115073

iKNIt MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS l> PLANNERS

August 31, 1989

U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha215 N. 17th StreetOmaha, Nebraska 68102-4978Attention: CEMRO-ED-EC (Capt. Christopher J. Young)

Re: Mi 11 creek Remedial Cleanup Treatability StudyQuality Control Summary Report(Contract No. DACW45-88-C-0010)

Gentlemen:

Malcolm Pirnie is pleased to submit this Quality Control Summary Reportin accordance with the Scope of Services for the Remedial Clean-UpTreatability Study. Copies of this report are distributed as follows:

a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3 copies(Captain Young)

b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2 copies

c. Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources 1 copy

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contactus.

Very truly yours,

MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.

Dharmarajan R. lyer, Ph.D.Project Manager

ms/DRI08319.L2

cc: D. DaleyP. WerthmanFile: C-l

0285-23-1

S. 3515 ABBOTT ROAD P.O. BOX 1938 BUFFALO, NY 14219 716-828-1300 TELEX 137364

MALDOLViPIRNIE

QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY REPORTFOR THE

PRE-DESIGN ACTIVITIESREMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY

MILLCREEK SUPERFUND SITEERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSOMAHA DISTRICT - MRDCONTRACT DACW4588C0010

AUGUST 1989

MALCOLM PIRNIE INC.

S-3515 Abbott RoadP. 0. Box 1938

Buffalo, New York 14219

0285-23-1131

MALDOUViPIRNIE

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

1.0 SCOPE OF PROJECT ...................... 11.1 GENERAL ........................ 11.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................. 2

1.2.1 Task Objectives ................ 31.2.1.1 Soil Gas Survey ........... 31.2.1.2 Soil Sampling ............ 41.2.1.3 Ground Water Sampling and Monitoring

Well Installation .......... 41.2.1.4 Computer Modeling .......... 41.2.1.5 Treatability Testing ......... 51.2.1.6 Wetlands Sediment Sampling ..... 51.2.1.7 Alternative Landfill Cap Evaluation . 51.2.1.8 Ground Water Collection System

Evaluation ............. 61.2.2 Plans and Reports ............... 6

2.0 SITE INVESTIGATIONS ...................... 82.1 HEALTH & SAFETY SURVEILLANCE .............. 8

2.1.1 Training .................... 82.1.2 Air Monitoring ................. 92.1.3 Personal Protective Equipment ......... 10

2.2 SITE MOBILIZATION AND PERSONNEL ............ 112.2.1 Procedures .................. 11

2.3 SOIL GAS SURVEY .................... 122.3.1 Procedures .................. 12

2.4 SOIL BORING AND SAMPLING ............... 152.4.1 Sampling Procedures .............. 15

2.4.1.1 Samples for Soil Borings Analysis . . 152.4.1.2 Samples for Bench-Scale Leaching

Test ................. 182.4.2 Sample Preparation .............. 192.4.3 Sampling Equipment Decontamination ...... 212.4.4 Recordkeeping ................. 212.4.5 Soil Sampling Quality Control ......... 22

2.4.5.1 Drilling .............. 222.4.5.2 Sampling .............. 222.4.5.3 Analytical ............. 23

2.5 WETLANDS SEDIMENT SAMPLING .............. 232.5.1 Sample Locations ............... 232.5.2 Sample Collection and Analysis ........ 232.5.3 Surveying ................... 25

2.6 TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING .................. 252.6.1 Mapping Criteria ............... 25

2.7 GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS ............. 262.7.1 General .................... 262.7.2 Installation Procedures ............ 272.7.3 Well Development ............... 302.7.4 In-Situ Hydraulic Conductivity Testing .... 32

MALDOIJVtPIRNIE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page2.7 GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS (Continued)

2.7.5 Pumping and Observation Well Design andInstallation ................. 32

2.7.6 Step Drawdown Tests .............. 342.7.7 Monitoring Well Quality Control Items ..... 35

2.8 GROUND WATER SAMPLING ................. 362.8.1 Sampling Locations .............. 362.8.2 Water Level Measurements ........... 362.8.3 Well Purging ................. 362.8.4 Well Sampling and Field Measurements ..... 372.8.5 Sample Handling ................ 392.8.6 Analysis ................... 392.8.7 Quality Control ................ 40

2.9 CONTROL SURVEY .................... 40

3.0 TREATABILITY TESTING ..................... 423.1 QUALITY CONTROL ITEMS ................. 42

4.0 LABORATORY DATA VALIDATION .................. 444.1 GENERAL ........................ 444.2 HOLDING TIMES ..................... 454.3 BLANKS, DUPLICATES AND SPIKES ............. 454.4 SURROGATE AND MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERY .......... 46

5.0 SUMMARY OF DAILY REPORTS ................... 47

LIST OF TABLES

Table FollowingNo. Description Page

2-1 Soil Gas - Split Sample Results ........... 142-2 Results of Soil Gas Resampling ........... 14

4-1 QA/QC Sample Inventory ............... 45

4-2 QC Blanks - Summary of Analytical Results ...... 45

4-3 QC Duplicates - Summary of Analytical Results(Soil and Sediment) ................. 46

4-4 QC Duplicates - Summary of Analytical Results(Ground Water) ................. 46

MAUOOyVtPIRNIE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OF SHEETSFollowing

Page

Sheet 1 Sample Locations ................. 12

LIST OF APPENDICES

AppendixNo. Description

A Daily Field Investigation Reports

B Survey Control

ARGG22I8

MAUDOLV1PIRNIE

1.0 SCOPE OF PROJECT

1.1 GENERAL

The Mi 11 creek site is an 84.5 acre tract of land located inMillcreek Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania. The site was once a 75-acre freshwater wetland. During the 40 years prior to 1982, all but4 acres were filled with foundry sand and industrial and municipal waste.USEPA Region Ill's Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)completed in 1985 discovered extensive soil, sediment, ground water andsurface water contamination. The major classes of compounds detectedincluded: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, volatile organics, phenols and metals(such as lead and copper).

On May 7, 1986 the USEPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) whichrecommended remedial actions for the site based on the RI/FS. Theseremedial actions were selected to:

- prevent the air dispersion and off-site transport of contami-nants;

- prevent direct contact with contaminants by humans andwildlife; and

- reduce soil, sediment, surface water and ground watercontaminant concentrations to levels acceptable to the USEPAand the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources(PADER).

The remedial actions selected in the ROD included:I- excavation and consolidation of contaminated soils and

sediments under a RCRA cap to meet proposed criteria;- site re-grading and placement of a vegetated soil cover over

remaining low-level contaminated soils not exceeding theproposed criteria;

- construction of surface water management basins and ditches;- installation and sampling of additional monitoring wells; and

- pumping and treatment of contaminated ground water.

0285-23-1131 -1- AR-UUctl-

MALCOLMPIRNIE

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) retained Malcolm Pirnie inOctober 1987 to perform pre-design studies to determine the designparameters needed to implement these remedial actions. The results ofthese pre-design studies are embodied in the final Engineering Report(August 1989) entitled: Remedial Clean-Up treatability Study - MillcreekSuperfund Site.

This Quality Control Summary Report (QCSR) has been prepared to:

- summarize quality control (QC) practices employed by MalcolmPirnie throughout the duration of this project;

- describe QC problems and acceptable corrective actions taken,and;

- provide a summary of the daily quality contro.l reportscompleted throughout the duration of on-site sample collectionand field sample analysis.

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The Scope of Work for the project was developed from the recommenda-tions of the ROD document. The objectives of the Remedial CleanupTreatability Study were to:

- define the horizontal extent of volatile organic chemical (VOC)contamination in the shallow aquifer;

- define the area! and vertical extent of soil contamination;i

- determine the hydrologic characteristics of the aquifer inorder to define design flow rates for a treatment system andevaluate ground water collection systems;

- predict contaminant transport in both soil and ground waterusing computer models;

- perform treatability studies to evaluate alternatives forground water treatment;

- define the design concept and parameters for a ground watercollection and treatment system and;

- develop preliminary construction cost estimates for therecommended remedial actions.

0285-23-1131 -2- 11002220

MAIJDOIMPIRNll

The project objectives were accomplished through a combination offield investigation, laboratory simulation and computer modeling.Specific tasks undertaken to accomplish these objectives were as follows:

- soil gas collection and analysis;

- unsaturated soil sample collection for physical characteriza-tion and chemical analysis;

- on- and off -site ground water sample collection and chemicalanalysis;

- wetland sediment sample collection and chemical analysis;

- aquifer pump test;

- computer modeling of contaminant transport through theunsaturated zone and through the aquifer;

- on-site pilot-scale treatability testing of ground water;- laboratory bench scale treatability testing of ground water;- ground water treatment system design and preliminary construc-

tion cost estimation;

- alternative landfill cap evaluation;- ground water collection system evaluation, concept design, and

preliminary construction cost estimate; and

- exploratory soil borings investigation to characterize soilsin the proposed locations for ground water collection trenches.

1.2.1 Task Ob.iectives

1.2.1.1 Soil Gas SurveyThe primary objective of the soil gas survey was to qualitatively

define the horizontal extent of VOC contamination of the shallow aquifer.The results of the survey were used to select locations for installing newmonitoring wells and for collecting subsurface soil samples. Samples ofthe soil gas at 39 on- and off -site locations were collected and analyzedto accomplish this objective. Upon completion of the soil gas survey, adetailed Soil Gas Survey Report was prepared.

A80-0222I0285-23-1131 -3-

MALDOUVtPIRNIE

1.2.1.2 Soil SamplingThe objectives of the soil sampling program were to further define

the types and occurrence of subsurface materials, determine the areal andvertical extent of soil contamination and to determine ground waterlevels. Soil samples were collected across the full depth of theunsaturated zone at 50 on-site sampling locations. The results ofphysical and chemical analysis were used in conjunction with computermodeling to determine the effect of various transport mechanisms oncontaminant concentrations in the soil and contaminant loadings to theground water. Undisturbed soil samples were used in a laboratory test tosimulate the leaching of contaminants from the soil column over a 25-yearperiod.

1.2.1.3 Ground Water Sampling and Monitoring Well InstallationA total of 16 new monitoring wells were installed to provide

additional information on ground water quality, the extent of contamina-tion in the shallow aquifer and geologic stratigraphy. This additionalinformation was used in conjunction with information obtained duringprevious investigations for computer assisted ground water modeling andground water treatment system design. Wells were installed at fiveoff-site locations and six on-site locations. Two of the on-site wellswere installed in the shallow fill to determine if contaminant migrationwas affected by the seasonally high ground water levels. Water sampleswere collected at 29 monitoring wells, including existing and newlyinstalled wells, to aid in determining the spatial and temporal variationsin water quality.

1.2.1.4 Computer ModelingThe goal of the computer modeling simulation of contaminant fate and

transport was to aid regulatory agencies in determining soil and groundwater criteria for remediation. A soil pollutant fate model (SESOIL) wasused to estimate the amount of contamination transported from the contami-nated soil to the ground water, air and other soils at the existing soilcontaminant concentrations. Additional simulations using a low permeabil-

AJI0022220285-23-1131 -4-

MAIOXMPIRNIEity cover were used to predict the effectiveness of the remedial actionsin eliminating or restricting contaminant movement.

A ground water solute transport model (PLASM/RANDOM WALK) was usedto simulate the off-site migration of contaminants in the shallow aquiferabove the glacial till, and the degree of off-site ground water contamina-tion after the remediation of on-site soils and ground water to variousaction levels.

1.2.1.5 Treatabilitv TestingTreatability testing was performed to determine design parameters

for the ground water treatment system. The testing consisted of anon-site packed column air-stripping system for VOC removal, jar andbatch-scale testing for inorganics removal and sludge dewatering, andbench-scale testing using a mini-column apparatus and adsorption isothermsfor organics removal by granular activated carbon. Based upon the designparameters selected for ground water treatment, cost estimates wereprepared for construction, operation and maintenance of the treatmentsystem.

1.2.1.6 Wetlands Sediment SamplingThis sampling effort was undertaken to supplement sediment sampling

performed by the USEPA in November 1987. The information gathered duringthis effort was intended to determine:

- the presence of contamination in the wetland sediments;- if the wetlands are a migration route for contamination;

- whether remedial action is required for the wetlands.

1.2.1.7 Alternative Landfill Cap EvaluationThe following capping alternatives were evaluated for the Millcreek

site. This evaluation was performed to provide the information needed forvarious remedial actions simulated with the computer models. The remedialoptions evaluated were:

i. Topsoil cover with site regrading;

0285.23.n3! -5- W802223

MAlCXXjVlPIRNIE

ii. Topsoil/clay cap (18-inches recompacted barrier soil and6-inches topsoil) with site regrading; and

iii. RCRA cap (24-inches recompacted barrier soil, 6-inch sandlayer, synthetic liner, 12-inch drainage layer, geotextile,24-inches soil protective layer and 6-inches topsoil) with siteregrading.

An updated topographic map was prepared by a licensed land surveyorusing aerial photography.

1.2.1.8 Ground Water Collection System EvaluationGround water collection along the downgradient side of the site

(northern and eastern property boundary) were identified through groundwater flow and solute transport modeling as an appropriate remedy.Collection system options, including well-point systems and trenches, to

s

provide downgradient ground water control were evaluated. Design andsafety considerations for system installation and operation wereaddressed, and preliminary cost estimates were prepared.

1.2.2 Plans and ReportsPrior to performing any site activities, work plans (November 1987

and February 1988) were prepared which described in detail the proceduresused during the soil gas survey in December 1987 and March 1988, and thefield investigation and treatability testing performed in 1988. Inaddition, a Safety, Health and Emergency Response Plan (SHERP) wasdeveloped to establish detailed procedures for protecting the health andsafety of on-site investigative personnel, the public and the environmentfrom potential physical, chemical and/or biological hazards associatedwith the on-site activities. To ensure the validity of the data collectedduring the study, a Quality Control Plan (QCP) was prepared.

During the course of the field investigation, the following reportswere prepared to document procedures and results obtained in the field:

- Soil Gas Survey Report (August 1988)

- Field Investigation Report (August 1988)

- Ground Water Treatability Testing Report (February 1989)

ftfiOQ222<t0285-23-1131 -6-

MADDOyViPIRNll

- Wetlands Sediment Sampling Report (April 1989)

- Exploratory Soil Borings Investigation Report (August 1989)

A Final Engineering Report was prepared in August 1989 to discuss theresults of the pre-design studies. Deviations from the approved Work Planand problems which were encountered with the sampling and analyticalprocedures are discussed in this Quality Control Summary Report. The QCdata associated with the sample analytical results are discussed herein,while the sample data are discussed in the Engineering Report. Thisreport is organized by activity; QC problems associated with a particularactivity are discussed in the respective section.

&80022250285-23-1131 -7-

MAlJOOyVtPIRNIE

2.0 SITE INVESTIGATIONS

2.1 HEALTH & SAFETY SURVEILLANCE

2.1.1 TrainingA Safety, Health and Emergency Response Plan (SHERP) was prepared

prior to the field investigation to establish guidelines for health andsafety protection during site activities. The SHERP described the hazardspresent at the site, recommended levels and types of personal protection,and dictated the frequency of atmospheric monitoring required for alltasks.

All persons involved in the field investigation, including thedrilling subcontractor, received site-specific training from Mr. DouglasDaley (Site Health and Safety Coordinator) prior to commencing the fieldwork. Ms. Catherine Bobenhausen (Industrial Hygienist) was present forthe commencement of the field investigation and for periodic inspectionof the health and safety practices at the site. In addition to reviewingthe SHERP, the following subjects were discussed during the trainingprogram:

- personnel responsibilities- medical and training certification- posting of OSHA requirements- site description- use and care of respirators- safe work practices- personal protective equipment- sampling and decontamination procedures- air monitoring- emergency response and information.

The COE observer (Mr. Joe Morrissey) assigned to the field investi-gation had not been fit tested for a respirator prior to arriving on thesite. At the direction of the COE, Mr. Morrissey was fit tested byMalcolm Pirnie1s Health and Safety Coordinator with a test kit andhalf-face respirator specifically obtained for this purpose.

In accordance with the SHERP, persons who were involved in healthand safety surveillance (including observation) were required to have aminimum of Level D personal protection equipment, which included an

A8Q022260285-23-1131 -8-

XMAUGOlAtPIRNIE"escape mask" (e.g., half-face air purifying respirator in a belt pouch).Given the previous air monitoring results (obtained during the RI and thesoil gas survey), the SHERP was modified in the field to include an"exclusion zone" of ten-foot radius around the areas of intrusive activity(e.g., boring and sampling). All persons within the exclusion zone wererequired to work in Level C personal protection while a Level D protectionwas sufficient outside the exclusion zone.

2.1.2 Air MonitoringThe primary instrument used for air monitoring was an HNu PI-101,

which was factory calibrated in March 1988. The calibration was checkedweekly during the investigation.

Although the concentrations of organic chemicals detected in theDecember 1987 soil gas survey did not exceed the permissible exposurelimits per OSHA, NIOSH and ACGIH for the individual compounds, all soilborings in the contaminant plume and around the mounded fill were startedin Level C respiratory protection. Prior to beginning each boring, thebreathing zone was characterized with the HNu. The organic vaporconcentrations in the split spoon samples, borehole and breathing zonewere monitored during the boring. Total organic vapor concentrations wererecorded in both the bound field notebook and on the field borehole log.

The respiratory protection was downgraded to Level D unless:

- The concentration in the breathing zone exceeded background.- Total organic vapor concentrations (headspace) in the top of

borehole or auger exceeded 5 ppm, or- Total organic vapor concentrations (headspace) in the split

spoon samples exceeded 10 ppm.

This approach tended to be more conservative than the proceduredescribed in the SHERP.

The HNu instrument was cleaned weekly and recharged daily asinstructed by the manufacturer; however, the instrument initiallyscheduled for use in the field malfunctioned due to rainy and humid

1110022270285-23-1131 -9-

MADGOUVtPIRNIEconditions. A replacement instrument was rented and the malfunctioninginstrument was returned to HNu for service.

2.1.3 Personal Protective EquipmentPersonal protective equipment was provided for Malcolm Pirnie and

drilling contractor employees in accordance with and as described by theapproved SHERP. All Malcolm Pirnie personnel wore tyvek coveralls withouthoods or elastic cuffs. Pennsylvania Drilling personnel wore coatedtyvek, due to their potential exposure to wet soil and water. Rubberboots were worn over work shoes. The pant cuffs were taped with duct tapeto the boots. Hard hats were worn by all personnel on the site duringdrilling operations. Disposable vinyl or latex gloves were provided forinner wear. Reusable nitrile outer gloves were used when handling splitspoon samples or decontaminating sampling equipment. Vinyl or latexgloves were worn when handling samples, including compositing soil samplesand filtering water samples.

Respiratory protection was provided by full face air purifyingrespirators fitted with organic vapor cartridges and a dust pre-filter.Respirators which were shared among personnel were cleaned after each use.Personal respirators were also cleaned at least weekly, when in frequentuse.

To minimize the potential contamination of field vehicles:

- a plastic sheet was taped in the cargo area and on the floor.boards to contain any spills and dirt;

- all split spoon samples were placed on clean plastic on theground;

- all sample bottles were wiped off and placed in boxes in thecargo area; and

- all sampling equipment were decontaminated at the borehole

When it was necessary for the field vehicle to leave the site, thetires and the cargo area were cleaned at the equipment wash pad.

0285.23.n3! ,0- ft«°°2228

/,$, •'?/

MAIJOOUMPIRNIE2.2 SITE MOBILIZATION AND PERSONNEL

2.2.1 ProceduresPrior to commencing the field activities, a support zone was

established on the eastern portion of the site at the intersection of thesite access road and the centerline of the 17th Street extension, next toMW-33. Clean bank run sand and gravel were placed and compacted to asix-inch depth over a 35-foot by 80-foot area. This area was then fencedwith a six-foot high galvanized chain link fence topped with three strandsof barbed wire. One 8-foot by 36-foot office trailer and one 8-foot by36-foot combination office/storage trailer were installed inside thefenced area. Telephone and electric lines were available at an existingutility pole on the 17th Street right-of-way.

