Dhase I - Preliminary Investigations Remedial ... · Decil County, Maryland 3repared By: T...

_ H29ITC — 8909050037

"CORPORATION Project No. 303486_________________________________________ September 1 989

______________________ Report

Dhase I - Preliminary InvestigationsRemedial Investigation/Feasibility Study/*foodlawn LandfillDecil County, Maryland

3repared By:

T CorporationMonroevjlle, Pennsylvania

AR300550RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

iI

A236BMMRN8911300379

TELEX NO.: 666114 or 98-64-31CABLE ADDRESS: FIRESTONE, AKRON, (OHIO)

TELECOPY: 216-379-6386

November 30, 1989

Dr. Mark R. NollEnforcement Project Manager

( U . S . Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107

Re: Submittal: Updated pages for Phase I Reports, Phase II and IV Work Plans,RI/FS Reports Plan, QAPP and Health and Safety Plan; Woodlawn LandfillRI/FS, Cecil County, Maryland.

Dear Dr. Noll:

Enclosed are three (3) copies of each of the updated pages for the subjectdocuments which are being submitted in accordance with the project ConsentOrder (U.S. EPA Docket No. III-89-05-DC, December 28, 1988). These documentsare referenced as follows:

(1) Report (Revision 01)Phase I - Preliminary InvestigationsExclusive of Soil-Gas Survey Report and Resulting RecommendationsDated September 5, 1989; Revised November 30, 1989 (Revision 01)

(2) Addendum Report (Revision 01)Soil -Gas SurveyPhase I - Preliminary InvestigationsDated October 10, 1989; Revised November 30, 1989 (Revision 01)

(3) Detailed Work Plan (Revision 02)Phase II - Site CharacterizationDated September 5, 1989; Revised October 10, 1989 (Revision 01),November 30, 1989 (Revision 02)

(4) Detailed Work Plan (Revision 02)Phase IV - Additional Field WorkDated September 5, 1989; Revised October 10, 1989 (Revision 01),November 30, 1989 (Revision 02)

(5) Plan (Revision 01)RI/FS ReportsDated September 5, 1989; Revised November 30, 1989 (Revision 01)

RR300551

THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY • 1200 FIRESTONE PARKWAY • AKRON, OHIO 44317 • U.S.A.

Dr. Mark R. Noll 2 November 30, 1989

(6) Quality Assurance Project Plan (Revision 05)Including Phases I, II, and IVSubmitted December 5, 1988; Revised: February 6, 1989(Revision 01), April 20, 1989 (Revision 02), June 13, 1989(Revision 03), September 5, 1989 (Revision 04), and November 30, 1989(Revision 05);

(7) Health and Safety Plan (Revision 05)Including Phases I, II, and IVSubmitted December 5, 1988; Revised: January 30, 1989(Revision 01), April 20, 1989 (Revision 02), June 13, 1989(Revision 03), September 5, 1989 (Revision 04), and November 30, 1989(Revision 05).

Please advise us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely yours,

£, B, 'George B. MarkertSenior Environmental ConsultantCorporate Environmental Affairs

GBM:AMJ:jitEnclosures

cc: Ms. Laura Boornazian, U.S. EPA - III (no enclosures)Mr. David Healy, MDE (one copy of each enclosure)Mr. Barry Belford, Cecil County (one copy of each enclosure)Mr. Mark Grummer, Kirkland & Ell is (one copy of each enclosure)Dr. Alan M. Jacobs, IT Corporation (no enclosures)

flR300552

IIII

INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

H38 ITC—8911300043

REPORTPHASE I - PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDYHOODLAWN LANDFILL

CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND

PREPARED BY:

IT CORPORATIONMONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

SEPTEMBER 5, 1989REVISED NOVEMBER 30, 1989 (REVISION 01)

PROJECT NO. 303486

Prepared by:

Date ///2-f UJLJU ]t{ & te- Date //,IT Project Manage/

Date

IT Quality Assurance Officer H ITOaJT/oO

i f1 Date A X"

Cli ent Representati ve

AR30Q553


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGELIST OF TABLES ..................................................... 111LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... iv1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1-1

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF PHASE I WORK ............................... 1-11.2 SITE BACKGROUND .......................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Site Description .................................. 1-21.2.2 Site History ...................................... 1-31.2.3 Previous Investigations ........................... 1-4

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ...................................... 1-51.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE ........................................ 1-5

2.0 PHASE I INVESTIGATIONS ........................................ 2-12.1 DATA MANAGEMENT .......................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Records Management System (RMS) ................... 2-12.1.2 Analytical and Field System (AFS) ................. 2-2

2.1.2.1 Magnetic Gradient Data ................... 2-42.1.2.2 Electromagnetic Conductivity Data

(EM31 and EM34) .......................... 2-42.1.2.3 Seismic Refraction Data .................. 2-5

2.2 SOIL GAS SURVEY .......................................... 2-62.3 SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS .............................. 2-6

2.3.1 Magnetics ......................................... 2-62.3.1.1 Methodology .............................. 2-62.3.1.2 Field Procedures ......................... 2-82.3.1.3 Data Evaluation .......................... 2-82.3.1.4 Results and Interpretation ............... 2-9

2.3.2 Electromagnetics .................................. 2-102.3.2.1 Methodology .............................. 2-102.3.2.2 Field Procedures ......................... 2-112.3.2.3 Data Evaluation .......................... 2-122.3.2.4 Results and Interpretation ............... 2-12

AR3Q0551*


TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)

PAGE2.3.3 Seismic Refraction ................................ 2-15

2.3.3.1 Methodology .............................. 2-152.3.3.2 Preliminary Testing ...................... 2-162.3.3.3 Field Procedures ......................... 2-182.3.3.4 Data Evaluation .......................... 2-192.3.3.5 Results and Interpretation ............... 2-21

2.4 EXISTING WELL EVALUATION ................................. 2-232.4.1 Site Area Monitoring Wells ........................ 2-232.4.2 Nearby Domestic Wells ............................. 2-27

2.5 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ....................................... 2-292.6 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATION ....................... 2-29

2.6.1 Regional Geologic Features ........................ 2-302.6.2 Site-Specific Features ............................ 2-31

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 3-13.1 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING GROUND WATER FLOW ..... 3-1

3.1.1 Basis ............................................. 3-13.1.2 Preliminary Conclusions ........................... 3-1

3.2 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING SOLUTE MIGRATIONEXTENT AND DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT ......................... 3-23.2.1 Basis ............................................. 3-23.2.2 Preliminary Conclusions ........................... 3-3

3.3 RECOMMENDATION OF NUMBER, LOCATION, AND SCREEN INTERVALSOF MONITORING WELLS TO BE INSTALLED IN PHASE II .......... 3-33.3.1 Additional Wells .................................. 3-33.3.2 Bedrock Aquifer ................................... 3-43.3.3 Saturated Soil Aquifer ............................ 3-63.3.4 Perched Zone Wells ................................ 3-6

3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF DOMESTIC WELLS TO BE SAMPLED ANDSURVEYED FOR STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS IN PHASE II ... 3-7

TABLESFIGURESAPPENDIX A - QUALITY ASSURANCE FIELD AUDIT AR300555


ILIST OF TABLES

ITABLE NO. TITLE

I I Bedrock Elevations - Comparison Between BoringData and Seismic Profiles

2 Line Tie Correlation for Seismic RefractionI Profiles

3 Property Owner List of Evaluated Wells

AR300556111


LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE1 Site Base Map2 Magnetic Isogradient Map Surface Metal and

Values Less Than 25 Gammas/Meter Deleted3 EM31 Isoconductlvity Map4 EM34 Isoconductivity Map 10 Meter Coil Spacing,

Vertical Dipole5 EM34 Isoconductlvity Map 10 Meter Coil Spacing,

Horizontal Dipole6 EM34 Isoconductivity Map 20 Meter Coil Spacing,

Vertical Dipole7 EM34 Isoconductlvity Map 20 Meter Coil Spacing,

Horizontal Dipole8 Seismic Refraction Profile Calibration Test9 Location of Seismic Refraction Lines10 Seismic Refraction Data and Profile Line SRS-111 Seismic Refraction Data and Profile Line SRS-212 Seismic Refraction Data and Profile Line SRS-313 Seismic Refraction Data and Profile Line SRS-414 Legal Land Parcels/Location of Domestic Wells15 Photo Lineament Map16 Historical Topographic Map Interpreted From

1964 Aerial Photography17 Historical Topographic Map Interpreted From






1986 Aerial Photography23 Proposed Monitoring Wells for Phase IIRR300557

1v


1.0 INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the Consent Order entered into on December 28, 1988among Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (formerly The Firestone Tire & RubberCompany [Firestone]), Cecil County, Maryland, and the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), International TechnologyCorporation (IT) is submitting a report for a portion of the work forPhase I of the Site Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)for the Woodlawn Landfill, Cecil County, Maryland. This report is for aportion of the work for Phase I of the Site RI/FS. It follows the latestrevision of the U.S. EPA approved Detailed Work Plan for Phase I(Revision 02), dated June 13, 1989 (DWP-I) and U.S. EPA-approved modifi-cations. It includes task specified in the DWP-I with the exception ofthe soil-gas work, which was delayed because of weather. Results of thesoil-gas work will be included in an addendum (as approved by theU.S. EPA on August 11, 1989) to be submitted within 45 days afterdemobilization from Task A soil-gas work.

This report satisfies the data and reporting requirements consistent withthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Actof 1986 (SARA), with relevant agency guidances, and with project ConsentOrder (U.S. EPA Docket No. III-89-05-DC, dated December 28, 1988),including the approved Scope of Work.

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF PHASE I WORKThe RI/FS, as outlined in the Scope of Work (IT Corporation,September 30, 1988, Revision 01 - November 2, 1988), is a phased study,with Phase I comprising the Preliminary Investigations. The objectivesof Phase I are to:

• Assimilate existing data

• Evaluate the site and its environs usingnoninvasive techniques (e.g., soil gas andgeophysics) AR300558

1-1

\

II


• Present preliminary conclusions concerning groundwater flow

• Present preliminary conclusions concerning solutemigration extent and direction of movement

• Recommend number, locations, and screening .intervals of monitoring wells to be installed inPhase II

• Identify domestic wells to be sampled in Phase II

1.2 SITE BACKGROUNDThe Site background consists of the description of the Site, a briefhistory of the Site, and a description of previous Investigationspertinent to Phase I work.

1.2.1 Site DescriptionThe Site area is located in northwestern Cecil County, Maryland,approximately 3 miles northeast of the town of Port Deposit (Figure 1).The Site is herein defined as the 38 acre property of the WoodlawnCounty Landfill and those surrounding areas that are pertinent to theobjectives of the work. Pertinent areas adjacent to the Landfillproperty include adjacent property extending from a few feet to severalhundred feet beyond the landfill perimeter as outlined in the extent ofsurveys specified in the DWP-I. Working access to the Site is achievedthrough the entrance road to the Woodlawn County Transfer Station at theintersection of Firetower and Waibel Roads. The Transfer Station housesthe temporary Site office used during this study phase. TheContamination Reduction Zone (CRZ) is located west of the transferstation. Beyond the CRZ is the Exclusion Zone (EZ), which comprises theprinciple data gathering area for the project.

The Site comprises rugged terrain that slopes southward towards a west-ward flowing creek (Figure 1). Approximately 50 percent of the Sitearea contains dense tree cover. The land surface is relatively free ofthick vegetative cover in the north-central area where most recent

AR3005591-2


landfill operations took place. Tree cover is densest in the southernand eastern part of the site. The western edge of the site is also treecovered and slopes steeply to the west. The central part of the Site isnot tree covered, but is covered with grasses and shrubs. In thesouthern part of the central area there is a settling basin that iscurrently dry.

Vehicular traffic has access to the Site area via Waibel Road. WaibelRoad borders the southeast and eastern Landfill property boundary. Theentrance to the Transfer Station is at the Intersection of Waibel Roadand Firetower Road at the northeastern corner of the Landfill property.Also near this intersection is the junction of a former road, now a jeeptrail, which traverses the northern edge of the landfill property.

Bedrock that underlies the Site consists of the Port Deposit Gneiss. Itis overlain by a residual soil (saprolite) developed by in situ weather-ing of the gneiss. Overlying the saprolite are terrace deposits of sandand gravel. Sand and gravel were excavated prior to the development ofthe landfill. The landfill operations included excavation of surfacesoils and placement of waste fill, as discussed below.

