AFH00360 - US Environmental Protection Agency · area-wide water quality sampling and analysis, and have provided affected homeowners with potable water and water treatment systems

HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONSNORTH ROAD SITE

JACKSON AND POCONO TOWNSHIPSMONROE COUNTY - PENNSYLVANIA

Well Installation, Well Monitoring, Estimation ofAquifer Flow, Contaminant Migration, and

Hydraulic Properties

May 6, 1987

REVISED:September 11, 1987

W.O. # E-122Site # E6

FINAL DRAFT REPORT

PREPARED FOR:

EPA/ERBRoyal NadeauMartin Mortensen

PREPARED BY:

ERB/EERUStephen PostenKenneth Tyson

AFH00360

.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables...................................... i

List of Figures..................................... ii

List of Appendices.................................. iii

I. Summary........................................ 1-1

II Introduction................................... II-l

A. History of Site Activities.................. II-l

B. Project Area Geology........................ II-6

C. ERB/EERU Hydrogeological Investigations..... II-6

III. Methods ........................................ III-l

A. Well Installation........................... III-l

1. Location............................... III-l

2. Construction........................... HI-4

B. Quality Control/Quality Assurance........... III-5

IV. Results........................................ IV-1

A. Chemical Sampling and Analysis.............. IV-1

1. Contaminant Migration: Bedrock Aquifer. IV-1

2. Contaminant Migration: Overburden(Till) Aquifer......................... IV-5

3. Time Series Sampling................... IV-7

B. Hydrogeological Analyses .................... IV-9

1. Regional Head Distribution............. IV-9

2. Aquifer Parameters ..................... IV-15

a. Single Well Pump Tests............ IV-16

b. Slug Tests........................ IV-18•

c. Multiple Well Pusp Test........... IV-19

C. Groundwater Flow Velocity................. A.R JIVES' & '

V. Discussion..................................... V-l

List of References

Appendices

List of Tables

1. Trichloroethene Concentrations in ResidentialWells............................................ IV-2

2. Trichloroethene Concentrations in ERB/EERUInstalled Wells.................................. IV-3

3. Results of Time Series Sampling: Well R2......... IV-8

4. Summary of Water Level (Head) Data: ResidentialWells .*........................................... IV-12

5. Summary of Water Level (Head) Data: ERB/EERUInstalled Wells.................................. IV-13

6. Results of Single Well Pump Test Analyses:Bedrock Wells.................................... IV-17

7. Results of Slug Test Analyses: Overburden andBedrock Wells.................................... IV-20

ARI00362

List of Figures

1. North Road Study Location Map................... II-2

2. Initial PADER Well Sample Sites and Locationof North Road (Butz) Landfill................... II-3

3. EPA Region III TAT Residential SamplingLocations....................................... II-5

4. Structural Geology-North Road Vicinity.......... II-7

5. Location of ERB/EERU Installed Well Clusters.... III-2

6. Bedrock Aquifer: Log TCE (ppb):7/26-12/12/1986................................. IV-4

7. Overburden Aquifer: Log TCE (ppb):7/26—12/12/86.................................. IV-6

8. Time Series Chemical Sampling: Well R2.......... IV-8

9. Regional Bedrock Aquifer Head (msl): 9/3-5/86... IV-10

1C Regional Bedrock Aquifer Head (msl): 1/22-24/87. IV-11

11. Overburden Aquifer Head (msl): 1/22-24/86....... IV-14

AR100363

List of Appendices

A. Well Construction Details

B. Well Data Summary

C. Laboratory Analytical Data: ERB/EERU Installed Wells

D. Single Well Pump Test Data

E. Slug Test Data

F. Multiple Well Pump Test Data

G. Laboratory Analytical Data: Well R2 Pump Test

AR1Q036U

I. SUMMARY

The USEPA Emergency Response Branch (ERB) and contractsupport group (Environmental Emergency Response Unit[EERU]) have worked together with USEPA Region III andTechnical Assistance Team (TAT) personnel since July 1986to define the nature and extent of groundwatercontamination in the North Road area, Jackson and PoconoTownships, Pennsylvania. Region III and TAT have performedarea-wide water quality sampling and analysis, and haveprovided affected homeowners with potable water and watertreatment systems. The most ubiquitous and concentratedcontaminant in the study area is trichloroethene (TCE).

The scope of ERB/EERU actions has included: (1) performanceof a soil gas survey in and around the North Road landfill,(2) performance of a preliminary engineering costevaluation of water supply alternatives for the North Roadarea, (3) installation of seventeen overburden (till) andbedrock monitoring wells in six well clusters within andadjacent to the North Road landfill, (4) chemical samplingof installed monitoring wells, and (5) limited hydraulictesting of monitoring wells.

The results of soil gas analyses indicated the presence ofvolatile organic compounds in the soils above the landfill,although no plumes were identified off-site in the shallowsubsurface environment. Engineering cost analysesindicated that development of a small well field anddistribution system would be the most cost-effectiveapproach to supply potable water to the North Road area, ata 20 year present worth cost of $1,672,189.

Analysis of chemical and hydraulic data collected byERB/EERU and TAT indicates that groundwater contaminationin the study area originates from the North Road (Butz)landfill. The contaminant plume in the bedrock appears tobe structurally controlled (contaminant movement iscontrolled by the location and orientation of fracture andfault zones). Maximum contaminant migration extends for adistance of about 7000 feet along a vector to thenorth/northeast of the landfill, and for 3000 laterally tothe southeast. The spread of contaminants in theoverburden (water table aquifer) appears to be uniform downgradient of the landfill; the extent of migration of thisplume is estimated at about 1200 feet from the landfill.

Pump testing of well R2 located to the southeast anddowngradient of the North Road landfill indicated a directhydraulic connection with wells located on tweR |l@i\£g3Q.§site. The transmissivity of the fractured aquifer systemin that area is estimated at 270 gpd/ft (assumed hydraulicconductivity of 54 gpd/ft2), with a storativity Of3xl0-9, indicating confined conditions. Well R2represents a good candidate for use as part of a pump andtreat remediation program. - .^

II. INTRODUCTION

A. History of Site Activities

The North Road site refers to an area of surface andgroundwater contamination located south of Big Pocono(Camelback) Mountain in Jackson and Pocono Townships,Monroe County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The presumedsource of contamination in this area is the Butz municipallandfill, located adjacent to North Rd. in JacksonTownship. This landfill operated during the period1970-1975. Field examination of the landfill andsurrounding areas was performed by the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources (PADER) in 1984, andsoil, water and groundwater samples were collected outsideof the landfill property by PADER in March and April of1986 (Figure 2). The results of these investigationsindicated high levels of trichloroethene (TCE) in domesticwells to the south of the landfill, and led to a June 20,1986 request from PADER to EPA Region III that the site beconsidered for emergency action.

During July 1986, PADER, EPA, and the Region III TechnicalAssistance Team (TAT) initiated area-wide responseactivities, including additional site inspections, publicinformation meetings, residential well sampling, and theinstallation of water coolers and bottled water supplies tohomes with contaminated well water. In addition, carbonfiltration systems were installed in two residences whereTCE concentrations exceeded 1 ppm (L. Rinker and R.Possinger), and at Camp Streamside.

During August of 1986, sampling of domestic wells andprovision of bottled water and carbon filtration systemswas continued by TAT, and the areal scope of the samplingplan was expanded. In addition, the EPA Emergency ResponseBranch (ERB) was contacted by EPA Region III to provideassistance in determining the scope and nature of thecontamination problem. ERB and the Environmental EmergencyResponse Unit (EERU-the contractor support group for ERB)recommended.the performance of (1) a soil gas survey in andaround the North Road landfill to search for potentialleachate plumes, (2) the performance of a magnetometersurvey in and around the landfill to identify areas ofpotential waste drum burial, (3) area-wide evaluation ofgroundwater hydraulics and chemistry, and (4)photogrammetry and professional surveying, to provide abase map of the study area with accurate vertical andhorizontal control. n n t r \ n r > r r

An I UUO 00In addition, EPA Region III requested that ERB provide acost-effective/feasibility analysis of alternative water

NORTH RD. STUDY AREA

FIGURE 1 vNORTH ROAD STUDY

NORTH ROAD(BLITZ) LANDFILL

FIGURE 2

INITIAL PADER WELL SAMPLESITES AND LOCATION OF

"**""*

II-4

supply systems to serve the area of contaminated domesticwells. The preceding study plans were discussed with localand county officials on August 18,1986 at the Monroe CountyCourthouse.

The soil gas and magnetometer surveys were performed onAugust 20, 1986. The soil gas survey was performed by ERBand EERU personnel along several transects within and tothe south of the landfill property boundaries. Areasinvestigated to the south included a farmer's field(Rinker), and a wooded area lying between this field andthe landfill. Low levels of volatile organic compounds {5ppm) were found at three locations on the landfill proper;no evidence of these compounds were found along any othertransects.

The proton magnetometer survey was performed by TATpersonnel on the landfill, and in the Rinker field to thesouth. Within the landfill, survey data indicated that alarge amount of metal is contained in two elongatedtrenches. The "signature" of the magnetic anomaliesassociated with these trenches is suggestive of burieddrums. As of this date, no excavations have occurredon-site to further investigate these findings. No areas ofburied metal were located outside of the landfill propertyboundary (i.e. within the Rinker field).

Evaluation of area-wide groundwater hydraulics andchemistry is the subject of this report, and will bediscussed in more detail in the following sections.Photogrammetry, surveying, and map making was performedduring the period September 1986-February 1987; the outputof that work is contained as Plate 1 inside the back coverof this report.

The initial draft of the water supply alternatives reportwas submitted under separate cover to EPA in mid-March,1986. The spatial scope of that study was subsequentlyexpanded, and the revised report was resubmitted to EPA onApril 27, 1987. The report indicated that development of asmall well field and distribution system would be the mostcost-effective approach to supply potable water to theaffected area. The 20 year present worth cost (includingcapital and operation and maintenance costs) for thissystem ,including firewater protection, was estimated at$ 1,672,189.

By December 1986, Region III TAT personnel had sampled atotal of 49 residential wells in the North g apg Qtfje{|(Figure 3), many repeatedly. (Those to the extreme eastand west (well #'s 41, 44, 36, 37, 38) were sampled as aresult of EERU analyses of the structural geology of thearea, and concentration contour mapping of previouslycollected chemical data.) At that time, EPA was supplying

ftfe 100363

FIGURE 3ERA REGION III TATSAMPLING LOCATIONSNORTH ROAD SITEJACKSON .S PpCQWQ TWPS

cl

II-6

bottled water to 23 homes, carbon filtration systems to 17homes, and air stripper/UV treatment systems to 2 homes.

B. Project Area Geology

The North Road site area lies along the western edge of theGlaciated Low Plateaus section of the Pocono Plateau.This, in turn, is located within the Appalachian PlateauPhysiographic Province. The Pocono Plateau Escarpment,including Big Pocono mountain, lies immediatelynorth/northeast of the study area.

The North Road landfill area lies on the Long Run member ofthe Catskill Formation. The latter is primarily a lateDevonian age deltaic sequence of sandstones, siltstones,and shales. The Long Run member is divided into the upperand lower cycle facies (Berg, et al., 1977). The studyarea lies stratigraphically within the upper cycle facies.The dominant lithology in this area consists of medium tofine grained gray sandstones and deep, red, fissileshales. Lesser amounts of siltstones and mudstones arealso present.

The structural geology of the area is described anddepicted by Berg et al. (1977). The mean local strike anddip of the Catskill Formation is N67°E, 17°N (i.e. thebedding of the Catskill Formation is inclined downwardtoward Big Pocono mountain). As indicated on Figure 4, anumber of hydrologically relevant linear features areevident in the North Road area. These include: (1) Theaxial trace of an anticline located southwest of the NorthRoad landfill (an extension of this trace to the northeastruns directly through the landfill); (2) northeast/south-west fracturing along the foot of Big Pocono mountain; and(3) fracture traces with trends oblique to the NE/SWfracture zone. The two traces labeled A and B on Figure 4are discussed in Section III of this report relative to theplacement of several monitoring wells.

C. ERB/EERU Hydrogeological Investigations

Hydrogeologic investigations in the North Road area beganduring the week of September 1,1986 with depth sounding andwater level measurement in domestic wells throuafeoufe «•% eto«North Road area. Limited surveying of tojr*-8fl-B'a«Migelevations was also performed during this period. The datacollected from this work, as well as analysis of ongoingchemical sampling results assisted in the development of anERB/EERU work plan for monitoring well installation andtesting.

This work plan consisted of four main elements: (1)installation of overburden (till) and bedrock monitoring

NJ ,' '-i : ' i4\ '..•.'J< ', MJ-

—^ v_ .•. . ._., .-•-. x -. -... '< • .7:- _' / / •• e- r .»-.• •• O«-, ~<;- --.:- -...!-' -• 0* ,..:-. ' -.--.. . ««i;r:-:>.-.r-- >~ -x .-.

——rilît- __ *•- '•-T~ —•• • • ''• {£&£££•>•* •-•"Vjp--1"*7-£>''. •••"•;'•"""

i ^ C r.-r .A':

FIGURESTRUCTURAL GEOLOGY-NOBTH . ROAD VICINITY

Source: Berg, et al. (197")

II-S

wells, (2) chemical sampling of installed wells, (3)performance of limited hydraulic testing (slug/single wellpump tests) in all wells to provide gross estimates ofaquifer characteristics, and (4) packer pump testina ofproductive fracture zones in selected monitoring wells toestimate fracture permeability, and define fractureorientation.

A bid specification for well drilling was prepared by PERUpersonnel and distributed to three prospective contractorson September 24, 1986. Final bids were received on October6, 1986, and the Hurdis Drilling Co. of Foster, R.I. wasselected to perform well installation. Work was initiallyscheduled to begin on October 20, 1986; however,Congressional delays in the reauthorization of CEP.CLA(Superfund) led to postponement of work activities untilmid-November.

Drilling commenced on November 13, 1987 and was concludedon December 19. Well purging, chemical sampling, waterlevel measurement, and limited hydraulic testing wereperformed during the period January 12-February 6, 1987.Additional pump testing was performed during the week ofJune 8, 1987.

A number of individuals from EPA and contractor supportgroups assisted in the performance of activities referencedabove. These personnel included:

EPA/ERB: Royal NadeauMartin Mortensen

ERB/EERU: Stephen PostenKenneth TysonPaul Karmazinski

EPA Region III: David WrightGarrett Arai

EPA/TAT: Linda ZieglerMark TuckerChristopher WhallonKevin ScottJennifer Brown

ARI00373

III. METHODS

A. Well Installation

1. Location

A total of 17 wells at six different locations wereinstalled as part of the ERB/EERU response. Theselocations are indicated schematically on Figure 5, and inmore detail on Plate 1 (inside back cover). In general,the initial design for the well installation programconsisted of three components: (1) construction ofshallow/deep well couplets (overburden [till] and rock wellpairs) in the immediate vicinity of the suspected source ofgroundwater contamination (the North Road landfill); (2)construction of couplets down gradient from the landfillwithin apparent surface drainage conduits or mappedstructural features ; and (3) installation of several rockwells some distance from the landfill, to investigate upgradient (background) conditions, and fill-in data gapsregarding the linear extent of the spread of thecontaminant plume. A more detailed description of therationale for well construction at each of the six wellsites is provided below.

Site 1

Site 1 is located within the property boundaries of theNorth Road landfill. It consists of threa separate groupsof wells: 1, 1.1A, and 1.1B. All of these wells wereconstructed to provide basic information regardinggroundwater contamination in the immediate vicinity of thesuspected source, as well as to allow for the definition ofthe hydraulic gradient between the landfill and previouslyidentified contaminated areas.

Well group 1 is located southeast of the southern edge("toe") of the landfill, adjacent to the woodline. Twooverburden (till) and two bedrock wells were constructedhere. The first overburden well (T1A), was constructed aspart of an initial exploratory boring program designed todetermine the thickness of till at the site. Well TIB waslocated a short distance north of T1A, adjacent to adrainage swale leaving the eastern landfill boundary. WellsR1S and RID are located adjacent to T1A, and interceptshallow and deep zones, respectively, of the bedrockaquifer. flRI0037l*Well groups 1.1A and 1.1B are located along the western andsouthern edges, respectively, of the landfill property,adjacent to drainage conduits. Each of these groupsconsist of and overburden and rock well couplet. Only one,deep rock well was constructed at each of these locations

<**

N

V2____ ^ _ _ FIGURE 5mile

LOCATION OF ERB/EERU

III-3

(rather than a shallow/deep pair as at location 1) becauseno productive fracture zones were found at depth. Wellgroups 1.1A and 1.1B were constructed to complement group 1wells in covering potential vectors of groundwatermigration from the landfill site.

Site 2

Site 2 is located at the edge of a field, and adjacent to adrainage channel on the Rinker property, east of the NorthRoad landfill. This site was selected for constructionbased on an extension of fracture trace "A" indicated onFigure 4. Both an overburden well and a bedrock well wereconstructed at this site. The depth of the bedrock well atthis site was controlled by the depth of highlycontaminated wells at the northern end of Storm Road.

Site 3

Originally, this site was to be located about 1000 feet tothe west of its current location, along an extension offracture trace "B" (Figure 4) . Difficulties obtaining siteaccess, however, resulted in well construction to the eastof the terminus of Strausser Road, at the northern edge ofa field owned by P. Strausser. An overburden well, andboth shallow (R3S) and deep (R3D) rock wells wereconstructed at this site. One of the primary reasons forsuch a large well cluster in this area was investigation ofconditions that would lead to a single uncontaminated well(#2: Meckes) , within an adjacent group of contaminatedwells (#'s 9,10,11,16,26,31; refer to Figure 3 and Table1).

Site 4

Site 4 is located along the power line right-of-way thatruns between northern Storm and Strausser Roads. Wells inthis group were constructed to investigate groundwaterconditions within drainage pathways between these tworoads. An overburden (till) well was constructed off theright-of-way at the eastern edge of the field within whichwell group 3 was constructed. Access problems precludedinstallation of a bedrock well in that area. Morefavorable access allowed for the construction of a bedrockwell (R4) adjacent to a drainage swale and immediatelysouth of the right-of-way, about 400 feet to the west ofStorm Road. Extreme surface rockiness prevented augerinstallation of an overburden well adjacent to R4.

AR100376This site is located to the north of North Road, adjacentto a seasonally used home, about one-half mile west of theNorth Road landfill. This location was selected to providebackground water quality data in an area presumed to be up

HI-4

gradient from the landfill. Only one rock well wasconstructed at this site, to a depth consistent with thatof other uncontaminated rock wells in the general area.

Site 6

This site is located to the north of Railroad Road, severalhundred feet east of the Jackson/Pocono Township line,about one-half mile east-northeast of the landfill. Aswith site 5, only one rock well was installed here(contaminant migration in the overburden was not consideredplausible at this distance and along this orientation).The purpose for selection of this site was to assessbedrock aquifer contamination midway between the landfill,and the most distant known contaminated domestic well (#41) .

2. Construction

Well construction details and stratigraphic logs ofmaterials encountered during drilling are contained inAppendix A for each individual well. The following sectionprovides general information regarding the construction ofall wells.

Overburden wells were drilled using a Mobile Drilling Co.,Inc. Model B-61HD rig. Hollow stem augers (12 in O.D.)were used to advance the boring until refusal in competentbedrock. Wells were installed using either 2 or 4 in PVCcasing and 0.010 in slot size screen. Screen lengths werelimited to 5 or 10 foot lengths. Cape May #1 quartz sandwas used as a filter pack, and was installed in the annulusto a level about three feet above the well screen.Bentonite pellets (1-2 feet) were used as a seal above thefilter pack, and cement/bentonite grout was utilized abovethe pellets to seal the annular space to the surface. Fouror six in steel protective casing with locking caps wereinstalled at all overburden wells. Overburden wells weredeveloped by pumping and surging.

