FINAL WORK PLAN · FOR THE

PETERSON-PURITAN SITE LINCOLN/CUMBERLAND, RHODE ISLAND

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITYSTUDY

VOLUME I: AITACHNENTS

SEPTH1BER 1986

.·

EPA Contract No.: 68-01-6939 Work Assignment No.: 159-ll40

Document Control No.: 272-WPl-WP-DDET-1

Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I Boston, MA

Prepared by: Camp Dresser &McKee Inc • . Boston, MA

This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. WA 68-01-6939. The material contained herein is not to be disclosed to, discussed with, or made available to any person or persons for any reason without the prior express approval of a responsible official of the U.S. Environment"al Protection Agency.

ATTACHMENT A

SUMMARY EVALUATION OF OTHER REPORTS

Lincoln/Cumberland Vellfield Contamination Study (GZA)

Investigation of Volatile Organic Chemical Groundwater Contamination (r~alcolm Pirnie)

- Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Peterson-Puritan, Inc. Cumberland, Rhode Island (Versar)

LINCOLN/CUMBERLAND WELLFIELD CONTAMINATION STUDY (Goldberg Zaino & Associates, March 1982)

In 1980, following the shutdown of four water supply wells, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted Goldberg Zaino & Associates (GZA) to perform a hydrogeologic study of the contaminated aquifer known as the Blackstone River Valley Aquifer. The purpose of the study was to identify the source or sources of contamination and to provide EPA with supporting documentation.

Scope of Work

The study entailed the six tasks described below:

1. Review of existing information including reports on geology and hydrology of the area, analytical data for supply wells, installation and testing records for the supply wells in the affected part of the aquifer, engineering plans for the Blackstone Valley Sewer District line (BVSD) and all historical data for the site (GZA was assisted by Ecology & Environment Inc. {E&E in this effort);

2. Site reconnaissance by GZA, EPA and E&E to inventory existing wells and sample various surface water locations;

3. Preliminary evaluation of possible sources targeted for field investigation;

4. Field investigation including installation of five monitoring wells (four of which were Barcad multi-level wells, 3 levels each) and sampling of these as well as 12 existing monitoring wells, 4 municipal/industrial supply wells, 5 residential supply wells, and 16 surface water locations (a portable GC/MS was used to screen samples in the field {60) for laboratory analysis (29) for volatile organic priority pollutants);

5. Modeling of the aquifer (using previous USGS pumping test data to assign aquifer parameters) to simulate and define the behavior of groundwater flow under pumping and non-pumping conditions (with the use of the three dimensional P.S. Trescott model to account for anisotropic flow and movement beneath the river); and

6. Analysis and presentation of all geologic, hydrogeologic, and chemical data collected in Tasks 1 through. 5.

Hydrogeology of Aquifer

Based on background geologic and hydrologic information for the Blackstone River Valley area, boring logs from well installations and modeling efforts, the following findings were established:

1. The Blackstone River Valley aquifer exists in a valley where a trough-like depression of the bedrock generally parallels the Blackstone River. Aquifer boundaries are based upon contact between stratified drift and very dense till or bedrock. Areally in the vicinity of the contamination, the stratified drift pinches out to the east approximately parallel to Mendon Road in Cumberland and to the west close to Route 126 in Lincoln. The aquifer is continuous to the north and south along the river. Vertically, the saturated thickness of the stratified drift can be as much as 90 feet with depths to bedrock of as much as 100 feet (including up to 10 feet of till overlying the bedrock).

2. Aquifer properties are estimated to be: 1,000 gal/day/foot2 for average transmissivity (based on pumping tests on Lincoln and Cumberland supply wells} within the aquifer and in the stream bed which is considered to be paved with gravel, pebbles and cobbles.

3. Flow in the aquifer is composed of the following contributions: 1 gal/day/linear foot from the till/bedrock interface, and 20-21 inches/year of areal recharge.

4. The aquifer generally consists of fairly homogeneous sand and gravel deposits with no extensive silt or clay lenses, however local variations in the continuity of strata occurs vertically and laterally. (An anisotrophy of 10 horizontal to 1 vertical is assumed for flow through the aquifer for modeling purposes.)

5a. The Trescott model was used to simulate nonpumping conditions. Verification of results was based on duplication of USGS water level contours in model outputs. It was assumed that flow is generally perpendicular to the river (the river is a sink where by the aquifer discharges to it), but there is some component of flow parallel to the river both in the immediate vicinity of the river and underneath it. Therefore flow to the Quinnville wells under non-pumping conditions is from the north and west side of the aquifer and the river is a flow boundary during non-pumping conditions.

5b. The Trescott model was used to simulate pumping conditions. Model verified outputs were based on two USGS pump tests for wells in the Quinnville wellfield. Then the pumping rates of the Quinnville wells (Lincoln No. 1, 6 and 9) at the time of their shutdown were simulated to determine the area of influence of these wells during their operation (total flow of 1.1 mgd divided proportionally based on maximum pumping capacities of these wells). It was assumed that the aquifer was in hydraulic connection with the river which acted like a constant head line source. Model simulations showed that under such conditions 61% or 0.67 mgd of flow to these wells came from the river. The rest came from the aquifer on the west side of the river and may have come from the aquifer on the east side of the river. (Since a high transmissivity of river bed is assumed it was pointed out that there is probably less induced infiltration from the river than shown; probably more flow comes from the east side of the river.)

Note also that during the Town of Lincoln•s effort to purge their wells, it was observed that when wells are pumped contaminated levels increased. They decreased when the pumping was stopped. This indicates the contamination is induced from outside the normal recharge area, i.e. river, landfill or park.

5c. No model simulations were conducted on the Lenox Street well however it was inferred that flow to this well is: from the aquifer to the north and east under non-pumping conditions; and from the river itself and the aquifer on the east and west side of river under pumping conditions.

Plume

1. Contamination is in the form of volatile organics, mostly halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons, which are denser than water and have low to moderate solubility. Those found at consistently elevated concentrations are:

Trichlorofluoromethane* 1,1-dichloroethylene* 1,1-dichloroethane Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 1,1,1-trichloroethane Trichloroethylene* Tetrachloroethylene*

*Suspected carcinogen for which a zero level is recommended as the only 11 Safe 11 concentration for protection of public health.

2. The mobility of these contaminants in this aquifer is considered unlimited. It is expected that hydrodynamic rather than stratographic or chemical, physical (volatilization and adsorption) or biological environmental attenuation mechanisms are responsible for contaminant fate and transport. Of the hydrodynamic forces, advection, dilution, dispersion and the influence of recharge forces (i.e. infiltration of precipitation and pumping) are considered to affect contaminant transport most significantly.

3. The plume is identified as extending from well GZ-2 (where the highest levels were found) on the Peterson/Puritan property along the river to south of the Lenox Street well. (Though the precise southern boundary of the plume was not identified.) Note that the 11 longitudinal 11 axis of the plume roughly parallels the Blackstone River and there appears to be little transverse spreading east and west of the floodplain. Contamination is found near the ground surface in the upgradient portion of the plume (on Peterson/Puritan property) and deeper in the aquifer downgradient (in the Lincoln wellfield).

4. Concerning the Lenox Street well, it is postulated (though not conclusive) that it was contaminated by the same plume due to the presence of similar contaminants and supporting flow patterns, i.e. parallel component of flow in the vicinity of the river.

Sources

1. Sources initially identified prior to the field investigation include the following:

J.M. Mills Landfill Blackstone River Blackstone Valley Sewer District Line (BVSD) Dexter Quarry

Additional sources identified during the field investigation include:

Blackstone Canal Upgradient Industrial Area (to the northeast of

Quinnville wellfield)

2. Analytical data from wells associated with the J.M. Mills landfill show that perhaps a distinctly different plume emanates from it which is not responsible for the VOC contamination of Lincoln and Cumberland's supply wells. Constituents found in monitoring wells (sampled by RIDEM) consist mostly of aromatic organic compounds, i.e. benzene, toluene, etc., with only traces of halogenated organics (at much lower levels than those found in the contaminated supply wells).

Based on model simulations, only the northwest corner of the landfill would contribute flow to the Quinnville wellfield under pumping conditions. (No contribution would occur during non-pumping because flow would not be derived from the river or the aquifer west of the river).

It has been postulated (though not confirmed) that the Lenox Street well however may derive a "significant percentage" of its flow during pumping conditions from under the landfill. {Under non-pumping conditions, some contribution of flow may also be derived from under the landfill.)

3. The Blackstone River is expected to contribute the majority (perhaps >50%) of the water to the supply wells (both Quinnville wellfield and Lenox Street well) under-pumping conditions (even though the permeability of the bed is not precisely known and may have been overestimated during modeling efforts). The river acts like a constant-head line source and once steady state conditions are reached, the source of all pumped groundwater is streamflow. Surface water data however showed very low to non-detectable levels of VOCs in the river. (Note that sampling was done 1-2" bel ow the water surface where volatilization would be expected.)

4. The BVSD sewer line was not investigated because access was not available. However, even assuming high VOC levels and extensive leakage, it would not be a principle contaminant source. (Note that it is downgradient of the highly contaminated well GZ-2.)

5. The Dexter Quarry, a marble quarry, was evaluated with its use as an industrial waste dump in mind. Contaminant levels found here were low (lower than in the supply wells) and did not correspond exactly to those contaminating the supply wells. This suggests the presence­of another plume emanating from this area. Hydraulic connections between the quarry and the supply wells consist of bedrock fractures (mapped by E&E) which are oriented toward the river, and a stream called "Dexter Quarry Brook" which discharges into the canal. Nevertheless, the contribution of these flow pathways is uncertain.

6. The Blackstone Canal could leak and contribute to the Quinnville wellfield contamination during pumping or non-pumping conditions. Samples collected in the canal (in the same manner as the river, i.e. 1-2 inches below the water surface) revealed no contamination.

7. Tne Upgradiant Industrial Park was investigated as a possible contributor to flow in the Quinnville wellfield under pumping conditions and possibly the Lenox Street well during both pumping and non-pumping conditions. Of the six plants in this park, only Lanza Inc. and Peterson-Puritan Inc. are known users of organic chemicals in significant concentrations. Sampling of the wastewater (discharged to onsite septic systems) and non-contact cooling water (discharged to Brook A) at the Lanza plant however showed no contamination thus eliminating it as a possible source.

Evidence to support the identification of the Peterson-Puritan facility as the likely source of contamination is considerable. Well GZ-2, which is located on Peterson-Puritan property, showed the highest l~vels of contamination found in all sampling efforts (5 times that found elsewhere). Contaminants found in well GZ-2 were similar in type and percent of total contamination to those in the Quinnville wellfield. The model simulation also showed that a significant portion of the flow to the Quinnville wellfield is from the groundwater under the facility.

A review of the raw materials used revealed that 6 of the 7 predominant contaminants found in the wells were in proprietary ~roducts used at the Peterson-Puritan plant. Of special note is trichlorofluoromethane the use of which is uncommon. (It was used at tne Peterson-Puritan plant as an aerosol propellant.) All others are common solvents.

During a site visit in 1981 by EPA and GZA discharges from Peterson-Puritan to a "Brook A" were found to contain volatile organics. Complete access to the site was not allowed, therefore the exact onsite practices and locations of entry to the aquifer are unknown. Suspected problems include the following:

1. Infiltration from Brook A, 2. Floor drain or sewer line leaks, 3. Runoff from operations on the paved ~rea west of the plant, 4. Past onsite disposal practices, i.e. septic tank and leachfields,

and 5. Onsite spills.

Note that current disposal practices are to the sewer line or drummed for offsite disposal and sampling of plant's sewer line effluent revealed VOC contaminants similar to the supply wells however at much lower concentrations.

Data Gaps

1. GZA made specific recommendations concerning potential areas of further investigation not covered in their limited hydrogeologic study. They recommended further sampling on Petersen/Puritan property, the installation of wells between Peterson/Puritan and the Lincoln and Cumberland wells, more research on industrial land use in the upgradient industrial park, and a more in depth investigation of the Lenox Street well and surrounding aquifer properties.

INVESTIGATION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL GROUNDWATER CONTA11INATION (Malcolm Pirnie Inc., June 1983)

In 1982 Peterson-Puritan Inc. contracted Malcolm Pirnie to complete a hydrogeologic study to provide a more definitive assessment of priority pollutant volatile organic groundwater contamination in the vicinity of its plant. This study was based in part on deficiencies noted in the GZA report.

Scope of Work

This report consists of two parts: Phase I, a paper study of readily available data and information (including the GZA report); and Phase II, a field investigation to determine the extent, type and levels of actual contamination from the Peterson-Puritan plant, if any, and to identify past and present sources of contamination at the plant site. Some of the deficiencies noted in the GZA report which were targeted for inclusion in the scope of this study included:

No monitoring in the aquifer upgradient of the plant, No investigation of the BVSD line, and A restrictive scope of chemical analyses of samples collected.

Phase I consisted of a review and evaluation of the GZA report, a summary of the State of Rhode Island Department of Heath (RIDOH}, the State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management {RIDEM) and GZA groundwater and ~urface water quality data, a review of potential sources of contamination {industrial park, Dexter Quarry, J.M. Mills Landfill and BVSD sewer line) and a discussion of regional groundwater and surface water quality.

Phase II consisted of: installation of 27 new monitoring wells in 20 locations {5 were multi-level wells) and sampling these and 12 existing wells; installation of three in-plant borings at the Peterson-Puritan plant (in the former can-compactor area and the former tank and drum storage area); two rounds of water level measurements in all new wells and some existing wells; and reconnaissance of the study area including investigation of possible sources. Sample analyses included priority pollutant volatile organics, 84 priority pollutants (non-volatiles), priority pollutant metals including iron and manganese, non-prioritypollutant peaks, upgradient source parameters, nitrate-nitrite and microbial testing of sewer, non-specific parameters, and a special sensitive pesticide testing (~pt levels). Not~ that these analyses were on selected wells with the exception of priority pollutant volatile organics for which all samples were analyzed. Investigation of onsite chemical and waste handling practices entailed interviewing current employees (and one retired employee), referring to current plant engineering drawings, conducting an in-plant survey, and accessing RIDEM files on onsite wastewater disposal practices. (Note that engineering drawings of the plant prior to 1976 and waste handling records were apparently destroyed in the fire of 1976.)

Hydrogeology

(Findings/assumptions concerning the hydrogeology of the aquifer are similar to those in the GZA report with the exceptions noted below.)

1. There is no component of flow parallel to the river. The river acts as a discharge point for groundwater in the aquifer. This is supported by the fact that for typical northeastern glacial aquifers (similar to the Blackstone River Valley aquifer) recharge and discharge points correspond to topographic highs and lows and flow is towards the river. While both GZA and Malcolm Pirnie agree flow is towards the river, complete discharge to the river (which is a topographic low) is disputed by GZA.

Malcolm Pirnie refers further to the Toth model (1962) which states that since the side slopes of most valleys greatly exceed the longitudinal slope (similar to the Blackstone River Valley Aquifer), the longitudinal component of flow is negligible in comparison to the lateral component of flow.

Water level measurements taken by Malcolm Pirnie in well clusters also show that flow is in the same direction in both shallow and deep wells, i.e. towards the river (no evidence of another flow path). There is no significant vertical gradient (only thousandths of a foot difference). (These wells however are in the main reach of the aquifer and not near the discharge point.)

Finally, the fact that the aquifer has a high permeability and is fairly homogeneous with no confining units (clay and silt layers)lends support to the theory of complete discharge to the river rather than a parallel deeper component of flow.

