-off box filled with barrels. The barrels contained oil and other

X

unknown chemicals. The contents of many of the barrels spilled (Plummer1974).

Plummer and Hosier believed that the water levels in the fill andthe pond were equal to the water table at the site. This would indicate

.. that wastes were being deposited directly into the groundwater at theV site (Plummer 1974).

In March 1974, OEPA officials met with site representative NelsJohnson to discuss the possibility of obtaining permission to acceptindustrial sludges and liquids at the NSL site. Johnson was told thatliquid wastes could not be accepted for disposal at the site without theapproval of the OEPA director, and that OEPA must be provided withchemical analysis and disposal information for the liquids and sludges

2-17

r /prior to receiving approval (Moore 1974). However,! a March 3, 1974,inspection of the site revealed that "liquid or hazardous substances"were still being disposed of at the siteA During this site inspection apool of standing water was also observed on the active landfill. Theoperators were told to eliminate the pool and to prevent a recurrence(MCCGHD 1974).Cln May 1974, an OEPA review of the NSL site determinedthat it was "generally unsuitable for any type of liquid o.r semi-liquidwaste disposal." The operators were told that no more liquids should bedisposed of at the site\(Rashidi 1974).

A July 30, 1974, MCCGHD inspection determined that the pools ofstanding water were being filled with waste materials. The inspectorstated that the water in the pools shr^d be drained or covered yithgravel and clay, and that wastes should not be placed in the water(MCCGHD 1974a).

On October 30, 1974, CDHD was notified of a complaint regardingyellow dust blowing from the NSL site. Upon inspection of the site, afinely shredded yellow material and a white powdery material wereobserved. Inspectors were told that the materials were corn and starchby-products or other materials received from Cargill, Inc., in Dayton.During the inspection a truck from Delco Corporation arrived at the siteand disposed of brake lining dust. CDHD officials advised the operatorsof how the powdered materials should be handled in order to, prevent dustclouds in the future (MCCGHD 1974d).

Xlp early 1975, the landfill operations of North Sanitary Landfillceased A An MCCGHD inspection of the site on February 4, 1975, revealedthat the landfill was nearly filled. The eastern, inactive landfillarea was not properly covered. The inspector assumed that the coveringwould be done when a final cover was placed over the entire site (MCCGHD1975). By March 6, 1975, operations were concluded at the site. In aletter sent to the site operators, Dennis Jones of MCCGHD stated that afinal cover should be placed over all of the fill areas and that thefill areas would have to be graded to prevent surface water from pondingon-site (Jones 1975). FIT file information does not indicate whetherthe final cover was placed at the site.

/—-XBy 1977, Peerless had made an agreement with McGregor to dispose of

X-f

foundry sand and fill in the excavated area on the western edge of the

2-18

/'•

NSL site (Bridges -1990), referred to as the 960 Br and t Pike till.Peerless agreed to backfill the depressions with approximately 200 cubicyards of foundry sand per day. Some of the depressions vere up to 30

—— *\ ' 'feet deepYGilmore 1981).

c

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

SCALE0 200 400 600 800 1000 FEET

LEGENDGP GHAVEL PIT D DISPOSAL AREAW WATER === ACCESS ROAD


PROPERTY BOUNDARY

WOODS(SPARSE) /,••v

SCALE0 200 400 600 800 1000 FEET

LEGENDGP GRAVEL PIT O DISPOSAL AREA

W WATER =-= ACCESS ROAD


ordered the site closed because of the potential threat of contaminationto city groundvater supplies. An unrelated off-site fire had brought thethreat from facilities in the area to the attention of city officials.To close the site, Peerless has brought in many loads of backfill(Bridges 1990). Peerless also received a zoning waiver to bring theclean backfill to the sitê j[Stanley 1990).

In addition to repeated violations that occurred during thelandfill and foundry sand disposal operations, there were also numerousfires at the site. In 1967, there were several fires at the landfill(Rozsa 1967).. On February 22, 1969, a fire in the northeastern cornerof the site was reported; The burning material was reportedly "brake

' - • !' ' ' ' » • • " ' •-' .. •'/' .'" , ' -. *"*•"" '•'•'"•'•• ' . -.; '. - "'- - ' -

dust" from Inland Pr^ucts. Brake dust was i\ot permitted for disposalat the site, based'on an agreement between CDHD and the site operators(Guerra 1969). On July 28, 1969, another fire occurred at the site,when waste caught fire and the fire spread along the working surface ofthe fill area. It was alleged that hidden drums exploded and spread thefire very quickly. The fire was put out by site workers (CDHD 1969d).

Two additional fires occurred at the site in 1974. The first, onSeptember 14, 1974, was allegedly caused by burning paper, -cardboard,and an unknown rubber waste (allegedly received from a General MotorsCompany facility) (MCCGHD 1974b). The second, larger fire occurred onOctober 1, 1974. This fire^began in the north-central area^of theactive landfill and the material burning was paper and rubber materials(MCCGHD 1974c). Site workers apparently contained the fires in bothinstances. There are no records of any fires that may have occurredduring the Peerless operations.

Studies done in the area of the site have also detected groundwatercontamination attributable to the local industrial facilities. Thesubstances detected.include solvents (including 1,1,1-trichloroethaneand dichloroethane) and petroleum-related substances, including benzene,ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene (QSource Engineering, Inc. [QSource] *1989).

FIT file information contains no other information regarding regu-latory or response-related activities at the site. Appendix B containsphotographs of the NSL site taken in 1971, 1973, and 1974.