1.2.2 Site HistoryThe Woodlawn Landfill was originally a sand and gravel pit. It receivedwastes containing hazardous constituents from numerous parties duringthe period from the 1960s to the early 1980s. These wastes were placedwherever active landfHUng operations were taking place at the time aswell as elsewhere on the landfill. From 1979 to late 1980, polyvinylchloride (PVC) sludge was placed in each of three cells (A, B, and C).Cell A was formed by the excavation for fill used to cover wastes at theactive face of the landfill. Cell C overlies Cell B and comprises wastethat was placed over the area of Cell B. This sludge was also placed inother sections of the landfill.

AR3005601-3

IiIIIII

iIIIIIII


Since June 5, 1989, IT has conducted field work as part of the Phase Iinvestigations, as described in this report. This work has been"noninvaslve," 1n that there has been no drilling or excavation ofmaterial. The County continues to operate the Transfer Station, includ-ing unloading of refuse from resident vehicles, trash compaction, andreloading of compacted trash onto County vehicles (for transfer toanother landfill). The Transfer Station also houses a dog pound. ToIT's knowledge, no wastes are being placed at the Woodlawn Landfill; theLandfill proper remains closed to any activities except those for thePhase I work (RI/FS).

1.2.3 Previous InvestigationsPrevious investigations are documented in Appendix D (Existing Data) ofthe DWP-I. The documents include reports, boring logs and well comple-tion data, analytical results, aerial photographs, and maps.

In summary, previous documents include:• Report by Spotts, Stevens and McCoy (1979,1980) —

concerning investigations pertaining to proposedsludge disposal.

• Reports by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1982a,1982b)—concerning preliminary hydrogeologicalinvestigations pertaining to Cells C and A,respectively. This report described the F-serieswells which are situated around the cell areas ofA and B/C.

• Analytical Results of Water Samples—TheseInclude systematic sampling of F-Series wells,B-Series wells (installed by the State ofMaryland), OW- and SW-Series Wells (installed byCecil County), and selected domestic wells ofproperties adjacent to the Landfill.

• Aerial Photographs—These include paired andseries of photographs taken by the federalgovernment and private companies during theperiod from 1964 to 1986.

AR30056I1-4


• Report by the U.S. EPA (EMSL) (1988) providing aSite analysis using available aerial photographs.

• A topographic map by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (1988) (for U.S. EPA by SurdexCorporation).

• Other documents included 1n Appendix D, DWP-I.

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATIONThis report is organized as follows:

• The Introduction (Chapter 1.0) presents theobjectives, the site background, and the reportorganization.

• The Preliminary Investigations (Chapter 2.0)includes the description of Phase I Tasks (datamanagement, magnetics, electromagnetics, seismicrefraction, evaluations of site monitoring andnearby domestic wells, topographic survey, aerialphotographic interpretation, and summary ofresults of the noninvasive testing). The soil-gas work Is not presented in the main body ofthis report, but will be appended within 45 daysof the demobilization from the Task A soil-gaswork.

• The Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 3.0)include the presentation of preliminary conclu-sions on ground water flow and solute transport,recommendations for installation of somemonitoring wells during Phase II (additionalrecommendations for monitoring wells will awaitsoil-gas work), and identification of domesticwells for sampling.

1.4 QUALITY ASSURANCEPhase I work was performed in accordance with the Quality AssuranceProject Plan (QAPP) for the Woodlawn Landfill RI/FS, dated June 13, 1989(Revision No. 03). As part of the QAPP, two audits were performed asdescribed in the September 1, 1989 Memorandum (Appendix A) by the QAOfficer.

AR3005621-5


2.0 PHASE I INVESTIGATIONS

2.1 DATA MANAGEMENTDocuments, records, and data have been accumulated for this project. Adata management system has been developed to systematically handle thisbody of data for retrieval and analysis. This system stores historicaldocuments and analytical data that are generated for the Site. Histori-cal and project management documents are placed in the Records Manage-ment System (RMS). Data from technical tasks are stored separately inthe Analytical and Field System (AFS).

The objective of the data management system is to track documents andstore, report, and process field and analytical data generated for theproject site. The RMS contains information extracted from correspon-dence, memoranda, reports, references, and other project documents. TheAFS contains the analytical and field data. Software packages facili-tate the further presentation and analysis of the data.

To achieve this objective, data have been processed using specificcomputer hardware and software. The hardware consists of a dedicatedmicrocomputer configuration consisting of a microcomputer and otherperipherals. The software includes Dayflo TRACKER for RMS; BLAST andREMOTE for telecommunications; and dBASE IV for AFS. Other existingcomputer configurations have been utilized to augment the configurationused for the project, such as microcomputers that are equipped with aninterface to the IT NBI word processing system, a printer, plotter,AutoCAD, Lotus, Surfer, PC-SAS, and, for seismic refraction, a packagecalled EGREM.

2.1.1 Records Management System (RMS)The documents generated by the project have been separated into thecategories required for filing into the Records Management/DocumentControl (RMDC) facility (formerly Central Files). In the process of

2-1


categorizing the documents, a source document number has been assignedto each document. This number contains the following items:

RMDC file categoryFolder number containing the documentGeneral content categoryInitials of the source (author) of the documentInitials of the receiver of the documentDate of the documentSequential number

For each document, the source document number and a summary of thesubject of the document have been recorded into the RMS.

The RMS provides the following benefits:

• Generation of a document chronology report

• Quick identification of a document or group ofdocuments from source document numbers or from asearch of subject categories or keywords

All historical documents provided by the client have been properlycategorized, entered into RMS, and filed into RMDC. Documents generatedby the project have been categorized, entered into RMS, and filed intoRMDC as they were created. Currently there are 1,550 entries in RMS.

2.1.2 Analytical and Field System (AFS)The results from the field surveys such as magnetics, electromagnetics,seismic refraction, and soil gas screening have been or are being storedin AFS. The field data items to be maintained 1n AFS include:

Identification TagParameter testedTest dateTest resultDepth of sampleUnit of measureSource document number

IAR30056U

j 2-2


The results from analytical tests such as concentration of a particular| compound, have been or are being stored in AFS. The analytical data

items include:

IIIII

Identification labelSample IdentificationParameter testedTest dateTest resultNondetect flagDepth of sampleUnits of measureDuplicate sample valueSpike sample valueBlank sample valueSource document number

The Identification label data item represents the surface location fromwhich samples were taken for field or analytical tests. The surfacecoordinates of the identification label are stored in AFS.

The remaining data items represent the analytical sample identificationlabel, the parameter tested, the date the test was performed, the testresult, a flag for analytical results indicating that the result is adetection limit value, the depth the sample was taken, the units ofmeasure for the test performed, and whether the sample was a duplicate,spike, or blank. The source document number will tie the test resultsto a document in RMS if the document contains or makes a reference tothe data in AFS.

The data are not being plotted directly onto an AutoCAD base becauseAutoCAD does not currently have a contouring program. Therefore,because of the nature of the Phase I field data and the need to makecontour maps from these data (geophysics and soil gas), software such asSurfer are being used to plot contour maps which are then overlaid ontothe site topographic map (which is stored in AutoCAD). The followingare specific data handling techniques used for the geophysical data forPhase I.

AR3005652-3


2.1.2.1 Magnetic Gradient DataMagnetic gradient data collected with the OMNI IV magnetometer wereautomatically stored within the magnetometer, which has the capacity tostore 1,200 gradient readings along with the grid coordinates at whicheach reading was recorded. At such time when the magnetometer's memoryhad been filled or at the end of each day's field activities, the rawdata were transferred to a portable computer. The data were thenimmediately copied to micro-floppy disks. Two disks were made for eachdata set; one working copy to be used for manipulation of the data andone back-up copy in case the working copy was lost or destroyed. Uponreturn to the IT-P1ttsburgh office, the data were copied to a computerspreadsheet (Lotus, Release 2.01) whereby it could be more readilyanalyzed. After the data had been analyzed and appropriate correctionsmade (e.g., deletion of that data collected within the Immediate vicin-ity of surficial magnetic debris), it was then input into a graphicssoftware package (Surfer, Version 4.0) whereby the isogradient contourmaps were produced.

2.1.2.2 Electromagnetic Conductivity Data (EM31 and EM34)Ground conductivity data collected with the EM31 and EM34 instrumentswere manually recorded into the field log. Items recorded included theline number and position, range switch setting, and conductivity read-ings. Upon return to the IT-Pittsburgh office, the conductivity datawere entered Into a computer spreadsheet (Lotus, Release 2.01) tofacilitate data analysis. Immediately after the data had been typedinto the computer, a printout of the data was produced so that the Inputdata could be checked against the original data to ensure that it hadbeen properly entered. After the data had been checked for accuracy andappropriate deletions made (e.g., elimination of data collected nearpotential surficial conductors) they were transferred to the graphicssoftware (Surfer, Version 4.0) whereby the various isoconductivitycontour maps were generated.

AR3005662-4

IIIIII

IIII


2.1.2.3 Seismic Refraction DataThe data from each seismic record were downloaded from the seismographto a portable field computer for quality verification and subsequent in-field processing. All data were analyzed in the field to determinerefraction arrival times, and the data for all lines were reduced toTime-Distance diagrams and plotted 1n the field prior to demobilization.

The acquisition parameters were designed to achieve an average of 3 to4 bedrock data points per geophone station in order to provide redun-dancy in the refraction arrival times. The redundancy provides improveddefinition of the seismic velocities and enhances the overall quality ofthe final depth profiles.

The data were processed using a proprietary refraction data reductionsoftware package called EGREM developed by IT's subcontractor, NeponsetGeophysical Corporation. The package is an implementation of the GRM,and the software incorporates numerous enhancements to the basic GRMalgorithm. Specific enhancements that were used during this projectinclude:

• Definition of variable velocities• Velocity analysis of first-break data• End-to-end phantoming of the first-break arrivals

Data processing was initiated in the field and completed after demobili-zation of the field team.

Due to the redundancy of the refraction arrival time data, multipledepth calculations were derived for most seismic refraction stations.The individual calculations were averaged to provide a single depthvalue at each station. In addition, a 3 point moving average wasapplied to smooth the bedrock profile.

AR3005672-5


2.2 SOIL GAS SURVEYRain has delayed the soil-gas sampling. Therefore, this section will beappended within 45 calendar days after demobilization of Task A of thesoil-gas work. Other sections of the report are being presented onschedule, with soil-gas results and resulting recommendations to follow.

2.3 SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYSMagnetics, Electromagnetics (EM31 and EM34-3), and Seismic Refractionhave been completed according to the DWP-I. The objectives of thegeophysical investigations are to:

• Screen the site for potential areas containingsubsurface magnetic or conductive (possiblemetallic) objects

• Screen proposed borings and monitoring well loca-tions for subsurface metallic objects

• Detect buried objects and conductive leachateplume(s) which may exist due to past landfilloperations

• Develop a three-dimensional geologic model of thesite illustrating the bedrock surface and groundwater table

• Determine possible locations, numbers, and screenintervals of monitoring wells to be installed inPhase II in conjunction with other Phase I data

Preliminary data were forwarded to the agencies for review.

2.3.1 Magnetics

2.3.1.1 MethodologyAs described in the DWP-I, the magnetic method involves measuring theearth's total magnetic field strength at a point. Buried magneticobjects create individual magnetic fields of varying strengths anddirections and disturb the earth's magnetic field around these objects.

AR3005682-6


If an area displays relatively high magnetic disturbances, then thisarea probably contains buried metallic objects. For this investigation,the magnetic gradient, and not the total magnetic field, was of interestbecause the objective of the survey was to delineate locations of buriedferrometallic material. The advantage of performing a magnetometersurvey in the gradient mode is that shallow (near-surface) sources areemphasized relative to deeper, regional responses.

This investigation used the OMNI IV proton precession magnetometer (asdiscussed in the DWP-I) distributed by SCINTREX (formerly EDA Instru-ments). The instrument consists of a sensor head which houses twosensors separated by a distance of 0.5 meters. The sensor head isattached to a sectional aluminum staff, which can be adjusted to achievethe desired height of the sensors from the ground surface. A controlunit, internal computer, and rechargeable battery were carried by theinstrument operator on an instrument belt. Prior to traversing themagnetic grid points, the computer was programmed to accept a sequenceof readings along predetermined lines and grid-point spacings (gridcoordinates). The operator reset the instrument after each data readingto automatically ready the instrument to log subsequent readings. Loca-tions of metallic surface debris, which may have an effect on thegradient reading, were noted in the field log during the survey.Similarly, the instrument operator ensured that he was magneticallyclean prior to the collection of data.