2. Water level contours from measurements in Februa~/March and May bend around the river more than those shown for GZA model simulation. Therefore, flow in the vicinity of the Peterson/Puritan property would only travel a short distance to the south prior to discharging to the river. Mounding of the water table under the landfill may be occurring (though this has not been confirmed) which would deflect flow to the river quicker than originally assumed. In any case, groundwater in the vicinity of the Peterson-Puritan plant of Quinnville wellfield would discharge to the river prior to migratingsouth where it could be induced from the river due to pumping the Lenox Street well.

Plume Definition

(All conclusions concur with the GZA report with exception of the following statements.

1. Plume characteristics based on expanded chemical analyses performed indicate primarily VOC contamination with 13 VOCs (of the 32 VOCs analyzed for) found above detection limits. They are the following compounds:

Benzene, Chloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, Tetrachloroethylene, Toluene Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, Trichloroethylene, Trichlorofluoromethane, and Vinyl chloride.

No other priority pollutant organics were noted above ppb detection limits for the selected wells analyzed. Four priority pollutant metals however were found above drinking water standards. They are: arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead. (Note that iron and manganese concentrations exceeded secondary drinking water standards.) Nonpriority pollutant peak searches revealed the presence of derivatives of Freon -11 in MP-4, 5 and 6 and compounds associated with Freon 11 in MP-9, Martin Street, and MP-11 (among other small molecular weight compounds associated with specialty chemical manufacturing). (Nonspecific parameters, i.e. total dissolved solids and chloride are higher in deep downgradient wells reflecting longer groundwater retention times.) Note that in a more sensitive testing (ppt level) of a Quinnville well, dieldrin was found in "toxicologically significant levels", i.e. greater than 0.71 ppt 5level which results in an iniremental lifetime cancer risk of 10- •

Note that wells upgradient of Peterson-Puritan (MP-2 and MP-3) showed no contamination. Wells just downgradient on the plant property showed the highest levels (60-186,700 ppb TVO) and wells between the plant and the river showed significant contamination (ND-18,253 ppb TVO). Other wells on the plant property near septic tanks showed some contamination (57-797 ppb TVO in MP-1, MP-7 and MP-8.

2. The plume orginates at the plant and moves to the southwest toward the Blackstone River. Although natural flow conditions indicate that the plume would not move as far south as the location of well MP-11 prior to discharging to the river, the presence of VOCs at this well implies that the sustained pumping of the Quinnville wells over the years has reoriented the ~lume in a more southerly direction.

The current leading edge of the plume boundary (non-pumping conditions) is th~ Blackstone River, thus the Quinnville wellfield is outside the plume boundary. The Quinnville wellfield is not considered to be presently contaminated above background levels found both upgradient and downgradient of the Peterson-Puritan plant (only low VOC levels). Note that only low levels of trans-1,2-dichloro­ethylene was found in the Quinnville wellfield during the most recent

sampling efforts. Under non-pumping flow conditions, this can be linked to TW-3 upgradient on the west side of the river. (The contamination however would be induced into these wells by the recommencement of pumping without prior interception of the plume.)

The plume does not now nor ever has extended south of or to the Lenox Street well. (Lenox Street well has never been within the plume.) Most recent sampling showed no VOC contamination in this well. In fact, several VOCs found in the Lenox Street well historically weere found at higher levels upgradient of the Peterson/Puritan plant (TW-3) indicating that background contamination levels are of significant magnitude relative to applicable standards on which the decision was made to close the well.

Also since VOC levels in GZ-3, B-1 and C-1 were found at low to non-detectable levels which were below those in the Lenox Street well in 1979-1980 it can be concluded that the Lenox Street well was probably not contaminated from the area upgradiant on the east side of the river because to be considered a significant source, it would have to have several orders of magnitude higher VOC levels.

3. The J.M. Mills Landfill is also not thought to be in the plume emanating from the Peterson-Puritan plant though available information is not conclusive to define the lateral bounds of the plume. Though flow lines generated from water level contours provide a general indication of plume extent.

4. The plume continues to discharge to the river under current conditions, i.e. non-pumping conditions.

Sources

1. This study confirms that Peterson-Puritan is responsible for the release of VOC to the aquifer in sufficient quantity to have contributed to the past contamination of the Quinnville wellfield. Also there appears that several events from different sources in the plant occurred to produce contaminant releases. This is supported by the fact that the heaviest contamination found is immediately downgradient of the plant, contaminant levels show nonuniform gradation with distance from the plant, and the VOC mixture varies between wells (i.e. high levels of benzene, trans-1,2-dichloro­ethylene and vinyl chloride near the river with low to non-detectable levels near the plant). In fact discharge~ responsible for contamination of the Quinnville wellfield may be different from those responsible for the zone of contamination currently near the plant.

2. The investigation of sources within the plant boundaries was not definitive in locating the exact sources. This effort identified the following potential sources at the Peterson-Puritan plant:

the former and existing can-compactors, the former and existing tank and drum storage area (including two

manhole/distribution boxes), front and back septic system (no longer in use), the discharge to Brook A (C02 saturated, storm water discharges), the aerosol can dumpster, sewer lines and associated piping and existing and former

floor drains onsite, vacuum pumps (flush water), the can puncturing unit, and the explosion/fire.

However "••• the clustering of sources at the plant and the fact that contaminants begin to migrate once released to the saturated zone, has made precise identification of responsible sources difficult." The above sources have been evaluted in terms of the period during which contaminant releases occurred, the significance of potential releases (minor vs major) and the results of investigative efforts at the plant. These sources were also evaluated for their potential responsibility for causing contaminant releases resulting in the closing down of the Quinnville wellfield (downgradient including well GZ-2) versus the contamintion currently found at the edge of the plant (upgradient including MP-4, MP-5 and MP-6). The report states that "considering the nearness of the zone of elevated contamination to the plant and its differing mix of VOC constituents, the plant conditions which resulted in this problem may be different from those which led to the downgradient contamination ...

For the downgradient contamination, VOC releases would have to have occurred in the early 1970s to be considered responsible for the contamination detected in the supply wells which caused their shutdown in 1979. (VOCs are expected to take seven years to migratefrom the plant to the wellfield.) Due to the recent nature of possible releases (post-1976 fire), the new can compactor, tank and drum storage area, can puncturer, vacuum pumps (flush water), floor drains and the explosion/fire have been discounted. The co2saturator discharging to Brook A and the aerosol can dumpster have been discounted as potentially only minor contributing sources. Finally, based on negative results of sampling soils in three soil borings and sampling septic tank sludge and adjacent monitoring wells the following sources have been discounted: former can compactor, former tank and drum farm (including two manhole/distribution boxes), and front and backyard septic systems. Therefore the remaining discharges to Brook A; and the sewer line and old floor drains and piping below the plant are the most likely sources of contamination in the Quinnville wellfield.

For the current upgradient contamination (in MP-4, MP-5 and MP-6) these sources were also evaluated. The reasoning is the same for most of the sources though additional reasons are given for many.The explosion/fire of 1976 and the vacuum pumps (flush water) however are not too recent to be ~f concern for this upgradient contamination. Discharges to Brook A were eliminated because they

are downgradient of this area of contamination. The potential major contributors to the upgradient area of contamination, therefore include the explosion/fire of 1976, vacuum pump flush water, and sewers and associated piping and floor drains.

3. This study does not concur that there is a connection between the Cumberland Lenox Street well and the plume emanating from the Peterson-Puritan Plant based on analytical sampling results or flow patterns. Only two VOC compounds found to be representative of the plume were identified. Also Freon-11, an indicator of the plume (and a highly mobile contaminant which should be found at the leading edge of the plume) emanating from the plant was not found in the Lenox Street well •

Two scenarios of possible contaminant transport via flow from the Peterson-Puritan plant to the Lenox Street well were_investigated. These include: direct flow in the aquifer under the plant to the Lenox Street well; or induced flow from the plant to the Quinnville wellfield under pumping conditions, then induced flow from the wellfield to the Lenox Street well under pumping conditions.

The first was discounted because Malcolm Pirnie states there is no component of flow parallel to the river. They believe that contamination from the plant would travel only a short distance prior to discharging to the river. The second scenario was ruled out because due to the low pumping rate of the Lenox Street well (0.07 mgd), the Quinnville wellfield would most likely discharge water to the river prior to reaching the area of influence of the Lenox Street well. Then the river which would be intercepted by the Lenox Street well would have to have VOCs in concentrations greater than those found in the well to be a source (according to GZA sampling they are not}.

4. Upgradient well on the west side of the river was sampled by Malcom Pirnie {TW-3) and showed high levels of VOCs (2,270 ppb TVO)indicating potential upgradient sources of contamination or poor background water quality. The trans-1,2-dichloroethylene which is still found in the Quinnville wellfield may be from this upgradient source {830 ppb of trans-1,2-dichloroethylene was found in TW-3} or may be a degradation product of widespread VOC contamination in the aquifer. Just upgradient of TW-3 is the H&H Screw Co. located on the George Washington Highway in Lincoln. They commonly use degreaser solvents and reportedly have an NPDES discharge permit for non-contact cooling water. However, sampling of discharges from a gravity t rich l oroethyl ene separator revea 1ed the presence of xyl enes, trichloroethylene, -tetrachloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, etc. This practice was discontinued in 1980. Other sources include the canal or the BVSD line which crosses the river to north of the site and contains discharges from an industrial park 2 miles west of Quinnville wellfield.

5. Upgradient of the Peterson-Puritan plant on the east side of the river, the Lanza and Syntron companies were identified as possible sources however sampling revealed only low levels of some organics and Malcolm Pirnie concluded that they were not significant sources. Historically however, a discharge pipe to the septic system at Lonza showed detectable levels of trichloroethylene, chloroform, dichlorobromomethane, etc., in 1979. Also at Syntron, an unauthorized discharge of wastewater containing toluene, benzene and xylene was found in the ppm range in a small brook.

6. Background information on groundwater quality in the valley has been summarized. The USGS stated that induced infiltration from contaminated surface water, landfill, cesspool and septic system leachate, and chemical spills are responsible for degrading water quality in the valley. The soils in the valley are highly permeable and vulnerable to contamination of the water table which is only 3-20 feet below the ground surface. Also the valley is highlydeveloped and numerous textile plants which use solvents in dying processes exist in the valley. They emphasize the historic water quality problems with iron and manganese violating secondary drinking water standards and the presence of toxicologically significant levels of dieldrin. Also the placement of municipal supply wells adjacent to and in direct hydraulic connection with a river classified as undrinkable (Class C) is cited as a poor watershed management practice.

7. The J.M. Mills landfill reportedly accepted hazardous and septic tank wastes (i.e. degreasers including chlorinated solvents). Monitoring is sufficient to indicate a possible separate plume however not sufficient to judge contribution as a source. (Some VOCs of type found at the plant were noted in the samples collected from landfill monitoring wells.) Malcolm Pirnie did not investigate the landfill further because they did not have access to monitoring wells for sampling and no new sampling results were available to them.

8. The Blackstone River has been subject to numerous discharges mostly from municipal sewage {Woonsocket Wastewater Treatment Plant) and

·textile mills which use solvents and dyes containing many of the contaminants, found onsite. However, sampling effort by GZA revealed low levels of VOC contamination. Since a source must have contaminants present at levels greater than those at the supply wells (past and present) the river is not considered a significant source (dilution 1,000-10,000 times).

9. The BVSD line extending downgradient of the plant was investigated and determined to be a possible, though minor, source based on chemical testing of wells installed along the line and microbial testing of the soil and water surrounding the pipe. Since the sewer is above the water table near the upgradient portion of the site and under the water table about 100 feet from the Lenox Street well (where it is encased in concrete) the major impact due to

exfiltration would be in the upgradient area of the site. Upgradient near the Martin Street well, the highest (by an order of magnitude) nitrate-nitrite levels in water were found. Close to the river, near the Quinnville wellfield, microbial testing revealed positive counts of fecal bacteria. The report indicates that the upgradient portion of the line (i.e. MH-36 through MH-29) may be intercepted by the plume due to the southerly reorientation of the plume caused by pumping. Those sections nearest to the river (i.e. MH-27 through MH-25), however would probably not be intercepted. Total volatile organic levels in wells along the sewer were ND-684 ppb consisting of four commonly used solvents found as contaminants in the Quinnville wellfield. (The connecting sewer line on the Peterson-Puritan property was television surveyed and found to be intact except for a portion of the top of one section of the line.)

10. The Dexter Quarry is another possible, though probably not significant, source of contamination. Field visits revealed open drums and discolored soils {150 feet of waste is reported with 130 feet below the water table). Of note is the fact that Owens Corning Fiberglass Co. disposed of organic solvents, acids, etc., at the quarry. However, no VOCs were found in the two wells sampled (reportedly they are not optimally located).

11. A solid waste transfer station exists just a few hundred feet south of the Lenox Street well and may be within the zone of influence of this well during pumping. A site visit revealed the presence of an empty drum with a DOW label containing a product known to include tetrachloroethylene.

Actions Taken

1. Concrete pads, sloped and diked have been installed under the can-compactor (relocated}, the new tank and drum storage area, the aerosol can dumpster and the can puncturing unit.

2. The front septic tank has been pumped out and both the front and back septic systems have been taken out of use (all wastes are sewered).

3. Discharges to Brook A have been discontinued. Sewer lines {6-8 inch) have been television surveyed and the joints have been pressure tested.

4. Recommendations for future treatment include: replacing vacuum pumps with another type of pump, relocating underground piping to overhead racks whereby sumps will replace floor drains and waste will be pumped to overhead piping (ease of inspection) throughout plant operations.

5. Options outlined for consideration to address existing contamination include:

a. Excavate contaminated areas, b. Impound p 1 ume, c. Block migration with drains, d. Prevent migration by pumping from wells, or e. Inject plume into deep non-potable aquifer unit.

Of these b., c. and e. are not considered technically feasible. Excavation of contaminated soils, a. is considered economically and technically questionable. Pumping was selected as the most feasible method especially given the large thickness (40-50 feet) and high permeability of the aquifer and large areal extent of contamination downgradient of the plant. Plans include: installation of a test recovery well; implementation of a controlled aquifer test; usage of the results of the aquifer test in a model (Lundy/Mahon) to determine the appropriate pumping rates; and installation and operation of a recovery well. Pumped water would be discharged to the BVSD line.

Data Gaps

{Although no discussion of data gaps was given specifically, several comments were made throughout the report and are given below.)

1. Other sources on the east side of the river upgradient of the TW-3 need to be investigated.

2. A long-term pumping test would be needed to determine with certainty the zone of influence of the Lenox Street well and whether it could be connected with the plume emanating from the Peterson-Puritan plant.

3. Data on the location and construction of monitoring wells surrounding the landfill as well as additional sampling analytical results associated with the landfill will be required to make a conclusive assessment of its contribution to aquifer water quality within site boundaries (though the source is considered a minor contributor at this time).

-

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY PETERSON/PURITAN, INC., CUMBERLAND, RHODE ISLAND (Versar, Inc., October 1984)

This report was written by Versar Inc. under contract to Breed, Abbott and Morgan to address pollutant releases to the environment from their client's (Peterson-Puritan Inc.) plant. The study was conducted with the idea of meeting the objectives of a remedial investigation/feasibility study as stated in the NCP. It is focused on remediation of sources within the Peterson-Puritan plant boundaries and the plume (resulting from only these sources) which has migrated beyond plant boundaries.