2-22

f- 2.3 REGIONAL GEOGRAPHYPhysiography. The site and the surrounding area are located within

the Till Plains section of the Central Lowlands physiographic province(United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1976). The site islocated between the Great Miami River and the Mad River. The site areais relatively flat, although there are elevational differences betweeneastern and western points on-site. Based on FIT-collected surveyingresults, the eastern portion of the site has elevations ranging fromapproximately 771 to 775 feet above HSL. Elevations on the western

: portion of the site vary from .approximately 765 to 775 feet above MSL.The southern boundary of the western portion of the site is lower thanthe area along th£ northern boundary. The direction of slope-for the

"̂ ~" entire site is to the southwest (United States Geological Survey [USGS]* 1965).- The topography of the area of the site, which consists primarily ofj incised river valleys, differs from the on-site topography. The incised^ river valleys and their floodways are lower in elevation than the/ surrounding area. The highest elevation in the area is approximately•( 940 feet above MSL and is located approximately 3 miles northeast of the

site. The lowest points, are approximately 750 feet above MSL and are•$ located along the banks of the Great Miami, the Mad, and the Stillwater

rivers. All areas slope toward the river valleys (USGS 1965).^ There are numerous surface water bodies in the area of the NSL

.site. The most prominent are the Mad and the Great Miami rivers. The$ Mad River is located approximately 1/2 mile southeast of the site at its'-'• closest point (USGS 1965). The average discharge of the Mad River is

632 cubic feet per second (cfs), with a minimum discharge of approx-iv imately 200 cfs (USGS 1988). The Mad River flows southwest, into the

Great Miami River. The Great Miami River is approximately 3/4 miles'^- north of the site at its closest point (USGS 1965). The Great Miami

River flows southward and the average discharge for the river is 2,177?v cfs, with a minimum discharge of approximately 275 cfs (USGS 1988). The

NSL site is located outside of the area that would be affected during a-y 500-year flood event. The area of the site is designated as an area ofy ; minimal flooding (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 1985).

2-23

..Two small lakes are located approximately 1/10 mile southeast ofthe site (USGS 1965). One lake is currently used as a demolition debris flandfill, and is owned by J. R. HcGregor (MCA 1987). The other is usedas a recreational fishing lake. Southeast of the site, approximately1/2 mile, is a reservoir known as the Dayton Hydrobowl. The DaytonHydrobowl is a heavily-used recreational lake.

Soils. At the site, native soils have been removed by the gravelmining operation. The soils present on-site have developed from covermaterials that were brought to the site (USDA 1976).

The surrounding area is covered by native soils of the Fox series.Fox soils are formed in loamy glacial outwash materials. These veil-drained ail iIs typically consist of a silt loam topsoil and underlyinglayers of loam, clay loam, and sandy clay loam over a sand and gravelsubstrate (USDA 1976).

The soil in the area south of the site is a Fox-Urban land complexsoil. The soil is well-drained and has a relatively rapid permeability.The areas east, north, and west of the site are covered by Fox silt loamsoils. The Fox silt loams have rapid permeability (USDA 1976).

Climate. The climate in the area of the NSL site is distinguished .by large seasonal and daily temperature changes. Vinters are typicallycold, cloudy, and relatively dry. During spring, temperatures andprecipitation increase.. Summer is typically warm, humid, and relatively

4

wet. Temperatures decrease, and precipitation is lowest,'during autumn(USDA 1976).

The average annual temperature in the area of the site is ap-proximately 52.7°F. Mean annual precipitation in the Dayton area isapproximately 38 inches and mean annual lake evaporation is approx-imately 26 1/2 inches. The net annual precipitation is approximately 111/2 inches (ODNR 1976). The mean 1 year, 24-hour rainfall value isapproximately 2 1/2 inches (U.S. Department of Commerce 1963). Theprevailing winds in the area are from the southwest (USDA 1976).

Land Use. Land use in the area immediately surrounding the site ishighly diversified. West of the site are the oil storage terminals anda demolition debris landfill. The remaining areas surrounding the site

are comprised of residential areas and industrial and servicefacilities.

A variety of land uses are found within 3 miles of the site.Located approximately 1 mile west of the site is a cluster of heavyindustrial facilities. The nearest farmlands are located approximately1 1/2 miles north of the site. Across the Mad River from the site areWright-Patterson Air Force base and the downtown Dayton area. Wright-Patterson Air Force base is located approximately 1 8/10 miles east ofthe site, and the downtown area is located approximately 2 1/2 milessouthwest of the site.

2.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGYGeology. The geology of the area of the site consists of uncon-

solidated glacial and glaciofluvial sediments overlying bedrock of theOrdovician-age Richmond Shale Group (ODNR 1987; QSource 1989) (seeFigure 2-8 for area stratigraphy). In many areas the shale bedrock isdeeply incised by pre-glacial valleys that were subsequently filled withsand and gravel outwash valley train deposits (ODNR 1987).

Late Uisconsinan valley train deposits cover much of the areabetween the Great Miami River and the Mad River, extending from the areaat the rivers' confluence to approximately A miles upstream. The valleytrain deposits, consisting primarily of sand and gravel, ,ferm thesurficial geology in the area of the site and in areas south and west ofthe site (USGS 1966). The surficial sand and gravel extends to anapproximate depth of AO to A3 feet in the area of the NSL site (ODNR1987; see Appendix C for regional boring and well logs). A thin layerof recent alluvium overlies the valley train deposits in the areas alongthe rivers (ODNR 1987) (see Figure 2-9 for the surficial geology of thearea of the site).

Underlying the sand and gravel is a discontinuous layer of clay-rich till. The till may be the remnants of an end or ground morainethat was present in the area of the site during a period of glacialstagnation. The clay till, where present, occurs at depths ranging from30 to 80 feet and ranges in thickness from 0 to 80 feet (USGS 1966).This till layer thins and is not present at locations approximately 600feet west of the NSL site (QSource 1989).

2-25

ELEVATION(teet above MSU

>-^2

O

RECENT

2="UJ SsiII

Z

O

OQo:O

750-

700-

650-

600-

550-

i'.̂ .S^SC^ -^ • *ix'.̂ •

•'•• C? :•*•. .

•S^^P

^*» r±\\ /v I

D D D Q£? O

1 fl 1

O D D Q^ C7a ll 1^j ^j j^ yD a D a

i d IQ D Q D

«^p

cQUADRANGLE LOCATION __ _ ___ ________________________

i ________.. s—————•————-——.- _ - uiniita Series. 1965. Photorevlsed 1981; USGS. 1966SOURCE: USQS. Dayton North, OH Quadrangle. 7.5 Mlnuta beries.SCAD

o o-5

Alluvium; Thin flood-plain deposits ofsand, gravel, silt, and clay, overlyingvalley train

Kames and kame moraine; Sand and graveldeposited in contact with receding Ice sheet

Vail v Jr 11 01 ii _________,. - , ,,«~««,.f.H x* I-1-'-'.' -"-I Ground moraine overlying sand and gravelValley train; Sand and gravel deposited as |»V" •.".*.]

out wash in preglacial valleys

FIGURE 2-9 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA OF THE SITE

Beneath the clay till layer is a lower layer of Visconsinan sandand gravel valley train deposits formed during the early stages of rVisconsinan glaciation. These valley train deposits are at least 60feet thick, reaching a maximum depth of 175 to 275 feet in the Daytonarea (QSource 1989). There appear to be occurrences of interbedded tilllenses present in the lower valley train deposits. These till lensesreach approximately 30 feet in thickness and, although locally massive,are not laterally continuous. A thin basal till layer underlies thelower valley train deposits to the bedrock surface (USGS 1966).