Bottled water was provided for potable consumption. A portablechemical toilet was provided for sanitation. Parking of private vehicleswas restricted to the sides of the main access road on the site. Thedrill rigs and related equipment were parked adjacent to the support zoneeach night to prevent equipment vandalism.

A private security service was employed to provide security at thesupport zone from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Mondays through Fridays and 24hours per day on weekends and holidays.

A personal decontamination area was set up inside the fenced area.Decontamination water was obtained from the City of Erie Water Department.Decontamination of heavy equipment took place in an area approximately 100feet north of the on-site pond.

The following personnel were involved in the field investigation atthe Millcreek Superfund Site:

MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.

Paul H. Werthman Project Officer

Dharmarajan R. lyer Project Manager

Douglas J. Daley Project Engineer/Health and SafetyCoordinator

Catherine Bobenhausen Industrial HygienistDavid L. Aloysius Project Geologist

0285-23-1131 -11-

MAUDOLViPIRNIE

Robert H. O'Laskey Field Geologist

Richard R. Frappa Field Geologist

Anthony Murtaugh Field Geologist

Andrew J. Martin Engineer

Thomas H. Forbes Engineer

John T. Deth Survey Party Chief

Philip J. Fintak Survey TechnicianPENNSYLVANIA DRILLING CO.

Earl Dye Driller #1

Timothy Vandine Driller's Helper

Bernie Goflihue Driller #2

Roy Daniels Driller's HelperRobert Sloppy Driller's Helper

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Joe Morrissey Field ObserverMiguel Cintron Program Manager

Capt. Christopher J. Young Project Manager

2.3 SOIL GAS SURVEY

Detailed procedures and results were presented in the Soil GasSurvey Report (August 1988). The results were also summarized in thefinal Engineering Report (August 1989).

2.3.1 ProceduresThe soil gas survey was performed by TRC. Malcolm Pirnie personnel

were present to observe sampling activities. Soil gas samples werecollected at locations shown on Sheet 1 by driving a hollow steel probeto depths up to six feet below grade. After evacuating up to 10 litersof gas from the sample probe, samples were withdrawn with a syringe.

0285-23-1131 -12-

tp- ;:._ «-tg...~-"A y~ *»»»a.TTT»>'»--~«g=?- aj= .—'>ff—

MAljDOIJViPIRNIESamples were immediately analyzed in a field van equipped with two gaschromatographs. Each sample was analyzed for the following VOCs:

- Trichloroethylene (TCE)- 1,1 Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE)- Total (cis and trans) 1,2 Dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE)- 1,1,1 Trichloroethane (TCA)- 1,1 Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA)- 1,2 Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA)

Seven split samples were analyzed in TRC's off-site laboratory to verifythe performance of the field instruments.

Seven locations were also resampled in March 1988 to verify theresults of the soil gas survey. The resampling was performed by TRC.Malcolm Pirnie and COE personnel were present at the time of sampling.The results of the analysis of all soil gas samples are discussed in theSoil Gas Survey Report (August 1988).

Variations from the approved sampling and analysis work planincluded the following:

- samples were not obtained at several locations;

- system blanks were not collected at the required frequency;

- split samples were not collected for off-site analysis due tothe low concentrations detected; and

- 1,2 dichloroethane and trichloroethane co-eluted on theanalytical column used in the field.

Samples were collected at 39 of the 45 proposed sampling locations.Soil gas samples could not be obtained at four locations (14, 16, 26and 29) because saturated conditions were encountered within 1.5 feet ofthe ground surface. Two locations (20 and 28) were inaccessible to thesampling van because of wet ground. Because the concentrations of VOCsin the soil gas at nearby sample locations were lower than originallyanticipated, these sample locations were not relocated.

According to the QCP for the soil gas survey, analytical systemblanks were to be collected at the beginning of each day and after everyten samples had been analyzed. As a result of an omission in thesubcontractor's Operations Manual, system blanks were run only at the

&R&Q22320285-23-1131 -13-

MAUGOyVtPIRNIEbeginning of each day and at the end of the field sampling. However, asa total of four system blanks were collected during the entire samplingevent (one for each of three days of sampling and one at the end of thesampling) with a total of 39 field samples (averaging one blank per tensamples), there was no resultant loss of quality control.

To provide a quantitative analysis of the soil gas, nine sampleswere originally scheduled for analysis at an off-site laboratory. Due tothe relatively low concentration of VOCs in the soil gas, however, thesesamples were discarded prior to analysis. The analytical results obtainedfrom the on-site analysis of the soil gas, therefore, provided aqualitative description of the distribution of .VOCs in the ground waterand soil. These results were sufficient to provide the information neededto select additional soil and ground water sampling locations for theremainder of the field investigation.

Because 1,2-DCA and TCA co-eluted, the concentration reported foreach compound represents the limits of the total combined 1,2-DCA and TCAconcentrations. As 1,2-DCA was present in greater concentrations in theground water than TCA, the value reported for 1,2-DCA represented theupper limit of the combined concentration, whereas the reported concentra-tion of TCA represents the lower limit for the combined concentrations.Split samples were collected at seven locations and returned to thesubcontractor's laboratory for analysis of TCA and 1,2-DCA. The resultsof the off-site analysis of the split samples shown in Table 2-1 are inagreement with the results reported for the on-site analysis. As theoriginal intent of the sampling and on-site analysis was to qualitativelydescribe the distribution of the VOC contamination in the shallow aquifer,this corrective action was deemed acceptable.

Because the ground water elevations were high at the time ofsampling and there was precipitation during the field sampling, there weresome doubts as to whether the soil gas results were representative of thefield conditions. To document that the results of the sampling and fieldanalysis were reproducible, and that representative samples had beencollected, several locations were resampled four months after the initialsample effort. The results of the resampling effort shown in Table 2-2were within at least one order of magnitude of the initial sampling

AR0022330285-23-1131 -14-

MILLCREEK TABLE 2-1: SOIL GAS SPLIT SAMPLE RESULTS tbZsgspl

| SAMPLE| LOCATIONI — — — -| SG-03| SG-06| SG-12| SG-19| SG-22| SG-37| SG-43

SPLIT SAMPt1,2-DCA

0.8131220544

.E (ug/l)TCA

0.0090.0080.020.030.0050.0050.008

FIELD RESUL11,2-DCA

112

0.20.030.02

rS (ug/l) |TCA |

— — — --I0.01 |0.008 |0.02 |0.002 |0.0002 |0.0002 |

0.02 | 0.0002 |

1,2-DCA: 1,2 dichlorocthaneTCA: 1,1,1 trichlorotthan*

MILLCREEK TABLE 2-2: RESULTS OF SOIL GAS RESAMPLING TB2RESG.UK1

ORGANICS CONCENTRATIONS(Ufl/l)

Sample # Date Depth (ft) 1,2 OCA TCA TCE

SG-06 3/24/88 4 0.1 0.003 0.003SG-09 3/24/88 3 0.3 0.006 0.002SG-11 3/24/88 5 0.2 0.004 0.1SG-18 3/24/88 3 4 0.08 0.1SG-19 3/24/88 2.5 0.1 0.002 0.004SG-26 3/24/88 2 0.8 0.02 <0.0005SG-35 3/24/88 5 0.6 0.01 0.1

SG-06 12/14/87 3.5 1 0.008 0.0004SG-09 12/15/87 4 0.2 0.001 0.0008SG-11 12/14/87 5 0.8 0.007 1SG-18 12/15/87 5 0.08 0.0006 0.6SG-19 12/15/87 6 0.2 0.002 0.002SG-26 12/16/87 NOT SAMPLEDSG-35 12/15/87 5 1 0.008 0.08

«B002235

\WjDOUViPIRNIEeffort. The results of the soil gas survey were, therefore, deemedacceptable.

2.4 SOIL BORING AND SAMPLING

The soil sampling procedures were described in detail in the WorkPlan (February 1988) and the results were presented in the EngineeringReport (August 1988). Samples were scheduled for collection at 50locations, with an average of three samples collected at each location,for a total of 150 samples for chemical analysis. Quality control (QC)and quality assurance (QA) samples were collected at a frequency of 1 to10, while matrix spike samples were scheduled for collected at a frequencyof 1 to 20. QA/QC samples included 14 field blanks (sampler rinsates),2 background soil samples and 16 duplicate samples. Field, QC and matrixspike samples were submitted to Recra Environmental Laboratory, Amherst,New York while QA samples were submitted to the government QA lab inOmaha, Nebraska.

2.4.1 Sampling Procedures

2.4.1.1 Samples for Soil Borings AnalysisDrilling and sampling were performed by Pennsylvania Drilling of

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania under the observation of a Malcolm Pirniegeologist. One drill rig and a two-man crew was used for drilling andsoil sampling. Assistance with sample mixing and compositing andequipment decontamination were provided by a Malcolm Pirnie geologist,engineer and technician. Soil samples were collected between April 26 andMay 12, 1988.

Unsaturated soil samples were collected at fifty locations duringthe soil boring investigation (Sheet 1). Subsurface soil samples wereobtained using two-inch stainless steel split spoons. Samples 24-inchesin length were collected continuously in all boreholes and in accordancewith ASTM Method D-1586-67. A hollow-stem auger with a 4-1/4" I.D. wasused to advance the borehole after each split spoon sample was collected.Vegetable shortening was used, when necessary, to lubricate the threads

-is- ftR002236

MAUDOUV1PIRNIEon the rod to which the split spoons were attached. No other grease orlubrication was used on any sampling equipment.

Augering and sampling continued through the fill material untilsaturated material was encountered or until the split spoon had advancedtwo feet into native material. In the event that saturated conditionswere encountered in the fill, sampling for logging purposes only continueddown to native material.

Each boring was logged by the Malcolm Pirnie geologist. The filland native soils were classified by the Unified Soil Classification System(USCS). Copies of the field borehole logs are included in the EngineeringReport.

The volume of soil which was needed for the chemical analysesrequired that, for each sample submitted to the lab, at least 24-inchesof soil sample be recovered and composited. Thus, to collect QA/QCduplicate samples and TCLP samples at one location, it was necessary tocollect additional split spoon samples at that location. Additionally,if the recovered volume of soil from a sample interval was insufficientfor chemical analysis, the sampling would be re-attempted at that depthuntil sufficient volume of soil was obtained. In some cases, thisnecessitated attempting two or more samples in the same depth interval.When resampling the same depth interval to obtain additional soil samplefor QA/QC duplicates, TCLP or in the case of insufficient recovery, thesame split spoon was reused. If necessary, the drill rig was relocatedone to two feet and the auger was advanced to the desired depth to allowa sufficient volume of sample to be collected.

At each boring location, the split spoons were placed unopened ona clean plastic sheet after the sample was collected. After the spoon wasopened, the HNu was used to determine if volatile organic compounds werepresent in the sample. This was accomplished by using a decontaminatedstainless steel laboratory spatula to gently slice into the soil sampleand placing the HNu probe tip in the void created by the spatula. HNureadings were obtained at random intervals along the entire sample length.

After the HNu reading was obtained, two VOC vials were immediatelyfilled with sample from the split spoon. The mouth of the vial was pushed

0285-23-1131 -.6- SR002237

MAuooyviPIRNIEdirectly into the sample so as to minimize the disturbance to the sample.The vials were filled as completely as possible to minimize the headspace.

Samples were subdivided for chemical analysis only after thethickness of the unsaturated zone was determined. Only unsaturatedsamples were collected for chemical analysis. Every effort was made toobtain three samples for analysis per borehole. This was accomplished bythe following procedure:

- If the unsaturated zone was six feet thick or less, then onesample was obtained from each two-foot interval (e.g. onesample per split spoon). At least one sample was collected ateach boring location.

- If the unsaturated zone was greater than six feet thick, thenthe total unsaturated depth was divided into three layers bydepth. Samples were composited from split spoons or portionsof the spoons obtained from these intervals (e.g., for a 9-footthick unsaturated zone, samples would be obtained from0-3 feet, 3-6 feet, and 6-9 feet).

Saturated conditions were often encountered in the fill beforesampling the native soil. Sampling for chemical analysis was discontinuedat the depth at which the wet conditions were encountered.

Soil samples for physical characterization were collected from thedrill cuttings from the unsaturated zone. Soil was collected from theauger flights and split-spoons as the auger was removed. Samples werecollected in one-gallon plastic bags, sealed with tape and shipped toGoldberg-Zoino & Associates (GZA) , Newton Upper Falls, Massachusetts forphysical analysis. Thirty-five soil boring samples were submitted forcharacterization of gradation, Atterberg Limits and moisture content.

After each borehole was completed and the auger was removed from theborehole, the hole was backfilled with the drill cuttings. No surplusdrill cuttings remained at any borehole, therefore, it was not necessaryto collect any cuttings for storage in drums. The use of plastic andplywood (as suggested by the Work Plan, February 1988) to provide a stableclean work surface was not required, as drill cuttings were confined tothe immediate vicinity of the borehole and the fill provided stablefooting.

AH80223S0285-23-1131 -17-

MALDOUVtPIRNIE

2.4.1.2 Samples for Bench-Scale Leaching TestFive soil sample locations were selected prior to the field investi-

gation for additional sampling and analysis in a bench-scale soil leachingtest. These locations were selected because they were suspected VOCdisposal areas. In addition to the soil boring for chemical analysis ateach location, an undisturbed sample of unsaturated fill material was tobe collected in a thin-walled sampler (Shelby Tube) for testing. Afive-foot long stainless steel Shelby tube was used to collect theundisturbed sample for the bench scale test. The soil boring locationsselected for additional testing were SB-5, SB-22, SB-27, SB-43 and SB-46.

Saturated conditions at less than five feet below the ground surfaceat SB-22, and the presence of bricks at SB-27, prevented the collectionof undisturbed Shelby tube samples at these two locations. The sampleswere relocated to SB-34 and SB-23, respectively. Both SB-23 and SB-34were selected because low blow counts indicated that the fill might beconducive to sampling with the thin-walled sampler and the HNu indicatedthe presence of VOCs in the soil sample.

Due to obstructions in the fill and the type of fill being sampled,however, it was not possible to obtain a full five-foot long sample ateach location. The variable nature of the fill often created problemswhen sampling with the thin-walled sampler. Samples were to be collectedusing one smooth motion to push the sampler into the ground, and onesmooth motion to withdraw the sample. Cinders, rubble, cementitious filland bricks often interfered with the sampling. In addition, the sandyfill apparently lacked sufficient cohesion with the wall of the sampletube to allow for a full recovery. If an obstruction was encounteredwhile sampling, the sample tube was withdrawn and, if the tube was notdamaged, the rig was relocated to a new position for another attempt. Ifthe tube was damaged, the recovered sample was retained for testing. Dueto damaging the sample tube without recovering any sample at SB-34 (Shelbytube ST-3), a standard 30-inch Shelby tube was used to obtain the samplefrom this location for the column leaching test.

After each sample was collected, washed quartz sand was used tocompletely fill the tube to prevent the sample from shifting duringtransport. The ends of each tube were sealed with aluminum foil and taped

0285-23-1131 -18- 6RQQ2239

MALDOUVlPHKNIEwith clear plastic tape to, prevent the loss of volatiles. The tubesamples were transported upright to Malcolm Pirnie's lab in Buffalo, NewYork for use in the leaching test.

Soil samples for physical characterization were also collected ateach of these five locations. Immediately adjacent to the leaching testsample location, an additional soil sample was obtained for physicaltesting by using the split spoon and augering for a two-foot interval.A second 30-inch long Shelby tube was used to obtain a sample for theundisturbed permeability test. All samples for physical analysis wereobtained from the same five-foot depth interval as the leaching testsample. These samples were shipped to GZA for characterization of:gradation, bulk and particle density, porosity, organic content, cationexchange capacity, pH, hydraulic conductivity, moisture content andAtterberg Limits.

2.4.2 Sample PreparationSoil samples for chemical analysis were mixed and composited in

individual stainless steel bowls using stainless steel spoons. Sampleswere mixed and stirred until a homogeneous mix was obtained. All bowlsand spoons were decontaminated after use. i

If it was necessary to composite two or more split spoon samples torepresent a sample interval greater than two feet thick, the VOC samplefrom the individual spoon with the highest HNu reading was retained torepresent the composited interval. The VGA samples from the remainder ofthe spoons from that interval were discarded.

The number of samples submitted for chemical analysis during thesoil boring investigation inc-luded:

- 110 field samples for chemical analysis.- 13 duplicates for quality assurance and quality control

(QA/QC).- 10 field blanks, including two background soil samples.

- 6 matrix spikes for quality control.

- 19 samples for TCLP, including 2 duplicate samples.

0285-23-1131 -19- AA0022i>&

MAIJDOyVIPIRNIE

QA/QC samples included duplicates, matrix spikes and blanks. Tripblanks were provided by the laboratory for VOC analysis and were includedin the coolers along with the samples. Field blank samples consisted ofsampler equipment rinsates and background soil samples. The backgroundsoil samples were collected using the same procedures as the field samplesat:

- SB-51, located at the edge of the Mi 11 creek Park near MW-22,and

- SB-52, located at the north edge of the Stephanie's CateringParking lot at the intersection of Michigan Boulevard and West10th Street.

Sampler rinsates were collected by pouring distilled water througha decontaminated split spoon sampler into the respective sample container.These water samples were preserved in accordance with the methodsdescribed in the Work Plan for ground water preservation.

After compositing and mixing, samples were placed in precleaned,prelabelled jars as supplied by Recra Environmental Laboratory, Amherst,New York. The sampler's initials, date, time and sample location wereadded to the label at the time of sampling. Clear plastic tape was placedover each sample label after the label had been filled out. All labelswere prepared using indelible ink.

The samples were labelled alphanumerically according to the samplelocation and depth. The letter "A" indicates shallow, "B" intermediateand "C" deep unsaturated soil samples. For example, sample SB-23Cindicates that a sample was collected at soil boring number 23 in thethird depth interval. Duplicate samples were labelled with a "D," matrixspike samples with an "M," and QA/QC samples with a "Q."

Samples were stored in a cooler after they were collected. At theend of each day, the coolers were repackaged for shipment to the labora-tory. All samples were either shipped by Federal Express or weredelivered by Malcolm Pirnie to the lab within 24 hours of collection.

Field and quality control soil samples were submitted under chainof custody to Recra Environmental for chemical analysis. Qualityassurance samples were sent to the COE, Missouri River Division laboratoryin Omaha, Nebraska for analysis. All samples were submitted for analysis

0285-23-1131 -20-

MALCOLMPIRNIEfor VOCs, Acid/Base/Neutral Extractable Organics, Total RecoverablePetroleum Hydrocarbon, PCBs and Total Metals.

2.4.3 Sampling Equipment DecontaminationAll sampling equipment were decontaminated prior to commencing the

field work. All drilling and sampling equipment which would be in contactwith the soil being sampled were cleaned with high pressure hot water washusing a portable steam generator supplied by Pennsylvania Drilling. Thesteam cleaning took place at a location near the pond to minimize thespread of contamination. The augers were steam cleaned both inside andout between boring locations.

Stainless steel split spoons, mixing bowls, spatulas and mixingspoons were decontaminated between sample locations. All equipment beingdecontaminated were:

- rinsed to remove gross contamination,- scrubbed and washed in soapy water (Alconox),- triple-rinsed with tap water (obtained from the drillers),- triple-rinsed with distilled water,- allowed to dry as completely as possible,- triple-rinsed with laboratory reagent grade acetone, and- triple-rinsed with laboratory reagent grade hexane.