Bedrock wells were drilled using a Gardner-Denverrotary/pneumatic rig. The overburden was penetrated usinga 9 7/8 in tricone roller bit, with air and potable wateras drilling fluids. Subsequent to reaching competent rock,6 in steel surface casing was installed in the borehole.The annular space was sealed, and the bottom of theborehole plugged with cement/bentonite grouitn j^modified Halliburton method (i.e. grout poured ™Lfts»icasing and allowed to rush up the annulus under pressure).The grout was allowed to set-up for a period of 24 hoursprior to completion of drilling through the cement plug.Rock drilling was performed using a 6 in air hammer

HI-5

("down-hole hammer") bit. An air-water mix was used tolubricate the bit and circulate cuttings to the surface.

In the case of deep rock wells drilled adjacent to shallowholes, casing was installed and grout plugged to a depth atleast 10 feet below the bottom of the shallow hole. Inthese cases (wells RIO and R3D), the 6 in air hammer holewas reamed with the 9 7/8 in tricone bit to accept thesteel casing at depth, and allow for proper sealing of theannular space. Overburden drilling for both wells R1S andR3D was complicated by the sloughing of saturated materialsinto the borehole. In both of these cases, surface boringswere reamed with an 18 in tricone bit, allowing theinstallation of 10 in PVC surface casing (temporary in thecase of well R3D). Rock drilling, and 6 in steel casinginstallation then proceeded normally within the oversizePVC protective surface casing. All of the bedrock wellswere developed by pumping and surging.

B. Quality Control/Quality Assurance

The well installation program was designed to limit thepotential for vertical cross contamination of aquifers.Overburden wells were constructed with limited screenlengths (5-10 ft) to investigate the most likely areas ofcontaminant transport at the project site (i.e. forcompounds heavier than water such as TCE, the overburden/rock interface in the shallow till environment was chosenas the target location for well screen installation).

The depth and number of rock wells at any location wasbased on the field identification of productive fracturezones. The depth of the rock wells was constrained by theoverall guideline that no well should be deeper than themajority of residential wells in the local area. As notedearlier, rock wells were cased from five to ten feet intocompetent rock, grouted, and allowed to set-up overnight.Drilling then proceeded through the grout plug until aproductive (i.e. 2 gpm +) fracture zone was encountered.If this depth was significantly less than the indicatedmaximum depth, a second well was constructed adjacent toit. The latter well was cased to a depth 5-10 feet belowthe completed first well, grouted and allowed to set-upovernight before continued drilling. This procedure actsto maximize the scope of exploratory drilling, whileminimizing the risk of accidental contamination of cleanwater bearing formations or zones. fl f? I fi n O •?

A number of procedures were followed to allow for thecollection of representative aquifer samples during thechemical monitoring phase of the study. Well sampling was

III-6. . «... , »

performed with stainless steel or PTFE bailers. Prior tosample collection, bailers were either washed withdetergent, rinsed with distilled water and allowed to airdry overnight, or washed with detergent ,and sprayed withmethanol or cyclohexane and a final rinse of distilledwater. GC/MS analysis of distilled water used during fieldactivities was performed as part of the laboratory QA/QCprogram.

In general, a minimum of three casing volumes of water wasevacuated from each well, and the well allowed to recover,prior to sample collection. Exceptions to this procedureoccurred in several wells where yields were very low. Inthese cases, the well was pumped dry and allowed to recoverovernight twice, prior to sampling. In the overburdenwells, purging was accomplished with either a surface(suction) screw pump or bailer depending on yield. In thebedrock wells, purging was accomplished through the use ofseveral submersible pumps. In both overburden and rockwells, lengths of inexpensive (100 psi) PVC tubing werededicated to each well for sampling purposes. Thisprocedure prevents the possibility of cross-contaminationbetween wells during the purging process.

During the well construction phase, PVC and steel wellcasing and screen was steam cleaned by the drillingcontractor under the supervision of EERU personnel, priorto installation in each well. In addition, the rearportion of each rig, augers, bits, continuous samplerequipment, and drill pipe was steam cleaned prior to set-upat each new well site.

flRI00379

IV. RESULTS

A. Chemical Sampling and Analysis

As noted in the Introduction, Region III TechnicalAssistance Team (TAT) personnel have been sampling wellwater quality in the North Road area since July, 1986. Theresults of these analyses indicate groundwatercontamination of domestic water supplies by the followingorganic compounds: trichloroethene, trans-l,2-dichloro-ethene, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Of these compounds,trichloroethene is by far the most ubiquitous andconcentrated within the area; consequently, TCE has beenutilized in this study to represent the contaminant plumefor further analysis. Table 1 is a summary of analyticaldata from domestic wells regarding the concentration of TCEthroughout the North Road area. Where more than one samplewas available for any well, the highest recordedconcentration was include the table. The map number inTable 1 refers to the locations indicated on Figure 3, andPlate 1.

Between January 29 and February 5, 1987, EERU personnelpurged the monitoring wells constructed during thisresponse, and collected samples for laboratory analysis.All ^wells were analyzed for volatile organic compounds; inaddition, well R1S was analyzed for the full 129 prioritypollutants. In addition to the organic compounds notedabove, wells located near the North Road landfill containedlow concentrations of benzene, chlorobenzene, vinylchloride, and tetrachloroethene. As with the domesticwells, TCE is the primary contaminant indicated in themonitoring wells. Appendix C contains the full results ofthese analyses, and Table 2 summarizes the trichloroethenedata.

Priority pollutant analysis of well R1S (and well TIB,performed earlier in December, 1986) indicated no or trace(below detection limit) base neutral/acid extractablecompounds, no PCB/pesticide compounds, and no phenols orcyanide. However, both of these samples indicated thepresence of a number of heavy metals, including: antimony,arsenic, chromium, copper, lead and zinc (Appendix C) .Data provided through TAT sampling indicates trace metalconcentrations in several wells scattered throughout thestudy area (well t's 3,4,6,11,19).

1. Contaminant Migration; Bedrock Aquifer fl R 1 00380

Figure 6 is a contour map plot of the concentration of TCEassociated with bedrock wells in the North Road studyarea. Note that this plot is based on the logarithms of

TABLE 1TRICHLOROETHENE CONCENTRATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL WELLS

i 11 TAT # ! Property Owner

— — — i — — — — — — — — — — —1 IP. Strausser Sr./D. Singer2 iR. Meckes3 IL. Rinker4 !R. Possinger5 iR. Bauer6 i Camp Streamside-Dining Hall7 i Camp Streamside-Chapel8 IS. Stillo9 IK. Wilgus10 IBarthold11 !R. Flowers12 1C. Kinsley13 1C. Detrick14 !N. Strausser15 IF. & K. Strausser16 |M. Olshefski17 1C. Shoemaker18 !W. Otteson19 i Adcock Farmhouse20 1C. Adcock21 IT. Petrus22 IN. Possinger23 IE. Possinger24 IW. Woodling

24a iW. Woodling (dug well)25 !D. Cappololla26 ID. Jacoby27 iR. Betticher28 !R. Riday28a iO'Brien [b]29 !G. Mate30 IP. Strausser, Jr.31 1C. Young32 IR. Pelak33 iW. Tallada33a ITallada lodge34 IW. Adcock (new)

34a !W. Adcock (old)35 IBunnell (EERU 4a)36 JM. & M. Rinker37 IBroderick38 IGrinaway39 Uames Shick40 iMunoz/Arndt41 1 Thomas Farda42 i Kelly/Miner (EERU 28b)43 IJohn Shick44 ITony Farda45 i Summit Resort46 ,'FUELRITE47 jWhittaker (EERU 7a)48 i Lane/Strausser

48a ! Lane/Strausser (EERU 29a)49 !Mt. View {EERU 6a)

i

1

TCE (ppb)07-12/86

0.000.00

2000.007000.0023.004.704.504.0076.00290.00300.0089.002.000.000.0032.000.000.00

640.000.0030.000.000.000. 00--

17.00200.00160.000.000.000.005.403.603.300.00—

0.00—

23.000.000.000.000.000.0011.600.000.000.000. 00

216.0015.600.00—

0. 00

log TCE [a]

0.000.003.303.851.360.670.650.601.882.462.481.950.3©0.000.001.510.000. 002.810.001.480 . 000.000.00

— -1.232.302.200.000.000.000.730.560.520.00—

0.00— -

1.360.000.000.000.000.001.060.000.000.000.002.33

flR J*ft!}C— —

1 0.00

R 10 1

[a] For contour mapping purposes, the log of 0 ppb TCE was evaluated as 0,[b] Sample obtained 6-11-87.

TABLE 2TRICHLOROETHENE CONCENTRATIONS INERB/EERU INSTALLED WELLS

! EERU #

! T1ATIB

! T1.1A! T1.1B! T2! T3{ T4! R1Si RID! R1.1A! R1.1Bi R2i R3Si R3D! R4i R5! R6

TCE (ppb)01/87

0.00236.0040.00118.0017.80196.00156.00138.005050.00680.00166.00

15700.00437.00156.00165.000.00

1270.00

log TCE [a]

0.002.371.602.071.252.292.192.143.702.832.224.202.642.192.220.003.10

[a] For contour mapping purposes,the log of 0 ppb TCE wasevaluated as 0.

AR100382

vowK3O

CD00CD

CM

CM

TCOCM

_QQ_Q_

LJO

oO

LULJ_

O

oocrQLJCO

IV-5

the data rather than the actual data values. (Logarithmsare used to provide accuracy in the construction of theplume over several orders of magnitude of concentrationdata.). It is clear from this figure that the contaminantplume in the bedrock aquifer originates in the area of theNorth Road landfill, and appears to move in a linear mannerto the north/northeast. The maximum linear distance ofplume migration is about 7000 ft along the northeastvector, and 3000 ft laterally, although the average lateralwidth is much narrower.

The shape and orientation of the plume suggest thatcontaminant migration is structurally rather thanstratigraphically controlled. In other words, contaminantmovement is within fault and fracture zones in the rockmass, rather than along bedding planes, or within discretebedrock units. This supposition is also supported byobservations during the drilling phase, and analysis andcorrelation of stratigraphic logs. In addition to the NNEtrend of the plume, (which is consistent with mappedfracturing along the base of Big Pocono mountain),contaminant spreading is also noted along a vector orientedsoutheast from the landfill. This vector correspondsclosely with mapped fracture trace "A" indicated on Figure4.

The highest concentration of trichloroethene occurs at wellR2, which is located midway between the landfill and thehighest residential well TCE concentrations (wells #'s 3and 4 at the northern end of Storm Road). Assuming thatcontaminants originated at the landfill, there are twoprobable explanations for the elevated concentration at R2:(1) the wells installed at the landfill site (especiallyR1S and RID) did not intercept the same fracture systemthat well R2 was designed to intercept, and/or (2) thecenter of mass of contamination from the landfill has movedoff-site due to a gradual reduction in contaminant loadingover time.

2. Contaminant Migration; Overburden (Till) Aquifer

The great majority of domestic wells in the study area areconstructed in the bedrock aquifer. Consequently, nearlyall of the data regarding contamination in the overburden(till) water table aquifer is derived from EERU installedmonitoring wells. The exceptions to this are well #'s 22,30 and 33, identified as overburden potable waiwells by their depth (refer to Appendix B) . Drylthese wells (# 30) exhibits TCE contamination.

Figure 7 . illustrates the off-site migration oftrichloroethene. As indicated above, since most of the

IV-7

data for this figure is derived from monitoring wellsconstructed close to the landfill site, the scale of thefigure is much reduced from that of Figure 6. While thetill material comprising the overburden is not homogenous,it may be considered more hydraulically isotropic than thebedrock. Consequently, the off-site concentration gradientappears nearly uniform, with no preferential movement ofcontaminants. The maximum spread of contaminants in theoverburden is estimated at about 1200 ft.

3. Time Series Sampling

During the pump test of well R2 performed on June 11, 1987(refer to report section IVB2c) time series sampling forvolatile organic compounds (VOC) was performed at thewellhead, and at the discharge from a mobile carbonadsorption treatment unit through which well discharge wasrouted. The purpose of the well head sampling was toprovide qualitative information regarding the nature of thecontaminant plume intercepted by the pumping well. Fieldscreening (portable gas chromatograph [GC]) and follow-uplaboratory GC/MS analysis was performed on all samples(field screening was performed primarily to check theefficacy of the carbon treatment unit).

Trichloroethene and trans-1,2-dichloroethene represent theprimary contaminants in the waste plume, although low totrace concentrations of other contaminants are also present(Appendix G). Time series data (GC/MS) for the two majorcontaminants are contained in Table 3, and illustrated onFigure 8. These data indicate that well R2 is located nearto a large and persistent contaminant plume: within 90 min,total VOC concentration had reached a peak of about 20 ppm,and remained at that level for at least 720 min (after thepumping of about 8000 gal). These data support the use ofwell R2 as a production well for remediation purposes (i.e.pump and treat).

Samples obtained from the effluent of the carbon treatmentsystem used on-site were obtained at 90, 180, 360 and 720min. With the exception of trace quantities oftrichloroethene (<7.3 ppb), the effluent contained novolatile organic compounds above equipment detection limitsof 5-10 ppb (refer to Appendix G).

ARI00386

TABLE 3RESULTS OF TIME SERIES SAMPLING

WELL: R2DATE: JUNE 11, 1987FLOW: 11 gpm

t (min) trans-l,2-DCE* (ug/1; TCE* (ug/1) TOTAL (ug/1!

1 144 167 311

10 539 4980 5519

30 1220 12900 14120

90 1600 17900 19500

180 1570 17800 19370

360 1520 17600 19120

720 1700 19600 21300

* trans-1,2-DCE = trans-1,2-dichloroetheneTCE = trichloroechene

FIGURE 8TIME SERIES CHEMICAL SAMPLING

o JUNE 11. 1987 WELL R2

o>rt-

flRI00387

200 400 600 800T1MF fmm'l

IV-9

B. Hydrogeological Analyses

1. Regional Head Distribution

Water level measurements were taken during two periods overthe course of this study. Most of the domestic wells weresampled in early September, and then again in January,along with the monitoring wells installed under thisresponse. This data was combined with the results ofvertical control surveys performed by EERU and a surveyingcontractor, to generate the water level contour (headdistribution) maps contained in this section. The purposeof these maps is to indicate the general direction ofgroundwater movement within the aquifer across a region(groundwater flow lines are perpendicular to the contourlines of equal head). While useful on a regional scale,the head distribution plots must be used with cautionacross small areas, due to the effects of vertical flowcomponents, and fracture controls on groundwater movementin the bedrock.

Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the piezometric surface of thebedrock aquifer during the late summer and early winter,respectively. Figure 10 is more accurate since it containsdata from all of the ERB/EERU installed monitoring wells,as well as a number of residential locations addedsubsequent to the summer sampling. Head data from theresidential wells is summarized in Table 4 (Top of casingelevations and depth to water for these wells is containedin Appendix B.) Data for the monitoring wells is containedin Table 5. Data from monitoring wells located in the samearea but at different depths (i.e. R1S/R1D and R3S/R3D)were averaged for inclusion on Figure 10.

Figure 11 indicates the surface of the water table aquiferin the vicinity of the North Road landfill. As with Figure7, data for this map is limited primarily to the EERUmonitoring wells; however, several additional "dug" wellswere identified during the sampling program, and weremeasured for inclusion in this analysis.

The three head distribution plots indicate an essentialfeature pertinent to the assessment of contaminantmigration in the study area: all of the contaminated wellsare located hydraulically down gradient of the North Roadlandfill. Consequently, inferences regarding theflsaur/contaminants in the study area that could only bewith the analysis of contaminant concentration data, are'strongly supported with the inclusion of the head gradientdata.

f ' / / / /I I I I I I l\ I I'l I I I I M I I I / I f 171 I

TABLE 4SUMMARY OF WATER LEVEL (HEAD) DATA: ERB/EERU INSTALLED WELLS

! II Head (msl) I Head (msl) ,'TAT # i Property Owner 1109/03-05/86 (a)____ i _______ _______ i ii i

1 IP. Strausser Sr./D. Singer !2 !R. Meckes !3 IL. Rinker4 !R. Possinger5 !R. Bauer6 {Camp Streamside-Dining Hall7 ! Camp Streamside-Chapel8 IS. Stillo9 IK. Wilgus

10 IBarthold11 IR. Flowers12 !C. Kinsley13 1C. Detrick14 IN. Strausser15 IF. & K. Strausser16 IM. Olshefski17 !C. Shoemaker18 !W. Otteson19 I Adcock Farmhouse20 1C. Adcock21 IT. Petrus22 IN. Possinger23 IE. Possinger24 !W. Woodling

24a !W. Woodling (dug well)25 ID. Cappololla26 ID. Jacoby27 IR. Betticher28 !R. Riday28a 10'Brien29 IG. Mate30 IP. Strausser, Jr.31 1C. Youna32 IR. Pelak33 IW. Tallada

33a ITallada lodge34 IW. Adcock (new)34a IW. Adcock (old)35 IBunnell (EERU 4a)36 IM. & M. Rinker37 IBroderick38 IGrinaway39 IJames Shick40 IMunoz/Arndt41 I Thomas Farda42 1 Kelly/Miner (EERU 28b)43 IJohn Shick44 1 Tony Farda45 I Summit Resort46 IFUELRITE47 IWhittaker (EERU 7a)48 ILane/Strausser

48a ILane/Strausser (EERU 29a)49 IMt. View (EERU 6a)

1058.49--

1074.121070.461024.50

——

1047.671109.161106.271100.971072.68

--1045.681071.821076.111072.201075.09

--1061.071066.791055.911074.851047.091046.301078.411108.23

--1130.05

--1081.881079.691073.97982.15982.671033.641072.241069.011067.70

—1119.581130.48

—----

1164.30— —

1010.14—

1077.46

::*1127.01

— —

01/22-24/87 (b)

1067.10--

1076.471071.741028.561004.101015.551049.941112.881105.181104.791072.01998.211052.281074.951080.041081.331081.84

—1066.361070.87

—1081.621048.401046.831080.541108.151072.191143.721104.021084.551078.341077.941002.15990.861040.091081.091080.781070.44

—1126.97

——

1024.511004.031161.18

— —1009.22

— —1076.94

RI0039I ::1134.821026.10

(a) DTW measurements taken 11-21-86 in well #'s: 37,44,46DTW measurements taken 12-01-86 in well #'s: 38,42

(b) DTW measurements taken 02-25-87 in well #'s: 13 , 14 , 24 , 24A, 32 , 44 , 46

TABLE 5SUMMARY OF WATER LEVEL (HEAD) DATAERB/EERU INSTALLED WELLS

EERU #

T1ATIBT1.1AT1.1BT2T3T4R1SRIDR1.1AR1.1BR2R3SR3DR4R5R6

TOC Elevation(msl)

1128.721128.821137.211127.671114.221129.591101.741129.561128.221134.921127.321114.121129.551130.831075.671145.041103.04

[Depth to Water (ft)01/22/87

9.466.4113.2211.532.1419.0410.5710.7519.5221.2412.128.9929.7548.9123.069.8319.85

Head (msl)01/22/87

1119.261122.411123.991116.141112.081110.551091.171118.811108.701113.681115.201105.131099.801081.921052.611135.211083.19

flRI00392

COCO

<NICMCM

4 •

Wg COoMCu

EQ<LJX

LJLuIDO

LJQ

00C£LJ

O « /1RIOQ393mCM

IV-15

Both the overburden and bedrock aquifers at the landfillappear to lie midway between recharge areas (primarily tothe north), and discharge areas to the south and east. Theoverburden aquifer discharges to a small spring immediatelyto the southeast of the landfill property, and severalunmapped springs were located in the area betweenNorth/Railroad Road and Possinger Drive during fieldreconnaissance of the study area.