Bordering the valley train deposits to the north and northeast aresurficial late Viscohsinan; ground moraine deposits vhich overlie thesand and gravel valley train deposits. The ground moraine covers tie. .entire area northeast of the site and between the alluvial deposits ofthe Great Miami and the Had rivers. The ground Moraine deposit istypically 20 to 40 feet thick, with some interbedded sand and gravel(USGS 1966). .,. .,:,',' i '

The Richmond Shale Group bedrock underlies the unconsplidateddeposits in the area of the site. The Ordovician-age Richmond ShaleGroup was deposited as ocean sediments and consists of soft shale andthin interbeds of limestone. The limestone layers are hard and dense,but typically only 1 to 5 inches thick. Even though the layers arethin, the limestone comprises 25 to 50* of the group (USGS 1966).

In the area of the NSL site, the bedrock is approximately 200 feetbelow the ground surface, at an elevation of approximately 565 feetabove MSL. The topography of the bedrock surface fluctuates from 500feet above MSL underneath the river valleys to approximately 900 feetabove MSL in areas north and southeast of the site (USGS 1966). The dipof the bedrock in the area of the site is to the southwest (ODNR 1981).

Hydrogeology. The primary aquifer in the area of the NSL siteconsists of the unconsolidated sand and gravel valley train deposits.This aquifer is locally divided into upper and lower aquifers where the ,clay till acts as a semi-confining layer (QSource 1989).

The water table in the area of the site is formed in the uppervalley train deposits (USGS 1966). Groundwater is approximately 25 to30 feet below the ground surface. Pumping tests conducted during the1950s for the City of Dayton Department of Water (CDDU) determined that

2-28

the hydraulic conductivity of the upper valley train deposits of theaquifer is approximately 2.31 x 10~3 feet per second (QSource 1989).

Downward migration of groundwater through the aquifer (from theupper valley train deposits to the lower valley train deposits) isdecreased because of the presence of the till. The clay till may alsoslow the downward mobility of substances present in the groundwater.

The lower valley train deposits act as a semiconfined aquifer inareas where the clay till is also present. The till lenses that may bepresent in the lower valley train deposits do not act as confininglayers, but may further retard the migration of substances through thedeposits. CDDV pumping tests, conducted during the 1950s, determinedthat the hydraulic conductivity of the lower valley train-deposits range

— from 1.62 x 10~3 to 2.31 x 10"1 feet per second (QSource 1989).The strata of upper and lower valley train sand and gravel deposits

constitute the aquifer of concern (AOC) for the area of the site. TheAOC is the sole source of groundwater supplies for private residentialwells, the CDDW wells, and industries in the area (USGS 1966). Thelower valley train deposits may provide water yields from 100 to 500

' gallons per minute (gpm) in the immediate area of the site. Along theriver valleys the water yields may be up to 1,000 gpm (ODNR 1986).

; All of the CDDW wells are screened in the AOC, within the lowervalley train deposits. CDDV has two well fields used as the source ofwater for the system. The nearest of the well fields is the Miami River

' ,_ well field. This well field has 22 wells and is located north of the\

Great Miami River, approximately 1 1/10 miles north of the site. The'• well depths range from 65 to 180 feet. The second well field is the Mad

River well field. This well field is located along the south side of!• the Mad River and is approximately 2 mile's east of the site. There are»

49 wells at the Mad River well field. The wells are screened at depthsj ranging from 50 to 170 feet (CDDW [no date]).

Removal of large volumes of water from the AOC creates a cone ofi depression around the CDDW well fields. In the areas outside of thej influence of these cones of depression, the piezometric surfaces of the

upper valley train deposits and the lower, semiconfined valley train

C deposits are nearly equal, indicating that no appreciable verticalgradient of groundwater flow exists. However, in areas influenced by2-29

the cones of depression, the piezometric surface in the upper depositswill be higher than in the lower deposits (USGS 1966). This indicatesthat a downward vertical gradient of groundwater has been created.

The direction of groundwater flow in the area of the site is to thewest. This is based on studies conducted in the area on the lower,semiconfined deposits. The vast majority of drinking water wells arescreened in the lower deposits. Prior to the use of the CDDW Mad Riverwell field, groundwater flow was to the southwest. Based on USGSstudies, an artificial flow regime was created by the pumpage of thewell field and the site became a divide for groundwater flow. On theeastern portion of the site, groundwater flow was redirected to the

'-.-' * . -east, toward'the Mad River well field. On the western tuition of thesite, the groundwater flow remained to the southwest (USGS 1966). Thecreation of reservoirs, acting as water storage and recharge areas forthe Mad River well field, southwest of the well field (CDDW [no date])eliminated the groundwater divide.

However, according to a 1986 MCD study of groundwater flow, theareas north and southeast of the site are still strongly influenced bythe groundwater pumpage at the Miami River well"field (north of thesite) and the Mad River well field (east of the site*). Cones of de-pression created by the pumping of the wells at these fields have causedgroundwater flow to deviate toward the well fields instead tof the normalflow direction to the southwest (MCD 1987). Appendix D contains a mapof groundwater flow based on the results of the 1986 MCD water levelsurvey. Groundwater flow at the site and in the area north of the sitemay be influenced by the Miami River well field because the site is nearthe edge of the well field's, area of influence (QSource 1989).

Localized groundwater flow is also a'ffected by the pumping ofrecovery wells that have been installed at industrial facilitiesdirectly west of the site (QSource 1989). Recovery wells are installednear the northern border of each facility (OEPA 1991) and have beeninstalled in accordance with OEPA-approved groundwater remediation plansfor these facilities.