After allowing the equipment to air dry as much as possible (giventhe rainy conditions), all decontaminated sampling and mixing equipmentwere wrapped in aluminum foil to prevent contamination during storage andhandling. Complete air drying was often impossible due to cold, rainyweather.

2.4.4 RecordkeepingBoring logs were prepared by the field geologist for each boring

using Field Borehole Logs. The boring logs for the soil sample boringsare included in the Engineering Report (August 1988).

Field notes were recorded in bound notebooks using indelible ink.Daily Field Investigation Reports were prepared by the Field Coordinator.Daily drilling reports were completed by Malcolm Pirnie1s geologist andwere signed by the driller. Completed copies of the Daily FieldInvestigation Reports are included in Appendix A.

0285-23-1131 -21-

3}*MADDOyVIPIRNIE

All samples were handled and shipped under chain-of-custody pro-cedures. Samples shipped by common carrier were sealed in the shippingpackages with the original chain-of-custody form. Carbon copies of thechain of custody forms were retained by the field investigation team.

2.4.5 Soil Sampling Quality Control

2.4.5.1 DrillingVegetable shortening was used, when necessary, to lubricate the

threads on the rod to which the split-spoons were attached. No othergrease or lubrication was used on any sampling equipment.

A drum was encountered at sample location 18. The drum was filledwith a hardened material as evidenced by the bouncing and chattering ofthe auger while drilling between 5 and 7 feet. No elevated organic vaporconcentrations were recorded on the HNu in the borehole prior to or whiledrilling through the drum. The soil sample collected below the drum (7-9 feet) contained elevated volatile organic vapor concentration. Althoughthis material was primarily native soil, a sample was submitted foranalysis. Elevated VOC concentrations of ethylbenzene, toluene and totalxylenes were detected during laboratory analysis of this sample.

2.4.5.2 SamplingAt locations SB-32, SB-44, and SB-31, sampling was discontinued

prior to encountering native soil as a result of the split-spoon samplerbeing rejected (greater than 50 blow counts). At each of these locations,the drill rig was relocated ten feet away from the first attemptedsampling location and sampling was attempted starting at the depth atwhich refusal was encountered. Refusal was encountered a second time andan attempt was made to auger through the obstruction. At each location,augering through the obstruction was also unsuccessful; so the samplingwas halted at that depth.

The fill at SB-27 consisted almost entirely of fire bricks.Although the bricks did not reject the split-spoon sampler, samplerecovery was not sufficient to submit a sample for chemical analysis. The

0285-23-H3, -22- *R0022W

MALDOyViPIRNIEsurrounding area also appeared to consist of concrete rubble, cementedfill and bricks.

2.4.5.3 AnalyticalSampler rinsates were collected for the soil QA/QC blanks for all

parameters. The COE QA lab notified Malcolm Pirnie that the first set ofQA/QC rinsates (sample 26Q) was improperly acidified as required for themetals analysis. This sample was, however, analyzed by the QA lab. Allremaining samples for metals analysis were properly preserved.

Recra Environmental advised Malcolm Pirnie that, due to an equipmentfailure, the lab had missed the 14-day deadline for analyzing the VOAsamples from soil borings SB-31C and SB-23C. The samples were analyzedon the 15th day after the sample was collected and are included in thefinal lab reports. Duplicate samples from each location were analyzedwithin the required time frame. The field and duplicate sample resultscompared favorably.

2.5 WETLANDS SEDIMENT SAMPLING

[

Procedures and results from this sampling program were presented inthe Wetlands Sediment Sampling Report (April 1989) and the EngineeringReport (August 1989).

2.5.1 Sample LocationsSediment samples were collected in the portion of the wetlands not

previously sampled by USEPA. Discrete samples were collected at thelocations shown on Sheet 1. The sample locations were spaced at 10-, 50-and 100-foot distances from the southern edge of the landfill. Samplesfrom each grid row (viz. "A", "B", "C") were composited for analysis.

2.5.2 Sample Collection and AnalysisDue to the cold weather, it was necessary to chop a one-foot

diameter hole in the ice cover to collect sediment samples. The standingwater depth ranged from 0 feet at location A-l to 1.7 feet at loca-tion C-4. Except for locations A-4, A-l and C-l, standing water with an

0285-23-1131 -23-

MAIODIJVIPIRNIE

ice cover was present at all sampling locations. The ice thickness wasapproximately two to three inches.

Sediment samples were collected using a tube sampler made of 16 gagenickel -chrome plated steel. Samples were collected to a depth of12 inches at each sample location. One tube sample at each location wasscreened for the presence of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) with an HNuPI-101; the sample was placed in 40-ml vials immediately after the samplewas screened. One discrete sample with the greatest HNu reading from eachgrid row (viz. A-2, B-3, C-l) was submitted for VOC analysis. ElevatedHNu readings were noted at several locations. These elevated readings,however, were likely a result of acetone or hexane remaining in thethreads of the sample tube handle after decontaminating the samplingequipment, despite drying the sample tube using hot air from the fieldvehicle's defroster vents. All tube samples which were to be screened forVOCs were, therefore, collected in the first six inches of the core tubeto avoid the potential interference of acetone or hexane with the HNu.This was verified by the analysis of the sediment samples, which detectedelevated concentrations of acetone; no other VOCs (other than toluene andtetrachloroethene at less than the detection limit) were observed.

Two discrete samples -collected at locations A-l (near SB-23) and A-4(near SB-46) were submitted for analysis. The discrete samples fromlocations A-2 and A-3 were composited for analysis, while the fourdiscrete samples from rows B and C were composited and submitted foranalysis. Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) duplicate andmatrix spike samples were collected at grid location A-l. Samplingequipment rinsates (QA/QC field blanks) were collected by passingdistilled water over the decontaminated sampling equipment.

All sediment and rinsate samples were preserved by storing on ice.The rinsate sample for total metals analysis was preserved with nitricacid. Chain-of -custody forms were prepared and maintained during sampleshipment and analysis. Samples were hand-delivered to Recra Environmen-tal, while QA duplicate and blank samples were shipped by overnightdelivery to the COE's MRD lab in Omaha, Nebraska. The sediment sampleswere analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile (A/B/N)organics, PCBs and total metals, including antimony, arsenic, barium,

0285-23-113! -24-

3**MALDOLViPIRNIEcadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,selenium, silver and zinc.

2.5.3 SurveyingDuring the sampling, each of the 12 sample locations was tied into

the existing coordinate system to the nearest 1.0 foot. The elevation ofthe sediment at each location was measured to the nearest 0.01 foot.Malcolm Pirnie was able to locate the five sampling locations in thesouth-central portion of the wetland which were sampled by EPA in November1987. These five sampling locations were also surveyed.

2.6 TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING

2.6.1 Mapping CriteriaA map of the existing site topography was produced by Tallamy,

VanKuren, Gertis and Associates (TVGA) of Lanse, PA using stereophotogram-metric methods from vertical aerial photography obtained in January 1989.No vegetation, cloud cover, or snow cover was present at the time theaerial photos were obtained. The vertical aerial photography was obtainedat a nominal scale of 1" = 400* with 60 percent forward lap. The controlsurvey was performed by TVGA using the State Plane Coordinate System forhorizontal control and the City of Erie (Lake Erie) datum for verticalcontrol. The difference between the City of Erie and U.S. Geologic Surveydatum is 573.84 feet, which was used to generate the final topographicmap. The horizontal accuracy of the control survey was 1:5000 with avertical level line of error not exceeding 0.1 feet. Horizontal controlpoints check showed a relative accuracy of 0.5 foot and were photo-identified correctly.

Mapping was completed to produce a map scale of 1" = 200* with acontour interval of one foot. Digital data was also supplied to producethe base maps for AutoCad drawings used in this report. The mappingaccuracies were as follows:

- Horizontal map accuracy such that 90 percent of all well-defined map features were accurate to within 1/40 of an inchat map scale of their true coordinate position and none of the

1880221*60285-23-1131 -25-

MALCOyVtPIRNIE

map features were misplaced by more than 1/20 of an inch at mapscale from their true coordinate position.

- Vertical map accuracy such that 90 percent of the elevationsdetermined from solid-line contours have an accuracy withrespect to true elevation of 1/2 the contour interval and theremaining 10 percent are not in error by more than one contourinterval. In areas where the ground surface was obscured, thecontour lines are dashed to indicate they are approximate formlines only and are of doubtful accuracy.

- Spot elevations were placed such that 90 percent were accurateto within 1/4 of the contour interval with respect to the trueelevation.

2.7 GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS

2.7.1 GeneralPrior to commencing the field investigation, there were 34 existing

monitoring wells in and around the Millcreek site. Five off-site and sixon-site well locations, as shown on Sheet 1, were selected to complementthe existing system of wells. A total of 16 new monitoring wells (averag-ing 20 feet deep) were installed downgradient of and in the vicinity ofthe suspected ground water contamination plume defined in the RI/FSReport. As the glacial till underlying the site apparently restricted thedownward migration of contaminants in the ground water, the wells wereinstalled in the saturated overburden above the till. Eight on-site wellswere to be installed at four locations as couplets. The "deep" well ofeach couplet was screened just above the dense till, while the "shallow"well was screened just below the surface of the water table. While theborings in each of the off-site wells were extended down to the till todetermine the saturated thickness, the wells were screened approximately10 feet below the water table. A single remaining well was installed onthe site to replace one of the existing monitoring wells MW-1 throughMW-5, as the materials used in the construction of these wells renderedthem unsuitable for ground water sampling.

The materials of construction and the procedures for installing themonitoring wells are described in detail in the Work Plan. Well boringlogs and construction details were prepared for each well and are includedin the Engineering Report (August 1989).

0285-23-1131 -26- HRG022U7

32*MALDOlAiPIRNIE

2.7.2 Installation ProceduresMonitoring well installation, well development, pumping well

installation and hydraulic conductivity testing began April 26, 1988 andcontinued through June 16, 1988. These activities were performedconcurrently with the soil boring and sampling program. Boring, soilsampling, well installation and development, and testing were performedby Pennsylvania Drilling of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A Malcolm Pirniegeologist observed all activities and prepared all boring and constructionlogs.

The location of each new and existing well is shown on Sheet 1.Eight monitoring wells were installed as couplets at four on-sitelocations (MW-33, MW-26, MW-27, MW-28). The "deep" well (A) of eachcouplet was screened just above the dense till, while the "shallow" well(B) was screened just below the static water level. One additional singlewell (MW-34) was installed on-site near the existing MW-1. MW-34 was usedto provide water quality information in lieu of MW-1, which was con-structed with a steel riser and was unsuitable for water qualitymonitoring.

Two additional shallow monitoring wells were installed on the sitein addition to the nine wells proposed by the Work Plan. As discussedwith the COE, Malcolm Pirnie encountered saturated conditions in the fillat several locations in the central portion of the site during the soilboring sampling program. Elevated HNu readings in the borehole and in thesoil samples obtained at soil boring 23 indicated the possible presenceof organic chemical contamination in the saturated fill. A clay layerimmediately beneath the fill may have been restricting downward movementof the perched water and contaminants, as no contamination was reportedat MW-15A in the RI/FS Report. In an effort to determine if a source ofcontamination exists in the central portion of the site, and to determineif contamination is transported laterally above this clay layer, MalcolmPirnie proposed that two wells be installed to sample ground water fromthe saturated fill. A comparison of the water level in the fill with thewater level in the underlying aquifer would also indicate whether verticalflow exists between the fill and the underlying aquifer.

0285-23-1131 -27-

MALCOLMPIRNIEAfter receiving COE approval, Malcolm Pirnie installed one shallow

well (MW-26C) at location MW-26, while the second shallow well (MW-36) wasinstalled adjacent to MW-15A. The saturated fill at each of theselocations was approximately four feet thick in early May 1988. Each ofthese wells was screened in the fill above the native material. By thetime the well installation was completed in mid-June, however, the watersurface had dropped to a level which prevented proper development of thesetwo wells. Water levels in the nearby monitoring wells had also beendeclining during this time period.

The remaining five wells (MW-29, MW-30, MW-31, MW-32 and MW-35) wereinstalled off-site, primarily downgradient of the site. Except for MW-32,the off-site wells were installed in the Town of Mi 11creek right-of-wayalong local streets. The street locations of the new off-site wells are:

MW-29 Northeast corner of Oregon Ave. and 13th Street

MW-30 Southwest corner Sill Ave and Haas AvenueMW-31 Northeast corner of W 15th Street and mobile home park

drive (one block east of Harper Drive)MW-32 On west property line of 2953 W 12th Street at edge of

right-of-way near storm drain inletMW-35 1217 Harper Drive

Borings were advanced with a 6-1/4" I.D. hollow stem auger, provid-ing a nominal borehole diameter of 10-1/4 inches. Deep borings wereadvanced five to ten feet into the till to verify its presence. Splitspoon sampling and standard penetration tests were performed in accordancewith ASTM D 1586. Split spoon samples, 24-inches in length, werecollected continuously through surficial fill material and at five-footintervals in natural overburden. Samples were logged and classified inthe field by the field geologist according to the Unified Soil Classifica-tion System.

One sample from the screened interval in each newly installedmonitoring well (exc. MW-26C and MW-36) was submitted to GZA for AtterbergLimits, grain size distribution (by sieve and hydrometer) and moisturecontent. As the screened material in well 35 consisted entirely of coarse

6R0022U90285-23-1131 -28-

MAUCOUVtPIRNIEgravels, this sample was not submitted for testing. Consequently, a totalof 13 well samples were submitted for grain size analysis. The resultsare presented in the final Engineering Report (August 1989).

Well construction details were recorded on diagrams which areprovided in the Engineering Report. All monitoring wells were constructedof four-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC flush-threaded riser pipe and 0.010slotted PVC screen. Number 2 Q-ROC silica sand was used for the sandpack. A sieve analysis of this material indicates that 80% of this sandis in the 20 to 40 sieve range. A minimum of two feet of bentonitepellets was placed above the sand pack and the remainder of the boringfilled with cement-bentonite grout. On-site wells were installed to riseapproximately two feet above grade, while off-site wells were completedto approximately 0.3 feet below grade. The ground surface at the off-sitewell locations was regraded and reseeded if necessary to return it tooriginal condition.

A locking steel protective casing was placed over the riser of eachon-site well. All new protective steel casings were locked with keyedalike locks. Although not originally planned, the locks on all existingwells were also replaced with similarly keyed locks, as the existing lockswere rusting. The off-site wells were completed with steel water boxesflush to the ground surface. A locking cap with rubber seal was placedover the PVC riser to provide security and to prevent surface water fromentering the well. All locks were treated with an oil/ graphite mix tominimize rusting.

The well screens were installed in either 5- or 10-foot sectionswith a flush-threaded end cap to provide a 0.35-foot deep bottom sump.Wells were installed through the augers to allow for even placement of thesand pack. One centralizer was used above the screen in the deep wellsto ensure that the well was centered in the auger stem.

Placing the sand pack proved to be the most time-consuming and laborintensive portion of the monitoring well installation. The drillingprocess generally created muddy conditions in the borehole due to theamount of fines present in the formations. The density of the mud in theauger stem made the placement of the No. 2 sand difficult, requiring thatthe sand be saturated with potable water before being placed in the well

&RQ0225G0285-23-1131 -29-

'//MALCOLMPIRNIE

annul us. The sand pack was placed either one handful at a time or withthe aid of a tremie tube.

Running sands and gravels were encountered in monitoring wellborings at MW-27 and MW-28. As discussed with the COE, the difficulty ofplacing the No. 2 sand in the annulus necessitated allowing the formationto collapse in discrete intervals. As the formation was generally of acoarser material than the screen slots, this action should have no effecton the well yield or chemical quality of the ground water. The develop-ment of these wells indicated that the formation collapse did not affectthe clarity of the water from the well.

All well cuttings from the augering were contained in 55-gallondrums. Cuttings from the off-site wells were brought to the site fordisposal. These drums were placed inside the fenced support zone area atthe conclusion of the field work. The drums were labelled according tocontent for later identification.

All split spoon samplers and augers were cleaned with a highpressure hot water spray between monitoring well locations. A portablesteam generator was supplied by the driller. Augers and other equipmentwhich would come into contact with the well boring were placed on racksto prevent contact with the ground during cleaning. All cleaning tookplace at one location near the pond to confine the runoff and minimize thespread of contamination across the site. All well screen and riser wassteam cleaned prior to installation.

2.7.3 Well DevelopmentAfter the installation of each well was completed, the well was to

be developed using one or more of the procedures described in the WorkPlan. Prior to development, each monitoring well was allowed to stand fora minimum of 48 hours after installation. Development was initiallyscheduled to begin no sooner than 48 hours and no later than 96 hoursafter installation was complete. The wells were to be developed for aminimum of four hours and until a sample of water was clear and free offines.

It was initially anticipated that surging and bailing would be thepreferred method of well development. However, this method required that

0285.23-U31 -30- fi«002251

MALiGOyVtPIRNIE

the drill rig be dedicated to well development, which would possiblycreate a delay in the well installation schedule. In an effort to keepthe drill rig available for well installation and to keep the fieldinvestigation on schedule, an air compressor was brought to the site todevelop the wells by airlift method. In addition, the requirement todevelop each well within 96 hours after completion was waived by the COE,as the development of the individual wells was requiring more than 4 hoursper wel1.

It was realized that the air flow rate into the well did not providesufficient development due to the unidirectional, low flow rate throughthe well screen. The Work Plan also required that all development waterbe contained for discharge to the pond. This restricted the degree towhich the water column could be "surged" within the well casing by varyingthe air flow rate. Therefore, the development procedure was modified suchthat each well was initially developed for a short time period by surgingand bailing with a 3.5-inch by 10-foot bailer (approximately four galloncapacity) which was alternated with a neoprene surge block for completewell development.

The well development was then completed using an air-lift methodwith an air compressor. Two black PVC hoses of one-inch diameter wereattached to a copper "U" tube to lift water out of the well. One hosecarried air down the well, while the other discharged water to a portabletank.

The Work Plan required that the development water be contained in55-gallon drums at the well head and transferred to a portable tank fordisposal in the on-site pond. The pond outlet was blocked with clean bankrun sand and gravel prior to disposing of development water in the pond.At no time during the field investigation did the water level in the pondrise sufficiently to overtop the blocked outlet.

All equipment introduced into the well were steam cleaned prior touse. All wells were developed for a minimum of four hours and until thewater was free of sand. After each well was developed, a one liter sampleof ground water was collected from the well in a clear glass jar. Eachsample was labeled with the date, time of development and well location.

22520285-23-1131 -31-

MA1JGOLMPIRNIEA backlit photograph of each sample was taken after the sample wasreturned to the field trailer.

2.7.4 In-Situ Hydraulic Conductivity TestingIn-situ hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted in each new

monitoring well after development was completed. All equipment introducedinto the well were washed with Alconox solution and rinsed with distilledwater prior to use. The recovery of the water level over time wasrecorded until equilibrium had been re-established. Calculations fordetermining the in-situ hydraulic conductivity values are included inAppendix B of the Engineering Report (August 1989).

The static water level was measured and recorded before commencingthe testing. In wells MW-26B, MW-27A, MW-28A, MW-29, MW-30, MW-33A andMW-33B, a 3-inch bailer was used to drawdown the water level. Recoverywas monitored with an M-scope water level indicator and a stopwatch.

Wells MW-26A, MW-27B, MW-31, MW-32, MW-34 and MW-35, because theyrecovered too quickly to bail down, were tested by using a PVC pipe withscrew-on ends as a slug to displace water in the well. After the waterlevel had equilibrated, the slug was quickly withdrawn. Water levelrecovery was monitored with a pressure transducer and a digital datalogger.

The rising head recovery data were reduced to hydraulic conductivityvalues using the method of Bower and Rice (1976) for unconfined conditionsand the method of Hvorslev (1951) for confined conditions. Confinedconditions were observed at well locations MW-28, MW-31, MW-33 and MW-34,where static water levels occurred within a clay-rich horizon overlyingsaturated sands and gravels.