The vertical hydraulic gradient at all well clusters isdownward, with the strongest gradients at well groups 1,1.1A, and 2. Comparison of head data indicates that thefracture zones intercepted by wells R1S and R1.1B are incommunication with the surface (water table) aquifer, andthat well R3D appears to intercept a confined fracturezone. Fracture zones encountered by the other rock wellsare probably only partially confined.

Analysis of Figures 9 and 10 indicate that the distributionof the bedrock head gradient throughout the area does notappear to change substantively with the change of seasons.Dry season head averages 4 feet below that associated withthe winter groundwater recharge period. An interestingfeature of Figures 9 and 10 is the flattening of the headgradient in the area of Toccoa Road. This reflection ofsurface topography suggests that the bedrock fracturesystem is in direct contact with the water table aquifer inthis area . (Alternatively, all of the rock well casingsmay be improperly sealed in that area, allowing theoverburden aquifer pressure head to influence that of thebedrock aquifer.)

2. Aquifer Parameters

A series of field tests were performed in all of the wellsinstalled by ERB/EERU to estimate the horizontalpermeability (saturated hydraulic conductivity) of theoverburden materials and fractured bedrock. These testsconsisted of single well pump tests in the bedrock wellsand slug (bail) tests in the overburden wells. Prior todiscussing the results of these tests, a brief summary ofterms associated with their evaluation is provided below.

In order to estimate the velocity of groundwater flow in anaquifer, or attempt to simulate contaminant migration,several basic aquifer parameters must be known.*p The_ mostimportant of these are aquifer transmissivityv •* ayaEJajiijQJfconductivity, and storativity. Both hydraulic conductivity(or permeability) and transmissivity represent the abilityof an aquifer material to transmit water. Hydraulicconductivity (K) is the rate at which water will flowthrough a unit cross-sectional area of the aquifer under a

IV-16

unit head. Aquifer transmissivity (T) represents the rateat which water will flow through a vertical strip of theaquifer under a unit head. The two terms are related bythe relation T=Kb, where 'b' is the saturated thickness ofthe aquifer.

The analysis of single well pump test data allows for thecalculation of aquifer transmissivity; hydraulicconductivity must be calculated from a knowledge of thesaturated thickness of the aquifer. The analysis of slugtest data allows for a direct estimation of hydraulicconductivity, although the slug test is valid only forconditions prevailing in a small radius around theborehole.

The storage coefficient (or storativity) of an aquifer canbe determined accurately only through the performance ofmultiple well pump tests (i.e. a pumping well and one ormore observation wells to monitor drawdown). The storagecoefficient is the volume of water released from or takeninto storage per unit area of aquifer for a unit change inhead. The value of the storage coefficient (adimensionless term) indicates whether the subject aquifersystem is unconfined (water table aquifer) or underpressure (confined).

a. Single Well Pump Tests

While all of the rock wells installed by ERB/EERU werepurged with a submersible purp for chemical sampling,time-drawdown and recovery measurements were made to allowfor estimation of average aquifer transmissivity across thefull saturated thickness of the borehole. Since theprimary activity associated with these tests was chemicalsampling, time constraints limited the effectiveness ofhydraulic data collection in sene instances (notably inwell R3D). For all tests, a Campbell Scientific Inc. Model21X Micrologger and Druck FDCR 10/D transducer wereutilized to record drawdown and recovery data.

The means of solution for determining aquifertransmissivity from single well pump test data is the"Jacob straight line" method, or modified non-equilibriummethod (Driscoll, 1986). While this method is not precisewhen applied to a pumping well, evaluation of recovery dataallows for an independent check on the results -AaLcuLatedfrom the pumping period. Drawdown and recorUryl Uditfa} Jsemi-log plots of the data, and associated calculations forderiving average transmissivity and hydraulic conductivityare contained in Appendix D. The results of these analysesare summarized in Table 6.

TABLE 6RESULTS OF SINGLE WELL PUMP TEST ANALYSES: BEDROCK WELLS

SATURATED ———————DRAWDOWN DATA——————— ———————RECOVERY DATA-THICKNESS TRANSMISSIYITY HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVTrY TRANSKESSIVTTY HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

WELL (ft) (gpd/ft) {gpd/sg ft) (on/sec) (gpd/ft) (gpd/sg ft) (on/sec)

R1S 80 2933 (Tl) 37 1.67x10-3 1509 19 9.03x10-46770 (T2) 85 4.04x10-3

RID 149 38 (Tl) 0.26 1.24x10-5 23 0.15 7.13x10-67.8 (T2) 0.05 2.38x10-6

R1.1A 183 27 (Tl} 0.15 7.13x10-6 35 0.19 9.03x10-65.3 <T2) 0.03 1.43x10-6

R1.1B 165 32 (Tl) 0.20 9.50x10-6 83 0.50 2.38x10-59.3 (T2) 0.06 2.85x10-6

R2 115 34 0.30 1.43x10-5 31 0.27 1.28x10-5

R3D 143 61 0.43 2.04x10-5 56 0.39 1.85x10-5

R4 127 40 0.32 1.52x10-5 29 0.23 1.09x10-5

R5 230 733 3.2 1.52x10-4 1035 4.5 2.14x10-4

R6 228 31 (Tl) 0.14 6.65x10-6 47 0.21 9.98x10-613 (T2) 0.06 2.85x10-6

NOTES: Tl and T2 refer to early and late curves, respectively, in the drawdown analysis.Test data incomplete for well R3S.

flR!00396

IV-18

Close agreement between the results of drawdown andrecovery estimates of transmissivity is indicated in wellsR2, R3D, R4, and R5. These data may be considered morereliable than those obtained in the other site wells, inwhich a variance is apparent between drawdown and recoveryestimates.

In the other wells, the initial part of the drawdown curve(Tl in Table 6, and slope 1 in Appendix D) was alsoevaluated to provide a comparison with recovery estimates.(The initial portion of the drawdown curve is normally notanalyzed due to perturbations caused by the effects ofcasing storage, and variations in the pumping rate until aconstant discharge rate is established.) In all of thesecases the initial curves yielded data more in agreementwith the recovery data than the late curves (T2 in Table 6,and slope 2 in Appendix B).

The variance between early and late slopes in the drawdowndata may be based on the presence of boundary effectsencountered at a distance from the pumping well. Forexample, the drawdown curve for well R1S suggests that arecharge boundary was encountered about 10 min into thepump test. The drawdown curve for well R1.1A suggests thatafter about 15 min of pumping, local fracture systems weredrained (i.e. an impermeable boundary was encountered).The variance in transmissivity data between drawdown andrecovery may be the result of a variation in the rate ofrecharge vs. discharge in the fracture networks interceptedby the various wells (e.g. a limited fracture system maydrain rapidly, but recharge slowly).

It is important to note that, as averages across thesaturated length of the boreholes, the results of thesingle well pump tests are not representative of flow indiscrete fracture zones. As evidenced by the very lowtransmissivities of many of the bedrock wells, fractureflow represents the primary means of transport in themassive sandstones and siltstones of the study area. It isclear from examination of the test data that the fracturesystems intercepted by wells R1S and R5 are far morewidespread and/or transmissive than those of the other rockwells.

b. Slug Tests

A slug test refers to a method in which a known volumeu of-* 'water is either added or removed from a well, and thetime-drawdown or recovery of the water level is monitored.Slug tests are generally performed in wells that areanticipated to have low yields, or where casing diameterlimitations preclude performance of standard pump tests.

IV-19

When water is removed from a well, the test is morecorrectly called a bail test; this is the method used atthe North Road site. Bail tests were performed at all ofthe wells installed by ERB/EERU. Recovery data wasobtained through use of the datalogger/transducer assemblydescribed earlier.

The procedure used to estimate hydraulic conductivity fromthe time-drawdown data is that developed by Bouwer and Rice(1976), applicable to fully or partially penetrating wellsin unconfined aquifers. An explanation of this method, andthe data used to derive the permeability estimates arecontained in Appendix E. Table 7 summarizes the results ofthe slug test analyses for both the overburden and bedrockwells.

Regarding the bedrock wells, the slug test data agreequalitatively with that of the single well pump testresults (i.e. wells R1S and R5 exhibit the highesthydraulic conductivities and R1.1A the lowest). Thedifferences in absolute terms between the two sets of datais, again, a function of the varying areas of influenceassociated with the two tests. The slug test data is validonly within a radius of several feet around the borehole.

The results of the slug test analyses on the overburdenwells indicate a variability in hydraulic conductivity oftwo orders of magnitude. This is consistent with the datarange present in the literature for glacial till. Forexample, Todd (1980) indicates a range of permeability ofbetween 12 and 735 gpd/ft2 for predominately sandy andgravelly tills.

While the till in the North Road area is predominantlysilty, thin gravelly lenses were noted during theexcavation of several boreholes. These lenses areresponsible for the high permeabilities noted in Table 7for wells TIB and T1.1B. The high calculated values ofpermeability for these wells are consistent with theobserved ability of these wells to be pumped continuouslyduring the well sampling phase (the high values are notconsidered to be a result of filter pack influence on theslug test recovery data.)

c. Multiple Well Pump Test

Personnel and equipment were mobilized to the NcflrRhjsite on June 9, 1987 to initiate hydraulic testing in wellR1S. Contractor equipment consisted of a Mobile DrillingCo., Inc. B-61HD rig with a dual packer assembly preparedfor down hole testing. In addition, ERB/EERU supplied amobile carbon treatment system consisting of two Tigg Corp.

AR.1603%

TABLE 7RESULTS OF SLUG TEST ANALYSES

OVERBURDEN (TILL) WELLS

WELL

T1A

TIB

T1.1A

T1.1B

T2

T3

T4

WELL

R1S

RID

R1.1A

R1.1B

R2

R3S

R3D

R4

R5

R6

HYDRAULIC(gpd/sq ft

73

245

(1)

508

30

2.1

98

BEDROCK WE

HYDRAULIC(gpd/sq ft

91

1.2

(1)

0.5

6.4

(1)

5.2

(2)

13.6

(2)

CONDUCTIVITY) (cm/sec)

3.5x10-3

1.2x10-2

(1)

2.4x10-2

1.4x10-3

1.0x10-4

4.6x10-3

LLS

CONDUCTIVITY) (cm/sec)

4.3x10-3

5.9x10-5

(1)

2.5x10-5

3.0x10-4

(1)

2.5x10-4

(2)

6.5x10-4

(2)

AR I(1) No recovery during test . 'period; indicative of verylow permeability.

(2) Test data incomplete.

IV-21

(Pittsburgh, PA) C-15 CANSORB carbon adsorption treatmentunits connected in parallel, with a Filterite Corp.(Timonium, MD) pre-filter unit (holding three 20 microncartridge filters). Druck, Inc. (Danbury, CT) PDCR 10/Dpressure transducers and a Campbell Scientific, Inc.(Logan, UT) 21X Micrologger were provided for leakagedetection above the packer system, and monitoring ofobservation wells.

Well R1S had previously been selected as a preferredpumping well due to the identification of a highlytransmissive fracture zone in the well during the drillingphase, and the location of the well relative to thepresumed source of contamination, and downgradientobservation wells.

After initial testing of successive 10 ft sections alongthe entire length of the borehole, the productive fracturezone identified during drilling was not encountered, norwas the entire well able to support a continuous dischargeof 10 gpm. It is hypothesized that either the previouslyidentified fracture zone sealed itself following pressurerelease during drilling, or the fracture system was fed byshallow recharge not available to the well during the drysummer months.

On June 10, equipment was moved off the landfill propertyand set-up at well R2, located 700 ft southeast of wellR1S. This well was the most highly contaminated of allwells sampled in the study area, and it is located alongthe extension of a fracture trace (Figure 4) that runsbetween the landfill and Storm Road (wells 3 and 4, locatedat the end of Storm Road, are the most highly contaminatedresidential wells). Consequently, well R2 represented aviable alternative location for the scheduled multiple wellpump test, as drawdown could be monitored upgradient at thelandfill, and downgradient at wells 3 and 4, with thepotential for indicating a direct hydraulic connectionbetween all three areas.

Since no discrete, highly productive fracture zones wereencountered during the drilling of well R2, the packersystem was not pressurized at this site (i.e. the entiresaturated borehole was pumped). A step drawdown analysiswas performed on June 10, in order to ascertain a long termpump rate for a controlled test. A discharge rate of 11gpm was derived from this analysis, and a 12 hour pump testwas initiated on the morning of June 11. Hrmonitored in ERB/EERU wells R1S, RID, R1.1A, Rl7Iand residential wells 3, 4, 5, 28A, and 35.

Drawdown was observed in wells RID, R1.1A, and R1.1B (allon the landfill property), indicating a direct hydraulicconnection between the contaminated waste plume intercepted

IV-22

at well R2 and the North Road site. No drawdown was notedin well T2, an overburden well located adjacent to thepumping well, implying confined conditions in the pumpedaquifer. None of the downgradient residential wells wereinfluenced by the pump test. This may be due to therelatively short time frame of the test (the test wasterminated once a clear drawdown trend was established inthe landfill wells). If a long term pump and treat programis established at well R2, evidence of a hydraulicconnection between R2 and wells 3, 4,5 and 35 should bemonitored.

Data from all affected observation wells, and drawdown andrecovery data from the pumping well are contained inAppendix F. The Jacob straight line method (semi-log) wasused to analyze drawdown and recovery data from well R2.The Theis curve matching technique (log-log) was used toevaluate drawdown from well RID (violation of Theistime-distance criteria precluded use of the straight linemethod for well RID).

These analyses (presented graphically in Appendix F)indicate a transmissivity of about 270 gpd/ft for theaquifer (fracture) system intercepted by wells R2 and RID.Comparison of slopes 1 and 2 in the drawdown data of wellR2 suggest that the well continued to develop itself (i.e.improve its yield) during the latter stages of the pumptest. The increased permeability identified near the endof the pump test is confirmed in the recovery data and theobservation well data. An aquifer storativity of 3x10-3is computed from the observation well data, and indicatesconfined conditions, as suggested earlier by the lack ofdrawdown in well T2. The preceding transmissivity estimatesupersedes the approximate estimates of 20-30 gpd/ftderived for wells R2 and RID in Appendix D, based on shortterm single well pump tests.

It is difficult to derive a meaningful hydraulicconductivity from the calculated transmissivity, due to thelack of definition regarding the flow producing zones inwell R2. Drilling log data (Appendix A) suggest that thearea between 115 and 120 ft below ground surface representsthe area of highest yield. Assuming this is the case, ahydraulic conductivity of 54 gpd/ft2 can be cautiouslyassigned to this 5 ft fracture zone.

3. Groundwater Flow Velocity fl R I n n / n

There are three groundwater flow components associated withthe spread of contaminants at the North Road site: verticaland horizontal in the overburden, and within fracture zonesin the bedrock. Previously derived hydraulic conductivity

IV-23

and head data allow for the rough estimation of velocitiesin the overburden. Data from the pump test in well R2allow for an estimation of fracture flow in the bedrock.

Velocity estimates are obtained through application ofDarcy's Law, as follows:

v = (K[dh/dl])/(7.48)n

where: v = average velocity (ft/day)K = hydraulic conductivity (gpd/ft2)dh/dl = hydraulic gradient (ft/ft)n = porosity7.48 = conversion factor (gpd/ft2—ft/day)

While the calculation of flow rates is very approximateusing this one dimensional, steady-state approach, theresults are of some value in estimating the existingboundaries of contamination in the overburden, andproviding a database to assess long-term contaminantmigration.

Based on an average relationship of horizontal:verticalhydraulic conductivity of 6:1 for alluvial materials(Todd,1980), a porosity of 0.34 for silty till (Todd,1980), hydraulic conductivity data for well pairs T1A/R1Sand T3/R3S contained in Table 7, and head data contained inTable 5, average vertical hydraulic conductivity isestimated at 0.05 ft/day through the till associated withthese well locations. Based on these values (and ignoringthe horizontal flow component), contaminants could migratethrough 20 feet of saturated overburden material to thesurface of the bedrock aquifer in about a year and a half.

Using an average hydraulic conductivity for all of theoverburden wells of 195 gpd/ft2, a porosity of 0.34, andgradient data for well pairs T1.1B/T3, T1.1B/T4, andT1B/T2, an average horizontal flow velocity of 1.2 ft/dayis derived. Applying an average TCE retardation factor of7.3 to this flow rate (Walton, 1984; Mills, et al., 1985)results in an average velocity of 0.17 ft/day. This rateis consistent with the extent of contamination indicated onFigure 7, assuming contaminant migration for the 15 yearperiod between active disposal at the landfill and thepresent.

The inability to use a packer assembly within the bedrockwells selected for pump testing constrains the fiy-^Vf^ toprovide estimates of fracture permeabilosuy I U U uQconsequently, the velocity of fracture flow. However," thelimited data obtained from well R2 do allow for a grossquantitative assessment. Based on the Darcy velocityequation noted earlier, an average fracture flow rate of

IV-24

0.36 ft/day between wells RID and R2, and C.94 ft/daybetween wells RID and R6 can be derived as follows:

Well R1D/R2 Well R1D/R6

K = 54 gpd/ft* K = 54 gpd/ft2dh = 3.57 ft (Table 5) dh » 25.51 ftdl = 700 ft dl = 2000 ftn =0.1 (Dunne and Leopold, 1978) n =0.1

V = 0.36 ft/day V = 0.96 ft/day

These estimates assume no attenuation (i.e. retardation) ofcontaminants (due to the low reactivity of the deep rockenvironment), and a similarity between the R1D/R2 andR1D/R6 fracture systems. The steeper hydraulic gradient tothe northeast of the landfill (R1D/R6) is responsible forthe presumed velocity increase in that direction. Togetherwith the orientation of fracture systems in the area, thisvelocity increase explains the anistropy of the the aquifersystem, as reflected in the shape of the contaminant plumeon Figure 6.

In conclusion, while the fracture flow estimates areobvious approximations, they do indicate that the extent ofcontamination evidenced in the field can be plausiblyapproximated by measured aquifer parameters.

V. DISCUSSION

The data obtained from the ERB/EERU chemical sampling,hydrogeological, and hydraulic analyses of the projectstudy area implicate the North Road landfill as the sourceof groundwater contamination in Jackson and PoconoTownships south of Big Pocono Mountain. Groundwatercontamination consists primarily of trichloroethene andtrans-l,2-dichloroethene, and is present in both the watertable till (overburden) aquifer, and the fractured bedrockaquifer.

Contaminant migration in the till fans out to the southeastof the landfill for a distance of about 1200 ft , along theaxis of the local hydraulic gradient. Contaminantmigration in the bedrock is structurally controlled, andextends downgradient in relatively narrow plumes to thenortheast and southeast of the landfill. The northeastplume appears to lie within a fault zone associated withthe margin of Big Pocono Mountain, and extends for adistance of about 7000 ft. The southeast plume appears tofollow the trend of a fracture zone oblique to the majorstructural faulting, and extends as far as Possinger Drive(2500 ft).

As an adjunct to this study, a preliminary engineeringdesign for the development of a local water supply systemfor the North Road area was prepared. Due to the natureand extent of aquifer contamination, short term remediationof the local drinking water aquifer is not consideredfeasible. Consequently, final engineering design andconstruction of the water utility should proceed in orderto phase out the current emergency response (i.e. shortterm) strategy of point-of-use treatment, and guarantee areliable potable water supply over the long term.

Chemical sampling of ERB/EERU monitoring wells hasindicated that the highest concentration of contaminantslies downgradient of the landfill property (i.e. at wellR2). There are two potential reasons for this: (1)leaching of pollutants from the landfill has ceased due tothe relatively impermeable nature of cover material at thesite, and the length of time since closure, or (2) themonitoring wells located on the landfill property failed tointercept the main conduit of waste migration within thefractured bedrock.