The Richmond Shale Group bedrock rarely yields sufficient watersupplies for domestic use and is not considered an important watersupply source in the Dayton area. None of the CDDW wells are completed

2-30

i

in this relatively impermeable unit (QSource 1989). The water yieldfrom this bedrock is typically 1 gpm (HCD 1973).

2-31

3. PROCEDURES

In accordance with the U.S. EPA-approved work plan, FIT conducted aseries of on-site and off-site activities during the months of June 1990and March, May, and June 1991. The activities were designed to charac-terize alleged hazardous waste disposal at the NSL site, to determinesubsurface hydrogeologic conditions at the site, and to determine if TCLcompounds and TAL analytes have migrated to ground water at the site.The work, included the preliminary fieldwork phase (consisting of geo-physical surveys, the collection of on-site soil samples and off-sitemonitoring and residential well samples, and the collection of waterlevel measurements from off-site wells), logging and sampling of sub-surface soil borings, installation of monitoring wells, surveying of theinstalled wells, and groundwater sampling of on-site monitoring wells.

Deviations from the ESI/GPA Work Plan. The purpose of thepreliminary fieldwork phase (PFP) was to aid FIT in determining wastecharacteristics, 'site conditions, locations of buried drums, and the

«

groundwatet flow direction prior to the installation of monitoringwells. However, because of time constraints and with .the agreement ofU.S. EPA and OEPA, FIT altered the PFP by delaying the collection ofoff-site groundwater samples and water level measurements. The off-sitesamples and measurements were collected concurrently with the samplingof the U.S. EPA-instailed monitoring wells. Thus, as conducted by FIT,the PFP consisted of reconnaissance inspections of the site, a geo-physical survey, and the collection of soil samples.

3-1

FIT also deviated from the monitoring well installation planproposed for the ESI/GPA. The original monitoring well plan called forthe installation of 19 wells on-site, around the perimeter and in thecentral area of the site. The 19 monitoring wells were to be installedas 3 clusters of three wells (shallow, intermediate, and deep) and 7shallow wells on the perimeter of the site. The remaining 2 wells wereto be located near the drum disposal area. The changes from the pro-posed monitoring well plan were:

1) The locations of two well clusters (EPA 1 and EPA 4) werechanged in response to conditions encountered on-site;

2) An additional well cluster, comprised of a shallow welland a deep well, was drilled just north of the site. Thisallowed FIT to better determine the gradients along theexpected direction of groundwater flow; and

3) The screened interval of the three intermediate wells wasadjusted to better address hydrogeological. conditions on-site.

Other deviations from the ESI/GPA work plan were also made. Thenumber of on-site soil samples was increased from 20 to 23, and thenumber of residential well samples was increased from 6 to 10, to allowfor a more accurate determination of the impact that past disposalpractices at the site have had on the surface and subsurface soils andarea drinking water supplies. The number of municipal water departmentmonitoring well samples collected was reduced from 6 to 1 because ofadministrative problems encountered with city officials. Lastly, FITdid not conduct an.electromagnetic survey of the drum disposal area.

The ESI/GPA was conducted during the months of June 1990, andMarch, May, and June 1991. Individual subsections address the geo-physical survey; the soil sampling procedures; the drilling, con-struction, and installation of first and second phase monitoring wellsat the site; and the on-site and off-site monitoring well samplingprocedures. Rationales for specific FIT activities are also provided.

3-2

3.1 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYOn June 19 and 20, 1990, FIT conducted a geophysical survey of the (^

eastern portion of the NSL site and approximately 10% of the westernportion of the site (the area along Valleycrest Drive). These areaswere the alleged and actual locations of past drum disposal activitiesat the site. The survey was conducted to aid FIT in determining theborders of the drum disposal areas. The survey also helped to determinethe optimal locations for installing monitoring wells in the drumdisposal areas. FIT used magnetometry to survey these site areas.

FIT used a proton precession magnetometer to obtain measurements ofthe total magnetic field at discrete points on the site. A survey gridwas established, using lines located alor£ north-to-south and east-to-west axes. The survey stations were spaced at an interval of approx-imately 100 feet along both axes. At each station the magnetometer wasplaced in contact with the ground surface and the magnetometer waspointed northward. The magnetic field readings were transcribed andalso stored in the instrument memory.

FIT used an off-site location approximately 500 feet north of thesite as a base station. An initial magnetic field reading was taken at \the base station. After completing a survey of all -the stations on anorth-to-south line, the magnetometer was brought to the base stationand another reading was taken. The next line of the survey was thenbegun. The base station readings are used to determine if any changesin the earth's magnetic field had occurred. These changes would affectthe survey station readings and the station readings would have to be >"*'adjusted for any changes in the earth's magnetic field.

FIT began the survey near the boundary of the eastern portion ofthe site. The survey was ended after a north-to-south line locatedapproximately 300 feet west of Valleycrest Drive was completed.

An electromagnetic survey of the drum disposal area along the westside of Valleycrest Drive was also proposed for the PFP. The electro-magnetic survey would determine locations where wells could be placedwithout boring through drums. However, the survey was eliminated afterFIT observed building foundations during the reconnaissance inspection.FIT determined that the building areas had not been used as part of thedrum disposal area. Aerial photographs verify this determination (USDA ,:

3-3

1976;. see Figures 2-4 and 2-5). Thus, these foundation areas providedFIT with locations in the central area of the site where wells could beplaced.

3.2 SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURESSoil samples were collected by FIT at locations selected during the

reconnaissance inspection to determine whether U.S. EPA Target CompoundList (TCL) compounds or Target Analyte List (TAL) analytes were presentat the site. The TCL and TAL are included with corresponding quant ita-tion/detection limits in Appendix E.

FIT collected 23 on-site soil samples on March 5 and 6, 1991. <two potential background soil samples were collected on May 24, 1991.FIT collected subsurface soil samples S14, S15, S17, S22, and S25 atdepths ranging from 1 to 5 feet. The remaining surface soil sampleswere collected between the ground surface and a depth of 2 inches.Appendix F contains descriptions of the FIT-collected soil samples,..

On-site surface soil samples SI through S10 and S23 were collected.from the eastern portion of the site (see Figure 3-1 for soil samplinglocations). Soil samples SI through S10 were collected from smalldepressions in the ground surface (some of which contained standingwater) or from locations where rusted drums and trash were present.Samples SI through S10 were collected to determine if TCL compounds andTAL analytes were present in the soils on the eastern portion of thesite. Surface soil sample S23 was collected in the northeastern corner

»

of the site, within a stand of trees, to determine if wastes were dis-posed of up to the eastern boundary of the site.