At the Site, the vertical magnetic gradient was determined at every gridpoint by simultaneously measuring the total magnetic fields at twovertically displaced sensors. The magnetometer stored and processedthese two numbers internally. The solid-state memory has the capacityto store 1,200 gradient readings. The computer calculated the gradientat each grid point by dividing the difference between each pair ofsensor readings by the distance between the two sensors. The resultinggradients have the units of gammas per meter. Due to the simultaneous

AR3005692-7


measurement of both sensors while in the gradient mode, the effects ofmagnetic storms are eliminated. Similarly, the effects of diurnalmagnetic variation (drift) are canceled, thereby eliminating the need toperiodically occupy a base station. Where the gradients were near orequal to zero, there were no suspected burled magnetic objects. Mag-netic anomalies were determined by evaluating the lateral distributionof gradients by contouring the data.

2.3.1.2 Field ProceduresMagnetic surveying was performed at the Site from June 10 until June 16,1989. An approximately 20-by-20 foot grid was established for themagnetics survey in those portions of the site area where metallicdebris could have been buried. Those areas that have been continuouslywooded since 1964 were considered to be free of buried metallic debris,and consequently not surveyed with the magnetometer. Those areas neargrid-point locations that contained visible metallic debris at thesurface were recorded in the field notes. Subsequent contouring wasdone excluding those grid points where surface metals were seen.

During surveying, at each grid point station, the vertical magneticgradient was determined and recorded. The value of the verticalmagnetic gradient was stored and the instrument memory was updated ateach grid point station. If it was impossible to occupy a grid pointstation due to vegetation or debris, then the vertical magnetic gradientwas recorded at the nearest accessible location. These small variationsin the locations of some vertical magnetic gradient recording stationsare at a scale, such that, the locations of magnetic anomalies are notsignificantly affected.

2.3.1.3 Data EvaluationThe data were evaluated as per the discussion on Data Management (Ana-lytical Field System) in Section 2.1.2.1. Figure 2 shows an isogradientmap of gradient data. The isogradients have been drawn for those datapoints not exhibiting visible metallic surface debris.

2-8


2.3.1.4 Results and InterpretationFigure 2 shows magnetic anomalies contoured at an Interval of 50 g/m.There are 7 areas having anomalies of the order of 200 g/m or greater.The 200 g/m contour interval was chosen to delineate the areas ofgreatest magnetic anomalies. This Interval 1s a round number based onclosure of contours around well defined centers. There is an equalnumber of smaller anomalies (between 100 to 200 g/m). The identifi-cation of the objects causing these anomalies 1s not known, but theamplitude of the magnetic gradient may be used to approximate depths totargets. However, the absolute value of a magnetic gradient is aresponse to a target's ferromagnetic mass and distance from themagnetometer's sensors (i.e., the presence of a small shallowferromagnetic object may be represented by a gradient which is higherwhen compared to a larger object buried at a substantially greaterdepth).

The largest magnetic anomaly is located along the Site access road justto the northwest of the presumed location of Cells B/C. The magnitudeof this anomaly is approximately 400 g/m.

This information will be useful in the planning of locations of boringsand monitoring wells as follows:

• Areas will be avoided that may contain buriedobjects that would resist or block drillingpenetration.

• Areas will be avoided that may contain buriedcontainers of waste materials. If these areaswere breached during the investigations, they maypresent a hazard to Site personnel and may causereleases of chemicals into the subsurface soilsand ground water.

• Areas that may contain buried containers of wastematerials or areas near buried containers whosesoils contain waste constituents may be sourceareas of solute plumes. Knowledge of these areasassist in evaluating the waste and the potentialmigration routes. fiR30057l

2-9


During Phase II work, no drilling will be performed in areas havingmagnetic anomalies greater than approximately 200 g/m. In Phase IVwork, where the objective is to characterize the waste, drilling will beperformed in some areas having magnetic anomalies greater thanapproximately 200 g/m. In these cases, the exact location of theborehole will be chosen away from the center of the major anomalousareas. Also, as stated in the Scope of Work, Section 2.3.3.1, 1f anyborings are to be located within the limits of the landfill, but outsideof the magnetic survey area, then a limited magnetic survey will beconducted in those areas prior to drilling. Once the area has beenidentified as being free of magnetic anomalies less than approximately200 g/m, then drilling may commence.

2.3.2 Electromagnetics

2.3.2.1 MethodologyAs discussed in the DWP-I, the electromagnetic equipment consists oftransmitter and receiver coils separated by a fixed distance. The EMsurvey was conducted using a time-varying EM field as an energy source.The EM field was produced by passing an alternating current through awire loop. This alternating primary field in the transmitter coilinduced a very small electrical current in the earth. This currentproduced a secondary EM field which had the same frequency as theprimary field but not the same phase or direction. The secondary EMfield was detected above the ground surface by measuring the voltageinduced in another loop of wire, the receiver. The strength of thesecondary EM field 1s a function of the intercoil spacing, the trans-mitter frequency, and the ground conductivity. The meters/kilometers/seconds (MKS) units of conductivity are the mho per meter or, as isconventionally stated, millimho per meter (mmho/m).

Two EM units were used. The EM31 was used for shallow (0 to 20 feet)surveys; the EM34 was used for deeper (0 to 100 feet) surveys.

AR3005722-10


EM31The EM31 unit used is manufactured by Geonics Limited. It is portableand provides a direct readout of conductivity to an accuracy of about+/- 5 percent at 20 mmho/m ground conductivity. The coil separation is3.66 meters (12 ft) and the transmitter has an operating-frequency of9.8 kilohertz. The EM31 is designed to be most sensitive to conductiv-ity changes near the ground surface, with 70 percent of the returnedsignal contributed from depths less than 20 feet. Total signal penetra-tion depends on soil electrical conductivity.

EM34The EM34 used is manufactured by Geonics Limited. It was operated at a10- and 20-meter (30.46 and 60.92 ft) coil separation spacing and in avertical or horizontal dipole plane. In general, the instrument iscapable of sensing to depths of about 0 to 1.5 times the selected coilspacing; therefore, the survey performed was able to sense to depths ofup to 15- and 30-meters (ca 50 and 100 ft).

2.3.2.2 Field ProceduresEM surveys were conducted at the Site from June 12 until July 18, 1989.The following are the details of the EM surveys. Areas of coverage canbe observed on the figures:

Instrument Coil Spacing (m) Grid (ft) Figure (Dipole)

EM31 3.66 (12 ft) 25-by-25 3

EM34 10 (30.46 ft) 25-by-25 4 (Vert.)5 (Horiz.)

EM34 20 (60.92 ft) 50-by-50 6 (Vert.)7 (Horiz.)

The grid points for the EM surveys covered a greater area than those forthe magnetic survey. The greater area resulted because the EM techniquewas not only surveying for metallic debris, but also for conductiveplumes of ground water. AR300573

2-11


Background readings were taken to the northeast of the EM-surveyed areain the property of the Montgomery Brothers. Background readings were inthe range of less than 5 mmhos/meter. Each grid point was occupied withthe conductivity meter. The EM31 was used to take readings at a fixedcoil space and only in the horizontal plane. The EM34 was used to takereadings at two different coil spacings and in two different planes(horizontal and vertical). Data were not automatically stored by theinstrument, so readings were tabulated in the field notes. The locationof each grid point was also manually tabulated with each reading.

2.3.2.3 Data EvaluationThe data were evaluated as per the discussion on the Data Management(Analytical Field System) in Section 2.1.2.2. Figures 3 through 7 showisoconductivity maps. Editing of field data was performed to removeareas having observed surface metal.

2.3.2.4 Results and InterpretationThe existence of conductivity anomalies could mean the presence ofburied metallic or other conductive objects, the localized presence ofiron-rich or other relatively conductive soils (used in fill opera-tions), and the localized presence of conductive ground water plumes.To distinguish between these alternatives, the EM31, EM34 (various coilspacings and planes of operation) and the magnetic data were evaluatedtogether. The results of these evaluations are presented below andsummarized in Section 2.7.

EM31Figure 3 shows the results of the EM31 survey. The EM31 instrument 1ssensitive to conductivities in the upper 20 feet of the subsurface.High conductivity readings are found in two areas of the site. One areais located to the south of the approximate location of Cells B/C. Theshape of this anomaly is elliptical and its longitudinal axis trendswest-northwest. A comparison between the magnetic map (Figure 2) and

AR300571*2-12


the EM31 map (Figure 3) indicates that the center of this anomaly islocated immediately south of one of the smaller magnetic anomalies.

The second conductivity anomaly is located in the west-central part ofthe landfill. It has two nodes, a northern stronger node and a southernweaker node. The northern node has a magnitude of approximately95 minimhos per meter (mmho/m), whereas, the southern node has amagnitude of approximately 75 mmho/m. A comparison between the magneticmap (Figure 2) and the EM31 map (Figure 3) indicates that the centers ofeach of these anomalies are located in about the same place, with the EMnodes displaced to the south. These nodes are further evaluated withrespect to the EM34 maps below.

The greatest magnetic anomaly (northwest of Cells B/C—having amagnitude of approximately 400 g/m) is not evident on the EM31 map,suggesting that the magnetic anomaly results from debris at a greaterthan 20-foot depth. As is pointed out below, the EM34 surveys thatshould penetrate to depths of up to 100 feet also did not define an areaof high conductivity at this location. Alternate explanations forburied magnetic material that does not show up on EM31 or EM34 surveysinclude:

• The magnetic material is buried very deeply(greater than 100 feet); perhaps it represents amagnetic body in the metamorphic bedrock

• The magnetic material is disseminated in thesoil, in pellets, or in isolated nodules ofmaterial (such as slag from steel production)

EM34When comparing EM34 data, it should be noted that the depth of effectiveinstrument sensitivity varies with coil orientation and spacing. Forexample, the horizontal plane (vertical dipole) data generally havelower values and less defined anomalies than the vertical plane(horizontal dipole) data (of equal coil spacings). This is due, in _AR300575

2-13


part, to the greater depth sensitivity of the instrument in thehorizontal plane (vertical dipole).

Figure 4 shows the results of the EM34 survey with 10-meter intercoilspacing and with coils positioned in the horizontal plane (10-metervertical dipole). In this configuration, the EM34 instrument is sensi-tive to conductivities in the upper approximately 50 feet of thesubsurface. Although the magnitudes of the anomalies of this configura-tion are lower than that for the EM31, the positions of the anomaliesconfirm the results of the EM31.

Figure 5 shows the results of the EM34 survey with 10-meter intercoilspacing with coils positioned in the vertical plane (10-meter horizontaldipole). In this configuration, the EM34 instrument is sensitive toconductivities in the upper approximately 25 feet of the subsurface.When comparing the EM31 with the EM34 (10-meter horizontal dipole), theanomalies are similar in magnitude and are in about the same position.The elliptical anomaly approximately south of Cells B/C, however, isslightly weaker. The southern node of the western anomaly is alsoslightly weaker in the EM34 (10-meter horizontal dipole) than in theEM31. However, the northern node of the western anomaly is stronger inthe EM34 (10-meter horizontal dipole) than in the EM31. Better definedthan on the EM31 are two small high conductivity areas to the northwestof Cells B/C. These correlate somewhat with magnetic anomalies,especially the one to the southeast.

Figure 6 shows the results of the EM34 survey with 20-meter intercoilspacing and with coils positioned in the horizontal plane (20-metervertical dipole). In this configuration, the EM34 instrument is sensi-tive to conductivities in the upper approximately 100 feet of thesubsurface. The map shows only one significant anomaly near thenorthern node of the western EM/magnetic anomaly that is shifted to thenorth with respect to the EM31 and EM34 of shallower sensitivities.

AR3005762-14


This indicates that there is more conductive material at greater depthat the northern part of this northern node.

Figure 7 shows the results of the EM34 survey with 20-meter intercoilspacing and with coils positioned in the vertical plane {20-meterhorizontal dipole). In this configuration, the EM34 instrument 1ssensitive to conductivities in the upper approximately 50 feet of thesubsurface.

The anomalies shown on the isoconductivity map for the 20-meterintercoil spacing In the vertical plane (20-meter horizontal dipole)(Figure 7) compare favorably with the isoconductivity map for the10-meter intercoil spacing in the horizontal plane (10-meter verticaldipole) (Figure 4). These configurations both are sensitive toconductivities in the upper approximately 50 feet of the subsurface.The locations of anomalies do compare favorably, although the formerhave magnitudes of 30 mmhos/meter greater than the latter.