2.7.5 Pumping and Observation Well Design and InstallationA 72-hour pumping test was planned to determine the hydraulic

characteristics of the saturated zone above the glacial till at the site.The pumping well was located approximately 120 feet south of MW-9. Basedupon the information available from the RI/FS Report (1985), the saturatedthickness at this location had been estimated at 15 feet, with a totalwell depth of 25 feet. In order to select the proper screen slot size and

0285-23-1131 -32- &R002253

PIKNIEfilter sand pack gradation to maximize the flow from the well, it wasnecessary to determine the physical characteristics of the saturated zone.A pilot boring was drilled using a 4-1/4 " I.D. hollow stem auger toobtain split spoon samples at five-foot interval for grain size distribu-tion analysis and to determine the total saturated thickness.

The pumping well screen slot size was determined from three sampleswhich were submitted to GZA for grain size distribution analysis. Thesesamples were composited from split spoon samples to represent the threeapparently different lithologic zones which were encountered during thesampling. These three zones were gravelly clay (sample A), gravel to sand(samples 5A and 6) and uniform sands (samples 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12). Thepredominant lithology (65% of saturated thickness) has a USCS designationof SM-ML, containing 70% silt.

The pumping well filter pack and screen were sized to filter out thedominant silt fraction. After discussions with the screen manufacturer,the sand pack selected was #1 sand, while a 0.010" continuous wrap screenslot size was selected. The screen and riser were both 6-inch I.D.Schedule 40 PVC with flush threads. Bentonite pellets were used above thesand pack, while cement/bentonite grout filled the remainder of the boringannul us. The pumping well was screened across the entire saturatedthickness to a depth of 42 feet.

The locations of the observation wells were determined from plott-ing estimated drawdown curves. The first observation well OW-1 wasinstalled approximately 10 feet northeast of the pumping well. Thisobservation well was constructed in a fashion similar to the pumping well,except that the riser and screen were 2" I.D. Sch. 40 PVC. The screen was0.010" factory-slotted, while #2 silica sand was used for the filter pack.The locations of the remaining two observation wells were to have beendetermined after the results of a one-day step-drawdown test at thepumping well were analyzed.

Four staff gages were installed to obtain water level measurementsprior to, during and after the pumping test. One staff gage was installedin the pond, while the remaining three were installed in Marshall's Run.The locations of the staff gages are shown on Sheet 1. Surface waterlevels were measured from the top of the pipe to the water surface.

0285-23-1131 -33- AB00225it

MAUGOyVtPIRNIE

The staff gages were constructed from aluminum meter sticks attachedwith plastic ties to black iron water pipe. The pipe was driven a minimumof three feet into the bottom sediments. The locations were selected todetermine the water surface profile.

Static water level measurements were to have been collected fromwells in the area of the pumping well for at least one week prior to andduring the pumping test. As the pumping test was postponed, the waterlevels were recorded only once to provide information for calibrating thecomputer flow model.

2.7.6 Step Drawdown TestsThe step drawdown tests were conducted using a submersible pump and

pressure transducer with data logger. A water meter was used to measurethe flow rate, while flow was controlled through a valve on the dischargeline. All water produced during testing was discharged to the pond.

A preliminary step-drawdown test was performed on the pumping wellto determine a feasible pumping rate for a 72-hour pumping test and thelocations of the remaining two observation wells. Based on the informa-tion available from the RI/FS Report (1985), the formation should havebeen capable of producing a flow rate of at least 10 gpm. However, thepumping well was evacuated at a pumping rate of approximately 1 gpm, andwas unable to sustain any flow rate greater than 1 gpm.

After informing the COE of the results of the test, additionaltesting on two other monitoring wells was suggested. After discussionswith the COE, MW-33A, located approximately 125 feet south of the pumpingwell, was tested. This monitoring well was able to sustain a short-termyield of no more than 6.5 gpm.

Monitoring well MW-26A was selected as a second possible locationfor a pumping test due to a potentially greater yield from the aquiferbased on the screened formation characteristics. The well was pumped dryat 12 gpm. According to a constant rate test and using a straight linemethod of analysis, the well could maintain a flow of 10 gpm for 24 to 72hours.

The results of the testing at the pumping well, and wells MW-33A andMW-26A indicated that the concept of pumping a single well to capture

0285-23-1131 -34- £8002255

MALCOLMPIRNIEcontaminated ground water may not be feasible at this site due to therelatively low aquifer yield, and the aquifer pump test was cancelled.To continue with the pilot scale air stripping test, it was determinedthat water would be obtained by pumping more than one well. The conceptof a multiple well or tench ground water extraction system, as describedin the RI/FS Report (1985), also came under scrutiny at this time. Thisconcept was further evaluated using a computer flow model. Detaileddiscussions of the results from the ground water flow modeling arepresented in the Engineering Report (August 1989).

2.7.7 Monitoring Well Quality Control ItemsZones of loose gravels were encountered in several wells. These

gravels often collapsed beneath the augers and fine sands heaved up theannular space of the auger. These "running" sands and gravels oftenprevented the installation of the fine-grained #2 sand pack in thescreened interval or portions of the screened interval. Wells in whichthe native material collapsed in portions of the screened interval includePW-1, MW-27B, MW-28A, MW-28B, MW-32, MW-34 and MW-35. Generally, thegrain size analysis at the screened intervals of these wells showed thatthe native materials would provide sufficient filtering of the groundwater during sampling. Development water and samples from each of thesewells contained few fines, indicating that the native materials wereproviding acceptable filtering action.

During the development of monitoring well MW-33B, large pieces ofgravel were present in the bailed water. As it was likely that the endcap had been dislodged during installation, the well was removed and theborehole was backfilled with cement grout. A new borehole was drilled anda new well was installed and developed.

After each well was developed, a one liter sample of ground waterwas collected from the well in a clear glass jar. Although the sampleswere initially clear and free of fines, a small amount of reddish brownprecipitate was noted in several samples (MW-30, MW-34, MW-35, MW-33B,MW-31, MW-29, and MW-26B), approximately 12 hours after they had beencollected. It was likely that the precipitation resulted from theoxidation of soluble iron in the ground water samples.

0285-23-1131 -35-

MAlCOUVtPIRNIE

2.8 GROUND WATER SAMPLING

2.8.1 Sampling LocationsSamples were collected from 30 monitoring wells between June 17 and

June 27, 1988. The sampling program included well couplets (screened indifferent saturated units) and single wells. The locations of themonitoring wells are shown on Sheet 1.

2.8.2 Water Level MeasurementsPrior to sampling, the static water levels in all wells at the site

were measured once over a 24-hour period beginning on June 15, 1988.Water levels and bottom depths were recorded to the nearest 0.01 footusing a QED 6000 water level meter with stainless steel probe. The topof the well casing was used as the reference datum. The probe and tapewere washed and rinsed with distilled water between wells.

The headspace in each well was sampled with the HNu PI-101 tomeasure the total organic vapor concentration. These measurements wereused to determine the need for respiratory protection during wellsampling.

Surface water levels were measured at four locations using staffgages which were installed in Marshall's Run and in the pond. These staffgages consisted of an 36-inch aluminum ruler attached to a black steelpipe. Water levels could be measured to the nearest 0.125 foot from thetop of the pipe. Each staff gage elevation was surveyed and tied into theexisting grid system.

2.8.3 Well PurgingEach well was purged just prior to sampling. A minimum of five (5)

well casing volumes were removed from each well using one of threemethods: centrifugal pump, three-inch PVC bailer or two-inch Teflonbailer. The method used was determined by the volume of water to beremoved and the diameter of the well casing.

Water was removed from the top of the water column to ensure thatthe entire water column was removed during purging and replaced with

HR0022570285-23-1131 -36-

MAlCOUViPIRNIErepresentative ground water entering through the screen. The volume ofwater removed during purging was measured using a 55-gallon drum or5-gallon plastic bucket, depending on the volume of water to be removed.All purge water was contained in 55-gallon drums and transported in theback of the field vehicle to the pond where all purge water was dis-charged. The pond outlet had been previously blocked with "clean" sand

iand gravel in preparation for the pumping test.

Wells which did not recharge quickly enough to permit the removalof water at a constant rate were evacuated and allowed to recharge. Tominimize the loss of volatiles during purging, the final well casingvolume was removed as gently as possible from near the top of the watercolumn.

All purging equipment which contacted ground water were deconta-minated between wells by washing with non-phosphate detergent and potablewater, rinsing with potable water and triple-rinsed with distilled water.In addition, the teflon bailer used for sampling was triple-rinsed withacetone and triple-rinsed with hexane prior to sampling. All equipmentwas air-dried before introducing it into a well. Polypropylene ropes usedon the bailers were replaced between wells. Decontaminated equipment wasplaced into a decontaminated plastic bucket to prevent contact withpotentially contaminated surfaces.

2.8.4 Well Sampling and Field MeasurementsEach monitoring well was sampled within two hours after purging.

Samples were obtained from the screened interval using a one-liter teflonbailer. Teflon-coated stainless steel cable was used to raise and lowerthe bailer.

The bailer and cable were decontaminated prior to use at each well.The equipment was washed with non-phosphate detergent and potable water,rinsed with potable water and triple-rinsed with distilled water. Thebailer was then triple-rinsed with reagent-grade acetone followed bytriple-rinsing with reagent-grade hexane prior to sampling.

The bailer was gently lowered into the water to minimize anydisturbance which would cause loss of volatiles or would stir up sedimentin the well bottom. The water was gently transferred from the bailer to

0285-23-1131 -37- «f*8022Sf|

MALCOLMPIRNIEthe sample bottles. Samples were collected in the following sequence:volatile organic compounds, acid/base/neutral extractables, PCBs, totalrecoverable petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and total dissolved solids.

Precleaned sample containers were provided by Recra Environmental,Inc. laboratory. Samples were labelled with the date and time, sampledesignation, required analysis, location and sampler's initials. Labelswere affixed to each container with clear plastic tape. All samples werestored in coolers with ice.

Field measurements of temperature, pH, specific conductivity andoxidation-reduction potential (ORP) were taken immediately after thesamples were collected. Duplicate field measurements of each sample weretaken at a minimum of every five samples. A separate beaker of groundwater was collected for the field measurements.

Buffers of 7.00 and 4.01 were used to provide a two-point calibra-tion check on the pH meter before each ground water sample was analyzed.The ORP probe was used with the same instrument as the pH probe and waszeroed before each measurement. The specific conductivity meter wascalibrated prior to the start of field sampling in accordance withmanufacturer's instructions. Calibration of this instrument was requiredmonthly. Each probe was rinsed with distilled water between samples.

Samples for TDS and dissolved metals were filtered through a0.45-micron filter using either a hand-held or an electric vacuum pump.All filtering equipment were triple-rinsed with distilled water betweensamples. The sample containers were also triple-rinsed before pouring thefiltered sample back into them. Filters were changed when the rate offiltration decreased significantly.

Preservatives were added to the samples in the field after eachsample was collected. Samples for dissolved metals were preserved afterfiltering had been completed. Two samples for TRPH analysis required pHadjustment (MW-25B and MW-27B). Disposable pipettes were used to measuretwo milliliters of the appropriate preservative into the sample container.All samples were stored in coolers with ice until repackaged for shipment.

0285-23-1131 -38- AB882259

MAIJDOIMPIRNIE

2.8.5 Sample HandlingChain of custody forms were prepared for all ground water samples,

duplicates and blanks. Airbill numbers were recorded on chain of custodyforms for all samples shipped by common carrier. Duplicate chain ofcustody forms were retained by the field team after the samples left theirpossession. The original chain of custody forms remained with the sampleuntil the lab report was completed.

Samples were either shipped by overnight express delivery serviceor were transported by a Malcolm Pirnie employee directly to the lab. Thesamples were packaged in high-strength plastic coolers using a combinationof vermiculite, pearlite and styrofoam peanuts. Packaging material wasplaced below, around and above the sample bottles to prevent contactbetween glass containers. Bagged ice was placed on top of the samples.The original chain-of-custody form was enclosed in a plastic bag and tapedto the inside of the cooler lid. All coolers were sealed with packagingtape and a chain of custody seal.

2.8.6 AnalysisGround water samples, QC blanks and QC duplicates were submitted to

Recra Environmental, Inc. laboratory for chemical analysis. QA blanks andduplicates were submitted to the COE Missouri River Division laboratoryin Omaha, Nebraska. The ground water samples collected during thisinvestigation include:

- 29 field samples;- 3 QA/QC duplicates (wells MW-28B, MW-31 and MW-25A);- 3 QA/QC field blanks, and;- 1 QC matrix spike (well MW-31).

All samples were submitted for VOCs, A/B/N Extractables, TRPH, PCB,Total and Dissolved Metals, and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).

Blanks and duplicates were collected at the specified frequency of1 for every 10 field samples. Trip blanks for VOCs were supplied by thelaboratory. Trip blanks were included in shipments for QC blanks 2 and 3,and QA blanks 1 and 3. VOC samples for QC blank 1 and QA blank 2 weresampler rinsates. Distilled water used for decontamination and for fieldblanks was purchased at local supermarkets. Field blanks were collected

0285-23-1131 -39-

MALDOUVlPIRNIEby filling a decontaminated teflon bailer with distilled water to simulatefield sampling techniques. Samples for dissolved metals and TDS werefiltered through the filtering apparatus to trace any potential cross-con-tamination. All samples were preserved according to approved protocoldescribed in the Work Plan.

2.8.7 Quality ControlProcedures for ground water sampling, equipment decontamination and

sample handling are described in the approved Work Plan. Except as notedbelow, the procedures were implemented as described in the Work Plan.

Ground water samples for soluble metals analysis were filtered usingnegative pressure through Whatman GV/B glass fiber filters. The negativepressure was supplied by either a hand-operated pump or electric vacuumpump. All samples were filtered within 15 minutes of collection and priorto acidification. After filtering, the samples were preserved with nitricacid to pH less than 2.

Wells MW-26C and MW-36 were not sampled due to lack of water in thescreened interval. Both wells were screened in the fill material toenable the sampling of the seasonally high water table.

A new building has been constructed immediately adjacent to thecasings of wells MW-21A and MW-21B. The construction of the foundationmay have affected the integrity of the grout seal at the ground surface.Both wells were sampled and showed results consistent with samplingperformed during the RI/FS.

2.9 CONTROL SURVEY

A control survey was performed to establish the coordinates andelevations of the monitoring wells, and soil gas survey and soil boringlocations. The coordinates of each location were surveyed according tothe State Plane Coordinate System. The existing monitoring wells were re-surveyed to minimize any errors between the previous RI/FS and MalcolmPirnie1s surveys. Control points established during the previous RI/FSwere used to maintain horizontal control.

0285-23-1131 -40- Aft00226i

MALGOyVtPIRNIE

Elevations of monuments used by the Millcreek Township were used forvertical control. The elevation of each location was initially determinedusing City of Erie reference datum. The elevations were later adjustedto U.S. Coastal and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) reference datum of mean sealevel (msl). Elevations were measured to the nearest 0.01 foot for theground surface at each location and for the ground surface, top of thewell riser and protective casing at each well.

Two permanent bench marks were established on the site. Theseconsist of a 1" reinforcing bar 30 inches in length set 24 inches into thecement surface pad at PW-1 and MW-36. Survey control information used forthis survey is provided in Appendix B.

0285-23-1131 -41- A&002262

MALCOLMPIRNIE3.0 TREATABILITY TESTING

Treatability testing was to have been performed on ground waterobtained from a pumping well installed on the site during 1988. Due toan unexpectedly low well yield (<1 gpm) from this well (see Section 2.7),the treatability testing was postponed until the ground water analyticaldata was interpreted. Additional testing was performed on two wells(MW-26B and MW-33B) to determine alternative locations for an aquifer pumptest. While the testing at MW-26B indicated that the aquifer yield wouldpotentially have been sufficient for a pump test, there was no VOCcontamination in this portion of the aquifer.

The treatability testing was performed using ground water pumpedfrom two monitoring wells, MW-9 and MW-10, and included pilot and bench-scale testing for air-stripping, granular activated carbon adsorption,flocculation, settling and sludge thickening. The results of the testingare presented in the Ground Water Treatability Testing Report (February1989) and the Engineering Report (August 1989).

3.1 QUALITY CONTROL ITEMS

The integrity of one set of supernatant water samples received bythe lab (Recra Environmental) was questioned by the lab due to loose capson several of the sample containers. These samples were discarded andadditional tests were performed to obtain new samples for analysis.

Sludge samples used for dewatering and subsequent TCLP analysis fordetermining the toxicity characteristics of the sludge were held by thefilter press manufacturer without refrigeration of the sample. Dewateredsludge samples were shipped by the filter manufacturer to the analyticallaboratory in plastic bags. As the primary contaminants of concern weretrace elements, it was felt that the lack of refrigeration would notaffect the characteristics of the dewatered filter cake. Based on TCLPanalysis, neither of the two filter cake samples exhibited hazardous wastecharacteristics.

VOC samples were stored in a refrigerator at the site until theywere packaged for shipment at the end of the day. On one day, one VOC

880022630285-23-1131 -42-

MALDOLV4PIRNIEsample from each set of five duplicate samples froze and broke the samplecontainer; all damaged samples were therefore discarded. As two VOA vialshad been collected for each sample event, the second vial of each set wassubmitted for analysis after ensuring that each sample was intact.

Original estimates of the solids content of the ground waterindicated that approximately 500 gallons of water would be required toobtain sludge for dewatering tests. After testing in the field, thisestimate was revised and 10,000 gallons of water were required to obtainsufficient sludge sample for testing. The temporary storage tank was usedto treat the required volume of water. This tank was flushed with a jetspray nozzle prior to the settling/thickening test. The test wassuccessfully performed by treating the air-stripper effluent in twobatches on successive days in the temporary storage tank.

68802260285-23-1131 -43-

MALCOyViPIRNIE

4.0 LABORATORY DATA VALIDATION

4.1 GENERAL

The process of laboratory data validation primarily focused upon therequired quality control acceptance criteria established by SW-846 and theanalytical methods specified in the Scope of Services and the Work Plan.Specifically, the methods used were from the following publications:

- "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste," EPA 600/4-79-020.

- "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste," SW-846, 3rd Edition.

Specific methods used to analyze the samples were as follows:

- Volatile Organics - Method 8240- Semi-volatile Organics - Method 8270- PCBs - Method 8080- Metals - Method 7000 series- TRPH - Method 418.1

Analytical results from soils were reported on a dry weight basis.All organics preparation relating to soil samples was performed usingMethod 3540 Soxhlet Extraction. The analysis of QC samples collected inthe field and the QC samples used by the lab were used to determine thevalidity of the data. Specifically, the following controls were examined:

- Holding times- Duplicate sample analysis- Blank analysis- Surrogate spike recovery- Matrix spike recovery

Quality control samples such as duplicates and sampler rinsates werecollected during ground water, soils and sediment sampling to ensure thatthe data would be valid. In accordance with the Scope of Services, QCsamples were not collected during the treatability testing, as the purposeof the testing was to provide information for determining designparameters for a treatment system. Copies of all analytical reportsprovided by Recra Environmental were forwarded to the COE.

If0022650285-23-1131 -44-

MAicoyviPIRNIE

4.2 HOLDING TIMES

With the exception of ten soil samples for VOC analysis, the soiland sediment ground water samples collected during the study wereextracted and analyzed within the required holding times for eachanalytical method. Two of the ten VOC soil samples were discarded and notanalyzed (SB-23A, SB-31B). Seven soil samples (ST-5, SB-23C, SB-36A,SB-37A, SB-37B, SB-37B-DUP and SB-37C) were analyzed one day after the14-day holding time limit. One soil sample (SB-43A) was analyzed 8 daysafter the expired holding time.