On-site soil samples Sll through S22 were collected from thewestern portion of the site. Surface soil samples Sll, S12, S13, andS16 were collected from the foundry sand disposal area in the north-western area of the site. These samples were collected to determine thewaste characteristics of the foundry sand. Subsurface soil samples S14,S15, and S17 were collected near the west side of Valleycrest Drive.These locations were apparently along the east edge of the drum disposalarea. These samples were collected to determine what TCL compounds and

C TAL analytes were potentially present in the drum disposal area waste.Surface soil samples S18, S19, S20, and S21 were collected from landfill3-4

SCALE0 200 400 600 800 1000 FEET

FIGURE 3-1 SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

areas outside of the drum disposal area to determine the waste charac-teristics of the western portion of the site. Subsurface soil sample S22was collected in the northwestern corner of the site, northeast of theBrandt Street entrance. This sample allowed FIT to determine if otherwastes were disposed with the foundry sand.

Potential background soil samples S24 and S25 were collected off-site, just north of the trees that line the northern boundary of thesite. The samples were collected approximately 25 feet from the edge ofthe landfill. Surface soil sample S24 was collected between the groundsurface and a depth of 2 inches. Subsurface soil sample S25 was col-lected at an approximate depth of 2 feet. These samples were collectedfrom an area that is at a higher elevation than the eastern portion ofthe site. This indicated that this area was not a part of the landfill.These samples were collected to characterize the soil present in thearea of the site.

The sample portions collected for volatile organic analysis weretransferred directly to sample bottles. The remaining sample portionswere placed into a stainless steel bowl, mixed, and then transferred tothe appropriate sample bottles, using a stainless steel spoon or a handtrowel (E & E 1987).

Standard E & E decontamination procedures were adhered to duringthe collection of all soil samples. The procedures included the

4

scrubbing of all equipment (e.g., hand trowel, hand auger, shovel,stainless steel bowls and spoons) with a solution of detergent (Alconox)and distilled water, and triple-rinsing the equipment with distilledwater before the collection of each sample (E & E 1987). All soilsamples were packaged and shipped in accordance with U.S. EPA-requiredprocedures.

As directed by U.S. EPA, all soil samples were analyzed using theU.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP).

3.3 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION: FIRST PHASEThe first phase of monitoring well installation was conducted from

March 11 to March 28, 1991. The first phase well installation includedthe drilling of a borehole and the subsequent construction of each well,

3-6

and the development of the 10 veils that vere installed. Stratigraphicconditions were also noted during the first phase.

Each of the wells was given a numerical designation that repre-sented the location where it was installed and the depth of the well(e.g. EPA 1(S), EPA 1(1), EPA 1(D), EPA 2(D)). The wells were placed inthree nested configurations (EPA 1, EPA 3, and EPA 4), each consistingof a shallow, an intermediate, and a deep well, and an additional deepwell (EPA 2(D)). The first phase drilling work was subcontracted toLayne-Northwest, of Pewaukee, Wisconsin.

One potential well location, in the northeast corner of the site,was abandoned after on-site monitoring equipment registered organic '

>4vapor readings in the breathing zone in excess of 1,000 ppm. Thisboring was halted at an approximate depth of 20 feet and was thengrouted and abandoned in accordance with state codes.

Soil Borings. The eleven soil borings drilled during the firstphase of the ESI/GPA were advanced by using an Ingersoll-Rand TH60 rigthat employed a dual-tube reverse air rotary technique. The techniqueemploys a dual-tube drill stem, consisting of a 4.5-inch diameter water-

.*

tight steel outer casing, and a 2.4-inch inside diameter (ID) innercasing. The inner casing is connected to a tri-cone rotary drill bit.The two casings are positioned so that the leading, edge of the drill bitis set slightly behind the leading edge of the outer casing. Highvelocity compressed air, with a small amount of potable water added, isinjected into the annulus formed between the outer and inner casings.The air/water mixture passes through the drill bit and transports thecuttings through the inner casing and to the surface. A 6-inch outerdiameter overshot steel casing is then driven around the dual tube toprovide a temporary casing which isolates the separate aquifers andprovides a cavity for the construction of the monitoring well.

The four deep borings were advanced from 90 to 100 feet below theground surface. These borings ended in the lower valley train deposits.The three intermediate borings were advanced to depths ranging fromapproximately 48 to 55 1/2 feet, and all were located in the same zonewithin the lower valley train deposits. This zone was identifiedthrough the use of natural gamma logging techniques described in sub-section 3.8. The three shallow borings were advanced to an approximate

3-7

c

(

depth of 5 feet belov the vater table, and vere located in the uppervalley train deposits.

Samples of cuttings were collected from the cyclone by using abucket. During this phase of drilling, a 2-foot section of boring wassampled at 5-foot depth intervals (e.g., 3 to 5 feet in depth, 8 to 10feet, 13 to 15). The samples were only collected during the drilling ofthe deep wells. Each sample was examined and then a portion was placedin a labeled 8-ounce jar for reference as a stratigraphic specimen.Environmental samples were not collected during this phase because thedrilling method disturbs the soil{;«md allows volatile organic TCL

- . r' :compounds to escape from the sample (see Appendix G for boring logs ofthe FIT-ins tailed wells). «

Monitoring Veil Construction. After each boring was drilled, thebit and drill stem were withdrawn and the well was constructed insidethe overshot. Each well had a 10-foot 10ng screen of 2-inch diametercontinuously wire-wound Schedule 5, Type'304 stainless steel with 0.01inch slots. The screens were capped' on the bottom. The riser pipeconsisted of 2-inch diameter Type 304 Stainless steel that was flush-jointed and sealed with Teflon tape at the joints. The riser pipeextended from the screen to approximately 2 1/2 feet above the groundsurface. A centralizer was installed slightly above the screen on eachriser pipe.