Scope of Work

The "remedial investigation" part of this report is covered in the first five chapters and presents detailed site background information (including a description of site features, geology and hydrology) which represents expanded versions of that information provided in the GZA and Malcolm Pirnie reports. Also all efforts (described as "remedial actions") taken to ddate, are outlined including changes in Peterson-Puritan plant operations, the installation and operation of a recovery well, development of alternative water supplies for the Towns of Lincoln and Cumberland, and the settlement between Peterson-Puritan Inc. and the Town of Lincoln. Since no new field investigation activities were conducted for this study, the data used consists of data previously collected by RIDOH, GZA, and Malcolm Pirnie Inc. Versar provides descriptions of the GZA and Malcolm Pirnie hydrogeologic investigations; presents the data and evaluates the findings of each. (Conclusions drawn by Versar during this exercise generally concur and are limited to those found in the Malcoln Pirnie report.) Additional information not taken from the GZA or Malcolm Pirnie reports presented as part of the "remedial investigation" entails an assessment of the environmental fate and transport, toxicological properties, water quality standards and ecological effects of the contaminants identified.

The "feasibility study" part of this report is covered in the last three chapters whereby "remedial action alternatives" are identified and screened on the basis of technical criteria. Remedial alternatives evaluated include: no action; removal via groundwater pumping and treatment, excavation of soil source areas, or insitu physical, biological or chemical treatment; and containment via groundwater barriers, lowering the water table, or capping source areas. Then the two alternatives which remained following this screening i.e. no action and grounpwater pumping and treatment were costed. An "end-angerment assessment" was provided for the no action alternative where information given in the remedial investigation was used to develop risks based on estimated exposure routes, dosages and the population at risk. This assessment for the no action alternative showed that only negligible impacts resulted from the existing contamination. Therefore there was no justification for further action and a risk assessment was not conducted for the groundwater pumping and treatment alternative. A detailed description of the no action alternative was then presented. It includes the continued operation of the recovery as well as onsite monitoring activities.

1

Hydrogeology

(The conclusions are the same as those from the Malcolm Pirnie report.)

Plume

(The conclusions are the same as those from the Malcolm Pirnie report however an endangerment assessment was conducted in this report.)

1) The continued presence of trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in the Quinnville wellfield and other locations may be due to biological transformation of higher molecular weight VOCs such as trichloroethylene or tetrachloroethylene to lower molecular weight VOCs such as trans-1,2-dichloroethylene. "It is therefore possible that the observed presence of some of the lighter weight VOCs in numerous locations in the Blackstone Valley aquifer reflects biotransformation of widespread organic solvent contamination from several sources."

2) The transport of contaminants was evaluated in terms of volatilization, transport in solution and sorption. Of these, transport in solution, i.e. advective forces and dispersion (whereby the lateral expansion is small compared to the longitudinal expansion) is the only important mechanism of VOC contaminants in the aquifer. Upon discharge to the river however volatilization would occur.

3) The fate of contaminants was evaluated in terms of photolysis/oxidation, hydrolysis, bioaccumulation, and biotransformation/biodegradation. Of these four, the first two are not important in the aquifer and data on the last two is inconclusive. (They are probably not important except for benzene and toluene.) However, following discharge to the river and volatilization photolysis/oxidation would occur.

4) Toxicological properties are given for the thirteen VOCs found in groundwater sampled by Malcolm Pirnie. These include: acute and chronic toxicity, and biological reactivity (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity). All existing aquatic toxicity levels, EPA Suggested No Adverse Response Levels (SNARLS, 7 day), and U.S. EPA Recommended Maximum Contaminant Levels (RMCLs) are provided if they exist for each of the thirteen VOCs. (Note that U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Rhode Island State regulations did not exist for any of the VOCs found at the time of this study.)

5) No ecological effects from groundwater discharged to the river have been observed in the past. It is expected that dilution (1,000-10,000 times) and volatilization minimize any potential impacts on the river. An effort to estimate the daily contribution of VOCs to the river was made and revealed only 54.8 ppb TVO was entering the river. This is less than the most stringent criteria available for any single compound, i.e. 840 ppb for tetrachloroethylene. (Refer to the Malcolm Pirnie report for accompanying assumptions.)

6) Three exposure pathways were evaluated ingestion of groundwater induced from the river; ingestion of surface water from the river; and consumption of biota from the river. The population at risk from

2

ingesting contaminated groundwater was taken to be the 16,949 people (the Town of Lincoln's population) served by the downgradient Lonsdale wellfield which supplies 50 percent of the Town of Lincoln's water. The other two exposure pathways are expected to occur only infrequently to a small population, i.e. <10 people. Dosages were calculated based on ingestion of 2 liters of water per day (assuming 40% reduction in river levels) or 6.5 grams of fish per day and accompanying assumptions. Five of the 13 VOCs contributed insignificant dosages. For the remaining 8 VOCs, carcinogenic risks were calculated. The results showed that none of the VOCs pose a measurable risk. (All risks are less than one cancer per target population.)

Noncarcinogenic effects were assessed for those compounds for which maximum average daily intake levels exist, i.e. for 1,1,1-trichloroethylene and trichlorofluoromethane. According to the dosages calculated no effects are expected to occur for these compounds.

Risks to aquatic life were assessed by looking at the acute and chronic toxicity levels for all VOC compounds. The conclusion was that no effects would be expected on the ecosystem associated with the river.

Sources

(All of same conclusions and potential sources as stated in the Malcolm Pirnie report.)

Actions Taken

1) Remedial efforts are described in detail including the in plant source elimination program, the groundwater recovery well, replacement of lost water supply capacity by the Towns of Lincoln and Cumberland and the settlement between Peterson-Puritan and the Town of Lincoln. (The Malcolm Pirnie report left off with describing the completed and planned in plant source elimination program and the planned recovery well program.) Since the Malcolm Pirnie report, the planned replacement of floor drains and associated underground piping with sumps, pumps and overhead piping was completed. The vacuum pumps however were not replaced, their discharges however were routed to the sewer. The recovery well program had progressed beyond the test well pumping test, and the recovery well had since begun operating (a 6" diameter well with a 50' screened interval beginning 25 feet below the ground surface).

2) Further remedial action was evaluated based upon the assumption that the area of influence of the recovery well did not incorporate the volume of groundwater contaminated with VOCs (at lower levels) lying between the plant and the river (near Healthtex) only that at the plant. It is assumed that this volume will continue to discharge to the river. Alternatives were identified and evaluated as to whether they provide additional benefits beyond those actions already taken, i.e. address this above-mentioned volume of contaminated groundwater.

3

3) Alternatives considered for technical screening were: removal including groundwater pumping and treatment, excavation of soil source areas, and insitu physical, biological or chemical treatment; containment via barriers, water table lowering, or capping; and no action including continued operation of the recovery well and environmental monitoring. All were screened out at this stage except pumping and treatment and no-action. The primary reasoning was as follows: no soil source areas have been identified for excavation or are likely to contain the highly mobile VOCs; insitu treatment is not considered effective enough (partial treatment) or reliable enough and would be too difficult to implement over a large area of contamination; barriers would be difficult to implement over such a lengthly perimeter, would eventually leak and would require pumping; lowering the water table would require more effort without providing additional benefit over groundwater pumping and treatment; and capping would not provide much additional benefit over no action due to the significance of lateral groundwater flow in transporting contaminants.

4) Costs associated with the no action alternative are estimated at _$282,600 to $364,860 (above and beyond the $107,000 already incurred for installation of the recovery well). The pumping and treatment alternative is estimated at $566,000 to $5,850,000 for installation of an additional 3 to 6 wells with various GAC/air stripping treatment scenarios.

5) Following the baseline endangerment assessment it was concluded that the volume of groundwater not captured by the currently operating recovery well (which is discharging to the river) does not present risks to the public health or welfare. Therefore there is no justification for further action and the no action alternative was considered the most cost-effective alternative. It entails continued operation of the recovery well at a pumping rate of greater than or equal to 35 gallons per minute with discharge to the BVSD line, daily inspection of the pump controls and discharge line to the sewer, as well as periodic cleaning of the well screen and maintenance of a backup pump. The monitoring program will consist of quarterly sampling of pumped groundwater and downgradient monitoring wells GZ-1, MP-9, MP-10, and MP-11 as well as semi-annual sampling of background upgradient wells MP-2 and MP-3. Analysis of all of these samples will be for at least ten constitutents and static water level measurements will be taken in all monitoring wells. River water sampling will also be conducted (though the program has not been described in this report). Note that this alternative is expected to continue until the "water quality of the recovery well effluent ·is not significantly different than background water quality". (Seven years is the estimated time for the aquifer to naturally by flushed of contaminants.)

Data Gaps

(No data gaps are outlined here beyond those mentioned in the Malcolm Pirnie report. In fact the use of additional investigations are specifically discounted. Versar states that use of geophysical techniques to investigate the depth of bedrock and composition of the valley and the

4

installation of additional monitoring wells to investigate flow in the aquifer would not provide significant additional information with which to derive better conclusions concerning the contamination at this site. Current information is considered adequate.)

5

A'ITACHMENT B

SURFACE VATER SAMPLING DATA

TABLE B-1

SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS

Sampling Station

SS-101 SS-102 SS-103

SS-104

SS-201

SS-202 SS-301

SS-302

SS-401

SS-500

SS-601

SS-602

SS-603

SS-604 SS-1

SS-2

SS-3 ~-

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-P/P-A SS-P/P

SS-LONZA

Description

Blackstone River at Martin Street Blackstone River upstream of wellfield

Blackstone River at wellfield

Blackstone River downstream Blackstone Canal upstream

Blackstone Canal at wellfield Dexter Quarry Brook-upstream

Dexter Quarry Brook at Dexter Rock Road

Unnamed Brook South of Martin Street

Discharge to Blackstone River at Martin Street

Brook A at Lanza, Inc.

Brook A at Peterson-Puritan

Brook A at Okonite

Brook A at Martin Street Midway between George Washington Bridge and Martin Street Bridge (opposite Owen CorningWater Tower) About 1,300 feet downstream of Martin Street Bridge (middle of plume)

About 2,600 feet downstream of Martin Street Bridge (end of plume)

Upstream edge of J.M. Mills landfill

Downstream edge of J.M. Mills landfill

One hour travel time from location SS 4 about 300 feet upstream from old railroad bridge Brook A at Peterson-Puritan Brook A at Peterson-Puritan

Brook A at Lanza

Sampling Date

11/19/80* 9/3/80 3/19/81*

9/3/80

2/11/81 *

9/3/80* 9/3/80 11/19/80* 11/19/80*

11/19/80*

3/19/81 2/11/81 8/4/81 10/6/81* 8/4/81 10/6/81* 10/6/81

10/6/81 7/27/83 6/19/84

7/27/83 6/19/84 7/27/83 6/19/84 7/27/83 6/19/84

7/27/836/19/84

7/27/83 6/19/84 2-3/83 2-3/83

2-3/83

GZA GZA

GZA

GZA

GZA GZA GZA

GZA

GZA

GZA

RIDOH

RIDOH

GZA

GZA MP MP

MP MP MP MP MP MP

I~P MP

MP MP MP MP

MP

*Only qualitative results from field screening with a portable GC are given.

---

TABLE B-2

SURFACE WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION

Sampling No. of Sampling Water Depth Station Sampling Point Samples 1 Date At r~idstream

SS-1 Midstream, one at 2 7/27/83 3.5 ft. 1 foot below surface 2 6/19/84 4. 7 ft. and one at 1 foot above river bottom.

SS-2 Two at midstream, one 4 7/27/83 2. 5 ft. each at 1 foot below 4 6/19/84 4. 0 ft. surface and 1 foot above bottom; one each at mid-depth midway between each bank and midstream.

SS-3 Each at mid-depth; one 3 7/27/83 3. 0 ft. at midstream and one each 3 6/19/84 4.4 ft. midway between each bank and midstream.

SS-4 Midstream, one at 1 foot 2 7/27/83 3. 0 ft. below surface and one at 2 6/19/84 4. 5 ft. 1 foot above bottom.

SS-5 Midstream at mid-depth. 1 7/27/83 3. 0 ft. 6/19/84 4. 2 ft.

SS-6 Midstream, one at 1 foot 2 7/27/83 3. 5 ft. below surface and one at 2 6/19/84 5. 0 ft. 1 foot above bottom.

-

Note that samples SS-101 to SS-603 were taken from one to two inches below the water surface.

1All samples were composited.

TABLE B-3

SURFACE WATER

VOLATILE ORGANICS SCREENING RESULTS OF GZA SAMPLES (HEADSPACE GC)

.. Sample Sampling Tentative Relative Designation Descri~~~on/Locatio~ Date Compo~~<!~ Pe~_lj_ei ght

~

SS-101 Blackstone River at 11/19/80 ND* Martin Street

SS-102 Blackstone River Up- 9/3/80 ND* stream of Wellfield

SS-103 Blackstone River at 3/19/81 t-1,2 DCE Low Wellfield

SS-104 Blackstone River 9/3/80 NO*- Downstream

SS-201 Blackstone Canal 2/11/81 NO* Upstream

SS-202 Blackstone Canal at 9/3/80 NO* Wellfield

SS-301 Dexter Quarry Brook- 9/3/80 NO* Upstream

SS-301 Dexter Quarry Brook- 11!19/80 NO* Upstream

SS-302 Dexter Quarry Brook 11/19/80 NO* at Dexter Rock Road

.. SS-401 Unnamed Brook South 11!19/80 NO* of Martin Street

SS-500 Discharge to 2/11/81 t-1,2 DCE High Low to Blackstone River at Morlerate Martin Street 3 unknown

SS-500 Discharge to 3/19/81 NO Blackstone-River at Martin Street

SS-601 Unnamed Brook at 8/4/81 NO Lonza, Inc. 10/6/81 t-1,2 DCE Very Low

TABLE B-3 (CONT'O)

SURFACE WATER

-.

VOLATILE ORGANICS SCREENING RESULTS (HEAOSPACE GC)

OF GZA SAMPLES

Sample Designation

SS-602

Description/Location

Unnamed Brook at Peterson-Puritan

Sampling Date

8/4/81

Tentative Compound I.D. ** 1,1,1 TCE TCE 1 unknown t-1,2 OCE

Relative Pe~_f!ei ght

Moderate Low Very Low Very Low

SS-603 Unnamed Okonite

Brook at 10/6/81 NO

SS-604 Unnamed Brook Martin Street

at 10/6/81 NO

Notes:

Gas chromatograph (GC) analyses with Century Systems Model OVA 128 equipped with flame ionization detector. Headspace analysis techniques employed with headspace temperature = 23°C except where indicated by ** {**indicates elevated temperature headspace, T = 50°C).

Tentative compound identifications from comparison of peak elution times to retention times of known compounds (from prepared standard solutions).

Relative peak heights are subjective measurements of peak magnitudes and should not be construed as actual quantitative data.

NO indicates nothing detected. NO* indicates methane alone was observed at elevated levels.

Compound abbreviations:

t-1,2 OCE - trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 1,1,1 TCE - 1,1,1-Trichlorethane TCE - Trichloroethylene

I '

TABLE B-4

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GZA SURFACE WATER SAMPLES

Volatile Organics ug/1

SS-1021

9/80

SS-1041

9/80

SS-301 1

9/80

SS-500

3/811 2/81 2

SS-601 2

8/81

SS-6022

8/81

Chlorobenzene Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene Trichloroethylene1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethylene Chloroform 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Methylene Chloride Trichlorofluoromethane 1,2-0ichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene 1,2-Dichloroethylene Benzene Chloroethane Toluene Ethyl benzene Vinyl Chloride 1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane Total Volatiles NOTES:

tr 4.0 tr

4

5.2 tr tr tr tr

5

16 4.3

tr

20

tr tr tr

q.5 15 NA

tr

tr

25

60 60 60

15

20

215

30 30

60

1. Analysis by GCA Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts for GZA. 2. Analysis by EPA's Surveillance and Analysis Laboratory, Lexington, Massachusetts.