2.3.3 Seismic RefractionThe generalized site geology is unconsolidated sediments and saproliteoverlying metamorphic bedrock. The seismic refraction method that isdescribed in Section 2.3.3.1 below was selected because:

• Seismic refraction is effective for defining thetop of competent rock

• Stratigraphic variations and ground water levelsin the overburden can be potentially mapped pro-vided that sufficient velocity contrast exists

2.3.3.1 MethodologyThe data were acquired using a 24-channel engineering seismograph, and afield computer was used for data storage, field analysis, and qualitycontrol functions.

2-15 AR300577


The seismic sources tested at the Site were a sledgehammer and theDynasource vacuum assisted weight drop. The sledgehammer was determinedto be the most appropriate source, and all data records for the seismiclines were acquired using the sledgehammer as the seismic source.

Unconsolidated sediments and saprolite typically exhibit seismicvelocity variability due to irregular distribution of sand and claylenses. The most appropriate data analysis method for refraction datainversion in this geologic setting is the Generalized Reciprocal Method(GRM) due to the capability of the method to identify and compensate forerratic velocity intervals.

2.3.3.2 Preliminary TestingThe purposes of the preliminary testing was to evaluate the effective-ness of the refraction method with respect to Site conditions and tocalibrate the equipment. The preliminary testing included:

• Determination of the accuracy of seismic refrac-tion by developing a preliminary depth section inthe field

• Evaluating the seismic sources

• Determining the applicability of the refractionmethod with respect to the goals of the Phase Itasks

The initial test study was conducted along the initially proposed loca-tion of SRS-4 near Wells F-3 and SW-1 (DWP-I, Figure 8). The locationwas selected to test the refraction method across natural soil condi-tions as well as across the fill material. Data quality across thenatural soil was considered to be good; however, refraction data was notobtainable on the landfill, presumably because the poor consolidation ofthe fill severely attenuated the seismic energy. After extensivetesting with the sledgehammer and the Dynasource, the IT Task Managerfor Geophysics with concurrence by the IT Site and Project Managersdecided that seismic wave transmission through the landfill material

RR3005782-16


•• across the rest of the Site would mostly likely result in similar severei attenuation. IT in concurrence with the U.S. EPA decided to move all

seismic lines to natural soils adjacent to fill material.

* The preliminary testing was then relocated to the northern boundary of• the Site and conducted near wells B-l and F-9. The calibration test wasI later incorporated into the Line SRS-2 data for Stations 27 through 50.

IIiI

The equipment configuration used for the test survey was:

• ABEM Terra!oc 3 24-channel engineeringseismograph

• Mark Products 8hz geophones• Geophone spacing of 25 feet

• Sledgehammer seismic source

• 11 shots per 24-channel spread

The resultant data were processed in the field utilizing the EGREM soft-ware package, and the calibration study depth section is provided inFigure 8. The comparison between the depth-to-bedrock data for refrac-tion and borings showed close agreement, and the average difference wasapproximately five feet.

Within the overburden soils, the seismic data did not provide details ofstratigraphic interfaces or the ground water surface. This limitationwas determined during the preliminary testing. The reason for thislimitation is the "hidden layer condition" at the Woodlawn site. Thiscondition results from the velocity contrast between the metamorphicbedrock at depths of approximately 40 to 70 feet and the overburdensoils. This condition caused first arrival signals from the bedrock toreach the geophones earlier than first arrival signals from overburdensoil interfaces and from the water table.

AR3005792-17


The preliminary testing provided the following key conclusions:

• • The refraction method was successfully utilizedto map the top of bedrock

I • Stratigraphy of the soils overlying the bedrockand the ground water table could not be mapped

I • The seismic refraction survey lines were moved to1 natural soil due to the severe attenuation of the

landfill material

I • The sledgehammer source was adequate because ofthe low level of cultural noise

2.3.3.3 Field ProceduresI Seismic surveying was conducted from June 27, 1989 through July 1, 1989.

A total of four refraction lines were surveyed, and the total profile. length acquired for this project was 6,050 feet. The approximate lineI locations of the seismic lines are provided in Figure 9. Access at the

Site was difficult due to the rough terrain and dense vegetation.

The positioning of Line SRS-3 was complicated by rough terrain and theI presence of fill material between Stations 39 and 63. As a result, the

line incorporated two bends that marginally exceeded the 5 degree( t h r e s h o l d specified in the work plan. The bends were unavoidable

because:I « T h e line must avoid fill material a s much a s

possible

( • T h e line should b e located o n terrain that wouldminimize the risk of the seismic truckoverturning

I The final location of SRS-3 was the best compromise available, and thebends in the lines did not affect data quality.

AR3005802-18

II

I


The data were acquired using the following equipment and parameters:

• ABEM Terraloc 24-channel seismograph• Mark Products 8hz geophones• Sledgehammer source• Geophone spacing of 25 feet• 11 source locations per 24-channel spread -

The seismograph used contained a signal enhancement capability to permitvertical stacking of data records in order to amplify the coherentrefraction signal and attenuate the random seismic noise. The number ofsource data sets, or stacks, that were summed Into a typical record were15 shots to 35 shots; the number varied across the survey area due todifferences in cultural noise caused by traffic, wind, and the nearbyTransfer Station.

The data from each seismic record were downloaded from the seismographto a portable field computer for quality verification and subsequent in-field processing. All data were analyzed in the field to determinerefraction arrival times, and the data for all lines were reduced toTime-Distance diagrams and plotted in the field prior to demobilization.Figures 10 through 13 provide the Time-Distance plots, with layer selec-tions, for the four refraction lines.

The acquisition parameters were designed to achieve an average of 3 to4 bedrock data points per geophone station in order to provide redun-dancy in the refraction arrival times. The redundancy provides improveddefinition of the seismic velocities and enhances the overall quality ofthe final depth profiles.

2.3.3.4 Data EvaluationThe data were processed using a proprietary refraction data reductionsoftware package called EGREM developed by IT's subcontractor, NeponsetGeophysical Corporation. The package is an implementation of the GRM,and the software incorporates numerous enhancements to the basic GRM

AR30058I2-19


algorithm. Specific enhancements that were used during this projectinclude:

• Definition of variable velocities• Velocity analysis of first-break data• End-to-end phantoming of the first-break arrivals

Data processing was initiated in the field and completed after demobili-zation of the field team.

The velocity ranges for the two-layer refraction model were:

• Layer 1 - 1,375 to 2,300 feet per second

• Layer 2 - 16,000 feet per second (XY value -25 feet)

Layer 1 cannot be differentiated on the basis of differences invelocities with depth because the seismic refraction method does notprovide these data. Given a layered model, the seismic data can beevaluated to provide best fit thicknesses of the model layers. Drillingdata and borehole geophysical data (planned in Phase II) will provideadditional information that could be used to further refine the model.

Due to the redundancy of the refraction arrival time data, multipledepth calculations were derived for most seismic refraction stations.The individual calculations were averaged to provide a single depthvalue at each station. In addition, a 3-point moving average wasapplied to smooth the bedrock profile. This method proved satisfactory.

The four seismic depth profiles (Figures 10 through 13) correspond tothe seismic lines shown in Figure 9. Note that the GRM algorithm doesnot calculate the depth-to-bedrock directly below a specific geophonestation; the calculations provided are the distance from the surfacelocation of the receiver station to the refracting horizon, and thisdistance may be either directly below the geophone station or shifted

AR3005822-20

IIIII

iI'I


laterally. As a result, circular arcs were plotted under each geophonestation to indicate the points of equal distance beneath the geophonewhere the refractor may exist. The refractor profile is determined bythe line drawn tangentially to the outside edge of adjacent arcs.

2.3.3.5 Results and InterpretationThe seismic refraction survey was performed to map the bedrock surfaceand the ground water table. The contact between the bedrock surface andoverlying soils formed an excellent refracting horizon. This method didnot define the water table, nor was it capable of differentiatingbetween different soils (sand, gravel, saprolite, and fill) because ofthe lack of significant velocity contrast between layers of overburdensoil and because of the "hidden layer condition." Drilling data andborehole physical data (planned for Phase II) will provide additionalinformation that could be used to further refine the model. The fillpresented a severe problem in transmitting the seismic waves, and as aresult, it was necessary to shift the seismic lines of traverse outsidethe area of the fill. As a result, bedrock surface data could not beobtained in the central portion of the landfill using this method.

The refraction data were interpreted based on correlation with boringj logs and processing by the Generalized Reciprocal Method. Two layers

were indicated:

j • Layer 1 - A low velocity zone that consistsI primarily of unconsolidated sediments, saprolite,

and weathered bedrock

• Layer 2 - Competent metamorphic bedrock

The bedrock surface was irregular and varied from the lowest point of343 feet msl on Line SRS-4 to as high as 400 feet msl on Line SRS-1.

Table 1 contains a tabular comparison of the borehole and refractionbedrock depths, and Table 2 lists the bedrock elevation at the

AR3005832-21


Irefraction line tie points. The correlation of the seismic refraction

I data to all borings was within seven feet and the average difference wasthree feet. In addition, the ties between refraction lines at profile

i intersections were not greater than five feet, and the average differ-ence was three feet. Figures 10 through 13 provide interpretive

( d e s c r i p t i o n s for seismic refraction lines SRS-1 through SRS-4, respec-tively. No fractures or Uneations of the bedrock were observed.

I SRS-1 InterpretationThe bedrock surface for Line SRS-1 (Figure 10) shows a general dip

I towards the south beginning near Station 24. A more gentle downward dipto the north is evident beginning near Station 15, and the top of bed-

I rock elevations range from 400 feet msl at Station 17 to 371 feet msl atStation 54. A misalignment of the layer arcs is evident near Stations

129 and 30, and the cause of the discrepancy is a local velocity anomalyapparently due to the fill material used to construct an access road tothe landfill. This feature is probably an artifact of the data process-

I ing and most likely does not represent the actual bedrock profile. Theprofile correlates closely with four borings and two line intersections.

ISRS-2 Interpretation

j Line SRS-2 was acquired along the access road located near the northernborder of the landfill property, and the profile is presented in

( F i g u r e 11. The profile shows the top of bedrock sloping from east towest, and the relatively abrupt relief at Stations 3 through 6 suggeststhe bedrock surface slope may steepen to the west. The elevation for

I this line ranges from 347 feet (Station 3) to 397 feet (Station 50).The profile correlates with four borings along the line as well as two

I line intersections. The difference between refraction and drilling dataalong this line is typically under 4 feet. Well B-2 is an exception

I where the difference is approximately 7 feet (10%). Well OW-1 was notincluded in the comparison because of the approximately 20 feet higher

• elevation reported for auger refusal than that reported for adjacent

AR30058UI 2-22


wells and from refraction data. OW-1 was not physically located duringthe seismic field work.

SRS-3 InterpretationLine SRS-3 profile (Figure 12) depicts a bedrock divide betweenStations 38 and 64 with bedrock surface sloping downward to the northand south. A gap exists in the line between Stations 39 and 63 becauseno data were available across the fill material present in this inter-val. The bedrock elevation ranges from 345 feet msl to 395 feet msl.The refraction profile correlates closely with three borings and twoline intersections.

SRS-4 InterpretationLine SRS-4 profile, shown 1n Figure 13, was obtained along the northshoulder of Waibel Road. The bedrock slopes to the west, and the low atStation 11 correlates with the creek location. The bedrock is veryshallow on this line, and bedrock elevations range from 345 feet msl to373 feet msl. The profile correlates with Well B-6 and two refractionline intersections.

2.4 EXISTING WELL EVALUATIONThe objective of this task was to establish a monitoring well networkfor the purpose of better defining ground water flow and solute plumesfor the Woodlawn Landfill site and its environs. This evaluation alsoidentifies those nearby domestic wells that will be sampled in Phase II.Finally, the evaluation is proving useful in planning locations,numbers, and screening intervals for monitoring wells to be installedduring the Phase II work.

2.4.1 Site Area Monitoring WellsPrior to the initiation of this RI/FS work at the Woodlawn LandfillSite, monitoring wells had been installed and have provided data onwater levels and chemical composition. The body of data from these

AR3005852-23


wells is on file and forms part of Appendix D of the DWP-I. The wellsthat have been located during Phase I work are shown on Figure 1. TheF-Series wells were installed by Firestone in the vicinity of Cells A, Band C. The B-Series wells were installed by the State of Maryland andare located along the borders of the landfill. The SW- and OW-Serieswells were installed by Cecil County.