If the center of mass of contamination has moved off site,there is little reason to pursue excavation and removalwithin, the landfill property as part of a remedial action.Whether this is actually the case cannot be aBoerfeaine,d.without the installation of additional wells wli.'eh'iy U tfete'filled area and/or along the eastern edge of the landfill.These wells should be considered as the first phase of anyremediation program.

V-2

If there is no evidence of continued leaching within thelandfill property, pumping and treatment of discharge frommonitoring well R2 should be considered as a primaryremediation strategy. Long term pumpage at a ra£e ofapproximately 10 gpm should prove sufficient to reverselocal gradients in the bedrock aquifer, and capture thesignificant contaminant plume present in that area.Continuous water level monitoring of selected residentialwells in the area should be performed as part of such aprogram, as well as periodic chemical (VOC) monitoring ofwellhead discharge and treatment system effluent.

A R I O Q i i O S

LIST OF REFERENCES

Berg, Thomas M., W.D Sevon, and Milena F. Bucek, "Geologyand Mineral Resources of the Pocono Pines and MountPocono Quadrangles, Monroe County, Pennsylvania",Pennsylvania Geological Survey Atlas 204cd,Harrisburg, PA, 1977.

Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice, "A Slug Test for DeterminingHydraulic Conductivity of Unconfined Aquifers withCompletely or Partially Penetrating Wells", WaterResources Research, 12(3), June 1976.

Bouwer, H., Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw Hill, New York,NY, 1978.

Driscoll, Fletcher G., Groundwater and Wells, JohnsonDivision, St. Paul, MN, 1986.

Dunne, Thomas, and Luna B. Leopold, Water in EnvironmentalPlanning, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco,CA, 1978.

Mills, W.B., D.B. Porcella, M.J. Ungs, S.A. Gherini, K.V.Summers, Lingfung Mok, G.L. Rup and G.L. Bowie,"Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedurefor Tcxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface andGroundwater-Part II", Prepared for USEPAEnvironmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA, 1985(EPA/600/6-85/002b).

Todd, David Keith, Groundwater Hydrology, 2nd Ed., Wiley,New York, NY, 1980.

Walton, William C., Practical Aspects of GroundwaterModeling, National Water Well Association,Worthington, Ohio, 1984.

APPENDIX A

WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

ARIOOÔ?

KEY TO STRATIGRAPH1C UNITS

OVERBURDEN

TILL WITH PEBBLES AND COBBLES IN CLAY MATRIX'

SHALE SAPROLITE IN CLAY MATRIX

CLAY

SHALE BEDROCK

BEDROCK

TILL

SANDSTONE

SHALE

SILTSTONE

HIGHLY FRACTURED SILTSTONE

HIGHLY FRACTURED SANDSTONE

INTERBEDDED SANDSTONE AND SHALE

i. LOCKING CAP.____ „CASING

CONCRETE APRON

CEMENT BENTONITEGROUT

V I.D. STEELCASING

BENTONITEPELLETS

2" PVC CASING

H" O.D. PVC SCREEN0.010" SUOT SIZE-

7/8"BORE HOL

QUARTZ SANDFILTER PACK

STICKUP =1.8'

GROUNDSURFACE

15'- PRQJECTi

Cl CHARGE

WELL »•

DATE'

NORTH ROAD37O6719O31O

Unrt

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.It* Htrttwi toprl K« eM l»y T C*l«r» ICJL

LOCKING rap,,,..,

CASINGSTICKOP = 2.&1

4" T.n STEELCASING

CONCRETE APRON ——— i

11 7/8" SURFACE .BORE HOLE ————— •

CEMENT BENTONITEGROUT ————————

a- PVC CASING __

5'-BENTONITEHtLLh 1 B

7'-

QUART2 SANDHLItH HAUK

10'-

a- O.D. PVCSCREENO.O1O" SLOT '" ' """"

ao--

-4

yI1iH5v/'•/•*•*'"*X*.*

•s"CA"

.**•••"»*•*'«•* j* ..'•*"•*•"•**.*.".*•*• ••'/•'...« «';•","•"«*•

.'*••;;•

;•:;.*;•:'::.:*•::.•:

:::•'-•:

•>:•:-•

1 ^

3. E*v

ss

\ s

\\\i,\N

I1'•*"*'*V

• *"*»*•

*'.***;•I*i*«j•;.**.•*•

•-i§?s•I **•".*••*.*'•"•*,'.'•••

;•*•*.*,•!•.*.*«•"."•*••

:-s\v"•*'•'%'•v.;.\v::••{;•'•"•'»'•.":'•".'•':j:':Y

;'•*:'.

••'•••'

GROUND. SURFACE

i rt •«

18'-

V*: *

y|

B•'/I.1/*;*.

IB*£:£*••»v:«:-x;ir:;;

(

^V/.';'-;-'i<Mf>•'••*i * *vV'frf.?.'.';.*,V'v.:J~$$$j&4;;>*;vyv•J •J'|1"'** *,"«?A'*' V"v-*i v.'f •>;*Xt*'*V"T"V'|f • l.t *L*.'""1 *«*S*Xfc»* t *V* *'*iL'!!**"'*'

f{v tjrM:i> ftvS.'i'Wi'i?.1•ivi.v''- •N/xV.ijV- .-V/,$&'$£

£ll>i

PROJECT. NORTH ROADEl CHARGE §• 37O6719O31O1 •«•• • " T 1 rL.

A- n I N fl (l I fl ————S 4» \V »*y r rT. i ^ j

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.

.

CAbllMGSTICKUP = a.3'

CONCRETE APRON

11 7/8" SURFACE .yUHb HULE '

6" T.D. ,STEEL CASING

CEMENT BENTONITEGROUl

BENTONITE ~PELLETS *

5'-

*" PVr rARTNR,,

QIJARTx' c;AhinFILTER PACK

8'-

*" O.D. PVCcr-RFFNJ « * L—^_l^

O.O1O"SLOT SIZE

13'

•r

|

1

11&

;*jj;

'•I-'N*

":?5

!•'*'•*•'*

%$•*•!• 1*• •*•**.'•V,'',

.•.••'**•'

••:,•"•*>*.*..*,••••••V" V •*•*•*• .*

•v • •

.v« ; 1 •"ti'i

:!::••::

"."•••.:*.;

-*

•••••

9.9V-——

//////////\1"»*•*••

•/*•*•*•'.'$'*•$

•Ii*c«Il't*••••«•*.*•*•'

•;'i"

«*•*.*,*,*.*•'•*.'I;-;*.*.;*.

•*••'.'• •£*•;*:•!

•'•*.*.'•* •"**!v.«yivt :'•::'.*.*.•'••'•*•**'V**i*i?.:'«

' GROUNDSURFACE

5

1

IS

1PROJECT.

El CHARGE *

WELL •' fl P

DATE.


fM* I J12/17/87

Cnvronnm-Ut Crwovncy R«*pon*« Unrt (EERU>

ENVIRESPQNSE, INC.ISA Hurt** fepvt >4f W* l«y t Hum NJL Mt77

LOCKING CAP__________———S^ CASING

GROUT — OA-U.A1* I.D. STEELCASING~

BENTONITE PELLETS

QUARTZ SAND,FILTER PACK

4" O.D. PVC SCREENO.O1O" SLOT SIZE

11 7/B" BORE HOLE

" O.D. PVC CASING-

•IE. 1'

rr»i-qn»«t»'U> tJwp ncy Ktfoant, Urrt <EE*in|

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC,

LULKlNb LHh' ———————

<t",,I.D. STEEL rCASING ———————— *

CONCRETE APRON —— y^

CEMENT BENTONITE —GROUT "

LJ • U • ~ V l«>CASINGBENTONITE "PELLETS

QUARTZ SAND ——————PETER PACK

2« n r* DOI"*

SCREENO.O1O" SLOT SIZE

11 7/8" BORE HOLE~*

. S\\\\\1..

\

*•\

\

:X*«'•*•*•;

(i:«

•V

V»:

'/.'•""*•*;

/i:

'•*.'•:

O.<i5

••i

*—

>'^yyyy//

I•;£«,«

j§«

•.•'.

w

"':•'

—— 1 CASINGSTICKL

GROUNE'/

/

\•'•:•>'''.'•'•Jp;i**'

Xv

';•:

••'•?

*:?

-3'

—5'—6'

_ 9»

19'

IP = a. a1

) SURFACE;::.*'vv'.*?.•:#':&•£'JVi ? •* •"• *illa&S&tf«:##£&IPsit•••.'••>:• it'stf-.v.'.i'.:'?!:',1S»in•.•.v.-v.'.yVijV;j':i»i:-.mi1* ••"•* J • »**K->;re#:Y&*££##£*&&«.:-ir-:-;

/<:-•••. -j;-..'§1S£p!iVilr ' t^ " ~ ~ ,~

.T TL."ZJ

j HHH?

15'

17'

nrajECTiEI CHARGE ti

VELL ** fl RDATEi ^ n£nv*>onfMfi-t«l Cn

NORTH ROAD37067 19O31O

TEI D/Qd Tj

•rg«ncy *t«pon»» Ort (EEHtO

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.

LOCKING CAP ———————— .r

CONCRETE APRON —— 4

6" I.D. STEEL ———CASING

CEMENT BENTONITE.GROUT

V O.D. PVC —————CASING

11 7/8-BORE HOLE — «

BENTDNITE , .,,PELLETS

QUARTZ SANDFILTER PACK

**" O.D. PVCOpRp-fTKI

O.O1O" SLOTSIZE

&>'^ SV s,N SV Sa v^ sS VI$:£l

M

•'/•{•'

,*XV"

iV.V

$\$i

•:/.;j

•VlV•*•••>

"a

6.2^

r \

K ———

. '

%

fv.V'V*'

•*.v*V*V

•l*'ff:.*V'*.:.

.V'A.

\vi:

>".*•; J

'X:*.V-

CASINGSTICKUP =1.8'GROUND SURFACE

-3'

— IV— 15'

— 18'

i£:££;P$?V:*.y

•uSii^•v5.•'iKiii:••f:::::?.-•••!::*;vv;•l-'.'.'"."v'

•>'.'-:'•>V;t '•;.'•.:•'A? :• y••V*•••.•.••.v.::.;'-:j ;;'A: V;--V"i-W.i"'-*:;"••».!•::.•.•&#£

•!"iv.V'':;:;'•»:';:•;.;•?;

i i•.••;.V-'.:::ffi?*i&%mit •'.•:•:•>.•.':'>•*-'.' '•:?••rtViVM'-jillIftr\r;Hr_ _ — _ —3Cr3;3;>r- vnr -

4

-20'

25'

28'

PROJECT! NORTH ROADEl CHARGE * 37O6719O31OWELL •• T3DATE. I Kl|/S 7 li

Divwixynn-Ut Cn«ra«ncy «*«Qon«« Urrt (CCKU)

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.11* Dtrnui ***rt **• M* l»y F C*i«n N_i Mm

1 LOCKING CAP———————————^ ^rr^,,D _ . , ,~ 1 - o

6" I.D. STEEL CASING-

CEMENT BENTONITE— ——— •GROUT

BENTONTTE PFI 1 FTc;_ ,

QUARTZ SAND'ILTER PACK

=*" O.D. PVC SCREEN0.010" SLOT SIZE

1 7/8" BORE HOLE. __ »|

11nm:|::

m

7.3JEL\'«V«

1

. */•'

•!*.' ::

V'/rl

• |r

s

^ GROUND SURFACE

-31

51

-7'

-8'

-11'

15'-

_H1 '

',*•.?. V** ••*

* •*iV*4lt*t<

Hfit••?iiwfy?j?•'iil £••'?.'*'

-ErEHHH

•=.•=.•!._•:

PTOJECTi

CI CHARGE *

WELL •• fl

DATE*

NORTH ROAD37067190310

n/15/8";Cn»r anmn-Ut DwQtncy R»«pan»« Untt

ENVIRESPDNSE; INC.oi* Rvttaii IM** » m i*r r t*«i NJI MOT

CHAIN LOCK CAP_^___————^ .___ CASING—pSTICKUP = 4.3

CONCRETE APRON ' J I j——, | kfeRQUND SURFACE18" I.D. "STEElCASING18" SURFACE BORINGBACKFILL10" O.D. PVC CASING9 7/8 SURFACE BORINGCEMENT BENTONITEGROUT

6" DIAMETER OPEN-BORE HOLE

.101'

*IN PACKER TESTS CONDUCTED6/9/87 THESE ZONES WEREPUMPED DRY AT 5 GPM

20'

-45'.........i-3BpM

PKOJECTi

tl CHARGE ti

VELL* ADATE-


4$y G —Cnv«-amtn-t«t Cn«rQ«ney Kttparu* Unrt (CEKU)

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.

ft/Wflt

CASINGSTICKUP =

LOCKINa CAP————————————« BROUND

CONCRETE APRON

9 7/8" SURFACEBORE HOLE

CEMENTGROUT

6" I.D. STEELCASING

6" OPEN BORE HOLE-

.

SURFACE

• 10*'

-35'-lf GRAY SANDSTONE

55'

83'

wyy —iosf117*

•186'

-S051 1' RED SILTSTONE

•S*6'

PROJECT^

El CHARGE

WELL

OATE'

NORTH ROAD37O6719O310RID

Env«-

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.It*

1|| » r -r- rrîxi in _ '

CONCRETE APRON ——— -?&" I.D. STEEL JV\CASING RS^CEMENT BFMTnMTTF KNcGROUT Sp^

/*9 7/8" SURFACE —— 'BORE HOLE

6" DIAMETER OPEN —— •BOREHOLE

°l

Sv GROUND SURf

i-^ — pri a •• CV/ * *T

1 ' RED SHALE-*

1 ' GRAY

3'

'ACE

iK

• •••«•

» <^

T**/\»r'«x>Vs /v'

^SILTS TONE —— »£g

_ O/SZ. 1

i * (*•, •*m t

„"/;»:•;ji

—15'

— 4O'—50'

__78'— 83'•—85'

—99'—105'

— 1E3'— 125'—130'—145'

—155'

•—168'

— 18O1

— 198'

rrajECT.EI CHARGE fi

WELL •' M

DATE. ^


j'fVlffl I 'sy BkoCnv*-om*n-t%l CrMrg«ncy Ricpon** Unrt (CCRU)

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.

LOCKING CAP————•——————^ BTICKUP = 4.3'CONCRETE APRON '_____. -A GROUND SURFACE

6" I.D. STEEL- "CASING "~~~


9 7/8"SURFACECASING

6" DIAMETER OPENBORE HOLE

16.7'

75

1 1O1

-0.5 GPM

13O

.180'

TROJECTi

CI CHARGE *•

WELL •'

DATEi

NORTH ROAD3706719O31O

R1.1B

r>Jfrt

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.»»p«-> H4« et» l«y r t*»an M-l 8MT7

LOCKING CAPCASINGSTICKUP =1.8'

- CONCRETE APRON ——— V

CEMENT BENTONITE !XSGROUT .....— -..

9 7/8" SURFACE __ » WBORE HOLE —— ' XV

6" I.D. STEEL ——— jF"*/\ ?Tklf " wCAS I NG

6" OPEN BORE HOLE —— >

135'

A6.3nVi i

TT| GROUND\ SURFACE

%SS

i-eo.

70'

9O1-

1OO'-

11O1-

131 '-

KiVUSS

K5555

• «• — —>•»«•

•H* ^

• «—— •»<• <B

• ««•«__

» «••••

•-rir r r:•^ «••_ mm

IT" — — — —

v'JJ/JO J

^ ^^_ ._ _ _ _ i,— _^^M.,^ _ . _ ,K~=;F

5;%'&?$| ee | o a

8"f°8j' *°-'C'(C v;

:• *

— 115'..,........ ...2.0' BPM

__ 1 PO ' . . PS RPM

PTOJECTr NORTH ROAD

El CHARGC * 37O6719O310WELL *< n { j RS^ ^ ( _

CtwTomn-Ul Cntroney R«*pon<* Urrt CtEKU?

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC,

ftfUOOHIO

CASINGSTICKUP =1.8'

LOCKING CAP

CEMENT BENTONITEGROUT ————

9 7/8'SURFACEBORE HOLE

6' I.D. STEELCASING


115

GPM

PROJECT.

El CHARGE t.

••

DATE-


Cnvf orvwn-Ul Dwrotncy Kt«pon»« Urrt

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.U* •irttM EWB*« K« tH l«y f C*i«n N_l OM77!

CASING

CONCRETE APR'ON _^

18" TEMPORARY $|SURFACE BORE —— up;HOLE . • 1$BACKFILL —————— $j6« I.D. STEEL -_ —CASINS


97/8 SURFACE ___ ,BORE HOLE

6" DIAMETER OPEN -BORE HOLE

1\\d

Î— »

PL.

6.1£.

^ GROUND SURFACE'iV>

3&liS'.'.'.t*''.*.•.*•"it**V*«•X'.v*HIS;

— i

3/ir

— O'

18'1S51-

1 7*i '18O1-

PPS '

p-3«=5 <k '

BsSE-r552S

HI-vErS^««^ ««>^ ^

-3sriS5— • 0~^ ^>

M « —— a^J

"••"J ••':••.':•••..':•..••:•..•:'•%V:'.V•.••••i j «• ; <• "«..•••• • j •••«••••• l •• 1 <• ••• •o< • ••rirvr- --n,• 4.1 ™d • I ••••••••a I a« a,••«••

•V-°'Y':«:»v-:'!«v«!-v;.:-"::.•;.:.•;0 1 <•• 1

$$€H>£--H>

'

PROJECT.

El CHARGE ti

VELtA»R f ,BATE.


™0D>012/2786

Cnv*om'nri-t«> Crwre*ncy R«»pan>« Unrt C£E*U>

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.It* Ktrrtw *«»rt K«| Mf »«r F M««ft K-l IM7T

•CONCRETE APRON f\

9 7 /B* SURFACE ———— * $vBORE HOLE SNCEMENT BENTONITE — ifcsGROUT ^*" r n <rTFFI NiCASING 19.71

&" DIAMETER OPEN —— »BOREHOLE

|_

^SL•••_

•HM

CASINGCTTI^lfllO —

F^ GROUND SUf%

I/"/"-* ao1-

3O'_

4O'-

CIE: i

7O1-

IOO'-

105'-

ieo--

130'14O —141 tx/

-15O'

1 1 'RFACEfjj&0 S 8

M* g"flTO:•/'.. M•i . . . . . 1' . iTTl

•[•• ; *•'.?•••••[I •• I •[••:'•••::•:.•;•:•:. •:•:.•.'«••••%z%f&\**f'Z\«£>£f o • ; '.•'•••«0 • ? • •••••••; .. j .• ••••••• • ? 0.

••••••J 00 J 0••-•••00 T 00••••••J 00 J .0*« 0*0oo ; oo0 0 * 0 0J oo ; .o'o o°o00*000 0 * 0 0A. ".''-in —— i;

:&i$&N'AVV

Xi>'v^:^00 2*o

*:••••:•«•..•:•:.••ae°o o. oo • o•0.0*000 * 00eo°o o* oo • o0 0°0oo * oo ;ZW^lÔ1 .............. 5-A GPMf-i /i'li'iriv>?'-'r.fi rTOJECT. NORTH ROAD

El CHARGE •« 37067 19O3 10

WELL- AK*4I0.4?3DATE. 12/11/87

Cii»> uirnn-ttl Cn*ro«ncy *»»pon«* Unrt (EERU)

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.is* nir*»/i i«pn «*« ew i«y r c«««i NJI Mtrr

CASINGLOCK ING CAP__________ ST l CKUP ' = 1 • !*

GROUND SURFACE

CEMENT BENTONITEGROUT6" I.D. STEELCASING

6" DIAMETER OPEN-BORE HOLE

*•*•••*'.V*:V.; -60 '.-....-........1.5' GPM'—*• *-—- — • ,__ s i

.240*

•"•••

°°

•15'

-45'...............1.5 GPM

.83'85'...............3.5'GPM

HO*

•ISO'

•175'

-185-190'

•215'-225'•23O1

PROJECT.