TR = trace <2 ug/1 Blank Space = None Detected

TABLE B-5

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN MALCOLM PIRNIE SURFACE WATER SAt~PLES IN BROOK A ~AMPLE$ COLLECTED IN FEBRUARY T~PRIL 1983)

Sample Locations Volatile Organics, ug/1 ~TP-=A--s-s---P7P ss.:ronza Benzene Chloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene Methylene Chloride Tetrachloroethylene Toluene 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 10

1,1,2-Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene

Trichlorofluoromethane Vinyl Chloride

10Tot?l Volatiles

= Not Detected

All 32 priority pollutant VOCs were analyzed for, but analytes not detected in any sample are not listed in this table.

TABLE B-6

MALCOLM PIRNIE BLACKSTONE RIVER SAMPLING PROGRAM ANALYSES (SAMPLED JUNE 19, 1984)

Water Qua 1ity Location No. Parameter SS-1 ss-2___55-3 ---5s-4 5S-5 SS-6

Temperature (C) 19.8 20.1 20.2 21.1 21.5 21.2

pH 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.8 6.8 6.7

Specific Conductance 177 171 190 203 210 215 (micromhos/cm)

Dissolved oxygen 6.4 7.1 6.6 6.9 6.8 7.7 (mg/L)

Total organic carbon, 8.2 6.8 8.2 6.6 7.0 4.3 TOC (mg/L)

BOD5 (mg/L) 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.2

COD {mg/L) 16.3 11.8 19.5 12.2 16.7 23.2

Total Organic Halogen, 32 38 39 46 38 170 TOX (ug/L)

Volatile Organics (ug/L)

Trichloroethylene 0.8 NO NO NO NO NO Tetrachloroylene ND ND NO ND NO 1.0

- Trans-1,2-Dichloro- 0.5 NO NO NO NO 0.7 ethylene

Chloroform NO NO NO ND NO NO

--- TOTAL VOLATILES 1 2

TABLE B-6 {CONT'D)

MALCOLM PIRNIE BLACKSTONE RIVER SAMPLING PROGRAM ANALYSES (SAMPLED JULY 27, 1984)

Water Quality Location No. Parameter SS-1 SS-2 SS-~-----55~- SS-5------SS-6

;.

Temperature {C) 22.9 22.9 23.5 23.9 24.0 24.0

pH 7.2 7.14 7.14 7.22 6.80 7.32

Specific Conductance 203 316 420 306 481 531 (micromhos/cm)

Dissolved oxygen 6.6 9.6 6.8 6.4 7.4 6.8 (mg/L)

Total organic carbon, 7.45 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.0 3.7 TDC (mg/L)

BOD 5 (mg/L) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.8

COD (mg/L) 7.5 9.5 12.0 10.0 7.4 7.2

Total organic halogen, 35 90 49 20 58 130 TOX {ug/L)

Volatile Organics (ug/L)

Ch1 oroform <0.1 3.2 1.4 5.9 7.0 4.1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 Trichloroethylene <0.1 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.5 Tetrachloroethylene <0.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.6

TOTAL VOLATILES 6 <4 8 <9 <4

TABLE B-7

MALCOLM PIRNIE BLACKSTONE RIVER ELEVATIONS

Location Elevation of Measuring Point MSL Reference

Groundwater Elevation MSL May 10, 1983

SP-1 62.29 60.18

SP-2 61.72 58.82

SP-3 60.89 57.38

SP-4 58.14 56.89

A'ITACHMENT C

GROUNDVATER SAMPLING DATA

TABLE C-1

SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS

Sampling Sampler Sampling Station Type Depth Date Sampler

GZ 1-1 ow 19 3/19/81 GZA 4/83 MP 4/85 MP

GZ 1-2 ow 19 3/19/81 GZA 4/83 MP

GZ 1-3 BGD 87.6 3/19/81 GZA 4/83 MP

GZ 2-1 ow 19.8 3/19/81 GZA 4/83 MP 4/85 MP

GZ 2-2 BGD 38.3 3/19/81 GZA

GZ 2-3 BGD 57.1 3/19/81 GZA

GZ 3-1 ow 19 3/19/81 GZA

GZ 3-2 BGD 36.6 3/19/81 GZA

GZ 3-3 BGD 57.4 3/19/81 GZA

GZ 4-1 ow 18.5 3/18/81 GZA

GZ 4-2 BGD 49.6 3/18/81 GZA 4/83 MP

GZ 4-3 BGD 83.7 3/18/81 GZA 4/83 MP-

GZ 5 ow 29 3/18/81 GZA Dexter Quarry

MW-A1 ow 85 12/19/80 GZA Lincoln 3/19/81 GZA Well fie 1d 4/83 MP

MW-A2 ow 15.2 12/19/80 GZA Lincoln Wellfield

MW-B1 ow 60.1 12/19/80 GZA J.M. Mills Well field

--

Sampling Station

MW-B2

MW-C1

MW-C2

MW-D

OW-Ll, L1

OW-l

Lincoln #1

L-2

OW-L4, L4

L-5

LW-420

TABLE C-1 (CONT'D)

SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS

Sampler Sampling Type Depth Date

ow 16.4 12!19/80 J .M. Mi 11 s Wellfield

ow 69.8 12/19/80 J.M. Mills Wellfield

ow 18.8 12/19/80 J.M. Mills Well field

ow 31 12/19/80 J.M. Mi 11 s Landfill

OW, Lincoln 60.8 11/19/80 Wellfield 2!12/81 *

3/19/81*

OW, off Lenox 40 11/19/80* Street

Lincoln Well #1 4/83

Li nco1 n We 11 45.5 11/19/80* #2 3/19/81*

Lincoln Well 79 3/19/81 #4

Lincoln Well 16.7 3/19/81* #5

Lincoln 47 10/24/79 Well #6 11/29/79

12/5/79 12/11/79 12/20/79 2/1/802!13/80 3!11/80 3/18/807/31/80 9/3/80* 2/3/813/17/81

Sampler

GZA

GZA

GZA

GZA

GZA

GZA

MP

GZA

GZA

GZA

RIDOH Rlf)QH RIDOH RIDOH RIDOH RIDOH RIDOH RIDOH RIDOH RIDOH GZA RIDOH GZA

Sampling Station

LW-421

c~~-4o5, Lenox Street

C\~-3490 Martin Street

SL-1

RW-1

RW-2

-RW-3

RW-4.1

RW-4.2

SW-1, Okonite Well

Country Cl ubI Residential Well

TABLE C-1 (CONT'O)

SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS

Sampler Sampling Type De~th Date

3/24/81 5/5/81

Lincoln Well 9/3/80 #9 4/85

Cumberland 59.5 10/31/79 Municipal 11/7/79Well 5/7/80

12/19/80* 8/4/814/83

Cumberland 83.5 12/19/80*Municipal 8/4/81 Well

Sewer Line 60.8 3/20/81 Leaving Peterson-Puritan

RW, Dexter 125 9/3/80 Rock Road

RW, Shallow 30 12/19/80* Dexter Rock Road

RW 11/19/80* Dexter Rock Road

RW, Shall ow 25 2/11/81* Dexter Rock Road

RW, Deep 330 11/19/80*Dexter Rock Road

Industrial 25 3/19/81 Well 4/83

RW 4/83

Sampler

RIDOH RIDOH

GZA MP

RIDOH RIDOH RIDOH GZA GZA MP

GZA GZA

GZA

GZA

GZA

GZA

GZA

GZA

GZA MP

MP

TABLE C-1 (CONT 1 D)

SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS

Sampling Station

Sampler Type Depth

Sampling Date Sampler

Test Well #3(A) 14W 45 4/83 MP

Test Well #3(B) MW 58 4/83 MP

MP-1 MW 33 4/83 MP

MP-2 MW 56 4/83 MP

MP-3 MW 31 4/83 4/85

MP MP

MP-4A MW 40 4/834/85

MP r-1P

MP--4B MW 65 4/83 4/85

MP MP

MP-5 MW 45 4/83 4/85

MP MP

MP-6A MW 40 4/834/85

MP MP

MP-6B MW 73 4/83 4/85

MP MP

MP-7 MW 39 4/83 MP

MP-8 MW 17 4/83 MP

---:: MP-9A MW 24 4/83 7/27/83 6/20/84 4/85

MP MP MP MP

MP-9B MW 50 4/837/27/83 6/20/844/85

MP MP MP r~P

MP-9C ~1W 84 4/837/27/83 6/20/84 4/85

MP MP MP MP

MP-10A r~w 30 4/83 7/27/83 6/20/84 4/85

MP MP MP MP

TABLE C-1 (CONT'D)

SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS

Sampling Sampler Sampling Station Type Depth Date Sampler

MP-lOB MW 65 4/83 MP 7/27/83 MP 6/20/84 t~P

4/85 MP

MP-10C MW 109 4/83 MP 7/27/83 MP 6/20/84 MP 4/85 MP

MP-llA MW 20 4/83 MP 7/27/83 MP 7/3/84 MP 4/85 MP

MP-llB MW 75 4/83 MP 7/27/83 MP 7/3/84 MP 4/85 MP

MP-llC MW 130 4/83 MP 7/27/83 MP 7/3/84 MP 4/85 MP

MH-25 MW 20 4/83 MP MH-26 MW 20 4/83 MP

MH-27 MW 20 4/83 MP I~H-29 MW 20 4/83 MP -- MH-30 MW 20 4/83 MP MH-31 MW 20 4/83 MP

MH-33 MW 25 4/83 MP

MH-35 MW 20 4/83 MP

MH-36 MW 20 4/83 MP

ow - Observation Well BGD - Barcad Gas Drive RW -Residential Well MW - Monitoring Well

Depths given are: Base of well screen for OW's, tip of sampler for BarCad samplers, or bottom of well for residential/municipalwells.

--

TABLE C-2

MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

location Screen Screened Number length (ft} Interval (ft)

MH-25 10 6-16 MH-26 10 6-16 MH-27 10 6-16 MH-29 10 8-18 MH-30 10 8-18 MH-31 10 8-18 MH-33 10 11-21 MH-35 10 10-20 MH-36 10 6-16

GZ 1-1 8 9-19 GZ 1-2 45.2* GZ 1-3 * 87.6 GZ 2-1 10 10-20 GZ 2-2 38.3* GZ 2-3 57.1* GZ 3-1 10 10-20 GZ 3-2 36.6* GZ 3-3 57.4* GZ 4-1 10 9-19 GZ 4-2 49.6* GZ 4-3 83.7* GZ 5 10 20-30

MP-1 15 18-33 MP-2 40 16-56 f"P-3 27 4-31 MP-4A 30 10-40 MP-48 20 40-60 MP-5 35 10-45 MP-6A 30 10-40 MP-68 30 38-68 MP-7 15 24-39 MP-8 7 10-17 MP-9A 15 9-24 MP-9B 15 35-50 MP-10A 15 15-30 MP-108 15 50-65 MP-lOC 10 95-105 MP-llA 15 5-20 MP-118 15 60-75 MP-llC 10 115-125

* This is the location at which a BarCad sample is taken.

- --------

TABLE C-3

QUINNVILLE WELLFIELD PURGE TESTS

S"amPTe Trichloro- - Tetrachloro-------r;r;1-frfchloro-Point Date ethylene ethylene ethane

TEST 1 ii;

Well #1 9/26/79 37 ppb 56 ppb #1 10/24/79 14 ppb 41 ppb 100 ppb #6 9/26/79 48 ppb 106 ppb #6 10/24/79 <5 ppb 61 ppb 166 ppb #9 10/24/79 <5 ppb 34 ppb 123 ppb

TEST 2

Well #1 11/5/79 <1 ppb 49 ppb 124 ppb #1 11/15/79 4 ppb 15 ppb 37 ppb #1 11/23/79 1 ppb 3 ppb 8 ppb #1 11/29/79 2 ppb 3 ppb 10 ppb

TEST 3

Well #6 11/29/79 <1 ppb 19 ppb 68 ppb #6 12/5/79 7 ppb 28 ppb 55 ppb #6 12/11/79 6 ppb 24 ppb 57 ppb #6 12/20/79 9 ppb 29 ppb 65 ppb #6 2/1/80 7 ppb 18 ppb 59 ppb #6 2/13/80 7 ppb 26 ppb 61 ppb #6 3/11/80 <1 ppb 56 ppb 114 ppb #6 3/18/80 <1 ppb 26 ppb 83 ppb

Pumping Stopped

#6 7/21/80 19 ppb 43 ppb 180 ppb #6 2/3/80 <1 ppb <1 ppb <1 ppb

-- TEST 4

We11 #9 4/2/80 <1 ppb 52 ppb 160 ppb #9 4/9/80 <1 ppb 26 ppb 78 ppb #9 4/29/80 <1 ppb 41 ppb 96 ppb #9 8/7/80 17 ppb 39 ppb 135 ppb #9 1/9/81 13 ppb 3Z ppb 126 ppb

TEST 5

Well #1 4/21/80 11 ppb 32 ppb 73 ppb #1 5/14/80 5 ppb 15 ppb 45 ppb #1 5/21/80 5 ppb 15 ppb 41 ppb

Pumping Stopped

#1 . 6/6/80 4 ppb 10 ppb 39 ppb #1 7/8/80 35 ppb 59 ppb 260 ppb

TABLE C-4

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (ug/rt=[N SAMPLES FROM LINC~~~-SUPPLY WELL NO. 6a (LW-420)

Volatile Organics _!!_!l.L!_ !Q/2~.U.9.. !1/29/7~ 12/5}_79 12/11/?.9_ 12/20/79 2/1/81! Y13/80 l/_l_lj_'!_fl 3/18/80 7/~1/80 2/3/81 Y25/81 2/25}_1!~ l/_1_ij_l!~ Y.1.~_'!.! 3/24/8 ~-5_/_f!.!

1,1-0ichloroethane 1 2 6 7.9 14 8 1,1-Dichloroethylene O.l 2 2.9 4 2 retrachloroethylene 61 19 28 24 29 18 26 56 26 43 1 3 3.6 6 4 1,2-Trans-dichloro­

ethylene 10 9.6 69 47 150 100 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 166 68 55 57 65 59 61 114 83 180 2 8 7.6 13 16 Trichloroethylene 7 6 9 7 7 19 1 2 4 2 3.9 3 2 Tri ch1orofl uoro­

methane 3.4 10 3.8 26 3

Total Volatiles 227 87 90 87 103 84 94 170 109 242 1 16 19 100 77 216 135

aThis table is not a complete listing of all available analytical data.

~nalytes not detected in any sample are not listed in this table.

GZA 'sampled on 3/19/81, other samples were taken by RIDOH.

TABLE C-5

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS4

IN SAMPLES FROM LENOX STREET WELL

1t79 1980 19~1 ~olatile O~ganics, ug/1 10/31 11!71 5/1 7/11 1 7/141 7/171 1/191 8/4 9/221

Tetrachloroethylene 37.0 39.0 2.0 13.0 31.0 2.0 2.0 * 10.0 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 27.0 37.0 11.0 14.0 26.0 11.0 7.0 16.0* 1,1-0ichloroethane 3.0 5.0 Chloroform 1.0 1.0 1,1-0ichloroethylene * Trichloroethylene

Total Volatiles 64 76 13 27 57 13 13 32* NOTES:

1. Analysis by RIDOH 2. Analysis by USEPA 3•. Ana 1 ys is by Mead CompuChem4. This table may not be a complete listing of all VOC dat for this well.