As stated above, Figure 1 shows only those wells that have been locatedduring Phase I work. Wells not located include OW-1, F-4, OW-3,and B-6. The Inferred locations of these wells were presented in theDWP-I. Monitoring Well F-4 is believed to have been covered by landfilloperations. Wells OW-1, OW-3, and B-6 may have been obscured by theheavy vegetation present during the time of Phase I work or they mayhave been vandalized.

The DWP-I called for evaluating existing monitoring wells and renovatingthose, as required. F-series wells were renovated with the exception ofF-4, which was not found.

As per the DWP-I the decision to upgrade depended on:

• Ownership of well and permission to upgrade beinggranted

• Locking of well cover

• Corrosion, cracking, or absence of metal protec-tive casing

• Absence of concrete pier

• Top of PVC casing less than two feet above groundsurface

• Absence of guard pipes around well

• Reason to believe the well is functional or canbe made functional

AR3005862-24


Because the F-Series wells had been constructed originally with protec-tive casings, locks, and concrete bases, these wells were in relativelygood condition. Nevertheless, some renovation was carried out to makethem more secure. Unfortunately, the B-Series, OW- and SW-Ser1es wellsdid not have protective casings, locks, or bases and many were vandal-ized to a point that it was considered useless to upgrade them on thebasis of the criterion listed above: "Reason to believe the well isfunctional or can be made functional."

As per the DWP-I, a decision was made by the IT project manager on thebasis of this criterion, to not upgrade non-F-series wells at this time.It is suggested that functionality be tested to show that the well canbe used to collect data for the RI/FS. Downhole well inspection with atelevision probe would be an acceptable method, and is being proposed inPhase II (Borehole Geophysics). If a well is nonfunctional, and is notcapable of being renovated, then that well should be properly abandoned(Code of Maryland Regulations). The decision to replace adecommissioned well will be made on the basis of achieving the projectobjectives. The decision will be initiated by the task manager forhydrogeology and agreed to by the IT project manager. The decision toproceed will be presented to the client for approval and confirmed bythe agencies.

Well water quality data have been evaluated from the wells listed inAppendix D of the DWP-I. Although over 25 compounds were detected,compounds such as dichlorodifluoromethane, trichlorofluoromethane,acetone, and ethyl ether were not statistically significant to drawconclusions with respect to the placement of monitoring wells. Chloro-methane, although present in statistically significant concentration, ispresent at sporadic times in various areas of the landfill; no conclu-sions regarding centers of highest concentration could be made.(1,1-Dichloromethane was discussed in the text under the synonymmethylene chloride.) The results of this evaluation are as follows.

AR3005872-25


Four compounds are worthy of discussion:

•Vinyl chloride•Tetrahydrofuran•Methylene chloride (1,1-dichloromethane)•Toluene

Furthermore, between 1981 and 1988, there are two distinct periods oftime when the concentrations of these compounds have shown peaks:between 1981 and 1983 (herein referred to as the 1982 peak); and between1985 and 1987 (herein referred to as the 1986 peak).

The following approximate maximum concentrations for each of these peaktimes and the well identification are tabulated for these fourcompounds:

1982 Peak 1986 PeakCone, (ppb)Well Cone, (ppb)Well

Vinyl chloride 72 (F2) 870 (F6)Tetrahydrofuran 5,550 (B4) 50 (F4)Methylene chloride 1,300 (B4) 43 (Bl)Toluene 2,200 (F10) 45 (Bl)

Between these periods of time, the compound concentrations were at muchlower levels or were not detected.

The geographic centers of highest concentrations during the two peakperiods are as follows:

1982 Peak Centers

Vinyl chloride South of Cell B/CTetrahydrofuran Vicinity of B4 and area around Cell AMethylene chloride Vicinity of B4 and area around Cell AToluene Area around Cell A

AR3005882-26


1986 Peak CentersVinyl chloride South of Cell B/C; Vicinity of Well BlTetrahydrofuran Area around Cell AMethylene chloride Vicinity of Well BlToluene Vicinity of Well Bl

The centers of highest concentrations, therefore, deserve further atten-tion in considering the placement of additional monitoring wells. Thesecenters include:

• The area south of Cells B/C

• The area of Cell A, extending to Well Bl

• The vicinity of Well B4 (near the western edge ofthe landfill)

2.4.2 Nearby Domestic WellsDomestic wells comprise the local water supply for the site area. Chem-ical analyses performed thus far on water samples from nearby domesticwells (as listed in Appendix D of the DWP-I) Indicate no contamination(within the limits of detection). These domestic wells are drawingwater from bedrock horizons. This is in contrast to existing monitoringwells that have drawn water from soil horizons above the bedrock.

Information was collected for selected domestic wells within a one-halfmile radius of the center of the Site that have the greatest potentialfor establishing a monitoring well network for the Site. The objectiveof this network is to better define ground water flow and solute plumes.

The wells that were evaluated are located as follows:

• Along Firetower Road to the east and northeast ofthe site

• Adjacent to the southern and eastern portions ofthe site

AR3005892-27


The area directly north of the site is undeveloped and no domestic wellshave been installed. Locations of land parcels that contain thedomestic wells surveyed are shown on Figure 14. The corresponding listof property owners is shown in Table 3.

Information was obtained for 27 domestic wells in the defined area.Information sources included copies of well completion logs obtainedfrom the State of Maryland, Water Resources Administration and telephoneinterviews with nearby domestic well owners.

These domestic wells were typically constructed using the same basicdesign. Wells were installed by drilling an eight-Inch hole down tobedrock, then installing a six-inch steel surface casing which wasgrouted in place. The well was then drilled into bedrock to the desireddepth. Based on the available information, no screens were installed indomestic wells, rather portions of wells drilled in bedrock were left atcompletion as open holes in bedrock. The depths of completed wellsvaried from 50 to over 400 feet in depth. Water production in thesewells is dependent upon fractures in the bedrock, so well completiondepths were determined by drilling through a sufficient number offracture zones to produce the desired quantity of water for each well.Information from well records indicated flow rates in these wellsnormally are less than 5 gallons per minute (gpm). In many cases aftera few hours of pumping at this rate, the well would be pumped dry.After completion, most wells were equipped with submersible pumps. In afew cases, where well depths are relatively shallow (less than 70 ftdeep), a surface pump was installed.

The majority of the domestic wells that were investigated were installedbefore enactment of the requirement that well casings must be installedabove the ground surface. As a result, these wells were installed withwell casings flush with the ground surface. All of the owners surveyedindicated that well casings were accessible from the ground surface andin many cases cement pads were installed around the well casing^ n q n nCq n

2-28


Analytical data is available from a limited number of domestic wellswhich have been sampled on a routine basis by the Cecil County HealthDepartment. No chemical contamination has been detected in any of thedomestic wells sampled to date. None of the well owners surveyedindicated any known chemical contamination in their wells. Someproblems with iron were mentioned by some well owners, but this is acommon regional ground water problem.

2.5 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYThe objectives of the topographic survey are to:

• Describe the configuration (relief) of the groundsurface of the landfill area and adjoiningproperty

• Locate and map the natural and cultural featureswithin the survey area

As specified in the DWP-I, the U.S. EPA provided IT with a new topo-graphic map of the Woodlawn Landfill Site area (Appendix D, DWP-I). Thearea! extent of the map was adequate for the coverage of the Phase Iwork. This map was stored on the AutoCAD system and became part of theSite base map.

2.6 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATIONThe objectives of the aerial photographic interpretation include:

• Identifying regional trends of major lineaments

• Assessing the Site's present surface features

• Identifying surface remnants from past Siteactivities

To achieve these objectives, the EMSL report and additional aerialphotographs (Appendix D, DWP-I) were obtained and selected photos wereenlarged to enhance the site characteristics shown on each photograph.

AR30059I

2-29


The aerial photographic interpretation was conducted using theseI enlargements and consisted of two major parts:

• The definition of regional geological featuresI (lineaments, fractures, faults, etc.)

• Definition of site-specific features (pits,'• ponds, roadways, etc.)

Procedures used and definitions for this analysis followed standardI approved procedures for aerial photographic interpretation as described

in USGS Professional Paper No. 373, "Aerial Photographs in GeologicI Interpretation and Mapping."

I 2.6.1 Regional Geologic Features* Lineaments are defined as linear topographic features of regional extent( t h a t are believed to be of geologic origin. They may represent frac-

tures, faults, joints, or geologic contacts. In the area of theWoodlawn Landfill, lineaments may represent fractures in the bedrock

I that have surface textural expression.

I Joints are the most common features that may produce lineaments. Theyoccur regularly in the bedrock, as evidenced by examination of the Port

I Deposit Gneiss outcrops on the bluffs north of the town of Port Deposit,' Maryland. Here joint spacing is regular: joint planes occur every twoI to five feet and are oriented in two major directions, approximately

N 42 degrees E and N 40 degrees W. In both sets of joints, the averagedip of the joint plane is near vertical.

Isolated lineaments, that indicate isolated bedrock structures, probablyI reflect structures such as fracture zones, major faults, or geologic

contacts. In the area of the Woodlawn Landfill, there is no evidence of• the presence of major faults and, as evidenced by Maryland Geologic

II

Survey maps and the EMSL Report (Appendix D, DWP-I), the contact between

AR3005922-30


the Port Deposit Gneiss (that underlies the Site) and another metamor-phic rock unit is to the northeast of the Site. Therefore, any isolatedlineaments on site or possibly projected onto the Site would more likelyreflect the presence of a fracture zone in the bedrock, rather thaneither joints, faults or geologic contacts.

Several possible lineaments were identified from aerial photographs inthe vicinity of the site (Figure 15). Two possible lineaments (A and B)that were identified were considered potentially geologically signifi-cant with respect to site bedrock characteristics. These lineamentsintersected site boundaries and could be projected on site.

Field checking of lineaments was conducted to determine the geologicsignificance of lineaments A and B. Lineament A was found in the fieldto be part of a roadway used to move farm machinery and had no surfacetopographic expression. Lineament B, however, was found to be a smalldrainageway with several seeps near its head at the Site's westernproperty boundary. Furthermore, analysis of site-specific features(Section 2.6.2) revealed that lineament B had an on-site surface topo-graphic expression until modified by landfill operations. Lineament Bis, therefore, thought to be potentially geologically significant andits presence will be considered when planning subsequent phases of workat the Site.

2.6.2 Site-Specific FeaturesAs part of the aerial photographic interpretation, a detailed site-specific- analysis was conducted to identify surface features associatedwith historic site operations and disposal practices such as:

RoadwaysExcavations/ pitsPossible past disposal areasDrum storage/ disposal areasTanksSurface impoundmentsSurface water drainage pathways

AR3005932-31


• Vehicles• Abnormal surface features• Other information pertinent to site operations

Historical aerial photographs were used to construct chronological mapsof the landfill from 1964 to 1986 (Figures 16 through 22). These mapscomprise a pictorial chronologic history of site changes during thistime interval. Features depicted on these figures were correlated withsite walk interviews with Cecil County officials (Mr. David Dean andMr. Barry Belford) based on their recollections as administrators oflandfill operations.

AR30059U2-32

\IIIIiIIi1IIIIIII<I


3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING GROUND WATER FLOW

3.1.1 BasisOn the basis of Phase I work and data from Appendix D of the DWP-I,ground water flow at the Site can be inferred preliminarily from:

• The slope of the potentiometric surface ("watertable") as derived from static water level read-ings of existing wells. Flow lines are orthogo-nal (perpendicular) and down gradient to lines ofequal elevation of the potentiometric surface.

• The slope of the bedrock surface as indicated byprevious drilling and from the seismic refractionsurvey.

• The topographic slope of the site, which may bean indicator of subsurface flow of ground water.The water table generally parallels the topo-graphic surface.

3.1.2 Preliminary ConclusionsThe preliminary conclusions concerning ground water flow are as follows:

• In the overburden soils (especially relating tothe saprolite above bedrock), the potentiometricsurface has an elevation of approximately400 feet in the northeastern portion of the site,where it is very flat. This includes the areaaround Cell A and Cells B/C. This surfaceremains flat to very gently downward slopingtowards the western borders of the landfill andto the northeast of the landfill, although only afew well data points to the north are currentlyavailable. To the northwest and south thepotentiometric surface slopes down to about375 feet in elevation.

• The bedrock surface, as indicated by the seismicrefraction survey, has the same general slope asthe potentiometric surface. Seismic lines SRS-1and 3, which run north-south and extend to thenorth of the landfill boundaries, confirm that RnonnrrorAH 300595

3-1


the bedrock surface slopes downward to the northbeyond the northern landfill boundary and to thesouth.