El CHARGE

WELL •«

DATE-

NORTH ROAD

11/4/86Env«-ay>«n-t»> CrxrgrKy Kt«pon»« Urct (EEmj?

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC.en i«y r t*»«r KJ, wrn

CASINGLOCKING CAP—————————^ STICKUP = 1.6'CONCRETE APRQN, fc f J-GROUND SURFACE97/8 SURF AtBORE HOLECEMENT BENTONITE-GROUT6" I.D. STEEL.CASING


PROJECT.

CI CHARGE *

VCLU •<

DATE. /

Cnvconpwn-tkl D*

NORTH ROAD37OA719031O

R6

ltef$W*25«ro»ncy M**pen>« Unrt (CERU)

ENVIRESPDNSE, INC,ISA Rtrrtw top«i H Ctf l«y F C >n K MtT?

APPENDIX B

WELL DATA SUMMARY

Si

IIHifiiII

gII8

CMing

drock

ft

8S5SS885S 8SS3888 : R 3 S S S 8 C S R S : 8 I S88888S888SRS:8 : S^rOfg^do'd^do'ruo^doo * - * s i f t J o o o o o o o o ^ e » e o o o * - d d d o r u * ^ d d

888888888888888888888888 I 8S8S8SSSSS : 8 : S88SSSS888S8S8 : 8d d o ' d m > « * . f « d d g > n ! d d 3 d d Q d Q d d d h l Q o e d d i A i n m d d £J d d d d d ~ d d d o « tX d d

I 2 11 i 111 ° i 11 i I Ilililll s IlSiiSiSts = 3 2 §

S : S ft 8 : : 3 * * 8 8 : 3 K~S S 8 : 8 IB fc R~S 3 g * : S : ic s e S g 8 S ;: S; : SI S : : : fc : s;

I ! £ S S ! 8 i X ! 132S" 3 3 S S S §o •- 5 o *- o

• sa'sssi^ssaîds^SRS s" •»2âtss"R = s"''':ssRS a •"'ss s "

o > w t v * » > « < Q a o r t i n i n » r < i N N > » « i C 9 ^ > ' O < « < Q ^ "9 — o o *- tv M rfS^s s&IIssesSiSsrslssSsss as 525 s s as

^PSrS-sr-lc^-rr^lSjiSîGjs'^^ssssi-Pr'sS-'ls^s1^1 ; s 5l a 2 3 S A s S i s " s ~ s s s £ t

• S c : : S : : : 5 : : : : : £ : : : : : - ::§:§: ::::.:::::§: : g ; : ; : : : : , • :s s s x a s s s * s i

«1- .r»

sft -j-J j S -3s I l! . - S l i i ??l

*

•J is z s s a s s t s s s s a s i S j S s s f t i S g s s K K R g a i j i s s f t R fl<** "* "*v/!5 * ** s

° a s ss a" 3" 3 B= 5 ft S 4

| 1 11 ? f:8 5 5 .£ . •?2 • * ? "- if e ^ ™ ? S i•ss^s a|sill lls -s •; . ? s.is;s|?l!il!t>. s s = * ~s s s s« 2 a 2" 0 0 0

1 S s s

g

!!H1£

h to

Itet

0»/OJ-05/

D«pl

S 8 8 8 8 S 8 g 8 S S 8 8 8 8 8 8e « o « f ^ « > « < o g - « o K < e i X o ps-'s-ssssssesss a

I**3**IIIIi5III51S 3 S S S S S 2 S S S S 2 S 2 S S

. = 25 „ -

s

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATAERB/EERU INSTALLED WELLS

ENVIRESPONSE, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE UNIT

QSA RARITAN DEPOT, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, BUILDING 209, BAY F. EDISON, N.J. 06637(201) 548-9660

NORTH ROAD LANDFILL SITE

Monroe County, PA

El Project No. 37067190310

March 23, 1987

Submitted to: M. Mortenson-USEPA-ERT

Submitted by:

Enviresponse, Inc.

Analysis by:M. D. Garber Envirotech ResearchEI-EERU Project Manager

>

X ffV '' / _______ Reviewed by:J . J . E o r r i s J a n e t Cull inaneE'1-EER'U S&A Section Chief

iga, Ph.D . R i n n I n nQA/QC OffifceV A H i 0 0 k 3 Q

eh/78090:0259D

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I

Case NarrativeSample Results

Volatile Organics Analysis. ............... Table 1PCB/Pesticides Analysis ................. Table 2Base Neutral/Acid Extractables Analysis ......... Table 3Metals Analysis ..................... Table 4Total Cyanides and Phenols. ............... Table 5

SECTION II

QA/QC ProceduresQA/QC Results

Surrogate Standard Recoveries for Volatile Organics. .QA/QC Table 6Duplicate Volatile Organics Analyses ........ .QA/QC Table 7Matrix Spikes for Volatile Organics. ........ .QA/QC Table 8Surrogate Standard Recoveries for PCBs/Pesticides. . .QA/QC Table 9Matrix Spike for PCBs/Pesticides Analysis. ..... .QA/QC Table 10Surrogate Standard Recoveries for Base Neutral/Acid Extractables Analysis ............ .QA/QC Table 11

Duplicate Base Neutral /Acid Extractables Analyses. . .QA/QC Table 12Matrix Spike for Base Neutral/Acid Extractables

Analysis ..................... .QA/QC Table 13Duplicate Metals Analyses. ............. .QA/QC Table 14Matrix Spike for Metals Analysis .......... .QA/QC Table 15Matrix Spike for Total Cyanides and Phenols. .... .QA/QC Table 16

SECTION III

GC/MS Data for Volatile Organics AnalysisSECTION IV

GC Data for PCBs/Pesticides AnalysisSECTION V

GC/MS Data for Base Neutrals AnalysisSECTION VI

Inter!aboratory CorrespondenceSECTION VII

Chain of Custody Records.

eh/7809D:0259D

CASE NARRATIVE

On January 30, 1987, nineteen water samples from the North Road landfillSite in Monroe County, PA were sent to Envirotech Research Laboratory inEdison, NJ. Priority pollutant volatile organics analysis was performedaccording to Method 624 of the EPA Federal Register. All tuning andcalibration requirements were met. Results are presented in Table 1.One water sample, 6016, Well Rl S, was also analyzed for prioritypollutant PCBs/pesticides, base neutral/acid extractables, metals,cyanides and total phenols. These analyses were conducted according toContract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. Again, all requirementswere met. Results are presented in Tables 2 through 5.

eh/78090:02590

TABLE 1. RESULTS OF VOLATILE ORGANICS IN WATER ANALYSIS

Concentrations reported in ug/L

Sample No.

6005 Well T1A

6006 Well TIB

6007 Field Blank

6050 Well T1.1A

6051 Well T1.1B

6016 Well R1S

6053 Well T4

6052 Well RID

6011 Well RID

Parameter Concentration

Chl orobenzenetrans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneVinyl chloride

Benzenetrans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneEthyl benzeneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride

None detected

trans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneTrichloroethene

trans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneTrichloroethene

BenzeneChl orobenzenetrans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride

trans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneMe thy! en e chlorideTe tr a ch 1 oroe th en eTolueneTrichloroetheneCarbon TetrachlorideChloroformtrans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneTe tr a ch 1 oroe th en eTol ueneTrichloroethene

Chloroformtrans-1, 2-Di chl oroe theneTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride

7.29.711.0

4.1*37.41.3*

236.13.7

—

5.840.

20.8118.

3.8*29.041.3138.12.2

42.57.61.5*2.1*

156.

1.1*1.2*

284.3.0*1.0*

5050

1.6*267.

3.2*4800.iffRIOOU

*denotes a positive response that is below the limit of quantificationand considered approximate.

TABLE 1.. RESULTS OF VOLATILE ORGANICS IN WATER ANALYSIS (CONT'D)


Sample No.

6013 Well T2

6012 Well R1.1A

6014 Well R5

6017 Well R1.1B

6015 Well R4

6018 Well T3

6019 Well R2


BenzeneChlorobenzenetrans-1 , 2-Di chl oroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride

Chlorobenzenetrans-1, 2-Di chl oroetheneTol ueneTrichloroethene

Trichloroethene

trans-1 , 2-Di chl oroetheneTol ueneTrichloroethene

trans-1 , 2-Di chl oroetheneTrichloroethene

Benzenetrans-1 , 2-Di chl oroetheneTolueneTrichloroethene

BenzeneCarbon Tetr a chlorideChlorobenzeneChloroform1 ,1-Di chl oroethenetrans-1 , 2-Di chl oroetheneMe thy 1 en e chlorideTetr a chl oroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride

2.4*13.067.517.839.7

1.4*33.71.1*

680.

2.9*

27.71.4*

166.

22.5165.

1.0*26.42.2*

196.

40.32.0*1.3*4.9*7.5

1330.1.9*10.415700.68.7

* denotes a positive response that is below the limit of quantificationand considered approximate.

eh/78090:02590

TABLE 1.. RESULTS OF VOLATILE ORGANICS IN WATER ANALYSIS (CONT'D)

Concentrations reported 1n ug/L

Sample No.

6020 Well R6

6021 Well R3S

6022 Well R30


trans-l,2-DichloroetheneTrichloroethene

trans-l,2-DichloroetheneTol ueneTrichloroethene

trans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneTol ueneTrichloroethene

186.1270.

33.15.9

437.

7.61.7*

156.

*aenotes a positive response that is below the 1 imit or quantificationand considered approximate.

ARIQIU35

eh/78090:02590

TABLE 2. RESULTS OF PCBs/PESICIDES IN WATER ANALYSIS

Concentrations reported In ug/L

Sample No. 6016 Well R1S

Parameter

Aldrin-*- BHC&- BHC5- BHC4- BHCChlordane4, 4 'ODD4, 4 'DDE4, 4' ODD01 el dr inEndosul fan IEndosulfan IIEndosul fan sulfateEndrinEndrln AldehydeHeptachlorHeptachlor EpoxldeToxaphenePCB 1016PCB 1221PCB 1232PCB 1242PCB 1248PCB 1254PCB 1260

Detection Limit

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.50

.10

.10

.10

.10

.05

.10

.10

.10

.10

.05

.051.00.50.50.50.50.501.01.0

Concentration

NDNDNDNDNDNDNONDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

ARIOIU36

eh/7 8090:02590

TABLE 3. RESULTS OF BASE NEUTRAL/ACID EXTRACTABLES ANALYSIS


Sample Mo. 6016 Hell Rl S

Parameter Detection Limit Concentration

Acids:2-Chlorophenol 10.0 NO2-Nitrophenol 10.0 NOPhenol 10.0 NO2,4-Di me thy! phenol 10.0 NO2,4-Dichlorophenol 10.0 ND2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 10.0 ND4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol 10.0 ND2,4-Di nitro phenol 50.0 ND2-Methyl-4,6-dinitropheno1 50.0 NDP en tachloro phenol 50.0 ND4-Nitrophenol 50.0 ND

Base Neutrals:1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene 10. 0.9*1,4-Dichlorobenzene 10. 5.1*Hexachloroethane 10.0 NDBis(2-chloroethyl )ether 10.0 ND1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.8*Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl )ether 10.0 NDN-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10.0 NDNitrobenzene 10.0 NDHexachlorobutadiene 10.0 ND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 10.0 0.2*Isophorone 10.0 NDNapthalene 10.0 2.3*Bis(2-chloroethoxy }methane 10.0 NDHexachlorocyclopentadiene 10.0 ND2-Chloronapthalene 10.0 NDAcenaphthylene 10.0 NDAcenaphthene 10.0 0.3*Di me thy! ph thai ate 10.0 ND2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10.0 NDFluorene 10.0 0.2*4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether 10.0 ND2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10.0 NDDi e thy! ph thai ate 10.0 6.5*N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 10.0 NDHexachlorobenzene 10.0 ND4-Bromophenyl-phenyl ether 10.0 NDPhenanthrene 10.0 NDAnthracene 10.0 ND A R I 0 0 k 3 7

ND denotes not detected.* denotes a positive response that is below the limit of quantificationand considered approximate.eh/78090:02590

TABLE 3. . RESULTS OF BASE NEUTRAL/ACID EXTRACTABLES ANALYSIS (CONT'D)


Sample No. 6016 tell Rl S

Parameter Detection Limit Concentration

Base Neutrals:Dibutylphthalate 10.0 0.8*Fluoranthene 10.0 NDPyrene 10.0 NDBenzidine 50.0 NDButylbenzylph thai ate 10.0 NDBis(2-ethy1 hexyl )ph thai ate 10.0 NDChrysene 10.0 NDBenzo (a) anthracene 10.0 ND3,3'-Dich1orobenzidine 20.0 NDDi-n-octyl phthalate 10.0 NDBenzo (b) fluoranthene 10.0 NDBenzo (k) fluoranthene 10.0 NDBenzo (a) pyrene 10.0 NDIndino (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 10.0 NDDibenzo (a,h) anthracene 10.0 NDBenzo (ghi) perylene 10.0 NDN-Nitrosodi methyl amine 10.0 ND

ND denotes not detected——————* denotes a positive response that is below the limit of quantificationand considered approximate.

eh/780 90:02590

TABLE 4. RESULTS OF METALS ANALYSIS


Sample No. 6016 Well Rl S

Parameter

AntimonyArsenicBeryl 1 iumCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeleniumSilverThai! iumZinc

Detection Limit

3.02.05.05.03.020.2.00.240.2.05.02.033.0

Concentration

3.38.7NONONO27.025.4NONONONDNO160

ND denotes not detected.

ARIOIU39

eh/780 90:02 5 90

TABLE 5. RESULTS OF TOTAL CYANIDES AND PHENOLS ANALYSIS


Sample No. 6016 Well R1S

Parameter

Cyani desPhenols

Detection Limit

20.50.

Concentration

NDM)

NDaenotes not detected.

AR I 001*UO

eh/78090:02590

QA/QC PROCEDURES

Volatile Organlcs Analysis: All calibration standards and samples werespiked with three surrogate standards, bromofluorobenzene, toluene-08,and l,2-d1chloroethane-D4, to ensure the efficiency of the purge unit.The recoveries for these compounds were with the laboratory's QC limitsfor all samples. Results are presented In QA/QC Table 6.Duplicate analyses of three samples were performed to determine matrixhomogeneity. The relative percent difference did not exceed 13 1n anysample for any compound detected. Samples 6052 Well RID and 6019 Well R2contained high levels of trlchloroethene that could not be quantifiedwithout diluting them Into the 1 Inear range. These dilutions wereperformed for the sample analyses but not for the duplicate analyses;thus RPD Is not reported for these parameters. Sample 6019 Well R2 alsocontained a high level of trans-l,2-d1chloroethene and the RPD was notcalculated for the same reason. Results of these duplicate analyses arepresented 1n QA/QC Tables 7A thru 7C.

Three samples were spiked with six volatile organic compounds todetermine any possible matrix effects. Sample 6013, Well T2 showed arecovery of 522$ for trichloroethene. The original sample and the spikedsample were contained in different VOA vials and subsequently, may nothave been identical. Other recoveries ranged from 93% to 116% for allparameters and were within the laboratory QC limits. Results arepresented in QA/QC Table 8A thru 8C.

PCB/Pesticides; One sample, 6016 Well RISwas analyzed forPCBs/Pesticides. The sample and its repl 1cate were spiked with dibutylchlorendate to establish extraction efficiency. Percent recoveriesranged from 100-115 as shown in QA/QC Table 9.

The sample was also analyzed in duplicate. All PCB and pesticidesparameters were undetected in both. The sample was spiked with sixpesticides to determine any possible matrix effects. The recovery forendrin was 156%. No explanation for the high recovery was provided. Allother matrix spikes were within the advisory limits of CLP. Results arepresented in QA/QC Table 10.

Base Neutral/Acid Extractables; Sample 6016 Well R1S, its replicate, anda matrix spike were spiked with three surrogate standards to establishextraction efficiency. Recoveries were within the QA/QC limits of thelaboratory. Results are presented in QA/QC Table 11.

The sample was analyzed in duplicate to determine matrix homogeniety.Relative percent differences (RPD) ranged from 0-25. This was consideredacceptable since all parameters detected were below the limit ofquantification and, at best, approximate. Results are presented in QA/QCTable12' ARIOOÎThe sample was spiked mixture of six phenols and five base neutralcompounds to determine any matrix effects. The.recovery for4-chloro-3-methyl phenol was low at 9.7%. The laboratory attributed thisto a matrix effect. All other recoveries were within the laboratory QClimits. Results are presented in QA/QC Table 13.eh/7 8090:02590

Metals; This analysis was performed In duplicate to determine matrixhomogeneity. Relative percent differences were below 10, except forantimony which had one result below the limit of quantification. Resultsare presented 1n QA/QC Table 14.

The sample was spiked with a mixture of thirteen priority pollutantmetals. Recoveries ranged from 79%-119$ and were within the laboratory'sQC limits. Results are presented In QA/QC Table 15.

Cyanides & Phenols; Sample 6016, Well R-1S was spiked with cyanides andphenols at the 100 ug/L and 200 ug/L levels, respectively. The phenolsrecovery was acceptable at 107*. The recovery for cyanides was 69* andwas not within the laboratory's QC limits. No explanation could beprovided to explain this.

ARIOOH2

eh/780 90 ;02 590

QA/QC TABLE 6. SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERIES FOR VOLATILEORGAN ICS ANALYSIS

Concentrations reported In ug/L*

% Recovery % RecoverySample No. Toluene-Ds Bromofluorobenzene

Method Blank (2/4)Method Blank (2/5)Method Blank (2/16)Method Blank (2/17)5005 Well T1A6006 Well TIB6007 Field Blank6050 Well T1.1A6050 Well T1.1A (Dup)6051 Well T1.1B6016 Well R1S6053 Well T46053 Well T4 (10X)6052 Well RID6052 Well RID (Dup)6052 Well RID (50X Oil )6011 Well RID6011 Well RID (Spike)6011 Well RID (20X Oil )6013 Well T26013 Well T2 (Spike)6012 Well R1.1A6012 Well R1.1A (lOXdil )6014 Well R56017 Well R1.1B6015 Well R46013 Well T36019 Well R26019 Well R2 (Dup)6019 Well R2 (50X dil )6020 Well R66020 Well R6 (20X dil)6021 Well R3S6021 Well R3S (10X dil)6022 Well R306022 Well R3D (Spike)

101.103.99.699.4101.99.599.0100.101.99.899.5101.101.99.299.2102.101.98.8102.100.101.98.7100.100.99.0102.100.99.9101.100.100.98.3

TOO.98.799.399.9

101.101.97.2104.103.102.101.105.104.106.105.96.396.4103.100.97.6

101.102.98.4103.101.102.98.1100.104.101.98.8103.102.106.104.105.102.103.107.105.

% Recovery1 ,2-Didiloroethane-D4

95.697.096.997.7102.99.099.5106.103.106.105.95.192.7100.98.797.0

101.103.97.8104.101.101.100101.115.105.88.1105.108.102.109.97.8

109.102.113.113.

eh/780 9D:0259D

QA/QC TABLE 7A. RESULTS OF DUPLICATE VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSES


Sample No. 6050 Well T1.1A

Parameter Run 1

trans-1,2-D1chloroethene 5.8Trlchloroethene 40.1RPD denotes relative

OA/QC TABLE 7B.