1/18/82 Sampled after 2 hours of pumping 1/20/82 - Sampled after 48 hours of pumping 1/22/82 - Sampled after 96 hours of pumping

* = Kesults not quantified by mass spec.

Hlank Spaces = None Detected

GZA sampled on 8/4/81 (GZA's other sample from 12/19/80 was not analyzed in the laboratory)

Pirnie sampled 6n 2/17/83

" '

1_9821 1983 1/181 1120 1/221:- 2TIT3

1.0 9.0 15.0 14.0 10.0 12.0 3.0 4.0 4.0

2.0

18 23 33

TABLE C-6

GROUNDWATER VOLATILE ORGANICS SCREE~I~G RESULTS OF GZA SAMPLES

Sample Designation

RW-1

RW-2

RW-3

RW-4.1

RW-4.2

SW-1 Okonite

LW-420

LW-420

-- cw.:349

Cw-349C5

CW-349F5

CW-405

(HEADSPACE GC}

Sampling Description/~ocation Date

Residential Well 9/3/80Dexter Rock Road

Shallow Residential 12/19/80 Well Dexter Rock Road

Residential Well 11/19/80Dexter Rock Road

Shallow Residential 2/11/81Well Dexter Rock Road

Deep Residential 11/19/80Well Dexter Rock Road

Industrial Supply 3/19/81 Well~ Okonite

Lincoln Supply 9/3/80 Well #6

Lincoln Supply 3/18/81Well #6

Martin Street 12/19/8Supply Well Cumberland

Martin Street 8/4/81 Supply Well Cumberland

Martin Street 8/4/81 Supply Well Cumberland

Lenox Street 12/19/80 Supply Well Cumberland

Tentative Comp~~n_<!__l. D.

ND*

NO

NO*

NO

NO

1>1ethane t-1~2 DCE 1,1,1 TCE TCE 3 Unknowns

Methane t-1,2 DCE 1,1,1 TCE 3 Unknowns

t-1,2 DCE TCE

** t-1,2 DCE 1,1,1 TCE 2 Unknowns

**NO

**t-1,2 DCE 1,1,1 TCE TCE 1 Unknown

**t-1,2 DCE 2 Unknowns

Relative Peak Height

Very High Very Low Moderate Very Low Very Low

High Moderate Low Very Low

VeryVery

Low Low

Low Very Low Moderate

Low Moderate Low Low

Very Low Very L01-1

TABLE C-6 (CONT'D)

GROUNDWATER VOLATILE ORGANICS SC~EE~ING ~tSULTS OF GZA SAMPLES

Sample Desi~nation

CW-405C 5

CW-405F5

L-1

L-1

L-1

L-2

L-2

l-4

L-4 .....-

L-5

OW-l

MW-Al

MW-A1

(HEADSPACE GC)

Sampling Description/~ocation Date

Lenox Street 8/4/81Supply Well Cumberland

Lenox Street 8/4/81Supply Well Cumberland

Observation Well 11/19/80 Lincoln Wellfield

Observation Well 2/12/81 Lincoln Wellfield

Observation Well 3/19/81Lincoln Wellfield

Observation Well 11/19/80 Lincoln Wellfield

Observation Well 3/19/81 Lincoln Wellfield

Observation Well 2/12/81 (incoln Wellfield

Observation Well 3/19/81 lincoln Wellfield

Observation Well 3/19/81 Lincoln Wellfield

Observation Well 11/19/80 off Lenox Street

Monitoring Well 12/19/80 Lincoln Wellfield

Monitoring Well 3/18/81 Lincoln Wellfield

Tentative Compo~nd~

NO

t-1,2 DCE 1,1,1 TCE TCE

Methane t-1,2 DCE 1,1,1 TCE 3 Unknowns

Methane t-1,2 DCE 4 Unknowns

NO

NO*

1,1,1 TCE 2 Unknowns

NO

NO

NO

NO*

Methane t-1,2 DCE 1,1,1 TCE 3 Unknowns

r-1ethane t-1,2 DCE TCE

Relative Peak li_ei ~ht

Very Low Low Very Low

High Moderate Low Very Low to Moderate

High Low low

Very Low Very Low

Very High Moderate Low Very Low to Moderate

High Moderate Moderate

TABLE C-6 (CONT•o)

GROUNDWATER VOLATILE ORGANICS SC~ttNINGlRESULTS OF GZA SAMPLES

(HEAOSPACE GC)

Sample Sampling Tentative Relative Designation Description/Location Date Compou~~ Pe~_l!ei ght

MW-A2 Monitoring Well 12/19/80 t-1,2 DCE Very Low Lincoln Wellfield 1,1,1 TCE Very Low

" 1 Unknown Very Low

MW-A2 Monitoring Well 3/19/81 t-1,2 OCE Very Low Lincoln Wellfield 1,1,1 TCE Very Low

MW-B1 Deep Monitoring 12/19/80 **NO* Well, J.M. Mills Landfi 11

MW-B2 Shallow Monitoring 12/19/80 NO* Well, J.M. Mills Landfill

MW-C1 Deep Monitoring 12/19/80 **Methane Very Low Well, J.M. Mills Chloroform Very Low Landfi 11 1,1,1 TCE Very Low

MW-C2 Shallow Monitoring 12/19/80 Methane Very High Well, J.M. Mills 1 Unknown Very Low Landfill

MW-D Shallow Monitoring 12/19/80 Methane Very High Well, J.M. Mills 2 Unknowns Very Low Landfill

GZ-1-1 Observation Well 3/19/81 NO

GZ-1-2 Gas Drive Sampler 3/19/81 NO

~ GZ-1-3 Gas Drive Sampler 3/19/81 t-1,2 OCE Low- 2 Unknowns Very Low

GZ-2-1 Observation Well 3/19/81 Methane High t-1,2 DCE High 1,1,1 TCE High TCE High 3 Unknowns Very Low

GZ-2-2 Gas Drive Sampler 3/19/81 Methane High t-1,2 DCE Low TCE Low Benzene Very LOIIJ

TABLE C-6 (CONT'D)

GROUNDWATER VOLATILE ORGANICS SCREENI~G RESULTS OF GZA SAMPLES

(HEADSPACE GC)

Sample Sampling Tentative Relative Designation Des~~tption/Location Date Compound I.D. Peak _Hei g_h_t_

GZ-2-2 Gas Drive Sampler 3/19/81 Methane High t-1,2 DCE Low r. TCE Low Benzene Very Low

GZ-2-3 Gas Drive Sampler 3/19/81 Methane High TCE Very Low 1 Unknown Very Low

GZ-3-1 Observation Well 3/19/81 NO*

GZ-3-2 Gas Drive Sampler 3/19/81 NO*

GZ-3-3 Gas Drive Sampler 3/19/81 NO

GZ-4-1 Observation Well 3/18/81 1 Unknown Very Low

GZ-4-2 Gas Drive Sampler 3/18/81 t-1,2 CDE Very Low 2 Unknowns Very Low

GZ-4-3 Gas Drive Sampler 3/18/81 t-1,2 DCE Low 2 Unknowns Very Low

GZ-5 Observation Well 3/19/81 Methane Very High Dexter Quarry Toluene Very Low

1 Unknown Very Low

Notes:

-.r Gas chromatograph (GC) analyses with Century Systems Model OVA 128 equipped with fla~e ionization detector. Headspace analysis techniques employedwith headspace temperature = 23°C except where indicated by ** (** indicates elevated temperature headspace, T = 50°C).

Tentative compound identifications from comparison of peak elution times to retention times of known compounds (from prepared standard solutions).

Relative peak heights are subjective measurements of peak magnitudes and should not be construed as actual quantitative data.

ND indicates nothing detected. NO* indicates methane alone was observed at elevated levels.

Co~pound abreviations:

t-1,2 DCE - trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 1,1,1 TCE - 1,1,1-Trichlorethane TCE - Trichloroethylene

TABLE C-7

MALCOLM PIRNIE GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE

Non­Prior- Nonpriority Speci­ity Po11 utant Peaks 841 Upgrad- 2 fie

Sampling Vola- Vola- Base Metals Priority ient Nitrate Para- Pesti- Fecal Location Date tiles tiles Neutral Acid Priority Fe/Mn Pollutant Sources Nitrite meters cides Coliforms

MP-1 2-1-83 * C-3 C-3 C-3 C-3 C-3 C-3 * MP-2 2-1-83 * * * * * * * * MP-3 2-2-83 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 *C-1 *C-1 ** MP-4A 2-2-83 * * * * MP-4B 2-2-83 * * ** MP-5 2-2-83 * ** MP-6A 2-2-83 * * * MP-6B 2-3-83 ** * MP-7 2-2-83 * * MP-8 2-2-83 * * MP-9A 2-4-83 * * * * * * * * MP-913 2-4-83 * * * * * * * * Martin St. Well {9C1) 2-4-83 * * * * * * * *

Martin St. Well (9C2) 2-8-83 * * * * * * **

MP-lOA 2-3-83 * * * * MP-10B 2-3-83 * ** * MP-lOC 2-4-83 * * * * MP-llA 2-4-83 * * * * * MP-llB 2-5-83 * ** * *

4-4-83 * MP-llC 2-5-83 * ** * * Okonite 3-1-83 ** * * Test Well #3 3-1-83 * * * Lincoln #1 2-4-83 * * * * ** * * * Country Club/ Residential 3-1-83 * * * * * * *

Lenox St. 2-9-83 * * * * ** *

~I

TABLE C-7 (CONT'D)

MALCOLM PIRNIE GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE

Non­Prior- Nonpriority Speci­ity Pollutant Peaks R41 Upgrad- 2 fie

Sampling Vola- Vola- Base Metals Priority ient Nitrate Para- Pesti- Fecal Location Date tiles tiles Neutral Acid Prioritl Fe/Mn Pollutant Sources Nitrite meters cides Col ifonns

GZ-1-1 4-4-83 * GZ-1-2 4-4-83 * * GZ-1-3 4-4-83 * GZ-2-1 4-4-83 * * GZ-4-2 4-4-83 * GZ-4-3 4-4-83 * A-1 4-4-83 * MH-25 2-8-83 * ** * * * MH-26 2-8-83 * * * * MH-27 2-8-83 * * * * f:1H-29 2-5-83 * * * * MH-:30 2-5-83 * * * * MH-31 2-5-83 * * * * MH-33 2-5-83 * * * ** MH-35 2-5-83 * ** * MH-36 2-5-83 * * * *

NOTES:

1. Base neutrals, acids, pesticides/PCB, cyanide and phenols 2. Syntron and Lonza parameters

C-1 = Composite with well number listed * = Analysis conducted

TABLE C-8

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SAMPLES FROM GZA MONITORING WELLS

Volatile Organics, ug/l 3791 GZ-I-I

2-2J7S4 47S5

Sample Location GZ-1-2

37SI 2-2J7S3 GZ-I-3

3/81 2-4/83

Benzene Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene Ethyl benzene Methylene Chloride· 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Toluene Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene. Trichlorofluoromethane Vinyl Chloride

<2

<2 <2

<2 <2

<2

<2

<2 5.0

<2 6.1

1.5 3.5

<2 <2

190

Total Volatiles <6 <8 <24 190

Not Detected

All are

32 priority pollutant VOCs not listed in this table.

were analyzed for, but analytes not detected in any sample

...

TABLE C-8 (Cont'd)

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS I~ S~MP[~S FROM GZ~ RO~ITORING W~LLS

Sample Location Volatile Or9anics, ug/l GZ-1-1 GZ-2-2 GZ-2-3 GZ-3-1 GZ-3-2 GZ-~-3

3/81 2-4/83 4/85 3/81 3/81 3/81 3781 3/81

Benzene 1.2 2.1 Chlorobenzene <2 <2 Chloroethane <2 Chloroform <2 <2 <2 1,1-Dichloroethane 93 24 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 1,2-0ichloroethane 2.7 1,1-0ichloroethylene 9.8 <2 <2 Ethyl benzene Methylene Chloride 190 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 180 10 4.4 Tetrachloroethylene 740 570 46 90 40 <2 Toluene Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 580 2,300 250 59 15 <2 <2 <2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 440 540 44 <2 <2 <2 <2 2.3 Trichloroethylene 380 150 150 32 10 <2 <2 Trichlorofluoromethane 56 18 2.4 <2 Vinyl Chloride 81 48

Total Volatiles, ug/l <2,483 3873 538 <199 <78 <12 <10 <16

Not Detected

All 32 priority pollutant VOCs were analyzed for, but analytes not detected in any sample are not listed in this table.

TABLE C-8 (Cont'd)

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SAMPLES FROM GZA MONITORING WELLS

Sample Location GZ-4-1 GZ-4-2 GZ-4-3 GZ-5

Volatile Organics, ug/1 3/81 3/81 2-4/83 3/81 2-4/83 3/81

Benzene Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform <2 1,1-Dichloroethane <2 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene <2 Ethyl benzene Methylene Chloride 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene <2 Toluene Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 16 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 4.3 Trichloroethylene Trichlorofluoromethane <2 Vinyl Chloride

Total Volatiles, ug/1 <30

- = Not Detected

All 32 priority pollutant VOCs were are not listed in this table.

<2 2.7

<2

21 5.5

2.3

<36

analyzed for, but analytes

3.2

<2 6.7

<2 15

93

6.8 36

8.4

10 <2

<162 <24

not detected in any sample

Volatile Organi~~-ug/1

Acrolein Acrylonitrile Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene M~thylene chloride 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane TetrachloroethyeneToluene Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene1,1,1-Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene Trichlorofluoromethane

Total Volatiles

* = <20 ug/1

- - not detected 1 BVDC sewer line sample 2 GCA/EPA sample analysis

TABLE C-9

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SAMPLES FROM EXISTING PRODUCTION AND MONITORING WELLS

SL-1 1 3/20/81

RW-1 9/3/80

LW-421 9/8/80 4/83

OW-L1 2

11719/80 LINC. #1 2-3783

<2

<2

23 <2 <2

110

<2

* *

<2

* *

14

15

28

12 114

*/­*!­-1­-1­-/­

<2/­<21­-1­-/­

-/<10 -/­

2.3/­-/­

19/504.0/20

<2/­<2/10

<143 <2 183 <33/<90

results

OW-L4 3719/81

* *

3.9

<2

<2 <2

4.4 3.5

<2

<20

All 32 priority pollutant VOCs were analyzed for, but analytes not detected in any sample are not listed in this table.

TABLE C-9 (Cont'd)

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SAMPLES FROM EXISTING PRODUCTION AND MONITORING WELLS

SW-1 Count~ Club/RES Test Well#3 CW-3490 Vo~atile Organics, ug/1 3/19/81 2-3/83 2-3/83 2-3/83 8/4/81

Acrolein * Acrylonitrile * Benzene <2 Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene <2 Chloroform 1,1-Dichloroethane <2 24 10 1,2-Dichloroethane 20 1,1-DichloroethyleneMethylene chloride 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <2 Tetrachloroethyene 91 2 Toluene Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 68 140 830 30 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 4.4 72 130 3 Trichloroethylene 25 29 10 Trichlorofluoromethane 1300 Vinyl Chloride 350

Total Volatiles <196 617 2,270 63

0 = detected but no quantified * = <20 ug/l - = not detected

Note that analyses for LW-420 (Lincoln Supply Well No. 6) are presented in Table B-4 and analyses for CW-405 (Cumberland's Lenox Street Well) are presented in Table B-5.