• The topographic surface, as indicated by detailedtopographic mapping, exhibits a high flat area inthe northeast, gentle downward slopes towards thewestern boundary of the landfill, and relativelysteep downward slopes towards the south.

• Ground water flow below the bedrock surface isnot known. We can infer that the flow followsbedrock fractures. The presence and location ofthese fractures have been interpreted from themapping of photoUnears.

3.2 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING SOLUTE MIGRATION EXTENT ANDDIRECTION OF MOVEMENT

3.2.1 BasisOn the basis of Phase I work and data from Appendix D of the DWP-I, theextent and direction of movement of solutes at the Site can be inferredpreliminarily from:

• The chemical data from water samples collectedfrom existing wells. Vinyl chloride, tetrahydro-furan, methylene chloride, and toluene seem to begood indicators of ground water plume locations.

• From conclusions on ground water flow. Theseconclusions are presented above in Section 3.1.

• From magnetic and electromagnetic survey results.Magnetic and conductivity surveys indicate thatsome of the conductivity anomalies that cannot betied to buried metallic debris may be plumes ofsolutes.

Results of the soil-gas investigation, which will be presented 1n anaddendum to this report, will also be used to make preliminary conclu-sions on solute migration.

AR3005963-2


3.2.2 Preliminary ConclusionsThe preliminary conclusions concerning solute migration extent anddirection of movement are as follows:

• Sources of waste compounds have been preliminar-ily Identified at three locations on the Site.These locations include:- The area around Cell A extending to Well Bl- The area around Cells B/C- The area around Well B4.

• Peaks in the concentrations were noted around theYears 1982 and 1986. The rise and fall of con-centrations at any one monitoring well Indicatethat there 1s movement of these compounds in thesoil, causing sequential dilution and concentra-tion of the ground water over the monitoredperiod of time.

• The rate of movement cannot yet be determined.

• Elongation of isoconductivity contours from thegeophysical (EM31 and EM34) data in the centralportion of the site that are not associated withmagnetic anomalies indicate that conductivesolute plumes flow toward the south-southwest.

• It is preliminarily inferred that the directionof movement of solutes in the surficial soilsfollows the direction of ground water flow andthe slope of the bedrock surface.

• Chemical analyses from nearby domestic wells inareas surrounding the landfill indicate thatwaste compounds under consideration have notmigrated outside the landfill boundaries belowthe bedrock surface.

3.3 RECOMMENDATION OF NUMBER. LOCATION. AND SCREEN INTERVALS OFMONITORING WELLS TO BE INSTALLED IN PHASE II

3.3.1 Additional WellsIt is recommended that additional wells should be installed in thefollowing three aquifers as to be specified in the Detailed Work Planfor Phase II (DWP-II): AR300597

3-3


• Bedrock aquifer

• Saturated soils (immediately above the bedrocksurface)

• Perched water horizons

Wells in each of these aquifers are discussed in Sections 3.3.2, 3.3.3,and 3.3.4, respectively.

The soil-gas addendum report (to be submitted by October 10, 1989) maycontain recommendations for additional wells and/or modifications to thewell plan presented herein and in the DWP-II.

The magnetic survey, supplemented by the EM surveys, have been used toselect well locations. The avoidance of locations of magnetic (and someEM anomalies) will aid in avoiding potential burled ferrometallic debrisduring drilling. This technique will reduce the risk of puncturing intosteel containers (safety hazard) or experiencing impedance of the drillbit or complete blockage.

3.3.2 Bedrock AquiferFive bedrock aquifer wells are proposed (Figure 23). One of these wellshas been located at a place where it is expected to intersect fracturezones in the bedrock. This expectation is based on the presence ofphotolinear traces. The remaining 4 wells have been located at placeswhere there are insufficient data and where these data are needed tosatisfy the objectives of Phase II - Site Characterization. Most wellsare placed in locations where they are expected to be down gradient fromexpected source areas of waste, while allowing a lesser number of others(new or existing) to be up gradient to serve as background wells.

Although the drilling locations will be initially guided by the resultsof the air-photo interpretation, the depth of drilling and the screeninterval will be guided by the progress of drilling with respec1pto« « [- Q p

3-4


finding zones in the bedrock that can produce a relatively high yield.The well drilling will be monitored to select such zones of high groundwater yield. Because the objective of the bedrock well installations isto evaluate the bedrock aquifer, the top of the screened interval willbe at least 15 feet below the top of bedrock. Bedrock monitoring wellswill be installed using a rotary drilling method. During drilling ofbedrock monitoring wells, a surface casing grouted in place will beinstalled to seal off the saturated soil aquifer from the bedrockaquifer.

Bedrock monitoring well borings will be advanced five feet into bedrockusing a rotary drill equipped with a ten-inch-diameter roller bit.Information on bedrock-surface depths will be obtained from thesaturated soil monitoring well associated with that location. After theboring has been drilled to this depth, an eight-inch-inside-diametersteel surface casing will be installed in the boring. If required, thecasing will be driven to the established drilled depth. After thecasing has been placed in the boring, the casing will be pressuregrouted in place using cement grout to seal off the saturated soilaquifer. The boring will be allowed to set for 24 hours aftercompletion of grouting activities to allow the grout to cure beforeresuming drilling operations.

The well will be completed in the bedrock aquifer using rotary drillingmethods, drilling a 7-1/2-inch-diameter hole. Periodic water levelmeasurements will be taken using an electronic water level meter todetermine when sufficient water is flowing into the well to stopdrilling. Bedrock wells will be drilled Into the bedrock aquifer aminimum of 30 feet as specified by the State of Maryland. This willpermit the installation of the bentonite seal at least 15 feet below thetop of the bedrock surface.

AR3005993-5


3.3.3 Saturated Soil AquiferFive wells in saturated soil aquifers are proposed (Figure 23). Theyhave been located at places where there are insufficient data and wherethese data are needed to satisfy the objectives of Phase II - SiteCharacterization. Most wells are placed 1n locations where they areexpected to be down gradient from expected source areas of waste, whileallowing a lesser number of others (new or existing) to be up gradientto serve as background wells.

The depths of these wells will be such that the tip of the well liesimmediately above the top of the bedrock surface. The depth data willbe taken or extrapolated from the results of the seismic refractionsurvey and the boring logs from previous work. The well drilling willbe monitored to anticipate the required depth of the boring.

The final location of these wells will be selected on the basis of theresults of the soil -gas survey.

3.3.4 Perched Zone WellsTwo shallow wells will be installed for the purpose of studying thequantity and quality of ground water present in perched zones(Figure 23). The location of these zones is anticipated from thepresence of seeps in the area south and southwest of Cells B/C. Thewell should intercept the perched zone underground prior to itsdaylighting down gradient and discharging to the surface.

The test hole will be advanced until perched water is encountered. Ifdrilling 1s during wet weather, then the perched zone should beidentified by the presence of water or soil moisture at levels above theexpected water table depths. If drilling is during dry weather, thenthe soil stratum that could contain perched water will not be easilyidentified on the basis of soil moisture. If the perched horizon isdry, then the well test hole should be advanced to the soil stratum

AR3006003-6


correlated laterally by elevation from stained areas on the surface(from dried up seepage). A depth of 20 feet will be considered to bethe maximum depth in search of perched water or perched water horizons.

3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF DOMESTIC WELLS TO BE SAMPLED AND SURVEYED FORSTATIC WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS IN PHASE II

Figure 14 locates and Table 3 identifies 18 domestic (bedrock) wellsthat will be used to add to the monitoring well network. These 18 willbe used to measure water levels. Twelve of these will be used to samplewater for chemical analyses. This is a preliminary list. During laterstages of the project, this list may be modified according to theevaluation of new data. Decisions to modify this list will be made inaccordance with the project protocol and the agencies will be notified.

AR30060I3-7

COUJCO


TABLES

AR300603


TABLE 1BEDROCK ELEVATIONS

COMPARISON BETWEEN BORING DATAAND SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILES

REFRACTION REFRACTION REFRACTION BORING BORINGLINE STATION ELEVATION NAME ELEVATIONSRS-1 29 398 F-9 395 3 75SRS-1 22 397 F-l 400 3 25SRS-1 31 395 F-5 396 1 30?SRS-1 46 383 F-3 386 3 190SRS-2 5 355 B-3 360a 5 20SRS-2 11 364 OW-2 360a 4 50?SRS-2 22 369 B-2 362 7 30SRS-2 40 392 B-l 391 1 30SRS-2 43 393 F-9 395 2 30SRS-3 14 362 B-3 360a 2 15SRS-3 40, 392 B-4 388 5 15SRS-3 65b 381 OW-4 379 2 25SRS-4 25 361 B-6 358 3 50

aSurface elevation estimated based on refraction line elevation."Closest seismic station to the projected well location that has a computedrefraction depth value.

II


TABLE 2LINE TIE CORRELATION

FOR SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILES

REFRACTION REFRACTION REFRACTION REFRACTION REFRACTION REFRACTIONLINE STATION ELEVATION LINE STATION ELEVATIONSRS-1 18 399 SRS-2 46 396 3SRS-1 56 374 SRS-4 44 376 2SRS-2 5 355 SRS-3 15 360 5SRS-3 84 345 SRS-4 12 347 2

I

I*II

AR300605


TABLE 3PROPERTY OWNER LISTOF EVALUATED WELLS

PARCEL NO. NAME PROPERTY OWNER'S MAILING ADDRESS

P-530(17)b Sally Harvey 2036 Colora Road, Colora, MDP-273b Earl Blakely P.O. Pox 21, Colora, MDP-396 Charles & Joyce Kwasnik 120 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-231b Robert & Thelma Lynch 126 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-232 Marvin Duff 132 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-233a John H. Jackson 140 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-283 Emory L. Copenhauer 158 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-230 Emory L. Copenhauer 160 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MD

""P-614b John M. Benjamin 166 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-359 Vincent M. Barranco 172 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-358a Gaylord S. Murdorf 184 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-424 Emerson Jackson 196 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-221b Emerson Jackson 208 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-343 Russell W. Waibel 220 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-342a Christine Slayman 280 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-252 Ronald A. Love 240 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-2063 James M. Flaherty 248 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-207a Michael C. Sorrick 300 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-371 Edward J. Kenna 2104 Lynch Dr. Wilmington, DEP-553 Kenneth C. Reid 35 Vinyard Dr., Port Deposit, MDP-501a George E. Sewell 360 Firetower Road, Port Deposit, MDP-487 James R. Barton P.O. Box 113, Perry Point, MDP-309a William R. Barton, Jr. 408 Firetower Road, Colora, MDP-151b Howard G. Bullock 430 Firetower Road, Colora, MDP-328 Harold Montgomery P.O. Box 707, Rising Sun, MDP-509a Charles C. Sexton 183 Washington School Hollow,

Rising Sun, MD

AR300606


Table 3(Continued)

PARCEL NO. NAME PROPERTY OWNER'S MAILING ADDRESS

P-506a James E. Craft 452 Waibel Road, Port Deposit, MDP-530(23)a Cecil A. Odom 456 Waibel Road, Port Deposit, MDP-267a Cecil Co. Commissioners Cecil Co. Courthouse, Elkton, MDP-380a Dale Haywood 2239 Colora Road, Colora, MD

Wells identified to be sampled for chemical anlaysis and measured for water

bWells measured for water elevations only.j elevations.

IIII

BR300607

COIUCCDCD

&R300608

I

j

I

I

I

I

IFIGURES

I


IIIIII

A AR300609I

1

ZEJ DRAHN I S.S.J I CHECKED BY

($0.48 ACRES?

ACRES} ••--— ~~~'J--—^,^^ — --. i

APPROXIMATE LOCATION

,' | APPROXIMATE LIMITS&" * ^t* r rtracrOT\/ i iktr. .

APPROXIMATELOCATION OF CELLS B&C

FIGURE I

SITE BASE MAP

pR£pARED

WOODLAWN LANDFILL RI/FS

MONITORING WELL INSTALLEDBY FIRESTONE

MONITORING WELL INSTALLEDBY CECIL COUNTY

S MONITORING WELL INSTALLEDBY THE STATE OF MARYLAND

BEDROCK WELL(LOCATION APPROXIMATE) WTS3WATIONAL

TECHNOLOGYCORPORATION

ARB006IQ

DRAW! IO.E.S. CHECKED BY K**»n Vfl HRAMNK 303486- B26BY |a-3|-89l APPROVED BY ]AH OH Qfiffl |nUMBER 3"3tBb »««>

*REVISION 4*H .A GEN.REV. n-30-89

•3

HALE E. HARR/NGTONETAL

(80.48 ACRES}MONTGOMERY BROTHERS /NC.