Samole No. 6052 Well

P arameter

Run 2

5.439.9

RPT)

7.10.50

percent difference

RESULTS OF DUPLICATE VOLATILE ORGANICS

Concentrations

RID

Run 1

Carbon tetrachloride 1.1*Chloroform 1.2*trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene 284.Tetrachloroethene 3.0*Toluene 1 .0*Trichloroethene t 5050.

reported 1n ug/L

Run 2

1.1*1.2*

277.3.2*1.0*#

ANALYSES

RPD

002.56.40

RPD denotes relative percent difference.* denotes a positive response that Is below the limit af quantificationand considered approximate.# denotes that undiluted sample concentration is outside linear range andcannot be quantified.

AR I 001*l*l*

eh/780 90:02590

QA/QC TABLE 7C. RESULTS OF DUPLICATE VOLATILE ORGftNICS ANALYSES

Concentrations reported in ug/L ,

Sample Mo. 6019 Well R2

Parameter

BenzeneCarbon tetr a chlorideChlorobenzeneChloroform1 ,1-Dichloroethenetrans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneMethylene chlorideTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride

Run 1

40.32.0*1.3*4.9*7.5

13301.9*

10.415700

68.7

Run 2

35.62.0*1.2*4.9*7.2#1.7*10.4#

69.2

RPD

12.408.004.1--

11.10—

0.72

RPD denotes relative percent difference.* denotes a positive response that is below the limit of quantificationand considered approximate.# undiluted sample concentration is outside the linear range and cannotbe quantified.

ARIOO^S

eh/780 90:02590

QA/QC .TABLE 8A. RESULTS OF MATRIX SPIKE FOR VOLATILE ORGANICSANALYSIS


Sample No. 6011 tell RID

Parameter

1 ,l-D1chloroetheneTrichloroetheneBenzeneTolueneChlorobenzene

SampleCone.

ND4800NDNDND

SpikeCone.

50.50.50.50.50.

RecoveredCone.

52.5#

58.049.550.3

%Recovery

105.#

116.99.0101.

ND denotes not detected.# undiluted sample concentration Is outside the linear range and cannotbe quantified

ARIOOl*i*6

eh/78090:02590

QA/QC TABLE 8B. RESULTS OF MATRIX SPIKE FOR VOLATILE ORGANICSANALYSIS


Sample No. 6013 Well T2

Parameter

1 ,l-D1chloroetheneTrichloroetheneBenzeneTo! ueneChlorobenzene

SampleCone.

NO17.82.4

NO13.0

SpikeCone.

50.50.50.50.50,

RecoveredCone.

49.4279.51.148.461.3

%Recovery

99522979797

NO denotes not detected.

QA/QC TABLE 8C. RESULTS OF MATRIX SPIKE FOR VOLATILE ORGANICSANALYSIS


Sample No. 6022 Well R30

Parameter

1 ,l-D1chloroetheneTrichloroetheneBenzeneTol ueneChlorobenzene

SampleCone.

NO156M)1.7*ND

SpikeCone.

50.50.50.50.50.

RecoveredCone.

46.8207.51.150.351.4

%Recovery

93.610210297.2103

NO denotes not detected.* denotes a positive response that is below the limit of quantificationand considered approximate.

ARIOOU7

eh/7809D:02590

QA/QC TABLE 9. SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERIES FOR PCB/PESTICIDESANALYSIS'


% RecoverySample No. Dibutyl Chlorendate

Method Blank 100,6016 Well R1S 1 1 1 ,6016 Well R1S (dup) 100,6016 Well R1S (spike) 115,

QA/QC TABLE 10. RESULTS OF MATRIX SPIKE FOR PCS/PESTICIDES ANALYSIS



Parameter

LindaneHeptachlorAldrinDieldrinEndrin4, 4' -DOT

SampleCone.

NDNDNDNDNDND

SpikeCone.

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

RecoveredCone.

.49

.37

.48

.48

.78

.44

%Recovery

98.474.196.095.8156.88.5

ND denotes not' detected.

eh/780 90:02590

QA/QC TABLE 11. SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERIES FOR BASE NEUTRAL/ACIDEXTRACTABLES ANALYSIS

Concentrations reported in ug/L * :

Sampel No.

Method Blank6016 Well R1S6016 Well R1S6016 Well R1S

% RecoveryN1 trobenzene-D5

81.477.4

(dup) 65.9(spike) 87.6

% Recovery2-Fluorobiphenyl

74.668.459.773.5

% Recovery4-Terphenyl

14198.075.478.9

ARIOOi*i*9eh/7809D:0259D

QA/QC TABLE 12. RESULTS OF DUPLICATE BASE NEUTRAL/ACIDSEXTRACTABLES ANALYSIS



Parameter

1 ,3-D1chlorobenzene1 ,4-D1chlorobenzene1,2-Dlchlorobenzene1 ,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneNapthaleneAcenaptheneFluor eneD1 ethyl ph thai ateDlbutylph thai ate

Run 1

0.9*5.1*1.8*0.2*2.3*0.3*0.2*6.5*0.8*

Run 2

0.7*4.2*1.5*0.2*1.8*0.3*NO5.9*0.7*

RPD

25.19.418.2024.0—9.713.3

RPD denotes relative percent difference.* denotes a positive response that is below the limit of quantificationand considered approximate.ND denotes not detected.

QA/QC TABLE 13. RESULTS OF MATRIX SPIKE FOR BASE NEUTRAL/AICDEXTRACTABLES ANALYSIS



SampleParameter Cone. .

Phenol2-C h 1 or o phenol1,4-DlchlorobenzeneN-Nitroso-dl-n-propylamine1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene4-Chlro-3-Methyl PhenolAcenapthene4 -N1tro phenol2,4-Din1trophenolP en ta ch 1 or o ph en olPyrene

NOND5.4*ND0.2*ND0.3*NDNDNDND

SpikeCone.

100.100.100.100.100.100.100.100.100.100.100.

RecoveredCone.

15.151.181.282.880.79.7*72.918.571.169.796.8

%Recovery

15.151.175.882.880.59.772.618.571.169.796.8

ND denotes not detected.* denotes a positive response that is below the limit of quantiifjtei irtoii {, Qand considered approximate. Hi\ I uu

eh/78090:02 590

QA/QC TABLE 14. RESULTS OF DUPLICATE METALS ANALYSES

Concentrations reported in ug/LSample No. 6016 Well R1 5

Parameter

AntimonyArsenicBeryl 1 1umCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeleniumSilverThall 1umZinc

Run 1

3.38.7NONDND27.025.4M)NDNDNDND160

Run 2

2.5*9.0

NONDND25.025.7NDNONDNDND160

:RPD- '

27.63.4----_.7.71.2——-_•»••

—0

RPD denotes relative percent difference.M3 denotes not detected.* denotes a value that is below the limit of quantitation and consideredapproximate.

eh/780 90:02590

QA/QC TABLE 15. RESULTS OF MATRIX SPIKE FOR METALS ANALYSIS1'

Concentrations reported in ug/L*


Parameter

An ti monyArsenicBeryl 1 iumCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSel en iumSilverThai! iumZinc

SampleCone.

3.38.7NONDNO27.025.4NONDNDNDND160

SpikeCone.

100.20.50.50.200.250.20.1.0

400.1050.50.200.

RecoveredCone.

81.927.955.046.0164.284.44.70.8

363.11.952.51.1360

•'•'• % •Recovery

79.96.no.92.82.103.97.80.91.119.104.102.100

ND denotes not detected.

eh/780 90:02590

QA/QC TABLE 16. RESULTS OF MATRIX SPIKE FOR CYANIDES ANDTOTAL PHENOLS ANALYSIS

Concentrations reported In ug/L *

Sample No. 6016 tell R1S

Parameter

CyanidesPhenols

SampleCone.

NDND

SpikeCone.

100.200.

RecoveredCone.

69214.

%Recovery

69107.

NO denotes not detected.

ARI001*53eh/780 90:02590

ENVIRESPONSE, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE UNIT

GSA RARITAN DEPOT, WOOOBRIOGE AVENUE. BUILDING 209, BAY F. EDISON, NJ. 06837(201)548-9660

WELL TIB

NORTH ROAD SITE

Reeders, Jackson Twp.

Monroe County, PA

Project No. 3 70 67190310

January 27, 1987

Submitted to: Martin Mortensen

Submitted by:

Enviresponse, Inc.

Analysis by:Mitchell GarberEIÊERU oject Manager Envirotech Research'

V~? Prepared and reviewed by:__________Daniel Chen, Ph.DEI-EERU S&A Section Chief J. B. Mikus

. Giga, . f l R i n n i , m,ERU QA/QC Of Mer A K I U U 4 D 4

rd/7368D:0346D

INTRODUCTION

On December 10, 1986, one well water sample from the North Road Site,Monroe County, PA, was received by Envfresponse and shipped to Envlrotechof Edison, NJ, for complete priority pollutant volatile organic?., PCB/pesticides, base neutral/acid extractables analysis by GC/MS, metals,plus total phenols by colorlmetry.

All priority pollutants were analyzed according to Contract Lab Program(CLP) protocols.

Results are presented In Tables 1-5. Raw data 1s contained In SectionsIII to VI.

rd/73680:03460

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I"•^••••••^ *

IntroductionResults of Volatile Organics Analysis ............ Table 1Results of PCBs/Pesticides Analysis ............ .:' TabTe 2Results of Base Neutral Extractables Analysis ........ Table 3Results of Acid Extractables Analysis ............ Table 4Results of Metals Analysis ................. Table 5

SECTION II

QA/QC ProceduresSurrogate Standard Recoveries for Volatile Organlcs ..... Table 6Results of Duplicate Volatile Organlcs Analysis ....... Table 7Results of Matrix Spike for Volatile Organlcs Analysis . . . Table 8Surrogate Standard Recoveries for PCB/Pestleides Analysis . . Table 9Results of Matrix Spike for Pesticides ........... Table 10Internal and Surrogate Standard Recoveries forBase Neutral/Acid Extractable Analysis .......... Table 11

Results of Duplicate Base Neutral Extractables Analysis . . . Table 12Results of Matrix Spike BNAs Extractable Analysis ...... Table 13Results of Duplicate Metals Analysis ............ Table 14Results of Matrix Spike for Metals and Phenols Analysis . . . Table 15

SECTION III

DFTPP/BFB Spectra

SECTION IV

GC/MS - VOA Raw Data

SECTION V

GC/MS - BNA Raw Data

SECTION VI

GC/ECD - Raw Data

SECTION VII

Inter!aboratory CorrespondenceAR1001456

SECTION VIII

Chain of Custodyrd/7368D:0346D

QA/QC PROCEDURES

The sample was analyzed in duplicate along with a matrix*spike for all ofthe parameters.

Volatile Organics Analysis: The sample was spiked with three surrogatestandards to assure efficient purging and instrument response. Resultsare presented in QA/QC Table 6. Surrogate recoveries ranged from 98 to103%. Duplicate analysis results are presented in QA/QC Table 7. Therelative percent difference of three parameters that had a measureableconcentration was less than 3%.

The recoveries of the matrix spike of all parameters as shown in QA/QCTable 8 are between 104 and 108%.

PCBs/Pesticides: The sample was spiked with a surrogate standard,dibutyl chlorendate, with results shown in QA/QC Table 9. Recoveries arebetween 80 and 88%. The recoveries of a pesticide matrix spike as shownin QA/QC Table 10 are between 83 and 98%.

Base Neutral/Acid Extractables: The sample was spiked with threeinternal standards and three surrogate standards with recoveries shown inQA/QC Table 11. Phenol-d5, 2-Fluorophenol, and 2,4,6-Tribromophenol werenot detected which the service lab explained as poor recovery due to thesample matrix effect.

Results of the duplicate analysis for BNAs as shown in QA/QC Table 12 arebelow the limit of quantification (LOQ).

The recoveries of a SNA matrix spike are presented in QA/QC Table 13.Low recoveries for phenol, 2-chlorophenol and 4-chloro-3-methylphenol areexplained as due to a sample matrix effect by the service lab.

Metals: Results of duplicate analyses are shown in QA/QC Table 14.Antimony was not detected in the sample but was found in the duplicaterun. A value of 2.8 ppb for lead was determined in the blank whichindicates possible laboratory contamination of the sample. The samplewas spiked with the thirteen priority pollutant metals to determinematrix effects. Recoveries were out of QC limits for antimony, arsenic,and selenium as shown in QA/QC Table 15.

Phenols: The sample was spiked at the 500 ug/L level with a recovery of101%.

ARIOOI457

rd/7368D:0346D

Table 1. Results of Priority Pollutant Volatile Organlcs AnalysisConcentrations reported 1n ug/L

Sample No. 6002Envlrotech No. 11076

Parameter

BenzeneBromodlchlorome thaneBromoformBromome thaneCarbon tetrachlorldeChlorobenzeneChloroe thane2-Chloroethyl Vinyl etherChloroformChloromethaneDlbromochl orome thane1 ,l-D1chloroethane1,2-DI chloroe thane1 ,l-D1chloroethenetrans-1 , 2-D1 chl oroethene1 ,2-D1chloropropanecls-1 ,3-01 chl oropropenetrans-1 ,3-DI chl oropropeneEthyl benzeneMethylene chloride1 ,1 ,2,2-TetrachloroethaneTe trach 1 oroetheneTo! uene1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane1 ,1 ,2-TrlchloroethaneTrl chl oroetheneTrl chl orofluorome thaneVinyl chloride

Concentration

NO (5)NO (5)NO (5)NO (10)NO (5)7.84NO (10)NO (10)NO (5)ND (10)NO (5)ND (5)ND (5)ND (5)33.0ND (5)ND (5)ND (5)ND (5)ND (5)ND (5)ND (5)ND (5)ND (5)ND (5)* (5)ND (5)11.3

ND denotes not detected. Values In parentheses Indicate detection limit.*denotes a positive response that is below the specified detection limit.

ARIOOi*58

rd/73680:03460

Table 2. Results of PCS/Pesticides Analysis


Sample No. 6002Envirotech No. 11076

Parameter

AldrinAlpha-8 HCBeta-BHCDelta -BHCGamma -GHC (Lindane)Chlordane4, 4 '-ODD4, 4 '-DDE4 ,4 '-DOTDieldrinEndosulfan IEndosulfan IIEndosulfan SulfateEndrinEndrin AldehydeHeptachlorHeptachlor EpoxideToxaphenePCB-1016PCB-1221PCS- 1232PCS -12 42PCB-1248PCB-1254PCB-1260

Concentration

NDNONDNDNDNDNONDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

Method Detection Limit

0.050.050.050.050.050.500.100.100.100.100.050.100.100.100.100.050.051.000.500.500.500.500.501.001.00

rd/73680:03460

Table 3. Results of Base Neutral/Acid Extractable Analysis **.9Concentrations reported in ug/L



1,3-Dichlorobenzene *(10)1,4-Dichlorobenzene *(10)Hexachloroethane ND (10)Bis (2-chloroetnyl) ether ND (10)1,2-Dichlorobenzene *(10)Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether ND (10)N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine ND (10)Nitrobenzene ND (10)Hexachlorobutadiene NO (10)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND (10)Isophorone ND (10)Naphthalene ND (10)Bis (2-Chloroethoxy) methane ND (10)Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND (10)2-Chlqronaphthalene ND (10)Acenaphthylene ND (10)Acenaphthene ND (10)Dimethyl phthai ate ND (10)2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND (10)Fluorene ND (10)4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ND (10)2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND (10)Diethylph thai ate *(10)N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND (10)Hexachlorobenzene ND (10)4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ND (10)Phenanthrene ND (10)Anthracene • ND (10)Dibutyl phthalate ND (10)Fluoranthene ND (10)Pyrene ND (10)Benzidine ND (80)Butyl benzyl phthalate ND (10)Bis (2-ethyl hexyl ) phthalate *(10)Chrysene ND (10)Benzo (a) anthracene ND (10)3,3-Dichlorobenzidine ND (20)Di-n-octyl phthalate *(10)Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND (10)Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND (10)Benzo (a) pyrene ND (10)Indeno (l,2,3-c,d) pyrene ND (10)Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND (10) AR I 00^60Benzo (g.h.i) perylene ND (10)N-Nitrosodimethylamine ND (10)

ND denotes not detected.Values in parentheses indicate detection limit.*denotes a positive response that is below the specified detection limit.rd/7368D:0346D

Table 4. Results of Add Extractables AnalysisConcentrations reported in ug/L


Parameter

2-Chlorophenol2-NitrophenolPhenol2, 4- Dime thy! phenol2, 4-Dichloro phenol2,4,6-Trichlorophenol4-Chl oro-3-methyl phenol2,4-Dinitrophenol2, Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenolPentachlorophenol4-Nitro phenol

Concentration

ND (10)ND (10)ND (10)ND (10)ND (10)ND (10)ND (10)ND (50)ND (50)ND (50)ND (50)

ND denotes not detected. Values in parentheses indicate detection limit.*denotes a positive response that is below the specified detection limit.

ARIOOI46Ird/7368D:0346D

Table 5. Results of Priority Pollutant Metals and Phenols Analysis



Parameter

AntimonyArsenicBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumZinc

Phenols, Total

Concentration

NO (1)55.9NO (5)NO (10)77257.3NO (0.2)NO (40)NO (1)ND (10)NO (2)31

ND (50)

NO denotes not detected. Values in parentheses indicate detection limit.

rd/73680:03460

QA/QC Table.6. Surrogate Standard Recoveries for Volatile Organics Analysis

*

Sample No.Envirotech No. 11076

6002

6002-dupl icate

6002- spike

6002-blank

Parameter

Toluene-dSBromofl uorobenzene!,2-Dich1oroethane-d4

To! uene-d8Bromofl uorobenzene1 ,2-Dichloroethane-d4

Toluene-d8Bromofl uorobenzene1 ,2-D1chloroethane-d4

To! uene-d8Bromofl uorobenzene1 ,2-Dichloroethane-d4

Percent Recovery

10310198.3

101100105

10399.8101

10310399

rd/7368D:0346D

QA/QC Table 7. Results of Duplicate Volatile Organics Analysis



Parameter

ChlorobenzeneTrans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride

Run #1

7.8433.02.16*

11.3

Run #2

7.6732.12.07*

11.1

Di f f erence

0.170.9____0.2

Mean

7.7632.6_-_-11.2

RPD

2.192.76

1.79

RPD denotes relative percent difference.indicates a positive response that is below the specified detectionlimit.

AR I 00^*61*

rd/7368D:0346D

QA/QC Table 8. Results of Matrix Spike for Volatile Organics Analysis



Parameter

1,1 DicnloroetheneTrichloroetheneBenzeneTol ueneChlorobenzene

SpikeCone.

5050505050

SampleCone.

ND2.16*

NDND7.84

RecoveredCone.

52.654.852.152.561.9

PercentRecovery

105105104105108

*indicates a positive response below the specified detection limit.

rd/7368D:0346D

QA/QC Table 9. Surrogate Standard Recoveries for PCB/Pesticides Analysis

Sample Parameter Recovery Percent

Dibutyl Chlorendate60026002 duplicate6002 spike6002 blank

87.287.280.188.3

rd/73680:03460

AR100U66

QA/QC Table 10. Results of Matrix Spike for PCB/Pesticides Analysis



Parameter

LindaneHeptachlorAldrlnD1eldr1nEndrln4,4' DOT

SpikeCone.

0.200.200.200.200.200.20

SampleCone.

000000

RecoveredCone.