I

TABLE C-10

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GZA SAMPLES FROM J.M. MILLS LANDFILL MONITORING WELLS

We 11 Number A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 D

Volatile Organics, ugll 12=-=1,-:-19=-1=8=0~1-=-21~2::.~4~~~=o---:::4~1':;""71~8~1--:-4-:"":/8~3 12/19I80 12/19I80 12/19I80 12/19I80 12119IBO ~12=-1:-:-1-:::-91=8~0

Acral ien * Acrylonitrile * Benzene 2* 1* 5* 22* Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene <2 1* 5* 5* Chlorodibromomethane <2* Chloroform <2 <2 1,1-0ichloroethane 48* 18 3* 1* 1* 1,2-Dichloroethane 18 1,1-0ichloroethylene 1,2-Dichloroethylene Methylene Chloride

,TetrachloroethyleneT<;>luene

9.3

25

92* 2,500*

67*

9.3

NA 25

2* 98*

2*

1* 1*

3*

1*

1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene 1,1,1-Tetrachloroethane

320 630*

320 64 42*

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2.5 2.5 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 64 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <2* Trichloroethylene 16 24* 16 1* Trichlorofluoromethane 47 520* 47 12*

Total Volatiles <506 <3,887 <504 160* 4* 10* 31* 2*

* =Results not confirmed by mass spectrometer. NA = No Analysis

Analytes not detected in any samples are not listed in this table.

Total Volatile Organics ugll from sampling by George Geisser Jr. Co. [A-1 (36), A-2 (-), B-1 (8), B-2 {10), C-1 (1), C-2 (59), D (42)]

,,

TABLE C-11

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS; SAMPLES FROM MALCOLM PIRNIE MONITORING WELLS

(SAMPLES COLLECTED

Volatile Organics, ug/1

Benzene

Chloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethylene Methylene Chloride

Tetrachloroethylene Toluene

1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene

Trichlorofluoromethane

Vinyl Chloride

IN FEBRUARY TO APRIL 1983)

Sample Location -----r("'"Mo-n-'-:-i..,--tori ng Wells) MP-1 MP-2 MP-3 MP-7 MP-8

150

140

130

720 26

27

31

50

Total Volatiles ug/1 420 797 57

= Not Detected

All 32 priority pollutant VOCs were analyzed for, but analytes not detected in any sample are not listed in this table.

I~

TABLE C-11 (Cont'd)

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS; S~~P[ES F~O~ M~CCOCR PIR~IE RO~ITORI~G QE[[S

Sample Location and Date Sample ~P-911: ~P-9B MP-9C

Volatile Organics, ug/1 2-4783 o-7784 4783 2-4783 o-77S4 4783 2-4!83 6-1784 47S3

Benzene Chloroethane 730 350 56 89 1,200 200 96* 250** 380 530

Chloroform

1,1-Dichloroethane 88 110 79 54 160 49 130 300 240 90

1,1-Dichloroethylene Methylene Chloridea 19 33 31 39 36 19

1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Tetrachloroethylene 10 19

• To l'uene 22 25 1·,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 15 50 87 36 65 88 41 15

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 40 35 20 36 15

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Trichloroethylene 22 16 26 Trichlorofluoromethane 42

Vinyl Chloride 31 62 11 31 30

Total Volatiles 874 614 135 390 1,507 446 226 7nl 742 654

Not Detected All 32 priority pollutant VOCs were analyzed for, but analytes not detected in any sample are not listed in this table.a Possible quality control problem with methylene chloride analyses for June/July 19R4.

* Sample was taken 1.5 hours after pumping. ** Sample was taken 95 hours after pumping.

TABLE C-11 {Cont•d)

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS; SAMPLES FROM MALCOLM PIRNIE MONITORING WELLS

Sample Location and Date Samp l_ed MP-1~------MP-IOJ\ ~P-108

Volatile Organics, ug/1 2-~783 6-7784 ~7fJ5 2-~783 6-778~ ~785 2-4783 6-7784 4!85"

Benzene 12 15

Chloroethane 42 150 360 13 R2

Chloroform 1,1-Dichloroethane 50 59 120 25 24 120 16 23 72

1,1-Dichloroethylene 10 Methylene Chloridea 16 23 19

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 100 83 200

Tetrachloroethylene 900 40 1,800 82 870 260

Toluene

1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 2,400 210 150 2,700 230 500 1,400 940 1,800

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 77 11 15 69 19 61 95 30 57

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Trichloroethylene 780 100 55 1,500 87 200 590 170 300

Trichlorofluoromethane 20

Vinyl Chloride 180 32 23 310 68 140 72 120 240

Total Volatiles 4,429 678 786 6,416 528 4,214 3,078 1,503 2,829

Not Detected

All 32 priority pollutant VOCs were analyzed for, but analytes not detected in any sample are not

listed in this table. a Possible quality control problem with methylene chloride analyses for June/July 19R4.

•J

TABLE C-11 (Cont•d)

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS; SAMPLES FROM MALCOLM PIRNIE MONITORING WELLS

Sam~le Location and Date Sampled

Volatile Organics, ug/1

Benzene

Chloroethane

Chloroform

1,1-0ichloroethane

1,1-0ichloroethylene Methylene Chloridea

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene

Toluene 1,2-Trans-Oichloroethylene

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Trichloroethylene

Trichlorofluoromethane

Vinyl Chloride

2-~7R3 ~P-II~ 6-77S~

23

39

38

18

Lr/85

400

170

13

16

2-~783

15

340

860

860

10

38

16 1,500

130

10

49

380

~P-IIB 6-7784

440

180

14

10

14 590

27

11

250

il7S5

810

790

12

17 59

23

110

2-il7S3

11

26

260

17

480

14,000

1,400

250

1,500

25

~P-IIC '6-7T~;tf- 47S5

12

10

200 490

140 420 44 11

100 190

8,800 14,000

440 940

11

67 110

470 860

75 380

Total Volatiles 118 599 3,362 1,536 1,831 18,253 10,346 17,434

~--Not Detected

All 32 priority pollutant VOCs were analyzed for, but analytes not detected in any sample are not

listed in this table. a Possible quality control problem with methylenP. chloride analyses for June/July 1984.

'I'

i'\I

TABLE C-11 (Cont'd)

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS; IN SAMPLES FROM MALCOLM PIRNI~ MORITO~I~G QE[[5

(SAMPLES COLLECTED IN FEBRUARY TO APRIL 1983)

Sample Location and Date Sampled (Monitoring Wells)

Volatile Organics, U9/l MH-36 MH-35 MH-33 MH-31 MH-30 MH-29 MH-27 MH-26 MH-25

Benzene

Chloroethane 380 1,1-Dichloroethane 45 22 17 18 42

--1,1-Dichloroethylene Methylene Chloride 17 Tetrachloroethylene 56 17 16 <10 24 10 Toluene

1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 48 82 100 570 53

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 100 12 <10 <10 32 10

1,1,2-Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene 13

Trichlorofluoromethane 16 Vinyl Chloride

Total Vol atiles, ug/1 425 239 29 115 135 684 63 10

= Not Detected All 32 priority pollutant VOCs were analyzed for, but analytes not detected in any sample are not

listed in this table. Analysis was co~ducted using EPA Method 624 (purge and trap gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS)

technique.

tl

TABLE C-11 (Cont•d)

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS; SAMPLES FROM MALCOLM PIRNIE MONITORING WELLS

Sample Location and Date Sampled MP-4A MP-4B MP-5 MP-6A MP-6B

Volatile Organ~cs, ug/1 2-4783 4/85 2-4/83 4/85 2-4783 4/85 2-4783 4/85 2-4/83 4785

Benzene Chloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-0ichloroethylegeMethylene Chloride TetrachloroethyleneToluene 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trithloroethane Trichloroethylene Trichlorofluoromethane

.Vil'l'yl Chloride

Total Volatiles

Not Detected

91 120 780

13,000 22 51

12,000

620 550

27,234

All 32 priority pollutant VOCs

listed in this table.

400

20,000

17

630

44

1,200

36 99

1,300 5,500

310 94,000 63,000

740 2,900

110 9,800 300 420 33,000 7,200 25,000

20,000 3,400

760 140

25 200

47 60

56 200 4,700

1,100

1,300

31,210 1,172 1 '771 40,191 7,510 1R6,700 23,440

were analyzed for, but analytes not detected in any sample

60 79

16

60 95

are not

.,,

TABLE C-12

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SAMPLES FROM IRE PEIERSON-PORIIAN GROONOWAIER INIERCEPIOR WELL

InterceEtor Well

Voltaile Organics, U2/l 9/841 11/841 3/852 4/852

Chloroform 746 -(-)*

1,1-Dichloroethane 110 50 477 -(-}* 1,1-Dichloroethylene 12,700 1,560 1,610 660(540)*

Methylene Chloride 5,700 9,160 587 62,000(23,000)* 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene 64,700 44,100 48,300 49,000(37,000)*

Toluene 7,820 8,330 -(-)* Trans-1,2-0ichloroethylene 20,500 8,100 13,700 10,000(8,500)*

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 15,200 10,200 22,200 14,000(11,000)* Trichloroethylene 5,400 3,020 2,030 44,000(3,700)* Trichlorofluoromethane 2,460 1,600(1,400)*

Total Volatile Organics (ug/1) 124,310 86,470 97,980 181,260(85,140}

1 Sampled by DiBerardinis Assoc., Inc. 2 · Sampled by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.

* The values given in parentheses apply to the analysis of a duplicate. Not Detected.

All 32 priority pollutant VOCs were analyzed for, but analytes not detected in any sample are not listed in the table.

TABLE C-13

TRACE METALS AND CHLORIDE ANALYSES ON GZA SAMPLES FROM J.M. MILLS LANDFILL MONITORING WELLS

Well Number I race Meta I~' mg/1 A-I A-2 8-[ B-2 C-I C-2 lJ

12/80 12/80 12/80 12/80 12/80 12/80 12/80

Arsenic 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.17 0.025 0.025 0.025

Barium 0.07 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.6

Cadmium 0.004 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.003

Chromium <0.02 <0.02 0.03 0.03 <0.02 0.03 0.12

Copper <0.02 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.67

Lead 0.007 0.040 0.049 0.052 0.056 0.045 0.22

Mercury <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Nickel 0.0 0.1 0.15 0.15 o.o o.o 0.13

Selenium <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Silver <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Zinc 0.05 1.18 .15 0.23 0.39 0.86 0.61

TABLE C-14

INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS FOR SELECTED WELLS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (FEBRUARY/MARCH 1983)

Sample Location Inorganic _(m~j_l_L MP-1 MP-2 MP-3 MP-il~ MP-ilS MP-5 MP-611: ~P-68 ~P-7 MP-8

Cyanide NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Antimony NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Arsenic NA 0.12* 0.08* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Beryllium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cadmium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chromium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Copper NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mercury NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nickel NA 0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selenium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Silver NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Thallium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zinc NA 0.07 0.07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Iron (Dissolved) NA NA NA 2.51 0.06 NA NA NA NA NA Maganese NA 5 3.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sodium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Potassium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 79.4 78.9 71 50.5 39 51.8 95.4 37.9 78 22.8 Bromide NA .7 1.0 0.8 NA NA NA NA NA Iodine NA 0.06 0.19 NA NA NA NA NA Iron (Unfiltered) NA 25 17 19.4 104 NA NA NA NA NA Total Dissolved Solids 0.04 272 228 260 200 1.14 (). 18 0.37 2.68 0.36 Nitrate-Nitrite NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ammonia NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sulfate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA. 8icarbonate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Formaldehyde, Total As CH20 NA NA 60.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Acrylates NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

= Not Detected = Exceeds USEPA Primary Drinking Water Standard* NA = Not Analyzed ? = TDS levels at these wells need to be

reconfirmed

------

.'l

,I

TABLE C-14 (Cont'd)

INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS FOR SELECTED WELLS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (FEBRUARY/MARCH 1983)

Sample Location Inorganic (mg/1) MP-9A MP-9B MI'-9C1 MI'-9C2 MP-IOA MP-IOB MP-IOC MP-IIJ1: f'iP-I IB MP-IIC

Cyanide NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA AntimonyArsenic Beryllium Cadmium 0.02* Chromium 0.15* 0.12* 0.1 * Copper 0.06 0.12 Lead Mercury .0004 .0004 Nickel Selenium 0.12 Silver Thallium Zinc 0.12 0.12 0.1 0.1 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.21 0.11 Iron (Dissolved) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Maganese 7 26 4.5 12 9.2 6.2 1.4 2q 3~ 4.7 Sodium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Potassium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 69.2 102 76.9 114 62.3 76.1 67.1 77.1 112 104 Bromide NA NA 0.76 1.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA Iodine NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Iron (Unfiltered) 59 16 1.8 11.5 1.1 75 54 3.0 Total Dissolved Solids 228 327 292 584 220 292 384 404 780 776 Nitrate-Nitrite 0.2 0.09 0.26 0.01 NA NA NA NA NA NA Ammonia NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sulfate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bicarbonate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Phenols NA NA NA NA NA NA Formaldehyde, Total As CH 20 NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Acrylates NA NA NA NA NA NA

= Not Detected = Exceeds USEPA Primary Drinking Water Standord* NA Not Analyzed ? = TDS levels at these wells need to be reconfirmed

tl

TABLE C-14 (Cont 1 d)

INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS FOR SELECTED WELLS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (FEBRUARY/MARCH 1983)

Inorganic (mg/l ) GZ 2-1-- Okonite--­ Lincoln #1

Sample Location Country Test Club/Res West #3 MH-36 MH-35 MH-33---­ MH-31 MH-30

Cyanide NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Antimony Arsenic

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

Beryll i urn Cadmium

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

Chromium NA .17* NA NA NA NA NA NA Copper Lead

NA NA

0.11 1.4*

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

MercuryNickel

N.l\ NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

Selenium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Silver NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Thallium NA 0.34 NA NA NA NA NA NA Zinc NA 0.06 0.12 .07 NA NA NA NA NA NA Iron (Dissolved) Maganese Sodium

NA NA NA

NA 14 NA

NA

27.5

NA

9.8

NA 0.5

NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

Potassium NA NA 6.0 2.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 37.5 64 39.4 20 227 62.7 92.7 15.1 9.4 21.3 Bromide NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Iodine NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Iron (Unfiltered) Total Dissolved Solids

NA 306

17 272 1.88 210

5.6 464

NA 276

NA 296

NA 136

NA 248

NA 196

Nitrate-Nitrite NA NA NA NA 0.19 0.57 0.57 1.17 1.46 Ammonia NA NA 0.07 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sulfate NA NA 19.1 20 NA NA NA NA NA NA Bicarbonate NA NA 68.2 144 NA NA NA NA NA NA Phenols NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

-----.---­= Not Detected * = Exceeds USEPA Primary Drinking W~ter StanclarrJ

INA = Not Analyzed ? = TDS levels at these wells need to be reconfirmed

---------

Inorganic (mg/1)

CyanideAntimony Arsenic BerylliumCadmium Chromium CopperLead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Zinc Iron (Dissolved}MaganeseSodium Potassium Chloride Bromide Iodine Iron (Unfiltered)Total Dissolved Solids Nitrate-Nitrite Ammonia Su 1fate Bicarbonate

== Not Detected NA == Not Analyzed reconfirmed

\i

TABLE C-14 (Cont'd)

INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS FOR SELECTED WELLS WITHIN THE (FEBRUARY/MARCH 1983)

STUDY AREA

MH-29 MH-27

Sample Location

MH-26 MH-25 lenox Street

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nl\ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

16.3 8.3 22.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

140 264 156 1.14 0.79 2.45

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

= Exceeds USEPA* ? = TDS levels at

NA

0.09*

0.07 0.1

NA NA

19.9 30.3 8. 72 5.69 31.7 47.R

NA NA NA NA

268 252 NA

0.38 58.7 32.6 64.1 37.1

Primary Drinking Water Standard these wells need to be

--

TABLE C-15

FIELD MEASUREMENTS, OTHER PRIORITY FRACTIONS AND UPGRADIENT PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED WELLS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (FEBRUARY/MARCH 1983)