(5 ACRES}

APPROXIMATE LOCATIONOF CELL A

APPROXIMATELOCATION OF CELLS B&CHOUCfC

(IS ACRES}

(4.0 ACRES}

(45.0)2 ACRES}

ENTERPR/SES,(48.63 ACRES}

GRID SAMPLE POINT DELETED SCALE, EGFMn + DUE TO PRESENCE OF SURFICIAL F ^ ^ p55 ^ ^LLSjU!!u METALLIC DEBRIS 0 ZOO 40OFEETF-2 MONITORING WELL INSTALLED - ^— GAMMAS/METER FIGURE 2• BY FIRESTONE MAGNETIC ISOGRADIENT MAP

SURFACE METAL AND VALUES LESS THANSit? MONITORING WELL INSTALLED NUILS>' 25GAMMAS/METER DELETED9 BY CECIL COUNTY I. ISOGRADIENT CONTOUR IN PREPARED FOR

y» GAMMAS/ METER-nB-« MONITORING WELL INSTALLED „ rnwrni IR IWTFRVAI i<; Rn^ BY THE STATE OF MARYLAND 2' GAMMAS / METER WOODLAWN LANDFILL RI/FS

Sfe BEDROCK WELL _____5 (LOCATION APPROXIMATE) FIH1 INTERNATIONAL_ I H I! TECHNOLOGY

e i»04 IT CONATION Li ^ CORPORATION

««J DRAWN IP E S I CHECKED BYP • it \ BY 18-51-891 APPROVED BY

REVISION AWlj tl(a.GEN.REV. IP-30-89

HALE E. HARR/NGTONET AL

(30.48 XCRES}J MONTGOMERY BROTHERS /NC.

(5 ACRES}


TRANSFERSTATION

APPROXIMATELOCATION OF CELLS B&CHOUCK

•f'/ff ACRES}

RETENTJC*!.BASIN

H/NDER(4.0 ACRES}

HA/BEL(45. Of2 ACRES}

ENTERPR/SES, MC\ , EXISTING(48.6J ACRES} '

i CRAFT(2.9J ACRES}

GRID POINT DELETED DUE TOPRESENCE OF SURFICIAL METALLICDEBRIS 0mmhos/ METERF-2 MONITORING WELL INSTALLED

• BY FIRESTONEf)WSW-I MONITORING WELL INSTALLED

BY CECIL COUNTY

200 400 FEET

FIGURE 3EM 31 ISOCONDUCTIVITY MAP

I. ISOCONDUCTIVITY CONTOUR IN pKFPMer, FORmmhos/METER PREPARED FORMONITORING WELL INSTALLED 2. CONTOUR INTERVAL ISBY THE STATE OF MARYLAND lOmmhos/METER WOODLAWN LANDFILL RI/FS

__, 3. THE EM3I HAS AN EFFECTIVE DEPTH®f BEDROCK WELL OF INVESTIGATION OF APPROXIMATELY __^_ ___.„_„„.,3| (LOCATION APPROXIMATE) - 20FEET Fl !BJ!8$B99A1'

• ,«« n co«.J o« CORPORATIONAIL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED _______________

HR3006I2

NUMBER 303486-B28

GEN. REV. 11-30-89

HALE E. HARR/NGTONET AL48 ACRES}

MONTGOMERY BROTHERS /NC.(5 ACRES}


1

APPROXIMATELOCATION OF CELLS BfcC

ENTERPR/SES, /M(48.6J ACRES}

GRID POINT DELETED DUE TO+ PRESENCE OF SURFICAL

METALLIC DEBRISmmhos / METERF-2 MONITORING WELL INSTALLED

* BY FIRESTONEOW-4 MONITORING WELL INSTALLED

BY CECIL COUNTY

. ,»«All COP1WOHTS KESERVEO

200 400 FEET- FIGURE 4

EM34 ISOCONDUCTIVITY MAPNOTES'- 10 METER COIL SPACING,————— . VERTICAL DIPOLE

I ISOCONDUCTIVITY CONTOUR IN PREPARED EORmm hos/ METER PREPARED FOR-4 MONITORING WELL INSTALLED 2. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS Smmhos/METER _

BY THE STATE OF MARYLAND ' 3 THE EM34 WHEN OPERATED IN THE WOODLAWN LANDFILL RI/FSBEDROCK WELL VERTICAL DIPOLE MODE AT A

ROXIMATE)OF APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET.

____(LOCATION APPROXIMATE) E I F l v r a T i e A T I O N AL

\ JR3006I3

REVISION QjfL,be |l|*oGEN.REV. ll-yo-89

HALE E. HARRINGTONET



GRID POINT DELETED DUE TOPRESENCE OF SURFICIALMETALLIC DEBRISmmhos / METERF-2 MONITORING WELL INSTALLED

• BY FIRESTONE EM34 ISOCONDUCTIVITY MAPI0 METER CO|L SPACING,HORIZONTAL DIPOLE

PREPARED FOR

NOTES:| ISOCONDUCTIVITY CONTOUR INmmhos/ METER

2. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS lOmmhos/METER

'JSKSBTSaSBfSI-10-METER COIL SPACING HAS AN

QVI .sw-t MONITORING WELL INSTALLED

BY CECIL COUNTY

I _ _. _. . _ _ . .

1R3006 1 1*

3 H6b'b30,"-.

f

t

REVISION oUHl' "|3«A GEN REV.11-30-89

)BAV>M JD.E.S. T CHECKED BY ?*»•. TrrfyMJDRAWING ,O^IBK-BY U-3I-89I APPROVED BY IfllflU MjfMINUMBER 486i n

HALE £ HARR/NGTONETAL

Q.43 ACRES}MONTGOMERY BROTHERS /MC.

(5 ACRES}

ENTERPR/SES, /NC.(48.63 ACRES}

. GRID POINT DELETED DUE TO+ PRESENCE OF SURFICAL METALLIC 20Q 40OFEET

MONITORING WELL INSTALLED ,—iO— mmhos / METER FIGURE 6BY FIRESTONE EM 34 ISOCONDUCTIVITY MAP

NOTES' 20 METER COIL SPACING,D l l I ; INSTALLED , ISOCONDUCTIVITY CONTOUR IN VERTICAL DIPOLEBY CECIL COUNTY mmhos/METER PREPARED FORMONITORING WELL INSTALLED 2- CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5BY THE STATE OF MARYLAND mmhos/METER WOODLAWN LANDFILL RI/FS

x D™,-™ u«r,, 3- THE EM34 WHEN OPERATED IN THEMgf DtUKOCK WELL VFRTirAI DIPOI F UODF AT A 9(1- (LOCATION APPROXIMATE) METER CaLSPAllKs AN

- EFFECTIVE DEPTH OF INVESTIGATION• t«M IT CORPORATION OF APPROXIMATELY IOO FFFTAU. COPYRIGHTS RESERVED OF APPROXIMAI tLT IOO FEET.

$R3006I5

3.-I3488- B3I .'06

REVISION fl"*1 l'GEN. REV 11-30-89

HALE E. HARR/NGTON£TAL\

CRtMONTGOMERY BROTHERS /NC.

(5 ACRES}


APPROXIMATELOCATION OF CELLS BkCAPPROXIMATEHOUCK

(f6 ACRES}

i \ mJ6KlLUWLANDF7LL

ACRES}

H/NDER(4.0 ACRES}

(45. Of2 ACRES}

ENTERPR/SES, /M(48.63 ACRES}

;Y

»\

GRID POINT DELETED DUE TOPRESENCE OF SURFICIALMETALLIC DEBRISmmhos / METER

200 400 FEETFIGURE 7

EM34 ISOCONDUCTIVITY MAP

BY CEC.L COUNTY

O-4 MONITORING WELL INSTALLED HORIZONTAL DIPOLE MODE AT ACft BY THE STATE OF MARYLAND 20'METER COIL SR&CING HAS AN EFFECT! VE WOODLAWN LANDFILL RI/FS— DEPTH OF INVESTIGATION OFC® BEDROCK WELL APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET. _____

(LOCATION APPROXIMATE) PTTI INTERNATIONALI • H TECHNOLOGY

> IM4 IT CORPORATION &|B CORPORATIONAIL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED

>: REVISION a»»«fir llf Jo.-S A RfTM RFU l|UTV-,-BQ

K1.E. S I CHECKED pv \IU*r-26-89 I APPROVED BY Ulfc V, | i UIJOld

GEN. REV. llu30-89

DEPTHzz r -120.0 -80.0 -40.0 0.0S3 3 ^ I————————I————————1————————L_tit t« -* ^

oo - mo

I ass"""s:eirz » - , * - «

S-l f\ §3)2

n

^ m> <D

8 pno

oo

O

ru

gZniI§

oJ03

Oo

roo _o

rv)CJ

C3

COpCD

el i—————,—————,—————r—§m i -120.0 -80.0 -40.0 0.05g 5 DEPTH rjSSon "i *-" f OH O rn HmZ o o O

21 O "0 —'Q O H Z2 ?: I O

ooui

oon

JR3006I7

nrmm I gKT I CHECKED BY I H£5 I 'gg/ff [DRAWING,,,-, 1E[.BY /JJ&S VD BY 1/1 » U -.-¥ 1 NUMBER - - "P

HALE E HARR/NGTON MONTGOMERY BROTHERS /NC.

(80.48 ACRES} & ACff

5

APPROXIMATE LOCATIONOF CELL A ' I

APPROXIMATE LIMITSOF PROPERTY LINE

APPROXIMATELOCATION OF CELLS B&CHOUCK

•(16 ACRES}

WOODLAWNLANDF/LL

(37.06 ACRES}

55 H/NDER(4.0 ACRES}

RETENTIONBASIN

m/BEL(45. Of2 ACRES}

(2.9f ACRES}/

F-2 MONITORING WELL INSTALLED* BY FIRESTONE

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFSEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY LINESMONITORING WELL INSTALLED

« BY CECIL COUNTY

MONITORING WELL INSTALLEDBY THE STATE OF MARYLAND

INTERNATIONALTECHNOLOGYCORPORATION

flR3006!8

flR3006l

I PR*""nP 1A-T CH|9,Ke°BJ I ""' IJ".''J£ LNBG 303486-B 14I BY n-te-mi APPROVED BY lamty l«—I-MINUMBEH -J ->T°° PIT

TIME-MS

TIME-MS

** Z 3E ~

1zmIR300620

R30062

ftR300622

AR300623

, HALE E. HARR/NGI ETAL

(80.48 ACRES}


APPROXIMATE LIMITSOF PROPERTY.. LINE

HOUCff(fff ACRES}

APPROXIMATELOCATION OF CELLS B&C

IVOODLAHNLANOF/LL

fJ7.0e ACRES}

H/NDER(4.O ACRES}

(M/ffEL(45. Of2 ACRES}

-2 MONITORING WELL INSTALLED* BY FIRESTONE FIGURE 15

PHOTO LINEAMENT MAP

PREPARED FOR


QUJ A

SW-1 MONITORING WELL INSTALLEDBY CECIL COUNTY

S MONITORING WELL INSTALLEDBY THE STATE OF MARYLAND

BEDROCK WELL(LOCATION APPROXIMATE)POSSIBLE LINEAMENT INTERNATIONAL

TECHNOLOGYCORPORATION• 1H4 IT CORPORATION

All COPYRIGHTS RESQttED

AR30Q6214

I PRAWN I ft »*» I CHECKED BY I UCv- I «?(! Iff [DRAWING -n-,nr m-I BY \ i-2i-K>\ APPROVED BY I AJn ILIW//H INUMBER JUJ4CO-B17

NOTE;CONTOUR INTERVAL - 10 FEET.

SCALE=

200 400 FEET

FIGURE 16

HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPINTERPRETED FROM

REFERENCES; 1964 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY1. EASTERN MAPPING CO., PROJECT NAME: «tni«L rnu.uuri«rni"RISING SUN", PROJECT NO. T3105, __„ _MODEL Na_3W964E (1964), PREPARED FORSCALE: lijaOO'.