0.1740.1740.1660.1810.1960.170

PercentRecovery

87.087.083.090.598.085.0

rd/73680:03460

QA/QC Table 11. Internal and Surrogate Standard Recoveriesfor Base Neutral/Acid Extr'actables Analysis


Parameter 6002 6002 Duplicate 6002 Spike 6002 BlankPercent

N1trobenzene-d5 81.6 69.7 91.6 82.82-Fluorob1phenyl 97.5 83.8 94.6 98.2Terphenyl-dl4 91.5 76.7 95.8 101Phenol-d5 ND* ND* ND* 32.92-Fluorophenol ND* ND* ND* 56.02,4,6-Tribromophenol ND* ND* 10.1 66.1

*poor recovery due to sample matrix effect.

rd/7368D:0346D

ARIOQ1468

QA/QC Table 12. Results of Duplicate Base Neutral Extractables Analyses



Parameter

1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene1 ,4-D1chlorobenzene1 , 2-Di chl orobenzeneD1 e thy Iph thai ateBis(2-ethylhexyl )phthalateDi -n-octyl -ph thai ate

Run #1

.28*2.46*1.28*3.10*2.74*1.98*

Run #2

.22*2.34*1.12*2.72*

0.90*

Difference

.06

.12

.16

.38

1.08

Mean

.252.401.202.91

1.44

RPD

24.05.0

13.313.1

75.0

*below limit of quantification.RPD dentoes relative percent difference.

rd/7368D:0346D

QA/QC Table 13. Results of Matrix Spike for BaseNeutral/Add Extractables AnalysesConcentrations reported In ug/L


Parameter

Phenol2-Chlorophenol1 ,4-D1 ch 1 orobenzeneN-N1troso-d1-n-Propylm1ne1 , 2, 4-T rich! orobenzene4-Chl oro-3-Methyl -phenolAcenaphthene4-Nltrophenol2 ,4-D1 n 1 trotol ueneP en tachloro phenolPyrene

SpikeCone.

100100100100100100100100100100100

SampleCone.

NO (10)NO (10)2.46NO (10)NO (10)NO (10)ND (10)ND (50)ND (10)ND (50)ND (10)

RecoveredCone.

NDND79.691.582.81.885.223.480.841.486.7

PercentRecovery

0*0*77.191.582.81.8*85.223.480.841.486.7

*poor recovery due to sample matrix effect.ND denotes not detected. Values In parentheses Indicate detection limits.

rd/7368D:0346D

QA/QC Table 14. Results of Duplicate Metals Analyses



Parameter Run #1 Run #2 Difference Mean RPD

Antimony ND (1 ) 1.2 —— —— ——Arsenic 55.9 61.5 5.6 58.7 9.54Chromium 77.0 101 24 89.0 27.0Copper 25.0 26.0 1.0 25.5 3.92Lead 7.3* 7.7* 0.4 7.5 5.33Zinc 31.0 41.0 10.0 36.0 27.8

*conc. In blank of 2.8 ug/L.RPD denotes relative percent difference.

A R I O O l » 7 l

rd/7368D:0346D

QA/QC Table 15. Results of Matrix Spike for Metals and Phenols Analyses



Parameter

AntimonyArsenicBerylliumCadiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeleniumSilverThai 1 iumZinc

Total Phenols

SpikeCone.

100205050200250205.0400105050200

500

Sampl eCone.

ND (1)55.9NO (5)NO (10)77257.3

ND (0.2)ND (40)ND (1)ND (10)ND (1)31

ND (50)

RecoveredCone.

47.882.949.056.026729528.34.95

35514.25447.2278

503

PercentRecovery

47.8*135*98112951081059989

142*10894124

101

ND denotes not detected. Values in parentheses indicate detection limit.*recovery is outside acceptable QC limits.

BRIOOi*72

rd/73680:03460

APPENDIX D

SINGLE WELL PUMP TEST DATA

ARIOQii73

WELL: R1S DATE: 01/29/87FLOW: 10 gpm PUMP ON: 1421:30

PUMP OFF: 1518:24

DRAWDOWN DATA RECOVERY DATA

t (min) FT s (ft) t (min) t'(min) t/t' FT s'(ft)

0.0 75.53 — 57.00 0.10 570.0 74.10 1.432.0 74.76 0.77 57.03 0.13 438.7 74.22 1.315.0 74.40 1.13 57.10 0.20 285.5 74.37 1.167.0 74.33 1.20 57.17 0.27 211.7 74.53 1.00

10.0 74.32 1.21 57.23 0.33 173.4 74.67 0.8615.0 74.27 1.26 57.33 0.43 133.3 74.83 0.7020.0 74.20 1.33 57.50 0.60 95.8 75.06 0.4725.0 74.19 1.34 57.67 0.77 74.9 75.33 0.2030.0 74.14 1.39 57.83 0.93 62.2 75.45 0.0840.0 74.10 1.43 58.00 1.10 52.7 75.53 0.0050.0 74.06 1.4756.9 74.03 1.50

AR I 001*71*

Ea.

in CNJ• «© rHI I

<>I CTi*y in

— **>

®\ w a oco -a K> e> tr> oo

C»<NO H^fO caojio EH u> coII II II II II II II II H HUH

*

v\

04

-o

LU

o-o s-b- x o-'i- g-'t- o'2-S (W)

a.en

<x

IT)"•

OIO• -P

W ft oIO O & 00

vo U) in -x, 1/1 <y\OJ <N iH EH «-< r-l

H M It U B II

< I__________ _____________________________.

o:

S'O- . V0'i- g-t-,s

o . .O

.o1TI

WELL: RID DATE: 01/30/87FLOW: 5 gpm PUMP ON: 1003:32

PUMP OFF: 1110:32


t (min) FT s (ft) t (min) t'(min) c/c' FT s'(ft)

0 121.51 — 58 2 29.0 3.36 118.151 120.34 1.17 59 3 19.7 4.61 116.902 120.25 1.26 60 4 15.0 5.24 116.273 116.74 4.77 61 5 12.2 6.10 115.414 111.51 10.00 63 7 9.0 7.42 114.095 107.76 13.75 66 10 6.6 9.61 111.907 102.68 18.83 71 15 4.7 13.13 108.3810 95.87 25.64 76 20 3.8 16.49 105.0220 75.95 45.56 86 30 2.9 23.21 98.3025 65.56 55.95 96 40 2.4 29.46 92.0530 53.76 67.75 98 42 2.3 31.25 90.2640 31.84 89.6750 11.17 110.3455 1.68 119.83

AR I 001*77

N NI P O Pin <w vo P IMU> -P \ rH «*-! -V.

-, — «w -0 N ~ "v «Ow \ "^ a «^.-D o> &K> -~ -o <n o to->o. ^*oi-^ma ^* ^.int* r-4CX— O JQ rH «> O— jQ^m^^ \\C« «»îCO .00®«3 UJ 00 _ CO • V O l £ > > o! ••o»c«n f^© CMJCJI^ H t^ oii ii ii ii ii n ii n ii N H ii-" -4 N C4E-i u: e-< £

CLQ CT>

-Jg

s

1

*f

I

x

;-

f

1

-.I-'."T.q•*

/

^^

/

.

//

i

^/

>•

^

x

,xX2

X

I

X*

1

7*ft

*s-

•* «~

-c

-oV•*- c — s

LJ" >P

JLD i nnft 7R0 9Z- OS- Si- 001- SZt- OSL- 9il~

(W

I M00 <->

in O. ^— 0 ri m* A^T-tVO **> X. PO «(>) <N £-• M O

It II II II II

Q.Q C71

^

o<o:

S3- OS- Q/.- 001-- S3L- OSL- SZ.L-1Gi- 001- SZl- OSL- SiL-J, , nm 7Q(W) Ay3A003d SR1001.79

WELL: R1.1A DATE: 02/02/87FLOW: 5 gpjn PUMP ON: 1605:45

PUMP OFF: 1657:10


t (min) FT s (ft) t (min) t'(min) t/t1 FT s'(ft)

0 147.67 — 52.4 1 52.4 1.80 145.871 144.16 3.51 53.4 2 26.7 4.76 142.912 137.77 9.90 54.4 3 18.1 6.71 140.963 133.25 14.42 56.4 5 11.3 7.57 140.105 127.16 20.51 58.4 7 8.3 8.20 139.477 121.79 25.88 61.4 10 6.1 9.29 138.38

10 114.54 33.13 66.4 15 4.4 10.85 136.8215 103.31 44.36 71.4 20 3.6 12.57 135.1020 90.13 57.54 76.4 25 3.1 14.21 133.4625 77.11 70.56 81.4 30 2.7 17.80 129.8730 60.72 86.95 91.4 40 2.3 21.01 126.6635 45.27 102.4040 30.67 117.0045 16.63 131.0450 3.43 144.2451 0.86 146.81

ARIOO^SO

of)

in —^ <M I\ U 00•* <W t-HCO 4-> \ <N

-. — <W -O w^-w v. x. o. w'v.^Q, to-â coOco >v.inty rH

J3 t-< if) o^- J2 \ n"V.>v»-» •>»'»ro ô®^ r * - « \£> \o • N • •E-* <N O (NCNiO EH in O

ii n n n ii n H it n."? N Nu: EH w

:?»-»

\\

m o m oCM m r- o csjI I I v V

(W) NMOQMVda

UJ

RJQOE48!

I«in

w >«- •>. O.IO — TJ <*) O•N. in a ooO *- • Cr. r-i <J»•O »* XI -s. t-l«> vo tn v. m •

it il if U n ll

J

©

93- 09- Lr 001- 521.- 051.-,S

H

•o

O

WELL: R1.1B DATE: 02/03/87FLOW: 5 gpm PUMP ON: 1027:30

PUMP OFF: 1128:30


c (min) FT s (ft) t (min) c'(min) z/z' FT s'(ft)

0 131.38 — 62 1 62.0 17.30 114.081 125.48 5.90 63 2 31.5 18.45 112.932 123.34 8.04 64 3 21.3 19.37 112.013 121.77 9.61 66 5 13.2 20.98 110.405 116.14 15.24 68 7 9.7 22.58 108.807 110.96 20.42 71 10 7.1 25.07 106.3110 103.68 27.70 73 12 6.1 26.68 104.7015 92.29 39.0920 81.18 50.2030 61.41 69.9740 43.87 87.5150 28.06 103.3260 13.90 117.4861 12.52 118.86

r~ tf>™ « I MI P r- 4J00 <4-l ** -P <4-J«> «-> "X r-4 >W -x

- — "w •o «— -v. *o8J V. >v a W-v*O in Q,*o —< "O m& 10 — o, voOi

^0 ^P O3 M OQ * VO tft * (SI •

O3 O3 CO p CO 5 O3 3 Tfc & ty\

II II II II H II II H II H fl

EH î r * »5

LU

0 92- 09- 9Z- 00 L- SZL- 091-s (W) NMOQMVyO

^100^8^

I« ri© prH P <*-!

- — <W \CO >v \ t?K> — TJ lf> Q.>x IT) O. VD tJO— CT rH^* A ~-> mVD vD CO N^. o-) .fN <N W £H 00 ©

II II II II II IIEH j*

//>

//1

?I-

f

ft

<•>

>

r *~

ij-4-J

-O_ ^~. * *F o: !<cr

JLH i nn^pi^gz- qs-, SL- ooi-,s

WELL: R2 DATE: 02/04/87FLOW: 15 gpm PUMP ON: 1504:45

PUMP OFF: 1543:15


t (min) FT s (ft) c (min) r'(min) t/c1 FT s'tft]

0 109.83 — 39.5 1 39.5 9.92 99.911 103.39 6.44 40.5 2 20.3 17.46 92.372 101.25 8.58 41.5 3 13.8 23.74 86.093 100.94 8.89 43.5 5 8.7 35.23 74.605 93.13 16.70 45.5 7 6.5 45.57 64.267 83.48 26.35 48.5 10 4.9 59.39 50.44

10 71.69 38.14 53.5 15 3.6 77.09 32.7415 53.61 56.22 58.5 20 2.9 89.15 20.6820 37.95 71.88 62.5 24 2.6 95.54 14.2925 26.04 83.7930 16.08 93.7535 7.20 102.6338 1.84 107.9960 13.90 89.4961 12.52 90.87

ARIOO!486 A(9

Ea.en

i

o

IT) U

w — >v aK) in -o in &\ t-l O. rHQ~ O» r-l ©

HUH || II np J

ISl

-e

-e

4-

s-

^3-^

x^^'X

sX/xtf <5

X^x-^

SX-

^^^^ VJ

T~

-I-1

x*- >c-2F• V— s

\jj"J>p

sz- os- s :- ooi- szt-W) NMOQMVya

COf>I

oo pCO ijj— V \

- "--'W T!w -« \ XK> m TJ in &\,H O, rHex «- c» ^ t-•» ja\ <M

I' II H II II II

D.

09- S£- 00 -

o!<cr

WELL: R3D DATE: 02/05/87FLOW: 5 gpm PUMP ON: 1416:05

PUMP OFF: 1529:15


(min) FT s (ft) t (min) t'dnin) t/t1 FT s'(ft)

0 119.14 — 74.17 1 74.2 92.78 26.361 114.38 4.76 75.17 2 37.6 95.82 23.322 112.59 6.55 76.17 3 25.4 98.17 20.973 112.51 6.63 78.17 5 15.6 102.46 16.685 112.13 7.01 80.17 7 11.5 105.91 13.237 109.96 9.18 83.17 10 8.3 109.66 9.48

10 106.45 12.69 88.17 15 5.9 113.41 5.7315 102.33 16.81 93.17 20 4.7 115.05 4.0920 99.53 19.61 100.17 27 3.7 115.91 3.2325 97.35 21.7930 95.56 23.5835 94.23 24.9140 93.22 25.9250 91.86 27.2860 89.56 29.5870 87.86 31.2873 87.62 31.52

rorHIin

f»1 U ~— <M TJ

m \ >«. Oto — tJ ro cr>s. m a ^*O *- & r-i mTJ Ji iJ - V£) VO r-< V. rH •M CJ VO E-< VO O

II II II II II II

a.Q enro

*4

*£

?*

0 S- 01-St- 02- S3- OC- 9£-s (w)

LJ

CO•

t-t»-4I

*

in

oj x. v. aK> -»-o ro tr\ m a **O^- O rH en^ TJI .Q nvo vo <x> \ u> •<N (N IT) EH IT) O

HUH II tl II

Q.Q O*K>0:10

<)

o s- 01- si- 02- 93- oe-•s (w)

o


PUMP OFF: 1240:05


t (min) FT s (fr) t (min) t'(min) c/t' FT s'(ft)

0 89.70 — 48 7 6.9 5.55 84.151 80.93 8.77 51 10 5.1 16.70 73.002 76.26 13.44 56 15 3.7 32.09 57.613 68.99 20.71 61 20 3.1 44.19 45.515 54.98 34.72 66 25 2.6 53.57 36.137 43.26 46.44 71 30 2.4 60.65 29.0510 28.64 61.06 81 40 2.0 70.00 19.7015 10.07 79.63 91 50 1.8 75.20 14.5018 1.46 88.24 101 60 1.7 77.76 11.94

106 65 1.6 78.27 11.43

EQ.

mroI

If) »jVO >w— P \\ "W TJw — \ a

to ID "O r- a."•v t-1 ft <sjO— D> i-i oa*» 'a1 ja -v. f>Vf) VD O X. © .oj ca TJ« JL, i oII II II II II ii

S3- OS- S£-s (W) NMOQMVaa

'*§LJ

0 52- . ^ OS- SA- ^^00^93

CMI

Iin

W .-. \ ft•o in -o r~ tr\ rH a CMo — a. IH ,-ovo voOJ CJ

II II V

x1

° *y M"

o!<


PUMP OFF: 1331:35


i (min) FT s (ft) t (min) r'(min) c/t1 FT s'(ft)FTi

0 165.21 — 89.1 1 89.1 160.79 4.421 162.55 2.66 90.1 2 45.0 161.72 3.492 161.54 3.67 91.1 3 30.4 161.96 3.253 160.92 4.29 92.1 4 23.0 162.19 3.025 160.45 4.76 93.1 5 18.6 162.42 2.797 160.06 5.15 95.1 7 13.6 162.74 2.4710 159.67 5.54 97.1 9 10.8 163.05 2.1615 159.03 6.1820 158.72 6.4925 158.50 6.7130 158.26 6.9540 157.87 7.3450 157.65 7.5660 157.57 7.6470 157.51 7.7080 157.27 7.94

EQ.Oi

iT)O

lOIoo•<r>

M — 73 O TJK) © D, f) ft^ f-l tJI OJ &

cj oa r- f-« P- nll it il li ll II

1M

-o

LJ

h-

o e- . s- s- 01-s (W) NMOQMVyQ

caimVO

- v. *O O(0 — Qi <"OK> © O> rq*•«. rH -N.O*-- in in^ ^" <*> A <^vo uj o \ ow d 1-1 E-< inII ll ll it ll

EQ.C7>

lOO

OO'O 9Z'l-,S

\*:I

001*9700'5-


PUMP OFF: 1116:55


t (min) FT s (ft) c (min) t'(min) t/t1 FT s'(ft)

0 168.55 — 26.7 1 26.7 102.47 66.081 163.86 4.69 27.7 2 13.8 103.17 65.382 159.64 8.91 28.7 3 9.6 103.49 65.063 156.28 12.27 30.7 5 6.1 104.03 64.525 150.90 17.65 32.7 7 4.7 104.66 63.897 145.58 22.97 35.7 10 3.6 105.36 63.1910 137.76 30.79 40.7 15 2.7 106.77 61.7815 125.12 43.43 45.7 20 2.3 108.18 60.3720 113.17 55.38 50.7 25 2.0 109.42 59.1325 101.30 67.25 55.7 30 1.9 110.68 57.87

60.7 35 1.7 111.93 56.6265.7 40 1.6 113.26 55.29

ARI001498

I ' H U H

tncsj'©

-s'O COQl lO-^TJ C0a cxi N^m Q, ~

aa*

ii()

-e

•e-

^-y

f

J

/

I

'

J

3

-

QZ-

/

-"

x

x

^'

^

/

//

L€r

^

t1

i

^1J

i>

X"*^

OS- S/.-NMOQMVya

'"'

r-

^

-4-

*

-O f

û,•*5*z

"J

.

~s

J>.

I—

fiFOOL-

100^99

Q.O»

COctio

— mJ ^

1 j j 1

(

1 <->00 U-lr- -P -v.

w \ \ a*O . — . TJ co £•\ in ft cjO~ D> <N rH^ "> JQ \fM\o u& r *ss, r*» •c cj *s* 9 *" ©II 8 II II II IIH fed

f

) ,s93(w) Ay://

(

ft

ti

&

f

o

>J

/x

J//

•/

os- ' ' ' ' s/fl3A003y

APPENDIX E

SLUG TEST DATA

f l R l l O O S O l

BOUWER AND RICE

SLUG TEST - FULLY OR PARTIALLY PENETRATING WELLS IN UNCONFINED AQUIFERS

re Cln (Vrw)3 1 , *nK s ———— 2L ———— t ^ Y CEQUATION

K « Horizontal hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

r = Casing I.D. radius (meters)cY » Head at time J3 (meters) (head iimediately after slug ranoved below static

water level)

Yt = Head at time t (meters) below static water level

t * Time since YO (seconds)

Le = Length of screen (or uncased) section of borehole (meters)

In (R /r ) = 1.1 A + B [In [**-*** w33 [EQUATION (2)]6 W

L - Distance from bottom of screen/borehole to water table (meters)wr » Radial distance from center of well to undisturbed aquifer (meters)wH = Distance from bottom of aquifer (i.e. impervious zone) to water

table (meters)

A,B = Dimensionless parameters (Bouwer and Rice, 1976; Bouwer, 1978)

IF In C(H-Lw)/rw]~6 then In [(H-LJ/r =6

IFH=Lw (Fully penetrating well), EQUATION (2) replaced with EQUATION (3):

1______

C - Dimensionless parameter (Bouwer and Rice, 1976, Bouwer, 197 B 1 00502

enCO

li.O>•at

1ADC

Soc

(MOf

03

at

o

oc

*

*~

rg

CO

*^

*

ON- d o in «- K o

8 . 2 § * S S 2 2 8 .o s» o o in T- in o

g s f g - * « « V J i n » g• in . • • o «p •OKI o o in »= PS o

g ^ o ^ ^ o i n ^ g• O ? » " » ^ ^ - K 1 "

§ f \ j o *>* f1** m C5 ^f oo* O 'O "^ U^ • • O

0 * 4 - o o m « - h » o

§ - * £ 5 £ S 2 ^ SO f5 O O -» (MO

o o rvj rst o rst • rv «-

s s g s i P S ^ a sO Kl O O fH Kl 0

d " d e . ~ ^ ^ d

d » ^ d d « ^ * " « ^ d

• K» O • «\J "~ «* O

§ 8 ? « | S £ ^ S 3 S !o d

^

S « l s « 5 u 5 «o t» e ** £ s x

to oin•o

— — — —

in oXin(M

•* -*•O 0

XOKl

in ino o

XinINJ

CM in•- o

in

5 2

V™

8 2i

• ir\j o

o

0 Kl« o

<

§ Vin o

in (M(M O

(M

fO KlO**.