4.3 BLANKS, DUPLICATES AND SPIKES

Table 4-1 lists the equipment blanks, duplicates and trip blanksassociated with the respective soil, ground water and sediment sampleswhich were collected during the field investigation.

Equipment blanks (sampler rinsates) and background soil samples werecollected at the required frequency for soil samples. A total of tenequipment blanks were collected with 110 soil samples, while backgroundsamples were collected at two off-site locations. Trip blanks weresupplied by the laboratory before the field investigation began. Tripblanks were included in six of the soil sample shipments.

Three sampler rinsates were collected and analyzed as QC blanks for29 ground water samples. Trip blanks were provided with two of theshipments. One set of sampler rinsates was collected and analyzed as QCblanks for five sets of sediment samples. One trip blank was provided.

The analytical results for the QC blanks for soil, ground water andsediments are shown in Table 4-2. The blanks were generally free offield-introduced VOC and semi-volatile contaminants, except for common labcontaminants such as acetone and methylene chloride. Acetone was probablyintroduced to the blanks as a result of its use in decontaminating thesampling equipment, while methylene chloride was also present in theinternal lab QC blank samples. PCBs were not detected in any blanks.Traces of metals were present in a few of the rinsates.

AB0022660285-23-1131 -45-

MILLCREEK TABLE 4-1: QA/QC SAMPLE INVENTORY X.QA LAB ID

3333333333S53

FIELD BLANKS13611131719213031

DUPLICATES2458910141516182326272829

TRIP BLANKSnone712

none1925

BLANKS353639

DUPLICATES373834

BLANKSunknownunknown

| DUPLICATES| unknown

QC SAMPLE ID

I26Q33Q51Q52018Q38Q3604015Q8Q

34D50031D23D25D33017D40841837835A2C9A1088A

TB01510520TB0236040

QCB-1QC8-2QCB-3

31D25D280

R-QCTB-SD

SO-A1-D

CORRESPONDING SAMPLE LOCATIONS

46,45,43,42,27,2230,34,3250,44,5,31,2423,25,48,4933,20,19,14,12,18,17,2140,39,38,4116,28,37,3635,29.13,11,41,2,3,7,9,1510,6,26,8,47

46,45,43,42,27,22,30,3432,5044,5,3124,232548,49,3320,19,14,12,18,1721.4039,38,4116,28,3736,35,29,13,114,1,23,7,915.106,26.8,47

22,27,30.32,34,26031,24,23,5125,33,52,49,2019,12,14,18,21,1736,37,28,164,13,35.11,29

,338,9,OW1,34,26A,26B,15A,28B,33A18A.18B,20A,20B,27A>27B,28A,11,31,29,23A,23B32,35, 12,30.21A,21B,25A,258

18A,18B,20A,20B,27A, 278, 28A,1 1,3132,35, 12,30,21A,21B,25A,25B,29,Z3A,23B33B,9,OW1,34,26A,26B,15A,28B,33A

»»*3*=»3Sz»3SED IMENT SAMPLES3*=*»===«=====

A1, A4, A-COMP, B-COMP, C-COMPA1, A4, A-COMP, B-COMP, C-COMP

A1, A4, A-COMP, B-COMP, C-COMP

FIELD DUPLICATE ID|

34A50A31B23A25A33A17A40841B37835A2C9A10B8A

ssssssssasssssssss

3125A288

ES3333:ss=3sss3==S3=s

A1....... ........M.Q«8G02267

rj2JO£

"o

UJ1W

<nUl

1ocUlH.

i3

^ii0>

1,uyI—

i»—>-<>•i55• •V)

I&• •r\ji>»UJ

1

UJUJocu

X

m o w5; »• atca x, M.</> in oc

Ul

If "~ —</> in ec

</» in oe-jcad.

h O* "i- in k-

iro in •«CO "X OCt— in t—

-jeaiy a.o **• «ca •>> ac

iv- O O.§(M —^ ec>- *T 1-

oi a uiui eg en-j m in zZ <n in ec5^ CJ uj5 Q m xm u» in at£^ 3 aS S m 2M </> in S

?5 r- Xv> in cc

3 SS S Zoc uj xtu i— S3 < •£1 ° 5X ui 2

T)CO -1 -1

IM «- «- N

m -»O CO -3

0 0 »-

eaT TJ

ro M <M

0«•*

~»1A»Q

o

CM »«•

*t "Tirg tt

^• -» ea

08 •* « «Min • . .in e e o

3 -, -. 3M CM in S

ro d d d d

R d

<•%

i 88 Si ii ^ s•s i ic S S i l l< ** N § o x-j «J C O — £S u 4» c. : 45 < m ca u tu

-, -,ea in >sro d d

-,ca -i •»a] *• d

ea (\iO C3

CO

<\J

ca10 /^* o

ea ea**: *O 0

3CD POm d

a ~f -t•9 d »-

™»a* -*•* d

2 2

2 22 <o ^CM d d

09 eain <od d

'- I

«1 if00 ~ 6I S . £ g1 2 1 -s 1£ £ 5 ,2

-3-3 caN* N. 0

d d 10

K n <od ro d

^2

Ti ->e> ea ead >* •-

n•9

«i' 4>*

5 !« 1

u "S 5 S t u "x^* 41 3 ^ £ X* 4)2 I A J > • U U i

— • — . X i <— — (MOX -^ ~» Q Q v^

i £ I I ~~ ~* * i

-9CO

-s*"

-a™» ** CO«- d oj

T.

d

^4

41 4> 4)*4 C *

x c c 1 £ ••M i t X 3S CO3 . . . 01 i tJ

AROQ2268

o(M

UJ>—

g

i

3h-

OJI

Ul

in o S8> in 5

<o in ec

</> in ec

iCk•* o> —ea ^ ec»- in H-

ea•O a.10 in —CO -V CCt- in t-

.jat(M a.ea -« ect- in H-

mi- %o a.O PJ —m ^ ec^ f-

</> g uUJ OO (A

g S C 22 m in ec

« rn in ata M in ec9 g uis R « *O CS X, ••S> w in ae

g IU

<A in ec

Isr 1<8 in £

Ul

O O O O O

.odd d

Sin § r--•• o •-o d d d

= 8d d

^ §a o

"O N>1 RJ o Sd o d d

SB* O C *^O 3 C(A3 3 O«J O 3 ^< 55 S 3KX ^ | * 0

illllislillsll

o

1 18i iw M

1 ! § j 1 1 1 1 1 1i ^ l s s l i l s N Is

u.

Oro

I

COUl

Ih-

UJ

£u

(AUJ-J23

a

acUl

§

|

3

aa

gtQC

_0i

1roia

(Ui1

ioac

Ul

aI<5aiCM

I

alQ.acH-

iac11ia.2

1iacac

2atxi 4«i

(AU

!UJ

i

(VId

o S 2« «»

0 s;

1 li S

s 1 l^!ll>'^§Jsi§

^i.c/»UJ

: ilit

<iiS

| BASE/NEUT

^ro

^

•0d

*

chlorobenzene

orobenzene

orobenzene

hylhexyl)

phthalat

L. .c .e «T -S .S »» a a v« i i<M <M <* SI« T " » a

roo

zyl

phthalate

1

I

I phthalate

Iphthalate

obutadiene

diphenylamine

£ £ c5 3.S 8 * 2'c. c; 3 £i i g ?O O K Z

I) (none detected)

10)

•8082270

(M

2

8

</>UJ

113as|JB

5Sa

8I^ (M

O rVJac (

H1ro

8

(M|

IB

^

§ 'as "•i 2! i

*<•CL•Mocfta*

U

•Mac

.iMM

iac(/>X

alacxSX

sd

rod

( —————— . ——————— .

(TOTAL METALS

(BiJ/l)

(AliMinua (GU only)

(Antinony

§ 2od d

* 5 | so o • oo

K 4 *9 » (M (M« 1 - * *« 50 « ° ° «o o

s 1 s s ad o- o d o

«

! !3§ i s ? iiil3ll^ll

3d

d

Ok

d

fcOd

13

« §511a: co IM

Sin eg (M r- rviO 0 »- <M• • o • • oo o • o o •o o

S r o 4 i o ««— o «— od d d d

a c s 5= i s4:5 d « °' d d

X

s3

!N^

M

* , 1 SS 1 § J I k i 1ISfe^lllllM < a ( J U U - « X X I M

-0 0

? M

-O Nd sV

•o od v

X

10>

I3

1 1I £

UlUJ

MAUDOLV1PIRNIE

Thirteen duplicate soil samples were collected for 110 fieldsamples, while 3 duplicate ground water samples were analyzed (represent-ing 29 field samples). Matrix spike samples were collected at a frequencyof 1:20, and included six soil, one ground water and one sediment samples.

The results of the analysis of duplicate soil and sediment samplesare summarized in Table 4-3, while Table 4-4 summarizes the results of theground water duplicate analysis. The duplicate analyses indicatereasonable agreement in the results. Soil samples SB-34A and SB-35Ashowed large variations in the concentration of total iron and totalchromium, respectively.

4.4 SURROGATE AND MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERY

The QC surrogate recoveries for VOCs and semi-volatiles weregenerally within the laboratory's internal QC guidance. Only onesurrogate recovery was outside the recommended limits in SW-846. Theinternal lab QC recovery limits were generally within ten percent of thelimits recommended by SW-846. The excursions were reported by the lab ineach final lab report and the analytical results of the samples associatedwith each excursion were qualified as required by SW-846.

Matrix spike recoveries for VOCs, semi-volatiles, PCBs, TRPH andmetals for all samples were within the specified acceptance criteria.

6R002272nooc 01 1101

(A

**•O

%S

t—LUX

1u>i

r OF ANALYTICAL

RE!

.ICATES:

SUMMAR1

%

3roiUl

i

ULLCREEK

QCD«— (M

2 ?.w m

«- (Mro oca *<*o» m

iin K»CNJ oCD "*>.co in

•<m r-tcxj ov> in

01io JM(M OCD ***co in

ro w(M Oa -•.co in

af<- •*«~ Om -s.co in

s ss tco in

a8 -co •>»co in

S -V"

a

co in

g o9 in

fd oen in

CM eca ^

1 5Z Ulu, g

|

SAN

[PARAMETER ' S

a? 0

z o i- < z <

a a?! S

aCO

a

ac O H- < z <

-aa ain«- • o•O O v

a

a

aro0 C\J

•r>

M S S §

—»O O S< - J > - r » 4 u i o N-in .—

O

^

3 2 3 ^S K. 2 ON-in (M «- co co in N.

-i >- N ui a * - < d ir\ *-

ro

0

-.S3-, ^ ° o 8<r ro ro J.

a

^ PJ «-"

~*

m g

A

« "* «• 2ro ™ Sru o IM •? •O

^ *

« B «•

2d Ri

"•»% *5? O3 w

U «J(AC *O

if 5= -11 1 _ S 5O O w 8} v

" ^ t n l l l S- ' a < 5 £ S 2 5 S L< I W M j) O X £-j(M*ic<--'j:*'

O> -i ^o *• ^

~- * Z

2

J - c o ' o " o« u 3 S S

•- "X 2 .- i_ 2 1! — — OC.C.t. CBf v x o a x u l x x a o o o 3

tl'oe'uT u"^*^**^ S c - i - c . ec" ^ iZ i± */ < (\J (M (\J >>• 0. 0. < < < H-

M002273

(A

<aS"o(M

iO.

isi<Q>-CO

UJBt

SHg*ICOUlH-5iro-jrUls•jcH-

UlUl1»

oCO»- (Mro oto in

aT- CMro oco in

<in, ro(M Oco in

i °u> in

oin |S in

CM OCA in

Oi

1 €<A in

CO in

O

1 -w in

c/i in

o•2 ®

«•(2 ®

?CM O

§ °

ac ui

m uiUl CVCL 5

ecUl

a.

§

gCO O O (M O• r- co ro o eo f-O ^- K »- ro •»

8ro 53 in p• I"O »* f> O fO IVtn \o o ro eo 'O

8ro fO o » 1*0 ™ fo PO

s i oc ^ i n o c M ^ S c M ^ i n

• CM • CQ O xT S J>•VS-CM^^-CM^S)

o in § o o•*O • C M ^ i N « I V O^ i n K i c M ^ O ^ O t o

CM 1 10 S• •& oj %* — • cEO ro •* <o «- ea «-

<3

«o m §• ro o CM *- 3in ro •* CM - rM

oro j*

°2 «o in N. S ** 2O «- <* CM CM <M "C

C3

Jj 2 RS 2 5 1

os. «o m CM o- 2 S « S K- §

12 < e a CM K sroi a ro in ^o CM

0 K 3 S CM S CM

|a^t x o j •

« .* £ .2 '• 8 2L c -a a? w « c . - B ( : g ; 5 « 1 fa i S S S S S S i S l :

os ^

K Sro CM

CM *O

S 0fO O ^~

r. 8•* «»

CM 3

S RJ

ISN*t o ro

<O "Oro S |2 CM

I .3

<o e> t>•9 CM «9

CM ^«- ro «-

IS^s

o"* "~ S

t- 5 ,i.o J - S

co ino

- - - | g | g § - | - o §

5a

a

zUlg

2 ~ » a a a a a °2_ 9 Q^CM ~ o o o o o oa o o "* oo*3° P 2 e a a 2 s! 2 e?_ s 2 <= <= <=§

S

CMO"*•»m

§* §

a8 r-

S r-

i S

LE

i

So o o o o o o p o o g o o Sooo N. CM o in o ro f* f> o CM co in m M Xro CM CM «- CM ro CM in «- N. S <O i- £• in S S2

a -> -> -j a a a 2 , 2 - > a i ->_ ? ° ~ a _ _ _ a ~ a _ a a

a a a a a a a a o a a a§Q O 5 O O O O O O Q O Oeo •* «— CM «— «- «- o* ro^inN.•^ ro in in in «•• *o ro ^ ^ ^ ^

~* ^ a t ~> -ta a _ a a a

s o o p ej o o o o o«:?'? S < ^ r o s t . * ^i -, ^^ » ^* — C* ^* .• ^* * — ^— — — — — — — — — — — — —. — — — ** _^ "* " "*

- > ^ n - » ^ - > a ^ ^ 2 ^ - ^aaa aa 3 a a oao o o o 2 2 P P o o o oPO *™ ^ in 4O CO r > P1* < C5 NO ^«-cM^-ro c M ^ - i n r o m « - » v c M

o o a o o o o e a o o080000 o o q o o oc> o •»* *• cv o CM in *T co «~ ^C M ^ - C M C M « * ^ ro CM ro ro «- «-

2 a a a§111 §13

aQ 99.99 994 <5 * * o o•*

a a*0.? a^^ a ^ a g a aa a

-o •• CM «-

° S8 o3 oSa a

O ~ -5

-> a a a a a °

Sill rl§ |l«8^ro^ *-ro o ^

-> a o a a j aa- - - - 88§43 C3 C3 C3 C3»- ro ro 5J S<M •* CM «- «

Ul _

w « « * S:ft= ! 8 3 u S i s. 5 • i2 2 1J1 r: j S s. « Jt JM S w X w x w £ « a i - > ij x

3l«l, Hiijl- !s!t|, I I.sflfelj! s if - "- 3 a- *. s * - t 5 cM-jjS^i? C C - ^ f C « l l S < t ' f < ^ w C • 3 X X x: • C C O C .a o i * * < B e r » « < a . » ' * « j « « | w « t B . * i * < « « r - P — a - f il^.1ftl1=522525cM-BiSSx5cjgg|||2|,!S « 9 M 1 = 2 S § 3 2 w - x S L i S f c : t | f e | f * » i £??*. 5 S i i 3 3 s § 5 5 5 5 5 . 2 i i . = 5?,f»fl,;2L£i.2.i.i.2.i£.2.2.2.f2.£.§.S.0.0-a- — — — — — — — — —

A8002275

a<n^>0

'o*1

K-

ii1ECO

iec

St-

5

I„COIUs-J&og• *fOt

w1

Ul

_j-j*

* r?8 §

- §8 CM

•CM

a<

CO •*

1 a8 5aa5 •*8 in"

ca«•• ina CDxCA ino

<£g 0CA in

UJ

Oi<

CA in

in <>a co ina*5 COm CM8 ><

ss $•a

ro c3ico in

|sco inec ui

Z UJIU CV_l X

1

ecUJI—

1s

-1 -» T ~>

o CM ro p roN. • K. r«. coO sf

^ - "ro 3 «0 co CM~5 CM CM

aCM ~" 0 0 S^ ro in rsj ro

a a-• i q o or o C M ! O ' ! O I C O F O C M " "

a _o

S o§ i na a CMo§ S CM §i5 ^ i»" «r«

ca« *- CM•v in CM

« <? -»- CM o •- ro

^•» -i ^CM ^ CM O <O >»

<" 2 «• _0 * < ^ - 0in »- 10 ro «- in

-i_ a» -* g* • ro•>* <O O v-

" s3 « S 5

| s !I S I 3 3in in CM «- »-

z S z i s2 9 ia o a

cac o S ^ co "3

35 2 oil S S a f f - • — •

»l lei1! Ill illll ITTT 5j"5**'D'2iS2«x'o'a x'Si'x'x ? o o o ?i'fslll-xlM-sl'k S ? ? 1 S 1 «111 ?^ p t 8 S « S 5 « , 1 o c > i : T S "*. ". ? ? I S 2 8 2 ^> « - < a C J U U I X I - H - ^ t - w 5 CM CM CM >T B. Q. < < < 1-

HR0022T6

oino9

S

CO

s

> roa CM

aiCO

aa3 S 5 o o o o CM oa «** v n o ^ ^ ^ w — ^<\ju««u«co in

s s s ^

ISii S

35

i1

25CO -*

at uiIU t-i s

" * d s s ®

o § oOKI N. <V O O ~» O N.<F•^ • r o o ^ Q O ^ o ^ *ro 'O^I M C M > t r O l J > > » C > « - > O «-•-

oro ^ p o o o •- S(M • <A o r>- 4 «~ vt • O- -^ . SS m iA CMRro •*

Sl^sISl -r o o m P 2 _ « fi^ S U J J s S d S 2 d g

<o Q t- - o" « o <o«i S J 55in «- «- ^ «- is <o CM

o q q m m o o in o*^ •wroo*v*jj1^ ^Jf *• • • ^ s t m a K « - r o c > 4 «- ro CM ro

5 2s ass.**, g>•? 9

•O O Q O O Q *f„; I i * 5 s g 0-

t>I'^«»K!<Mf*5§8 S "^§r O « « « ^ C M » - ^ « O « - C M •* CM >»

«o 1C «a S S p q o• • CM • ••9m CM *O *0o c M ^ o r v K < 5 j - * ^ ~

I

2 ~ if o • isin IPI- W <• C. I s as?* x ff u ea5iS5g5i:S II 8— —• ™* * ••u

IIS02277

|<a

S

"S•0ia.

^t—

oUlCA

5«J

<A

CAh-

iUlec

2|§I*•CO

iu^iyro

Ul

1

HILLCREEK

^ a CM~

- S< 4 R8 £Oi

in CM8 5

O O*in CMCA •*

Qca*•*• oca ^CA in

ca™ tn^t oCA ino

8 i>

aro Sto inain o>ro o8

itco inai asS CMCO >»

^

8 Saiiw£ M3 5co inec uim ^*

1 u.

|

SAMPLE

(PARAMETER

SAMPI

1

*••in

2 2 Si 3ro

aS

o o o

CM *• ro

-. « °^ o° 8*~ c ""

a2 ° =a q

in co «—

a5

2§aS

2S

2o«—**

^

?

J................—....

(BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRAC.