Some of the overshot was removed from the borehole and theformation was then allowed to collapse around the screen. Afterward,filter sand was added to pack the annular space around and above the

- •screen to a height approximately 3 to 4 feet above the screen. Thisprocedure was used for all first phase well construction, except in theEPA 4 deep well. In this boring, the formation was believed to be toofine for the 0.01 screen slots. Filter sand was poured into the bore-hole and was used to fill the annular space around the screen to aheight approximately 3 to 4 feet above the screen. The remainder of theannular space was tremie-grouted using a high-clay-solids bentonitegrout. The grout filled the annular space to a level just below theground surface (see Figure 3-2 for typical monitoring well con-struction).

3-8

WELL CAP

HIGH CLAY SOLIDS GROUT

BENTONITE SEAL (2* MINIMUM)(FIRST PHASE WELLS USED SIUCA SAND)

- tLOCKING PROTECTIVE CASING

CONCRETE PLUG

2- I.D. STAINLESS'«TEEL RISER PIPE

GROUND SURFACE

SILICA SAND FILTER PACK 10* STAINLESS STEEL WELL SCREEN

SOURCE: Ecology & Environment. Inc. 1991.

FIGURE 3-2 TYPICAL MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION

3-9

A locked steel well protector was then cemented over the well head' for security. Approximately 2 1/2 feet of riser pipe stands above the

ground surface and is covered by the well protector. The protector issurrounded by a circular concrete pad which was poured around each wellprotector. The pad was approximately 3 feet in diameter and 2 feetthick. Each well protector was filled to within 1 foot of its top withbentonite chips, and a weep hole was drilled above the chips to providewater drainage from the cover. Three protective steel bumper posts,approximately 4 inches in diameter and 8 feet long, were set into postholes around each well. The posts were then cemented in place andfilled with cement. Complete records of monitoring well constructionare provided in Appendix H.

After installation, the wells were developed by purging withcompressed air to free fine particles from the filter pack, or weredeveloped using polyvinyl chloride (PVC) bailers. Development of thewells was continued until measurements of conductivity and temperaturestabilized. Between wells, all development equipment was decontaminatedaccording to standard E & E protocol (E & E 1987). Complete records of

{ monitoring we.ll development are provided in Appendix I. Work for thefirst phase of drilling was completed on March 28, 1991 (see Figure 3-3for monitoring veil locations).

After completing the installation of all FIT-instailed monitoringwells, the elevation of the top of the riser pipe, or inner casing (TOICelevation) was surveyed. The survey was relative to the elevation of

"~ v the CDDW observation well HW27S, located approximately 300 feet north-: west of the site. TOIC elevations were then corrected to MSL, based on

the actual elevation of MW27S (see Table 3-1 for monitoring well data).

' 3.4 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION: SECOND PHASEThe second phase of monitoring well installation was conducted from

| May 21 to June 14, 1991, and included the drilling, construction, anddevelopment of 11 shallow water table monitoring wells (designated EPA

5 2(S) and EPA 5 through EPA 14). The drilling work was subcontracted toMoody's of Dayton, Inc., of Dayton, Ohio.

3-10

VIPA3D/ERA3S• EPA3I

400 600 600 1000 FEET

FIGURE 3-3 MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS

Table 3-1

MONITORING WELL DATA

Well

ERA 1(5)EPA 1(1)EPA 1(0)EPA 2(S)EPA 2(0)EPA 3(S)EPA 3(1)EPA 3(0)EPA 4(S)EPA 4(1)EPA 4(0)EPA 5EPA 6EPA 7EPA 8EPA 9EPA 10EPA 11EPA IEEPA 13EPA 14

Elevation ofTO 1C (feetabove MSL)*

778.36777.58778.18777.30776.84773.22773.27773.59763.66768.62768.64777.76777.38774.26776.15769.36773.39774.23774.04768.34777.52

Well Depth

(feet)

,3148100259727.555.59530559032.5332829.932.540402327*530

Depth ofScreenedInterval (feet)

20.5 to 30.537.5 to 47.5 "89.5 to 99.514.5 to 24.586.5 to 96.517 to 2745 to 5584.5 to 94.519.5 to 29.544.5 to 54.579.5 to 89.522 to 3222.5 to 32.517.5 to 27.519.3 to 29.3"22 to 3229.5 to 39.529.5 to 39.5 ,17.5 to 27.517 to 2719.5 to 29.5

City of Dayton Monitoring Hell Used as Surveying Datum by FIT.

3-12

Soil Borings. All shallow borings were advanced with a CentralMine Equipment 75 drilling rig, using a hollow stem auger (HSA) tech-nique. Each boring was advanced to its total depth (approximately 6 to 8feet below the water table) using a 4.25-inch ID HSA (see Appendix G).

At 5-foot intervals, stratigraphic samples (1 1/2 feet long) werecollected from the boring by driving a 1.5-inch ID split spoon into thesoil ahead of the drill auger as the hole progressed. American Societyfor Testing and Materials guidelines were followed throughout thedrilling and installation. The deepest sample in each boring was

collected using a 2.5-inch ID split spoon so that enough sample materialwould be available to collect both environmental and stratigraphicsamples. The environmental samples of the borings were Numbered tocorrespond with the designation given to the well location (e.g., thesample collected at well EPA 2(S) was numbered as soil boring sample2(S)) (Figure 3-3). The environmental samples were analyzed for TCLcompounds and TAL analytes using CLP. Results of the environmentalsamples are discussed in subsection 4.2. Appendix J contains de-

• • rt . • •

scriptions of the FIT-collected soil boring samples. ;^ .Monitoring Well Construction. After each shallow boring was

completed, installation of the monitoring well was begun. Each well wasconstructed using 2-inch ID screen and riser. The riser was Schedule 5,Type 304 stainless steel with Schedule 40 flush joint threads. The»joints were sealed with 0-rings to prevent leaks. The 10-foot longscreen was 2-inch continuously wire-wound Type 304 stainless steel, with0.01 inch slots, and is capped at the bottom. The riser pipe extendedapproximately 2 1/2 feet above the ground surface at each well location.Washed and sieved silica sand was then placed over any natural sand andgravel that had been allowed to cave in around the screen. The silicasand was placed to a level approximately 3 to 4 feet above the screen.The auger flights were gradually removed to allow the sand to settlebetween the screen and the walls of the boring. After placing the sandpack around the screen, the well was purged for approximately 20 to 30minutes, using a weighted bailer hooked to a wireline from the rig.