2. AER.AL PWTO: USDA AN, ,00:172. 173. - WOODLAWN LANDFILL RI/FSOo ___iCH ^ ^ INTERNATIONALro I • • TECHNOLOGY

LU CORPORATIONAll COPYRIGHTS RESERVED Ai:300625

DRAWN I S. HUM. | CHECKED BY I |IU.V git If DRAVHNG ,n,.RR niBBY I »-*>-&» I APPROVED BY Idtttg. |f X/fl 1NUMBER 3034B6-B18

400 FEETNOTE:CONTOUR INTERVAL = 10 FEET.

FIGURE 17


REFERENCES; 1970 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY1. EASTERN MAPPING CO., PROJECT NAME:

"RISING 38N", PROJECT NO. T3105,MODEL OSJ 3W970E (1970). PREPARED FORSCALE: fl»>200'.

O WOODLAWN LANDFILL RI/FS2. AERIAL gg3TO: USGS VCLIO 52-54 (D-1 EMSL). 'cn ___1^ m INTERNATIONALCT> I • • TECHNOLOGY

0 .M4 IT CORPORATION • • • CORPORATIONAU. eOPYBCHTS RESERVED R300626

SAWN I *• ma* I CHECKED BY I MK4X I -I /' / tTfDRAWNG ,n,,RR R1QBY rT353»| APPROVED BY I M \ ,) INUMBER 303486-B19

4SS.7

400 FEET

NOTE:CONTOUR INTERVAL = 20 FEET.

FIGURE 18


REFERENCES: 1Q79 AFRIAI PHnTnCRAPHYVEA^ERN MAPPING CO.. PROJECT NAME: ™ * AER'AL PHOTOGRAPHY

"RISING SW. PROJECT NO. T3105.MODEL HO} 3W972E (1972), PREPARED FORSCALE: 4400'.

r-> WOODLAWN LANDFILL RI/FS2. AERIAL gpTO: USDA 24015 172-68, 69. '

01 _____INTERNATIONALTECHNOLOGY

• IM4 IT CORPORAIUN f ¥ 1 CORPORATIONAll COPYRICHTS RESERVED

AF1300627

I DRAWN I ft*** I CHECKED BY I K*K M1I IM I DRAWING -n-.nr n-n| BY n^M APPROVED BY 18»9/L\&).jVI\NUMBER 303486-B20

NOTE:CONTOUR INTERVAL - 10 FEET.

FIGURE 19


CO.. PROJECT NAME: 1977 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY.."RISING S5l". PROJECT NO. T3105.MODEL NTT3W977E (1977), PREPARED FORSCALE: W200'.

2. AERIAL S,TO: ADR 82-77 672-673. W°°DLAWN LANDF1LL R'/FS

rn f"T7?1 INTERNATIONALI • jl TECHNOLOGY

• 19.4 IT CORPORATION • • • CORPORATION

AR300628

DRAWN I ft***I CHECKED BY IJW-V • I 111 1*1 [DRAWING •.ty;1nr D"1BY |l-H-Hl| APPROVED BY l^-I J^ I NUMBER 3034B6B21

DENSE WOODS< 425.0


REFERENCES:

400 FEET

FIGURE 20


1980 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY1. EASTERN MAPPING CO., PROJECT NAME:"RISINWUN", PROJECT NO. T3105,MOOELtSp. 3W980E (1980). PREPARED FOR

" 'rr WOODLAWN LANDFILL RI/FS

2. AERIAtWHOTO: USDA 24015 20-22.O

, ._. J TECHNOLOGY

AU. COPYRIGHTS RESERVED1984 IT CORPORATION •—————— CORPORATION

AR300629

?AV*I I K. ***. I CHECKED BY I UK\.I PI |i IK JngAWNG -n-ir.r n—BY | o-2!-ix>\ APPROVED BY \Ajft'&-\ V///M|NUMBER 303486-B22

400 FEET


FIGURE 21


CO., PROJECT NAME: 1981 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY'RISING SUN", PROJECT NO. T3105,MODEL NO?»V981E (1981), PREPARED FORSCALE: "-——

WOODLAWN LANDFILL. RI/FS2. AERIAL PHgFJ): USGS NHAP80 22-24.

OINTERNATIONALTECHNOLOGY

a IM. IT CORPORA!* f ¥ CORPORATIONAU COPYWCHTS RESERVED AR300630

DRAWN I ft *** I CHECKED BYBY r»-M-M I APPROVED BY I a

XX4B2.I f, 475.7

JUNK CARS ANDPOSSIBLE BARRELS

NOTE;CONTOUR INTERVAL


1986 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHYING CO., PROJECT NAME:, PROJECT NO. T3105, PREPARED FOR


MODEL NPT3W986E (1986).: <*>200'.

2. AERIAL B»TO: EM 10-253, 254.

INTERNATIONALTECHNOLOGYCORPORATIONB 1984 IT CORPORATION R30063I

2J DRAWN "J [ CHECKED BY I W9* I ti l l" I BY | »-i-»t | APPROVED BY IQmTrm//.NUMBER 303486-836

. HARfHNGTON


\

APPROJOMATELOCATION OF CELljS B*C

•N \.l_ i • --- '--vH' •! .V

H/NDER '(4.0 ACRES}

, I/ t¥A/BEL\(45. Of2 ACRES}

LESENJ2MONITORING WELL INSTALLED

• BY FIRESTONESW-1 MONITORING WELL INSTALLED• BY CECIL COUNTYg-S MONITORING WELL INSTALLED

BY THE STATE OF MARYLAND

PROPOSED MONITORINGWELLS FOR PHASE I

BEDROCK WELL (LOCATION APPROXIMATE)PROPOSED BEDROCK WELL (LOCATION APPROXIMATE)PROPOSED SOIL WELL (LOCATION APPROXIMATE)

0» PROPOSED PERCHED-WATER WELL (LOCATION APPROXIMATE)


INTERNATIONALTECHNOLOGYCORPORATION AR300632

AR300633


APPENDIX A| QUALITY ASSURANCE FIELD AUDIT

II

flR30063l(

CORPORATION Memorandum.AYlWJLJLlWl VU.1 l\ LL4.1J.iW

To A. Jacobs Date. September 5, 1989

From: j. Casey Project No. 303486

Subject; QUALITY ASSURANCE FIELD AUDITFIRESTONE - WOODLAWN LANDFILLAUDIT REPORT REVISION 01

DATE AND LOCATION

The Quality Assurance (QA) field audit of the Woodlawn Landfill Projectwas conducted on July 13 and July 26, 1989 at the project field site inCecil County, Maryland. An opening meeting with Mike Jordan (SiteManager), Dave Spatta, Craig Lang, and Tim Schalk was held on July 13,1989 at the field site to discuss the objectives and conduct of theaudits.

AUDIT PARTICIPANTS

Engineering Operations

Mike Jordan AuditorDave SpattaCraig Lang G. ShamitkoTim SchalkAlan Jacobs

ACTIVITIES AUDITED

The audit was based on the requirements of the IT Engineering Operations(ITEO) QA Manual, Revision No. 1; QA Project Plan (QAPP), RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study, Woodlawn Landfill, Revision No. 2,dated June 13, 1989; Health and Safety (H&S) Plan, Revision No. 3, datedJune 13, 1989; and the Detailed Work Plan, Revision No. 1, datedApril 20, 1989.

The QAPP is the controlling document for the Firestone-Woodlawn projectactivities. Other project documents supplement the QAPP. The projectactivities and quality practices audited included:

• QA Documents• Project Procedures• Procurement• Field Investigation Documentation

44-8-85

A. Jacobs 2 September 1, 1989

Field Equipment Calibration and ControlVariance LogsCalculationsControlling Project ChangesRecords ManagementInstrument Calibration

AUDIT RESULTS

The results of these audits indicate that the Firestone Project Team isapplying the provisions of the QAPP in an acceptable manner.

Findings and observations along with recommended corrective actions aredescribed below.

QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTS

Finding No. 1 - Failure to Document Proper Approval forProject-Specific Procedures (Section 3.1.2rThe latest revisions to the QAPP, H&S Plan, and the Work Plando not contain the appropriate approval signatures. Thedocuments were approved by the operations manager, projectmanager, and the client, but not the QAO.

Project specific procedures such as the Firestone "Matrix-Spike Preparation Procedure" have been reviewed and approvedby appropriate personnel.

Recommended Action

The QAPP and the Work Plan revisions should also be reviewed,approved, and signed by the QA Officer (QAO) and the CorporateDirector, QA (CDQA). The H&S Plan revisions should also bereviewed, approved, and signed by the QAO and the H&SCoordinator.

^Numbers in parenthesis indicate the applicable section of theRemedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Woodlawn Landfill QAPP, onnC^fcRevision No. 3, June 13, 1989. (\B3UUOOO


PROCUREMENT

Finding No. 2 - Failure to Document Subcontractor QualityChecks (470T

Evidence in the form of QA field checks for subcontractors(e.g., Neponset Geophysical Corporation) was not found in theproject files.

Recommended Action

Future subcontractor activities should be checked and theresults documented on a Field Activity Daily Log (FADL) orother appropriate form.

' FIELD INVESTIGATION DOCUMENTATION

| Findings

None. The FADLs, Chain of Custody (COC), Request For AnalysisI ( R F A ) , and Sample Collection Logs examined were properly

completed. Of the twenty FADLs examined, none were found tobe deficient. Also examined were photographs and H&S trainingrecords. All the records examined were properly completed.

• Observation

I The samples were hand delivered and analyzed by Project Teamj members. However, attention to detail in completing COC and

RFA is still needed; specifically, the corresponding COC, numbers and RFA numbers should be noted on the RFA and COC.

Comment

All on-site Project Team members complete an individual FADLeach day. It may save time to designate a single person tokeep an FADL for the entire site activities and have each sitemember initial the FADL.

When collecting field data such as EM-34 testing results, thedata should be noted directly on the FADL or on calculationpaper which contains appropriate heading, page number(s),etc. When using the latter, the FADL should indicate thatdata are included as an attachment.

! AR300637


VARIANCE LOGS

Finding No. 3 - Failure to Initiate Complete Variance Log[14.2] —————————

Two H&S variances were uncovered during the audit. Onevariance was the wearing of nonsteel toe boots whileperforming the magnetic survey. The second variance wasfailure to provide documentation for use of the "Ray-Cal"full-face respirator.The above activities are contrary to the approved H&S plan.Another variance occurred during the preliminary soil-gassurvey conducted on July 26 and July 27, 1989. The varianceobserved was the substitution of a different method ofinserting the soil-gas probe. The use of a clay seal aroundthe probe role was also omitted during the procedure.

Although it is recognized that this modified procedure didachieve the same purpose as the original procedure outlined inthe work plan, a variance log should be completed on thisactivity including the appropriate review and approvaldocumentation.

Recommended Action

Even though verbal approval has been given to the aboveactivities, documentation should be provided which containssignatures of the H&S Coordinator, QAO, and project manager todocument approval for the variances. A variance log should beprepared to indicate review and approval of the activities.

CALCULATIONS

Observation

Calculations for the "Matrix-Spike Preparation Procedure" havebeen checked using the checking process contained in theQAPP. Checking and review documentation should be placed inthe Pittsburgh Engineering Central Files.

CONTROLLING PROJECT CHANGES

FindingsAR300638None

II


NONCONFORMANCE/CORRECTIVE ACTION

Findings

None

ObservationIt was reported to the auditor (after the field audit) thatsome of the samples were not analyzed due to analyticalinstrument malfunctions. It is suggested that a memo beprepared for the files delineating what the malfunction was,corrective actions to be taken, and the impact themalfunctions have on the project.

RECORDS MANAGEMENT

Findings

None

Comments

The Site Manager is commended for the organization andpresentation of project documentation. However, consideringthe amount of documentation being generated, it is suggestedthat multiple photocopies of the documents not be retainedsince the files would become very difficult to manage.

INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION

Findings

None

SUMMARY

The results of this project field audit indicate that the FirestoneProject Team is generally complying with the ITEO QA Program, QAPP, H&SPlan, and Work Plan. With the few exceptions noted above, the ProjectTeam adhered to sound QA practices.

The Firestone Project Team is commended on their compliance with theITEO QA Program and is encouraged to continue their outstandingperformance with the project.


DATES FOR COMPLETION

Recommended corrective actions suggested herein or alternates proposedby the Firestone Project Team should be implemented by September 24,1989. A written response to this report by the Project Manager shouldbe submitted to N. Alien and D. Troxell by September 14, 1989.

GSreehcc: N. Alien

J. BrosciousJ. CaseyL. HaserM. JordanT. SoleD. Troxell

AR3006l*0

AR3006M

Dhase I - Preliminary Investigations Remedial ... · Decil County, Maryland 3repared By: T...

Documents

Transcript of Dhase I - Preliminary Investigations Remedial ... · Decil County, Maryland 3repared By: T...