(i1 2-Ch loronaphthalene

1 2-Methy Inapthalene

|3,3-Dichlorobenzidine

| Acenaphthene

(Anthracene

S S § E S^ «l" ••" W—

S S 2 8: S

T T a •«a a a

•" CM «- ro-» -1 Ta a a a

S3 3 S !S° a a ao a

iiiii° a a a88880

«- CM «- ro o>

• -i aa a aq p o 3«a K » Sro CM >» «-

•» ^ -i

3 s s s" Aa a aiiiiCM in CM h.-.222a

O O O

S | 2^ -»a a a

1 1 §

| Be

nzidine

| Benzo(a )

anthracene

|Benz0(a)pyren*

(Benzo(b)f luoranthene

|Benzo(g,h, i )perylene

| Benzo( k ) f luoranthene

a -« -> -js s is 2r ••• «•-

-tO CM O CO «*in CM c> CM e>

-» ->S° 2a

§ a 1i s 3 2o q S or*» ro «~

a -i ->

CM ro rna -> -i800

CM ro ro

io3

S-i -ia a8 § STS-i - ta a

1 §1«B|

a a

1 1ro «-T2 a 2O Q

O

S.,a3*

.

"5.c

(Bis (2-ethylhexyl)

phtl

(Butyl benzyl

phthalate

(Chrysene

| D i benzo(a, h ) anthracene

(Oibenzofuran

a -j -» o o f r-.in N. ro r*»

_,

!G S * S K) &

§ 2 -a ->a

§ 2 a0 0 8ro CM sf

a aa

ill° « °in co *-

isini 2R i

2 -° 8

-> -> a00 oo q 8•* 3 ro»- •* »-

^ *1 ^a a a0 § |ro CM «-^S * n ^a a

|0iethylphthalate

|0i-n-butyl

phthalate

|0i-n-octylphthalate

|F lu

oranthene

| Fluorene

| Inoeno( 1

,2,3-cd)pyrene

^

1ro

o o o

_,2 °ao 81 5i

§-3a

i l lro ^ fo

2 - Q2 o o

lilla

° 2 o o1 1 i i

i 2OJ CM

I 28 iIM ro

•

2O 07 CM

a a

CM 00

a a a a°i S g °iro in •- »-T Ta a a

CM S »-

jlsophorone

(Naphthalene

|N-Nitrosodiphenylamine

|Phenanthrene

|Pyrene

*&<

nVanQ

1

gnC

ct _ ^ j»* WV rfVP002278

MILLCREEK TABLE 4-4: QC DUPLICATES: SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS (GROUND WATER) gwdup

| LAB SAMPLE ID| SAMPLE DATE[PARAMETER SAMPLE NUMBER

[VOLATILE ORGANICS(ug/l)1 1 , 1 -D i ch I oroethane|1,2-Dichloroethene(total)(Acetone| Benzene| Methyl ene Chloride(Vinyl chloride

| BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRAC. (ug/l)(Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate| I sophorone[N-NitrosodiphenylamineI(TOTAL METALS (mg/l)

26705HP 26709HP (26657HP 26631 HP6/27 6/27 (6/20 6/20MU-25A MU 25D JMU-28B MU-280........ - - - i -- -

1100 E

(Aluminum (0.51(Arsenic |(Barium [0.52(Cadmium (0.005(Calcium (120(Chromium |I Copper |(Iron (10(Magnesium (15(Manganese (0.40(Sodium (21(Zinc (0.055I I(SOLUBLE METALS (mg/l) |(Aluminum (0.43(Arsenic |(Barium (0.56(Cadmium |(Calcium (74I Copper |(Iron [5.1I Lead |(Magnesium (6.9(Manganese (0.33(Sodium (19(Zinc (0.033

110

11

1.8

0.56

120

0.00814160.44200.11

0.50

0.56

61

5.5

6.90.36210.062

I — ——1122

(120(0.6 BJI

II(1 BJIIII(0.34I(0.29(0.011(150(0.007I[10151(1.7(40(0.061II(0.07((0.27I(91(0.006(8.9(0.07(50(1.7(37(0.014

2210100

60

2 BJ1' J

0.33

0.290.011110

9.9511.8400.048

0.09

0.250.0061400.0167.40.05520.18390.008

[26676HP 26678HP(6/23 6/23|MW-31 MW-31D

II|1901 28(0.6 J|3 BJ(470 E

0.8 BJ

(0.51(0.006(0.47(0.0071 180I(0.0151 13(24(0.79(65(0.039II(0.14(0.005(0.45I(95(0,007111I1 25(0.75(62(0.028

180

0.5 J3 BJ460 E

0.600.0050.410.011160

0.01613230.76610.038

0.100.0070.45

920.00612

300.68600.029

B - Analyte detected in associated lab blankD - Analyte detected at secondary dilutionJ - Estimated concentrationE - Exceeded calibrated linear range of instrument

A8802279

-V <>".'*••'«*MALOOUV1PIRNIE

5.0 SUMMARY OF DAILY REPORTS

The following condensation of the Daily Field Investigation Reports,included as Appendix A, highlights the variations from the approved WorkPlan and QC problems which arose during the field investigation.

04/26/88 - Joe Morrissee, COE geologist, did not meet healthand safety requirements (lacked fit test). Mr.Morrissee observed activities in Level D at aminimum 10-foot separation distance from allpotential sources of atmospheric contamination.

04/27 - MW-33A Running sands in the hollow stem auger necessitatedusing 6" O.D. auger to clean out sands from auger.Spoke to Recra regarding minimum sample volume forchemical analysis. Henceforth, at least one full8-ounce jar was submitted for analysis for TRPH,ABN, PCB and total metals. In practice, two samplejars were submitted for analysis. Continued to sendtwo 8-ounce jars to QA lab.

04/28 - MW-33A Auger and well became sandlocked during wellinstallation. Pulled auger and formation collapsedaround screen. Having difficulty obtaining Shelbytube samples, as the fill is generally not suitablefor sampling by this technique. Will attempt tosample only fill with blow counts of less than 2.

05/02 - MW-33B While developing this well, gravels and filter packfound in the well after continued bailing. It wasbelieved that the bottom cap fell off the wellduring installation. This well will be pulled andreinstalled. Notified by COE that blanks were notacidified. Sampled background samples forsubmitting as blanks until acid is received at thesite.

05/03 - MW-28A Broke cable attempting to pull augers after beinglocked downhole as a result of running gravels andsands. In the interest of preserving the scheduleand making well development more efficient, it wasdecided to develop wells as a group, instead ofwithin the 96 hour time limit established by theWork Plan. The final report will indicate the totaldevelopment time and the time elapsed betweeninstallation and the start of development.

05/04 -MW-28A Drilled to 47 feet. Encountered running sands inauger stem. Augers filled to 30 feet with sands.Attempted to flush out sands. All well materialswere steam cleaned before reinstalling. Augered down

0285-23-1131 -47-

PIRNIE

to 48 feet to get past running sands. Inserted 8"0.0. auger down hollow stem and spun auger rapidlyin attempt to clear hole of sands. Completedinstallation on 5/5.

05/09 - MW-26A Used 31 bags of cement to grout well. Grout had notcome to surface after 23 bags of cement. Grout mayhave invaded formation, as there was no evidence ofgrout in the well.

05/12 - MW-33B Removed faulty well and installed new well. Groutedfaulty well hole.

05/18 - MW-27A Airlift method is ineffective for developing thiswell.

- MW-31 Adaptor ring for locking PVC cap broke duringinstallation and slipped down annulus between casingand auger. This may have blocked the passage ofsand down the annulus. The formation was allowedto collapse from 25 to 6 feet. The formationconsisted of fine to medium gravels with few finesand occasional sand lenses.

05/19 - MW-26B Airlift method is ineffective for developing thiswell.

05/24 - MW-35 Muddy water in auger stem interferes with settlingof No. 2 sand. Left augers in place to allow mudto settle overnight. Formation collapsed whenpulling augers from 20 to 9.4 feet. Consists mostlyof large cobbles and gravel. Screen installed from13.9 to 8.9 feet.

- MW-26B Added 45 gallons potable water to maintain waterlevel during development of well. Removed approxi-mately 50 gallons during development.

05/25 - MW-32 Formation collapsed from 8.7 to 14.6 feet. Mostlycobbles and gravels. Screen extends from 9.5 to20.5 feet.

06/01 - Rust colored floe noted in samples of developmentwater left to stand in storage trailer.

06/06 - Using tremie tube to install sand pack in pumpingwell. Missing bolt in first auger connection abovelead auger may have allowed formation sands to mixwith sand pack.

06/07 - Formation collapsed in pumping well 29 to 26.5 feetbelow grade.

0285-23-1131 -48-

MAlJDOyViPIRiNIE

06/15 - Pumping well unable to produce flow greater than 1gpm. Checked OW-1 and MW-33B well yields.

06/16 - Began ground water sampling.06/20 - Wells 26C and 36, screened in the fill, had only

three inches of water; unable to sample either well.

06/21 - The foundation of a new building was builtimmediately adjacent to wells 21A and 21B, makingaccess difficult.

06/29 - Completed sampling and demobilized site.

09/28 - Commenced treatability testing on-site.

09/29 - Wells 2, 5 and 33B did not yield sufficient flow fortesting.

09/30 - Wells 9 and 10 were used for water supply fortreatability testing. Television news WSEE-TVarrived on-site and interviewed Dharma lyer.

10/03 - Found that five individual VOC samples from the air-stripping trials had frozen while in storage. Theduplicate samples for each of these five weresubmitted for analysis.

10/07 - Samples shipped to Recra were received with loosecaps. As the sample integrity was uncertain, thesamples were discarded. The tests were reproducedon 10/10.

10/10 - Emptied storage tank of water that had been storedover weekend. Filled tank with fresh ground waterto ensure that representative samples could beobtained from the tank. For the airstripping test,discontinued collecting discrete VOC samples forcompositing by the lab. Henceforth, all VOC sampleswere analyzed as discrete samples.

10/14 - Determined that it was necessary to treat 10,000gallons of ground water to obtain the volume ofsludge required for dewatering. The Work Planoriginally called for treatment of approximately 500gallons of water.

10/19 - Demobilized site.

02/23/89 - Commenced sampling of wetlands sediments. Surveyedsample locations used by EPA in November 1987.

0285-23-1131 -49-

MAlJDOLViPIRNIE

02/24/89 - Solvents used in sampling equipment decontaminationwere not readily volatilizing due to cold weather.Used vehicle's defroster to aid in drying.Completed sampling efforts.

,110022830285-23-1131 -50-

MALDCXMPIRNIE

APPENDIX A

DAILY FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTS

0285-23-1131 «an«^^A8002284

FIELD INVESTIGATIONDATE

AM I A / / / £•• £• £* /€ t" ir~"/X ftlrrojvci ^__^_^^_^___^_____^_^__^__^—— no.S I M I T I W ITHI F I S1*1 I I

/ //i y / *• ^> c

1OC-

Contractor_________I____________________ W6ATH6B "™ "-" •__^-— "^w^ ««-w ••. (ir-v* 99 U9

Subject ——————————————————————————————— W|NOTo _________________________________________ HUMIDITY

X

<<,•{?<. o r\'Tr < T] &r s „_( 5 .T* ' *

«s T e .

rA, /« ^ ,/£ tf X- ;

/

*

^^ ^ ^ M _ _ _ _ , ':-

^- ,/f I* £ fl^

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mgr.

3.F»e4. Owner Signtture

WH«v-FW. Forni M

Project

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTORIGINAL

DATE

2SS-2S-, QAYn^rrniContractor_________I___________________ WEATHER

TEMP.Subjtct ________________________________________ WINO

^g> j>es7?

\DISTRIBUTION: t.Proj.Mgr.

2.FMdOffict3.F_t

Signaturt ' - —t/ '- ^ (/ /C - - ) TM» / ~ r.<. -c.e-/ /

FIELD INVESTIGATION R °'DATE //.

Contractor. WEATHERTEMP.

Subjtct —————————————————————————————— WINOTo __________________________ HUMIOITY

*_£

X ;/s-t-**f »f^.j0 f- c

5 *>

DISTRIBUTION: 1. Pmj. Mgr.2.FMdOffiet

Signatuni/

INVESTIGATION REPORTDATE

No.

Contractor _________ I __________________ WEATHERTEMP.

Subjtct ————————————————————————————— WNOTo _ ________________________________________ HUMIDITY

cr *

/r *./& *?•/'

DISTRIBUTION: I.Praj.Mgr.2, FMd Office

4-°WBir Signature

FIELD INVESTIGATION

crProject MILLCREEK___________ Ho. 0285-23-1 °*YI I-STIT"! Pi

Contractor MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.________________ WEATHER

Sublet REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY ™J£To _____ __________________________________ HUMIOfTY

IfrM

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proi.Mgr. D. IYER-MPID. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2AM.

f»r/.Fi*F.~»»3

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTDATE

frofet MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1

MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.____________TEMP

REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY ^To ________________________________________ HUMIDITY

CCx=

-S^OVS"

Ar tJe«J t-c c + r ,

t. //=>c

a /rt > «'c<*~sr / <:> /<S~• j *"r, , K , ±~<-<~~r ~c.»*r*

~~

DISTRIBUTION: I.Pnjj.Mflr. Q. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffic. D. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-3

USCOE /

FIELD INVESTIGATION•».-•

MILLCREEK No. 0285-23-1 eAV' I I 1*1 I I

MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.___________ WEATHERTEMP.

Suhi-et REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDYTO HUMIDITY

S«M

<r<- C

3 '

a.rt j-f

DISTRIBUTION: 1.Pioi.Mgr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffie« D. DALEY - MPI3.'»« 0285-23-1, R-2A4.0*mr M.

s-3 USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTDATE

Project MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1

.MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.____________

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY

(

i~j r /"«. •

J~

^

,

DISTRIBUTION: I.Praj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZFMdOffiet D. DALEY - MPI4* MM_tf fnj t

F*mM USCOE

FIELD INSTIGATION REPORTtf?a~ji >

frojtct MILLCREEK

OAT,

No. 0285-23-1 *"1 ' l"l 'I " HS4 ' I

MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.___________ WEATHMTEMP

REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY WNO

To HUMIDITY

TO nr

'*

" 4/r*

DISTRIBUTION: I.Praj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZFMdOtfie* D. DALEY - MPI-«• 0285-23-l,,R-2A4« nMVif p^ m

Fonn H

°WGHML FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTDATE

MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1

MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.________________

REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDYTo _________________________________________

4,

.

4 j

_,e,i*-»

DISTRIBUTION: I.Praj.Mgr. n. IYER - MPID. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2AUSCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION

TEMP. ^

MAW! • I"hyr*!11*! f I• IPreset MILLCREEK___________ No, 0285-23-1 • P*Yi I JXl I I I I

Cnntr n, MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.________________ WEATHER

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY W|(0To __________________________________________ HUMIDITY

xje*» fik,*

/-J —— _ ' 4> /lie/ 2ff A

DISTRIBUTION: I.Pwj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPID. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2AUSCOE "c^ / 7 /

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

frojtet MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1

Contf*rtar MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC._______________TEMP.

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY ,_,„_^^BMMM_ WIND

To _____________________________________ HUMIDITY

!&{£&*"*'

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZFMdOffie, D. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2A

USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

•**Project MILLCREEK__________ No. 0285-23-1 B Y|>'|><[T

Contf~tB, MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC._________________ WEATHER

Subtoet REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDYTo ___________________________ HUMiomr

TEMP. |T'a

\yie

3,5

cW\\V\ - a f L O J c . - 8

DISTRIBUTION: t.Pfoj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffict D. DALEY - MPI

W_«y.F_k Foow USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK No. 0285-23-1 ITri"?ContMrtar MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC._________________ WEATHER

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY "_**"™~"~1 WWDTo _____.___________________________________ HUMIDITY '**

Q

DISTRIBUTION: I.Pwj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPID. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2AMETROS——— .

FIELD INSTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK__________. No. 0285-23-1Contr nr MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.________________ WEATHER

TEMP.Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY mm

To ______________________________________ HUMIDITY

01C O rvXpleta -Soi SA/np*"^ O.t

-H. CollecfeJi. re^^lAf s^Knp/es plu.bene TCLP

flccess. roAj. {p<-iV\<.i /9

ff

DISTRIBUTION: t.Pioj.Mor. D. IYER - MPIZFMdOffies D. DALEY - MPI3.M« 0285-23-1, R-2A 7) /" /) '4.0*~r M. CINTROfcgnature /Z**~*_ U~ JJ /

Fon«M USCOE / tX

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK__________ No. 0285-23-1Contractor MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.________________

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDYTo _________________________________________ HUMIDITY

3. 7(C

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffk* p. DALEY - MPI3.P* 0285-23-1, R-2A

USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT^_ t

,s /// / "f><_____

Project MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1

. Contr-etar MALCOLM PIRiNIE. INC.________________ WEATHERTEMP.

Stibfaet REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY

a

rec^ -sf^e^clo.pl/eaes Xlhd

To ____________________________________ HUMIDITY

DISTRIBUTION: 1.Pit*.My. D. IYER - MPID. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2A4.0-ntr M.

USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK___________ NO. 0285-23-1

MALCOLM PIRiNIE, INC._______________TEMP.

REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY WMTo _________________________________________ HUMIDITY

} ,

DISTRIBUTION: I.Prej.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZFMdOffk* D. DALEY - MPI*"• 0285-23-1, R-2AM. ci

USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK No. 0285-23-1 <**! I I I I 1*4

MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.___________ WEATHERTEMP.

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY W|(|0T« HUMIDITY

DISTRIBUTION: I.Ptoj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIiFMdOffk* D. DALEY - MPI3.P* 0285-23-1, R-2A«.0-w M. CINTRO.ign.ture __

;F-mM USCOE —— /

* 5*43«

\

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1

MALCOLM PIRiNIE. INC.________________REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY WNO

To ______________________________________________________ HUMIDITY

-&>- A«eL, . f > ,

A/**/

DISTRIBUTION: I.Pwj.Mir. D. IYER - MPIIPMdOffict D. DALEY - MPI3.«h 0285-23-1, R-2A4.0-mr M. CINTRO&gniur,

W*~.Fi* F-4-, M USCOE X" /

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT. DATE

- .„._._f n-wl • I"! £•! w l™l ' I • IProject MILLCREEK ___________ No. 0285-23-1 OAY' 1 Kl I 1 I 1

MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC. WEATHER

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDYTEMP. T'HW|MOHUMIDITY

**r

«."..- -/ ^

2.2 &

o eUxw' A

- V* nu^iet <Cco^fff~^ 5

X o» <-«-B>-t9-^y >> -^ t»--«_^c, 1 ' ->

2,4 K s jr- 14 ..L

"J * "

DISTRIBUTION: 1.Pit>j.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZFMdOfffc* D DALEY - MP3.F1U 0285-23-1, R-2A /) ft

M. CINTRO&gnatw, /fatUFormM USCOE ^

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1

C-.ntr.eter MALCOLM PIRiNIE. INC.__________________ WEATHERTEMP.

REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDYHUMIDITY

"*/

- 0

7/3

£./,*.,-

DISTRIBUTION: I.Prei.Mgr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffic* D. DALEY - MPIIF* 0285-23-1, R-2A 7) / 7~\ /> unftAOOn.:4.0-*, M. CINTAOtegn.tt.rt / - /U . AJllMlZjg^a USCOE / /

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

f tProject MILLCREEK ___________ No. 0285-23-1 «>*Y| * |*| * I* I™ I" I * I

MALCOLM PIRiNIE. INC.____________ WEATHERTEMP.