Above the sand pack, a 2 foot layer of 3/8 inch bentonite pelletswas added to form an annular seal. The remaining annular space of each

3-13

c

borehole vas tremie-grouted with a high-clay solids bentonite grout.The space was grouted to a level just below the ground surface.

After finishing the grouting of each borehole, a locked steel wellprotector was positioned over the riser and cemented into place. Theprotector is surrounded by a concrete pad, approximately 2 1/2 feetsquare and 2 feet thick, which slopes away from the well. Each wellprotector was then filled with silica sand to a level approximately 6inches below the top of the riser pipe and a weep hole was drilled inthe protector to allow water to escape (see Figure 3-2). Protectivesteel bumper posts for each well were then installed in a triangularpattern around each veil. Each post was 6 feet long, approximately 4inches in diameter, and was set into the ground. Concrete was thenpoured around the posts and used to fill each post (see Appendix H) .

After construction of all of the second phase wells, developmentwas completed by purging each well with a PVC hand pump until mea-surements of conductivity and temperature stabilized (see Appendix I).

After completing the installation of the second phase EPA wells,the TOIC elevation of each EPA well was surveyed. The survey wasrelative to the elevation of CDDW observation well MW27S. Work for thesecond phase of drilling was completed on June 14, 1991.

3.5 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDuring the monitoring well sampling conducted on June 24 through

26, 1991, FIT collected groundwater level measurements from themonitoring wells that were sampled. A second set of groundwater levelmeasurements vas collected from the FIT-installed veils on September 16,1991. FIT also collected water level measurements before and afterdevelopment of each EPA well.

The water level was measured using a 0.01-inch chalked stainlesssteel tape. Prior to use, the tape was cleaned using a solution ofAlconox detergent and distilled water, then triple-rinsed with distilledwater-

Water levels were measured to aid in developing potentiometricsurface maps for the NSL site and to determine the horizontal andvertical hydraulic gradients at the site. Results of the June andSeptember measurements are discussed in subsection 4.4.

3-14

:r

3.6 MONITORING WELL SAMPLING PROCEDURESFIT collected 27 groundwater samples from monitoring wells located

on-site and off-site during the week of June 24, 1991. These ground-water samples were collected to determine if TCL compounds and TALanalytes had migrated into groundwater at the site or had been trans-ported off-site.

On June 24 and 25, FIT collected samples from the 21 EPA wells (12on June 24 and 9 on June 25). Samples were collected from 5 off-sitemonitoring wells (located at nearby industrial facilities) on June 26.The last monitoring well sample was collected from CDDW observation wellMW27S on June 27 (see Figure 3-3).

All monitoring wells were purged of thr... to five volumes ofstanding water, or until the well was dry, prior to the collection ofeach sample. This ensured that the sample collected was representativeof the groundwater in the aquifer. Purging was conducted using bailers(PVC or stainless steel) or a submersible pump. All monitoring wellsamples were collected with stainless steel bailers that had beenscrubbed with a solution of Alconox and distilled water, arid triple-rinsed with distilled water prior to the collection of each rample(E & E 1987).

In accordance with U.S. EPA quality assurance/quality control(QA/QC) requirements, duplicate monitoring well samples and field blank,samples were collected during the FIT monitoring well sampling. Theduplicate samples were collected at on-site sampling location EPA 5 andat the off-site industrial facility monitoring well designated VDC-07D.The field blank samples were prepared from distilled water.

As directed by U.S. EPA, all monitoring well samples were analyzedusing the U.S. EPA CLP.

3.7 RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING PROCEDURES

FIT collected five residential well samples on June 26, 1991, andfive residential well samples on June 27, 1991. The residential wellsamples were collected to determine if TCL compounds and TAL analyteshad migrated from the on-site groundwater to the groundwater of thesurrounding area.

3-15

L

All residential well sampling locations (except RW7) were suppliedto FIT by OEPA officials because most residences in the area are con-nected to the city water system. All of the residences except samplinglocation RW7 use private wells to supply drinking water. Sample RW7 wascollected from an inactive well located at a residence approximately 45feet from the northwest corner of the site (see Table 3-2 for addressesand depths of the FIT-sampled residential wells). The nearest of theresidential well sampling locations was approximately 4/10 milesnorthwest of the site (see Figure 3-4 for residential well samplinglocations) . :

All residential well samples, except RW7, -were obtained fromoutlets that bypassed water treatment systems and storage tanks. Forthese samples, water was allowed to discharge from the outlets for 15minutes before the samples were collected to ensure that the samplesources had been purged of standing water (E & E 1987). At locationRW7, FIT collected the sample after purging 3 volumes of standing waterfrom the well with a submersible pump. This ensured that the well waspurged of standing water.

In accordance with U.S. EPA QA/QC requirements, a duplicateresidential veil sample and a field blank were collected. The fieldblank sample was prepared from distilled water. The duplicate samplewas collected at sample location RW7.

As directed by U.S. EPA, all residential well samples* were analyzedat the U.S* EPA Central Regional Laboratory (CRL) in Chicago, Illinois.

- . -

3.8 NATURAL GAMMA LOGGINGVhile drilling and installing the shallow well in the EPA 1, EPA 3,

and EPA 4 clusters, FIT logged the deep well using a Geonics EM-39natural gamma logger. The EPA 2 deep well was also logged. The loggingaided in determining a suitable depth for an intermediate well. Gammalogs for the deep wells are presented in Appendix K and a comparison ofthe gamma logs and the boring logs of the corresponding deep wells arepresented in Appendix L.

The gamma logging of the deep wells was used to determine therelative clay content of the geologic materials in the borehole. Clayscontain higher levels of radioactive isotopes, usually potassium, than

3-16

-̂ ]_.....

Table 3-2

ADDRESSES AND DEPTHS OF FIT-SAMPLED RESIDENTIAL WELLS

Sample

RW1

RW2

RW3

RW4

RW5

RW6

Well Depth (feet)*

80

Unknown

108

Unknown '

80 to 84

95

Address

Troy PikeDayton, ;OH 45404

; StirAdelbertDaytou ApH 45404

Ttoy Pike'Dayton j OH ; 45404

Avondale Drivepay tonv

FIGURE 3-4: RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

HAS BEEN REDACTED – ONE PAGE

CONTAINS POTENTIAL PERSONALLY- IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

do sands, silts, or gravels. The gamma rays are emitted from thegeologic materials along with other radiation. Gamma emissions are (measured because the radiation can penetrate through the well casingmaterials and water. The Geonics unit lowers a scintillation counterand receiver down the borehole. The number of counts per minute (cpm)is recorded by the unit. Clay materials will have a higher cpm ratethan sand, silt, or gravel (Driscoll 1986).