Kt

«5 _i»

|Af|«

00503

TEST DATA: OVERBUKDEI IELLS

»ELL: Tli IELL: TIB IELL: T1.1BDATE: 11/12/87 DiTE: 11/12/87 DATE: 11/13/87

t (sec) FT s Ift) t isec) FT s (ft) t (sec) FT s ift)

I 9.31 1.13 f 13.441 9.65 1.77 1.5 13.712 9.77 1.65 1 13.913 9.88 1.54 2 14.164 9.96 1.46 3 14.135 II. 14 US '6 14.17

» 17.15 1.69 I 11.611 17.27 1.57 31 11.652 17.31 1.54 61 11.66

STATIC 11.42 — STATIC 14.21 — STATIC 3.83,76 I 3.11,43 1 3.29,31 2 3.33,15 3 3.41,18 4 3.45,14 5 3.52

735451,42,38,31,27,23

6 11.11 1.31 *6 3.567 11.15 1.27 9 3.619 11.23 1.19

•11 11.27 1.1516 11.31 f.ll

HELL: T2 ifELL: T3 IELL: T4DATE: 11/14/17 DATE: 11/13/87 DATE: 11/14/87

. (sec) FT s (ft) t (sec) FT s (ft) t (sec) FT s (ft)

STATIC 17.84 — STATIC 11.19 — STATIC 11.34,57 I 9.69 1.65,54 1 9.76 1.57,53 2 9.88 f.46,49 6 9.92 1.42,39 9 9.95 1.38

3 17.35 1.51 «27I 11.714 17.38 1.46 571 11.817 17.42 1.42 II 9.99 1.349 17.46 1.38 12 11.13 1.3113 17.51 1.35 17 11.17 1.27•16 17.54 1.31 *2f 11.11 1.2319 17.57 1.27 22 11.15 1.19

25 If.18 1.15

IOTES: lo recovery noted in fell TLI A during test period.* Indicates tiie-draidow period used in Boater and Rice slag test analyses.

SLUG TEST DATA PLOTSOVERBURDEN WELLS

WELL: T1ADATE: 01/12/87

*™

S.

X

^

X

\

\\

\}V\\v 5. t-11

°0 5 10 15 20TIME (sec)

WELL: T1.18DATE: 01/13/87

*~

^

S

•**.

S

a _

N ~-i\N

Y(t)=0. 7. t 6~"~ —— ~e

-0 2 4 6 8 1CTIME (sec)

WELL: T3DATE: 01/13/87

*~

•N,j

f

"t*s

*- • ——23M • •Ml

Y("•=

)=0•—— ,

49.

— —

t=2

— ~.

'0

— --_

-0 100 200 300 400 500 600TIME (sec)

:LLSWELL: T18DATE: 01/12/87

•v

7<\

T

4

\\

N\Vw* .

" ^ ^ ^ ^" ^ ^Y(t)-0.04J t

- 0 2 4TIME (sec)


yv

N

X

X

S

T

•^-

~-»~.

-6

O

-0 5 10TIME (sec)


"XJ

*s

•J^

1

\-«^^

1

0 5 10 15 2CTIME (sec)

a

Y(t)=0.31t-16

*

15

(To\•r-i-T i

20

3

0505

I 25 30

TEST DATA: BEDIOCI RLLS

fELL: US IELL: RID VBLl: RUBDATE: 11/12/87 DiTE: 11/12/87 DATE: 11/13/87

C (sec) FT s (ft) t (sec) FT s (ft) t (sec) FT s (ft)

STATIC 19.42 — STATIC 38.45 --- STATIC 39.22I 18.39 1.14 I 36.16 2.29 I 36.93 2.291 18.42 1.11 II 36.31 2.14 8 37.11 2.212 18.43 1H 55 36.43 2.12 53 37.12 2.114 18.51 1.92 81 36.52 1.93 121 37.31 1.915 18.54 1.88 121 36.65 1.81 '181 37.39 1.836 18.51 1.84 151 36.77 1.68 251 37.46 1.769 18.65 1.77 '211 36.92 1.53 311 37.58 1.6411 18.69 1.73 311 37.13 1.32 411 37.69 1.5313 18.73 1.69 411 37.33 1.12 511 37.77 1.45•16 18.81 f.61 511 37.53 1.9218 18.85 1.5722 18.89 1.5425 18.92 1.5127 18.96 1.4631 19.14 1.38

tfELL: R2 WELL: R3D ftELL: R5DATE: 11/14/87 DATE: 11/13/87 DATE: 11/13/87

t isec) FT s (ft) t (sec) FT s (ft! t (sec) FT s (ft)

STATIC 47.51 — STATIC 59.69 — . STATIC 24.61I 45.33 2.18 I 57.41 2.29 I 22.17 2.53II 45.56 1.95 3 57.74 1.95 1 22.18 2.4221 45.71 1.81 12 57.87 1-.82 3 22.41 2.1931 45.86 1.65 24 58.11 1.69 5 22.61 2.1141 45.98 1.53 75 58.46 1.23 7 22.72 1.88'71 46.25 1.26 '121 58.72 1.97 II 22.91 1.691M 46.48 1.13 181 59.12 1.67 15 23.18 1.42181 46.91 I.61 311 59.33 1.36 '21 23.37 1.23253 47.19 1.42 31 23.64 1.96

41 23.87 1.7351 23.98 1.62

IOTES: Ro recovery noted in iells R1.1A and I3S during test period.Test dati incomplete in Iells R4 and R6.* Indicates tiie-draidoin period used in Bonier and Rice slug tesc analyses.

AR100506

BEDROCK WELLS

WELL: R1SDATE: 01/12/87•*N.V

"*

1

^Sjw-

"••-.

0 2

0.61, t-16

\1

0 3

1

0 *

i PLOTS;LS

WELL- R10DATE: 01/12/87

\X

7

i 1C

• ^

Ml" 9J

YW-1J

••••••• -jj

3, t-20

-

W1 '*}

)

^

in

-

*rtn cr

TIME (sec) TIME (sec)WELL: R1.1B WELL: R2DATE: 01/13/87 DATE: 01/14/87

>- >-

1.26, t=70

6 100 200 300 400 500 600 °6 50 100 150 200[ 250 300TIME (sec) TIME (sec)

WELL: R3D WELL: R5DATE: 01/13/87 DATE: 01/13/87

°

Y(t)-0.97, t=120

57

0 100 200 300 400 -0 10 20 30 40 I 50 60TIME (sec) TIME (sec)

APPENDIX F

MULTIPLE WELL PUMP TEST DATA

ARIOQ508

PIMPING WELL: R2 PIMPING WELL STATIC LEVEL: 103.48OBSBxyKn.cn WELL: RID WELL RID STATIC LEVEL: 14.42

"E: JUNE 11,1987 WELL R1.1A STATIC LEVEL: 29.54CN: 0915 WELL R1.1B STATIC LEVEL: 17.58OR1: 2123

PIMPINS WELL: R2 OBSKVATION WELL: RID

DRAWDCW DATA RECOVERY DATA

DRAWDOWN DATA DRAWDOWN DATA

DRAWDOWN DATA

t (min) FT s (ft) t (min) f (man) t/f FT s' (ft) t tain) FT s (ft)_______ _____ ______ _______ _______ _____ ____ __ j

0.5 99.21 4.27 729 1 729.0 58.24 45.24 40 14.41 0.011 95.85 7.63 730 2 365.0 64.51 38.97 60 14.37 0.052 92.90 10.58 731 3 243.7 69.48 34.00 75 14.25 0.173 90.82 12.66 732 4 183.0 73.37 30.11 85 14.13 0.295 87.73 15.75 733 5 146.6 76.64 26.84 5 14.00 0.427 85.26 18.22 735 7 105.0 81.31 22.17 1 5 13.87 0.5510 80.37 23.11 738 10 73.8 85.27 18.22 125 13.63 0.7916 75.91 27.57 744 16 46.5 88.73 14.75 155 13.39 1.0420 74.10 29.38 748 20 37.4 89.95 13.53 175 13.21 1.2130 71.22 32.26 760 32 23.8 92.12 11.37 1 5 12.80 1.6240 69.60 33.88 775 47 16.5 93.65 9.83 225 12.47 1.9550 68.33 35.15 795 67 11.9 94.99 8.49 250 12.26 2.1675 66.22 37.26 815 87 9.4 95.95 7.53 285 11.97 2.45105 63.66 39.82 840 112 7.5 96.90 6.58 345 11.45 2.97125 62.52 40.96 870 142 6.1 97.80 5.68 405 11.19 3.23155 61.92 41.56 905 177 5.1 98.64 4.84 505 10.53 3.89195 60.67 42.81 945 217 4.4 99.42 4.06 605 10.16 4.26210 58.03 45.46 985 247 4.0 100.08 3.40 705 9.88 4.54250 56.43 47.05 1025 287 3.6 100.64 2.84300 55.95 47.53 1085 347 3.1 101.28 2.20405 54.47 49.01 1165 427 2.7 101.97 1.51505 53.49 49.99 1225 487 2.5 102.37 1.11705 52.92 50.56 1365 627 2.2 102.99 0.49

OBSERVATION WELL: R1.1A OBSERVATION WELL: R1.1B

t (Bin) FT s (ft) t (min) FT s (ft)

60 29.54 0.00 60 17.71 0.13120 29.54 0.00 120 17.75 0.17180 29.58 0.04 180 17.75 0.17240 29.67 0.13 240 17.83 0.25300 29.83 0.29 300 17.83 0.25360 29.83 0.29 360 17.83 0.25 NOTE: Water levels for wells420 29.92 0.38 420 17.83 0.25 R2 and RID represent480 30.13 0.59 480 17.92 0.34 feet/540 30.13 0.59 540 18.00 0.42600 30.25 0.71 600 18.08 0.50 in wells K..1A and R1.1B660 30.42 0.88 660 18.08 0.50 represent jfeet below the720 30.54 1.00 720 18.13 0.55 well top o casing (TOC),

00O)

Q.QJ CJ>

i-= T--©

inoji

tn — -O w — TJWD <H P, IO t-l Q,

^ * d* p * O<X) VD O\ <D U3 <T><M (N r-< CQ CM (M

II II II II II II

/

92- OS- '(U) s NMOQMVdQ

A R I

N

•O

LJ

§ _s_

COICO

m — -oK> «H a

NJsl

0

O

ARIOOi+livnaisay

(0

•Sr-

~ o>1 ©(0 f«•O —

rH N 00rH •— •

W >•« rH© >v —— V.— ^ in f» —

•—, -«v CO rH

J."u

)

&-

< )

G<

-

)

GC

C 3 —•H '— rH

u g S —..; © - rH

Si II rH — —Mt (0 II *0 &O. V

, rH •> rH rHX II rH rH rHU! r-, ||EH. 3 3 II IIS' S rH EH

O

(•1 ) o

• rHrH •

4-> \ ©M-4 — — '

—— —— ©

in 3 r7 Xca — — nII II II II

w

< h

——— O

*

t

i

M

-O1

" ........: ........, ........, ......... â)''co -o <— *-Of Q._UJ °*

(W)1 s NMOQMVda

APPENDIX G

LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA: WELL R2 PUMP TEST

AR!!005I3

ENVIRESPONSE, INCGSA RARITAN DEPOT, BLDB. 209, BAY FWOODBRIDBE AVE., EDISON, NJ 08837

NORTH ROAD SITEJACKSON AND POCONOS TOWNSHIPSMONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Project No. 3-70-67190310

August 10, 1987

Submitted to: M. Mortensen

Analysis by:M.D. Barber Envi rotech ReBearch

-EERU Project Manager

Prepared by:Jorris ' / Katherine Paolino

S&A Section Chief

Reviewed bysPh.D<J" ' ' ' Katherine Paolino

ERU QA/QC OfficerA R I 0 0 5 I 1 *

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I

IntroductionAnalytical ProceduresResultsResults of Volatile Organics in Water................ Table i

SECTION II

QA/QC ProceduresMatrix Spike Recoveries -for VolatileOrganics in Water ................................. Table 2

Surrogate Standard Recoveries forVolatile Organics in Water ........................ Table 3

SECTION III

Data SheetsCalibration Range ChromatogramsSample ChroiTiatograms

SECTION IV

CorrespondenceChain of Custody Records

AR I005I5

i I

INTRODUCTION

On June 12, 19S7, Enviresponse, Inc. received twelve (12)water samples -from the North Road Site, in Monroe County, Pa. Thesewater samples were subcontracted to Envirotech Research in Edison,New Jersey, to be analyzed -for volatile organics.

A R I 0 0 5 I 6

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

The samples were analyzed in accordance with U.S. EPAMethod 624, Volatile Organics by GC/MB. Table 1 presents the resultsof Volatile Organic Analysis in Water. Method detection limits canbe obtained from sample data sheets in Section III.

ARIQ05I7

Table 1 Results o-f Volatile Organics in Water Analysis


Sample No.

7590 ! 'JotLLHfAb- I fv..M

7591; ÛLUffcX- 3* <""•*

7592 '. OJtUvlfrAb - 10 r*>rO

7593 '. wtiLH-fcJWi - <?0 ftiiK).

Parameters

Chl orobenzeneTrans-i ,2-DichloroetheneMethylene chlorideTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride

BenzeneCarbon tetrachl ori deChl orobenzeneChl or o-f orm1 , 1-Di chloroethane1 , 1-Di chl oroetheneTrans-i ,2~Di chl oroetheneMethylene chlorideTetrachl oroetheneTr i chl oroetheneVinyl chloride

BenzeneChl orobenzeneChl or o-f orm1 , 1-Di chl oroetheneTr ans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneM e t. h y 1 e n e c h 1 o r i d eTetrachlor o e t h e n e •Trichlor oe t h en eVinyl chloride

Tr ans-1 , 2-D i c h 1 or oe? t h en eMethylene chlorideTrie h lor oe t h e n eVinvl chloride

Cone .

5.41440 . 3*

16713

261.3*2.6*3. 6*2.5*6.0

12202. 1*7.4

1290060

9.45.2!, . 2 Kr2.2*

• 3390. 6*

- - 2 ,. T- **'4980-3

1 60013*

,1.790073*

7594' "i?A rA«i.:'r •j«ji"r-«io rv\;«J None detected

AR1005 18* - Result is less than the specified detection limit but. greaterthan zero. The concentration given is an approximate value.

Table 1 Results of Volatile Organics in Water Analysi'


Sample No.

7595 : vx)ta^£Afr ( &,> f*

7596 •, -.'fttf, *,* j M ••*••. .•

-7 / .*| / *

7647 ' '"Vrf/.-.w- -A/-T , 3fe

7648 o-ii-;-; e-^-îw^

7645 ; .N> «.*%** .-,

Parameters

(Vj Trans~l ,2~DichloroetheneMethylene chlorideTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride

rr,\j Trichloroethene

iij Trans-1 , 2-Di chl oroetheneMethylene chlorideTri chl oroethene

>•> rr»s) Trichloroethene

^2Vi,} None detected

,1V) Trans— 1 , 2-Di chl oroetheneMethylene chlorideTr i c h 1 or oe t h en eVinyl chloride

Cone

157029'

1780070

7

152O26

17600

1

1 7OO17

1 960081

*

*•

• 3

,8*

,2*

,8*

•7649;-!£**••'• V-^T VK).T--_ TZ..) (y,, Trichloroethene

t..ab Blank B Methylene chloride

* - Result is less than the specified detection limit taut, greaterthan zero. The concentration given is an approximate value-

AR1005I9

QA/QC PROCEDURES

The quality control data -for these samples is very good.QA/QC Table 2 presents the results of matrix spike/matrix spikeduplicate volatile organic analyses. The relative percent difference(RPD) -for sample 7596 was less than 5, which is considered excellent.Samples 7591 and 7592 were diluted and re-analysed due to highconcentrations o-f trichl oroethene and trans-1 ,2-di chl oroethene butwere not considered as duplicate analyses. Samples 7593, 7595, 7646and 7645 were diluted as -for reasons explained above.

QA/QC Table 3 presents the surrogate standard recoveries forall samples tested. The acceptable recovery limits for surrogatesare as follows:

Surrogates QC Limits

Toluene-dS S8-110Brombf1uorobenzene 86-1151,2~Dichloroethane-d4 76-114

All sample surrogate recoveries fell within the acceptable limits.For samples #7594 and #7595 the percentages for toluene-d8 listed bythe contract laboratory on their data sheet were transposed, but arecorrect, on QA/QC Table 3.

ARI00520

QA/QC Table 2 Matrix Spike Recoveries o-f VolatileOrganics in Water Analysis


Sample 7596

Cone.Sample Spike Recovered Cone. "/.Recov

Parameter Cone. Added MS MSD MS M_

Benzene ND 50 54 52 108 1

Chlorobenzene ND 5O 56 54 112 1

1 ,1-Dichloroethene ND 50 58 57 116 1

Toluene ND 50 53 51 106 1

Trichloroethene 7.3 50 61 59 107 1

erySD RPD

04 3.77

08 3.64

14 1 . 74

02 3.84

03 3.33

_.

ND - denotes not detected

ARI0052I

QA/QC Table 3 Surrogate Standard Recoveries•for Volatile Drganics in Water Analysis

Listed as percentages

Sample

Lab Blank A

759O

7591

7591 (100X)

7592

7592 (100X)

7593 ( 50 X)

7594

7595 ( 50 X)

7646 ( 77 X)

7645 ( 77 X)

7596

7596 Spike

7596 SpikeDup

7647

7649

7648

Lata Blank B

SI(TOD

102

97.2

100

100

101

102

101

99.0

99.9

101

99.8

102

101

100

101

100

98.0

100

S2(BFB)

99.2

103

102

1 03

98.3

1O2

99.9

102

1 04

101

98.9

102

102

101

1 03

1.02

1 04

102

S3(DCE)

93.

107

106

104

99.

102

104

103

1 02

102

98.

1.04

102

102

103

1 02

102

102

B

1

9

Gl (TOD = Toluene-dS • • £ £S2 (BFB) = Bromo-f luorobenseneS3 (DCE) = 1 ,2~-Dichloroethane-d4

UNSCANNED ITEM(S)

ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MAY BE ASSOCIATEDWITH THIS DOCUMENT:

PHOTOGRAPHSDRAWINGS

OVERSIZED MAPSROLLED MAPS

PLEASE CONTACT THE CERCLA RECORDS CENTER TO VIEW THEITEM(S)

ARJ0052l»

Documents

AFH00360 - US Environmental Protection Agency · area-wide water quality sampling and analysis, and have provided affected homeowners with potable water and water treatment systems