Sample Location Field Measurements MP-1 MP-2 MP-3 MP-4A MP-4B MP-5 MP-6A

pH Specific Conductance umhos/cm

6.20 300

6.30 390

6.50 450

5.65 250

6.10 190

7.40 230

7.30 370

Temperature (C) 11.0 12.0 10.0 13.0 13.0 13.5 12.0

OTHER PRIO~~TY POLLUTANT FRACTIONS, ug/1

Base/NeutralAcid

NA NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

Pesticide/PCB NA NA NA NA NA NA

SYNTRON PARAMETERS, mg/1

Phenols NA NA NA NA NA Total Acryl ates NA NA NA NA NA Formaldehyde Dimethylamine (LS)

NA NA

60.4 NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

LONZA PARAMETE_R_S_l~~9l_l_

Acetone NA 2-PropanolXyleneMethyl ethyl ketone 1,4-Dioxane C-6 C-10 Alkanes

NA NA NA NA NA

Methylcyclopentane NA

= Not Oetecterl NA LS

= =

Not AnalyzedLibrary Search (estimated concentration and

I, tentative identification)

MP-6B

7.00 205

13.5

NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

MP-7

5.70 270 9.0

NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

N.l\ NA NA NA NA NA NA

MP-8

5.60 110

11.0

NA NA NA

\

NA NA NA NA

NA NA N.l\ NA NA NA NA

TABLE C-15 (Cont'd)

FIELD MEASUREMENTS, OTHER PRIORITY FRACTIONS ANO UPGRAOIENT PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED WELLS WIT~IN THE STUDY AREA (FEBRUARY/MARCH 1983}·

Field Measurements-- ­ MP-9A ~--

MP-9S MP-9CI MP-9C2 Sample Location

MP-107\ M15- fOB MP- IOC- "'MP- I 17\- -----­ MP-ITB-- ­ MP-11C--- ­pHSpecific Conductance umhos/cm Temperature (C)

6.HO 350

10.0

6.70 575

13.0

6.40 440

13.0

6.34 750

14.0

NA 275

12.0

NA 395

12.5

6.95 415

12.0

6.43 580

12.0

6.51 1000 14.0

6.33 900

14.0

OTHE~~~IORITY P~~UTANT FRA~~~~NS, ug/1

Base/Neutra 1 Acid Pesticide/PCB

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

SYNT~ON PARAMETERS, mg/1

Phenols . Total Acrylates

Formaldehyde Oimethylamine (LS)

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

LONZA PARAMETERS (LS) ,- ug/l

Acetone 2-PropanolXyleneMethyl ethyl ketone 1,4-Dioxane C-6 C-10 Alkanes Methylcyclopentane

160 28

13

5

7.3

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA N/\NA 26

NA LS

= = =

Not Detected Not AnalyzedLibrary Search (estimated concentration and tentative identification)

II

TABLE C-15 {Cont'd)

FIELD MEASUREMENTS 1 OTHER PRIORITY FRACTIONS AND UPGRADIENT PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED WELLS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA {FEBRUARY/MARCH 1983}

Field Measurements GZ 2-1 Okonite Lineal n #1 Country

Sample Location Test

Club/Res Well #3 MH-36 MH-35 MH-33 MH-31 MH-30

pH Specific Conductance umhos/cmTemperature {C)

5.45 105 9.0

6.70 460

15.0

6.50 190

11.0

7.00 150

10.0

6.10 650

12.0

6.45 280

10.0

6.22 340

10.0

5.20 110

13.0

6.04 210

10.0

5.32 150 9.0

OTHER PRIORITY POLLUTANT FRACTIONS, ug/1

Base/Neutral Acid Pesticide/PCB

NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

SY~l~~N PARAMETERS, m~/1

Phenols Tot a 1 Acryl ates FormaldehydeDimethylamine (LS)

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA Nl\ NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

LONZA PARAMETERS (LS), u_9L!_

Acetone 2-Propanol Xylene Methyl ethyl ketone 1,4-Dioxane C-6 C-10 Alkanes Methylcyclopentane

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA NA NA NA N.l\ NA NA

22

NA = =

Not· Oetected Not Analyzed

LS = Library Search (estimated concentration and tentative identification)

TABLE C-15 (Cont'd)

FIELD MEASUREMENTS, OTHER PRIORITY FRACTIONS AND UPGRADIENT PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED WELLS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ( F EBROARY/MARCH 1983) ·

SamJ?_l_~_'=.ocat !_q_n__ Lenox

FIELD MEASUREMENTS MH-29 MH-27 MH-26 MH-25 Street

pH 5.37 6.53 6.54 6.24 NA Specific Conductance umhos/cm 125 200 145 100 260 Temperature (C) 10.0 8.5 8.5 9.0 11.9

OTHER PRIORITY POLLUTAN~_':_RACTION~,--u_~

Base/Neutral NA NA NA NA Acid NA NA NA NA Pesticide/PCB NA NA NA NA

SYNTRON PARAMEIERS, mg/1

Phenols NA NA NA NA Total Acryl ates NA NA NA NA NA Formaldehyde NA NA NA NA NA Dimethylamine (LS)

LONZA PARAMETERS

NA NA NA NA

(LS), ug/1_

Acetone NA NA 2-Propanol NA NA Xylene NA NA Methyl ethyl ketone NA NA 1,4-Dioxane NA NA C-6 C-10 Alkanes NA NA Methylcyclopentane NA NA

:: Not Detected NA :: Not Analyzed LS = Library Search (estimated ·concentration and tentative identification)

TABLE C-16 NONPRIORITY POLLUTANT PEAKS FOR SELECTED WELLS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

(FEBRUARY/MARCH 1983)

Other Library-Se~~~h Compou~~s+ u~ (Estimated Concentration) MP-1* MP-2 MP-3*

Sample Location MP.:-4A t•W--=4=B----:cM=-P-5 MP-6A MP-6B

Butyl-2-methylpropylester-1,2-benzenedi­carboxylicacid

2-Chloroethanol 2,5-0imethyl-2-hexene N-Methylbenzeneethanamine Dichlorofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetra-fluoroethane 22 1-{2-{2-Methoxy-1-methylethoxy)­

1-methyl-ethoxy)-2-propanol 3-Methyl-3-heptanol N,4-Dimethylbenzene-sulfonamide 2,2-Dimethyl-1-1-hexanol 1,1-0xybisbenzene

29 13

Uimethoxymethane1-(2-Methoxy-1-methylethoxy)-2-propanol 1,1-Difluoroethane Chlorofluoromethane Methylester-3,6-octadecadiynoicacid 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 12 (Methylthio)-ethineDiethyldisulfide 2-Heptanone Triethyl(2-phenylethoxy) silane 1,3,S-Cycloheptatriene 2-Heptanol (3-Chloropropyl) benzene Ethanesulfonylchloride Diethylester-1,2-benzenedicarboxylicacid Tetrachloroethene 31 Ethyl benzene

----------­NOTE: 1. Compound appears in Volatile and Base/Neutral extractions.

+ = Tentative Identification -- = No Library Search Compounds Detected * = Sample Composite of MP-1 and MP-3

----------

TABLE C-16 (Cont'd)

NONPRIORITY POLLUTANT PEAKS FOR SELECTED WELLS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (FEBRUARY/MARCH 1983)

Other _L i brary-Se_a_rch Compou_n_c!_s + ug/1 (Estimated Concentration)

Butyl-2-methylpropylester-1,2-benzenedi­carboxylicacid

2-Chloroethanol 2,5-0imethyl-2-hexene N-Methylbenzeneethanamine Oichlorofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetra-fluoroethane 1-(2-(2-Methoxy-1-methylethoxy)­

1-methyl-ethoxy)-2-propanol3-Methyl-3-heptanol N,4-0imethylbenzene-sulfonamide 2,2-Dimethyl-1-1-hexanol1,1-0xybisbenzene Dimethoxymethane ~-(2-Methoxy-1-methylethoxy)-2-propanol 1,1-0ifluoroethane

· Chlorofluoromethane Methylester-3,6-octadecadiynoicacid1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane {Methylthio)-ethineDiethyldisulfide2-Heptanone Triethyl{2-phenylethoxy) silane 1,3,5-Cycloheptatriene2-Heptanol (3-Chloropropyl) benzene Ethanesulfonylchloride Oiethylester-1,2-benzenedicarboxylicacid Tetrachloroethene Ethyl benzene ~-Propanone

Methyl-Cyclopentane

MP-9A . MP-98

170 16

250 28

14

11

20 28 30 4.3

11 70/47 21/88

20 22 45 37 24 11

160 5.0 13

MP-9C1

32 4.5

67 18 16

Sample Location MP-9C2 ---MP=TfA___ MP-118 MP-llC

85 840 150 18 270

220

29

2.8 30 41 2.5

30 25

7.3 26

NOTE: 1. Compound appears in Volatile and Base/Neutral extractions. + = Tentative Identification -- = No Library Search Compounds Detected * = Sample Composite of MP-1 and MP-3

-----

TABLE C-16 (Cont'd)

NONPRIORITY POLLUTANT PEAKS FOR SELECTED WELLS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (FEBRUARY/MARCH 1983)

Other library-Search Compounds+ ug/~ -~ample Location (Estimated Concent-ration) ___ _

Butyl-2-methylpropylester-1,2-benzenedi­carboxylicacid

2-Chloroethanol 2,5-Dimethyl-2-hexene N-Methylbenzeneethanamine Dichlorofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetra-fluoroethane 1-(2-(2-Methoxy-1-methylethoxy)­

1-methyl-ethoxy)-2-propanol 3-Methyl-3-heptanol N,4-Dimethylbenzene-sulfonamide 2,2-Dimethyl-1-1-hexanol 1,1-0xybisbenzene Dimethoxymethane1-(2-Methoxy-1-methylethoxy)-2-propanol 1,1-Difluoroethane Chlorofluoromethane Methylester-3,6-octadecadiynoicacid 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Methylthio)-ethineOiethyldisulfide 2-Heptanone Triethyl(2-phenylethoxy) silane 1,3,5-Cycloheptatriene 2-Heptanol (3-Chloropropyl} benzene Ethanesulfonylchloride Diethylester-1,2-benzenedicarboxylicacid Tetrachloroethene Ethyl benzene 2-Propanone

Countrylincoln No. 1 Club/Res MH-36 MH-35 MH-33 MH-31 MH-30

40 140

16 15

24 6.5

7 8

17 22

NUTE: 1. Compound ~ppears in Volatile and Base/Neutral extractions. + = Tentative Identification -- = No Library Search Compounds Detected * = Sample Composite of MP-1 ~nd MP-3

5

-----------

------------------------------------------------------------

I 1'­

TABLE C-16 (Cont'd) NONPRIORITY POLLUTANT PEAKS FOR SELECTED WELLS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

(FEBRUARY/MARCH 1983)

Other Library-Search Compounds+ ___,_S_a_m:-p1 e Locat i on (Estimated Concen_t_r-at ion) - Lenox

MH-29 MH-27 MH-26 Street

Butyl-2-methylpropylester-1,2-benzenedi­carboxylicacid

2-Chloroethanol 2,5-Dimethyl-2-hexene N-Methylbenzeneethanamine Dichlorofluoromethane 28 1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetra-fluoroethane 10 1-(2-(2-Methoxy-1-methylethoxy)­

1-methyl-ethoxy)-2-propanol 3-Methyl-3-heptanol N,4-Dimethylbenzene-sulfonamide 2,2-Dimethyl-1-1-hexanol1,1-0xybisbenzene Djmethoxymethane 1-(2-Methoxy-1-methylethoxy)-2-propanol '1,1-Difluoroethan~ Chlorofluoromethane Methylester-3,6-octadecadiynoicacid 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Methylthio)-ethineDiethyldisulfide 2-Heptanone Triethyl(2-phenylethoxy) silane 1,3,5-Cycloheptatrien~ 2-Heptanol (3-Chloropropyl) benzene Ethanesulfonylchloride Diethylester-1,2-benzenedicarboxylicacid Tetrachloroethene Ethyl benzene

NOTE: 1. Compound appe~rs in Volatile and Base/Neutral extractions. + = Tentative Identificdtion = No Library Search Compounds Detected * = Sample Co1nposite of MP-1 and MP-3

TABLE C-17

MICROBIAL TESTING OF SOILS AND GROUNDWATER ALONG THE BVSD SEWER LINE

fTIT/83 MH-33

1/11/fiT 1711/83 MH-31 MH-30 12-14 1 8-10 1

1712/83 MH-29 8-10 1

Soil Samples 1712/83 1/12/83 1713783 MH-27 MH-26 MH-25 8-10 1 8-10 1

1713/83 MH-35 8-10 1

1/13/83 MH-36 6-8 1

1/13/83 MH-36

G. W• Sam~1es 2/9/83 2/9/8 2/9/83 MH-36 MH-31 MH-35

Fecal Coli fonn MPN/g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 <1 42

Fecal Streptococci MPN/g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 <1 6

.._{

TABLE C-18

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT DATA FOR WELLS SAMPLED BY MALCOLM PIRNIE

Elevation of

Well No.

Measuring Point (M.P.)

(MSL Reference) f98J 1985 ~--3/83

Depth to Water (ft below M.P.) 5783 11/83 il/85

Groundwater Elevation (MSL)

3/8L 5/83 4785

MP-1 87.56 87.61 21.18 20.06 23.03 66.38 67.50 64.58 MP-2 82.87 82.92 21.58 20.59 23.90 23.42 1.29 62.28 59.50 MP-3 68.71 5.15 63.56 MP-4A 75.67 75.89 14.43 12.85 17.55 61.24 62.82 58.34 MP-413 75.85 73.63 14.57 13.03 17.55 61.28 62.82 58.35 MP-5 74.47 74.53 13.35 11.92 16.17 61.12 62.55 58.36 MP-6A 73.57 73.63 12.54 11.25 15.02 61.03 62.32 58.61 MP-6B 73.79 73.92 12.70 11.42 15.32 61.09 62.37 58.60 MP-7 87.70 23.84 21.94 63.86 65.76 MP-8 85.45 10.60 10.37 74.85 75.08 MP-9A 65.10 65.17 5.56 5.13 7.80 7.51 59.54 59.97 57.66 MP-9B 65.17 65.28 5.49 4.95 7.68 59.68 60.22 57.60 MP-10A 65.34 65.59 7.18 7.07 9.28 58.16 58.27 56.31 MP-1013 65.36 65.67 7.24 7.15 9.42 58.12 58.21 56.25 MP-10C 65.24 65.47 95-105 7.00 9.21 58.14 58.24 56.26 MP-llA 63.08 63.46 5.38 5.33 7. 71 57.70 57.75 55.75 MP-llB 63.02 63.49 5.33 5.29 7.87 57.69 57.73 55.62 MP-llC 62.76 63.22 5.06 5.03 7.51 57.70 57.73 55.71 GZ-1-1 63.04 6.17 6.25 8.50 56.87 56.79 GZ-2-1 70.47 70.47 3.93 9.53 11.48 60.94 58.99 GZ-4-1 60.97 4.18 4.58 56.79 56.39 MH-25 63.72 63.93 6. 77 6. 77 10.87 56.95 56.95 53.06 MH-26 64.33 64.57 7.06 6.89 9.68 57.27 57.44 54.89 MH-27 64.56 64.72 7.21 7.15 57.35 57.41 MH-29 65.16 65.50 7.60 7.40 10.43 57.56 57.76 55.08 MH-30 65.89 66.12 66.41 8.00 10.66 57.72 57.89 55.46 MH-31 66.31 66.41 8.03 7.75 10.66 58.28 58.56 55.75

TABLE C-18 (Cont 1 d)

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT DATA FOR WELLS SAMPLED BY MALCOLM PIRNIE

Elevation of Measuring Point

(M.P.) Depth to Water Groundwater Well No.