After finishing the gamma log of the deep well and identifying apotentially permeable intermediate interval, FIT re-examined thestratigraphic samples from the deep well to corroborate the gamma log •finding. The stratigraphic sample collected from the cyclone is aheterogeneous mixture of Materials present at the sampled interval. Itis difficult to determine, from cuttings only, if the materials aremixed in place (as in a till) or in discrete layers of relativelypermeable or impermeable materials. The confining layer was tentativelyidentified during the drilling because the sand and gravel content ofthe cuttings decreased, the color of the material changed, and the rateof drilling decreased. The stratigraphic samples were als.p checked to

• . -'-'.-'* - ' Iensure that enough sand and gravel were present at this interval toallow the stratum to be sufficiently permeable. After drilling throughthe semiconfining clay till, the materials in the lower valley traindeposits appeared to be similar to the upper valley train deposits. The

4

gamma log also enabled FIT to make a better determination of the depthof the bottom of the clay till. After examining the stratigraphicsamples and'the gamma logs, FIT determined an appropriate depth forplacement of the intermediate well screen. The intermediate wells were .then drilled and installed.

3.9 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTEFollowing standard U.S. EPA policy for ESI sites, FIT ensured that

all potentially hazardous investigation-derived wastes were appro-priately containerized for removal. Such wastes included cuttings fromthe borehole drilling, drilling fluids, well development water,decontamination fluids, and disposable personal protective equipmentused on-site. The drilling subcontractors performed the containeri-zation each day, using scalable 55-gallon U.S. Department of \

3-19

Transportation-approved drums. The sealed drums were stored.on-site,awaiting sampling and removal after the end of ESI/GPA activities by adesignated disposal company. The drums were removed from the site onAugust 29, 1991, by Terra Environmental. The drums were taken to City

Environmental in Michigan.

3-20

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section pjssents the results of ESI/GPA field work at the NSLsite during June 1990 and March, May, and June 1991. The results dis-cussed include those of the geophysical survey; chemical analysis ofFIT-collected soil, soil boring, monitoring well, and residential wellsamples; and site-specific geology, stratigraphy, and hydrogeology.Also discussed are the targets of a potential release of TCL compoundsand TAL analytes to the groundwater. •';

4.1 RESULTS OF THE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYThe FIT-conducted total magnetic field survey of the eastern

portion of the NSL site and the drum disposal area on the westernportion of the site revealed anomalies in two locations onrsite (seeFigure 4-1 for a contour map of the total magnetic field survey). Theanomalies are located at the north and south ends of the drum disposalarea. The northern anomaly is approximately 300 feet west of Valley-crest Drive. The southern anomaly is located near the EPA 6 well. Theseanomalies may be caused by drums disposed of at these locations. Duringthe reconnaissance, FIT did not observe any debris or items that mightcause the higher magnetic readings at these locations.

Two off-site anomalies were also shown. Both anomalies are near theresidence located south of the second entrance. These anomalies may beattributable to wastes landfilled at these locations or to debris ob-served by FIT in these areas (including auto parts) and the car crushingfacility.

4-1

SCALE0 200 400 600 800 1000 FEET

FIGURE 4-1 CONTOUR MAP OF THE TOTAL MAGNETIC FIELD SURVEY

4.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF FIT-COLLECTED SAMPLES /:7;.xResults of the chemical analysis of FIT-collected soil, soil */

boring, monitoring well, and residential well samples for TCL compoundsand TAL analytes are presented in Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4, re-spectively. All samples were analyzed for volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals,and cyanide. In 'addition, significant tentatively identified compoundsdetected in the analyses are provided in the corresponding tables.

Quantitation/detection limits used in the analysis of all samplesare provided in Appendix E.

The analytical data for the chemical analysis of all samplescollated for this ESI/GPA have been reviewed under the direction of ^U.S. EPA for validity; the review has been approved by U.S. EPA. The

- analytical data have also been reviewed by FIT for usability. Anyadditions, deletions, or changes resulting from review of the data havebeen incorporated in the chemical analysis results tables presented inthis section. - - • ;

''".'' •,, * ' " • •

Soil Sample Results. TCL compounds were detected at levels abovethe concentrations detected in the background sample in the FIT-collected on-site soil samples. Among the TCL compounds present in thesurface soil samples were fluoranthene (8,300 yg/kg in Sll), trichloro-ethene (5,500DJ yg/kg in S6), Aroclor-1254 (1,300 yg/kg in S4),methylene chloride (1,OOODJ ug/kg in S6), Aroclor-1248 (980 yg/kg inS6), acetone (930EJ yg/kg in SI), and total 1,2-dichloroethene (370DJWg/kg in S6). Only Aroclor-1254 (840 yg/kg in S23) was detected in the ->subsurface soil samples at a level above the concentration found in thebackground sample (see Table 4-1 for definitions and interpretations ofthe qualifiers).

The TAL analytes detected in the on-site surface soil samples atconcentrations above the background levels were copper (185 mg/kg inSll), chromium (133* mg/kg in S12), lead (284 mg/kg in S13), and mercury(0.90 mg/kg in S6). No TAL analytes were detected in the on-site sub-surface samples at levels above the concentration in the subsurface soilbackground sample (see Table 4-1).

4-3

"•'.•• :

Teble 4-1 (Cart.)

Saiple Collection InfornBtlonart Procters

GateT1reOP Crgnfc Traffic Report NnberOJ> Inrganlc Traffic Report Muter

Canard Detected(values In ugfltg)

\b1at11eCranksraUTylffs ailcrideacetone1,2-dlcMcreethanB (total)tftlorufcnn1,1,1-trldilarcethanetrichlcroetheneA-oEttyl-Z-pertstTEtoluaneetftfltsaenejylenes (total)

SarivolatHe Organtcsnaphthalene9 j*�

Date post:	27-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

V^.iT;:^' •i-contract number 68-01-7347. E & E and C.C. Johnson & Malhotra, P.C. (CCJH), a...

Documents