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDYTo _____________________________________ HUMIDITY

T,

:;

„

,xv

DISTRIBUTION: I.Prej.Mgr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffict D. DALEY - MPI3.F* 0285-23-1, R-2A« hrMw f m

:Fon-M "SCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1Contr tar MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.________________ WEATHER

Subleet REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDYTo _____________________________________ HUMIDITY

DAYI'ITT

T,

c&A

DISTRIBUTION: I.Pwj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPID. DALEY -

0285-23-1, R-2A4.<X-ntr M>Ftxm M USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

•»_»».• I«5J T I w ITMI r i • IProject MILLCREEK __________ . No. 0285-23-1 • OAV» 1*1 II I I I

MALCOLM PIRiNIE. INC,____________ WEATHERTEMP

REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY WNOTo _________________________________________ HUMIDITY

_?

t ^

if /< TT

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffic* D. DALEY - MPI3. F«t 0285-23-1, R-2A4.0wi_r M. CII

F«-,M USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK__________ No. 0285-23-1

C-Hltraetar MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.__________________

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY ^To __________________________________ HUMIDITY

MI,..V

- Oc.

DISTRIBUTION: 1.Pfoj.M_r. D. IYER - MPI..FMdOfffc* D. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2A

"SCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

V; I » I*1! T I'M™! MMProject MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1 • °*Y' ' ' ' x» ' ' '

^ MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.___________ WEATMEUTEMP

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY W)NO'To __________________________________________ HUMIDITY

£ C. '

DISTRIBUTION: 1.Pn>j.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZPMdOffiee D. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2AM. CINT fcgrature .USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK____________ No. 0285-23-1

Ct-ntr tar MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.________________

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY W|||0To ________________________________________ HUMIDITY

4'

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffiet D. DALEY - MPI3.M" 0285-23-1, R-«.0««r M. CINTRO&gnaturt / W i £4}yftn 3 TUU,3 USCOE ^ 7 ft w f/0 2 312

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK__________. No. 0285-23-1Contractor MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.________________ WEATHER

TEMP.Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY W|||O

To ______________________________________ HUMIDITY

|» |*|TI ' I

fcr

_/

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mgr. Q. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffic* D. DALEY - MPI3.F«« 0285-23-:4.0wmr M.

USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

MILLCREEK ___________ No. 0285-23-1

Contr.eter MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC. _________________

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY10**HUMIDITY

J.

DISTRIBUTION: I.Prej.MQr. D. IYER - MPI&FMdOffict D. DALEY - MPI3-P- 0285-23-4. Owner pj v

«a-/-Fw.Fom.»a USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

-._*I * lwl T I w L™| MMProject MILLCREEK___________. No. 0285-23-1 OAVI 1 1 I^T I I I

Cantr ar MALCOLM PIRiNIE. INC.________________ WEATHER

Sub-** REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDYTo __________________________________________ HUMIDITY

•vfUf •-•» *••»• pw iwm* . Hv>

Jo,

**

* uj, - *-«. •*">y / /

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proi.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZFMdOfiic* D. DALEY - MPI3.FB. 0285-23-1, R-2A<.0-mr M. CINTRO^jgnature

WB-r-Fbk Form M USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1

Contr ar MALCOLM PIRiNIE. INC._________________

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY

JTP

66S-J

-*- l

A/e< $ <! 1"c<

DISTRIBUTION: I.Pnij.Mgr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffk» D. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2AM. CINTftOfcgnatur. .

WB«yFWi Farm M USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK ' " OAvl1 MM T I** l™l ' IMNo. 0285-23-1 °*vi IKI I i I . IMALCOLM PIRNIE. INC. WEATHER

REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY W(NJ)To __________________________________________ HUMIDITY

TEMP - »!•

'

(y

^. / ~ 5 - « > - » < a<;~p

n,sT*Wt

. C-

DISTRIBUTION: I.Pfoj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffic* D. DALEY - MPI ^

4.0-mr M/CINTRO^tur, /*«7&9 M&* ftRlOtO 2317•W-V-fM farm« USCOE ~:7/r /

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT>A/n

Project - MILLCREEK__________ No. 0285-23-1

MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.__________________

REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY__———_— "•—™— " ________ ninw

To _________________________________________ HUMIDITY "**

0*-<_

OA<r—— X-

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mfr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffie« D. DALEY - MPI*"• 0285-23-1, R-2A4.0mmr M.

Wa-y-FWt Form M

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK__________ NO. 0285-23-1 °*YI H " I J? H rContf-rtar MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.________________ WEATHER

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY JJJJJ'To ________________________________________ HUMIOITY Of*

J04*

»»\ /O •CPc w 5-

u-e*^ /

DISTRIBUTION: I.Pwj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZFMdOfffc* D. DALEY - MPI3. Pit 0285-23-1, R-2A4.<>«n~ M. CINT jgnature /S/ &* /JtULdfrfitftfj g 3 | 9

ivan -FUt f*m M USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTDATE

Project - MILLCREEK__________ No. 0285-23-1 • ^M* H * FT?contr tar MALCOLM PIRINIE. INC.___________ WEATHER

TEMP.Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY WM

To _________________________________________ HUMIDITY °*

I'A <_tev/eUp.i I Le fafocfe

jo ec/-

DISTRIBUTION: 1.PMi.Mr. D. IYER - MPID. DALEY - MPI

USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK

OAT,' •• tft __*Y i* \m\ T iwNo. 0285-23-1 °*VI ' ' ' '

MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC. ___________ WEATHERSubject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY

V£*JA <v *• om~* P -»—' ?v4*

HUMIDITY

rr

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPID. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2AM. CH

mtey-FMFarmM USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT*.*

Projtct MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1 • OAVMALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.___________ WEATHERREMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY

To ________________________________________ HUMIDITY

(

ofevc. /0/0 / i -4

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZFMdOffk* D. DALEY - MPI3.P* 0285-23-1, R-2A

WBay-FWc Farm M

WINDBv

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTJ%,, DATE 4y/yr/*^———'••'' _-vi • l"l.^lw l™l M* I

Project MILLCREEK___________. No. 0285-23-1 °*vl ' 1*1 I ' ' ICanteen-. MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.________________.__ WEATHER

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY ™*'HUMIDITY

tr

£te<st_tc/>"^. Pcd 7

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mflr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffie« D. DALEY - MPIa. pa. 0285-23-1, R-2A

f fcfc Farm USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK____________ No. 0285-23-1C-i.ntf.rtar MALCOLM PIRiNIE, INC.____________

TEMPSubject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY '

M Ml M.*M 1M ffl ll/

To ________________________________ HUMIOITY

A-TM

I Q

**-* «*X- \f-*-- -~V -r- /)) f 9 1

DISTRIBUTION: t.Proj.Mr- D. IYER - MPI ^ ... -,D. DALEY - MPI n/\C?O «>.J

0285-23-1, R-2A ^rs a A4.0w~r M. CINTROIiinatur. /)*»<+&+- U

USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

BAvl* |M|T IT0V IMProject MILLCREEK__________ No. 0285-23-1 °*T' I » I I I—|—|MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC._____________ WEATHER

TEMP.REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY W|N()

To HUMIDITY

r«a BIT 151*

p -a---* >^ T»* "<s -«j -M-- e +j* ,\ >J / '

DISTRIBUTION: I.Praj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZFMdOffic- D. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2A _' ' """ Title,

WHty-FWc Farm t3 USCOE

INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK ___________ No. 0285-23-1

MALCOLM PIRiNIE, INC.

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDYTo - _____________________________________ HUMIDITY

D

S3B, 065-^

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZFMdOffic. D. DALEY - MPI3.Fa. 0285-23r.li.R-2A4. Owntr f

wa_v-F_v Pom, M USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTDATE _

n_vl • l!SH M w ITHI M * 1Project MILLCREEK ______ No. 0285-23-1 •**! Kl T I I I I

C-tntr.et.ir MALCOLM PIRiNIE, INC.

Subtoct REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY

To ________________________________

WEATHER__.__ T«j» a-wIB Mr.

HUMIDITY °*

tXTD

. /

yvJ r re5'.

pe.es

DISTRIBUTION: I.Prei.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZPMdOffiet D. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2A4.o*mr M. CINTRO^igoature ff ^

Fan- M USCOE - /

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK ___________ No. 0285-23-1

MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.

Subtoet REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY

1XTD , ATM -

2.0

DISTRIBUTION: I.Pfoj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPI2.FMdOffica D. DALEY - MPIXPfc 0285-23- 1,_R-2A^a f MMf M

fi.

USCOE ~^ / /y 'f ' /'***— \

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1 OAVLLLLdLl

Contrietur MALCOLM PIRiNIE. INC.________________ WEATHERTEMP

S-ibi-rt REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDYTo _______________________________________ HUMIDITY

ACTAA "/

r*-LA--.

DISTRIBUTION: I.Praj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIiFMdOffk* D. DALEY - MPI _

0285-23-1, R-2A ^T) / >i y7/t D fifv *> 5P. QM. CINTROfcgnature /Sms Jkr //_ / ^ MU/g S //UL-VfUSCOE ^..-j~.^~- ~ ^

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1ContMrtBr MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.________________ WEATHER '

TEMPSubject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY W|NO'

To - _____________________________________ HUMIDITY P**

"DJO^ Aj/vy - jS-wtPe/xJ,-.

'rr.

<&-u*-> <. aijr*tf~a

DISTRIBUTION: I.Prej.Mjr. D. IYER - MPI- MPI

4. Own*. ty(Foo-a-3 USCOE • f /

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

«»*»».• I*!T Iw l™l ?Project MILLCREEK___________ NO. 0285-23-1 «*vl 1 I T I I

Cantr tar MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC._______________ WEATHERTEMP.

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY ^To _______________________________________ HUMIDITY

DISTRIBUTION: I.Ptoj.Mgr. D. IYER - MPIZPMdOffk* D. DALEY - MPI3. P-. 0285-23-1, R-2A

USCOE "

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1

ContMetar MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.________________

Subfaef. REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY

"D3~D

DISTRIBUTION: 1.P«j.M.r. D. IYER - MPI^PMdOffiet D. DALEY - MPIXFM 0285-23-1, R-2A*.***« M.

WHay.FWiFW-.M USCOE

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK tuivi1 1 "i T iwi™r i* iNo. 0285-23-1 WYI I I I I I I I

MALCOLM PIRiNIE. INC._____________ WEATHERTEMP.

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY W|NOTo ._________________________________________ HUMIDITY

* /

DISTRIBUTION: I.Pwj.Mflr. D. IYER - MPID. DALEY - MPI

0285-23-1, R-2A«•«""•' M. CINTRO&groture

USCOE

OHiQ/fl FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MILLCREEK___________ No. 0285-23-1 OAVLLLO

MALCOLM PIRINIE, INC.___________

Subject REMEDIAL CLEANUP TREATABILITY STUDY

To__________________________________

b i U

-h

USCOE

_0DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mgr. D. IYER-MPI AR0O

ZPMdOffict D DALEY - MPI ni\w0285-23-1, R-2A . n f) f .

4.o~m, M. CINTftOfaMtut. /Jt«4Ar L //Ufa JBftH^g^lc^ I/

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

02*5-2* -/ J °*vl iTProjectCantraetnr <4&9J~<Z64-Sf9 yOX-SX// " x > </C _____ _ WEATHER

Subject

.' «, 4-i -V

/ /

> - «t .

/ ,/e.

,, «,s

*>,

TEK-. PSWIND

To _. ___________________________________ HUMIOfTY

DISTRIBUTION: 1.Proi.M_r.2.FMdOfffc*3. Fa.4-°*"* Signature

IM.tov.FWi Farm »3

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTDATE -2__i_^I£____I __„«*«»l * rTT* I™I * I tProject -M/L4*C4££X J 0****/**}u* 02&S-23 -/ ° TI 111 I-" \jj

Subject

To__

/

,*.* ~

F>

-

• x3^/e«f £*./*<.* pf .<y£>SS'64> **••**/'*. <? s*t/«- c~7~ .

.r&

**,-- tx X

DISTRIBUTION: 1. Proj. Mr.

tET" -27 Z 2^_ RR002336tmky-PWc Farm M

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

42*5-23 -/ ^ *"1* H T I V hiProjectWEATHER

TEMP. T-"SubjectTo _______________________________________ HUMIDITY

C-O

T*^*r .~ ~ ,yo.ass^et* .

<X

,Z>

^^« t, -^*. A-* AS5&e- — l -e.7 ^ 0 j-? Tfe

*

''~lit*.

4V«yOf>-+t -f*~ c^tss

/£-,„, -u/. "

6 i^<y& * 67 j'ee 7» w* . /v s ^ /Uv* ^ 7 *1 -3«-->7

7-9

DISTRI8UTION: 1. Proj. Mr.ZFWdOfflc*

4.Owmr Signature

SubjectTo

INVESTIGATION REPORTDATE _______!

Project MJLLCAee* Svw&twti ** 42*5-23 -/ °*vl I I I" ITHI %tR

*«$

---/ /

/

/

DISTRIBUTION: 1.P-JJ.M-.2.PWdOfffc«

4'0"IIlir SignatiirtFaun M

/ ^fJ S S * S/

J?/e* 7»-

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

02*S~23-/ "'. «**! * l"l T 1*1™! * 1ProjectContr-etar s9y*±.£,6t,/& /»/A*S/£~ / /A/C______ WEATHER

wWW B l

To __________________________________ HUMIOfTY

T«l! ._..xC

VIM*

</*. t.

DISTRIBUTION: 1.Proj.Mr.ZFWdOffto**•**•

S -ttur-

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

M_ 42*5-23 -/

DISTRIBUTION: 1. Proj. Mr-2. PMd Office3, Fit

Tlrt.Fafin

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project wJ-s ec-ejf t/so&ef&M i . a x*z-j-*-/ DAY

Central

Subject

C-mtraeter s9Z4±e,4t.Sli X'X-tXX/xr x XxVC______ WEATHER

_TO .________________________ HUMIDITY

DID AxTM

All * c<* ^

£>&*,««'>**.'

. -«,

t>,M-

DISTRIBUTION: 1.Proi.Mgr.

RR0023M4.0MW Signature ^*4J&«* U /s**0 ____Title

Faun U

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project

DISTRIBUTION: 1. Prof. Mr.Z PWd Office

SignaturePan. M

TW,2

FIELD INVESTIGATION R O R T

__ _.„! a i MI T i w ITMI ' relProject MJLLCA£EX •SW£#&t/*ti u* 42*5-23 -/ °*Y1 I I I 1*1 I ICorrtf-gtar &9J~£Z,£i4./l4 &/AAS/£~ / X/V/|C WEATHER

SubjectTEMP. w

To _________________________ HUMiorrv

?«/&,, )

DISTRIBUTION: 1.Proj.M_r.*

Signature

X".xL/,.,., --- _/ x'l.-a.* .x

DISTRIBUTION: .

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MJLl.CAe£X S& &t&Ajg** 42*5-23 -/, /A/C WEATHER

TEMP.Subject J7&£&7&&/£-sry 7&£>7y*s6-_______ _.._•—* ••t' •v ir-' f r — WIND

To ______________________________________ HUMIDITY

4' X"

Xx»

* 77*

9. Pie4. Owner Signature

Subject

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

42*5-23 -/ •**!* l»?l * I* l™l " I * IPiujeii____ WEATHER

TEMP.————- WIND

To ________________________ HUMIDITY |

IT* a

/?<*' s£r

*~vs - Ctt** ^ *.S 9

) '* '

DISTRIBUTION: 1.Praj.Mr.

^i*0™"4-°*«' fik tur..

f irt Faim M

INVESTIGATION REPORT

_- _.-,«,-.-. ruvvl • I "I T,|*n1Project MJtLCAeeK SttQ&Q&t/AlAy» 42*5-23 -/ ***\ 1 Ixl IContr itiy s9&9J~£l.£i£.si') /AAS/£~ f /A/C WEATHER

SubjectTo ______________________________________ HUMIOITV

.~, J.

A

DISTRIBUTION: 1. Prof. Mr.2.PMdOfffc*3. Pie

Signature

WIND

/AK sj. ~**< -<?<* /*. • ' / ''

o

*„

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTOATE

Project MJLL&>ee« SAW-Xtvrtu* 42*S~23-/ *"j * 1*1 T I? Tl " i *

Cantrietor s9Z4l.£L6l./& />/AAS/£~ x /A/C ______ WEATHER

SubjectTEMP. 'U"

To _ ________ _______________________________ HUMIOfTV

-XL rx

> 7-» / i <«//- 5&>***r T*>r XS~ /M/xu. /?

*

/''

DISTRIBUTION: 1. Pro). Mr.2. PMd Office3. We

WBay-FWi Fan. I

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTDATE——L

THIProject MJLLCAee* S<//>£*&/A4l H* 42*5-23-/ °*vl I"! * I" I*

dmtM-gtor s9&9*-<~6t.sti /*/AA//£~ , /A/C

SubjectTo__

7

.i

76 d'

r /-CXK5

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mr.

4. Ownw SignatureFan»*3

*/*/* .SJ I f /~\ / , - ! / ' • * ^S

/

. <-*

T *'?*«*h

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project MJLLCAeeX JV g XS. M_> 02*s-23-/XX(/C WEATHER

SubjectTEI». |W1

Ta HUMIDITY

r

•P ( DO OAja^k '5"«Atv. ^tA*-, ix C «W TZ>

OISTRIBUTIOM: I.ZPWdOfflce

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

..:

STXA7H--*-

OISTRIBUTION: LPraj.Mr.ZPWdOffica

Fan.

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

%„„ DATE * /'% t"^f 1*4 vT* I "M T i W |TH| ' I ' 1Project JWLLCA£&< w******!** 42*5-23-/ ''etfl : OATI \W \ I I I |

x /A/C WEATHERTEMP.

Subject 7*****4'l'rY T**™*——————— ^To _____________________________________ HUMIDITY

C A

>*- -fa. .0

s~«? A _?

,

»

DISTRIBUTION: 1. Pr«i. 1%.IPWdOffice

WBtyFtak Pan.

£IELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

_-„! • I HI T I W ITMIProject -**V4-i£flgg/r S&PeX/TfAti** 42*5-23-/ °*TI I I/I I

C-mtragtor s99#*-e.6t-/& />/AAS/£~ x XXl/C ______ WEATHERTEMP.

SubjectTo ________________________________________ HUMIOfTY

e

OISTRI8UTION: 1. Praj. Mr.2.FMdOffk»3.Pfc

e*+* < < " J * " > t . . c « A

~< •

IS" -»/ 5' p

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Reject J4JLLC*ee/< -S Q&ltZ/Ajl 42*5-23-/Contractor, s9M±f/u xs x>x_»x//

Subject JT -gg XTxlyxx T r _ TEMP.

To _____ WNOHUMIDITY I

7*- 7Z.-/ 4f) +J 4

DISTRIBUTION: I.PWJ.MT.2-PiMOrfiM

** ^ " ^ - 88002353

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTDATE S .089

Project Mtt't- ££&£/< S&P&tf&Atf n* 42*5-23 -/Contractor '9yrt4~<Z6£-'& />/AAS/£~ x Xx</C ______ WEATHER

Subject _ Wfer.vu.a6 SA^pcweV - ggpiMg/grs „_, '— — _••» * •J"~ — — "* ~ " """ - ™" •••*« WIND

To ____ _____________________________________ HUMIDITY

/

4

J| -

t*\~j

.4 *wA

DISTRIBUTION: I.Proj.Mr.2-FitJd3.F-t Sgnillirf

ttreA ^ ,ce o.*-,-u*ve T»' L \ t ' t ^ iir al Tn»s ru-4..

»+i Jl<~«T

( *- -^ ^ ----w^i ' —w-—** • - - . -

t i l l I / . ^ ^ / '

~X3~I FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project

DATE42*S~23-/ "''*&•* °*YI * 1*1 * I " H*! * I

Cflntr«etor s9&9±£.£>t.Sth j*S4AS/£~ , /A/C _______ WEATHER

Subject . rv4T7_.4A...>.rTo ____________________________________ HUMIDITY

***Ur >**JU*C£A_> ._-» wf

7-VO•

x . -/ Vv>-'

// 53*1T., * S

DISTRIBUTION: I.