(MSL Reference)rg-sr­ 1985 2-3783 (ft be1ow M.P. ) 5783 II/83 2t/85

Elevation 3783 ~83

{MSL)2t/85

MH-33 67.48 67.63 7.51 6.89 9.95 9.94 59.97 60.59 57.69 MH-35 71.32 71.42 10.89 10.06 13.33 13.16 150.43 61.26 58.26 MH-36 66.53 68.64 6.46 5.79 8.65 8.53 60.07 60.74 60.11 442 66.25 7.64 7.26 58.151 58.99 OKONITE 64.49 71.44 3.15 2.93 12.96 69.89 61.56 58.48 L-1 61.07 4.23 4.33 56.84 56.74 L-2 67.25 10.18 10.26 12.96 57.07 56.99 L-3 59.64 2.94 3.08 9.51 56.70 56.56 L-4 59.67 2.98 3.10 7.55 56.69 56.57 A-1 62.93 6.18 6.41 56.75 56.52 A-2 61.02 4.34 4.53 56.68 56.49 TW-3A 66.16 5.15 5.10 -* 61.01 61.06 TW-3B 66.06 4.94 5.07 -* 61.12 60.99

*A depth of 15.32 is given for TW-3 though whether this depth applies to TW-3A or 3B is unknown.

TABLE C-19

WATER LEVELS IN ~EL~S BEFORE AND AFTER NOVEMBER, 1983 PUMPING TEST

Depth to Depth to Water (ft TOC) Water (ft TOC) Drawdown

Well Nov. 10 Nov. 10 { ft}

IW 15.82 21.65 5.83

MP-4A 17.30 17.69 •39

n~ 14.66 15.89 1.23

MP-5 15.87 16.38 .51 MP-6A 15.05 15.39 .34

ATTACHMENT D

PETERSON-PURITAN IN-PLANT BORING DATA

TABLE D-1

Boring No.

CC-1

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

PETERSON-PURITAN

Total Depth, ft

20

36.5

6

39

IN-PLANT BORING DETAILS

Analytical Interva_!_~

15-17 18.5-20

30-31.5 34

25-27.5 35

Odor Range

None

None-Strong

None

None-Strong

TABLE D-2

VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL SAMPLES-rRIO~ERSON-PURITAN IN-PLANT BORINGS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS SAMPLES

Bank -rront Sample Identifier CC-1 CC-1 SS-1 SS-1 SS-3 SS-3 Septic Septic Trip Depth Below Ground Surface (ft.) 15-17 18.5-20 30-31.5 34 25-27.5 35 Tank Tank Blank

f278"2" I27Sr" 12782 ITTS"l -rmr- f2787 12782 T2782 12782~~~e Sample~------------

V_o_l_~t_i_l_e__o_rgani cs, ug/1

Benzene 11 Chloroform 19 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,300 Tetrachloroethane 4 3 3 85 Toluene 14 1,2-Trans-Dichlorethylene 270 1,1,1-Trichlorethane 3,800 5 Trichloroethylene 1 8 Vinyl Chloride 130

Total Volatiles 5 3 3 5,637 5

-- = Not Detected

II I

ATTACHMENT E

LONZA SAMPLING DATA

TABLE E-1

STATION

LONZ01

LONZ02, 03, 04, 05, 06

LONZ07

LONZ08

LONZ09

LONZ10

LONZll

LONZ12

LONZ13

LONZA SAMPLING LOCATIONS

DE SCRIPT ION

Cooling water discharge.

Liquid surface samples from five underground leaching tanks, presently not in use.

Soil sample from low area where soil discolored.·

Soil sample from 2-foot hole in recently filled area. Soil discolored.

Liquid sample from 1500 gallon waste stream holding tank.

Liquid sample from 1000 gallon tank for storage after treatment and also overflow from 1500 gallon holding tank.

Liquid sample from distribution box for waste stream leaching field.

Soil sample from spill area where tank in treatment overflowed.

Soil sample from 6-foot deep dry well. Botto~ was sand and gravel with slight discoloration.

TABLE E-2

SUMMARY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING SURVEY RESULTS AT LONZA

Waste Str Storage Oistrib. Cooling Water l}_n_d_e_r:_ground L~a__c_t!_i_ng Tan~s__ Tank Tank Box Wst Str O{s-ch Lonz 01 Conz 02 Lonz 03 Lonz 04 Lonz 05 Lonz On -cani09 Lonz 10 -conz-fl

Volati~e Organics, ug/1 __l(_ij_6j_~l:_- 10/6/81 10/6/81 10/6/81 10/6/81 10/6/81 10/6/81 _!_0/~~l:.. _ _l_Oj_~R!___

Ethyl benzene 600 170

Toluene <100 400 100 -­5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4

Acetone 70 >1xl0 1x10 2x10 1x10 1x10 lx10 lx10 3x1o

C-6 - C-7 Alkanes <2 <2 <2 52-Propanol 7,000 >6x106 >7x106 1x106 >6x105 2x105 4xl05 >5x106 4x1o

Methyl Isobutyl Ketones 30

1,4 Dioxane <2

Xylenes 770

C-6 - C-10 Alkanes <2 <2* <2**

6Total Volatiles 7,070 <6.1x106 <7xl06 1. 2x10 <7x105 2.lx104 4.1x105 <5x106 4x106

Analytes not detected in any sample are not listed.

* C-9 to C-10 Alkanes C-7 to C-10 Alkanes**

-- - Not Detected

ATTACHMENT F

LIST OF REFERENCES USED IN DEVELOPING VORK PLAN

REFERENCES

1. Goldberg-Zoino & Associates, Inc., Lincoln/Cumberland Yellfield Contamination Study, for u.s. EPA, Boston, Massachusetts and JRB Associates, Inc., Mac Lean, Virginia, March 1982.

2. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Investigation of Volatile Organic Chemical Groundwater Contamination, Peterson-Puritan, Inc., Cumberland, Rhode Island, Volumes 1 and 2, Paramus, New Jersey, June 1983.

3. Versar Inc., Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Peterson-Puritan, Inc., Cumberland, Rhode Island, for Breed, Abbot and Morgan, \lashington, D.C., October 30, 1984.

4. NUS Corporation, Endangerment Assessment for the Peterson-Puritan, Inc. Site, Cumberland, Rhode Island, for Region I U.S. EPA Compliance Section, May 22, 1984.

5. U.S. Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service), Soil Survey of Rhode Island, SCS Yashington, D.C. 1981.

6. Ecology and Environment, Inc., Fracture Pattern Analysis of the Blackstone Series Bedrock in Lincoln, Rhode Island, U.S. EPA, Technical Direction Document F-1-8006-02, 1981.

7. Herbert E. Johnston, and D.C. Dickerman, Geologic and Hydrologic Data for the Blackstone River Area, Rhode Island: Rhode Island Yater Resources Bulletin 7, 1974.

8. Rhode Island Office of State Planning, Blackstone Region Yater Resources Management Plan - Report No. 42, 1982.

9. \lhitman and Howard, Inc. Report of \later Supply and \later Distribution System, Lincoln, Rhode Island, 1967.

10. Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., Report- Town of Lincoln, Rhode Island - Review of Data Related to Contamination of the Quinnville Yellfield, for Maurice Trudeau, Superintendent, Town of Lincoln \later Department, August 16, 1983.

11. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Memos- Updated sampling and analysis of surface water in the Blackstone River dated August 18, 1983 and July 24, 1984 and of groundwater dated August 8, 1984.

12. Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of \laste Programs Enforcement - Solid \laste and Emergency Response, U.S. EPA, \lashington, D.C., June 1985.

13. Floodplain Management, Reprint from Federal Register, Executive Order 11988, May 25, 1977.

14. Protection of Yetlands, Reprint from Federal Register, Executive Order 11990, May 25, 1977.

15. Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Yetland Protection, Code of Federal Regulations - 40 CFR, Part 6, Appendix A, November, 1979.

16. U.S. Fish and Yildlife Habitat Evaluation Procedure, Federal Register, Part 230, 404(b), December 24, 1980.

17. Proposed Guidelines for Risk Assessments, Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 227, November 23, 1984.

18. EPA Draft Policy, CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Standards, July 6, 1984.

19. JRB Associates, Remedial Action at Yaste Disposal Sites, U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, 1982.

20. Environmental Law Institute, Remedial Action Cost Compendium, July 26, 1983.

ATrACHMENT G

SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES

SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES

QUALITY WORK CONTROL PLAN QUALITY

REM II APPROVAL 2DELIVERABLE ASSIGNMENT

1 (QCP) SURVEILANCE

:! :! :! AUTH. DUE ACTIVITY DATE ACTIVITY DATE :! 0 Ul <(

a: 1­ :X: u.

l. Draft Work Plan* 7/8/85 12/5/85

2. fina 1 Work Plan 8/29/86 8/8 8/22 .8/22 8/22

3. Preliminary List of 8/8Remedial Technologies 8/29/86

4. Site Mapso Existing Conditions 1/16/87 1/16

· o Saq1ling Locations 6/5/87 6/5

5. Project Operations Plan o Draft 9/19/86 9/5 9/19 9/19o Final 9/30/86 9/30

6. Memo Report &Map -Surface Water &Sediment Sampling 10/?4/86 10/24

7. Well Logs 1/30/87 1/30

8. Memo Report &Map -Groundwater Sampling 2/20J 4/24) 7/3/87 2/20,4/24 J 7/3

g. Memo Report & Map -Wetlands Assessment 10/31/86 10/31

10. Memo Report -P/P Plant Visit 10/31/86 10/31

*Draft Work Plan was completed and sent to EPA on 12/!i/85. Cornnents were received from: EPA on 6/86. 1oates due to EPA for their review. 2Oates when review will complete.

USEPA STATE OTHER REVIEW 2 REVIEW REVIEW

0 0 0 0 Q. Q.

UlQ. u a: a:

9/5 9/5 9/5 9/5

9/5 9/5

1/23 1/23 6/12 6/12

9/26 9/26 10/3 10/3

10/ll 10/31

2/6 2/6

2/27)4/31,7/Fl

11/7 11/7

11/7 11/7

NOTE: .Dates for Deliverables 16 and 18 address trip reports, validated analytical data will be added approximately 2 months later. (CLP turnaround time}

.,

SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLE

WORK ASSIGNMENT 1

AUTH. DUE

QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

(QCP)

ACTIVITY DATE

QUALITY SURVEILANCE

ACTIVITY DATE ~ a:

REM II APPROVAL 2

~ ~ ~ 0 rn < ..... J: u.

0 Q.

0 u

USEPA REVIEW

2

0 0 Q. Q.

If)a: a:

STATE REVIEW

OTHER REVIEW

I

11. Memo Report &Map -Soil Investigation at P/P 11/21/86 11/21 11/29 11/29

12. Memo Report &Map -Seis~ic Refraction 12/19/86 12/19 12/26 12/26

13. Memo Report - Suggested R~•~dial Technologies 4/17/87 4/17 4/24 4/24

14. Memo Report - Selected 1ndica~or Compounds 4/31/87 4/31 5/8 5/8

15. Baseline Risk Assessment 6/5/87 6/5 6/19 6/19

16. Draft Remedial tion Report

17. Final Remedial tion Report

lnvestiga­

lnvestiga­

6/12/87

7/31/87

6/12

7/31

6/26

8/7

6/26

8/7

18. Co111munity o Draft o Final

Relations Plan 9/5/87 9/26/87

9/5 9/26

9/12 10/3

9/12 10/3

19. Memo Report - Remedial Alternatives and Objectives

20. Memo Report - Screening of Alternatives

8/14/87

8/28/87

8/14

U/28

8/21

9/4

8/21

9/4

• I ;

SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES

QUALITY USEPAQUALITYCONTROL PLANWORK 21 REVIEW2(QCP) REM II APPROVALSURVEILANCEASSIGNMENTDELIVERABLE

00~ ~ ~ n.(I) 0c( n.~ 00 (I)DATEACTIVITY DATEDUE ACTIVITYAUTH. u1.1.. n. a:a: ... ::t: a:

OTHER lSTATE REVIEW REVIEW

21. Memo Report and Swm1ary Table - Evaluation of Alternatives

22. Draf~ feasibility Study

23. Responsiveness Summary

24. Revised C0111nunity · Relations Plan .

25. final Feasibility Study

26. Conceptual Design Report

10/2 10/29/25

10/9/87

9/25/87

10/23 10/2310/9

12/2~ 12/2512/H

12/25"

12/18/87

1/22 1/22

1/15/88

1/1/88

1/15 1/22 1/22

212l/29/88 2/21/29

ATTACHMENT H

SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

SCHEDULE BY TASKS 1986 1987

TASK 8/8 8/22 9/5 9/19 10/3 10/17 10/31 11/7 11/21 12/5 12/19 1/2 1/16 1/30 2/13 2/27 3/13 3!27 4/10 4/24 5/8 5/22 6/5 6/19 713 7/17 7/31

0. Work Plan Memo* FIJAl

l. Work Plan ••

2. Prelim. Screening Remedial Tech.

JA. Site 11aps(s)

Jll. Project Ooerations Plan -..

3C. Surface Water & Sediment Sampling

30. Monftorinq Well and Piezometer Installation

3£. Groundwater Samplin9

Jr. Wetlands Evaluation

3G. P/P Plant Visit

3H. Identification of Soil Source Areas

31. Seismic Refraction

3J. Biota Sampling

3K. Pumpin9 Tests

3l. fxfi ltration Study

3M. Soil Sampling

..

TASK 8/8 8/22 9/5 9/19 10/3 10/17

JN. Additional Honitorin :Jell and Piezometer Installation

30. Additional Ground­•ld ter Sarno1i n9

4. Identification of Preliminary Remedial Technologies

5. Pre! iminary Risk Assessment

G. Remedial Investi9a­t ion Report ( R I)

7A. Ill 11anagetaent & Coordination

78. Rl Coor.1.mity I

Relations

JC. Rl QA/QC •

I

I

*CoMpleted 8/30/85. -Draft version COIIIPletecl 12/5/85.

***Soil sa-pling at Peterson-Puritan facility. ••••Soil sa-pling at other potential sources identified durinq the Rl.

•••••••• If iMPle.ented. tentative tf.e period during which task will be conducted.

***

10/31 11/1 11/21

~·· ••

•• ••• ...•••••• ••

•••...••• •• ... ••• •• •• ••• ...

1.'/5 12/19 1/2 1/16 1/30 2/13 2/27 3/13 3/27 4/10 4/2~ 5/8 5/22 G/5 6/19 7/3 1/17 7/]1

···'······'···••• •• • •• ••• • •IIIII •• •• ••• ···' •• •••

ORAFT FINAL

SCHEDULE BY TASKS 1987 1988

TA~K I /JI U/14 8/2!l ~Ill 'J/2~ 10/'1 IU/23 11/6 11/20 12/4 l£/1!1 Ill 1/1~ 1/29

ll. Develop Alternative~

9. Screen Alternatives

10. Evaluate Alternative

II. Draft feasibilityStudy

IZ. Final Feasibility Study (fS)

ll. Conceptual Design

14A. FS Hanaljement t. Coordindtion

140. FS Conlllllnlty Relations

14C. fS QA/QC ~

.

/