3.F-J4. OMfwr Signature

Fami M

MAUGOUVI.PIRNIE

APPENDIX B

SURVEY CONTROL

0285-23-1131

L

\X> \A \

- S CuL c \r

f_ pi

:4

v.

•'*)? \Midi' *%•!;> V\ o ./ . . . . _. . ._ .__„„._ .._.___.. .. .._,_. .._i_•—? Xrt <^ ^ O < 4 f ) ** _* rt v ** ^ ^> ® i (" (o y o - k * e r > - ; r ^ ^ ^^-| .J1 < i « > *•>{ S <?i <^ * ^3^1 c 2_?_.?_.5:L._^ .,t_ 5__^ _^.._-

- J ^ t N ^ i ; ^ . , a 4 _ . .vi in

f

s J

> .... ..V7(V

v? vr, V)

t 's

« i>« 5- \1•s ^ -•

*> x ^ ^^ ^ ^3ss - r j- «^ x^ e^ ^ ^ r^ v%i M

V o W o ^ o O V ^ * "< T ° . « a . ~ v ? - r t l p O^ 0 M O ^ S ^ V ) r 4 \ i \ 3

«> <: ^a* * >» v»v%X

ft ft *•" r. «+• Vy

c c ^r iw "H. r* MV, > ^ > X> >Q Vj

*<£p>$^ «' ri T /?(<_ r

_ «6 -i ^V o A "__„ " """ ""' " """" .Cs *

\ M KJ

„ ^ i _? ^ c; .3 ^^^ T™*«*)t

Si H y ' ----- -—~ ~ -

I ? '** Vs «" *> $ 11 s ** x«

«iIM * ~ « ^ V>^ ^ "P O > ^

- •-( — • - -^- - - - - - - -

? * 5 t ,3 £ N. ^ s SS0023S2. >N J N ^ < - < A

I

IV,

00

.5i - e r J S . - v n ^ ^ JROQ23»v-^ i ^ \ < * <1 * n ^ V ^ f II t l l ^ O t B ^ S ^ v ^ S ' ^ f t - mo ^ . ? ^ ^ ^ ^ v ^ V ^ ^ ^ ^ F M

jU)

o. 3:(OtS

n

VAfv

,

I

I si s * £ >- a3 iC * 1 * 3

t10

;§• •-"• E ===.-.-:|z-jT--3 "T T :

-vt- r : rir:z:rr2:-i:j3.:z>r-_~g :* -Qp* N fv ^ fc x-\ r* <*• - «-» r,-yj.. , ,

.-.~i ut-_ '~T'~" t )r Q _ ~~~ * ~Q" ^ 4 ~>* ~5 ^ £""""*"»•" ~** ~: T J~l~'">—'T VT,..S_-1__^____^J^__1.^_^^I.^.—^_J_. a_._ .f,

-•il

J_ _,l_j4

— --——i "r/r"*1-j- ——-«V

- 4

:S I

—^- <5I—— ._ _,.j::r7r.- 4t-

iu;

r«»

K o

•V-

5 *^

' ———— *" ———————————— J. —— ) ———— 3 ———————————— (N ———

i »° i !> i ^ "*3 & z * ^ l W002368

/-fAi

>- -Y(.12_TQ

, -, T"v Vo.•J *t.^ <1

1

±v *

rJ

1 *1^

<J i 4-r I "Ti- T - - ————————— — -— -| — — -. 1 / U°/ - ._ _AU__4 .. ._ ._. ——— ij*N / *>5 f usH. | i J^'••! { "">J v

>g. _...__ --—«-• --^ .?RKc 'J•< ^V) ?

U»

- t -• . -

* |. ^ \ \Ij ^ "4~ ' .\3i

*" 3 ^ 5»•" k< i *t»^. ^ 5 7 - * -

/ <•*-. ^ I •<CO : -0*•>0 v?>. t J 5 _ - I f\ r^i r5 f- \ f £ >» 5< j. 1 ^ AT1 \ *' ^i \ ^ ' r5cO Q ^

\f

*.V*"S•%.Q—— . - - _£——

i——— H ————0XX

» ^ivJ /L» itv 5.T ^ «p 2T-;

\\\X—— "/ "° i

L^ ( !1*- \ 5^- ) .t|

o 1 1 .J- N \ f^ ,n

^ c i J •*1X4 / a

' - * 1 .l" IM

£<

-»NA

-_. >* ^V*

———— Jj ——— _- — . .._ —— ... ——c ^O t-5 rs.« rv\J »J

•?*«<• ^ '/ o p ~< § > _ ^ 5 >K **>. rf "*•' ^v >» 4^ Q ->5 " " O \»/ - "*n vjld fJ<t) "7(1" C.4"rt ^\h tJKj •*> O*®

L 1 i- r 5=10 ^ - ""

J 2 *" *t ^>t 3n> 2^ 5^-Co , _; rvi"< > 2 t

^ ^ U X - - 5- rs, N ^ u i*IN T < »>» h w -T-

jr s fiiorflses, 1t i 4 g 1 1

K ;<\r

_ ...

-v-

^ V -» « * r"t ?! i'l £~' IJl!

*<t(«

sf* ^Ul

_t

_ .stL

~/f. K**, v k. , j <r\hN^j «--f Kid- 41-4. -<V

W ^ ^O jj. *-r ? r t H <h-J-•» <s>

i? M J ?%

9 * ^ ? . ^ J l 2 T 237fl

Vn, —, _. "^—____ __» ____ _________^--.-.- __ - , _ ___ . _ ____w___.._^ . - _ ^ -— _^-

t; z" : £ -. :_"£": _". iz_:iz-~- -5———- —*"__J3CL_._ ...___-

^ _...--Q. -T- --—— —— ——-

-"*-" - 3= ==~~-t*" " —jf"—I"——————— - ———f7

-——r.- *Mr-_JX^.______°. ^ «Jiei_. -di-.- j ————=—^—"5ft ' :~>"

j _ I-*. a _ _ ___^_______-. ii -—rr—--g- - — ^ rf.r___E ri fcz i: - 7-

'•i? JL._.____________._. _..

... ——.S- _.. . _ _.___..___*________._-_4. -_._r> >. >» J

V» ,<- !_» •0 .^ • ** * V»

sM^ 5i^0 -O Nf) O

^^^ ^X f ^^^^ *

i.) ' o t\_

f <_ r- .C <a<7 I nu. >io <r

s » ^ u s -^

<AjrJwo

A _~~"LIv ~ ~ — ~~ " ~

.e ....a

-^ - J,; - —

4 ".-..:::: - j»-...._._.__.-

Je.-..

a .___,_.__.__-... ___UL

"IS" T "TIL. ~~ =_ c. ----- -•-—-T" - - - - — - -*Cf-

to

"*

ji 3~O (O ^ r T- J) P fl O3 * - » tf*1 a" —• J^. _ - • • p* .L-jW> ir_ V_j lf> —'-i gl ^]

V,£w. (T- (T

ffo

O J- , Vor, J- -: «> 0lo

^ ^..Vo^^^-. ^^1;S *\ ^ S I I I I I ,1

x~NX

—to——-

io.

j_v

v Y^0^ _.*j»J3«&r%

v ?^7

- A>o

-•-if-

.——._ ,a__.. _ _ _ _ _ „ _

iU CD

<r orJ rsj

(DA

00_ -_ . _

I 5 ft *| * «R00237i,

r

v> s.» M*$ &»' isT . >. < -if •< >

e-

** J.o >y. •: ^»D f O o(0 x; I ^ ^i fi\—•*•

» r/ ««%

*'...... _v ....._

v•Sl -

i

H

-' i \tmN

- } SR002375

__3L"i:

n$_x.___.—^—

3tL

<L_

IJ

V. V ? £> V ^"^ ? "»* Vs** —— VX *: ^ "- ^

* »o \s

. ao ": *s - VDSJ o ~jx« V» Vi \o \^Vi) V," ' if)>• > >^ >ij- V >

i « o ^/-^ ^ ^ CI C V * ' X^ ( * J 4 _ * *•*! V ^"^p* ^k. • * 'X ^O \il

^ /-i * * yTi |V \Ll --• -

——?——————————^——3———"5———n———^———————£-o l " N M ^ ^ 5, . .» . fJ , 3 Afi / />, o -^ j^

? I ^ fc - f r f l

I

_..-.. .--p.

i—r

i

J

I

w .

ARGQ2378

^_KM:

.« M M

«*-*-fi_ c nrjk

_.__.——*f. .A ^ ft X

tt

RR002379

j 7 usV i.c

*IK •• : ; ' ' •»!*

I NS

•i8H«M. Ti *^ _.j •: fr 3 ai 4«

ie'.-v -f --,'• .f~ --;

y^\ifl v-.-'3; i vn^Al J

i T' l ,v 1i i *- ^_--x*>-".

t ? ???? AB00.2382\ JK.. , .

(S RTfiW

_?•; • ^r "

\ - -1*1(1?'

* . •

238*

£

- T"

:

- t*. S 3f l i l t ft ROD 2 385•S ! * 3 «\

N * >x «m> -| _,_ _ t • -»

*H rvi «*): Y" ,01 sjlj 8 4 T

(\!Vs

———— Ql " — s-

o[ V3 q

—— JZ-&

' • ': '' I ' "' ' :

0t^^lT a". • ^

) ^ fM N. 9

.M i i . ; . : - ._ - |• " C *i

(S 1 v>§!5

IV V ._. >w -\ n * 4

v» Afi8023-9£V)

p

V- •

G

M

-CV it

fj d .3 ft M_ « ' "

x**

s ••_; .AR002387

ABO 02 3-88

VD

A800238S

\

: • , : ! ;-. ; ! ; • j : ' ! !

' -V : ! • ' i ^ l '/C\ - 5 fitf & « Vs : : : i

: i ','. . :; ;

;

1 i

I : '

! I

I , i : i: i.

W00239°

. -7K*f'V r.*. ", .

*/>x $ Sor \ • * i*

t v

^ft^

,i)

r

o i^ «^: ^ <*3: vji 'W I\J' (\ (\Ji ' . :————— , ——— . ——— , —————— ! ——— , ————— , ... .

'• ' i : : ' . ' !

i •>» • ' ' :

•A <0 ** _? ^- O- i ;« » r t i » I * * « t l • • - - : • —————————————————0 7

A JaX N

1 t<o ®

_. H- ri •«•vi -«0 /£ - «\ :" J S • ' ; •^_v3 ————— ; ———————————————————— - ————————

" Q . •^ <a 0fft • 7* i2 1 1 v I • ftR002392 ^

. y*-M'-lhr?v'»' '• '

V•vo:

i

— *-a4

R5*S 4• ** -*"•» • •«»•* '

mJ

^lz *'i :i;i

VL ttJ•vf.' ^

-

& \

l

1-<tf-

,

ft^ -)*

O .-% X

'-.'l'/L ^6 ^\J

' \| Vx Jj - a 5 •i ' • i ' • •

' * i : 1 ' ' '

' °' 4* ' ' ^ ' '

** x$

K oo .** N . _ _

48002393

Mi

353?

^ i!< flfi00239(,

? 51

« **

Aft00239S

AB002336

_.fc u-.-.- -_-.._______________„ __________

-v—ar

*£-JrHh—"

»A

£

g

—-J-lA *

• ——— ftV- ——-- —

. - - ——— ... — . -— —— - _-..,

... ' s. V: . O^VQNft T5

i i1 . : i

,

, 1*

• -™ • .— _ - . -

7H> —-1 -

.

.*

-:-— ---Jj

_r"%'V

,_.i- : r< • ! _;'F — i —— •*a

H ri ——— -9y <<*v^f T 0— >o 4J ———— -—-•J — X.,

.. .: __ .... :<$, r . :!__— * _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LLL__. ...

t !J~

w«4 O 3r '•> I i

i . oiiTT • <1 • : : :iQ:_r - -' ,. %L .

__U——j—

. . i.-

AB002398

>•

<?-

-N——

-St

———•-———fr-

(

'I £

V-o-

rJi

1T

m

n flR002399

±-t-V

-#

-TT

MX&ybr

E-th a

..!>._

-Vl~A

vt±±

J ',

T3LT zrTr~fc-L~~:r:::: r T37

- - . • -$ r-r-r • •• »--

f

.:—- r-r-1-j-r-rrfT. r.,r:±n ±ird_,--;•* yin.Mrjj- - -i. ., .., ,,!'*ffiL'ffn ; ."- , ,*, -pr-r, • '• 'nrn

i ;i<ri ' v» <»• ^« Q ^ ' >.N Co S v> ; - .2. - N

cfl o

•I 1 £ g•MLOB

/-> p? ,^ ,c^ 0 U^_________^_______________„—————__^———————————————————————

- 3 U »B002fcOJi

3&.

y-i j. A -!»..55£

M ; -E

5 -S , • «§

^05 <j 6 - S

JLr> ^ 1 /?

U*I

•S1'- .*_rr$V«£*jf-'. _•

. __ __ ."I. \V _ _ _ - ___

^

» 0 £7 O '\ Qv "1^ \ _j\ *\ 4~ <\ *" -

———— j*J*

j* d

HIT

v

4k *

T 1'

W "<^4 1

3 '

•jj•#, _i*

7T1 T_ —r=3

— —-i-s-

V7 \_i \

_d -._—/'.I o-:. K . . Lt . ...5

31 t

\kl( ' I"s o

. o _-> d*_% * ^ .J -•s 3 § «5*y~~ ' -^ 1

\ > CN /'

( ' * "a^' X\v '/r\ —L - <

f.^ _ . _\

.—— -

^ . v<x* * " "*x*

<x

AR002t»08 1

£\II-Mv!/

•| vJ 1 _•v-M*• %-4 -\\/W

>l)«* *™. .. It/....

_ _ _ _E_iii&_

>YrtP

v V*. >»r ^"x Vk \) «.————— Hi ——— -^L V —————— vfe —————— Jj- — £ ———— „ — a ——— ig— \^- - •

j R ^o. i4 it • i ^i Y^ fi- « i. ° ^p M /3 »- » YW ft ]• ;? ^ i^ • *• n. Q a• ** . tt0 'C)*i ^

_ —— ! ———————————

4 *N

C;<"

Ps\ ' 'vl ',\j : v \\J y V* *1

* < i Vi. .1t — — :j J' >iI * "^X >N- /»....* ^ -•a .5 ^ v

*. w ) \ 0>t CO ' ,'«c n- , Vj *" t *

PI- (Ml

^B

^

!\

1 A 88 02^ 09 k

i

Jk Oo'aV. f>o*f>lff)______f~\,- ^y ^ . ,4

S* » -M- ————————

-fc-___

_j_.

D

X\r*<

flfl002«4 1 1

/

12

._"_. " te;—-fcr rs

^.j———-£•"9- ~ 7_

" " " TlL'TIinZTLZII LIT'T'TTmir:__^.^r __L_____- _________

f

* L> JL

rfc

5-jp_ _ 0 0 .J... v 5

— _»?--

At \•' C7 '.Wi (OK- o2! 11 *&r\< . . * ^.3_

**'.!?--• - '. . • •<&-•*: ? *; .P > r . -r *& \ • o .e,.j V *c* W NS *S C ^ £ - - - .. . .. *s .

J'./j| flto2MS^ '' ^. r j ,-' -r • '

-4--,0 ri^ 5-<* "

xT<

Lr,

1 *JI- *J

A3 -» j v(*r$\ -s^> H •lirl\ ^ ~^<v" : AV882bl6i1 ':-J' ^ •-X /*

-£ ffV _____._JZ-._.__ZTZIILL TTT.:•1 N H? \————————————~ :L~:iZL4J% ~F — = zr:w ,

l«."—1_->ftdi..i '=— rzi=i

« »

I - «5IH)0_I»I7

, ^ . _. ___________o-'3-*-:'-- - -'•---'——-——8-,-V.fc-m .

A. . --.-.J. U -___--

--——TfT

-- + |__- /aft-/"u?^ _-~4—d «i-i——-- ———————

- —— -fey—•-• --

CT f—r * f ">

.'j ^ '• ~* ~ - ro ; J ... ; <•*— *\ - • — • - « - '•— •» "r— "W ^ '*- * *r LO c ^

* ' «'

^-i!\vi-;.-r

. !\

AlCO

n.fe_____.

:----:£--* -_.

\\

• N

xT 1 ' *. ". ^

cOJ)

1 r^

*r

0 0-r c-to r

^ |_ o* ~ O3 | " iv ^

n ^ -). . . .

Ac «0 ^K «*' "t

<-) *•*. _

•< 3f9

I -% <t

«% * * ^

*• .« - 'V - '

- '"

- - a. _._.— - -tea. —

-*<r — ——

^ cs. " r- r»S~"s5"~" "~ i T xpui »0«ST<P »-» v ~ ~ ~

S 2 2 -. , *CO CO" CO ftj &N cr-" o-' <*.

_ ...._.__ _ _._._._....

vi5 00

rO

d

O<r 5it. .-rtv g.

Aft002i»2,

X"\ 1^" ^ *•_.-.. I -». O PI ^-.^-t i s J - S k & 3 s e S3 5c? *< • g l 5 f s j f r j r . n 7 ( » > / v _ r C r ^ •- ri 5 C7 » ^ V u rxi\,rN.*N(^-|^f^ W ^ ^ . N .v4 Ji_ . "xj • i •» i - i x i x u l>

JT ' .' l ' I ' ,_' - - • -*r/V O —. ft XO Vr V-. O t\ Vl —»x > £ s # « £ 3 . ? $ $ £ < §Ix. H . fn (IA ff* f. «• r-2 S**-g '« S S $ .$

.

^-r ii so (\ oo (rt u fr IT fc-Q. O. Q. **• u.

» M i? , a 55 * S 4 s j 3 ? *

l. a ? 5 < 300 . - « «o ** ro l- o

-5

^ !: K £ £ ^ ? M* ^ HI T J1K ^ CL IL -x. ^ '•*- 1C \l Q- •-.

——

r0>

. . . v . . - _ . . _*-> £- (n NC . Jfi. v_ . . ro.*

* t

* a

__ 4

--o

Oo

rfn

M

f

1 -

£ J

""I i *•*• -T» O ONJ ... . . r f»

•0

^— v^ T r * >

IL/ U i/\ .• 'o f V»v >- "? r

1 /.

^ * ^ r^ —1 . r-.

t C0 J-J— ^y»

if t^ Si* •j|>vljl^ vVM-1

_(T

":._ . ... _._.._.._.,._..._._..< 3 t. ^?^ N ,/ irt ._ QQ o~.7 r «L "2 — O o~" -U1 / . r- r- r* r-

_. s 5 ?^ S: _J lO <S «6

_ — — — _. - . ._ ._ . _

^ o- $ 00 V~ 1 f

\ 9 . - '**.

. ..» 1 1 . -i <- -'Ir

J - - - . . - - - <V£ftr - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

X

f : ;1_jw ' • --1- •• ••-• '3n-o

4. r

? S <!? ? £ 0 * 0" i n f * - r - « - - r - p -

f 41 r -s L, t|< D " t - v CD ft •* '7F -PO j .C. r

3

w HOT j,-u* £rfi 960r*- o "~ = _ <(0 ^ ; ci r~v

* 'f ^ i a (ft .-t_

cO-r- j, r-3- |

H

; ^ J <?io

-O——-S-rt--

p- J «• AM) I =,>'' _T L '8 03

? «0-ii r- J>1V) ?• i

4- *3 °

csJ

vn

(D

: ? -A,Uxf ^r *«r J. •!»•

'IB-'

--—-—-" - - ••• •-_0 M ™f r*

~1

O

S4«^

4t_

J MIft T ">

88 -•4'

O _-J^ N

•O cO

£ 83 m •* ' - °

lO - oDO o -